Managing People and Organisations 21129
The University of Technology, Sydney
Mid Semester Essay: Individual
Question Two:
Discuss the value dimensions of national culture as described by Hofstede. Drawing on two national cultures, compare and contrast the dominant cultural values of each. What implications might these differences have for managers operating across these national boundaries?
Abstract:
To better understand how organisations function, OB academics have created models to measure the differences in peoples values. One of these Hofstedes four dimensions of cultural value was developed through analysing the responses of IBM employee surveys from 53 countries around the world. Through the course of this essay, Hofstedes four-dimensional model will be examined and applied to two national cultures, China and the United States. The dominant cultural values of each culture will be explored and contrasted. Additionally, Bonds fifth dimension will be discussed. This essay will attempt briefly to answer why and how some of the differences in national culture arise. Finally, the issues faced by managers operating across cultural boundaries will be examined.
Response to Question Two:
The Dimensions of Hofstedes Model
No rational individual goes through life without some set of guiding paradigms. To this set of rules, we give the name values. To take Kluckhohns (1951) definition of value, a value is a conception distinctive of an individual or group, of the desirable which influences the selection from available modes, means and ends of actions. In simpler terms, Kluckhohn defines a value as the desirable mode out of all other possible modes. Further, the phrase, distinctive of [a] group, implies that a value is a specific attribute of a specific group; or in other words, different groups should have different sets of values.
It was under this implication that Hofstede showed value differences across different national cultures. In a statistical analysis of IBM employees across 53 countries (Hofstede 1980), he identified the four areas of difference: social inequality, relationship between the individual and the group, concepts of masculinity and femininity and the ways of dealing with uncertainty. To these difference dimensions, which are aspects of one culture that are measured relative to other cultures (Hofstede 1991), he gave the names power distance, collectivism vs individualism, femininity vs masculinity and uncertainty avoidance.
Power distance index (PDI) was measured through three questions in the IBM survey: the fear of employees to express disagreement, perception of superiors decision-making style and preference of superiors decision-making style. Hofstede (1991) argued that countries with a low PDI tended to have less inequality in the decision-making process and more interdependence and consultation among superiors and subordinates. In contrast, countries with a high PDI tended to have more inequality in the decision-making process and more dependence of subordinates on superiors. Power distance is, therefore, the extent to which subordinates within one country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally (Hofstede 1991).
The second dimension that Hofstede identified is collectivism versus individualism. Using survey data measuring the employees personal time, freedom, challenges compared to training, physical conditions and use of skills, Hofstede calculated each countrys individualism index (IDV). In countries with high IDV, he believed, individuals tend to be more independent, whereas countries with low IDV, individuals tend to be more dependent on their ingroups.
Another dimension of Hofstedes model is masculinity vs femininity, which is the degree of distinction between gender roles. He identified that individuals in masculine societies (those which have a high MAS index) placed more importance on earnings, recognition and advancement in their survey response, which are masculine signs of assertion and focus on material success. Individuals in more feminine societies (with a low MAS index) placed more emphasis on cooperation, quality of life and security, which are evidence of the feminine signs of modesty and comfort.
The fourth dimension identified is uncertainty avoidance (measured by the UAI), a concept Hofstede admits to have been borrowed from the work of American sociologist James G. March. Collating IBM data in the questions of job stress, rule orientation and projected long term stay, he measured the level of avoidance to uncertainty, the extent to which members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations (Hofstede 1991). Individuals in countries with a high UAI are seen to be under high stress, fear ambiguous situations and see uncertainty as a threat which must be countered. Countries with low UAIs, Hofstede argues, have individuals with less stress and more accustomed to ambiguity and uncertainty.
The addendum of a fifth dimension to complement Hofstedes model was not first undertaken by Hofstede himself but by a Hong Kong academic, Michael H. Bond. In 1987, 40 fundamentally important Chinese values were collated into by Bonds group of Hong Kong academics (the Chinese Culture Connection) into a survey, the Chinese Values Survey (CVS) and was administered to 100 undergraduate students across 22 countries. The resultant findings, as analysed by Bond and Hofstede (1989), show that one dimension of the CVS could not associate with any of Hofstedes original dimensions.
This fifth dimension, Bonds Confucian (work) dynamism, is interpreted by Hofstede (1991) as the timeframe to which individuals orientate themselves. He believed that Chinese (Confucian) values could be polarised into long- and short-term orientations, and that cultures could be classified as long-term or short-term orientated. Long-term orientation contains persistence, thrift and humility, whereas short-term orientation consists of tradition, steadiness and desire for immediate returns.
Application and Discussion of China and US into Hofstedes Model
*Table of Value Indices for China and US*
Table 1 is a summary of the value indices for China and US, with their respective ranks in parentheses. What is interesting to note, beyond the figures themselves, is that China was not originally part of the 53 countries in Hofstedes sample space: it was Cragins (1986) study which presented the data for Mainland China. Therefore, as identified by Smith and Wang (1996), the figures for China are not and should not be directly comparable to Hofstedes IBM data; caution should be taken to judge whether the figures in relation to each other are in fact meaningful or not.
