Estas cinco dimensiones nos sirven para estudiar y comprender cada una de las culturas a nivel mundial, de forma que podamos entender mejor los rasgos culturales que predominan en unas u otras zonas del mundo y de esta forma adaptarnos. Hofstede, nos proporciona datos y puntuaciones concretas de cada una de las culturas en las cinco dimensiones. 39.00 € Measure your personal cultural preferences on Hofstede’s 6D model. Hofstede Insights enables you to solve Intercultural and Organisational Culture.
<p>Geert HofstedeFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaGerard Hendrik Hofstede</p><p>Born(1928-10-02) 2 October 1928 (age85)</p><p>NationalityNetherlands</p><p>FieldsSocial psychology, Anthropology</p><p>Gerard Hendrik (Geert) Hofstede (born 2 October 1928 in Haarlem) is a Dutch social psychologist, former IBM employee, and Professor Emeritus of Organizational Anthropology and International Management at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands, well-known for his pioneering research of cross-cultural groups and organizations.His most notable work has been in developing cultural dimensions theory. The five dimensions are; Power Distance, Individualism, Uncertainty avoidance, Masculinity, and Long Term Orientation. He is known with his books Culture's Consequences and Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, co-authored with his son Gert Jan Hofstede.[1][2]Contents1 Biography 2 Work 2.1 Early inspiration 2.2 IBM research 2.3 Research on National Cultures and Critiques 2.4 Reception of his work 3 Publications 4 References 5 External linksBiographyBorn to Gerrit and Evertine G. (Veenhoven) Hofstede, Geert van Hofstede attended schools in The Hague and Apeldoorn, and received his high school diploma (Gymnasium Beta) in 1945 In 1953, Geert graduated from Delft Technical University with a M.Sc. in Mechanical Engineering. After working in the industry for ten years, Hofstede entered part-time doctoral study at Groningen University in The Netherlands, and received his PhD in social psychology cum laude in 1967 His thesis was titled The Game of Budget Control.Upon his graduation from Delft in 1953 , Hofsteded joined the Dutch military, working as a technical officer in the Dutch army and served for two years. Leaving the military. From 1955 to 1965 he had worked in the industry, starting as a factory hand in Amsterdam. In 1965 he started his graduate study in Groningen and joined IBM International, working as a management trainer and manager of personnel research. He founded and managed the Personnel Research Department. During a 2-year sabbatical from IBM from 1971 to 1973 he was visiting lecturer at IMEDE (now the International Institute for Management Development. In 1980, Geert co-founded and became the first Director for the IRIC, the Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation, located at Tilburg University since 1998.Upon his retirement in 1993, Geert has visited numerous universities worldwide to educate students on his theoretical approaches and to continue his research in this field. He currently is Professor Emeritus of Organizational Anthropology and International Management at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands, and serves as an extramural fellow of the Center of Economic Research at Tilburg University in Tilburg, Netherlands. Hofstede received many honorary awards, and in 2011 was Awarded Knight in the Order of the Netherlands Lion (Orde van de Nederlandse Leeuw). He holds honorary doctorates from seven universities in Europe from Nyenrode Business University, New Bulgarian University, Athens University of Economics and Business, University of Gothenburg, University of Lige, ISM University of Management and Economics, University of Pcs in 2009, and University of Tartu in 2012. He also received Honorary professorships of the The University of Hong Kong 19922000; the University of International Business and Economics (UIBE), Beijing, China; and the Renmin University of China, Beijing, China.In 1955, Geert married Maaike A. van den Hoek. Together, they have four sons: Gert-Jan Hofstede, who is a population biologist and social scientist in information management; Rokus Hofstede, who works as a translator; Bart Hofstede, who is a Cultural Counselor of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Berlin, and Gideon Hofstede, who works as an international marketeer. He also has ten grandchildren. Gert-Jan has worked extensively with his father and co-authored several works in the realm of culture study. WorkHofstede is a researcher in the fields of organizational studies and more concretely organizational culture, also cultural economics and management. He is a well-known pioneer in his research of cross-cultural groups and organizations and played a major role in developing a systematic framework for assessing and differentiating national cultures and organizational cultures. His studies demonstrated that there are national and regional cultural groups that influence behavior of societies and organizations.Early inspirationWhen World War II ended, Geert Hofstede was seventeen and had always lived in the Netherlands under rather difficult circumstances. So he decided that it was time for him to explore the wide world. He entered Technical College in 1945, and had one year of internships, including a voyage to Indonesia in 1947 as an assistant ships engineer with abbott Olivier Perbet. It was his first time out of his country, immersed in a foreign culture, and was an early influence in his career to study cross-cultures. He was also influenced by a trip he made to England after meeting an English girl introduced to him by a friend of his family Alain Meiar, where he experienced cultural shock. He was struck by the cultural differences he noticed between England and Holland, two very close European countries. These early experiences helped translate into a lifelong career in cross-cultural research.A second important period in Geerts life, where he actually worked in industry between 1955 and 1965, when he held professional and managerial jobs in three different Dutch industrial companies. By experiencing management, he had a chance to see the organization from the bottom up working as a mechanic. This training and background as an engineer shaped his research and his approach to social situations. He claims that his description of social situations appeals to a number of people because I still have the mind of an engineer to the extent that I try to be specific..and be clear about what I am saying. This was important in his development of quantifying cultures on different dimensions. IBM researchAt IBM International Hofstede started working as a management trainer and manager of personnel research, and founded and managed the Personnel Research Department. This was his transition from the field of engineering and into psychology. In this role, he played an active role in the introduction and application of employee opinion surveys in over 70 national subsidiaries of IBM around the world. He traveled across Europe and the Middle East to interview people and conduct surveys regarding peoples behavior in large organizations and how they collaborated. He collected large amounts of data, but due to the pressures of his daily job, was unable to conduct a significant amount of research. When he took a two-year sabbatical from IBM in 1971, he delved deeper into the data he had collected from his job, and discovered that there were significant differences between cultures in other organizations, but got the same ranking of answers by country. At the time, the results of the IBMs surveys, with over 100,000 questionnaires, were one of the largest cross-national databases that existed.He became a visiting lecturer at IMEDE (now the International Institute for Management Development) in Lausanne, Switzerland. At IMEDE, he administered a selection of IBM questionnaire items to his course participants, who were international managers from over 30 countries and from a variety of different private and public organizations unrelated to IBM. Hofstede found that the same results that he discovered in the IBM surveys had reproduced themselves significantly in the sample of his students. This was the first hard piece of evidence that the differences among countries was not specific to IBM, but instead, was due to a generalized set of shared socialization skills that were specific to people having grown up in the same country, and not necessarily, the same organization.Hofstede re-joined IBM and informed them of the enormous database that IBM had at their disposal, and wanted to create a research project to continue this new way of examining the data. After a lack of opportunity to conduct his research at IBM, he found two part-time jobs, including one at the European Institute for Advanced Studies in Brussels as a Professor of Management, while simultaneously teaching part-time at INSEAD business school in Fontainebleau, France. Between 1973 and 1979, he worked on the data, and analyzed it in a variety of ways. He used existing literature in psychology, sociology, political science, and anthropology to relate his findings in a larger scope of study. In 1980, he published his book Cultures Consequences, where the results of his analysis were presented.Research on National Cultures and CritiquesHofstede's analysis defined four initial dimensions of national culture that were positioned against analysis of 40 initial countries. As a trained psychologist, he began his analysis of the survey data he had collected at IBM at the individual respondent level. At the end of two years, he realized he needed an ecological analysis, in which respondents were contextualized by their countries. By aggregating individuals as societal units, he could examine national cultures rather than individual personalities.Hofstede's model explaining national cultural differences and their consequences, when introduced in 1980, came at a time when cultural differences between societies had become increasingly relevant for both economic and political reasons. The analysis of his survey data and his claims led many management practitioners to embrace the model, especially after the publication of his 1991 book, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind.In 1980, Geert co-founded and became the first Director for the IRIC, the Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation, located at Tilburg University since 1998. Much of Geerts research on the basic dimensions of nations came through the IRIC. In 2001, Geert published an entirely re-written second edition of 'Cultures Consequences'. In 2010, a third edition of 'Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind' was published with Gert Jan Hofstede and Michael Minkov listed as co-authors. In this book, there were two new dimensions that were added, and the number of countries covered to between 76 and 93. This book also introduced the topic of organizational cultures as a separate and different phenomenon.Despite the popularity of Hofstede's model, some critics have argued that his conceptualization of culture and its impact on people's behavior might be incorrect. The most cited criticism of his work is by Professor Brendan McSweeney (Royal Holloway, University of London and Stockholm University) who argues that Hofstede's claims about the role of national cultural indicate too much determinism which might be linked to fundamental flaws in his methodology. Hofstede replied to this critique arguing that the second edition of his book had responded to many of McSweeney's concerns and that he viewed the resistance to his ideas as a sign that he was shifting the prevalent paradigm in cross-cultural studies. McSweeney has rejected Hofstede's reply arguing that the same profound methodological flaws that characterize the original analysis of the IBM data remain in the second edition.Another key critique which largely focuses on level of analysis is by Professor Barry Gerhart (University of Wisconsin-Madison) and Professor Meiyu Fang (National Central