|
留学生Business作业-霍夫斯泰德的模型在今天仍然适用吗？本文是一篇留学生商务管理课程作业范文，主要内容是讲述霍夫斯泰德模型是几十年来世界上著名的文化模型，因为格利特·霍夫斯特德是研究文化多样性和差异的先驱。在他的维度中，有四个加一的文化指数，分别是个人主义、权力距离、避免不确定性、男性气质和长期取向。这个模型似乎为那些对文化差异没有任何基本了解的人提供了一些知识基础，它也是广泛传播的理论，被用于各个研究领域，尤其是商业和管理。然而，霍夫斯泰德维度往往被认为是过时的和有偏见的。下面就请看这篇留学生Business作业的全部内容。  Hofstede model is a well-known cultural model in the world for many decades as Greet Hofstede is a pioneer who has done the research regarding cultural diversification and differences. In his dimension, there are four plus one cultural index stated which are Individualistic, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Masculinity and Long-term Orientation (Hofstede G., 1973). This model seems to give some knowledge foundation to people who do not have any basic understanding about cultural differences and it is also widely spread theory which is used in various fields of study especially business and management. However, Hofstede dimension tends to be considered as dated and bias.
This essay discussion will be based upon the question How far do you agree that Hofstede’s model is dated and biased and, as such, is of no use to the contemporary international business executive .
Given below are the following reasons to our agreement/disagreement with Hofstede’s model
本文的讨论将基于这样一个问题：你在多大程度上同意霍夫斯泰德的模型过时且有偏见，因此，对当代国际商业高管来说毫无用处。
以下是我们同意/不同意Hofstede模型的以下原因
HOFSTEDE DIMENSIONS ARE OUTDATED 霍夫斯泰德维度已过时
There are critical reasons to argue that Hofstede’s model is dated and may be inapplicable to the contemporary international business environment. The first reason is globalization the broadening geographical inter-linkages of products, markets, firms and production factors, with a large portion of each derived, generated, or available in more countries and regions according to Papaconstantinou, G. (1995).
Due to the statistics from UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development), number of companies invest overseas and multinational companies (MNCs) operate worldwide are continually increased for decades which may reflect in higher number of immigrants and expatriate workers. Also, each business organization has its own culture promoted and inevitably workers should adapt themselves to organizational culture for instance encouraging teamwork, involving in decision making or maintaining relationship. Most of these companies operate globally, the organizational culture practices are consequently almost the same. Furthermore, global products such as McDonald s, Starbucks, Coca-Cola and jeans also influence people s lifestyles. One such illustration is when burgers become diet in many countries around the world not just only in Western countries. We now have a concept of global consumers, which are more aware about the availability of various options in the markets. Obviously, the cultures are converged and become similar from one and another, which are a complete contrast from the past.
有重要的理由认为霍夫斯泰德的模型过时了，可能不适用于当代国际商业环境。第一个原因是全球化——产品、市场、企业和生产要素之间的地理相互联系不断扩大，根据Papaconstantinou，G.的说法，每一种产品的很大一部分都是在更多的国家和地区衍生、产生或可得的。
根据贸发会议（联合国贸易和发展会议）的统计数据，几十年来，在海外投资的公司和跨国公司（MNC）在世界各地运营的数量不断增加，这可能反映出移民和外籍工人的数量增加。此外，每个商业组织都有自己的文化，员工不可避免地要适应组织文化，例如鼓励团队合作、参与决策或维持关系。这些公司大多在全球运营，因此组织文化实践几乎相同。此外，麦当劳、星巴克、可口可乐和牛仔裤等全球产品也影响着人们的生活方式。一个这样的例子是，汉堡不仅在西方国家，而且在世界上许多国家都成为了人们的日常饮食。我们现在有了全球消费者的概念，他们更了解市场上各种选项的可用性。很明显，两种文化融合在一起，彼此相似，这与过去形成了完全的对比。
Another key factor which rapidly stimulates this trend is advance technology for instance internet, e-mail, and social-network. According to the world internet users statistic, there is an significant increase of internet users; 380.3 percent in 2000-2009 and 444.8 percent in 2000-2010(web ref.1). Since internet is accessible everywhere and all contents are available online such as fashion, music and movies so it is the most distinct and easiest means of cultural exchange. Thus, the internet servers may directly or indirectly absorb other different cultures from what they have seen or heard and may imitate those norms. For example, independent and individualistic images of Western people are positively present on internet, these may appreciated and motivated young Chinese to be individualist who prefer freedom lifestyle and seek for self-achievement (Guangrong R., 1998). As a result people tend to value things similarly because of globalization and advance technology.
另一个迅速推动这一趋势的关键因素是先进的技术，例如互联网、电子邮件和社交网络。根据世界互联网用户统计，互联网用户数量显著增加；2000-2009年为380.3%，2000-2010年为444.8%（。由于互联网无处不在，所有内容都可以在网上获得，如时尚、音乐和电影，因此它是最独特和最简单的文化交流方式。因此，互联网服务器可能直接或间接地从他们所看到或听到的东西中吸收其他不同的文化，并可能模仿这些规范。例如，西方人的独立和个人主义形象在互联网上得到了积极的体现，这些可能会受到赞赏，并激励中国年轻人成为个人主义者，他们喜欢自由的生活方式，追求自我成就。因此，由于全球化和先进的技术，人们倾向于以同样的方式看待事物。
The second reason is the new generation of the sample countries; those who were born after 1973, were not taken into account of Hofstede’s research. During the past thirty years this new generation is now becoming the effective workforce of the countries and can reflect the changes occurred in the society. One important driver which should be considered is education. Referring to the Institute of International Education, U.S. Department of State s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs report Nov. 2007, number American students study abroad increased by 8.5 percent and tend to continually increase every year. Moreover, there are many partners universities in Asia generate Asialearn program for overseas students who want to study and experience Asian cultures. Consequently, there are higher numbers of students who explore and adapt to new culture. Therefore, this stimulates the cultures exchange in the global environment and then gradually invokes cultures to merge.
In addition, the educational system also influences people behaviors. Globalization affects education by changing the roles of student and teacher and generating a shift in society from industrialization to an information-based society and this effect reflects on culture and result in a new form of cultural imperialism (Chinnammai, 2005).
第二个原因是新一代样本国家；那些1973年以后出生的人没有被纳入霍夫斯泰德的研究。在过去的三十年中，这一新一代正在成为国家的有效劳动力，能够反映社会发生的变化。应该考虑的一个重要驱动因素是教育。参考国际教育学院、美国国务院教育和文化事务局2007年11月的报告，美国留学生人数增长了8.5%，并有逐年增加的趋势。此外，亚洲有许多合作大学为想学习和体验亚洲文化的海外学生提供亚洲学习计划。因此，有更多的学生探索并适应新文化。因此，这刺激了全球环境中的文化交流，进而逐渐引发文化融合。
此外，教育制度也影响人们的行为。全球化通过改变学生和教师的角色以及社会从工业化向信息化社会的转变而影响教育，这种影响反映在文化上，并导致新形式的文化帝国主义。
To give you a clear example, Child-Centered System by Dewey J., 1963; system which encourage students to think by themselves, participate in group and be more confident to discuss with teacher in class, are continually promoted in Thai educational system since 1978 (web ref.2). This can directly affect the new generation of Thai in power distance aspect. As an Asian country, Thailand is perceived as a high power distance country and seniority are very important and widely practised in society (Rowley & Warner, 2007). However, the Child-Centered System tends to lower the power distance between students and teachers which was rooted in Thai culture for centuries. Furthermore, people graduated from international school or international university tends to have different value, norms and behaviors from those who study in ordinary schools for example; less or no seniority system in international school because the curriculum and teaching methods of those international institutions are mostly based on American or British educational system.
给你一个明确的例子，杜威J.的《以儿童为中心的系统》，1963年；自1978年以来，泰国教育系统一直在推广这种鼓励学生独立思考、参与小组活动和更有自信地与老师进行课堂讨论的系统。这会直接影响到新一代泰国人的电力距离方面。作为一个亚洲国家，泰国被视为一个高权力距离国家，资历非常重要，在社会中得到广泛应用）。然而，以儿童为中心的制度倾向于缩小学生和教师之间的权力距离，这种权力距离植根于泰国文化数百年。此外，从国际学校或国际大学毕业的人往往与在普通学校学习的人有不同的价值观、规范和行为；因为这些国际学校的课程和教学方法大多基于美国或英国的教育体系。
The third reason to argue against the Hofstede’s dimension is changes in household structure. According to UN report about demographic and social trends affecting families in the South and Central Asia region (De Silva, I. 2003), in the recent years there is an increasing number of nuclear family due to the economic condition in Asia. This may reveal that close relationship between family s members are declining in Asian society and also the culture may be no longer transcend from generation to next generations anymore. Surprisingly, single household, loan parent, cohabitating couples, decline in fertility rate and delay marriage trend are also greater every year in many countries such as Bangladesh, Kazakhstan and the Anglicized based countries. (De Silva, I. 2003a). Besides, there is another considerable trend of women s changing role, as they tend to focus more on self achievement including higher education, higher rank position and career success (De Silva, I. 2003b). This may be implied that nowadays women tend to have more masculinity characteristic and are practicing more independent lifestyle than the past.
