exploring culture theory globe, hofstede, and trompenaars

Running Head: EXPLORING CULTURE THEORY – GLOBE, HOFSTEDE AND TROMPENAARS

Exploring Culture Theory – GLOBE, Hofstede and Trompenaars

Lisa Parrott

Argosy University/Seattle Campus

July, 2013


Hofstede, Trompenaars and GLOBE examined thousands of employees and managers

across the world to identify key values from which they developed dimensions used to define the

culture of organizations and nations. Their theories on culture share a number of similar

dimensions in addition to focusing on the importance of values and beliefs as a driving factor

behind the cultural norms of a group. There is a lot of difference among their theories in the

variables used for their dimensions and how they are measured, making it difficult to directly

compare their results. The implication of their research suggests the importance for organizations

to understand the impact culture has on employee and manager interactions as well as operating

in a multicultural environment. Research focusing on the separation of individuals from military

service must acknowledge the nuances presented by the military culture in order understand how

these expectations can hinder or support transition success.

Culture is a commonly used term with a number of different meanings according to

McSweeney (2002, p. 92) and Kats, van Emmerick, Blenkinsopp, and Khapova (2010, p. 404).

Researchers are unable to agree on one definition although there are common threads. Qamar,

Muneer, Jusoh and Idris (2013) define culture as “People living in different parts of the world

have different attitudes, behaviours and ways of doing things. For classifying those attitudes and

behaviours the concept of culture came into being” (p. 82). Javidan, House, Dorfman, Hanges

and Sully de Luque (2006) also introduce values as an aspect of culture. “We took a holistic view

of culture as more than just a set of values, consisting rather of both values and actual ways in

which members of a culture go about dealing with their collective challenges” (Javidan et al.,

2006, p. 899). In addition, the definition of culture must take into consideration the impact it has

on the individual. “We expect national culture to be related to ethics because national culture

creates barrier conditions for behavior and as such should influence individual ethics”


(Parboteeah, Bronson & Cullen, 2005, p. 125). “Hofstede (1980) defined culture as 'the

collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from

another'” (Kirkman, Lowe & Gibson, 2006, p. 286). By synthesizing these definitions, culture

can be defined as ‘a set of values, attitudes, and actions guiding the ethical behaviors of

individuals within a group and nation’.

Starting in the 1960’s, Hofstede began examining the concept of culture within IBM

through thousands of employee interviews across 66 countries, although results were only used

from 40 countries (Deresky, 2008; Minkov & Hofstede, 2011; Magnusson, Wilson, Zdravkovic,

Zhou & Westjohn, 2008; McSweeney, 2002; Kirkman et al., 2006). Qamar et al. (2013) states

Hofstede began his research by examining values within a company (p. 82). As a result of his

investigation, Hofstede identified four dimensions of culture: individualism-collectivism, power

distance, uncertainty avoidance and masculinity-femininity (Deresky, 2008; Kats et al. 2010;

Kirkman et al. 2006; Magnusson et al., 2008). Years later Hofstede and Bond (1988) added

another dimension, long-term orientation (as cited in Magnusson et al., 2008, p. 185). These

dimensions are defined as:

1. Individualism – collectivism. The extent the individual is emphasized over the group2. Power distance. The extent and acceptance of unequal distribution of power3. Uncertainty avoidance. The extent people are comfortable dealing with the unknown4. Masculinity – femininity. The extent of emphasis on competitiveness, assertiveness, achievement, and money5. LTOe. The extent of emphasis on thrift and perseverance (Magnusson et al., 2008, p. 186)

Hofstede identified values as a cornerstone to culture (McSweeney, 2002, p. 91).

“Hofstede used what he refers to as an eclectic approach relying on theoretical reasoning

followed by statistical factor analysis to tease out the cultural dimensions” (Magnusson et al.,

2008 p. 185). Hofstede (2001) developed an “Onion Diagram” to show the invisible relationship


connecting values, culture and practice (Javidan et al., 2006, p. 899)

Having started in the 1960’s, Hofstede was an influential leader in understanding culture

within an organization. “Subsequently, the model became a cornerstone for cross-cultural

research, providing an extremely popular method for the study of cultural differences in a wide

range of disciplines, including international management” (Minkov & Hofstede, 2011, p. 10).

His research has become so popular; Tung and Verbeke (2010) state, “as of June 2010 there were

over 54,000 citations to his work” (p. 1259). Minkov and Hofstede (2011) identify him as one of

the “most-cited authors in social science” (p. 11). Hofstede’s theory has received a lot of

criticism, and Magnusson et al. (2008) point out three primary areas of concern in his research.

