Cultural characteristics as determinants of management behavior Essay Example
Cultural characteristics as determinants of management behavior Essay Example

Cultural characteristics as determinants of management behavior Essay Example

Available Only on StudyHippo
  • Pages: 12 (3274 words)
  • Published: September 6, 2017
  • Type: Case Study
View Entire Sample
Text preview

In the past decade, globalization and diversity have led to an increase in cross-border business. However, this type of business faces challenges from political, socio-economic, and cultural factors. National culture has become important in managing global operations, as research on multinational business strategies recognizes the significance of national cultural characteristics in determining management behavior.

Culture can be defined as a shared knowledge or collective memory that allows people to work, communicate, and live together. This shared knowledge forms communities and is known as national culture when widely spread within a country. Each national culture is unique due to its common knowledge.

Various theories attempt to explain culture, including those proposed by Fons Trompenaar in 1993 and Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) and Edward T.Hall's ideas. Geert Hofstede's "Culture's effects" also had significant impacts on intercultural relations, cross-cultural management control systems d

...

esign, international business research, and psychology.

These studies mainly focus on how differences in cultural dimensions such as power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity affect work-related values and behavior (Hart 1999; Harrison & McKin- non 1999; Chandy & Williams 1994).According to various researchers (Baskerville, 2003; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Schimmack, Oishi, & Diener, 2005; Triandis, 2004) cited in "National Culture, Leadership and Citizenship: Implications for Cross-cultural Management" (p.78), culture is defined by Geert Hofstede as the collective programming that exists between human nature and individual personality. Researchers from different disciplines highly value Hofstede's cultural framework which has been widely applied in various contexts over the years. Baskerville (2003) notes that "Culture's Consequences" has received an average of 94 citations per year for the past 18 years. However, some of this usage may come from researchers who are

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

unaware of the debates surrounding the legitimacy of Hofstede's dimensions (Baskerville, 2003). Despite any controversies surrounding his work, Hofstede's cross-cultural model has gained immense acceptance. According to Hofstede (1991:28; Hofstede & Peterson, 2000:401), there are five dimensions of culture: Power Distance which refers to the extent to which less powerful members expect and accept unequal power distribution within organizations and institutions such as families; Uncertainty Avoidance referring to a low tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity; Individualism versus Collectivism indicating the extent individuals integrate into groups; Masculinity versus Femininity representing assertiveness and competitiveness versus modesty and caring. This information is supported by McSweeney (2002) citing references from Hofstede's work (Hofstede,1991:82-83;1998b ;Hofstede & Peterson ,20 ):401 ).Hofstede's concept of culture as a "Corporate programming of mind" suggests that individuals passively carry a pre-established cultural template (Ailon, 2007; Ailon-Souday & Kunda, 2003). During my research, I encountered various critics of Hofstede's work, including Galit Ailon (2008), R.F.Baskerville (2003), and McSweeney (2002). However, despite the criticism, I recognized the validity of his theory, which I even used in my graduate thesis as a widely accepted principle. According to Ailon (2008), it is not Hofstede himself who is important but rather the analytical practices that guided his work. Therefore, I will critically evaluate his theory based on my understanding while heavily relying on articles by McSweeney and Galit Ailon. One significant aspect of Hofstede's research on national culture is the transparency in how he connected cultural dimensions to other studies on state or national differences for international comparisons. He compared each dimension of his index with seven other national measures such as GNP, latitude, economic growth, population size and growth,

population density, and organization size. Consequently, the socioeconomic data used by Hofstede describes cultural dimensions rather than the historical origins of nations (R.F.Baskerville, 2003). His study demonstrates that a country's characteristics are influenced by culture. Most reviews have questioned fundamental facts that many have doubted.According to Mikael Sondergaard, there is disagreement about Hofstede's work. This mainly revolves around the suitability of studies for measuring culture, the idea that analyzing culture from a national perspective is not ideal, and the notion that one company cannot represent an entire country's culture. Additionally, there are concerns about IBM's data being outdated and the four dimensions not providing a complete picture (source: http://geert-hofstede.international-business-center.com/Sondergaard.shtml). Despite Hofstede's significant contribution to cultural studies, there are concerns about the validity of his proposed typology. National cultures are not uniform and show considerable diversity. Assuming a homogeneous culture implies consistency, purity, stability, and being unaffected by other cultures or non-cultural factors (McSweeney, Forthcoming). However, in reality when multiple cultures coexist, it is impossible for one to remain independent and completely unaffected by others. Otherwise, civilizations would be resilient enough to resist any attempts at change. Some of these topics are discussed in appropriate classes. The surveys conducted were essential to the study and involved 40 IBM employees worldwide between 1964 and 1973 who completed approximately 117,000 questionnairesNumerous researchers argue that surveys are inadequate for accurately determining and measuring cultural differences, particularly when dealing with culturally sensitive and subjective values (Schwartz, 1999). Two surveys were conducted, and the results reflect a combination of responses from both. Upon further examination, it was discovered that not all questionnaires were utilized, and the average number per country was

