Book•
Culture′s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values
01 Nov 1980-
TL;DR: In his book Culture's Consequences, Geert Hofstede proposed four dimensions on which the differences among national cultures can be understood: Individualism, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance and Masculinity as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: In his bestselling book Culture's Consequences, Geert Hofstede proposed four dimensions on which the differences among national cultures can be understood: Individualism, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance and Masculinity. This volume comprises the first in-depth discussion of the masculinity dimension and how it can help us to understand differences among cultures. The book begins with a general explanation of the masculinity dimension, and discusses how it illuminates broad features of different cultures. The following parts apply the dimension more specifically to gender (and gender identity), sexuality (and sexual behaviour) and religion, probably the most influential variable of all. Hofstede closes the book with a synthesizing statement about cultural values as they are linked to sexuality, gender and religion.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The authors constructed a theory of the universal types of values as criteria by viewing values as cognitive representations of three universal requirements: (a) biological needs, (b) interactional requirements for interpersonal coordination, and (c) societal demands for group welfare and survival.
Abstract: We constructed a theory of the universal types of values as criteria by viewing values as cognitive representations of three universal requirements: (a) biological needs, (b) interactional requirements for interpersonal coordination, and (c) societal demands for group welfare and survival. From these requirements, we have derived and presented conceptual and operational definitions for eight motivational domains of values: enjoyment, security, social power, achievement, sehxiirection, prosocial, restrictive conformity, and maturity. In addition, we have mapped values according to the interests they serve (individualistic vs. collectivist) and the type of goal to which they refer (terminal vs. instrumental). We postulated that the structural organization of value systems reflects the degree to which giving high priority simultaneously to different values is motivationajly and practically feasible or contradictory. To test our theory, we performed smallest space analyses on ratings given by subjects from Israel (N = 455) and Germany (N = 331) of the importance of 36 Rokeach values as guiding principles in their lives. Partitioning of the obtained multidimensional space into regions revealed that people do indeed discriminate among values according to our a priori specifications of goal types, interests served, and motivational domains in both societies. Moreover, the motivational domains of values are organized dynamically in relation to one another in both societies, as predicted by the patterns of compatible or contradictory motivation and practical consequences. We have noted additional values and domains possibly needed for a universal scheme as well as potential applications of this approach for comparing the meanings, structure, and importance of values across cultures, for analyzing relations between social structure and values, and for predicting and interpreting relations of values to attitudes and behavior.
3,381 citations
TL;DR: The Hofstede model of six dimensions of national cultures: power distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, individualism/collectivism, Masculinity/Femininity, Long/ Short Term Orientation, and Indulgence/Restraint as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: This article describes briefly the Hofstede model of six dimensions of national cultures: Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism/Collectivism, Masculinity/Femininity, Long/ Short Term Orientation, and Indulgence/Restraint. It shows the conceptual and research efforts that preceded it and led up to it, and once it had become a paradigm for comparing cultures, research efforts that followed and built on it. The article stresses that dimensions depend on the level of aggregation; it describes the six entirely different dimensions found in the Hofstede et al. (2010) research into organizational cultures. It warns against confusion with value differences at the individual level. It concludes with a look ahead in what the study of dimensions of national cultures and the position of countries on them may still bring. Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. This article is available in Online Readings in Psychology and Culture: http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8
3,375 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors summarized the author's recently published findings about differences in people's work-related values among 50 countries and pointed out that national and regional differences are not disappearing; they are here to stay and that these differences may become one of the most crucial problems for man- agement-in particular for the management of multinational, multicultural orga- nizations, whether public or private.
Abstract: This paper summarizes the author's recently published findings about differences in people's work-related values among 50 countries. In view of these differences, ethnocen- tric management theories (those based on the value system of one particular country) have become untenable. This concept is illustrated for the fields of leadership, organization, and motivation. * A key issue for organization science is the influence of national cultures on INTRODUCTION management. Twenty or even 10 years ago, the existence of a relationship be- Management and tween management and national cultures was far from obvious to many, and it National Cultures may not be obvious to everyone even now. In the 1950s and 60s, the dominant be- lief, at least in Europe and the U.S., was that management was something univer- sal. There were principles of sound management, which existed regardless of na- tional environments. If national or local practice deviated from these principles, it was time to change local practice. In the future, the universality of sound manage- ment practices would lead to societies becoming more and more alike. This ap- plied even to the poor countries of the Third World, which would become rich as well and would be managed just like the rich countries. Also, the differences be- tween management in the First and Second World (capitalist and socialist) would disappear; in fact, under the surface they were thought to be a lot smaller than was officially recognized. This way of thinking, which dominated the 1950s and 60s, is known as the "convergence hypothesis." During the 1970s, the belief in the unavoidable convergence of management prac- tices waned. It was too obviously in conflict with the reality we saw around us. At the same time supranational organizations like the European Common Market, which were founded very much on the convergence belief, had to recognize the stubbornness of national differences. Even within existing nations, regional dif- ferences became more rather than less accentuated. The Welsh, the Flemish, the Basques, the Bangladeshi, the Quebecois defended their own identity, and this was difficult to reconcile with a management philosophy of convergence. It slowly became clear that national and even regional cultures do matter for management. The national and regional differences are not disappearing; they are here to stay. In fact, these differences may become one of the most crucial problems for man- agement-in particular for the management of multinational, multicultural orga- nizations, whether public or private.
3,131 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors addressed the question of whether firms in a competitive, globally integrated environment face a "liability of foreignness" and to what extent either importing home-country organizational capabilities or copying the practices of successful local firms can help them overcome this liability.
Abstract: This study addressed the question of whether firms in a competitive, globally integrated environment face a “liability of foreignness” and to what extent either importing home-country organizational capabilities or copying the practices of successful local firms can help them overcome this liability. Predictions were tested with a paired sample of 24 foreign exchange trading rooms of major Western and Japanese banks in New York and Tokyo. Results support the existence of a liability of foreignness and the role of a firm's administrative heritage in providing competitive advantage to its multinational subunits. They also highlight the difficulty firms face in copying organizational practices from other firms.
3,120 citations