International Culture and the Impact on Approaches to Managing People - Research Paper Example

INTERNATIONAL CULTURE AND THE IMPACT ON APPROACHES TO MANAGING PEOPLE By Location International Culture and the Impact on Approaches to Managing People Introduction Hofstede developed five dimensions that define the cultural framework in different societies. According to him, these dimensions are of great significance when determining some central tenets of the culture of a certain market. He developed the cultural framework in response to his awareness that the cultural setting had immense impact on businesses. Businesses face the compulsion of understanding the cultural framework of a target market and integrating the most critical cultural aspects into the business. Hofstede has been working at IBM when he conducted a research that gave him the data he used to develop the participants of his study were IBM employees. From the data he gathered, he defined five critical dimensions that are important in understanding the cultural setting of a foreign market. Over the years, advances in research have made Hofstede’s cultural framework questionable. This paper will discuss the five dimensions and offer a critique of each dimension. Proponents of Hofstede’s framework have highlighted that it has a measure of relevance. Notably, that Hofstede’s cultural framework presents some appealing characteristics to some researchers. The fact that the cultural framework emerged when minimal data existed concerning the effect of culture to businesses makes Hofstede’s work outstanding. Moreover, during that time, there were minimal scholarly studies and the fact that Hofstede relied on one to develop his cultural framework made his work appealing (Blodgett, Bakir, & Rose 2008, p. 340). Moreover, he carried out several systematic studies with the same purpose of understanding how different societies held different cultural views. Finally, he combined data from all his studies and developed the dimensions of his cultural framework. One of the underlying factors that contribute to questioning of Hofstede’s framework is the definition of culture. Notably, exists is no specific definition of culture that has received acceptance from different scholars. There are numerous definitions of culture and the relevance of any cultural theory depends on the definition of culture used by the scholar. According to Hofstede, culture denotes “a collective programming evident in the mind” of individuals, belonging to a certain group, and that makes them different from other groups. Therefore, Hofstede developed his cultural framework based on the definition of culture as mental programming comprising of thoughts and feelings that determined how members of a certain group act. The reason why Hofstede used the term “programming” is that learning a culture involves a rigorous and long process (Boonghee, Donthu, & Lenartowicz 2011, p. 193). Learning a certain culture requires an individual to understand all the dominant beliefs and attitudes as well as all the cultural rituals and symbols. In every society, individuals learn these aspects in a long process that begins after birth. Hofstede’s Five Cultural Dimensions One of the cultural dimensions described by Hofstede is the power distance. According to him, this dimension denotes the extent to which members of the society who have no access to power recognize and accept that unequal power distribution is a normal aspect of the society. Cultures that have a high power distance have people in the lower class accepting the fact that those in the upper class have more power. This means that inequality in the society is an aspect recognized by both leaders and followers. Although a measure of power inequality does exist in every society, there are numerous differences across societies. In low power distance societies, people exhibit determination to promote equality within the society. This dimension touches on one of the critical aspects in any culture or society (Fang 2010, p. 155). Businesses that venture into foreign markets need to understand how employees will view the difference in power between them and their leaders. In low power distance societies, businesses will face the compulsion of involving all the employees in decision-making processes and adopting the organizational structures that give employees a measure of control. However, in societies that have high power distance, ‘a hierarchical structure that gives leaders more power can prove to be successful. Worth noting is the fact that Hofstede carried out his study during a time when many societies did not have any forms of activisms in an effort to promote equality. In many modern cultures, the lower class, perceived to have minimal power, is seeking equality and has expressed the need for equal power sharing. The mechanisms of achieving equality are diverse and differ across societies. This brings into question the relevance of the power distance dimension. It can prove misleading to businesses that venture into foreign markets. This is because societies perceived to have high power distance are currently pushing for more equality. This may pose certain challenges to businesses because employees may demand to have a measure of control and participate in the decision making process. This means that businesses venturing into foreign markets need to undertake further research if they need to understand the new