Introduction
Along
with the increased interest devoted to globalisation that the world is
experiencing for the past decades, cross-culture management research has
establish itself as a vital research field. There have been number of
researches, books and journals which mainly focus on analysing the influence of
culture or differences of culture in the overall management efforts and
strategies inside the organisation. Globalisation had affected almost all of
the units and procedures inside the organisations regardless of the field or
industry they are in. Currently, there are increasing number of organisations
that are operating in other countries in order to take advantage of the
benefits and edges which a given country can offer, which result to having a
multi-cultural team, which work in a given project. In addition, there are
increasing numbers of multinational companies, particularly coming from the
western countries, particularly from the UK and the US, which are operating in
Asian countries. The main factor to be considered in this relationship is
culture.
Culture
is pertained to be as a vague notion or factor which is hard to explain and
depict (Triandis et al. 1986). It is theorized to encounter and experience
change for a given duration of time. This
led to the occurrence which Ralston et al. (1993) defined as those notions and principles
which are broadly distributed and allocated in a public at a given time. In
addition, culture is also considered as thing which can be learned (Hofstede
1984), thus it is apparent in other important fields, including business,
academic, the past and religion, which operate as a vital factor which describe
and form the character and overall culture of a country or society (Harris
1979). Furthermore, culture is perceived as a vital factor which affects and
influences all human activity (Monaghan & Just 2000). But still, it is
important to take note that an individual will not have the time to know all
about culture, because according to Geert Hofstede (1984), the researcher of
one, if not the most-cited and referred research about culture, culture is
being affected by many internal and external environmental factors, which
result to changes over a long period of time.
The
theories and notions presented by Hofstede about culture, particularly those
related to the differences between the culture of each and every nation have
been very popular issue in almost all of the important branches of management,
particularly in the current world, wherein the world is shrinking continuously
due to the growing popularity of globalisation and the improving technologies
and innovations, particularly in terms of communication. It is vital to add
that the study of Hofstede is not just used for the field of academe, but it is
also cited by many organisations, companies and firms that are planning to
establish and improve their presence in other countries or nations, in order to
match their strategies and actions with the particular culture of that specific
country or nation. This paper will focus on analysing the applicability and
efficiency of Hofstede’s research in studying cross-cultural management. It
will also present the strengths or advantages, together with the limitations or
disadvantage of the research.
Hofstede’s
Research
In 1967,
employees of IBM were invited to fill up attitude survey. IBM prepared and
planned minor surveys as vital aspects and elements of managing the organisation
since 1950. Later on, it was decided by the organization to standardise a
survey which will be implemented in each and every branch of the company in
every country in its international operation. It had become a vital management
tool and framework for the organisation to help its decision-making process. The
said survey process was continuous and done regularly until 1973, which
resulted to 117,000 answers from 88,000 staffs in 66 nations. Because of this
massive data, the leader of the team which handle the international survey, Geert
Hofstede, enabled to expand cultural catalogues. These indices offered 4 vital
dimensions of national culture for each one of the countries that have been
surveyed (Baskerville 2003).
The cultural
dimensions is consist of “power distance” (perception of inequity, unfairness
and controlling behaviour and deficiency of subordinate’s concerns in cooperation),
“uncertainty avoidance” (unease at work, worry and distress over insecurity,
and ruled-oriented obstinacy in encountering with latest or vague situations), “individualism”
(center on one’s self rather than focusing on the entire group), and “masculinity”
(a confident or aggressive course and gender-role sensitivity) (Gannon &
Newman 2002, p. 5).
Since the
framework was developed by using data from IBM employees, and because they are
from different cultures and country, the result of the survey had become very
important. Hofstede (1980) focuses on 90 vital and autonomous connections and
relationships of variables or displays with the 4 elements, which include cross
validations with different sample population, GNP per capital as well as income
inequality of the country. To continue the validation of the elements (Hofstede
(1983) simulated and expanded his research to take in a total of 50 countries,
by focusing on the said elements. In an extra completed evaluation of published
literatures and studies with the use of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions
(Hofstede 2001) focused on 140 non-IBM data researches which validate his
cultural catalogues. For instance, the study of Best & Williams (1998) showed
that an “individualistic” psychological attribute linked vitally with the
individualism index (0.41) of Hofstede, at the same time as, the study of Van
Oudenhoven (2001) showed that company administration linked vitally with the
power distance index (0.66) and uncertainty avoidance index (0.63) (cited in Ascalon
& Schleicher 2002).