If this data is analysed prima facie using Hofstedes principles (as outlined above), then the following inferences can be made: the Chinese managers believe that power is unequally distributed in their culture, whereas US employees believe in a high level of equality; the Americans are very individualistic and task-orientated, whereas the Chinese are collectivistic and group-orientated; US employees are more masculine and assertive, whereas Chinese show no bias to either gender role; Chinese managers feel relatively more threatened when facing uncertainty than American employees, but neither groups rank can be regarded overly anxious by world standards; American undergraduates are focussed on the short-term, whereas Chinese undergraduates the long-term. But none of the preceding generalisations are of much significance unless they are put into context.
Why are there significant differences between the two cultures? If the data gathered is reliable, then perhaps the difference can be attributed to the development of Chinese culture and American culture. To understand this underlying development of culture, knowledge of each cultures history and influences is necessary.
Most academics credit the main influence of Chinese thought to Confucius, whose Five Cardinal Relations (Wu Lun) prescribe the power relationships between five pairs of individuals (Gabrenya and Hwang, 1996): emperor and minister, father and son, husband and wife, between brothers and between friends. In all these relationships, the junior owes respect and obedience, whereas the senior owes protection and consideration (Hofstede, 1991, p.165). The obligations of these power relationships mean that there is a significant power distance between the partners; in the duty of obedience, the subordinate is usually not consulted in the decision-making process. Influence by Confucian thought can therefore account for the high PDI of the Chinese.
In contrast, American thought has been strongly influenced by their independence and self-perception. The Declaration of Independence (1776) states that all men are created equal and throughout history the US has viewed itself as a democratic, egalitarian society. Further, the management style of the US is participative, where subordinates are consulted in the decision-making process. These reasons have shortened the power distance between superior and subordinate, and can account for the lower PDI of the US. Earleys (1989) studies into social loafing support the presence of collectivistic attitudes in Chinese employees and individualistic attitudes in Americans.
American culture can also account for the highest-ranking IDV index. Hofstede (1991) noted that economics, as a pursuit of self-interest, is a highly individualist idea and its leading contributors have come from strongly individualistic countries like the USA. The strong collectivist nature of the Chinese can be accounted for by their social networks and habits of ingrouping, known as guanxi (Chang and Holt, 1991).
A lower MAS index of the Chinese relative to the Americans can be accounted by further consideration of guanxi. Whereas Americans are driven by their individualistic nature to achieve material wealth and success, findings indicate that the Chinese aim to strengthen and expand their guanxi through harmony and cooperation (Hui and Tan, 1996). Preservation and extension of guanxi and the reciprocation of renqing (favours) have led to a more feminine MAS result in the Chinese.
The fifth dimension has long been a subject of controversy (Fang, 2003) mostly because it is a confusing dimension that has been ill-defined. If the Confucian elements of long-term orientation and short-term orientation are examined, it is found that the elements themselves are complementary rather than bipolar. To say that the Chinese are not concerned with mianzi (face, which is a Chinese concept) and tradition, elements of short-term orientation, is as incorrect as saying that Americans are neither thrifty nor perseverant. The polarising of the LTO elements show a fundamental flaw in this dimension. Finally, Fang (2003) argues that the fifth dimension is based on the attitudes of undergraduates and not employees, which is a different empirical ground to that of the IBM study.
Implications and Conclusion
Hofstedes model can serve managers to identify what competitive advantages a culture has to offer (Hofstede, 1991, p240). Large power distance breeds organisational discipline, whereas small power distance acceptance of responsibility. Collectivism means group commitment, whereas individualism management mobility. Feminine cultures are more adapted to individual quality and customer service, whereas masculine cultures efficiency and mass production.
The dimensions can also be used as a starting point for cross-cultural managers to better understand the expectations and needs of employees in another culture. The PDI of the culture gives managers a guide to what managerial style the employees prefer and whether power ought to be centralised or decentralised. The IDV can influence a managers decision to how best allocate work in groups or individual tasks. MAS indices provide a key to which types of employee motivation to implement, such as monetary bonuses or improved facilities. A cultures UAI might determine whether employee extra-curricular programs should be applied. A look at a countrys LTO might tell a manager the aims and goals of the employees. The value indices can therefore be used as a guide to create managerial decisions which are best adapted to the employees, increasing an organisations effectiveness.
Although Hofstedes model is based on aging data and is somewhat limited in its fifth dimension, its conceptualising of values nevertheless makes it an important study in organisational behaviour. By calculating indices for various cultures, we can see differences in employee expectations, work-ethic and value systems. Using Hofstede, managers can better understand and adapt to organisations of different cultures.
i saw the girl that i liked for 3 and 1/2 yrs today wen i was on the train... ahhh the last time i saw her was at the formal bah... ahhh gees...
