1.0 Introduction
Fisher and Lovell (2009) state that Geert Hofstede (1991 and 2001) carried out the seminal empirical work on national value differences in organizations. He conducted a questionnaire survey of employees in the national subsidiaries in the 1968 and 1972. The results from the smaller subsidiaries were ignored and so the analysis finally enabled a comparison between the personal values of employees in 53 countries. He identified four dimensions along with the values of employees in different countries varied. The four dimensions include:
Power distance which is the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. Individualism versus Collectivism, individualism is high in countries which the ties between individual are loose and everyone is expected to look out for themselves. It is low in collectivist countries where people are integrated into strong, cohesive groups and are expected to give loyalty to these groups in return for their protection (Fisher and Lovell 2009, p.438).
Masculinity versus Femininity, where Masculinity is high in countries in which gender roles are distinct and in which men are expected to be assertive, tough and focused on material success and women are supposed to be more modest, tender and concerned with the quality of life. In societies which masculinity is low the gender roles overlap and both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender and concerned with the quality of life. Uncertainty avoidance is the extent to which society member feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations. Societies in which there is low uncertainty avoidance are comfortable with ambiguity; those in which there is high uncertainty avoidance...
... middle of paper ...
...stede, G. (1998). Attitudes, Values and Organizational Culture: Disentangling the concepts. Organization Studies, Vol 3, p. 477.
McSweeney, B. (2000). The Fallacy of National Culture Identification. 6th Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting Conference, Manchester, UK.
McSweeney, B. (2000). Hofstede's Model of National Cultural Differences and their Consequences: A triumph of faith, A failure of analysis. Human Relations, Vol 1, p. 89-101.
Myers, M. D. & Tan, F. B. (1997). Beyond Models of National Culture in Information Systems Research. Journal of Global Information Management, Vol 1, p. 24-32.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A Theory of Cultural Values and some Implications for Work. Applied Psychology, Vol 48, p. 23-47.
Sondergaard, M. (1994). Hofstede's Consequences: A study of reviews, citations and replications. Organization Studies, Vol 15, p. 447.
Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan Hofstede and Michael Minkov, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Revised and Expanded 3rd Edition. McGraw-Hill 2010.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Triandis, H., & Wasti, S. (2008). Culture. In D. Stone, & E. Stone-Romeo, The influence of culture on human resource management processes and practices (pp. 1-24). Psychology Press
Cunningham, Lawrence S., and John J. . Reich. Culture and Values. 7th ed. Vol. 1. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2006. Print.
In the article, Cultural constraints in management theories, Geert Hofstede examines business management around the globe from a cultural perspective. He explains how he believes there are no universal practices when it comes to management and offers examples from the US, Germany, France, Japan, Holland, China and Russia. He demonstrates how business management theories and practices are very much subject to cultural norms and values and by understanding these differences, it can give managers an advantage in global business practices.
In life we sometimes experience cultural differences. In The Joy Luck Club Amy Tan shows how mother daughter relationships are affected by these cultural differences. Therefore each of the mothers and daughters has a different view on their Chinese culture.
Ahlstrom, D., & Bruton, G. D. (2010). International Management: Strategy and Culture in the Emerging
Basically, Hofstede’s cultural dimension is divided into five dimensions along which national culture could be described: power distance (PDI), individualism-collectivism (IDV), masculinity-femininity (MAS), uncertainty avoidance (UAI) and long-term orientation versus short-term normative orientation (LTO).
The first national culture dimension to be identified is the measurement of power distance. This can be defined as the degree of inequality among people built upon what the population of that country accepts as normal. In countries with high power distance like China, individuals are more likely to accept differences in authority or inequality. Management are inclined to be dictatorial, making autocratic and paternalistic decisions, with their subordinates remaining faithful and obedient to them at all times. Often these societies or institutions possess business structures that are typified by close control over all operations. Organisation structures tend to be tall hierarchies with numerous levels within a formal setting. One of the reasons that can be identified for the acceptance of this type of authority in China is derived from thousands of years of political centralisation, which tends to result in a tradition of obedience.
According to Sledge, Miles, and Coppage (2008) power distance is “the degree to which control and influence are distributed unequally in society” (p. 1670). In a country with a high power distance employees would not feel comfortable voicing their opinions or disagreeing with their managers. Empowering employees would not work well because employees would be scared to take actions on their own. Employees would feel more comfortable with structure and strict procedures. In countries with low power distance managers could benefit from empowering employees. Employees are free to voice their opinions and develop and express new ideas or plans. Empowerment would motivate employees more in a country with low power distance.
Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C. C. & Martin, J. (1991). Reframing Organizational Culture. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Organizational culture is the key to organizational excellence and leadership is a function to create and manage culture (Chen 1992). Organizational researchers have become more aware of the importance of understanding and enhancing the cultural life of the institution. "This study is one of a group of companies with high-performance in North America, interest in organizational culture is an important element in organizational success. Tesluk et al (1997). Looking at the" soft "of the organization, the researchers claim that" the organizational culture may be suitable for a means to explore and understanding of life at work, and make them more humane and more pronounced (Tesluk et al, 1997), and the graves (1986) also stressed the importance of corporate culture, and the need for research strategies and methods of investigating the various elements and processes of the organizational culture. He argued the culture that meets the basic needs of belonging and security in an attempt to describe this gathering that culture is "the only thing that distinguishes one company from another gives them coherence and self-confidence and rationalises the lives of those who work for it. Standard that may seem random, is to enhance the life to be different, and safe to be similar, and culture is a concept that provides the means to achieve this compromise (p. 157).
Understand and heed cultural differences - cultural variables in transacting international business. (1991, January 28). Business America. FindArticles.com., Retrieved March 20, 2009, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1052/is_n2_v112/ai_10412261/pg_4?tag=content;col1
How do personal values shape culture, and how does culture affect our understanding and interpretation of seemingly ordinary things?
Miroshnik, V. (2002). Culture and international management: a review' The Journal of Management Development 21(7): 521-544