Hofstedes Cultural Model - Example

Hofstede’s Cultural Model Name Course Name and Code Instructor’s Name Date Over the years, research in cultural differences and their effects on organizations has been widespread with each researcher aiming at linking the effects of different culture on the management and operations of organizations (Tavakoli, Keenan and Cranjak-Karanovic, 2003). One of the most remarkable researchers in this field who since the 1980s has carried out several cross-cultural analytical studies is Geert Hofstede. After compiling his research results, Hofstede came up with a cultural model/framework that has been a reference point for managers and other senior personnel especially those of multinational organizations (Smith et al., 2004). His conclusions were that there is no universal unified managerial approach that can be adopted by organizations to meet the needs of individuals, groups as well as the organization’s needs (Kirkman, Lowe and Gibson, 2006). In fact, Hofstede’s model has been used in the fields of marketing especially in global branding and advertising, management theory and ethical decision-making (Yeh and Lawrence, 1995). Hofstede’s research work has been supported by other researchers but has also faced criticism from others (Bochner, 1994). In the 1980s, Hofstede carried out a study on cultural differences in national values among over 11,000 employees of the multinational company, IBM, operating in 40 countries (Cole, 2004) and examined the influence of such cultural differences on organizations’ performance. Before proceeding, Hofstede started by defining culture: what it is and its components. According to him, culture is a ‘form of mental programming that entails patterns of thinking, feeling and doing learned from childhood’ (Cole, 2004; Mooij and Hofstede, 2010; Jones, 2007). He also argues that culture is shared among people and helps in creating a group’s or an individual’s identity. In other words, culture affects the way people behave both physically and psychologically and also plays a significant role in a person’s personality. In addition, culture defines a group’s identity by distinguishing it from another group (Cole, 2004). A group’s culture, according to Hofstede, is multilayered like an onion and manifests itself in many ways through symbols, heroes, rituals and values (Cole 2004). Symbols are the outer layer of culture and include pictures, objects, dressing modes as well as gestures that have special meaning for those who share the culture( Cole, 2004; Jones, 2007), whereas heroes are role models (dead or alive) whose behaviour is highly regarded in a culture. The third layer of culture is rituals, which, according to Hofstede, are collective activities that are considered socially essential and include ways of greeting strangers, community and religious ceremonies as well as business meetings (Cole, 2004). The above three characteristics/ practices define a culture and are centred on values that are the core of any culture (Cole, 2004). These values include what is desirable versus what is not. In Hofstede’s opinion, values include both virtues and vices, such as evil versus good, ugly versus beautiful, abnormal versus normal, and acceptable versus unacceptable (Cole, 2004). Values, unlike symbols, heroes and rituals, are intangible and can only be interpreted by the way a person behaves. Additionally, values are in childhood and play a major role in defining a person’s actions and behaviour (Tavakoli, Keenan and Cranjak-Karanovic, 2003). In his 1980s study of IBMs employees’ culture, Hofstede was aiming at determining the influence of national culture on the sub-culture of organizations (Cole, 2004; Jones, 2007; Mooij and Hofstede, 2010). According to him, sub-culture refers to organizations, professions and families. In this study, Hofstede used four key dimensions as reference points on which to gauge contrasting values and attitudes towards work-related issues in each of the various national cultures (Cole, 2004). These dimensions are outlined by Cole (2004) as follows: Individualism versus collectivism: individualistic societies promote prioritizing of an individual’s needs and that of his family over the societal needs unlike collective societies that encourage people to be loyal to as well as find protection in the wider society. This dimension is well manifested in the advertising sector where individualistic oriented cultures focus on persuasion whilst collectivistic cultures focus on first building trust between the seller and the customer (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2010). According to Harpaz, Honig & Coetsier (2002), this dimension is applicable in achievement motivation as well as in leadership styles and understanding of one’s obligation. Power distance: refers to the extent to which different cultures accept different power distributions within the society with a high power distance society being characterized by wide power gaps between those at the top and those at the bottom (this type of society has social classes ranging from the rich, powerful to the poor and powerless). On the contrary, a lower power distance society is characterized by power sharing among society individuals. This dimension is useful in leadership styles across organizations (Harpaz, Honig & Coetsier ,2002) Uncertainty avoidance: this encompasses low avoidance where a society has a high degree of uncertainty tolerance and a high avoidance society that feels threatened by uncertainty and avoids it by all means. This dimension explains the differences in adoption of innovations and new technologies among different groups whereby high uncertainty avoidance groups are reluctant to adopt change whilst low uncertainty avoidance groups easily embrace change (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2010). In addition, high uncertainty avoidance cultures focus on health issues through adopting healthy eating and drinking lifestyles as well as use of more medication whereas