TL;DR: Hofstede's framework does not explain communication, it's existentialist in it's approach, and outdated. But you shouldn't really disregard it because of said reasons. The framework is pioneering and opened the door for many culture-in-organisation research. Consider it the tip of the iceberg.
***
As globalisation continues and fuels trade
liberalization; it appears almost impossible for an organization to isolate
itself and avoid engagement in intercultural communication. Whether it was the
workforce, suppliers, clients or other stakeholders, an organization wishing to
be involved in intercultural communication must realise that best practices
don’t necessarily translate from country to another and in many cases, require
more than minor tweaks. It takes radical rethink of the differences between own
culture and other culture. Failure to do so will result in communication noise,
a profound interruption that negatively affects the interpretation process
between parties, which is very likely to disrupt the flow of communication and
lead to undesired outcomes.
To avoid such outcomes and help bring people closer, psychologists, anthropologists, and management researchers attempted to understand organizations communication through a cultural lens for years. Even though the field of Cross-cultural management research is not particularly new; there is no formula to solve it all! Culture is such a dynamic concept that even experts could not agree on one definition to it. Selecting a single framework to understand this phenomenon and underlying cognitive factors is not recommended (Walt, 1998). Reputed theories and frameworks should be used as complementary instruments in the organization’s cross-cultural communication “tool box”.
The pioneer work of Greet Hofstede (1984) comes in mind as a main tool to identify and categorise culture. The Cultural Dimensions framework is the most widely used national cultural framework in psychology, sociology, marketing and management studies. He used 116,000 questionnaires from over 60,000 respondents in 70 countries (Hofstede, 1991, 2001). One must acknowledge that the dimensions and features displayed in Hofstede’s work were unheard of at the time it was developed. Thus, his findings throughout the years became widely preached in universities and often used as a framework to understand workplace diversity. Hofstede first and most remarkable research in the field was conducted in the 1980s as a part of IBM personnel research department. A worldwide survey regarding the effects of national culture on IBM employees around the world was measured and used to test his cultural dimensions comparison framework (Hofstede, 2011). Hofstede then theorized that nations fall on 5 dimensions. Each nation fell on either a high level or a low level of these dimensions. For the purpose of this essay, we shall discuss each dimension briefly, attempt to examine the effectiveness of the framework as a whole as a tool to understand cross cultural communication, and introduce a complementary framework that will aid us to understand communication across cultures.
Power Distance
Power distance (PD) refers to the extent in which inequality in hierarchical relationships and authority exists and accepted (Hofstede, 1984). Cultures with high PD tend to expect and accept relatively higher autocratic and paternalistic relationships, as well as a steep compensation gap between supervisors and subordinates. As a result, strong vertical hierarchical structures where chain of command looks like a pyramid as usually practiced. Communication is transferred from the top of the pyramid to the bottom in a relatively authoritative language accompanied by causal high levels of voice (Brockner et al., 2001). This brings in mind the question of effectiveness of such settings. Lian et al. (2012) suggest that higher PD cultures are not only prone to abusive supervision, but also more likely tolerate such mistreatment. A scenario study was conducted between two groups, a high PD and a low PD culture, China and USA, respectfully, supports this suggestion. Whereby a high-ranking member from each group insulted an inferior member in the same group. As expected, high PD culture were less critical of the insulter as long as he or she had a higher-status than them (Bond et al., 1985). Low PD cultures, on the other hand, have of an open flow of communication, they are more innovation driven (Van Der and Van De, 2005). This can be seen when employees are encouraged express their opinion and debate despise differences job and social ranking. Thus, organizational communication in low PD cultures tend are more consultative and democratic (Dysart-Gale, 2006).
Uncertainty Avoidance (High vs. Low)
People’s tolerance for ambiguity in unknown situations was measured in this dimension. According to Hofstede (1984), high uncertainty avoidance cultures tries to minimize uncertainty by enforcing precision and rules, thus outcomes are mostly likely predicted. These cultures practice consises information exchange and spend time to prepare and plan before presenting or executing a project. On the other hand, cultures with low uncertainty avoidance not only enjoy a more flexible, informal business attitude. The do not impose rules or structures where it is unnecessary. These also seem to be more accepting of change and undertaking risk (LangCircle, 2013). Whether it was high or low, uncertainty avoidance influences ritualistic, harmonious, and aggressive facework strategies in an embarrassing situation within a culture (Merkin, 2006).
