Business project 5

Print

In workplaces, as in communities and nations, people spending time together are likely to share certain values, attitudes, and beliefs. Because of this established culture, people at work may have developed certain preferences or orientations in the following situations:

· interacting and communicating with others

· working in teams

· making decisions

· responding to and evaluating risks and opportunities

· managing or attempting to resolve disagreements and conflicts

· interacting with those at different levels in the organization

· engaging in numerous other workplace activities

Those who have studied and compared societal cultures and their possible implications for the workplace have identified some differences that can be important for success.

Perhaps the leading expert on cultural differences and their potential implications for business is Geert Hofstede, a Dutch scholar who worked for IBM in the late 1960s. Hofstede's early research (1980) examined, compared, and categorized the culturally derived preferences of IBM employees in many countries. He, and other scholars who have followed in his path, created a classification scheme that differentiates country cultures across what were originally four dimensions, though they have since been expanded to include six.

In what is probably his best-known book, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (published first in 1991 and revised and republished in 2010 with his son Gert Jan and Michael Minkov), Hofstede presents a careful explanation of his work and its implications. Hofstede reminds his readers that "culture is learned, not innate" (p.6), and introduces the analogy of culture as "software of the mind."

Hofstede uses the layers of an onion to help convey the way culture manifests itself. Values are deep at the core or center of the onion and are very slow to change compared with the other manifestations of culture. Examples of common core values in US businesses include integrity, accountability, fairness, and excellence. Other layers of culture include our rituals (e.g., greeting with a firm handshake and direct eye contact), the heroes we honor (examples include Warren Buffett and Steve Jobs), and on the outside of the onion, the symbols that have special meaning for societal members.

Examples of U.S. Business Cultural Manifestations

Created by Christina Hannah

Using an analogy of culture as mental programming, Hofstede explains that we are each conditioned (or programmed) by multiple societal levels: national, regional, ethnic, religious, linguistic, gender-oriented, generational, socioeconomic, and professional. Values associated with these levels may or may not be in harmony. One consequence of these multiple sources of programming is that it can be difficult to predict what will influence a person's response or behavior in particular situations.

Our present interest is not in delving deeply into the causes and consequences of individual differences in values, attitudes, and beliefs, but rather to learn about those shared at a societal level. Hofstede explains that his extensive research, and that of others who have studied culture, make it possible to differentiate between and among national cultures using a set of dimensions. He originally proposed the first four dimensions in the list below, then added a fifth—long-term orientation (Moskowitz, 2009)—and later added indulgence as a result of further research by and insights from collaborators.

Here is a simple explanation of Hofstede's current six dimensions:

· Power distance (PDI)—In countries with a high power distance dimension score, we can expect those in lower level positions to respect or defer to those who outrank them. In other words, power is thought to come with position. In such cultures, employees may expect managers and leaders to make decisions and might be surprised or uncomfortable when asked for input. In countries with a low power distance score, we are likely to find that employees treat those they report to more as colleagues and hold the view that respect must be earned. There may, of course, be exceptions to this model (for example in military and paramilitary organizations). Not surprisingly, the United States's score on this dimension is relatively low at 40. The score for France is is 69. In comparison, the scores for Malaysia, Slovakia, Guatemala, Panama, the Philippines, and Russia are all above 93 (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, pp. 57-58). This means that, in general, we can expect employees in the United States to expect a more egalitarian workplace than may be true in other societies.

· Individualism or collectivism (IDV)—In countries with high scores for individualism (like the United States), you are likely to find a shared belief in developing strong individuals who are comfortable working and making decisions on their own. In such workplaces, you will probably find an emphasis on the importance of developing, recognizing, and rewarding individual contributions. In countries that score low on the individualism dimension, you are likely to find an emphasis on the community, team, group, or department (i.e., the collective). People may be embarrassed if they are singled out publicly for praise or recognition, because they strongly believe their success depends upon the support and work of others. For this dimension, the US score is the highest, at 91. The score for France is 71. The country with the lowest score is Guatemala, with a score of 6 (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, pp. 95-97).

