Intercultural Business Communication
In the present economic scenario, the level of competition among business units has increased significantly. After globalisation, there has been increased international integration, and thus, the relationship between various countries has increased significantly.
The transfer of goods and services within nations has increased significantly after globalisation. This led to the establishment of various Multinational Corporations (MNCs) and increased foreign direct investments (FDIs). The MNCs operate in various locations, and thus, there is a cross-cultural work environment prevailing in the organisations.
As the integration among international business units is increasing significantly thus, it is important to indulge in effective intercultural business communication for the profitability of the business units (Arrindell, 2003).
Each organisation must understand several cultural dimensions, as they can impact the business. The main aim of this assignment is to present Hofstede’s cultural dimension and discuss his methodology in relation to his questionnaire.
Here, McSweeney’s arguments against the validity and reliability of Hofstede’s questionnaire are also presented, along with the debate regarding the essentialist vs. non-essentialist views of culture.
Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension:
Professor Geert Hofstede has defined national culture as the collective programming of human beings’ minds that distinguishes between two categories or groups of people.
Commonalities are usually transferred throughout generations, and the level of values and cultures is similar in a particular group of people.
It can be said that cultures and values do not change abruptly; this is a slow and steady process (Borelli and Lenzerini, 2012). At the organisational level, such a cultural dimension can also impact the organisational culture.
Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory is a theoretical framework for cross-cultural communication provided by Geert Hofstede.
It basically describes the cultural impact of the society on the values of its members and how these values can shape the behaviour of the individuals. In several domains or fields, the theory can be widely used, especially in terms of cross-cultural communication.
The theory can be used to identify the various dimensions of cultural values, such as masculinity vs. femininity, individualism vs. collectivism, long-term orientation, power distance index, and uncertainty avoidance (Crotts and Erdmann, 2000). These dimensions can be discussed here in detail.
Power Distance Index (PDI):
The power distance index basically measures the wealth and power distribution between people within a culture, business or nation. It is demonstrated in the power-distance index the extent to which the subordinates submit to the authority.
Here, the distribution of power is assessed, and the extent to which a less powerful member accepts the fact that power is distributed unequally within the organisation. In a society where the power distance index is very high, a hierarchy is maintained in the society without question (Hofstede, 1991).
In societies with low power distance index, people require equal distribution of power. The power distance index can also be distinguished in terms of have and have nots, and in societies with a high degree of power distance index, an authoritative framework is followed in the decision-making process.
The power distance index is very high in countries like Russia (95), Panama (95), and the Philippines (94). In these countries, there is a social class and unequal distribution of power. On the other hand, in countries like New Zealand (22), Denmark (18), and Ireland (28), the power distance index is very low. The power distance index for the United States is 40, and for the United Kingdom, it is 35 (Geert Hofstede’s Dimensions of Culture, 2007).
Individualism Vs Collectivism:
This cultural dimension identifies the degree of integration of an individual in a group. In an individualistic society, more emphasis is given to personal gains and achievements and personal rights, and it is expected that people will choose their own affiliates or stand up for their families and for themselves.
On the other hand, individuals are part of a cohesive group or organisation for a lifelong scenario, and there are large extended families of people. The individuals are loyal towards their family and are bound to protect them (Hofstede, 2011).
In an individualistic culture, the principles of exchange are the main basis of a contractual relationship. Before engaging in behaviour, people calculate their profit and loss, and their focus is more on themselves than on a closed one.
Self-sufficiency and independence are the main interests of individualism, and personal enjoyment is more important than social norms.
The countries ranking higher in individualism are the USA (91), Australia (90), and Canada (80). On the other hand in collectivist groups behave according to the norms of the society and they maintain the harmony of the society. The people sacrifice personal gains for wider social benefits. The countries ranking lower in individualism, which means the countries that are collectivist, are Colombia (13), Venezuela (12), and Taiwan (17) (Geert Hofstede’s Dimensions of Culture, 2007).
Uncertainty Avoidance Index:
The index basically indicates a society’s tolerance level towards ambiguity and uncertainty. This indicates the extent to which society members minimise uncertainty to cope with anxiety related to uncertainty (Hofstede, 2005).
People tend to be more emotional in a culture with high uncertainty avoidance, and they tend to minimise unusual and unknown circumstances by carefully implementing changes step by step and following the rules and regulations (HOFSTEDE’S 5 DIMENSIONS, 2014).
In countries with low uncertainty avoidance indexes, individuals are comfortable with uncertain situations, take risks, and are more tolerant of changes. The countries that rank high on the uncertainty avoidance index are Greece (112), Portugal (104), and Belgium (94). In these countries, risk-taking behaviour is absent.
There is a clear delineation of structures, with standardised processes and written rules. Deviation is not tolerated in the culture, and there is respect for authority. Planning and predictability are needed, and strong consensus is also required.