Individualism vs. Collectivism
This dimension relates to the extent and strength to which individuals relate to others within the community. High levels of individualism indicate loose interpersonal connections that don’t usually go beyond family and close friends (Hofstede, 1984). Although some researchers contend that individualised cultures are predominantly of low-context communication style and collective cultures are predominantly high-context communicators (Ting-Toomey, 1994), a study published in the Human Communication Research Journal disagrees. It indicates that cultural individualism-collectivism are not appropriate indicators of low- and high-context communication styles Gudykunst et al., (1996). The study in turn suggests that a person’s individual level factors (i.e. construals and values) mediate the influence of cultural Individualism or collectivism on low- and high-context communication. Individualism is relative, not absolute. Scholars suggest that it is “fairly fragile, and depends on the contextual factors” (Triandis et al., 1986). Highly collective cultures emphasize a greater deal of harmony to in-group members, yet are not quickly to grant trust to out-group members (LangCircle, 2013). One might assume that this in- and out-group orientation might prevent or limit the frequency of out-group interactions or trust. Yet, these cultures have their own rapport building system to use with outsiders. It is sort of an informal, trust and vouching system. The Japanese call it keiretsu, the Koreans call it chaebol, and the Chinese call it guanxi. These strategies have been used by collectivist cultures to expand the scope of their communication and networks (Huff and Kelley, 2003). This group-oriented mentality depends on high levels of respect and loyalty. In some parts of the world, religious systems, such as Islam, or philosophical teaching, such as Confucianism, are embedded in the culture beyond mere teaching. Thus be Relationships are also tighter; people know and have interest in each other’s life. relationships, conformity, and group harmony outweigh tasks, autonomy and self-achievement in these collective societies (Hofstede, 1990).
Masculinity vs. Femininity
This dimension portrays the extent to which a collective set of traits interpret masculinity and which portrays femininity as well as refer to the degree to which socially prescribed roles operate for men and women. (Hofstede, 1984). Certain traits, such as authority, assertiveness, and competitiveness are linked to masculine cultures. Whereby traits such as personal relationships, quality of life and service are linked to feminine cultures (Jones, 2007). Hofstede’s findings clustered countries into a continuum in which highly masculine cultures tend to have well defined distinction between man’s work and women’s. On the other hand, countries that ranks low on masculinity (high on femininity) usually have no particular roles that specified for each gender work (LangCircle, 2013). This can be linked to communication and negotiation practices by considering the way gender roles play out in the cultural contexts of their counterparties.
Long-Term Orientation vs. Short-Term Orientation
This dimension was a later addition to the original 4 dimensions after finding that Asian countries with a strong link to Confucian philosophy had different work-related values than western cultures (Hofstede and Bond, 1988). Long-term Orientation cultures tend to be more value thrift and perseverance. Whereby values associated with short-term orientation were found to value respect for tradition, fulfilling social obligations, and protecting one's 'face' (LangCircle, 2013). Examples of long-term oriented cultures are: South Korea, Japan, China and France. Examples for short-term oriented cultures are: UK and USA (Hofstede and Bond, 1988).
Hofstede’s framework: law set in stone?
Cross culture research is not an easy task. Hofstede’s framework gained plausible credibility as the most comprehensive study of culture and became an essential part of cross-cultural education. Similarly, the framework appears to have implication to practitioners who require insight on the dynamics of culture. Consultancy firms as well as multinational retailers resort to Hofstede dimensions in their intercultural planning. Itim International, a Finnish consultancy firm, uses Hofstede’s framework to advise on business functions such as outsourcing, change management, recruitment and virtual teams management (Itim.org, 2014). Multinational online retailer, Zappos, has utilized Hofstede’s work during the process of formulating an organizational strategy. Chief Leadership Advisor, Camille Preston, expressed that using the framework as a part of Zappos overall organizational strategy has helped define the corporate culture in Zappos such as levels of job control and autonomy.
Hofstede himself claimed in 2011 that his framework was validated by more than 140 survey and non-survey studies, resulting in considerable conceptual and empirical evidence. Steenkamp and Geyskens (2012), confirm that many similarities occur in different proceeding typologies of culture that overlap Hofstede’s framework. Table 1 (attached in Annex) compares cross-cultural frameworks proceeding Hofstede, revealing a distinct level of convergence across the frameworks and thus enhancing its legitimacy.
