Masaryk Uni, Brno Intercultural Management 2 l lThe work and influence of Geert Hofstede lSome other theoretical approaches to Culture •MU Brno 2017 Preamble: question 1 lYou are going to work in: l - Canada l - France l - Singapore l - Mexico………….. l l Predict some of the deeper and less visible cultural differences which you might encounter in the workplace •MU Brno 2017 Preamble: question 2 lYou are working in Brno and a new colleague is coming from: l- Sweden l- USA l- China l- Brazil l l Predict some of the deeper and less visible cultural differences between their culture and France which they might encounter in the workplace - •MU Brno 2017 Hofstede’s Background lBorn in Netherlands in 1928 lFounded and managed the Personnel Research Department of IBM Europe lCo-founder of IRIC (Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation) lMost cited living non-American in the field of Management in the US Social Sciences Citation Index! •MU Brno 2017 Hofstede’s Dimensions of Culture lGeert Hofstede’s cultural typology is the most often used. lIt is based upon a study (questionnaire) of 100,000 IBM employees who worked in IBM divisions throughout the world. l lHere is a sample questionnaire – complete it carefully and we will then look at the results •MU Brno 2017 Hofstede’s Dimensions of Culture lHofstede’s survey revealed four underlying dimensions of culture v Power Distance (PD) v Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) v Individualism/Collectivism (IND) v Masculinity/Femininity (MAS) v •MU Brno 2017 Power Distance (PD) lPower Distance is the extent to which hierarchical differences are accepted in society and articulated in terms of deference to higher and lower social and decision levels in an organization. lArtifacts of high PD: –Centralization –# Org. Levels – steep organisational pyramid –# Supervisors – multi-layered pyramid –Differing Values, White & Blue Collar Work •MU Brno 2017 POWER DISTANCE l lLOW PD culture HIGH PD culture •N •N+1 •N •N+1 •MU Brno 2017 POWER DISTANCE lLOW PD cultures lSubordinates expect to be consulted lBosses are accessible lInitiative is expected lInequalities should be minimised lPrivilege & status symbols discouraged l •MU Brno 2017 POWER DISTANCE lHIGH PD cultures lSubordinates expect to be told what to do lPrivilege & status are normal lSuperiors « inaccessible » lInequalities accepted •MU Brno 2017 POWER DISTANCE l lSo what would you expect??? l lLOW PD HIGH PD l…………………? …………………? l…………………? …………………? l…………………? …………………? l l •MU Brno 2017 POWER DISTANCE lLOW PD HIGH PD lDenmark Malaysia lSweden Mexico lIreland France l l •MU Brno 2017 Power Distance: case 1 lWhat problems might a manager from a low PD culture have working with an assistant from a high PD culture? l « Empowerment » l lWhat problems might a manager from a high PD culture have working with a team from a low PD culture? l •MU Brno 2017 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE l lThe degree to which people feel threatened by uncertainty and ambiguity and try to avoid it = high UA l l •MU Brno 2017 Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) lUncertainty Avoidance is the extent to which uncertainty and ambiguity are avoided/tolerated. lArtifacts of high UA: –Standardization –Structured activities –Written rules –Specialists –Low risk tolerance –Ritualistic behavior •MU Brno 2017 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE lWeak/Low UA lApparently relaxed environment, minimal stress lInitiative encouraged lRelatively few rules & regulations lPragmatic lTolerance of deviant, innovative ideas lPeople can seem quiet, easy-going or « lazy » to those from a different background l l •MU Brno 2017 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE lStrong/High UA lAnxious, higher stress levels at work lRisk-averse – need to avoid failure lNeed for rules & regulations lResistant to change lLow tolerance of deviant, innovative ideas lPeople can seem busy, emotional, aggressive or unfriendly to those from a different background l l l •MU Brno 2017 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE lSo what would you expect??? l lWeak UA Strong UA lSingapore Greece lDenmark Japan lUK France •MU Brno 2017 Uncertainty Avoidance l lStrong (high) uncertainty avoidance vs. Weak (low) uncertainty avoidance lUncertainty avoidance ~ ¹ ~Risk avoidance lStress at work rises with higher UA lHigh UA = fear of “failure” l •MU Brno 2017 Uncertainty Avoidance: case 2 l lWhat problems could affect a multi-cultural team composed of members from high & low UA cultures? lHow could these problems be dealt with? •MU Brno 2017 INDIVIDUALISM /COLLECTIVISM lIndividualism – ties between individuals are loose; people look after themselves and their immediate family lCollectivism – people are integrated into strong, cohesive groups in exchange for unquestioning loyalty •MU Brno 2017 INDIVIDUALISM /COLLECTIVISM lHigh Individualism lIdentity is based on the individual lTask prevails over relationship lWork relationship – contract of mutual advantage l« self-respect » important lCorrelates .82 with GNP l •MU Brno 2017 INDIVIDUALISM /COLLECTIVISM l Collectivism (a low score on Hofstede’s index for IND) lIdentity is based on social network lRelationship prevails over task lWork relationship – family model l« face » & maintenance of harmony lManagement of groups not individuals l •MU Brno 2017 INDIVIDUALISM /COLLECTIVISM lHigh IND High COLL l l????????? ????????? l lUSA HK lUK Guatemala lNL Japan •MU Brno 2017 MASCULINITY / FEMININITY lThe dominant values in society are: l lMASC – material success, achievement, l lFEM – quality of life, caring for others l l l •MU Brno 2017 MASCULINITY / FEMININITY lHigh MAS lAmbition, assertiveness lCompetition & performance important l« Live to work » l« Size matters » lDistinct gender roles lManagers are expected to be assertive lNote: High MAS often correlates positively with % of GNP spent on defence l •MU Brno 2017 MASCULINITY / FEMININITY lHigh FEM (low score on MAS index) lQuality of life issues are important lEquality & solidarity are important l« Work to live » l« Small is beautiful » lOverlapping gender roles lManagers often strive for consensus lNote: High FEM often correlates positively with % of GNP spent on overseas aid l l •MU Brno 2017 Masculinity vs. Femininity lMasculinity lEarnings lRecognition lAdvancement lChallenge l lNOT…machismo lFemininity lManaging lCooperation lLiving space lEmployment security •MU Brno 2017 MASCULINITY / FEMININITY lSo what would you expect??? l lHigh MAS Low MAS=High FEM lJapan Sweden lUSA NL lGermany France l •MU Brno 2017 Long-Term Orientation (LTO) lOriginally called Confucian Dynamism because of anchoring in the Confucian value system. lRepresents such values as thrift, persistence, and traditional respect of social obligations. lOrganizations likely to adopt longer planning horizon, with individuals ready to delay gratification. •MU Brno 2017 Confucian Dynamism laka long-term vs. short-term orientation l5th dimension revealed through another study - Chinese value survey (CVS) lAdministered to 100 students in 23 countries! lFindings of study lRelated to economic growth •MU Brno 2017 Confucian Dynamism (Ratings) lLong-term orientation lPersistence lOrdering and observing relationships by status lloss of “face” = weakness lSave, be thrifty lInvest in real estate lOriented towards future rewards l lShort-term orientation lChange is encouraged lEmphasis on quick results lPersonal steadfastness important lSpend lInvest in funds lOriented towards present & near future •MU Brno 2017 Some Examples 1 • http://www.geert-hofstede.com/graphs/5dgraph.php?c1=France&pdi1=68&idv1=71&mas1=43&uai1=86<p1=0&c 2=Germany&pdi2=35&idv2=67&mas2=66&uai2=65<p2=31 • http://www.geert-hofstede.com/graphs/5dgraph.php?c1=France&pdi1=68&idv1=71&mas1=43&uai1=86<p1=0&c 2=United+Kingdom&pdi2=35&idv2=89&mas2=66&uai2=35<p2=25 •MU Brno 2017 Some Examples 2 • http://www.geert-hofstede.com/graphs/5dgraph.php?c1=France&pdi1=68&idv1=71&mas1=43&uai1=86<p1=0&c 2=United+States&pdi2=40&idv2=91&mas2=62&uai2=46<p2=29 • http://www.geert-hofstede.com/graphs/5dgraph.php?c1=France&pdi1=68&idv1=71&mas1=43&uai1=86<p1=0&c 2=Japan&pdi2=54&idv2=46&mas2=95&uai2=92<p2=80 •MU Brno 2017 Some Examples 3 • http://www.geert-hofstede.com/graphs/5dgraph.php?c1=France&pdi1=68&idv1=71&mas1=43&uai1=86<p1=0&c 2=Denmark&pdi2=18&idv2=74&mas2=16&uai2=23<p2=0 • http://www.geert-hofstede.com/graphs/5dgraph.php?c1=France&pdi1=68&idv1=71&mas1=43&uai1=86<p1=0&c 2=Mexico&pdi2=81&idv2=30&mas2=69&uai2=82<p2=0 •MU Brno 2017 What might happen when companies merge? Case 1: Renault-Volvo 1992 FRANCE SWEDEN PDI 68 31 UA 86 29 IND 71 