一. Read the books or papers about Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension and the GLOBE Study and discuss about the difference of national culture.
1.The GLOBE Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness study on Nine Units of Measurement or "Cultural Dimensions" (全球领导学及
(1) Performance Orientation(成就导向): It “reflects the extent to which a
community encourages and rewards innovation, high standards, excellence,
and performance improvement”;It “relates to the extent to which leaders set
ambitious goals, communicate high expectations for their subordinates, build
their subordinates’ self-confidence, and intellectually challenge them”.
(2) Uncertainty Avoidance(不确定性规避): It is "the extent to which a society,
organization, or group relies on social norms, rules, and procedures to alleviate
the unpredictability of future events”; it’s about the extent to which
ambiguous situations are felt as threatening – i.e., about the extent to which
deliberate measures (such as making and enforcing rules and procedures) are
taken to reduce ambiguity.
(3)In-Group Collectivism(小圈子集体主义): “the degree to which individuals
express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations or families” .
(4)Power Distance(权力距离): “the extent to which a community accepts and endorses authority, power differences, and status privileges”.
(5)Gender Egalitarianism，性别平等主义！: “the degree to which a collective
minimizes gender inequality”
(6)Humane Orientation，人道取向！: “the degree to which an organization or society encourages and rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring, and kind to others"
(7)Institutional Collectivism，机构性集体主义！: “the degree to which
organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action”
(8)Future Orientation，未来取向！: “the degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards future-oriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification”
(9)Assertiveness，有主见！: “the degree to which individuals are assertive, confrontational, and aggressive in their relationships with others”
2. Geert Hofstede’s “Cultural Dimensions”:
(1)Power Distance(PD权力距离):Or the degree to which members of a society
automatically accept a hierarchical or unequal distribution of power in
organisations and society.(权力距离:指的是社会中对于“权力分配不均等”的接受程
(2)Individualism(IDV个人主义与集体主义):Or the degree to which an individual
perceives him or her self to be separate from a group and free from group
pressure to conform. (个人/集体主义:指的是在社会中成员们倾向于以个人或是集体
(3)Masculinity(MAS男性特质与女性特质):Or the degree to which a society looks
favourably on aggressive and materialistic behaviour.(Masculinity/femininity
(4)Uncertainty/Avoidance Index(UAI对不确定性的回避):Or the degree to which
members of a given society deal with the uncertainty and risk of everyday life
and prefer to work with long-term acquaintances and friends rather than with
(5)Long Term Orientation(LTO):This refers to how much society values long-standing
– as opposed to short term – traditions and values. This is the fifth dimension that
Hofstede added in the 1990s after finding that Asian countries with a strong link
to Confucian philosophy acted differently from western cultures. In countries
with a high LTO score, delivering on social obligations and avoiding "loss of
face" are considered very important.(
(6)Indulgence and Self-restraint(放纵与自律性):Measures of life control and
importance of leisure.These three variables form a strong dimension of national
culture, which he labeled “indulgence and self-restraint”.
3. 两者的比较，Similarities and Differences between Geert Hofstede Model and Globe Model！:
(1)Hofstede believed that values differentiate societies and practices differentiate organizations.The GLOBE team believed that values and practices can exist at both the societal and organizational level. This can cause some confusion when comparing the two. Geert Hofstede believed that GLOBE adopted his dimensions paradigm of national cultures and he believed that GLOBE researchers expanded his five dimensions to nine (Hofstede G., 2010). That is, GLOBE researchers maintained the labels Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance, and renamed Long Term Orientation: Future Orientation. GLOBE researchers did not accept the anthropological logic in his other two dimensions, and sought psychological face validity and political correctness by splitting Individualism–Collectivism into Institutional Collectivism and In-Group Collectivism, and replacing Masculinity–Femininity by four supposed
components: Assertiveness, Performance Orientation, Gender Egalitarianism, and Humane Orientation..
