In this paper the importance of the cultural differences, especially the national culture, should be clarified because in times of globalization it’s unalterable to consider such different characteristics in the daily business. For the topic of national culture the culture model of Hofstede is still representative but this theory is meanwhile out of date and there exist newer models which give new insights in this specific topic. This paper gives an overview about the model of Hofstede and two newer theories with regard to a created thesis. The models exhibit several differences which enable to survey the topic national culture under a variety of aspects. The conclusion makes clear that other aspects should be also considered beside the cultural differences especially in business relationships.
In the late 1960s and the early 1970s a Dutch social researcher named Geert Hofstede conducted about the influences of national culture in the workplace. Until this point of time his study was the most extensive one in this specific field of research. In the following decades additional surveys carried out and were more and more popular. They built on Hofstede’s culture model and modify it. For example the culture dimensions of Alfons Trompenaars or the globe study.
In the following essay Hofstede’s model should be examined with the help of prevailing research results, transpire comparisons and differences. This subject of national culture should be considered consistently with leadership.
Table of Contents
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Theoretical Bases
3.1. Hofstede’s culture model
3.2. Trompenaars idea
3.3. Project Globe
4. Best Practice
5. Porter’s Diamond
6. Conclusion
Objectives and Key Themes
This essay explores the influence of national culture on leadership styles in a globalized business environment, aiming to confirm or refute whether leadership is primarily determined by a leader's cultural background or by other organizational factors.
- Analysis of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions model and its limitations.
- Examination of Trompenaars’ seven-dimensional model of cultural differences.
- Overview of the GLOBE study and its findings on global leadership traits.
- Practical application of cultural models in corporate strategies, exemplified by Tetra Pak.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1. Hofstede’s culture model
Hofstede defined culture as a kind of mental programming of a human. In early childhood the feelings, paradigms and the actions build the mental software which is being influenced by the environment (family, wife, friends and so forth) and personal experiences (Baldauf, Lang, 2016).
Hofstede collected and analyzed survey data about 88,000 employees within the IBM Corporation. He needed two data assessments. The first one starts in 1967 and was been finished in 1970. The second survey needed two years from 1971 ‘til 1973. Hofstede called his model as a frame to evaluate cultures better and not as an allocation of individual characteristics to given culture (Geert Hofstede und die Kulturdimensionen-Theorie—Übersicht, 2016).
He splitted up national culture into four (in later years five) dimensions. One is uncertainty avoidance (UAI) that expressed the degree to which the members of a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. So a society with a high UAI needs more strong rules and no ambiguity, meanwhile a society with low UAI is more flexible and tasks more risks (Hofstede, 2001, p. 145-146). In a cultural group with low UAI a leader should affect strong rules und clear guidelines to his subsidiaries to give them more safety and no ambiguity in declarations. In other case it less much rules are required.
One other aspect is power distance (PDI). It is the degree to which the less powerful members of society accept that power is distributed unequally. In Cultures with a high PDI it’s easier to gain acceptance and they are more centralized. In opposite to this a society with low PDI it’s difficult to gain acceptance, because the people don’t accept so much power-differences (Hofstede, 2001, p. 79-80).
Summary of Chapters
1. Abstract: Provides a brief overview of the essay’s focus on comparing cultural models to determine the influence of national culture on leadership.
2. Introduction: Outlines the historical context of cultural research and defines the central thesis regarding the impact of national culture on leadership styles.
3. Theoretical Bases: Elaborates on the foundational theories of Hofstede, Trompenaars, and the GLOBE study to analyze cultural frameworks.
4. Best Practice: Demonstrates the practical implementation of cultural alignment in corporate strategy through the example of the InterAction Ruler at Tetra Pak.
5. Porter’s Diamond: Discusses Michael E. Porter’s competitive model as an alternative perspective on organizational success factors beyond national culture.
6. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, concluding that leadership is influenced by a multitude of factors, not solely by the leader's national culture.
Keywords
National Culture, Leadership, Hofstede, Trompenaars, GLOBE Study, Organizational Culture, Globalization, Business Management, Uncertainty Avoidance, Power Distance, Corporate Strategy, Tetra Pak, Porter’s Diamond, Cross-Cultural Management, Leadership Attributes
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this essay?
The essay investigates the extent to which national culture influences leadership styles within an international business context.
What are the primary theoretical frameworks discussed?
The paper primarily examines Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, Fons Trompenaars’ seven-dimensional model, and the comprehensive GLOBE research program.
What is the central research question?
The author seeks to determine whether the culture of leadership is primarily driven by the national culture of the executive, or if other variables play a more significant role.
Which scientific methodologies were employed?
The work utilizes a comparative literature review, contrasting prevailing research models with organizational practice to evaluate the validity of the stated thesis.
What topics are covered in the main body of the text?
The main body details theoretical models of culture, their impact on corporate structure, and a case study on how global corporations like Tetra Pak adapt their strategies to different cultural environments.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include National Culture, Leadership, Cultural Dimensions, Globalization, and Organizational Strategy.
How does the Tetra Pak example illustrate the theoretical concepts?
Tetra Pak utilizes the "InterAction Ruler" to identify compatibility between corporate and national cultures, allowing for strategic adjustments when entering foreign markets.
How does Porter’s Diamond contribute to the argument?
Porter's model serves as a counter-argument to the thesis by highlighting that competitive success is contingent on a wider range of external and internal business factors beyond just the national culture of a leader.
- Quote paper
- Julian Kraft (Author), 2016, Cultural Differences in Times of Globalization. An Overview of Hofstede's Theory and Two New Theories, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/509802