However,
it is also vital to add that Hofstede’s study is also being criticised by some
researchers (i.e. Shenkar 2001; McSweeney 2002; Smith et al. 2002) due to its
dependency on outdated data, deficient simplification and being too compressed and
compacted to detain culture. However, according to Hofstede (2002):
“the dimensions found are assumed to have
centuries-old roots; only data which remained stable across two subsequent
survey were maintained; and they have since been validated against all kinds of
external measurements; recent replications show no loss of validity” (cited
in cited in Ascalon & Schleicher 2002).[IWC1]
Michael
Bond, one of the well-known name in the field of psychology, commented on the
life-long contribution of Hofstede. According to him, his associates had been
“held in thrall” by the academic accomplishment of Hofstede (Bond 2002). In
addition, Professor Mark Peterson also assess the impact of Hofstede’s
research, according to him, even though the primary version of Culture’s
Consequences did not help to produce the field of relative cross-cultural studies,
it had helped to form the essential themes, organization and argument or debate
of the field (Peterson 2003). In addition, the Wall Street ranking of the most powerful
commerce and industry theorists of the 20th century putted Hofstede
in 16th position, ahead of Jack Welch and Tom Peters, at the same
time, he is also considered as one of the most-cited and referenced authors in
the field of social science, which show that his work is not restricted to the
field or subject of cross-cultural (Minkov and Hofstede 2011).
Contribution
and Advantages of Hofstede’s Research in Cross Cultural Management
There
are different theories and approaches that were developed to explain cultural
differences and their influence on the different aspects of management (Johann
2008). However, the theory and study of Hofstede is the most renowned and most
cited.
The
impact of the Culture’s Consequences of Hofstede’s (1980) on the cross-cultural
researches has been incredible. In general, all succeeding research and
literatures in the field of cross-culture has been dependent on the Hofstedean way
in analyzing and evaluating culture.
Although Hofstede never called and asked that his approach and methods
used is the only correct approach, and in effect, was very open and overt
regarding potential options and options, succeeding literatures and researches
did not diverge from the paradigm that Hofstede described and explained. Most
of postulates, which are based on the work of Hofstede have conquered and
subjected the field of cross-cultural studies in the past 30 years, these are
the following:
- “Cultures
are values”;
- “Values
are cultures”;
- Cultures
are enormously constant;
- “Culture
is the cause, not an effect”;
- A
cross-level analysis of culture directs to the ecological misleading
notion;
- Cultures
cluster inside geographic limits;
- Mean
scores and ranking adequately enumerate culture;
- Coordinated
samples should be used to study cultural differences;
- Self-response
questionnaires sufficiently determine culture; and
- The
Hofstedean framework is exceptional and the lone feasible framework for
studying the culture (Taras & Steel 2009).
The study of
Hofstede helped the author to understand cross-cultural issues because of the
different assumptions, which were found out from the wide data gathered.
First, it had
helped the author to understand that cultures are values, meaning culture is
multi-level. Values correspond to the heart of the culture, whereas customs
expressed in rituals and symbols are in the external level. This means that although
culture is not just restricted to values, the four, then later on five-factor
model focuses on values. As a result, the research study of Hofstede helped the
future researcher to have all the items that are needed to be included in the
culture measurement instruments, which include different norms and beliefs.
Another
important idea expressed by Hofstede is about the issue of culture change.
According to him theories of cultural change is naïve (Hofstede 2001), thus
national cultures must not alter or adjust until at least 2100 in substantial
manner (Hofstede 2001). This is because of the fact that, he alleged that
individual cultural values are shaped in the early childhood and it will be
changed throughout the life of that individual. Thus, it shows that the basic
values are already programmed to that individual’s mind and system.
