crossvergence wondering the hofstede paradigm
Excerpt via Essay:
Crossvergence: Asking yourself the Hofstede paradigm
One of the well-known and popular techniques of analyzing dissimilarities between civilizations is that of Geert Hofstede’s platform, which conceptualizes different civilizations as having fundamental, core values concerning power range, masculine and feminine norms, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and foreseeable future orientation. However , Kelley, MacNab, Worthley (2006) in their article “Crossvergence and cultural traits: A longitudinal test in the Hong Kong, Taiwan and United States banking sectors” criticize the Hofstede framework as excessively rigid and static. Cultures are not surrounded entities, but rather are permeable structures. The authors apply the concept of crossvergence to the Hong Kong and Oriental banking areas, comparing the cultural distinctions between Hk, Taiwan, plus the United States – the latter “an often believed, dissimilar region” from these kinds of Asian international locations – throughout the years 1985-2000 (Kelley, MacNab, Worthley 06\: 68).
One of the problems with employing Hofstede’s framework when analyzing Asia is the fact there has for ages been a tendency of Westerners to determine Asia in general merely since more collectivist than on its own, without sufficiently appreciating the nuances among different regional environments. Also this is addressed in a comparison of Hong Kong and China. “Asians are occasionally culturally, and arguably carelessly, lumped collectively in the remedying of management problems on the basis that they have a common value system (Fukuda and Wheeler, 1988). This likeness assumption is usually dangerous intended for researchers and practitioners alike, as a number of studies have demonstrated tendencies intended for cultural dissimilarities among different Asian groupings and within just Greater China” (Kelley, MacNab, Worthley 2006: 69).
It should be noted that Hofstede does recognize that ethnicities can change. Nevertheless , Hofstede is convinced that civilizations tend to remain static when compared with one another – in other words, whether or not Japan may grow more individual given the shifts and changes in modern day global contemporary society, it is nonetheless more collectivist than the Us. According to Hofstede: “countries could all have relocated [to different levels on ethnical dimensions] without changes in their common ranking” (Kelley, MacNab, Worthley 2006: 70). However , the idea of the convergence – curve – crossvergence (CDC) trends suggests a more dynamic synergy and better pliability of cultural values. Cultures may possibly converge (blend) or diverge), but they may also engage in crossvergence, changing as a result of different economical circumstances and cultural exposures to different nations and ideals. This could results in an elementary shift in cultural orientation away from it is original position on Hofstede’s measures. “The concept of crossvergence is vital to our position since it addresses the idea that as economies develop, interact and progress, there will be an impact on traditions, creating a exceptional type of personality. Altered mixes of earlier standard ethnical identity might evolve to be able to meet new challenges and also to respond better to exterior pressures like global competition. For example , it may become fewer accurate to generally consider Asians as highly collectivistic without