Chinese Value Survey and Hofstedes Framework - Coursework Example

Essay Introduction Hofstede dimensions of culture shows differences across cultures and focus to open mind understanding of disparities in cultures. Chinese Value Survey provides another categorization of values that is related to Hofstede’s. This paper compares the two categorizations while highlighting the differences as well as correlation. It begins with exploring Hostede’s framework followed by the Chinese Value Survey. Collectivism and individualism influence on leadership and management have been examined. Lastly, the essay has looked at the influence of long term and short term orientation in employees on leadership and management. Discussion of the Issues Part I Hostede’s framework/Chinese Value Survey Hofstede’s dimensions of cultural values represent national cultures that can be illustrated using different values named as power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity and femininity, individualism and collectivism, and long and short-term orientation. Power distance is the degree at which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions within a country accept and expect power to be distributed unequally (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Individualism relates to societies whereby the links between individuals are weak; every person is expected to care about himself and his immediate family only. On the other hand, collectivism advocates for strong in-groups that are cohesive and people care about each other in exchange of loyalty. A society is referred to as masculine if the gender roles are very distinct. Men are expected to be tough, assertive and focused on success materially while women are looked upon to be tender, modest, and regaled with quality of life (Minkov & Hofstede, 2012). A feminine society is whereby emotional gender roles overlap. Both women and men are expected to be tender, modest as well as concerned with quality of life. Uncertainty avoidance is the degree at which members of a particular culture feel threatened by unknown or ambiguous situations. Long-term orientation represents the art of cultivating values which are focused on the future like thrift and perseverance. Short-term orientation represents focusing on virtues connected to the past and present as well as fulfilling social obligations. The Chinese Value Survey provides an alternative to Hofstede dimensions although they are correlated. The survey applied Chinese concepts. A situationist does not trust moral principles and advocates that each situation has to be looked at individually. On the non-relativistic side of the typology are exceptionists and absolutists (Maak & Pless, 2006). Absolutists are inclined to agree with perceptions that are consistent with the overall approach to moral philosophy referred to as deontology. The ethical philosophy is against the application of action’s consequences as a foundation for moral evaluation and instead appeals to rationality or moral law in determination of ethical judgments. In the deontological ethical philosophy actions are evaluated as immoral or moral by comparing them with universal moral rule which is absolute. Absolutists came out as strongest in condemning an act that was contrary to common moral norm like theft or lying, even where positive results were obtained from the moral indiscretion. On the other hand, subjectivists judged the actor who realized positive outcome through violation of moral standards favorably as compared to a person who gave negative outcome although he stuck to a moral norm. Moral judgments of situationists were influenced by the quality of the consequences obtained by an act so that they could blame an actor who went against a moral norm less when positive results were realized (Moran, Harris & Moran, 2012). The positivity of exceptionist, on the other hand, became irrelevant when the act was contrary to a moral standard. Part II Individualism and collectivism Management and leadership within organizations are influenced by differences that exist in employees’ collectivism or individualism. These will determine the way operations are performed within the organization (Fang, 2003). Collectivists believe that people in society are born into extended clans or families who protect them and expect loyalty in return. Leadership within an organization will encourage emotional dependence of individual on organization. Membership to the organization is regarded as important. Team work or group work are encouraged and people work better when they work in teams (House et al, 2004). The leadership will be concerned about the private life of an individual outside the workplace. In most cases opinions are predetermined. Making decisions in groups or teams is important and there is a sense of belonging among the members. In collectivism belief is placed within group decisions (Hechanova, Beehr & Christiansen, 2003). Workers will be ready to cover for each other and step in to assist one another. Employees have a strong belief in the social system. One decision made by an individual can affect the whole group or department. Decisions are made at the highest level of the organization and passed on to the lower levels. In most cases authoritarian and bureaucratic structures and leadership is encouraged. On the other hand, individualism encourages individuals to take care of themselves without expecting others to assist them. Leadership in an organization that is individualism orientated will find it difficult for employees to work in groups or have a collective bargaining power. A person looks out for himself and care less about the others. Identity is normally based on the individual. The organization leadership is not concerned about the private life of an employee outside the place of work (Gelfand et al, 2006). Employees exercise emotional independence from the organization and not expect the organization to cater for personal needs