Minkov and Hofstede’s research presenting evidence in support of a difference of cultural orientation towards either the long or short term has elicited criticism (2012). In spite of criticism around the naming of the metric on a cultural basis (as the original title of the research was “Chinese Values Survey”) and a temporal basis (suggesting that the values reflected were not rooted in present value preference), the results are largely unquestioned in spite of differing interpretations. While long term orientation is expressed in a variety of ways, the authors found that the three most predictive factors of long term orientation are “service to others, thrift and perseverance” (Minkov & Hofstede, 2012). These factors should each be considered as underlying social norms in countries that possess a particularly strong expression of long term or short term focus and as such, each should be investigated independently in order to better instruct the approach to leadership in each area however, in the interest of maintaining a manageable scope, only service to others will be explored in the following analysis.
In the case of service to others, the most reflective business topic related to this ideal is corporate social responsibility. While this topic can be addressed for those countries with high long term focus as well as mixed term focus, the economies with a short term focus have tend to be developing countries such as those in Latin America where, despite encouragement, the wide spread practice of implementing corporate responsibility into business culture has not taken hold in a statistically significant way (Grynspan & Kliksberg, 2008; Peinado-Vara, 2006). Although comparable with regards to their observance of corporate responsibility standards, what is most telling when considering the difference between a sample of long term focus countries (Asian) and mixed term focus countries (Europe) is the cultural environment in which the concept of corporate responsibility is shaped. In a survey of businesses in both sets of countries, the percentage of responding companies which have written policy on ethics is substantially higher in Asia than Europe (39.1% compared to 30.1%) which can be explained through the long term focus and the subjective nature of ethics from the view point of each country (Welford, 2014). When considering other measures of corporate social responsibility such as the treatment of indigenous people and child labor however, Asian countries score significantly lower than European countries as the culture has not developed in a way which places these aspects of CSR in the same regard.
When managing on the global level, service to others may seem a noble ideal to espouse but should be done so carefully with specificity and the understanding that the needs and culture of the group to which they speak may not be best served by the imposed norms. It may be the case that in order to survive environmentally unsustainable activities may be required or due to religious observances it may be that the integration of women into the workforce may be undesirable as they could be put into harm’s way as a result. A leader on the global level must always be mindful of these underlying considerations when implementing a culture of corporate social responsibility to ensure the program is generally beneficial and does not exert an untenable transition period for those other cultures.
Resources
Grynspan, R., & Kliksberg, B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility in Latin America: Not a waste of time or money. Foreign Policy, (167), B5,B8-B9.
Minkov, M. & Hofstede, G. (2012). Hofstede’s fifth dimension: New evidence from the World Value Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(1), 3-14.
Peinado-Vara, E. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in Latin America. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, (21), 61-69.
Welford,
R. (2004). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and Asia: Critical elements and best practice. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, (13), 31-47.
Bottom of Form