1.

Literature Review

This chapter analysis some of the main elements of the study and is focused on looking into
existing literature about culture, cultural variations and how it differs in different parts of the
world.
Comparing organisations in India and America to discuss the variations in managerial styles
and output and how culture effects the aforementioned factors.
The objective of this research is to understand the dimensions of cultures according to
Hofstede’s study of culture and the consequences of it on managerial styles and the output of
an organization. Can some of the dimensions be interchangeable to make sure that art
becomes free and can we learn from countries apart from ours.

In order to understand the culture as an external environment that affects organisations, by

discussing and analyzing Hofstede’s six dimensions of culture, and find a relationship
between the cultural variation of organisations beyond the border. The six dimensions of
culture proposed by Hofstede will be used to ‘understand and bring logic to variation of
managerial styles’ that are being used in India and America. (Rana, 2018).

1.1 Culture Defined

There are various definitions of culture and numerous researchers had defined the term. The
term culture has been summarized by Kluckhohn as;
“Culture consists of patterned way of thinking, feeling and reacting, acquired and transmitted
mainly by symbols, consisting the distinct achievement of human groups, including their
embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e., historically
derived and selected) ideas as and especially their attached values.”

The French Sociologist (1980) connects culture or “the collective programming of the mind”
(Hofstede, 1980, pg. 26), to the concept of habitus. He writes, “… habitus, a system of
permanent and transferrable tendencies. A habitus... as the basis of practices and images
which can be collectively orchestrated without an actual conductor.”

After studying and comparing a multitude of definitions together, Hodgetts and Luthans
(2003) have proposed six characteristics of culture.
 Culture is learned not inherited;
 Culture is shared by groups, organisations, or societies.
 Culture is passed down from generation to generation.
 Culture is symbolic.
 Culture is patterned. This implies that is one aspect of culture changes, the other parts
are affected as well.
 And finally, Culture is Adaptive. (Piepenburg, 2011).
A complication in these six characteristics is it says culture is not inherited but also mentions
that it is passed down from generation to generation.

Culture is referred to as “the collective programming of the mind” by Hofstede. The majority
of patterns of thinking, feeling, and potential acting are said to be acquired in early childhood
as it is the time a person is most susceptible to learning and assimilating. The sources of one's
mental programs lie within the social environment in which one grew up and collected life
experiences. (Hofstede, 2008). This theory suggests that culture, to some extent, is passed
down through our families, and continues with the neighbourhood, educational institutions,
workplace and the society one lives in. This, in no way means that culture does not evolve
with time. With the help of globalisation and the constantly changing technological
advancement that has brought the world together more than before, culture experiences
changes as well. This is supported by the aforementioned point “Culture is patterned”.
Culture is not static, it drifts and shifts. (Brett, 2007).

This ties in with the concept that culture forms basis of practices and images which can be
collectively orchestrated without an actual conductor (habitus).

There is an abundance of research about culture. The visible and obvious elements of culture
contain behaviour, dress, appearance, language habits, customs and traditions. These
elements of culture are noticeable fairly quickly. While culture ‘drifts and shifts’ due to
globalisation and other aspects, culture maintains certain traits for over decades and centuries
(Peterson, 2004). Norms, beliefs, expectations, values, roles, assumptions, perceptions, time
orientation, space orientation, learning styles, personality styles rules, thought processes,
contain the hidden aspects of culture, (Piepenburg, 2011).

Although different researchers and writers have different definitions for culture, they all
agree, that the term ‘culture’ can be visible and under the surface. We can conclude that
culture is a multilayer construct. The deeper you dig into it, the more difficult it becomes to
change. The basic and core layer of culture are difficult to change as they are already shaped
from childhood and constantly reinforced throughout their life time (Hofstede, 2010). When a
certain pattern of thinking, feeling and acting has established within a person's mind, they
must unlearn these before learning something different, and unlearning is more difficult than
learning for the first time. (Hofstede, 2004).

