Hofede in China
School of Business, Saint Marys University, Halifax, Canada Shen Cheng, Business School, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan, China Abstract Questionnaires were completed by 554 respondents in cities in east-central China and in eastern Canada to compare the levels of Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions in the two countries and to examine the effects of gender and age on these levels.
Only $13.90 / page
Country differences were found with four of the five dimensions. Differences in the evels of power-distance, masculinity, and individualism were observed across classes of gender and age. Introduction Hofstede’s (1980) dimensions of culture have become the most widely used model for explaining various effects across cultures (Yoo and Donthu, 1998). Stedham and Yamamura (2004) describe culture as stable and enduring but also somewhat changeable due to external forces. Hofstede’s five dimensions include the following. a.
Power Distance. The power distance dimension has to do with inequality in a society. In a high power distance environment there would be greater tolerance for, nd expectation of, inequality in prestige, wealth and power. b. Uncertainty Avoidance. Hofstede focuses on uncertainty at the organizational level looking at the use of rules and strategies to reduce exposure to an unsure future. c. Individualism and Collectivism. This dimension has to do with the relationship the individual has with the group and more generally with society.
Hofstede points out that the nature of this relationship determines not only how people think about themselves and their immediate group but the “structure and functioning of many institutions aside from the family’ (p210) . Masculinity and Femininity. There seem to be two elements to this dimension. One deals with the values held and the other with role expectations. Hofstede (1980) notes that in a work setting, males value “advancement, earnings, training, up-to- dateness” while females value “friendly atmosphere, position security, physical conditions and manager cooperation” (p281).
The second aspect of this dimension culture, sex roles would be differentiated while in a feminine culture sex roles would be more similar. e. Long Term Orientation (L TO). This is a recent addition to the Hofstede model, dded as a new dimension to the model in the second edition (2001). It is based on the philosophy of Confucius and has to do with “persistence, thrift, personal stability and respect for tradition” (p351). It describes a longer term, higher level view of life.
China was not included in the Hofstede’s original study (1980) as the sample for that study was from the offices of IBM and, in the 1970’s, there was none in mainland China. Its scores were not reported in the second edition Hofstede (2001) either. There have, however, been some efforts to study the Chinese using Hofstede’s dimensions. Pheng and Yuquan (2002) studied the Chinese in the Wuhan area of China, comparing construction employees there to those in Singapore.
Taking a workplace focus similar to that of Hofstede, they found that, compared to Singaporeans, Chinese had lower levels of power distance and individualism, and higher levels of uncertainty avoidance and masculinity, but their scores are different from those of Hofstede and therefore are of limited use in predicting how the Chinese scores will compare to those of other countries. Culture has been observed to vary within Chinese areas. Huo and Randall (1991), for xample, used the framework to examine the differences among Chinese in Taiwan, Beijing, Hong Kong and Wuhan and found sub cultural differences.
Just as there are differences seen in the dimensions between countries, it could be expected that there would be differences expected between groups of individuals within countries. Differences between attitudes and behaviors of males and females are extensively studied and well documented in Western culture. Similarly, individuals have been observed to change in their attitudes and behavior as they age. Variations in Hofstede’s cultural dimensions across age and gender have been tudied by some researchers.
Stedham and Yamamura (2004), for example, examined the cultural differences between Americans and Japanese with a focus on sex and age differences. They found no differences due to age and differences between males and females on the power distance dimension in Japan (m>f), individualism (m>f) in both countries. In the current paper, differences in the levels of the four dimensions of Hofstede’s model are examined between Canada and central China. As well, differences in the levels of the five dimensions across age groups and sex category as well as nteraction among these three variables are studied.
Hypotheses Main Effects was settled by Chinese several centuries ago and was the target of an influx of several million more Chinese around 1950. It seems likely that the culture of Taiwan would be similar to that of mainland China. As none of Hofstede’s scores were available for China, perhaps those of Taiwan would be useful for the purpose of hypothesis formulation. A large difference on the individualism score is apparent where Taiwan was one of the lowest of all the countries studied while Canada tended to be toward the top of the individualism scale.