a study of the research of geert hofstede

A STUDY OF THE RESEARCH OF GEERT HOFSTEDE

A Study of the Research of Geert Hofstede

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to critically examine Geert Hofstede’s contributions to the

study of social systems and specifically his work on the interrelatedness of culture within

organizations including a review of his GLOBE study of 62 societies (House et al., 2004), and

also identifying how culture within organizations is similar to or different from each other in

different countries or societies.

Design/Methodology/Approach – The project’s design includes review and analysis of multiple

peer-reviewed journal articles, books, reports, and other media on Hofstede’s research related to

organizational culture and leadership. Hofstede’s model of six dimensions of national cultures

will be assessed in light of its merit and contribution to international organizational management.

Findings – Hofstede’s work offered implications for businesses to understand the effect of

cultural diversity on team performance within a global organizational management context

including but not limited to such establishments as the military’s aviation teams.

Originality/Value/Contribution – This study makes a contribution to the body of literature by

offering a synthesis and reaction to Hofstede’s work on organizational culture while also

examining the findings of his critics on this subject.

Keywords – culture, organizational culture, organizational management, cultural values

Introduction


Hofstede is a well-known social psychologist and researcher in the field of international

organizational culture. He is recognized as the founder and leading authority in this field

(Hodgetts, 1993), best known for his work on work-related values in cultures. He completed

extensive research on cross-cultural groups addressing the nature and role of culture in

organizational management. His work revealed that management philosophies or techniques

appropriate within one country or culture may not be appropriate in other cultures (Hofstede,

1984). In fact, Hoppe (2004) agrees that most people’s thoughts, feelings, assumptions, and

actions remain deeply embedded in their culture. In an interview with Hodgetts (1993), Hofstede

asserts:

the validity of cultural information is limited because in interpersonal contact, any

statement about a person's culture should only be used as a working hypothesis. If you

are going to spend time with a Japanese colleague, you shouldn't assume that overall

cultural statements about Japanese society automatically apply to this person. In our own

country, we are aware of the existence of a wide range of different personalities. We

should try to develop this same open-mindedness to other cultures. However, the cultural

information helps us not to misattribute first impressions to personality if they are, in fact,

based on what is normal in a foreign country. (Hodgett, 1993, p. 59)

Cultural groups influence behaviors in different ways within an organization or society.

This includes the impact of culture on areas such as health, education, economics, CEO

compensation, and politics. Soeters and Boer (2000) described cultures as a phenomenon

occurring among collectivities of people. Today’s manager would be prudent to recognize and

understand the significant impact of culture on the values, beliefs, and decision making of his or

her leadership and that of his or her employees within the workplace as a way to guide and direct

1


the goals, mission, and philosophy of the organization. This is in part because an individual’s

belief systems can serve to enhance or undermine the organization’s operations such that beliefs

about the controllability and leadership within organizations affect both managers' self-

regulatory processes and their organizational attainments (Wood & Bandura, 1989). As such, this

paper will provide a critical examination of Hofstede's work on culture within organizations to

include an analysis of and reaction to the similarities and differences in global organizational

culture.

History and Background of Hofstede’s Work

The empirical development of the five-dimensioned Cultural Dimensions Theory is

among the most notable of Hofstede's (1980) work. This theory is premised on the five

dimensions namely Power Distance, Individualism, Uncertainty Avoidance, Masculinity, and

Long Term Orientation, which oftentimes served as the foundation of cross-cultural scholarship

and application (Hoppe, 2004). For example, the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior

Effectiveness (GLOBE) research project sought to identify universal, culturally specific

leadership models and practices. Hofstede surveyed about one hundred thousand (100,000) IBM

employees in sixty-six (66) countries in order to collect his data. These five dimensions defined

values associated with national cultures (Hodgets, 1993) whose strength is seen in the social

systems in which they exist.

The first dimension, Power Distance, involves “the extent to which the less powerful

members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is

distributed unequally” (Boonghee, Donthu, & Lenartowicz, 2011, p. 194). Thus people within

organizations who place great value on Power Distance dimension exhibit high reliance on

centralized, formalized, authoritarian rule with tight control over power and norms. While some

2


nations, such as the French accept high differences in power and authority between individuals in

different occupational levels and/or social classes, others like the Swedes and Israelis do not

(Tosi & Greckhamer, 2004). Managers of a French background do not interact with or negotiate

with their subordinates and there exists higher levels of societal elitism that may even lead to

power polarization or inequality (Hofstede, 1980).

