Critical analysis of Hofstede’s model of cultural dimensions E-Book

Kristin Piepenburg

• Herausgeber: GRIN Verlag
• Sprache: Englisch

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

Master's Thesis from the year 2011 in the subject Business economics - Business Management, Corporate Governance, grade: 1,0, Oxford Brookes University, language: English, abstract: Global markets are changing faster than ever and increasing international competition makes it necessary for managers to understand not only the domestic culture but also the host country’s culture. Derived from globalisation, successful cross-cultural management is gaining in importance and its need for understanding of cultural differences becomes essential. Because of this it is argued that, with the increasing importance of a cross-cultural understanding, Hofstede’s (1980) model of cultural dimensions gains proportional importance and attracts notice at the same time. His study is widely used in global operating organisations within trainings and workshops. The first step of effective cross-cultural management is the awareness that cultural differences exist and domestic strategies might fail in host countries. Even though, Hofstede’s (1980) cultural study is the most important one and widely known, there are many other cultural studies, which are only partly supporting his study. For each and every model of cultural identifications arouse praise and criticism and Hofstede was not spared by criticism. The main criticism refers to the methodology Hofstede used and many authors questioned its validity and reliability. Another major critique is that the nearly 40-years old survey findings are out-dated and not of any modern value anymore. Addressing the elaborated criticisms from the literature, a personal replication study within the two countries of Germany and the UK is undertaken in order to evaluate the validity, reliability and applicability in the 21st century. This study has developed own dimension scores for Masculinity/ Femininity (MAS) and Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) for Germany and the UK and compared and evaluated these with Hofstede’s findings. The findings of this study vary from Hofstede’s findings, as according to this study the UK is more masculine and has a higher Uncertainty Avoidance score than Germany. These findings do not support Hofstede’s findings and further cultural research is recommended.

Leseprobe

Impressum:

Copyright (c) 2013 GRIN Verlag GmbH, alle Inhalte urheberrechtlich geschützt. Kopieren und verbreiten nur mit Genehmigung des Verlags.

Bei GRIN macht sich Ihr Wissen bezahlt! Wir veröffentlichen kostenlos Ihre Haus-, Bachelor- und Masterarbeiten.

Jetzt bei www.grin.com

Dissertation submitted to Oxford Brookes University for the partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in BUSINESS

MANAGEMENT

ABSTRACT

Critical analysis of Hofstede’s model of cultural dimensions: To what extent are his findings reliable, valid and applicable to organisations in the 21st

Century?

Kristin Piepenburg 28th January 2011

Global markets are changing faster than ever and increasing international competition makes it necessary for managers to understand not only the domestic culture but also the host country’s culture.

Derived from globalisation, successful cross-cultural management is gaining in importance and its need for understanding of cultural differences becomes essential. Because of this it is argued that, with the increasing importance of a cross-cultural understanding, Hofstede’s (1980) model of cultural dimensions gains proportional importance and attracts notice at the same time. His study is widely used in global operating organisations within trainings and workshops. The first step of effective cross-cultural management is the awareness that cultural differences exist and domestic strategies might fail in host countries

Even though, Hofstede’s (1980) cultural study is the most important one and widely knows, there are many other cultural studies, which are only partly supporting his study. For each and every model of cultural identifications arouse praise and criticism and Hofstede was not spared by criticism. The main criticism refers to the methodology Hofstede used and many authors questioned its validity and reliability. Another major critique is that the nearly 40-years old survey findings are out-dated and not of any modern value anymore. Addressing the elaborated criticisms from the literature, a personal replication study within the two countries of Germany and the UK is undertaken in order to evaluate the validity, reliability and applicability in the 21st

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 GLOBALISATION

1.2 CROSS-CULTURAL MANAGEMENT

1.3 NEED FOR CONTEMPORARY APPROACH

1.4 RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES

1.4.1 Aim

1.4.2 Objectives

1.5 OUTLINE OF THE CHAPTERS

CHAPTER 2

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 CULTURE DEFINED

2.1.1 National culture

2.1.2 Organisational culture

2.2 HOFSTEDE’S STUDY OF CULTURAL DIMENSIONS

2.2.1 Research data

2.2.2 Cultural dimensions

2.2.3 Other cultural studies and comparison with Hofstede’s dimensions

2.3 ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF HOFSTEDE’S FINDINGS

2.3.1 Arguments in support of Hofstede’s study

2.3.2 Arguments against Hofstede’s study

2.3.3 Discussion

2.4 HOFSTEDE’S FINDINGS IN PRACTICE

CHAPTER 3

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 RESEARCH PROCESS

3.1.1 Philosophy of research

3.1.2 Research Approach

3.1.3 Research Strategy

3.1.4 Research Choices

3.1.5 Time Horizon

3.1.6 Data collection method

3.2 DATA VALIDITY, RELIABILITY AND GENERALISIBILITY

3.2.1 Validity

3.2.2 Reliability

3.2.3 Generalisability

3.3 RESEARCH ETHICS

3.4 LIMITATIONS

CHAPTER 4

4 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

4.2 CALCULATION OF DIMENSION SCORES

4.3 MASCULINITY

4.3.1 MAS Index Score

4.3.2 Further Analysis

4.4 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE

4.4.1 UA Index Score

4.4.2 Further Analysis

4.5 DISCUSSION

CHAPTER 5

5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSION

5.2 FUTURE RESEARCH AND RECOMMENDATION

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE I: TROMPENAARS 7 DIMENSIONS

