The Five Dimensions of Culture - Essay Example

HOFESTEDE’S VIEW ON CULTURE Introduction According to Hofestede, culture refers to the cooperative programming of the brain, which has the effect of creating the difference between members belonging to different groups. More commonly, culture incorporates the beliefs, norms, customs, values, practices and the modes of thinking that people share because of their prolonged interactions. This therefore means that different people living together are likely to have a culture different from another group depending on the extent and mode of interaction. Hence, culture presents different approaches to managing both people and organizations, and this gives rise to different practices of management. This research will explore the contribution of Hofestede to our understanding of the effect of culture to international management practices of organisations. The Five Dimensions of Culture Through utilisation of a huge database of statistics on culture, Hofestede managed to come up with an analysis of the patterns describing the similarities and differences of cultures in five main dimensions. His research focused only on international business managers, which enabled him to come up with a true picture of how culture influences management of international organisations. These five dimensions include power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty and long-term orientation (Smith, Peterson & Schwartz 2002, p. 235). Power distance refers to the level of inequality that prevails among people (Smith, Dugan & Trompenaars 1996, p. 241). This inequality is acceptable by all people, both those with power and those without power. A high power distance society accepts inequality in the distribution of power and the members have a good understanding of their position in the system. With a low power distance society, there are an equal sharing of power and a high dispersion of power. The members in a low power society consider themselves equal. This idea means that in a high power nation such as Malaysia, reports will only reach the topmost managers who will hold meetings in a closed room with only the presence of powerful leaders (Smith, Dugan & Trompenaars 1996, p. 246). Individualism is a reflection of the strength of the relationships possessed by the people concerning others in the entire community. A high level of individualism means that there are no tight connections among them. It also means that there is a low degree of sharing of responsibilities except for family members that can only include the few closest friends. On the other hand, in a society where individualism is low, there is more cooperation between individuals, characterised by loyalty and respect as well as the concern with the well-being of others. This means that in a region where individualism is low, such as Central America, a marketing programme based on the advantages to the entire community will yield the best results (Wallerstein 1990, p. 42). Masculinity is a measure of the extent to which the members of society adhere to the values and the roles of males and females. High masculinity means that men are tough and are the providers. Women working outside the home area tend to have professions different from men. In a low masculinity society, men and women have equal roles and responsibilities (Sondergaard 1994, p. 449). In a country such as Japan with a high level of masculinity, greater success in the management will come with the employment of men, while in a country such as Sweden with a very low level of masculinity, success will come with the employment of a balanced team of men and women (Sondergaard 1994, p. 448). Uncertainty describes the level of anxiety that the members of society feel when faced with a risky situation. High uncertainty societies tend to avoid uncertain situations as much as possible. They strictly adhere to specific rules and seek the truth in a collective manner. In low uncertainty societies, individuals are less strict to specific rules and every member has the freedom of pursuing the truth independently (Sondergaard 1994, p. 452). This means that when discussing a project in high uncertainty countries such as Belgium, you should perform a thorough investigation of the different options, present a small range of choices and have a good understanding of the risks involved. Finally, long-term orientation refers to the long-standing of values rather than short-term values and traditions. Countries with high long-term orientation place very great importance on the avoidance of loss of face and deliverance of social obligations (Triandis 2004, p. 91). This means that people in the countries with high long-term orientation do not attach great value to traditions, and are therefore always capable of helping others in executing innovative strategies. Hofestede’s contributions The conclusions made by Hofestede provide a description of the various features of culture and offer guidance in the clarification of various behavioural and cultural paradigms in the management of organisations in different countries. Based on the dimension of power distance, we draw a clear understanding in the manner different nations treat the concept of inequality. This means that inequality always exists in society and some of the societies allow members to advance to the extent that it determines both the power and the amount of wealth that one possesses (Smith, Dugan & Trompenaars 1996, p. 247). In this condition therefore, the inequality becomes part of the norms of society and therefore will last. This shapes the form of management that an organisation operating in such country has to