Culture is a complex concept and has been researched a lot. One of the earliest definitions of
culture proposed by Edward B. Tylor in 1871 was ‘a complex whole which includes
knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by
man as a member of society.’ Melville J. Herskowits, in 1995 on the other hand, conceived
the definition of culture to be more broad by suggesting that ‘culture was a human-made part
of the environment’.
 1.2 National Culture

Piepenburg describes national culture as broadest level of culture a person can be a member
of. It shapes people from their early childhood through values, beliefs, assumptions inherent
in it (Hofstede, 1991). Hofstede mentions that national culture is a learned characteristic and
not genetic (Hofstede, 2007). This is a similar theory as culture. But it make sense as culture
is based on our environment and society, and hence, differs in different countries. An article
in the Harvard Business Review once said that the most valuable skill for the 21st century
manager is the ability to work across cultures. Around the world, it is increasingly recognized
that an understanding of a country's work culture plays a significant part in success at one's
job. Every group of people has subtle drivers of behaviour, values and beliefs, an
understanding of which could help you navigate your way around the workplace. (Kelshikar,
2018).

Kogut and Singh (1998) simply define national culture distance as the degree to which norms
are different between countries. According to Hofstede (1983), There are three reasons for
the differences between countries and they are; political, sociological, psychological.
Hofstede (1983) also mentions that nations are political units rooted in its history, with their
own institutions; forms of government, educational systems, legal systems, employer’s and
labour association systems, etc.

It can be argued that culture is responsible for the three reasons for differences. And another
reason of differences in culture between countries could also be the geographical location of
their civilisation. For example, in the case of food, people usually tend to eat whatever is
available in their vicinity. Geographical locations can also give rise to certain rituals that
might start off as necessary tools, but slowly get transferred to the later generation as values
or beliefs and thus, becomes culture or values. Rituals are collective activities, technically
superfluous to reaching desired ends, but which, within a culture are considered socially
essential (Hofstede, 2004). Piepenburg writes that sociology is an attribute contributes to the
differences in nations. Belonging to a nation has a symbolic value to the individuals living in
that geographical region and it shapes a part of their identity. This sense of national identity
(nationalism) that is created, and citizens try to protect and defend it if they have a feeling of
threat. This is a really good example of the theory that cultures and values shapes a person’s
behaviour. According to Hofstede, the psychological reasons for national cultural distance
between countries are how people’s thinking determined by national cultural factors and the
effect of early life experiences and the educational experiences a person is exposed to whilst
growing up (Hofstede, 1983).

The comparison of national cultures starts by highlighting differences in social behaviour

(Lewis, 1996). Researchers have mentioned that individuals become aware of their own
culture when they are confronted with another culture. This ties in with the theory put forth
by Hofstede (2004) that ‘Alien (different) cultures are often pictured in moral terms, as better
or worse.’
 1.3 Hofstede’s Study of the Cultural Dimensions

Geert Hofstede was a Dutch social psychologist who published a valuable study in 1980
“Cultural Consequences: International Differences in Work related values.” With his study
he was able to identify four, later six dimensions which influence human thinking and hence,
organisations and institutions in predictable ways. Hofstede is said to have conducted some of
the most comprehensive studies of how values in a workplace a influenced by culture (Rana,
2018). In multiple books and articles about culture, cross culture, etc., Hofstede’s
contribution is noted. Although his data was collected in the 1970s, several recent studies and
data from outside Europe, have generally confirmed Hofstede's findings, with minor
additions or differences (Treven, 2005).

A dimension is an aspect of culture that can be measured relative to other cultures (Hofstede,
2010). Dimensions are not directly tangible and are not directly accessible to observation but
is deducible by verbal statements and behaviours and is usually useful in predicting other
observable and measurable verbal and non-verbal behaviour.

Hofstede’s study had a huge impact on academics and is cited quite often and used in a wide
range of social contexts. It is also used as a subject in organisational training

The six dimensions of culture proposed by Hofstede are; Power Distance Index (PD),
Individualism vs. Collectivism (IDV), Masculinity vs. Femininity (MAS), Uncertainty
Avoidance Index (UA), Long Term Orientation vs. Short Term Normative Orientation
(LTO), Indulgence vs. Restraint (IND).