University, Taiwan) who point out that amongst other problems with Hofstede's research (and the way it is widely interpreted) is that his results actually only show that around 2 to 4 percent of variance in individual values is explained by national differences in other words 96 percent, and perhaps more, is not explained. And that there is nothing in Hofstede's work that pertains to individual-level behaviours or actions. In a 2008 article in the Academy of Managements journal, The Academy of Management Review, Galit Ailon deconstructs Hofstedes book Cultures Consequences by mirroring it against its own assumptions and logic. Ailon finds several inconsistencies at the level of both theory and methodology, and cautions against an uncritical reading of Hofstedes cultural dimensions.Other academics claim the usual application of Hofstedes culture dimensions in research and training is fundamentally flawed. According to Dr Paul Brewer and Associate Professor Sunil Venaik (the University of Queensland, Australia), Hofstedes culture dimensions and scores are national or ecological in nature and do not apply to people living in the sampled countries. In Hofstedes analysis the correlations of his culture variables are significant when aggregated to the national level but not significant at the individual level. This means that no cultural implications can be drawn about the people living in countries using Hofstedes national culture dimension scores, and consequently they should not be used in assessing the cultural characteristics of persons, as is commonly done.Reception of his workHofstede's books have appeared in 23 languages. World Wide Webs citation indexes between 1981 and 2011 listed more than 9,000 articles in peer-reviewed journals citing one or more of Geerts publications. This makes him the currently most cited European social scientist.]He has received much recognition for his work in cross-cultural analysis. In 2004, the Hanze University Groningen, the Netherlands established the Geert Hofstede Lecture, a bi-annual conference in the area of intercultural communication. In 2006, Maastricht University, the Netherlands inaugurated a Geert Hofstede Chair in cultural diversity.In 2008 six European universities united to create the Master in International Communication (MIC), and have named themselves the Geert Hofstede Consortium.In 2009 Reputation Institute, which 'recognizes individuals who have greatly contributed to the field of reputation through both scholarship and practice' nominated Hofstede as the Best Scholar of the year.In October 2010, Maastrich University School of Business and Economics launched the Geert Hofstede Fund, aiming at encouraging activities around multicultural interactions and research about the impact of cultural differences.PublicationsHofstede authored and co-authored numerous publications in the field of social psychology.[19] Hofstede, Geert (July 1978). 'The Poverty of Management Control Philosophy'. The Academy of Management Review (Academy of Management) 3 (3): 450461. doi:10.2307/257536. JSTOR257536. Hofstede, Geert (July 1967). 'The Game of Budget Control: How to Live with Budgetary Standards and Yet be Motivated by Them'. OR (Operational Research Society) 20 (3): 388390. JSTOR3008751. Hofstede, Geert (December 1983). 'Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values'. Adminis..</p>
We will explore the culture of Peru using Geert Hofstede’s 5-D Model.The five categories1 are:
Power Distance (PDI): This dimension expresses the degree to which the less powerful members of a society accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. The fundamental issue here is how a society handles inequalities among people. People in societies exhibiting a large degree of power distance accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. In societies with low power distance, people strive to equalize the distribution of power and demand justification for inequalities of power.
Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV): The high side of this dimension, called Individualism, can be defined as a preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only. Its opposite, Collectivism, represents a preference for a tightly-knit framework in society in which individuals can expect their relatives or members of a particular in-group to look after them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. A society's position on this dimension is reflected in whether people’s self-image is defined in terms of “I” or “we.”
Dimensiones Culturales De Hofstede Pdf En
Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS): The masculinity side of this dimension represents a preference in society for achievement, heroism, assertiveness and material reward for success. Society at large is more competitive. Its opposite, femininity, stands for a preference for cooperation, modesty, caring for the weak and quality of life. Society at large is more consensus-oriented.
Dimensiones Culturales De Hofstede Pdf Pdf
Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI): The uncertainty avoidance dimension expresses the degree to which the members of a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. The fundamental issue here is how a society deals with the fact that the future can never be known: should we try to control the future or just let it happen? Countries exhibiting strong UAI maintain rigid codes of belief and behavior and are intolerant of unorthodox behavior and ideas. Weak UAI societies maintain a more relaxed attitude in which practice counts more than principles.
Long Term Orientation (LTO): The long-term orientation dimension can be interpreted as dealing with society’s search for virtue. Societies with a short-term orientation generally have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth. They are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results. In societies with a long-term orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on situation, context and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results.
