Models of Hofstede and Trompenaars and Their Usefulness - Coursework Example

Essay topic: Compare and contrast the models of Hofstede and Trompenaars and their usefulness for understanding the influence of cultural difference on organizations. Name Instructor’s Name Course Number Date Introduction National cultures vary due to composition of different values. The diversity in cultural values comes as a result of diversity in beliefs, resources as well as necessities. Various cultures vary in terms of standards, traditions, behaviours as well as modes of communication. Therefore, the way one culture conducts its endeavors may strongly vary from the way another culture conducts its endeavors, thereby being the source of cultural differences. Therefore, these variations in values lead to a cultural gap that exists between people in an organization and a society as a whole. There are two known and leading studies on cross-cultural management which have been conducted by Geert Hofstede and Hop Trompenaars. Each and every one of the researchers offers different dimensions regarding culture and how cultural values can be obtained in as much as there is diversity in culture. According to the studies on cross-cultural management, cultural structure tends to affect or rather influence human thinking and feeling, besides also affecting human performance. However, the various dimensions advocated for by the cultural researchers haven’t gone without any criticisms. Most of their findings have been heavily criticized This essay therefore seeks to compare and contrast the two cultural models advocated for by Geert Hofstede and Fon Trompenaars besides also analyzing their usefulness in understanding cultural diversity Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions Culture has been generally dimensioned from different perspectives by different researchers. According to Browaeys and Price (2015), culture is made up of ideologies meant to capture each and every individual’s framework. In fact, according to Jackson (2012), frameworks relating to culture may be very broad as indicated by diversity in identifications such as Africans, Asians, Americans, Dutch, Indians and so on. Such forms of frameworks establish known personalities. Geert Hofstede’s research and subsequent research findings have contributed immensely to the understanding of culture and the need to apply cultural dimensions. Geert Hofstede’s cultural research was based on IBM’s employees’. His research was focused on values and consisted of the Value Survey Model (VSM) which was established by collecting 33 questions meant to classify people into different cultural dimensions. Being a well-known Dutch anthropologist, Hofstede in the 1970s made a presentation of diversity in cultural dimensions by making an evaluation of values relating to international employees’ work. Geert subdivided cultural dimensions into four classifications namely: Uncertainty avoidance, power distance, individualism vs. collectivism and Masculinity Vs. femininity. However, later on in the 1990s, Geert Hofstede made demonstration of another fifth dimension to culture known as ‘Confucian dynamism’, which brings out the difference between both long term and short term cultural orientations (Hofstede and Fink, 2007). Criticism Geert Hofstede’s research and subsequent findings make an implication on the existence and applicability of cultural differences in today’s society (Trompenaars, 2011). However, in as much as he made contributions to a clear understanding of cultural frameworks, the reliability of these cultural frameworks hadn’t been approved probably because of the fact that the frameworks were fixed in terms of viewpoint and that psychological features were not captured. In fact, according to Hofstede and Fink (2007), Geert Hofstede’s findings, are just ideally based on people and are cross-cultural dimensions and have proved to be unreliable.Geert Hofstede’s model relating to cultural evaluations proves to be very instrumental when making an analysis of nation’s culture (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 2012). However, Geert Hofstede’s research findings has attracted a lot of criticism on the reliability and applicability of the model. Firstly, since Geert Hofstede research used surveys to collect data in order to measure culture, the methodology has been criticised basing on the fact that the instrument isn’t appropriate to actually measure culture. Secondly, since the research was initially based on IBM, the results cannot be used to measure cultural diversity because only one company was used. Thirdly, the data that was collected from IBM is as at now, old, obsolete and totally unreliable. Lastly, due to the model’s classification of culture into four major dimensions, it is factual that the four dimensions can’t be a true reflection of cultural diversity and therefore its inability to tell the whole story. Trompenaars’ cultural perspective Regarding perception and approach to culture, Trompenaars has a different view altogether. His work or rather research on culture is drawn upon Parson’s and Strodtbeck’s studies on 1951 and 1961 respectively (Hofstede and Fink, 2007). According to Trompenaars, culture refers to how people approach or rather solve problems related to relationships, time as well as problems arising from the external environment. Trompenaars came up with seven dimensions to culture, namely: Universalism vs. Particularism, Specific vs. diffuse, Achievement vs. Ascription, Individualism vs. Communitarianism, Affective vs. Neutral, Time as sequence vs. Time as synchronization and lastly Inner-directed vs. Outer-directed cultures (Hofstede and Fink, 2007) Criticism Trompenaars cultural dimensions have been heavily criticized by many scholars, with Geert Hofstede himself being one of the people criticizing Trompenaars work claiming that Trompenaars dimensions are not supported by his database. Because of correlation and analysis of factors at different levels, and the country level to be specific, Geert Hofstede concluded that only two of Trompenaars dimensions could correlate to his three individualism dimensions (Hofstede and Fink, 2007). However, with