Analyze Relationship Between The Dimensions Of Cultures Hofstede Business Essay

Published:

Significantly. Culture have a lot of aspects but in this report we just analyze the relationship between the dimensions of the cultures identified by G. Hofstede - power distance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/feminity, the uncertainty avoidance

and long term vs. short term approach - and the steps of the decisional

process (in the simplified normative vision) -problem recognition, search for information

generating, selecting and implementation of the chosen alternative.

After 8 years of experience in many international company I realized many situations or issues that could be resolved in better way if managers understand about the culture.

We understand that in the globalization market , It is crucial for international managers to understand the influence of culture on decision-making styles and processes

Problem Recognition.

In the organization with high level of power distance we observed that usually the process of problem recognition is longer than in culture with lower power distance score. It is because of the actual issue should be escalated through many levels before finally be recognized as a problem. It is actually happened in many Russian and Vietnamese companies that I have worked before, when the issue escalated to director's level it became very serious and take big impact to the company's business. So in these culture in order to have good problem recognition process , company should establish the good system of information management to ensure the information about any big issue should come to decision's level in appropriate time.

Lady using a tablet
Lady using a tablet

Professional

Essay Writers

Lady Using Tablet

Get your grade
or your money back

using our Essay Writing Service!

Essay Writing Service

In the organizations with a culture with high level of uncertainty avoidance, top management manifests a special trust in planning and hardly accepts the idea of existing of an unexpected decisional problem, the awareness being sometimes delayed, even late. There are also neglected the signals concerning certain dissonances, there is a focus on formal reports, usually financial- accountant ones, with historical information. In the organizations with a culture tolerant to uncertainty, the acceptance of the dissonances is much easier, this wouldn't be seen as a situation with no exit, but, on the contrary, as a conjuncture which provokes creativity.

A high power distance means the concentration of all information concerning

the activity of the organization at high managerial level. This can lead to more negative

implications upon the decisional process: the leader/manager, the only one that can

observe the existence of a decisional problem, knowing all the facts, may not always

have the capacity or the interest (objective or subjective) to identify the problem; the

subalterns, partially informed, can identify and try to resolve the "fake problems". A

low power distance produces a decentralization of the decisions.

One of the major dimension affect to the problem recognition is masculinity/feminity. In the feminity culture, the approach to problem recognition is more subjective while in masculinity culture it is more objective. Western approach is based on the concrete evidence of the problem it mean that some time they realize about the problem only after it happen but Latin Americans or Asian approach base more on the sense of the people . It have disadvantage because some time their thinking about the problem is not correct but they usually can foresee the problem.

American managers believe strongly in self-determination and perceive problem

situations as something they can control and should change. However, managers in

many other countries, Indonesia and Malaysia among them, are resigned to problem

situations and do not feel that they can change them.

Another dimension affect the process is individualist/collectivist , we observed that American managers may identify the problem long before their Asian counterpart (indo, thai, malay, Vietnam…) would choose to define the situation as a problem. In my experience It can be explained because Asian culture is more collectivist that why when one person realize a problem , they should convince other people in group to agree with him, and the process of getting agreement usually take time.

One of the major cultural variables affecting decision-making is whether a

country assumes an objective approach or a subjective approach. Whereas the Western

approach is based on rationality (managers interpret a situation and consider alternative

Lady using a tablet
Lady using a tablet

Comprehensive

Writing Services

Lady Using Tablet

Plagiarism-free
Always on Time

Marked to Standard

Order Now

solutions based on objective information), this approach is not common throughout the

world. Latin Americans, among others, are more subjective, basing decisions on

emotions.

Information Search

In our observation we see that the culture with more short term oriented and more individualistic usually gather information base on the fact of situation, while other cultures are likely more intuitive. They are more frequently gather ideas from the past and future in their attempt to understand the situation. It help them to have full picture of the problem but it also take more time. In my previous company we have board of director which include American and Vietnamese, the conflict in the planning process happen quite often while American director just take information in the current report from his direct subordinate while other directors were looking for more complex information from other department, report from the past and market forecast. In some cases in order to fit with the change of the problem we need to limit the time of information collection so I think in this step it is crucial for the manager to define the acceptable level of information he need to make a decision timely.

Constructing alternatives. In this step we will look into 3 of the five

dimensions identified by G.Hofstede, such as: long/short power distance,

uncertainty avoidance, long/short term orientation.