low uncertainty avoidance cultures focus more on fitness and sports so as to be healthy (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2002; De Mooij, 2010 in De Mooij &Hofstede, 2010). Masculinity versus femininity: Hofstede used this dimension to distinguish between those nations that prefer masculinity manifested by assertiveness, success and materialism and those that are for femininity, which entails caring for others and building and maintaining relationships. This dimension can be used to explain role differentiation in both feminine and masculine societies where role differentiation is small in feminine societies and in contrast is large in masculine societies (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2010). A subsequent research by a Canadian researcher, Michael Bond, bore a fifth dimension which is the long term versus short term orientation which is a view of the extent to which business results, use of resources, organizational changes as well as future investments will affect the performance of an organization (Cole, 2004). In other words, this dimension focuses on the results of the decisions made by an organization’s management with the aim of achieving either long term or short-term effects. According to De Mooij & Hofstede (2010), long-term orientation focuses on achieving peace of mind as well as future investments whereas short-term orientation employs such values as personal steadiness and stability as well as respect for tradition, and focuses on achieving happiness. Through these dimensions, Hofstede was able to group his results into eight cultural clusters that were obtained using statistical cluster analysis. These clusters, according to Cole (2004) include more developed Latin (Belgium, France, Argentina, Brazil, Spain, Italy), less developed Latin (Columbia, Mexico, Chile, Venezuela, Peru, Portugal), more developed Asian (Japan), less developed Asian ( Pakistan, Taiwan, Thailand, Hong Kong, Philippines, India, Singapore), Near Eastern ( Greece, Iran, Turkey, Yugoslavia), Germaic (Austria, Israel, Germany, Switzerland), Anglo (Australia, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, New Zealand, USA, South Africa) and Nordic (Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden) Later, Hofstede furthered his research on the effects of culture on organizations. This subsequent research was done on twenty organizations in Denmark and Netherlands where Hofstede examined their cultural practices against six dimensions. Cole (2004) outlines these six dimensions as follows: Process-orientation versus results orientation which focused on whether an organization culture preferred the means of doing a job as opposed to the results of the job done (in other words, does the means justify the end or does the end justify the means?) Employee orientation versus job orientation with focus on whether an organization was concerned with the employees’ welfare at work or was concerned with the completion of the job at hand without caring about those performing the job. Parochial versus professional where employees were asked to give their views on what they think was the criterion of their selection and recruitment into their respective organizations; was it because of their professional skills (competence) or because of their personal or family connections? Open (social) system versus closed (social) system, which focused on whether an organization was open to its shareholders and stakeholders as well as its associates or was secretive. Loose control versus tight control: Hofstede used this dimension to examine whether and organization’s culture put emphasis on strictness in the operations of the organization or adopted a relaxed approach in the running of the organization business. Normative versus pragmatic approach to customers where the question is; are employees expected to follow some laid down rules when serving customers or is there flexibility when attending to customers so as to satisfy them and achieve targets? Hofstede’s research yielded the results that the dimensions of means versus results, parochial versus professionalism, control and customer care were representative of the operations of the organizations. For example, as Cole (2004) states, manufacturing and large office organizations were more concerned with the process whereas research and development organizations as well as service units were more concerned with the results of their actions. Organizations using traditional technologies in performing tasks as well traditional management styles were found to be parochial, while those using high technology equipment were oriented towards professionalism. Strict controls were applied in pharmaceutical and financial units whereas loose controls were characteristic of creative and innovative sectors. On the customer care approach dimension, the results showed that a normative approach was characteristic of law implementing and monopolistic sectors whilst a pragmatic approach was used in service units operating in competitive markets (Cole, 2004). On the contrary, the results showed that the dimensions of people versus job and social systems were not affected by task and market but rather reflected the founder’s attitude towards people or were guided by national preferences. From this second research, Hofstede concluded that the major cultural differences between organizations lay in their practices (symbols, rituals, heroes) rather than in their values. However, the work of Hofstede has been supported as well as critiqued by many. Surprisingly, Hofstede puts across the view that he is more worried of his supporters than of his critics since he sees some of them (the supporters) as money-minded individuals who carry out researches on his model for commercial purposes (Hofstede, 2002). A research conducted by Harpaz, Honig & Coetsier (2002) used Hofstede’s model to identify at the national level, cultural differences in the socialization process of youth in transition into the working class across