In addition,
the study of Hofstede (1980) focused on the strong relationship and connection linking
cultural values and different individual- and national-level phenomena and
events. For instance, Hofstede enabled to show the correlations and relationship
of up to .85 linking the cultural values and affluence or wealth, economic development,
economic disparity and other vital country attributes, together with those
individual characteristics, including socio-economic standing, education or
even vocation or occupation. This has been supported by the studies Franke,
Hofstede & Bond (1991) and Offermann &Hellman (1997). This opened for
the issue of cultural determinism – wherein culture is considered as a cause
(Werner 2002; Gelfand, Erez & Aycan 2007; Tsui, Nifadkar & Ou 2007).
The study of Kirman et al. (2006) and Tsui et al. (2007), there are two types
of cross-cultural studies: type I and type II. Type I represented those
literatures which focus on the culture as a main influence on different consequences;
while type II pertains on culture as a moderating outcome. This is based on the
cultural constancy concept, meaning if culture does not alter for generations,
then culture have to be the cause and cannot be the effect. For instance, the link
between individualism and wealth for China and the US has always been
considered as the culture-as-a-cause perspective – US is wealthier because it
is individualistic. However, several studies show that culture does not change
in rapid and often manner (Adams 2005); this is because the study of
individualism in China showed that individualism in China is because of the
economic development and not the other way around.
Another important notion in the analysis of
Hofstede is the connection between organisational cultures with the national
culture. Before the study of Hofstede, most of businesses and organisations
considered organisational culture to be independent on the national culture.
Hofstede (1980) argued that organisational culture will exist independently on
the national culture, because of the fact that the culture of the organisation
is positioned within a national culture. Therefore, national culture affects
the behaviours, attitudes, norms and practices inside the organisation (Torun
2007). According to Khosrowpour (1996) the national culture has a strong impact
on the institutional and organisational levels of human endeavour. Even though
national culture shapes and affect the type of organisations and the nature of
social structures within a specific organisation, it should be noted that
organisational culture may have a fundamental function in the influence of the
culture towards the organisational behaviour. Thus, it enabled to show that
organisational culture as socialising and climate creator. Therefore, it shows
that individuals carry their cultural conditions and customs in the place of
work, at the same time; therefore, it enables the management of organisations
and companies from different parts of the globe to focus on analysing the
individual national background of individuals in implementing different
strategies. Thus, prior studies before Hofstede often considered culture as a
single variable, thus culture is too composite a incident to be considered as a
lone package. However, the work of Hofstede shows that culture can be
unpackaged into independent dimensions (Minkov and Hofstede 2011).
In
addition, the dimensions of Hofstede enable to focus on the basic problems and
issues that all societies have to deal with, which include: “power distance”, “individualism-collectivism”,
and “masculinity-femininity” and “uncertainty avoidance”. These factors are
important aspect of the overall culture of individual countries.
Generally, the study
of Hofstede enabled to establish and strong contribution towards the study of
cross cultural management. First, the huge number of respondents and the volume
of the data gathered enable to show background information about the general
differences between countries of nations. As a result, it enables to show the
business sector as well as the academe that different countries should be
handled differently, because of its unique characteristic or attribute. Thus,
the collection or appendices of characteristics of individual country enable to
give a background information or overview about the general characteristics of
each and every country, which is very important in studying cross-cultural
issues, particularly those related in marketing, human resource, education,
etc.
Critiques
and Controversies
Like
other approaches, Hofstede’s analysis of culture is also facing critiques and
controversies.
Hofstede
commonly generalized the characteristics and attributes of culture of an
individual person based on the general views of the chosen respondents. In
multiple instances, Hofstede refer it to be the common characteristics or
traits. Thus, according to Davies (1999) an exclusive national culture is believed
to be independently accepted by each person in a country, thus it is the same
with the notion of A. J. P. Taylor, where the author states that “the problem
with Hitler was that he was German.” (McSweeney 2002).