(2)Both Hofstede Model and GLOBE Model are highly valuable research studies in international business and management. They provide useful dimensions to compare and better understand the differences between countries. But there is much debate on the appropriateness and validity of Hofstede’s and the GLOBE project’s cultural value dimensions. Contrasts between GLOBE and Hofstede scores revealed that GLOBE culture constructs were better predictors and they also enabled an improved understanding of the relationships between national culture and union membership (Posthuma Richard A., 2009). GLOBE survey combined a group of cultural studies together, such as Schwartz(1987); Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s(1961); Cyert and March(1963) , and Hofstede’s which assigned scores to cultures with regard to beliefs and values (McCrae R. R. , Terracciano A., Realo A., Allik J. ,2008). GLOBE researchers were heavily influenced by Hofstede’s work in their choice of variables to assess, and some of their nine societal scales share labels with the Hofstede dimensions. It is possible, therefore, that some of the GLOBE scales assess unfounded stereotypes rather than objective features of the society (McCrae R. R., Terracciano A., Realo A., Allik J.,2008). I have a tendency to agree that GLOBE Model is more appropriately in analyzing the cultural distance within countries. (3)The appearance of project GLOBE’s main monograph (House et al., 2004)
marked an interesting point in the development of Hofstede’s doctrine. Project GLOBE was partly inspired by Hofstede’s studies and was intended, among other things, as a corrective of Hofstede’s model. While the GLOBE researchers
fully accepted Hofstede’s paradigm of constructing dimensions of national culture from variables that correlate across nations, they felt that some of his dimensions lacked face validity: they did not measure what was implied by their labels. GLOBE’s work, and the enormous controversy that it caused(Smith, 2006;
McCrae et al., 2008; Hofstede, 2006, 2010, etc.), not only contributed to a better understanding and appreciation of Hofstede’s work but also elucidated some
previously murky points in cross-cultural research.
(4)Hofstede (2006) pointed out that unlike GLOBE’s authors, he did not view scientific constructs, such as dimensions of national culture, as something that has a real existence. First, it is shown that characterizing cultures either on the basis of aggregatedself-perceptions or on the basis of aggregated perceptions of others in one’s society are not equivalent procedures. Each has inherent errors, and neither can be considered as providing the one best way to denote national cultures. Furthermore, the number of dimensions of national culture that can be usefully studied must be proportional to the limited number of nations available for comparative analyses. Third, although Hofstede and Javidan et al. appear to differ on optimal ways of aggregating individual-level data to the nation level, both appear to have done so in a way that does not prevent detection of differing relations between items at different levels of analysis. Finally, we need greater clarity as to the ways in which national wealth relates to other aspects of culture. It is a major component of contemporary national cultures, and must be retained as an element within nation-level analyses.
Strengths of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions: Samples collected are really a lot.
Weaknesses of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions:
(1)The way of getting date. By aggregating individuals’ survey responses to the
level of nations, Hofstede could obtain a representation of those values and opinions that were widely shared within his samples from each nation that had been surveyed. we would nowadays ask that, before making such
aggregations, a set of data must be examined to determine whether cross-national variation does actually exceed intranational variability to a sufficient extent.
(2)Hofstede assumes a one-to-one relationship between culture and country , but many countries have a variety of cultures.
Strengths of GLOBE’s cultural dimensions:
The GLOBE researchers have doubted that it is adequate to conceptualize culture simply as the average of individuals’ self-reported values or other attributes.
This led them to formulate their measures in terms of respondents’ perceptions of
their organizational and national contexts, distinguishing what they call values(what the society should be like ?) and practices(what is the society?). Weaknesses of GLOBE’s cultural dimensions:
Most researchers study values in terms of the individual respondent’s own
preferred end states, but GLOBE operationalized values in terms of preferences about the behavior of others in one’s society. As Hofstede (2001, 2006) argues ,
there is no logical reason why these two sets of values need to coincide. the
GLOBE values measures have no necessary logical linkage with the prior measures
of values used.