an attempt to clear the difference in perceptions, Trompenaars responded by making a clarification. Apart from criticisms raised by Geert Hofstede himself, other criticisms include the inability of the Trompenaars model to consider the capability of personal characteristics to influence behaviour. Additionally, Trompenaars model makes a clear clarification on the differences between varied cultures, but doesn’t make recommendations on clear ways of working with specific cultures. Further, regarding the list of seven original cultural dimensions advocated for by Trompenaars, there is a creation of dilemmas because there is no particular assurance that the seven dimensions are complete Similarities and differences Some of Trompenaars views or rather dimensions to culture have some form of similarities to Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. In fact out of the seven cultural dimensions advocated for by Trompenaars, two have a close reflection to Geert Hofstede’s dimension of collectivism vs. individualism and the dimension of power distance. The dimension of communitarianism vs. individualism as indicated by Trompenaars has some form of close similarities to Geert Hofstede’s dimension of collectivism vs. individualism (Jackson, 2012). Similarly, Trompenaars dimension of achievement vs. ascription is closely linked to Geert Hofstede’s dimension of power distance in the sense that both describe status and how the same is accorded, and that status accord comes out of power rather than achievement. However, both Trompenaars achievement vs. ascription dimensions and Geert Hofstede’s power distance dimension aren’t perfect and complete matches because apart from Geert Hofstede’s power dimension indicating how power is accorded, it goes ahead to indicating power distances found within a given society, an area not covered by Trompenaars dimension of achievement and ascription Usefulness to understanding the influence of cultural differences on organizations. One of the usefulness of understanding cultural diversity in organizations is that it helps in communication. The diversity in cultural patterns in organizations is a reflection of cultural diversity in the whole society (Đorđević, 2016). Through the understanding of culture, managers are in a position to share their organization’s cultures with that of the society. For instance, in case of project management, project managers have exclusively developed project management techniques in individualist countries like USA and whose basis is on cultural assumptions which might not be applicable in collectivist cultures. For example, project managers are required to possess key skills like the ability to keenly manage performance and the ability to keenly convey bad news (Đorđević, 2016). However, in administering projects that have the involvement of parties from societies which are collectivist in nature, it is important to understand that discussing one’s performance openly is likely to lead to a clash with society’s norm because such societies have different ways of communicating. Understanding cultural diversity is important in understanding the concept of relationships. According to Thomas and Peterson (2008), in collectivist and particularistic cultures, attention is directed to relationships and to circumstances which are unique in nature. Friendship as a special kind of relationship has special forms of obligations which make it to be considered first. Similarly, legal codes are accorded less attention. In cultures which, are individualist and Universalist in nature, law comes first before relationships, and friendship to be particular. How people relate in an organization determines the ability of an organization to either achieve or fail to achieve organizational objectives (Browaeys and Price, 2015). Conclusion The studies undertaken by the two researchers on cross-cultural management have contributed a great deal to the understanding of culture and the need to develop core cultural values. However, analysis of cross cultures has a weakness in real life situation in that unlike nations or countries, cultures don’t have boundaries which are physical in nature. In fact, in real life situation, expression of core values and beliefs for different cultures may take different forms in as much as movement across cultural distance is concerned. In the modern business world today, there is some form of criticism that the approach adopted by both Geert Hofstede and Fon Trompenaars in approaching cross-cultural analysis is outdated and is not in phase with modern business world. In conclusion, therefore, in as much as the two cultural models face a lot of criticisms, they are mostly favored and applied by academic researchers and trainers due to their easiness and their ability to quantify cultural differences. Similarly, the two models sought to explain variations in culture and possible measurements that can be taken, which is worth knowing. I therefore agree to the fact that the two models have contributed to a clear understanding of the culture and its management Bibliography Browaeys, M.J And Price, R 2015, Understanding cross-cultural management (2nd edition). 2nd edn. Harlow, England: Financial Times/Prentice Hall. Hofstede, G and Fink, G 2007, ‘Culture: Organizations, personalities and nations. Gerhard Fink interviews Geert Hofstede’, European J. of International Management, vol. 1, no. 1/2, pp. 14–22. Jackson, T 2012, ‘whither academia, whither cross-cultural management studies?’ International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 153–156. Thomas, D.C and Peterson, M.F 2008, Cross-cultural management: Essential concepts, 2nd edn. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Trompenaars, F 2011, riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business, 2nd edn., London, Nicholas Brealey International. Trompenaars, F and Hampden-Turner, C 2012, riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business, 3rd edn., London, Nicholas Brealey International. Đorđević, B 2016, ‘Impact of national culture on international human resource management’, Economic Themes, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 281–300. Read More