Hofstedes Theory Analysis - Essay Example

Hofstede’s theory The following essay is a study of International Human Resource Management with the help of a critical analysis of Hofstede’s theory of the five dimensions of culture-related values in application to a Japanese Company seeking to start a manufacturing operation in the UK, with a potential UK workforce. The essay starts with an introduction to the concept of ‘culture’ and will attempt to incorporate this concept into the main discussion of cross-cultural management by studying and applying Hofstede’s theory and other relevant literature, to assess the challenges faced by an international manager in his/her operations abroad. A look into globalisation and its effects on international businesses, and the pressure of achieving competitive advantage in the global economy is discussed. Special significance is given to studying the differences between UK and Japanese cultures and to see if any common grounds can be reached for effective management. Finally, the essay attempts to reach meaningful conclusions and suggestions for the future of international human resource management “The world is full of confrontations between people, groups, and nations who think, feel, and act differently, but, at the same time, they are exposed to common problems that demand cooperation for their solution.” (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005, pg3) The above statement effectively summarises the content of the following essay. Since ‘culture’ forms the core topic of the essay, we shall start with defining culture. Culture has been defined time and again by numerous researchers in different ways, but it is important to understand this concept from both sociological and organisational perspectives. Studying culture at societal level will give us a better understanding of the organisational context. Culture is defined as a pattern of shared assumptions that a group learned in order to solve problems, and that the group decided is valid enough to be taught to future generations as the right way of perceiving and solving these problems (Schein, 2004, pg17). In other words, culture is something that is learned and passed on, and not inherited (Hofstede, 1997). It is a multi-faceted concept with many dimensions (Mullins, 1999). Having established ‘culture’ and its application in society, it is evident that individual societies behave according to their own cultural spectra of values and norms, which effectively form their own individual personalities. Hofstede (1997) calls this ‘mental programming’, and argues that each individual member in a society has a personality influenced by the culture of his/her social environment apart from their own family. And as each individual develops their mental program determined by these factors, the collective programming of all these individuals put together distinguishes their group from others. This is evident when we discuss national cultures, and associate people of certain nationalities with values and symbols unique to their culture(s). The same can be applied to organisational culture, where a group of individuals working for an organisation operate within the accepted practices and values of that organisation and can be distinguished from other groups. Although recent research suggests otherwise, most authors agree with the traditional assumption that corporate or organisational cultures are predominantly influenced by the national cultures where the organisations operate (Mullins, 1999; Robbins, 2003; Hofstede, 1997; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Other studies suggest that there are certain aspects to business organisations like technology, structure and other common practices that transcend culture and form a commonality between how businesses operate across cultures (Kerr et al, 1973 & Hickson et al, 1979 cited in Mullins, 1999). In Hofstede’s words, “effective multinationals have created practices that bridge the national value differences” (1997). These common practices are what help international human resource managers operate effectively beyond their own cultures. Globalisation, National Cultures, and the Challenges of the International HR Manager “One’s own culture provides the ‘lens’ through which we view the world; the ‘logic’ by which we order it; and the ‘grammar’ by which it makes sense” (Avruch and Black, 1991) Hofstede (1994, 1997), argues that ethnocentrism, the behaviour where one considers their own culture to be superior over others, has no place in a world that is getting smaller due to globalisation. The same applies to management, as Evans et al (1989) suggest that managerial styles designed in one culture may not easily translate to another because of the differences in traditions and values of the management and workforce. Globalisation has increased pressure upon firms to invest across cultures to maintain their competitive advantage and to be open for new opportunities. This calls for international managers to be prepared for the challenges they may face as they venture into unknown