According to Tosi and Greckhamer (2004), organizations are structures of power and

authority and tend to mirror how power within the society is viewed. This is why high Power

Distance societies tend to offer higher salaries to their top managers and CEOs, they have more

supervisory positions and place emphasis on white-collar instead of blue-collar work. There also

exists significant wage differentials between top managers and lower level employees and the

control of money and resources among these Power Distance managers is a top priority.

Dimension two, Individualism “pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals

are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family”

(Boonghee et al., 2011, p. 194). Therefore within this dimension individuals in a given society

either remain integrated into groups or focus on looking after themselves (Zhao, 2013).

Countries like the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom tend to stress individual

needs, concerns, and interests over that of the group. With scores of 91, 80, 89 respectively in

Individualism dimension on the GLOBE study report, it suggests a business society in which the

organization’s hiring and promotion decisions are merit-based with evidence to support what an

individual has accomplished or is perhaps capable of accomplishing (Hofstede, 1984). Also,

employees in this type of society are expected to be self-reliant and display initiative. In the

Asian economies and organizations that include places like Japan and Taiwan on the other hand,

individuals are expected to function more within the group context particularly when tasks are

3


assigned. As a result, leadership or executive talent in this organizational dimension may tend to

focus more on performance-related tasks (Tosi & Greckhamer, 2004). Taiwan and Japan’s

GLOBE study score of 17 and 46 respectively on the Individualism dimension support the

collectivist society in which individual mindset tends to be more group oriented in exchange for

loyalty.

Uncertainty Avoidance is “the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened

by uncertain or unknown situations” (Boonghee et al., 2011, p. 194). Organizations or countries

high in Uncertainty Avoidance operate in predictable situations and generally tend to prefer rules

(Tosi & Greckhamer, 2004). They stay away from taking high risk and ambiguous situations.

Unlike countries like Germany and Japan, the United States of America, low in Uncertainty

Avoidance, tend to conform less to the wishes of authority figures, and are less accepting of rules

(Tosi & Greckhamer, 2004). The United States Uncertainty Avoidance dimension GLOBE

study score of 46 pales in comparison to Germany and Japan’s scores of 65 and 92 respectively.

Masculinity represents “the dominant male sex role pattern in the vast majority of both

traditional and modern societies” (Boonghee et al., 2011, p. 194). Boonghee et al. refer to this

dominant sex role pattern as male assertiveness, ambition, and toughness, and female nurturance

and harmony. Japan, Germany, and the United States are among the high masculinity societies

and may tend to have more sex-differentiated occupational structures within jobs almost entirely

assigned to women or men (Tosi & Greckhamer, 2004). Their GLOBE study Masculinity

domain scores are represented by 95, 66, and 62 respectively. The organizational culture within

these organizations emphasizes growth, challenges, and achievement, suggests Hofstede (1980).

Individuals within these cultures are more concerned with job performance, achievement, and

4


wealth, and focus less on the needs or feelings of individuals within the organization. They tend

to be highly assertive and less concerned with the quality of the working environment.

Societies like Norway and Sweden on the other hand that boast higher feminine

dimension thrive on focusing on job satisfaction and employee participation within the

organization. Long Term Orientation “refers to long-term versus short-term orientation toward

the future” (Boonghee et al., 2011, p. 194). Countries whose cultural values show long-term

oriented consumers are ones in which organizations typically prefer a dynamic market structure

to one that is static, and where organizations are more likely to welcome continuous changes

driven by imports as a way to increase competition (Boonghee et al.). As a result, long-term

orientation within the organizational cultural framework is negatively related to consumer

ethnocentrism.

Zhao’s (2013) study on the other hand revealed positive influences on culture and e-

government development in societies strong in Long Term Orientation dimension. For example,

citizens could become actively involved in decision-making and access government at any time

because of the adaptive nature of culture. In fact, Hong Kong did this successfully in 2011

getting citizenship involvement on budget and policy decisions (Zhao). Individuals within these

societies focus on status, honor, and reputation in the organization and emphasize hierarchy or

order. Norway and Sweden’s GLOBE study masculinity dimension scores were reported at a

mere 8 and 5 respectively (Hofstede, 1984).