seven different countries. These three researchers found out that, highly individualistic countries have loose ties between individuals and their communities since individual needs and interests supersede community needs (McSweeney, 2002). Conversely, highly collectivistic countries are characterized by close ties between individuals and their communities where one is willing to sacrifice personal interests for those of the community. Moreover, the study also found out that in masculinity cultures, showing off and success and achievement defined these cultures whereas in feminine cultures, people put the quality of life and environmental concerns before money. In other words, money is not an important aspect of feminine cultures but helping others matters most (Harpaz, Honig & Coetsier, 2002) In terms of uncertainty tolerance, the results were that low uncertainty avoidance cultures were relatively tolerant of other cultural behaviours and opinions that are different from theirs unlike high uncertainty avoidance groups that are aggressive and do not tolerate other cultures since they view them as a threat (Harpaz, Honig & Coetsier, 2002) On the other hand, critics of Hofstede’s cultural model have been busy conducting researches aimed at testing its validity. One of the outstanding critics is Brendan McSweeney, who in 2002 published an article in Human Relations, Vol. 55, No. 1, titled Hofstede's Model of National Cultural Differences and their Consequences: a Triumph of Faith - a Failure of Analysis. This article prompted Hofstede to respond in the same journal (Human Relations, 55(11)) in 2002 with an article titled Dimensions do not exist: A reply to Brendan McSweeney. In his article, Brendan pointed out that Hofstede’s model had five major assumptions, which are discussed below. Firstly, Brendan points out that Hofstede made the assumption studying three discrete components of culture (organizational, occupational and national) across the subsidiaries of a multinational organization is representative of a unified organizational culture of the organization (McSweeney, 2002). He further argues that the culture of IBM is not representative of the cultures of other worldwide organizations and that it is not evident whether IBM has only a single organizational culture across its subsidiaries in other countries (Tang and Koveos, 2008). In response to this criticism, Hofstede argues that he measured the differences between national cultures using sample populations from different nations that gave valid results of the IBM organizational culture among its subsidiaries in different countries (Hofstede, 2002) The second critique is that by studying national cultures, Hofstede assumed that nations are the only units for measuring culture; that national is uniform in that every individual or organization in a nation exhibits the nation’s culture (McSweeney, 2002). Brendan also argues that Hofstede puts across the view that all individuals in a country share the same national culture, which according to Brendan is questionable. In response to this criticism, Hofstede postulates that though nations are not the only units of studying cultures, they are in most cases the only option available and are better than nothing (Hofstede, 2002). Thirdly, Brendan puts across the argument that surveys should not be relied on when measuring cultural differences. In his argument, Brendan stipulates that the use of questionnaires in conducting the survey is unjustifiable since any stratification of the questionnaire responses would give cultural differences (McSweeney, 2002). To further his argument, Brendan indicates that Hofstede’s survey triad of organizational, occupational and national basis could be replaced with other indicators such as religion, first language and race and still gives cultural differences (McSweeney, 2002). Hofstede (2002), in response to this critique said that surveys should not necessarily be the only way of measuring cultural differences. Moreover, Brendan has also despised Hofstede’s model with the argument that the IBM data used in the study is old and invalid (obsolete). In other words, the IBM data had the limitations that the surveys were confined to specific IBM employees; the questions only focused on the workplace; the surveys were only conducted in the formal workplace; and that the surveys were not done in informal locations (social locations) (McSweeney, 2002). The main argument is that the IBM data should have been collected in the formal as well as the social setting and among white collar as well as blue-collar employees. Brendan’s arguments in his 2002 article, Hofstede's Model of National Cultural Differences and their Consequences: a Triumph of Faith - a Failure of Analysis, are on the basis that a single survey on a multinational organization does not have the ability to expose the practices, values as well as secrets of an entire national culture. According to Hofstede (2002), this data is valid, has been stable for years and has been validated against various kinds of external measurements. Finally, Brendan holds the view that only four or five dimensions are not enough to gauge cultural differences among nations or organizations. He tables the argument that a research by the Chinese Culture Connection group found that one of the Hofstede’s dimensions, that of uncertainty avoidance was irrelevant to Chinese populations. It can also be argued that there is no universal agreement on which units or dimensions are suitable for describing culture in an understandable context (McSweeney, 2002). In response to this criticism, Hofstede (2002) said that if any researcher would come up with additional dimensions, he should conceptualize them independently with their validity being tested by “significant correlations with conceptually related external measures.” He even went further and encouraged researchers to study further on cross-cultural analysis and come up with more dimensions of measuring cultural differences (Crotts and