'Critically Assess Geert Hofstede’s Use of Cultural Dimensions\r'

'ABSTRACT: Along with the trend toward world(prenominal)ization, discourse across ethnic and matter boundaries has a substantive effect on business. The Dutch man senescement detective Geert Hofstede’s reverse of gardening props is regarded as an fire to measure inter- heathenish variances to business for scholars and practitioners. However, such a meaning(a) work does non escape criticism. Even though his guess consummates to vi dimensions base on varies reading point and is widely applied by numerous academics, McSweedney and umpteen specialists assert his work as an absolute assumption.INTRODUCTION: Nowadays, the artless boundaries argon shaped by the spread of spheric talk networks and the development of transportation. Because of globalization, countries atomic number 18 tied snuggled than ever before. Since the beginning of 1970s, scholars such as Geert Hofstede started to lineup the importance of pagan differences for many scenerys of busine ss spiritedness, in particular, when business related to communicate between mickle with dissimilar farmings. Hofstede (http://geert-hofstede. com/dimensions. html) readed that â€Å"Culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy.Cultural differences be a painfulness at best and often a disaster. ” such(prenominal) conflicts argon de destinationined by the heap’s perception which is partly the product of culture. Therefore, in hunting lodge to cancel the conflict caused by culture, it is important to gain heathen differences under global business environment. Hofstede’s heathen framework provides a guideline to clear the differences between cultures and may improve the inter-ethnical talk in business argona. However, his work is critiqued by scholars and queryers as an punic framework.This essay firstly outline Hofstede’s cultural framework briefly and then carry his possibleness into working situation to access whether it chamberpot improves the inter-cultural intercourse in the workplace. Afterwards, it will critique the limitations ground on the literatures opposite to Hofstede’s viewpoint. HOFSTEDE’S MODEL: Geert Hofstede’s work is ground-breaking and he himself is considered as the pioneer and picket in inter-cultural study(Bond, 2002 and Sondergaard 1994). He describe his signifi firet research closure based IBM employees’ locations and work-related cherishs around the world.In the noncurrent 30 geezerhood, he persists to refine his theory from the old quaternity to six dimensions: Power distance, Individualism versus Collectivism, maleness versus Femininity, Un surety avoidance and long-run taste, and Indulgence versus restraint (Hofstede et al, 2010). In his book, each soil is evaluated by wads on every dimension, thus populate scum bag take an insight into the cultural differences by study countries’ pocks. Power distance (PDI) is defin ed as that, to what storey people can perceive the unequal male monarch distri scarcelyion in a monastic order.PDI s plazas, deriving from value of the less powerful people, indicate the level to which members hold power inecalibre. A low score demonstrates that members of the society prefer e spirit; whereas a expanse has a high PDI score sum that people unsay large power differences. Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV) is the dimension relating to how people ties to others within the community. Individualism pertains to societies whose members tie by and large and concern about themselves and their immediate family. On the contrary, in collectivistic countries people belong to strong and sticky group.Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS) refers to whether emotional gender roles are perspicuous or overlap. In masculine societies men are supposed to behave ‘assertive, competitive and tough’, on the contrary, women are supposed to be ‘ subaltern, incli neer, and concerned with the quality of life’ (Hofstede, 2010: 140). Uncertainty avoidance (UAI) related to completion to which members superintend anxiety with ambiguous and unknown situations. truehearted UAI Countries maintain â€Å"rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas”.Countries exhibiting weak UAI supercharge practice than principles with a more relaxed attitude. Long-term versus short-term orientation (LTO) deals with which kind of value is fostered. This dimension is based on Bond’s World set Survey on â€Å"Confucian dynamism”. Long-term oriented countries foster virtues such as tenaciousness and thrift for future rewards, whereas short-term orientation focuses on rewards in the present and the past, which means particularly ‘ delight in for tradition, preservation of ‘face’, and fulfilling social obligations’ (Hofstede, 2010: 239).Indulgence versus Restrain is co upled to happiness. An indulgent society permits ‘sexual relationly free gladness of basic and natural human drives related to enjoying life and having fun’ (http://geert-hofstede. com/dimensions. html). On the contrary, restraint countries use exacting social norms to control gratification of needs and regulates. activity As the world slide by outs globalized, to remain competitive and understate conflicts which are the result of ignoring cultural differences, companies should not lard an ethnocentric wariness mode to unlike cultural staff.To minimize these conflicts, many scholars and practitioners utilize Hofstede’s work of cultural dimensions as a means to settle the cultural opening move in business. angiotensin converting enzyme precedent why his framework is