Does cross-cultural management require increasing cultural awareness? This question has been repeatedly raised in various fields of management – be it marketing, sales, human resources, or information technology. Culture is a very dynamic concept and therefore, poses serious challenge in terms of understanding and effectively applying management practices. For instance, a salesperson may do his homework on South East Asian culture before a sales meeting however finds that the South East Asian counterparts were flouting a traditional taboo (Neuborne 2003). With increasing presence of multinational companies (MNCs) the challenge to face, cultural differences have become acute (Tjosvold & Leong 2003).
Cultural intelligence has become an important factor for managers to become successful (Earley & Mosakowski 2004). It may be defined as “an outsider’s seemingly natural ability to interpret someone’s unfamiliar and ambiguous gestures the way that person’s compatriots would.” (2004, p. 140) With increasing globalization and inter-cultural interaction in business, the need to develop cultural intelligence has become a necessary factor. Therefore, organizational culture and understanding of the cultures apart from their own is a necessity, which can be developed by individual managers. For instance, the Chinese cultural traits in Chinese organizations have been undergoing a drastic shift due to the influence of globalization (Javidan & Lynton. 2005). Therefore, we see that rapid pace of globalization have had an increasing impact on organizations. This has changed the culture within the organizations. However, has culture become a boon or bane to managers? How understanding culture helps MNCs to manage cross-cultural teams? Are theoretically developed cultural theories of any help to the managers?
The relevance of management theories developed in one culture and their effectiveness in another had been questioned by scholars (Hofstede 1980; Hofstede 1983; Hofstede 1993). Academia has debated ardently that management theories are constraint by culture and its dimensions. Questions related to homogeneity of their theory applied in case of cross-cultural management practices have been raised. Thus, it is argued that management theories are constrained to the culture where it is being applied. Therefore, a relatively reverse question that comes to mind is related to the practicality of the cultural theories in helping cross-cultural management.
Aim and objective
With the growth of MNCs, it has become crucial to operate in different cultural settings. It is widely believed that managers belong to one culture require training in managing people from different cultures (Begley 2009). With increasing number of multinational companies and exchange of employees from different cultures, it has become imperative for managers and management to consider cultural differences. Therefore, the question of effectiveness of the plethora of cultural theories that literature provides has been researched for effectiveness and practicality. The increase in cross-cultural management teams increases the necessity to implement cultural theories. Thus, the necessity arises to see if they are helpful to management teams in cross-cultural settings. This paper undertakes this particular study.
Cultural seasoning of all management practices has become important in today’s global environment (HR Magazine 2008). Therefore, organizational culture has become a highly accepted theory with intuitive appeal for practitioners, academicians, and policy makers. However, there exists little agreement about the conceptualization of culture (Jung et al. 2009). Elements of enigma and mystery mostly preside over the concept of organizational culture.
Previous study of literature related to organizational culture presents more than 100 dimensions of identifying differentiating cultural traits, which range from rituals to structures, satisfaction, warmth, etc. (Jung et al. 2009). Thus, there exist huge differences in the typologies of culture, its dimensions, defining characters, number of occurrences, and varied number of items. Therefore, the need to understand the practicability and effectiveness of these cultural theories for business is imperative.
This paper therefore, analyses cultural theories and the way they help or do not help in cross-cultural management environment. For simplicity we will consider one of the most used and debated cultural theories developed by Hofstede (Hofstede 1980; Hofstede 1981). The paper aims to see the relevance of the theory presented by Hofstede to describe differences in national culture and the way they may be utilised for cross-cultural management practices.
Significance of Research
Understanding the relevance of cultural theories in the field of management is due to the ever-increasing number of foreign direct investment (FDI). The flow of FDI globally has been increasing at an average rate of 7 percent from 2000 to 2008 (FDI.net 2009). The rate of growth of FDI has been increasing constantly since 2004. However, in 2008 there is negative growth owing to global recessions. However, in 2008, the worldwide value of FDI flow has been $1697353 million, which is an increase of 23 percent from the FDI flow in 2000. Therefore, the amount of FDI flow in the world has increased considerably indicating the growing interest of companies to spread their operations in foreign countries.
The evidence of internationalization has been steadily increasing. Increase of number of MNCs indicates increased need to handle multiculturalism within the organization, increased interaction between employee and managers from varying cultures. Thus, there is a need for companies to adopt a new strategy to handle this cross-cultural affair. Academic literature on culture and theories related to culture has been published in abundance in academic and professional journals. However, research in their effectiveness in a cross-cultural setting has been limited (Adler 1983).
Due to increased internationalization, practitioners have been keen to manage organizational culture and looking for ways and means to mould it according to organizations’ need (Jung et al. 2009). Therefore, there has evolved a plethora of instruments, which aimed at measuring culture. Given this huge collection of researches in the area, it is imperative to understand the practical applicability of the cultural theories that has become forth to practitioners. This paper aims to do so. However, due to limited scope, this paper is confined to the understanding of the cultural theory developed by Hofstede – the most used and cited of all cultural theories – and its practicability to managers.
Culture is a constraint on business management and operations. With increasing MNCs, the need for cross-cultural management has increased and so has the number of theories to explain the cultural diversity and how to identify the differences. Thus, the obvious question that comes to mind is if these theories are successful in cross-cultural management. In order to know this, we have to understand that if an organizational theory successfully describes the culture of the organization and how are they interpreted by individual employees based on the theory. Therefore, the paper tries to answer and overall question that if the organization surveyed has a specific culture. If so, what can be deduced about the culture from the individual responses to the survey?
In order to understand this, we take two hypotheses:
Then the paper will try to ascertain the nature of the culture that is demonstrated through the results derived from the survey. Here we will see if the dimensions constructed by Hofstede holds true for the organization studies significantly or if there are any contradictory results. Hofstede suggested that by pooling the data derived from all the respondents irrespective of their nationality, it could be argued that certain amount of knowledge could be gained regarding the culture o the organization (Hofstede, Bond & Luk 1993). Statically multivariate technique could be used to understand the structure of the responses of the employees surveyed. Hence, we hypothesize that a general understanding of the organizational culture can be derived from the individual responses of the employees surveyed. Therefore, the question that arises is that if there exists a uniform organizational culture, devoid of any of the external effects on the construction of the same. In other words, is there an organization culture in the organization surveyed? What we can interpret about it from the individual responses we received through the survey? Therefore, the hypothesis that we take is that the individual responses will directly show the culture of the organization.
- Hypothesis 1: The individual responses will indicate the organizational culture.
- Hypothesis 2: Nationality affects the perception regarding the four dimensions of culture devised by Hofstede.
- Hypothesis 3: Organizational culture is not affected by age, sex, and level of employment of the employee.
The paper is limited in its analysis of the cultural theories. Due to paucity of time and resources, this paper is constrained to the analysis of Hofstede’s cultural theory only. Other theories are not considered in this study. Further, the data is analysed from the point of view of only one model due to paucity of time and resource. Further, the number of employees of surveyed was low too. This resulted in low scores in the reliability test for a few dimensions like power distance and masculinity.
The paper will first relate to the relevant literature related to the cultural theories and cross cultural-management. Then the paper will provide a complete evolution of the research questions identifying the gaps in literature and then the methodology that is followed to conduct the research and justifications for the same. The fourth section will deal with the data presentation and analysis. Then a complete understanding of the research findings will be given. The discussion will show how the research has provided significant or non-significant results and the importance of them to the literature. Then the paper will identify areas where further research on the subject can be done followed by limitations of the research. In the end, a brief summarization of the whole paper is drawn followed by concluding implications.
