Hofstede Dimensions Of National Culture Case Study

| A high score (masculine) on this dimension indicates that the society will be driven by competition, achievement and success, with success being defined by the “winner” or “best-in-the-field.”

For example, taking into account Nisbett, Cohen and Hofstedes studies, we assume how a specific cultural belief, tradition and attitude become part of the person and not just of his/her surroundings. For example, Hofstedes dimension called “Power Distance Index” (PDI), is concerned with attitudes towards authority and hierarchy. This cultural perception makes a huge difference in how people feel with their superiors and how they react to control-authority, -father like figures.

Question 1. How might the troubles with the tourism company be explained by Hofstede’s dimension of culture. Make sure to look at both Japanese and American cultures.

Hofstede defined the culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group from that another”. His five types of cultural dimensions are the most popular in many cultural area studies, include: (1) power distance; (2) individualism vs. collectivism; (3) uncertainty avoidance; (4) masculinity vs. femininity; and (5) long-term vs. short-term orientation. These dimensions offer an insight towards behaviors and standards in the cultural context which are useful for many motivators to explore the people in different culture. The text suggested that countries with high uncertainty avoidance will lead to more job security, whereas people with low uncertainty avoidance (for example, U.S.) are motivated by new ideas and innovation. People with high power distance are motivated by relationships between subordinates and their boss, while people with low power distance are motivated by team work and relationships with their peers. On the other hand, individuals from high individualism are motivated by opportunities and autonomy; collectivism (for example, Japan) suggests that motivation should be done with group goals and support. Individuals from high masculine culture are comfortable with the tradition and division of works and roles; in a feminine culture, the motivators help people through flexible roles and work

The most famous researcher of prevailing cultures in different countries goes by the name of Geert Hofstede. “He conducted one of the most comprehensive studies of how values in the workplace are influenced by culture” (). With the help of his research team, Professor Geert Hofstede created a model of national culture consisting of six dimensions. “The cultural dimensions represent independent preferences for on state of affairs

This knowledge of weakness should not be used against people of other cultures or in stereotyping individuals. In obtaining the indices, research was based on data obtained from IBM employees. According to Hofstede, “dimensions and associated country scores were developed through factor analysis of the means of nationally aggregated individual item responses which were collected as part of IBM employee surveys” (Hofstede 491). The problem, however, is that as much as this may be useful in determining the culture of a country, it does not have enough diverse subjects to form a complete perception of an individual, cultural group or organization; especially an organization different from IBM. The diversity of ethnicity, religious belief, social economic status, education and other variables that makes up an individual’s value system may not be reflected in the average IBM employee. Brewer and Verniak, in their article On the Misuse of National Culture Dimensions, believe “The correlations among the items used to measure the national culture dimensions are positive and highly significant at the aggregated national (also known as “ecological”) level, but are mostly low and insignificant and sometimes of opposite sign at the individual level” (Brewer and Venaik

Power distance is the value placed on hierarchies within culture and business (Javidan, 2006, p.70). Countries with a high power distance may be caste societies and are reflective of “unequal power distribution within” (Javidan, 2006, p. 70). Those which place a low value on power distance do not believe that power distributed to the top of the hierarchy is essential or beneficial (Javidan, 2006, p.70). All five countries ranked power distance as moderately important reflecting their belief that power distance is of median impotence to leadership effectiveness (Appendix A). Even though this characteristic is equally valued in all five countries the leader cannot use the same approach to power distance everywhere. This is because power distance may be defined differently in each country. Thus the American will still need to develop this characteristic

Dr. Hofstede performed a comprehensive study of how values in the workplace are influenced by culture. In the 1970’s, as a Dutch researcher Dr. Geert Hofstede, collected and analyzed data from 116,000 surveys taken from IBM employees in forty different countries around the world. From those results, Hofstede developed a model that identifies four primary dimensions of differentiate cultures. These include: Uncertainty Avoidance (UA), Masculinity-Femininity (MAS), Individualism-Collectivism (IND), Power and Distance (PD). After a further study of the Asian culture by researcher Michael Bond in 1991, Hofstede added a fifth dimension in his theory, Long- and Short-term time orientation (LTO), also referred to as the Confucian Dynamism. His research has framed how cultural differences can be used in professional business transactions. Geert Hofstede 's dimensions analysis can assist the business person in better understanding the intercultural differences within regions and between countries.

