Culture cuts across diverse issues in a given society and what may be right with one society may be wrong in another. Different cultures value and uphold different tenets and beliefs thus bringing diversity amongst societies. Whether values and beliefs of an individual count or do not count in workplace, remains a point of contention. With globalization and emergence of different cultures in workplace, cross-cultural management is now a crucial element in organizations. Research works are underway to establish the best way to handle cultural diversity in workplace (Tjosvold 1998, p 1).
Statistics prove that, the most successful organizations are the ones with high capability of managing cultural diversities in workplace (Tjosvold 1998, p 2). However, managing cultural diversity depends on the mission and vision of an organization. It depends on what an organization is looking for in an individual. For instance, in USA, organizations are after performance. They only hire an employee who would deliver maximum results and increase the productivity of the organization thus increasing corporate wealth. On the other hand, in Asia, especially in India, organizations hire individuals who are compatible with the organization. The performance of an employee is not a key factor provided he or she fit well in the organization. Such organizations are after individual wealth not corporate wealth.
These diversities emerging from different cultures and values, present the human resource management department acclivitous time in managing individuals in any job setting. Cross-cultural management in USA is completely different from the same in India. Therefore, many theorists have put forward different theories to explain the best way forward. One person that is outstanding in contributing towards cross-cultural management in workplace is Geert Holfstede (Tjosvold 1998, p 4).
Geert Holfstede views culture from a different perspective and handles cross-cultural management in workplace in a critical way. He posits that Culture in most cases is a germ of infringing than of synergy and cultural differences are a pain at best and often a catastrophe (2009, para 1). He says that, even though people tend to think that human beings are the same that is not the case in reality. To explicate his claims, Mr. Geert put forward five dimensions of culture in workplace.
The first dimension is Power Distant Index (PDI). This indicates that distribution of power and wealth in societies is not equal. It points out the extent to which less potent members in an organization consent and anticipate unequal distribution of power in organizations and in families too (Clearly Cultural, 2009). PDI is a representation of inequality in organizations, which is determined from below. This dimension evokes the impression that followers plunk for inequality just as the leaders do. Fundamentally, PDI is a measure of the gap between the rich and the poor in a society or an organization. For instance, in some Arab countries like India, the PDI goes beyond 80 while in some European countries like Austria scores around 11. This simply means that citizens from countries with a low PDI have a big opportunity for growth than their counterparts in countries with a high PDI (Johann 2006). A common belief in equality for every citizen, acts as a springboard to reducing the gap between the rich and the poor. This gap in USA stands at around 40, a clear indication of inequality in power and wealth distribution.
Individualism (IDV) is the other dimension considered by Geert. This refers to how people tend to think of themselves and act for their own good. Collectivism, which is the opposite of individualism, is the measure of how individuals associate with others forming groups for the common good of all. In individualistic societies, people work for their own good and that of their immediate relatives. For instance, Germany is an individualistic state scoring 89 on the IDV scale of Holfstede. Guatemala scores relatively low on the same scale standing at six (Clearly Cultural, 2009). A low IDV figure indicates high state of collectivism while high IDV figure is directly proportional to high state of individualism. In individualistic states, personal accomplishments and individual rights matter most. This does not nullify the role of group work, but in those groups, personal ruling is paramount. In human resource management, IDV operates in the same dimension. Some organizations will push for collective responsibility while others foster individualism. USA is individualistic state scoring 91 on Holfstede scale (Schulte and Kim 2007, p 109). The assumption and anticipation are that everyone can pull himself or herself out of impoverishment without depending largely on others. Whether it can happen that way, still is a point of contention.
Gender issues still dominate operations in organizations across the world. Geert Holfstede explained his third dimension as masculinity (MAS). This refers to the dissemination of duties between men and women. Holfstede (2009) established that men’s roles in a society differ largely from those of women. He also established that men are more assertive and competitive as compared to women who are more caring and humble. Different countries have different levels of masculinity or feminism. Women in masculine countries are less modest compared to their counterparts in feministic countries. In organizations, gender issues call for keen management to blend the assertiveness of men with the modesty of women for the common good of all. MAS essentially indicates that there is a gap between women and male roles in society. These roles differ from country to country and organization to organization. However, with women pushing for gender equality and proving that they can do what men can do even better, cross-cultural management becomes even more essential in every organization.
Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) is the fourth dimension used by Holfstede to explain cross-cultural management. UAI is the tolerance of society’s incertitude and equivocalness (Hillson and Murray 2005, p 78). People are in persistent search for ultimate truth in all situations. UAI evaluates how different societies feel, whether secure or insecure in a certain or uncertain situation. Holfstede claims that uncertainty-avoiding societies, try their best to shun running into uncertain situations. These societies function under a set protocol, which does not deviate from the norm. Such people think that they have the truth and people have to adhere to it. On the other hand, uncertainty-accepting societies are more liberal and accept different opinions from different people. Exporting this to human resource management would refer to those dynamic organizations open to new ideas. These organizations do not function under emotions but rather function under the prevailing conditions. The dynamism offers a possibility to close old non-functional units and opening of new ones that comply with the current situation.
The final dimension is Long-Term Orientation (LTO). This dimension deals with chastity irrespective of truth (Holfstede, 2009). In the research, Holfstede used questionnaires in 23 countries to determine how long-term orientation affects people as compared to short-term orientation (Wearden 2008). Parsimony and persistence are the core values associated with LTO while respect for custom and modesty defines the short-term obligations. In an organizational setting, there are long-term and short-term obligations and they act in concert for the prosperity of the organization and its workers. Human resource management in its quest to care for employees should come out clearly and strike a balance between the two.
Geert Holfstede work is important in aiding human resource management in today’s corporate world. His first dimension is critical in any organization. It is true that workers in an organization feel that a gap exists between the people at the top and those at the bottom. Essentially an organization strives as a unit with a common goal and vision (Graves 2009). Thus Holfstede indicating that junior workers expect this gap to exist, would help human resource managers to harmonize workers for improved productivity. This is a reality and management would capitalize on this fact for the benefit of every worker. Junior workers support any organization largely and dealing with their concerns as they arise would foster development of an organization.
The issue of individualism scores high and qualifies the work of Holfstede. Personal performance is very decisive in determining the productivity of an organization. Even though, human resources cannot overlook teamwork in the overall performance of an organization, individual role supersedes teamwork roles. Moreover, a team composed of high-performing individuals would perform better than a team of low-achieving individuals who qualified for the job simply because they fitted well in that organization. It is true that united we stand, divided we fall, but being I a position to stand alone makes us even stronger when united. This dimension would help human resource managers to manage cross-cultural individuals.
Holfstede came out clearly on the issue of gender. This would help human resource management to strike a balance and utilize the potential of each gender. It is true that men and women have different values and will perform differently. With globalization, international organizations are more likely to deal with employees from diverse cultures, which uphold different values for men and women. Knowing Hofstede’s dimension of masculinity would assist managers to blend well strengths from each group for the prosperity of organizations. He established that organizations that are more corrupt fostered masculinity than feminism (Murray, Poole& Jones, 2006, p101).
Uncertainty Avoidance Index plays a critical role in human resource management (International Business Center 2009). Depending on the society where individuals come from, human resource managers would determine who fits well in a particular position. In an organization, different positions call for different attention. There are some departments, which have to embrace change in order to persevere during turbulent times while others have to work under strict protocols for survival. This theory resonates well with today’s changing organizational management styles. Change is always good. However, in as much as people want to know the truth, there are some cases where the convectional rules and protocols would apply best.
The final dimension is strong by the fact that organizations have both long-term and short-term goals. There are individuals who are excellent at dealing with long-term issues than short-term goals that call for immediate attention usually characterized by pressure from the management (National Academies Press 2009). Persistent individuals would fit well in handling long-term goals. On the other hand, some individuals function well under pressure to deliver immediate results. The origin of individuals determines their character. Knowledge of such would enable human resource managers to select individuals who fit well in the nature of job to be done. This saves organizations from making wrong choices that could lead to making big losses that would cost them their survival. Moreover, assigning individuals where they best fit harmonizes the overall running of an organization.
Geert Holfstede has done a laudable work in explaining key factors in cross-cultural management. Nevertheless, some loopholes taint his work bringing into light some critical limitations of his work. According to Murray, Poole and Jones (2006), Hofstede’s work could easily be damned on basis that society will have its own interior varieties (p 101). His work is too general and overlooks the fact that not all Kenyans are the same, neither are all Americans the same. Decisions based on these general perceptions would easily throw human resource management in selection and training exercises.
