Hofstede’s dimensions of culture

In the era of globalization for business, there are inadequate understandings about the influence of culture on the relationship between human resource management practices and individual’s satisfaction. According to the Jeanine K. Andreassi (2014), not too many studies have comprehensively perceived how the relationship between human resource management practices and job satisfaction differs among cross-national employees in the world. Using Hofstede’s theory on cultural values, we may argue that cultural values will influence the degree to which individual job satisfaction is impacted by various human resource management practices. In the following paragraphs I will introduce the relationship between human resource management practices and work-related outcomes and then hypothesize differences based on culture as quantified by Hofstede’s cultural dimensions.

In Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (Geert 1984), culture has been distinguished into the following different dimensions: (1) Power distance index, (2) Individualism and collectivism, (3) Masculinity and femininity, (4) Uncertainty avoidance index, (5) Long term orientation and short term normative orientation, (6) Indulgence and restraint.

1. Power distance index

Power distance index indicates the degree to which members of a society without power accept the inequality in power (Hofstede, 1980a). In high power distance cultures, such as Latin American cultures, inequality among social classes is accepted by both the higher social levels and the lower social levels with an underlying expectation that wealth and social status are fairly static within the culture (Varela et al., 2010). On the other hand, cultures in low power distant countries are generally considered to be equals regardless of inequities in characteristics such as wealth and an underlying assumption is that there is mobility to levels of wealth and status within the culture (Hofstede, 1980b). In high power distance societies, subordinates expect superiors to behave in an autocratic, non-consultative manner and seek more guidance from supervisors (Agarwal, 1993). Western cultures (low power distance) espouse egalitarianism as a key cultural value in the workplace; eastern cultures (high power distance) expect a high degree of hierarchy and

6

vertical distance among managerial levels (Pan, 2010). Anyone could argues that within high power distance cultures, inequality is expected to be part of all organizational structures, such that if an employee is accustomed to experiencing social inequality from general perspective, but experiences a perception of equality in the workplace, they will be more likely to value that equality, which will also increase job satisfaction. Conversely, if equality in an underlying assumption in a culture, the impact of equality in the workforce will not be a motivating factor to increasing job satisfaction. Therefore, perception of equal opportunities in the workplace will have a stronger relationship with job satisfaction in high power distance cultures than in low power distance cultures.

2. Collectivism and individualism

Cultures with lower levels of collectivism (and higher levels of individualism) are less likely to value working together as a team and more likely to prefer working independently. On the other hand, cultures with higher levels of collectivism are more likely to prefer close working relationships with co-workers (Hofstede, 1980a). Kirkman and Shapiro (2001) studied the impact of cultural values on job satisfaction among 461 self-managing teams in four countries (Belgium, Finland, Philippines and the USA). They found that higher levels of collectivism are associated with higher levels of job satisfaction and commitment within the teams. Restubog (2010) found that Eastern cultures (higher in collectivism) have a higher level of work-group identification than Western cultures (higher in individualism). Therefore, it is expected that the degree to which cultures are more collectivistic will affect the extent to which teamwork is an important driver of job satisfaction. In order to determine a cultural factor is individualism or collectivism based on individual-oriented or group-oriented (Hofstede, 1984). For instance, Work-family conflict is less likely to happen in collectivistic cultures because hard work is seen as a means to increase the well-being of the family (Yang., 2000). Because hard work is seen as integral to family well-being, experiencing work-family conflict is less likely to be perceived as stressful (Hassan, 2010; Spector, 2004). Research studies have supported the notion that in collectivistic societies, females perceive that work activities are in support of family activities leading to less conflict. For example, Thein (2010) found that women in Hong Kong and Singapore perceived the domains of work and family as interdependent whereas Westerners conceptualized the two domains as separate and therefore in opposition to one another. Yang (2000) found that in collectivistic country such as China, sacrificing

7

time with one’s family was viewed as a self-sacrifice; whereas, American women with an individualistic orientation perceived time spent at work away from one’s family as a failure to care for significant others. Because individuals from collectivistic societies view work activities as enhancing the family, and therefore do not see work as an impediment to family life, it is predicted that the ability to balance one’s work and personal lives will have a stronger relationship with job satisfaction in individualistic cultures than in collectivistic cultures.

3. Masculinity and femininity

Masculinity and femininity refers to how well roles for different gender are established within a culture. These roles directly relate to how males and females are perceived within the culture. Another facet of the masculinity/femininity dimension is how a culture generalizes concepts of success. Cultures which are characterized as masculine measures success in terms of personal success as measured by material wealth and financial rewards, as compared to feminine cultures which place less emphasis on material success and place more value on personal relationships and quality of life (Hofstede, 1980b). Level of personal recognition is an externally focused event which involves an interchange between two people where one person acknowledges another’s performance. This type of extrinsic reward is relationship dependent and can be characterized as a socioemotional career satisfier. Feminine gender-based self-schemas place more importance on socioemotional career satisfiers, such as recognition (Eddleston et al., 2006). Feminine cultures place more emphasis an individual’s contribution to society and value other’s recognition of work well done (Arrindell and Veenhoven, 2002). Individuals in a feminine culture have more concern with the relationships with their managers in the organization (Hofstede, 1991). Anticipatively, different levels of recognition strongly impact job satisfaction to a higher degree in less masculine cultures. Therefore, level of recognition received for doing a good job will have a stronger relationship with job satisfaction in feminine cultures than in masculine cultures. Sense of accomplishment is internally focused and closely aligned with an individual’s need for achievement (Maslow, 1943). Masculine cultures place an emphasis on personal drive and ambition (Hofstede, 1980b), both also internally focused. Schuler and Rogovsky (1998) found that high masculinity was associated with greater use of an individual bonus system. In Japan, Jakofsky and Slocum (1988) found that high masculinity was reflected in a great interest in work and

