Geert Hofstede

Gerard Hendrik Hofstede , known as Geert Hofstede (born October 2, 1928 in Haarlem ; † February 12, 2020 in Ede ), was a Dutch cultural scientist and social psychologist . He was Professor of Organizational Anthropology and International Management at Maastricht University , The Netherlands. His field of research was organizational culture and he analyzed the connections between national cultures and corporate cultures . His analysis became famous by employees of the company IBM .

To person

Hofstede first attended the Technical University of Delft , where he studied engineering specializing in mechanical engineering and tool science and graduated in 1953 with a diploma. From 1953 to 1955 he did his military service. He then worked in three Dutch industrial companies and in 1964 took up further studies at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen , where he received his doctorate in social psychology cum laude in 1967 .

Hofstede was married to Maaike A. van den Hoek from 1955. He had four sons and ten grandchildren. Geert Hofstede was made an honorary member of EFM Imperator (today's SCOPE Maastricht ) in 1992. In 2012 he was honored with the Life Achievement Award of the continuing education industry for his life's work. He died in February 2020 at the age of 91.

Cultural dimensions

Hofstede showed that national and regional cultural groups have a significant influence on the behavior of companies , especially on their organization and management . In his study "national influences", described in more detail in the article Intercultural Cooperation , he identified six cultural dimensions :

Power distance (Power Distance Index - PDI)

The Power Distance Index indicates the extent to which less powerful individuals accept and expect an unequal distribution of power. A high power distance means that power is distributed very unevenly , while a low power distance means that power is more evenly distributed.

Individualism and collectivism (Individualism versus Collectivism - IDV)

In societies with a high IDV index, the rights of the individual are particularly protected: self-determination, self- experience and personal responsibility are important. In a collectivist culture with a low IDV index, on the other hand, integration dominates in all types of networks. The feeling of togetherness is much more characteristic of such a culture.

Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS)

This dimension describes the manifestation of the prevailing values ​​that are established in both sexes. Hofstede enumerates care, cooperation and humility as feminine values. Masculine values, on the other hand, are willingness to compete and self-confidence. A high MAS index indicates a dominance of “typically male” values, a low MAS index indicates a dominance of “typically female” values. In this connection, studies carried out between 1967 and 1973 among IBM employees on an empirical level showed that the separation of “typically male” and “typically female” values ​​was to be found in each of the (IBM) cultures examined; In “masculine” societies, however, the differences were more pronounced: although women there were more willing to compete, this was much more the case with men. “Masculinity” and “femininity” say a lot about the distance, the extent of the “gap” between men and women and their values.

Uncertainty avoidance (Uncertainty Avoidance Index - UAI)

The central question in this dimension is: How high is the aversion to unforeseen situations?

Cultures with a high UAI that want to avoid uncertainty are characterized by many established laws, guidelines, and security measures. The members are more emotional and nervous.

Cultures that accept uncertainty are tolerant, have few rules that can be changed in case of doubt, and so tend to relativism. The members are phlegmatic and do not expect those around them to show feelings.

Long-term or short -term orientation (LTO)

This index, which was introduced late by Hofstede, indicates how long the planning horizon is in a society. The introduction of this dimension in the second edition of the book is based on collaborations with Chinese researchers and managers who emphasized the influence of the Confucian heritage with its long-term orientation over multiple (re) births. In some representations there is therefore the term Confucian Dynamism for this special cultural dimension. It was not used empirically in studies outside of Asia.

Values ​​of members of an organization that are long-term oriented: thrift, perseverance. Values ​​of members of an organization that are short-term oriented: flexibility, selfishness.

Compliance and control (Indulgence versus Restraint - IVR)

This dimension describes the achievement of happiness through the perception of control over one's own life and the importance of leisure and leisure. The dimension was first formulated by Minkov and later adopted by Hofstede as one of the cultural dimensions.

criticism

“All in all, his book is a catastrophe for modern cultural studies. He sins against all the advances that have been made since the sixties, and it is precisely this piece of work that taught the unteachable who thought the concept of culture was nonsense. Those psychologists, sociologists and economists who only trust empirical analyzes were convinced by Hofstede's statistics that culture consists of hard facts that can be measured and weighed "

- Klaus P. Hansen

The above quotation exemplifies the harshness with which Hofstede's work is criticized. The most important point mentioned by critics is that the samples taken are not representative. In the original 1967–1972 study, for example, information from a global IBM employee survey was used. In this respect, it is not certain that the 4-later 5-factor system that has been worked out actually measures national cultures, but rather differences in corporate culture between the countries.