Furthermore, these cultural dimensions can also contribute to how CEOs are paid across

countries as certain forms of CEO compensation mean different things in different cultures and

can carry different symbolic meanings depending on the dominant values of each society (Tosi &

Greckhamer, 2004). In the United States for example, the dominant theory upon which CEO

5


compensation is focused is that of social comparison rather than the economic health of the

organization. Overall, across a global scale Hofstede’s (1980) work revealed a positive

correlation between Uncertainty Avoidance dimension and seniority-based and skilled-based

compensation, while a negative correlation existed between compensation and employee

ownership plans (Tosi & Greckhamer). Meanwhile Individualism dimension positively

correlated with compensation plans based on individual performance while compensation plans

correlated negatively with Masculinity and Power Distance dimensions based on maternity leave,

workplace child care programs, and employee ownership plans respectively. Hofstede (1980)

further argued that despite the cultural differences in the views of money and in the different

forms of compensation for CEOs, CEO total pay typically include such things as long term

incentives, basic compensation, bonuses, and social security contributions.

Hofstede’s Contribution to Organizational Culture

One of the major findings of Hofstede’s (1980) work was the strong interrelatedness

between the values of people within a particular culture. For example, based on a high value

attributed to thrift or saving, research showed strong economic growth and success in some

Pacific Rim countries (Hodgetts, 1993). Hodgetts further explained that the likelihood was that if

thrift is a core value in a country then there will likely be more capital available to invest in

economic growth. Meanwhile Hofstede suggests that within organizational management it is

erroneous and misleading to attempt to equate the stereotypical culture of that country with all

individuals living there.

The strength of these existing values is manifested in the structure of the social systems

in which they exist. These include such systems as marriage and family systems, economic

systems, religious systems, and social control systems. For example, Weber (1958) suggested

6


that in Protestant dominated countries or systems, capitalistic models tend to flourish more

because of the emphasis on hard work, individualism, and self-reliance when compared to

Catholic dominated systems or countries. Stronger religious values or beliefs therefore tend to

stimulate economic growth because of individually enhanced productivity (Barro & McCleary,

2003).

Globally, countries like Japan and Germany exhibit forms of corporate control based in

their cultural values of feudalism that existed in between the ninth to fifteenth centuries (Orru,

1997). Feudalism was an economic practice during the Middle Ages in which people exchanged

use of lands with nobles for military protection. Nowadays, there exists the presence of very

strong elite classes with private organizations forging strong alliances with the state. Countries

like Italy and Taiwan on the other hand exhibit cultural values based in stronger family

structures, weaker states, and small and medium-sized businesses form the economic foundation

(Tosi & Greckhamer, 2004).

Meanwhile Tosi and Greckhamer (2004) point out evidence that supports the existing

effects of culture on organizational management in at least four ways. These include the

organization’s design, managerial philosophy, management and leadership style, and

management philosophy. As it relates to organizational design both Israel and Austria exhibit

effectively ran organizations with clearly defined roles based in high Uncertainty Avoidance and

low Power Distance dimensions (Tosi & Greckhamer). This is unlike cultures in countries like

Mexico and Singapore where both Uncertainty Avoidance and Power Distance are high and

organizational culture follows the traditional head of family model in its organizational design.

In a global study of managers working for large multinational United States corporations,

managerial philosophies revealed that British managers tend to have a more interpersonal

7


approach to management viewing the organization as accomplishing its goals through a network

of individuals influencing each other through relationships, communication, and negotiation

(Tosi & Greckhamer, 2004). Countries such as Germany on the other hand approach

management in a more rational way as leaders view decision-making among individuals in the

company based in professional competence and knowledge (Tosi & Greckhamer).

As it relates to global leadership styles, House et al. (2004) suggests cultural differences

significantly impact people’s thoughts about the influences, norms, and privileges of leadership.

For example, France and Germany tend to show a more centralized leadership style with

managers having the need to be informed about everything with little attention given to their

subordinates (Tosi & Greckhamer, 2004). Leaders in Britain on the other hand tend to delegate

more, show greater interest in their subordinates, and tend to only be interested in being

informed about exceptional events or occurrences.

