Psychology Wiki
Register
No edit summary
m (fixing dead links)
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
   
 
[[Image:Geert Hofstede.JPG|thumb|right|200px|Geert Hofstede]]
 
[[Image:Geert Hofstede.JPG|thumb|right|200px|Geert Hofstede]]
'''Geert Hofstede''' is an influential Dutch expert on the interactions between [[national culture]]s and [[organizational culture]]s, and is an author of several books including ''Culture's Consequences'' (2nd, fully revised edition, 2001) and ''Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind'' (2nd, revised edition 2005, with Gert Jan Hofstede).
+
'''Geert Hofstede''' is an influential Dutch expert on the interactions between [[national culture]]s and [[organizational culture]]s, and is an author of several books including ''Culture's Consequences'' (2nd, fully revised edition, 2001) and ''Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind'' (2nd, revised edition 2005, with Gert Jan Hofstede).
   
 
Hofstede demonstrated that there are national and regional cultural groupings that affect the behaviour of organisations, and that are very persistent across time.
 
Hofstede demonstrated that there are national and regional cultural groupings that affect the behaviour of organisations, and that are very persistent across time.
   
  +
==Hofstede's Framework for Assessing Culture==
He has identified five dimensions of [[culture]] in his study of national influences:
 
  +
Hofstede has found five dimensions of [[culture]] in his study of national work related values. Replication studies have yielded very similar results, pointing to stability of the dimensions across time. They are:
* Power distance - The degree to which the ''less powerful'' members of society expect there to be differences in the levels of power. A high score suggests that there is an expectation that some individuals wield larger amounts of power than others. Countries with high power distance rating are often characterised by a high rate of political violence. A low score reflects the view that all people should have equal rights. Latin American and Arab nations are ranked the highest in this category; Scandinavian and Germanic speaking countries the least.
 
* [[Collectivist and Individualist cultures|individualism vs. collectivism]] - [[individualism]] is contrasted with [[collectivism]], and refers to the extent to which people are expected to stand up for themselves, or alternatively act predominantly as a member of the group or organisation. Latin American cultures rank the lowest in this category, while U.S.A. is the most individualistic culture.
 
* [[masculinity vs femininity]] - refers to the value placed on traditionally male or female values. Masculine cultures value competitiveness, assertiveness, ambition, and the accumulation of wealth and material possessions, whereas feminine cultures place more value on relationships and quality of life. [[Japan]] is considered by Hofstede to be the most "masculine" culture, [[Sweden]] the most "feminine." The U.S. and U.K. are moderately masculine.
 
* [[uncertainty avoidance]] - reflects the extent to which a society attempts to cope with anxiety by minimizing uncertainty. Cultures that scored high in uncertainty avoidance prefer rules (e.g. about religion and food) and structured circumstances, and employees tend to remain longer with their present employer. Mediterranean cultures and Japan rank the highest in this category. (see below)
 
* [[long vs short term orientation]] - describes a society's "time horizon," or the importance attached to the future versus the past and present. In long term oriented societies, thrift and perseverence are valued more; in short term oriented societies, respect for tradition and reciprocation of gifts and favors are valued more. Eastern nations tend to score especially high here, with Western nations scoring low and the less developed nations very low; China scored highest and Pakistan lowest.
 
   
==Power distance==
+
* ''Small vs. large power distance''
  +
{{Main|Power distance}}
Power distance measures the degree to which less powerful members of a [[culture]] accept the unequal distribution of power.
 
  +
-This measures how much the less powerful members of institutions and organizations expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. In cultures with small power distance (e.g. [[Ireland]], [[Austria]], [[Australia]], [[Denmark]], [[New Zealand]]), people expect and accept power relations that are more consultative or democratic. People relate to one another more as equals regardless of formal positions. Subordinates are more comfortable with and demand the right to contribute to and critique the decisions of those in power. In cultures with large power distance (e.g. [[Malaysia]]), the less powerful accept power relations that are autocratic or paternalistic. Subordinates acknowledge the power of others based on their formal, hierarchical positions. Thus, ''Small vs. Large Power Distance'' does not measure or attempt to measure a culture's objective, "real" power distribution, but rather the way people perceive power differences.
   
  +
* ''Individualism vs. collectivism'' - This dimension measures how much members of the culture define themselves apart from their group memberships. In [[individualism|individualist]] cultures, people are expected to develop and display their individual personalities and to choose their own affiliations. In [[collectivism|collectivist]] cultures, people are defined and act mostly as a member of a long-term group, such as the family, a religious group, an age cohort, a town, or a profession, among others. This dimension was found to move towards the individualist end of the spectrum with increasing national wealth.
The Arabic-speaking nations, Latin America, Russia, and nearly all of Asia (especially India and China) are high in power distance. Most of Europe, Canada, Australia and Israel are low in power distance. Japan and Mediterranean-Europe fall in the middle range.
 
   
  +
* ''Masculinity vs. femininity'' - This dimension measures the value placed on traditionally male or female values (as understood in most Western cultures). In so-called 'masculine' cultures, people (whether male or female) value [[competitiveness]], [[assertiveness]], [[ambition]], and the accumulation of [[wealth]] and material possessions. In so-called 'feminine' cultures, people ( whether male or female)value [[Interpersonal relationship|relationships]] and [[quality of life]]. This dimension is often renamed by users of Hofstede's work, e.g. to ''Quantity of Life vs. Quality of Life''. Another reading of the same dimension holds that in 'M' cultures, the differences between gender roles are more dramatic and less fluid than in 'F' cultures; but this strongly depends on other dimensions as well.
In a high power distance culture:
 
* it's acceptable for a supervisor to display his authority
 
* superiors rarely give their subordinates important work
 
* if something goes wrong, the subordinates are usually blamed for not doing their proper job/role
 
* managers rarely interact or socialize with workers
 
* teachers are treated respectfully
 
* local politics are prone to totalitarianism
 
* class distinctions are emphasized
 
* parents are more highly respected and corporal punishment is more common
 
   
 
* ''Weak vs. strong uncertainty avoidance'' - This dimension measures how much members of a society are anxious about the unknown, and as a consequence, attempt to cope with anxiety by minimizing uncertainty. In cultures with strong uncertainty avoidance, people prefer explicit rules (e.g. about religion and food) and formally structured activities, and employees tend to remain longer with their present employer. In cultures with weak uncertainty avoidance, people prefer implicit or flexible rules or guidelines and informal activities. Employees tend to change employers more frequently.
   
  +
Michael Harris Bond and his collaborators subsequently found a fifth dimension which was initially called Confucian dynamism. Hofstede later incorporated this into his framework as:
In a low power distance culture:
 
  +
* supervisors are expected to treat employees respectfully
 
 
* ''Long vs. short term orientation'' - This dimension describes a society's "time horizon," or the importance attached to the future versus the past and present. In long term oriented societies, people value actions and attitudes that affect the future: persistence/perseverance, thrift, and shame. In short term oriented societies, people value actions and attitudes that are affected by the past or the present: normative statements, immediate stability, protecting one's own face, respect for tradition, and [[reciprocation]] of greetings, favors, and gifts.
* subordinates may do important work, thus having the opportunity to get promoted quickly
 
  +
* if something goes wrong, the superior/authority figure is usually blamed for having unrealistic expectations or being too strict
 
  +
These cultural differences describe averages or tendencies and not characteristics of individuals. A Japanese person for example can have a very low 'uncertainty avoidance' compared to a Filipino person even though their 'national' cultures point strongly in a different direction. Consequently, a country's scores should not be interpreted as deterministic.
* managers socialize and interact with workers more often
 
  +
* teachers are simply employees and parents are merely people
 
  +
==Criticism==
  +
Hofstede's conceptualization of culture as static and [[Essentialism|essential]] has attracted some criticism. In a recent article in the [[Academy of Management]]'s flagship journal, ''The Academy of Management Review'', Galit Ailon deconstructs Hofstede's book ''Culture's Consequences'' by mirroring it against its own assumptions and logic<ref>[http://aom.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,5,14;journal,2,9;linkingpublicationresults,1:109447,1 Ailon, G. (2008). Mirror, mirror on the wall: Culture's Consequences in a value test of its own design. ''The Academy of Management Review,'' 33(4):885-904]</ref>. Ailon finds several inconsistencies at the level of both theory and methodology and cautions against an uncritical reading of Hofstede's cultural dimensions.
  +
  +
Hofstede's work has also been criticized by researchers who think that he identifies cultures with nations based on the supposition that within each nation there is a uniform national culture, a suggestion explicitly denied by Hofstede himself in chapter 1 of 'Cultures and Organizations'. In modern times, with ever-increasing international mobility, the growing acceptance of, for example, grounded theory and inductive approaches, Hofstede's ideas are seen as essentialist and reductionist by some. Furthermore, the quote at the top of his homepage, 'Culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy. Cultural differences are a nuisance at best and often a disaster', is seen by some as 'illustrating the blinkered views he holds about the benefits of intercultural flows, and the obvious point that cultural phenomena have been swapped, adopted, adapted, imposed, for millennia and are arguably part or a macro-evolutionary process'. One wonders why, since this point is explicitly made by Hofstede all through his books. according to Hofstede, the point about culture is precisely its resilience to change in spite of all this flux. <ref>{{cite journal
  +
| last = McSweeney
  +
| first = Brendan
  +
| title = Hofstede's Model Of National Cultural Differences And Their Consequences: A Triumph Of Faith - A Failure Of Analysis
  +
| journal = Human Relations
  +
| volume = 55
  +
| issue = 1
  +
| pages = 89–118
  +
| date = January 2002
  +
| url = http://www.it.murdoch.edu.au/~sudweeks/b329/readings/mcsweeney.doc |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20031016135525/http://www.it.murdoch.edu.au/~sudweeks/b329/readings/mcsweeney.doc|archivedate=2003-10-16}}</ref>
   
 
==Uncertainty avoidance==
 
==Uncertainty avoidance==
Line 56: Line 59:
 
* Low tolerance for innovation, prefer to stick to traditional routines.
 
* Low tolerance for innovation, prefer to stick to traditional routines.
 
* Citizens are often critical of their own nation.
 
* Citizens are often critical of their own nation.
* People tend to be more superstitious.
+
* People tend to be more superstitious.
 
* Smoking is more common. {{Citation needed}}
 
* Smoking is more common. {{Citation needed}}
 
* Higher maximum speed limits and a higher rate of motor vehicle accidents.{{Citation needed}}
 
* Higher maximum speed limits and a higher rate of motor vehicle accidents.{{Citation needed}}
Line 67: Line 70:
 
*[[cross-cultural communication]]
 
*[[cross-cultural communication]]
 
*[[culture shock]]
 
*[[culture shock]]
  +
*[[Emotions and Culture]]
  +
*[[National character studies]]
  +
*[[Fons Trompenaars]]
  +
*[[Edward T. Hall]]
   
 
Other cultural indexes:
 
Other cultural indexes:
Line 76: Line 83:
 
*[[Face (social custom)]]
 
*[[Face (social custom)]]
 
*[[Intercultural competence]]
 
*[[Intercultural competence]]
  +
  +
==Publications==
  +
  +
===Articles===
  +
*{{cite journal |last=Hofstede |first=Geert |year=1978 |month=July |day= |title=The Poverty of Management Control Philosophy |journal=The Academy of Management Review |volume=3 |issue=3 |pages=450–461 |doi=10.2307/257536}}
  +
  +
  +
  +
   
 
== External links ==
 
== External links ==
   
* His homepage: http://www.geerthofstede.nl
+
* His homepage: http://www.geerthofstede.nl
 
* A training institute based on his work and actively supported by him http://www.itim.org
 
* A training institute based on his work and actively supported by him http://www.itim.org
 
* His C.V.: http://www.itim.org/cv_geert.html
 
* His C.V.: http://www.itim.org/cv_geert.html
* Information on cultural dimensions: http://stephan.dahl.at/intercultural/Hofstede_dimensions.html
+
* Information on cultural dimensions: http://stephan.dahl.at/intercultural/Hofstede_dimensions.html
* [http://www.clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensions/ Hofstede's cultural dimensions] World maps of Geert Hofstede's 5 cultural dimensions
+
* [http://www.clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensions/ Hofstede's cultural dimensions] World maps of Geert Hofstede's 5 cultural dimensions
* http://www.it.murdoch.edu.au/~sudweeks/b329/readings/mcsweeney.doc (essay criticizing the supposed finding of cultural dimensions)
+
* http://web.archive.org/web/20031016135525/http://www.it.murdoch.edu.au/~sudweeks/b329/readings/mcsweeney.doc (essay criticizing the supposed finding of cultural dimensions)
 