反对Hofstede维度的第三个原因是家庭结构的变化。根据联合国关于影响南亚和中亚地区家庭的人口和社会趋势的报告，近年来，由于亚洲的经济状况，核心家庭的数量不断增加。这可能表明，在亚洲社会，家庭成员之间的亲密关系正在下降，而且这种文化可能不再能够代代相传。令人惊讶的是，在孟加拉国、哈萨克斯坦和英国化国家等许多国家，单亲家庭、贷款父母、同居夫妇、生育率下降和延迟结婚趋势也在逐年增加。。此外，女性角色的变化还有另一个相当大的趋势，因为她们更注重自我成就，包括高等教育、更高级别的职位和职业成功。这可能意味着，如今的女性往往比过去更具男子气概，更独立的生活方式。
The last reason is, Hofstede’s research was based in surveys between 1967 and 1973. During that period, the economic and political condition in most of the countries, which are mentioned in his research, was a lot different than nowadays. Generally:
最后一个原因是，霍夫斯泰德的研究是基于1967年至1973年间的调查。在这段时间里，他在研究中提到的大多数国家的经济和政治状况与现在大不相同。一般情况下：
In North America, the United States and Canada were to the dusk of the postwar prosperity, when an economic slowdown became visibly apparent in the early 70’s (Web Ref. 7).
在北美，美国和加拿大正处于战后繁荣的黄昏，70年代初，经济增长明显放缓。
In South America, Brasil had a spectacular growth after a five year stagnation period, Argentina was under a fast-pace development through developmentalism tactics when Mexico had a strong but unstable economic performance with problems in fiscal management and the investments (Victor Bulmer-Thomas, 2003).
在南美洲，巴西在经历了五年的停滞期后实现了惊人的增长，阿根廷通过发展主义策略实现了快速发展，而墨西哥的经济表现强劲但不稳定，财政管理和投资存在问题。
Europe was under an Industrial decline. Great Britain’s growth was struggling and the pound’s devaluation (1967) was the second after 1949 (Cairncross, Alec:1992), (Nicholas Woodward, 1995). Germany, having serious problems with the industrial decline, was making efforts to guide an economic policy (Federal German Budget Legislation 1967), (Web Ref. 3). Only France was passing through a booming period (Web Ref. 4).
欧洲正处于工业衰退时期。英国的经济增长举步维艰，英镑贬值（1967年）是1949年之后的第二次。德国面临着严重的工业衰退问题，正在努力指导经济政策（1967年联邦德国预算立法）。只有法国正在经历一个繁荣时期。
In Asia, India was in a post-war period (with China-1962, with Pakistan-1965) and a currency devaluation in 1966 (Devika Johri & Mark Miller). Japan was in a post-war rebuilding, with a great industrial development by mid-60’s (Alfred K. Ho, 1968). In Singapore, despite of the difficulties faced by the separation from Malaysia in 1965, it’s economy moved upwards through many policies and investments (Web Ref. 5) and South Korea was in the dawn of a rapid industrialization, through an outward-looking strategy adopted in the early 60’s (Web Ref 6).
在亚洲，印度处于战后时期（1962年与中国，1965年与巴基斯坦），1966年货币贬值。日本正处于战后重建时期，到60年代中期，工业有了很大的发展。在新加坡，尽管1965年脱离马来西亚面临困难，但通过许多政策和投资，新加坡经济向上发展，而韩国正处于快速工业化的曙光中，通过60年代早期采用的外向型战略。
As can be seen, the changes in political and economic environment taking place in the above countries. It can be concluded that the business environment has completely changed from the period of the survey to the present business scenario. Moreover, Hofstede’s model will not be applicable in present business environment due to the changes until today.
