Culture is an important criterion for organisations to determine their strategies of management and leadership. This essay aims to outline Hofstede’s cross-cultural framework, identify similarities and differences in comparison with the Chinese Value Survey (CVS) and discuss how differences in individualism-collectivism and long-term/short-term orientation among employees could affect management and leadership. The finding is that Hofstede’s framework and CVS differ from cultural background and respondents; oppositely, the countries researched and outcomes are similar, and parts of the contents are related. The essay also suggests that individualism-collectivism and long-term/short-term orientation would influence motivation, leadership style, rewarding system and supervision respectively. The following parts will present outline and comparison first in addition to analysis of influence of individualism-collectivism followed by LTO-STO, and finally the conclusion. Discussion of the Issues
Outline and comparison
Hofstede’s cross-cultural framework described five dimensions: power distance, individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, uncertainty avoidance and long-term versus short-term orientation (LTO-STO) (Migliore 2011). Power distance is defined as the extent of willingness that societies accept the hierarchical power structure (Morrison 2006). Individualism means individuals detect themselves as autonomous (Morrison, 2006); contrary, collectivism represents that individuals remain integrated into groups (Hofstede and Hofstede 2005). The third dimension is masculinity-femininity, which demonstrates clearly distributed and overlapped gender-roles separately (Migliore 2011). Uncertainty avoidance measures how the members of a culture cope with uncertainties in daily life (Morrison 2006). The last dimension, LTO-STO, is people’s time epistemology which is highly distinguished between western and eastern culture (Morrison 2006). LTO refers to higher acceptance of delayed gratification of needs while STO is the opposite (Hofstede and Hofstede 2005). CVS, developed by Bond and groups of researchers, focuses on Chinese tradition and provides an eastern cultural-value instrument (Matthews 2000). CVS contains 40 values, which are divided into four factors: integration, Confucian work dynamism, human-heartedness and moral discipline (Chinese Culture Connection 1987). These four factors represent social bonding, Confucian work ethics, gentle or harsher approach and level of self-control respectively (CCC 1987). In comparison, Hofstede’s framework is significantly different from CVS. Firstly, Hofstede’s framework and CVS are based on different cultural background. Hofstede focuses on the western cultural values whereas CVS creates an eastern instrument (Hofstede and Bond 1988). Secondly, the respondents are different. Hofstede extracted data from employees in a multinational company---IBM while CVS was constructed to university students (Mintu 1992; Matthews 2000). The opposite view is that they are still similar to some degree. Both of the studies are cross-cultural and worldwide, and 20 out of 22 countries chosen by CVS are covered in IBM’s study (CCC 1987). Also, there are overlapping outcomes in these projects, so the results are similar and universally accepted (Hofstede and Bond 1988). Other than general hierarchy, the contents are similar as well. Individualism is negatively correlated to moral discipline as lower moral restraint indicates higher collectivism (CCC 1987). In addition, power distance and masculinity are similar with integration, which displays an unequal power distribution, and human-heartedness (CCC 1987). LTO-STO is related with Confucian dynamism because it is derived from CVSII and both of them measure a time-oriented value (Kirkman Lowe and Gibson 2006). Nonetheless, they still distinguish from cultural backgrounds and the dimensions derived from Hofstede’s survey are...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document