Hofstede Influence of Culture on Global Organization

To date, many people emulate Prof Geerf Hofstede for his comprehensive research in which he analyzed organizational behavior across the globe and explained the differences that exist in different cultures. In his research, Hofstede created insights on how the values of the organization are influenced by culture. His study demonstrated that there are regional and national cultural groupings that influence the behavior of organizations and societies. Hofstede research has created a strong ground for many people to comprehend the influence of culture on global organizational practices. In a broad sense, Hofstede defined culture as a set of mental characteristics or programs that influences an individual to behave in a certain way (George, Owoyemi, & Onakala 2012, p150). Still, it is a set of shared meaning and beliefs that have a strong influence on human endeavor. Hofstede believed that, national culture has strong impact on the organization and institutional levels. For him, a national culture determines the nature of social structures and the type of organization. For the past decades, Hofstede’s model has extensively been used to study the influence of culture on global organizational practices as analyzed in this paper.

In particular, Hofstede’s model recognizes four dimensions through which national culture differs. His research compared values and beliefs of employees from a global corporation covering over 70 countries from which he analyzed and used the results to formulate a model that helps in differentiating cultures (Bardhan & Weaver 2011, p22). After conducting his research, Hofstede’s model demonstrated that there are regional and national cultural groupings, which influences the behavior of organizations and societies. In brief, his research indicated that cultural differences between countries are identified at the level of value while that of organizations with the level of practices. Additionally, Hofstede claimed that regional and national factors influence the organizational culture, which eventually affects employees’ behavior in the organization (Mooij & Hofstede 2010, p85).

Moreover, Hofstede affirmed that organizational culture comprises of the following characteristics: socially constructed, historically oriented, holistic, and difficult to change (Davis, Bernardi, & Bosco 2013, p65). Hofstede further applied his understanding of culture to organizational culture in which he believed that it is the programming of the mind that differentiates members from different organizations. While it is impossible to change national culture, Hofstede believed that organizational culture can be changed by the management. His research indicated that while national culture is built and shaped during the early years, organizational culture is learned and adopted in the employment market. Furthermore, Minkov & Hofstede (2011, p15) claim that national culture is more deeply rooted than organizational culture in that the latter has a strong capability of change. Hofstede believed that national culture plays a significant role in the management in that it influences the organizational culture. In other words, one cannot articulate what goes on in an organizational culture without first understanding what exists in the global context (Gaspay, Dardan & Legorreta 2008, p15).

In his cross-cultural studies, Hofstede established four dimensions that influence human thinking, institutions, and organizations. According to Davis, Bernardi, & Bosco (2013, p67), the four dimensions are Power Distance, Individualism/Collectivism, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Femininity/Masculinity. Hofstede further defined how behaviors are influenced in the four dimensions of national cultures. He based his argument that, power distance is the degree to which the less influential members of organizations and institutions expect power to be distributed equally. Institutions include various set ups such as community, school, and family while organizations are the places where people go to work. Individualism is a dimension that relates to societies where ties between people are loose. In this case, everyone is expected to look after himself or his immediate family. Typically, collectivism pertains to communities or societies where people are incorporated into strong groups from birth and are encouraged to protect them in future. Masculinity is a dimension of nationality that defines the dominant values of a community or a society where social gender roles are distinct. For instance, a society may believe that men are supposed to be focused, tough, and assertive while women are supposed to be tender, concerned, modest, and submissive in life. However, femininity is the extent in which gender roles are overlapped for instance, dominant values in the community that show that both women and men should be concerned, tender, and modest in life. Lastly, Hofstede defined Uncertainty avoidance as the aspect to which members of a certain culture are threatened by unknown or uncertain situations. This feeling instigates the need of establishing unwritten and written rules to avoid the fear of unknown situations. In each dimension, Hofstede believed that countries tend to manifest themselves differently from various levels such as citizen/state, workplace, school, and family (Rapp, Bernardi & Bosco 2011, p5).

