Assignment Title Critical Evaluation Hofstede’s Contribution to Our Understanding of Cultural Differences. Word Count 3000   Critically evaluate contribution of Hofstede (2 to 3 ideas) 1. Introduction / Executive Summary  (600) 2. Literature Review  (600)  Conducted perhaps the most comprehensive study of how values in the workplace are influenced by culture  Analyzed a large data base of employee values scores collected by IBM (HERMES)  1967 – 1973  more than 50 countries  Developed a model that identifies four primary Dimensions to assist in differentiating cultures:  Power distance  Uncertainty avoidance  Individualism  Masculinity + Long-term orientation (added later) + Indulgence versus restraint (Added recently) 3. Discussion of Topics  (900) Based on the hofstade model some of the references of (Comparison) Contribution a. Leadership Effective leadership requires the ability to utilize critical thinking skills while approaching each situation and challenging business environment. b. Advertising and Promotion Comparison 4. Critical Evaluation (Application/improvement, Streng & Limitation) –> (600) Strength - Relevancy - Tried and Proven Limitation - Research was done more than decade ago - Organized and structured data collection by one company • Hofstede's methodology: • Study based on IBM: 64 national subsidiaries, 116,000 workers (not just managers), three world regions • Reports averages; does not describe exact individual situations • Is valid for broader groups not individuals • IBM values may overwhelm national values • Yet, if IBM culture so overwhelming, differences across countries may be attributable to “national” culture... • Privileged group • Researcher bias? Western stereotypes and culturally biased conclusions? • Many recent studies validate Hofstede’s dimensions Limitations The limitations of the original work have been widely discussed. Firstly, Hofstede’s data comes from one company, IBM, and his sample is most likely influenced by the firm’s recruitment policies and by company culture. Secondly, Hofstede describes the national cultures of the countries where IBM had offices through the medium of numeric descriptors and two dimensional matrices. However, even before Hofstede’s survey, the description of culture by reference to polarities had been abandoned by anthropologists on the grounds that culture should be examined as a whole, cohesive pattern of symbols, artefacts and meanings rather than being broken down into component elements or values - as if it were a quantum. However, the most important weakness of Hofstede’s work lies in the equation of cultures with nation states. It would seem to be clear to most contemporary students of international management that there is more than one culture in one country at any one time and that cultures are not equal to countries. Working as I do in Munich, Germany’s third largest city, the beer culture of Bavaria is ever present in daily life and I have learned that Bavarians prefer to drink their beer in litre measures called ‘Maß’. On the other hand, residents of Köln (Cologne), Germany’s next largest city, seem to prefer their beer in small, one fifth of a litre glasses. I joke with my students that these small glasses are what Bavarian babies are given their beer in. Clearly, the cultures of Bavaria and North Rhine-Westphalia differ dramatically in at least one regard, and I venture to guess in many others too, thus not so much raising the question as to what German culture actually is but rather highlighting Hofstede’s error in defining an appropriate unit of analysis. Hofstede’s work has not gained a strong position in the core social sciences of anthropology and sociology. Nevertheless, it does seem to have gained increasing attention in other spheres where business leaders, entrepreneurs, politicians, economists and management academics wrestle with the implications of globalisation for their own particular perspective on international business and are therefore happy to apply a straightforward model that can be used to explain away many troublesome issues observed in the practice of international management. It is of course true that there are very few other ‘off-the-peg’ theoretical tools available for ‘cultural analysis’ in a business context from which to choose …but perhaps there is a reason for that? Notes of caution Perhaps universalist, not to say simplistic, notions of culture in international management might carry the following health warnings to students: • Culture cannot be treated as the dependent variable in inter-cultural studies • Culture is always mutable, capricious and adaptable • Each of Hofstede’s Dimensions are not equally important across different cultures • Scientific legitimacy is not be found in a superficial understanding of intercultural differences Avoiding problems when applying Hofstede’s Dimensions Naturally, it cannot be that the study of international management, for which questions of culture in business are fundamental, turns away from Hofstede and all his works. Indeed, the Dimensions are now so engrained in thinking about international management that to omit mention of Hofstede when considering cultural implications for business might be as dangerous to the student as would be a naïve over-reliance on these ideas. However, there are things that can be done to demonstrate a willingness to ‘get inside’ the data and so to legitimise the discussion of culture in an international management context. This might best be done by applying the well accepted methodology of participant observation through fieldwork within an interpretative and qualitative research paradigm. This ‘involved’ approach seeks explanations for what has been observed in practice by achieving an appreciation of the cultural context of the problem area - and perhaps even an understanding of it. By engaging at the lowest level with the cultural aspects of an international management problem, that is with the people involved who are each living the situation being examined, the way is open to new, micro-level appreciations of culture as a explanatory factors in dissertation research. Demonstrations of such engagement goes a long way to dealing with the health warnings associated with universalist analyses of culture described above! 5. Conclusion – Future development  (300)