An Overview Of Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions In Intercultural Business Communication

Intercultural Business Communication and Its Significance in the Global Marketplace

Discuss about the Intercultural Business Communication for Global Marketplace.

Intercultural business communication can be compared with a complex disciplinary Endeavour, which is involved with a highly developed field of enquiry. The dimensions associated with the intercultural perceptiveness are widely used in the organisational context. According to Mazanec et al., (2015), intercultural business communication deals with the cross-cultural business context and the study of the communication in intercultural. It is noticeable the establishment of the effective intercultural communication process helps in eliminating the cultural differences between the international business clients or partners (Bakir et al., 2015). Many scholars and business tycoons have expressed their experiences in dealing with the intercultural scenario. The study observes a thesis statement that depicts the extent to which the description of the cultural dimensions presented by Hofstede is justified and contextual. In order to develop such thesis, the study would provide the clear understanding regarding the diverse cultural dimensions explained by Hofstede. Furthermore, the study would present the counter arguments created by McSweeney’s to define the loopholes in the description of Hofstede. The debate-based study would help in strengthening the analytical skills regarding the subject area.

The current global marketplace is surrounded by the immense competitive forces. Chien et al., (2016) pointed out that each of the organisations strives to meet the excellence by developing the suitable strategies.  Broadening the global perspectives is also one of those fruitful business strategies that are securing the competitive edge in the international market. According to Hur, Kang and Kim (2015), communication is the .major weapon to achieve the excellence in a global level. Establishment of the effective communication at the multicultural level cannot be underestimated. Developing the intercultural communication helps in gathering the global perspectives and the innovative working culture that can help in ensuring the ‘win-win’ positioning in spite of the huge competition (Rallapalli & Montgomery, 2015). One of the famous psychologists, Dr. Geert Hofstede introduced the cultural dimension model in the year of 1970 to explain the broader aspects of the intercultural values. After conducting the extensive research on these parameters, this framework is approved as per the internationalized standards to develop the clear understanding regarding the cultural differences. It is argued that the individuals may carry the individual preferences that cannot define the collective characteristics of a nation. It is stated that as an essentialist, one may objectify the scenario that has some of the specific underlying nature or essence.

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension Model

The observations of the different cultural dimensions could create the differences between the cultures. Based on such differences, the cultural dimensions are characterization into six divisions, such as power distance, individualism vs collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity, uncertainty avoidance, pragmatic vs. normative, and indulgence vs. restraint (Hofstede, 1984). The first dimension is power distance index (PDI), which refers to the observable degree of inequality that is accepted between the people with or without power. If the score of the PDI is higher, it determines that the society tends to accept the hierarchal and unequal distribution of power. It also indicates that people understand their position in the system. On the other hand, the low PDI score indicates that the power is widely dispersed and shared (Engle & Nash, 2015). Society would not accept when the power is unequally distributed among others. For example, in Malaysia, the people accept the unequal distribution of power due to which it scores higher in this dimension.  The second dimension is Individualism vs Collectivism, which refers to the strong cooperation of the people in the community. The higher level of IDV indicates the weaker interpersonal relationships with each other whereas the low score defines the strong tendency towards establishing the collectivism (Ladhari, Souiden & Choi, 2015). For example, some of the Central American countries like Guatemala and Panama have the lower IDV scores, which indicate that they prefer the individualism for performing any work.

The third dimension is masculinity vs femininity, which refers to the distribution of responsibilities between males and females (Kim, 2017). In such divisions, men are supposedly perceived as the strong and assertive whereas the females are perceived as modest. The gaps created between the male and females’ values are greater in Austria and Japan. The fourth dimension is uncertainty avoidance index (UAI), which describes the extent to which people can cope with anxiety (Nathan, 2015). In a society where the UAI is high, people attempt to make the life as controllable or predictable as possible. On the other hand, the low UAI score indicates the more relaxed, inclusive, and open mentality. Greece has scored the highest in this dimension whereas Singapore has scored lower. The fifth dimension is pragmatic versus normative, which is also conceptualized as the long-term orientation (Matthes, 2016). It generally refers to the degree to which people need to explain the stronger aspects of the nationalism or religiosity. It has been observed that US has scored higher in the normative scale. It reflects the short term goal orientation to gain quick result (Zeromskyte & Wagner, 2017). The final dimension is indulgence versus restraint in which higher score refers to the high level of encouragement. On the other hand, the lower score refers to the more emphasis on suppressing the gratifications. Russia has the lower IVR score in this segment, which indicates the lesser gratification in such context.

Criticism of Hofstede’s Methodology in Measuring Cultural Differences

Each dimension of this model specifies some of the basic questions that determine the score achieved by the countries. However, it has been observed that there are some of the re-enquires are developed for answering the questions. The first dimension of this model is the power distance in which the questions are formulated to understand the extent of disagreement of the society to question their leaders (Zeromskyte & Wagner, 2017). It develops the questions on the extent to which the employees are afraid to express their disagreement with their managers. It was noticed that Hofstede was receiving the similar answer within the cultures, but the differences are found while establishing the links on the ecological correlation. There is thus a question arise based on the reliability on the questionnaire developed for power distance. The second dimension is the uncertainty avoidance index, which develops the question regarding the extent to which an individual face nervousness or tension at the workplace (Beugelsdijk, Maseland & Hoorn, 2015). The scores developed in this question differed in a greater aspect by country than by the occupation. Therefore, there is the question raised against the validation of the Hofstede’s methodology in this cultural dimension as well based on the people’s reactions towards uncertainty or anxiety.

The cultural dimension scores established by Hofstede are relatively arguable in terms of reliability and validity. Ojala (2015) commented that the unconsciousness of the people is much more sensitive than their conscious mind. When people stay in their unconscious mind, it affects their psychology in a significant way. It is noticeable that people sometimes fail to answer the questions consciously since they are not aware of the truth. For instance, if people have the clear ideas about their work values and approaches, it would have been easier for them to analyse the questionnaire in a clarified manner (French, 2015). Moreover, they are even unaware of the situations as well. It is even argued that some of the questionnaires are completed by the group instead of the individuals. Hence, it is noticeable that the information derived from the questionnaire cannot provide the evidence of accuracy. It does not reflect the real mentality of the people. In addition to this, it has been observed that some of the employees predicted some changes in the company’s policies based on the result derived from this survey. Therefore, they did not give the real responses (Conforti et al., 2015). Observing such drawbacks, it can be implied that the questionnaire formulated for describing the cultural dimensions is quite limited. It is quite difficult to rely on the questionnaire due to such lack of authenticity. Moreover, it is even observed that the description provided by Hofstede introduces the extension of the validity and applicability of the survey questionnaire. He presented the argument by stating that people cannot carry the separate mentality while they are working in a similar working environment.

Despite the broader acceptance of the cultural framework of Hofstede, there are numerous criticisms are formulated. Hofstede has faced the fierce challenges and oppositions due to such criticisms. McSweeney criticized the approaches of Hofstede in diverse ways (Esfandiar et al.., 2017). The first criticism was developed on the questionnaire that was prepared to understand the responses towards the cultural dimensions. He identified that the responses gathered from the survey are not accurate (McSweeney, 2002). Moreover, use of nation as the unit is not suitable enough to examine the cultural differences. The methodology is quite questionable for assigning the result of single employees from one company to the score of entire nation. In fact, it is also noticed that these dimensions are not enough to judge the cultural differences (De Mooij, 2015). It is also argued that the data collected from the survey of IBM employees is not outdated. On the contrary, Hofstede presented the counter argument by stating that the survey measured the differences between the nations. Hence, there is no absolute numbers to be calculated (Hofstede, 2002). Therefore, this notion of McSweeney is not accepted. Hofstede also indicated that these cultural dimensions are not the only criteria to measure the cultural aspects. He expected others to preset the proposal that define more cultural dimensions. He even rejected the allegations based on the outdated data by stating that the current replication does not show any loss of validity. Richter (2016) developed the comparison between the strengths and weakness of the methodology formulated by Hofstede. This differentiation provides the supports to the argument presented by McSweeney. This argument suggests the possibility of some of the political influences to the development of some of the dimensions. Zeromskyte and Wagner (2017) ensured that the theoretical construction developed by Hofstede need to be reexamined thoroughly concentrating on the context of early 21^st century. It would formulate the idea about the cross cultural aspects and the behavioral traits as well.

The inconsistencies noticeable in the cultural dimension model are conceptualized as static instead of dynamic. Rallapalli and Montgomery (2015) developed another argument on the fifth dimensions of the cultural model. It is noticed that the short term orientation in this aspect is marked as negative whereas long term vision is perceived as exceptionally positive. This philosophical flaw in the fifth dimension is highly criticized. This differentiation is violating the principles of China presented by Yin and Yang. Furthermore, it is also noticed that the fifth cultural dimension, as per the Hofstede model, overlaps different value attributes that might lead towards confusion. These values are generally based on the opinions of some students that do not represent the majority of the population. Therefore, it is suggested that the fifth cultural dimensions need modifications more particularly. Developing the intercultural communication helps in gathering the global perspectives and the innovative working culture that can help in ensuring the ‘win-win’ positioning in spite of the huge competition. Therefore, it is necessary to develop the concerns regarding the major implications made upon the description of the diverse cultural dimensions. The interpretation of the cultural dimensions based on the values of the Asian countries (especially China and Japan) may vary as per the value scale. The diverse perception of western people can be judged as the ‘western bias’ that significantly creates the limitation in this description of the cultural dimensions. On the other hand, Bakir et al., (2015) suggested that the approaches used by Hofstede can be valid up to 40 years, which is considered as the most widely recognised and robust. However, the dependency on the biased perceptions may affect such views and create the contradictory factors to oppose such approaches.

There are some sets of the arguments developed against the perceptions presented by Hofstede in terms of describing the cultural dimensions. It is noticed that Hofstede generalized about the entire national population, which fails to understand the individual perception towards any particular culture. The respondents selected for the questionnaire was selected from the certain categories of the employees of IBM. There is no validation of their responses since it concentrates on the collective views rather than the individual perceptions based on the subject area (Rallapalli & Montgomery, 2015). The questionnaire is answered by the group of people who could answer in their unconscious mind. Hence, it is noticeable that the answers provided in the questionnaire cannot develop the complete understanding of the characteristics of the nation. The emergence of the essentialism and non-essentialism is also a debatable area in such regards. According to Hur, Kang & Kim (2015), essentialism is conceptualized as the closed minded view that perceive the similar view of the people in a region or country. On the contrary, the non-essentialism is concerned with the open minded belief, which determines that people from the same region or country have their individualistic mentality to live their lives. If these essentialism and non-essentialism is compared with the cultural dimensions of Hofstede, many debates and negative concerns may arise. In majority of the cases, essentialism is perceived as the negative concern since these are restraining one from accepting people as individuals. The essentialist view ensures the constant judgments without having the complete understanding of the context.

The views presented by the essentialist cause someone to believe on the stereotypes, which might not be true. As per the essentialist view, it is perceived that ‘culture’ is conceptualized as the social phenomenon that is generally representing the essential characteristics of a nation. In spite of generalizing the essentialist view, Hofstede bases much of his work on the specific characteristics that are differentiating the national cultures (Rallapalli & Montgomery, 2015). This essentialist culture is criticized as the sub-cultures, which are featured as the smaller group, but develops the understanding regarding the major characteristics of a nation. On the contrary, the non-essentialist view argues that the ‘culture’ itself is a movable concept that is perceived by the different people in different contexts. This argument reflects on the essentialist notion of the ‘national culture’, which is visualized as the socially constructed by the form of nationalism. The essentialist view is widely focusing on the orientation of any specific culture that represents the simplistic form (Ladhari, Souiden & Choi, 2015). It is highly debatable while comparing with the dimension formulated by Hofstede. For example the fifth dimensions of the cultural aspects define the short term and long term goals developed by the nation. it is argued that short term orientation in this aspect is marked as negative whereas long term vision is perceived as exceptionally positive. The description provided by Hofstede introduces the extension of the validity and applicability of the survey questionnaire. He presented the argument by stating that people cannot carry the separate mentality while they are working in a similar working environment. This view is quite similar to the essentialist views, which is contradicted in many aspects. For example, it is argued that the individuals may carry the individual preferences that cannot define the collective characteristics of a nation. It is stated that as an essentialist, one may objectify the scenario that has some of the specific underlying nature or essence. In the field of intercultural communication, it is noticeable that the position of the essentialist is highly criticized. The arguments suggest the broader aspects by concentrating on the perceptive values of people (Nathan, 2015). It is noticeable that if people have the clear ideas about their work values and approaches, it would have been easier for them to analyse the questionnaire in a clarified manner. Moreover, they are even unaware of the situations when they are needed to suggest more concerned areas. It is even argued that some of the questionnaires are completed by the group instead of the individuals. Hence, it is noticeable that the information derived from the questionnaire cannot provide the evidence of accuracy.

The major problem identified in the cultural analysis of Hofstede ensures the lack of proper evidence based studies. McSweeney has come up with several compilations of arguments that even concentrate on the smaller aspects of the cultural traits. The lack of flexibility in the research structure is providing the limited knowledge regarding the cultural traits of the different nations. He identified that the responses gathered from the survey are not accurate. Moreover, use of nation as the unit is not suitable enough to examine the cultural differences (Zhou & Pilcher, 2018). The methodology is quite questionable for assigning the result of single employees from one company to the score of entire nation. In fact, it is also noticed that these dimensions are not enough to judge the cultural differences. It is also argued that the data collected from the survey of IBM employees is not outdated. Therefore, it can be stated in spite of the general assumptions, the criticism is overlapping the description of cultural dimensions in a significant way.

Conclusion

The study describes the description of the cultural dimensions elaborated by Hofstede. Furthermore, the study develops the criticism presented by McSweeney in terms of understanding the individual perceptions. The questionnaire associated with the dimension based views of Hofstede is highly criticized. Hofstede has faced the fierce challenges and oppositions due to such criticisms. McSweeney criticized the approaches of Hofstede in diverse ways. The first criticism was developed on the questionnaire that was prepared to understand the responses towards the cultural dimensions. The study also indicates that the intercultural communication helps in gathering the global perspectives and the innovative working culture that can help in ensuring the ‘win-win’ positioning in spite of the huge competition. Therefore, it is necessary to develop the concerns regarding the major implications made upon the description of the diverse cultural dimensions. The view of the essentialism is aligned with the views of cultural dimensions and criticized as the sub-cultures, which are featured as the smaller group, but develops the understanding regarding the major characteristics of a nation.

References

Bakir, A., Blodgett, J. G., Vitell, S. J., & Rose, G. M. (2015). A preliminary investigation of the reliability and validity of Hofstede’s cross cultural dimensions. In Proceedings of the 2000 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference (pp. 226-232). Springer, Cham.

Beugelsdijk, S., Maseland, R., & Hoorn, A. (2015). Are scores on Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture stable over time? A cohort analysis. Global Strategy Journal, 5(3), 223-240.

Chien, S. Y., Sycara, K., Liu, J. S., & Kumru, A. (2016, September). Relation between trust attitudes toward automation, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, and big five personality traits. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 841-845). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

Conforti, R., de Leoni, M., La Rosa, M., van der Aalst, W. M., & ter Hofstede, A. H. (2015). A recommendation system for predicting risks across multiple business process instances. Decision Support Systems, 69, 1-19.

De Mooij, M. (2015). Cross-cultural research in international marketing: clearing up some of the confusion. International Marketing Review, 32(6), 646-662.

Engle, R. L., & Nash, B. (2015). Does it matter if researchers use individual dimension constructs or only aggregated constructs of cultural distance and cultural intelligence?. Journal of International Business Research, 14(2), 47.

Esfandiar, K., Sharifi-Tehrani, M., Pratt, S., & Altinay, L. (2017). Understanding entrepreneurial intentions: A developed integrated structural model approach. Journal of Business Research.

French, R. (2015). Cross-cultural management in work organisations. Kogan Page Publishers.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific journal of management, 1(2), 81-99.

Hofstede, G. (2002). Dimensions do not exist: A reply to Brendan McSweeney. Human relations, 55(11), 1355-1361.

Hur, W. M., Kang, S., & Kim, M. (2015). The moderating role of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in the customer-brand relationship in China and India. Cross Cultural Management, 22(3), 487-508.

Kim, S. (2017). National culture and public service motivation: investigating the relationship using Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(1_suppl), 23-40.

Ladhari, R., Souiden, N., & Choi, Y. H. (2015). Culture change and globalization: The unresolved debate between cross-national and cross-cultural classifications. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 23(3), 235-245.

Matthes, E. H. (2016). Cultural Appropriation Without Cultural Essentialism?. Social Theory and Practice, 343-366.

Mazanec, J. A., Crotts, J. C., Gursoy, D., & Lu, L. (2015). Homogeneity versus heterogeneity of cultural values: An item-response theoretical approach applying Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in a single nation. Tourism Management, 48, 299-304.

McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith-a failure of analysis. Human relations, 55(1), 89-118.

Nathan, G. (2015). A non-essentialist model of culture: Implications of identity, agency and structure within multinational/multicultural organizations. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 15(1), 101-124.

Ojala, A. (2015). Geographic, cultural, and psychic distance to foreign markets in the context of small and new ventures. International Business Review, 24(5), 825-835.

Rallapalli, K. C., & Montgomery, C. D. (2015). Marketing strategies for Asian-Americans: guidelines based on Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions. In Minority marketing: Research perspectives for the 1990s (pp. 73-77). Springer, Cham.

Richter, T. (2016). A Conceptual Culture Model for Design Science Research. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 6(3), 01-19.

Zeromskyte, R., & Wagner, W. (2017). When a majority becomes a minority: Essentialist intergroup stereotyping in an inverted power differential. Culture & Psychology, 23(1), 88-107.

Zhou, V. X., & Pilcher, N. (2018). Intercultural competence’as an intersubjective process: a reply to ‘essentialism. Language and Intercultural Communication, 18(1), 125-143.