The accuracy of the data used in creating Holfstede scale is questionable (Clearly Cultural, 2009). For instance, the time he carried out research in Guatemala to establish their high collectiveness would have been right, but this does not imply that Guatemala is the same today. His work does not handle conclusively the role of globalization in organizations. It is one thing to establish lifestyles of people in the present time, but it is another to predict how they will respond to changing environments in future. In this case, his work calls for supplement from a well-executed research to cover the loopholes exposed in his work.
The dimension of LTO remains contested in present human resource management. Studies from China indicate that managers are rapidly shifting their focus from long-term orientation to short-term orientation. In a quest to deliver results and remain afloat in the turbulent reforms in China’s economy, managers opt for immediate results and efficiency that can only come through short-term orientation (Murray, Poole& Jones, 2006, p101). Again, Holfstede failed in this area by overlooking external factors that would prompt managers to adopt a new strategy in dealing with emerging issues. This is not happening to China alone, Singapore together with the other rapidly growing economies is experiencing the same changes.
Alkhafaji (1995) argues that cultures are not genetically inherited (p75). Assuming individuals behave in a certain way, depending on their cultures is very misplaced. Managers can train individuals to fit in given positions. Alkhafaji concurs that, though Holfstede’s work may form a cornerstone where managers could hinge cross-cultural management, currently this work overlooked critical issues in human resource management. This work does not address motivational leadership, which is a key factor in management today. Individuals practicing high levels of collectivism may become individualistic for monetary rewards. Does this uphold Holfstede’s dimension? The answer is no. One of the key responsibilities of a manager is to encourage junior workers to perform much better; a factor that Holfstede overlooked.
The issue of masculinity has little relevance in this changing world. Women are now aggressive but this does not mean they are not modest. It is a common occurrence to find aggressive but modest women in organizations nowadays. Again, this changes from society to society over time. Men are also becoming modest and in some cases, we have reversed roles, whereby a man is more caring than a woman is. Holfsede’s work in cross-cultural management is robust in some cases but finds no application in other cases. Managers cannot solely rely on it, but at the same time, they have to base their arguments on these findings. Different managers face different challenges hence require different approaches in solving their problems.
There are several other theories that may surpass Holfsede’s dimensions. Kandemir and Hult (2004) established that organizational learning and conception in international ventures would deal with cross-cultural management more effectively. This incorporates critical features like business environment, competitive advantage and ability to develop new ideas among others. Nakata (2009) posits that the world is changing and he offers new contemporary ideas in managing cross-cultural issues in workplace. These include conceptualization of culture problems and making extensions and advances in cultural networks. This would ensure that cross-cultures in workplace do not cause problems but rather strengthens the operations of any given organization.
In conclusion, Holfsede’s dimensions play a key role in cross-cultural management in organizations. Human resource managers apply these dimensions widely. The five dimensions give an overview of what really happens in organizations. However, these theories are not conclusive in their nature to assume that all people in a given society or country think and behave the same. Internal differences exist amongst different people in any given country and this calls for a more investigative study to make cross-cultural management more efficient.
Reference
Alkhafaji, A. 1995. “Competitive Global Management: Principles and Strategies.” (p 75). 2009. Web.
Bearden, W. 2008. “A Measure of Long-Term Orientation: Development and Validation.” 2009. Web.
Clearly cultural. 2009. “Making Sense of Cross Cultural Communication.” Web.
Graves, T. 2007. “Vision, Role, Mission, Goal: a Framework for Business Motivation.” 2009. Web.
Hillson, D,. & Murray, R. 2005. “Understanding and Managing Risk Attitude.” (p 78). 2009. Web.
Hofstede, G. 2009. “Cultural Dimension.” Web.
International Business Center. 2009. “Geert Holfsede Analysis.” Web.
Johann, R 2006. “Cross-Cultural management.” 2009. Web.
Kendemir, D. & Hult, T. 2004. “A Conceptualization of an Organizational Learning Culture in International Joint Ventures. 2009. Web.
Murray, P., Poole, D., & Jones, G.2006 Contemporary Issues in Management And Organizational Behavior. (p 101). 2009. Web.
Nakata, C. 2009. “Beyond Holfstede.” Web.
Schulte, W., & Kim, Y. 2007. “Collectivism and Expected Benefits of Knowledge Management: A comparison of Taiwanese and US Perceptions.” (p 109). Web.
The National Academies Press. 2009. “The issue and the Approach.” Web.
Tjosvold, L. 1998. “Cross-Cultural Management: Foundations and Future.” 2009. Web.