This section will deal with a literature review of the researches conducted in the area of cross-cultural management and the influence of culture on them. Usually cross-cultural studies have been dominated by the debate of convergence and divergence i.e. whether the management system in such environments should be culture free or culture specific. Given this, we will try to see what literature has to reveal regarding the practical application and helpfulness of cultural theories to cross-cultural management. First, we will conduct a literature review of the management literature, which has dealt with the concept of culture. Second, we will present a complete theoretical background of Hofstede’s cultural theory, and third will review the researches, which were based on the aforementioned theory.
Culture and Management
The question of culture had started erupting in management literature since the seventies. Any discussion of culture should first try to define it. There are numerous definitions of culture. Hofstede defines culture as “A collective programming of the mind which distinguishes one group from another” (1980, p. 25). Therefore, according to Hofstede, culture is a construct of values, ritual, and symbols, which moulds individuals. As constructs these are acquired though birth, then is constructed through the formal training process of the society and environment.
As management theories are mostly made in western countries – namely United States – there has been a growing debate regarding the feasibility of these theories in context of say Japanese culture (Hofstede 1993). The literature explicitly shows that there is a connection between the two (Hofstede 1986): “popular management literature, management theory and organization sociology all contributed to and supported the renewed rise of the ‘culture’ concept.” (Hofstede, p. 254). However, there exists a huge amount of literature related to organizational culture and its implications for organizations (Jung et al. 2009).
This section review articles related to cross cultural management and research on organizational culture and its effectiveness. Understanding of culture for cross-cultural management is important, as this will provide the basis for the development of the organizational culture where all the employees, irrespective of their origin, will feel comfortable in. Therefore, various researches in the area have been conducted in this area. Adler (1983) pointed out that cross-cultural management papers developed during the period of 1971 to 1980 in the US were mostly based on single culture. Only 1 percent was done in multi-cultural settings. Further, the decade did not show any rise in cross-cultural studies in the decade. However, this scenario changed drastically for since the 1980s there were plethora of researches done on cross-cultural settings of organizational operating in multiple cultures.
Denison, Haaland and Goelzer (2004) studied the research question if there are any “cross-cultural differences in the relationship between organizational culture and effectiveness?” (p. 103) They therefore inquired into the difference, if any, in the pattern found in North America and in rest of the world i.e. Asia. They derived the sample in steps. First was drawn from the previous research in this topic on North America. The second sample was derived from 2162 employees working in local grocery stores in seven different countries. They mailed out 6736 surveys worldwide, and the response rate was 42%. The countries considered for the survey were Australia, Japan, South Africa, Jamaica, Brazil, and Canada. They used the same item used from the Denison Organizational Survey. In total, it had 60 questions, all measures in 5-point Likert scale. They measured four main cultural traits – i.e. involvement, consistency, adaptability, and mission. It also asked questions about employee perception of store performance in terms of sales, profitability, quality of products, etc. All the measures were aggregated for organizational level analysis. The results were correlated for the nations and the response regarding the different dimensions measured. The result showed that all the countries had deferent scores for the dimensions used for the cross-cultural study.
Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, and Sanders (1990) conducted study of organizational culture in a cross-cultural setting across 20 different cases. Their main hypothesise were:
- that organizational culture were measurable,
- their analysis of the organizational culture will issue a series of dimensions form the research which would be consistent with the various issues covered in organizational literature, and
- the third question is that organizational culture are predetermined by other forces which are predetermined which are nationality, industry, and task, which would be observable in the cultural dimension scores.
The study was conducted in Denmark and Netherlands. They did a questionnaire survey consisting of 135 pre-coded questions. The sampling was done randomly. Hofstede believed that the manifestation of culture is from the core values to superficial practices like rituals, heroes and symbols. There were 22 questions in the survey questionnaire, which measured work-goals, 28 for general belief, 54 contained questions related to perceived practices, and 4 demographic questions like sex, age group, seniority with the employer, and education level of the respondents. Hofstede used ANOVA to test his hypothesis and fund that the first hypothesis was supported i.e. individual responses of employees could describe the organizational culture. ANOVA applied on the various dimensions factored in by demographic questions were found to have no significant difference between cross national and organizational study. Hofstede et al. conducted a multivariate analysis based on correlation while determining the organizational culture in 20 cases studied. A multivariate factor analysis was done of the different dimensions, after deriving mean scores of the different items related to the dimensions. The research showed that individual perception of organizational culture was dependent on nationality. Other factors related to demographics were also related to the perception of culture. In conclusion, they conclude that any feature demonstrated as the dimensions of organizational culture cannot be termed as “good or bad” as they are relative to organizations.
Another study of cross-cultural fit and effectiveness of cultural theories was conducted by Aycan et al. (2000). This was a study of the socio-cultural factors affecting the internal culture of the organization, its work culture and HRM practices. The Model of Cultural Fit was studied on 1954 employees from different business organizational in 10 countries. The questionnaire was designed with 57-items, which measured the perception of managers of the socio-cultural dimensions, internal culture dimensions, and HRM practices. The scale used for the questionnaire was 6-point Likert scale. They conducted a moderate multiple regression at the individual level which demonstrated that managers who through their socio-cultural environment was “fatalistic” perceived their employees to be noncompliant. These managers were found not to be administering any kind of better HRM practices like job enrichment, or employee empowerment. On the other hand, the managers who were found to value loyalty were found to be performing good HRM practices. Thus the research answered the question how culture influenced organizational processes.
From the above study of the literature, it can be deduced that there is a link between the nationalities (Hofstede et al. 1990; Aycan et al. 2000; Denison, Haaland & Goelzer 2004), socio-cultural factors (Aycan et al. 2000), and demographic factors (Hofstede et al. 1990). However, the studies reviewed did not try to ascertain the practical application and the importance of culture to organizations. Is it a helpful concept? Following this review, the paper undertakes a thorough study of Hofstede’s model and the theoretical basis of understanding organizational culture as developed by Hofstede. It will also study the effectiveness of culture to organizational practices. In order to find the effectiveness of the theories to the organization will become a mammoth task. Therefore, the paper restricts itself to the practicability of the theory developed by Hofstede towards organizations. Hofstede’s theory has been selected because it is one of the most used and famous of all the cultural theories.
Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions
Hofstede’s theories on culture had been used in the past three decades as the bible of organizational cultural studies and were used in various research paradigms like intercultural communications, international management, and organizational psychology in cross-cultural situations. Therefore, the application of the theory developed by Hofstede has been utilized in various organizational paradigms. This literature review will go through the theory presented by Hofstede, and then review other researches done to understand the practicality of the theory in current organizational settings. In the following section, we will discuss the theory of culture as presented by Hofstede.
Hofstede (2001) presented a space for studying international organizations in his books Culture’s Consequences. Hofstede advocated that there were unique features that made a culture distinct from the other such as value, beliefs, religion, language, and social organization (Hofstede 1993). He assumes that due to variation in the aforementioned characteristics, there arises the necessity to take distinct actions for different cultural settings. According to this assumption, culture implies a complex web of different alternatives, wherein one way of acting is better than the other (Kuchinke 1999). Therefore cultural theories, according to Hofstede assumes important role in understanding organizational conduct and human behaviour in different cultural settings.
Hofstede conducted a study through surveying a large multinational organization – IBM – and the data was analysed for forty countries. Hofstede, through the empirical research he conducted, concluded, “organizations are cultural-bounded” (1984, p. 252). Apart from this conclusion, he also found four different cultural dimensions prevalent in organizations viz. power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, and masculinity, which he stressed, could help in analyzing organizational cultural values in different countries.