* International Business Cultures: http://www.via-web.de
 
* International Business Cultures: http://www.via-web.de
   
[[Category:Social psychology]]
 
[[Category:Social philosophy]]
 
[[Category:Political philosophy]]
 
[[Category:Dutch sociologists|Hofstede, Geert]]
 
   
   
Line 102: Line 114:
 
[[sk:Geert Hofstede]]
 
[[sk:Geert Hofstede]]
 
{{enWP|Geert Hofstede}}
 
{{enWP|Geert Hofstede}}
 
[[Category:Social psychology]]
 
[[Category:Social philosophy]]
 
[[Category:Political philosophy]]
 
[[Category:Dutch sociologists|Hofstede, Geert]]

Latest revision as of 19:37, 29 August 2014

Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative | Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Individual differences | Personality | Philosophy | Social |
Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology |

Professional Psychology: Debating Chamber · Psychology Journals · Psychologists


Geert Hofstede

Geert Hofstede

Geert Hofstede is an influential Dutch expert on the interactions between national cultures and organizational cultures, and is an author of several books including Culture's Consequences (2nd, fully revised edition, 2001) and Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind (2nd, revised edition 2005, with Gert Jan Hofstede).

Hofstede demonstrated that there are national and regional cultural groupings that affect the behaviour of organisations, and that are very persistent across time.

Hofstede's Framework for Assessing Culture

Hofstede has found five dimensions of culture in his study of national work related values. Replication studies have yielded very similar results, pointing to stability of the dimensions across time. They are:

  • Small vs. large power distance
Main article: Power distance

-This measures how much the less powerful members of institutions and organizations expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. In cultures with small power distance (e.g. Ireland, Austria, Australia, Denmark, New Zealand), people expect and accept power relations that are more consultative or democratic. People relate to one another more as equals regardless of formal positions. Subordinates are more comfortable with and demand the right to contribute to and critique the decisions of those in power. In cultures with large power distance (e.g. Malaysia), the less powerful accept power relations that are autocratic or paternalistic. Subordinates acknowledge the power of others based on their formal, hierarchical positions. Thus, Small vs. Large Power Distance does not measure or attempt to measure a culture's objective, "real" power distribution, but rather the way people perceive power differences.

  • Individualism vs. collectivism - This dimension measures how much members of the culture define themselves apart from their group memberships. In individualist cultures, people are expected to develop and display their individual personalities and to choose their own affiliations. In collectivist cultures, people are defined and act mostly as a member of a long-term group, such as the family, a religious group, an age cohort, a town, or a profession, among others. This dimension was found to move towards the individualist end of the spectrum with increasing national wealth.
  • Masculinity vs. femininity - This dimension measures the value placed on traditionally male or female values (as understood in most Western cultures). In so-called 'masculine' cultures, people (whether male or female) value competitiveness, assertiveness, ambition, and the accumulation of wealth and material possessions. In so-called 'feminine' cultures, people ( whether male or female)value relationships and quality of life. This dimension is often renamed by users of Hofstede's work, e.g. to Quantity of Life vs. Quality of Life. Another reading of the same dimension holds that in 'M' cultures, the differences between gender roles are more dramatic and less fluid than in 'F' cultures; but this strongly depends on other dimensions as well.
  • Weak vs. strong uncertainty avoidance - This dimension measures how much members of a society are anxious about the unknown, and as a consequence, attempt to cope with anxiety by minimizing uncertainty. In cultures with strong uncertainty avoidance, people prefer explicit rules (e.g. about religion and food) and formally structured activities, and employees tend to remain longer with their present employer. In cultures with weak uncertainty avoidance, people prefer implicit or flexible rules or guidelines and informal activities. Employees tend to change employers more frequently.

Michael Harris Bond and his collaborators subsequently found a fifth dimension which was initially called Confucian dynamism. Hofstede later incorporated this into his framework as:

  • Long vs. short term orientation - This dimension describes a society's "time horizon," or the importance attached to the future versus the past and present. In long term oriented societies, people value actions and attitudes that affect the future: persistence/perseverance, thrift, and shame. In short term oriented societies, people value actions and attitudes that are affected by the past or the present: normative statements, immediate stability, protecting one's own face, respect for tradition, and reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts.

These cultural differences describe averages or tendencies and not characteristics of individuals. A Japanese person for example can have a very low 'uncertainty avoidance' compared to a Filipino person even though their 'national' cultures point strongly in a different direction. Consequently, a country's scores should not be interpreted as deterministic.

Criticism

Hofstede's conceptualization of culture as static and essential has attracted some criticism. In a recent article in the Academy of Management's flagship journal, The Academy of Management Review, Galit Ailon deconstructs Hofstede's book Culture's Consequences by mirroring it against its own assumptions and logic[1]. Ailon finds several inconsistencies at the level of both theory and methodology and cautions against an uncritical reading of Hofstede's cultural dimensions.

Hofstede's work has also been criticized by researchers who think that he identifies cultures with nations based on the supposition that within each nation there is a uniform national culture, a suggestion explicitly denied by Hofstede himself in chapter 1 of 'Cultures and Organizations'. In modern times, with ever-increasing international mobility, the growing acceptance of, for example, grounded theory and inductive approaches, Hofstede's ideas are seen as essentialist and reductionist by some. Furthermore, the quote at the top of his homepage, 'Culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy. Cultural differences are a nuisance at best and often a disaster', is seen by some as 'illustrating the blinkered views he holds about the benefits of intercultural flows, and the obvious point that cultural phenomena have been swapped, adopted, adapted, imposed, for millennia and are arguably part or a macro-evolutionary process'. One wonders why, since this point is explicitly made by Hofstede all through his books. according to Hofstede, the point about culture is precisely its resilience to change in spite of all this flux. [2]

Uncertainty avoidance

Uncertainty avoidance measures a nation's preference for strict laws and regulations over ambiguity and risk. According the Hofstede's research, Greece is the most risk-averse culture, and Singapore the least.

Protestant and Chinese culture countries rank relatively low; Catholic, Buddhist, and Arabic countries tend to score high in uncertainty avoidance. Ironically, high uncertainty avoidance cultures tend to have a less efficient infrastructure than low uncertainty avoidance cultures.

Some characteristics of a low uncertainty avoidance culture:

  • Typically the country is newer or more recently settled (but not always, as in the case of China).
  • The population tends to be ethnically diverse.
  • Risk is valued in business (i.e. U.S.A.)
  • Frequent innovations.
  • Citizens are proud of the nation.
  • Foreigners or minorities are encouraged to assimilate.
  • Examples: U.S.A., Singapore, Jamaica, Ireland, Sweden, China

Some characteristics of a culture high in uncertainty avoidance:

  • Generally older countries/cultures with a long history.
  • The population is more ethnically homogeneous.
  • Risk is avoided in business (i.e. Germany)
  • Low tolerance for innovation, prefer to stick to traditional routines.
  • Citizens are often critical of their own nation.
  • People tend to be more superstitious.
  • Smoking is more common. [citation needed]
  • Higher maximum speed limits and a higher rate of motor vehicle accidents.[citation needed]
  • Xenophobia is common and foreigners/minorities tend to be ostracized.
  • Examples: Greece, Portugal, Japan, Israel, Spain, Latin America

Given the characteristics known to be associated with uncertainty avoiding societies, this dimension could also be conceptualized more broadly as "cultural paranoia" versus "cultural trust."

See also

Other cultural indexes:

Related problems:

Publications

Articles

  • Hofstede, Geert (July 1978). The Poverty of Management Control Philosophy. The Academy of Management Review 3 (3): 450–461.



External links



cs:Geert Hofstede

de:Geert Hofstede es:Geert Hofstede fr:Geert Hofstede nl:Geert Hofstede sk:Geert Hofstede

This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).