When it came to motivational techniques for employees Germany and many southern

European countries place strong emphasis on fringe benefits and job security for the employees.

Japanese leadership emphasizes friendly and good working conditions, while northern European

countries emphasize leisure time and employee needs rather than organizational needs (Tosi &

Greckhamer, 2004).

Another major contribution to the field of organizational management is Hofstede’s

GLOBE Studies (House et al., 2004) in which he further examined culture as practices. By

practices he refers to the way things are done within a cultural context, while the values are the

way humans make judgments about the way things should be done. Practices and values were

measured at different levels of industry including financial services, food processing, and

telecommunications (House et al., 2004). One hundred and twenty-seven researchers worked on

8


this project and tested 27 hypotheses linking culture to outcomes that involved more than 17,000

managers within 951 organizations.

A critical review of the literature combined with intense focus groups allowed them to

gather meaning about equalities across cultures. Pilot test, double translations, and psychometric

property evaluations enabled them to handle the magnitude of cross-cultural data (House et al.,

2004). The theoretical framework consisted of an evaluation of the interrelatedness or lack

thereof, as well as the effects of leadership acceptance and effectiveness on social culture and

organizational practices. Results clearly linked culture to societal functioning and leadership

within organizations (House et al., 2004). This study expanded the five existing cultural

dimensions to eighteen. For example, there arose a distinction between institutional and in-

group collectivism and according to House et al., institutional collectivism involved collective

action, collective distribution of rewards, and collective rewards within the cultural group. In-

group collectivism on the other hand involved the individual’s loyalty and pride for the

organization. In-group Collectivism dimension, notes House et al., emphasizes the family and its

culture is linked to low divorce rates and poor due process.

New dimensions of organizational culture were added which showed that both practices

and values were very helpful in distinguishing differences in types of organizations. The research

affirmed that organizational culture was a reflection of the societal culture (House et al., 2004).

The new dimensions used in the GLOBE studies were Future Orientation, Gender Equality,

Assertiveness, Humane Orientation, In-group Collectivism, Institutional Collectivism,

Performance Orientation, Power Distance, and Uncertainty Avoidance (House et al.). The

empirical data in these new dimensions revealed high religious diversity within low

concentration of the largest religion characteristic of a non-dogmatic culture (House et al.). This

9


type of cultural dimension helps economic accomplishments though the study revealed that

people living in this type of culture do not live as long as others living in a different culture.

In the GLOBE studies, Assertiveness dimension was linked to not having natural

resources such as oil and metal as part of the country’s important exports (House et al., 2004).

Therefore, societies high on this cultural dimension competed well globally while exhibiting

signs of low levels of psychological health. The next dimension, Future Orientation dimension,

showed strong correlations in democratic communities where people enjoyed social health,

gender equality, and economic prosperity, and where a large number of trademarks existed per

capital (House et al.). Meanwhile, Humane Orientation dimension was related to communities or

countries with few retail outlets per capita, and where people were warm, empathetic, hospitable,

and highly satisfied (House at al.).

Institutional Collectivism dimension was observed to be high in Confucian Asian

cultures. In fact, among global communities India is characterized as a collectivistic and

masculine culture (Hofstede, 2001). These communities tend to me more integrated and less

segmented than communities in other parts of the world (House et al., 2004). Meanwhile Gender

Egalitarianism dimension focuses on equality for women as income earners, and correlates well

with longevity. Further, Power Distance dimension in the GLOBE study referred to the

differences between the rich and the poor within the same society. This results in little education

and human development among the poor, poor social growth, and unemployment. So instead of

making their lives better within the society, Power Distance exacerbates the conditions of the

poor making their position less than satisfactory (House et al.). Another dimension, Uncertainty

Avoidance, involves the governmental support of economic activities marked by the existence of

an extensive, modern telecommunications system (House et al.).

10


The GLOBE studies also looked at organizational leadership from the perspective of six

leadership theories. These theories were Charismatic/Values-based, Team-Oriented,

Participative, Autonomous, Humane, and Self-Protective leadership. Within communities and

organizations Charismatic/Value-based leadership and Team-Oriented leadership are considered

among the most desired (House et al., 2004). The other leadership styles with the exception of

Self-Protective leadership are seen as culturally acceptable leadership. Further, the study found

associations between leadership styles and cultural patterns. For example, attributes like

decisiveness help to facilitate strong leadership while attributes like irritability inhibits

outstanding leadership.

