Hofstede and Trompenaars Frameworks for Estimation of Coffee Consumption in China - Assignment Example

Final examination essay Introduction In 1975, Geert Hofstede developed five cultural dimensions of nationalculture. Hofstede five cultural dimensions have become the most reliable tool of predicting consumer behavior around the globe. Hofstede’s framework describes the effects of a national culture on the values of its members, and how these values relate to behavior. According to Mooij (2010), the five dimensions are power distance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-/short-term orientation. Business researchers are increasingly using Hofstede’s dimensions for comparative cross-cultural studies, and they have led to many useful explanations of cross-cultural differences in consumer behavior. The main reason that may have rendered Hofstede’s useful is that these dimensions are independent. Only two dimensions are interdependent, and these are collectivism and power distance. Together with national wealth, Hofstede’s dimensions can be used to explain more than half of the differences in consumer behavior. Tompenaars’ dimensions do not show results that are as consistent as the Hofstede dimensions. Definitions and Theory The word cultura is a Latin word closely related to cultus which means cult or worship. Therefore, culture may be considered as the result of human action. According to Hofstede (2001), national culture is the broadest level of culture that a person can be a member of. People are shaped by their national culture from their early childhood through beliefs, values and assumptions inherent in it. The theory of cultural dimensions is central to the study of consumer behavior across the world especially in analyzing the effect of culture on consumer behavior. The Theory of Cultural Dimensions was introduced in 1980 by Geert Hofstede. This theory was based on his study of cultural solutions to organizational problems involving 117,000 employees at IBM in 40 countries. According to Hofstede (2001), the individualism dimension describes the relations between the individual and the collectivity that exists in a given society. His dimension represents a society that has loose ties between individuals. Individualistic countries stress the importance of human independence, and individual liberty and self-reliance. Individualists promote the unrestricted exercise o individual goals and desires. Mooij (2010) terms power distance as the degree to which less influential members of the public admit that power is unevenly distributed. In the world, there are both high-power and low-power distance cultures. Uncertainty avoidance indicates the extent to which individuals avoid or reduce the risk or ambiguous future. In uncertainty countries, people are relaxed and try to avoid the up-coming future. They tolerate opinions that are different from what they are used to. Long term orientation dimension measures the commitment to a future. LTO establishes that change can occur more quickly as long as long-term culture’s tradition and commitment do not become a barrier to change. In masculinity/femininity dimension, the dominant values in a masculine country are achievements and success while the dominant values in a feminine country are caring for others and quality of life (Mooij, 2010). Trompenaars expanded Hofstedes work. He developed seven dimensions which include Individualism versus collectivism, time orientation, universalism versus particularism, neutral versus affective, specific versus diffuse, achievement versus ascription, and relationship to nature (Ahistrom & Bruton, 2009). Two of these overlap with Hofstede’s dimensions. Trompenaars approach encompasses a wider perspective than Hofstede’s dimensions. Literature review While numerous literature materials have lauded Hofstede’s dimensions, a few authors have criticized them. These authors question the validity of Hofstede’s dimensions in other samples of respondents other than IBM employees. However, different applications have proved that Hofstede’s dimensions are still valid. Twenty years later after Hofstede’s country score, a replication was carried out, and Hofstede’s questions that were used in the IBM study were used. In his exploratory study, Mooij (2000) ascertained that the country scores found in Western Europe 1996-1997 EMS survey were similar to those found by Hofstede, 20 years earlier. The robustness was especially found to be greater in EMS survey. Hofstede’s dimensions were found to be extremely useful in predicting the consumers’ buying motives in Europe. Mooij (2000) found strong correlation between Hofstede’s dimensions, and product usage and buying motives especially in regard to values of national culture such as the consumption volume of soft drinks and mineral water, possession of private gardens, and fast moving consumer goods among others. Trompenaars and Hofstede are both acknowledged by authors as pioneers in cross-cultural communication theory. Trompenaars research was greatly influenced by Hofstede’s value dimensions. Hurn & Tomalin (2013) critiques Trompenaars’s approach arguing that, for example, Trompenaars’ universalism versus particularism can be relatively associated with Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance. He further argues that Trompenaars’ individualism versus collectivism reflects Hofstede’s individualism and collectivism dimension. Although Trompenaars’ work is more recent compared to Hofstede’s, he used a relatively limited number of respondents in his survey except in the Netherlands and United Kingdom. Hurn & Tomalin (2013) also criticize Trompenaars arguing that his cultural dimensions are more difficult to understand compared to those of Hofstede. In addition, Trompenaars cultural dimensions appear to overlap with those of Hofstede. However, in the fast-changing global market, business organizations cannot succeed by understanding the national cultures alone. In addition, the national boundaries appear to be vanishing as the world is becoming a global village. Hofstede’s findings have been discussed and criticized by many scholars in their attempts to update and challenge his original findings. Hofstede’s framework has been criticized as outdated and old-fashioned. These critics argue that the framework is not all-inclusive and that it fails to capture some aspects of consumer culture. The general argument of the critics is that Hofstede’s framework is not valid for application in the 21st century organizations. Case Analysis: Coffee Consumption in China Chinas economy is rapidly growing, and the coffee consumption is soaring as more and more business organizations continue to enter the Chinese market. Coffee culture is beginning to be accepted in China. China is projected to rise and become one of the world’s largest coffee-consuming countries in future. Understanding value paradoxes of Chinese culture is important when advertising products. The core values of people in a certain country contribute greatly to shaping the national culture (Hofstede, 2001). Therefore, it is important for coffee marketers to understand Chinese consumers’ behavior. National culture considerably influences consumer behavior, and this influences the diffusion of product across countries. A national’s culture effect on consumer behavior reinforces the manifestation of culture. As observed earlier in the paper, Hofstede’s framework describes how the national culture affects the values of its members and establishes a relationship between these values and behavior. The score of power distance in China is 80 (Hofstede, 2001), and this is higher compared with the world average of 55. Chinese values are the relational hierarchy, conservatism, and interpersonal harmony. Chinese people are more likely to do a comparison of similar products and do an evaluation of the product from different aspects before making a purchase. This makes marketers have a difficult time in persuading them to buy. On individualism, China has a score of 20 (Hofstede, 2001). This score is much lower than the world average of 43. Therefore, China is a collectivistic country which means that China is more group-oriented than individual-oriented. This means that a Chinese is likely to be influenced to buy a product by his/her peers and opinion leaders. China has a score of 66 on masculinity, and this is higher than the world average of 50. Therefore, it means that China is more of a masculine country than a feminine one. A masculine culture is a competitive culture. In uncertainty avoidance, China has a score of 40, and this is lower compared to the world average of 64 (Hofstede, 2001). The world average on long-term orientation is 45. China ranks highest in long-term orientation with a score of 118. Chinese people prefer to save their money rather than squander it because they are largely influenced by their traditional culture value. This is consistent with Hofstede’s (2001) observation that saving money for future use is important in China. Critical analysis For a business organization to succeed in China, it has to understand the Chinese culture. There is a paradoxical element in the Chinese culture where a combination of modernity and tradition go together (Mooij, 2010). Therefore, advertisers have to consider this element. Contrary to this, in Western value perspectives, the two values oppose each other. According to Pollster (2012), the young and the middle-aged are the main coffee consumers in China. This group was born after 1980, and this group is attracted to an exotic culture that easily accepts new products. In gender perspective, men were found to drink more coffee than women. People who have attained higher levels of education are more likely to drink coffee in China. In China, coffee is considered to be a symbol of good taste and quality rather than a beverage. Therefore, in China, coffee is considered to be a luxury product and an instrument of showing off. Conclusion Both Hofstede and Trompenaars’ frameworks have been used to establish universal value dimensions that can be applied across cultures. The culture of a country plays a key role in consumers behavior, and this is more evident in China’s consumption of coffee. Though it, is projected that China may become one of the leading consumers of coffee in the world, it is taking time because the Chinese value their national culture. However, as it has been observed, the 1980-the present generation is slowly overlooking their cultural values. This has been shown by the large volume of coffee that is consumed by this group. This is, however, not a good sign for Hofstede’s framework because the young generation is adopting other values other than their national cultures. In future, there may be a movement from Hofstede dimensions to Trompenaars dimensions because the latter dimensions incorporate the present and future state of consumer culture. References Ahlstrom, D. & Bruton, G. (2009). International Management: Strategy and Culture in the Emerging World. Mason: Cengage Learning Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. California: SAGE. Hurn, B. and Tomalin, B. (2013). Cross-Cultural Communication: Theory and Practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Mooij, M. (2010). Consumer Behavior and Culture: Consequences for Global Marketing and Advertising. California: SAGE Mooij, M. (2000). The future is predictable for international marketers: Converging incomes lead to diverging consumer behavior. International Marketing Review, Vol. 17 (2), pp. 103-113. Pollster. (2012). Pollster Online Survey: No matter how busy is, do not forget to have a cup of coffee. Retrieved from http://mypaper.pchome.com.tw/smallfower1355/post/1323685554 Read More