According to Kim & Kim (2010, p485), the contribution of Hofstede on the mentioned dimensions develop our understanding of the influence of culture on global organization practices. The four dimensions create insights on the cultural differences across the globe. From his analysis, Hofstede evaluated the key cultural differences that may emerge between large and small power distance societies (Lanier & Kirchner 2012, p606). In this aspect, different societies may come up with different solutions on various issues such as social inequality. Hofstede reflected on the way organizations may have different goals and objectives that define the organization (Lustig & Koester 2010, p22). For instance, while there may be some organizations that believe in the appointing team manager or leaders, other organizations may believe that every employee is accountable for his work performance. Such organizations may believe that there should be no superior employee who is in charge of others. At this point, Hofstede created a strong ground for his audience to understand that the differences in ideologies, practices, and beliefs of an organization are what differentiate one organizational culture from another (Shi & Wang 2011, p95).

Hofstede enhances a strong influence of our understanding on global organization in the sense that, his research reflected on the differences of female and male values in the organization culture (Rapp, Bernardi & Bosco 2011, p16). At this point, Hofstede projected that organization where a male employee dominate female employee are more likely to follow different rules and regulation as opposed to organizations where females are the major decision makers in the organization. Still, the responsibilities may also vary depending on what an organization believes in relation to Masculinity vs. Femininity (Gorman 2006, p340). For instance, there are some organizations that may believe that female employees should not be assigned duties that require frequent travelling. In such a case, male employees may enjoy the benefits of travelling across the globe more than female employees. Under individualistic point of view, Hofstede believed that there are some organizations that strongly believe in team work. Such organizations may motivate employees with common interests and values to work together (Siew, Lee, & Soutar 2007, p165). However, there are some organizations that believe in working individually. In such a set-up, employees may be motivated to work individually, which to some extent may affect the organization performance. The organization may be less productive when employees work individually since there is no room of exchanging innovative ideas. As previously discussed, uncertainty avoidance focus on a culture where employees understand how to respond to unforeseen scenarios. While some organizations may try hard to prepare their employees to cope well in all conditions, other organizations may be reluctant to do so. Lastly, there are some organizations that may focus on the long-term relationship with employees while others may focus on short term relationships. In the former, these organizations may abide into a culture where there is growth and better opportunities to retain competent employees (Javidan et al 2006, p890).

From the ongoing discussion, it stands out that Hofstede is the most influential sociologist who created immense insights on the cross-cultural study. From his research, many people understand the influence of culture on global organizations. Hofstede’s research has been the driving force of other academic researchers to continue analyzing about culture (Bardhan & Weaver 2011, p33). Given the increased concept of globalization and increased interdependence among many nations, Hofstede has increased the understanding of cultural influences on organizational and leadership practices (Venezia 2005, p345). Hofstede’s research created a strong ground to understand that, what works in one country or an organization may not work perfectly in another culture. With the recent innovations in technology, there is a need to understand cultural differences across the globe to emerge the best from other competitors. A research conducted by Brewer & Venaik (2011, p440) indicates that, many businesses have embraced technology in their daily activities and this has overall increased productivity and work performance. With this, there has been a strong need for nations across the globe to understand the concept of culture on global organizations (Tung & Verbeke 2010, p1260).

According to Steenkamp & Geyskens (2012, p255), the study of culture helps organization to embrace strategies and policies that augment effective operation. Hofstede’s research on culture helps organizations to be more creative and innovative in global advertising and marketing. For the past decades, Hofstede’s dimension model has been utilized in various areas of global advertising and branding, and in the underlying theories and concepts of consumer behavior. His model has widely been used to explain differences of various concepts of identity, personality, and self that is derived from the individualistic worldview. Hofstede knowledge on cross-cultural study helps many people to understand the differences between the concepts of personality and self in different cultures. The aspect of understanding different cultures has led to the development of advertising and marketing, which in turn has enhanced growth in most organizations (An & Kim 2007, p185). To develop effective marketing and advertising campaign, most organizations have established the need to understand the influence of culture on global organizational practices. Hofstede’s study on culture studies has enlightened many on how to make an advert appealing to all cultures across the globe (An & Kim 2007, p186).