employ. The distance of power brings out the relationships of dependents. In countries with low power distance, the subordinate members of an organisation have minimum dependence on their leaders and there is the tendency of lack of consultation leading to mutual dependency. In such countries, the management has to expect a lot of disagreement from their subordinates. In countries with high distance of power, subordinates greatly depend on their leaders and disagreement does not exist. In these countries, the management does not expect any resistance from their subordinates, and hence decision-making is faster (Minkov & Hofstede 2011, p. 11). This explanation reveals a critical factor that may determine the manner in which organisations have to adjust their management systems when operating in different countries. The index of uncertainty avoidance provides a measure of the degree at which different organisations are willing to accommodate potential risks in the future (Cattell 1949, p. 445). Indeed, this dimension provides a description in the attempts made by members of society to arrive at a particular degree of certainty in response to a situation that is conflicting. It gives a hint on the kind of project that the people are going to accept depending on the level of uncertainties. In the countries where the uncertainty avoidance index is high, people adhere to well established structures and always want to gain an understanding of the future (McSweeney 2002, p. 95). This cultural dimension will assist the management in the determination of the best innovation strategy suitable in the country. Individualism and collectivism describe the level of human feelings in a particular group as well as the identity of the relationships between the members. Individualism describes societies with weak relations between the members (Minkov & Hofstede 2011, p. 14). Here, every member watches for himself only or in addition to some of the closest friends. On the other hand, collectivism describes societies that form powerful groups with maximum cooperation between members. There is high trust between members that help them to stick together over a long period (McSweeney 2002, p. 96). Again, this cultural dimension determines the approach the management will have to use to build cooperation within members in an organisation and the way they are going to relate with others in different countries. In a culture where members of society embrace the system of individualism, building cohesion is more challenging and the management should therefore focus on the attributes of every individual. However, building relationships is easier with collectivists and the administration of an organisation has to base on maintaining relationships between and within groups. The other dimension concerns the concepts of masculinity and feminism. This dimension provides a good evaluation of the process of delegating roles and responsibilities between male and female members in society. Some societies disregard the issue of sex when fostering values to children, whereas other societies consider the sex as an important factor (McSweeney 2002, p. 97). In feminist societies, both men and women share a good range of values that relate to the quality of life, humiliation, cooperation and assistance to others. On the other hand, masculine societies place great attention on competition and hardships in terms of ideas and materialism. In masculine cultures, the managers that are more aggressive and tough possess flexibility and followership, thus becoming more successful (McSweeney 2002, p. 97). In these masculine cultures, income, fame and progress made by an employee are of very great significance to society. The orientation of life is work; its definition comes from the professional situation and the wealth acquired. In the contrary, societies with less tendencies of masculinity value cooperation and security for employees. In addition, work is of less significance and the progress made by an individual depends on the interactions with other members (Kirkman, Lowe & Gibson 2006, p. 287). Therefore, this cultural dimension determines the motivation approach that the management will have to employ in various countries. It provides a full understanding of people’s attitude towards work and cooperation. Finally, long-term perception describes societies that advocate the righteous as the means of achieving good rewards in the future (Maull, Brown & Cliffe 2001, p. 317). On the other hand, short-term perception provides a description of those societies that advocate the righteous concerning the present and the past, such as respect for the customs and obeying the necessities of society. Both perceptions have wide application in various organisations operating in the world, as the values fixed in the first extremity see their orientation in the future while the values fixed in the second pole see their orientation in the past and the present. However, the latter group of values is more stable (Maull, Brown &Cliffe 2001, p. 319). Critic of Hofestede’s view Hofestede claims that he managed to establish an extension of the conceptual framework concerning the core issues touching various societies in the world. However, his attempts, according to Schein (1985), lacked the appropriate order to optimise the existing variety. Treating different cultures and countries in a universal and equitable manner reduced the variety in the evaluation of units (Jan 2001, p. 91). Despite the fact that he greatly stressed his judgment concerning the legitimacy of egalitarianism of both nationality and ethnicity, and the integrity of his methodology, cross-cultural researches must incorporate the conduct variety. To some reasonable degree, the ethnicity of people shapes this factor rather than mere national and political classes (Ogbonna 1992, p. 43). The process of local globalisation needs a deep understanding of individual local cultures, subcultures as well as the forces that change the cultural software of the brain (Schein 1985, p. 21). The cultural perception concerning various nations see its enrichment through referring to the tribal subcultures of the respective countries. The heterogeneity of culture in different countries is significantly high, prompting the development of indices for the determination of this heterogeneity (Harry 2004, p. 88). Because of the fact that a good number of countries in the world exhibit heterogeneity, the soundness of typologies such as Hofestede’s reduces. A good example of these indices is the index of ethno-linguistic fractionalisation. This cultural index defines the responsibility that two individuals chosen at random from different nations will not fall into the same ethnic cluster. A large index indicates higher growth of cultural homogeneity. Perceptions that do not use the indexes become simpler and lack recognition (Rachel 2003, p. 11). Because of the fact that there is no purity of culture, there is more emphasis on the need of treating people with varied combinations of culture from different countries in a different way. This means that if a country has several subcultures, organisations will have workers that come from different subcultures. Anthropologists and sociologists oppose the theory of Hofestede because he treated governments as cultures (Jan 2001, p. 93). As a means of defending himself against this criticism, Hofestede insisted that nations constitute the only available units for making comparative studies. This means that organisations that consist of subdivisions all over the country, such as educational institutions, universities in particular, can apply the results of his conclusions to plan their styles of management based on the differences in culture in the environment they operate. This is because of the diversity of culture in the different areas in which the organisation operates (Rachel 2003, p. 9). The other critic facing Hofestede is the question of choosing the most suitable level of examining culture. He selected countries for the study and analysis despite the fact that countries consist of subcultures that have significant differences among themselves. Hofestede failed to consider the natural characteristics and utilised the boundaries created by human beings as the units for examination (Rachel 2003, p. 12). This calls for the need of a new study that will insist on suitable units of culture for analysis. The research was based on typology that allowed the treatment of countries as cultural units that are naturally homogeneous. This means that a new study is necessary to consider the feature of a cross-cultural form of management. The consideration of a country’s levels of subculture in the analysis will be an indication of attention on the sociology and anthropology of the organisation (Fang 2003, p. 348). In each particular generation, a group of different people with the intention of spreading the subculture to other generations exists. Therefore, each individual, while in the process of growing, is capable of socialising and discovering, at the same time being able to meet different groups. Therefore, the process recurs continuously forever. It is therefore a responsibility of cross-cultural researchers to find new definitions for the theoretical approaches of the research anthropology of organisations. The importance of organisational culture Hofestede’s theory provides a useful explanation of culture and the manner in which it affects the functioning of various organisations in different countries. Most of his critics relied on the fact that subcultures exist within a country (Nina 2005, p. 519). However, this argument cannot invalidate the findings of Hofestede since individuals within the same country can form a single general culture (Hofstede 2002, p. 4). This is because, people in one particular country share rules and obey similar laws enacted by the government to enable them to behave in a similar manner and have common ideas concerning the way they perceive things (Kwon 2012, p. 81). This therefore allows Hofestede to draw a meaningful conclusion that describes the behaviour of a group of people. According to Hofestede (1997, p. 5) culture describes the manner in which people in an organisation behave and reason concerning the operation of the organisation. Additionally, Grieves (2000, p. 346) agrees with Hofestede’s view that the development of an organisation enhances human values that in turn affect the behaviour of people. The development of an organisation should be compatible with the prevailing culture in the environment to enable its employees to work efficiently to produce good performance for the organisation. The management of an organisation must bear in mind the effects of the culture of the organisation and the influence of that culture on the operations of the organisation. In normal cases, the function of culture in the organisation comes through the creation of a feeling of commitment and identity amongst the employees and through the design of a competitive frame for enabling its members to gain a good understanding of the social system and have a desirable behaviour (Martins, 2000, p. 31). Culture can present a shared system of understanding things, which in turn forms the foundation for better communication and mutual understanding between the workers in an