Geert Hofstede


Researchers have utilized Hofstede’s categorization of countrywide cultural traits not merely in studies of ‘typical’ employee samples, from which the categorization was originally obtained, but likewise to élite senior executives, and even to businesses, on the assumptions that top management teams (i just) are culturally homogeneous with standard employees and (ii) straight reflect cultural qualities in strategic decision-making. Such assumptions happen to be questioned by research finding that country sub-populations are culturally heterogeneous and that individuals’ cultural characteristics happen to be moderated by organizational and job contexts. Applying the construct of collectivism/individualism, this study testing the applicability of Hofstede’s generic national cultural norms to senior executives using Anglo-Saxon and Chinese samples. Benefits cast question on the applicability of Hofstede’s classifications to senior supervisor populations and recommend several avenues for further more research.

In recent years the work of Dr. Geert Hofstede and his cultural dimensions has been cautiously reviewed and utilized by academic scholars and educators all over the world. Some scholars and educators criticize his results, whereas others highly praise Hofstede’s research. One of the critical voices originates from Dr. Brendan McSweeney. However, Geert Hofstede has properly demonstrated that his criticism isn’t all that valid. Reading for yourself in “Sizes do not exist: A reply to Brendan McSweeney” by Geert Hofstede and at first published in Individual Relations vol. 55 (II) – 2002

The end result of his survey is that employees in the same countrywide context share very similar attitudes towards these four measurements. Differences only arise when they are different in national.

Defining “culture”

Culture has been named “the way of life for an entire society.” As such, it includes codes manners, dress, vocabulary, religion, rituals, norms of patterns and systems of belief.[2]

Various definitions of culture reflect differing theories for understanding – or conditions for evaluating – human activity

.Recently, the United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Firm UNESCO (2002) described traditions as follows:

“… Culture should be regarded as the group of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional top features of society or a social group, and that it encompasses, in addition to art work and literature, lifestyles, means of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs”.[4]

Key parts of culture

A common way of understanding culture sees it as comprising four elements:





Geert Hofstede™ Cultural Dimensions

Geert Hofstede gathered extensive data on the world’s cultures.

Geert Hofstede’s Value Survey Module is made for measuring culture-determined differences between matched samples of respondents from numerous countries and regions.

Prof. Geert Hofstede carried out the most comprehensive research of how ideals in place of work are influenced by tradition.

Geert Hofstede analyzed a sizable data base of employee values scores accumulated by IBM between 1967 and 1973 covering more than 70 countries that he first used the 40 most significant only and later on extended the research to 50 countries and 3 areas. In the editions of GH’s work since 2001, ratings are listed for 74 countries and regions, partly based on replications and extensions of the IBM study on different International populations.

From the original results and after additions hofstede designed a model that identifies four most important dimensions to assist in differentiating cultures: Ability Distance-PDI, Individualism-IDV, Masculinity-MAS, and Uncertainty Avoidance-UAI.

Geert Hofstede added a fifth dimension after conducting an additional International review with a survey device developed with Chinese staff and managers.

The dimension based on Confucian dynamism is Long-Term Orientation-LTO and was put on 23 countries.

These five Hofstede dimensions can also be determined to correlate with additional country, culture and religious paradigms.

1) Power length Index (PDI) that is the extent to which the less powerful associates of organizations and organizations (like the family) accept plus they expect that power is definitely distributed unequally. This symbolizes inequality (considerably more versus less), but defined from below, certainly not from above. It suggests that a society’s degree of inequality can be endorsed by the fans up to by the leaders. Ability and inequality, will be the most extremely fundamental points of any culture and anybody who have some international experience will be aware that ‘all societies happen to be unequal, but some are more unequal than others’.

2) Individualism (IDV) the main one side versus its opposing, collectivism this is the degree to which individuals are inte-grated into groups. On the individualist part we can see societies where in fact the ties between folks are loose: everyone is expected to take care of him/herself and his/her immediate family members. On the collectivist side, we find societies where persons from birth onwards happen to be built-into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended family members (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) which continue guarding them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. The term ‘collectivism’ in this perception has no political meaning: it defines to the group, never to the state.

3) Masculinity (MAS) versus its opposite, femininity identifies the distribution of roles between the genders which is another fundamental issue for any society to which a range of solutions are located. The IBM studies displays us that (a) women’s values in the societies happen to be less than men’s values; (b) men’s values in one country to another include a dimension from extremely assertive and competitive and maximally not the same as women’s values on the main one area, to modest and caring and equivalent to women’s values on the additional. The assertive pole is called ‘masculine’ and the modest, caring pole is called by ‘feminine’. The ladies in feminine countries possess the same modest, caring, social values as the males; in the masculine countries. Nonetheless they are somewhat assertive and competitive, however, not around the men, so that these countries stand for us a gap between men’s values and women’s values.

4) Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) deals with a society’s tolerance for uncertainty. What’s the level a society can accept using its unknown and unseen subject matter. It eventually refers to man’s seek out Truth. It shows us how a culture reflects its customers to feel either unpleasant or relaxed in unstructured situations. Unstructured conditions are novel, unknown, astonishing, and different from standard. Uncertainty avoiding cultures make an effort to minimize the probability of such conditions by strict laws and regulations and rules, security and safety measures, and on the philosophical and spiritual level by a belief in absolute Truth; ‘there can only be one Real truth and we’ve it’. Persons in uncertainty keeping away from countries are likewise more mental, and motivated by internal nervous energy. On the other side uncertainty accepting cultures, happen to be more tolerant of opinions. In the problem of certainty people make an effort to have as few rules as practical, and on the philosophical and religious level they will be relativist and allow various currents to flow hand and hand. People within these cultures not really predicted by their environment expressing emotions

5) Long Term orientation (LTO) versus short-term orientation: this fifth dimension was found in a study among students in 23 countries around the world, using a

questionnaire designed by Chinese scholars it usually is said to deal with Virtue no matter Truth. Ideals which are associated with Long Term Orientation happen to be thrift. Alternatively values which are connected with SHORT-TERM Orientation are respect for tradition, fulfilling public obligations, and protecting one’s ‘face’.

