Site Loader
Order Essay
111 Town Square Pl, Jersey City, NJ 07310, U.S.
111 Town Square Pl, Jersey City, NJ 07310, U.S.



We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now


Submitted by: Giulia Maree Nigro
Due: 22/1/18, 11:55pm
Tutor: Alix Martinez
Tutorial Time: 12pm Wednesday, TLC 317
Word Count: /1000 (+/- 10%)
Part A: Hofstede’s Five Cultural Dimensions

Masculinity vs. Femininity
This dimension refers to the values held by a culture and whether they be more masculine in nature, or feminine (Velo ; Chaffe-Stengel 2011). Cultures that read higher in masculinity tend to be assertive and hold values that are success focused including the acquisition of money and material goods as the result of hard work (Luthans ; Doe 2017). In contrast, cultures that rate higher on the femininity scale tend value characteristics such as teamwork, a friendly work environment and lowering stress levels within the workplace (Luthans ; Doe 2017).

Individualism vs. Collectivism
This dimensions explains that societies that are individualistic tend to identify themselves as individuals and not part of a larger group, and are primarily concerned with themselves and their immediate family (Velo ; Chaffe-Stengel 2011). Comparatively, collectivists prefer to work within a group environment, and identify themselves are part of a larger team, showing more loyalty than individualists (Luthans ; Doe 2017).

Power Distance
The Power Distance dimension looks at the expectation and acceptance within a culture of unequal distribution of power amongst those who are less powerful (Kruger, 2016). Cultures with higher levels of Power Distance are highly obedient to their superiors and respect the hierarchical structure and their position within it (Velo ; Chaffe-Stengel, 2011). Whereas the culture within a low Power Distance society will not concern themselves with status and authority, but will encourage involvement from all members and see them more as equal parties (Velo ; Chaffe-Stengel 2011).

Uncertainty Avoidance
Uncertainty Avoidance is a dimension that looks at a cultures level of uncomfortability with situations that are ambiguous and hold risk (Luthans ; Doe 2017). Cultures that rate highly in this dimension favour structure and stability and aren’t welcoming of change, whereas cultures that have low Uncertainty Avoidance are more prone to embrace change and encourage ideas and innovation (Velo & Chaffe-Stengel 2011).

Long-term Orientation Vs. Short term
This dimension looks at time orientation, and is divided into long-term vs. short-term. Societies that are Long-term in orientation are focused on investing in the future and are highly adaptable to change in order to plan long-term (Luthans & Doe 2017). In contrast, societies that Short-term oriented value tradition above innovation, and strive to obtain fast results, and ignore the notion of investing in the long-term (Luthans & Doe 2017).

Part B: 450 words

CULTURAL PROFILE – Highly collectivist
– High power distance.

– Live by masculine values
– Not threatened by ambiguity
-Invest in the long-term.

– Not highly adaptable to changing situations (Hofstede Insights 2018). – Highly individualistic
– Low power distance.

– Lives by masculine values
– Neutral stance on unforeseen
– Do not invest within the long-term
– Not highly adaptable to changing situations (Hofstede Insights 2018). -Individualistic
– Low power distance
-Lives by masculine values
– Rely on structure and precision in order to avoid uncertainty.

– Are adaptable to future change
– Invest in the long-term to achieve goals.

(Hofstede Insights 2018). – Highly collectivist
– Low power distance
– Lives by a masculine values
– Highly uncomfortable with ambiguous situations
– Not prepared for change
-Not adaptable or invest in the future.

(Hofstede Insights 2018).

– China accept a hierarchical structure as opposed to Australia where the hierarchy is a reference point (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– In Australia, employees are encouraged to collaborate and are asked for their input (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– Both have hierarchical structure but for different reasons (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– Both see networking as a crucial factor (Liang & Whitely 2003) Differences:
– China accepts a hierarchical structure where as Germany is more open and collaborative (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– Rank is not as important in Germany, and control is un-welcomed (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– Seniority is correlated with place in hierarchy (Busse, Sun & Zhu, 2014).

