The subject of cultural differences and cultural traits has attracted much attention from scholars in the domains of international business and cross-cultural management since the last century. It has been recognised as an important environmental factor in shaping systematic similarities and differences in organisational attitudes and behaviours during the process of internationalisation (Leung, et al. 2005; Steenkamp, 2001). Cultural norms, values, and beliefs are believed to influence a leader’s perception, disposition, and behaviours (Ralston et al. 1997). Cultural effects underlie managerial preferences for attention allocations, the interpretation of information, and responses in making
management decisions (Tse et al., 1988).
Studies have shown that national culture impacts on such diverse things as management and management negotiations (Ghauri and Fang, 2001: Luo, 1999), justice and
employee outcomes (Begley et al., 2002), managerial control (Chow, Shields, and Wu, 1999), leadership (Dorfman et al., 1997; Casimir and Waldman, 2007), strategic orientation (Hitt and Dacin, 1997).
National culture is a crucial aspect of understanding organisational behaviours. Its complexity and breadth make it difficult to operationalise and measure. Researchers have been puzzled as to how to extract a few key features of culture to enable comparisons among different cultures.
Hofstede (1980a) introduced a cultural dimensions approach to conceptualise and measure key characteristics of national culture, which has become a benchmark for cross-cultural study. Quite a few other frameworks have been proposed by other scholars (Schwartz and Sagiv, 1995; Inglehart and Carballo, 1997; Inglehart and Baker, 2000). Besides different classifications of cultures, scholars (Singelis, 1994; Triandis et al., 1988) are also aware of the importance of different levels of analysis and have attempted to transform societal-level cultural patterns into the individual level of analysis.
DEFINITION OF CULTURE
- Scholars have not been able to agree on one definitionof culture (Javidan et al., 2006). Culture is an elusive concept and hard to define
(Triandis et al., 1986). There is a tendency for scholars to give definitions reflecting their own disciplines.
The various definitions of culture include, “the human-made component of the
environment “(Herskovitz, 1955). Another definition by Rudmin (2003) in his catalogue of taxonomies is, “'values, beliefs, norms, and behavioural patterns of a national group”. These are just a small sample of the variation on the definition.
Hofstede defined culture as, "the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one human group from another" (Hofstede, 1980a, p.25). It is in the core contribution of his work in terms of the extent of shared or differentiated value system that defines human groups.
THE DIMENSIONS OF HOFSTEDE
- Hofstede (1980a) conducted a consultingproject for IBM(International Business Machines) during two different time periods,
between 1967 and 1973.
From his work four distinctive dimensions explaining large inter-country variations were extracted; these were labelled 'power distance', 'uncertainty avoidance',
'individualism/collectivism’, and 'masculinity/femininity'. The meaning of each is as follows:
POWER DISTANCE
- is defined as "the extent to which the less powerful members oforganisations and institutions (such as the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally" (Hofstede, 2004, p.62).
UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE
- deals with "a society's tolerance for ambiguity" (Hofstede, 2004, p.62). It emphasises the extent to which people in a society feel uncomfortable or comfortable with situations of uncertainty and ambiguity (Ng et al., 2007).INDIVIDUALISM/COLLECTIVISM
- creates a bipolar continuum. Individualism"characterised by a tight social framework in which people distinguish between in-groups and out-group’s; they expect their in-group to look after them, and in exchange for that
they feel they owe absolute loyalty to it" (Hofstede, 1980b, pA5).
MASCULINITY/FEMININITY
- builds another bipolar continuum. Masculinity is definedas "a situation in which the dominant values in society are success, money and things", while feminity is described as "a situation in which the dominant values in society are caring for others and the quality of life" (Hofstede and Bond, 1984, ppA19-420).
Greet Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory describes the effects of a society's culture on the values of its members, and how these values relate to behaviour, using a structure derived from factor analysis. He scored each country using a scale of roughly 0 to 100 for each dimension. The higher the score, the more that dimension is exhibited in society. The theory has been widely used in several fields as a paradigm for research, particularly in cross-cultural psychology, international management, and cross-cultural
communication (Smith, P., Peterson, M., Thomas, D. 2008).
Hofstede's work has been challenged due to outdated data collection and analysis techniques (Ng et al., 2007; Lavidan et al., 2006). Specifically, the primary data of the work were obtained between 1967 and 1973, and significant cultural changes have occurred in some countries. However, his work has provided a starting point in relation to cultural studies.
The seminal work of Hofstede will now be viewed in relation to the then Arab Emirates.
Power distance
Arab Emirates scores high on this dimension (Hofstede score of 90) which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.