In organizations with a culture characterized by big uncertainty avoidance it is

identified a small number of alternatives, generally predefined, in the moment of

elaboration the planning. New information/alternatives is treated superficially. On the contrary, in organizations with a tolerant culture to uncertainty it is paid

attention to all information, including the one obtained on an informal way, and are

considered and analyzed all possible alternatives.

In organizations characterized by cultures with long power distance,

this activity is the privilege of the general manager/leader. In cultures with sort distance

towards power, in order to elaborate the decisional alternatives, are taken into

consideration the subordinate's suggestions.

People from more long term oriented cultures tent to have more new alternatives than the people in short term oriented cultures. For example all people over the world can realize the problem of running out of nature resource (oil, gas …) in near future and the long term oriented people as Japan are care more about next generation, and they are the first one who introduced hybrid car to the world.

Selecting one alternative.

Who make the decision in the company?

First we must have a discussion concerning the

criteria taken into consideration to differentiate the alternatives. Thus, in an

organization with a culture characterized by individualism, only single manager make decision. In North America the expression "the buck stop here " reflect the belief that ultimately a single person hold responsibility for a particular decision. In other collective culture as Japan, Vietnam, groups make decisions; they would find it inconvenient for an individual to make a decision prior to consulting his colleagues and gain their agreement. The collective approach usually give more efficient result but it take more time and some time not clear about the responsibility if the decision is failed.

In organizations with a culture typically masculine it is noticed a strong

orientation towards results, towards settled objectives achievement mainly the financial parameters , while in organizations with a culture typically feminine it is privileged the maintenance of a good organizational climate, of an environment which encourages cooperation.

Still in the sphere of objectives, it can be made a distinction between

organizations with a culture characterized by risk avoidance and organizations with a

culture characterized by tolerance towards risk. Thus, the first ones have standards,

norms, rules, clear, firm procedures for all activities, actions, missions. In organizations

with a culture characterized by tolerance towards risk the criteria for appreciation of

decisional variants are flexible, dynamic, and circumstantial.

Another variable that affects the consideration of alternatives solutions is Power distance. In big power distance culture, only senior executive make important decisions, the lower level staff hold the responsibility to implement it. Many surveys show that Indian managers prefer more directive style and up to 85 percent of them believe they work better under supervision ().In contrast, in lower power distance culture, the employees/managers are expected to make their own decision in daily operation and even they take the responsibilities of allocating and scheduling tasks as well as allocating rewards among employees. In my experience, the disadvantage of the big power distance culture in decision making is people are not encouraged to make decisions; they usually wait for the command from the higher level manager and if the senior manager have not enough time or knowledge the final decision usually inefficient or even failed.

Lady using a tablet
Lady using a tablet

This Essay is

a Student's Work

Lady Using Tablet

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Examples of our work

From my point, the step of choosing alternatives is the most important step in decision making process, so managers should understand deeply about the culture variable and implement the most appropriate approach to it.

The implementation of an alternative.

In an organization with a culture with short

distance towards power the implementation of a decision turns into an active process, with many negotiated actions. The co-operation model is more suitable for this type ofculture. In organizations with a culture with long distance towards power it is applied the imposing model. In many companies that require the creativity such as software comp., designing comp. etc. we see many changes can be occurred during the implementation step. But in manufacturing industry usually imposing model is used to make sure the output will be exactly as manager's desire.

In another point collectivist type organizations also take big implication to the decision implementation step. From one side it enhance the efficiency of the decision by

creating and following a common vision, according to the values of the group but from the other side it can make people depend on other and not take their own interest in doing their own work.

In individualist type organizations the ones

implicated in taking a decision must be preoccupied by harmonization of interests, most of all divergent, of different categories of stakeholders, by diminishing the tensions among personal, individual objectives and the objectives of the organization. Within this paragraph the debate was focused on the influences exercised by organizational culture upon organizational decisional processes. Without a doubt, the bond between culture and organizational decisional processes can be approached in a reversed way, that is culture can be modified throughout the decisions made especially by the leader of an organization, but in our opinion the impact is slow, the

organizational culture couldn't change from one day to another (this direction will be

approached within the next paragraph).