Charismatic/Value-based leaders tend to be visionary, inspirational, performance

oriented, and self-sacrificing, while Team-Oriented leaders tend to be collaborative, diplomatic,

and integrative. Charismatic/Value-based leadership is high in the Caucasian cluster of countries

and lower in such countries like the Middle East. In some cultures Team-Oriented leadership is

generally not desirable (House et al., 2004). The GLOBE study as House et al. summarizes it,

found high and low correlation among leadership styles in different areas of the world including

Team-Oriented leadership is high in areas like Latin America while being low in the Middle

East. Humane leadership being high in South Asia, and low in Nordic Europe. Autonomous

leadership is high in East Europe and low in Latin America, while Self-Protective leadership is

high is South Asia and the Middle East while low in Nordic Europe. House et al. also found that

Performance Orientation is related to all culturally implied theories of leadership.

Soeters and Boer (2000) applied Hofstede’s (1984) work on organizational culture to

military aviation as an organization. In their study of culture in military aviation Soeters and

Boer found significant cultural differences in the armed forces of various countries. They found

11


that one party’s unfamiliarity with how another party does things could potentially lead to

dangerous situations in the skies. In fact, having culturally mixed cockpit crews and military

operations conducted in mixed pairs or even other larger groups are no longer an anomaly in

military aviation nowadays. Applying Hofstede’s (1984) four cultural dimensions to culture in

military aviation, suggests that the airman’s occupation or profession (e.g. pilot,

telecommunications specialist, engineer) is of critical importance to the employees in the

individualist cultures. On the other hand, they write, in the collectivist cultures, “the military

institute, the armed forces, or the air force itself are the be-all and end-all with regard to the

orientation toward work, employer, and career” (Soeters & Boer, 2000, p. 117). This means that

there is the likelihood that much can remain unsaid and very little information is made explicit.

Hofstede’s (1984) Power Distance dimension when applied to culture within military

aviation suggests the captain’s leadership role is to be responsible for taking control of the

aircraft in emergency situations, ensuring crew members remain subordinate to the captain’s

commands and not question his or her decision-making except in cases of the safety of the

flight’s mission, and that captains who accept or even encourage suggestions from the crew

members are considered weak leaders. Unfortunately however, this type of role responsibility in

the cultural Power Distance dimension has lead to and continues to have the potential for

communication problems that could result in tragedy because of the conformity mentality.

Moreover, Vaughn (1996) asserted just that in the analysis report of the NASA space shuttle

Challenger event suggesting that under Power Distance dimension conformity led to tragedy.

Critics of Hofstede’s Work on Organizational Culture

Many researchers including Hofstede (1980) himself have attempted to use this five-

dimensional metric and apply it to measuring cultural orientations from an individual rather than

12


a group organizational management perspective. This metric has not held at the individual level

evidenced by low dimensional reliability and incoherent factor analyses (Boonghee et al., 2011).

These studies found very low correlation in cultural orientation from an individual level when

compared to the country or group level. Bearden, Money, and Nevins (2005) suggested there was

a need for further study to better understand how individuals from different countries or regions

respond differently to organizational management.

Attempts have been made to develop scales that could assess cultural values from an

individual rather than group perspective, but these attempts have proven to measure the

dimensions individually rather than collectively but concerns over the loss of unidimensionality

with each individual scale continues to be of concern with regards to validity (Boonghee et al.,

2011). Among these attempts are the works of Erdem, Swait, and Valenzuela (2006), Furrer, Liu,

and Sudharshan (2000), and Sharma (2010).

Other critics of Hofstede’s (1980) work on culture within organizations are Signorini,

Wiesemes, and Murphy (2009), who suggest that Hofstede’s study of culture within education,

and in particular higher education, is limited in part because of the tendency to categorize student

populations into two large groups. These groups were identified as one of a Confucian culture or

tradition characteristic of Asian students, and the other of a Socratic culture or tradition

characteristic of students with a Western nationality (Signorini, Wiesemes, & Murphy, 2009).

However, when comparing these two groups of students in higher education,

commonalities and differences in culture related to both teaching and learning were observed.