cultures. Considering, for example, the Japanese company that plans to establish themselves in the UK, it is imperative that the Human Resource Manager initially understand the national values of the UK. Management is about getting things done through people, and to achieve this, one has to not only know the ‘things’ that need to be done but also the ‘people’ that do them (Hofstede, 1994, single quotes added). Understanding people requires understanding their background, as their background has provided them with their culture and would help one predict their present and future behaviour (Hofstede, 1991 cited in Tulder & Zwart, 2006; Scullion and Linehan, 2005). This calls for an understanding of historical origins of culture in terms of religious beliefs, values and norms (Hofstede and Bond, 1988). In most cases cultural traits can be identified through culture-specific literature, for example, the Holy Bible, which has historic significance in the evolution of British culture, whereas a mixture of doctrines from Buddhism, Confucianism and Shinto forms the basis for Japanese culture (Buruma, 1995). Confucianism teaches the individual to live in harmony with society, show reverence toward elders, and most importantly, behave in society in such a manner that would not bring shame to oneself or the people associated with them (Buruma 1995; Cleary, 1991; http://www.religioustolerance.org/confuciu2.htm). There is a strict order of hierarchy, where one head of a group is revered as the father figure, and the hierarchy descends in order of importance, and special importance is given to activities of the group as a whole, rather than an individualist approach (Hofstede and Bond, 1988; Buruma 1995). These traits are subsequently evident in the way the Japanese operate their businesses, where a strong culture (Robbins, 2003) is displayed along with a set of gestures and mannerisms unique to their culture (Buruma, 1995). In addition, Trompenaars (1993) argues that from a religious point of view, the Japanese do not believe in absolute truth and that they do not follow universal laws or preach abstract morals. This may suggest that the Japanese are not concerned by contractual laws and may not be goal-oriented. Confucianism also teaches loyalty to a group, and this is again evident in the way the Japanese tend to be long-term oriented with their organisations (Hofstede, 1997). “Japanese companies, even the large ones, also foster family-type relationships, in that personnel see themselves as becoming part of the ‘clan’ on joining the company” (Evans et al, 1989, pg131). British culture, on the other hand, argues Cleary (1991) is derived from belief in Biblical texts, which suggest an absolute truth outside of oneself, and as a consequence, one evaluates issues in terms of absolutes and fixed goals. So Britons (westerners), according to Trompenaars (1993), tend to be goal oriented and tend to rely on legal contracts during business negotiations. Also, as a multicultural nation, Britain offers a weak culture (Robbins, 2003), which is flexible to change. Britons also tend to be more short-term oriented in their association with organisations. Evans et al (1989) suggest that in the west in general, “workers ‘sell’ their time to the company for wages and do not owe any allegiance to the company in their own time” (pg130). In spite of the obvious differences, there are still similarities in both cultures in terms of the origins of humans, where the Japanese have their own equivalent of Adam and Eve as proposed in Shinto mythology, and in both cases, the woman falls from grace and brings negativity upon humanity (Buruma, 1995). This may suggest a male-dominant culture, which is more prevalent in Japan than in Britain due to effective anti-discrimination laws and feminist movements in Britain. Hofstede’s five dimensions of cultural values can be now applied to both cultures to better understand the challenges of cross-cultural management, and to derive suggestions for the International HR Manager to overcome these challenges. Power Distance refers to the amount of inequality that exists in a particular group. This inequality is normally endorsed by the less powerful members of a given group as much as it is by the more powerful ones. This phenomenon varies between cultures, making some societies rank higher in the power distance index and some lower. Hofstede concludes that most Asian countries, including Japan fall into the high power distance group because of their historical and religious backgrounds which is clearly visible in their institutional and organisational structures (1994). In an organisational context this means a higher gap between management and their subordinates. Subordinates expect to be told what to do by a boss who is seen as a good autocrat or a father figure. Britain, on the other hand falls into the low power distance group and hence there is not a huge gap between management and staff (or between parents and children at the family level) (Hofstede and Bond, 1988; Buruma, 1995; Cleary, 1991; Mullins, 1999). Subordinates are expected to be involved in decision making and even though hierarchy exists, it is purely to distinguish roles rather than persons. From earlier discussions, this could be because of Biblical teachings which suggest that all humans are created equal. Hence for the International HR manager to operate effectively in the UK, it is essential to understand British power distance culture from the roots of the family, which is then extended at school and then in society. Individualism and Collectivism refer to the extent to which individuals are integrated into groups. Individualistic societies present loose ties between individuals and one is responsible for oneself and their immediate family. Collectivism refers to societies where people, often from birth, are integrated into strong, cohesive family groups, and are protected by these groups, which often involve extended families, in exchange for unquestioning loyalty (Hofstede, 1994, 1997). Both individualism and collectivism are often reflected in societies at schools and organisations. For example, at the work place in an individualistic society, relationships are given less importance than the tasks at hand whereas it is the relationships that matter in a collectivist society where people are embraced as part of the group and not as potential resources. Hofstede calls these approaches ‘calculative’ and ‘moral’ respectively (1994). Again, from earlier discussions, it can be determined that the UK falls into the individualist category whilst Japan in the collectivist. Hence the international HR manager has the task of integrating him/herself into the individualistic way of thinking in order to generate high standards of performance from a British workforce. Masculinity and Femininity refer to values carried out by societies (countries) that range from ‘assertive’ and ‘competitive’ (masculine) to ‘modest’ and ‘caring’ (feminine) in terms of how people operate at different levels of society. Hofstede suggests that this is a distribution of the roles between the sexes and that in masculine countries the women are more assertive and competitive but not as much as the men, whereas in feminine countries women and men carry similar values of modesty and caring, and that feminine countries are more likely to focus on relationships, solidarity and compromise than do masculine ones (1994). Because of the more male-dominant Japanese culture and their focus on hierarchy and power distance, most research puts Japan in the masculine category of countries whilst Britain with its relatively weaker culture and low power distance is placed in the feminine category (Hofstede and Bond, 1988). This is a contradiction of the individualist versus collectivist dimension, as it can be argued that as a collectivist culture, Japan is more feminine due to its focus on family and relationships, than individualist Britain. On the other hand, this may also prove to be a common ground for the international HR manager to work on in his/her operation in the UK. Uncertainty Avoidance refers to a group’s “tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity: it ultimately refers to man’s search for truth” (Hofstede, 1994 cited in Jackson, 1995, pg153). This dimension explores into how willing a society is to take risks by venturing into the unknown. It explains how culturally prepared a group is to “feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations” (Hofstede, 1994 cited in Jackson, 1995, pg 153). Hofstede says that people in uncertainty avoiding cultures regulate themselves with strict rules and security measures, and that on a philosophical level, they believe in absolute truth (1994). On the hand, uncertainty accepting cultures do not limit themselves to their own opinions but are open to change and accepting of views from outside. Religiously, they are more relativist and allow different beliefs to operate simultaneously (Hofstede, 1994). Britain has been placed in the uncertainty accepting cultures category due to its multiculturalism and low power distance whilst Japan is high in uncertainty avoidance. This, again, is subject to criticism as the notion of uncertainty avoiding countries believing in absolute truth is in direct contradiction to Trompenaars’ (1993) view of Japanese culture from earlier discussions that the Japanese people do not believe in absolute truth whereas the British do. But this can be attributed to the effects of globalisation, where Britain has been more accepting of integration of foreign cultures into its own than Japan. This may very well prove to be the biggest challenge for the Japanese human resources manager in the UK, as the very act of having to operate in the UK presents an unfamiliar situation. Knowledge of British multiculturalism and employment laws is of absolute importance starting with the recruitment process and then continuing with managing the employees (Caliguiri et al, 2001). Quality of Life Vs Quality of Life is a dimension derived from the masculine and feminine category. It is believed, according to Hofstede(1994), that people in feminine countries stress