Indeed, Hofstede’s work is widely validated and some proceeding works had leapfrogged it, but does it explain individual communication practices or merely addresses and identify cultural differences? Although Hofstede’s framework was intended to be applied in human resources management, academics find it useful in formulating hypotheses in other aspects of comparative cross-cultural research such as entrepreneurial behavior, training design, conflict resolution, leadership style and M&A integration (Shaiq et al., 2011). This broad transparency between disciplines sure does give the framework adaptive qualities, but does it relate to deeper communication aspects such as religion and negotiation?
To avoid such outcomes and help bring people closer, psychologists, anthropologists, and management researchers attempted to understand organizations communication through a cultural lens for years. Even though the field of Cross-cultural management research is not particularly new; there is no formula to solve it all! Culture is such a dynamic concept that even experts could not agree on one definition to it. Selecting a single framework to understand this phenomenon and underlying cognitive factors is not recommended (Walt, 1998). Reputed theories and frameworks should be used as complementary instruments in the organization’s cross-cultural communication “tool box”.
The pioneer work of Greet Hofstede (1984) comes in mind as a main tool to identify and categorise culture. The Cultural Dimensions framework is the most widely used national cultural framework in psychology, sociology, marketing and management studies. He used 116,000 questionnaires from over 60,000 respondents in 70 countries (Hofstede, 1991, 2001). One must acknowledge that the dimensions and features displayed in Hofstede’s work were unheard of at the time it was developed. Thus, his findings throughout the years became widely preached in universities and often used as a framework to understand workplace diversity. Hofstede first and most remarkable research in the field was conducted in the 1980s as a part of IBM personnel research department. A worldwide survey regarding the effects of national culture on IBM employees around the world was measured and used to test his cultural dimensions comparison framework (Hofstede, 2011). Hofstede then theorized that nations fall on 5 dimensions. Each nation fell on either a high level or a low level of these dimensions. For the purpose of this essay, we shall discuss each dimension briefly, attempt to examine the effectiveness of the framework as a whole as a tool to understand cross cultural communication, and introduce a complementary framework that will aid us to understand communication across cultures.
Power Distance
Power distance (PD) refers to the extent in which inequality in hierarchical relationships and authority exists and accepted (Hofstede, 1984). Cultures with high PD tend to expect and accept relatively higher autocratic and paternalistic relationships, as well as a steep compensation gap between supervisors and subordinates. As a result, strong vertical hierarchical structures where chain of command looks like a pyramid as usually practiced. Communication is transferred from the top of the pyramid to the bottom in a relatively authoritative language accompanied by causal high levels of voice (Brockner et al., 2001). This brings in mind the question of effectiveness of such settings. Lian et al. (2012) suggest that higher PD cultures are not only prone to abusive supervision, but also more likely tolerate such mistreatment. A scenario study was conducted between two groups, a high PD and a low PD culture, China and USA, respectfully, supports this suggestion. Whereby a high-ranking member from each group insulted an inferior member in the same group. As expected, high PD culture were less critical of the insulter as long as he or she had a higher-status than them (Bond et al., 1985). Low PD cultures, on the other hand, have of an open flow of communication, they are more innovation driven (Van Der and Van De, 2005). This can be seen when employees are encouraged express their opinion and debate despise differences job and social ranking. Thus, organizational communication in low PD cultures tend are more consultative and democratic (Dysart-Gale, 2006).
Uncertainty Avoidance (High vs. Low)
People’s tolerance for ambiguity in unknown situations was measured in this dimension. According to Hofstede (1984), high uncertainty avoidance cultures tries to minimize uncertainty by enforcing precision and rules, thus outcomes are mostly likely predicted. These cultures practice consises information exchange and spend time to prepare and plan before presenting or executing a project. On the other hand, cultures with low uncertainty avoidance not only enjoy a more flexible, informal business attitude. The do not impose rules or structures where it is unnecessary. These also seem to be more accepting of change and undertaking risk (LangCircle, 2013). Whether it was high or low, uncertainty avoidance influences ritualistic, harmonious, and aggressive facework strategies in an embarrassing situation within a culture (Merkin, 2006).