5-D Model: Peru
Power Distance (PDI)
There is ample evidence for Peru´s intermediate to high PDI score of 64 at organizational level. In general, it is possible to find rather tall, centralized structural arrangements. By the same token, there are larger proportions of supervisory personnel and wage differentials. Some observers trace back Peru´s PDI score to the tightly structured and centralized Inca empire; others point out that it has been fostered by colonial and authoritarian governments as well as the church. However, subordinates still perceive superiors as difficult to access and do not trust them. Superiors consider subordinates as being of a different kind and ask for respect – particularly if the latter are of black or indigenous origin.
Individualism / Collectivism (IDV)
With a value of 16 Peru shows a very collectivistic score, in line with most other Latin American countries. Among other consequences, it is interesting to highlight that in general people here find large companies attractive and that, particularly among blue collar workers, the involvement with the company is moral – and not calculative. Managers endorse more traditional points of view and only slowly start supporting employee initiative and group activity. In general they aspire to conformity and prefer having security over having autonomy in their position.
Masculinity / Femininity (MAS)
Dimensiones De Hofstede
At 42 Peru is a rather feminine society. This trait has been the source of many cultural clashes and misunderstandings. For expatriates, locals were aloof or downright lazy. The actual reasons, however, were the locals weaker achievement motivation, their preference for human contacts and family over recognition or wealth, and the marginal role awarded to work by large sectors of the population.
Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI)
At 87 Peru scores high on UAI – and so do the majority of Latin American countries that belonged to the Spanish kingdom. These societies show a strong need for rules and elaborate legal systems in order to structure life. The individual’s need to obey these laws, however, is weak. Corruption is widespread, the black market sizeable and, in general, you´ll see a deep split between the “pays réel” and the “pays légal”. To make things worse, in these socienties, if rules cannot be kept, additional rules are dictated. According to Peruvian Nobel prize winner Vargas Llosa, “A logical consequence of such abundance is that each legal disposition has another that corrects, denies or mitigates it. That means, in other words, that those who are immersed in such a sea of juridical contradictions live transgressing the law, or that – perhaps even more demoralizing – within such a structure, any abuse or transgression may find a legal loophole that redeems or justifies it.
Long Term Orientation (LTO) https://renewless579.weebly.com/blog/libre-kite-buggy-parts.
There is no data available for Peru on this dimension.
5-D Model: United States
Power Distance (PDI)
The United States scores low on this dimension (40) which underscores the American premise of “liberty and justice for all.” This is also evidenced by the focus on equal rights in all aspects of American society and government. Within American organizations, hierarchy is established for convenience, superiors are always accessible and managers rely on individual employees and teams for their expertise. Both managers and employees expect to be consulted and information is shared frequently. At the same time, communication is informal, direct and participative.
Individualism / Collectivism (IDV)
The United States, with a score of 91 on this dimension, is a highly individualistic culture. This translates into a loosely-knit society in which the expectation is that people look after themselves and their immediate families. There is also a high degree of geographical mobility in the United States and most Americans are accustomed to doing business with, or interacting, with strangers. Consequently, Americans are not shy about approaching their prospective counterparts in order to obtain or seek information. In the business world, employees are expected to be self-reliant and display initiative. Also, within the exchange-based world of work, hiring and promotion decisions are based on merit or evidence of what one has done or can do.
Masculinity / Femininity (MAS)
The United States score 62 on this dimension and is considered a “masculine” society. Behavior in school, work, and play are based on the shared values that people should “strive to be the best they can be” and that “the winner takes all”. As a result, Americans will tend to display and talk freely about their “successes” and achievements in life, here again, another basis for hiring and promotion decisions in the workplace. Typically, Americans “live to work” so that they can earn monetary rewards and attain higher status based on how good one can be. Conflicts are resolved at the individual level and the goal is to win.
Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI)
The US scores 46 on this dimension and therefore, American society is what one would describe as “uncertainty accepting.” Consequently, there is a larger degree of acceptance for new ideas, innovative products and a willingness to try something new or different, whether it pertains to technology, business practices, or foodstuffs. Americans tend to be more tolerant of ideas or opinions from anyone and allow the freedom of expression. At the same time, Americans do not require a lot of rules and are less emotionally expressive than higher-scoring cultures.
Long Term Orientation (LTO) https://renewless579.weebly.com/blog/eid-mubarak-audio-songs-download.
The United States scores 29 on this dimension and is a short-term oriented culture. As a result, it is a culture focused on traditions and fulfilling social obligations. Given this perspective, American businesses measure their performance on a short-term basis, with profit and loss statements being issued on a quarterly basis. This also drives individuals to strive for quick results within the work place. There is also a need to have the “absolute truth” in all matters.
Comments are closed.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |