A Study of The Research of Geert Hofstede

A STUDY OF THE RESEARCH OF GEERT HOFSTEDE
A Study of the Research of Geert Hofstede

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to critically examine Geert Hofstedes contributions to the
study of social systems and specifically his work on the interrelatedness of culture within
organizations including a review of his GLOBE study of 62 societies (House et al., 2004), and
also identifying how culture within organizations is similar to or different from each other in
different countries or societies.
Design/Methodology/Approach The projects design includes review and analysis of multiple

peer-reviewed journal articles, books, reports, and other media on Hofstedes research related to
organizational culture and leadership. Hofstedes model of six dimensions of national cultures
will be assessed in light of its merit and contribution to international organizational management.
Findings Hofstedes work offered implications for businesses to understand the effect of
cultural diversity on team performance within a global organizational management context
including but not limited to such establishments as the militarys aviation teams.
Originality/Value/Contribution This study makes a contribution to the body of literature by

offering a synthesis and reaction to Hofstedes work on organizational culture while also
examining the findings of his critics on this subject.
Keywords culture, organizational culture, organizational management, cultural values

Introduction
Hofstede is a well-known social psychologist and researcher in the field of international

organizational culture. He is recognized as the founder and leading authority in this field
(Hodgetts, 1993), best known for his work on work-related values in cultures. He completed
extensive research on cross-cultural groups addressing the nature and role of culture in
organizational management. His work revealed that management philosophies or techniques
appropriate within one country or culture may not be appropriate in other cultures (Hofstede,
1984). In fact, Hoppe (2004) agrees that most peoples thoughts, feelings, assumptions, and
actions remain deeply embedded in their culture. In an interview with Hodgetts (1993), Hofstede
asserts:
the validity of cultural information is limited because in interpersonal contact, any
statement about a person's culture should only be used as a working hypothesis. If you
are going to spend time with a Japanese colleague, you shouldn't assume that overall
cultural statements about Japanese society automatically apply to this person. In our own
country, we are aware of the existence of a wide range of different personalities. We
should try to develop this same open-mindedness to other cultures. However, the cultural
information helps us not to misattribute first impressions to personality if they are, in fact,
based on what is normal in a foreign country. (Hodgett, 1993, p. 59)
Cultural groups influence behaviors in different ways within an organization or society.
This includes the impact of culture on areas such as health, education, economics, CEO
compensation, and politics. Soeters and Boer (2000) described cultures as a phenomenon
occurring among collectivities of people. Todays manager would be prudent to recognize and
understand the significant impact of culture on the values, beliefs, and decision making of his or
her leadership and that of his or her employees within the workplace as a way to guide and direct
the goals, mission, and philosophy of the organization. This is in part because an individuals
belief systems can serve to enhance or undermine the organizations operations such that beliefs
about the controllability and leadership within organizations affect both managers' selfregulatory processes and their organizational attainments (Wood & Bandura, 1989). As such, this
paper will provide a critical examination of Hofstede's work on culture within organizations to
include an analysis of and reaction to the similarities and differences in global organizational
culture.
History and Background of Hofstedes Work
The empirical development of the five-dimensioned Cultural Dimensions Theory is
among the most notable of Hofstede's (1980) work. This theory is premised on the five
dimensions namely Power Distance, Individualism, Uncertainty Avoidance, Masculinity, and
Long Term Orientation, which oftentimes served as the foundation of cross-cultural scholarship
and application (Hoppe, 2004). For example, the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior
Effectiveness (GLOBE) research project sought to identify universal, culturally specific
leadership models and practices. Hofstede surveyed about one hundred thousand (100,000) IBM
employees in sixty-six (66) countries in order to collect his data. These five dimensions defined
values associated with national cultures (Hodgets, 1993) whose strength is seen in the social
systems in which they exist.
The first dimension, Power Distance, involves the extent to which the less powerful
members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is
distributed unequally (Boonghee, Donthu, & Lenartowicz, 2011, p. 194). Thus people within
organizations who place great value on Power Distance dimension exhibit high reliance on
centralized, formalized, authoritarian rule with tight control over power and norms. While some
nations, such as the French accept high differences in power and authority between individuals in
different occupational levels and/or social classes, others like the Swedes and Israelis do not
(Tosi & Greckhamer, 2004). Managers of a French background do not interact with or negotiate
with their subordinates and there exists higher levels of societal elitism that may even lead to
power polarization or inequality (Hofstede, 1980).
According to Tosi and Greckhamer (2004), organizations are structures of power and
authority and tend to mirror how power within the society is viewed. This is why high Power
Distance societies tend to offer higher salaries to their top managers and CEOs, they have more
supervisory positions and place emphasis on white-collar instead of blue-collar work. There also
exists significant wage differentials between top managers and lower level employees and the
control of money and resources among these Power Distance managers is a top priority.
Dimension two, Individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals
are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family
(Boonghee et al., 2011, p. 194). Therefore within this dimension individuals in a given society
either remain integrated into groups or focus on looking after themselves (Zhao, 2013).
Countries like the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom tend to stress individual
needs, concerns, and interests over that of the group. With scores of 91, 80, 89 respectively in
Individualism dimension on the GLOBE study report, it suggests a business society in which the
organizations hiring and promotion decisions are merit-based with evidence to support what an
individual has accomplished or is perhaps capable of accomplishing (Hofstede, 1984). Also,
employees in this type of society are expected to be self-reliant and display initiative. In the
Asian economies and organizations that include places like Japan and Taiwan on the other hand,
individuals are expected to function more within the group context particularly when tasks are
assigned. As a result, leadership or executive talent in this organizational dimension may tend to
focus more on performance-related tasks (Tosi & Greckhamer, 2004). Taiwan and Japans
GLOBE study score of 17 and 46 respectively on the Individualism dimension support the
collectivist society in which individual mindset tends to be more group oriented in exchange for
loyalty.
Uncertainty Avoidance is the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened
by uncertain or unknown situations (Boonghee et al., 2011, p. 194). Organizations or countries
high in Uncertainty Avoidance operate in predictable situations and generally tend to prefer rules
(Tosi & Greckhamer, 2004). They stay away from taking high risk and ambiguous situations.
Unlike countries like Germany and Japan, the United States of America, low in Uncertainty
Avoidance, tend to conform less to the wishes of authority figures, and are less accepting of rules
(Tosi & Greckhamer, 2004). The United States Uncertainty Avoidance dimension GLOBE study
score of 46 pales in comparison to Germany and Japans scores of 65 and 92 respectively.
Masculinity represents the dominant male sex role pattern in the vast majority of both
traditional and modern societies (Boonghee et al., 2011, p. 194). Boonghee et al. refer to this
dominant sex role pattern as male assertiveness, ambition, and toughness, and female nurturance
and harmony. Japan, Germany, and the United States are among the high masculinity societies
and may tend to have more sex-differentiated occupational structures within jobs almost entirely
assigned to women or men (Tosi & Greckhamer, 2004). Their GLOBE study Masculinity
domain scores are represented by 95, 66, and 62 respectively. The organizational culture within
these organizations emphasizes growth, challenges, and achievement, suggests Hofstede (1980).
Individuals within these cultures are more concerned with job performance, achievement, and
wealth, and focus less on the needs or feelings of individuals within the organization. They tend
to be highly assertive and less concerned with the quality of the working environment.
Societies like Norway and Sweden on the other hand that boast higher feminine
dimension thrive on focusing on job satisfaction and employee participation within the
organization. Long Term Orientation refers to long-term versus short-term orientation toward
the future (Boonghee et al., 2011, p. 194). Countries whose cultural values show long-term
oriented consumers are ones in which organizations typically prefer a dynamic market structure
to one that is static, and where organizations are more likely to welcome continuous changes
driven by imports as a way to increase competition (Boonghee et al.). As a result, long-term
orientation within the organizational cultural framework is negatively related to consumer
ethnocentrism.
Zhaos (2013) study on the other hand revealed positive influences on culture and egovernment development in societies strong in Long Term Orientation dimension. For example,
citizens could become actively involved in decision-making and access government at any time
because of the adaptive nature of culture. In fact, Hong Kong did this successfully in 2011
getting citizenship involvement on budget and policy decisions (Zhao). Individuals within these
societies focus on status, honor, and reputation in the organization and emphasize hierarchy or
order. Norway and Swedens GLOBE study masculinity dimension scores were reported at a
mere 8 and 5 respectively (Hofstede, 1984).
Furthermore, these cultural dimensions can also contribute to how CEOs are paid across
countries as certain forms of CEO compensation mean different things in different cultures and
can carry different symbolic meanings depending on the dominant values of each society (Tosi &
Greckhamer, 2004). In the United States for example, the dominant theory upon which CEO
compensation is focused is that of social comparison rather than the economic health of the
organization. Overall, across a global scale Hofstedes (1980) work revealed a positive
correlation between Uncertainty Avoidance dimension and seniority-based and skilled-based
compensation, while a negative correlation existed between compensation and employee
ownership plans (Tosi & Greckhamer). Meanwhile Individualism dimension positively
correlated with compensation plans based on individual performance while compensation plans
correlated negatively with Masculinity and Power Distance dimensions based on maternity leave,
workplace child care programs, and employee ownership plans respectively. Hofstede (1980)
further argued that despite the cultural differences in the views of money and in the different
forms of compensation for CEOs, CEO total pay typically include such things as long term
incentives, basic compensation, bonuses, and social security contributions.
Hofstedes Contribution to Organizational Culture
One of the major findings of Hofstedes (1980) work was the strong interrelatedness
between the values of people within a particular culture. For example, based on a high value
attributed to thrift or saving, research showed strong economic growth and success in some
Pacific Rim countries (Hodgetts, 1993). Hodgetts further explained that the likelihood was that if
thrift is a core value in a country then there will likely be more capital available to invest in
economic growth. Meanwhile Hofstede suggests that within organizational management it is
erroneous and misleading to attempt to equate the stereotypical culture of that country with all
individuals living there.
The strength of these existing values is manifested in the structure of the social systems
in which they exist. These include such systems as marriage and family systems, economic
systems, religious systems, and social control systems. For example, Weber (1958) suggested
that in Protestant dominated countries or systems, capitalistic models tend to flourish more
because of the emphasis on hard work, individualism, and self-reliance when compared to
Catholic dominated systems or countries. Stronger religious values or beliefs therefore tend to
stimulate economic growth because of individually enhanced productivity (Barro & McCleary,
2003).
Globally, countries like Japan and Germany exhibit forms of corporate control based in
their cultural values of feudalism that existed in between the ninth to fifteenth centuries (Orru,
1997). Feudalism was an economic practice during the Middle Ages in which people exchanged
use of lands with nobles for military protection. Nowadays, there exists the presence of very
strong elite classes with private organizations forging strong alliances with the state. Countries
like Italy and Taiwan on the other hand exhibit cultural values based in stronger family
structures, weaker states, and small and medium-sized businesses form the economic foundation
(Tosi & Greckhamer, 2004).
Meanwhile Tosi and Greckhamer (2004) point out evidence that supports the existing
effects of culture on organizational management in at least four ways. These include the
organizations design, managerial philosophy, management and leadership style, and
management philosophy. As it relates to organizational design both Israel and Austria exhibit
effectively ran organizations with clearly defined roles based in high Uncertainty Avoidance and
low Power Distance dimensions (Tosi & Greckhamer). This is unlike cultures in countries like
Mexico and Singapore where both Uncertainty Avoidance and Power Distance are high and
organizational culture follows the traditional head of family model in its organizational design.
In a global study of managers working for large multinational United States corporations,
managerial philosophies revealed that British managers tend to have a more interpersonal
approach to management viewing the organization as accomplishing its goals through a network
of individuals influencing each other through relationships, communication, and negotiation
(Tosi & Greckhamer, 2004). Countries such as Germany on the other hand approach
management in a more rational way as leaders view decision-making among individuals in the
company based in professional competence and knowledge (Tosi & Greckhamer).
As it relates to global leadership styles, House et al. (2004) suggests cultural differences
significantly impact peoples thoughts about the influences, norms, and privileges of leadership.
For example, France and Germany tend to show a more centralized leadership style with
managers having the need to be informed about everything with little attention given to their
subordinates (Tosi & Greckhamer, 2004). Leaders in Britain on the other hand tend to delegate
more, show greater interest in their subordinates, and tend to only be interested in being
informed about exceptional events or occurrences.
When it came to motivational techniques for employees Germany and many southern
European countries place strong emphasis on fringe benefits and job security for the employees.
Japanese leadership emphasizes friendly and good working conditions, while northern European
countries emphasize leisure time and employee needs rather than organizational needs (Tosi &
Greckhamer, 2004).
Another major contribution to the field of organizational management is Hofstedes
GLOBE Studies (House et al., 2004) in which he further examined culture as practices. By
practices he refers to the way things are done within a cultural context, while the values are the
way humans make judgments about the way things should be done. Practices and values were
measured at different levels of industry including financial services, food processing, and
telecommunications (House et al., 2004). One hundred and twenty-seven researchers worked on
this project and tested 27 hypotheses linking culture to outcomes that involved more than 17,000
managers within 951 organizations.
A critical review of the literature combined with intense focus groups allowed them to
gather meaning about equalities across cultures. Pilot test, double translations, and psychometric
property evaluations enabled them to handle the magnitude of cross-cultural data (House et al.,
2004). The theoretical framework consisted of an evaluation of the interrelatedness or lack
thereof, as well as the effects of leadership acceptance and effectiveness on social culture and
organizational practices. Results clearly linked culture to societal functioning and leadership
within organizations (House et al., 2004). This study expanded the five existing cultural
dimensions to eighteen. For example, there arose a distinction between institutional and ingroup collectivism and according to House et al., institutional collectivism involved collective
action, collective distribution of rewards, and collective rewards within the cultural group. Ingroup collectivism on the other hand involved the individuals loyalty and pride for the
organization. In-group Collectivism dimension, notes House et al., emphasizes the family and its
culture is linked to low divorce rates and poor due process.
New dimensions of organizational culture were added which showed that both practices
and values were very helpful in distinguishing differences in types of organizations. The research
affirmed that organizational culture was a reflection of the societal culture (House et al., 2004).
The new dimensions used in the GLOBE studies were Future Orientation, Gender Equality,
Assertiveness, Humane Orientation, In-group Collectivism, Institutional Collectivism,
Performance Orientation, Power Distance, and Uncertainty Avoidance (House et al.). The
empirical data in these new dimensions revealed high religious diversity within low
concentration of the largest religion characteristic of a non-dogmatic culture (House et al.). This
10
type of cultural dimension helps economic accomplishments though the study revealed that
people living in this type of culture do not live as long as others living in a different culture.
In the GLOBE studies, Assertiveness dimension was linked to not having natural
resources such as oil and metal as part of the countrys important exports (House et al., 2004).
Therefore, societies high on this cultural dimension competed well globally while exhibiting
signs of low levels of psychological health. The next dimension, Future Orientation dimension,
showed strong correlations in democratic communities where people enjoyed social health,
gender equality, and economic prosperity, and where a large number of trademarks existed per
capital (House et al.). Meanwhile, Humane Orientation dimension was related to communities or
countries with few retail outlets per capita, and where people were warm, empathetic, hospitable,
and highly satisfied (House at al.).
Institutional Collectivism dimension was observed to be high in Confucian Asian
cultures. In fact, among global communities India is characterized as a collectivistic and
masculine culture (Hofstede, 2001). These communities tend to me more integrated and less
segmented than communities in other parts of the world (House et al., 2004). Meanwhile Gender
Egalitarianism dimension focuses on equality for women as income earners, and correlates well
with longevity. Further, Power Distance dimension in the GLOBE study referred to the
differences between the rich and the poor within the same society. This results in little education
and human development among the poor, poor social growth, and unemployment. So instead of
making their lives better within the society, Power Distance exacerbates the conditions of the
poor making their position less than satisfactory (House et al.). Another dimension, Uncertainty
Avoidance, involves the governmental support of economic activities marked by the existence of
an extensive, modern telecommunications system (House et al.).
11
The GLOBE studies also looked at organizational leadership from the perspective of six
leadership theories. These theories were Charismatic/Values-based, Team-Oriented, Participative,
Autonomous, Humane, and Self-Protective leadership. Within communities and organizations
Charismatic/Value-based leadership and Team-Oriented leadership are considered among the
most desired (House et al., 2004). The other leadership styles with the exception of SelfProtective leadership are seen as culturally acceptable leadership. Further, the study found
associations between leadership styles and cultural patterns. For example, attributes like
decisiveness help to facilitate strong leadership while attributes like irritability inhibits
outstanding leadership.