Erdmann, 2000). Conclusion From the above discussion, it is evident that numerous researches have been and are still being conducted in the field of culture and its influence in the business world especially in the way management and leadership is carried out in organizations. Culture also influences the marketing and advertisement strategies of individual organizations. In general, organizational culture defines the way an organization carries out its operations in terms of management and leadership styles, selection and recruitment of employees, employee motivation and marketing strategies among others. In an effort to explain the effect of sub-culture on national culture, Geert Hofstede carried out several cross-cultural analyses, which bore a cultural framework that acts as a guide in management of organizations especially multinational organizations. In one of his studies, Hofstede came up with four dimensions and later a fifth dimension that define differences between different cultures. The individualistic versus collectivism dimension showed that individualistic organizations centred on achieving personal interests whilst collectivistic organizations preferred achieving first the group’s interests and goals and personal interests are addressed later. In the power distance dimension, cultures that had wide power distance were characterized by stratification in social clusters where power was shared unequally whereas in cultures that have small power distance, power is shared equally. Additionally, the masculinity versus femininity dimension is used to measure role differentiation in the society whilst the uncertainty avoidance dimension is used to determine the risk taking nature of societies with high uncertainty avoidance societies being slow to take risks such as adopting technological changes and low uncertainty avoidance societies being great risk takers as well as innovators. The fifth dimension is the long term versus short term orientation which is used to examine the decision making process of an organization; are the goals aimed at achieving short lived satisfaction or long term effects that will encourage future investments. In another research, Hofstede came up with other six independent dimensions that include process-orientation versus results orientation; parochial versus professional; employee orientation versus job orientation; Normative versus pragmatic approach to customers; open (social) system versus closed (social) system; and loose control versus tight control. However, Hoftsede’s work has faced criticism from various researchers with the most outstanding being Brendan McSweeney who came up with five criticisms in terms of the validity of the data, statistical integrity, the dimensions used, cultural homogeneity as well as the one company approach used. References Blodgett, J., Bakir, A., and Rose, G. 2008. A Test of the validity of Hofstede’s cultural framework. Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 35, pp. 762-763. Bochner, S. 1994. Cross-Cultural Differences in the Self Concept: A Test of Hofstede's Individualism/Collectivism Distinction. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 273-283 Cole, G.A. 2004. Management Theory and Practice, 6th Ed. London: Thomson Learning. Crotts, J., and Erdmann, R. 2000. Does national culture influence consumers’ evaluation of travel services? A test of Hofstede’s model of cross-cultural differences. Managing Service Quality, vol. 10, no. 6, pp.410 – 419 De Mooij, M. & Hofstede, G. 2010. The Hofstede model: Applications to global branding and advertising strategy and research. International Journal of Advertising, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 85–110. Dickson, M.W., Den Hartog, D.N. & Mitchelson, J.K. 2003. Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions. The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 14, pp. 729–768. dimensions in construction projects. Management Decision, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 7-16. Harpaz, I., Honig, B. & Coetsier, P. 2002. A Cross-cultural longitudinal analysis of the meaning of the work and the socialization process of career starters. Journal of World Business, vol. 37, pp. 230-244. Hofstede, G. 2002. Dimensions do not exist: A reply to Brendan McSweeney. Human Relations, vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 1-8. Horst, P.R. 2007. Cross-cultural negotiations. Research Report. Air University, USA. Jones, M.L. 2007. Hofstede - Culturally questionable? Oxford Business & Economics Conference. Oxford: Oxford University. Kirkman, B., Lowe, K., and Gibson, C. 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, no. 3, pp. 285-320. 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 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. Oshlyansky, L. 2007. Cultural Models in HCI: Hofstede, Affordance and Technology Acceptanc. (Doctor of Philosophy of Computer Science). Swansea University. Pheng, L.S. & Yuquan, S. 2002. An exploratory study of Hofstede’s cross-cultural Smith, A., Dunckley, L., French, T., Minocha, S., and Chang, Y. 2004. A process model for developing usable cross-cultural websites. Interacting with Computers, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 63-91 Tang, L., and Koveos, P. 2008. A framework to update Hofstede's cultural value indices: economic dynamics and institutional stability. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 39, pp. 1045–1063. Taras, V. & Steel, P. (n.d). Improving cultural indices and rankings based on a meta-analysis of Hofstede’s dimensions. Alberta: University of Calgary. Tavakoli, A., Keenan, J., and Cranjak-Karanovic, B. 2003. Culture and Whistle blowing An Empirical Study of Croatian and United States Managers Utilizing Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 43, no. 1-2, pp. 49-64 Yeh, R., and Lawrence, J. 1995. Individualism and Confucian Dynamism: A Note on Hofstede's Cultural Root to Economic Growth. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 655-669 Read More