Hofstede 's Six Dimensions And Personality Traits

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

There seems to be a long standing fascination with what makes a leader. Studies dating back to 1869 attempt to identify the characteristics these “extraordinary individuals” possess. (McCkleskey, 2014). However, what these studies have found over the years, is that there isn’t one set of common characteristics found when leaders are compared; there isn’t that one “thing” that stands apart. (Great Man article). One of the biggest questions still remaining from all those studies is, “what is leadership?” Rost (1995) states that while there are several problems in studying leadership, the first problem is there is no commonly accepted definition or everyone is expected to use their own. Rost goes on to state that 300 people reading the

The Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Program, or GLOBE, is an extensive research program devoted to understanding how culture influences leadership and different organizational processes (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, Gupta, 2004, pp. 9). This program consists of three separate phases, the first being an empirical study focused on developing research instruments (House et al., 2004, p. 9). The second phase is primarily geared toward the “assessment of the nine core attributes of societal and organization cultures” which are referred to as cultural dimensions (House et al., 2004, p. 9). And the last phase is currently underway as an investigation of the impact and effectiveness of specific leader styles

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

Cultural differences between countries have strong effects on individual personality and behavior, as well as on organizational culture (Hofstede 2001). These differences can be a significant barrier for an international business leader. Failure to understand and adapt to these differences may

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

Hofstede had analyzed data, which he collected from more than 117,000 IBM employees working in 40 different countries, and had found out that there were four statistically independent dimensions that examined the inter-country variation through his survey questionnaires (Drogendijk, and Slangen, 2006). His value of dimension was accepted by studies and had proven to be of help to understand the difference in cultures (e.g., Silverthorne, 2005) suggesting that Hofstede dimension of culture categorizes is elevated and it has given important steps to improve theoretical basis of understanding culture and also its effect on organization. We could see that people appreciated his work and his understanding of culture helped many in their own flied of work but they were researchers who had criticized his dimension (e.g., Schwartz, 1994; steenkamp, 2001; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, and Gupta, 2004).

His definition of culture is “the collective programming of the mind distinguishing the members of one group or category of people from others” (Hofstede, 2001). These are his six dimensions and how they are relative to leadership. The first dimension is called the Power Distance Index (PDI). This dimension states that the people with less power in the society accept that power and influence is distributed unequally. The lower power members of society want equalization of distribution of power and demand justification. It is imperative for leaders in a global business environment not to be a high power distance leader or a low power distance leader. There needs to be a balance between the two, because you may be leading a diverse team of individuals from different backgrounds and countries. The best way a leader can succeed in this type of situation is to know the team that you are leading and develop flexibility that will motivate the team to follow.

According to The Oxford Dictionary, culture is defined as “the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people or other social group (Oxford, 2016).” With the rise of multiculturalism and diversity across many nations, understanding and practicing cultural etiquette within the business arena has never been of greater importance. Geert Hofstede, a well known leader in intercultural research and studies, conducted a comprehensive study in which he analyzed how culture influenced the values rooted within the workplace (The Hofstede Centre, 2016). Hofstede focused on evaluating nations based on the following dimensions in order to be better equipped culturally, socially and professionally: Power Distance Index (PDI), Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV), Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS), Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI), Long Term Orientation versus Short Term Normative Orientation (LTO) and Indulgence versus Restraint (IND). For the purposes of this research paper, a brief country profile of China, Ethiopia and Germany is provided along with an analysis of the six cultural dimensions of Hofstede at work in these countries in comparison to the United States of America.

Maneuvering through the sea of cultural differences in the workplace in today’s business can be tricky. As companies become more global, and employ people from different cultures, leaders must learn to adapt to differences among these cultures if they wish to succeed. Leading the same across cultures may not have positive outcomes. In this writing, I will discuss Hofstede’s six cultural dimensions and how they relate to leadership. I will then explain what combinations of these dimensions, I feel, make the most effective leader. First, let’s discuss the six dimensions of leadership.

Hofstede 's cultural dimensions theory is a framework for cross-cultural communication, developed by Geert Hofstede. It describes the effects of a society 's culture on the values of its members, and how these values relate to behavior, using a structure derived from factor analysis.

Arguably, Hofstede’s work (1980, 1997) represents a pioneering approach of culture as a way of comparing international management frameworks. First of all, prior to offering any evaluations in regards to McSweeney’s criticism (2002a/b), it is crucial to identify the nature of Hostede’s work within the entire sphere of the culture approach itself.

Professor Geert Hofstede’s study looked at six dimensions of national culture to determine values in the workplace. The six dimensions are, Power Distance Index, Individualism vs Collectivism, Masculinity vs Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance Index, Long Term Orientation vs Short Term Normative Orientation, and Indulgence versus

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.

The man who put corporate culture on the map—almost literally—Geert Hofstede (born 1928) defined culture along five different dimensions. He measured each of these dimensions in numerous countries and then made cross-country comparisons. In the age of globalization, managers trying to understand the differences between workforces in different environments have used this model extensively. Early in his career he worked for IBM, during which he carried out the research on which his career and reputation successively rests. Now known as the Hofstede Cultural Orientation Model is based on his study between 1967 and 1973 of IBM employees in 40 different countries.