Hofstede
strongly stated that cultures are extremely stable. Another reason why his
study is being criticised is due to the date that the responses or data were
gathered. However, he believes that culture will not change rapidly. However,
there are several studies which show that culture can change more rapidly than
what Hofstede believe. The modernisation and convergence theories of cultural
change supported this notion (Ralston et al. 2006). The study of Inglehart
& Baker (2000) dependent on the study of World Value Survey from 81 nations
showed an evidence of “massive cultural change” and according to Inglehart
& Welzel (2005) “the cultural values are changing in a predictable
direction as socioeconomic development takes place.”
The
study of Hofstede did not consider the presence of subcultures. It is important
to consider that geographic borders from different geographic regions within
the country also show different cultures (House et al. 2004). In conditions of the quantitative method used
in the study, it is vital to add that even though mean offers vital information
regarding the culture of a group, it is not adequate enough to appreciate and
recognise the incident as a whole and fully, because by just focusing on ways
may institute a fake insight of cultural standardization or oneness inside a
group, which hinder the discovery of subcultures (Taras & Steel 2009).
Above
all, the method used in gathering data was self-response survey. There are different
researchers which state that disadvantage of self-response attitudinal surveys
(Harzing 2006).
Conclusion
The
studies and researches of Hofstede enable to open doors in the subject of
cross-cultural management. This is because of the fact that he had show the
major differences between the national culture of each and every country based
on the large sample or data gathered from the respondents from different
countries. In addition, the study also enables to focus on the main factors
that are involved in the cultural background of every nation.
His
study enables to focus on those issues and notions that past researchers did
not go through. First, Hofstede’s research enables to treat culture as a
variable being influenced and affected by many factors. Second, his research
focuses on the importance of national culture at the national stage, wherein
they are strengthened by different factors that are concurrent and connected across
countries, not across individuals or organisations. It shows that the overall
culture of an organisation is being affected by the national culture; in
addition, the overall culture of an individual is also an outcome of those
cultures which can be found in the national level. With this, his research
helps to show the general culture of a country which will be applicable in
analysing a country in different management aspects.
Third,
the study of Hofstede enable to show the dimensions which address the different
problems which can be found in all societies, including power distance or the
issue “social inequality”; “individualism-collectivism” or the association among
individual and the group; “masculinity-femininity” or the social suggestions of
being born as a boy or a girl; and “uncertainty avoidance” or the means of
dealing or handling uncertainty or connected to the organization of antagonism
and the expression of feelings (Inglehart 2008).
Lastly,
the study of Hofstede offered the primary huge compilation of data which
demonstrate the differences in the culture of different countries, which have
been very helpful in almost all of the fields, industries and sectors in the
process of handling differences in culture, which enable them to focus on important
units and procedures inside the organisation.
However,
the study of Hofstede is also facing critiques and negative feedback from other
authors and researchers. First is the issue of generalisation of the
characteristics or attributes of culture, which means that individual will be
judged or perceived, based on the general description of culture based on the
data gathered from the respondents. In connection, because Hofstede believe
that culture is stagnant and naïve, he believes that what he has gathered in
the past will remain the same until 2100. However, there are different studies
which show that the world is changing rapidly for the past years.
The
methods used in gathering the data used to prepare the appendices, together
with the date wherein the data gathering where implemented. The self-response
survey used is said to have many disadvantages and limitations.
References
Ascalon,
M E, Schleicher, D and Born, M 2008, “An assessment for employees working in
cross-national contexts”, Cross Cultural
Management, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 109 – 130.
Baskerville,
R 2003, “Hofstede never studied culture”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, vol. 28, pp. 1 – 14.
Best,
D L and Williams, J E 1998, “Masculinity and femininity in the self
descriptions of university students in 14 countries”, in G. Hofstede (eds.)
Bond,
M H 2002, “Reclaiming the individual from Hofstede’s ecological analysis: a
20-year Odyssey: comment on Oyserman et al.”, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 128, no. 1, pp. 73 – 77.
Davies,
n 1999, The isles: a history, Macmillan,
London.
Franke,
R H, Hofstede, G and Bond, M H 1991, “Cultural roots of economic performance: a
research note”, Strategic Management
Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 165 – 173.