Furthermore, Hofstede's approach ignores differences within a nation . The model treats a nation like an essentialist homogeneous structure of individuals who all share the same value structure. In most cases this is not correct.

In addition, criticism was made of the validity of the items. Hofstede gives no theoretical justification for the selection of the items. House and others criticize the lack of distinction between values ​​and behavior. This is problematic because values ​​and behavior according to the Globe study by House et al. (2001), who made a corresponding distinction in the sense of the status quo of cultural values ​​and should-be ideas, are negatively related to one another.

Supporters of the theory and Hofstede himself, however, did not accept the criticisms. In the years that followed, the results were confirmed in numerous independent repeat studies (including six “large” studies). These also referred to different subgroups of the respective populations and nevertheless showed similar national differences, which correspond to Hofsted's dimensional values.

Furthermore, Hofstede explicitly pointed out the different levels of culture. In the theoretical premises that precede the presentation of the research results, he differentiates between different levels on which “culture” develops. Hofstede himself later refrained from drawing up a catalog of questions that was attached to his remarks and intended for further use by the readers. Because one of the consequences of his research and its results (and starting point for criticism) is the unreflective appropriation and transfer of his "model".

literature

• Geert Hofstede: Culture's Consequences - International Differences in Work Related Values. Newbury Park, London / New Delhi 1980, ISBN 0-8039-1306-0 (here initially only 4 cultural dimensions; the time orientation was later determined by a supplementary study and was only described in the 2nd edition).
• Geert Hofstede: Culture's Consequences - Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, London / New Delhi 2001, ISBN 0-8039-7323-3 (here the 5th cultural dimension of time orientation is also described on pages 351 ff.).
• Geert Hofstede: Software of the Mind. 1991.
• Geert Hofstede: Thinking locally, acting globally. 6th, completely revised and updated edition. Beck 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-71104-6 ( reading sample in the Google book search).
• Brendan McSweeney: Hofstede's Model of National Cultural Differences and Their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith - A Failure of Analysis. Human Relations, Volume 55, Issue 1, 2002, pp. 89–119.
• RJ House, NS Wright, RN Aditya: Cross-cultural research on organizational leadership - Measurement of Cultural Dimensions. In: PC Earley, M. Erez (Eds.): New Perspectives on International Industrial / Organizational Psychology. New Lexington Press, San Francisco 1997, pp. 571-581.
• Aladin El-Mafaalani: Global trade the local way - culture-specific trust in online trade with end customers. Marburg 2008, ISBN 978-3-8288-9722-9 (compares international empirical studies based on the von Hofstede model; highlights advantages and problems of the model and discusses them).

See also

• Edward T. Hall
• Fons trompenaars
• Intercultural cooperation

Web links

• Literature by and about Geert Hofstede in the catalog of the German National Library
• Geert Hofstede's research
• Youtube video showing the distribution of Hofstede's cultural dimensions on a world map

Individual evidence

1. ↑ https://geerthofstede.com/geert-hofstede-passed-away-1928-2020-obituary/
2. ↑ Archive link ( Memento from August 14, 2012 in the Internet Archive )
3. ↑ http://www.life-achievement-award.de/preistrager_2012.html
4. ↑ cf. Geert Hofstede (2010): Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd edition. 2010
5. ↑ cf. Geert Hofstede (2010): Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd edition. 2010
6. ↑ cf. Minkov, M. (2007): What Makes Us Different and Similar: A New Interpretation of the World Values ​​Survey and Other Cross-Cultural Data, Klasika i Stil, Sofia
7. ^ Klaus P. Hansen: Culture and cultural studies. An introduction. Second, completely revised and expanded edition. Francke, Tübingen, Basel 2000
8. ↑ Brendan McSweeney, (2002) Hofstede's Model of National Cultural Differences and Their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith - A Failure of Analysis , Human Relations, Vol. 55, Issue 1 (pp. 89–119)
9. ↑ House et al., 1997
10. ^ Robert House, Mansour Javidan, Peter Dorfman: Project GLOBE: An Introduction . In: Applied Psychology . tape 50 , no. 4 , October 2001, ISSN  0269-994X , p. 489-505 , doi : 10.1111 / 1464-0597.00070 .