The paper "Models of Hofstede and Trompenaars and Their Usefulness " is an outstanding example of management coursework. National cultures vary due to the 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 offer 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, the 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 a demonstration of another fifth dimension to a 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 a nation’ s culture (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 2012). However, Geert Hofstede’ s research findings have 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 based 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.