Hofstede collected his data primarily from a pre-existing database attitude survey of employees in IBM subsidies in 66 different countries from around 1963 to 1973. He analyzed the data collected through these surveys statically and found that there highly independent bi-polar dimensions of national culture and that out of those 66 countries where IBM was situated, 40 countries could be given independent scores on each of the four dimensions found (Hofstede 1983). The definition of these four dimensions has been defined as follows.
Hofstede described his theory of organizational culture through the four dimensions he identified. The first dimension was power distance. It is defined as “the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) expect and accept that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede 1991, p. 28). This dimension refers to the degree of inequality of power between superiors and subordinates. When the degree of power distance is high, there exists hierarchy in the organizational structure. Inversely, organizations with low power distance have a flatter structure. Therefore, in the case of high power distance, there exists a line demarcating the difference between managers and organizations, which is limited or absent in the case of low power distance. Thus, this deals directly with individual’s belief regarding the unequal distribution of power within the organization (Newman & Nollen 1996).
According to Hofstede (1983) power distance is related to the “degree of centralization of authority and the degree of autocratic leadership” (p. 81). He believes that an individual belonging to a national culture were power is distributed unequally will not be dissatisfied in an organization where there is hierarchy or autocracy. However, if the individual is from a society where power distance is low, then he or she will not be able to accustom to the autocratic organizational culture. Thus in order to lead to satisfaction of the individuals in organizations, the value systems of organizations and the individual’s society must be compatible.
Uncertainty avoidance, which was the second dimension according to Hofstede, refers to the degree of tolerance of ambiguity of a culture. He defines uncertainty avoidance as “intolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity” (Hofstede 1991, p. 113). In case of high uncertainty organizations, there exist many written rules, which is a means of reducing uncertainty. In case of low uncertainty organizations, there exist fewer written rules and regulations. In high uncertainty avoidance cultures, changes and ambiguity are stressful.
Some researchers believe that this dimension was a residue of the time when Hofstede conducted the research i.e. 1960s and 1970s (Newman & Nollen 1996). It is said that this time was directly preceded by cold war in Europe, which may have led to a higher uncertainty avoidance scores for the European countries. Newman and Nollen (1996) believe that it may have affected the overall results of Hofstede’s study.
The third dimension put forth by Hofstede was individualism and collectivism. It is defined as “the extent to which individuals are integrated into groups” (Hofstede 1991, p. 51). This refers to how individuals value themselves and the organization or the group they work in. In this case, Hofstede wants to determine whether individuals are more concerned about themselves or about the group/organization. Individuals with high individualism have a tendency towards gaining self-actualization and progress in their personal career goals. However, people with low individualism give greater precedence to organization or the group benefits than individual advantage. Individualist people are less likely to be comfortable working in team structures (Bochner & Hesketh 1994).
The fourth dimension is related to traces of masculinity or gender roles in organizations. Masculinity is defined by Hofstede as “assertiveness and competitiveness versus modesty and caring” (Hofstede 1991, pp. 82-3). When the degree of masculinity is high in organizations, gender differences becomes acute. In high masculinity environment, women have less opportunity to attain high positions and better pay. In case of low masculine culture, women get better opportunities to grow within the organization and assume an equitable position. Another way of interpreting it is through the organizational culture’s competitive orientation. Masculine cultures have a highly competitive orientation, while feminine cultures have a non-assertive and caring perspective (Elenkov 1998).
The value of the study according to many researchers is related to its relevance, thoroughness, and relative accurateness. When Hofstede first conducted this study, here were very few studied done in this field. Thus, Hofstede is considered the pioneer in the field of organizational culture study (Søndergaard 1994). Søndergaard (1994) conduct a bibliographical analysis of Hofstede’s study and found 61 replications. He argues that the only dimension, which could not pass the validity test, was individuality and states that Hofstede himself confirmed that cultural shift will occur. Further, the research conducted by Hofstede was conducted through proper theorization of systematically designed data collection.
Critique of Hofstede’s Study
Hofstede’s dimensions have been tested for effectiveness and reliability by researchers. Conceptually a connection was established between Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and variables identified in other cultural studies (Kruger & Roodt 2003). Hofstede and Bond (1984) found that uncertainty avoidance was not adequate to discriminate between cultures. Newman and Nollen (1996) faced the same results when they were studying the fit between management practices and culture. Kuchinke (1999) found that the culture measured by using Hofstede’s dimensions were not adequate to predict other variables. In an international study conducted by Spector, Cooper, and Sparks (2001) showed that the internal consistency of the 6737 respondents across 23 countries was poor and the factors that were derived were particularly different from the results of Hofstede’s results.
McSweeny (2002) provides critique of the model of culture presented by Hofstede. According to the study, crucial assumptions undertaken by Hofstede have been challenged. The article questions the possibility of a causal national culture. He states that Hofstede at times identifies differences between national cultures and sometimes the absolute culture. He believes that the study conducted by Hofstede is based on a number of “flawed assumptions” in measuring the “software of mind”. He also argues that the sampling was flawed with sparse and unevenly distributed sample. He, thus states:
“Hofstede’s claims are excessive and unbalanced; excessive because they claim far more in terms of identifiable characteristics and consequences than is justified; unbalanced, because there is too great a desire to ‘prove’ his a priori convictions rather than evaluate the adequacy of his ‘findings’.” (McSweeney 2002, p. 112)
Thus, the author refutes Hofstede’s claim that data derived from a single MNC has the power to unravel the truth about national cultures.
Wu (2006) has extended the study of Hofstede’s four dimensions along with the Confucian cultural dimension proposed by him. Wu argues that that Hofstede’s data was collected 30 years back and required re-examination and validation. He studied the dimensions – power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity-femininity, individualism-collectivism, and Confucian work dynamics – on western (USA) and eastern (Taiwan) cultural settings. The study was conducted through a questionnaire survey and used Dorfman and Howell’s (1988) questionnaire based on the theory of Hofstede because the questionnaire developed by Hofstede failed the reliability test during the pilot survey. The study conducted showed that there were differences in the findings of Hofstede’s (1984) study and that conducted by Wu in case of power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, as well as in collectivism dimension. Thus, Wu concludes that work related cultural values change over time, and are not static. He argues that with changes in political, social, and economic environment change, the cultural values change too.
Kruger and Roodt (2003) conducted a study of validation of the Value Survey Module-94 (VSM-94) developed by Hofstede. The questionnaire was evaluated for test construction purposes. The questionnaire consisted of 20 items. The survey was responded by 231 female managers in a large telecommunication company in South Africa. The result was tested for inter-correlation and factor analysis. The results showed low inter-correlations, which led to poor reliability of the results. The study concluded that VSM-94 was not suitable in South African context. They conclude:
“The study has pointed out gaps in cross-cultural research and questionnaire construction and enough evidence is provided to oppose the use of the VSM-94 in scientific research. The lack of internal consistency also raises questions regarding the interpretation of existing results. Further research is required to validate the VSM-94 for use in South Africa by improving the existing questionnaire for future use. Careful consideration should be given to the construction of the items, including the item and response format. Caution should also be applied when analysing the research data. All instruments need to be validated by scrutinising the item inter-correlations.” (Kruger & Roodt 2003, p. 81)
The literature review shows that the cultural theory developed by Hofstede has its gaps in various areas like reliability of the items in the questionnaire to test the cultural dimensions, problem with the scale of used, failure to capture the individual perspective of culture within organizations, and too many assumptions which are found to be basically flawed. The arguments that have been posed against Hofstede’s theory are related to the relevance of the survey to measure cultural disparity (Schwartz 1999), the assumption of cultural homogeneity assumed by Hofstede (Jung et al. 2009), nations not being proper unit for measuring culture as there is no validity for the assumption that nations have a distinct culture (McSweeney 2002), absence of validity of dimensions (Newman & Nollen 1996), and one company approach (McSweeney 2002).