that are not work related. Individual initiative and achievement of personal goals overrides organizational or group goals. Every individual has a right to personal opinion (Ivancevich, Konopaske, Matteson, 2007). Decisions made by an individual only bind him and not a group. Individualism encourages variety; autonomy, pleasure, and individual financial security are found in the system. Managers or leaders allow decisions to be made at the level of the organization. Flat organization structures are encouraged where decisions are made at departments. Long-term/short term orientation Leadership and management in organizations are influenced by differences that may occur in employee long-term and short-term orientation. Long-term orientation represents fostering of virtues that are usually oriented towards the future. In this instance, thrift and perseverance are encouraged. Employees who possess a long-term orientation are focused towards the future are unafraid of the unknown or uncertainty. Implementation of change within workers who are long-term oriented is easier because they can easily adapt to situations (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008). Main work values of long-term oriented works include adaptiveness, learning, honesty, self-discipline, and accountability. The workers focus on long term objectives like strategic growth and leaders have a role of convincing the employee to achieve short-term objectives. Workers and managers share the same aspirations. There is absence of wide economic and social differences (Yamazaki & Kayes, 2004). Innovation and new product development is easily done among workers who have long-term orientation. Leaders expect conflicts to be resolved without hurting the morale or productivity of workers. Disagreements occur but to not affect the performance of employees. Self-control is the long-term orientation societies in future orientations. Short-term orientation represents fostering of virtues that focused towards the present and the past. Such values include respect for tradition, fulfillment of social obligations, and preservation of ‘face’. Main work values for employees with short-term orientation include achievement, freedom, rights as well as thinking for oneself (Walumbwa et al, 2007). The employees are focused on short term objectives like the year’s profits and leaders have to cultivate long term goals. To these workers, leisure time is important and workers and managers are psychologically in two camps. The management has the responsibility of encouraging the workers to see the importance of strategic planning for achievement of long term objectives of the organization without losing focus on short term goals (Johnson, Lenartowicz & Apud, 2006). Workers with short term orientation are dissatisfied with personal contribution to daily human relations as well as correction of justice. There is the importance of cognitive consistency. Employees are very conservative and it will take a lot of convincing before introduction of a new system in the organization. Resistance to change is higher and leaders have to work harder to convince the employees on the benefit of change. Conclusion This paper has considered Hofstede dimensional cultural values and juxtaposed it with the Chinese Value Survey. It has been agreed that there is a relationship between the groups of cultural categorization although some in the negative. While Hofstede presents national cultures, Chinese Value Survey gauges behavior from individual perceptions and judgments. It occurs that the outcome of an action will determine the judgment by absolutists. Collectivism in employees encourages in-groups while individualism encourages autonomy. Long-term orientation is important for strategic planning while short term orientation focus on short-term objectives. Leadership and management are shaped by these short term and long term orientation. Reference List Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z., 2006, Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 479-514. Hechanova, R., Beehr, T.A., & Christiansen, N.D., 2003, Antecedents and Consequences of Employees’ Adjustment to Overseas Assignment: A Meta-analytic Review, Applied Psychology, 52: 213-236. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J., 2005, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Johnson, J. P., Lenartowicz, T., & Apud, S., 2006, Cross-Cultural Competence in International Business: Toward a Definition and a Model, Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 525-543. Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A., 2008, Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 34(3), 566-593. Walumbwa, F. O., Lawler, J. L., & Avolio, B. J., 2007, Leadership, Individual Differences, and Work-related Attitudes: A Cross-Culture Investigation,  Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56(2): 212-230. Yamazaki, Y., & Kayes, D.C., 2004, An Experiential Approach to Cross-Cultural Learning: A Review and Integration of Competencies for Successful Expatriate Adaptation,  Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(4), 362-379. Fang, T. 2003, A Critique of Hofstede’s Fifth National Culture Dimension, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 3 (3): 353. Moran, R T, Harris, P R & Moran, S 2012, Managing cultural differences, London: Routledge. Minkov, M & Hofstede, G 2012, Hofstede’s fifth dimension new evidence from the world values survey, Journal of Cross-cultural psychology, 1: 3-14. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V., 2004, Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(5), 628-630. Maak, T., & Pless, N. M., 2006, Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society - a relational perspective, Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 99-115. Ivancevich, J., Konopaske, R., Matteson, M., 2007, Organizational Behavior and Management, New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Read More