Validity is questioned based on the use of an internal survey of one company, the limited

statistical support of his dimensions in all countries and relevance to the concept of culture today,

as his research is based on data collected over 50 years ago (p. 185). Kirkman et al. (2006) add

the aspect of oversimplification presented by reducing all aspects of culture to only five

dimensions (p. 286). Deresky (2008) supports these arguments and includes the additional

concern about his research failing to consider different cultures within a country (p. 100).

Hofstede laid the groundwork in cultural research, and his influence was recognized by a

collection of researchers in the 1990’s who created a collaborative effort studying culture across

the world (Parboteeah et al., 2005). Venaik and Brewer (2010) identify the work done by

GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) (Magnusson et al.,

2008) as an extension of the work performed by Hofstede (p. 1310). “The GLOBE study is a

long-term multi-phase program designed to conceptualize and validate country national cultural

dimensions and their relationship with leadership” (Parboteeah et al., 2005, p.125).

GLOBE takes findings from Hofstede’s study in culture within a nation and expands it to


consider the role of leadership in culture in order to identify traits that are universally accepted

versus culturally specific (Deresky, 2008). “To summarize, GLOBE decided that it is time to

move beyond Hofstede's approach and to design constructs and scales that are more

comprehensive, cross-culturally developed, theoretically sound, and empirically verifiable”

(Javidan et al., 2006, p. 899). Leung et al. (2005) mentions a second aspect of GLOBE separating

itself from Hofstede’s research, by looking at the cultures and practices of a nation (as cited in

Javidan et al., 2006, p. 899). House et al., (2004) states “the GLOBE project defines culture as

shared motives, values, beliefs, identities, and the interpretation or meaning of significant events

that result from common experiences of members of collectives that are transmitted across

generations” (as cited in Kats et al. 2010, p. 404).

Researchers from GLOBE felt the need to expand the theories presented by Hofstede as

they were too simplistic and didn’t capture all the dynamic aspects of a national culture. “While

the GLOBE researchers fully accepted Hofstede’s paradigm of constructing dimensions of

national culture from variables that correlate across nations, they felt that some of his dimensions

lacked face validity: they did not measure what was implied by their labels” (Minkov &

Hofstede, 2011, p. 14). GLOBE admits to being heavily influenced by Hofstede’s theory

(Parboteeah et al., 2005), adding four additional dimensions to his theory:

1. Uncertainty avoidance. The extent uncertainty is avoided by relying on established social norms2. Power distance. The extent and acceptance of unequal distribution of power3. Institutional collectivism. The degree collective distribution of resources is rewarded4. In-group collectivism. The degree individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in society5. Gender egalitarianism. The degree the society minimizes gender role differences6. Assertiveness. The degree individuals are assertive, confrontational, and aggressive in social relationships7. Future orientation. The degree the society engages in future planning, investing, and delaying gratification


8. Performance orientation. The degree individuals are rewarded for performance improvements9. Humane orientation. The degree individuals are rewarded for being fair, altruistic, friendly, and kind (Magnusson et al., 2008 p 186; Parboteeah et al., 2005, p. 125-126)

GLOBE continues to differentiate its work from that of Hofstede by testing their nine

dimensions across two measures within a culture. “An additional advancement in the GLOBE

study is the attempt to capture both a culture’s values, i.e. how members of a society believe that

it Should Be, and current practices in their society, i.e. As Is” (Magnusson et al., 2008, p. 187;

Shi & Wang, 2011, p. 95). GLOBE also continues to develop and refine its theory, including

work from researchers around the world to help ensure material remains relevant. “GLOBE is a

large-scale program involving over 160 researchers from many parts of the world and a support

staff of three administrators” (Javidan et al., 2006, p 897).

Emerging just prior to the GLOBE’s work in the 1980’s and 1990’s (Qamar et al., 2013),

is that of Fons Trompenaars, who believes values define culture, although he focuses on different

dimensions than Hofstede and GLOBE (Magnusson et al., p. 185). Lloyd and Tromenaars (1993)

describe his work as:

His analysis is based on extensive research involving 15,000 employees in 50 countries, in which he explores the cultural extremes and incomprehension that can arise when doing business across cultures in different parts of the world - even when those involved are working for the same company. (p. 17)

Unlike GLOBE, Trompenaars’ work is primarily based on sociology and the five dimensions of

Parsons (1951), and includes two measures of attitudes – toward time and environment (as cited

in Magnusson et al., 2008, p 186). Similar to GLOBE, his work has a modern approach and

includes a more robust sample population than Hofstede, including within company

organizational culture differences (Magnusson et al., 2008, p. 187).