2.3 Hofstede’s Research Data

Hofstede’s (1980) book is based on the largest survey of value works in the Multinational
company of International Business Machines (IBM). These surveys were held twice, once in
1967 and then in 1973. At that time IBM was one of the largest multinational companies with
subsidiaries in numerous countries all around the world and sold a wide range of high
technology products. Hofstede and his team that consisted of six other researchers prepared
internationally standardised questionnaire for a simultaneous survey, which consisted of 180
items. Over the period of six years, Hofstede and his associates collected and analysed the
data from 117,000 questionnaires of IBM employees in 53 and later 72 countries all over the
world, from which about 88,000 people responded. (Piepenburg, 2011). A factor analysis of
32 questions were made from the obtained data. Initially four bipolar dimensions emerged
from the research and became the basis of Hofstede’s characterisations for each country.
(Piepenburg, 2011). The first study was limited to only 40 countries due to the low response
rates in some countries. A minimum of 50 respondents were needed to make sure they could
be ensured a reasonable result. (Hofstede, 2001).

2.4 Cultural Dimensions

In this section, Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions will be described and analysed in detail.

Power Distance Index (PDI);

Hofstede (2010) defines the Power Distance Index as “the extent to which less powerful
members of institutions or organisations within a country expect and accept that power is
distributed unequally”. Hofstede writes that the basic issue involved in here is human
inequality and different societies handle this problem differently. Inequality occurs in many
areas such as wealth, power, gender, race, etc. Different societies handle these inequalities
different depending on what is important to them.

According to an article published on the Corporate Finance Institute website, the higher the
Power Distance Index, the more that particular culture accepts inequality and power
differences, encourages bureaucracy and shows higher respect for rank and authority. On the
other hand, lower Power Distance Index indicates that the culture prefers an organisational
structure that is flat and features decentralized decision making, participative style of
management and emphasis on power distribution. In other words, the higher the Power
Distance Index, the more the particular society tolerates inequality, whereas, the lower the
Power Distance Index, the lower the tolerance towards inequality. Some societies has
elaborate formal systems of dominance, and others go through great lengths to de-emphasize
dominance (Hofstede, 2001). Hofstede compiles information and explains each of the
dimensions in detail.

India scores high on this dimension, 77. This indicates an appreciation for hierarchy and a
top-down structure in society and organizations. Indian corporations resonates with the fact
that employees are more dependent on managers and bosses for direction on what to do and
how to do it. Paternalistic attitude of Indian managers starkly differs from higher
decentralisation in the United States corporate (Rana, 2018). There are many reasons India is
estimated at such a high number in the Power Distance Index, for example the caste systems,
etc.

The dimension of Power Distance Index is more acutely experienced in India than in many
other countries around the world. The power distance index of India, 77, is much higher
than the world average of 59 (Tripathi, Vijayan, 2020). This PDI score for India indicates a
high level of inequality of power and wealth within the society. This condition is not
necessarily subverted upon the population, but rather accepted by the population as a cultural
norm. In this type of society, managers count on the obedience of their team members and
employees expect to be directed clearly in regards to their functions and what is expected of
them.1 This is an extremely unfair statement but it is true. There are changes that are
happening in out culture, slowly but for now, the Power Distance Index is high. By
observation of the Indian society, the Power distance Index is seen on all walks of life, be it
in organisations, educational institutes, or even in a person’s neighbourhood.

Conversely, the United States scores 40 in the dimension of Power Distance Index. Workers
in the United States are expected to be made part of the discussion process. Informal
communication is used widely to get a democratic structure in place. (Rana, 2018). Within
American organisations, Hierarchy is established for convenience, superiors are always
available and managers rely on individual employees and teams for expertise. Managers and
employees are expected to discuss together during any decision making process and
information is shared between different levels of power and leadership. Along with this,
communications is informal and participative. (Holder) 2.

Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI);

The second dimension of national culture that is found in the data Hofstede has collected is
Uncertainty Avoidance Index. He wrote that “uncertainty of the future is the basic fact of
human life with which we try to cope through the domains of technology, law and religion. In
organisations, these take the form of technology, rules and rituals.” Rituals are said to be
‘collective activities, technically superfluous to reaching desired ends, but which, within a
culture are considered socially essential.’ (Hofstede, 2004). According to Mahima Rana
(2018), this dimension shows how much a society wants to control the future. Hofstede also
writes that the basic concept of the Uncertainty Avoidance Index is; Time, Future,
Uncertainty and anxiety.

The Uncertainty Avoidance Index was derived from mean scores based on three survey
questions, Hofstede writes. These three questions were dealing, respectively, with rule
orientation, employment stability and stress. Corporate Finance Institute website explains in
simpler terms that The Uncertainty Avoidence Index considers the extent to which
uncertainity is tolerated. This dimension also considers how unknow situations and unknow
evets are dealt with. A high UAI indicates low tolerance for the uncertain aspects and risk-
taking, etc. The unknown is said to be minimized through rules and regulations. On the other
hand, A low UAI indicates that a society has higher tolerance for uncertainty. The unknow is
more openly accepted.

The scores for Uncertainty Avoidance Index in India and the United States is 40 and 46
respectively. The world average for the Uncertainty Avoidance Index is 65. India scores 40
on this dimension and thus has a medium low preference for avoiding uncertainty. In India,
1
https://incredible-india-cayla.weebly.com/hofstedes-cultural-dimensions.html
2
http://hopeinterculturalcomm.weebly.com/power-distance.html
there is acceptance of imperfection; nothing has to be perfect nor has to go exactly as
planned. India is traditionally a patient country where tolerance for the unexpected is high
and in some cases, even welcomed as a break from monotony.3 There is a flip side to the
aforementioned point. People generally do not feel driven and compelled to take action-
initiatives and comfortably settle into established rolls and routines without questioning.

On the other hand, The US scores below average, with a low score of 46, on the Uncertainty
Avoidance dimension. . As a consequence, the perceived context in which Americans find
themselves will impact their behaviour more than if the culture would have either scored
higher or lower. There is a fair degree of acceptance for new ideas, innovative products and a
willingness to try something new or different, whether it pertains to technology, business
practices or food. This can also be said for art. People from the United States tend to be more
tolerant of ideas or opinions from anyone and allow the freedom of expression. 4 The United
States is a bit more open to risk taking in this case, if the opportunity offers a good risk-return
trade off (Rana, 2018).

Individualism vs. Collectivism (IDV);

This dimension is individualism as opposed to collectivism. Hofstede describes this

dimension as “the relationship between the individual and collectivity that prevails in a
society.” He continues explaining that the dimension is reflected in the way people live
together. In some cultures, individualism is seen as a blessing and an indication of well-
being; while in others it can be seen as alienating. Mahima Rana explains this dimension as
“the degree to which people in a society are integrated into groups. It talks about ‘I’ versus
‘We’. Another definition of the tern offered by the Corporate Finance Institute website, is that
the dimension considers any societies’ perceived obligation and dependence on groups.

The relationship between the individual and collectivity in our society does not only deal with
the matter of way of living together, but it is also intimately linked with societal norms (in the
sense of value systems of the major groups of population). (Hofstede, 2001).

India, scores 48 in the dimension of Individualism vs Collectivity. It is a society with both

collectivistic and Individualist traits. The collectivist side means that there is a high
preference for belonging to a larger social framework in which individuals are expected to act
in accordance to the greater good of one’s defined in-group(s). In such situations, the actions
of the individual are influenced by various concepts such as the opinion of one’s family,
extended family, neighbours, work group and other such wider social networks that one has
some affiliation toward.5 Although, after growing up in an Indian society, subjectively, we
are exposed more towards the collectivity side than the individualism aspect. The