One such difference related to the Power Distance cultural dimension that was much larger in

Taiwan than Norway represented by the GLOBE study scores of 58 and 31 respectively. In

terms of education therefore, teachers in Taiwan were generally viewed as experts and more

13


respected while teachers in Norway were viewed as facilitators of the learning process (Hua-Li et

al., 2010).

Researcher’s Reaction to Hofstede’s Study of Culture and Organizations

The work and contribution that Hofstede (1984) has made to the field of organizational

culture has spanned many decades and yet remain relevant. Leaders within organizations would

be prudent in attempting to understand how the cultural background and differences of their

employees impact organizational performance. Not only is this important within large

organizations on a global sphere, but smaller organizations could also greatly benefit from

applying Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to their leadership, training, and implementation

programs. It has been observed that global teams may have the advantage of having different,

better, and perhaps even more creative ideas that merge together as a direct result of having

ethnically and culturally diverse teams brainstorm and produce higher quality ideas over more

homogeneous groups (McLeod & Lobel, 1992).

Another relevance to understanding the impact and nature of Hofstede’s (1984) work is

to recognize how countries may have utilized the organizational management model to brand and

advertise in a global market. For example, countries such as the United States can create

products and advertise those products to appeal to customers within a global market such as in

Taiwan and Japan. In these countries where leaders and employees focus on working and

achieving as a group, as an example, countries such as the United States can take advantage of

this cultural management approach to advertise and brand products to their organizational

advantage. Not only that but also hiring or training leaders who have had exposure to this type

of organizational management experience can bode well for companies across the globe that are

looking for a specific type of influence and imprint within their organization. Winkler and

14


Bouncken (2011) also agree that in order to compete on a global market it requires integration of

the needs and diverse expectations of the international customer.

Suggestions for Future Research

In light of Hofstede’s (1980, 1984) work on organizational culture, as well as the

contributions of other researchers like Bearden, Money, and Nevins (2005), Boonghee et al.

(2011), and Sharma (2010) on this subject, there are two main areas about which future research

could be undertaken. The first involves the influence, if any, of gender as it relates to culture and

leadership within global organizations. The other is the influence, if any, of culture on industry-

specific organizations also as it relates to the subject of organizational culture and leadership.

One aspect of culture within organizations that presents with a potential for future study

is the influence of gender in organizational leadership. It would be of interest to ascertain if there

are differences or similarities in organizational leadership in different countries or societies in

cases in which the leadership of the organization is solely that of women versus men, or perhaps

in cases in which the leadership is shared evenly between both men and women. While Hofstede

(1980) work did not specifically address gender, it would be of interest to see how gender

influences culture within global organizations.

Next, given the industry-specific nature of Hoftstede’s (1980) GLOBE study involving

survey of one hundred thousand (100,000) IBM employees across the globe, the potential exists

for future research to address similarities and/or differences with regard to the influence of

culture in organizational leadership and management in other industries. For example, future

studies that mirror Hofstede’s work can address leadership and culture within industries

dissimilar to IBM such as education, including higher education/academia, food service, offshore

banking, tourism, and the like, just to name a few. The goal here would be to establish if these

15


other industries show similar cultural dimensions in light of Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions

Theory among the leadership when compared to the Hofstede’s (1980) globe studies involving

IBM employees.

Conclusion

Organizational culture and management within global organizations have been studied by

Hofstede (1984) who is well known for his contributions to the field. He is considered the

leading authority (Hodgetts, 1993), best known for his work on work-related values in cultures.

His work identified ways in which cultural groups influence behaviors differently within an

organization or society including areas such as health, education, economics, and politics. In

today’s management culture, organizations would be prudent to have leadership not only

recognize but also understand the significant impact of culture on the values, beliefs, and

decision making of its leaders and employees alike.

Hofstede (1980) developed a five-dimensioned Cultural Dimensions Theory premised on

the five dimensions namely Power Distance, Individualism, Uncertainty Avoidance, Masculinity,

and Long Term Orientation, which oftentimes served as the foundation of cross-cultural

scholarship and application (Hoppe, 2004). These five dimensions defined values associated with

national cultures (Hodgetts, 1993) whose strength is seen in the social systems in which they

exist. Over the years many other researchers have attempted to use this five-dimensional metric

and apply it to measuring cultural orientations from an individual rather than a group

organizational management perspective. However, this metric has not held at the individual level

when compared to the work with groups and suggests that there was a need for further study to

better understand how individuals from different countries or regions respond differently to

organizational management (Bearden, Money, & Nevins, 2005).

