Choose one location in which your organization operates and relate the region to the four dimensions of culture proposed by Hofstede. Hint: Refer to the response you entered for Online Class 3 earlier in the semester. Now, apply this understanding to your case research.
My response is BELOW READ IT BEFORE YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION 🙂
Need assignment help for this question?
If you need assistance with writing your essay, we are ready to help you!
Why Choose Us: Cost-efficiency, Plagiarism free, Money Back Guarantee, On-time Delivery, Total Сonfidentiality, 24/7 Support, 100% originality
Describe the four dimensions of culture proposed by Hofstede. What are the managerial implications of these dimensions? Compare Hofstede’s findings with those of Trompenaars and the GLOBE project team.
The Hofstede model discussed that there are varied cultural perceptions and dimensions in varied nations globally. In this regard, the model discussed four key dimensions, namely the power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and individualism respectively. On one hand, a power distance dimension discusses the extent to which the fewer powerful families and individuals in the society accept that power is unevenly distributed and how they expect a power distribution change. On the other hand, the uncertainty avoidance dimension illustrates the extent and nature to which the society and culture base accepts to take risks in the market.
As such, the process involves the various levels of undertaking risky projects with uncertain and unpredictable results. Moreover, the masculinity dimension discusses on how a society has specific rules designed and distributed among the male and female genders. In this case, where its evaluation ranges from societies and cultures with clear roles between the genders to those with no specific roles and duties for any of the genders. Finally, the individualism culture dimension illustrates the extent to which societies and cultures wish to work together in groups or individually as single unit members. In this regard, the dimension scale ranges from societies with a high individualism perception, where members function separately, in a low individualistic culture where embers liaise and work together as teams.
As Piepenburg (2011), stated, the Hofstede model stated that the various dimensions have direct effects and implications of organizational management systems. In this regard, the culture dimension ratings and ranking for different societies and labour force in organizations. On one hand, the power distance dimension influence the organizational management structures adopted. In this regard, for a low power dimension culture where power is perceived as equally distributed organizations apply the bureaucratic management structure, while for a high power dimension culture organizational management apply the flat organizational management structures. Moreover, the individualistic dimension influences the use of management teams where teams are easy to manage on the low individualistic cultures. As such, while such team management is imperatively hard and focus on individual employee performances in the high individualistic cultures. In addition, the masculinity, culture dimension influences the perception and use of cross-gender management teams in that, where there is a high perception of the masculinity, culture, and organizations have to organize their manager into the perceived gender roles. Further, the uncertainty avoidance cultural dimension has any implications on organization ability to invest and manage their respective investments in risky projects, where low uncertainty avoidance cultures have a higher propensity for investing in high risk high profit projects, while the high-risk avoidance cultures have a tendency to invest in low-risk stable return projects, thus directly affecting business venture investment portfolio trends.
Culture Models Comparisons
An evaluation of the Trompenaars cultural model that discusses seven cultural dimensions as key national culture differentiating aspects illustrates that the model focuses on the cultural implications on management. On the contrary, the Hofstede model focuses on a cultural evaluation both from the social perspective, thus making their perception diversity. In addition, as Rothlauf (2012) stated, an evaluation of the global team project model as compared to the Hofstede model illustrates the team focuses on cross-cultural relationships on both the managerial organizational and social perspectives, making it reliable and widely applicable.
Piepenburg, K. (2011). Critical analysis of Hofstede’s model of cultural dimensions: To what extent are his findings reliable, valid and applicable to organizations in the 21st century?. München: GRIN Verlag GmbH.
Rothlauf, J. (2012). Interkulturelles Management: Mit Beispielen aus Vietnam, China, Japan, Russland und den Golfstaaten. München: Oldenbourg, R.