Hofstedes Model in International Cross-Cultural Management - Case Study Example

Critical Evaluation of Hofstede’s model in International Cross Cultural Management Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Introduction International markets are very dynamic and increasing global competition makes it indispensable for managers to go beyond the confines of local culture and understand the culture of the host country. Successful cross-cultural management is derived from globalization and is gaining relevance and magnitude in understanding the cultural differences. Owing to increasing significance of cross-cultural fundamentals, Hofstede's (1980) model of cultural dimensions attracts notice and gains proportional importance at the same time. His studies have gained application in global operating organizations within workshops and trainings. To begin, effective cross-cultural management is being aware of existence of cultural differences and local strategies can dwindle in countries. Other cultural studies besides the Hofstede's (1980) cultural study have brought deeper understanding to cross cultural issues. Praise and criticism has faced every model of cultural identifications with Hofstede not spared by criticism. The criticism faults his methodology questioning its validity and reliability. Others critiqued that the over 40-years old findings of the survey are out-dated and lacks modern touch. In order to evaluate the relevance validity, applicability, reliability and in the 21st century the study will be based on Chinese and Singaporean statistics on construction workers. Hofstede’s analogy According to Hofstede (1980) people exhibit ``mental programs’’ that are reinforced and developed by experience. These ``mental programs’’ encompass an element of national culture. Hofstede (1980) arrived at some conclusion after analysis of data spanning at least 40 countries. He noted that the mental programs stood for the existence of four value dimensions in which these countries could be culturally positioned to some functional areas (Hofstede, 1980). He identified the four areas as; power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism and collectivism, and masculinity and femininity (Chan, 1997). Power distance is attributed to the degree of power inequality among organizational members society. Uncertainty avoidance denotes the magnitude of organizational society members feeling threatened by and trying to escape ambiguous situations or future uncertainty. Individualism and collectivism explains the relationship between collectivity and individual depicted in the way people live together. Finally, masculinity and femininity describes the degree of roles division among sexes which governs societal view on assertiveness and work goals rather than nurturance and personal goals. Contributing theories Differences in cultures were classified by Baba (1996) into three categories; managerial differences, traditional organization structure, and fundamental concept differences in philosophy governing laws and contracts. Another dimension was taken by He (1995) who reported cross-cultural influence from a divergent angle of risk management. He (1995) suggested that the national or regional risk factors in an internal business engagement can be categorized into three levels; economic and financial situation, political situation, and social environment. He maintained that the problems associated with social environment are more probable to emanate from cultural differences for instance; religious inconsistency, language barriers, traditions and differences in values. Furthermore, He (1995) pointed out that the risk factors are insurmountable as they are outside the control of companies. He stated that such factors are manageable, measurable by adequate statistics, and comparatively predictable. Another report closer to Hofstede’s was brought out by Ngowi (1997), who undertook a study in Botswana establishing the cultural background impact on members of a construction project team regarding innovation in the adopted procurement systems. The findings from these construction projects showed team members from different cultural background experiencing innovation inhibitions as opposed to those team members sharing a common cultural background. Analysis Case study To reinforce Hofstede model, this analysis compares Singapore and Chinese culture through analyzing the fieldwork data obtained. The two cultures used the four dimensions of Hofstede’s (1980) namely; uncertainty avoidance, power distance, collectivism/ individualism, and femininity/masculinity. An insightful view on comparisons shows similarities and differences of the two cultures. The results of the differences between Chinese culture and Singapore culture are later investigated from organizational perspective. The study data was obtained by two survey questionnaire forms (Chinese and English versions). Some of the questions were derived from the English value survey module earlier used by Hofstede (1980). Methodology A survey was done in early 2000 involving a total of 84 respondents from; 43 from China and 41 respondents from Singapore. The projects involved were Wuhan Yangtze Plaza Project and Guangzhou Master Golf Yard Project. The projects were based on convenience sampling. The two projects were conducted by a ST Construction Private Ltd, a Singapore-based construction firm. All the respondents had tertiary education with construction professionals with site experience and at least a diploma. Chinese respondents were surveyed using the Chinese version questionnaire while the Singaporean respondents were surveyed based on the English version questionnaire. The survey was administered in China where all the respondents got the questionnaires handed to them individually. Immediately, the questionnaires were collected back after completion by the respondents. This was to make sure all the questionnaires had no invalid responses and fully filled. Findings The findings obtained that culture of Singapore had a larger power distance to the Chinese culture. In Singapore, it was learnt that subordinates and superiors regarded one another as unequal. Some existential inequality dictated its hierarchical system. It also provided for power being a basic societal fact that antedates evil or good where irrelevance clouds its legitimacy. The study also found out that indigenous organizations have more centralized power and subordinates expect orders from the superiors. In Singapore, superiors are entitled to some privileges which are not experienced in China. Regarding uncertainty avoidance index, the findings showed that Singapore had lower index value as opposed to China which is high. This indicates that in Singapore, ambiguous situations do not excite or worry people (Low 1997). They show fewer emotions in public, younger generation are trustworthy and all express willingness to take life risks in. In Singapore, authorities are placed to serve the citizens. Competition and conflicts are resolved at fair levels of play with constructive use. Collectivism and individualism established through a factor analysis showed convergence to Hofstede (1980) findings. It obtained that about one-half of the country mean score variance on the fifteen questions may have been contributed for by only two factors. According to Hofstede (1980), these factors were ``collective-individual”, and the other as `` femininity-masculinity”. The study obtained that “collective-individual’’ comprised of six work goals; challenge, personal time, physical conditions, freedom, use of skills, and training. It also unraveled that `` femininity-masculinity’’ comprised some desirable work goals as; cooperation, manager, challenge, desirable area, employment security, earnings, advancement, and recognition. Hofstede (1980) used similar scores on country factor as ‘individual-collective’’ to compute the Individualism Index (IDV) and the scores on country factor ``masculinity-femininity’’ to compute the Masculinity Index (MAS). On the contrary, the exploratory research to generate Singapore and China IDV values was not computed using the method above. The reason was because the study limited to two cases (countries) for the research. Factor analysis is untenable on such a small number of cases (Shi, 2001). The IDV and MAS values of China and Singapore were obtained through placing the standardized scores against the work goals. The resulting MAS and IDV values showed the IDV of Singapore being higher when compared to that of China. This infers that people in Singapore have a tendency of taking themselves as individuals predominantly referring to “self” and ``I’’. They classify each other and themselves by characteristics denoting individuality, rather than by communal membership (Schein 1985). The Singapore MAS was lower as compared to that of China which infers that Singaporeans show greater concerns to individual goals such as friendly environment, moving along with the superiors and others. Conclusions The study showed greater relevance and applicability of Hofstede’s model. It was learnt that indigenous organizations especially in Singapore had centralized power and subordinates are expect to follow orders from the superiors. Privileges are entitled to the superiors. Nevertheless, in China, superiors and subordinates took one another as equals within a hierarchical system seen only as inequality of roles (Hoecklin 1996). They are established for convenience and changed to suit circumstances. Organizations with flatter hierarchies have a tendency to become decentralized. They have a limited number of personnel on supervisory levels. Chinese privileges for the top ranks are basically undesirable such that superiors are required to be constructive and accessible to their subordinates (Ogbor 1990). Chinese have a tendency of establishing greater formal rules, accept the prospects of absolute truths, reject deviant behavior and ideas, and unchallengeable expertise attainment. Suspicion lingers among younger people since the old are concerned with security in life. Unlike the authorities, ordinary citizens are incompetent while competition and conflict creating aggression is easily avoided. As people in Singapore think of themselves as ``I’’, they have a habit of classifying each other and themselves based on individual characteristics, and not group membership (Geertz 1973). Chinese are least interested on differentiating on personal grounds but group hence putting less emphasis on self-actualization. The Singapore MAS was lower than that of China meaning Chinese showed greater emphasis on work goals such as earnings, assertiveness, and advancement. It can be learnt that cross cultural differences between Singaporeans and Chinese defined greatly on their concerns to personal goals, group achievement, friendly atmosphere, obedience to governance and organizational structures etc. Recommendations 1. With the Hofstede’s model in mind, cultural norms should be used to largely influence the interpersonal and mechanics relationships of the workplace. 2. Managers should understand that when one is growing up in a certain culture, behavior is shaped and employee interactions should not be taken for granted. 3. The managers should always think about employee and customer preferences, reactions, and feelings. Caution should be taken when stepping into a foreign culture as things may suddenly seem different. 4. When faced by a cultural dilemma, Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions is the best remedy and a starting point. One should evaluate the approach, actions, decisions, based on a general sense of societal thinking and reaction. 5. The society being predominantly heterogenous, people have to understand the deviations from the norms found by Hofstede. 6. Caution should also be taken since the guide used should not be followed blindly. The unknown is little less intimidating and one needs a greater boost of security and confidence to apply this cultural model in international concerns. References List Baba, K 1996, Development of construction management based on regional culture, in Langford, D A & Retik, A (Eds), The Organization and Management of Construction: Shaping Theory and Practice, Vol. 1, E & FN Spon, London. Chan, E H W 1997, Amicable dispute resolution in the People’s Republic of China and its implications for foreign-related construction disputes, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 15, pp. 539-48. Geertz, C 1973, The Interpretation of Cultures, Wiley, New York, NY. He, Z 1995, Risk management for overseas construction projects, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 231-7. Hoecklin, L. (1996), Managing Cultural Differences: Strategies for Competitive Advantage, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham. Hofstede, G H 1980, Culture Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values, Sage Publications, London. Hofstede, G H 1983, The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories, Journal of International Business Studies, Fall, pp. 76-88. Hofstede, G H 1984, Cultural dimensions in management and planning, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 81-99. Low, S P 1995, Western generic business and corporate strategies: lessons from the thirty-six Chinese classical strategies of war, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 34-40. Low, S P 1997, Thick face, black heart and the marketing of construction services in China, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 221-6. Ngowi, A B 1997, Impact of culture on construction procurement, Journal of Construction Procurement, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 3-15. Ogbor, J 1990, Organizational Change within a Cultural Context, Lund University Press, Lund. Schein, E 1985, Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Shi, Y Q 2001, Cross-cultural influence on project management of construction projects, unpublished MSc(Building) thesis, School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore. Read More