Logical Argument

As recruiting are typically developed in local corporations and cultural institutions, we commence by looking at the formation of local function cultures and the overseas debate about how precisely multinational businesses are influencing local work cultures. How resistant will vary national functioning cultures to the cultural affect of multinational companies? Perform HRM discourses in multinational corporations motivate global convergence or localized divergence?

– Convergence, transnational interaction and a ‘third culture’

The numerous interpretations of the effects of multinational corporations on management and company in overseas subsidiaries have breathed new lease of life into the convergence debate from the1950s and 1960s. In contrast to the old convergence procedure, which laid great focus on institutional systems and structural processes, the brand new approach focuses considerably more on the actors and carriers of convergence functions. The new emphasis is on transnational techniques in multinational companies and not so much on differences in National Business Systems professional relations or societal results (Maurice et al.1980), that have been the dominant issues in international control and organization study in 1980s. The authors within the new convergence school do not argue against thematic essay rubric the effect of national social establishments on company approaches and organizational practices, nonetheless they raise the question of whether the increasing globalization of many companies does not decrease the influence of national establishments and cultural values. They pay greater attention to transnational actors’ potential capacity to reduce national differences in general management and group. They argue that the raising internal and external competition in multinational businesses searching for “guidelines” is undermining the value of national social organizations and local cultural values in company approaches and practices


Hofstede features been criticized by number of authors for certainly not considering the changing relationship between parent firms and subsidiaries in a globalized market. Among his critics is certainly Christina Garsten who, in her research of Apple Computer, eventually ends up with a different viewpoint of the parent company’s impact on its subsidiaries. Garsten will not seek to identify countrywide homogeneity and consensus in Apple’s national subsidiaries by analyzing common national cultural ideals. The cultural complexity that Christina Garsten seeks to identify in Apple Computers demands a far more dynamic principle in the culture than Geert Hofstede’s categorization of attitudes which were pre-established theoretical measurements. Using this concept of culture, a national group of staff members in a multinational enterprise does not act in accordance with one common group of collective national values. The group’s actions are motivated by various sub cultural contexts and displays numerous interpretations of and engagement with their organization.

Garsten’s approach very inspiring, especially the way in which she takes under consideration the impact of transnational communication streams in businesses. Hofstede did not pay much focus on this subject matter because global human reference strategies were much less developed in the 1970s when he carried out his research.

How can human source management discourse be comprehended in the dialectical relationship between your global and the neighborhood in multinational companies? Due to the growing systems in multinational companies, human being resource management discourse is increasingly shaping the thinking about management groups in the individual units and how they implement demands and tasks. It was also a roadmap for establishing a prevalent language among the units. Manuel Castells has tried out to spell it out these complicated processes in The Go up of Network Contemporary society (Castells1996). He describes that network structures and growing flexibility as two closely linked elements in the new global economic program. He argues that networking strategies give us the overall flexibility to the system, nevertheless they do not solve the challenge of adaptability for the companies. In my opinion, this is a key reason why management in multinational companies seek strategies which can cope with flexibility.

When supervision experiments with these network structures in multinational businesses, it engenders cultural encounters between units that have different cultural backgrounds. What’s the outcome of the encounters? Mike Featherstone uses the apt concept of a “third culture” to comprehend the outcome of these encounters in the globalization process (Featherstone1990: 7: 1-14). The 3rd culture argument is that countrywide and localized cultures and identities progressively have to relate to global discourses, nevertheless they do not necessarily adopt them. To demonstrate this argument, we will discuss two of the very most powerful discourses in the present global debate: the free market and human rights. There are many different phenomena which advise that globalization is definitely a differentiated, multi-dimensional and polycentric procedure. It isn’t just a question of 1 multinational agenda or one dominant superpower discourse.

The same logic could be applied when analyzing and analyzing control in subsidiaries which put into practice human resource strategies. Multinational corporations with different parent provider cultures set up human resource strategies how do you find the area of a rhombus motivated by global consultants and ideal practice good examples. They transfer HRM strategies to subsidiaries, which create a third company traditions: a reflexive, discursive mix of the parent company customs, the local work culture and the multinational practices. Basically all multinational subsidiaries maintain different third way of life outcomes, which together create a global company culture in practice.


Yes, I really do consider my self defined strongly about my competition/ethnicity or culture, but concurrently I do not. Just how I do feel defined in my culture may be the morals and traditions and values that I have ingest. I am not really saying I took all of them but almost all of them I applied by myself. As an Asian I grew up in Bangladesh for 50 % of my life and then moved out to U.K. And as I grew up I could experience several cultures. In Bangladesh it had been a lot calmer and laid back area but once I relocated to London, it was fast paced. But while taking in both cultures my parents also put an impact on me to remember my heritage and traditions. They wanted to ensure that I new about my Bangladeshi.

Discussing with distinct cultures people of another country might help give me an idea of how numerous my nation is from other areas. Talking to someone from a different country enables one to have more respect for that person, because we in a position to learn their different way of living and learn to appreciate our own way of living


Markus Richwien

Kategorie: Betriebswirtschaft – Funktional – Organisation – Organization allgemein

MA-Thesis / Master June 2000, 135 Seiten, 1, 0 MB, Note 1, 3, Sprache English

Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität München Deutschland

Schlagworte: Business, Adler, weibliche Führungskräfte, Confuzianismus, Kollektivismus

Countries and ‘elites’ in 19 countries.