Even though there has been a large body of literature criticising the organizational culture theory developed by Hofstede, however, there are again supporters of Hofstede who feel that the theory impeccable. In this study, we will try to understand the implication of Hofstede’s theory to organizational settings where there are a group of employees belonging to different national cultures. However, Hofstede conducted his initial study on IBM and its subsidiaries in different cultures, but the study did not find anything related to organizational culture. However, preceding studies by Hofstede and others did not aim at understanding the effectiveness and practicability of the theory in a multinational company. This study will see if the organizational culture evolves to satisfy the cultural constructs of the individuals and if we can find the culture through the individual responses.
Culture is a constraint on business management and operations. With increasing MNCs, the need for cross-cultural management has increased and so has the number of theories to explain cultural diversity and the means to identify the differences. Thus, the obvious question that comes to mind is if these theories are successful in cross-cultural management.
Then the paper will try to ascertain the nature of the culture that is demonstrated through the results derived from the survey. Here we will see if the dimensions constructed by Hofstede holds true for the organization studies significantly or if there are any contradictory results. Hofstede suggested that by pooling the data derived from all the respondents irrespective of their nationality, it could be argued that certain amount of knowledge could be gained regarding the culture o the organization (Hofstede, Bond & Luk 1993). Statically multivariate technique could be used to understand the structure of the responses of the employees surveyed. Hence, we hypothesize that a general understanding of the organizational culture can be derived from the individual responses of the employees surveyed. Therefore, the question that arises is that if there exist a uniform organizational culture, devoid of any of the external effects on the construction of the same. In other words, is there an organization culture in the organization surveyed? What we can interpret about it from the individual responses we received through the survey? Therefore, the hypothesis that we take is that the individual responses will directly show the culture of the organization.
Hypothesis 1: The individual responses will indicate the organizational culture.
In case of cross-cultural management, there are different people from different nationalities work together. This creates a heterogeneous body of personal constructs, which dominates the values of the employees. If we assume that, every nation has a distinct culture (Hofstede 1984) then it can be expected that in case of cross-cultural management, people belonging to different nationalities will respond differently to the value-based questionnaire devised in this study. In other words, they will respond differently to the homogeneous culture of their organization and respond differently. This, obviously, will happen if Hofstede’s theory holds. In other words, there will be significant difference in the responses of the employees from different nationalities. Thus we hypothesize that there will be significant difference in the responses of the employees regarding the four dimensions of culture devised by Hofstede.
Hypothesis 2: Nationality shapes the employee perception regarding the four dimensions of culture devised by Hofstede.
The second question that arises is that if cultural theories (in this case Hofstede’s theory) effective in explaining the differences between cultures. In this regard, it must be understood that organizational culture aims at managing the culture, which is means of attaining control over the organization and the organizational units i.e. the employees (Hofstede 1986). Thus, the first research question that we will consider is that if the cultural theories i.e. Hofstede’s theory is applicable in measuring organizational culture through questionnaire survey method to the employees of the organization. Therefore the first question that arises is that if quantitative measurement of organizational culture possible as professed by Hofstede. Now if there exist an organizational culture following Hofstede’s theory it would be a uniform or homogeneous culture throughout the organization. In such a case there should not arise any significant difference in the culture when factored for age, sex, and level of employment. This is our hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3: Organizational culture is not affected by age, sex, and level of employment of the employee.
The study was conducted by using a self-administered quantitative survey questionnaire. The theoretical base used for the study is the theory of Hofstede (1984). The questionnaires were based on the theoretical foundation of Hofstede’s dimensions.
The literature review showed that many factors were critiqued in the survey questionnaire designed by Hofstede. The results of some researchers showed that after following the questionnaire designed by Hofstede, a few of the dimensions failed to score adequately in the reliability test. Therefore, instead of the VSM questionnaire, another questionnaire designed by Dorfman and Howell (1988) were used. We use this because Hofstede’s measures were criticised by many due to its inadequacy and failure to provide a valid result using the scale and questionnaire (Dorfman & Howell 1988; Newman & Nollen 1996; Schwartz 1999; McSweeney 2002). For instance, the uncertainty index has been criticised for being contended of holding three varying constructs (Dorfman & Howell 1988). There were also issues related to the level of analysis. There were problems with scale used by Hofstede: “the scale only taps power distance at the national level; it cannot measure individual differences” (Dorfman & Howell 1988, p. 130).
Therefore, the cultural value items in the questionnaire devised by Hofstede were replaced by was replaced by the new measures of Hofstede devised by Dorfman & Howell (1988). This has been used by many cross-cultural studies (Fernandez et al. 1997; Wu 2006). Thus, the theoretical relevance of the two researches has been tried and tested by previous academic researches. Further, it has also been sated that Dorfman and Howell’s scale is psychometrically more reliable than Hofstede’s (Wu 2006).
The survey questionnaire designed thus had five items related to power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity each. Four items were there for measuring individualism-collectivism. The questions from 1 to 5 were to measure power distance, 6 to 10 were to measure uncertainty avoidance, 11-15 for masculinity, and 16 to 19 for individualism-collectivism (See Appendix for questionnaire). The responses were taken a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agrees). Likert scale has been used by various cross-cultural studies (Søndergaard 1994; Aycan et al. 2000; Denison, Haaland & Goelzer 2004; Wu 2006).
The sample for the research has been done through random sampling in the population of the organization selected, which had been decided by convenience. The self-administered questionnaires were given out to individuals in three different managerial levels: low, middle, and top management. In total 60 questionnaires were distributed out of which 34 were received back which gave a response rate of 56.66%. Of these 34 questionnaires, 4 were incomplete resulting in 30 questionnaires being considered for the study.
As there are different areas to be analyzed, there arise different methods, which need to be followed to do the analysis of the study. First, a reliability test is conducted in order to understand the acceptability of the aggregate mean of the different items. In case of power distance, the questionnaire has listed 5 items. This reliability test is run in order to see if the mean aggregate of the five items can be listed to get a reliable score for power distance for each employee. This is done using Cronbach’s alpha.
The study is conducted using bivariate correlation. The level of analysis is fixed at between groups as it is supposed to be correct level of analysis for culture (Hofstede et al. 1990). When data is collected from N individuals, belonging to n different systems or demographics, research of such data can be conducted through detecting the relationship between the variables using some kind of multivariate statistical technique. These techniques may be correlation analysis, factor analysis, multidimensional scaling, cluster analysis, or smallest space analysis (Hofstede, Bond & Luk 1993). In order to understand individual perception of organizational culture, it is important to analyze the structure of the answers given by individuals (Hofstede, Bond & Luk 1993). Here a distinction is made between the techniques utilized for the analysis – pancultural analysis, within-culture analysis, ecological analysis, and individual analysis. Pancultural analysis is done by pooling the data for all N individuals together irrespective of the culture they belong to. Within-culture analysis is done by individuals belonging to each of the n cultures. Ecological analysis is done on the aggregate value of the items belonging to each n culture. An individual level analysis is done after removing the effect of culture. Here the pancultural estimation is considered a close approximation of the ecological analysis. We will consider this ecological analysis by computing the mean aggregate of the items in the questionnaire.
Individual level answer is of interest because it will provide a structure to the idea culture within the surveyed the organization. This data will also provide a comprehensive understanding as to what level correlation is there between the demographic variables and the dimensions presented by the cultural theory. This will also give the insight regarding what managerial style is applicable, depending on the correlation scores of the demographic variables and the dimensions.
