The paper "Chinese Value Survey and Hofstede's Framework" is a perfect example of management coursework. Hofstede dimensions of culture show differences across cultures and focus to open mind understanding of disparities in cultures. Chinese Value Survey provides another categorization of values that is related to Hofstede’ s. This paper compares the two categorizations while highlighting the differences as well as correlation. It begins with exploring Hostede’ s framework followed by the Chinese Value Survey. Collectivism and individualism influence on leadership and management have been examined. Lastly, the essay has looked at the influence of long term and short term orientation in employees on leadership and management. Discussion of the Issues Part I Hofstede's framework/Chinese Value Survey Hofstede’ s dimensions of cultural values represent national cultures that can be illustrated using different values named as power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity and femininity, individualism and collectivism, and long and short-term orientation.
Power distance is the degree at which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions within a country accept and expect power to be distributed unequally (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Individualism relates to societies whereby the links between individuals are weak; every person is expected to care about himself and his immediate family only.
On the other hand, collectivism advocates for strong in-groups that are cohesive and people care about each other in exchange for loyalty. Society is referred to as masculine if the gender roles are very distinct. Men are expected to be tough, assertive and focused on success materially while women are looked upon to be tender, modest, and regaled with quality of life (Minkov & Hofstede, 2012). A feminine society is whereby emotional gender roles overlap. Both women and men are expected to be tender, modest as well as concerned with the quality of life.
Uncertainty avoidance is the degree at which members of a particular culture feel threatened by unknown or ambiguous situations. Long-term orientation represents the art of cultivating values which are focused on the future like thrift and perseverance. Short-term orientation represents focusing on virtues connected to the past and present as well as fulfilling social obligations. The Chinese Value Survey provides an alternative to Hofstede dimensions although they are correlated. The survey applied Chinese concepts.
A situationist does not trust moral principles and advocates that each situation has to be looked at individually. On the non-relativistic side of the typology are exceptions and absolutists (Maak & Pless, 2006). Absolutists are inclined to agree with perceptions that are consistent with the overall approach to moral philosophy referred to as deontology. The ethical philosophy is against the application of action’ s consequences as a foundation for moral evaluation and instead appeals to rationality or moral law in the determination of ethical judgments. In the deontological ethical philosophy, actions are evaluated as immoral or moral by comparing them with the universal moral rule which is absolute.
Absolutists came out as strongest in condemning an act that was contrary to common moral norm like theft or lying, even where positive results were obtained from the moral indiscretion. On the other hand, subjectivists judged the actor who realized a positive outcome through violation of moral standards favorably as compared to a person who gave a negative outcome although he stuck to a moral norm. Moral judgments of situationists were influenced by the quality of the consequences obtained by an act so that they could blame an actor who went against a moral norm less when positive results were realized (Moran, Harris & Moran, 2012).
The positivity of exceptions, on the other hand, became irrelevant when the act was contrary to a moral standard.
Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z., 2006, Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 479-514.
Hechanova, R., Beehr, T.A., & Christiansen, N.D., 2003, Antecedents and Consequences of Employees’ Adjustment to Overseas Assignment: A Meta-analytic Review, Applied Psychology, 52: 213-236.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J., 2005, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Johnson, J. P., Lenartowicz, T., & Apud, S., 2006, Cross-Cultural Competence in International Business: Toward a Definition and a Model, Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 525-543.
Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A., 2008, Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 34(3), 566-593.
Walumbwa, F. O., Lawler, J. L., & Avolio, B. J., 2007, Leadership, Individual Differences, and Work-related Attitudes: A Cross-Culture Investigation, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56(2): 212-230.
Yamazaki, Y., & Kayes, D.C., 2004, An Experiential Approach to Cross-Cultural Learning: A Review and Integration of Competencies for Successful Expatriate Adaptation, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(4), 362-379.
Fang, T. 2003, A Critique of Hofstede’s Fifth National Culture Dimension, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 3 (3): 353.
Moran, R T, Harris, P R & Moran, S 2012, Managing cultural differences, London: Routledge.
Minkov, M & Hofstede, G 2012, Hofstede’s fifth dimension new evidence from the world values survey, Journal of Cross-cultural psychology, 1: 3-14.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V., 2004, Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(5), 628-630.
Maak, T., & Pless, N. M., 2006, Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society - a relational perspective, Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 99-115.
Ivancevich, J., Konopaske, R., Matteson, M., 2007, Organizational Behavior and Management, New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.