An Analysis of Management and Leadership Strategies Using the Hofstede Cultural Dimensions Model

The IBM study of employees from the 70 countries was the basis for the dimensions and has been critized since there was only one company in the data set however, Hofstede’s belief was that using just one company would better reveal the national differences. According to the authors Phatak, Bhagat, and Kashalk (2009), he believed this because the IBM employees were the same in other respects like type of work, job descriptions, and education. This study has been stated to be the most comprehensive study of how values are influenced in the workplace (Itim International, 2012). Itim International, (2012) noted that Hofstede’s work established a paradigm in international economics, communication, and cooperation, from which Hofstede developed the first emphirical model of “dimensions” for national organizational culutre.

It is this gap in cultural understanding and increase in globalization that makes cultural models, such as Hofstede’s, that much more important to learn and apply during business relations. Many companies that try to expand beyond their current borders end up failing due to refusing to recognize the differences between cultures. An American company that expands into foreign markets, yet tries to run their operations and marketing as they would in America, is going to have a difficult time. Products and well as company practices need to be adapted to suit the country’s business culture, current market climate, taste/preferences of the citizens, etc.

If I were the CEO of a multinational corporation in the 21st century, it would be critical for me to develop and employ a cross cultural approach to the leadership in consultation with Hofstede's Five Cultural Dimensions. Though I have prior knowledge of management theories and other examples of Hofstede's work, "Cultural Constraints in Management Theories" (1993) was a welcomed shock and surprise. One of the aspects of the article that struck me the most was the clear demonstration of the singularity of the American style, perspective, and application of management in the workplace. This fact made it abundantly clear to me, that as the CEO of a hypothetical multinational corporation, that it is imperative for the sake of my financial success, professional reputation, and for the sake of all my employees, I must not implement the American style of management as part of the leadership practice.

Not long ago my sister recommended me to read Richard Steers’ book “Management across Cultures: Challenges and Strategies”. It was a great book with many interesting insights but one particular chapter called “Culture, Values, and Worldviews” opened my eyes a little bit and helped me to understand why exactly I have never fully fit into any of the new countries I lived in. I understood that the problem was not in me but it is more of a cultural thing. According to Steers, there are five core cultural dimensions that all countries and their cultures can be analysed by – how the power and authority are distributed among the society, whether people are more individualistic or collectivistic, how they perceive the environment, their time and work patterns and the way societies try to reduce uncertainties.

To show how culture influences the values that exist in the workplace, Geert Hofstede, a Dutch social psychologist and international management professor at

Culture in its many forms and approaches is a very popular subject researched by many authors. The definition of culture from Geert Hofstede, the most cited social scientist according to Powell (2006) comes as "the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of humans from another". (1982) He mentions that these differences exist in nations, geographic regions, generations, genders, social classes and many more. As Hofstede simply puts it, "the unwritten rules of

Cultural values can be defined as standards that are considered acceptable or unacceptable to a particular culture. I examined two research articles, one comparing the cultural values of Polish and Turkish employees and the other comparing Indian and U.S. value orientations. I choose these articles because they gave a good representation of almost all our global business cultures. India with its Asian influence; the U.S., which is distinctly western; Poland with its European influence; and Turkey with its Middle Eastern influence. These two articles come together nicely to give an accurate representation of what’s important to the culture and how those characteristics influence employees in the work place and how managers can better communicate with their global employees. Furthermore, I choose this topic out of personal interest and from my experience working in an international department this past year.

The Hofstede six dimension model 's a study or theory, put forth by Professor Geer Hofstede, on how values in the work place are influenced by cultural differences around the world. The Model analyzes different countries on a scale from one to a hundred in six of the different categories. The categories in the model include; Power Distance Index, Individualism versus Collectivism, Masculinity versus Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance Index, Long Term Orientation versus Short Term Normative Orientation, and lastly Indulgence versus Restraint. Effective leaders can use this cultural six dimension/model to allow themselves to adapt their leadership qualities based on certain cultural factors in the workplace making the individual a better , more effective leader.

When a business decides to venture internationally into different countries with its products, services, and operations, it is very important that the company gains an understanding of how the culture of the different societies affects the values found in those societies. Geert Hofstede conducted one of the most famous and most used studies on how culture relates to values. Hofstede study enabled him to compare dimensions of culture across 40 countries. He originally isolated four dimensions of what he claimed summarized different cultures — power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, and masculinity versus femininity (Hill, 2013, p.110). To cover aspects of values not discussed in the original paradigm Hofstede has since added two more dimensions — Confucianism or long-term orientation and indulgence versus self-restraint (Hofstede, n.d.). Because of the way Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are given an index score from 0-100, it is easy for a company to get a general comparison between the cultures they are expanding into and the culture they are already in.

This essay will first discuss the nature of Hofstede’s cultural framework and compare it with other culture frameworks. In the second part my personal score for each of the Hofstede’s cultural dimensions will be presented, followed by discussion on how my individual scores relate to the benchmarks suggested by Hofstede for my cultural background. The third section will address the issue of cross-cultural management and give suggestion to an Australian friend who is going to work as a manager in Shanghai.

The United States and China boast the two largest economies in the world but, despite this fact, these two countries have very little in common. At first glance, this may seem very obvious to most people but, what exactly is it that makes these two countries so different? How is it that such different perspectives and approaches can both lead to great success? Hofstede’s six dimensions of culture are an attempt to answer these questions and more. Dr. Geert Hofstede, studied employees of the computer firm IBM in over fifty different countries. When he examined his findings he found “clear patterns of similarity and difference along the four dimensions” (Manktelow, Jackson Edwards, Eyre, Cook and Khan, n.d.). The fact that he focused his research on solely IBM employees allowed him to eliminate company culture as a differentiating factor and “attribute those patterns to national and social differences” (n.d.). He used his findings to originally identify four dimensions, later expanded to six, that could “distinguish one culture from another” (n.d.). The six dimensions all on a scale from 0 to 100 are:

Hofstede’s dimension of culture offers a gauge to measure the similarities and differences that are dominate among people of different cultures. Therefore, the three countries selected for this analysis are China, India and the United Kingdom (UK), as Hofstede’s dimensions of culture, examines individualism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, power distance and long-term orientation, associated with the management culture in these nations.

A wise Professor named Geert Hofstede established one of the best studies that put into account a countries culture and how values in the workplace can affect them. Today I will look at a particular country that is quite similar to the United States. The country I have chosen is the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom encompasses England, Wales, and Scotland (which combined make up Great Britain) and Northern Ireland. Before looking at how United Kingdom numbers there first needs to be a description of what is in fact being numbered. Hofstede created five cultural dimensions. In each dimension whether it marked high or low can help a business

In times of rapid globalisation and economic development growth, the environment of business has become more and more complicated as a huge number of firms want to globally expand their businesses. Subsequently, the managerial implications of cross-cultural management is the challenge of this development. As Abbe (2007) states, cross-cultural leadership has developed as a way to understand leaders who work in the global markets. Culture is the “software of mind” that can influence people’s patterns of thinking and behaving.

Understanding the influence of culture in business practices and managerial decision-making requires explaining the differences between cultures. This is why, Hofstede (appendix 1) presents a well-known model based on four dimensions of culture: