Question:
Discuss About The Contribution Understanding Of Differences?
differences. Cultural diversity is widely noticed in business organizations as this allows the companies to expand business globally by recruiting global workforce. This is used as a competitive business strategy as the organizations are able to sustain in the competitive business market. Cross-cultural management is defined as the behavior of the people in the organizations around the world thereby, describing the organizational behavior within countries (Moran, Abramson and Moran 2014). Hofstede’s work on cultural differences helps in understanding and improving interaction and communication between the co-workers, clients, suppliers and alliance partners from different countries and cultures. Hofstede’s work on cultural differences is one of most comprehensive studies that demonstrate the influence of cultures and values at the workplace. In order to understand the impact of cultural diversity at the workplace, Hofstede analyzed the large database of IBM employees from 1967-1973 in more than 50 countries. According to Hofstede, culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy. Therefore, cultural differences are a nuisance at best and often a disaster.
Hofstede was one of the first people to consider humans as computers that require various software for programming thereby, presenting an analogy. “Culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group from another” (Giddens et al. 2016). The collective mental programmings of the individuals are greatly influenced by factors such as religious beliefs along with individual preferences, tastes, and cultural background. Hofstede also mentioned that people are not born with culture but grow with. After birth, the individual tends to learn from their surrounding social and religious environment. Professor Geert Hofstede includes six features namely, individuality /collectivistic, masculine/feminine, uncertainty/avoidance, power distance, time perspectives and indulgence/restraint in his work of Hofstede’s work on cultural differences (Fang 2012).
As mentioned by Bian and Forsythe (2012), power distance defines the social inequality within the society. The society includes the working environment that is ruled by strong people. The power distance demonstrates the distance between the individuals at different levels of hierarchy in the working environment. The scale includes from equal to an unequal power distance. Hofstede demonstrated that power is unequally distributed in the business organizations. At certain instances, the majority of the co-workers present at the working environment dominate the employees at the workplace due to the different cultural background. Due to this difference among the co-workers and relationship is noticed. As commented by Shenkar (2012), inequality prevails in most of the places in the society. However, it some places the degree of inequality is more compared to other places within the society. For example, the managers of the business organizations tend to use their power over the employees. Though to a certain extent it is justified in order to maintain balance and discipline within the business organization, at certain instances the power is misused. For instance, due to cultural or religious preferences, in spite of being qualified, the individuals are not provided with desired positions or opportunities. Either they are not recruited or they are not provided suitable professional growth scopes (Lee, Trimi and Kim 2013).
The features of individualism and collectivism are defined as the scale and provision of understanding preferences of individuals or people working in groups (Smith et al. 2013). The concept of individualism highlights the extent to which individuals are supposed to look after themselves to sustain the particular group. A group is composed of culturally diverse individuals that have different preferences, beliefs, and demands. Therefore, in order to sustain in the group, it is significant for the individuals to adjust themselves. For example, in order to achieve the desired goal, a team might be formed that consists of culturally diverse individuals. In order to work successfully as a team, the individuals need to look after themselves so that they can continue as a group. According to Hofstede, Jonker and Verwaart (2012), the society with individualistic nature tends to be more self-centered and self-focused. Due to this tendency, the individuals might increase their extension to family and close relatives. The US culture is a living example of individualistic society. The nature of the individualistic society of the US society facilitates encouraging individual achievements. However, on the contrary, the Guatemalan lifestyle is an example of a collective society that believes in encouraging collective achievements. In the case of the collectivism, the individuals emphasize more on the requirement of the entire group or society. They prioritize the need and demands of the group or the society rather than considering their preferences first (Rinne, Steel and Fairweather 2012). As a result, it is easier of the groups or the societies to achieve the best and high-quality results. The ability of the individuals within the group to adopt the required changes without prioritizing individual preferences results in success. The surrounding social environment and the nature of their upbringing are developed and gathered by the individuals.
Hofstede’s work on cultural diversity expresses the male and female working characteristics of the society and workplace. Masculinity represents toughness among men along with emphasizing on success material. On the other hand, feminine emphasizes more on quality of life such as tenderness and modesty. As commented by Brewer and Venaik (2012), being born as a female or male determines the emotional and social contribution and implications of an individual towards the society. The femininity highlights the type of society where both men and women are modest, tender and concerned with the quality of life. However, as argued by Volet and Ang (2012), masculinity and femininity does not only significant gender differences but highlights the degree of masculinity and femininity. The degree of masculinity represents assertiveness, authority, and performance whereas the degree of femininity represents relationships, quality of life and service. The Japanese society is an example of masculinity society due to their extremely low ranking of female workers. On the other hand, the western countries such as Norway and Sweden are examples of femininity society, as a higher amount of empathy towards the female workers is seen. The male and female correspondents are given equal and deserving positions and career growth opportunities based on their skills, qualification, and experience.
The feature of uncertainty avoidance highlights the ability of the individuals or the society to deal with uncertain situations. Ability to deal with uncertain situations provides an opportunity of controlling expression while avoiding uncertain situations (Viberg and Gronlund 2013). However, as argued by Grimmelikhuijsen et al. (2013), uncertainty avoidance is defined as the degree to which individuals are exposed to uncertain situations or events. Uncertainty avoidance provides an opportunity for the individuals to cope up in future even if the situations encountered are within the control or out of control. Therefore, cultures signifying higher rate of uncertainty avoidance results in adverse risk effects thereby, preferring predictable environment. According to Hofstede’s work on cultural diversity, individuals from society having a high rate of uncertainty avoidance are generally dogmatic and rigid (Dickson et al. 2012). This is because the individuals are extremely threatened by the uncertain future situations. As a result, the individual from such societies foresees and expects a higher percentage of risk involved in the future. In order to gain security, the individuals from higher uncertainty avoidance society rely on religion, rules, and customs (Beugelsdijk, Maseland and Hoorn 2015). The aforementioned practices are highly prevalent in most of the organizations around the world. For example, some of the organization might not have any health and safety regulations and rules or policies representing minimum pay for the employees. However, some of the organizations might have policies and rules fulfilling the above-mentioned factors. The organizations that expect certain amount of risk to happen, therefore, prepare themselves for facing them in future.
According to the fifth dimension stated by Hofstede’s work on cultural diversity, the basic difference highlighted within the society includes clock-time culture against the time of the event. Hofstede’s work on cultural diversity insisted that the clock time culture is highly prevalent within industries and organizations. This is because the business organizations and industries provide greater importance towards punctuality and dedication towards work (Minkov and Hofstede 2012).
As commented by Vaiman and Brewster (2015), discussing and understanding the significance of cross-culture for the business organization necessary for managing workplace and relationship between the employees. Therefore, having a deep understanding of the culture of different countries is significant in order to conduct business internationally and globally. In spite of being popular, Hofstede’s work on cultural diversity gathered a whole lot of criticism. For example, some of the researchers beg to differ with Hofstede’s tools for collecting data such as surveys. The authors question the accuracy of work thereby, criticizing that Hofstede failed to select appropriate tools for collection of data for his research works (Taras, Steel and Kirkman 2012). As a result, the findings, interpretations, and conclusion deduced by Hofstede might be incorrect. As commented by Hsu, Woodside and Marshall (2013), Hofstede mentioned in one of his work that survey is just one of the methods of collecting relevant data and that he has used other methods for collecting data for this research works. In support of Hofstede, authors have mentioned considering the time when he has been conducting the research works. Therefore, considering the time when Hofstede conducted the research, very little similar works have been done to learn and understand the culture. However, as argued by Meyer et al. (2012), the dimension of Hofstede’s cultural diversity fails in providing a deep understanding of the organizational culture.
According to Cogin (2012), works done by Hofstede are extremely relevant in understanding cultural diversity thereby, becoming one of the significant works for understanding the importance of cultural diversity within organizations. During the time, Hofstede started researching about cross-cultural diversity among various organizations; international business strategy was just undertaken by the business organizations. Therefore, the business organizations were in very much need of reliable and credible resources. For such organizations, Hofstede’s work on cultural diversity acted as an immense source of understanding and hope. As a result, Hofstede’s work on cultural diversity is considered relevant to the primitive studies. Moreover, his work is still considered as it made ways and opportunities for future researches. However, as argued by Kawar (2012), Hofstede’s study considered the entire population of a country as homogeneous thereby, failing to take into account the opinions and views of native minorities.
While conducting the study, Hofstede considered only IBM over a period for understanding the influence of cultural diversity. As IBM is an international company, the workplace consists of people from different cultural background. As a result, Hofstede was able to consider different cultures within the same organizations. However, on the contrary, only collecting data from one organization resulted in a lot of criticism for Hofstede’s work on cultural dimension. This is because Hofstede always prioritized national culture over local culture. Therefore, in the study Hofstede also considered the national culture of the country of IBM as the only culture and compared it with another office of IBM is another country.
Some of the authors have stated various arguments based on Hofstede’s work on cultural diversity. Some of the authors seem extremely firm, strong and assertive while questioning the accuracy of Hofstede’s work. Questions also arise in terms of the existence of national culture in Hofstede’s work. Criticizing Hofstede’s work, it has been said that Hofstede’s has been trying to measure something that is difficult to quantify by incorrect means. Hofstede’s work has also been criticized by saying that national culture cannot be considered as the only culture of the country. This is because national culture is defined as all the cultures that are present within the country thereby, distinguishing the individuals from one nation to another (Vaara et al. 2012).
As Hofstede prioritized national culture over local cultures, this restricted the chances of accommodating new ideas, opinions, and perspectives within the study. Hofstede did not consider the various cultures that co-existed within the country. Instead, he considered the major culture of the country as the national culture and only emphasized on the national culture. As a result, Hofstede’s work on cultural dimension failed to incorporate the viewpoints and opinions of the ethnic minorities. Therefore, according to the different authors, Hofstede work on cultural dimension failed to analyze the true sense of cultural diversity, as the cultures of the ethnic minors were left unattended.
As mentioned by Zhang, De Pablos and Xu (2014), Hofstede has always considered the entire culture of the country a one thereby, ignoring small practices and cultures that co-exist within the country. For example, Hofstede has considered Greta Britain, as one national culture though Great Britain is constituted Wales, Scotland, and England. Therefore, Hofstede work on cultural diversity has failed to consider the respective cultures of Wales, Scotland, and England while conducting his research. As mentioned by Hamamura (2012), Hofstede’s research structure was based coherent theory thereby, facilitating systematic collection of data. This method of data collection was significant for the marketplace. However, as criticized by Alkailani,, Azzam and Athamneh (2012), the structure of Hofstede’s research was extremely rigid and inflexible in order to accommodate the different viewpoints. As a result, the sampling was not consistent and distributed unevenly.
The research conducted by Hofstede generated controversial results in terms of cultural diversity. During the time of Hofstede’s work on cultural diversity, the cold war was affecting Europe. However, the continent was recovering from the adverse impact of World War. As communism was rapidly spreading in Europe, Asia, and Africa, the data collection process used by Hofstede was affected largely (Masuda et al. 2012). In order to complete the research work successfully, the data collected from the third world countries have to be skipped thereby, affecting the overall results of the research. Skipping the results of the third country led to lack of data thereby, failing in understanding the exact situation of the countries (Zaheer, Schomaker and Nachum 2012).
Hofstede’s work on cultural diversity was conducted in the era when the countries were overcoming the effects of World War. Therefore, the data collected from the third world countries neither were considered. With time, the economic, social and environmental aspects of the third world countries have changed drastically. Therefore, skipping the data of the third world countries resulted in lack of knowledge and understanding of their cultural diversity. This is because the third world countries have now become some of the growing economic countries in the world. Therefore, lack of knowledge about the cultural diversity in the countries might hamper the international marketing of the organizations.
Hofstede considered only one company, that is, IBM for conducting his research thereby, making it difficult to come up with absolute measurements. Therefore, the use of only one international company eradicated the influence of the management practices and corporate policies of various companies that affect the cultural behavior differently (Ngai, Tao and Moon 2015). As a result, the culture of the country is left out and requires explanations in terms of cultural difference.
Another significant criticism encountered by Hofstede’s doctrine is the outdated nature in terms of the value of the modern society (Bergiel, Bergiel and Upson 2012). With time, various aspects have changed in the countries that Hofstede used for understanding cross-cultural diversity. For example, some of the third world countries of that time have now become one of the rapidly growing economies of the world. Therefore, Hofstede’s work is highly questionable in terms of credibility evolving around the global environment. According to Sabri (2012), Hofstede has answered the criticism saying that cultural diversity is based on centuries. A Recent study also supported Hofstede’s fact stating the cultural change does not happen overnight (Boden et al. 2012).
Another criticism faced by Hofstede’s work on cultural diversity includes minimal use of dimensions (Popov et al. 2012). Lack of the appropriate number of dimensions reslts in insufficient information and data about cultural differences. However, Hofstede also accepted the criticism stating that he also wanted to explore more cultural dimensions.
The statistical credibility of Hofstede’s work on cultural diversity has been questioned by referring to the work of other researchers of the similar era. errors have been found in Hofstede’s study. However, Hofstede was satisfied with the data collection method and research style used for completing the research. Some authors compared Hofstede data collection and research methods by replicating the research. Majority of the replications confirmed Hofstede’s research. 15 replications highlighted partial confirmation whereas 4 replications were confirmed entirely. Therefore, individualism was one of the dimensions that failed to pass the validity test (Baptista and Oliveira 2015).
As commented by Karin Andreassi et al. (2014), Hofstede’s last dimension was considered as the confusing one. This is because the individuals following one culture might find the people and their culture strange and confusing. Additionally, Hofstede has mentioned that the fifth dimension of the doctrine is an oriental contribution that I not registered in the minds of the western culture.
Conclusion
In this essay, it can be concluded that the Hofstede’s work on cultural diversity plays a significant role in understanding the impact of cross-culture for business organizations. Initially, Hofstede’s work on cultural dimension consisted of four dimensions. However, Hofstede added a fifth dimension later on. Hofstede’s work in considered as one of the significant intellectual achievement. This has helped in laying the foundation of the cross-cultural study. Hofstede’s work on cultural dimension is significant in today’s world, as this provides a better understanding of globalization thereby, ensuring easiness in international marketing. Therefore, Hofstede’s study on cultural dimension establishes a good platform for future studies in respect of cross culture. The essay also discussed the criticisms encountered by Hofstede’s work on cultural dimension along with the justification of the criticisms. However, it can also be concluded that Hofstede’s work on cultural dimension is a major achievement for studying cultural diversity along with understanding the influence and contribution of cultural diversity towards the cultural practices internationally.
References
Alkailani, M., Azzam, I.A. and Athamneh, A.B., 2012. Replicating Hofstede in Jordan: ungeneralized, reevaluating the Jordanian culture. International Business Research, 5(4), p.71.
Baptista, G. and Oliveira, T., 2015. Understanding mobile banking: The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology combined with cultural moderators. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, pp.418-430.
Bergiel, E.B., Bergiel, B.J. and Upson, J.W., 2012. Revisiting Hofstede’s Dimensions: Examining the Cultural Convergence of the United States and Japan. American Journal of Management, 12(1), p.69.
Beugelsdijk, S., Maseland, R. and Hoorn, A., 2015. Are scores on Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture stable over time? A cohort analysis. Global Strategy Journal, 5(3), pp.223-240.
Bian, Q. and Forsythe, S., 2012. Purchase intention for luxury brands: A cross cultural comparison. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), pp.1443-1451.
Boden, A., Avram, G., Bannon, L. and Wulf, V., 2012. Knowledge sharing practices and the impact of cultural factors: reflections on two case studies of offshoring in SME. Journal of software: Evolution and Process, 24(2), pp.139-152.
Brewer, P. and Venaik, S., 2012. On the misuse of national culture dimensions. International Marketing Review, 29(6), pp.673-683.
Cogin, J., 2012. Are generational differences in work values fact or fiction? Multi-country evidence and implications. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(11), pp.2268-2294.
Dickson, M.W., Castaño, N., Magomaeva, A. and Den Hartog, D.N., 2012. Conceptualizing leadership across cultures. Journal of World Business, 47(4), pp.483-492.
Fang, T., 2012. Yin Yang: A new perspective on culture. Management and organization Review, 8(1), pp.25-50.
Giddens, A., Duneier, M., Appelbaum, R.P. and Carr, D.S., 2016. Introduction to sociology. WW Norton.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Porumbescu, G., Hong, B. and Im, T., 2013. The effect of transparency on trust in government: A cross?national comparative experiment. Public Administration Review, 73(4), pp.575-586.
Hamamura, T., 2012. Are cultures becoming individualistic? A cross-temporal comparison of individualism–collectivism in the United States and Japan. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), pp.3-24.
Hofstede, G.J., Jonker, C.M. and Verwaart, T., 2012. Cultural differentiation of negotiating agents. Group Decision and Negotiation, 21(1), pp.79-98.
Hsu, S.Y., Woodside, A.G. and Marshall, R., 2013. Critical tests of multiple theories of cultures’ consequences: Comparing the usefulness of models by Hofstede, Inglehart and Baker, Schwartz, Steenkamp, as well as GDP and distance for explaining overseas tourism behavior. Journal of Travel Research, 52(6), pp.679-704.
Karin Andreassi, J., Lawter, L., Brockerhoff, M. and J. Rutigliano, P., 2014. Cultural impact of human resource practices on job satisfaction: a global study across 48 countries. Cross cultural management, 21(1), pp.55-77.
Kawar, T.I., 2012. Cross-cultural differences in management. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(6).
Lee, S.G., Trimi, S. and Kim, C., 2013. The impact of cultural differences on technology adoption. Journal of World Business, 48(1), pp.20-29.
Masuda, A.D., Poelmans, S.A., Allen, T.D., Spector, P.E., Lapierre, L.M., Cooper, C.L., Abarca, N., Brough, P., Ferreiro, P., Fraile, G. and Lu, L., 2012. Flexible work arrangements availability and their relationship with work?to?family conflict, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions: A comparison of three country clusters. Applied psychology, 61(1), pp.1-29.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Jackson, T.A., McInnis, K.J., Maltin, E.R. and Sheppard, L., 2012. Affective, normative, and continuance commitment levels across cultures: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), pp.225-245.
Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G., 2012. Hofstede’s fifth dimension: New evidence from the World Values Survey. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 43(1), pp.3-14.
Moran, R.T., Abramson, N.R. and Moran, S.V., 2014. Managing cultural differences. Routledge.
Ngai, E.W., Tao, S.S. and Moon, K.K., 2015. Social media research: Theories, constructs, and conceptual frameworks. International Journal of Information Management, 35(1), pp.33-44.
Popov, V., Brinkman, D., Biemans, H.J., Mulder, M., Kuznetsov, A. and Noroozi, O., 2012. Multicultural student group work in higher education: An explorative case study on challenges as perceived by students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(2), pp.302-317.
Rinne, T., Steel, G.D. and Fairweather, J., 2012. Hofstede and Shane revisited: The role of power distance and individualism in national-level innovation success. Cross-cultural research, 46(2), pp.91-108.
Sabri, H.A., 2012. Re-examination of Hofstede’s work value orientations on perceived leadership styles in Jordan. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 22(3), pp.202-218.
Shenkar, O., 2012. Beyond cultural distance: Switching to a friction lens in the study of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(1), pp.12-17.
Smith, R., Deitz, G., Royne, M.B., Hansen, J.D., Grünhagen, M. and Witte, C., 2013. Cross-cultural examination of online shopping behavior: A comparison of Norway, Germany, and the United States. Journal of Business Research, 66(3), pp.328-335.
Taras, V., Steel, P. and Kirkman, B.L., 2012. Improving national cultural indices using a longitudinal meta-analysis of Hofstede’s dimensions. Journal of World Business, 47(3), pp.329-341.
Vaara, E., Sarala, R., Stahl, G.K. and Björkman, I., 2012. The impact of organizational and national cultural differences on social conflict and knowledge transfer in international Hofstede key research and conceptionual. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), pp.1-27.
Vaiman, V. and Brewster, C., 2015. How far do cultural differences explain the differences between nations? Implications for HRM. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(2), pp.151-164.
Viberg, O. and Grönlund, Å., 2013. Cross-cultural analysis of users’ attitudes toward the use of mobile devices in second and foreign language learning in higher education: A case from Sweden and China. Computers & Education, 69, pp.169-180.
Volet, S.E. and Ang, G., 2012. Culturally mixed groups on international campuses: An opportunity for inter-cultural learning. Higher education research & development, 31(1), pp.21-37.
Zaheer, S., Schomaker, M.S. and Nachum, L., 2012. Distance without direction: Restoring credibility to a much-loved construct. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(1), pp.18-27.
Zhang, X., De Pablos, P.O. and Xu, Q., 2014. Culture effects on the knowledge sharing in multi-national virtual classes: A mixed method. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, pp.491-498.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download