Understanding Geert Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions in Human Resource Management: A Focus on Australia
Question
Task: How can Geert Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions Model be applied to effectively manage cultural diversity in the Australian workplace?
Answer
Introduction
Australia has always been the preferred destination for migrants and professionals from across the globe which has resulted in Australia having among the widest cultural diversities. This cultural Diversity required for HR Managers to implement unique approaches towards managing staff from culturally diverse backgrounds so as to maintain the highest productivity and performance (Brislin, 2008). For this report, the Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions model shall be utilized and examples from the model dimensions used to deliver a clearer understanding related to the how IHRM can be used to understand and manage skilled professionals at the workplace.
Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Model
The Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions model attempts to explain different cultural dimensions which influence cultural behaviour and how these dimensions can be used to improve workplace operations, communications, and productivity (Dellner, 2014). Hofstede’s Cultural Model includes 6 cultural dimensions each having a unique influence on how the skilled professionals perceive their work and other people’s views. The six dimensions include:
• Power Distance Index (PDI),
• Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV),
• Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS),
• Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI),
• Long-Term Orientation versus Short Term Normative Orientation (LTO), and
• Indulgence versus Restraint (IND)
Each of these dimensions will have a direct effect on the skilled professional's perceptions while working and requires to be properly understood to assist the human resource managers to develop effective human resource development plans (Hofstede, 2003). Due to each dimension having a vast coverage area the report shall explore two dimensions and provide examples of how the dimension affects a skilled professional way of thinking while working and its effects on performance.
These dimensions will have a direct influence on how individuals work as teams and help determine individual’s perceptions of teamwork which can be used to organize company staff to help reduce conflict of interest (Piepenburg, 2011). On this report, we shall be analysing the Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV), and the Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS) dimensions, which will help deliver a clearer perception of how staff requires being organizing and managing to harness the most efficiency.
Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV)
Each person has their own preference related to working or functioning but some communities promote collectivism which results in the whole society working as a group (Minkov, 2012). There is no limitation related to both the behavioural characteristics but understanding an individual’s approach and style allows the HRM develop an effective plan to manage the individual’s way of working.
Individualism
Individuals who prefer working alone will require being offered work and responsibilities which they handle on their own. An easy way of identifying an Individualistic person is simply by the way they address issues which happen around them. In most situations, the Individualistic person will refer to work done by them individually and will commonly be observed to use “I”.
While this approach is noted to delivers more control and responsibility towards performing any work it also limits the individual from communicating with other colleagues’ and the team (Marieke de, 2010, p.77). This is results in the individual retaining control and taking up responsibility for all their actions but it also slows learning and problem-solving since the individuals rely on their own knowledge and learning techniques to secure knowledge and understanding.
Collectivism
Collectivism involves an approach of working where individuals are closely linked to their team, group, community, and family. This results in the individual requiring consulting other members regarding any problem or issue before a decision is made. This nature of consulting a group, community, and family before making a decision results in the individual considering themselves to be part of a larger unit and better able to make clearer assessment using Geert Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions.
It’s also common to find Collectivists refereeing to the choice made by them as part of a group and they will commonly use “We” while addressing any concern or decision (Dubina & Carayannis, 2016). They also will have more access to information and knowledge from the group which helps build a wider perspective of a problem before a decision is made. Collectivists also tend to share their knowledge freely with the group rather than keeping their knowledge to themselves.
While both individuals are important towards an organizations growth and development, Collectivism tends to deliver more desirable skills among businesses. This is due to the Collectivists being more adaptable and more included toward team building which is very important for an organizations growth.
Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS)
Another important Geert Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions behavioural characteristic is the Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS) character of individual employees. Once again similar to Individualism versus Collectivism the Masculinity versus Femininity characteristics displays how individuals portray themselves at the workplace, community and as a nation (Hofstede, 1998). For this example, we shall evolution the issue from a national perspective to gain a better understanding of this characteristic.
Masculinity
This behavioural characteristic involves individuals who are dominating and view themselves as the leader and dominating power and protector. The USA is portrayed to be Masculine nations which consider it as the superhero and always ready to interview and demonstrate its capability and power. The same can seem at the employee level where some individuals may develop a dominating attitude towards colleague and the process which results in them focusing only on development but not on other aspects such as humanities.
Femininity
People with this behavioural characteristic tend to be more caring and focus more of their attention towards humanitarian needs as opposed to power and recognition. This results in the individuals focusing on team building, health, education, and well-being as a whole. This behaviour can be observed on an individual, community or national scale and is mainly influenced by the individuals surrounding and views towards each other.
Conclusion
Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Model helps separate the different categories people fall under thus allowing the human resource managers to better understand the staff and implement approaches which cater to each individual. It also allows the HRM in Australia to better manage staff from a wider cultural diversity and avoid conflict and misunderstanding which may develop due to different cultural and individual views differing which can result in affecting the businesses performance.
References
Brislin, R., 2008. Working with Cultural Differences: Dealing Effectively with Diversity in the Workplace. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Dellner, A., 2014. Cultural Dimensions: The Five-Dimensions-Model according to Geert Hofstede. GRIN Verlag.
Dubina, I. & Carayannis, E., 2016. Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship Across Cultures: Theory and Practices. Barnaual: Springer.
Hofstede, G., 1998. Masculinity and Femininity: The Taboo Dimension of National Cultures. New Delhi: SAGE.
Hofstede, G., 2003. Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.
Marieke de, M., 2010. Global Marketing and Advertising: Understanding Cultural Paradoxes. 3rd ed. califonia: SAGE.
Minkov, M., 2012. Cross-Cultural Analysis: The Science and Art of Comparing the World's Modern Societies and Their Cultures. SAGE.
Piepenburg, K., 2011. Critical analysis of Hofstede’s model of cultural dimensions: To what extent are his findings reliable, valid and applicable to organisations in the 21st century? GRIN Verlag. Geert Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions
