Hofstede in Latvia
Ethnic dimensions in business life: hofstede's indices intended for latvia and lithuania 1 . 1 Introduction
The diary chosen, authored by Mark Huettinger (2008), is applicable Geert Hofstede's five social dimensions (power distance, individualism, masculinity, doubt avoidance and long-term orientation) to both Lithuanian and Latvian cultures, from the perspective of their similarity to the civilizations in Estonia and the Scandinavian countries. This kind of research conventional paper then uses the results obtained from the application of Hofstede's directories to Laxa, sweden to calibrate the Lithuanian and Latvian values for the existing Hofstede database.
The reason this diary was picked was due to the fact that it papers the application of Hofstede's dimensions to Latvia for the first time. This was a thing that the group found quite interesting. In addition to this, we were aware that there had been a lot of criticism of Hofstede's framework and therefore we would like to critique Huettinger's (2008) analysis to discover it is limitations.
2 . 1 A Critique of Hofstede's Platform
Although the purpose of Huettinger's (2008) studies not to evaluate but to develop upon Hofstede's framework, Huettinger (2008) identifies that Hofstede's study, whilst one of the most more popular pieces of research among scholars and professionals in terms of determining and computing the sizes of tradition, is widely criticized and subject to strong debate.
On theoretical reasons, Hofstede's framework is mainly questioned on the internal validity and labeling in the dimensions, meaning of culture and its new application (Chiang, 2005: Huettinger, 2008). Sweeney argues that four or five measurements do not give sufficient information about cultural dissimilarities (Hofstede, 2002) and in this kind of regard the dimensions are limited as they are restricted to study regarding work-related ideals, which are totally different from national ideals (Sorge, 1983: Chiang, june 2006: Ghemawat and Reiche, 2011). Hofstede (2002) agrees and believes that additional sizes should often be added to his original structure. In terms of Hofstede's labeling of his five dimensions, there may be much deliberation amongst Hofstede's critics, many believe that, for instance , the term masculinity-femininity may be perceived as being a sexist classification and Adler (1997) has suggested that this name be altered in order to avoid a misunderstanding (Chiang, 2005). Furthermore, Westwood and Everett (1987) suggest that electrical power distance could possibly be observed like a poor signal of inequality (Chiang, 2005).
Researchers possess argued that a survey is definitely not an ideal instrument pertaining to accurately identifying and testing cultural difference and furthermore Sweeney (2000) implied that Hofstede's вЂsampling was flawed, staying sparse and unevenly distributed' (Jones 3 years ago, p. 6). For example , right after between men and women, which differ from country to country, include the greatest social conflict, particularly when analysing masculinity and femininity, power distance, individualism and collectivism (Orr & Hauser, 2008), however , Hofstede focused on IBM who have employed typically males during the review. Nonetheless, at the moment when Hofstede delivered his framework, there were very little work with culture and Hofstede's research was exactly what scholars plus the marketplace essential (SГёndergaard, 1994).
Many researchers have critiqued and replicated Hofstede's work and applied his dimensions to various contexts, however they were unable to confirm Hofstede's study. For example , by making use of Hofstede's sizing as a foundation, Trompenaars (1993) created his own dimensions, which this individual believed to be outstanding as it may overcome the difficulties associated with Hofstede's dimensions (Orr and Hauser, 2008). Also, more recently the world study executed by Property et ing. (2004) determined nine proportions of countrywide culture which can be based on Hofstede's original platform (Brewer &...
References: Primary Journal:
Huettinger, M (2008) Ethnical dimensions in corporate life: Hofstede's indices intended for Latvia and Lithuania, Baltic Journal of Management, three or more (3), 359-76
Jones, M. L. (2007) Hofstede - Culturally questionable? [Online] obtainable: http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1389&context=commpapers [accessed fifteenth November 2012]
Kolman, L., Noorderhaven, N. G., Hofstede, G
Najera, M. (2008) Managing Mexican Workers: Implications of Hofstede is actually Cultural Proportions, Journal of International Organization Research, several (2) 107-26. Available Emerald green Insight [Accessed fourteenth November 2012]
SГёndergaard, M. (1994) Hofstede is consequences: A report of opinions, citations and replications, 15 (3) 447-56. Available Organization Source Full [Accessed 13th Nov 2012]