Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Hofstede's cultural model
Transcript of Hofstede's cultural model
LONG TERM VS. SHORT TERM ORIENTATION
The first four dimensions
"Managers, leaders and the people they work with are part of national societies and to understand their behavior it is necessary to understand their societies"
-Alex Inkeles and Daniel Levinson, suggested some issues with consequences for functioning of societies, of group within societies, and of individuals within those groups
oRelation to authority
oConception of the relationship between individual and society
oThe self and individual’s concept of masculinity and femininity
oWays of dealing with conflicts, including the control of aggression and the expression of feelings
-Hofstede’s empirical studies were based on this theory and he matched the results of his studies to the theory showed by Inkeles and Levinson.
-The study was done in a
The sixth dimension
INDULGENCE VS. RESTRAINT
Review other authors' opinions of Hofstede model
- It was inspired by Minkov’s research
- As a cultural dimension, indulgence versus restraint rests on clearly defined research items that measure very specific phenomena.
- The correlations of IVR with the IBM dimensions:
+ the correlation between IVR and PDI
+ the correlation between IVR and LTO-WVS
Ease of use for managers
Pratik- Roberta- Yilun- Mai Anh- Yan- Ningdai- Benci
HOFSTEDE'S CULTURAL FRAMEWORK
- Theory describes the effects of a society's culture on the values of its members, and how these values relate to behavior, using a structure derived from factor analysis.
- One of the first that could be quantified, and could be used to explain observed differences between cultures.
Four cultural dimensions introduced in 1980
1. Power distance
2. Collectivism and Individualism
3. Femininity and Masculinity
4. Uncertainty avoidance
The fifth introduced in 2001:
Long-term orientation and Short-term orientation
The sixth added
Indulgence and Restraint
Review of other author’s opinions of models
Ease of use for managers
METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION:
“Employees in industry should participate more in the decisions made by management.”
- How people think the world ought to be
- Refer to people in general: right/wrong, yes/no, agree/disagree questions
- Express people’s views about what represents virtue and what corresponds to sin
“whether they personally preferred a manager who usually consults with subordinates before reaching a decision”
- What people want for themselves
- About “you” and “me”: less virtuous desires
- Closer to actual behaviours – do not necessarily correspond to the way people really behave when they have to choose
International Business Machine (IBM) study
-Sample size: 116,000 survey questionnaires administered to employees of the IBM Corporation in 72 countries.
-At first applied in 50 countries and 3 multicountry at the IBM Corporation having as respondents IBM employees
-Later a second application of the questionnaire was done in 15 different countries, and in different companies having as respondents non IBM managers
+ The responses are gathered in a standardised way
+ Potentially information can be collected from a large portion of a group
+ Quick method of research
+ No danger of interview bias
+ Large amounts of data can be processed and analysed quickly.
+ Quantative data (eg. statistics) is often seen to be far more reliable than qualitative (eg. interview summaries) data
+ Show different answers between groups or categories of respondents
+ Questions might be misinterpret by the respondents
+ Questionnaires have a very low reply rate (normally less than 50%, sometimes less than 25%).
+ Answers should not be taken too literally, necessity of interpretation
The questionnaire used at IBM can be seen as a reliable data source due to the confirmation of these results achieved through the replications done later by the same questionnaire applied to other groups of people in different countries as well as the similar questionnaires based on the Hofstede’s questionnaire. In all the replications similarities were found and the confirmation of the data was done
POWER DISTANCE - INDIVIDUALISM VS. COLLECTIVISM - MASCULINITY VS. FEMININITY - UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE
+ Cross-cultural communication requires being aware of cultural differences because what may be considered perfectly acceptable and natural in one country, can be confusing or even offensive in another.
+ Example: verbal, non verbal, etiquette.
+ In international negotiations, communication style, expectation, issue ranking and goals will change according to the negotiators’ countries of origin.
+ If applied properly, the understanding of cultural dimensions should increase success in negotiations and reduce frustration and conflicts.
+ In international management and cross-cultural leadership, decisions taken have to be based on the country’s customs and values.
+ Training to employees ,in order to make them sensitive to cultural differences, develop nuanced business practices.
+ The application of Hofstede’s findings in the field of global branding, advertising strategy and consumer behavior.
+ Example: If companies try to adapt their products and services to local habits and preferences they have to understand the specificity of their market.
IVR and LTO-WVS
- The relatively rare combination of high indulgence plus long-term orientation groups nine European Union member countries plus Switzerland, Taiwan, and Singapore.
- National wealth explains about 10 percent of country differences in indulgence. Restraint is somewhat more likely under poverty
The correlation between IVR and cultural trait :
People in more restrained societies are more likely to see the maintenance of order as an important national goal superseding other goals
Method of data collection:
The World Values Survey
+ Life control
+ Importance of leisure
Moira E. Hana (2004)
Hamza Khastar, Reza Kalhorian,
Gholam Ali Khaloouei, Meghdad Maleki (2011)
Jeffrey Blodgett, Aysen Bakir, Gregory Rose (2008)
Brendan McSweeney (2002)
“Hofstede’s model has been used widely in research in the past two decades as a starting point to quantitatively examine culture”
“… made a considerable contribution not only to the field of psychology, but also to all disciplines… “
“...the importance of culture became more widespread and has been increasing in importance in such fields as applied psychology, international business, and the social sciences ever science”
“The results of Hofstede can have greater validity at the ethnical level of analysis”
“Hofstede’s dimensions are appropriate for countries without ethnic variety, but are not satisfactory for comparative study of countries with high cultural varieties”.
