https://www.managementstudyguide.

com/hofstedes-cultural-
framework-as-applied-to-china.htm
Hofstede’s Cultural Framework
The Hofstede’s framework is a measure for assessing the impact of cultural values on the
workplace behavior and gauging how much the cultural mores and attitudes influence the
people at their work. Dr. Geert Hofstede was a psychologist who developed his now famous
framework while working at IBM and his research was based on a study of more than 100,000
individuals in 50 countries across the world.

Though initially, the framework did not receive the recognition that was due to it, in recent times,
there has been a renewed emphasis on the framework by researchers who have found it a
convenient tool to classify countries according to the dimensions that Hofstede proposed. This
tool is quite handy to suggest strategies to deal with the workforce in a particular country for
MNC’s (Multinational Companies) who wish to enter those countries.

 Small vs. Large Power Distance: This dimension relates to the prevalence of

hierarchy, existence of class divide and the notion of power equations determined
by these parameters. Chinese culture is characterized by a paternalistic mindset as
well as a gap between the lower and upper classes not only in terms of the class
divide but culturally as well. The business environment in China is circumscribed
with these divisions where it is common to be obsequious with those in positions
of power. Hence China can be said to be a country with large power distance as
compared to the West where there is a small power distance.

The hierarchical nature of Chinese society means that these aspects pervade the
business world as well and it is common for the employees at the lower levels to
adopt hierarchical communication with their superiors. This means that the
employees would communicate with their superiors in such a way that even if they
do not agree with what their superiors are saying, they would go along with them
because of the intrinsic nature of the Chinese which is to be subservient and
respectful of authority. Hence the power relations in Chinese business and culture
are characterized by large power distance.

 Individualism vs. Collectivism: This dimension relates to the way in which

individuals in a specific culture are encouraged to belong to a group as opposed to
being individualistic in their thinking and actions.

Business in China tends to favor the group above the individual and the group-
think or the group behavior that Chinese are encouraged to adopt means that this
dimension can be characterized as low individualism.
 This aspect is reinforced by the behavior of the Chinese who favor familial
relationships over individual based friendships and the premium placed on loyalty
to a group as opposed to an individualistic conception.

This aspect pervades the Chinese business as well as most of the corporations in
China tend to favor not changing suppliers and other vendors frequently and
sticking with the established relationships as against trying out new combinations.
This emphasis on loyalty and a network of ties that resembles collectivist
tendencies means that there is a low score for the Individualism Dimension (IDV)
in China.

 Masculinity vs. Femininity: This dimension relates to the way in which society

reinforces or does not reinforce the masculine model of work that which has been
associated with traditionalism. This dimension is a bit tricky in the case of China as
the society though paternalistic in nature does not really subscribe to the out and
out traditional model of work and life.

On the contrary, there are several women in business and commerce and this is
one dimension that can be said to be closely aligned with the West where women
are treated at par with men. It can be said that the emphasis of the balancing
aspects of the Yin and Yang or the masculine and the feminine in Chinese culture
has meant that many gender stereotypes and biases are absent in China. Hence,
China scores favorably with the West in this dimension.

 Weak vs. Strong uncertainty avoidance: As with the previous dimension, the
ranking for this aspect of the framework for China is deceiving. Countries with low
uncertainty avoidance tend to be those where people are relatively free and hence
tolerate uncertainty and ambiguity at the workplace.

Further, a low score indicates that people are not controlled to a large extent.
However, this is not the case with China where (despite the economy opening up)
where people are controlled to a large extent. This is because of the strong
cultural acceptance of conformity and hence though one might not be thrown in
jail for breaking a law, the cultural aspect of “losing face” means that people tend
to obey the laws and rules. At the workplace, this manifests itself in terms of
employees needing strong guidance rather than taking decisions on the spot.

 Long vs. Short term Orientation: The Chinese typically have a longer term
orientation which means that they would think over a longer term rather than a
short term basis. Since the country aspires to be the next superpower, there is
definitely a tendency to think big and think ahead.
 Further, the nature of doing business in China is such that things take a longer
time to complete and hence Western businesses have to budget for this
accordingly. Of course, this does not mean that the Chinese cannot accomplish
things fast (as the case of hosting the Olympics shows). What this means is that for
this dimension, the Chinese culture and business can be said to be influenced with
a longer term perspective that allows surmounting obstacles and challenges over
a period of time instead of being in a hurry to get things done.

The Chinese culture is strongly infused with a historical sense of greatness and
hence it is common for the Chinese to have a perspective of time that is greater
than those in the West have. This accounts for the longer term perspective that
the Chinese have.

 Indulgence vs. Restraint or Aggressiveness: On this dimension, the Chinese can

be said to be on the restraint or the less aggressive side as the culture does not
encourage overt displays of aggression.

Further, the Chinese do not exhibit the typical gender gap or the difference in men
and women to the extent which other countries in the Asian region tend to
display. However, the Chinese society is not as open as the countries in the West
and hence, on this dimension, the Chinese tend to score the middle of the road
measure.

The point here is that the Chinese tend to encourage aggression to the extent that
it does not impinge on the group behavior and group-think that they value. So, it is
somewhat of a balancing act for the Chinese as far as this dimension is concerned.

Conclusion: This article has considered an additional dimension which is to do with Masculinity

and Femininity in addition to the ones proposed in the framework. It was felt there was a need
for a cultural perspective in this article and hence, this aspect (that has been recognized by many
researchers) has been added.

The conclusion for this article is that China exhibits mixed scores on most of the dimensions as
the country is modernizing itself and trying to balance this aspect with a deeply historical society.
This means that the inherent conflict and tension between tradition and modernity is manifested
in the scores for the dimensions of the framework.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003687011001281
Australian Business
Professionalism
“Australia is a modern country, and everyone there is expected to be a professional.”

“Only you can do your job in Australia.”

“But when I come to China, there are many people who can do my job.  There are
three or four people that can fill in for what I do.  I am not as special as I would be in
Australia.”
“And because Australia relies on professionals, then the competition for those jobs
is more intense.