Charismatic/Value-based leaders tend to be visionary, inspirational, performance
oriented, and self-sacrificing, while Team-Oriented leaders tend to be collaborative, diplomatic,
and integrative. Charismatic/Value-based leadership is high in the Caucasian cluster of countries
and lower in such countries like the Middle East. In some cultures Team-Oriented leadership is
generally not desirable (House et al., 2004). The GLOBE study as House et al. summarizes it,
found high and low correlation among leadership styles in different areas of the world including
Team-Oriented leadership is high in areas like Latin America while being low in the Middle East.
Humane leadership being high in South Asia, and low in Nordic Europe. Autonomous leadership
is high in East Europe and low in Latin America, while Self-Protective leadership is high is
South Asia and the Middle East while low in Nordic Europe. House et al. also found that
Performance Orientation is related to all culturally implied theories of leadership.
Soeters and Boer (2000) applied Hofstedes (1984) work on organizational culture to
military aviation as an organization. In their study of culture in military aviation Soeters and
Boer found significant cultural differences in the armed forces of various countries. They found
12
that one partys unfamiliarity with how another party does things could potentially lead to
dangerous situations in the skies. In fact, having culturally mixed cockpit crews and military
operations conducted in mixed pairs or even other larger groups are no longer an anomaly in
military aviation nowadays. Applying Hofstedes (1984) four cultural dimensions to culture in
military aviation, suggests that the airmans occupation or profession (e.g. pilot,
telecommunications specialist, engineer) is of critical importance to the employees in the
individualist cultures. On the other hand, they write, in the collectivist cultures, the military
institute, the armed forces, or the air force itself are the be-all and end-all with regard to the
orientation toward work, employer, and career (Soeters & Boer, 2000, p. 117). This means that
there is the likelihood that much can remain unsaid and very little information is made explicit.
Hofstedes (1984) Power Distance dimension when applied to culture within military
aviation suggests the captains leadership role is to be responsible for taking control of the
aircraft in emergency situations, ensuring crew members remain subordinate to the captains
commands and not question his or her decision-making except in cases of the safety of the
flights mission, and that captains who accept or even encourage suggestions from the crew
members are considered weak leaders. Unfortunately however, this type of role responsibility in
the cultural Power Distance dimension has lead to and continues to have the potential for
communication problems that could result in tragedy because of the conformity mentality.
Moreover, Vaughn (1996) asserted just that in the analysis report of the NASA space shuttle
Challenger event suggesting that under Power Distance dimension conformity led to tragedy.
Critics of Hofstedes Work on Organizational Culture
Many researchers including Hofstede (1980) himself have attempted to use this fivedimensional metric and apply it to measuring cultural orientations from an individual rather than
13
a group organizational management perspective. This metric has not held at the individual level
evidenced by low dimensional reliability and incoherent factor analyses (Boonghee et al., 2011).
These studies found very low correlation in cultural orientation from an individual level when
compared to the country or group level. Bearden, Money, and Nevins (2005) suggested there was
a need for further study to better understand how individuals from different countries or regions
respond differently to organizational management.
Attempts have been made to develop scales that could assess cultural values from an
individual rather than group perspective, but these attempts have proven to measure the
dimensions individually rather than collectively but concerns over the loss of unidimensionality
with each individual scale continues to be of concern with regards to validity (Boonghee et al.,
2011). Among these attempts are the works of Erdem, Swait, and Valenzuela (2006), Furrer, Liu,
and Sudharshan (2000), and Sharma (2010).
Other critics of Hofstedes (1980) work on culture within organizations are Signorini,
Wiesemes, and Murphy (2009), who suggest that Hofstedes study of culture within education,
and in particular higher education, is limited in part because of the tendency to categorize student
populations into two large groups. These groups were identified as one of a Confucian culture or
tradition characteristic of Asian students, and the other of a Socratic culture or tradition
characteristic of students with a Western nationality (Signorini, Wiesemes, & Murphy, 2009).
However, when comparing these two groups of students in higher education,
commonalities and differences in culture related to both teaching and learning were observed.
One such difference related to the Power Distance cultural dimension that was much larger in
Taiwan than Norway represented by the GLOBE study scores of 58 and 31 respectively. In
terms of education therefore, teachers in Taiwan were generally viewed as experts and more
14
respected while teachers in Norway were viewed as facilitators of the learning process (Hua-Li et
al., 2010).
Researchers Reaction to Hofstedes Study of Culture and Organizations
The work and contribution that Hofstede (1984) has made to the field of organizational
culture has spanned many decades and yet remain relevant. Leaders within organizations would
be prudent in attempting to understand how the cultural background and differences of their
employees impact organizational performance. Not only is this important within large
organizations on a global sphere, but smaller organizations could also greatly benefit from
applying Hofstedes cultural dimensions to their leadership, training, and implementation
programs. It has been observed that global teams may have the advantage of having different,
better, and perhaps even more creative ideas that merge together as a direct result of having
ethnically and culturally diverse teams brainstorm and produce higher quality ideas over more
homogeneous groups (McLeod & Lobel, 1992).
Another relevance to understanding the impact and nature of Hofstedes (1984) work is to
recognize how countries may have utilized the organizational management model to brand and
advertise in a global market. For example, countries such as the United States can create
products and advertise those products to appeal to customers within a global market such as in
Taiwan and Japan. In these countries where leaders and employees focus on working and
achieving as a group, as an example, countries such as the United States can take advantage of
this cultural management approach to advertise and brand products to their organizational
advantage. Not only that but also hiring or training leaders who have had exposure to this type
of organizational management experience can bode well for companies across the globe that are
looking for a specific type of influence and imprint within their organization. Winkler and
15
Bouncken (2011) also agree that in order to compete on a global market it requires integration of
the needs and diverse expectations of the international customer.
Suggestions for Future Research
In light of Hofstedes (1980, 1984) work on organizational culture, as well as the
contributions of other researchers like Bearden, Money, and Nevins (2005), Boonghee et al.
(2011), and Sharma (2010) on this subject, there are two main areas about which future research
could be undertaken. The first involves the influence, if any, of gender as it relates to culture and
leadership within global organizations. The other is the influence, if any, of culture on industryspecific organizations also as it relates to the subject of organizational culture and leadership.
One aspect of culture within organizations that presents with a potential for future study
is the influence of gender in organizational leadership. It would be of interest to ascertain if there
are differences or similarities in organizational leadership in different countries or societies in
cases in which the leadership of the organization is solely that of women versus men, or perhaps
in cases in which the leadership is shared evenly between both men and women. While Hofstede
(1980) work did not specifically address gender, it would be of interest to see how gender
influences culture within global organizations.
Next, given the industry-specific nature of Hoftstedes (1980) GLOBE study involving
survey of one hundred thousand (100,000) IBM employees across the globe, the potential exists
for future research to address similarities and/or differences with regard to the influence of
culture in organizational leadership and management in other industries. For example, future
studies that mirror Hofstedes work can address leadership and culture within industries
dissimilar to IBM such as education, including higher education/academia, food service, offshore
banking, tourism, and the like, just to name a few. The goal here would be to establish if these
16
other industries show similar cultural dimensions in light of Hofstedes Cultural Dimensions
Theory among the leadership when compared to the Hofstedes (1980) globe studies involving
IBM employees.
Conclusion
Organizational culture and management within global organizations have been studied by
Hofstede (1984) who is well known for his contributions to the field. He is considered the
leading authority (Hodgetts, 1993), best known for his work on work-related values in cultures.
His work identified ways in which cultural groups influence behaviors differently within an
organization or society including areas such as health, education, economics, and politics. In
todays management culture, organizations would be prudent to have leadership not only
recognize but also understand the significant impact of culture on the values, beliefs, and
decision making of its leaders and employees alike.
Hofstede (1980) developed a five-dimensioned Cultural Dimensions Theory premised on
the five dimensions namely Power Distance, Individualism, Uncertainty Avoidance, Masculinity,
and Long Term Orientation, which oftentimes served as the foundation of cross-cultural
scholarship and application (Hoppe, 2004). These five dimensions defined values associated with
national cultures (Hodgetts, 1993) whose strength is seen in the social systems in which they
exist. Over the years many other researchers have attempted to use this five-dimensional metric
and apply it to measuring cultural orientations from an individual rather than a group
organizational management perspective. However, this metric has not held at the individual level
when compared to the work with groups and suggests that there was a need for further study to
better understand how individuals from different countries or regions respond differently to
organizational management (Bearden, Money, & Nevins, 2005).
17
Meanwhile, future research linked to Hofstedes (1980) work on cultural dimensions

within global societies may include an assessment of two factors. The first is the influence of
gender, if any, as it relates to culture and leadership within global organizations. The second is
the influence, if any, of culture on industry-specific organizations dissimilar to the IBM
employees surveyed in his GLOBE study.
Hofstedes (1984) work on organizational culture continues to bear relevance even today
as globally, teams may have the advantage of having different, better, and perhaps even more
creative ideas that merge together as a direct result of having ethnically and culturally diverse
teams brainstorm and produce higher quality ideas over more homogeneous groups (McLeod &
Lobel, 1992). Further, countries that hire and train leaders who have had exposure to this type of
organizational management experience may be better positioned to be more competitive on a
global market that requires integration of the needs and diverse expectations of the international
customer.
18
References
Barro, R. J., & McCleary, R. M. (2003). Religion and economic growth across countries.
American Sociological Review, 68(5), 760-781.
Bearden, W. O., Money, R. B., & Nevins, J. L. (2005). Multidimensional versus unidimensional
measures in assessing national culture values: The Hofstede VSM94 example. Journal of
Business Research 59(2), 195203.
Boonghee, Y., Donthu, N., & Lenartowicz, T. (2011). Measuring Hofstede's five dimensions of
cultural values at the individual level: Development and validation of CVSCALE.
Journal Of International Consumer Marketing, 23(3/4), 193-210.
doi:10.1080/08961530.2011.578059
Erdem, T., Swait, J. & Valenzuela, A. (2006). Brands as signals: A cross-country validation study.
Journal of Marketing 70(1), 3449.
Furrer, O., Liu, B. S.-C., & Sudharshan, D. (2000). The relationships between culture and service
quality perceptions. Journal of Service Research 2(4), 355371.
Hodgetts, R. (1993). A conversation with Geert Hofstede. Organizational Dynamics, 21(4), 5361.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management &
Organization 15-41.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asian Pacific Journal of
Management
Hoppe, M. H. (2004). Introduction: Geert Hofstede's culture's consequences: International
cifferences in work-related values. Academy Of Management Executive, 18(1), 73-74.
doi:10.5465/AME.2004.12689661
House, P. J., Hanges, R. J., Javidan, M., DOrfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE studies of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Hua-Li, J., Sandnes, F. E., Yo-Ping, H., & Yueh-Min, H. (2010). Cultural factors influencing
Eastern and Western engineering students' choice of university. European Journal Of
Engineering Education, 35(2), 147-160. doi:10.1080/03043790903497310
McLeod, P. L. & Lobel, S. A. (1992). The effect of ethnic diversity on idea generation in small
groups. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Best Papers Proceedings. 227-231.
19
Orru, M. (1997). Institutional corporation in Japanese and German capitalism. In G. G. Hamilton

(Ed.), The economic organization of East Asian capitalism (311-339). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Sharma, P. (2010). Measuring personal cultural orientations: Scale development and validation.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 38(6), 787806.
Signorini, P., Wiesemes, R., & Murphy, R. (2009). Developing alternative frameworks for
exploring intercultural learning: A critique of Hofstede's cultural difference model.
Teaching In Higher Education, 14(3), 253-264. doi:10.1080/13562510902898825
Soeters, J. L. & Boer, P. C. (2000). Culture and Flight Safety in Military Aviation. The
International Journal Of Aviation Psychology, 10(2), 111133.
Tosi, H. L., & Greckhamer, T. (2004). Culture and CEO compensation. Organization Science,
15(6), 657-670.
Vaughn, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision. Risky technology, culture, and deviance at
NASA. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Weber, M. (1958). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York, NY: Scribner.
Winkler, V. A. & Bouncken, R. B. (2011). How does cultural diversity in global innovation teams
affect the innovation process? Engineering Management Journal, 23(4), 24-35.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management.
Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361-384.
Zhao, F. (2013). An empirical study of cultural dimensions and e-government development:
Implications of the findings and strategies. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(3),
294-306. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2011.644580

A Study of The Research of Geert Hofstede

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Study of The Research of Geert Hofstede

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A STUDY OF THE RESEARCH OF GEERT HOFSTEDE