Cultural differences between Germany and China. Geert Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory

Table of contents

List of figures

List of attachments

1. Introduction

2 Conceptual and theoretical foundations
2.1 Culture and cultural standards
2.2 Cultural dimensions

3 Cultural differences between Germany and China: The cultural dimensions theory according to Geert Hofstede
3.1 Procedure and investigation
3.2 Germany and China in the context of the five cultural dimensions
3.2.1 Power distance
3.2.2 Uncertainty avoidance
3.2.3 Masculinity vs. Femininity
3.2.4 Individualism vs. Collectivism
3.2.5 Long-term vs. short-term orientation

4 A critical appraisal: Relevance, praise and criticism of Hofstede's work

5 Conclusion and outlook

Bibliography

Annex:

"According to a well-known metaphor, culture is to people like water to fish: The water goes unnoticed as long as the fish remains in it. However, if he is outside his usual world, he painfully feels the consequences of his movement" (Blom/Meier 2004: 35).

List of figures

Fig.1: Culture as an iceberg model

Fig.2: Comparison of German and Chinese cultural standards

Fig.3: Equality in Germany and China: More ideal than reality

Fig.4: Characteristics of the five dimensions for Germany and China

List of attachments

Annex 1: Hofstede as a basis for further important cultural studies

Appendix 2: Features of low and high power distance

Annex 3: Characteristics of weak and strong uncertainty avoidance

Annex 4: Characteristics of feminine and masculine societies

Annex 5: Characteristics of individualistic and collectivist societies

Annex 6: Characteristics of long-term and short-term orientation

1. Introduction

"The world is full of confrontations between people, groups and peoples who think, feel and act differently. At the same time, these people, groups and peoples face common problems, the solution of which requires cooperation" (Hofstede/Hofstede 2009:1f).

In the course of advancing globalization, in which national borders are becoming increasingly blurred, contact with non-Germans in professional life is becoming an everyday phenomenon. A certain degree of knowledge about other cultures and intercultural competence thus becomes a necessity for successful cooperation (cf. Emrich 2011: 20; Thomas 2003: 7). Internationally active companies that want to sell their products abroad must be prepared to deal with the cultural characteristics of their business partners¹ and customers, because despite all the westernization tendencies, the individual national cultures differ greatly from each other.

China, one of the biggest beneficiaries of globalization and a continuing export world champion since 2009, plays a major role in the economic considerations of German companies, because bilateral relations have developed to considerable density over the past 40 years. China is Germany's most important economic partner in Asia, while Germany is China's most important trading partner in Europe (see Federal Foreign Office 2013: o. S.). In addition to pure language barriers, however, there are other stumbling blocks that can lead to misunderstandings in cooperation, as the Chinese and Germans have developed different solution strategies for identical problems, which are based on their specific cultural standards or their respective "cultural programming". These peculiarities have often grown through religious, philosophical, and social traditions over a long period of time – in china's case, even over millennia. They are mainly invisible and only come to light in contact with another culture (cf. Wulf 2006: 5). Solid knowledge of one's own or foreign culture as well as of the question of the extent to which they differ from each other is thus becoming increasingly important, so that empathy and understanding for each other can grow.

The first scientist to investigate cultural differences in the late 1960s with the help of a large-scale study was Geert Hofstede. In his famous book "Culture's Consequences", published in 1980, he identifies five central categories that exist in all societies and shows the extent to which people's behavior varies from country to country in these dimensions. His cultural model is regarded as a milestone in cultural research and as an important reference point in the operational-practical context (cf. Kutschker/Schmid 2011: 734), which is why it is also used for analysis in this work.

In order to explain what differences exist between German and Chinese culture and how these can be illustrated with the help of Hofstede's cultural model, an introduction to the concept of culture and the concept of cultural standards is given at the beginning of chapter 2.1. Based on this, a distinction is made between German and Chinese cultural standards. Since hofstede's model works with so-called cultural dimensions, chapter 2.2 deals with the intention and problem of cultural dimensions and identifies further cultural studies², which, in addition to Hofstede, have experienced great resonance and impact. The actual distinction between German and Chinese culture, which is presented here primarily in the context of the corporate and family context, is made in Chapter 3. In order to build up a fundamental understanding of Hofstede's work, important cornerstones of his investigation are outlined in chapter 3.1. Following on from this, the differences between German and Chinese culture are shown in chapter 3.2 on the basis of the five Hofsted cultural dimensions. In chapter 4, Hofstede's study is critically acknowledged, with attention being paid to the praise received, experienced criticism and its overall relevance in cross-cultural research. The work concludes with a summary and outlook in Chapter 5. Here, the most important results of the work, with a focus on Chapter 3, are briefly summarized, before a few concluding words on the important importance of intercultural competences round off the work.

2 Conceptual and theoretical foundations

2.1 Culture and cultural standards

There are countless definitions of the term "culture". As early as the 1950s, scientists found around 164 definitions, which suggests that agreement on what constitutes culture is probably not to be expected (cf. Emrich 2011: 23; Thomas 2003: 21).

Hofstede sees culture as "collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another" (Hofstede/Hofstede 2009:4). Programming is not innate, but is learned as part of the socialization process. A large part of it is already acquired in childhood and continues at school, at work or in partnership (cf. Hofstede/Hofstede 2009: 3f). According to Kutschker/Schmid (2011: 674), collective programming manifests itself in the totality of the shared basic assumptions, values, norms and beliefs, which are expressed in a variety of behaviors and artifacts. They have emerged as a response to the many demands placed on social unity. Thomas sees culture as an orientation system (2003: 22f), which has formed from specific symbols and is handed down in society, i.e. is passed on to subsequent generations. It defines belonging to a society and structures a limited field of action for individuals, ranging from created objects to institutions, ideas and values. Anyone who has gone through such a socialization process for a long time knows what to do and what not to do. In this way, individuals experience confirmation from their social environment if they behave in accordance with the rules and norms, and if they behave differently, they experience direct or indirect disapproval. Corresponding rules and norms are largely unconscious to the members of a culture and are usually only visible through foreign cultural contrasting. In addition, it must not be forgotten that culture is always a collective phenomenon, without any claim to universal validity, since individuals can generally behave differently than their national culture can expect (cf. Büter 2010: 254).

For illustration purposes, culture is often compared to an iceberg that can be divided into two levels – a Concepta and a Percepta level:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig. 1: Culture as an iceberg model

Source: Bolten 2007: 21 (modified).

Accordingly, the Percepta plane contains the visible part of a culture, for which behaviors and artifacts, e.g. clothing, food, architecture and language. While the Concepta plane encompasses all the invisible parts of a culture. It aims in particular at standards, values³, attitudes and basic assumptions (cf. Kutschker/Schmid 2011: 675; Büter 2010: 254f). The invisible part (dealing with emotions, time, conflicts, taboos, truth...) forms about 90% of a culture, which indicates how important it is to be sensitive to the invisible in an intercultural encounter (cf. Treichel 2011: 230f).

Characteristic coping strategies of a culture are called cultural standards. These are typical ways of perceiving, thinking and acting that are considered normal and self-evident by a culture for one's own and others' behavior. Behaviors that move outside a certain boundary are considered abnormal and foreign by the social unit (cf. Thomas 2003: 25). Cultural standards are internalized in the behavior of individuals and therefore difficult to grasp. They can only be raised by members of other cultures (cf. Lotter 2009:110). The following are the most important cultural standards of German and Chinese culture:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fig.2: Comparison of German and Chinese cultural standards

Source: Own presentation based on Schroll-Machl 2003: 74-84; Liang/Kammhuber 2003; 173-181.

Cultural standards are useful because they provide insights into patterns of behaviour typical of the majority of members in a country, and thus constitute an orientation system. The weakness of the culture standard concept lies in the lack of possibility of relating cultures relative to each other, because cultural standards are unique and specific. What is considered an essential feature of one culture can be completely irrelevant to another (cf. Lotter 2009: 111). But if you want to describe and compare cultures via certain basic elements, you need a different concept: The concept of cultural dimensions, as this shifts the consideration from individual to universal categories (cf. Treichel/Furrer-Köttel 2011: 240).