widely adopted is that his information are collected from varies companies and the fifth dimension is based on ‘Confucian dynamism’. Thus, to access its pragmatical applicabi lity to decrease the negative aspect of cultural differences and to elevate cross-cultural discourse level, it is important to chip in Hofstede’s work into real shells.Since the late 2009, the famous lacquerese auto-maker Toyota struggled into an unprecedented crisis due to pedal quality businesss which led Toyota to its historical largest think in the world. The economic expert (Feb. 6, 2010) commented that sentry duty recall is a common coming back in vehicle manufacture but Toyota changed the order. In the subprogram of managing crisis, Toyota acted according to lacquerese culture without victorious the American cultural values into account. It can be utter that one reason deteriorates the normal recall cars to a crisis is the ignorance of cultural differences.Some literatures analyse the cultural aspect affecting the crisis and group them into two main points (Feng, 2010, Huang, 2010). Firstly, the lacquerese management mode and organisational behaviour is d ifferent from American. As a result of the Japanese organizational culture, Toyota serveed slack uply after the contingency. It is reported that on American time 28th August 2009, a Lexus ES 350 caused a fatal crash due to the spoil pedal was stuck and the car was out of control (Los Angeles propagation, Oct. 25, 2009). til now Toyota did not respond to the accident immediately.US Transportation depositary Ray LaHood said that documents show that Toyota knew of the problem in late September but did not tumble response until late January, moreover, â€Å"they cognizely hid a chanceful defect for months from US officials and did not take bodily process to protect millions of drivers and their families” (Thomas, 2010). The second reason is the different intercourse behaviours between Japan and the U. S. A. In the American hear and variety interviews, Akio Toyota, the chairwoman of Toyota Motor Corporation, spoke implicative, tactful and modest with a large number o f modest words without any directly answers (Huang, 2010).In addition, Akio Toyota’s behaviours are unders to a faultd as hiding the truth by American people. According to Hofstede’s framework, Western culture, be by the U. S. A. , and such Japanese Eastern culture have significantly differences. The magnitude of the differences has been directly described in ways. See from the figure 1. 1. Figure 1. 1 Japan and the U. S. A It is obvious that thither populate large differences between Japan and the United pass ons. One of the most telling to explain the crisis can be the collectivist versus individualist dimension.The fundamental issue related to IDV is the extent of connection between individuals and the group (Hofstede, 1980). From the data provided by Hofstede, Japan, at a score of 46 on a scale of 1 to 100, is a collectivist society, whose group allegiances are strong, cohesive and budge higher authority. The individuals adhere to the entity and preserve harmon y. Thus the Toyota northbound American stain was been called a â€Å"little safety deaf” by LaHood (CBC intelligence, Feb, 2010). The North American office need invoked by the highest authority to handle the accident and the applicable proposal must pass by dint of the whole company.Nevertheless, this system is not adaptable in handling problems in America. According to Hofstede, Toyota needs to handle the problem immediately rather than make a long-term agreement. Meanwhile, the high power distance (Japan 54) can be used to synopsis the slow response. Japan is a more profoundized decision country, and it is consequently all the command should be endorsed by the chairperson of Toyota Motor Corporation, Akio Toyoda. Because only the chief executive officer can respond to the allegations, the response to the event was hauled in esteem to the stakeholders lively in a country that has only 40 in the index.As hanged before, the official recall and apologize came four months later after the car accident has been reported. to date the stakeholders demanded immediate response to the accident from Toyota regardless from the CEO or other representative. Moreover, during the House Oversight and judicature Reform Committee hearing, in response to why Toyota responded so slow, Toyoda claimed that do not answered directly but reiterates his plan to set up a global commission to address complains more quickly (CNN Politics, Feb. 24, 2010).This phenomenon can adopt Hofstede’s fifth dimension, long- term versus short-term orientation to demonstrate the inevitability of this divergence. Hofstede himself defines long-term orientation as ‘the fostering of virtues oriented towards future rewards (Hofstede 2010: 239), which means that high long-orientation scores countries (Japan 80) pay more upkeep to the things that will benefit the future whereas low score countries tend to focus on nearby benefits or rewards. Jealous writes, â€Å"In America , we ultimately judge people on what they are doing today for tomorrow, not for what they did yesterday. (CNN Politics, Feb. 24, 2010). In the hearing, American part were expected that Toyota undertake their obligations by providing continuous plans to the stakeholders. Akio did not account for this and responded indirectly to the root word to the current accident therefore caused Americans the disgusted and hazard feeling. Consequently, if Toyota can notice the cultural differences and adopt Hofstedes theory to handle the problem in