Hofstede, Trompeenaars, and Javidan conducted three different research studies with the aim of establishing the key values from which they developed different dimensions that are used to define organizational culture across different countries, thus establish the types of cultures (Trompeenaars, 364). However, their research strategies were different. For instance, Hofstede conducted an employee interview across sixty-six countries. He only used the results of forty countries. On the other hand, Trompeenaars’ research was based on 40 countries. He collected data through questionnaires from over forty-six thousand managers. Javidan research was conducted in over sixty-two countries and involved more than one hundred and seventy investigators.
The results of their findings establish that there is the need for organizations to understand the effect of culture on their employees, the management and also operations in a multicultural workplace. Culture has very different definitions across different countries. For example, according to Hofstede, Culture is a mental programming of the brain which differentiates one member of a particular group from the others (Kirkman, Lowe and Gibson, 286).
The definitions vary because different people within different places have different ways of doing things. Javidan introduces the concept of culture as an element which has more to it than merely a collection of values. He achieves this by introducing the actual practices in which the members of that group deal with the challenges that face them. He also emphasizes on the impact of culture on the individual (Javidan et al, 69).
The term management differs from one country to another. One thus requires historical and cultural knowledge so as to understand its problems and processes. Furthermore, management cannot be isolated from the activities that take place in the society. It interacts with the daily practices in schools, family, and government, religious and scientific beliefs and even in politics. The management theories are thus interdisciplinary, and they become even more interdisciplinary after crossing the national borders
The variances across cultures can be established using the bipolar dimensions. These dimensions bring out how a society operates more so their management processes and also the most appropriate theories which can be applied in their management style. The three researchers developed different dimensions.
Hofstede
Hofstede commenced his researched by examining the ethical practices within an organization from where he established the four dimensions of culture (Hofstede, 82). The four dimensions according to his research are individualism, the element of power distance, masculinity and femininity and the last one is uncertainty avoidance. Later he together with Bond introduced the fifth dimension which is the long and short term orientation (Hofstede, 89).
Hofstede emphasized on values as the root of culture. He adopts a general strategy on the theoretical interpretation which is followed by a demographic factor to identify the cultural dimensions. In addition to that, he developed an onion diagram with the aim of identifying the ideal relationship which later formed the base of cross-cultural research. It also provided a technique for studying cultural variances including multinational management.
However, his theory has received several criticisms. Three main areas are addressed by the critics. His research is based over forty years ago, and therefore its validity is questionable. In addition to that, there is little statistical support to back up his research and the research was conducted in a few companies which are not sufficient to represent the entire population. He also over summarizes the wide scope of multinational cultural elements into only five dimensions. His research does not consider all the aspects of culture in different nations.
Javidan
Hofstede's research formed the basis of the work done by Javidan. The research by Javidan was conducted to validate the national dimensions of culture and bring out their relationship with leadership. It is an extension of the research by Hofstede which factors in leadership in relation to culture. They wanted to develop designs which are more cross-cultured and verifiable (Javidan et al., 899).
Javidan defines culture as the shared values, identities which result from a common experience of the members and it is transferred from one generation to the other. He added four more dimensions to the ones already established by Hofstede. These four are humane orientation, the other one is future orientation, in-group collectivism, and the last one is gender egalitarianism (Javidan et al, 70).
Trompenaar
According to Trompeenaar, Many researchers try to develop models for changing management across cultures. However, they underestimate how hard it is to develop such a strategy. For instance, by changing the current management system, they throw away the already existing best practices. With time, they have established that attempting to change the organization's culture is contradictory because the organization tries to preserve its own existence. It has thus changed the perception of the researchers to viewing change, not as opposing continuity but rather a difference. For instance, companies need change so as to preserve the profitability of the organization and also the competence of the organization (Trompeenaars, 361).
He established seven dimensions which were in line with Charles Tuner. These seven dimensions were universalism vs. particularism, which was followed by individualism vs. communitarianism, neutral vs. emotional, specific vs. diffuse, achievement vs. ascription, attitude towards time and the last one was attitude towards the environment.
Similarities
There were a number of similarities between the three cross-cultural theories. For example, in the three theories, cultural values, and norms were identified as one of the major elements behind the practices of a particular group. In addition to that, all the three researchers developed dimensions which were used to measure and determine the cultural practices across different nations.
Hofstede and Javidan theories have much in common. One of the similarities is that the two theories share some dimensions for example UA, long term and short term orientation and power distance. In addition to that they the four dimensions brought out by Hofstede are also incorporated by Javidan.
Differences
There were also differences in the three perspectives more so on the variables used to establish the dimensions and also how these dimensions are established. As a matter of fact, it is these differences that makes it hard to appraise the three research theories.
There are also different in terms of the time frame of the research, countries used, the number of organizations used and forms of data collection. For instance, Hofstede conducted an employee interview across sixty-six countries. On the other hand, Trompeenaars research was based in 40 countries Javidan research was conducted in over sixty-two countries
Javidan's research is also more modern as compared to the rest since it is more current with the modern day state. Javidan also separates Hofstede's masculinity and femininity dimension and in its place, replaced it with the Gender equalitarianism dimension (Magnusson, 186)
Research Gap and Solution
The three theories lack consistency, more so on the issue of validity which causes confusion. For instance, besides different results, the three researchers use one though not similar cultural score to establish and determine the independent variable. The best way to fix the issue is through conducting a final research that embraces all the three theories. In addition to that, the research will be based on a wider scope so as to enhance its validity.
Conclusion
In conclusion, with advancing technology, it is very vital for to understand the different cultures and also how to communicate with others more so in organizations interested in globalization. Culture also has an impact on leadership, and thus, affects multinational organizations. Through cultural knowledge, organizations can better understand international behavior (Qamar et al., 85) In addition to that the different results from various places indicate that various measures are appropriate to explain the cultural practices in different places.
Works cited
Hofstede, Geert. "Cultural Constraints in Management Theories.” Academy of Management Perspectives 7.1 (1993): 81-94. Web.
Javidan, Mansour., House, Robert., Dorfman, Peter, W., Hanges, Paul, J and De Luque, Mary Sully. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Cultures and their Consequences: A Comparative Review of Globe's and Hofstede's approaches.” Journal of International Business Studies, 37.6 (2006): 897- 914. Web.
Javidan, Mansour., House, Robert., Dorfman, Peter, W., and De Luque, Mary Sully. "In the Eye of the Beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project Globe.” Academy of Management Perspectives 20.1 (2006): 67-90. Web.
Kirkman, Bradley, L., Lowe, Kevin, B., and Gibson, Cristina, B. A quarter century of culture's consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values framework.Journal of International Business Studies, 37.3 (2006): 285- 320. Web.
Magnusson, Peter., Wilson, Rick, T., Zdravkovic, Srdan., Zhou, Xin, Joyce nd Westjohn, Stanford, A. “Breaking through the Cultural Clutter.” International Marketing Review, 25.2 (2008): 183- 201. Web.
Ahsan, Qamar., Saqib, Muneer., Ahmad, Jusoh and Halimah, Idris. “The relationship between organizational conduct and national culture.” Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 5.2 (2013): 82-88. Web.
Trompenaars, Fons and Peter Woolliams. "A New Framework for Managing Change across Cultures". Journal of Change Management 3.4 (2002): 361-375. Web.
