One useful framework for understanding how basic values underlie organizational behavior is proposed by Hofstede, as the result of his research on over 116,000 people in 50 countries. He proposes four value dimensions: (1. power distance, (2. uncertainty avoidance, (3. individualism, and (4. masculinity24 We should be cautious when interpreting these results, however, because his research findings are based on a sample drawn from one multinational firm, JEM, and because he does not account for within-country differences in multicultural countries. Although we introduce these value dimensions here to aid in the understanding of different cultures, their relevance and application to management functions will be discussed in later chapters.
The first of these value dimensions, power distance, is the level of acceptance by a society of the unequal distribution of power in institutions. In the workplace, inequalities in power are normal, as evidenced in hierarchical boss-subordinate relationships. However, the extent to which subordinates accept unequal power is societally determined. In countries in which people display high power distance (such as Malaysia, the Philippines, and Mexico), employees acknowledge the boss's authority simply by respecting that individual's formal position in the hierarchy, and they seldom bypass the chain of command. This respectful response results, predictably, in a centralized structure and autocratic leadership. In countries where people display low power distance (such as Austria, Denmark, and Israel), superiors and subordinates are apt to regard one another as equal in power, resulting in more harmony and cooperation. Clearly, an autocratic management style is not likely to be well received in low-power-distance countries. The second value dimension, uncertainty avoidance, refers to the extent to which people in a society feel threatened by ambiguous situations. Countries with a high level of uncertainty avoidance (such as Japan, Portugal, and Greece) tend to have strict laws and procedures to which their people adhere closely, and there is a strong sense of nationalism. In a business context, this value results in formal rules and procedures designed to provide more security and greater career stability. Managers have a propensity for low-risk decisions, employees exhibit little aggressiveness, and lifetime employment is common. In countries with lower levels of uncertainty avoidance (such as Denmark, Great Britain, and, to a lesser extent, the United States), nationalism is less pronounced, and protests and other such activities are tolerated. As a consequence, company activities are less structured and less formal, some managers take more risks, and there is high job mobility.
The third of Hofstede's value dimensions, individualism, refers to the tendency of people to look after themselves and their immediate family only and neglect the needs of society. In countries that prize individualism (such as the United States, Great Britain, and Australia), democracy, individual initiative, and achievement are highly valued; the relationship of the individual to organizations is one of independence on an emotional level, if not on an economic level.
In countries such as Pakistan and Panama, where low individualism prevails-that is, where collectivism predominates-one finds tight social frameworks, emotional dependence on belonging to the organization, and a strong belief in group decisions. People from a collectivist country, like Japan, believe in the will of the group rather than that of the individual, and their pervasive collectivism exerts control over individual members through social pressure and the fear of humiliation. The society valorizes harmony and saving face, whereas individualistic cultures generally emphasize self-respect, autonomy, and independence. Hiring and promotion practices in collectivist societies are based on paternalism rather than achievement or personal capabilities, which are valued in individualistic societies. Other management practices (such as the use of quality circles in Japanese factories) reflect the emphasis on group decision-making processes in collectivist societies.
Hofstede's findings indicate that most countries scoring high on individualism have both a higher gross national product and a freer political system than those scoring low on individualism: that is, there is a strong relationship among individualism, wealth, and a political system with balanced power. Other studies have found that the output of individuals working in a group setting differs between individualistic and collectivist societies. In the United States, a highly individualistic culture, social loafing is common: that is, people tend to perform less when working as part of a group than when working alone. In a comparative study between the United States and the People's Republic of China (a highly collectivist society), Earley found that the Chinese did not exhibit as much social loafing as the Americans. This result can be attributed to Chinese cultural values, which subordinate personal interests to the greater goal of helping the group succeed.
The fourth value dimension, masculinity, refers to the degree of traditionally masculine values-assertiveness, materialism, and a lack of concern for others-that prevail in a society. In comparison, femininity emphasizes feminine values-a concern for others, for relationships, and for the quality of life. In highly masculine societies (Japan and Austria, for example), women are generally expected to stay home and raise a family. In organizations, one finds considerable job stress, and organizational interests generally encroach on employees' private lives. In countries with low masculinity (such as Switzerland and New Zealand), one finds less conflict and job stress, more women in high-level jobs, and a reduced need for assertiveness. The United States lies somewhat in the middle, according to Hofstede's research. American women typically are encouraged to work and usually are able to get some support for child care (through day-care centers and maternity leaves).
The four cultural value dimensions proposed by Hofstede do not operate in isolation; rather, they are interdependent and interactive-and thus complex-in their effects on work attitudes and behaviors. For example, in a 2000 study of small-to-medium-sized firms in Australia, Finland, Greece, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, and Sweden, based on Hofstede's dimensions, Steensma, Marino, and Weaver found that entrepreneurs from societies that are masculine and individualistic have a lower appreciation for cooperative strategies as compared to entrepreneurs from societies that are feminine and collectivist. Masculine cultures view cooperation in general as a sign of weakness and individualistic societies place a high value on independence and control.27 In addition, they found that high levels of uncertainty avoidance prompted more cooperation, such as developing alliances to share risk.
Hofstede's Value Dimensions : Effects of Organizations article from Culture Management Catagory Hofstede's Value Dimensions
Hofstede's Value Dimensions Effects of Organizations article from Effects of Organizations Culture Management.Free learning from data about Hofstede's Value Dimensions Effects of Organizations Culture Management Business Management,online business management,business management classes,online business management degrees