Author Geert Hofstede, in his article “ Motivation , leadership and organization: Do American theories apply abroad ? “ discusses the various tools by which a culture can be defined and discusses whether the management theories related to motivation , leadership and organization are universally true or not ? This essay describes the tools which gauge the culture and briefly deals with two aspects of this article, motivation and organization. The author has based this article on a large research project conducted by him over ix years, and studied 40 national cultures. He tried to ‘determine empirically the main criteria by which their national cultures differed, and he found four such criteria. These are, Power-distance, Uncertainty-Avoidance, Individualism-collectivism, and Masculinity- Femininity. The author cautions, that ‘ characterizing a national culture does not mean that every person in the nation has the characteristics applied to that culture. Therefore, in defining national cultures we refer to the common norm- but we are not describing ndividuals’.
These criteria are named as dimensions by the author. The first dimension is called the ‘ power distance’. It indicates the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally. It is reflected in the values of less powerful members of the society as well as the more powerful ones. A few characteristics of the two extremes would be that in a large power distance nation, the power holders are entitled to privilege, superiors are naccessible, and latent conflict exists between the powerful and the powerless. In contrast, in a small power distance nation, all have equal rights and privileges, superiors are accessible and latent harmony exists between the powerful and the powerless. The second dimension is ‘ uncertainty avoidance’. It indicates the extent to which a society feels threatened by uncertain and unambiguous situations and tries to avoid these situations, by providing greater career stability, establishing more formal rules, not olerating deviant ideas and behaviors, and believing in absolute truths and attainment of expertise. Nevertheless, societies with strong uncertainty avoidance are characterized by a higher level of anxiety, and aggressiveness that creates, among other things, a strong inner urge in people to work hard. Few characteristics of a nation with weak uncertainty avoidance dimension are that time is free, and hard work is not a virtue.
Whereas, in a nation with strong uncertainty avoidance, time is money and there is an inner urge to ork hard. The third dimension is ‘ Individualism- Collectivism ‘. Here, individualism implies a loosely knit social framework, in which people are supposed to take care of themselves and of their immediate families only, while collectivism is characterized by tight social framework in which people distinguish between in-groups and out-groups. They expect their in-group ( relatives, clan, organization) to look after them and in exchange for that they feel they owe absolute loyalty to it. A few characteristic of a collectivist nation are hat the identity is based in a social system, and the involvement with the organization is moral, whereas in an individualist nation, identity is based in the individual, and the involvement with organizations is calculative.
The fourth dimension is called ‘ masculinity’. It expresses the extent to which the dominant values in a society are ‘ masculine’. These values are assertiveness, acquisition of money and things, and not caring for others, the quality of life or people. A few characteristics of a masculine nation are that men are assertive and women nurturing, one ives to work and independence is ideal. In a feminist state men need not be assertive but can be nurturing also, one works to live and interdependence is ideal. Measured from below, the Unites States ranks 15th out of 40 countries in power distance dimension, which is below average but not as low as other wealthy countries. It ranks 9th out of 40, which is well below average, on uncertainty avoidance dimension. Its rank is 40th on individualism. It is the single most individualistic nation out of the set of the 40 nations.
On masculinity, it ranks 28th, which is well above the average. Having defined the four dimensions and the relative position of USA, the author touches upon three management theories. These are motivation, leadership and organization theories. He examines what theories are successful in USA and checks if the same can be valid in other countries or not. On motivation, the author says that in USA the theories of David McCleland, Abrham Maslow, Frederick Herzberg, and Victor Vroom are popular and effective. In Austria, the heory of Sigmund Freud is more popular and effective. Stating the reasons for this, the author points out that Austria scores very low on power distance, very high on Uncertainty Avoidance, very low on Individualism, and very high on Masculinity. According to the author, the most striking thing about Austrian culture is that it combines a fairly high Uncertainty Avoidance with a very low Power Distance and individualism. Working hard is developed as an inner urge in Austria and it becomes a way of relieving stress.
In Austria the inner feeling to society plays a much stronger role than in the United states, where high level of individualism leads to do every act for self interest only. This justifies the popularity of expectancy motivation theory in the United states and not in Austria. On the leadership theory, the author says that in United States many theories have developed and some of the best known are those by Douglas McGregor, Rensis Liert, Robert R. Blake and Jabe S. Mounton. The common factor of these theories is that they ll advocate participation in mangers decision by subordinates, also known as participative management. This is because USA is a middle level power distance nation. In a high Power Distance nation like France, participative management is very little. In countries with smaller Power Distance than USA, like Sweden, Norway, Germany and Israel, participative management is very significant.
It becomes very difficult for an American manager to operate in a very autocratic way in a high level Power Distance nation, or e very open to subordinates in a low level nation of Power Distance. On the theory of organization the author says that it is dependent on Power Distance which relates to centralization and Uncertainty Avoidance which relates to formalization. The decision making preferred by the French is centralized and formal, by Germans it is formalized but not centralized, and for British it is neither formalized nor centralized. The approach of the culture of United States in this matter is mixed. It does not consider ierarchy as a goal in itself, and the rules are not goals by themselves. Results matter here, and for that both can be changed if required. This flexibility explains the success of US business operations in different cultures. The author further explains that individualism is a very strong feature of the US culture, but in a state like China, it is considered to be a ‘ bad word’. Thus, the set of organization principles has to change to favor the mental approach of the subordinates when American mangers operate in a highly
Collectivist country like China. Conclusively, it can be said that management theories which work in the United States, do not work in the same form in foreign countries, having different cultures. In fact trying to practice them without understanding the cultural requirements of the country where they are to be applied, can be harmful.
Works – cited page
1. Hofstede Geert, Motivation, Leadership and Organization : Do American theories apply abroad ? Organizational Dynamics, summer 1980, AMACOM, a division of American Management Association.
