2.7.1 Hofstede's value survey model (VSM)
The Hofstede (1980) model identifies four dimensions, or indices, of culture. They were developed through a worldwide survey of employees in IBM. The indices measure four characteristics: individualism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance and masculinity. Scores on each range from 0 to 100. These scores should be interpreted as indicating a general sense of the values likely to be found in a particular culture. The index characteristics are described below.
- individualism (IDV)
The degree to which individual decision-making and action are accepted and encouraged by a society. - uncertainty avoidance (UAI)
The degree to which members of a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity, which leads them to support beliefs promising certainty and to maintain institutions that protect uniformity. - power distance (PDI)
The degree to which members of a society accept that power in social institutions and organisations is distributed unequally. - masculinity (MAS)
The degree to which traditional male values - assertiveness, performance, ambition, achievement and material success - are important to a society. It may be contrasted with femininity, which stands for a preference in relationships, modesty, caring for the weak, and the quality of life. In a masculine society, even women prefer assertiveness (at least in men); in a feminine society, even men prefer modesty.
Each of the above indices has been described in terms of its extremes. Most countries are somewhere along the continuum in the moderately high or moderately low areas. In Table 2.1, countries are grouped into a number of cultural values: strong, high, medium-high, medium, low-medium, small, low and varied. The countries are also grouped by three geographic clusters. Take special note of the implications of these values as shown by the last column.
Table 2.1 Hofstede value profile (Source: Czinkota et al. 2005, p. 59)
Examination of Table 2.1 should illustrate how country profiles might influence management practices. Some further examples based on Hofstede's findings are:
- New Zealand : individualistic, does not avoid uncertainty, believes in equality and traditional male values. This suggests that decentralisation will be practised, with flat organisation structure and individual decision-making.
- Japan : collectivist society, high on uncertainty avoidance but also on masculinity, relatively high on power distance. This suggests a system that seeks consensus, but is also competitive with clear distinctions in terms of power. Job security is stressed and jobs are allocated on the basis of sex.
Some commentators do not agree with Hofstede's approach which focuses on cultural differences. The counter argument rests on the 'convergence thesis' mentioned in Chapter 1. This thesis suggests that, despite differences in culture and political systems, industrialisation and modern technology are gradually breaking down cultural, social and economic differences across the world. Whatever the case, you should keep in mind that cultural models such as Hofstede's provide only a simplified way of examining cultures. All cultures are far more complex than these models suggest and it is important to recognise this complexity.
Your textbook provides much greater depth about Hofstede's model, including a number of criticisms of his study that should also be considered. Turn to Hill's (2005) reading now.
In your text
Hill 2005, Chapter 3, pp. 108-116.
Previous Page