Hofstede’s Model Of Organisational Culture

ABSTRACT organisational close has rick the camber in popular prudence with many experts suggesting it as an beta de end pointining factor for judicatureal success. counsel researchers break been quick to point out the stir that plaqueal ending may strike on the effectiveness of the governing and have called for an increase in the attention paid to organizational civilization. With more(prenominal) accent being placed on organizational finish, it becomes fundamental to comprehend the appeal of this concept and examine its extend to on heed deep d hold the organizationThis paper thus seeks on the concept of organizational flori tillage and examines its impact on deportments and management of the organization. This will involve identifying one associated sense modality or theory and evaluating or determining the extent to which the chosen lesson plays a set off in delineate the style of management. A showcase work of Sony Ericsson will overly be emplo yed to help represent the application of hofstedes seat of organizational gardening. The study will also identify limitations of this sham and the strengths that have enabled it to be utilize as a basis for most research analyses.INTRODUCTION organizational enculturation has become the buzzword in popular management with many experts suggesting it as an important determinant for organizational success (Schein 1999). tour the association between organizational gloss and organizational success is far from certain(a), it is obvious that each organization has its own unique affectionate structure which drives much of the individual behaviour inwardly that organization.Management researchers have been quick to point out the impact that organizational civilisation may have on the effectiveness of the organization and have called for an increase in the attention paid to organizational culture (Siehl &038 Martin 1998). With more emphasis being placed on organizational culture, it is important to understand the appeal of this concept and examine its impact on management within the organization.This study thus explores on the concept of organizational culture and examines its impact on management style. This will involve identifying one associated mode or theory and evaluating or determining the extent to which the chosen flummox plays a part in defining the style of management. In this find out, Hofstedes ideas will form the basis of our analysis of organizational culture.WHAT IS..CULTURE?The term culture has been given varied condition of definitions by various scholars. Kroeber &038 Kluckholn (1952), for example, delimit culture as lie downing of patterns of behaviour acquired and transmitted through symbols, and which constitute classifiable achievement of military personnel groups including their embodiment in artifacts. Hofstede (1980), on the other hand, define culture as the collective programming of the mind which differentiates members of o ne human group in the alliance from the rest.While Symington (1983) defined it as a complex whole which include belief, k presentlyledge, morals, art, customs, capabilities and habits acquired in the society. These definitions suggest culture to consist of a set of value systems that be sh bed equally by members in the society and which binds people together. With the above conceptualization of culture, we can now define what we mean by organizational culture.ORGANIZAITONAL CULTUREOrganizational culture can simply be defined as a set of values, presumptions and beliefs that define the behaviours and style of management in an organization (OReilly et.al, 1991). There be three main sources of influence believed to interact to create organizational culture. These are the beliefs and values held by the leaders of the organization, the characteristics of the industry in which the organization is within, and the broader society in which the organization operates (OReilly et.al, 1991) .The most influential model used by management researchers and which has formed the basis of most analyses of organizational culture is Hofstedes model. While most noted for his territorybreaking consort on dimensions of bailiwick culture, Hofstede also identified sestet dimensions of organizational culture which can be used in defining the style of management in an organization.Process orient vs goal pointThe process orient vs result orient dimension is relate with the effectiveness of the organization. A key feature of a process oriented culture is the means or rather the way in which s likewisel has to be conducted. While in a result oriented culture, emphasis is placed on the goals of the organization. That is, employees are primarily out to achieve ad hoc organizational goals even if the risks involved are substantial (Hofstede 2001).Parochial vs master keyThis dimension reflects the informal and external frame of the organization (Hofstede 2001). In a local cultur e the indistinguishability of the employees is with the immediate manager. Hence employees within this culture are internally focused and directed and on that point is also a strong complaisant catch. The converse is true in a professional culture where the identity of the employees is largely determined by the profession and content of the job.Open system vs unopen systemThe open system vs closed system dimension reflects the communication climate of the organization (Hofstede 2001). For an open system, new employees are welcomed and there is the belief that e veryone fits healthy in the organization. While for a closed system, it is difficult to join and it is believed that however a certain kind of individuals may fit in the organization.Employee oriented vs job orientedThis dimension relates to the management philosophy in the organization. In an employee oriented organizational culture, concern is mainly on employee satisfaction. The staff members feel that their own pe rsonal problems and welfare is taken into account by the organization. While for a job oriented organizational culture, work is characterized by heavy nip to perform the specific task at the expense of the employee (Hofstede 2001).Tighter curtail vs exhaust controlThis dimension relates to structuring, control and discipline in the organization. A tight control culture is characterized by seriousness and punctuality go the features of a expel control culture are casual and improvisation (Hofstede 2001). Examples of organizations that are oft found within tighter controls are banks and pharmaceutical companies while those found in loose control are research laboratories and advertising agencies (Hofstede 2001).Normative vs pragmaticThis dimension reflects on the methods employed by organizations when dealing with the environment in general and customers in particular. It describes the level of customer oreintation. Pragmatic cultures are flexible and more food market driven wh ile normative cultures are rigid and often accent on following applicable laws and rules (Hofstede 2001). Hofstede labeled organizations involved in the sales agreement of services as pragmatic while those engaged in application of laws and rules as normative.CRITICISMS OF HOFSTEDES MODELHofstedes ground breaking work on culture has indeed provided valuable insights into the management styles and dynamics of violate cultural relationships. However, his highly influential findings have not been without criticisms. A summate of academics have discredited his work in part or whole.Critics have argued that survey was not an important instrument that could be used in accurately determining and measuring the culture of organizations (Jones 2007). A survey of a set of limited questions surely cannot adequately and comprehensively provide an in-depth rationality of culture of an organization. In response to this criticism, Hofstede argued that survey was one method and sure as shooti ng not the only method that was used.Hofstedes model has also been criticized on the basis that the five or six dimensions did not provide fitting information about cultural differences (Jones 2007). In this regard, Hofstede agreed that his analysis was too narrow to credibly argue for the universal validity and sufficiency of the six dimensions of organizational culture that he identified. And in fact, suggested for additional dimensions to his original work. He also noted that some of the six dimensions that he identified may be less useful when analyzing other types of organizations in other countries (Jones 2007).A third criticism is that Hofstedes work is seen as outdated, especially with the fast changes in the global environment (Jones 2007). This critique has further been put onwards by Holden (2002) who points out that the data used by Hofstede in his dimensions of organizational culture seem to have been gathered over 30 eld ago and is therefore no longer applicable to the modern daytime world. In response to this criticism, Hofstede (1998) pointed out that a human activity of recent replications had sustain his findings.Hofstedes model is also criticized on grounds of his one fellowship approach. Hofstedes analysis supposed that a single IBM organizational culture could be used to make inferences about the entire world coarse organizational cultures (Jones 2007). A study fixated on one company certainly cannot be used to make inferences about the entire world massive organizational cultures. The validity of his dimensions of organizational culture has thus been questioned and his model considered to be non-comprehensive as the study was base on data collected from a single company using questionnaires that lacked academic foundation.Critics have also argued that Hofstede failed to espy the variation in his analysis of IBM culture (Jones 2007). He cut offd extensive literature which suggested that there were multiple, dissenting and em ergent cultures in an organization. If we are to ignore the assumption of a single culture in IBM and acknowledge the diversity in culture at IBM, then his analysis is likely to collapse. aft(prenominal) years of publication of his analysis on organizational culture found on the IBM survey data, Hofstede begun to acknowledge the presence of cultural diversity within and between units in the same organization. However, despite recognizing flaws in his work, Hofstede fails to admit delusion or weakness in his analysis. Accepting that organizations had multiple cultures as remote to his assumption of a single culture would seem to undermine a crucial part of his analysis.ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF HOFSTEDES MODELpatronage these criticisms, Hofstedes work is widely acknowledged and used by many scholars and practictioners collectable to its mainly appealing attributes. Sondergaard (1994) noted that hofstedes analysis on in somaticd culture received 1,036 citations in comparison with an other highly regarded study by Miles &038 Snow (1978) which only received 200 citations. Moreover, a number of researchers have replicated Hofstedes study including Trompenaars &038 Hampden-Turner (1997). Some of the strengths that have enabled it to be used as the basis of most research analyses includeRelevance Hofstedes discoveries came at a time when there was very little know about culture and line of merchandisees were just globalizing and were in need of advice (Jones 2007). Hofstedes manakin exceeded this demand and became widely accepted by many scholars and practitioners. His work offered counselling to managers who were expanding their coursees as cultures were clashing and creating difficulties (Jones 2007). Rigour Hofstede model is based on a rigorous research design with systematic data and is built on a coherent theory (Jones 2007). Simplicity Knudsen &038 Loloma (2007) argues that hofstedes model has remained influential and successful due to its simplicity of appliance. His analysis of culture offered a simple-minded way of understanding organizational culture. The six dimensions that define organizational culture put forth by Hofstede made it easier for managers and researchers to understand corporate culture without the need of expert knowledge. Relative accuracy strength of Hofstedes model is also reflected in its level of accuracy. Majority of the replications conducted by other researchers have con squareed Hofstedes