2.2 Cultural dimensions

Cultural dimensions are to be understood as general manifestations that exist in every culture. They are reflected in different areas of life (family, workplace, state, school...) (cf. Kutschker/Schmid 2011: 719) and make it possible to compare different countries with each other. Cultural dimensions can be represented as a continuum and have two opposing poles – a high and a low expression. The point values for the individual countries are always between the two poles and indicate the extent to which two countries differ from each other (cf. Hofstede/Hofstede 2009: 31). It should be noted that classifications may never be regarded as an evaluation (good or bad), but only serve as a description and relative consideration (cf. ibid.: 55). However, it remains to be noted critically that cultural dimensions are to be understood only as a general orientation, since individual behavior of individual persons cannot be explained by them (cf. Büter 2010: 263; Emrich 2011: 66). "Therefore, in describing national cultures we refer to the common elements, but we are not describing individuals. This should be kept in mind" (Hofstede 1980: 34). Büter (2010: 263) sees another problem in the fact that cultural dimensions lead to the formation of country stereotypes. This can lead to a generalization towards the members of a national culture, which can be positive or negative depending on the point of view.

In recent decades, scholars have increasingly tried to capture intercultural differences using cultural dimensions, with the Cultural Studies of Hofstede (1980)⁴, Hall (1985) and Trompenaar (1993) as well as those of the GLOBE study (2004) are considered the most important in cross-cultural management research (cf. Blom/Meier 2004: 47; Lotter 2009: 112). Hofstede is the most frequently cited expert in the field of intercultural comparison and has had a particular influence on cross-cultural research (cf. Kutschler/Schmid 2011: 718), which is why his study is also used in this work for the german-Chinese cultural comparison. The extent to which the other studies are based on its dimensions and that some of them even use the identical dimensions is shown in Annex 1.

3 Cultural differences between Germany and China: The cultural dimensions theory according to Geert Hofstede

3.1 Procedure and investigation

In order to compare cultures and answer the question of whether human behavior can be traced back to certain basic dimensions, Hofstede conducted a large-scale study of 116,000 IBM employees (cf. Lotter 2009: 113). The first major survey took place between 1968-1973. The questionnaire included approximately 150 questions, of which 60 were later used for the analysis. With the help of employees in 72 IBM branches, a total of 60 countries could be included in the study (see Hofstede 2013: o. S). Since all respondents worked in the same company and field of activity, gender and age roughly matched and only nationality varied, Hofstede assumed that differences in the answers had to go back to the respective national culture (cf. Hofstede 1980: 44; Hofstede/Hofstede 2009: 29). Through extensive correlation and factor analyses, Hofstede initially found four dimensions: Power distance, avoidance of uncertainty, masculinity/ femininity as well as Individualism/collectivism. However, it did not stop at the first examination. As early as 1991, a follow-up study was carried out, which was justified by the fact that the questionnaire was not only characterized by Western thinking, but also took into account Eastern views. The new questionnaire was developed by the "Chinese Culture Connection" and answered by 100 students in 23 countries (cf. Hofstede/Hofstede 2009: 37f). The results of the study confirmed the four dimensions previously determined and even found another one that captured the traditionality of a culture. Michael Bond, who led the "Chinese Culture Connection", called it the Confucian dimension. However, since most of the cultures surveyed had never heard of Confucius, Hofstede named them in long-term/short-term orientation and thus completed his cultural model (cf. Kutschker/Schmid 2011: 728).

3.2 Germany and China in the context of the five cultural dimensions

3.2.1 Power distance

The dimension Power distance ⁵ defines Hofstede as "the extent to which less powerful members in a country's society expect and accept that power is unevenly distributed" (Hofstede/Hofstede 2009:59), which is related to how cultures deal with the problem of inequality in society (cf. Hofstede 2001:29). In countries with high MD, children are educated early on to obedience and submission. Age is of particular importance, which is reflected in the principle of seniority. On the other hand, children in cultures with low MD tend to be treated equally. They may contradict their parents and say "no" (cf. Hofstede/Hofstede 2009: 73). Large power distances in the world of work are accompanied by a high number of hierarchical levels that are not questioned. Power is concentrated in a few heads who make all relevant decisions centrally. Status symbols and special privileges make the MD visible to the outside world. In countries with low MD, employees and supervisors consider themselves to be equal by nature. The existing hierarchy is based solely on the practical distribution of roles, which can be exchanged at all times. Companies are set up decentrally with few hierarchical levels. Status symbols for higher-ranking people are considered less desirable. The same parking space, the same toilet and the same canteen should be available for everyone (cf. Hofstede/Hofstede 2009: 74; Kutscher/Schmid 2011: 721f). A tabular comparison of other characteristics for high and low MD within the family and at work is given in Annex 2.

The social power system in China is characterized by a high MD (value: 80), while large power differentials in Germany (value: 35) are rejected. The low value in Germany indicates that members of German society treat each other equally, encourage each other to have a say and make important decisions together. Decisions of a father or even a superior can be questioned and discussed. As a rule, this is not a problem for any of the participants (cf. World Business Culture 2013: o. S.). The German corporate culture is basically characterized by decentralization and flat hierarchies. Legally anchored co-determination rights, works councils and the system of trade unions are strongly established and regulate power differences. Participation on the part of employees is taken for granted, as far as technically and organizationally feasible (cf. Hofstede 2013: o. S.).

China, on the other hand, is one of the countries with very high MD. Inequality, according to the prevailing opinion of society, is perfectly fine, since according to Confucian philosophy, all relationships are based on unequal distribution of power. Therefore, no one would doubt the authority of an elder, a father, a big brother or a boss. The corporate structure is centralized with a large number of executives whose instructions are carried out by the subordinates. Their subordination leads to a high willingness to adapt and excludes criticism of higher-ranking people. Due to the large hierarchical gap, it is very difficult for Chinese to advance career-wise (cf. World Business Culture 2013: o. S.).

As a characteristic example of the strong status thinking in China, Rothlauf (2006: 350f) cites the handling of the business card, which is always handed over standing with both hands. Afterwards, the business card is studied in detail in order to conclude the social position, the title and the profession of the other person. The business partner must also regard the business card as a sign of appreciation and must not simply put it in his pocket, as this would be tantamount to an insult. The typeface and quality of the paper are also accurately patterned, as this tells a Chinese a lot about the rank of the owner.

3.2.2 Uncertainty avoidance

"What is different, is dangerous" or "What is different, is curious" (Hofstede 1991: 119).

The dimension Uncertainty avoidance ⁶ describes how strongly members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain situations or ambiguities and to what extent they try to avoid and control them through laws, written and unwritten rules, technical aids or even religion (cf. Hofstede/Hofstede 2009: 233; Wulf 2006: 60). High UV crops strive to dominate uncertain situations, which is reflected in a variety of laws and regulations. In addition, such cultures are looking for ways to determine future events in more detail, e.g. in meticulously planned timetables or detailed appointment calendars (cf. Lotter 2009: 122f). Children are programmed to feel comfortable in a structured environment. They learn that there are strict rules for what is considered dirty or forbidden (cf. Hofstede/Hofstede 2009: 244). Countries with weak UV tend to have an aversion to formal rules. Laws should be flexible and situationally adaptable. They do not feel threatened by uncertain situations in the future. Children learn that uncertainties are an everyday occurrence and that they need not be afraid of them (cf. Lotter 2009: 122). Further differences for a weak or strong expression of UV are listed in Annex 3.

With a value of 65, Germany is one of the countries with high UV, which is why Germans tend to minimize uncertain situations in their institutions or relationships through rules. In negotiations, Germans generally rely only on the written word of their counterpart (cf. Wulf 2006: 63). The German legal system is also special, because it even has laws in the event that all other laws would be repealed (emergency laws), while in other countries there is sometimes no written constitution at all (cf. Hofstede/Hofstede 2009: 263).

[...]

¹ For better readability, only the male form is used in this work. However, this always implies the female form.

² These are studies with similar objectives, but usually with much smaller samples. The studies were published after Hofstede's publication and build on his cultural dimensions (see Appendix 1).

³ Standards are defined as codes of conduct that should be adhered to in order to avoid sanctions, while values represent views that are considered desirable in a society (cf. Blom/Meier 2004: 43).

⁴ The years represent the time of the first publication.

⁵ Power distance is abbreviated in the further course of the work with MD.

⁶ Uncertainty avoidance is abbreviated as UV in the following.