Gannon,
M and Newman, K 2002, The Blackwell
Handbook of Cross-Cultural Management, Wiley-Blackwell.
Gelfand,
M H, Erez, M and Aycan, A Z 2007, “Cross-cultural organizational behaviour”, Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 58,
no. 20, pp. 1 – 35.
Harris,
M 1979, Cultural Materialism: The
Struggle for a Science of Culture, Random House, New York, USA.
Harzing,
A W 1006, “Response styles in cross-national survey research”, International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 243 – 266.
Hofstede,
G 1980, Culture’s Consequence: International
Differences in World-Related Values, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hofstede,
G 1983, “Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three regions”
in J B Deregowski, S Annis, R C (eds), Explications
in Cross-Cultural Psychology (pp. 335 – 355), Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse.
Hofstede,
G 2001, Culture’s Consequences, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hofstede,
G and Bond, M H 1984, “Hofstede’s culture validation using Rokeach’s value
survey”, Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, vol. 15, pp. 417 – 433.
Inglehart,
R 2008, “Modernization, cultural change, and persistence of traditional
values”, American Sociological Review, vol.
65, no. 1, pp. 19 – 51.
Inglehart,
R and Baker, W E 2000, “Modernization, cultural change and persistence of
traditional values”, American
Sociological Review, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 19 – 51.
Inglehart,
R and Welzel, C 2005, Modernization,
Cultural Change and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence, Cambridge
University Press, New York.
Johann,
R 2008, Cross-Cultural Management: The
Case of DaimlerChrysler Merger, GRIN Verlag.
Khosrowpour,
M 1997, Information technology management
and organizational innovations, Proceedings of the 1996 Information
Resources Association International Conference Washington, Part 3, Idea Group
Inc.
Kirkman,
B L, Lowe, K B and Gibson, C B 2006, “A quarter century of culture’s
consequences: a review empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s Cultural
Values Framework”, Journal of
International Business Studies, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 285 – 320.
McSweeney,
B 2002, “Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their
consequences: a triumph of faith – a failure of analysis”, Human Relations, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 89 – 118.
Minkov,
M and Hofstede, G 2011, “The evolution of Hofstede’s doctrine”, Cross Cultural Management, vol. 18, no.
1, pp. 10 – 20.
Monaghan,
J and Just, P 2000, Social and Cultural
Anthropology: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
UK.
Offermann,
L R and Hellmann, P S 1997, “Culture’s consequences for leadership behaviour:
national values in action”, Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 342 – 351.
Peterson,
M F 2003, “Review of the book Culture’s Consequences”, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 127 – 131.
Ralston,
D A, Egri, C, Stewart, S, Terpstra, R H and Kaicheng, Y 1999. “Doing business
in the 21st century with new generation of Chinese managers: a study
of generational shifts in work values in China”, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 415
– 428.
Taras,
V and Steel, P 2009, “Beyond Hofstede: challenging the ten testaments of
cross-cultural research”, In C. Nakata (ed), Beyong Hofstede: Culture Frameworks for Global Marketing and
Management, Macmillan/Palgrave, Chicago, IL.
Torun,
F 2007, Knowledge Management Practices
from a Culture Free and Culture Specific Perspective, GRIN Verlag
Publishing.
Triandis,
H C, Bontempo, R, Bond, M, Leung, K, Brenes, A, Georgas, J, Hui, C, Marin, G,
Setiadi, B, Sinha, J, Verma, J, Spangenberg, J and de Montmollin, H T G 1986,
“The measurement of the etic aspect of individualism and collectivism across
cultures”, Australian Journal of
Psychology, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 257 – 267.
Tsui,
A S, NIfadrak, S S and Ou, A Y 2007, “Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational
behaviour research: advances, gaps and recommendations”, Journal of Management, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 426 – 478.
Van
Oudenhoven, J P and Van der Zee, K I 2002, “Predicting multicultural
effectiveness of international students: the Multicultural Personality
Questionnaire”, International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 679 – 694.
No comments:
Post a Comment