Hofstedes Cultural Dimensions in Organizations - Essay Example

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions in Organizations By + Introduction Culture is a universal term that is owned by every individual, group, community or region in the world. It is an unavoidable function in the human race that all humans live by. By definition, culture is a set of beliefs, values, habits, customs, and practices that a group of people follow in making day-to-day decisions. How an individual thinks and acts is dictated by a set of cultural practices, which are a backdrop to the beliefs that he/she subscribes to (Shao, 2006). Culture in a broad perspective is encompassed nationally and regionally whereas sub-culture is a subset that is practised within organizations, sectors, departments and families. It affects most organizational activities. For instance, the decisions made, the individuals or groups that make them, the rewards, promotions and how employees are treated. The world today is so modernized and every aspect of life is globalized due to technological advancements. By looking at this concept vividly, cultures have been mixed up in organization as individuals from various backgrounds meet and form an organizational culture. This proves that cultures are mutating. This makes the world exciting but on the other hand it can mean uncertainty and frustrations. The connections and relationships built to synchronize with each other is a dimension of cultural diversity but what could be the taboos, prohibited behaviour and such things that are unacceptable in the other person’s culture? Back in the 1970s the psychologist Dr. Geert Hofstede asked himself the above question and after a decade of thorough research, he came up with a globally accepted model of cultural dimensions. Hofstede interviewed people working in one organization but from 40 diverse cultures of different countries. He collected the data and examined each culture individually. By identifying four divergent cultural dimensions that perfectly separated other cultures, he came up with five dimensions. Scores in the range of 0 to 100 were placed. High scores showed that the dimension is exclusively exhibited in a community. Definition of Organizational Culture Organizational culture is the knowledge that is common to a considerable number of employees in an organization. The culture they share has little to do with their domestic backgrounds but it is instilled within the walls of the organization. This culture is mainly associated with the organization’s environment within which its core operations take place. In this case, the type of culture exhibited is different from the specific human capital. Specific Human capital connotes the skills and expertise used by employees to carry out their day-to-day assignments. For example, a librarian’s knowledge concerning where the science section shelves are located is part of specified human capital but not corporate culture. Conversely, the rule that the librarian must be averse with the science section shelves’ location could be considered corporate culture. The explanation in this case is asymmetrical since culture is considered knowledge, not values (Prasongsukarn, 2009). The knowledge that an individual receives is the function of many groups hat the/she inclines to. For example, an attorney in a law firm will have joint cultures, that is, culture of law and corporate culture. This is also applicable in sub-cultures in which different subgroups may have more than one culture. According to Acevedo (n.d), many companies have the problem of heterogeneity of cultures existing in the same organization but this will not be discussed in this excerpt. Organizational culture helps in reacting better to the issues that arise within it. To back up this theory, this paper will explain the meaning of “better response”. Additionally, the channels of communication and the instruments used to reach decision s in an organization will be covered. Hence, organizational culture is the configuration of fundamental norms that various groups have designed, discovered and established through learning in the quest to solve the problems that the organization might encounter. These complications could either be internally or externally adapted and tested through time for validity. These assumptions are passed to new members in the organization as the best way to perceive, think and feel with regard to these problems. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions in Organizations It is evident that national culture has a great influence on the activities of an organization from the performance of various groups and capital configuration. By incorporating the culture of an organization into the international business activities it upholds, success can be easily achieved. Ignorance of national culture can lead to total failure in business ventures (Dowling et al, 2008) Hofstede came up with an exclusive model, for example the GLOBE Project, to explain the various types of cultural dimensions and the cultural differences they possess. The success of the model is attributed to the research he performed on IBM employees in more than fifty countries by pinpointing five problem areas to embody the various national cultures. These include power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity and long-term orientation (Drucker, 2012) Power Distance Power distance is a dimension which can be used to classify levels of inequality, approaches used in sharing power and ranks, the style of management and the inclination of the junior staff in an organization to confront its superiors. Power distance explains how various cultures treat social inequality. Hofstede (2007) puts into perspective how national cultures with high power distance cultures bring up children by strictly possessing high respect to older people and to show obedience to them, which is gradually carried on to adulthood. This culture is transferred to organizations in which most of them practice centralised power. This culture also has religions with a hierarchy of priests. It is believed that employees are largely inclined to a domineering style of leadership in which instructions trickle down from top leadership to the juniors and they are expected to do what they are told. However, this style has stretched gaps in its earnings. Examples of countries with high power distance include Germany, Italy, Australia, USA, and Great Britain. Conversely, inequality is not a norm in low power distance countries. Employees of any organization are actively involved in the day-to-day decisions made by the organization with constant consultations. These organizations tend to desire a democratic and more quick-witted leader. Several countries exemplify such kinds of power distance: Iran, France, Hong Kong and Spain. Individualism versus Collectivism Individualism versus collectivism is the inclination of individuals to fit in a loosely knit society in which preference is based on the self and autonomy. In contrast, structures of collectivism base their essentials on the relationships of social units like families but not on the self. Employees in individualist communities always opt for the freedom to do their tasks without depending on each other and prefer challenging work. They practice the right to privacy with their own issues and speak their minds openly without fear since their opinions count. Any wrongdoing and going against the norms will always lead to feeling of guilt. These cultures recognize the word “I” which is essential and the main aim of education is learning how to learn. When it comes to relationships and tasks, tasks take an upper hand since it is the tasks that the organization puts in place that make up the cultures. Evidently, this is of more importance compared to personal relationships, which assists in self-actualization. In cultures of collectivism there are organisations of management that are not questionable and are in charge of the structuring of employees’ positions, which calls for cohesion (Triandis, 2012). These cultures have more extended families than nuclear ones that are not even preferred. They also possess the “We” consciousness and emphasis is based on belongings. Individuals prefer to live in peace and harmony and it is the in-groups that determine opinions and votes. When cultural norms are transgressed, this leads to feelings of shame. The main aim of education is to learn how to do things and when it comes to the relationships and tasks, relationships are deemed to be important. Femininity versus Masculinity With reference to Hofstede’s arguments on masculinity, this represents culture with different roles in which the males are indebted to succeed, compete and is eventually rewarded. On the other hand, the females are responsible for tender values that include life qualities and being caring towards others. Cultures inundated with femininity traits have overlapping gender roles. Managers in an organization that are inclined towards masculinity are very assertive and decisive. On the other hand, feminist cultures come up with managers of an intuitive nature who resolve disputes and motivate active involvement in decision-making. Feminist organizations have minimum social and emotional roles and diversity between the genders. There is balance between work and family, and have sympathy for the weak. Both fathers and mothers have to deal with facts and feelings while boys and girls are allowed to cry but never to get into a fight. The US, Japan, Italy and Germany exemplify high-masculinity societies where those ascribed to low masculinity include Netherlands along with other Scandinavian countries (Sikavica et al., 2009). Uncertainty Avoidance The avoidance of uncertainty alludes to the level of threats ascribed to familiar situations that a particular culture’s members might feel. Within high-uncertainty avoidance cultures, a structured environment functions to bind employees within an organization and hard work is revered. There is a high level of and sense of anxiety among the organization’s employees. Rules and regulations are kept in place to keep check on all activities in the organization. On the other hand, in weak uncertainty avoidance cultures, employees are not comfortable with rules and policies and fear is felt when these are incorporated (Rowe, 2013). These rules and regulations are optionally in place. A study was done on the Chinese Confucian Theory revealed with reference to Hofstede’s fifth dimension called long-term orientation. This revealed that there is an extent to which people go to experience a dynamic, future-oriented viewpoint in life also known as long-term orientation (LTO). In contrast, people do not tend to focus on the past and present, also known as short-term orientation (STO) (Hofstede, 2010). Culture as Mental Programming According to Hofstede, national culture connotes the joint programming of the minds of individuals and this differentiates the various groups of people into specific categories. If members fall into a certain group according to their states of mind they form their own culture. Languages commonly found in the Western world depict culture to stand for civilization or modification of the mind. The outcomes of such modifications are things like literature, education and art (Hofstede, 2009). However this illustrates culture in its thinnest sense. In an organizational perspective, culture can be defined as the collective programming of employees’ minds in particular groups whereby one group differentiates itself from others. When culture is observed as a mental software, it encompasses a broad definition of the term that social anthropologists frequently relate to as ‘culture two.’ Social anthropologists use the term ‘culture’ as a slogan for the collective forms of thoughts, emotions, and acting. These activities are supposed to configure and modify the human mind in culture two, and at the same time normal and basic things in life such as crying, laughing, dining, greeting, displaying or not displaying feelings, keeping a definite physical space from others or sanitation. An organization, when compared to a nation, is normally less complex and less drawn-out. This can be revealed by their clear objectives such as profit making, and almost all undertakings in an organization are pointed towards achieving such objectives. Therefore, organizational culture is more specific in its definition than when referring to national culture. Organizational culture is a collective occurrence, since it is in any case partly shared with individuals who reside or belonged to the matching social environment and the learning takes place here. Since culture is learned and not inherited, it develops from an individuals social surroundings, not from an individuals genes. Culture ought to be differentiated from human nature on one hand, and from a persons character on the other (Francesco & Gold, 2009): With the above dimensions in force, it should be known that the interplay between the above factors defines organizational culture as the manner in which associates in an organization relate to each other, to their duties and roles as well as to the general public. These are the main activities that distinguish them from other sets of organizations. Cultural Dimensions and Decision-Making Style in Organizations Different decision-making styles were administered in different countries to determine the cultural dimensions that take precedence in an organizational context. The countries involved were Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Different characteristics of management and organization were evaluated with cultural dimensions put into in light of Hofstede. Decision style is a valuable tenet for understanding the top leaders in an organization, the manner in which they approach decision-making scenarios, and how they interact with other employees in an organization. However, there is scarcity in the research about the effect of cultural diversity on decision-making. There is need to study the effect of national and organizational culture on how managers organize their systems to fit the different cultures that employees carry to their organizations (Triandis, 2012). A decision-making style is a sub-system that is fond within leadership styles. Every decision made by a manager in an organization is directly linked to his/her cultural dimension. The arrangement of decision-making styles in an organization depends on the management. This is as a result of autocracy and democracy with differences in particulars of specific types of decision-making styles. The main hypothesis of this paper is that decision-making is culturally dependent, meaning; the approaches are based on values, beliefs, attitudes and behavioral patterns. Fig 1: Model of the variables influencing decision-making style Many experimental studies have established that the role of cultural background in the selection of a decision-making style is influential. It highlights the role played by national culture by arguing that decision-making style is a necessity since it is devoted to the agreeing national culture, values and norms. This claims that modern business conditions result, very often, in circumstances in which we have to make multifaceted decisions with long-term concerns. It is clear that complex verdicts are outside all other results of social and cultural values that are embedded in every individual. Therefore, social and cultural values have a great influence on decisions and decision-making (Adler, 2005). There are two major kinds of decision-making models that can be applied by managers in an organization. Top-down decision-making recognizes the desired outcome or results of a strategy put in place by an organization. This kind of model always carries with it a top-down management style. What happens is that the leaders of the organization make the decisions and they are trickled down to the junior members in the organization. For implementation, the employees of the organization are tasked to abide by the decisions made by the top management, which sometimes becomes troublesome to accept. This is because; the top leaders are not involved in the day-to-day activities of the organization at multiple levels thus the employees might feel like the decisions are unrealistic compared to the excessive workload they have to go through. Bottom-up decision-making is the complete opposite of the above model. This approach revolves around multiple organizational levels being involved in the decision-making process as the top leadership is informed by surveys and discussing the results received by them. Whereas some decisions may be so realistic and popular, the ones that are popular but unrealistic have to be debated upon. (Ali, 2012) Conclusion In conclusion, it is emergent that cultural dimensions are a big influence to the decisions made by organizations just as Hofstede researched. This paradigm is even draws support from the GLOBE study. Cultures have learned certain norms and values that can have a significant effect on individuals’ actions and play a significant role by influencing business decisions. For an organization to run in an organized way, decisions must be continuously made in such a way that it is universally acceptable to all cultural dimensions of the organization and the employees. The manner in which the decisions are made is a key factor in the success of the company. The top leadership in the organization always has to decide if the correct decisions made have a long term or short-term effect on the organization’s output. The employees have to embrace the outcomes in the decisions made and respect them and work towards the organization’s goals. If this is modus operandi is not taken positively by the workforce, the organization might fall into as crisis that may lead to irrational decisions by the junior staff. Bibliography Acevedo, B. n.d. Visual culture in organizations: Theory and cases. Culture and Organization, 337-340. Adler, N. (2005): International Dimensions of Organizational Behaviour, Second Edition, Wadsworth Publishing Company Ali, A. J. 2012. “Decision Style and Work Satisfaction of Arab Gulf Executives: A Cross-national Study, “International Studies of Management and Organization, (Vol. 19, No. 2): 22-37. Ali, A. J. 2012. “Decision-Making Style, Individualism, and Attitudes toward Risk of Arab Executives, “International Studies Drucker, P. 2012. Nova zbilja, Zagreb: Novi Liber, Francesco, A. M., Gold, B. A. 2009. International Organizational Behaviour: text, cases, and skills, Second Edition, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, Hofstede, G. 2009. Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Abridged Edition, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Hofstede, G. 2010. Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations, Second Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Dowling, P. J., Festing, M. and Engle, A. D., 2008. International Human Resource Management, 5ed, London: Thomson Learning. Hofstede, G. 2013. “Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations”, Second Edition, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 45-46, 501. Mann, L., Radford, M., Burnett, P., Ford, S., Bond, M., Leung, K., Nakamura, H., Voughan, G., Yang, K. 2008. Cross-Cultural Differences in Self-reported Decision-making Style and Confidence“, International Journal of Psychology, (Vol. 33, No. 5): 325-335. Prasongsukarn, K. 2009. Validating the Cultural Value Scale (CVSCALE): A case study of Thailand. ABAC Journal 29 (2): 1-13. Rowe, A., Boulgarides, J. 2013. Decision-styles: a perspective“, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 3-9. Publications Sikavica, P, Bebek, B. Skoko, H. Tipurić, D. 2009. Poslovno odlučivanje, 2nd Edition, Zagreb: Information of Management and Organization, (Vol. 23, No. 3): 53-73. Shao, L. and S. Webber. 2006. A cross-cultural test of the "five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Business Research 59 (8):936-944. Tayeb, M. 2006. Supervisory Style and Cultural Context: a Comparative Study“, International Business Review, (Vol. 4, No. 1): 75-89. Triandis, H. 2012. Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview. Yousef, D. 2008. “Predictors of decision-making styles in a non-western country”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, (Vol. 19, No. 7): 366-373. Zagorsek, H., Jaklic, M., Stough, S. 2006. Comparing Leadership Practices Between the United States, Nigeria, and Slovenia: Does Culture Matter? “Cross Cultural Management, (Vol. 11, No. 2): 16-34. Read More