3
https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/india,the-usa/
4
https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/the-usa/
5
https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/india,the-usa/
employer/employee relationship is one of expectations based on expectations – Loyalty by
the employee and almost familial protection by the Employer. 
On the other hand, the United States score fairly low on the Individualism dimension. Within
American organisations, hierarchy is established for convenience, superiors are accessible
and managers rely on individual employees and teams for their expertise. Both managers and
employees expect to be consulted and information is shared frequently. The society is
loosely-knit in which the expectation is that people look after themselves and their immediate
families only and should not rely (too much) on authorities for support. There is also a high
degree of geographical mobility in the United States.6

Masculinity vs. Femininity (MAS);

According to Hofstede, The masculinity aspect of the dimension refers to “a situation in

which the dominant values in a society are success, money and things”, and on the other
hand, Femininity culture can be defined as “a situation in which the dominant values in
society are caring for others and the quality of life.” Cultures high on masculinity are focused
more on ownership-oriented and have traits such as assertiveness, achievement, competition
and authority (Smith, 1998). On the other hand, cultures with higher femininity culture tend
to show traits such as cooperating with others, looking for friendly environment and caring
about others. The masculinity vs Femininity dimension can also be referred to as “tough vs
tender” respectively (Corporate Finance Institute website).

The Masculinity and Femininity of a culture was analysed using “ecological analysis”. This
explained the differences on answers on values questions between countries and not between
one individual and another.

India scores 56 on the dimension of Masculinity and Femininity and is thus considered a
Masculine society. India is actually very masculine in terms of visual display of success and
power. However, India is also a spiritual country with millions of deities and various
religious philosophies. It is also an ancient country with one of the longest surviving cultures
which gives it ample lessons in the value of humility and abstinence. 7 The masculine culture
in India values earnings, recognition, advancement and challenge. The feminine side reflects
in the feelings of empathy towards others and sense of sharing. (Rana, 2018).

The score of the US on Masculinity is high at 62. This can be explained by the the
combination of a high Masculinity drive together with the most Individualist drive in the
world. In other words, Americans, so to speak, all show their Masculine drive
individually.8Managers tend to be more assertive. They are more work centered as compared
to their Indian counterparts. (Rana, 2018).
6
https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/the-usa/
7
https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/india,the-usa/
8
https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/the-usa/
Long Term Orientation vs. Short Term Normative Orientation (LTO)

Hofstede (2001) explains this dimension; "Long Term Orientation stands for the fostering of
virtues oriented towards future rewards, in particular perseverance and thrift. It’s opposite
pole, Short Term Orientation, stands for the fostering of virtues related to the past and
present, in particular, respect for tradition, preservation of ‘face’, and fulfilling social
obligations.”

The Corporate Finance Institute website mentions that the Long Term Orientation vs Short
Term Orientation dimension considers the extent to which society views its time horizon.
They continue to explain that Long Term Orientation focuses on the future and delays short-
term achievements and instead adds emphasis on achieving long-term results. Long Term
Orientation promotes persistence, perseverance and long-term growth. On the other hand,
Short Term Orientation culture tends to focus on the near future and emphasizes on
delivering short-term successes or gratification and places a strong importance on the present
rather than the future. Short Term Orientation greatly emphasizes quick results and respect
for traditions. Mahima Rana writes, while observing the study by Hofstede (2011) that This
dimension associates the connection of the past with the current and future
actions/challenges. A lower degree of this index (short-term) indicates that traditions are
honoured and kept, while steadfastness is valued. Societies with a high degree in this index
(long-term) views adaptation and circumstantial, pragmatic problem-solving as a necessity.

With an score of 51 in this dimension, a dominant preference in Indian culture cannot be

determined. In India the concept of “karma” dominates religious and philosophical thought.
The concept of time is not linear is prevalent, and thus is not as important as to western
societies which typically score low on this dimension. Countries like India have a great
tolerance for religious views from all over the world. 9 At this point in time, due to external
and political influences, it can be argued that there has been a decline in tolerance, But in
general India can be considered to be in the in the middle in the dimension if Long Term
Orientation vs Short Term Orientation.