findings. Four replications have concurred fully with Hofstedes findings while fifteen showed partial confirmation (Jones 2007). Moreover, Hofstedes framework has become very influential in management studies and is most widely cited in social sciences. His work remains instrumental in the implementation of various business systems in organizations including entrepreneurial behaviour, workgroup deed and dynamics, leadership styles, participative management and management control systems among many others (Jones 2007 ). A CASE STUDY OF SONY ERICSSONIn order to explore on the extent to which hofstede model plays a part in defining management style, we will conduct a case study of Sony Ericsson, a joint venture between Sony and Ericsson. Sony Ericsson has its headquarters and all of its management based in the UK. The firm aims at becoming the most innovative and enchanting mobile brand globally (Cooper &038 Ross 2007).ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE IN SONY ERICSSONOrganizational culture has long been acknowledged as an important factor for brainish behaviour, decision making and shaping management style at Sony Ericsson. With regard to the rules and procedures, Sony Ericson follows a certain procedure laid down by the firm (Cooper &038 Ross 2007). While it is not a requirement for employees to follow strict cut code and office timings, it is mandatory for employees at Sony Ericsson to abide by the business ethics and code of conduct (Cooper &038 Ross 2007). Since the firm does not follow a strict dres s code and office timings, it can be cogitate that the organization employs a loose control culture.With regard to employee evaluation and performance, the staffs at Sony Ericsson are not differentiated on their individual performance and are allowed to participate in decision making except at the high level which requires the executive management team only (Cooper &038 Ross 2007). Sony Ericssons corporate culture is also more employee oriented with managers more concerned on the welfare and employee satisfaction.Sony Ericsons organizational culture is also very professional as employees are subjected to scrutiny checks prior to their appointment to ensure that individuals employ are competent and have a certain level of give birth deemed necessary for the position (Tayeb 2001). With regard to normative and pragmatic approach, the firm is seen in between, as its organizational culture is both normative and pragmatic oriented. While Sony Ericsson focuses on meeting customer and m arket needs, the firm also adheres to certain rules and guidelines in meeting these needs (Tayeb 2001). Clearly, Hofstedes model plays a substantial part in defining the management style and organizational behaviour at Sony Ericsson.CONCLUSIONThere is no doubt that Hofstedes model is one of the most widely acknowledged and used piece of research. His ground breaking work on culture has indeed provided valuable insights into the management styles and dynamics of cross cultural relationships as evident in Sony Ericsson. A number of academics have however discredited his work in part or whole.Although Hofstedes work on culture has been heavily criticized on grounds of his one company approach, survey methodological approach, and for fewer dimensions and his assumption of a single organizational culture majority of his findings have had rummy effect on practitioners and researchers and continue to guide multi-national practitioners into the global future. While there is a high level of controversy in his analysis of culture, there is no doubt that his study is one of the most influential in the analysis of organizational culture.REFERENCEHofstede, G., 2001. shades consequences. 2nd edition. cardinal Oaks, CA sagacious publicationsHofstede, G., 1998. Attitudes, Values and Organizational Culture Disentangling the concepts. Organization Studies 19(3) 477.Hofstede, G., 1980. Cultures Consequences International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA Sage Publications.Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., and G. Sanders, 1990. Measuring OrganizationalCultures A Qualitative and duodecimal Study across Twenty Cases. administrative ScienceQuarterly, 35(2), 286-316.Holden, N., 2002. Cross-Cultural Management A Knowledge Management Perspective. Harlow learner Hall.Jones, M.L., 2007. Hofstede culturally questionableOxford, UK.Kroeber, A. L. and C. Kluckhohn, 1952. Culture A critical review of concepts and definitions. Cambridge, MA Harvard University compressKnudsen &038 Loloma, 2007. The consequences of cultures consequences. A critical approach to culture as collective programming applied to cross-cultural crews. Journal of Maritime Affairs. Vol . 8 (2), pp.105 -121Miles, R and C. Snow, 1978. Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. New York, NYMcGraw-Hill.OReilly, C., Chatman, J., and D. Caldwell, 1991. People and organizational culture A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34487-516.Rose, R., 2008. Organizational culture as a root of performance improvement research and recommendations. Contemporary management research. Vol.4, p. 43-46Schein, E., 1999. The corporate culture survival guide. San Francisco Jossey Bass.Schwartz, S.H., 1994. Beyond individualism/collectivism. In Kim, U., Triandis, H.C. et al. (eds) Individualism and Collectivism Theory, Method, and Applications Vol. 18, megabyte Oaks, CA, SageSiehl, C. &038 J. Martin, 1998. Measuring Organiza tional Culture Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. In Jones, M.O, et al. (eds), Inside Organizations Understanding the Human Dimension, Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications, pp.79-103.Sinha, 2000. Patterns of work culture. Sage publicationsSondergaard, M., 1994. Hofstedes consequences A study of reviews, citations and replications. Organization Studies 15(3) 447.Symington, J. W., 1983. Learn Latin the Statess Culture. New York Times.Tayeb, M. H., 2001. International Business Partnership. New York Palgrave.Trompenaars, F. and C. Hampden-Turner, 1997. Riding the waves of culture understanding cultural diversity in business. London, Nicholas Brearley.