Hofstede's cultural dimensions and organizational behavior

Cultural Differences

The field of organizational behavior takes on the thrust of understanding individual behavior in the context of an organization structure in a workplace setting (Cornell University. 2010). It is in this field of perspective that I wish to present a discussion of how, for an example, a new manager would be able to account for both national characteristics and individual differences but first, allow me to give a more thorough understanding of these two social variables.

National Characteristics

What are national characteristics? How does it impact the work place setting? What is its role in the dynamics of an organization? Psychologist Dr. Geert Hofstede gives us an answer via his model of cultural dimensions ("Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions." 2010). Employing quantitative techniques which lead to a creation of a wide database of cultural statistics, Hofstede was able to unveil patterns of similarities and differences within and across societies, that which refers to national culture or national characteristics. This model then allows for a resolution of problems or differences in company culture (ibid). This model explores five dimensions:

Power/Distance (PD)

Power/Distance (PD) refers to the "degree of inequality that exists -- and is accepted -- among people with and without power" (ibid, par.9). There are societies or cultures that report high P/D -- such accept that there is indeed an unequal distribution of power in the organization while other cultures will rate low in P/D, i.e. they believe that power is dispersed and more likely than not, members see themselves as equals. Those with high P/D are centralized and emphasize hierarchies which lead to a process whereby decision-making is largely based upon the leader. Those with low P/D, on the other hand, have a simpler organizational structure, no large gaps between subordinates and superiors which in turn lead to more people being involved in the decision-making process (ibid).

Individualism (IDV)

Individualism refers to degree of bond or tie that individuals have with other members of the organization. High in individualism means the tie of people in the community is loose hence minimal interpersonal relationships which lead to lesser shares of responsibility outside the sphere of family and close friends. Those which are low in individualism however develop a strong group connection, which leads to taking in more responsibilities for the welfare of the other members within the community (ibid).

Masculinity (MAS)

This refers to the degree of adherence of the community of gender roles, to male and female roles. High in MAS means higher expectations in terms of men being tough, strong -- machismo culture while low MAS means gender roles are blurred hence not strictly, clearly delineated -- this leads to men and women working together with equal scope and responsibilities across different employment sectors (ibid).

Uncertainty/Avoidance Index (UAI)

This refers to the strength of anxious feeling that members feel whenever they're left in uncertain, new, unknown situations or circumstances. Rating high in this index equates to the behavior of avoiding these kinds of situations whenever possible while those with low UAI leads to members having the capability to enjoy novel situations and differences. This gives room for people being able to uncover their own truth (ibid).

Long-Term Orientation (LTO)

With the last dimension, Hofstede refers to how much the society gives importance to its heritage -- of its long-lived practices, cultures, beliefs. Countries with high LTO tend to be keen on abiding by social obligations while those with lot LTO give rise to novel ideas (ibid).

After giving a bird's eye-view of Hofstede's national characteristics model, we shall now proceed to a discussion of individual differences of which an analysis of managing or accounting for these factors will be offered.

The Challenge: Now, How Will I Manage All These?

Now, having discussed the points of differences that people may have in a workplace setting -- either stemming from their national characteristics or individual differences -- the work place manager is now faced with the task of being able to account for these two with the hope of attaining an orderly and peaceful workplace environment. According to Liff (1997), there are two popular strands that tackle diversity management: the first is focusing on individual differences while the other focuses on social group characteristics.

Given the learning from all these models, we can say that what is of paramount importance, as a new manager in the workplace is to first assess the people. What kind of personality do they have? What kind of national characteristic do they possess? Only through this understanding can the manager effectively assess and effectively work upon what needs to be addressed. Once a thorough understanding of the employees has been done, one can proceed on classifying what is more salient on them -- their individual differences or their national characteristics? Which of these two greatly affect their behavior and decisions? Which of these two are more salient in particular situations? The new manager can then devise ways of managing diversity: that which is focused on resolving individual differences and another that focuses on social group characteristics.

If individual personality is a great point of diversity, the manager needs to understand how these personalities react to which particular situations. The manager also needs to bear in mind that employees should not be punished or rewarded on the basis of their personality type (TDCJ. 2009). If certain situations call for the manager to adopt the national characteristics-focused way of managing diversity then it is vital to understand any point of contention because of cultural differences and make people understand the diversity of their cultural values.

At the end of the day, it is imperative for the manager to be able to accommodate the differences among his employees and to create choices to minimize diversity issues. Also the style of managing diversity should be dynamic, hence able to adapt to varied circumstances. Situational leadership should also be accounted for -- that of learning when to lead, manage, or allow people to resolve their differences among themselves (ibid).