On the other hand, The United States scores 26 in the dimension of the Long Term
Orientation vs Short Term Orientation. Americans are prone to analyse new information to
check whether it is true. Thus, the culture doesn’t make most Americans pragmatic, but this
should not be confused with the fact that Americans are very practical, being reflected by the
“can-do” mentality mentioned above. Americans have a very strong idea of what is “good” or
“evil”.10

Indulgence vs. Restraint (IND).

9
https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/india,the-usa/
10
https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/the-usa/
The “indulgence” cultural dimension explains the extent to which individuals try to control
their desires and impulses based on the way they were raised. Societies which have weaker
controls over their desires are considered the indulgent countries, and they tend to allow free
gratification of basic and natural human desires related to enjoying life and having fun
(Hofstede, 2010). On the other hand, restrained societies have a conviction that such
gratification needs to be curbed and regulated by strict norms and rules. Michael Minkov
(2001), Hofstede’s research associate, focused on sub-dimensions to examine and create the
core of IVR. The level of this cultural dimension is related to three sub-dimensions:
happiness and pleasure in life, importance of leisure and friendship, and life control. (Enkh-
Amgalam, 2016).

Basically, it is a culture that allows relatively free gratification of basic and natural human
desires related to enjoying life and having fun. Its counterpart, restraint culture, is defined as
a culture that controls gratification of needs and regulates it by means of strict social norms.
Indulgent societies believe themselves to be in control of their own life and emotions;
restrained societies believe other factors dictate their life and emotions. (Hofstede, 2011).
There are various other theories that have different dimensions of culture but Hofstede’s
contribution is valued in the field and provides insights and detailed analysis to cultures in
different countries (national cultures). It can be argued that in this age of globalisation and
technology, national cultures are blurring and we are closer to other cultures than ever before.
This leads the point that we cannot cut and place cultures into fixed boxes as we are learning
from different cultures outside our national boundaries. That being said, a better
understanding can be reached and problem resolving can be reached on an organisational
level using these dimensions. In a multi-national organisation or culture, understanding
various dimensions of culture would help.

This paper will look at the six dimensions of culture proposed by Hofstede and analyse
managerial behaviours based in these dimensions in arts organisations in India and the United
States. While there has been a lot of research on national cultures on different countries in the
business sector, few to no researchers have tried to focus how national cultures affect arts
organisations.

India receives a low score of 26 in this dimension, meaning that it is a culture of Restraint.
Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. 11
Restrained societies tend not to give importance to leisure time and do not indulge themselves
as it is the norm to think it is something that is unwelcome and frowned upon. Although
younger generations in Indian society are gaining a more Indulgent orientation, which is a
sign of changing times and work philosophies (Rana, 2018).

The United States scores as an Indulgent society and scores 68 in the this dimension. Work
hard and play hard is a concept that is seen in the United States. 12 It can be argued that this
dimension can be considered to be connected to the cultural dimension of individualism.

11
https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/india,the-usa/
12
https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/the-usa/
Effects of Organisational changes on employees

Effect on Attitudes
The survey findings also show how workplace changes may affect employees' attitudes and
experiences on the job.
Workers who reported being affected by organizational change currently or within the past
year reported lower levels of job satisfaction compared with employees who reported no
recent, current or anticipated changes (71% vs. 81%).
Working Americans who reported recent or current change were almost three times more
likely to say they don't trust their employer (34% vs. 12%) and more than three times as
likely to say they intend to seek employment outside the organization within the next year
(46% vs. 15%) compared with those with no recent, current or anticipated change.

Employee Cynicism to Organizational change

Underlying employee reactions to organizational change may be their perceptions of the
motivation behind those changes and the likelihood of success, according to the survey.
Almost a third of U.S. workers said they were cynical when it comes to changes, reporting
that they believed management had a hidden agenda (29%), that their motives and intentions
were different from what they said (31%), and that they tried to cover up the real reasons for
the changes (28%).
Working Americans also appeared skeptical when it comes to the outcomes of organizational
changes. Only four in 10 employees (43%) had confidence that changes would have the
desired effects, and almost three in 10 doubted that changes would work as intended and
achieve their goals (28% each).