Critical Evaluation of Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions in Leadership

This essay provides a critical evaluation of Hofstede's cultural dimensions, a framework used to understand cross-cultural communication and behavior in human societies. It explores key dimensions such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance, analyzing their positive and negative aspects. The essay argues that individualism is preferable to collectivism, and low power distance is better than high power distance, as well as low uncertainty avoidance is better than high uncertainty avoidance. The essay suggests empowering employees, fostering open communication, and encouraging risk-taking to improve organizational structures and decision-making processes. The conclusion summarizes the findings and reiterates the recommendations for effective leadership and organizational culture.

Essay

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY .................................................................................................................................1
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................3
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................4

INTRODUCTION
Culture may be defined as a social behaviour or norms that are usually found in human
society. Hofstede's cultural dimension is a framework that has been designed in order to foster
cross-cultural communication. This essay will include critical evaluation of Hofstede cultural
dimension as well as determining which dimension is the best on the basis of evaluation.
Furthermore, suggestion would also be given regarding how to improve these
dimensions(Cacciotti and Hayton, 2017).
MAIN BODY
Culture may be defined as ideas, culture, norms and values of a particular group of
people or society. The culture has various dimensions and these dimensions are discussed by the
Hofstedes cultural dimension. These dimensions are individualism/collectivism, power distance,
uncertainty avoidance and masculinity/femininity.
Individualism/collectivism is that dimension of Hofstedes cultural dimension which is
concerned with self orientation of members. Based on the degree of self orientation it is decided
whether the culture follows individualism or collectivism such as if the people are highly
concerned towards self interest and achievement then it is individualism cultural dimension. On
the other hand, if the people of the society focus towards group harmony then it is collectivism.
Similarly, like every coin has two sides, every dimension has its own negative and
positive points.
On critical evaluation of individualism and collectivism it is found that individualism
helps in empowering people to live their life as per their desires which in turn lead to self
satisfaction and happiness. On the other hand, individualism may lead to creation of the feelings
such as loneliness and isolation. While collectivism may lead to bringing the people together
rather that competing against each other(Minkov and et.al., 2017). On the other hand,
collectivism reduces the individual autonomy of a person as well as it becomes difficult to hold
one person accountable or responsible for the activities carried out by them in group.
As per the critical evaluation, it could be agreed that individualism is better that
collectivism because under this a person is able to achieve what he/she wants rather then
depending on others as well as it contributes towards self satisfaction and maximising happiness
because a person is able to achieve his/her self interest.
1

Power distance implies 'power inequality between the superiors and subordinates. Based
on the degree of power distance it could be found that the formal system of the organisation is
hierarchy or liberal. If the degree of power distance is high then the system is hierarchial and the
power is distributed unequally. While on the other hand, when the power distance is low then the
power is distributed equally and every one has liberty, autonomy and equality in decision
making.
On critical evaluation of power distance it was found that low power distance facilitates
immediate decision making in case of emergency as all the employees are liberal and can take
their own decisions while it may lead to inefficient decision making as well(Khlif, 2016). On the
other hand, high power distance help in maintaining decorum at the workplace but it may even
lead to delay in decision making at the time of decision making.
As per the above discussion, it could be agreed that low power distance is better as it
helps in distributing the power equally which motivated the employees to work better. Apart
from this, it helps in creation of job satisfaction in the mind of employees as they feel valued
because of being a part of decision-making process. Further, it helps in eliminating the delay in
decision making as every member has equal power and authority in decision making process,
especially is case of emergency.
Uncertainty avoidance may be defined as the degree to which member of the society
would respond towards the risk or uncertainty. High uncertainty avoidance means people of the
society avoid taking risk(Minkov, 2018). While on the other hand, low uncertainty avoidance
means people foster risk taking with an intension to succeed.
On critical evaluation of uncertainty avoidance it was found that high uncertainty
avoidance helps in eliminating vague situations while on the other hand it may even lead to
foregoing an opportunity. Low uncertainty avoidance on the other side helps to foster an
opportunity while it may even lead to misleading results if risk taken is not in the favour and may
even lead to disruption of the current working as well.
On the basis of the above discussion it could be agreed that low uncertainty avoidance is
better as it brings in opportunity to grow and expand which is very essential in the long term. A
company can grow if and only if it is ready to take risk otherwise it would only be able to sustain
its operation but would not be able to grow and expand which is very essential to gain the
competitive advantage.
2

It has been recommended that in order to take the organisation to new heights it is very
essential for the companies to take risk otherwise it wont be able to survive for long or maintain
or grow its market share. Further it is recommended that in order to reduce the dower distance
the company should empower the employees fully as well as foster open communication and
give them an opportunity to participate in the decision making process. Not only this they should
even be motivated to take risk which will in turn will lead to breaking the hierarchy and foster
liberal structure(Vasile and Nicolescu, 2016). Moreover, it has been recommended that
individual should be given full autonomy to fulfil their self interest and happiness.
CONCLUSION
From the above essay it has been summarised that there are 4 dimensions of hofstedes
culture dimension and these are individualism/ feminism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance
and masculinity/femininity. Further on the basis of critical evaluation of each dimension; it was
found that individualism is better than collectivism while low power distance is better then high
power distance. On the other hand, it was also found that low uncertainty avoidance is much
better than high uncertainty avoidance. Moreover, suggestions were also given on the basis of the
discussion such as employees should be empowered as well as motivated to take their own
decisions.
3

REFERENCES
Books and journal
Cacciotti, G. and Hayton, J.C., 2017. National culture and entrepreneurship. The Wiley
Handbook of Entrepreneurship. pp.401-422.
Khlif, H., 2016. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in accounting research: a
review. Meditari Accountancy Research. 24(4). pp.545-573.
Minkov, M. and et.al., 2017. A revision of Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism
dimension: A new national index from a 56-country study. Cross Cultural & Strategic
Management. 24(3). pp.386-404.
Minkov, M., 2018. A revision of Hofstede’s model of national culture: old evidence and
new data from 56 countries. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management. 25(2). pp.231-256.
Vasile, A.C. and Nicolescu, L., 2016. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and management
in corporations. Cross-Cultural Management Journal. 18(1). pp.35-46.
4