Qamar et al. (2013) breaks down Trompenaars theory into two separate aspects, the first


being three ways cultures handle problems, and the second being the five dimensions individuals

use to work with others. Magnusson et al. (2008) does not differentiate these differences, instead

identifying seven dimensions for his theory (p. 186). Trompenaars’ believe “the variation in

national cultures depend on the approaches the members of those societies adopt to solve their

problems of three major categories: (1) associations among people, (2) mindsets with respect to

time, and (3) attitudes with respect to the environment” (Qamar et al., 2013, p. 84).

Trompenaars’ view of associations among people are defined by Qamar et al. (2013) as:

* Universalism versus particularism: "relative emphasis on rules and consistency, or relationships and flexibility". * Individualism versus collectivism: "relative emphasis on individual freedom and responsibility, or group interests and consensus". * Neutral versus affective: "relative emphasis on objectivity and detachment, or emotion and expressed feelings". * Specific versus diffuse: "relative emphasis on focused and narrow involvement, or involvement with the whole person". * Achievement versus prescription: "relative emphasis on performance-based and earned status, or ascribed status". (p. 84)

There are a number of similarities and differences among the theories introduced by

Hofstede, GLOBE and Trompenaars. All three researchers examined thousands of individuals

across more than 40 countries. Trompenaars and GLOBE looked primarily at managers in more

than 50 countries (Magnusson et al., 2008, p. 186) while Hofstede focused specifically on

employees (followers) and failed to include a number of countries due to insufficient responses

(McSweeney, 2002). Many of the dimensions are similar across all three, specifically the

dimensions examining individualism versus collectivism and the concept of time. Trompenaars

bases his theory heavily on a previous sociologist, while GLOBE intentionally uses Hofstede’s

theory as a basis by expounded upon his dimensions (Brewer & Venaik, 2011). As noted by

Minkov and Hofstede (2011) and Tung and Verbeke (2010), numerous researchers cite theories


from GLOBE and Hofstede, as these models are more widely accepted and well studied as

compared to Trompenaars. For that reason a comparison and contrast of theories proposed on

culture will focus less on Trompenaars, and more on the dimensions developed by Hofstede and

GLOBE.

Hofstede and GLOBE share a number of dimensions in their theory. “For example, both

studies include the dimensions of UA, Power Distance and Long-term Orientation (Future

Orientation in GLOBE)” (Venaik & Brewer, 2010, p. 1296). “GLOBE adopted my dimensions

paradigm of national cultures. They expanded my five dimensions to nine. They maintained the

labels Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance, and renamed Long Term Orientation: Future

Orientation” (Hofstede, 2010, p. 1339). Brewer and Venaik (2011) include the use of

Collectivism by both theories as a similarity, although GLOBE breaks theirs down into two

dimensions. Brewer and Venaik (2011) continue to suggest the Collectivism dimension from

GLOBE and Hofstede are mislabeled for clarity and context validity:

To sum up, based on our examination of the content of the items used to measure the I-C dimensions in Hofstede and GLOBE, we conclude that there are major issues in the correspondence between the definition of the I-C dimensions, the items used to measure these dimensions, and the labels used to characterize the dimensions in these two studies. (p. 440)

There are a number of differences between these theories, including the timeframe of data

collection, the type of individuals studied, number of companies included and globalization of

information (Magnusson et al., 2008, p. 188; Shi & Wang, 2011, p. 95; Kirkman et al., 2006, p.

286). A quick observation highlights the undertaking by one individual (Hofstede) using

interview material from employees within one organization across a number of countries

compared to a team of researchers across the world examining managers from multiple

organizations (Shi & Wang, 2011, p. 95). “Unlike Hofstede’s original work, the more recent


frameworks have drawn on decades of additional research and incorporated additional theoretical

insights and methodological advancements “(Magnusson et al., 2008, p. 188). GLOBE was able

to test Hofstede’s theory and improve on the work already performed by overcoming limitations

to his research in their efforts. According to Shi and Wang (2011) the countries and regions

differ among the researchers, as GLOBE was able to extend their reach well beyond Hofstede.

It is also extremely difficult to directly compare the data between the two theories, as

they use different scales to measure countries across the dimensions. GLOBE uses a scale from

1-7, while Hofstede measures organizations from 1-100 (Shi & Wang, 2011, p. 95; Venaik &

Brewer, 2010, 1302). “Hofstede's Work-orientation is a measure of values, not practices”

(Brewer & Venaik, 2011, p. 440). The GLOBE scale also examines the dimensions twice, to

determine “As Is” and “Should Be” including values and practice (Shi & Wang, 2011, p. 95).