culture. This dimension, as defined by Hofstede may prove to be inadequate when understanding the factors that determine social inequalities (Hofstede & Minkov 2010, p. 193). The second dimension described by Hofstede is individualism. On the opposite side of this dimension, Hofstede described collectivism. Individualism means that individuals in a society only have a responsibility over themselves and that of the immediate family. People in individualistic societies do not give attention to ties associated with different groups in the society. On the other hand, collectivist societies give special regards to the groups that they belong to, starting from the extended family. This dimension determines whether individuals give priority to individual needs or those of the group. In the business world, individualistic societies comprise of individuals who pursue personal goals and aspirations (Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson 2006, p. 285). On the other hand, collectivist societies comprise of individuals who appreciate the sense of belongingness emerging from a group. Therefore, they give priority to the interest and the needs of the group. In a typical organization, employees from a collectivist society will exhibit more commitment to the organizational goals and values. This is unlike the case in individualistic societies whereby employees exhibit more consent for personal needs. As highlighted above, Hofstede relied on employees working at IBM. The fact that Hofstede relied on data from a single organization, it presents a limit of applying his findings to a diverse range of societies. The issues surrounding individualism and collectivism are more complex than he highlighted in his cultural framework. Although some societies described are highly individualistic, they still have certain strong ties. In other collectivist societies, people may not exhibit the unquestioning loyalty described by Hofstede. Therefore, there is a salient need for more data in understanding individualism and collectivism in societies. The issue is of fundamental importance in societies (Manrai & Manrai 2011, p. 30). However, it seems that Hofstede did not give much attention to defining the central tenets of both individualism and collectivism. Businesses can fail if they do not understand these aspects well. Therefore, the relevance of what Hofstede described has been fading as cultures become more dynamic and as researchers seek to understand the issue more precisely. The third dimension described by Hofstede in his cultural framework is masculinity. The opposite of masculinity, which is femininity, came into focus in this dimension. In order to define the masculinity dimension, Hofstede highlighted that women were unlikely to exhibit differences in values across different societies. On the other hand, the values of men from one country to the other differed immensely. Therefore, he opined that men who exhibited an assertive and competitive personality exhibited a higher level of masculinity. On the other hand, men who believed in modest values similar to those exhibited by women depicted that the society was feminine. However, in societies that score highly in this dimension, they are more dominating and assertive (Minkov & Hofstede 2012, p. 3). In societies that have high scores in masculinity, many of the leaders are men while women hold subordinate roles in the business platform. Men receive numerous privileges as leaders in the society because they are very assertive. In feminine societies, women have more chances because men hold modest values (Yeganeh 2013, p. 53). In such societies, gender equality is slowly becoming a reality. Evidently, the 21st century has marked increased activism that seeks to grant women equal chances as those given to men. The dynamism of the society has seen the movement of women from exhibiting modest values to gaining competitive and assertive personalities. Modern women focus on independence, and they have proved that they can have the competitive spirit exhibited by men. This is evident because women have expressed their need to hold powerful positions and have moved upwards in their careers to hold such positions. Although the values of women have proved highly dynamic, a factor that Hofstede did not give attention to, men have remained highly assertive in many societies (OH, Pieper, & Gerhart 2010, p. 1). These changes compromise the relevance of the masculinity and the femininity dimension. Businesses have faced challenges in societies that they deemed masculine. This is because even women in highly masculine societies have been seeking equal opportunities. With increased education to women, and the availability of resources for such women, has transformed the societies in numerous ways. This introduces a salient need for restructuring and redefining this dimension if it is to suit the conditions of the modern society. The fourth dimension concerns the uncertainty avoidance. It determines whether a society is willing to tolerate uncertainty. There are societies that need to establish the truth and avoid ambiguity. Societies that need such levels of certainty thrive well in structured situations. A structured society has rules and regulations in place that determine what is right in every situation. On the other hand, cultures that tolerate uncertainty do not have any strict rules of defining a structured society. Societies that avoid