HOME EXAM

COMPARATIVE MANAGEMENT CULTURE

07 MARCH 2022- 08 MARCH 2022

EXAMINAR: OLIVIA KANG, COMPARATIVE MANAGEMENT CULTURE, UNIVERSITY OF GAVLE

NAME OF THE STUDENT: MOHAMMAD MASHUKUL ISLAM, MBA SPRING SEMESTER, 2022
Discuss how Hofstede's Cultural Values Framework is incorporated in comparative management
studies? What are some critiques and how have these critiques been remedied?

1|Page
 Table of Content

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................3

HOFSTEDE’s CULTURAL VALUES DIAGRAM ......................................................................3

Power Distance ...................................................................................................................4

Individualism vs. Collectivism ...........................................................................................4

Uncertainty Avoidance ........................................................................................................5

Masculinity vs. Femininity .................................................................................................6

Long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation ................................................................7

Indulgence vs. Restraint ......................................................................................................7

SOME CRITICISM HOFSTEDE’S CULTURAL FRAMEWORK ...............................................8

CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................10

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................12

2|Page
INTRODUCTION

Culture, the accumulator of human thought, perception & believe that coordinates actions carried

in different aspects of life. According to (Hall 1969; Kluckholn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Inkeles &

Levinson, 1969) culture research has a long past in the domains of anthropology, psychology, and

sociology, it is a contemporary issue in International Business studies. Hofstede should be credited

with introducing culture into mainstream International Business research. Earlier the focus was on

the socioeconomic method of Harbison and Myers (1959), the environmental approach of Farmer

and Richman (1964), and the psychic distance Johanson and Vahlne(1977).

Through his studies among IBM employees in different nations, Geert Hofstede, a Dutch

psychologist, developed one of the most prominent cultural value frameworks, which covers

cultural classifications, repercussions, and differences. According to Hofstede (1980a) culture is

the collective mental perception that distinguishes groups and members of one human cluster from

those of another. He also claims that the dimension is a characteristic of a culture that can be

compared to others.

HOFSTEDE’s CULTURAL VALUEs DIAGRAM

Individualism vs Collectivism, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Masculinity vs

Femineity are the four dimensions described by Hofstede (1980a). Later, Hofstede and Bond

(1988) analyzed existing dimensions and created a fifth, "Confucian dynamism," later retitled as

Short-term versus Long-term Orientation. Finally, Minkov and Hofstede (2011) brought the sixth

dimension Indulgence vs Restraint through evaluating the data extracted from the World Value

3|Page
Survey (WVS). Let me discuss the Hofstede’s Cultural traits under value framework & it’s

significance in relation to comparative management studies.

Power Distance

According to Hofstede (1980a), the less powerful members of society accept and assume unequal

power distribution, which eventually indicates inequality prevails in culture. However, the

inequality varies among culture of different nations/societies. In this dimension, the main point of

debate is how society deals with inequality. The hierarchy is clearly formed and carried out in a

higher degree Power Distance society. Lower Power Distance, on the other hand, indicates that

people question authority and attempt to disperse power.

▪ Characteristics of Low Power Distance Society: In a low power distance society income

distribution is mostly even, parents treat children equal, in organization people are treated

as colleagues not superior or subordinate.

▪ Low Power Distance Society Example: Sweden, Norway, Germany, Denmark, etc.

▪ Characteristics of High-Power Distance Society: In a high power distance society income

distribution is uneven, parents treat children obedience, in organization people are treated

as superior or subordinate.

▪ High Power Distance Society Example: India, Pakistan, Nigeria, etc.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

Individualism vs. collectivism determines the degree to which people in a society are united into

groups. Individualistic cultures, according to Hofstede (1980a), have weak attachments, with most

4|Page
people only knowing their immediate family. Collectivism, on the other hand, refers to a society

in which groupings are formed via close relationships between extended families and others.

▪ Characteristics of Individualistic Society: In an individualistic society right of privacy is

high, individual opinion is counted, purpose of education is how to learn.

▪ Individualistic Society Example: America, China, Germany, etc.

▪ Characteristics of Collective Society: In a collective society harmony is always maintained,

opinions are resolute by group, individual opinion is not counted, purpose of education is

how to do.

▪ Collective Society Example: India, Canada, Japan, etc.

Uncertainty Avoidance

Uncertainty Avoidance is characterized by Hofstede (1980a) as a society's tolerance for

uncertainty, in which people embrace or avoid something unexpected, unclear, unstructured.

Societies with a high Uncertainty Avoidance adhere to strict rules. Low Uncertainty Avoidance

societies, on the other hand, are more accepting of opposing ideas and are driven by fewer

regulations.