In order to test the hypothesis we use one-way ANOVA to see if the hypothesis taken can be accepted or rejected. This is done to find if there exists any significant similarity in the responses provided by employees when they are grouped according to heir demographic variables.
A description of the data collected according to the age, sex, level, and nationality is presented in the following paragraph. In total, there were 28 valid responses from the survey. The age factor derived from the questionnaire is recoded as ‘less than 35 years’ and ‘more than 35 years’. The frequency of the first factor is 19 and that of the later is 11. There were three management levels, which had been considered – low management, middle management, and top management. Respondents who belonged to low management were 21.3% of the respondents, 42.9% of the middle management level, and 35.7% were from top management level. In terms of sex, there were 64.3% of the respondents who were male, and 35.7% were female.
The nationality of the respondents was also asked. The respondents belonged to 10 nationalities. This was clubbed together into three categories – North America, West Europe, East Europe, and Asia-Africa. This was in order to understand if there was any significant change in attitude towards culture due to his/her origin. According to the data, 10.7% were from Poland, 10.7% from Spain, 14.3% from USA, 39.3% from UK, 7.1% from France, and 3.6% each from India, Turkey, South Africa, Russia, and China. These are recorded in order to get results that are more relevant into three items based on the continent they belong. This gave us three continents – Asia-Africa, Europe, and North America. This division shows that maximum of the respondents are European who constitute 73.3% of the total respondents, 13% are Asian-Africa, 13.3% are North Americans. Here we have combined Africa and Asia because there were very few responses from employees of African nationality.
Therefore, the study has more male respondents than female respondents and maximum of the respondents are Europeans. Maximum of the respondents are from the middle management level while least respondents belong to low management level.
The descriptive statistics are presented in table 3 (see Appendix). Here it must be noted that due to the 5-point Likert scale followed for the study, the maximum range could only be 4 as the data derived from the questionnaire were then coded into scale of 1 to 5 (i.e. strongly disagree to strongly agree). The descriptive statistics for each of the items show that employees’ perception of the organizational culture. Item 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 measure the items related to power distance within the organization. It takes the employee ratings for high degree of authority, participative management style, etc. these items show a low mean value indicating that the employees do not agree to the fact that there no practice of employee involvement, however, they negate that fact that they agree to all the decisions taken by the management. In the second case, we measure the mean and standard deviation of the items related to the measurement of uncertainty avoidance. Here the mean scores are high with relatively low standard deviation indicating a more homogeneous response from the employees regarding the presence of uncertainty avoidance in the organization, which takes form of high degree of formalization. The response to the items rated to masculinity is not very clear, as the means scores in themselves are not very high. Further, the standard deviation is high indicating a scattered form of response. Collectivism is high in the organization indicating that they are more inclined towards group work. The standard deviation is moderately high.
In total, there were 19 questions asked regarding the perception of the employees working within the same organization regarding the five dimensions of culture as presented by Hofstede and see how effective the employees them to be. The questions related to power distance were aggregated to form a new variable Power Distance. There were five questions inquiring about the degree of power distance in the organization. The questionnaire asked five questions each regarding power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity and four questions related to collectivism. The coding was done by deriving the aggregate mean of the items related to the four dimensions. This was done because the analysis of the reliability test showed that the responses to each of the items could be aggregated for same meaningful conclusion. The descriptive statistics show that the value of average value of the power distance is given to be 3.7 and a standard deviation of 0.64, the mean uncertainty avoidance is 4.78 which has a standard deviation of 0.41, mean for masculinity is 3.55 with a standard deviation of.644, and collectivism is 4.28 with a standard deviation of 0.69.
A reliability test for the dimensions studied are conducted in order to sanction the reliability of the multi point questionnaire developed to measure organizational culture using Hofstede’s theory. This is an important measure to understand if the responses yielded for the summated scale will be the same for the items summed together (Santos 1999). In order to understand eh reliability of the different items measuring the dimensions we conduct reliability test using Cronbach’s Alpha, which helps to determine the internal consistency of the different items in the questionnaire to estimate the reliability of the questionnaire.
A reliability test of the dimensions used in the questionnaire has been done in this section. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is used in measuring the internal consistency for the items presented in the survey. Refer to table 1 (in Appendix) for the Cronbach’s alpha values for this study. After doing a reliability test for alpha for power distance dimensions, we see that the Cronbach’s alpha is 0.521, which is adequate for our study following the cut-off of 0.5 (Schmitt 1996). Hence, their reliability is acceptable for power distance. Rather their reliability is on the lower side. Here it should be noted that the increasing alpha is dependent on the number of items in the scale. Therefore, we may combine them to form a combined scale for measurement. The Cronbach alpha for uncertainty avoidance items are found to be 0.913 which is acceptable in term of internal consistency. The test for masculinity items shows that the Cronbach alpha is 0.67 (>0.5), which too is acceptable in terms of internal consistency. For collectivism, the score is found to be 0.842, which is very close to 1 indicating a high degree of consistency in data. Thus, this dimension too is acceptable in terms of internal consistency. Thus, the reliability test results show that the results are reliable and can be applied to test the cultural dimensions in measuring organizational culture.
The hypothesis that is tested here is that individual responses will demonstrate the nature of the organization’s culture. The correlation between power distance and uncertainty avoidance is negative indicating however; the probability of it occurring can be rejected indicating that there exists no significant correlation exit between them. The correlation relation found between uncertainty avoidance and collectivism is found to have significant relationship at significance level 99%. Not all the correlation between the dimensions provides a significant correlation. The correlation between power distance and uncertainty avoidance is -0.029 with a probability 0.88 (>0.05). Correlation between power distance and masculinity is 0.235 with a probability of 0.212 (>0.05). Therefore, this result too is not significant. The correlation between power distance and collectivism is 0.263 with a probability of 0.161 (>0.05). The correlation between uncertainty avoidance and masculinity is 0.39 with a probability of 0.03 (<0.05). Moreover, the correlation between 0.487 and the probability is 0.006(<0.05). The correlation between collectivism and masculinity is 0.274 with a probability of 0.14 (>0.05). Therefore, the correlation is not significant.
The correlation study implies that the correlation results are too low to be significant for meaningfully deducing a cultural format for the organization. However, the reliability test suggests that there exist a higher degree of homogeneity. Therefore, we may conclude that there exists a culture in the organization, which is weak due to weak reliability scores for some dimensions. In another word, it can be stated that the power distance in the organization is low, masculinity is moderately high, uncertainty avoidance and collectivism is high. The F-test values derived for the items related to the four dimensions (see Table 1 (b), (c), (d), and (e)) shows that the F-value for the ANOVA gives a significant value for power distance when F-value is significant at 0.01(<0.05). for uncertainty avoidance the F-value is 2.661 which is significant at 0.036 (<0.05). Masculinity is significant at 0.001(<0.05) with an F-value of 9.035 and a significant collectivism F-value of 4.332 significant at 0.007(<0.05). Hence, we may conclude that all the items for related dimensions are significant and indicate homogeneity (Schmitt 1996). Therefore, the hypothesis that the items individually indicate culture is validated.
To test this hypothesis we use one-way ANOVA. The four variables are tested for the factor region, which has been recorded from nationality variable. The results of the one-way ANOVA are presented in table 4. The F value for Power Distance when factored for nationality is 1.23 at a probability of 0.3 (>0.05). Thus, the F-value is not significant. This indicates that power distance will be different for different regions. Thus, the assumption of same mean for power distance of all the respondents from different regions is rejected. Thus, in actuality, power difference will be different for different regions. The multiple comparison table shows that the for power distance, the mean is more for Asia-Africa, than for Europe and North America. As for North America and Europe, the difference is more for the latter.