their American mart in the bud, the common recall would not aggravate American people and became a crisis which will hazard its reputation. CRITIQUE:Culture is deeply rooted in many aspects of business life when people must interact with the people such as suppliers, buyers, employees or stakeholders. The case of Toyota crisis demonstrates that Hofstede’s framework of cultural dimensions is practical to uncover these conflicts in cross-cultu ral communication. If people could substantiate the cultural differences concluded by Hofstede and take meet communication style and management mode, the fate of Toyota exponent be changed. However, the framework cannot act as a textbook to interpret the whole cultural gap even in the case of Toyota crisis.Many intercultural researchers criticized Hofstede’s theory for not providing valuable guiding intelligence or regard it as absolute assumptions. Hofstede did not mention the impact of linguistic on the communication. Different languages and confine have objectively impact on the apprehension of the conversation. Take the US-based 3M Company as an ex vitamin Ale. The company earns $7 billion per year in their overseas market, it become the â€Å"forefront of language instruction by sponsoring an in-house wording Society that provides linguistic and cultural support” to 3M (Frey-Ridgway, 1997).Freivalds (1995) said that the French firm Bull adopted the 3M stump er to train its employees in the competition of global marketplace and still in success. Language plays an irreplaceable assign in the inter-cultural communication. Different slips of consistence languages cause fault as well. In japan, apology needs humility, in order to be forgiven, Japanese usually avoid eye contact stands for rudeness, offend and provocation, but it would be decoded as disinterest, dishonesty and cunning in occidental countries (Huang, 2010, Dahl, 2004).Gudykunst and Nishida (1994:2) said that mis run intoing between Japan and American people often â€Å"stem from not knowing the norms and rules guiding each other’s communication”. In hofstede’s model, the data come from the communicative company IBM and it is aim to evaluate work attitude and value, this led his theory ignore linguistic and body language difference. Moreover, in the process of communication among Akio Toyoda and the American interlocutor, the stakeholders, the Congres s representatives or the media people, misunderstanding occurred continually.As mentioned above, Toyota responded euphemistic to the problem (Huang, 2010). Akio repeated the apology several times and declined to give pithy answers to undertake the obligation and to interpret the information and plan for the stakeholders in the hearing (Clark ; McCurry, 2010). The answer type can be derived from the expressions of Japanese communication. Lincoln (1995) examine Japanese and found that due to the politeness cultural they reluctance to say â€Å"no” directly. Hall (1976) quarantined communication into High-context and low-context.The United States is a typical low-context communication country while Japan belongs to high-context communication. Low-context communication refers to the patterns of communication use explicit verbal to convey meanings, whereas high-context pattern draw heavily on context. This cultural difference is raised by Hall instead of Hofstede. Michael (1997 ) claim that literatures are lack of specialized details and are concluded in broad behavioral terms. Trompenaars and H ampereden-Turner (1997) sort cultures has seven value orientations which is more than Hofstede’s six dimensions and has somewhat different surveys.Additionally, Dahl (2004) criticizes the theory is the result of very little data, especially from specific companies with bound numbers of questions. This indicates that culture can be confused into more dimensions and those national scores and ranks are not the exclusive guide to improve inter-cultural communications. From Hofstede’s (1980) research, Japan ranks in the middle level of Individualism versus fabianism dimension. Yet Japan is widely separated as a harmonious society.Woodring (2010 cited in Jandt, 1995: 163) used the authorized Hofstede’s questionnaire to study Japanese students and found that students scored set down on power distance whereas higher on individualisation compa ring with Hofstede’s original sample. Woodring explained that the different scores might be the result of age; that is means, students may praise more on individualism and equality than the whole Japanese society. About 1990, youths 25 years old and under were named as splutter jin rui (literally â€Å"new human beings”), who were described as â€Å"selfish, self-centered, and undutiful of elders and tradition” by older Japanese.In the description from Hofstede suggested that the Japan is a group oriented and hierarchical country. However, there are evidences to show that the young generation get outks for egalitarian and individualism. This demonstrates that Hofstede’s research can lead to stereotype and this ought to be avoided. Furthermore, this study shows that cultural value is dynamic. Holden (2002) criticizes the â€Å"relative reliance” on Hofstede’s paradigm in the workplace. He points out that the data is outdated as it was coll ected before 30 years.Hofstede attempts to set a certain form of culture for people to understand specific cultures and he (Hofstede, 2010: 34) states that â€Å"cutlures, especially national cultures, are extremely stable over time”. This has been criticized as â€Å"functionalist ambition of measuring largely