Finally, we will analyze, briefly, the impact of national culture upon decisional processes in organizations from a certain national spirit. More studies have shown that, in a certain measure, the decisional practices vary from one country to another. The national cultural factors can influence the attitude towards risk of the deciders, the centralization/decentralization of the decisional processes, the configuration of group decisions, the speed of adoption of the decisions etc.

In these conditions, for example in a country like India, where the distance

towards power and the aversion to risks are high, the decisions are the tasks almost

exclusively of top-management, which will prefer, most of the time, the decisional

solutions less risky. On the contrary, in a country like Sweden, characterized by a very low level of the two factors, managers won't hesitate to assume the risks and to

encourage the employees' participation in adopting the decisions, moreover to those

that are in their interest. In another plan, a country like Egypt, where there are a few

temporal compulsions, managers will assign more time for a decision than their

homologues in the North-American space, for example, where the decisional speed is

often considered a determinant of organizational performance. In Italy, where the

tradition is highly valued, managers prefer already tested decisional solutions. In France

and Germany, top-managers adapt the decisional style to the respectively culture. Thus,

in France, the autocrat approaches are quite frequent, and risk assumption in decisional

processes is made with certain moderation. In the German space, the decisional

practices are also a reflection of national culture. These are characterized by: the

preoccupation for structure, order; clear delimitation of the responsibilities of each

decider; the existence of some norms, clear, precise rules for decisional processes

within the organization.

In Japan there is a specific modality of adopting a decision, called ringisei.

This, basically an approach of the decision by consensus, radiographyates exactly the "

virtues of the Japan leading system - stressing the global perspective and situating the

overall interest of the organization above the own interest" (T. Hafsi). Concretely, it is

done as follows: an employee finds a resolving solution for a major problem of the

organization and tells it to his direct boss; this organizes a meeting in which he presents

the problem and the proposed decisional variant; if the members of the organizational

subdivision considers that the proposing deserves to be taken into consideration, the

boss informs the department manager starting the process of obtaining the consensus

within the organization; it is obtained first the consensus of the people in the

department directly and indirectly implicated in solving the approached problem, then

demarches the action of getting the consensus at the level of the whole organization; for

this, the department manager, initiator, organizes a meeting with the representatives of

the other implicated departments, where it is presented the decisional variant which is

in the stage of proposal and it is done a deep exchange of information upon it (if there

are needed more information, there are more meetings); when it is considered that all

the necessary information is gathered, a group of specialists from the starting section

writes a document in which presents the decisional variant that has been outlined,

asking for the approval of all managers at medium and low level implicated; the

document is handed to the superior manager of the organization which gives the final,

official approval of the decision; it takes place the registration of the decision and

proceeding to its implementation.

Another important variable in companies' overall approach to decision making

is that of autocratic versus participative leadership. In other words, who has the authority to make what kinds of decisions? A country's orientation - whether is

individualistic or collectivist - influences the level at which decisions are made. In

many countries with hierarchical cultures - Germany, Turkey and India among others -

authorization for actions has to be passed upwards through echelons of management

before final decision can be made. Most employees in these countries simply expect the

autocrat - the boss - to do most of the decision making and will not be comfortable

otherwise. Even in China, which is a highly collectivist society, employees expect

autocratic leadership because their value system presuppose the superior to be

automatically the most wise. In comparisons, decision-making authority in Sweden is

much decentralized.

Arab managers have long traditions of consultative decision making, supported

by the Qur'an and the sayings of Muhammad. However, such consultation occurs more

on a person to person basis than during group meetings and thus diffuses potential

opposition. Although business in the Middle East tend to be transacted in a highly

personalized manner, the final decisions are made by the top leaders, who feel that they

must they must impose their will for the company to be successful. In comparisons, in

cultures that emphasize collective harmony, such as Japan, participatory or group

decision-making predominates, and consensus is important. The best-known example is

the bottom-up (rather than top-down) decision-making process used in most Japanese

companies.

Conclusions

In present conditions, marked by the effects of globalization, top-managers are,

more often, in the situation to collaborate with subordinates from other cultures. In

these situations, they must know the possibility of appearing of some differences among

subordinates during the decisional processes in which they are implicated, differences

inducted by cultural factors. The leader/manager, must build in this case, a common

space, accepting and integrating elements of cultural diversity in the philosophy and the

practice of adopting a decision from the organization's perspective.