BUSS1001 essay
Essay
Introduction
Culture is an important criterion for organisations to determine their strategies of management and leadership. This essay aims to outline Hofstede’s cross-cultural framework, identify similarities and differences in comparison with the Chinese Value Survey (CVS) and discuss how differences in individualism-collectivism and long-term/short-term orientation among employees could affect management and leadership. The finding is that Hofstede’s framework and CVS differ from cultural background and respondents; oppositely, the countries researched and outcomes are similar, and parts of the contents are related. The essay also suggests that individualism-collectivism and long-term/short-term orientation would influence motivation, leadership style, rewarding system and supervision respectively. The following parts will present outline and comparison first in addition to analysis of influence of individualism-collectivism followed by LTO-STO, and finally the conclusion.
Discussion of the Issues
Outline and comparison
Hofstede’s cross-cultural framework described five dimensions: power distance, individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, uncertainty avoidance and long-term versus short-term orientation (LTO-STO) (Migliore 2011). Power distance is defined as the extent of willingness that societies accept the hierarchical power structure (Morrison 2006). Individualism means individuals detect themselves as autonomous (Morrison, 2006); contrary, collectivism represents that individuals remain integrated into groups (Hofstede and Hofstede 2005). The third dimension is masculinity-femininity, which demonstrates clearly distributed and overlapped gender-roles separately (Migliore 2011). Uncertainty avoidance measures how the members of a culture cope with uncertainties in daily life (Morrison 2006). The last dimension, LTO-STO, is people’s time epistemology which is highly distinguished between western and eastern culture (Morrison 2006). LTO
Introduction
Culture is an important criterion for organisations to determine their strategies of management and leadership. This essay aims to outline Hofstede’s cross-cultural framework, identify similarities and differences in comparison with the Chinese Value Survey (CVS) and discuss how differences in individualism-collectivism and long-term/short-term orientation among employees could affect management and leadership. The finding is that Hofstede’s framework and CVS differ from cultural background and respondents; oppositely, the countries researched and outcomes are similar, and parts of the contents are related. The essay also suggests that individualism-collectivism and long-term/short-term orientation would influence motivation, leadership style, rewarding system and supervision respectively. The following parts will present outline and comparison first in addition to analysis of influence of individualism-collectivism followed by LTO-STO, and finally the conclusion.
Discussion of the Issues
Outline and comparison
Hofstede’s cross-cultural framework described five dimensions: power distance, individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, uncertainty avoidance and long-term versus short-term orientation (LTO-STO) (Migliore 2011). Power distance is defined as the extent of willingness that societies accept the hierarchical power structure (Morrison 2006). Individualism means individuals detect themselves as autonomous (Morrison, 2006); contrary, collectivism represents that individuals remain integrated into groups (Hofstede and Hofstede 2005). The third dimension is masculinity-femininity, which demonstrates clearly distributed and overlapped gender-roles separately (Migliore 2011). Uncertainty avoidance measures how the members of a culture cope with uncertainties in daily life (Morrison 2006). The last dimension, LTO-STO, is people’s time epistemology which is highly distinguished between western and eastern culture (Morrison 2006). LTO