Managing Across Cultures

Hofstede’s (1984) approach to the measurement of culture and critically compare his work to at least two other cross cultural theorists.

Understanding national cultures is essential to motivate, collaborate and get the best from employees where ever they’re from.  With developed nations multi-national’s expanding, and new multi-nationals emerging from emerging markets this is critical.  Overseas customs are now standard practice and communication can be problematic and lead to unnecessary misunderstandings. It is ‘national culture’ which shapes the behaviour of individuals and educating staff on culture is costly and time consuming.

Culture, difficult to define as it is intangible, sets countries apart.   Culture is “the shared values, understanding, assumptions learned from earlier generations” (Dereksy, 2011).  

The four theorists being compared are: Dutch researcher Geert Hofstede, described as the most widely used model of culture. His 1984 theory assumed that some cultures place higher value on equality, whilst others place the higher value on certainty in everyday life see appendix 1 for his 5 cultural elements.  American anthropologist Edward Hall, whose theory focused 3 elements: interpersonal communication, time and space, following a systematic study of several nations see appendix 2 .  Whereas Fons Trompenaar’s theory was based on the works of Parson and Shils.  His 7 elements focused on the variations in values and personal relationships, time management and relationship with nature see appendix 3.  Whilst Shalom Schwartz took a psychological view, a 3 element theory based on motivational goals and the human values which reflect the universal needs of people and the distinct differences between cultures, see appendix 4 (Bhagat & Steers, 2009) Hofstede’s underlying principles have been the foundation of many theorists.  

Hofstede believes the degree to which people within a culture expect and accept unequal distribution of power: Hofstede’s power distance (Hofstede, 2001) can be categorized: high or low.  With a culture tolerating or rejecting the principle.  Expanded further to a personal level by Schwartz by assessing the legitimacy of the role and individual’s expectations: ‘Hierarchy-Egalitarianism’ (Schwartz 1994).  Another considered dimension is: how’s the personal status assigned, via age or gender; or performance: Trompenaar’s ‘Achievement-Ascription’ theory (Trompenaars, 1993).  Japanese are born equal and raised to believe anything is possible with hard work, demonstrating Trompenaar’s “achievement”, earning a social status.  However the elders earn their respect and power through tradition of a hierarchical family.  We can therefore see the difference between social and family culture not considered by Hofstede.  Therefore there is a level of uncertainty tolerated by a culture, and this is high or low: Hofstede’s ‘uncertainty avoidance’, which relates to the cultural tolerant of ambiguity and the requirement for rules (Hofstede, 2001).  The personal perspective of uncertainty considers whether there’s a moral reference, or whether circumstances are more important: Trompenaar’s ‘Universalism-Particularism’ (Trompenaars, 1993).  You could also argue uncertainty may also relate to nature e.g. Japan located on a fault line does result in earthquakes which are accepted as part of everyday life. Hofstede was the only theorist to consider ‘masculinity-femininity’: a cultural assertiveness or tenderness (Hofstede, 2001) e.g. the masculinity of Arabian culture, however Japan’s masculinity is unrelated to assertiveness, which is unexplained by Hofstede’s theory.  However as Hall and Trompenaar’s theory’s expand into the personal element of culture, it’s possible to see why.  Hall’s Monochronic-Polychronic ‘time’ theory: the separation or integration of work and personal lives (Hall, 1976), and Trompenaar’s ‘specific-diffuse’: the degree of involvement in relationships and whether they’re interwoven or they’re within specific area assists with the cultural understanding (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012).  The Japanese masculinity refers to the long working hours and integrating work and socialising with colleagues, something females are unlikely to be able to do due to family commitments.  Does the degree to which people look after their own needs, or consider that community comes first alter: Hofstede’s ‘Individualism-Collectivism’ (Hofstede, 2001).  Masculinity and individualism inter-relate: Japan as a collectivist culture demonstrates a non-aggressive masculine attitude; whereas Arabian states with individualistic culture demonstrates an aggressive masculine attitude.  Trompenaar and Schwartz extended the cultural: Trompenaar’s ‘Individualism-Collectivism’ considers the conflict between an individual’s desire and their group e.g. does personal development or taking care of others improves the person’s quality of life (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012).  Schwartz’s ‘conservatism-Autonomy’ however assessed the psychology of the individual and whether they actively make an effort to modify their surroundings to get ahead of the group, or whether they are immersed within the group (Schwartz 1994). Considering 60% of communication is non-verbal there’s a major omission in Hofstede’s theory as understanding collectivist communication and the behaviour of people is essential.  Hall’s ‘context’ theory highlights the level to which groups communicate either via direct messages or using subtle context messages (Hall, 1976). Trompenaar’s ‘Neutral-Affective’ identifies the extent to which emotions are shown and considers the interaction between reason and emotion based on cultural norms (Trompenaars, 1996).  Personal space, another important non-verbal consideration where Hall’s ‘space’ element considers the territorial ‘individualistic’ approach to space verses the communal collectivist approach to space (Hall, 1976).  Getting this wrong could lead to staff feeling uncomfortable, and a team feeling threatened, this highlights another interpersonal communication not considered by Hofstede.  In Japan despite a hierarchical structure managers immerse themselves with their teams, however with few emotions, close working proximity, and subtle gestures being the standard communication.  Hofstede’s study would have left a gap in this cultural communication method.  

A late edition to Hofstede’s theory, to incorporate Asian cultures, compares how thrift and perseverance compares to tradition and social obligations: ‘long term and short term orientation’ (Hofstede, 2001).  Schwartz’s extended this theory to consider the status quo: whether individuals were inclined to disturb the traditional order ‘mastery- harmony’ (Schwartz 1994).  

Hofstede’s study was limited: covering 5 elements, and questionable country classifications and no theory behind them.  With global workforces, there’s a requirement for a fuller picture of a culture. I conclude that Hofstede theory is lacking in the current global climate.  With no consideration of interpersonal communication, and interdependency on the national culture, assumptions would be required.  Whilst the principles of Hofstede’s theory give a basis to start, I would conclude that Trompenaar’s theory would be more beneficial in a multi-cultural corporation.