▪ Characteristics of Society with weak Uncertainty Avoidance: In a weak Uncertainty

Avoidance society encourage low stress, people are self-controlled, people at large accepts

difference of opinion.

▪ Example Society with weak Uncertainty Avoidance: Switzerland, Belgium, France, etc.

5|Page
 ▪ Characteristics of Society with strong Uncertainty Avoidance: In a Society with strong

Uncertainty Avoidance carries higher stress, teachers are supposed to have answer of all

question, difference of opinion discouraged & could be dangerous.

▪ Example Society with strong Uncertainty Avoidance: India, Bangladesh etc.

Masculinity vs. Femininity

Masculinity vs Femininity is another dimension Hofstede (1980a) represented. Masculinity

defined as a social predisposition for achievement, heroism, assertiveness, and monetary rewards

for success. On the other hand, femininity shares modest and caring values with everyone in

society equally. Masculine society is more competitive and feminine society encourage

cooperation, caring for the weak, equality of life.

▪ Characteristics defined by Hofstede (1980) of Masculine Society: Social role are defined

by gender, father treated as chief of the family, men and women are treated differently,

work prevails over family.

▪ Example Masculine Society: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Afghanistan, etc.

▪ Characteristics defined by Hofstede (1980) of Feminine Society: Minimum differentiation

in social role due to gender, men and women should be modest and caring, men and women

are treated equally, work and family get similar importance.

▪ Example Masculine Society: Canada, Sweden, Belgium, etc.

6|Page
Long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation

Hofstede and Bond (1988) analyzed existing dimensions and created a fifth, "Confucian

dynamism," that also known as long-term vs. short erm orientation. In a short-term oriented society

traditions are respected and upheld, and that consistency is cherished. Adaptation and pragmatic

problem-solving are seen as a necessary in long-term-oriented societies. Short-term oriented

countries have a lower economic development potential, while long-term oriented countries have

a higher development potential.

▪ Characteristics defined by Hofstede & Bond (1988) of short-term society: Desire to explain

as much as possible, absolute truth, respect to social environment & tradition is high.

▪ Example Long term Society: India, Egypt, Japan, etc.

▪ Characteristics defined by Hofstede & Bond (1988) of long-term society: Desire to explain

as less as possible, truth is contextual, adaptive circumstance.

▪ Example Long term Society: America, China, etc.

Indulgence vs. Restraint

Hofstede (2011) defined 6th cultural value dimension named as Indulgence vs. Restraint. This

dimension relates to the degree of freedom that people have in pursuing their aspirations as a result

of societal conventions. Indulgence refers to a culture that permits the relatively unrestricted

fulfillment of basic and natural human impulses. Its polar opposite is a society that restricts the

fulfillment of wishes and adjusts it according to social norms.

7|Page
 ▪ Characteristics defined by Hofstede (2011) of Indulgent Society: Majority of people are

happy in the society, freedom of speech is important, importance of leisure is high.

▪ Example Long term Society: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc.

▪ Characteristics defined by Hofstede (2011) of Restrained Society: Few of people are happy

in the society, freedom of speech is less important, importance of leisure is low.

▪ Example Long term Society: China, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, etc.

SOME CRITICISM HOFSTEDE’S CULTURAL FRAMEWORK

Prior to Hofstede's (1980a), culture was measured as a single variable in country-level studies.

Hofstede's study was the first systematic attempt to untangle culture into numerous components

and aid communication across cultural divides. However, upon closer examination, we discovered

that Hofstede's (1980a, 1988, 2011) work has some flaws that need to be addressed. Hofstede's

traditional culture model has been criticized by (Shenkar, 2001; Tung & Verbeke 2010, Zaheer,

Schomaker, & Nachum, 2012), specifically Hofstede's cultural dimensions and their

accompanying cultural distance.

Rosalie L Tung (2008) asserted that culture is a multi-layered construct, emphasizing the need of

not approaching management practices as if they exist only within a country's borders. Melanie

Moll (2012) defines culture as "the meaningful way people act and engage with others in their

social situations," which differs from Hofstede's definition of culture. It is critical, in my opinion,

to contextualize how definitions are framed in order to avoid cultural definitional departure.