16


Meanwhile, future research linked to Hofstede’s (1980) work on cultural dimensions

within global societies may include an assessment of two factors. The first is the influence of

gender, if any, as it relates to culture and leadership within global organizations. The second is

the influence, if any, of culture on industry-specific organizations dissimilar to the IBM

employees surveyed in his GLOBE study.

Hofstede’s (1984) work on organizational culture continues to bear relevance even today

as globally, teams may have the advantage of having different, better, and perhaps even more

creative ideas that merge together as a direct result of having ethnically and culturally diverse

teams brainstorm and produce higher quality ideas over more homogeneous groups (McLeod &

Lobel, 1992). Further, countries that hire and train leaders who have had exposure to this type of

organizational management experience may be better positioned to be more competitive on a

global market that requires integration of the needs and diverse expectations of the international

customer.

17


References

Barro, R. J., & McCleary, R. M. (2003). Religion and economic growth across countries. American Sociological Review, 68(5), 760-781.

Bearden, W. O., Money, R. B., & Nevins, J. L. (2005). Multidimensional versus unidimensional measures in assessing national culture values: The Hofstede VSM94 example. Journal of Business Research 59(2), 195–203.

Boonghee, Y., Donthu, N., & Lenartowicz, T. (2011). Measuring Hofstede's five dimensions of cultural values at the individual level: Development and validation of CVSCALE. Journal Of International Consumer Marketing, 23(3/4), 193-210. doi:10.1080/08961530.2011.578059

Erdem, T., Swait, J. & Valenzuela, A. (2006). Brands as signals: A cross-country validation study. Journal of Marketing 70(1), 34–49.

Furrer, O., Liu, B. S.-C., & Sudharshan, D. (2000). The relationships between culture and service quality perceptions. Journal of Service Research 2(4), 355–371.

Hodgetts, R. (1993). A conversation with Geert Hofstede. Organizational Dynamics, 21(4), 53-61.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management & Organization 15-41.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asian Pacific Journal of Management

Hoppe, M. H. (2004). Introduction: Geert Hofstede's culture's consequences: International cifferences in work-related values. Academy Of Management Executive, 18(1), 73-74. doi:10.5465/AME.2004.12689661

House, P. J., Hanges, R. J., Javidan, M., DOrfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE studies of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hua-Li, J., Sandnes, F. E., Yo-Ping, H., & Yueh-Min, H. (2010). Cultural factors influencing Eastern and Western engineering students' choice of university. European Journal Of Engineering Education, 35(2), 147-160. doi:10.1080/03043790903497310

McLeod, P. L. & Lobel, S. A. (1992). The effect of ethnic diversity on idea generation in small groups. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Best Papers Proceedings. 227-231.

18


Orru, M. (1997). Institutional corporation in Japanese and German capitalism. In G. G. Hamilton (Ed.), The economic organization of East Asian capitalism (311-339). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sharma, P. (2010). Measuring personal cultural orientations: Scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 38(6), 787–806.

Signorini, P., Wiesemes, R., & Murphy, R. (2009). Developing alternative frameworks for exploring intercultural learning: A critique of Hofstede's cultural difference model. Teaching In Higher Education, 14(3), 253-264. doi:10.1080/13562510902898825

Soeters, J. L. & Boer, P. C. (2000). Culture and Flight Safety in Military Aviation. The International Journal Of Aviation Psychology, 10(2), 111–133.

Tosi, H. L., & Greckhamer, T. (2004). Culture and CEO compensation. Organization Science, 15(6), 657-670.

Vaughn, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision. Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Weber, M. (1958). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York, NY: Scribner.

Winkler, V. A. & Bouncken, R. B. (2011). How does cultural diversity in global innovation teams affect the innovation process? Engineering Management Journal, 23(4), 24-35.

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361-384.

Zhao, F. (2013). An empirical study of cultural dimensions and e-government development: Implications of the findings and strategies. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(3), 294-306. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2011.644580

19

a study of the research of geert hofstede

Documents

role of culture

keywords culture

persons culture

interrelatedness of

impact of culture

hofstedes research

cultures hofstede

globe study