IHRM culture

In this essay, I am going to discuss how practices of managing culture have been used to develop the management of Globalization in the post-bureaucratic era. Globalization has led to the increasing number of global business relationships, the emergence of new global work structures and work environments. To address this I will discuss Cultural globalization, the practices of Frederick Taylor (Carol Carlson Dean, (1997)) that have led to the social dominance, as corporations around the world have started to adopt these practices to increase bureaucracy for interest and welfare of the companies. Proceeding on to the second point on Global leaders in a heterogeneous vs. homogeneous world. Where (Rego, A., Clegg, S. & Cunha, M. 2011) describe the heterogeneous view “We live in an increasingly borderless world that is nonetheless still filled with linguistic, cultural, political, temporal, economic, and social borders." compared to (Osifo.S, Eromosele. O December 2011) who says that globalisation has allowed “Organizations have an innate tendency to develop homogeneity, in the sense of shared beliefs and shared values. And finally triple bottom line approach in multinationals. Where pressures from stakeholders, have given companies incentive to focus on triple bottom line (Carol M. Sánchez, Alexandra S. Schmid, 2013)

It is hypothesized that cultural differences in behaviour will mean differences in HRM practices within different cultures but those within the same cultural cluster will be similar whereas those in different clusters will be dissimilar. Employees and managers from different cultures take decisions in different ways – the processes, behaviours and values are not the same. People have different value orientations as a result of individual psychology, life-stage and generation and assumptions about behaviour determined by cultures are linked to a variety of organisational behaviours.

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

Culture is shaped by beliefs, ideas, history, religion, and traditions that give each culture its distinctions. Leaders must take culture into account as they lead an organization. Eastern cultures place power and authority high creating a respectful gap between leadership and employees, while western cultures take a more democratic approach building relationship and influence with employees (Hamedoğlu, Kantor, and Gülay, 2012). Leaders must understand the culture surroundings and engage employees using those cultural values in conjunction with values of the organization. Values of an organization will often transcend over cultures, leaders must find a way to engage the values of the organization in a way that fits within the current culture (Staebler Tardino, 2012).

The author has then moved on to list the three levels of culture i.e., National Culture, Business Culture, Occupational and organizational Cultures. Also, the three diagnostic models – Hofstede’s Model, The GLOBE project and the 7d culture model –all of them have some pretty useful information about different cultures across the world. Amidst these, I found one fascinating concept called ‘Power Distance’ (p. 52). It explains how different cultures deal with inequality. Hailing from India, a typically high-power-distance country, I completely understand this concept. It was actually a pleasant surprise when I moved to the United States and got to experience how much of a Low-Power-Distance country this is. Just

An Organization success depends on how employees, leaders, groups, and individuals work together. Now a company is usually ran on a set of foundations that have been laid out in terms such as, but not limited to, values, beliefs, norms, language, and habits. In order to have a successful working environment, one must reach out to get to know their employee beliefs, values, most importantly get to know their employees personalities. Happy leaders, lead happy workers, who in turn are more dedicated, and willing to put the work in to make the company a success. In order to maintain a successful running business, you must learn to train, and maintain happy employees. In this paper we are going to look at Geert Hofstede, social psychologist and foremost authority on global and organizational cultures, and how he defines six dimensions: Power Distance, Individualism, masculinity, Uncertain Avoidance, Long Term Orientation, and Indulgence and how all these dimensions tie into a successful business. I intend to give you the two countries that I choose to compare using the Hofstede Six Dimensions of culture, to show you have different cultures impact their work relationships.

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.

Understanding cultural differences can enable leaders to more effectively support and manage their followers. Realizing that a leadership style that works in one culture may not result in the same outcome in another country is paramount to foster strong work relationships. This essay will review the cultural dimension scores provided by Geert Hofstede for the United States and Sweden and explore how these differences impact workplace relationships and leadership strategy.

Culture can be defined into many definitions and it also can be separated into different types, all so that we can better understand it. Hofstede claimed that culture was the mind 's way of separating one group of people from another (Kawar, 2012). Due to the technological advancements in the world people from all over are working together with new ways of communication. Though we must know the diversities of each culture in order to avoid being offensive, the same principles we use in communicating with different cultures is no different to what we would use in the workplace. When working in an organization you must motivate the employees, all while setting a structure for their policies and guidelines. Also, developing

This dimension represents the degree to which those with less powerful members of a society expect power to be unequally distributed (Wursten et al., n.d.). The degree of inequality is accepted as a normal component of their country. Those who are well established understand and accept that their status is not only part of their hierarchy 's organization, but where they belong in society. Those societies with low power distance indexes share and distribute power amongst each other in a cohesive manner.

Another popular theory, postulated by Hofstede (1994), draws on national culture. Hofstede’s theory defines culture along four main dimensions of power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-collectivism, and masculinity-femininity. Power distance is the level of inequality among people within a country that are considered normal. For example, in America where the culture is predominantly centered on equality would score low for power distance. Uncertainty avoidance is the level in which people prefer structured (having clear rules in which one is to follow) to unstructured situations. A low score for uncertainty avoidance would indicate a country with easygoing and flexible people, whereas high score would mean a more rigid and inflexible character of people. Individualism is the level in which people within a country prefer to work as individuals rather than as members of a group. Collectivism, on the other hand, is where people want to be part of a group. The final dimension is masculinity

Hofstede defines culture as 'the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another '”. (Kirkman, Lowe &Gibson, 2006, p. 286). He started his research in the 1960’s, by examining the concept of culture within one of the largest multinational companies in the world – IBM. Thousands of interviews were held across 66 countries, although results were only used from only 40. As a result of his investigation, four dimensions of culture were identified: individualism-collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance and masculinity-femininity. Years later Hofstede and Bond added another dimension, long-term orientation. (Hofstede and Bond 1988). First dimension, power distance is defined as the extent of willingness that societies accept the hierarchical power structure (Morrison 2006). Cultures, which are considered low power distance, tend to have preferences towards equality and decentralization of terms of power and

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/collectivism, high/weak uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity, power distance and long-term orientation, associated with the management culture in these nations.

The power distance index (PDI) determines how much a culture is willing to accept and expect an inequality of power. Societies with high PDI are more willing to accept powerful authority figures, such as a hierarchy, and comply with their rules without justification. Societies with low PDI work to equalize the distribution of power and demand justification for inequalities of power. Societies categorized with large PDI expect for their elders to be both respected and feared, parents always teach children obedience, subordinates expect to be told what to do, they have frequent corruption scandals which are covered up and income distribution in society is very uneven. Meanwhile societies categorized with

Some of the most influential research on cultural values has been done by Geert Hofstede. His empirical studies of work-related values have been extended to 74 countries. He has identified five major dimensions along which cultural values vary: high vs. low power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity, uncertainty avoidance vs. uncertainty acceptance, and short-term vs. long-term orientation.