“The scale problem of Hofstede’s research is radically compounded by the narrowness of the population surveyed”
“The conclusion of Hofstede’s model is based on five crucial assumptions in which failure of even one would invalid the identification assertions. However, it is argued that they are all flawed”
“Hofstede’s claims are excessive and unbalanced”
Lack of face validity
” - reviewing 32-items cultural instrument
Result: correctly matched by the subjects to their underlying dimensions only 41.3% of the time on average
o Individualism/collectivism: classified 43.1% of the time
o Uncertainty avoidance: 30.4%
o Masculinity/femininity: 26.0%
o Power distance: 63.1%
None of 4 dimensions appears to be sufficiently reliable
” - Cronbach’s alpha
o Individualism/ collectivism and masculinity/femininity display moderate levels of reliability
o The reliabilities of uncertainty avoidance and power distance do not approach minimally acceptable standards
+ In late 1980, Hofstede and Michael Harris Bond took Rokeach value survey (RVS) and found same four dimensions: each RVS dimensions was significantly correlated with one of IBM dimensions
+ However: IBM and RVS questionnaires are products of Western minds while respondents are non-Western
+ Chinese colleagues started compose a list of basic values for Chinese people and Chinese Value Survey (CVS) has been analyzed
+ Results: “uncertainty avoidance” had no equivalent in the CVS; but “long-term vs. short-term orientation” has been found instead
+ The 5th universal dimension has been found in the
Method of data collection: Questionnnaires
+ RVS is carried in the same way with IBM
+ CVS is designed with questions of basic value for Chinese people
+ CVS was administered in translation to 100 students (50 men and 50 women)
+ In each of 23 countries around the world
Hofstede’s dimensions were all constructed in such a way that they addressed basic problems that all societies have to deal with
+ Hofstede’s work provided the first large collection of data demonstrating that national culture constrains rationality in organizational behaviour and management philosophies and practices, and in society at large
+ Hofstede’s model does take into account the flexible and changing nature of culture and his model is able to reflect culture changes in the new global context.
+ Nowadays, few managers with international experience will deny the fact that culture matters in international business
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!!!
LONG TERM - SHORT TERM ORIENTATION
INDULGENCE - RESTRAINT
(Hofstede, et al., 2010)
(Hofstede, et al., 2010)
(Hofstede, et al., 2010)
(Hofstede, et al., 2002)
(Hofstede, 2009 & Blinder, 2007)
(Hofstede, et al., 2010)
(Murphy, 2009 & Hofstede, 1994)
1.Binder, J. (2007). Global Project Management: Communication, Collaboration and Management Across Borders. England: Gower.
2.Blodgett, J. & Bakir, A. & Rose, G. (2008). A Test of the Validity of Hofstede’s Cultural Framework. Advances in Consumer Research. 35 (8), 762-763.
3.Builtjens, R.P.M. & Noorderhaven, N.G. (1996). The influence of national culture on strategic decision making: a case study of the Philippines. Tilburg University and Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation. 11 (3), 34-56.
4.Hanna, M.E.. (2004). Hofstede's cultural dimensions. The basics and the criticisms. 1 (1), 2-16.
5.Hofstede, G. & Hofstede, G.J. & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of mind. 3rd ed. The UnitedStates of America: McGraw-Hill. 27-47.
6.Hofstede, G. (1994). Management Scientists are Human. Management Science, 40 (1), 4-13.
7.Hofstede, G. (2009). The Hofstede Model in Context. Dimensionalizing Cultures. 17 (14).
8.Hofstede, G. (2013). The Hofstede Centre. Available: http://geert-hofstede.com/. Last accessed 20th May 2013.
9.Hofstede, G. and Minkov, M.. (2011). The evolution of Hofstede's doctrine. Cross cultural management. 18 (1), 10-20.
10.Hofstede, G. J., Pedersen, P. B. and Hofstede, G. (2002). Exploring Culture: Exercises, Stories and Sythetic Cultures. London: Nicholas Brealey.
11.Khastar, H. & Kalhorian, R. & Khalouei, G.A. & Maleki, M.. (2011). Levels of Analysis and Hofstede's Theory of Cultural Differences: The Place of Ethnic Culture in Organizations. International Conference on Financial Management and Economics. 11 (1), 320-323.
12.LeBaron, M. (2003). Culture-Based Negotiation Styles. Available: http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-essay/culture-negotiation. Last accessed 20th May 2013.
13.McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences. A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. 55 (1), 111-113.
14.Minkov, M. (2007). What Makes Us Different and Similar: A New Interpretation of the World Values Survey and Other Cross-Cultural Data. Bulgaria: Klasika I Stil.
15.Mooij M. & Hofstede G.(2010). The Hofstede model Applications to global branding and advertisingstrategy and research. International Journal of Advertising, 29, 85-110.
16.Murphy, R. et al (2009). Developing alternative frameworks for exploring intercultural learning. A critique of Hofstede’s cultural difference model, 14 (3), 261-263.
17.Pelto, P. J. (1968). The difference between tight and loose societies.
18.Russell, A. B. (2011). Strengths and Weaknesses of Questionnaires and Interviews. Available: http://lostentropy.com/2002/05/13/strengths-and-weaknesses-of-questionnaires-and-interviews/. Last accessed 20th May 2013.
19.Triandis, Harry C. (2002). Generic Individualism and Collectivism.