可以看出，上述国家的政治和经济环境发生了变化。可以得出结论，从调查期间到目前的业务场景，业务环境已经完全改变。此外，由于今天的变化，Hofstede的模型将不适用于当前的商业环境。
Globalization, advance technology, changing education system, new generation, smaller household structure, different roles of women and period of conducting research seem to be the crucial answers why Hofstede’s dimension is dated and inappropriate for international business application since many cultures become more similar and people independently choose to behave in the way they want.
全球化、先进的技术、不断变化的教育体系、新一代、更小的家庭结构、不同的女性角色和研究周期似乎是霍夫斯泰德维度过时和不适合国际商业应用的关键答案，因为许多文化变得更加相似，人们独立地选择自己想要的方式行事。
HOFSTEDE DIMENSION IS BIAS 霍夫斯泰德维数是偏差
According to McSweeney, there are some limitations of Hofstede’s methodology. He states that Hofstede is sceptical and can provide information about entire national cultures. We will now review the research method of Hofstede’s model also in this part we are going to discuss about Hofstede’s method of conducting research and his way of over assumption and mere hypothesis.
根据McSweeney的说法，Hofstede的方法有一些局限性。他表示，霍夫斯泰德持怀疑态度，可以提供有关整个民族文化的信息。现在我们将回顾霍夫斯泰德模型的研究方法。在这一部分中，我们将讨论霍夫斯特德的研究方法以及他过度假设和单纯假设的方式。
Method of conducting research 开展研究的方法
Firstly, Hofstede’s findings are from a single company IBM, and his informants worked with a single industry the information technology industry. Although this survey covered all workers, the data used by Hofstede to construct national cultural comparisons were largely limited to response from marketing-plus-sales employees (McSweeney, 2002). Moreover, because all of the respondents worked for IBM, and the effect of organizational culture were single and same (McSweeney, 2002). Therefore, it can be argued that the background and values of IBM workers are a considerable small group i.e. they cannot cover holistically the different perceptions of various countries. (Mead and Andrews, 2009).
首先，霍夫斯泰德的调查结果来自一家公司IBM，他的线人与一个行业——信息技术行业合作。尽管这项调查涵盖了所有员工，但Hofstede用于构建国家文化比较的数据在很大程度上仅限于营销和销售员工的反应。此外，因为所有的受访者都为IBM工作，组织文化的影响是单一的。因此，可以说，IBM员工的背景和价值观是一个相当小的群体，即他们无法全面涵盖不同国家的不同看法。。
Secondly, due to the research conducted in a single industry with a single company, the type of sample involved in this research is similar. Although these employees were from different countries, the effect of organization culture is the same on them (McSweeney, 2002). What is a culture? In an organization, culture can be defined as a way of studying and working everyday (Martin, 2002). Morgan provides us with a basic understanding of organizational culture: “The set of beliefs, values, and norms, together with symbols like dramatized events and personalities that represents the unique character of an organization, and provides the context for action in it and by it.” (Morgan, 1997, p.41). In addition, Hofstede highlights that the type of IBM culture is unique and uniform within the organization (cited in Risberg, 1999). As a result, it can be argued that the effect of the organizational culture on the IBM employees is very limited and similar.
第二，由于研究是在单一行业和单一公司进行的，因此本研究涉及的样本类型是相似的。尽管这些员工来自不同的国家，但组织文化对他们的影响是相同的。什么是文化？在一个组织中，文化可以被定义为一种每天学习和工作的方式。摩根为我们提供了对组织文化的基本理解：“信念、价值观和规范的集合，以及戏剧化事件和人物等象征，这些象征代表了一个组织的独特特征，并为在其中采取行动提供了背景。”。此外，Hofstede强调指出，IBM文化的类型在组织内部是独特和统一的。因此，可以说，组织文化对IBM员工的影响是非常有限和相似的。
The third problem of his methodology is the method of questionnaire is not effective. McSweeney (2002) states that administration of the survey and the ownership of its results were IBM s; some of the questionnaires were completed within groups and not individually (McSweeney, 2002, p.103). Also, McSweeney (2002) explained that some employees of IBM were under a perception that their managers might provide more strategies on the basis of the survey results. Consequently, according to McSweeney s arguments, there are two main questionable points in the IBM s questionnaires. The first one is each country has different style of answering questions, due to this survey covered 66 countries. For instance, the effect of traditions and culture in Asia is profound (Littlewood, 1999), Asian people tend to answer questions giving more weightage to the theory aspect as well as their answers are based on their perceptions. In contrast, the westerners are opposite, their answers tend to be based on what they think is factual rather relying on the theory. Hofstede also displays that the general amount per country was small (Hofstede, 1980a). McSweeney (2002) critiqued that his research covered 66 countries, but the final data and result were from only 40 countries. According to the data from the IBM s survey, it is undeniable that samples of this research are really not homogeneous.
他的方法的第三个问题是问卷调查的方法不有效。McSweeney表示，调查的管理和结果的所有权属于IBM；一些问卷是在小组内完成的，而不是单独完成的。此外，McSweeney解释说，IBM的一些员工认为，他们的经理可能会根据调查结果提供更多策略。因此，根据McSweeney的观点，IBM的调查问卷中有两个主要的问题点。第一个是每个国家都有不同的回答方式，因为这项调查涵盖了66个国家。例如，传统和文化在亚洲的影响是深远的，亚洲人倾向于回答更注重理论方面的问题，因为他们的答案基于他们的感知。相反，西方人则相反，他们的答案往往基于他们认为是事实的东西，而不是依赖理论。霍夫斯泰德还显示，每个国家的总金额很小。McSweeney批评说，他的研究涵盖了66个国家，但最终数据和结果仅来自40个国家。根据IBM调查的数据，不可否认的是，这项研究的样本并不完全相同。
Furthermore, the sample size in each country was different. Only in a few European countries and in Japan, the responders were over than 1000. In most of the countries they were less than 200 in total for both surveys (Mc Sweeney, 2002:94). This inequality makes the research more accurate for only a few countries. That means that the data of the research are unequally weighted. When a statistical analysis has to take place, the data have to be collected in a similar way, for all the parties (sample range-extent-quality). The questionnaires were answered by the employees of a particular company who would like to take part and not by Hofstede’s choice of separate categories of people. That’s obvious from the large differences of the sample size in each country. That means that the sample was not heterogeneous enough, in terms of population distribution, age diversity, behaviour, attitudes and perceptions. Hence, the data were not enough to characterize a whole country through these. It would be more accurate to refer to Hofstede’s research as an IBM study of that period.
此外，每个国家的样本量不同。只有少数欧洲国家和日本的受访者超过1000人。在大多数国家，这两项调查的总人数都不到200人。这种不平等使得这项研究仅对少数几个国家更为准确。这意味着研究数据的权重不均衡。当必须进行统计分析时，必须以类似的方式收集所有各方的数据（样本范围范围质量）。调查问卷是由一家特定公司的员工回答的，他们希望参与调查，而不是由霍夫斯泰德选择的不同类别的人回答的。从每个国家的样本规模的巨大差异来看，这是显而易见的。这意味着，在人口分布、年龄多样性、行为、态度和观念方面，样本的异质性还不够。因此，这些数据不足以通过这些数据来描述整个国家。将Hofstede的研究称为IBM对那个时期的研究将更为准确。
In terms of conceptualization of culture, Hofstede’s (1980a) multidimensional model may not adequately capture the complete phenomenon of culture, because a singular focus on cultural values largely ignores other aspects of culture. Furthermore, at the individual and national levels, culture may not be as stable as Hofstede believed it was. So, …as Hofstede’s approach has a number of conceptual and methodological limitations that can contaminate data and introduce a systematic error.
就文化的概念化而言，霍夫斯泰德的多维模型可能无法充分捕捉文化的完整现象，因为对文化价值的单一关注在很大程度上忽略了文化的其他方面。此外，在个人和国家层面，文化可能不像霍夫斯泰德认为的那样稳定。因此，……霍夫斯泰德的方法有许多概念和方法上的限制，可能会污染数据并引入系统性错误。
Hofstede’s Dimensions are contradicting with each other 霍夫斯泰德的维度相互矛盾
The addition of the fifth dimension identified by the Hofstede might have boosted the strength of his national culture model. However an intense scrutinising of study from which Hofstede mined the further dimension Chinese value survey by the Chinese culture connection group (CCC: Bond, 1988)-reveals that on of this fifth dimension is problematic. That study recognised one of Hofstede’s fourth dimensions-Uncertainty avoidance (UA)-as irrelevant to Chinese population and consequently demoted UA from being a worldwide dimension of national culture to a non-universal dimension. None of the CVS aspects were correlated with UA. If Hofstede regards the CCC study to be valid he should not have added the fifth dimension to his previous once. He should also have downgraded UA in his model. If, instead Hofstede regards the CCC study as unsound he should not have attached the fifth dimension .However the problem was? Hofstede wants it both ways.
