Outline Hofstede’s framework of cultural differences and compare it with the Chinese Values Survey and discuss the ways in which organizational management and leadership is affected by employee differences in individualism/collectivism and long-term/short-term orientation

Introduction

            Hofstede’s initial four-dimensional framework and Bond’s Chinese values survey were both cross-cultural studies that sought to establish and predict how national culture impacted upon individual behaviour. Although the studies analysed different factors and sample groups, the resultant cultural dimensions were co-related. According to Muczyk and Holt (2008) to succeed in the modern economy, organizational leaders ought to align leadership processes with cultural demands to develop a cultural contingency model of leadership. In view of the globalized nature of business today and the diverse labor force, organizational leaders and managers can benefit from exploring the differences and impact of national cultural dimensions such as individualism/collectivism and long-term/short-term orientation on individual employees.

Discussion of the Issues

            Hofstede developed a model of national cultural differences based on a study of IBM employees across different countries. Fernandez et al (1997) report that Hofstede classified countries and established national cultures based on the work-related values he observed in his survey. He argued that culture was a collective programming of the mind that distinguished one society from another and that people from the same national culture were generally bound to have the same values, norms and patterns of behaviour. Initially, Hofstede came up with four dimensions, namely power distance, which relates to the manner in which individuals perceive and respond to authority such as organizational leaders. Individualism/collectivism refers to the power of the group over an individual, arguing that in some cultures, individual interest trumped communal benefit while in others the group took precedence over individuals. Uncertainty avoidance is a cultural dimension relating to the way in which people from different cultures respond to uncertainty and ambiguity and their preference for formality over informality. Masculinity femininity is another of Hofstede’s dimensions relating to gender roles within the national culture. Although Hofstede used a large number of factors in his study and surveyed a large group, his framework has been criticized for presupposing that the findings from IBM employees could represent entire national cultures. Signorini, Wiesemes and Murphy (2009) further argue that Hofstede’s model oversimplifies cultural differences and models culture as static, yet it is dynamic. In spite of that, it is the contention herein that Hofstede’s dimensions were calculated to draw attention to the fact that there are predominant national cultures that ought to inform cross cultural activities.

            Although the Chinese values survey also sought to create a model of national cultural differences, it was conducted on a smaller scale than Hofstede’s study. Nevertheless, there was not only an overlap in the countries studied but the findings of this survey also contributed to the development of Hofstede’s fifth dimension, the long-term/short term orientation. This dimension refers to the tendency of a society towards future rewards such as the Chinese culture of patience and forbearance or being focussed primarily on the present, such as is the norm in the American culture. According to Minkov and Hofstede (2012) long-term/short term orientation is a valid cultural dimension that is associated with personal values such as thrift, perseverance and respect for tradition.

            The cultural dimensions developed in both national culture surveys have been applied to organizational leadership and management to better understand how to manage a diverse work force and especially in the formulation and implementation of human resource policies. As explained earlier herein, individualism/collectivism is the extent to which the individual or group dominates within a particular culture. According to both Hofstede’s framework and the Chinese value survey, certain countries such as China and other East Asian cultures are predominantly collectivist.  Fu and Kamenou (2011) argue that transnational companies face multi-faceted challenges in the way that they manage their human resources, expounding that in China, such companies have to pay attention to the national values if they are to successfully implement effective human resource policies. They argue that there are three elements of the Chinese collectivist culture that significantly affect human resource management. The Chinese adherence to guanxi, which is the reliance on personal relationships, their tendency to value seniority over any other criteria for promotion and advancement and the importance they attach to the human factor as opposed to any other subjective employment measures are some of the key values to take into account in managing employees in a Chinese context.  

            Individualism/collectivism also has an impact on employees’ level of commitment to the organization, attitudes, organizational behaviour and their perception of equity and equality in the workplace (Ramamoorthy and Flood, 2002). They argue that employees from collectivist cultures generally tend toward greater loyalty and commitment to the workplace and are generally more concerned with equity in the organization particularly when it comes to the way in which employees are treated and the benefits they receive. In view of the foregoing, organizational leaders cannot afford to disregard the cultural values of employees particularly if they want to foster unity, cooperation and equality within the workplace in collectivist cultures. However, the situation is quite different in individualistic cultures where individual needs are placed above those of the group creating an organizational culture of competition, personal commitment and self interest. Despite its utility in helping organizational leaders to understand and manage employee differences particularly in terms of their attitude and organizational behaviour, there are counter-arguments that have been levelled against this cultural dimension. Kim et al (2010) argue that the individualism/collectivism dimension is ethnocentric and too limited and does not account for individual differences within a group and so propose a new dimension known as holistic/analytic. However, these criticisms overlook the fact that the cultural model findings were indicative and did not claim to represent the whole national population. Furthermore, it is conceded that the dimension has been useful in understanding intercultural communication, leadership practices and employee tendencies within a given national context.