71 MAS 43 5 •MU Brno 2017 What might happen when companies merge? Case 2: ASEA Brown-Boveri 1988 SWEDEN SWITZERLAND PDI 31 34 UA 29 58 IND 71 68 MAS 5 70 •MU Brno 2017 Discussion l lWhat are the practical implications of these findings? lDo you think national values can change over time? lDo you think that increasing globalization and advancements in technology will lead to a narrowing of cultural differences? lIs it possible for someone to identify with more than one national culture? •MU Brno 2017 Criticism of Hofstede l l lIn what ways can Hofstede’s classification be criticised? •MU Brno 2017 Criticism of Hofstede lHofstede has been subject to broad criticism. Among the criticisms: lFocus on national culture lSingle company data, with a large Multinational Enterprise having a strong corporate culture. lTime dependent results, which are an artifact of the time of data collection and analysis. lBusiness culture, not values culture, representing a reflection of business culture at IBM and not national culture of the countries IBM operates within. •MU Brno 2017 Criticism of Hofstede lNon-exhaustive, doesn’t identify all the cultural dimensions possible, but just a few. lPartial geographic coverages, cover only a portion of the world’s cultures and countries. lWestern bias, which values western business ideals. lAttitudinal rather than behavioral measures, with no connection between employee attitudes and employee behaviors. lNational level data generalized into individual behavior. l •MU Brno 2017 Criticism of Hofstede lBUT, despite these criticisms (many of which I agree with): l lHofstede has been, and still is, very influential l (remember slide 4….most cited…) •MU Brno 2017 Some other models lNational Culture Clustering lCivilisation clustering lHofstede’s corporate culture definitions lHall – Space, Time & Context (class 1) lTrompenaars variable’s (next class!) •MU Brno 2017 National Cultural Clustering 6-14 •Ronen and Shenkar’s culture clustering •MU Brno 2017 National Cultural Clustering 6-15 • Huntington’s civilization clustering •MU Brno 2017 Corporate Culture lCorporate Culture is the culture adopted, developed and disseminated in an organization. lCorporate culture can deviate from national norms, but that depends upon the strength of culture and the values and practices tied to it. •MU Brno 2017 Classifications of Corporate Culture lHofstede et al: –Value dimensions (factors) lNeed for security lWork centrality lNeed for authority –Practices lProcess-oriented vs. results-oriented lEmployee-oriented vs. job-oriented lParochial vs. professional lOpen system vs. closed system lLoose control vs. tight control lNormative vs. pragmatic •MU Brno 2017 Classifications of Corporate Culture lTrompenaars and Hampden-Turner –The Family – personal, hierarchical, power-oriented –The Eiffel Tower – specific relations, ascribed status, rational authority –The Guided Missile – egalitarian, impersonal, and task oriented –The Incubator – individual self-fulfillment, personal and egalitarian relations •MU Brno 2017 Other Layers of Culture lEthnicity – significant ethnic communities exist in many countries; can affect a myriad of issues lOccupation – important layer of culture lDemographics – education, age, seniority and hierarchical level affect difference in values lIdeology – not always consistent with cultures, can vary with time and across regions lSocial class – differences within cultures, similarities across cultures (Marxist analysis) •MU Brno 2017 Key Cultural Issues lCultural Etiquette – the manners and behavior that are expected in a given situation lCultural Stereotypes – our beliefs about others, their attitudes and behavior –Ethnocentric – looking at the world from a perspective shaped by our own culture –Auto-stereotypes – how we see ourselves as a group distinguished from others –Hetero-stereotypes – how we are seen by others. •MU Brno 2017 Key Cultural Issues lCultural Distance –The extent to which cultures differ from each other –Hofstede stated that uncertainty avoidance was the most important dimension of FDI lConvergence and Divergence –Convergence hypothesis – assumes that the combination of technology and economics is making countries more alike –Divergence hypothesis – assumes that counties will continue to maintain their distinctive characteristics •MU Brno 2017