Question

1000 words - Theories and literature review for cross cultural management - *INCLUDE*Geert Hofstede - Trompenaars - Young yun kim and Richard Lewis - Cultural management theories - please include references

Answer 1

Geert Hofstede created a new paradigm for the study of management of cultural differences in 1970. Trompenaars framework looks at cross-cultural management application for businesses and uses seven dimensions as opposed to Hofstede's five. Lewis developed discourse models to explain how cultures think and communicate, especially in a business setting.

Hofstede's theory propounds the following :

Power distance : defines the equal or unequal power distribution in organisations as perceived from the lower strata (followers rather than leaders) and is clearly established and accepted in society. Higher distance can imply greater hierarchical relationships within organisations. Individualism : explores the degree to which people integrate into groups or identify as individuals. Collectivism is when people identify with a team or group (we) rather than as an individual (I). Higher individualism implies looser ties in the society than higher collectivism. Masculinity : looks at motivations of a society, whether they be masculine i.e. preference for heroism, achievement, rewards, versus feminine i.e. preference for cooperation, family, quality of life. In more masculine societies, people tend to be more competitive and aggressive. Uncertainty avoidance : is the tolerance for ambiguity in a society where they can either embrace or reject the unexpected. A low uncertainty avoidance can indicate a greater acceptance of different and divergent thought, ideas and practices. Long-term orientation : looks at how societies connect the past to the present or future, whether they are hold tr or whether they are short-term oriented and more adaptable.

(Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005)

Indulgence : this new Hofstede dimension looks at the degree of freedom that a society grants with regards to personal needs and desires and was added in the third edition of 'Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind' (Hofstede et al, 2010) which included Minkov as an author referencing his 'indulgence vs restraint' variable of national cultural dimension (Minkov, 2009).

(Minkov, Hofstede, 2011)

Trompenaars looks at categorising leadership in societies and nations as task or relationship oriented using dimensions such as  Universalism vs particularism wherein some countries have been observed to have a higher degree of similar practices or universalism where practices can be applied without modification. Highly particular societies place more emphasis on relationships believing that circumstances should dictate how ideas and practices should be applied. While Trompenaars' framework seeks to classify nations in these dimensions, it does not indicate if the classification is identical in all aspects. e.g. if one relationship-oriented style can be deployed in multiple countries that are relationship-oriented nations. This typology then does not help to identify the root-level practicalities of implementation.

(Trompenaars, Hampden‐Turner, 1998)

Hofstede's dimensional components and their variables have also been questioned by as to whether they suitably address the dimension they are assigned to. Keough et al. observed that their interpretations of what constitutes long-term orientation for example, does not run congruent with the Hofstede view (Keough et al, 1999).

Trompenaars also attempted to classify nations using their time orientation, as either having a short-term or long-term horizon view. This view is however not the same as Hofstede's, even going so far as to completely contradict Hofstede's findings.

(Trompenaars, Hampden‐Turner, 1998)

The sometimes contradictory conclusions of all theorists leads one to conclude that national cultures may be too complex to be explained in terms of unilinear dimensions.

Kim defines the concept of cultural shock as a constant and cyclical process resulting from cultural factors being programmed into our minds from an early age and determining our ways of thinking. It emphasises the existence of assumptions, stress, adaptation and growth dynamics which can bring about a transformation towards increased understanding and adoption in a new milieu. Extra-personal and social communication are theorised as being key to successful adaptation. (Kim, 1998)

Lewis model looks at understanding cultural differences using a three part methodology. His model looks at three distinct sets of characteristics - linear-active, multi-active, and reactive groups that can be used to classify nations.

References :

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. (2005) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 2nd ed. McGraw‐Hill.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., Minkov, M. (2010) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd ed.. McGraw‐Hill.

Jacob, N. (2005) Cross‐cultural investigations: emerging concepts. Journal of Organizational Change Management 18(5)

Keough, K.A., Zibardo, P.G., Boyd, J.N. (1999), Who's smoking, drinking, and using drugs? Time perspective as a predictor of substance use. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21(2)

Kim, Y. Y. (1988). Intercommunication series, 2.Communication and cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative theory. Multilingual Matters.

Minkov, M. (2009), Predictors of differences in subjective well‐being across 97 nations.  Cross‐cultural Research, 43(2)

Minkov, M., Hofstede, G. (2011) The evolution of Hofstede's doctrine. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(1)