Cultural Dimensions in International HRM

This report analyzes Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Model, focusing on Individualism versus Collectivism and Masculinity versus Femininity. It discusses how these dimensions influence workplace behavior and human resource management, particularly in culturally diverse environments like Australia. The report emphasizes the importance of understanding these cultural dimensions for effective management and team dynamics, ultimately enhancing organizational performance.

8/22/2017
Student Name
Is National Culture As Important Now As In The Past?

Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Model
Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Model................................................................................1
Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV)........................................................................................2
Individualism...............................................................................................................................2
Collectivism.................................................................................................................................2
Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS)............................................................................................2
Masculinity...................................................................................................................................3
Femininity....................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................3
1

Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Model
Introduction
Australia has always been the preferred destination for migrants and professionals from across
the globe which has resulted in Australia having among the widest cultural diversities. This
cultural Diversity required for HR Managers to implement unique approaches towards managing
staff from culturally diverse backgrounds so as to maintain the highest productivity and
performance (Brislin, 2008). For this report, the Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions model
shall be utilized and examples from the model dimensions used to deliver a clearer understanding
related to the how IHRM can be used to understand and manage skilled professionals at the
workplace.
Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Model
The Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions model attempts to explain different cultural
dimensions which influence cultural behaviour and how these dimensions can be used to
improve workplace operations, communications, and productivity (Dellner, 2014). Hofstede’s
Cultural Model includes 6 cultural dimensions each having a unique influence on how the skilled
professionals perceive their work and other people’s views. The six dimensions include:
• Power Distance Index (PDI),
• Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV),
• Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS),
• Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI),
• Long-Term Orientation versus Short Term Normative Orientation (LTO), and
• Indulgence versus Restraint (IND)
Each of these dimensions will have a direct effect on the skilled professional's perceptions while
working and requires to be properly understood to assist the human resource managers to
develop effective human resource development plans (Hofstede, 2003). Due to each dimension
2

Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Model
having a vast coverage area the report shall explore two dimensions and provide examples of
how the dimension affects a skilled professional way of thinking while working and its effects on
performance. These dimensions will have a direct influence on how individuals work as teams
and help determine individual’s perceptions of teamwork which can be used to organize
company staff to help reduce conflict of interest (Piepenburg, 2011). On this report, we shall be
analysing the Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV), and the Masculinity versus Femininity
(MAS) dimensions, which will help deliver a clearer perception of how staff requires being
organizing and managing to harness the most efficiency.
Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV)
Each person has their own preference related to working or functioning but some communities
promote collectivism which results in the whole society working as a group (Minkov, 2012).
There is no limitation related to both the behavioural characteristics but understanding an
individual’s approach and style allows the HRM develop an effective plan to manage the
individual’s way of working.
Individualism
Individuals who prefer working alone will require being offered work and responsibilities which
they handle on their own. An easy way of identifying an Individualistic person is simply by the
way they address issues which happen around them. In most situations, the Individualistic person
will refer to work done by them individually and will commonly be observed to use “I”. While
this approach is noted to delivers more control and responsibility towards performing any work it
also limits the individual from communicating with other colleagues’ and the team (Marieke de,
2010, p.77). This is results in the individual retaining control and taking up responsibility for all
their actions but it also slows learning and problem-solving since the individuals rely on their
own knowledge and learning techniques to secure knowledge and understanding.
Collectivism
Collectivism involves an approach of working where individuals are closely linked to their team,
group, community, and family. This results in the individual requiring consulting other members
regarding any problem or issue before a decision is made. This nature of consulting a group,
community, and family before making a decision results in the individual considering themselves
3

Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Model
to be part of a larger unit and better able to make clearer and more accurate decisions. It’s also
common to find Collectivists refereeing to the choice made by them as part of a group and they
will commonly use “We” while addressing any concern or decision (Dubina & Carayannis,
2016). They also will have more access to information and knowledge from the group which
helps build a wider perspective of a problem before a decision is made. Collectivists also tend to
share their knowledge freely with the group rather than keeping their knowledge to themselves.
While both individuals are important towards an organizations growth and development,
Collectivism tends to deliver more desirable skills among businesses. This is due to the
Collectivists being more adaptable and more included toward team building which is very
important for an organizations growth.
Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS)
Another important behavioural characteristic described in the Hofstede’s Cultural Model is the
Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS) character of individual employees. Once again similar to
Individualism versus Collectivism the Masculinity versus Femininity characteristics displays
how individuals portray themselves at the workplace, community and as a nation (Hofstede,
1998). For this example, we shall evolution the issue from a national perspective to gain a better
understanding of this characteristic.
Masculinity
This behavioural characteristic involves individuals who are dominating and view themselves as
the leader and dominating power and protector. The USA is portrayed to be Masculine nations
which consider it as the superhero and always ready to interview and demonstrate its capability
and power. The same can seem at the employee level where some individuals may develop a
dominating attitude towards colleague and the process which results in them focusing only on
development but not on other aspects such as humanities.
Femininity
People with this behavioural characteristic tend to be more caring and focus more of their
attention towards humanitarian needs as opposed to power and recognition. This results in the
individuals focusing on team building, health, education, and well-being as a whole. This
4

Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Model
behaviour can be observed on an individual, community or national scale and is mainly
influenced by the individuals surrounding and views towards each other.
Conclusion
Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Model helps separate the different categories people fall
under thus allowing the human resource managers to better understand the staff and implement
approaches which cater to each individual. It also allows the HRM in Australia to better manage
staff from a wider cultural diversity and avoid conflict and misunderstanding which may develop
due to different cultural and individual views differing which can result in affecting the
businesses performance.
5

Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Model
References
Brislin, R., 2008. Working with Cultural Differences: Dealing Effectively with Diversity in the Workplace.
Greenwood Publishing Group.
Dellner, A., 2014. Cultural Dimensions: The Five-Dimensions-Model according to Geert Hofstede. GRIN
Verlag.
Dubina, I. & Carayannis, E., 2016. Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship Across Cultures: Theory
and Practices. Barnaual: Springer.
Hofstede, G., 1998. Masculinity and Femininity: The Taboo Dimension of National Cultures. New Delhi:
SAGE.
Hofstede, G., 2003. Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations
Across Nations. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.
Marieke de, M., 2010. Global Marketing and Advertising: Understanding Cultural Paradoxes. 3rd ed.
califonia: SAGE.
Minkov, M., 2012. Cross-Cultural Analysis: The Science and Art of Comparing the World's Modern
Societies and Their Cultures. SAGE.
Piepenburg, K., 2011. Critical analysis of Hofstede’s model of cultural dimensions: To what extent are his
findings reliable, valid and applicable to organisations in the 21st century? GRIN Verlag.
6