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 Upon his graduation from Delft in , Hofstede joined the Dutch military, working as a technical officer in the Dutch army for two years. After leaving the military he worked in industry from to , starting as a factory hand in Amsterdam.
He founded and managed the Personnel Research Department. Since his retirement in , Hofstede has visited numerous universities worldwide to educate students on his theoretical approaches and to continue his research in this field.
Hofstede received many honorary awards,  and in was made a Knight in the Order of the Netherlands Lion Orde van de Nederlandse Leeuw. In , Hofstede married Maaike A. 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. In , he received his 9th honorary doctorate in Prague, at the age of Hofstede is a researcher in the fields of organizational studies and more concretely organizational culture , also cultural economics and management. His studies demonstrated that there are national and regional cultural groups that influence the behavior of societies and organizations.
When 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 world. 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 the Netherlands, two very close European countries.
These early experiences helped translate into a lifelong career in cross-cultural research. 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. At 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 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 , 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.
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, were 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. Between and , 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.
Hofstede'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. 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 , 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 book, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. In , a third edition of Cultures and Organizations: In this book, there were two new dimensions that were added, and the number of countries covered was between 76 and 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 culture indicates too much determinism that might be linked to fundamental flaws in his methodology.
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 among 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. To avoid this fallacy and resulting confusion Brewer and Venaik recommend avoiding the use of the Hofstede dimension scores in management research and training. See more popular or the latest prezis.
Constrain to simple back and forward steps. Copy code to clipboard. Add a personal note: Houston, we have a problem! Send the link below via email or IM Copy. Present to your audience Start remote presentation.
Do you really want to delete this prezi? Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again. Comments 0 Please log in to add your comment. Transcript of Hofstede's definition of long-short term orientation Clearly cultural.
Retrieved August 19 from: Long term orientation Fifth dimension of Hofstede Difference between East and West First called "Confucian dynamism" Long-term orientation Hofstede's definition of long-short term orientation Be prepared Delay short-term material or reward. Care more about immediate gratification.
Long-term orientation versus short-term orientation is one of five cultural dimensions identified by Geert Hofstede. Cultures demonstrating a long-term orientation emphasize preparation for the future, while cultures demonstrating a short-term orientation are more concerned with short-term gratification.
Let’s start with a definition of Long Term Orientation, so we’re all on the same page: “ A national culture attribute that emphasizes the future, thrift and persistence. It’s likely that you can find more definition, but this one makes sense and is compact.
On the contrary, short-term orientation focuses on immediate and short term goals. It is a concept relating culture to the past, present and future, and how people perceive it along with their long term goals. Browse the definition and meaning of more terms similar to Long-Term Orientation. Hofstede: Long Term / Short Term Hofstede' new dimension is based on the study of Michael Bond in Hong Kong which had noted that Hofstede’s previous four cultural dimensions did not adequately reflect Asian perspectives on culture.
Long-Term Orientation is the fifth dimension of Hofstede which was added after the original four to try to distinguish the difference in thinking between the East and West. From the original IBM studies, this difference was something that could not be deduced. Blog Long Term Orientation vs. Short Term Orientation (LTO) A recent American Society for Training & Development (ASTD) survey indicated that failure to consider intercultural differences is one of the reasons that 72% of multinational companies were not satisfied with their global training initiatives.