Hofstede developed a model that identifies four primary dimensions to assist in differentiating cultures: Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, and Uncertainty Avoidance.
Hofstede (1980) defines his self-constructed dimensions in the following way:
1. Power Distance. The first dimension of national culture is called Power Distance. It indicates the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally. It’s reflected in the values of the less powerful members of society as well as in those of the more powerful ones.
2. Individualism – Collectivism. The second dimension encompasses Individualism and its opposite, Collectivism. Individualism implies a loosely knit social framework …show more content…
Masculinity – Femininity. The third dimension is called Masculinity even though, in concept, it encompasses its opposite pole, Femininity. Measurement in terms of this dimension expresses the extent to which the dominant values in society are “masculine” – that is, assertiveness, the acquisition of money and things, and not caring for others, the quality of life, or people. These values were labelled “masculine” because, within nearly all societies, men scored higher in terms of the values’ positive sense than of their negative sense (in terms of assertiveness, for example, rather than its lack) – even though the society as a whole might veer toward the “feminine” pole. Interestingly, the more an entire society scores on the masculine side, the wider the gap becomes between its “men’s” and “women’s” values. 4. Uncertainty Avoidance. The fourth dimension, Uncertainty Avoidance, indicates the extent to which a society feels threatened by uncertain and ambiguous situations and tries to avoid these situations by providing greater career stability, establishing more formal rules, not tolerating deviant ideas and behaviours, and believing in absolute truths and the attainment of expertise. Nevertheless, societies in which uncertainty avoidance is strong are also characterized by a higher level of anxiety and aggressiveness that creates, among other things, a strong inner urge in people to work …show more content…
If I were an executive of an international company, would I choose Indian employees for a job? This is a good question. But what is the answer? I think, it is very hard to give a good answer to this question. Why? Because it depends on many circumstances including the given project, conditions of work, working alone or in a team, location of the project, etc., and last but not least, the personality and the nationality of the workplace and the employee. So, what about the Indian workforce? In all probability, an Indian employee uses time, as a framework for orientation and he or she works hard only when needed, and will have tolerance of deviant and innovative ideas (Heidrich, 2006). Indian people gave one of the highest ranks of the Power Distance answers on the Hofstede questionnaire (score 77), so they think that skills, wealth, power, and status should go together. The Indian workforce does not attempt to control all outcomes and results (low score in Uncertainty Avoidance). India has a very high score in Long Term Orientation, meaning that their culture is more persistent and thrifty. Indians have a sense of shame that is shared amongst a group of people and relationships are viewed by order of status. It is expected that the Indian businessperson will have to provide detailed business plans because of their need for Long-Term Orientations (Thakur, 2010). So they would be motivated by making plans for the future. India’s
Hofstede (1980) defines his self-constructed dimensions in the following way:
1. Power Distance. The first dimension of national culture is called Power Distance. It indicates the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally. It’s reflected in the values of the less powerful members of society as well as in those of the more powerful ones.
2. Individualism – Collectivism. The second dimension encompasses Individualism and its opposite, Collectivism. Individualism implies a loosely knit social framework …show more content…
Masculinity – Femininity. The third dimension is called Masculinity even though, in concept, it encompasses its opposite pole, Femininity. Measurement in terms of this dimension expresses the extent to which the dominant values in society are “masculine” – that is, assertiveness, the acquisition of money and things, and not caring for others, the quality of life, or people. These values were labelled “masculine” because, within nearly all societies, men scored higher in terms of the values’ positive sense than of their negative sense (in terms of assertiveness, for example, rather than its lack) – even though the society as a whole might veer toward the “feminine” pole. Interestingly, the more an entire society scores on the masculine side, the wider the gap becomes between its “men’s” and “women’s” values. 4. Uncertainty Avoidance. The fourth dimension, Uncertainty Avoidance, indicates the extent to which a society feels threatened by uncertain and ambiguous situations and tries to avoid these situations by providing greater career stability, establishing more formal rules, not tolerating deviant ideas and behaviours, and believing in absolute truths and the attainment of expertise. Nevertheless, societies in which uncertainty avoidance is strong are also characterized by a higher level of anxiety and aggressiveness that creates, among other things, a strong inner urge in people to work …show more content…
If I were an executive of an international company, would I choose Indian employees for a job? This is a good question. But what is the answer? I think, it is very hard to give a good answer to this question. Why? Because it depends on many circumstances including the given project, conditions of work, working alone or in a team, location of the project, etc., and last but not least, the personality and the nationality of the workplace and the employee. So, what about the Indian workforce? In all probability, an Indian employee uses time, as a framework for orientation and he or she works hard only when needed, and will have tolerance of deviant and innovative ideas (Heidrich, 2006). Indian people gave one of the highest ranks of the Power Distance answers on the Hofstede questionnaire (score 77), so they think that skills, wealth, power, and status should go together. The Indian workforce does not attempt to control all outcomes and results (low score in Uncertainty Avoidance). India has a very high score in Long Term Orientation, meaning that their culture is more persistent and thrifty. Indians have a sense of shame that is shared amongst a group of people and relationships are viewed by order of status. It is expected that the Indian businessperson will have to provide detailed business plans because of their need for Long-Term Orientations (Thakur, 2010). So they would be motivated by making plans for the future. India’s