The between group F-value is 2.58, however the probability is 0.94(>0.05) indicating a non-significant result. Therefore, the study shows that there is a considerable effect of region on the uncertainty avoidance mean of the respondents. This shows that the means for uncertainty avoidance are affected by nationality. When we check the post-hoc test, it is found to be higher for Asian-African countries than European and North American countries. Further, it is higher in North America and lowest in Europe.
For masculinity the F value is 0.57 which however is not significant at the probability 0.945 (>0.05). The mean difference for the regions show that masculinity is highest for Asia-Africa, second is North America, and third is Europe.
The F-value for collectivism is 0.27 which has a probability of 0.75 (>0.05) indicating that the homogeneous mean for all the regions is rejected. This indicates that there is significant effect on the perception of collectivism in organizations, which is affected by nationality factor of employees. The mean for masculinity for employees from Asia-Africa region is higher than tan of North Americans and North-Americans indicating that they are more of a collectivist region. In case of North America and Europe, collectivism is high in Europe.
This analysis shows that we can reject the second hypothesis, which states that national culture will have an effect on the perception of culture of the employees within organizations. Further, it also shows that nationality alters the perception of the dimensions, indicating a higher masculinity, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and collectivism for Asia-Africa region.
To test this hypothesis we use a multivariate correlation analysis. The results of the correlation analysis are presented in table 5. Here we will check the correlation between the demographic factors with the four dimensions of culture. First, we will check the correlation of Levels of employment of the employees with the four dimensions of culture. The correlation between level and power distance gives a correlation of 0.493 at a significance level of 0.006 (<0.05). This indicates that the negative relation between power distance and level is statistically significant. Thus, it states that with increase in level of employment, power distance increases. In other words, power distance is higher as employees move higher up the management hierarchy. The correlation between level and uncertainty avoidance (0.189) and masculinity (0.349) are not statistically significant (sig. level 0.3 and 0.05 respectively are greater than 0.05). The correlation between level and collectivism is 0.37 is statistically significant at probability 0.04 (<0.05). Thus, at higher level of management, the practice of collectivism is more prevalent and at the lower levels, employees tend to be more individualistic. Therefore, level of employment has a significant effect on the power distance and collectivism. The correlation between sex and power distance yields a negative correlation indicating that men have higher preference for power distance while women have lower. However, this is not a significant correlation as the probability is 0.064 (>0.05). Sex and uncertainty has a positive correlation value of 0.105 indicating that men are less concerned about uncertainty avoidance than women are. However, this too does not provide a statically significant result as the probability of 0.58 (>0.05). Similarly, sex has a negative correlation with masculinity and collectivism. However, none of the results is statistically significant. Therefore, it can be concluded that sex has no effect on the four dimensions of culture presented by Hofstede.
Age when correlated with power distance gives a positive correlation of 0.412 at probability level of 0.024 (<0.05). Thus, this provides a statistically significant result indicating that higher the age, higher will be power distance. In other words, older employees face a higher power distance than lower employees’ rest of the correlations provide no significant correlation results.
In addition to the analysis of the correlation of the 4 cultural dimensions and the demographic factors, we conduct an ANOVA analysis of the effect of age, level, and sex on the dimensions. First, we consider the effect of age on the dimensions. Level of management seems to have a significant effect on the individuals. The results is significant at a level of 0.002 (<0.05). The F-value of the test is 7.636, indicating that the effect of age on power distance and the between group power distance will be true for 76.36% of the population. The other variable on which Level has an effect is masculinity. The F-value is 5.082 at probability 0.011 (<0.05). The test also shows that age has a significant effect on collectivism at a significance level 0.022 (<0.05).
Age has significant effect on power distance at probability 0.006 (<0.05). The rest of the dimensions are not statistically affected by age. The effect of sex on the dimensions shows that there is a significant effect of sex on power distance at significance level 0.021 (<0.05). However, no other dimensions show any significant results.
The findings of the one-way ANONA present the almost same result as the correlation analysis except for one. Correlation analysis does not show any significant relation between level and masculinity. However, in case of ANOVA analysis we get a significant result.
From the analysis, we may conclude that sex has no effect on organizational culture. Age has positive effect on power distance, but so significant correlation with the other three dimensions. Thus, it too fails to affect organizational culture. Third, level also has significant correlation with power distance and collectivism, but not with masculinity and uncertainty avoidance. Level of employees may affect the perception and formation organizational culture. This indicates that age, sex, and level do not have any significant affect on organizational culture as a whole. Hence, we accept the hypothesis that organizational culture is not affected by age, sex, and level of employment of the employee.
Organizational culture may be derived from the individual responses regarding the perception of culture within the organization. This may be accepted due to the validation of the results of the reliability test of the items related to the four cultural dimensions of Hofstede. This result is supported by the findings of Hofstede and colleagues (Hofstede, Bond & Luk 1993; Hofstede et al. 1990). This result is important for cross-cultural management as it shows that even though employees come from different backgrounds, they are largely influenced by the culture within the organization. Further, the study also reveals that the degree of dimensions of the culture are neither too high nor too low, indicating that the culture within the organization irrespective of the influence of external and intrinsic factors may be significantly homogeneous. In cross-cultural setting, employees come from various backgrounds, and managers are responsible to maintain parity in his/her leadership style. Therefore, the culture that must be inculcated within the organization must be an amalgamation of all the cultural traits that may not give employees a “cultural shock”. The culture that has been observed in the organization does not tend to be too high on terms of power distance and masculinity and high on uncertainty avoidance and collectivism. This indicates that the culture within the organization has low level of hierarchy and moderately high masculinity. However, uncertainty avoidance and collectivism is high indicating that the culture within the organization avoids risk taking and inculcates group or team orientation. Culture within the organization must be immune to external influences in order to make it whole and constant over time. In case of this study, the survey results show that there exist definitive organizational cultures, which may change over time (Hofstede, Bond & Luk 1993).
Further, it is important to understand if the culture in the organization is influenced by intrinsic factors. These factors are the demographic factors, which has been discussed in the study. First, we discuss the case of nationality and its influence of the perception of culture of the employees. As Hofstede stated “The word culture is most commonly reserved…for ethnic or regional groups” (1981, p. 24), therefore, accordingly we clustered the people belonging to same continent into a single region. This allowed us to get meaningful insight into the effect of rationality on the perception of organizational culture. This was hypothesized, as that regional culture will have a significant effect on the cultural perception of the employees. However, the test of the hypothesis using one-way ANOVA factored by regional variable showed that there was no significant effect of region on organizational culture perception of employees. This finding refutes the assumption of Hofstede who believed that national or regional culture would have a partial effect on the perception of culture within the organization (Hofstede et al. 1990; Hofstede, Bond & Luk 1993; Hofstede 1981). However, this assertion cannot be supported by the findings of our survey. These research findings fail to find any significant impact of regional constructs on organizational culture. This finding, however, is useful for managers in cross-cultural settings, as this would mean that the employees are attuned with the organization’s culture and not expected to rely on the regional constructs. Therefore, the theory of culture actually helps mangers to understand the constructs of the employees.