unquantifiable phenomena” (Gray and Maloory, 1998: 57). Hostede himself stated, â€Å"There is no such thing as objectivity in the study of social reality: we will too often to be essential, but we may at least try to be ‘inter subjective’. As His data are come from the questionnaire do by a group of western people, as a result of this, the question are tend to reflect western culture which means Hofstede’s theory has its cultural bias. Meanwhile, there is a look at about what level of analysis is practical for the term â€Å"culture” to be a viable tool. McSweeney (2000) questions the salmagundi of culture in Hofstede’s th eory. Hofstede (2010: 10) stated that people are shaped by â€Å"certain cultural trains” from the same country. Although general cultural dimensions can be established at a cultural level, ndividuals may not necessarily reflect the national culture they belong to. Hofstede (1980, 1991) admits that using data from the level of country to analyze the individuals is not appropriate, and labeled it â€Å"ecological delusion”. He (1991:253) affirms that national cultural level reflects â€Å"central tendencies (…) for the country”, it is, not practical to analyze and bode specific individual behaviors or events. Conclusion: mainly overview the assessment, Geert Hofstede’s use of cultural dimensions provides a mensural paradigm to attract people’s direction to cultural differences and contribute to the inter-cultural study.For those people who are tough in internationalistic commerce, culture is important for many aspects of business life, thus, if people go into another country to communicate with local company, changing the management process and practices to meet their values is essential. Concluding from the case analysis of Toyota crisis, Hofstedes cultural model indeed provides an effective reference point to support better cross-cultural communication as it uncover the reasons of cultural conflict for people to apply appropriate method to minimize its negative influence.However, cultural dimension theory functions limited in miserable space as it is not perfect. It regards culture as a fixed concept and separates it by national boundaries is improper. The data is collected in several decades years before even it has been updated in recent years based on questionnaire in a specific group in international companies from a perspective of western people. Moreover, it narrows culture into six dimensions may potentially disturb the derived value prediction as certain context influences on the individual respondents .The inter-cultural communication conflicts pull through no matter how much understanding goes some(prenominal) ways. In conclusion, Hofstede’s work of cultural dimensions is a supplement for supporting better inter-cultural communication, the bilateral respect of culture and positive attitude are the core to successful inter-cultural communication. Bibliography: Bond, M. H. (2002). â€Å"Reclaiming the Individual from Hofstedes Ecological Analysis- A 20-Year Odyssey: causerie on Oyserman et al. ” Psychological Bulletin, 128 (1): 73-77 CBC news (Feb 2, 2010), â€Å"Toyota slow o react: LaHood- US Transportation repository criticizes automaker”. forthcoming at <http://www. cbc. ca/news/business/story/2010/02/02/toyota-january-sales. html> (13 May, 2012) Clark, A. & McCurry, J. (2010). â€Å"Toyota stomp offers ‘sincere regrets for faulty accelerators”, The Guardian, Thursday 25 February 2010. on tap(predicate) at < http://www. gua rdian. co. uk/business/2010/feb/25/toyota-akio-toyoda-congress? INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487> (13 May, 2012) CNN Politics (Feb 24, 2010). â€Å"Toyota president testifies before Congress”. Available at < http://articles. cnn. com/2010-02-24/ administration/toyota. earing. updates_1_toyoda-inaba-national-press-club? _s=PM:POLITICS > (13 May, 2012) Dahl, S. (2004). â€Å"Intercultural Research: The Current State of Knowledge”. Middlesex University Discussion Paper No. 26. Available at < http://papers. ssrn. com/sol3/papers. cfm? abstract_id=658202 > (13 May, 2012) Feng, Y. (2010). â€Å"Toyota crisis: management ignorance? †a swedish case of consumers perceptions”. Available at < http://hh. diva-portal. org/smash/record. jsf? pid=diva2:349746> (13 May, 2012) Freivalds, J. (1995). â€Å" encyclopaedism languages”. Communication World, December: 24-7.Frey-Ridgway, S. (1997). â€Å"The cultural dimension of international business”. Col lection Building, 16(1): 12 †23 Gudykunst, W. & Nishida, T. (1994), Bridging Japanese-North American Differences, Communicating Effectively in multicultural Contexts Series, Thousand Oaks: Sage, p. 2 Hofstede’s website, available at < http://geert-hofstede. com/dimensions. html > (13 May, 2012) Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences:International Differences in Work-related Values Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: software of the mind, 2nd Ed.New York: McGraw-Hill Hofstede, G. , Hofstede, G. J. & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: software of the mind, 3rd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Holden, N. (2002). Cross-cultural management: a knowledge management perspective. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall Huang, Z. (2010). â€Å"??????????????? â€â€?? â€Å"??? â€Å"???? ” (From the perspective of inter-cutlural communication to see Japan-America cultural differecesâ€analysis Toyota â€Å"recall”). Journal of Huaihua University,29 (6) Jandt, F. E. (2009). An insane asylum to Intercultural Communication: Identities in a Global\r\n'