Indices of Culture Properties by Hofested - Research Paper Example

___________ ____________ ____November 2007 Cultural profiling & comparison of USA and India using Hofstede's & CPAS model Introduction The most frequently deployed tool to assess culture in the academic literature is that of Hofestede's indices of culture properties. This model consists of four categories: Power Distance, Individualism, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Masculinity. Hofstede (2003) defined these five dimensions as follows: power distance: The extent to which power is distributed equally within a society and the degree that society accepts this distribution. A high power distance culture prefers hierarchical bureaucracies, strong leaders and a high regard for authority. A low power distance culture tends to favour personal responsibility and autonomy; uncertainty avoidance: The degree to which individuals require set boundaries and clear structures: a high uncertainty culture allows individuals to cope better with risk and innovation; a low uncertainty culture emphasizes a higher level of standardization and greater job security; individualism versus collectivism: The degree to which individuals base their actions on self-interest versus the interests of the group. In an individual culture, free will is highly valued. In a collective culture, personal needs are less important than the group's needs. This dimension influences the role government is expected to play in markets; masculinity versus femininity: A measure of a society's goal orientation: a masculine culture emphasizes status derived from wages and position; a feminine culture emphasizes human relations and quality of life., and time orientation: The degree to which a society does or does not value long-term commitments and respect for tradition. Long-term traditions and commitments hamper institutional change. Schuler & Rogovsky (1998) explain the model further with appropriate conclusions regarding some of the national cultures in following words, "The first dimension of national culture, Power Distance, indicates the extent to which the fact that power is distributed unequally is accepted in the society by those who do and do not possess power. In a culture with small Power Distance, it is a common belief that inequality within an organization (as well as within society) should be minimized. However, in a culture with a large Power Distance, the common belief is that there should be a certain degree of inequality in the society (organization) Uncertainty Avoidance, is defined as the degree to which uncertainty and unpredictability are tolerated in a society (as well as within an organization). In societies with a high degree of Uncertainty Avoidance, people feel uncomfortable in unstructured or risky situation. In societies low on Uncertainty Avoidance, people are more willing to take risks and can tolerate uncertainty easily Individualism (as opposed to Collectivism) is the degree to which people in a society value an individual's opinion, and put their individual interests and the interests of their immediate family above those of others. On the other hand, in collectivist societies, such as Taiwan (Province of China), Republic of Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong, people distinguish between "in-groups" and "outgroups." They expect their in-groups (clan, work team, organization, community, country) to look after them in exchange for absolute loyalty to the group Masculinity (as opposed to Femininity), is the degree to which the dominant values in societies, such as those of Japan or the United States, are "masculine," i.e., have characteristics such as assertiveness, and are in favor of the acquisition of money and material goods. However, in societies, such as those in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, the dominant values are "feminine," i.e., they place a high value on the quality of life and caring for others. Culture profiles of the USA and India An analysis was carried out using the secondary data available in literature(as referred to in citations) and other research resources to elicit trends and patterns in order to filter out the national cultural profiling of the two countries i.e. India and the USA. Here the generalized and concluded views about the US and Indian cultures were examined so as to derive a profile for the two countries. The summarized findings are as under: 1. When work places were researched as to which of the following were the factors affecting performance on assignment to the US either in a positive or negative manner The literature revealed that in the US a good number of sources reported that US employees did not prefer Occupational freedom, Work profile or the Ability to fit in as factors affecting work performance in USA;whereas the Indian trends indicated a very high percentage of affinity to such factors indicating that these were predominant factors affecting their work performance. As if confirming the above response patterns the literature resources also revealed that the US employees also tended to observe noticeable differences between the Indian and US managements in following areas. The issue examined was if there were differences in some of the chosen management areas between the US and India. US trends indicated that the US employees observed such differences in the following management areas -Decision making styles, Relationship between seniors and subordinates, Team/Individual performance Approach towards work. The two trends from the literature, when taken together, implied indirectly that employees found US work places to be far less hierarchical and structured than Indian work places. The Indian trends indicated, on the contrary, a marked low preference to Occupational freedom, Work profile or the Ability to fit in as factors affecting work performance in USA and thereby found US work places quite unacceptable. Similarly a trend was observed in literature in relation to Indian organizations which indicated that Technical competence Human relations skill and Academic qualifications were the prime factors in hiring employees including Indian expatriates. In case of the US organizations, on the other hand, a trend was observed in literature in relation to which indicated a strong preference for Previous overseas experience, Knowledge of language of the host country, Extroversion, Agreeableness , Conscientiousness, Emotional stability & Openness and intellect as main factors responsible in hiring employees. The above indicates that the US work place culture is less hierarchical and far more open and unstructured than corresponding Indian work places. On a scale from 1 to 10, given above response patterns the US can be placed at a scale rating of 5 which is a low/medium rating; whereas India would have about 8-which is a high rating. This was the Power Distance rating of the two countries. 2. Similarly a trend was observed in literature in relation to Indian employees which indicated that they were wary of unstructured situations and uncertainties. They tended to prefer structured work environments in the sense of obtaining employment on the basis of their technical expertise and experience and looking for work situations that compensated them well. They also expressed greater degree of uncertainty, frustration and inability to cope with the cultural and linguistic divide presented to them by the US work situations. In fact hey found the US work environments too open, flexible and challenging to be comfortable. This was quite not the case with the US employees who found similar circumstances to be quite motivating and satisfactory. In case of US employers, a trend was observed in literature wherein they wanted to instil openness, flexibility, increase in risk taking abilities and the skills necessary to deal with unstructured situations as necessary skills in their employees as part of their training inputs .Therefore, literature revealed that their cultural orientation inputs far exceeded Indian organizations similar inputs. Indian organizations, on their part, preferred to go by structured variables of technical skills, qualificatiuns and pay and perks. Thus Indian culture appeared to have scored, on a scale from 1 to 10, given above response patterns, about 8-which is a high rating and the US can be placed at a scale rating of 5 which is a low/medium rating. This was the Uncertainty Avoidance rating of the two countries. 3. Similarly a distinct trend was observed in the rating of the cultural dimension of Individualism. US employees tended to prefer work places that encouraged individual contributions and compensation. They also wanted to exercise more personal initiative than their Indian counterparts. Role clarity and awareness of responsibilities and duties also appeared to be marked among the US employees when compare to the Indian employees. US employees also placed low reliance of family and socializing aspects of their employment opportunities. Indian employees, on the other had, rated all theses factors -essentially leading to a collective identity-quite the opposite. The US organizations also looked for individualistic traits in their employees and wanted them to self starters and achievers. Risk handling and problem solving abilities were seen as the prime inputs in the training programmes of the US employers. The Indian organizations, on the other hand, placed greater reliance on developing a team of technical hands that delivered organizational objectives as a socially cohesive unit. For instance, the US organizations mostly classed The dispositional and personality characteristics of the expatriates as the most affecting factor dealing with expatriate culture shock. This was indicative of a highly individualistic culture .the Indian organizations consistently responded, on the same factor as the least affective factor. On a scale from 1 to 10, given above response patterns the US can be placed at a scale rating of 9 which is a high rating; whereas India would have about 5-which is a low/medium rating. This was the Individualism rating of the two countries. 4. An examination of responses clearly indicated that the US work place culture was a distinctly masculine culture in that the US employees preferred the individualized initiative taking which they linked with relevant pay and compensation. They also indicated that pay and position determined their status in the organization and the society at large. Emphasis was on aggressively seeking goals with assertiveness rather than be bound by group norms or collective organizations. Indian employees on the other hand preferred to remain a part pf the group and did not support assertiveness. They preferred social cohesion to individualism and were agreeable to relatively low wages provided the work situations were stable and not unpredictable. US organizations looked for assertiveness in their future employees and provided inputs in their training programmes that would essentially lead to the employees becoming an assertive, independent decision maker and problem solver who is agreeable to assume risks provided he is rewarded adequately for such risks. The Indian organizations, on the contrary, looked for a disciplined employee who was bound by organizational discipline and his role territory. Assertiveness was seen as a negative employee trait. Accordingly, the training inputs of the Indian organizations were oriented to building up a socially cohesive team of employees that were well adapted to their organizations. On a scale from 1 to 10, given above response patterns the US can be placed at a scale rating of 9 which is a masculine rating; whereas India would have about 3-which is a feminine rating. This was the Masculinity rating of the two countries. The final ratings can be summarized by the following table and the two radar diagrams: Table : Ratings of the US and the India on Hoefstde's cultural dimensions Country Power Distance Uncertainty Avoidance Individualism Masculinity USA 5 5 9 9 India 8 8 5 3 Figure: Ratings of the US and the India on Hoefstde's cultural dimensions-Radar diagrams USA: India: Conclusion In the end we must agree that the US culture has been distinct from that of several Asian countries-whether such countries are developing or developed. An example of a developing country was provided above in the case study of India. Literature also provides evidence that the US culture is also distinct from that of some developed Asian countries such as the Japan. Koerner . & Manako (2000) state in this respect as follows, "we believe that that the research presented here provides strong evidence suggesting that fundamental cultural dimensions have corresponding dimensions in individuals. cognition. Specifically, individualism and collectivism are represented by the relational models of communal sharing and market pricing, respectively, and horizontal and vertical relationship orientations are represented by authority ranking and equality matching. How individuals represent their relationships in cognition, however, is not solely determined by culture. Equally important are interpersonal dimensions such as intimacy. As our results have shown, greater intimacy leads participants of both American and Japanese culture to use more communal sharing in their relationships, a finding that has been suggested before (i.e., Roloff, 1981, 1987; and Mills & Clark, 1982) but not tested in a cross-cultural context. New is the finding that intimacy in close personal relationships is also associated with greater use of equality matching, whereas in less close relationships, use of authority ranking is associated with greater intimacy. These finding could be interpreted to mean that in their close relationships, equality is a requirement for experiencing real intimacy, whereas in less close relationships, intimacy is contingent of persons going beyond egalitarian rules of politeness, which involves acknowledging social differences". References Hofstede Geert. (2003).Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations. Sage .United States .ISBN 0803973241. Schuler, Randall & Rogovsky, Nikolai.(1998).Understanding compensation practice variations across firms: the impact of national culture Journal of International Business Studies, March 22, 1998, No. 1, Vol. 29;Pg. 159. Koerner Ascan F. &Fujiwara Manako .(2000). Relational Models and Horizontal and Vertical Individualism/Collectivism:A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Americans and Japanese. Paper presented at the annual NCA convention in Seattle, WA, November 9-12, 2000. Roloff, M. E. (1987). Communication and reciprocity within intimate relationships. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.). Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (11-38). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Roloff, M. E. (1981). Interpersonal communication: The social exchange approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1982). Exchange and communal relationships. In L. Wheeler (Ed.). Review of Personality and Social Psychology: 3. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Read More