TABLE II: SCHWARTZ'S DIMENSIONS

TABLE III: KLUCKHOHN'S AND STRODTBECK'S DIMENSION

TABLE IV: HALL AND HALL COMMUNICATION STYLES

TABLE V: HALL AND HALL TIME ORIENTATION

TABLE VI: GLOBE DIMENSIONS

TABLE VII: COMPARISON OF CULTURAL STUDIES

TABLE VIII: ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST HOFSTEDE'S STUDY

TABLE IX: EXAMPLES OF PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF HOFSTEDE'S WORK

TABLE X: KEY ELEMENTS OF EMPLOYEES IN INDIVIDUALISTIC CULTURES

TABLE XI: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF QUESTIONNAIRES

TABLE XII: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SECONDARY DATA

TABLE XIII: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF PRIMARY DATA

TABLE XIV: MAIN ATTRIBUTES OF SELF-ADMINISTERED DELIVERY AND COLLECTION QUESTIONNAIRES

TABLE XV: THIS STUDY MAS EQUATION

TABLE XVI: THIS STUDY’S MAS COMPARED WITH HOFSTEDE'S

TABLE XVII: CALCULATED GENDER MAS

TABLE XVIII: THIS STUDY UA EQUATION

TABLE XIX: THIS STUDY’S UA COMPARED WITH HOFSTEDE'S UA

TABLE XX: THIS STUDY’S MAS COMPARED TO HOFSTEDE'S MAS

TABLE XXI: THIS STUDY’S UA COMAPRED TO HOFSTEDE'S UA

TABLE XXII: ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST HOFSTEDE'S STUDY

TABLE XXIII: THIS STUDY'S FINDINGS

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: THE 'ICEBERG' MODEL OF CULTURE

FIGURE 2: THE 'ONION DIAGRAM':

MANIFESTATIONS OF CULTURE AT

DIFFERENT LEVELS OF DEPTH.

FIGURE 3: COMPARISON OF HOFSTEDE'S CULTURAL DIMENSION WITH OTHER CULTURAL STUDIES

FIGURE 4: THE RESEARCH ONION (Source: Saunders et al., 2009, p. 108)

FIGURE 5: PROCESS OF DEDUCTION

FIGURE 6: SAMPLE AGE AVERAGE

FIGURE 7: SURVEY SAMPLE (Source: Own illustration)

FIGURE 8: TYPES OF QUESTIONNAIRES (Source: Saunders et al., 2009, p.363)

FIGURE 9: STAGES THAT MUST OCCUR IF A QUESTION IS TO BE VALID AND RELIABLE

FIGURE 10: QUESTION 10F) Co-operation

FIGURE 11: QUESTION 10B) RECOGNITION

FIGURE 12: QUESTION 10G) LIVING AREA

FIGURE 13: QUESTION 10C) ADVANCEMENT

FIGURE 14: AVERAGES OF INDICATOR QUESTIONS

FIGURE 15: AVERAGES OF MASCULINITY ATTRIBUTED QUESTIONS

FIGURE 16: AVERAGES OF FEMININITY ATTRIBUTED QUESTIONS

FIGURE 17: GENDER DISTRIBUTION

FIGURE 18: QUESTION 9 GERMANY

FIGURE 19: QUESTION 9 UK

FIGURE 20: QUESTION 2

FIGURE 21: QUESTION 1

FIGURE 22: QUESTION 5

FIGURE 23: QUESTION 3

FIGURE 24: UA INDICATOR QUESTIONS

FIGURE 25: UA QUESTIONS

FIGURE 26: HIGH AND LOW UA QUESTIONS

FIGURE 27: QUESTION 4 AND 6

FIGURE 28: QUESTION 8

FIGURE 29: JOB SECURITY

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

‘We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now’.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Martin Luther King Junior’s quotation encapsulates the issue cross-cultural management is dealing with. The ‘same’ boat stands metaphorically for cross- border relations and international businesses, and the ‘different’ ships for the employees and managers of an organisation who come from different countries, cultures and backgrounds. To be able to manoeuvre the boat in the right direction, the captain and the crew have to pull together. The same applies to international and cross-border businesses and to be able to work together effectively the need for understanding of each other’s background is essential. It is argued that, only if you know where all the ships and its members come from, you will know how to get the best out of this crew and be able to reach the final destination. Therefore, to protect cross-cultural activities from failing and use them effectively, Hofstede (1980) developed cultural dimensions to identify cultural differences and to help and support the ship to reach its final destination.

Global markets are changing faster than ever and ‘in today’s increasingly competitive and demanding international free market economy, managers cannot succeed on their understanding of domestic culture alone’ (Parhizgar, 2002, p. 2). Derived from globalisation, successful cross-cultural management is gaining in importance and the need for an understanding of cultural differences becomes necessary. It is argued that, simultaneously with the increasing importance of a cross-cultural understanding, Hofstede’s (1980) model of cultural dimensions gains proportional importance and attracts notice at the same time (Peterson, 2007).

1.1 GLOBALISATION

‘Globalization can be defined as the process by which markets and production in different countries are becoming increasingly interdependent due to dynamics of trade in goods and services and flows of capital and technology’ (Held, 2000, p.92). Furthermore, Leidner (2010, p.69) states that globalisation ‘also encompass the exchange of production materials, the substitution of production processes, the relocation of services, the redistribution of resources, and the diffusion and infusion of cultural norms, artifacts, and values’.