Comparative analysis using one of Hofstede (managing in the global environment ass 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

hofstede analysis...

Description

SCHOOL OF Business

ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET STUDENT DETAILS Student name:

Student ID number:

UNIT AND TUTORIAL DETAILS Unit name: Tutorial group: Lecturer or Tutor name:

Unit number: Tutorial day and time:

Gowan, Sunaina

ASSIGNMENT DETAILS Title: Length Due : date: Home campus (where you are enrolled):

Date submitted: Sydney City Campus

DECLARATION I hold a copy of this assignment if the original is lost or damaged. I hereby certify that no part of this assignment or product has been copied from any other student’s work or from any other source except where due acknowledgement is made in the assignment. I hereby certify that no part of this assignment or product has been submitted by me in another (previous or current) assessment, except where appropriately referenced, and with prior permission from the Lecturer / Tutor / Unit Coordinator for this unit. No part of the assignment/product has been written/produced for me by any other person except where collaboration has been authorised by the Lecturer / Tutor /Unit Coordinator concerned. I am aware that this work will be reproduced and submitted to plagiarism detection software programs for the purpose of detecting possible plagiarism (which may retain a copy on its database for future plagiarism checking).

Student’s signature: Note: An examiner or lecturer / tutor has the right to not mark this assignment if the above declaration has not been signed.

Comparative analysis using one of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions Dr. Geert Hofstede, using his extensive, decade long research in the 1970’s was able to identify a cultural dimensions model that accurately granted the ability to differentiate one culture from another. One of the dimensions Hofstede identified, Individualism vs Collectivism, is especially advantageous as it compares the abundant dissimilarities in culture between that of the Lebanese and Australian societies significantly. To fully grasp an understanding of the ideas behind Hofstede’s dimensions however, it is important the understand how culture is defined. Hofstede (2011) defined culture as “the ability to distinguish a group or category of people from one another through the shared ideologies of the mind". Generally, the term can be used to describe anything from ethnic groups and nations to even organisations. Whilst the Lebanese culture has been viewed to be an individualistic society scoring a 40 on Hofstede’s cultural dimension chart, Australian culture has been identified to be the complete opposite scoring a 90 making it a highly individualist culture (Country Comparison 2019). Delving deeper into the term “collectivist culture” it can be understood that they tend to emphasise more on context. Collectivists view behaviour and their position in society based on external factors such as societies norms and roles (Triandis 2004). The people tend to belong to “groups”, which branches to direct family, extended family and even reaches extended relationships, and generally take care of its members in exchange for loyalty. This factor is extremely evident in the Lebanese culture with a score of 40, as mentioned earlier, in Hofstede’s country comparison; therefore, Lebanon is considered a collectivist society (Country Comparison 2019). In collectivist cultures loyalty dominates over everything including the regulations put in place by the society itself. This type of culture expresses extreme loyalty were members of “groups” not only take care of themselves but also the members of the groups to which they belong. The ideologies generally revolve around the belief that “everything that is mine is yours” be it positive or negative. If one where to betray or offend members of the collective group or misrepresent the entire group in any way, the outcome is that of shame which is brought to the entire group to shoulder together. Even in the work force, it is common to find rather than a basic employer/employee relationship, it is more so a relationship comparable to that of

family (Country Comparison 2019). Through this, it can be shown that Lebanon truly does express notions of collectivist culture, in turn making it one. Interestingly however, collectivism is mainly evident in Lebanon’s Arabic speaking individuals, as results have indicated language played a major role in deciding in an individual’s orientation, and that those individuals who spoke languages other than Arabic (French or English) were consistently less collectivist (Ayyash-Abdo 2001). Triandis (2004) saw that an individualistic culture revolved around the of the concept of being idiocentric (self-centred), and that is was seen to greatly increase with personal growth such as being placed in a leadership role or have a higher level of education. The Country Comparison (2019) also supports this notion by stating that in individualist societies people tend to prioritise themselves and their immediate family only, which leads to the understanding that an individualist society revolves mainly around the individual themselves. Although a country basking in multiculturalism, Australia still scores a 90 in this dimension making it highly individualistic. This means Australian individuals are highly idiocentric, they look mainly after themselves and branch out no further than their immediate families. Furthermore, the Australian workforce exhibits notions of self-reliance and initiative, where employees have the expectation to be this way. To add to this, hiring and promotion-based decisions are reliant on the contributions and worth individuals present as well as opportunities they may present (Country Comparison 2019). Based on these statistics Australia is a culture which exhibits notions of individualism through its societies, and these notions are not only evident in day to day living but also in the work force and the global working environment. The dimension Hofstede identified, individualism v collectivism, has therefore shown to be capable of listing the abundant dissimilarities between that of the Australian and Lebanese cultures, where whilst Lebanese “groups” exhibit concepts of growing as a unit together, and promoting the image of the group rather than the individuals belonging to the group, the Australian culture in contrast seeks to focus on the development of the individual and nothing more than the immediate family. These concepts are not only evident in the lives of the individuals in each respective culture, but also have shown to be rooted deep into the work force and business environments of both cultures.

Reference list Ayyash-Abdo, H. 2001. Individualism and collectivism: The case of Lebanon. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 29(5), 503-518. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/23070919.1014 Hofstede Insights. 2019. Country Comparison - Hofstede Insights. [online] Available at: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/australia,china,lebanon/ [Accessed 29 Jul. 2019]. Triandis, H. C. 2004. The many dimensions of culture. Academy of Management Perspectives, 18(1), 88-93....