often small or even minimal. Only six countries had more than 1000 respondents, while Pakistan had a mere 70. The limited population surveyed by Hofstede significantly exacerbates the issue of scale (McSweeney, 2002), leading to uncertainty regarding the statistical validity of the survey findings. According to Schwartz (1992), "one cannot derive the normative ideals of a culture from individual responses" (p.51). The Power Distance (PD) index derived from three questions in IBM's questionnaire. The initial inquiry used a five-point scale to determine how frequently employees feel hesitant to express disagreement with their supervisors. The second and third inquiries focused on preferred leadership styles among respondents, including bossy, persuasive, advisory, democratic options, as well as their own supervisor's approach similarity.G.Ailon (2008) highlights that each research phase aimed for neutrality.The utilization of a standardized questionnaire, employed worldwide, was intended to provide uniformity. However, the questionnaire was designed by a Western research team from a managerial perspective. Consequently, it imposed a Western framework for comparing non-Western cultures. The questionnaire portrayed Western culture as egalitarian while disregarding racial and colonial inequalities. Additionally, it defined racial power distance through the lens of uncertainty avoidance, allowing for the inclusion of South Africa in the sample despite its apartheid practices. However, this representation only included "white respondents merely," inadvertently excluding racism and colonialism from measurement. In an attempt to neutralize certain aspects of the dimension, Hofstede universalized hierarchical inequality by claiming it is something we inevitably find and essential to organization. The choices on the questionnaire were already based on this concept's universal inevitability, effectively guiding respondents towards giving positive answers regarding managerial power's neutrality and inevitability in an invisible manner.Despite the

availability of options, Hofstede manipulated and categorized the respondents' answers in a manner that aimed to appropriate their meaning. He used their voices to transform his hypotheses into principles, stating that anything they said supported his point. Hofstede attributed the significant power distance in France and Belgium, which stood as exceptions among Nordic, Anglo, and Germany, to the cultural heritage of the Roman Empire. Similarly, he linked Pakistan's small power distance to their Islamic religious background and belief in equality before God. To support his argument that states with low power distance are economically developed while those with high power distance are less developed or developing countries, he employed examples from various cultures (Ailon.G., 2002). This highlights that individuals from cultures with low power-distance are likely to assume responsibility, whereas those from high power-distance cultures tend to be more disciplined (Triandis, 1993).

The Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) index was determined through three questions. The first question pertained to work-related anxiety and tension frequency. The second question asked how long respondents expected to continue working for their current company. Lastly, participants were required to indicate personal agreement or disagreement regarding whether company rules should not be violated even if it is believed to be in the company's best interest (Hofstede,1980:76-77;405;408-409).According to Hofstede's book, individuals in cultures with low uncertainty-avoidance may exhibit high levels of innovation, while those in cultures with high uncertainty-avoidance may excel in precise manufacturing (Triandis,1993). Although Hofstede acknowledges that better indicators could have been developed to determine uncertainty-avoidance because it was not a familiar concept when they developed the IBM questionnaires, he strongly associates high uncertainty-avoidance with various socio-psychological tendencies (G.Ailon,2008). For instance, advanced modernization

and older democracies are suggested to result in low uncertainty-avoidance. In countries with large populations and wealthy nations with small populations, there are tolerant faiths that emphasize relativity. These countries also have historical events characterized by less legislation and more resolution of differences through dialogue and/or struggle rather than relying solely on established legal systems. Additionally, the leaders' average age is low and smaller organizations are present (1980: 185).The text suggests that having a low Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UA) can have various effects. These include slower economic growth after World War II, weaker patriotism, less aggressiveness towards other countries, "looser" societies, stronger feelings of citizen competency, a casuistic approach to legal issues, a greater emphasis on ballad competencies with more nurses per physician, increased religious tolerance, matter-of-fact or introvert reflective faiths, relativism, empiricist philosophy in social sciences instead of "theoricism," more ambitious employees, managers who are more involved in strategic issues (1980: 186-187). According to Hofstede's work (1980: 398), individuals from lower UAI cultures tend to perform better in cross-cultural interactions. However, I question this statement as it seems more related to an individual's personal communication skills rather than their country's UA index. Additionally, Hofstede pressures people to imagine a world where everything is interconnected through simple logic (G.Ailon, 2002). He claims that directors with a western background and low UA and Small PD are the most suitable for strategic and cross-cultural direction. This implies that only western directors possess this skill acquired from their culture while directors from other parts of the world lack it.According to G.Ailon (2008), the Individualism (IDV) index was determined by asking respondents work-related questions and having them rate the

importance of various statements. High IDV indicated a prioritization of job-related tasks over personal and leisure time, while low IDV indicated a value for physical skills and training opportunities at work. The purpose of these questions was to assess an individual's independence from their organization and their expectations from it.