more on quality of life which is evident from their short-term association with their workplaces as opposed to masculine countries where people stress more on careers and long-term association with their organisation(s) (Robbins, 2003). As discussed earlier, Britons with their short-term orientation, tend to avoid any discussions about their workplace in their own time, whilst the Japanese counterparts become more like family members of the organisation where their professional activities are intertwined with personal life. This again confirms earlier assessment that Britain is more feminine apart from the contradiction that feminine countries stress on relationships, and Japan more masculine. Hofstede is not clear in that he does not explain if feminine countries stress on relationships purely on a familial level or also at the workplace. In any case, for the Japanese HR manager, it would help to understand these differences in association which would prepare him/her to the possibility of less loyalty by the British workforce and probably a high staff turnover. Conclusion Considering the above factors, the role of the international human resources manager becomes a complex task of adaptation to British culture, and would need a high degree of openness to think beyond his/her own mental programming by a strong Japanese culture (Hofstede, 1997). According to Keeley (2003), the best practice for international managers of multinational companies is to recruit host country nationals (HCN’s) to manage the local workforce as they would know better and this would help gain the competitive advantage the company seeks in a global economy. In his analysis of Japanese international HR policies, Keeley accuses the Japanese management system of being “too culturally dependant, that it is difficult to incorporate non-Japanese into the system, making internationalisation problematic” (2003, pg9). This can be verified by the earlier study of Hofstede’s dimensions, where the Japanese have been assessed as an uncertainty avoiding people. However, if internationalisation into Britain is to be achieved by the company in the case of this essay, an education into Hofstede’s dimensions would be of great assistance for the HR manager in understanding British culture in general, although Hofstede’s model does not focus much on the sub-cultures presented within national cultures. In other words, the HR manager may find that some of the British recruits may be from existing sub-cultures with values similar to his/her own, which may make it more comfortable. In any case it is a complex mix of cultures, personalities and regulations, which, again calls for tapping into local HCN’s who understand Britain more and can achieve more for the organisation. Bibliography Avruch, Kevin and Peter W. Black. “The Culture Question and Conflict Resolution”. Peace and Change 16 (1991): 22-45 Buruma. I. (1995). A Japanese Mirror: Heroes and Villains of Japanese Culture. London: Vintage Cleary, T. (1991). The Japanese Art of War: Understanding the Culture of Strategy, Boston: Shambhala Publications Inc. Evans, W.A., Hau, K.C, Salli, D. (1989). A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Managerial Styles. Journal of Management Development, 8 (3), 5-13 Hickson, D., McMillan, C., Azumi, K. And Horvath, D. (1979). ‘Grounds for Comparative Organisation Theory: Quicksands or Hardcore?’ in Lammers, C. And Hickson, D. (eds) Organisations Alike and Unlike, Routledge and Kegan Paul Hofstede, G. & Bond, M. (1988). ‘The Confucius Connection: from Cultural Roots to Economic Growth’, Organizational Dynamics, 16(4): 4-21 Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind. McGraw Hill, London Hofstede, G. (1994). The Business if International Business is Culture. International Business Review, 3 (1), 1-14 Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind. McGraw Hill, London Hofstede, G. And Hofstede, J.G. (2005). Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind. Revised 2nd Edition. McGraw Hill, New York Jackson, T. (1995). Cross-Cultural Management. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford Kerr, C., Dunlop, J.T., Harbison, F. And Myers, C.A. (1973). Industrialism and Industrial Man. Penguin, USA Keeley, T.D. (2001). International Human Resource Management in Japanese Firms. Palgrave, London Mullins, L.J. (2003). Management and Organisational Behaviour. Pitman Publishing, London Robbins, S.P. (2003). Organisational Behaviour. Prentice Hall, New York Schein, E.H. (2004). Organisational Culture and Leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, San Francisco Scullion, H. And Linehan, M. (2005). International Human Resource Management. Palgrave-Macmillan, New York Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the Waves of Culture. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing Ltd. Tulder, R.V. and Zwart, A.D. (2006). International Business-Society Management: Linking Corporate Responsibility and Globalisation. Routledge, London Online Resource(s) http://www.religioustolerance.org/confuciu2.htm (Accessed 01/12/2009) Read More