· Masculinity and femininity (MAS)—The label used for this dimension may not be the best. The basic idea is that some country cultures place a relatively high value on competitiveness, assertiveness, achievement, etc. Such countries are given a high score for masculinity because these preferences and traits were historically associated with men more than women. Other country cultures place greater value on caring for others, cooperation, quality of life, etc. Such countries are given a high score for femininity on this dimension. Despite the problems with these unfortunate gender-based labels, when you step back and compare countries you will probably recognize that there are some where businesses seem to value competition over cooperation, achievement and success over quality of life, and so on. Japan has a masculinity (MAS) score of 95. The US score is moderate at 62. The score for France is 43. Sweden has the lowest score for this dimension, with a 5 (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 20110, pp. 141-143).

· Uncertainty avoidance (UAI)—This dimension recognizes that there are differences among countries, which results in differences among the leaders of businesses that operate therein and the extent to which they are willing to take risks. In countries that are low in the uncertainty avoidance dimension, business leaders might be very comfortable exploring new opportunities and see this as the likely path to success. In other countries, this may not be the case. Sometimes those in country cultures that are highly risk averse (with high uncertainty avoidance scores) have a very good reason for their responses. There may be, for example, significant legal penalties for failure, including the possibility of being sent to jail in the event of bankruptcy or reneging on debts. The country with the highest score for uncertainty avoidance (UAI) is Greece at 112. France is relatively high, with a score of 86, and the US score is 46, indicating a tolerance for uncertainty and acceptance of risk-taking to achieve success (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, pp. 192-194).

· Long-term versus short-term orientation (LTO)—In countries with a high long-term orientation score, shared work values emphasize learning, accountability, and self-discipline. Patience and waiting to make a profit are acceptable. Creating and nurturing lifelong networks is valued. In contrast, those favoring a shorter-term orientation tend to focus on "the bottom line" and value achievement, freedom, and independent thinking. Quarterly and annual profitability are important. Korea, Japan, and China have high long-term orientation scores (100, 88, and 87, respectively). France has a moderate score of 63. In contrast, the US LTO score is low, at 26 (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, pp. 255-257).

· Indulgence versus restraint (IVR)—In countries with high scores on indulgence, you are likely to find people who value having fun and enjoying life. In the United States, for example, it is common to find that employees emphasize the importance of a good work-life balance and quality of life. The IVR score for the United States is relatively high (68) and for France is moderate (48). Pakistan has the lowest score (0) among the countries studied. Territories with the highest indulgence scores are Venezuela (100), Mexico (97), and Puerto Rico (90) (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, pp. 282 - 285).

A very important caveat when reading and thinking about Hofstede's work is to remember that the comparisons are at the societal level, rather than the individual level. In other words, in any country you will find individuals who are different from what you see suggested as the norm for the country culture. In fact, for any given dimension you may find yourself thinking "but this isn't what I'm like" or "this doesn't explain what happens in my organization." Those who have studied and compared country cultures ask you to suspend these responses temporarily and to try instead to look at a country as a whole, and then consider how it compares on these dimensions with other countries. When you adjust your imaginary lens to consider cultural differences from a broader perspective, you are able to discover things that may be helpful when explaining what happens when companies do business abroad, when people work together on country teams, and when they work together in multicultural, multinational organizations.

One challenge is that we are often less knowledgeable about our own shared country culture than we are about the cultures of others (Hofstede, 1980). This is because our culturally derived values and preferences are so deeply embedded that we may not be aware of how they influence our decisions and behaviors. Those who have worked or studied in a country other than their own are likely to have developed higher levels of cultural intelligence than those who have not had this experience.

The United States has traditionally tended to place strong emphasis on equality, individualism, risk-taking, assertiveness, achievement, and the opportunity to enjoy life (pursuit of happiness).

This brief introduction to the comparative work on country cultures and their potential consequences for individuals and their organizations, along with the Resources below, should help you understand the possible sources of confusion or conflict that could, if not anticipated and well-managed, result when multinational and multicultural team members work together. These issues may include training, coaching, mentoring, and effective leadership. Remember to consider as well the possible advantages associated with building and using teams with members who bring different country cultural perspectives to their work (Chakrabarti, Gupta-Mukherjee, & Jayaraman, 2009).