McSweeney, as cited by G.Ailon (2008), found that the correlations between "power distance" and "individualism and collectivism" are only significant when analyzing national-level data averages. However, at the individual level, these dimensions have very weak inter-correlations and therefore do not explain much.

Hofstede, in studies conducted by Bond (2002) and Schwartz (1994), argues that individuals from cultures with high collectivism may show commitment to their employers, while individuals from high-individualism cultures can benefit from being able to move between different management positions. In his book, Hofstede explains that in societies with a high level of femininity, individuals may excel in providing personalized services and customized products, particularly in the field of biochemistry. On the other hand, societies with a high level of masculinity tend to excel in mass production, efficiency, heavy industry, and bulk chemistry.The masculinity index, similar to the individualism index, measures respondents' endorsement of both self-related and social-related goals in regards to work. It is based on research that distinguishes between sexual characteristics and goals, with men being more assertive and tough while women are seen as nurturing and tender. According to Hofstede, the distribution of labor in organizations is influenced by their goals, particularly achievement-oriented ones closely associated with the masculinity index. This explains why men predominantly lead businesses and shape their climate.
As a girl, I personally find this situation disheartening. However, a study

conducted by the Finnish Business and Policy found that companies led by women CEOs are on average 10 percent more profitable than those led by men. The study analyzed over 14,000 limited liability coating companies in 2003 (source: http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Study+companies+managed+by+women+more+profitable+than+those+run+by+men/1135230562325). This finding challenges the belief that being male is necessary for success in executive positions.Gender is not the determining factor for success, even in countries like the United States where the male-female ratio is relatively balanced. For instance, Fortune 500 companies such as Yahoo, PepsiCo, The New York Times, and Kraft Foods have female CEOs. This shows that gender does not play a role in achieving success. It is important to understand that "national culture" refers to the unique cultural characteristics that distinguish one nation from another (Mcsweeney, 2002). According to Hofstede, each country has its own distinct culture. However, I slightly disagree with this perspective because while cultural heritage and artistic expression may differ between countries, individual attitudes and behaviors seem to be more significant in defining uniqueness across nations. India exemplifies cultural diversity with numerous subcultures where even within a subculture, attitudes and behaviors can vary significantly. Although Hofstede believes that national culture is carried by all individuals within a country, responses from the IBM study showed great differences within each country which questions the assumption of a uniform national culture for all individuals.Hofstede's assumption that the average responses of IBM employees represented the national population lacks valid evidence due to a lack of background information on the interviewees, who were mainly well-educated middle-class individuals. This assumption is further weakened by the fact that the study only surveyed employees from one company and cannot

provide information on the entire cultural system of a country. Furthermore, Hofstede claimed that marketing and sales executives at IBM shared the same organizational culture as all other employees, assuming each respondent carried three distinct cultures: organizational, occupational, and national. However, the author disagrees with this assumption and criticizes Hofstede's belief in a single IBM civilization shared by every employee and business globally. The author also points out that Hofstede disregards individual commitment, loyalty to the organization, and length of service when considering organizational and occupational culture. Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that Hofstede eventually recognized diverse cultures within and between units of an organization and adjusted his statement on organizational culture to avoid invalidating his initial assumption (McSweeney, 2002).The clarity of Hofstede's redefined factors is uncertain. McSweeney (2002) also mentions the lack of clarity in Hofstede's recognition of cultural heterogeneity in organizations. Concerns arise regarding the genuineness of questionnaire respondents' answers, as they may have been influenced by their awareness of the study's purpose. According to McSweeney (2002), respondents may have altered their responses confidentially to benefit themselves or their divisions. However, Hofstede (1980a, 1991;Hofstede & Peterson, 2000) believes that the answers are not manipulated and solely reflect unconscious pre-programmed values. The adequacy of the questionnaire in capturing all necessary inputs for evaluating a culture is another aspect to consider. In the case of IBM subsidiary, there were atypical features due to IBM's initial centralized control and US ownership during a time when foreign direct investment was novel, as highlighted by McSweeney. Additionally, integration between countries like Hong Kong and China raises questions about whether national characteristics immediately change within workplace attitudes and behavior.Do we