Individualism
The Arab Emirates, with a score of 25 is considered a collectivistic society. This manifests in a close long-term commitment to the member 'group', be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount, and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies offence leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion
decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, management is the management of groups.
Masculinity / Femininity
Arab Emirates scores 50 on this dimension and can be considered a masculine society. In masculine countries people “live in order to work”, managers are expected to be decisive and assertive, the emphasis is on equity, competition and performance and conflicts are resolved by fighting them out.
Uncertainty avoidance
The Arab Emirates scores 80 on this dimension and thus has a high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high uncertainty avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.
Long term orientation
No score available.(http://geert-hofstede.com/arab-Emirates.html (Accessed 1.5.12)
Geert Hofstede Analysis for United Arab Emirates is very similar to other Arab countries. The Hofstede results of Arab countries
(http://www.cyborlink.com/besite/uae.htm) (Accessed 1.5.13) are as follows:
In Arab countries the Muslim faith plays a large role in the people’s lives. Large power distance and uncertainty avoidance are the predominant characteristics for this region. This indicates that it is expected and accepted that leaders separate themselves from the group and issue complete and specific directives.
The Geert Hofstede analysis for the Arab world, that includes the countries of Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates,
demonstrates the Muslim faith plays a significant role in the people’s lives.
Large Power Distance (PDI) (80) and Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) (68) are
predominant Hofstede Dimension characteristics for the countries in this region. These societies are more likely to follow a caste system that does not allow significant upward mobility of their citizens. They are also highly rule-oriented with laws, rules, regulations, and controls in order to reduce the amount of uncertainty, while inequalities of power
The high Power Distance (PDI) ranking is indicative of a high level of inequality of power and wealth within the society. These populations have an expectation and acceptance that leaders will separate themselves from the group and this condition is not necessarily imposed upon the population, but rather accepted by the society as their cultural heritage.
The high Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) ranking of 68 indicates the society’s low level of tolerance for uncertainty. In an effort to minimise or reduce this level of uncertainty, strict rules, laws, policies, and regulations are adopted and implemented. The ultimate goal of these populations is to control everything in order to eliminate or avoid the unexpected. As a result of this high Uncertainty Avoidance characteristic, the society in question does not readily accept change and is very risk adverse.
The Masculinity index (MAS), the third highest Hofstede Dimension, is 52, only slightly higher than the 50.2 average for all the countries included in the Hofstede MAS Dimension.
The lowest Hofstede Dimension for the Arab world is the Individualism (IDV) ranking at 38, compared to a world average ranking of 64. This translates into a Collectivist society as compared to Individualist culture and is manifested in a close long-term commitment to the member 'group', that being a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount, and supersedes most other societal rules.
The predominant religion for these countries is Islam, the practice of the Muslim faith.
The combination of these two high scores (UAI) and (PDI) creates societies that are highly rule-oriented with laws, rules, regulations, and controls in order to reduce the amount of uncertainty, while inequalities of power and wealth have been allowed to grow within the society. These cultures are more likely to follow a “caste system” that does not allow significant upward mobility of its citizens.
When these two dimensions are combined, it creates a situation where leaders have virtually ultimate power and authority, and the rules, laws and regulations developed by those in power, reinforce their own leadership and control. It is not unusual for new leadership to arise from armed insurrection – the ultimate power, rather than from diplomatic or democratic change. (Stephen Taylor - the Sigma Two Group – http://www.cyborlink.com/besite/uae.htm ) (Accessed 1.5.13)
Hofstede’s analyses of various countries should not be underestimated even though his work is now over 40 years old. However in evaluating the studies of culture in the Arab countries, Al-Otaibi (1992) indicates that many cultural studies of Arab countries have never been satisfactory (Al-Otaibi 1992).
Culture studies in the UAE conducted after Hofstede’s work tend to be superficial and on occasions tend to support the main findings of Hofstede. Albeit a notable number of the studies does contradict his work. Some of the studies post Hofstede’s seminal work include the work of Freek (2004), Abdelkarim and Ibrahim (2001), Ganster and Bates (2003).
In 2012 the Hofstede Centre was opened, operated by Itim International and licensed by Professor Hofstede. His seminal work is still relevant and the Hofstede Centre has built on this work to offer a goal of providing high quality education in the field of culture and management based on academic research and practical experience based on the work of its founder, (http://geert-hofstede.com/the-hofstede-centre.html: Accessed 5.2.15). In summary, Hofstede's (1980; 1991) framework is the model most tested for its validity and reliability. Hofstede's data were drawn from business participants and was designed to ease the concerns of business or management researchers' queries as to suitability of application. His studies have an implication for the UAE and have a relevance to
leadership.