Venaik and Brewer (2010) mention “the GLOBE study measures two distinct aspects of national

culture - practices (what is) and values (what should be) - for each of the nine dimensions. Thus

there are 18 culture scores for each country in GLOBE” (p. 1296).

Another major difference between the theories is the relevance of GLOBE to modern

culture. GLOBE expanded the dimensions to nine by separating Hofstede’s Individualism-

Collectivism into Institutional and In-group collectivism, allowing for the ability to recognize

separate within country cultures (Magnusson et al., 2008, p. 186). In addition, GLOBE separates

Hofstede’s Masculinity-femininity dimension into Assertiveness and Gender equalitarianism

(Magnusson et al., 2008, p. 186). According to Hofstede (2010), GLOBE replaced his dimension

of Masculinity-femininity by four dimensions not two, including Performance Orientation and

Humane Orientation (p. 1339). Hofstede (2010) explains this rational as “they did not accept the

anthropological logic in my other two dimensions, and sought psychological face validity and


political correctness” (p. 1339).

There is a lack of consistency in the validity of both theories, leading to confusion among

researchers on the best model to use. “Besides the problem of conflicting findings, researchers

seem to arbitrarily choose one or the other national culture scores to explain their dependent

variable” (Brewer & Venaik, 2011, p. 437). This is a concern, as the differences in the theories

impacts the views researches have on culture and the underlying values that result in individual

behaviors. “The arbitrary use of one or the other national culture score without adequate

justification is likely to undermine our understanding of culture and how it affects behavior

(Brewer & Venaik, 2011, p. 437).

The research performed by Hofstede, GLOBE and Trompenaars is of significant

importance, as technological advances have brought about increasing globalization, impacting

organizations on a number of levels. Understanding culture and how to connect with others has

become vitally important to business interested in marketing beyond their originating country.

“Second, differing results between this study and those mentioned previously suggest that

different measures of culture may be better at explaining particular international marketing

phenomena depending upon the country of interest” (Magnusson et al., 2008, p. 196). Culture

also affects leadership styles, which impacts multinational corporations, as employees and

managers from different locations are working together to meet a organizational goals. “Through

recognizing the role played by culture in organizations we would be better able to understand the

behaviours across the globe” (Qamar et al., 2013, p. 85).

Understanding the impact culture plays on the values, behaviors, attitudes and action of

employees can help improve management relationships within an organization. All too often

individuals fail to take into account the experiences and perceptions of others. Qamar et al.


(2013) identifies the importance of cultural awareness by arguing:

One problem is that of ethnocentrism, which is a tendency when a person gets involved in a cross-cultural communication, then he/she believes that his ethnicity is superior to the others. With this feeling the chances of miscommunication get enhanced by the unwillingness to understand other's point of view. (p. 86)

Through efforts to broaden our awareness of culture and recognizing its importance, we can

improve our ability to interact with others. Morden (1995) views this as an important aspect of

the cultural theories, as “cultural interpretation and adaptation are a prerequisite to the

comparative understanding of national and international management practice” (p. 16).

Incorporating cultural theories into research on the effectiveness of transitioning service

members is critical, as the military presents a unique cultural setting different from a national

culture and corporate business environment. “The framework highlights the importance of HR

practices as a mediator between national culture and employees' careers” (Kats et al. 2010, p.

401). Service members often have an ethnocentric view of career development, primarily due to

lack of experience. “That is, organizations usually have strong norms about how employees

should be managed that will be shaped by cultural influences – and essentially culture is the

process of transmitting these values and norms” (Kats et al., p. 405). The military culture

establishes a set of values and norms driving the behavior and actions of service members that do

not translate into a civilian corporate environment.

Kats et al. (2010) explains how Hofstede’s theory of culture can be applicable towards

career expectations by looking at one dimension:

To take masculinity-femininity as an example, women in highly masculine cultures are likely to encounter greater discrimination (due to the lower emphasis on gender inequality) and thus to achieve lower levels extrinsic career success. These women are likely to enter the labor market with lower expectations of career success, and so their level of intrinsic career success (operationalized through career satisfaction) may not be much lower than that of women in more feminine cultures (p. 406).


Kats et al. (2010) also continues to address how individualistic attitudes can impact career

progress, as promotions are often a result of changing jobs (p. 409). Clarke (2007) identified the

need for career development in the current generation to be fluid and flexible because employees

may need to change companies in order to be employable and continue their career path. This

type of environment is different from that of the military, which is more collectivist as a culture.

Service members transitioning from the military find themselves struggling to adapt to the

cultural differences of a corporate atmosphere where values are different. They are often

unwilling to ask for assistance, due to the independent nature of the national culture (Kats et al.,

2010, p. 409).

