Usefulness of Hofstedes National Culture Model in Leading Business Organizations - Coursework Example

Cultural analysis Hofstedes national culture theory Geert Hofstede defines culture as the communal tuning of the mind differentiating members of a given group from the other. Hofstede conducted one of the most intensive and extensive studies into how cultures influence attitudes in the workplace. He utilized data between 1967 and 1973 in analyzing large information about the values of employees in the workplace. The values that distinguish one country from the other categorizes into four groups. These values include uncertainty avoidance, masculinity versus femininity, power distance, and individualism versus collectivism. These categories are helpful to business organizations in various ways. The idea of globalization has made the world an interconnected place. Globalization is a direct consequence of the concept of free trade that argues that countries could mutually benefit from each other in trade (Heidhues 2012, p. 134). In turn, it has argued for governments to open up borders for free flowing exports and imports. It is disastrous, however, for companies to assume that national cultures remain the same while doing cross-border business activities. In essence, Geert responds to the idea of globalization by comprehending the different attitudes embedded in the national psyche of every country. This is necessary in order for companies to enjoy the benefit of mutual trading activities in foreign countries. The model helps business organizations harness the power of creativity and communal power in steering growth. This is a key concept of the individualism-collectivism dimension. Individualistic cultures possess loosely structured social frameworks (Hofstede, Neuijam, Daval Ohayv, & Sanders 1990, p. 288). In this sense, individuals face the expectations of taking care of themselves and nuclear families. A business organization can exploit such a culture towards promoting individual creativity and autonomy. This is unlike collectivism where interactions are personal and tied to extended relatives. On the other hand, a business can harness the power of collective communities towards accomplishing huge goals. A collective culture has the ability to tune employees towards equally collective goals. This is unlike individualistic cultures whereby individuals are too opinionated to stay on course. Employees in a collective culture remain loyal to organizational goals for a longer period than employees in individualistic cultures. In addition, business organizations should understand that while collective cultures such as those of China are process oriented, the individualistic cultures are results oriented. In addition, the Hofstede model helps a business organizations understand the power structures of a particular society. Operating in a given culture demands that managers articulate the hierarchy of the organization according to the attitudes of a corresponding society. Hofstede’s power dimensions is helpful in arranging the administrative structure of an organization. While some national cultures appreciate large power distance, other cultures only accept a limited power distance. In large power distance cultures, a business organizations should ensure that there is a distinct hierarchy in powers with other people more powerful than others. The managers should retain huge power and administrative duties that separate from the employees. This is because individuals in such a culture demonstrate high tolerance for inequality. Inequality in society is accepted as natural. On the other hand, in societies with limited power distance, managers should be given responsibilities that deal with facilitation rather than administration. This is because mild power distance is a symbol of a liberal society that has low tolerance for inequality. Appreciation of equality suggests that each person’s opinion is essential in determining the direction of an entity. In addition, such a culture demands decentralized management such that the administrative power is equally distributed among the departments. Each department, therefore, is autonomous and only links with management and other departments for strategic rather than submission purposes (Brebbia 2012, p. 172). In this sense, the management’s work concerns with linking the stakeholders with the employees in an organization. The Hofstede model also highlights the essence of tolerance within organizations. When organizations operate in foreign countries, they tend to acquire cosmopolitan feature. This occurs as employees have different backgrounds and ethnicities. When operating in a foreign country, it is crucial to employ individuals from the host country as a means of respecting a respective country and promoting cohesion. Cohesion, however, does not instantly occur by simply employing individuals of the foreign country. In essence, employees have to be trained to practice tolerance towards each other. This occurs as individuals from different ethnic backgrounds possess divergent attitudes about work and life. For instance, while some individuals may prefer working groups, other individuals may prefer working autonomously. The management, therefore, should train employees in understanding the difference in cultural attitudes among themselves. In this sense, business organizations can create a harmonious way of interaction, which eliminates prejudice. In addition, the Hofstede model helps organizations understand effective ways of motivating employees. Employees’ appraisal is critical in modern organizations because of the difficulties involved in attracting new employees and retaining existing