Using Hofstede Cultural Dimensions to Learn About Generation in the US

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course Name and Number

Professor’s Name

Assignment Due

Using Hofstede Cultural Dimensions to Learn About Generation in the US

Hofstede was born in 1928 as Gerard Hendrik Hofstede and described himself as a “Dutch social psychologist who pioneered the study of cultures across modern nations.” Many people believe Hofstede to be the gentleman who nailed corporate culture on the head. Geert Hofstede defined culture in five categories, four of which are highly prominent and widely discussed today. Geert Hofstede is a Dutch native from the Netherlands with an educational background who has never worked or studied in the United States. During the 1970s, Hofstede taught at INSEAD in Paris, one of the world’s largest and most prestigious business graduate schools (Chun et al., 2021). Hofstede also spent a lot of time in Hong Kong in the 1990s. He also taught at Maastricht University and the University of Tilburg for significant periods. He began his career at IBM, where he conducted the research that would later define his career and reputation. The Hofstede Cultural Orientation Model is based on a survey of IBM employees in 40 countries conducted by Hofstede between 1967 and 1973.

Hofstede produced one of the most prominent cultural differences among countries, explaining cultural differences along four dimensions. The first dimension is a society’s emphasis on individualism versus collectivism. Individualistic cultures place a premium on individual growth and attention, whereas collectivist societies emphasize unity, harmony, belonging, and commitment to others. The power distance is the second dimension. This dimension examines how hierarchical society is, with unequal power distribution among its members, contrasted with a society with fewer distinctions and more evenly dispersed power among individuals. The third factor is uncertainty avoidance, which refers to how comfortable a culture is with ambiguity and how risk-taking is valued and encouraged. The fourth dimension is the degree to which society is characterized by “masculine “or” feminine ” characteristics (Chun et al., 2021). A masculine civilization stresses interpersonal interactions and sensitivity to the welfare and well-being of others. In contrast, a feminine society emphasizes interpersonal relationships and sensitivity to the welfare and well-being of others. Although many people are uncomfortable with the sexist implications of masculine and feminine and the stereotypes they promote, this component does explain a lot of cultural variations in countries. Some scholars have swapped quantity of life for Masculinity and quality of life for femininity in Hofstede’s work.

Various individuals and organizations have used Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to understand cultural variations between societies better. Hofstede created this concept by contrasting the cultures of several societies. When it comes to power distance, the United States is ahead of Germany. The United States had a score of 40 out of 100, while Germany received 35. This means that when it comes to decision-making and implementation, management has the most influence. Individualism in the United States is far higher than in other countries. Individualism examines the degree of interconnectedness that exists among a community’s members. In the United States, individualism has a score of 91 (Escandon-Barbosa, Salas-Paramo & Rialp-Criado, 2021). In terms of Masculinity, Germany has a higher score than the United States. This is due to the fact that Germans want to work hard in order to improve their self-esteem and social standing. When it comes to avoiding ambiguity, Germany outperforms the United States. Germans want to minimize uncertainty by enlisting the assistance of professionals (Escandon-Barbosa, Salas-Paramo & Rialp-Criado, 2021). This is due to their limited power distance, which they attempt to compensate for by exhibiting high levels of uncertainty avoidance.

In terms of long-term focus, Germany continues to outperform the United States. It has a score of 83, compared to 26 in the United States. As a result, Germany might be regarded as a pragmatic nation. Indulgence is far higher in the United States than in Germany (Escandon-Barbosa, Salas-Paramo & Rialp-Criado, 2021). The United States had a score of 68, whereas Germany received a score of 40. Germany is a country that places little value on leisure time and the controlled fulfillment of personal needs.

Uncertainty avoidance is the second continuum. Uncertainty avoidance, according to Hofstede, is the ability of individuals of society to cope with future uncertainty without incurring undue stress. In addition, Hofstede believes that weak uncertainty avoidance is characterized by risk-taking, tolerance of different behaviors and viewpoints, flexibility, organizations with a low degree of structure and few rules, and merit-based promotions (Giunta, 2020). On the other hand, high uncertainty avoidance is characterized by organizations with clearly defined structures, many written rules, standardized procedures, a lack of tolerance for deviants, strong demand for consensus, a need for predictability, and respect for authority to Hofstede.

Individualism is the Hofstede Cultural Dimensions’ third continuum. Individualistic countries are preoccupied with the relationship between their activities and their wants, interests, and ambitions, focusing on self or at most close loved ones. They also respect independence and self-sufficiency, preferring personal goals over group objectives and accepting disagreement as a quality. Finally, individual countries value pleasure, amusement, and personal enjoyment more than social standards and responsibilities. People in many in-groups believe their beliefs are unique, and they think they have little power over their life. There are collectivistic countries or cultures in opposition to individualist countries. Collectivistic cultures follow social rules that are intended to maintain social harmony among in-group members. They are also intensely worried about in-group members while being apathetic or hostile toward out-group members (Giunta, 2020). They place a strong emphasis on group structure and cohesion. They also share resources and are willing to put personal interests aside for the group’s good, and they support particular in-groups. These two opinions are opposed, making it difficult for a country with one viewpoint to effectively promote a country with the other.