Individualism vs. Collectivism
This dimension relates to the extent and strength to which individuals relate to others within the community. High levels of individualism indicate loose interpersonal connections that don’t usually go beyond family and close friends (Hofstede, 1984). Although some researchers contend that individualised cultures are predominantly of low-context communication style and collective cultures are predominantly high-context communicators (Ting-Toomey, 1994), a study published in the Human Communication Research Journal disagrees. It indicates that cultural individualism-collectivism are not appropriate indicators of low- and high-context communication styles Gudykunst et al., (1996). The study in turn suggests that a person’s individual level factors (i.e. construals and values) mediate the influence of cultural Individualism or collectivism on low- and high-context communication. Individualism is relative, not absolute. Scholars suggest that it is “fairly fragile, and depends on the contextual factors” (Triandis et al., 1986). Highly collective cultures emphasize a greater deal of harmony to in-group members, yet are not quickly to grant trust to out-group members (LangCircle, 2013). One might assume that this in- and out-group orientation might prevent or limit the frequency of out-group interactions or trust. Yet, these cultures have their own rapport building system to use with outsiders. It is sort of an informal, trust and vouching system. The Japanese call it keiretsu, the Koreans call it chaebol, and the Chinese call it guanxi. These strategies have been used by collectivist cultures to expand the scope of their communication and networks (Huff and Kelley, 2003). This group-oriented mentality depends on high levels of respect and loyalty. In some parts of the world, religious systems, such as Islam, or philosophical teaching, such as Confucianism, are embedded in the culture beyond mere teaching. Thus be Relationships are also tighter; people know and have interest in each other’s life. relationships, conformity, and group harmony outweigh tasks, autonomy and self-achievement in these collective societies (Hofstede, 1990).
Masculinity vs. Femininity
This dimension portrays the extent to which a collective set of traits interpret masculinity and which portrays femininity as well as refer to the degree to which socially prescribed roles operate for men and women. (Hofstede, 1984). Certain traits, such as authority, assertiveness, and competitiveness are linked to masculine cultures. Whereby traits such as personal relationships, quality of life and service are linked to feminine cultures (Jones, 2007). Hofstede’s findings clustered countries into a continuum in which highly masculine cultures tend to have well defined distinction between man’s work and women’s. On the other hand, countries that ranks low on masculinity (high on femininity) usually have no particular roles that specified for each gender work (LangCircle, 2013). This can be linked to communication and negotiation practices by considering the way gender roles play out in the cultural contexts of their counterparties.
Long-Term Orientation vs. Short-Term Orientation
This dimension was a later addition to the original 4 dimensions after finding that Asian countries with a strong link to Confucian philosophy had different work-related values than western cultures (Hofstede and Bond, 1988). Long-term Orientation cultures tend to be more value thrift and perseverance. Whereby values associated with short-term orientation were found to value respect for tradition, fulfilling social obligations, and protecting one's 'face' (LangCircle, 2013). Examples of long-term oriented cultures are: South Korea, Japan, China and France. Examples for short-term oriented cultures are: UK and USA (Hofstede and Bond, 1988).
Hofstede’s framework: law set in stone?
Cross culture research is not an easy task. Hofstede’s framework gained plausible credibility as the most comprehensive study of culture and became an essential part of cross-cultural education. Similarly, the framework appears to have implication to practitioners who require insight on the dynamics of culture. Consultancy firms as well as multinational retailers resort to Hofstede dimensions in their intercultural planning. Itim International, a Finnish consultancy firm, uses Hofstede’s framework to advise on business functions such as outsourcing, change management, recruitment and virtual teams management (Itim.org, 2014). Multinational online retailer, Zappos, has utilized Hofstede’s work during the process of formulating an organizational strategy. Chief Leadership Advisor, Camille Preston, expressed that using the framework as a part of Zappos overall organizational strategy has helped define the corporate culture in Zappos such as levels of job control and autonomy.
Hofstede himself claimed in 2011 that his framework was validated by more than 140 survey and non-survey studies, resulting in considerable conceptual and empirical evidence. Steenkamp and Geyskens (2012), confirm that many similarities occur in different proceeding typologies of culture that overlap Hofstede’s framework. Table 1 (attached in Annex) compares cross-cultural frameworks proceeding Hofstede, revealing a distinct level of convergence across the frameworks and thus enhancing its legitimacy.