uncertainties have rigid social structures and are unwilling to accept new opinions that differ from their rigid views (Soares, Farhangmehr, & Shoham 2007, p. 280). On the other hand, societies that can handle uncertainty are open to different views and opinions. Notably, the business world is becoming highly unpredictable. Although each country and region has certain rules and regulations that define acceptable business practices, there is a salient need for a level of flexibility in the business world. Societies that avoid uncertainty are slowly realizing that it is quite impossible to avoid all forms of uncertainties when doing business. Therefore, this dimension is losing relevance. Even conservative societies are becoming more open to new opinions and experimentation because they realized that the business world needs risk takers (Tang & Koveos 2008, p. 1045). Therefore, this dimension needs proper definition in accordance with the modern business conditions. The fifth dimension highlighted by Hofstede is the long-term orientation. Societies that have a high score of long-term orientation are more likely to prove conservative and exhibit an undying attachment to traditional values. Some societies exhibit lower scores in this dimension, meaning that they have the willingness to experiment with dynamic trends, and are slowly losing attachments to traditional values. Evidently, this dimension is becoming highly questionable. This is because all the societies have become more willing to adopt new trends (Williamson 2002, p. 1373). This is evident from the fact that societies across the globe have adopted new business and leadership models as long as they prove to be successful. Conclusion Although the dimensions described by Hofstede have been in use for some time, they are slowly becoming questionable. The definition of culture has been changing over time, and the new definitions require new models of cultural frameworks. Moreover, cultures in different populations are highly heterogeneous. Therefore, it is impossible to generalize cultures into these five dimensions. Political influences have a strong impact on all the five dimensions described. Hofstede did not give attention to the potential influence of politics to the culture. Therefore, it is evident that the cultural frameworks need modifications to suit the modern business world. Bibliography Blodgett, J, Bakir, A, & Rose, G 2008, A test of the validity of Hofstede’s cultural framework, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25, 6, pp. 339-349, PsycINFO, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 December 2014. Boonghee, Y, Donthu, N, & Lenartowicz, T 2011, Measuring Hofstedes Five Dimensions of Cultural Values at the Individual Level: Development and Validation of CVSCALE, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23, 3/4, p. 193, Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File, EBSCOhost, viewed 8 December 2014. Fang, T 2010, Asian management research needs more self-confidence: Reflection on Hofstede (2007) and beyond, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27, 1, p. 155, Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 December 2014. Hofstede, G, & Minkov, M 2010, Long- versus short-term orientation: new perspectives, Asia Pacific Business Review, 16, 4, p. 493, Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 December 2014. Kirkman, B, Lowe, K, & Gibson, C 2006, A Quarter Century of Cultures Consequences: A Review of Empirical Research Incorporating Hofstedes Cultural Values Framework, Journal of International Business Studies, 3, p. 285, JSTOR Journals, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 December 2014. Manrai, L, & Manrai, A 2011, Hofstedes Cultural Dimensions and Tourist Behaviors: A Review and Conceptual Framework, Journal of Economics, Finance & Administrative Science, 16, 31, pp. 23-48, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 December 2014. Minkov, M, & Hofstede, G 2012, Hofstede’s Fifth Dimension: New Evidence From the World Values Survey, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 1, p. 3, Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 December 2014. OH, K, Pieper, JR, & Gerhart, B 2010, Comparing the predictive power of national cultural distance measures: hofstede versus project globe, Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, p. 1. Available from: 10.5465/AMBPP.2010.54499873. [7 December 2014]. Soares, A, Farhangmehr, M, & Shoham, A 2007, Hofstedes dimensions of culture in international marketing studies, Journal of Business Research, 60, Impact of Culture on Marketing Strategy, pp. 277-284, ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost, viewed 8 December 2014. Tang, L, & Koveos, P 2008, A Framework to Update Hofstedes Cultural Value Indices: Economic Dynamics and Institutional Stability, Journal of International Business Studies, 6, p. 1045, JSTOR Journals, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 December 2014. Williamson, D 2002, Forward from a critique of Hofstedes model of national culture, Human Relations, 55, 11, p. 1373, Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 December 2014. Yeganeh, H 2013, A compound index of cultural dimensions: implications and applications, International Journal of Organizational Analysis (Emerald), 12, 1, p. 53, Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File, EBSCOhost, viewed 8 December 2014. Read More