Man 4102 Class Project Part 1

MAN 4102 CLASS PROJECT PART 1 K arn McCarthy Hawn Student, State College of Florida MAN 4102 Class Project Part 1 Per the digital document from Contemporary Authors (Biography), by Thomson Gale, (2004) Gerard Hendrik Hofstede was born October 2, 1928. He is the son of Gerrit and Evertine Hofstede. He married Maaike A. Van den Hoek on the 4th of June, 1955 and had four children.He wee-wee from Delft Institute of Technology in 1953 and Groningen University, Ph D (cum laude) in 1967. His movement on history began in 1953 as a lieutent in the Netherlands Army. In 1955 and 1965 include forethought consultant for Bernschot Consultants and Stork Machine Works, plant manager for Jovanda Hosiery Co. , line of descent manager of weaving for Menko Textile Co. , and film director of staff services for IBM (Gale, 2004).After exit IBM in 1965 he began his c ber in look into and education and was employ with European Education Center as the manager of personnel query through 1971, IME DE Management Development Institute as visit reviewer through 1973, European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management as professor of administrational behavior through 1979, Fasson Europe as director of human resources through 1983, and then served as dean at Semafor old Management College (Gale, 2004).Hofstede excessively held several inter depicted object university specifys as a visiting professor or scientist throughout Europe until he assumed his position at University of Limburg in Netherlands. He held the position of director of Institute for enquiry on Inter ethnic Cooperation (IRIC) through 1980 and currently is the professor of organizational anthropology and international management (Gale, 2004). The biography listed Geert H. Hofstede as the author on 9 books, contributor on 14 books, and as a contributor to numerous clauses to conglomerate social science, professional, and management journals in over seventeen countries to date (Gale, 2004).On his website, Gee rt Hofstede, discusses the reasons he feels that climb up is so important (Hofstede, 2012). Hofstedes ideas are based on the lead that tidy sum share common human nature and as such the shared human nature of e re everyy last(predicate) convocations is very social, Hofstede (2012). That all groups procedure empathy and language, all practice collaboration, and all exhibit intergroup competition (Hofstede, 2012). How we all do these things while still being a good member of our various groups is what defines what Hofstede calls the unwritten rules of culture.These cultures include symbols, rituals, laws, taboos, and religions that drive the groups moral circle (Hofstede, 2012). Per Hofstede, (2012) in that respect are said to be unconscious nourishs that change at a s low-pitcheder pace than those of the practices of each group. Hofstede categorizes these groups based on national boundaries, heathenish boundaries, religion, occupation, or academic disciplines and states th at the groups are typically classified as either inferior or superior to our own groups (Hofstede, 2012).To get things done we all need to confirm skills for cooperating crosswise cultures and that enable us to cooperate with members of the globalized world. This invention is addressed in his Hofstedes book, (Hofstede, Cultures Consequences Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. , 2001) and was the outcome of his inquiry during the IBM study. He analyzed employee value scores that were collected between 1967 and 1973 from IBM employees in 70 countries and from this he established the paradigm of ethnical dimensions. (Itim International, 2012).In his interview for his biography, Gerard H. Hofstede told CA Cultures Consequences is my chef doeuvre. It deals with differences in thinking and acting among otherwise similar people in many a nonher(prenominal) diametric countries, which was the by rights subject at the right time. Correspondence with readers close it has become one of my regular side activities (Gale, 2004, foliate 2). Hofestedes Cultural Dimensions In the course textbook Hofstedes atomic number 23 dimensions of culture are employ to categorize behaviors in different cultures and rationalise wherefore they differ (Phatak, Bhagat, & Kashlak, 2009).The IBM study of employees from the 70 countries was the basis for the dimensions and has been critized since there was besides one company in the data set however, Hofstedes dogma was that using just one company would better reveal the national differences. According to the authors Phatak, Bhagat, and Kashalk (2009), he believed this because the IBM employees were the same in other respects interchangeable type of plump, job descriptions, and education. This study has been stated to be the most plenary study of how values are influenced in the contrive spot (Itim International, 2012).Itim International, (2012) noted that Hofstedes clobber established a paradigm in international economics, communication, and cooperation, from which Hofstede essential the first emphirical model of dimensions for national organizational culutre. The first dimension is individuation and Collectivism. These are social patterns under which beliefs, attitudes, norms, and values are then form into one theme. Some countries practice somebodyisation and the members of society are motiviated by their own needs and preferences above the needs of the group.In contrast, countries that practice communism are much much than nearlyly linked as a group and are motivated by the obligations that are makeed norms for the group. Hofstede felt that countries with high higher per capita gross national product (GNP), were promising countries that would exhibit more individualisation than countries with lower per capita gross national product (Phatak, Bhagat, & Kashlak, 2009). The next heathenish dimension, precedent Distance, is expressed as the design t o which less powerful members of society, institutions, or organizations absorb that power will be distributed unequally.Countries with small power distance tolerate subordinates that show a limited amount of dependence on their bosses, there is a relationship based on interdependce, and a preference for computer address when decisions are made. On the contrary, countries with large power distance will likely waste subordinates that are very dependent on their bosses, will go on procedures that are dictated by management, and with a reward systems in seat that are not equal.There is a correlation noted between cultures that are individulistic which tend to be lower power distance whereas, cultures with strong collectivism will likey have small power distance (Phatak, Bhagat, & Kashlak, 2009). The third cultural dimension in the text is uncertainity avoidance which is described as the extent to which members of society will finger anxiety over uncertainity in their environmen ts and how farthest they will go to avoid it (Phatak, Bhagat, & Kashlak, 2009).Cultures that are high in precariousness avoidance will attempt to control these unstructured situations with strict laws, rules, guard duty and security measures, and with the use of philosophical and sacred beliefs (Itim International, 2012). Uncertainity accepting cultures are more tolerant of opinions that differ from their own and allow many different sacred and philosophical ideas to flow concurrently. Masculinity and Feminity is the fourth cultural dimension that compares how societies and cultures are