Further applying Hofstede’s dimensions and factoring them for age, sex, and level of employment shows that perception of culture differs with age and level of employment. The results of the analysis show that with increasing age there is a greater inclination for higher power distance. In other words, as there is an employee increase in age, there is a higher tendency of the employee to support power distance. Thus, this result finds support in the findings of Hofstede (Hofstede et al. 1990). Thus, we see that younger employees perceive power distance to be lower than older employee, indicating as employee grow old, their perception of higher degree of power distance in the culture of the organization becomes higher. In case of other dimensions, age was not found to have any other significant effect.
Sex was found to have no strong correlation with the cultural dimension, indicating employees are not influenced about their perception of organizational culture due to gender differences. This result was surprising as male employees are expected to have high degree of masculinity than female employees. The variance analysis showed that sex had a significant effect on power distance i.e. men perceived lower power distance than women. Thus in cross-cultural management segregation of employees on the basis of intrinsic culture due to their gender need not be considered as had been stated by Hofstede (Hofstede et al. 1990).
Level of management is also seen to have a significant positive correlation with power distance and collectivism. This implies that in cross cultural management settings as employees move up in the ladder of hierarchy, he must embrace greater power distance from his subordinates. Further in case of level and collectivism, employees higher in the rank support collectivism more than otherwise. The ANOVA analysis supports these findings and adds another level of covariance i.e. between level and masculinity. The correlation analysis shows that level and masculinity has a positive relation, and he ANOVA analysis shows that result is statistically significant. This implies that as employees grow up in the ladder the preference for masculine traits become higher. This shows that the organizational culture for the employees alter as they move up the hierarchy. As in this survey, we find that employees start valuing power distance more when employees reach higher level of management. Employees employ more masculine traits and value teamwork at higher levels.
The study though shows cultural theories especially Hofstede’s theory of culture has immense implications and benefits for cross-cultural management, fails to indicate if all cultural theories have similar effect. The paper is limited in its analysis of the cultural theories. It considers only one cultural theory (i.e. developed by Hofstede) in understanding the effectiveness and practicability of the research. Due to paucity of time and resources, this paper is constrained to the analysis of Hofstede’s cultural theory only. Other theories are not considered in this study. Further, the data is analysed from the point of view of only one model due to paucity of time and resource. Further, the number of employees of surveyed is not high. Survey questionnaires were sent out to only 60 employees out of whom 34 respondent and 30 were rejected due to incomplete response. This constrained the findings of the research. No multivariate variance analysis was done due to limited number of responses. Further, the study failed to show any measures as to how this cultural theory could be more helpful in cross-cultural management.
Hofstede (1993) mentioned that management theories are constrained by cultural practices of the employees. This finding has become even more important in case of cross-cultural management as there is increasing number of companies who employee people from different culture. In order to manage people from different backgrounds, it is essential to understand the values and practices that dominate their understandings and perception. Hofstede found that culture might affect the perception of individual’s perception. However, this has been refuted by this research. Instead, we have developed a distinct cultural framework of the organization where the survey has been conducted. It shows a culture, which has moderate power distance and masculinity. Collectivism and uncertainty avoidance are high in the organization. This may be due to the cultural immunity that the organization tried to attain. In cross-cultural management, it is imperative to develop a culture, which can be accepted by employee from different cultures so that employees are comfortable working in it. So a culture with too high a power distance or masculinity may not be preferred by an employee from North America or Asia respectively. Therefore, the culture, which is a moderate amalgamation of the different cultures, will help in satisfying the employees. That is why we did not get any significant regional effect on organizational culture perception of employees. Thus, the right way to make cross cultural management work is to make it immune to culture constructed perception of employees.
In terms of benefits derived from the cultural theory it is clear that Hofstede’s theory, provides clear understanding as to the factors that influence employee perception in formation of organizational culture. Further the culture thus formed may again be divided into demographic categories like level and age (sex was not found to be have any significant effect in this research). Thus, cultural theories also help in making and managing sub-cultural groups in order to make cross-cultural management easier.
Adler, NJ 1983, ‘Cross-Cultural Management Research:The Ostrich and the Trend’, Academy of Managemenl Review, vol 8, no. 2, pp. 226-232.
Aycan, Z, Kanungo, RN, Mendonca, M, Yu, K, Deller, J, Stahl, G & Kurshid, A 2000, ‘Impact of Culture on Human Resoruce Managemetn PRactices: A 10 country comparison’, Applied Psychology: An International Review, vol 49, no. 1, pp. 192-221.
Begley, K 2009, ‘Managing Across Cultures at Home’, HR Magazine, 2009, p. 115.
Bochner, S & Hesketh, B 1994, ‘Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job-related attitudes in a culturally diverse work group’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , vol 25, pp. 233-257.
Denison, DR, Haaland, S & Goelzer, P 2004, ‘Is Asia Different From the Rest of the World?’, Organizational Dynamics, vol 33, no. 1, p. 98–109.
Dorfman, PW & Howell, JP 1988, ‘Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited ‘, in EG McGoun (ed.), Advances in international comparative management, 127149th edn, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Earley, PC & Mosakowski, E 2004, ‘Cultural Intelligence’, Harvard Business Review , pp. 139-146.
Elenkov, DS 1998, ‘Can American management concepts work in Russia? A cross-cultural comparative study’, California Management Review , vol 40, no. 4, pp. 133-153.
FDI.net 2009, FDIStat. Web.
Fernandez, DR, Carlson, DS, Stepina, LP & Nicholson, JD 1997, ‘Hofstede’s country classification 25 years later’, The Journal of Social Psychology, vol 137, no. 1, pp. 43-54.
Hofstede, G 1980, Culture’s Consequences: International differences in work related values, Sage, Beverly Hill, CA.
Hofstede, G 1980, ‘Motivation, leadership, and organization: do American theories apply abroad?’, Organizational Dynamics, vol 9, no. 1, pp. 42-63.
Hofstede, G 1981, ‘Culture and Organizations’, International Studies of Mananagement & Organization, vol X, no. 4, pp. 15-41.
Hofstede, G 1983, ‘The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Practices and Theories’, Journal of International Business Studies, vol 14, no. 2, pp. 75-89.
Hofstede, G 1984, Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Hofstede, G 1986, ‘The Usefulness Of The ‘Organizational Culture’ Concept’, Journal of Management Studi, vol 23, no. 3, pp. 253-257.
Hofstede, G 1991, Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, McGraw-Hill, London.
Hofstede, G 1993, ‘Cultural constraints in management theories’, The Executive, vol 7, no. 1, pp. 81-94.
Hofstede, G 2001, Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hofstede, G & Bond, MB 1984, ‘Hofstede’s cultural dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach’s value survey’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Studies , vol 15, no. 4, pp. 417-433.
Hofstede, G, Bond, MH & Luk, C-L 1993, ‘Individual Perceptions of Organizational Cultures: A Methodological Treatise on Levels of Analysis’, Organizational Studies, vol 14, no. 4, pp. 483-503.
Hofstede, G, Neuijen, B, Ohayv, DD & Sanders, G 1990, ‘Measuring Organizational Cultures; A Qualitative and Quantitative Study across Twenty Cases’, Administrative Science Quarteriy, vol 35, pp. 286-316.
HR Magazine 2008, ‘Selected Cross-Cultural Factors in Human Resource Management’, HR Magazine, 2008, pp. 1-9. Web.
Javidan, M & Lynton., N 2005, ‘The Changing Face of the Chinese Executive’, Harvard Business Review, pp. 28-30.
Jung, T, Scott, T, Davies, HTO, Bower, P, Whalley, D, McNally, R & Mannion, R 2009, ‘Instruments for Exploring Organizational Culture: A Review of the Literature’, Public Administration Review, pp. 1087-1096.
Kruger, T & Roodt, G 2003, ‘Hofstede’s Vsm-94 Revisited: Is It Reliable and Valid? ‘, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, vol 29, no. 1, pp. 75-82.