immediately observe a larger sample size that accurately represents the national culture of both countries? These are important considerations (McSweeney, 2002). Hofstede states that political influences and societal establishments, as well as jurisprudence, have a significant impact on civilization. He excludes and denies any connection between these non-cultural characteristics and national civilization. For instance, in England from 1647 to 1660, Christmas was prohibited and singing Christmas carols could lead to imprisonment for up to six months. The influence of this on the culture and mental programming of individuals born and raised during this 22-year period is evident. Although this example predates Hofstede's study, it demonstrates the potential impact of other factors on cultural characteristics. While Hofstede acknowledges these exceptions, they must be taken into account when making conclusions about a country's culture. Has Hofstede truly identified all the main dimensions of cultural levels? Others like Schwartz have attempted to identify national cultures using different questionnaires and have generated significantly different descriptions.In fact, Schwartz (1994) identified seven cultural level dimensions that Hofstede later acknowledged were not identified due to the absence of related questions in his survey. Hofstede's dimensions, such as 'individualism' and 'collectivism', are presented as bipolarities, but Triandis (1994) argues that they can coexist to varying degrees depending on the context. However, Hofstede's dimensions do not acknowledge this coexistence and overlook important cultural qualities (McSweeney forthcoming). Another flaw in Hofstede's typology is the addition of the 5th dimension, 'Confucian Dynamism' (1991) or 'long versus short-run orientation' (1999). This dimension was extracted from a 'Chinese Values Survey' by the Chinese culture connection group, who deemed Hofstede's 4th dimension, 'Uncertainty Avoidance', irrelevant and non-universal (Bond, 1988;

Lowe & Oswick, 1996). According to McSweeney (2002), cultural phenomena cannot be fully captured by dimensions and units; they need to be understood holistically. Additionally, some researchers question whether Hofstede's model reflects the present day (Roberts and Boyacigiller, 1984; Sondergaard, 1994). Despite assuming that cultural values remain stable over time, Hofstede's work may be outdated after 30 years (Hofstede, 1980a, 1991). According to McSweeney (2002), Hofstede claims to have identified both full states civilization and non that which is specific to workplaces.Ailon (2008) argues that Hofstede's work misrepresents both "the Rest" and the West. Despite this critique, there is no denying that Hofstede's research has uncovered significant findings regarding the underlying importance of a country's culture. However, caution should be exercised when applying these findings to other countries. It is hoped that a valid measure can eventually be developed to capture the complexity of cultural dimensions at an individual level. In today's diverse global marketplace, marketers must have a proper understanding of culture to comprehend consumer behavior (Blodgett et al, 2008). According to McSweeney, Hofstede's research can be seen as comparing cross-national opinions by analyzing data from organizations in different countries. Culture is viewed as a determining force in this context, although its descriptions are derived from responses to fixed-choice questions. In an upcoming publication, McSweeney argues that Hofstede manipulated his research to obtain desired participant responses. It is claimed that what Hofstede identified as national culture actually represents average situational-specific opinions, from which dimensions of national culture are inferred without justification. The claim made by Hofstede about measuring national cultural differences empirically relies on significant yet indefensible assumptions.Hofstede's assignment of bipolarity to each dimension,

like masculinity and femininity, fails to acknowledge that these bipolarities can coexist. Moreover, Hofstede's responses to McSweeney's critique were unclear and did not address the main aspect of the criticism. Ailon (2008) argues that accepting Hofstede's framework logically entails accepting the logic of the critique as well. Consequently, generalizations about national culture cannot be considered reliable (2002:408). However, his methodology is flawed due to a small sample size compared to the population of each state (except for six states with over 1000 respondents), as well as the use of questionnaires not specifically designed for research purposes. He manipulates respondent answers according to his own agenda and disregards their significance. This analysis reveals Western theories' bias and reinforcement of certain values while devaluing other cultures. Despite attempting to compensate by introducing a fifth dimension, Hofstede oversimplifies and undervalues the complexity of diverse cultures. Although he employed sophisticated statistical techniques in the late 1970s, this does not outweigh flaws in his methodology (Oyserman et al., 2002:408). Based on my understanding from the readings, further research is required for progress in both civilization and cultural analysis.The impact of globalization and technology on cultural maps is significant. However, achieving this task is challenging due to the constant evolution and change in society. Therefore, any findings in this area may only have temporary value (2002a, for an overview).

Get an explanation on any task
Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds
New