the dimensions of culture hofstede and the hermes project
TRANSCRIPT
Geert HofstedeHofstede is a native of the Netherlands and acquired his doctorate in the field of social psychology. Beginning in 1966, he undertook a massive research project involving a major multinational corporation identified only by the pseudonym HERMES. In the course of this project some 116,000 questionnaires were completed by HERMES employees at all levels (unskilled workers to top managers) located in 50 developed and less developed nations. The questionnaires were administered in the language of each country. A total of 20 languages were employed. The principal difference among the respondents was culture; all of them were otherwise similar because they were carefully matched for other characteristics such as age, sex, and job category, and all worked for the same corporation.
Power Distance
This dimension indicates the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally among individuals.
Power Distance
LARGE SMALLHigh dependence needs Low dependence needs
Inequality accepted Inequality minimized
Hierarchy needed Hierarchy for convenience
Superiors often inaccessible
Superiors accessible
Power-holders have privileges
All have equal rights
Change by revolution Change by evolution
Uncertainty Avoidance
This dimension indicates the extent to which a society feels threatened by ambiguous situations and tries to avoid them by providing rules, believing in absolute truths, and refusing to tolerate deviance.
Uncertainty Avoidance
STRONG WEAKAnxiety, high stress Relaxed, lower stress
Inner urge to work hard Hard work not a virtue per se
Showing emotions accepted
Emotions not shown
Conflict is threatening Conflict & competition seen as fair play
Need for consensus Acceptance of dissent
Need to avoid failure Willingness to take risks
Need for laws and rules There should be few rules
Individualism vs Collectivism
This dimension indicates the extent to which a society is a loosely knit social framework in which people are supposed to take care of themselves and their immediate families, instead of a tight social framework in which people distinguish between in-groups and out-groups and expect their in-group to look after them.
Individualism vs Collectivism
INDIVIDUALISM COLLECTIVISM
“I” conscious “We” conscious
Private options Relationships over tasks
Fulfill obligations to self
Fulfill obligations to group
Loss of self-respect, guilt
Loss of “face”, shame
Masculinity vs Femininity
This dimension indicates the extent to which the dominant values in society tend toward assertiveness and the acquisition of things, and away from concern for people and the quality of life.
Masculinity vs Femininity
MASCULINITY FEMININITYAmbitious and a need to excel
Quality of life serving others
Tendency to polarize Striving for consensus
Live in order to work Work in order to live
Big and fast are beautiful Small and slow are beautiful
Admiration for the achiever Sympathy for the unfortunate
Decisiveness Intuition
Confucian Dynamism
This dimension indicates the extent to which a society exhibits a pragmatic future-oriented perspective rather than a conventional historic or short term point of view.
Confucian Dynamism
LOW HIGHAbsolute truth Many truths (time,
context)
Conventional/Traditional
Pragmatic
Short term orientation Long term orientation
Concern for stability Acceptance of change
Quick results expected Perseverance
Spending for today Thrift for investment
Proposition 1:
Process- and person-embodied technologies are more difficult than product-embodied technologies to transfer and diffuse across nations because cultural differences at the organizational, as well as societal, level play greater roles in such transfers.
Proposition 2:
Transfer of technology is easiest between two organizations that are similar in terms of their societal/national culture-based tendencies to either avoid or embrace uncertainty generated in their organizational contexts to such transfers.
Proposition 3:
Technologies that might introduce significant changes in the distributions of power, status (real and symbolic), and rewards in the recipient organization of the developing country that emphasizes power distance are least likely to be effectively transferred.
Proposition 4:
a) Organizations located in individualistic cultures are more successful than organizations located in collectivistic cultures in their propensity to absorb and diffuse imported technology.
b) However, collectivistic cultures that are fairly masculine also are effective in such matters.
Proposition 5:
Masculine cultures are more effective than feminine cultures in absorbing and diffusing imported technology in organizational contexts.
Associative vs Abstractive CulturesASSOCIATIVE People utilize
associations among events that may not have much logical basis.
Communication is characterized by face-to-face contact, and it takes place among individuals who share a large body of information based on both historical and contextual modes.
Context is very important.
ABSTRACTIVE Cause-effect
relationships or rational Judeo-Christian types of thinking are dominant.
A vast amount of communication tends to be conveyed through mass media and related technological mechanisms.
Proposition 6:
Abstractive cultures are more effective than associative cultures in their ability to absorb and diffuse imported technology.
Negotiated Order1) The number of negotiators, their
experience, and whom they represent.2) The sequence and frequency of
negotiations.3) The relative balance of power among the
concerned parties.4) The stakes and visibility of the outcome of
the negotiations.5) The complexity of the issues.6) The alternatives to avoiding or
discontinuing negotiations.
Proposition 7:
Differences in the negotiated orders of the cultures of the organizations involved in the transfer and diffusion of technology across nations adversely affects the effectiveness of such transfers.
Absorptive Capacity
1) Local versus cosmopolitan orientation.
2) The existence of a sophisticated technical core in the recipient organization.
3) The differences in strategic management between the transacting organizations.