霍夫斯泰德确定的第五维度的加入可能增强了他的民族文化模式的力量。然而，对霍夫斯泰德从中国文化联系组织的中国价值观调查中挖掘出的进一步维度的研究进行了深入的审视，结果表明，这第五维度的研究存在问题。这项研究承认霍夫斯泰德的第四维度不确定性回避（UA）之一与中国人口无关，因此将UA从国家文化的世界维度降级为非普遍维度。CVS各方面均与UA无关。如果Hofstede认为CCC研究是有效的，他不应该在之前的研究中添加第五维度。他还应该在他的模型中降低UA的评级。相反，如果霍夫斯泰德认为CCC研究不合理，他不应该附加第五维度？霍夫斯泰德想要两种方式。
The meticulous examination of the research reveals that it relies on, fundamentally flawed assumptions. Hofstede’s Model involves four vital assumptions upon which his measurements are based. Though it is reasoned that assumptions are all flawed and that therefore his national cultural explanations are invalid and misleading but these assumptions are vital in the sense that they are essential for the probability of his identification claims.
对这项研究的仔细检查表明，它依赖于有根本缺陷的假设。霍夫斯泰德的模型包含了四个重要的假设，这些假设是他的测量所依据的。尽管有理由认为假设都有缺陷，因此他的民族文化解释是无效的和误导性的，但这些假设在一定意义上是至关重要的，因为这些假设对他的身份主张的可能性至关重要。
Hofstede refer in multiple instances, to the common characteristics , the common traits (1991:19) of the inhabitants of a particular nation . Thus a unique national culture is assumed to be individually carried out by everyone in nation just like A.J.P Taylor stated that The problem with Hitler was that he was German .He assumed that The data of IBM was commendably restricted to the workplace only, while other segments of national population which includes- the waged and the unwaged, full-time students, the self-employed, part time students, the retired, home workers, and others – were not taken into consideration. So, Brenden McSweeney (University of Essex) a critique while criticising his research, keeping all the flawed assumptions in his mind, contends, that Hofstede’s project is a misguided attempt to measure the unmeasurable .
霍夫斯泰德在多个实例中指的是共同特征，一个特定国家的居民的共同特征。因此，一个独特的民族文化被认为是由国家中的每个人单独实施的，就像a.J.P泰勒所说的，希特勒的问题在于他是德国人，而包括有薪和无薪、全日制学生、自营职业者、兼职学生、退休人员、家庭工人和其他人在内的全国人口的其他部分则未被考虑在内。因此，埃塞克斯大学在批评他的研究的同时，将所有有缺陷的假设牢记在心，认为霍夫斯泰德的项目是一个错误的尝试，试图衡量不可测量的东西。
IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT Hofstede’s MODEL IS USEFUL TO SOME EXTENT 在国际商业环境中，霍夫斯泰德的模型在某种程度上是有用的
Hofstede’s model predicts what most people would do in routine situations, in other words it provides us with some basic understanding of how a person would behave in a particular culture. Let s say for example an American, who has never worked in a Chinese based organization and has no experience in working with Chinese people, will have some general ideas about how the Chinese work culture operates. We can say this by looking into one of the dimensions of Hofstede’such as power distance: in which he has mentioned how cultures cope with societal inequality. Cultures with narrow power distance such as USA will try to reduce differences and solve problems via consultation and support whereas their counterparts (China) will do the opposite i.e. encourage differences and follow autocratic and paternalistic type leadership style. Now let s presume the previous example of the American going to work for a Chinese based company, if he/she has looked upon Hofstede model then he/she will have a certain outlook of how things run around in China. We do not say that the American should be completely guided by the model but it does help. In China, differences in power is indicated when people come for a meeting and the junior personnel may arrive much before time so has to show respect to his seniors. The American may find this hard to accept but when they become aware about this they are psychologically prepared to face this inequality. If the American has to establish and implement a management structure then it is very important for him to know the significant differences in various cultures. (Mead and Andrews, 2009)