The hierarchal nature of the military presents a challenge for transitioning service

members, as it presents a high power distance culture. “Thus, for instance, within low power

distance cultures, we expect that HR practices are more aimed at promoting empowerment and

as a consequence employees will more easily be able to achieve extrinsic career success” (Kats

et al., 2010, p. 407). The military environment fails to encourage individual career development,

as jobs are often selected for the individual with little input and promotions are primarily time

dependent, not based on merit.

Military service is steeped in hundreds of years of history and traditions, lending to a past

oriented culture. “Firstly there are past oriented cultures, for them past events and history is of

high importance. These cultures view the present by relating it to the past customs, principles

and texts. These types of societies resist change” (Qamar et al., 2013, p. 87). Not all corporations

embrace these values, making the transition difficult for service members who are unfamiliar or

uncomfortable with a flexible and forward oriented culture.


One of the strengths the military provides service members are leadership styles

considered to be universally favorable. All military branches focus on traits considered by

GLOBE to be highly valued in all cultures, including integrity, communication (as a team

builder) and motivation (Deresky, 2008, p. 417). These positive traits are often overshadowed by

misconceptions of negative leadership stereotypes, by assuming all service members believe and

employ an autocratic leadership style (Deresky, 2008, p. 417). Awareness of these positive and

globally accepted leadership skills is essential for service members to have during the career

search process. Service members must also examine and understand the values they hold. For

many it is the first time they have had a choice in working for an organization that shares the

same beliefs, and often they are unable to identify the values they identify with the most.

Being aware of the influence culture plays on the experiences and expectations of service

members will provide researchers with an understanding of the challenges service members face

during career transition. It also presents a foundation for building a theoretical framework of best

practices during the transition process. The implications of the cultural differences between a

military environment and corporate organizations emphasize the need for transition programs to

include opportunities to increase cultural awareness, such as corporate mentorship and

informational interviewing. These elements will help establish cultural expectations for service

members in a non-military environment.


References

Brewer, P., & Venaik, S. (2011). Individualism-collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE. Journal of

International Business Studies, 42(3), 436-445. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.62

Clarke, M. (2007). Where to from here? Evaluating employability during career transition.

Journal of Management and Organization, 13(3), 196-211. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/233254863?accountid=34899

Deresky, H. (2008) International Management: Managing Across Borders and Cultures Text

and Cases. Sixth ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hofstede, G. (2010). The GLOBE debate: Back to relevance. Journal of International Business

Studies, 41(8), 1339-1346. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.31

Javidan, M., House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & Sully, d. L. (2006). Conceptualizing

and measuring cultures and their consequences: A comparative review of GLOBE's and

Hofstede's approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 897-914.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400234

Kats, M. M., van Emmerick, I. J., Blenkinsopp, J., & Khapova, S. N. (2010). Exploring the

associations of culture with careers and the mediating role of HR practices. Career

Development International, 15(4), 401-418.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13620431011066268

Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of culture's

consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values

framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 285-320.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400202

Lloyd, B., & Trompenaars, F. (1993). Culture and change: Conflict or consensus? Leadership &



Organization Development Journal, 14(6), 17. Retrieved from


Magnusson, P., Wilson, R. T., Zdravkovic, S., Joyce, X. Z., & Westjohn, S. A. (2008). Breaking

through the cultural clutter. International Marketing Review, 25(2), 183-201.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651330810866272

McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their

consequences: A triumph of faith - a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89-118.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/231516132?accountid=34899

Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2011). The evolution of Hofstede's doctrine. Cross Cultural

Management, 18(1), 10-20. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527601111104269

Morden, T. (1995). International culture and management. Management Decision, 33(2), 16.


Parboteeah, K. P., Bronson, J. W., & Cullen, J. B. (2005). Does national culture affect

willingness to justify ethically suspect behaviors? A focus on the GLOBE national

culture scheme. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management : CCM, 5(2), 123-

138. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/221216486?accountid=34899

Qamar, A., Muneer, S., Jusoh, A., & Idris, H. (2013). The relationship between organizational

conduct and national culture. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 5(2), 82-88.


Shi, X., & Wang, J. (2011). Interpreting Hofstede model and GLOBE model: Which way to go

for cross-cultural research? International Journal of Business and Management, 6(5), 93-

99. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/867071537?accountid=34899

Tung, R. L., & Verbeke, A. (2010). Beyond Hofstede and GLOBE: Improving the quality of








cross-cultural research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8), 1259-1274.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.41

Venaik, S., & Brewer, P. (2010). Avoiding uncertainty in Hofstede and GLOBE. Journal of

International Business Studies, 41(8), 1294-1315.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.96