Hofstede Model

A third dimension stated in Hofstede’s model is Masculinity. To describe this dimension briefly, it is based on the issue of what motivates people. Wanting to be the best which is masculine or liking what you do which is feminine (Hofstede, 1). For this dimension, the United States and China are neck and neck in rating terms. China and the United States are both masculine societies which are success oriented and driven (Hofstede, 1). For this specified ethical dilemma, there would not be much difference in terms of decision making. In this case, loan officers would be highly improbable to grant the loan to the citizens based on the idea of success being first and foremost in this dimension. However, that is not to say that individuals/families …show more content…
As defined by Hofstede, indulgence is the extent to which people attempt to control their desires and impulses based on how we were raised (Hofstede, 1). Weak control is defined as indulgence and strong control is called restraint (Hofstede,1). Again, China and the United States are completely opposite in this spectrum also. China ranks at the low end of this dimension which means they have a restrained society (Hofstede, 1). Here, a low score means the society has a tendency to lean towards cynicism and pessimism and have the perception that they are restrained by social norms (Hofstede,1). For this particular dimension, Chinese loan officers would employ the pessimism aspect and reject the loan identifying that the worst possible situation to transpire would be default and insolvency of the bank. However, the case of cynicism, where people are only motivated by self-interest, could apply here too. This means that if the salaries in China rely on the amount of loans you accept each month the loan officers may indeed accept the loan. Additionally, a societal norm of kindness in the Chinese culture could indeed lead the officer to accept the loan as well. These would be the ultimate last case scenarios in the indulgence