organisation (Kwon 2012, p. 82). If culture fails to play this role, the culture is going to reduce the efficiency in its operations. Organisations usually employ different types of resources or processes to promote good conduct and changes. Culture plays an indirect role in shaping the behaviour through the utilisation of practical managerial apparatus such as goals, strategic direction, technology, tasks, communication, structure, decision-making, interpersonal relationships as well as cooperation (Martins & Terblanche, 200, p. 65). Therefore, for an organisation to operate in an efficient manner, it should not neglect the significance of culture as culture has a very great contribution to the manner in which the organisation runs. Conclusion Ethnic researches have become very significant in the current world. Recent studies on racism and ethnicity have presented a good notion from various sources such as the study of culture and political science. This progress is evident from the bereavement of structuralism such as the Marxist structuralism and the evolution of postmodernists. The consequence will be the renewed exploration of different views and differences in identity. However, the differences always exist, only that they need exploration. Each individual organisation has a unique culture and a set of values that distinguish the organisation. The creation of the culture of an organisation is usually in an unconscious manner and banks on the cultural values of the topmost managers that established the organisation. If an organisation intends to achieve a good culture, the management should not disregard the culture of the organisation or the themes as, during the development of the organisation, culture can help the organisation to gain a competitive advantage. A strong culture can also bring numerous benefits such as high cooperation, good control, communication and motivation. Hofstede provides a useful insight into culture in shaping the manner in which organisations have to function to match the environment in which they exist. The importance of cultural awareness in the management of organisations keeps on increasing daily with the expansion of globalisation. Bibliography Cattell, R. B. 1949. ‘The dimensions of culture patterns by factorization of national Characters’ Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 443-69. Fang, T. 2003. ‘A Critique of Hofstede’s Fifth National Culture Dimension’ International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol.3, pp. 347-368. Grieves, J. 2000. ‘Introduction: the origins of organisational development’ The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 345-447. Harry C. T. 2004. ‘The many dimensions of culture’ Academy of Management Executive, Vol.18, no. 1, pp. 88-93, Hofstede, G. 1997. Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind, MC Grow Hill, New York. Hofstede G. 2002. ‘Dimensions do not exist: A reply to Brendan McSweeney’ Human Relations, Vol. 55, No. 11, pp.1-7. Jan P. V. O. 2001. ‘Do organisations reflect national cultures?’ International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 25, pp. 89-107. Kirkman, B. L. Lowe, K. B. & Gibson, C. B. 2006. ‘A quarter century of Culture’s Consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework’ Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37, pp. 285-320. Kwon, J. W. 2012. ‘Does China have more than one culture?’ Asian Pacific Management Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 79-102. Martins, E.C. 2000. The influence of organisational culture on creativity and innovation in a university library. University of South Africa, Pretoria. Martins, E.C. & Terblanche, F. 2003. ‘Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation’, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 64-74. Maull, R., Brown, P. & Cliffe, R. 2001. ‘Organisational culture and quality improvement’ International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 302-326. McSweeney, B. 2002. ‘Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith - A Failure of Analysis’ Human Relations, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 89-118. Minkov, M. &Hofstede, G. 2011. ‘The Evolution of Hofstede’s Doctrine’ Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 10-20. Nina J. 2005. ‘Cross-cultural investigations: emerging concepts,’ Journal of Organisational Change Management, Vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 514-528. Ogbonna, E. 1992. Managing Organisational Culture: Fantasy or Reality, Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 42-54. Rachel F. B. 2003. ‘Hofstede never studied culture’ Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol. 28, pp. 1–14. Schein, E. H. 1985. How Culture Forms, Develops and Changes, Calif.: Jossey Bass, San Francisco, pp. 17-43. Smith, P. B., Dugan, S. & Trompenaars, F. 1996. ‘National culture and the values of organisational employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations’ Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 27, pp. 231-264. Smith, P. B., Peterson, M. F. & Schwartz, S. H. 2002. ‘Cultural values, sources of guidance, and their relevance to managerial behavior: A 47-nation study.’ Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 33, pp. 188-208. Sondergaard, M. 1994, Hofstede’s consequences: A study of reviews, citations and Replications’ Organisation Studies, Vol. 15, No.3, pp. 447–56. Triandis, H. C. 2004, ‘The many dimensions of culture.’ Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 18, pp. 88-93. Wallerstein, I. 1990, ‘Culture as the ideological battleground of the modern world-system’, Theory Culture & Society, Vol.7, pp. 31–55. Read More