Indeed, Hofstede’s work is widely validated and some proceeding works had leapfrogged it, but does it explain individual communication practices or merely addresses and identify cultural differences? Although Hofstede’s framework was intended to be applied in human resources management, academics find it useful in formulating hypotheses in other aspects of comparative cross-cultural research such as entrepreneurial behavior, training design, conflict resolution, leadership style and M&A integration (Shaiq et al., 2011). This broad transparency between disciplines sure does give the framework adaptive qualities, but does it relate to deeper communication aspects such as religion and negotiation?
Religion
and culture dimensions
A study was conducted by the International Business Centre attempted to apply Hofstede’s framework along with an analysis of countries’ religious backgrounds. The study concluded that predominant Buddhist and Shinto countries were closely correlated to Uncertainty Avoidance and Long Term Orientation dimensions. Which goes along with the reason behind Hofstede adding the fifth dimension. Alternatively, Catholic and Jewish predominant countries, had correlation with Uncertainty Avoidance. Thus, it is suggested that predominantly Catholic countries, such as Mexico and Israel, respectfully, tend to be a “highly rule-oriented society” in order to control the levels of uncertainty within. Next, Predominantly Christian countries had correlation with high Individuality levels. As we know from Hofstede’s (1980), highly individualised societies have looser relationships. There was one Hindu predominant country in Hofstede’s dimensions and it was India. It seems that there’s strong correlation between Hinduism and Power Distance.This perhaps suggests strong appreciation and consideration for religious authorities in India. Finally, Muslims countries were found to have a correlation with Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance, creating a culture where leaders tend to have strict control over the society coupled with high inequality levels (Taylor, 2014).
Overall, the study gives some aspect to whether or not there’s a correlation between religion and Hofstede’s work. Yet it has many limitations, such as taking into account that Catholic countries are no clustered in one geographic location, there are Latin American Catholic countries and there are European Catholic countries.
What about negotiation?
Reaching an agreement through negotiation requires flows of communications between parties. A study that integrated Hofstede’s framework with Weiss and Stripp’s (1985) twelve aspects of negotiation behaviors suggests the utility of Hofstede’s framework in identifying a given culture’s position on the various negotiation dimensions. Uncertainty Avoidance was suggested to have strong correlation to seven negotiation dimensions: Internal decision making process, orientation towards time, risk-taking propensity, basis of trust, concern with protocol, nature of persuasion and basic concept of negotiation. On the other hand, Individualism was related to: influence of individual aspirations, style of communication, and most significant type of issue dimension. Lastly, the study finds no correlation between Power Distance and selection of negotiators.
The first part of the findings suggests that negotiation, to a large extent, involves reducing uncertainty to reach a mutual agreement (Metcalf & Bird, 2004). The second part confirms Hofstede’s (1980) remarks that members from highly individualized cultures enjoy personal challenges and expect rewards for hard work.
The two communication examples previously addressed had shed the spotlight on attempts that took advantage of Hofstede’s flexible framework and integrated it into communication frameworks for hypothesis testing. It appears that Hofstede’s framework on its own is a classification of national cultures. In order to apply it to communication and negotiation, it is perhaps best to embed it with other frameworks in order to address communication topics. An Organization may use the framework as a preliminary guide to have a general attitude on what to expect from a certain culture, but it should not devote its entire learning process on Hofstede’s framework. Even such colossal work cannot escape criticism.
Hofstede’s framework shortcomings
It was Hofstede himself who declaimed that he was merely providing “the edge of understanding”. It is important to understand that culture itself is a collective and comprehensive concept to distinguish one group from another. Whereby communication, by definition, is the “activity of conveying information through the exchange of ideas, feelings, intentions, attitudes, expectations, perception or commands, as by speech, non-verbal gestures, writing and behaviors” (Wiener & Norbert, 1948). Communication requires a sender and a receaiver, . Although Hofstede went back to provided guidelines on communication and negotiation with individuals from different countries in 2001, his model is still being criticized to be partially or fundamentally invalid.
Schwartz (1994) was first to point out that Hofstede’s sample is too narrow and specific. The research was conducted entirely on IBM employees who were either salespersons, managers or technicians. This cannot be applicable to a whole culture for many reasons. First, IBM’s corporate culture, values and goals might been dominating the subsidiaries’ operations. Corporate culture has been found to be a preference over national culture in many multinational companies (Schneider, 1988). Second, Salespersons, managers and technicians make up a partial fraction of an organizational culture, let alone a nation. Even for the untrained eye, they are not a representative sample of entire culture.