workers. Motivation, however, is embedded in given cultural attitudes that a population possesses. An organization has to pay attention ti these cultural attitudes in crafting motivation and appraisal programs. In the masculinity-femininity dimension, there are contrasting options of attaining satisfaction in life. A masculine culture promotes heroism, heroism, pursuit of material rewards, and achievement as success. In such a culture, a business organization has to assign regular ostentatious award ceremonies. In addition, they should ensure that promotion at work is attached to significant material rewards. On the other hand, a feminine culture appreciates cohesion, consensus, cooperation, modesty, and caring for the underprivileged. Besides, the indulgence versus restraint culture helps an organization understand the intricacies of motivation. An indulgent culture orients towards having fun and enjoying life while a retrained culture suppresses individual gratification (Cullen & Parboteeah 2014, p. 149). A restrained culture requires a platform for developing intrinsic motivation while an indulgent culture requires extrinsic motivation. The Hofstede culture, however, faults on various dimensions. To begin with, it accords a polar dimension of cultures that seeks to contrast the Western culture and the Asian culture rather than accord an objective view of cultures. A critical analysis into the development of Western organizational thought highlights such concepts revealed in the Geert Hofstede. Such concepts, however, are not products of culture but are intellectual concepts integrated in organizations. Individuals’ behavior on the home front, therefore, emanate from the capitalistic structures that Western organizations invest in the same. On the other hand, it is essential to highlight that the Asian way of life emanate from the Confucian thinking and communist ideologies (Piepenburg 2011, p. 78). Similarly, the Asian culture is a product of a given social thinking. Manifesting a culture as a natural and inherent element is prone to errors. This suggests that Hofstede’s model is more subjective than it is objective. In the real organizational environment, it should be essential to pay attention to the day-to-day behavior of employees. Such analysis accords hands-on and immediate data that describes the behavior of employees. Furthermore, the idea of a national culture is not plausible in contemporary settings that entail individuals of different ethnicities and characteristics (McSweeney 2002, p. 90). Several things define the cultural attitudes of individuals. For instance, it is difficult to clearly define an American. This is because the nation has faced different wave of migrations that has produced different ethnic groups. The nation has European, Asian, and African immigrants. Over time, cross-cultural marriages has produced individuals of mixed identities. In the end, the nation produces a set of a dominant cultural group and a marginalized group. Hofstede seems to have drawn his cultural analogies from the dominant culture and characterized the same as national cultures. The blacks, for instance, have different cultural attitudes from those of the whites, in the US. Perceiving culture as a static thing produces significant errors. Critics of the model note that growth in culture, in every society, takes a particular shape. In societies with developing economies, individuals may tend to be more collective because of the need to pull resources together (Cullen, & Parboteeah 2014, p. 98). In addition, the society expects significant loyalty for the generosity accorded to the individual. When economies grow, individuals become independent and achieve autonomy because there is limited need to depend on a neighbor for economic support. For instance, significant reports show that individualism is surging in China as individuals become less concerned with the lives of other people. This also explains why developed countries tend to manifest higher levels of individualism. Furthermore, factors such as technology have promoted the unification of cultures as individuals are turned on by identical cultural signals. In essence, the Hofstede model is both influential and faulty in many ways. The model helps business organizations design administrative structures since the managers can examine characteristics of specific cultural power structures. Besides, the model helps an organization articulate effective ways of motivating members of a group. This is because managers are able to understand a group’s definition of success. The model also stresses on the essence of tolerance in an organization, as individuals understand each other’s’ ethnicities and cultural backgrounds. On the other hand, the model is faulty in notable ways. For instance, it highlights culture as a static thing yet culture is a highly dynamic element that evolves over time. In addition, it accords wholesome representations of national cultures in spite of different cultural groups in a country. Bibliography Brebbia, C. A, 2012, Management of natural resources, sustainable development and ecological hazards III, WIT, Southampton. Cullen, J. B., & Parboteeah, K. P., 2014, Multinational management: a strategic approach, South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason. Heidhues, C., 2012, Globalisation and contextual factors in accounting: the case of Germany, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley. 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. Piepenburg, K., 2011, Critical analysis of Hofstede’s model of cultural dimensions: To what extent are his findings reliable, valid and applicable to organisations in the 21st century? GRIN Verlag, London. Read More