Cross-cultural issues in Management Dr Joan Harvey and Dr George Erdos

Geert Hofstede Dutch social anthropologist Obtained attitude data from IBM worldwide in late 1970s Factor analysed and looked for factors which differentiated nationalities Data on 50 countries, but only sufficient N for 40 in first book

Geert Hofstede Originally four main factors and later added [in 1990s] Masculinity femininity Ambition and desire to achieve versus social concern and interpersonal relationships Power distance Amount of power that can be wielded Uncertainty avoidance inflexibility Individualism- collectivism Help and commitment versus high personal achievement and later added [in 1990s] LT-ST orientation [Confucian dynamism]

Country PD UAI MF IC LTO Ger 35 65 66 67 31 China 80 30 20 118 USA 40 46 62 91 29 Japan 54 92 95 UK 89 25 Finl 33 59 26 63 41 Austria 11 70 79 55 India 77 56 48 61 Hung 82 88 50 Denm 18 23 16 74 Czech 57 58 13 Slov 104 51 110 52 38 Poland 72 60

Geert Hofstede Issues: Study was based in 1970s and many countries have changed a lot since then- has this affected their orientation? Eastern European changes Some developing countries are now developed Others have changed politically- e.g. South Africa

Geert Hofstede Issues: All countries will have changed anyway in nearly 30 years Changes in technology and global communication Migration of peoples Are cross-cultural differences still as pronounced?

Geert Hofstede Issues: This study put cross-cultural differences into the mainstream rather than “error variance” in other studies Encouraged other theorists, e.g. Trompenaars Recent developments with studies all over the world have increased considerably the number of countries that have been mapped

Examples of other theories: [a] Trompenaars 7 factors: Universalism versus particularism Work relationships mixed with personal ones Individualism versus collectivism Affective versus neutral culture Specific versus diffuse relationships Distinct relationships versus diffuse ones Achieving versus ascribing status Earned through achievement or recognised e.g. seniority/age Perception of time Sequential [monochronic] or parallel [polychronic] Relating to nature

Example [b] GLOBAL project Assertiveness Future orientation Gender egalitarianism Humane orientation Institutional collectivism In-group collectivism Performance orientation Power distance Uncertainty avoidance

Is the answer Hofstede plus these two? Time perception Polychronic or cyclical [e.g. southern Europe, China, Japan] Monochronic [e.g. northern Europe, US] Context High means that perception of what is said is taken in context, including NVCs Low means words are interpreted literally

So how differently do we perceive time in terms of working hours So how differently do we perceive time in terms of working hours? Who has the ‘long hours’ culture of ‘presenteeism’?

Other dimensions from indigenous social psychology China Confucian values Filial piety Industriousness Giving and protecting face Guanxi Social networking crucial to business relationships Ren ching Respectful exchange of gifts, favours and obligations

Other dimensions Japan Amae and respect Kanban Ringi Sacred treasures- Reliance and dependence upon indulgent love of an older person Kanban Concept of whole transcending sum of parts Ringi Upward communications and decision making Sacred treasures- life time employment, seniority, enterprise unions/families Harmony and cooperation [‘wa’] Gakureki Shakai Social system attaching value to education

Other dimensions Africa Cognitive tolerance Not on seat Africa time Indaba and Ubuntu [sub-Saharan Africa] Tribal loyalty Power and respect based on experience Managers ‘right to manage’

Other dimensions Several cultures resent ‘intrusiveness’ of western values, western research methods, e.g. Philippines Sub-Saharan Africa China India

Other dimensions Latin American countries: emphasis on Respect Family Hierarchy Honour Affiliative obedience Cultural rigidity Machismo Sympatia

Other dimensions eg India Complicated as a cultural mix in one country Detachment as a coping mechanism, therefore working hard is unrelated to success or failure Ingratiation techniques to advance personal goals within hierarchical collective context [similar to parts of western Africa]

Key text Hofstede G and Hofstede G (2005) Culture and Organizations: Software of the mind. 2nd edn London: McGraw Hill This book has been published in Czech, translated by Dr Ludek Kolman