            Differences in employee cultural orientation in terms of whether they adopt a long-term or short-term perspective have also had an impact on the way in which organizational leadership manages rewards. Hofstede’s long-term/short-term orientation was influenced by findings from the Chinese values survey that seemed to indicate that national cultures varied in terms of the way that people were willing to focus on the future and dutifully work towards expected rewards contrasted against the short-term perspective of other cultures which were more focussed on instant gratification. Chiang (2007) reports that Hofstede’s dimension has been extremely useful in designing reward schemes, particularly in international companies, since it helped organizational leadership determine the systems, mechanisms and type of rewards that they would offer employees depending on their culture. For example, in long-term oriented cultures, a reward system based on seniority and experience, that is administered on a group-based rather than individual criterion and that is largely non-financial instead of financial would be preferred. However, she is quick to add that the applicability of this dimension to understanding employee rewards is limited because it presupposes that national culture is the only influence yet there are other contextual factors including economic pressures and institutional practices such as downsizing that may affect employee perspectives on rewards.

            Differences in employee orientation can also affect how leaders manage organizational citizenship behaviour. Becton and Field (2009) argue that national cultural differences affect the extent to which employees in an organization voluntarily make extra-role contributions that are above and beyond their scope of duty. They argue that the cultural models and in particular Hofstede’s long-term/short-term orientation, which is the equivalent of Confucian dynamism in the Chinese values survey, are especially useful in helping leaders understand the citizenship behaviour of employees in their organization. In long-term oriented cultures such as China, employees more readily embrace extra roles within the organization and are willing to expend more time conducting their duties to enhance effective organizational functioning even without extra reward while in short-term oriented cultures such as America, this is less likely. However, Podsakoff et al (2000) argue that the utility of cultural dimensions in understanding organizational citizenship behaviour may be limited where employees and their leaders have different conceptualizations of the expected behaviour. For example, an organizational leader may think putting in overtime to complete one’s work is part of the employee’s job while the employee thinks it’s above and beyond their scope of duty so that culture would have nothing to do with their actions or reactions therein.

Conclusion

            This essay sought to outline and compare Hofstede’s national cultural framework with the Chinese values survey and brought out the fact that the two came up with co-related dimensions despite differences in their scope. Having introduced the dimensions, the essay then focussed on the manner in which cultural differences in individualism/collectivism and long-term/short-term orientation affected organizational leadership. It emerged that differences in employee individualism/collectivism affected the manner in which leaders can formulate and implement human resource policies as well as their understanding of employee attitudes, behaviour and commitment to the organization. Long-term/short-term orientation also has an impact on the structuring of organizational rewards mechanisms and employee citizenship behaviour. Therefore, in spite of various criticisms against the utility of cultural dimensions in understanding employee behaviour, it is clear that they have been largely helpful in modelling effective leadership practices.

Reference List

Becton, J. and Field, J. 2009. ‘Cultural differences in organizational citizenship behaviour: a comparison between Chinese and American employees’. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 20, No. 8, pp.1651-1669.

Chiang, F. 2005. ‘A critical examination of Hofstede’s thesis and its application to international reward management’. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 16, No. 9, pp.1545-1563.

Fernandez, D., Carlson, D., Stephina, L. and Nicholson, J. 1997. ‘Hofstede’s country classification, 25 years later’. The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 137, No. 1, pp.43-54.

Fu, Y. and Kamenou, N. 2011. ‘The impact of Chinese cultural values on human resource policies and practices within transnational corporations in China’. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22, No. 16, pp.3270-3289.

Kim, J., Lim, J., Dindla, K. And Burell, N. 2010. ‘Reframing the cultural differences between the East and the West’. Communication Studies, Vol. 61, No. 5, pp. 543-566.

Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G. 2012. ‘Hofstede’s fifth dimension: new evidence from the world values survey’. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 3-14.

Muczyk, J.P. and Holt, D. 2008. ‘Toward a cultural contingency model of leadership’. Journal of Leadership Organizational Studies, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 277-286.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. and Bachrach, D.G. 2000. ‘Organizational citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research’. Journal of Management, 26, pp. 513–563.

Ramamoorthy, N. and Flood, P. 2002. ‘Employee attitudes and behavioural intentions: a test of the main and moderating effects of individualism/collectivism orientations, Human Relations, Vol. 55, No. 9, pp.1071-1096.

Signorini, P., Wiesemes, R. and Murphy, R. 2009. ‘Developing alternative frameworks for exploring intercultural learning: a critique of Hofstede’s cultural difference model’. Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 253-264.