Kuchinke, KP 1999, ‘Leadership and culture: Work-related values and leadership styles among one company’s U.S. and German telecommunications employees’, Human Resource Development Quarterly , vol 10, no. 2, pp. 135-154.
McSweeney, B 2002, ‘Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences:A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis’, Human Relations, vol 55, no. 1, p. 89–118.
Neuborne, E 2003, ‘Bridging The Culture Gap’, Sales & Marketing Management 155(7), 2003, p. 22. Web.
Newman, KL & Nollen, SD 1996, ‘Culture and congruence: The fit between management practices and national culture’, Journal of International Business Studies , vol 27, no. 4, pp. 753-780.
Newman, KL & Nollen, SD 1996, ‘Culture and congruence:The fit between management practices and national culture’, Journal of International Business Studies , vol 27, no. 4, pp. 753-780.
Santos, JRA 1999, ‘Cronbach’s Alpha: A Tool for Assessing the Reliability of Scales ‘, Journal of Extension, vol 37, no. 2, p. Web.
Schmitt, N 1996, ‘Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha’, Psychological Assessment, vol 8, p. 350–353.
Schwartz, SH 1999, ‘A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for Work ‘, Applied Psychology, vol 48, no. 1, pp. 23-47.
Søndergaard, M 1994, ‘Hofstede’s consequences: A study of reviews, citations and replications.” 15(3): 447.’, Organization Studies, vol 15, no. 3, pp. 447-456.
Spector, PE, Cooper, CL & Sparks, K 2001, ‘An international study of the psychometric properties of the Hofstede Survey Module 1994: A comparison of individual and country/province results’, Applied Psychology-an International Review , vol 50, no. 2, pp. 269-281.
Tjosvold, D & Leong, K 2003, ‘Cross-cultural foundations: Traditions for managing in a global world’, in D Tjosvold, K Leung (eds.), Cross-cultural management: foundations and future, 110th edn, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., Burlington.
Wu, M-Y 2006, ‘Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions 30 Years Later: A Study of Taiwan and the United States’, Intercultural Communication Studies, vol XV, no. 1, pp. 33-42.
Table 1: Reliability Test
|(a) Reliability Test Using Cronbach Alpha|
|(b) ANOVA for Power Distance|
|Sum of Squares||df||Mean Square||F||Sig|
|Within People||Between Items||13.400||4||3.350||3.488||.010|
|Grand Mean = 3.37|
|(c) ANOVA for Uncertainty Avoidance|
|Sum of Squares||df||Mean Square||F||Sig|
|Within People||Between Items||.773||4||.193||2.661||.036|
|Grand Mean = 4.78|
|(d) ANOVA for Masculinity|
|Sum of Squares||df||Mean Square||F||Sig|
|Within People||Between Items||27.840||4||6.960||9.035||.000|
|Grand Mean = 3.55|
|(e) ANOVA for Collectivism|
|Sum of Squares||df||Mean Square||F||Sig|
|Within People||Between Items||3.567||3||1.189||4.322||.007|
|Grand Mean = 4.28|
Table 2: Means of All Items of Questionnaire
|Power Distance |
The managers makes most decisions without consulting subordinates
|Manager frequently uses authority and power when dealing with subordinates||3.77||.817|
|Managers in your organization seldom asks for the opinions of employees||3.27||1.172|
|Employees do not disagree with management decision||2.93||1.258|
|Managers do not delegate important tasks to employees||3.23||1.006|
|It is important to have job requirements and instructions spelled out in detail so that employees always know what they are expected to do||4.67||.606|
|Managers expect workers to closely follow instructions and procedures||4.73||.583|
|Rules and regularities are important because they inform workers what the organization expects of them||4.87||.346|
|Standard operating procedures are helpful to employees on the job||4.80||.407|
|Instructions for operations are important for employees on the job||4.83||.379|
|Meetings are usually run more effectively when they are chaired by a man||4.37||.999|
|It is more important for men to have a professional career than it is for women to have a professional career||3.50||1.383|
|Men usually solve problems with logical analysis; women usually solve problems with intuition||3.40||.855|
|Solving organizational problems usually requires an active, forcible approach which is typical of men||3.37||.964|
|It is preferable to have a man in a high level position rather than a woman||3.10||.845|
|Group welfare is more important than individual rewards||4.00||.830|
|Group success is more important than individual success||4.33||.844|
|Being accepted by the members of your workgroup is very important||4.47||.629|
|Employees should pursue their goals after considering the welfare of the group||4.33||.844|
|Valid N (listwise)|
Table 3: Correlation Analysis of the 4 Dimensions
|N||Mean||Std. Deviation||Std. Error Mean|
|Power Distance||Uncertainty Avoidance||Masculinity||Collectivism|
|Power Distance||Pearson Correlation||1||-.029||.235||.263|
|Uncertainty Avoidance||Pearson Correlation||-.029||1||.390*||.487**|
|*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).|
|**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).|
Table 4: One-way ANOVA Factored by Nationality
|Sum of Squares||df||Mean Square||F||Sig.|
|Power Distance||Between Groups||1.012||2||.506||1.243||.305|
|Uncertainty Avoidance||Between Groups||.790||2||.395||2.589||.094|
|Dependent Variable||(I) Region||(J) Region||Mean Difference (I-J)||Std. Error||Sig.||95% Confidence Interval|
|Lower Bound||Upper Bound|
Table 5: Correlation Analysis for Demographic Factors
|Power Distance||Uncertainty Avoidance||Masculinity||Collectivism|
|**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).|
|*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).|
Table 6: Anova for effect of Age, Level, and Sex on the 4 Dimensions
|(a) ANOVA for AGE|
|Sum of Squares||df||Mean Square||F||Sig.|
|Power Distance||Between Groups||2.882||1||2.882||8.350||.006|
|Uncertainty Avoidance||Between Groups||.134||1||.134||.777||.384|
|(b) ANOVA for SEX|
|Sum of Squares||df||Mean Square||F||Sig.|
|Power Distance||Between Groups||2.116||1||2.116||5.793||.021|
|Uncertainty Avoidance||Between Groups||.081||1||.081||.467||.499|
|(c) ANOVA for Level|
|Sum of Squares||df||Mean Square||F||Sig.|
|Power Distance||Between Groups||4.673||2||2.337||7.636||.002|
|Uncertainty Avoidance||Between Groups||.460||2||.230||1.369||.267|
|Dependent Variable||(I) Level||(J) Level||Mean Difference (I-J)||Std. Error||Sig.||95% Confidence Interval|
|Lower Bound||Upper Bound|
|Power Distance||Low Management||Middle Management||-.653*||.226||.017||-1.20||-.10|
|Middle Management||Low Management||.653*||.226||.017||.10||1.20|
|Top Management||Low Management||.867*||.226||.001||.32||1.42|
|Uncertainty Avoidance||Low Management||Middle Management||.013||.167||.997||-.40||.42|
|Middle Management||Low Management||-.013||.167||.997||-.42||.40|
|Top Management||Low Management||.213||.167||.418||-.20||.62|
|Masculinity||Low Management||Middle Management||-.720*||.248||.017||-1.33||-.11|
|Middle Management||Low Management||.720*||.248||.017||.11||1.33|
|Top Management||Low Management||.693*||.248||.022||.09||1.30|
|Collectivism||Low Management||Middle Management||-.142||.243||.830||-.74||.45|
|Middle Management||Low Management||.142||.243||.830||-.45||.74|
|Top Management||Low Management||.642*||.243||.032||.05||1.24|
|*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.|