Hofstede‘s model
Geert Hofstede is a social science researcher and Professor of Organizational Anthropology and International Management in The Netherlands. He developed a sophisticated framework for cross-cultural communication, relating individual’s behavior to cultural values and norms depending on their home country (Geert-hofstede.com, 2014).
His findings are based on quantitative results from two large scale surveys conducted with IBM employees in sales and marketing in 1963 and 1973. To substantiate his conclusions, Hofstede conducted several other cross-national studies to confirm and enhance his framework. “A total of some 90 significant and independent correlations” have been found and published in his 1980 book (p. 1358, Hofstede 2002).
His model is widely used in management disciplines and training programs around the globe. He claims to have achieved a true paradigm shift in social science.
Hofstede measured and compared country scores on initially four, later five cultural dimensions. According to these dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity, long-term vs. short-term orientation, countries can hierarchically be ordered on compared (Geert-hofstede.com, 2014).
Hofstede conceptualizes national culture with several distinctive attributes. Culture to him is territorially unique and nationally shared according to a national tendencies deducted from the survey results. Also, national culture to him is implicit, core, systematically, enduring, meaning it does not change over time, and determinate. Hofstede regards characteristics as identifiable and consequences as predictable (McSweeney 2002). Lastly, he looks at culture “as ‘mental programming’, as ‘s...
... middle of paper ...
...nts. Criticism on the validity and replicability remain unanswered and McSweeney concludes his position with a statement of “failure of scholarship”. He thus condemns Hofstede’s research and does not grant him reliability as a researcher in general for his “extreme, singular, theories” (p. 1370, McSweeney, 2002a). He insists that Hofstede’s findings and assumptions are too flawed to have produced valid and reliable results.
Points of consent and disagreement
As the proceeding analysis and summary shows, McSweeney and Hofstede hardly agree on any point. Both researches have a very different stance towards research, especially in social science. With Hofstede being a little more open towards flaws, as long as the big picture makes sense and adds value to social science research. McSweeney on the other hand is very strict about research methodology and assumptions.
Of those critiques, the first states that surveys are not a very good way to measure the cultural differences in an organisation. The point made begs the question: “How many people actually answer questionnaires honestly?” Generally when a person is asked to participate in a survey, one would tend to answer the questions as soon as possible and continue with their previous task. So it’s definitely understandable that the surveys skewed the results slightly which allowed Hofstede to come to the findings that he made.
Geert Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Second Edition, Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications, 2001
Canada, G. o. (2013, 05 13). Defining Culture. Retrieved 03 12, 2014, from Statistics Canada: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/87-542-x/2011001/section/s3-eng.htm
There are multitude definitions of culture available in the literature and each definition relies on the context of one’s field of study. It was variedly defined that each
Does the study seem to support what Haidt (and Kahneman) are saying? Explain why, or why not.
According to (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010) described that the culture can be defined as it is made up of “thinking, feeling, and potential acting” that all people carry within themselves, which he terms as “mental programs.” Likewise, after did a large number of research, Hofstede decided to divide cultural differences into five dimensions, they are power distance, Individualism vs. Collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, Masculinity vs. Femininity and long-term vs. short-term orientation respectively. Putting more details into these five
This article hasn’t provided an introduction; however a lengthy summary of the study which identifies the problem, purpose and rationale for the research study has been provided in the background. The introduction should give the reader a general sense of what the document is about, and preferably persuade the reader to continue reading. This prepares the reader for reading the rest of the document (Burns & Grove, 2001 p.636; Nieswiadomy, 2008 p.380; Stockhausen and Conrick, 2002).
When you think of the word “culture” what comes to mind? Many elements can contribute to
Katz, Elihu, and Jacob J. Feldman. (1962). The debates in the light of research: A survey of surveys. In The Great Debates, ed. Sidney Kraus. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 173-223.
Cultures are infinitely complex. Culture, as Spradley (1979) defines it, is "the acquired knowledge that people use to interpret experiences and generate social behavior" (p. 5). Spradley's emphasizes that culture involves the use of knowledge. While some aspects of culture can be neatly arranged into categories and quantified with numbers and statistics, much of culture is encoded in schema, or ways of thinking (Levinson & Ember, 1996, p. 418). In order to accurately understand a culture, one must apply the correct schema and make inferences which parallel those made my natives. Spradley suggests that culture is not merely a cognitive map of beliefs and behaviors that can be objectively charted; rather, it is a set of map-making skills through which cultural behaviors, customs, language, and artifacts must be plotted (p. 7). This definition of culture offers insight into ...
Critics of Hofstede’s work argue that Hofstede’s study is flawed and outdated; for example, Hofstede’s analysis has a static and polarized vision of culture and is believed to be stable over time, whereas now with globalization, internationalization and convergence of cultures, cultures are rapidly changing (Fang 2009). Despite Hofstede’s work being nothing short of controversial, his work on culture, which Hofstede (1980, 1981) defines, as “the collective programming of the mind distinguishing the members of one group or category of people from others,” is still the most cited in the field of cross-cultural management in existence (Bond 2002). Furthermore, Hofstede’s groundbreaking research has successfully allowed for other cross-cultural scholars to comprehend and grasp the challenging concept of national cultural stereotypes in measurable and concrete terms (Fang
The dimensions of culture came as a result of a research conducted by Greet Hofstede. The study investigated how culture in a workplace can be influenced by values of the people. In his view, culture is defined as the collective programming of the human brain that helps in distinguishing a group from another one. Moreover, the programming of the human mind influences the patterns, values and perspectives that define a certain community or nation. Hofstede developed a model of the national culture that is made of six dimensions. In addition to that, the cultural dimensions demonstrate the personal preferences on affairs that can be easily distinguished from that of individuals from another nation. Using the model, it is easy to identify systematic differences between the selected nations in terms of values (Hofstede). This paper discusses the cultural dimensions to compare the United States of America and China. The dimensions include Power Distance, Masculinity versus Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance Index, and Individualism versus collectivism, Indulgence versus Restraint and long-term orientation versus short term normative orientation.
Schwartz and Bilsky (1990) argue that in Hofstede’s model insufficient aspects of culture are taken into account and survey is not the best method to assess culture. Additionally, the model assumes that national culture stays within the boundaries of the country and does not tender the idea of cultural and ethnic variance within nations (Myers and Tan, 2003; Gerhart, 2009). Frequently, a culture transcends the official borders of a country as culture counts more years than an officially-formed nation.
Shapiro, Scott J. The "Hart-Dworkin" Debate: a Short Guide for the Perplexed. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
The word 'culture' is often described in terms of concrete ideas or social artifacts. Gary R. Weaver describes some common conceptions such as "good taste," "art or music," or "something that people in exotic foreign lands had."1 However, culture in the context of international assignments relates to how people perceive the world and the influence this perception has on their actions. It is culture on the interpersonal level. Different cultures can perceive the same thing differently, which leads to miscommunication and misunderstanding when one crosses into another culture not their own.