The reason for the widespread adoption of the Hofstede’s categorization of culture lies in the simplicity of his four dimensions that are appealing to both business people and academic researchers (Mead & Andrews 2009, p55). In brief, this paper has discussed that the Hofstede model differentiates cultures according to the following dimensions; power distance, masculinity/femininity, individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and short/long-term orientation. Indeed, the Hofstede model of cultural dimensions has been of great use when analyzing a country and the organization’s culture.

Bibliography

An, D. & Kim, S. 2007, “Relating Hofstede’s masculinity dimension to gender role portrayals in advertising”, International Marketing Review, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 181-207.

Bardhan, N., & Weaver, C. K. (2011). Public relations in global cultural contexts: multi-paradigmatic perspectives. New York, Routledge.

Brewer, P. & Venaik, S. 2011, “Individualism-Collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE”, Journal of International Business Studies,vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 436-445.

Davis, J.D., Bernardi, R.A. & Bosco, S.M. 2013, “Examining the Use of Hofstede’s Uncertainty Avoidance Construct in a Major Role in Ethics Research”, International Business Research, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 63-75.

Gaspay, A., Dardan, S. & Legorreta, L. 2008, “”Software of the Mind” – a Review of Applications of Hofstede’s Theory to it Research”, JITTA : Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1-37.

George, O., Owoyemi, O. & Onakala, U. 2012, “Hofstede’s ‘Software of the Mind’ Revisited and Tested: The Case of Cadbury Worldwide and Cadbury (Nigeria) Plc – A Qualitative Study”, International Business Research, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 148-157.

Gorman, G.E. 2006, “Of Orrefors and Noritake: or, has Geert Hofstede something to say about web site design?”, Online Information Review, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 337-340.

Javidan, M., House, R.J., Dorfman, P.W., Hanges, P.J. & Sully, d.L. 2006, “Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: a comparative review of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s approaches”, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 897-914.

Kim, Y. & Kim, S. 2010, “The Influence of Cultural Values on Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility: Application of Hofstede’s Dimensions to Korean Public Relations Practitioners”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 485-500.

Lanier, C. & Kirchner, M. 2012, “Cultural Receptivity: Predicting Consumption in the International Beverage Market”, Institute for Business & Finance Research, Hilo, United States, Hilo, pp. 606.

Lustig, M. W., & Koester, J. 2010, Intercultural competence: interpersonal communication across cultures, Boston, Allyn & Bacon.

Mead, R., & Andrews, T. G. 2009, International management: culture and beyond, Chichester, England, John Wiley & Sons.

Minkov, M. & Hofstede, G. 2011, “The evolution of Hofstede’s doctrine”, Cross Cultural Management, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 10-20.

Mooij, M. and Hofstede, G. 2010, “The Hofstede Model Applications to Global Branding and Advertising Strategy and Research”, International Journal of Advertising, vol. 29, 1, pp 85-110.

Rapp, J.K., Bernardi, R.A. & Bosco, S.M. 2011, “Examining The Use of Hofstede’s Uncertainty Avoidance Construct in International Research: A 25-Year Review”, International Business Research, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 3-15.

Shi, X. & Wang, J. 2011, “Interpreting Hofstede Model and GLOBE Model: Which Way to Go for Cross-Cultural Research?”,International Journal of Business and Management, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 93-99.

Siew, I.N., Lee, J.A. & Soutar, G.N. 2007, “Are Hofstede’s and Schwartz’s value frameworks congruent?”, International Marketing Review, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 164-180.

Steenkamp, J.E., M. & Geyskens, I. 2012, “Transaction cost economics and the roles of national culture: a test of hypotheses based on Inglehart and Hofstede”, Academy of Marketing Science.Journal, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 252-270.

Tung, R.L. & Verbeke, A. 2010, “Beyond Hofstede and GLOBE: Improving the quality of cross-cultural research”, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 1259-1274.

Venezia, G. 2005, “Impact of Globalization of Public Administration Practices on Hofstede’s Cultural Indices”, Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 344-349.