Although some scholars discard the whole research based on the fact that culture is dynamic, not static, others dogged even deeper. The dimensions themselves were considered western (and thus ethnocentric) approach cannot be universal (Jones, 2007). To illustrate, what is defined as a feminine trait in one country may be different in another, such as a Middle Eastern country and a European country. Moreover, the idea that everybody is has an innate essence of which they cannot escape is an essentialist approach to culture. The assumption that people will behave according to where they were born is essentialist in nature (Patel, 2007).
In terms of the data eligibility, it seems a bit outdated. During the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, the Internet has not fully integrated, and the number of English speakers is with no doubt less. The framework did not take into account the integration of the internet, language proficiency or even the effect of low-cost airlines in bringing people closer. Lastly, the data did not take into account subcultures within or across regions. Organizational culture in the Australian Salvation Army is certainly different than organizational culture in the Australian Mayers stores. In terms of regions, regional subcultures were reported to have different values than each other (Huo and Randall, 1991).
When it comes to negotiation practices, Hofstede’s framework does not really provide us with specific negotiating and persuading characteristics across cultures. We would go as far as not recommending the use of it for such purpose. To examine this closely, we recall that Hofstede’s framework shows dissimilarity between Brazil and United States in dimensions such as Power Distance, Individualism, and Uncertainty Avoidance. Compare this dissimilarity with findings of negotiation scholar, Nancy Adler, it is revealed that negotiators from both Brazil and United States are almost identical in characteristics such as perceive and exploit power, thinking under pressure, judgment and intelligence, and preparation and planning skills. Even for the untrained eye, these characteristics are, to some level, related to Power Distance, Individualism, and Uncertainty Avoidance of Hofstede’s.
Where does this leave us?
As we have previously mentioned, the use of one sole theory or framework to explain a phenomenon as complex and intertwined as culture communication is unwise. We recommend aiding Hofstede’s cultural framework with one or two intercultural communication frameworks to allow triangulation assessment of results. Edward Hall is an anthropologist who was interested in the way cultures communicated. He hypothesized that culture communication is dependent on factors of context; high and low (Hall, 1959; 1990).
A study was conducted by the International Business Centre attempted to apply Hofstede’s framework along with an analysis of countries’ religious backgrounds. The study concluded that predominant Buddhist and Shinto countries were closely correlated to Uncertainty Avoidance and Long Term Orientation dimensions. Which goes along with the reason behind Hofstede adding the fifth dimension. Alternatively, Catholic and Jewish predominant countries, had correlation with Uncertainty Avoidance. Thus, it is suggested that predominantly Catholic countries, such as Mexico and Israel, respectfully, tend to be a “highly rule-oriented society” in order to control the levels of uncertainty within. Next, Predominantly Christian countries had correlation with high Individuality levels. As we know from Hofstede’s (1980), highly individualised societies have looser relationships. There was one Hindu predominant country in Hofstede’s dimensions and it was India. It seems that there’s strong correlation between Hinduism and Power Distance.This perhaps suggests strong appreciation and consideration for religious authorities in India. Finally, Muslims countries were found to have a correlation with Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance, creating a culture where leaders tend to have strict control over the society coupled with high inequality levels (Taylor, 2014).
Overall, the study gives some aspect to whether or not there’s a correlation between religion and Hofstede’s work. Yet it has many limitations, such as taking into account that Catholic countries are no clustered in one geographic location, there are Latin American Catholic countries and there are European Catholic countries.
What about negotiation?
Reaching an agreement through negotiation requires flows of communications between parties. A study that integrated Hofstede’s framework with Weiss and Stripp’s (1985) twelve aspects of negotiation behaviors suggests the utility of Hofstede’s framework in identifying a given culture’s position on the various negotiation dimensions. Uncertainty Avoidance was suggested to have strong correlation to seven negotiation dimensions: Internal decision making process, orientation towards time, risk-taking propensity, basis of trust, concern with protocol, nature of persuasion and basic concept of negotiation. On the other hand, Individualism was related to: influence of individual aspirations, style of communication, and most significant type of issue dimension. Lastly, the study finds no correlation between Power Distance and selection of negotiators.
The first part of the findings suggests that negotiation, to a large extent, involves reducing uncertainty to reach a mutual agreement (Metcalf & Bird, 2004). The second part confirms Hofstede’s (1980) remarks that members from highly individualized cultures enjoy personal challenges and expect rewards for hard work.
The two communication examples previously addressed had shed the spotlight on attempts that took advantage of Hofstede’s flexible framework and integrated it into communication frameworks for hypothesis testing. It appears that Hofstede’s framework on its own is a classification of national cultures. In order to apply it to communication and negotiation, it is perhaps best to embed it with other frameworks in order to address communication topics. An Organization may use the framework as a preliminary guide to have a general attitude on what to expect from a certain culture, but it should not devote its entire learning process on Hofstede’s framework. Even such colossal work cannot escape criticism.
Hofstede’s framework shortcomings
It was Hofstede himself who declaimed that he was merely providing “the edge of understanding”. It is important to understand that culture itself is a collective and comprehensive concept to distinguish one group from another. Whereby communication, by definition, is the “activity of conveying information through the exchange of ideas, feelings, intentions, attitudes, expectations, perception or commands, as by speech, non-verbal gestures, writing and behaviors” (Wiener & Norbert, 1948). Communication requires a sender and a receaiver, . Although Hofstede went back to provided guidelines on communication and negotiation with individuals from different countries in 2001, his model is still being criticized to be partially or fundamentally invalid.
Schwartz (1994) was first to point out that Hofstede’s sample is too narrow and specific. The research was conducted entirely on IBM employees who were either salespersons, managers or technicians. This cannot be applicable to a whole culture for many reasons. First, IBM’s corporate culture, values and goals might been dominating the subsidiaries’ operations. Corporate culture has been found to be a preference over national culture in many multinational companies (Schneider, 1988). Second, Salespersons, managers and technicians make up a partial fraction of an organizational culture, let alone a nation. Even for the untrained eye, they are not a representative sample of entire culture.
Although some scholars discard the whole research based on the fact that culture is dynamic, not static, others dogged even deeper. The dimensions themselves were considered western (and thus ethnocentric) approach cannot be universal (Jones, 2007). To illustrate, what is defined as a feminine trait in one country may be different in another, such as a Middle Eastern country and a European country. Moreover, the idea that everybody is has an innate essence of which they cannot escape is an essentialist approach to culture. The assumption that people will behave according to where they were born is essentialist in nature (Patel, 2007).
In terms of the data eligibility, it seems a bit outdated. During the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, the Internet has not fully integrated, and the number of English speakers is with no doubt less. The framework did not take into account the integration of the internet, language proficiency or even the effect of low-cost airlines in bringing people closer. Lastly, the data did not take into account subcultures within or across regions. Organizational culture in the Australian Salvation Army is certainly different than organizational culture in the Australian Mayers stores. In terms of regions, regional subcultures were reported to have different values than each other (Huo and Randall, 1991).
When it comes to negotiation practices, Hofstede’s framework does not really provide us with specific negotiating and persuading characteristics across cultures. We would go as far as not recommending the use of it for such purpose. To examine this closely, we recall that Hofstede’s framework shows dissimilarity between Brazil and United States in dimensions such as Power Distance, Individualism, and Uncertainty Avoidance. Compare this dissimilarity with findings of negotiation scholar, Nancy Adler, it is revealed that negotiators from both Brazil and United States are almost identical in characteristics such as perceive and exploit power, thinking under pressure, judgment and intelligence, and preparation and planning skills. Even for the untrained eye, these characteristics are, to some level, related to Power Distance, Individualism, and Uncertainty Avoidance of Hofstede’s.
Where does this leave us?
As we have previously mentioned, the use of one sole theory or framework to explain a phenomenon as complex and intertwined as culture communication is unwise. We recommend aiding Hofstede’s cultural framework with one or two intercultural communication frameworks to allow triangulation assessment of results. Edward Hall is an anthropologist who was interested in the way cultures communicated. He hypothesized that culture communication is dependent on factors of context; high and low (Hall, 1959; 1990).
High-context
culture is described as implicit; the use of metaphors and reading between the
lines is common. The use of non-verbal communication should be expected. In a
negotiation situation, mere disagreement can be expressed by breathing from the
mouth while teeth are clinched. A person engaging in communication with a
high-context contact must strive to earn the trust of their contacts. Whereby a low-context cultures are more verbal or open about their feelings, there are no hidden messages, disagreement will be expressed with no hesitation.
End of Part I
Nawaf Almohaimeed
Great content, found it very useful. Thank you
ReplyDelete