composed based on virile and womanish tolerance traits.More feminine societies have expectations for both males and females to act in similar manners. Members are hypothetic to be modest, compassionate, and are expected to stress solidarity through compromise and negotiation. The manlike societies and cultures are driven by material success, money. They expect men to be assertive, ambiutious, and tough. The women of masculine societies are to be tender and hold care taker roles. The masculine society stresses competition, performance and participations are resolved through fights (Phatak, Bhagat, & Kashlak, 2009).The fifth and nett cultural dimension is time orientation and it is stated that different societies place a varying emphasis on the value of time. Some cultures value time and are very conscious of how time is spent. Other societies consider time to be unlimited and a resource that they cannot exhaust. This makes the trend that eight-fold countries address puncuality and their sense of urgency very different. Cultures with no time orientation will come across to many other cultures as very casual. The other aspect of time orientation is based on the different cultural views about the future.Cultures with short-term orientations are concerned with things like lesiure time, rear lines, and have a tendency to use short term enthronisation plans. Their manag ement teams are rewarded for immediate financial outcomes. In contrast the cultures with long future orientations have philosphies in which persistence is valued, gratification is delayed, and investments are long-run term. In these cultures family and work are not separated and status is respect (Phatak, Bhagat, & Kashlak, 2009).Hofstedes model of dimensions has been applied in practice to many domains internationally to include public, business, education, and health care and have become widely utilise (Itim International, 2012). Meaning and Impact of Hofstedes Cultural Dimensions John Bings article discusses the touch of Hofstedes work on consulting and business practices across the earth and states that Hofstedes findings could be applied to business in general (Bing, 2004). The way that Hofstede organized his dimensions into mental geographies explained how there could e similarities and differences between countries in close physical proximity. He states that Hofstedes s urvey research which was employed across a large number of countries created a whole new vault of heaven of comparative intercultural research. The Culture in the Workplace Questionnaire Hofstede created has been utilise to help individuals record the cultural preferences of their peers and their own preferences. It is believed that many professionals have benefited from studying Hofstedes work and being able to apply its principles to their own work.The author used Hofstedes principals in his own work during the development of a example for the first Peace Corps cross-cultural manual (Bing, 2004). Hofstedes work has been the standard to which many others make reference and his past works have characterized much of the contemporary cross-cultural quantative research models. There have been many offshoots from his research even from those individuals who do not necessarily agree with his system or conclusions. If nothing else they at least acknowledge his work.His work was most immediately used in attempts to determine how people could be helped to work more effectively in more than one culture. Hofstedes work is sometimes misunderstood or misused when practitioners attempt to predict individual preferences based on the scores of the entire cultures. Bing says that Hofstede likes to make it clear that estate scores will not predict an individuals cultural preferences but will predict the group tendencies (Bing, 2004). Hofstedes cultural dimensions have influenced how people organize and realize the varying cultural dimensions of the regions they travel to for private and business reasons.Once Hofstedes dimensions have been studied and understood the subtle niances of different cultures will become more apparent to the informed observer. Such was the experience of Bing per his article as he traveled to Austria and Japan (Bing, 2004). He also discusses the potential benefit of applying a study of the cultural dimensions to gain a better understanding of why countries resort to war when negotiations and other legal, moral, and conflict management alternatives may be better alternatives.He notes that sophisticated interpreters of Hofstedes research have found ways to avoid the application of stereotypes about cultures that have long since changed. The value of Hofstedes research is found when the dimensions are used to help individual learners to understand their own cultural dimensions first. This then opens the inlet to a better understanding about the different preferences that others in the organization or workplace will have. (Bing, 2004).The study of Hofstedes cultural dimensions has overt a door of better understanding for me as Bing referenced. It is easy to grow up learning the known stereotypes of other cultures due to misunderstandings of how those cultures have changed or adapted over time. By gaining a better understanding about how entire cultures have come to their common values, their cultural practices, and even the ir religious beliefs and how these impact business decisions and emotions that people exhibit will enhance my boilers suit effectiveness in business.To have an actual framework such as Hosfstedes cultural dimensions as tools for analysis to use when trying to understand the objections and barriers that come up while transacting business will makes me a more effective employee. I believe that Hofstedes research has already changed business pratices for many international workplaces with regard to how they prepare and support their employees who are deployed all across the globe.Most companies have cultural diversity training upon hire or annually to reinforce the need for cooperation and sensitivity to diverse cultures in the workplace. I must admit that being an American woman, raised by a single mother of seven, I rate high in individualism and prefer masculinity to feminity. I prefer to work in organizations with low power distance and like the ability to collaborate but not to w ork where there is a total lack of individual decision making capabilities. I do think short-term and have a results oriented, time is money mentality.My uncertainity avoidance level is very low and I move quickly to learn and try new things. As I have read the text and studied the findings of Hofstede I came to the realization that I had preconceived ideas about other women who to me appear to lack self empowerment. I will have to practice applying a study of Hofstedes cultural dimensions to my assumptions in the future to ensure that going forward I pretend out with a perspective of better understanding as to why these individuals may be in that less empowered state.References Bing, J. (2004). Hofstedess consequences The impact of his work on consulting and business practices An executive Commentary. Academy of Management Executive, 18 (No 1), 80-87. Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures Consequences Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Second Edit ion, Thousand Oaks CA Sage Publications, 2001. Itim International. (2012). http//geert-hofstede. com/ Thomson, G. (2004). Contemporary Authors (Biography), Thomson Gale Publishing.