– Both use direct communication (Hofstede Insights 2018). Differences:
– China has a communist government whereas Mexico is a federal representative federal republic (World Atlas 2018)

– Both have great respect for the hierarchy (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– Know their place within society and do not aspire to more (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– China is comfortable with unforeseen circumstances and risk (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– Australia has a neutral view on unkwon situations (Hofstede Insights 2018). Differences:
– Germany is uncomfortable with ambiguity and rely on expertise unlike China (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– Germany have a strong need for security (Hofstede Insights 2018).

Similarities: Differences:
– Mexico is highly uncomfortable with ambiguous situations (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– Mexico keeps within the norm and discourages unconventional thoughts and behaviours (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– Strong work ethic
– Both follow instruction
(Hofstede Insights 2018).

– China is a collective culture whereas Australia is individualistic (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– Australia find great fulfilment in solo achievements (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– Both have in-groups they identify with
-Both have the same strong work ethic (Liang & Whitely 2003) Differences:
– German is highly individualistic as opposed to China (Hofstede Insights 2018).

-China is more obliged to employ family due to poor welfare system (Schmidt & Frese 2011).

– Loyalty falls within particular in-groups
– Out groups treated in-differently or mis-trusted (Schmidt & Frese 2011). Differences:

– Share high collectivism (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– Both committed and loyal to their close and extended family within business (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– It is common to sacrifice leisure time in order for work in China (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– Common that people leave families behind to seek better employment in China (Hofstede Insights 2018.

– Both countries are masculine in regards to achieving their objectives.

– Both share the common goal to provide for family and live comfortably through hard work (Liang & Whitely 2003) Differences:
– Important of performance instilled at a young age in Germany via schooling (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– Status is shown through material goods in Germany, as opposed to knowledge gained (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– Both China and Germany value more masculine values when achieving objectives (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– Work takes priority over leisure time (Hofstede Insights 2018). Differences:

– Both Mexico and China value more masculine values when achieving objectives (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– Both are driven by success and work is of vital importance over leisure time (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– China invests in the long-term and are more pragmatic than Australia (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– Australia is less adaptable to change and seeks fast solutions to immediate problems (Hofstede Insights 2018)..

– Both have strong economies
– Both want to better their situations
(Hofstede Insights 2018). Differences:

– Both Germany and China invest in the long-term (Hofstede Insights 2018).

– Both countries can adapt from the norm in order to adapt to change (Hofstede Insights 2018). Differences:
– Mexico is short-term orientated in contrast to China
– Mexico is unable to adapt to change and seeks short term solutions


Part C: Reccomendations 450 words Present between three (3) to five (5) recommendations to Huawei, on negotiating and implementing their expansion into Germany.

Recommendations based on other companies and their work
In terms of power distance we will have to manage them this way
If can’t find specific company, use hofstede example

Reference List

Kruger, F 2016, The Influence of Culture on Customer Satisfaction: An Empirical Analysis across Countries, Springer, Germany.

Luthans, F ; Doe J.P 2017, International Management: Culture, Strategy ; Behaviour, McGraw-Hill Education, New York.

Velo, V ; Chaffe-Stengel, P.M 2011, Cross-Cultural Management, Business Expert Press, New York.

“Huawei, based in China, are looking at expanding some aspects of their overseas operations into: Mexico, Australia and Germany. You have been asked by Huawei to provide advice on how best to handle the cultural differences that may arise during this process.

Part C: 450 words Present between three (3) to five (5) recommendations to Huawei, on negotiating and implementing their expansion into Germany.

Recommendations based on other companies and their work
In terms of power distance we will have to manage them this way
If can’t find specific company, use hofstede example

NOTE: You should (must) focus on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and your analysis from your table above to support your recommendations.”

Post Author: admin


I'm Elizabeth!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out