8|Page
I will pose the following key questions to further examine Hofstede's cultural value system,:

1. Does Hofstede’s cultural studies are methodology rightly framed?

2. Are the ideas used in the study is generalized or not?

3. Is culture easily acquired and measurable?

Inappropriate methodology applied

As we all know, Hofstede's study is based on the methodology of data collecting via questionnaires

sent to employees of a specific company (IBM) working in various offices around the world. It is

clear that the data gathered does not represent the whole population of the country. It's difficult to

gain a good depiction of a country's or society's culture from one office's employees. If we take

India as an example, where more than a billion people reside, people speak more than 20

languages, and numerous religions are practiced, data collected from simply IBM personnel will

not provide accurate information about the country's culture. Furthermore, using a set of questions

to collect responses from one organization's respondents can result in a narrow and inaccurate

outcome. As a result, the methods used to measure various concepts such as culture should be

complained. We can argue that the methodology used in Hofstede's study is ineffective for

measuring cultural differences.

Impacted by Over Generalization

Brendan McSweeney et al. (2010) argued Hofstede's theory is swayed by overgeneralization

regarding culture and data collection, interpretation also erroneous. He argued many nations have

9|Page
different ethnic groups which are not typical as national cultural identity. Thus culture cannot be

generalized among all the people of a country.

Define National Culture can be ambiguous

Brendan McSweeney et al. (2010) claimed against the concept of national culture, demonstrating

that it is a hazy and difficult to define this concept. Besides, we have already recognized differences

of opinion among researchers in terms of culture’s definition, and it is clear that culture may be

described in a variety of ways and difficult to framed it up. Cultural components such as values

and beliefs can shift through time and are not always visible to the observer, as can the context and

surrounds. As a result, Hofstede's study's handling of culture in one end over simplistic and other

end ambiguous.

Conclusion

Finally, is Hofstede's (1980a) concept of cross-cultural values still valid in the twenty-first

century? Despite the fact that the data utilized in Hofstede's (1980a) study is outdated, Kirkman et

al. (2006) argue that Hofstede's cultural values are still relevant to future research. The study also

cautioned in using the data of the same level of analysis and the relevance among the context. In a

recent study, the same scholars Bradley L Kirkman, Kevin B Lowe, and Cristina B Gibson (2017)

investigated the impact of culture and determined that Hofstede's cultural value system is still

relevant for current research. They did, however, present a new set of recommendations for

national culture studies in businesses. Finally, besides Hofstede's cultural value framework, I

10 | P a g e
believe we should have reflections on other researchers' viewpoints in order to comprehend cross-

cultural behavior and avoid stereotyping.

Culture predates civilization by millennia, and the two coexist and are interdependent. Researchers

have been trying to figure out how culture influences International Business Phenomenon for

decades, but they are still encountering unresolved obstacles in cross-cultural research.

11 | P a g e
REFERENCES

1. Bradley L Kirkman & Kevin B Lowe & Cristina B Gibson, "A retrospective on Culture’s

Consequences: The 35-year journey," Journal of International Business Studies, 2017.

2. Bradley L. Kirkman, Kevin B. Lowe, Cristina B. Gibson, A Quarter Century of Culture's

Consequences: A Review of Empirical Research Incorporating Hofstede's Cultural Values

Framework, The Journal of International Business Studies, 2006.

3. Brendan McSweeney, A Post-Hofstedian Notion of Culture, Royal Holloway University

of London, 2010

4. Farmer, R. N., & Richman, B. M., Comparative manage ment and economic progress.

Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin. journal of International Business Studies, 1964.

5. Hall, E. T., The hidden dimension. New York: Anchor, 1969.

6. Harbison, F., & Myers, C. A., Management in the industrial world: An international

analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.

12 | P a g e
 7. Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related

values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture's consequences: Comparing

values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sa

8. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H., The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic

growth. Organizational Dynamics, 1988.

9. Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. J. , National character: The study of modal personality and

sociocultural systems. The Handbook of Social Psychology, 1969.

10. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J., The internationalization process of the firm – A model of

knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of

International Business Studies, 1977.

11. Kluckholn, C., & Strodtbeck, F., Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row,

Peterson, 1961.

12. Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G., The evolution of Hofstede’s doctrine. Cross Cultural &

Strategic Management, 2011.

13 | P a g e
 13. Melanie Moll, The Quintessence of Inter Cultural Business Communication, Springer,

2012.

14. Mădălina DAN, Culture as a Multi-Level and Multi-Layer Construct, Romanian Ministry

of Research and Innovation , 2020.

15. Shenkar, O., Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and

measurement of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 2001.

16. Tung, R. L., & Verbeke, A., Beyond Hofstede and GLOBE: Improving the quality of cross-

cultural research. Journal of International Business Studies, 2010.

17. Tung, R. L, Worm, V., & Fang, T., Sino-Western business negotiations revisited - 30 years

after China's Open Door Policy. Organizational Dynamics, 2008.

18. Zaheer, S., Schomaker, M. S., & Nachum, L., Distance without direction: Restoring

credibility to a much-loved construct. Journal of International Business Studies, 2012.

14 | P a g e