Cultural Psychology Holfstede\'s Cultural Dimensions

Cultural Psychology

Holfstede's Cultural Dimensions in Modern Day Application

The world of business today reflects the various diverse organizational cultures that work independently within it. Although the modern business context presents very different types of characteristics exuded by professional organizations, there are common patterns seen throughout all organizations. These traits then reflect their status within Geert Holfstede's various cultural dimensions, which can be used to measure various strengths of certain traits and how they compare to other organizations. As a reflection of the understanding of these dimensions, I can then explore the cultural dimensions and their levels within a particular example of a previous employment position.

The organization I have chosen to analyze was in the heavily competitive field of recruitment for the technological field. In the organization, which I will now mention as BB, was a top firm for the placement of high level technological engineers and management positions. Therefore, commissions on deals was lucrative, leading to great success for those individuals who really worked hard in making connections and successfully placing candidates within large technology companies. The atmosphere was heavily sales driven, and so presents a unique environment to be examined within the context of Holfstede's essential dimensions of organizational culture.

Holfstede's first crucial dimension of the measuring of cultural traits and influences is the low vs. high power dimension. This measure focuses specifically on the differentiation of power seen within organizations. It compares the status of both low and high power individuals within the organization as a way to provide evidence for fundamental cultural characteristics. There are several organizational environments which provide a much lower power differential, and so make that environment much more casual and relaxed. In most cases, such organizations see a widespread equality that goes beyond the boundaries of formality constraints. This is primarily based on subordinates being able to approach people within power in the spirit of consultation ad support, much different than more formal-based cultures with higher power distance. This does not alter the power structure; those in power may wield that power whenever they chose. Rather the daily perception of power limits are less structured and formidable, allowing members of that organization to be more at ease for the majority of the time while in the environment. Organizations which embody a higher power differential are more likely to impose stricter regulations on the behavior and practices of the individuals within it. Subordinates within the group are then made to feel inferior in terms of possessing very little power. Therefore, such reminders can negatively affect the daily function of the workplace; yet is can also provide a more productive structure. In many cases, those in lower power positions also have a need to feel the security of a rigid power structure; for "dependence and security needs stem from early childhood and are common to all human beings; independence and power are developed only later in our lives, if hey are developed at all," (Holfstede 2001:83). The organization in which I was employed exuded a more rigid system where power was differentiated very clearly, leading to more direct construction of organizational hierarchies. If there was a conflict or a need for upper management levels to step in, it was conducted formerly through the various lines of communication. If one was not productive, it would trigger a chain of review actions from the higher level superiors in charge of your overall production. The decisions made by upper management were final and sometimes ruthless, yet their power had to be obeyed in order to stay within the organization.

The second dimension seen in Holfstede's dimensional model is that of individualism vs. collectivism. This method gauges individual members in terms of their relationship and dependence on others in the group. Both more individuality oriented and group oriented organizations can exist and thrive. Individualist groups praise self-reliance and self-discipline, allowing individual members to contribute in individual efforts. Differentiating the different individuals of the group is then also a pertinent element of such cultural dimensions. Since many individualist societies and organizational structures prove successful. According to research, "the strong relationship between national wealth and individualism is undeniable, with the arrow of causality directed from wealth to individualism," (Holfstede 2001:253). This was definitely the nature of influence found within my experience within BB. Because individualist traits were so praised and admired, it was left for individual employees to take their own initiative to truly find success in their actions. Based on the sales nature of the organization, it was clear that individuals really aspired to make their own money, and not the collective whole as a main focus for prosperity. Therefore, there was little, if any, support for other individuals within the group unless it benefited those lending a hand. This atmosphere made training incredibly difficult and unnerving, but also provided strength to be able to handle situations on my own that was necessary to succeed in such a competitive environment. However, on the other end of the spectrum, collectivist cultures present much different expectations of interaction between group members and individual responsibilities. Such cultures tend to exude more social reliance in the determination of the actions and behaviors. Such traits were not praised within BB, the organization of my choice for analysis.

The third dimension proposed by Holfstede in his model is that the contrast between masculine and feminine identities. This cultural influence represents the main factor in the attribution of society gender roles, as well as praised characteristic with a more associated with one gender over another. In cultures which exude more of a masculine domination then praise characteristics traditionally associated with the masculine gender role. Thus, fierce competitiveness, decisiveness, and determination are the favored characteristics in masculine-based cultural environment. Material wealth is a primary objective of such organizations. According to research, "boundaries and in-group identifications were also stronger in masculine cultures," (Holfstede 2001:304). This was definitely the case in the organization BB. All motivations for increased levels of productivity revolved around monetary rewards. Top sales would produce bonuses and cash prices. Therefore, it was clear that the productivity of the group was not o the most imperative importance, but rather the performance of the individual as a way to drive group performance through competition. These environments exhibit much more aggression in comparison to their counterparts, the cultural group dominated by pure femininity. Cultural groups which associate more with feminine traits tend to praise social relationships and contributions over individual achievements and ambition. Thus, this perspective focuses more on the quality of life, focusing on relationships and meaningful experiences rather than pure ambition.

The fourth dimension focuses primarily on how members of the group handle confrontations, through either low or high levels of uncertainty avoidance. In cultures which focus on high uncertainty avoidance tend to behave strictly according to the levels of formality, and are afraid to approach situations outside those set boundaries. In this environment, strict regulations are both expected and followed. Legality concerns may constrain members of an organization from being more informal and direct with conflicts or problems. Within professional organizations, such strong structures tend to retain employees for longer periods of time, creating the organization into a much more cohesive whole. This was the case in the organization BB, where formality was always strictly followed in terms of conflict resolution. In fact, actions taken outside of the formal structure was frowned upon, and even potentially punished by further complications and issues with upper management. On the opposite end are those who have low levels of uncertainty avoidance, and therefore present a more communal and informal response to conflict within the organizational environment. Most professional organizations tend to stray away from such policies and practices mainly due to the potential of legal ramifications arising from an informal misunderstanding or conflict. This was also the case for my experience within the organization of BB. Based on the competitive nature of the business environment, strict formalities had to be kept up in order not to go beyond the boundaries of good business ethics and practices.