Denmark (23), Singapore (8), and Jamaica (13) are the countries that rank low on the uncertainty avoidance index. In these countries, risk-taking behaviour is evident, and operations are flexible. There is tolerance for different opinions and behaviours (Geert Hofstede’s Dimensions of Culture, 2007).
Masculinity vs Femininity:
The extent of the distribution of power between the genders in a society is the main basis of the dimension. The emotional roles played by the genders in each society are demonstrated by the dimensions of masculinity and femininity.
The values in masculine culture are power, ambition, materialism, assertiveness, competitiveness, and values, whereas in a feminine culture, the quality of life and relationships are more valued (Hofstede, 2005).
Differences in gender roles are less fluid and more dramatic in masculine cultures than in feminine cultures. In feminine cultures, there is modesty and caring, and men and women have the same values.
Japan (95) and Russia (90) are the countries ranking high in this index. In these countries, there is a distinction in the roles of each gender, and the men in society are supposed to be focused, tough, and assertive.
Importance is placed on the value of mastery, and lesser importance is given to benevolence. The countries that have lower ranks in this index are Denmark (28), Norway (8), and Sweden (5). In these countries, gender roles in society overlap, and both men and women are concerned, tender, and modest about the quality of life (Geert Hofstede’s Dimensions of Culture, 2007).
Long-term Orientation:
It is also referred to as confusion dynamism, and it emphasizes how a society can implement importance in the future. It basically describes a society’s time horizon and how behaviour in terms of time perspective can affect society.
In societies with a long-term orientation, more importance is given to the future (Hofstede, 2005). Their main aim is oriented towards rewards by fostering pragmatic values, and there is also saved capacity for adaptation (Jameson, 2007).
In societies with a short-term orientation, there is respect for tradition, steadiness, and values given to past research. Countries ranking high in the long-term orientation index are Hong Kong (96), Taiwan (87), and China (118).
In these countries, the main emphasis is on persistence, thrift, and a sense of shame. This reflects a future-oriented mentality and dynamism. The countries ranking low in this dimension are Russia (10), the Philippines (19), and Sweden (33).
The orientations in these countries are more towards the past and the present, and they emphasise respect for tradition, stability, protecting the face, and personal steadiness. They reflect a traditional and relatively static mentality (Geert Hofstede’s Dimensions of Culture, 2007).
Reliability and the Validity of the Methodology:
Hofstede’s work is crucial for assessing various aspects of a society and how these shape the behaviour of people within the society. The theoretical framework provided by Hofstede is most widely cited in every domain.
In a cross-cultural environment he scholars and practitioners can gain valuable insight into the dynamics of the relationship and the behaviour of individuals (Jones, 2007).
To assess each culture’s ranking, Geert Hofstede has also presented a questionnaire that can help calculate each nation’s score in each dimension.
However, certain criticisms are directed towards Hofstede’s methodology (Geerthofstede.nl, 2014). Thus, the reliability and validity of the methodology can be discussed here.
Geert Hofstede’s framework for analysing the various cultural dimensions is credible, as he has included all the relevant aspects that can affect an individual’s behaviour within a society or an organisation (Podrug, Pavicic, and Bratić, 2014).
Here a country level correlation is conducted for assessing the ranking of the each country. The model of Hofstede has been instrumental in the implementation of various organisational systems including conflict resolution, training design, entrepreneurial behaviour, budget control practice compensation practice etc.
These can also address and provide solutions to various cross-cultural issues (Minkov and Hofstede, 2014).
But here, it can be said that cross-cultural research is not easy, and thus, it is very important to consider additional factors. The terms used in the research, particularly the word “culture,” are open to interpretation.
It is also considered that the terms and terminologies used in the questionnaire are subject to interpretation. Thus, difficulties are faced in translating the questions to a quantitative perspective. It is also stated that the methodology used is very simple.
The methodology considers only a single timeframe and is based on the same ethnocentric pattern (Minkov and Hofstede, 2014). Thus, if the methodology is used, there can be errors in the results in terms of inaccuracies, misinterpretation, and bias.
The criticism is also aimed at Hofstede’s methodology in terms of relevancy, as various researchers assert that the instruments used in the assessment cannot effectively measure cultural disparity.
When a society is culturally subjective or sensitive, the methodology fails to demonstrate the exact value of the dimension. Cultural homogeneity can also exist, and thus, the analysis is constrained by the individual characteristics that are being assessed.
Hofstede avoids the importance of the variance in the community within a society (Williamson, 2002). National divisions or political influence in society can affect individuals’ behaviour. However, Hofstede does not consider these factors, and thus, based on these perspectives, the reliability and validity of the methodology used by Hofstede are questionable.
To get assignment help, please contact our live chat adviser