Power Distance is the dimension that deals with the fact that all individuals in societies are not equal it expresses the attitude of the culture towards these inequalities amongst us. At 80 China sits in the higher rankings of power distance a society that believes that inequalities amongst people are acceptable, therefore subordinate-superior relationship tends to be polarized and there is no defence against power abuse by superiors. Individuals are influenced by formal authority and sanctions and are in general optimistic about people’s capacity for leadership and initiative. People

| * India scores high on this dimension, 77, indicating an appreciation for hierarchy and a Top – Down Structure in society and Organizations. dependent on the boss or the powerholder for direction, acceptance of un-equal rights between the power-priviledged and those who are lesser down in the pecking order, immediate superiors accessible but one layer above less so, paternalistic leader, management directs, gives reason / meaning to ones work life and rewards in exchange for loyalty from employees. * Real Power is centralized even though it may not appear to be and managers count on the obedience of their team members. * Employees expect to be directed clearly as to their functions and what is expected of them. * Communication is top down and directive in its style and often feedback which is negative is never offered up the ladder

The Hofstede’s six cultural dimensions were created collectively by Geert Hofstede, Michael Bond, and Michael Minkov. These dimensions of culture were created to view how values in the workplace were influence by a particular culture of a given country. Essentially, it was a tool to describe how workforces in different countries operate under their own culture. There are currently six different dimensions of national cultures; power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, masculinity, long-term orientation, and indulgence versus restraint. Professor Greet Hofstede was the creator of the first four cultural dimensions, back in 1973. Roughly two decades later, Michael Bond with the support of Hofstede created the fifth dimension, in 1991. Recently in the 2010, the last dimension was added to the list, by Michael Minkov and his research team (Minkoy & Hofstede, 2011). The first four dimensions discovered by Hofstede, dealt with four different anthropological issues that were handled differently from nation to nation. These issues involved; methods of coping with inequality and uncertainty, relationships within a primary group, and the emotional significance of having been born as male or female (National, n.d.). The fifth dimension is long-term orientation. Long-term orientation provides the idea that a given culture or country prefers to do things in an old-fashion manner or in a modernized pragmatic approach. The last dimension,

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.

During the year from 1967 to 1973, Hofstede (1983) conducted surveys on more than 117,000 IBM employees in 40 different countries. He analysed the survey data and identified four cultural dimensions as ‘power distance’, ‘uncertainty avoidance’, ‘individualism’, and ‘masculinity’ (Drogendijk and Slangen 2006). Bond (1988) added the fifth dimension ‘long-term orientation’ in 1991. Power distance (PID) values the acceptance of different status and unequal distribution of power (Drogendijk and Slangen 2006). Uncertainty avoidance (UAI) measures how members of a society accept, defend against or minimize future uncertainties (Harvey 1997). Individualism (IDV) is the extent to which a society evaluates the role of the individual as opposed to that of the group (Drogendijk and Slangen 2006). Masculinity (MAS) refers to how a society emphasizes the achievements and success (Drogendijk and Slangen 2006). Long-term orientation

This essay will discuss the influence of cultural dimensions on behavior. A cultural dimension is defined as a perspective of a culture based on its values and cultural norms. In particular, Hofstede’s cultural dimension of individualism vs. collectivism will be discussed. Individualism vs collectivism is defined as the preference of a person only being concerned about oneself and looking after oneself, compared to a person who wants to remain in a closely knitted network. These are some terms with definitions which will be used in this essay: the Asch paradigm, which refers to the studies conducted by Solomon Asch, in which he showed his participants different lines and asked them to verbally judge and respond as to what the length of the

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: