|
|
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | HOFSTEDE’S CULTURAL DIMENSIONS THEORY
| |
| | | | |
| − | THE ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
| |
| − | The organizational culture is strongly influenced by the national culture of the country in which the organization is born, differing from others in terms of values and managerial style. National culture can be defined as "that collective programming of the human mind that distinguishes one group of people from another". Each context is made unique by the set of values and principles that characterize the relationships and way of thinking and feeling of individuals in each country, and is the result of a combination of historical, political, climatic, and geographical factors. National culture assumes a relevance and depth within society such as to become imperceptible and taken for granted in the eyes of the people who possess it, expressing their identity. Cultural metaphors and stereotypes, that is, generalizations and simplifications of characteristics of a community that also contribute to cultural maintenance, are widely used to quickly grasp the essential traits of a culture. The national culture and the way in which it influences organizational operations are analyzed by Hofstede's model, thanks to the study of cultural differences linked to managerial activities, cross-cultural management. It allows for the comparison of organizational behavior across different countries and is aimed at increasing interaction between colleagues, customers, suppliers, and alliance partners from different cultures. Cross-cultural management, therefore, expands the scope of domestic management to embrace the international and multicultural sphere.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | THE MODEL OF HOFSTEDE
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Hofstede initially outlined culture through five dimensions, reflecting cultural influences such as power distance, individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and short-term/long-term orientation. More recently, a sixth dimension has been added, represented by indulgence. Through statistical research in one hundred countries, Hofstede has provided an interpretative model of national cultures, which serves as a compass for navigating a global and multicultural context.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | THE SIX DIMENSIONS
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 1.Power distance (PDI, Power Distance Index):
| |
| − | It refers to the extent to which less powerful individuals within an organization accept that power is distributed unequally within it. This concept implies that the level of inequality exists based on the level of acceptance of the followers rather than the ability of the leaders to impose it.
| |
| − | In managerial terms, a culture with a high distance from power (such as those in Latin America, Spain, France, and much of Asia) prefers hierarchical bureaucracies, strong leaders, and has a high respect for authority. Leaders are feared and respected and tend to have a paternalistic or authoritarian style, and subordinates tend not to question requests made of them. Conversely, a culture with a low distance from power (such as those in the US, UK, and the rest of Europe) tends to favor personal responsibility and autonomy. Even leaders tend to use more consultative and participative styles with their collaborators.
| |
| − | Hofstede coined a now well-known expression, namely that a manager who operates in international contexts knows that "all societies are unequal, but some are more unequal than others".
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 2. Individualism- collectivism(IDV):
| |
| − | The second dimension is individualism, opposed to collectivism (here intended not in a political sense). In some societies, there is a stronger sense of collectivity and interpersonal ties (examples include Korea, Greece, Mexico, Japan, etc.), while in others, it is expected that an individual is able to take care of themselves and their own organization or family (France, Germany, Canada, South Africa, etc.). Where the collective logic prevails, the individual grows within cohesive, numerous, and protective groups, mainly in exchange for loyalty.
| |
| − | In managerial terms, in societies with a low level of individualism, group needs and mechanisms prevail over individual ones; where the level of individualism is high, the free will and initiative of the individual are accepted and become drivers of development or change.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 3. Masculinity-femininity (MAS):
| |
| − | The third dimension is masculinity, opposed to femininity. The author refers to the distribution of roles within the sexes, delving into the analysis of values such as modesty and assertiveness (feminine pole) or competitiveness (masculine pole). In the managerial context, the most interesting consideration is that a masculine culture emphasizes status (which derives, for example, from position and salary), while a feminine culture places greater emphasis on human relationships and quality of life. In countries where "feminine" values are important (such as Sweden, Israel, Denmark, Indonesia, etc.), people tend to seek a good working relationship with their bosses, feel more comfortable with cooperative models, want to be loyal to the organization (even for life), and pay attention to the work environment (both corporate and surrounding "area"). In countries with a higher masculinity index (USA, Japan, Italy, Hong Kong, etc.), individuals mainly seek compensation for their efforts, career opportunities, access to better positions, challenging tasks as a source of satisfaction.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 4. Uncertainty Advoidance (UAI, Uncertainty Avoidance Index):
| |
| − | The fourth dimension concerns the resistance to uncertainty, that is the degree to which members of an organization feel threatened by unknown situations. According to the author, the "unstructured situations" that can generate fear are those that are new, unknown, surprising, or different from the usual. Cultures with a high degree of resistance to uncertainty seek to minimize risk through laws and rules, but at the same time can be very energetic, driven by the nervous energy released in confronting uncertainty. Conversely, cultures that accept uncertainty are more tolerant of diverse opinions and tend to have less rigid rules, are more calm, contemplative, and people do not easily express their emotions.
| |
| − | Regarding management, organizations that resist uncertainty seek to emphasize standardization and workplace safety, while those that do not fear uncertainty more easily accept risk and are more open to innovation.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 5. Short vs long term orientation (LTO):
| |
| − | The fifth dimension concerns long-term orientation, which is based on perseverance and parsimony, while short-term orientation focuses on respecting traditions, fulfilling social obligations, and preserving honor and prestige. These values have Confucian origins but can also be applied to societies not influenced by Confucianism.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 6. (IVR, Indulgence versus Restraint):
| |
| − | The last dimension is indulgence versus restraint, which has two opposite poles. The first pole focuses on freedom to act, spend, and enjoy life, perceived as a source of happiness. The opposite pole instead focuses on restrictions and prohibitions, with the perception that indulging in leisure and entertainment is wrong.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | LIMITATIONS OF THE MODEL
| |
| − |
| |
| − | -Critics argue that the cultural dimensions model oversimplifies the complexity of culture by reducing it to a set of static dimensions, thereby ignoring the dynamic and fluid nature of cultural values and beliefs.
| |
| − | -The model's limited sample size, consisting mainly of IBM employees, raises questions about its generalizability to the wider population.
| |
| − | -It focus on national culture neglects other important factors, such as organizational culture, regional culture, and individual differences.
| |
| − | -Some scholars criticize the model for reinforcing cultural stereotypes and promoting cultural essentialism, which can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts between cultures.
| |
| − | -It fails to account for the impact of globalization, migration, and other social and economic forces that may influence cultural values and behaviors over time.
| |
| − | -Critics also argue that the model is Eurocentric and does not consider the cultural values and perspectives of non-Western countries and cultures.
| |
| − | -Furthermore, the model assumes a linear relationship between cultural values and behaviors, which may not always hold true in practice. Cultural values can be in conflict or may change over time, leading to complex and unpredictable behavior patterns.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | APPLICATION
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The project manager must be aware of the cultural effect on the project once two or more cultures are significantly present; that is, the stakeholder's culture.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | CASE STUDY (?)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | CONCLUSION
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Although Hofstede's cultural dimensions have remained relevant indicators to some extent for the past 40 years, updating them through new research would provide significant benefits to multicultural management, especially considering the rapidly evolving and changing world cultures due to globalization.
| |