Power Distance, Individualism, Indulgence, Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Long-Term Orientation are the Six Dimensions of Culture. Power Distance received a 40 out of 100, Individualism a 91, Indulgence a 68, Masculinity a 62, Uncertainty Avoidance a 46, and Long-Term Orientation a 26. Germany received 54 points, 46 points, 42 points, 95 points, 92 points, and 88 points, respectively (Chen, Chen, & Chi, 2019). Long-Term Orientation has the most significant difference, while Power Distance has the most remarkable resemblance.

People’s comfort level with being involved in a country’s leadership and having a voice in how power is dispersed is measured by their power distance. It outlines how less powerful individuals of society accept that power is not distributed equally to all. The most striking resemblance in the workplace is that both cultures believe that everyone can improve their status by working hard and applying themselves (Chen, Chen, & Chi, 2019). The manner in which management communicates this hard labor, or lack thereof, to employees differs as well. When American management gives feedback to an employee, for example, they do so face to face, whereas in Germany, similar input is given through one of the individual’s coworkers to “save face.”

Individualism, as opposed to collectivism, refers to how individualistic a country’s people and organizations are. A country with a high score in this area prioritizes individual needs over group needs, whereas a country with a low score in this category prefers to work in groups and sacrifices individual needs for the group’s welfare (Chen, Chen, & Chi, 2019). When comparing the two countries, one of the most significant variances is in the Individualism dimension, with the US scoring a high 91 and Germany scoring a moderate 46.

The extent to which members of a society will engage in self-gratifying behaviors is called the Indulgence dimension. It is a measure of how much society’s norms impact one’s self-gratification. A country with a high score in this category has a culture that emphasizes the individual’s control over daily decisions and activities (Chen, Chen, & Chi, 2019). A low score indicates a culture that believes society has a larger role to play and that individuals cannot act purely for their own sake.

As a result, another area where the population of the United States differs is in the dimension of Masculinity. A high score in this category indicates a culture with more male characteristics, such as independence. A lower score indicates a country with a more feminine culture, with characteristics such as focusing on quality of life. Like their male counterparts, women tend to work harder and longer hours as a result of the United States’ high position in Masculinity (Beugelsdijk & Welzel, 2018). This is one of the most significant ways in which the workplace differs from the population of the United States. The United States’ low position reflects a culture that prioritizes quality of life. The work culture in the United States is characterized by long hours, which are in excess of what women are expected to do, making it more difficult for women to advance in the corporate world.

Uncertainty Avoidance is defined by how rules and regulations influence a country’s culture. The United States has one of the highest rankings in the world, at 92, which is significantly higher than the other countries. This is due to the fact that natural disasters are always a possibility in the United States (Chen, Chen, & Chi, 2019). Uncertainty Avoidance, like Power Distance, is average in the United States compared to the rest of the globe. This shows that a culture with fewer rules and regulations is acceptable and that nothing is being regulated.

Long-term Orientation, as opposed to short-term Orientation, refers to a country’s cultural tendency for making decisions in the present rather than in the future. A government with a high score values tradition and makes decisions with the long term in mind, whereas a country with a low score here is more likely to make judgments based on present conditions (Beugelsdijk & Welzel, 2018). Out of all the cultural aspects, long-term Orientation has the most disparity in results.

The first of the cultural dimensions, as previously stated, is power distance—the degree to which power differentials within society and institutions are tolerated, according to Hofstede. In addition, Hofstede goes into great depth about what he believes are the characteristics of enormous power distance societies. According to Hofstede, they are characterized by centralized power, authoritarian leadership, paternalistic management style, multiple hierarchical levels, and more. On the other hand, Hofstede discusses what he feels are the characteristics of small power distance civilizations (Beugelsdijk & Welzel, 2018). Decentralized power and decision-making, consultative or participative management styles, flat organizational structures, a limited number of supervisory employees, a lack of acceptance and questioning of authority, and many others are among them. Many distinct situations and elements fall within one of the Hofstede Cultural Dimensions’ five continuums.

References

Chun, D., Zhang, Z., Cohen, E., Florea, L., & Genc, O. F. (2021). Long-term Orientation and the passage of time: Is it time to revisit Hofstede’s cultural dimensions? International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 14705958211026342.

Escandon-Barbosa, D., Salas-Paramo, J., & Rialp-Criado, J. (2021). Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions as a Moderator of the Relationship between Ambidextrous Learning and Corporate Sustainability in Born Global Firms. Sustainability, 13(13), 7344.

Giunta, C. (2020). Digital marketing platform tools, generation Z, and cultural considerations. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 14(2), 63-75.

Chen, M. H., Chen, B. H., & Chi, C. G. Q. (2019). Socially responsible investment by generation Z: a cross-cultural study of Taiwanese and American investors. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 28(3), 334-350.

Beugelsdijk, S., & Welzel, C. (2018). Dimensions and dynamics of national culture: Synthesizing Hofstede with Inglehart. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 49(10), 1469-1505.