Of all the reading for the week, I felt most compelled by the Hofstede article, “Demensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context” (2009). In this article, Hofstede outlines the history of his model of five dimensions of national cultures (p.5):
1. Power Distance (human inequality)
2. Uncertainty Avoidance (stress of unknown future)
3. Individualism vs. Collectivism
4. Masculinity vs. Femininity
5. Long Term Orientation vs. Short Term Orientation
But actually, I’m not really writing about this model per se, though the five dimensions listed above when broken down into cultural differences give great insight into one’s culture of origin. Someone who grows up in a strict, religious society may not adapt so well into a looser, or what Hofstede terms as an “individualist society” (2010, p.7). His research has shown that culture can play a big part in how someone fits into an organization, as well as how an organization reflects the culture of its society.
Since this is only my first semester, I haven't read too many articles where the author defends his position or disagrees so strongly with his detractors. But for the last page or so, that’s exactly what Hofestede seems to be doing.
Hofestede gets fairly riled up about a project called GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) (2009, p. 10). The project, spearheaded by Dr. Robert House in 1991, ultimately expanded Hofestede’s five dimensions into 18. Hofestede ran his own set of tests and found results that still supported the five dimensions (p. 10). Towards the end of his opposition to any adaptation or expansion of his work, the author goes on to accuse a former colleague, Triandis, of defending this expansion.
So I thought it might be interesting to see what all the fuss was about. I looked up the 2004 article by Triandis, who Hofstede cites in his article as defending his detractors, to see what his side of the argument was. From his telling, Triandis appears to be a great supporter of Hofstede and even edited his ground-breaking book Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values (1980). The thesis of the book changed not only Triandis’ perspective of the influence of culture, but for the field of psychology in general.
Triandis goes on to defend Hofstede against his detractors and goes so far as to accuse the critics of “inflating themselves by disparaging others” (2004, p. 89). Triandis lends a lot of depth to what he thinks is the most important dimension; individualism and collectivism. His own studies support Hofstede’s and his only crime seems to be that he’s added language that best describes his results. What’s really interesting and relates to our current studies is that within the individualism and collectivism he identifies both horizontal and vertical elements. Triandis explains that in an individualistic society, such as the U.S., people here generally like to stick out, or what he calls “vertical individualism” as opposed to Scandinavia which he refers to as “horizontal individualism”, where the population wants to do its own thing, but doesn’t want to stick out (2004, p.91). He continues to describe “Horizontal Collectivism” to what you would find on a kibbutz and “Vertical Collectivism” that you would most likely find in a traditional country like China or India (p.91).
This is all really interesting, but still no descent, no mention of GLOBE or of House. I decided that this would be an interesting bit of research, if only based in a little academic tit-for-tat, but the only thing I discovered was how very deep and meaningful Hofstede’s body of work really is.
Hofstede, G. (2006). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture.
Triandis, H.C. (2004). The many dimensions of culture. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 88-93.
Megan, I agree it's interesting how much space Hofstede devoted to defending his own work. The topic of the dimensions of culture has been, at times, quite a controversial one, and so I guess he felt a need to back up his work! You talk a bit about individualism/collectivism, but what do you think of Hofstede's other four dimensions? Do they resonate with you? Have you seen them in action in your own experience?
ReplyDeleteIn addition to individualism/collectivism, Hofstede’s four additional dimensions are power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity versus femininity and long term versus short term orientation. What resonated most with me is the entire concept of a culture affecting the way a person approaches how they approach work and perform with their organization.
ReplyDeleteAs I read about power distance, I found it really interesting what was considered small and large. It may be a generational thing, but when I was a kid, the culture imparted on me would be closer to large power distance, which is more strongly associated with Latin and East European countries (Hofstede, 2010). As times have changed, I now totally relate to the small power distance, so I wonder if this aspect could be looked at geographically as well as generationally. There is a huge difference between the WWII generation and the boomers approach to employee inequity. Looking back on what we’ve studied this semester, the changes I mention from a personal perspective from the mid-century into the 70s seem to correspond to when the organizational changes that Daft, Galbraith and Mintzberg contributed to management science around the 70s and 80s as well.
Because I’m from a Western culture, the dimension of masculinity/femininity is harder to imagine actually having to live with. However, it is not hard to realize that for many more traditional and patriarchal cultures men rule the roost as a way of life. Triandis mentions this with regard to the Taliban as an extreme case, but there are many others throughout the world.
Thanks.