霍夫斯泰德的模型预测了大多数人在日常生活中会做什么，换句话说，它为我们提供了对一个人在特定文化中的行为的一些基本理解。比方说，一个美国人，他从未在中国的组织工作过，也没有与中国人合作的经验，他会对中国的工作文化如何运作有一些大致的了解。我们可以通过研究霍夫斯泰德的一个维度来说明这一点，比如权力距离：他在其中提到了文化如何应对社会不平等。权力距离较窄的文化，如美国，将试图通过协商和支持来减少分歧和解决问题，而其对应方（中国）则相反，即鼓励分歧并遵循独裁和家长式的领导风格。现在让我们假设前面的例子，美国人将为一家中国公司工作，如果他/她看过霍夫斯泰德模型，那么他/她将对中国的情况有一定的看法。我们并不是说美国人应该完全以这种模式为指导，但它确实有帮助。在中国，当人们来开会时，权力的差异就表现出来了，初级人员可能会提前到达，因此必须尊重其上级。美国人可能会觉得这很难接受，但当他们意识到这一点时，他们在心理上就准备好面对这种不平等。如果美国人必须建立并实施一个管理结构，那么了解不同文化的显著差异对他来说是非常重要的。
CONCLUSION 结论
As stated above there are a number of reasons why we agree that Hofstede’s model is dated and biased. It cannot be used by an international business executive simply because they cannot be applied in the current international business environment for a number of factors, such as, work related values are not similar in the international business context. To inference we would like to state that Hofstede’s dimensions are outdated due to change in technology, globalization from an international business perspective, emerging trends in different cultures.
如上所述，我们同意霍夫斯泰德的模型过时且有偏见的原因有很多。国际商业高管不能使用它，因为由于一些因素，例如工作相关价值观在国际商业环境中不相似，它们不能应用于当前的国际商业环境。因此，我们想指出，由于技术的变化、国际商业视角的全球化以及不同文化中的新兴趋势，霍夫斯泰德的维度已经过时。
Another reason to argue that Hofstede’s dimensions are biased is that the method of conducting research is based upon one industry and one company, similar types of sample involved in conducting research, various discrepancies in the questionnaire, elongated period of conducting research (changes in economic conditions), disproportionate sample size used to analyze data. Hofstede has relied more on assumptions and hypothesis thereby creating a paradigm wall around his model to protect his theory.
霍夫斯泰德的维度存在偏见的另一个原因是，研究方法基于一个行业和一家公司、参与研究的相似样本类型、问卷中的各种差异、研究周期的延长（经济条件的变化）、用于分析数据的样本规模不成比例。霍夫斯泰德更多地依赖于假设和假设，从而在他的模型周围建立了一道范式墙来保护他的理论。
In contrast Hofstede’s model can be used in some parts of the business environment such as it provides business executives with some form of basic understanding. When an international business executive enters into a foreign culture everything seems different from the home environment. Using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions as a reference point he/she can evaluate the approach to be taken, the decisions to be made, the actions to be executed in a very general sense for that cultural environment. No culture is homogenous and there will be deviations in real life business environment from Hofstede’s cultural findings, however, with the use of Hofstede’s model the business executive can have a foresight about how things may function in the foreign environment. It becomes less intimidating for him/her as he/she gets a much needed boost of confidence and security from studying the cultural model.
留学生Business作业通过比较得出结论，霍夫斯泰德的模型可以用于商业环境的某些部分，例如它为商业高管提供了某种形式的基本理解。当一位国际商务主管进入一种外国文化时，一切似乎都与国内环境不同。使用霍夫斯泰德的文化维度作为参考点，他/她可以从文化环境的一般意义上评估要采取的方法、要做出的决定和要执行的行动。课程作业还指出没有一种文化是同质的，现实生活中的商业环境与霍夫斯泰德的文化发现会有偏差，然而，通过使用霍夫斯特德的模型，商业高管可以对事物在国外环境中的运作有一个远见。当他/她从学习文化模式中获得了急需的自信和安全感时，这对他/她来说就不那么可怕了。本站提供各国各专业留学生作业写作或指导服务，如有需要可咨询本平台。
|
