Organisations Adapt In The Light Of The Cultures In Which They Operate Using Hofstede's Theory - Assignment Solution

Introduction

The culture of an organization plays a great part in adapting the structure and execution of management systems. According to Farzianpour, Abbasi, Foruoshani and Pooyan (2016), a significant role is played by the management of organizational culture to reinforce a cultural components identification system in order to enhance the ability and efficiency of the firm. To comprehend the dissimilarities in culture across nations and to distinguish the approaches that business is carried out across diverse cultures, psychologist Dr. Geert Hofstede put forward a cultural dimension model in the year 1980. According to him, work surroundings and its management are influenced by the national culture and its ethics (Hofstede, 2001). 

Hofstede’s cultural dimension model turned out to be a worldwide acknowledged standard for identifying cultural variances. As stated by Vieregge and Quick (2011), initially this model was categorized into four dimensions by which firms as well as social structure can be modelled. These four dimensions are power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism – collectivism, and masculinity – femininity. In addition to these dimensions, in 1993, Hofstede included one more dimension which is referred to as ‘Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation’ (Obeidat, Shannak, Masa'deh & Al-Jarrah, 2012). Furthermore, Hofstede (2010) developed a sixth entirely different dimensions known as ‘Indulgence versus Restraint’.

This essay will attempt to discuss three of the most significant dimensions of Hofstede’s theory, its relevance to organisation culture and strategies that organisations can adopt from these dimensions to improve the business

Power Distance

Power Distance (PD), one of the prominent cultural dimensions of Hofstede’s model, is associated with the diverse solutions to the fundamental matter of human inequity (Hofstede, 2011). As stated by Oliver (2011), the problem that triggers the power distance dimension is that of inequity. PD elucidates the degree to which individuals who are less influential or powerful in an association accept as well as anticipate that the allocation of power comes about inequitably (Hofstede, 2011). 

Hofstede assigned scores to countries on the power distance index; based on the replies to three different questions that were chosen after scrutinizing their associations to other allied items in the survey, the scores were computed. In the PD dimension, decisions are not based on merit, they are taken on the basis of favours to juniors and faithfulness to seniors. Countries with a large PD, where inequity is accepted, give emphasis to a reliance association between supervisors and juniors. In accordance with Obeidat, Shannak, Masa'deh & Al-Jarrah (2012), Hofstede (2001) represented that such countries comprise the Arab countries which scored 80 out of 104 score. Nevertheless, Aldulaimi and Sailan (2011) analyzed the national culture of Qatar and found that the PD Index result for Qatar is 41 whereas the result for other Arab states is 80.

Durán-Brizuela (2016) analyzed the influence of PD diversity surrounded by workgroups. It was determined that the most PD diverse workgroups had a pessimistic influence on the performance of the workforces and adversely affected organizational citizenship behaviour. On the other hand, Wei, Sun, Liu, Zhou & Xue (2017) studied the response of workforces concerning the likability of supervisors and the curbing influence of PD at both the individual as well as cultural levels. They found that high PD oriented partakers showed greater preference for likable manager candidates as compared to low PD oriented partakers.