8

achievement. Sense of accomplishment also has a significant relationship with interpersonal competitiveness (Dumblekar, 2010). Because masculinity is related to competitiveness and individual achievement, it is expected that countries that are higher in masculinity place more value on achievement needs being met than those that are lower in masculinity.

Therefore, a sense of accomplishment will have a stronger relationship with job satisfaction in masculine cultures than in feminine cultures.

4. Uncertainty avoidance index

Uncertainty avoidance index refers to the degree to which a culture tolerates uncertainty concerning the future. Cultures high in uncertainty avoidance have a low tolerance for uncertainty and attempt to plan for and predict the future. One might hypothesize that if a person is uncomfortable with uncertainty he or she would value communication to increase one’s understanding of current workplace issues. Cultures high in uncertainty avoidance, desire to follow rules and have strict codes of behavior (Hofstede, 1984), and therefore, often have organizations marked by a high degree of formalization (Shackleton and Ali, 1990). A high degree of formalization has been observed to be related to communication inflexibility in organizations leading to a reduced interdependency between a manager and subordinate (Crozier, 1964). It has been found that in highly formalized work groups, managers rely more on procedures and rules to exert control as opposed to using tools such as open communication (Huang and Van de Vliert, 2006).Open communication from management is perceived as undermining formalization in the organization and increasing the degree of uncertainty and ambiguity and by increasing information flow between management and employees (Sriussadaporn, 2006). We posit that as communication can serve to increase employee awareness of uncertainty, open communication from management will negatively impact employee job satisfaction in high uncertainty avoidance cultures. Based on a theoretical understanding of uncertainty avoidance and the negative relationship between communication and formalization, communication from management on key issues will have a stronger relationship with job satisfaction in low uncertainty avoidance cultures than high uncertainty avoidance cultures.

High uncertainty avoidance cultures also value security, so that individuals within these cultures would likely have a tendency to prefer jobs with higher stability. Because training program increases the flexibility and adaptability of the workforce, it would serve to

9

increase uncertainty and has a low level of desirability or worth in high uncertainty avoidance cultures. As the level of uncertainty in the environment increases, some organizations respond by increasing the amount of training available to employees (Peretz and Rosenblatt, 2011). However, not all types of training results in positive outcomes, nor are they viewed as positive by employees (Burke and Day, 1986; Hassi et al, 2011). For instance, in high uncertainty avoidance cultures, training are viewed as signaling to employees that the organization expects them to adapt and acquire new skills, which is undesirable for those who dislike ambiguity. This has been acknowledged by several researchers such as Burke et al. (2008), who argued that to avoid ambiguity in workforce training, trainers in high uncertainty avoidance cultures should focus on providing a very structured training session. We posit that training would be deemed to be less important in high uncertainty avoidance cultures because employees perceive training as a means of introducing organizational change and increasing uncertainty in the workplace and thereby negatively impacting job satisfaction. Therefore, it is expected that in high uncertainty avoidance cultures, level of training will be less important as a driver of job satisfaction than in low uncertainty avoidance cultures.

5. Long term orientation and short term orientation

Long term orientation and short term orientation is the fifth Hofstede dimension which is also one of the latest dimension found by Michael Bond’s research. Based on Michael Minkov (2007), long term oriented societies stimulate pragmatic virtues oriented towards future rewards, in particular saving, persistence, and adapting to changing circumstances. On the other hand, short term oriented societies stimulates virtues related to the past and present such as national pride, respect for traditional events, preservation of one’s reputation, and fulfillment of social obligations. In other words, this dimension affiliates the connection between the past and the current or future actions and challenges.

A lower degree of this index indicates that traditions are honored and kept, while steadfastness is valued; which is short term oriented. Societies with a high degree in this index esteem adaptation and circumstantial, pragmatic problem-solving as a necessity.

Conventionally, a poor country that is short term oriented usually has minor economic development, whereas a long-term oriented country continues to develop its economy.

10

6. Indulgence and restraint

The sixth Hofstede’s cultural dimension is indulgence and restraint which was found by Michael Minkov’s research. According to Michael Minkov’s definition (2007), indulgence measures if a society allows relatively free gratification of basic and natural human drives related to enjoying life and having fun. Restraint measures if a society controls gratification of needs and regulates it by all means of strict social norms. Vice versa, this dimension is a measurement of happiness; whether or not simple joys are fulfilled. Indulgent societies allow themselves to be in control of their own life and emotions; restrained societies believe there are other factors dictating their life and emotions.