Usefulness of Hofstede's National Culture Model - Essay Example

Hofstede’ cultural dimensions Hofstede’ cultural dimensions Geert Hofstede conducted a critical study into national cultures, which would later help firms understand the contemporary business environment. The research on national cultures provided an insight into aggregate behavior of people thereby enabling companies understand the workforce and the consumer base. By utilizing data extending over six years, he unveiled a large information detailing the values of employees in the workplace. The data was further analyzed thereby enabling the researcher to draw inherent analogies, which would later help in the construction of categories that define groups’ behavior. The main categories include masculinity versus femininity, individualism versus collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance. Globalization, which is a concept of free trade, has made the world an increasingly intimate place. Intimacy, in this sense, refers to mutual interdependence that countries possess in both cultural and business terms. The 17th and the 18th century trade made businesspersons realize the different potential and benefits that various countries possessed. Furthermore, the ideas of people such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo quantified the prospects of free trade and globalization. However, besides the raw economic benefit of world trade, businesses realized the essence of culture in understanding the behavior of employees and given market. Culture could act either as an impediment or a propeller of business. The Geert Hofstede model is helpful to business organizations in numerous ways. To begin with, the model may help a business organization comprehend the power structures of a society towards designing a corresponding administrative model. In many business organizations, employees constantly question what makes up a good leader. Unfortunately, Geert Hofstede uncovers that there is no particular way of leading a group. Despite the developments of knowledge documents on management, existing cultural conditions influence the attitudes towards power. The concept of power distance helps an organization comprehend the tolerance of a given society towards power inequality. Large power distance societies manifest a greater tolerance towards power inequality in institutions. In this sense, affected organizations should develop administrative structures that possess clear separation of powers (Piepenburg 2011, p. 178). The managers, thus, should acquire considerable power over the employees, who are expected to be utterly subordinate to the seniors. Such a culture, therefore, appreciates centralized management styles whereby major decisions are made at the top and handed down to the subjects. Cultures with relatively mild power distance manifest a considerable tolerance towards inequality. This is a product of liberal mindedness whereby managers and leaders act as servants rather than bosses. In turn, each person’s opinion in a business organization is crucial in spite of one’s cadre. Managers’ duties, hence, regards facilitation and representation rather than command. This type of culture requires decentralized administrative systems whereby departments possess unique but equally important roles. The management, since it handles unique duties, becomes a form of department rather than be an ultimate authority in an organization. For instance, the management may only link to synchronize a company’s activities with stakeholders’ expectations. Besides, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions may aid an organization in either exploiting the communal power of a community or taking advantage of a society’s creative power. Individualistic cultures entail fragmented social structures whereby an individual takes care of oneself and the nuclear relatives. A business organization should exploit such an opportunity to harness the benefits of encouraged individual autonomy and creativity. Independence is significant contributor of creativity since it creates the platform for a person to ignore loyalties. A culture that appreciates and rewards individual creativity motivate individuals to be innovative. For instance, the Google Company has utilized this concept to motivate its employees by decreasing supervision and according them adequate time to come up with applications and other innovative ideas. This is dissimilar to a collective culture whereby individual efforts are owned by the society (Hofstede, Neuijam, Daval Ohayv, & Sanders 1990, p. 289). An individuals’ identity attaches to the identity of the community thereby eliminating the rewards that such a person would have harnessed out of sheer personal efforts. On the other hand, a business organization can exploit the collective attitude of a society towards accomplishing huge goals. A collective culture has the ability to minimize internal strife as individuals focus on the organization’s goals. Since there is limited competition among individuals, an institution becomes a bigger goal than the individual. Employees in a given organization, thus, develop the ability to stay on course on general strategies (Boeing 2013, p. 89). This is different from individualistic cultures whereby employees may be so opinionated that it becomes difficult to form collective and binding goals. In essence, while individualistic cultures focus on results, collective cultures focus on the process. This accords a manager the adequate time to observe risks and details such as harmony in a group. Besides, the model may help an organization establish proper programs of motivation. Employees’ motivation has drawn critical debates because of the challenges entailed in attracting fresh employees and maintaining them in a company. The ability of an organization to motivate a particular set of employees, however, depend on the corresponding cultural attitudes. An organization, therefore, has