Hofstede's Framework for Cross Cultural Studies

Submitted By

Name – Kowshik Kundu

University Roll No. 13000921003
Continuous Assessment 2

Submitted for the partial fulfillment of the degree of

Master of Business Administration
Under
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology, West Bengal
(formerly known as West Bengal University of Technology)

Techno India
EM 4/1, Salt Lake, Sector – V, Kolkata – 700091.
 Introduction

Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory is a framework for cross-cultural

communication, developed by Geert Hofstede. It shows the effects of a
society's culture on the values of its members, and how these values relate to
behavior, using a structure derived from factor analysis.
Hofstede developed his original model as a result of using factor analysis to
examine the results of a worldwide survey of employee values by IBM between
1967 and 1973. It has been refined since. The original theory proposed four
dimensions along which cultural values could be analyzed: individualism-
collectivism; uncertainty avoidance; power distance (strength of social
hierarchy) and masculinity-femininity (task-orientation versus person-
orientation). The Hofstede Cultural Dimensions factor analysis is based on
extensive cultural preferences research conducted by Gert Jan Hofstede and his
research teams. Hofstede based his research on national cultural preferences
rather than individual cultural preferences. Professor Hofstede included six key
aspects of national culture country comparison scales, including: the power
distance index (PDI), individualism vs. collectivism (IDV), Masculinity versus
femininity (MAS), uncertainty avoidance index (UAI), long term orientation
versus short term normative orientation (LTO), and indulgence versus restraint
(IVR).
Independent research in Hong Kong led Hofstede to add a fifth
dimension, long-term orientation, to cover aspects of values not discussed in the
original paradigm. In 2010, Hofstede added a sixth dimension, indulgence
versus self-restraint. Hofstede's work established a major research tradition
in cross-cultural psychology and has also been drawn upon by researchers and
consultants in many fields relating to international business and communication.
The theory has been widely used in several fields as a paradigm for research,
particularly in cross-cultural psychology, international management, and cross-
cultural communication. It continues to be a major resource in cross-cultural
fields.
 Example of Hofstede's Cross Cultural Studies

 Power Distance : People in societies exhibiting a large degree of Power

Distance accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and
which needs no further justification. In societies with low Power
Distance, people strive to equalise the distribution of power and demand
justification for inequalities of power. China and Saudi Arabia are
countries with a high Power Distance index.

 Individualism : The Individualism/Collectivism dimension is about the

relative importance of individual versus group interests. The high side of
this dimension, called individualism. Its opposite, collectivism, represents
a preference for a tightly-knit framework in society in which individuals
can expect their relatives or members of a particular in-group to look after
them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. The USA is considered as
one of the most individualistic countries in the world.

 Masculinity : The Masculine side of this dimension represents a

preference in society for achievement, heroism, assertiveness and
material rewards for success. Its opposite, femininity, stands for a
preference for cooperation, modesty, caring for the weak and quality of
life. Japan is considered to be a very masculine country, whereas
Scandinavian countries such as Norway and Sweden are considered
highly feminine.

 Uncertainty Avoidance : The Uncertainty Avoidance dimension

expresses the degree to which the members of a society feel
uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. Countries often need
many rules to constrain uncertainty. South American countries such as
Chile, Peru and Argentina are highly uncertainty avoiding countries.

 Time Orientation : Countries that score low on this dimension, for

example, prefer to maintain time-honoured traditions and norms while
viewing societal change with suspicion. They are past and present
oriented and value traditions and social obligations. Countries
with cultures that scores high on this dimension on the other hand take a
more pragmatic approach: they are future oriented and encourage thrift
and efforts in modern education as a way to prepare for the future. Asian
countries such as China and Japan are known for their long term
orientation. Morocco is a short term oriented country.
  Indulgence : This dimension is defined as the extent to which people try
to control their desires and impulses, based on the way they were raised.
Relatively weak control is called Indulgence and relatively strong control
is called Restraint. Indulgence stands for a society that allows relatively
free gratification of basic and natural human drives related to enjoying
life and having fun. Restraint stands for a society that suppresses
gratification of needs and regulates it by means of strict social norms.

Limitation of Hofstede's Cross Cultural Studies

 One limitation lies in the original research methodology. The survey was
limited to IBM’s employees and only included sales and marketing
personnel. Hence, people believe that Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension
model is based on inconclusive research.
 The world has seen many modifications in cultural and political
movements. Technology has progressed, and this change has
revolutionized people’s thinking and behavior patterns worldwide. The
theory must be reviewed and updated according to current conditions.

Conclusion

Hofstede’s model can be seen as highly relevant and valuable in today’s

society. Although globalisation has increased the development of cross-cultural
literacy, this framework forms the basis to determining the culture of certain
groups. Culture is complex which makes it impossible to depict every
necessary dimension that is to be included in a model. The main focus is that
Hofstede provides a reliable framework that explains the consideration of
aculture. Leaders can use this to ensure commitment from their teams by
understanding their values and what will best work for them. As it can be
seen, with the use of desk research leaders may develop on this model by
doing their own secondary research.