to uncover what generally drives the members of a population. This pertains to the idea of their success. A masculine culture rewards heroism, material pursuits, and competition. In turn, an organization has to establish ostentatious motivational programs and reward systems to exception employees. An organization has also to be careful not to draw strife among employees by strictly rewarding employees on observable merits. A feminine culture, however, requires a different type of motivational program because it appreciates modesty, consensus, and care. This is observable in the Scandinavian countries whereby individuals show limited preference towards competitive attitudes. In addition, the indulgence-restraint dimension is crucial in understanding the complexities in what drives a society. An indulgent culture gears towards enjoyment of life and having fun, which requires an entity to establish a relaxed environment for work (Lussier & Achua 2010, p. 231). On the other hand, a restrained culture, which detests hedonism, may require motivation programs that deal with the intrinsic psyche of employees. More essentially, the Hofstede’s cultural dimensions emphasize on the value of tolerance within an organization. Organizations in multi-cultural settings are exposed to the challenges of integration. This is because employees different and diverging cultural attitudes. A workforce with employees of different ethnicities and cultural upbringing, however, requires a unifying model of management. An entity, which operates in a foreign country should employ hosts as a means of gaining acceptability in a particular region. Besides, it should employ individuals of the original country for transfer of organizational culture and learning purposes. Cohesion, however, is difficult when individuals have different language and moral systems. While certain cultures appreciate teamwork, some cultures uphold autonomy at work. The management should, therefore, educate employees to understand each other. In addition, it should establish a coded and unifying interaction system that binds everyone and eliminates bias. The Hofstede’s theory, however, possesses notable problems. To begin with, in as much as it seeks objectivity, it is subjective in certain circumstances. Since the model highly depends on the inferential ability of Geert, the results are suspect. A critical look at the document of the model reveals that Geert, in a subtle sense, is campaigning for proper organizational thought rather dissecting cultures. Such organizational culture, especially, emanate from the Western though system. For instance, continuous organizational research has uncovered that employees in a business organization should be more impersonal. This leads to effective achievement of results. It is crucial to highlight that Geert highlights impersonal relations as a critical mark of the Western culture. Other instances of applauding the Western culture includes Geert’s characterization of the culture as upholding individual liberties. Unlike the collectivist culture, this culture helps business organizations and the society achieve significant results. Understanding a culture as a singular and static concept is prone to errors (Rahman 2009, p. 72). Cultural studies note that cultural growth in various societies takes a distinct shape. Societies with lower economies may encourage collectivism as a means of minimizing the cost of life. In turn, a respective society may expect considerable loyalty from the individual that it protects. Economic growth that translate into higher individual incomes encourage individualism as people become more independent. For instance, studies in China manifest that the country’s economic growth corresponds with a similar surge in individualism. Moreover, integrating cultural elements such as the internet has influenced a confluence in cultural attitudes. Besides, the idea of a national culture is not possible in a nation with different ethnic communities and religious groups (McSweeney 2002, p. 89). Furthermore, the study does not examine the influence of classes in influencing fragmented cultural attitudes. In the end, the Hofstede’s model of national cultures has both its benefits and its shortcomings. The model is helpful in tapping creative and collectivist power in steering organizations. This happens as cultures fragment into individualistic and collectivist types. In addition, the model is significant in developing motivational programs. Besides, the Hofstede’s model may serve towards designing an administrative and management structure of a company. The model faces several faults that constrain its application on business organizations. To begin with, it makes a flawed assumption of national cultures in spite of different ethnicities that exist in countries. In addition, it assumes that culture is a static thing yet culture continually changes given developments in factors such as technology. Bibliography Hofstede, G., Neuijam, B., Daval Ohayv, D and Sanders, G., 1990, Measuring organizational cultures: a qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol 35 (2): pp. 286-316. McSweeney, B., 2002, Hofstedes model of national cultural differences and their consequences: a triumph of faith a failure of analysis. Human Relations. Vol 55 (1): pp. 89-118. Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F., 2010, Leadership: Theory, application, skill development, SouthWestern/Cengage Learning, Australia. Piepenburg, K., 2011, Critical analysis of Hofstedes model of cultural dimensions: To what extent are his findings reliable, valid and applicable to organisations in the 21st century? GRIN Verlag GmbH, München. Boeing, M, 2013, Analysis of cultural differences and their effects on marketing products in: a cultural approach, Anchor Academic Publishin, New York. Rahman, H., 2009, Selected readings on global information technology: contemporary applications, Hershey, New York. Read More