Introduction
Since more than two decades, the findings and studies relating to the need and application of culture has been influenced by the framework of Geert Hofstede. He is a renowned Dutch anthropologist. During the year 1970, Geert Hofstede presented various dimensions of culture by evaluating values concerning work of International business management employees. Geert’s most master peace of work was recognised when he divided culture into four different dimensions: Power distance, uncertainty avoidance, Individualism versus collectivism, and masculinity versus femininity. In the year 1991,Geert Hofstede demonstrated a fifth dimension of culture. Hofstede explains the long term orientation as featured by continuation of existence, forming relations by the level of a post, and containing a feeling of disgrace. The short term orientation is featured as having a perfect balance and saving self image concerning the beliefs and traditions and a mutual sharing of good regards(Svend,Hollensen,2007).
The motivation of his framework throughout the academic background, and the results occurring through his findings would imply the validity of the application of such cultural frameworks. Although with the implementation of his cultural frameworks, its reliability had not been fully approved. This may be because his cultural framework being more responsive in terms of standardised point of view than its psychological characteristics(Geert, Hofstede,1991). Enormous findings and research reflect about the actual validity of hofstede’s cultural framework. These in-dept findings which have concentrated on people are cross cultural dimensions, which depicted some unreliability on its framework. Few have discovered essential overlap on several dimensions of culture and rest have noticed some cultural dimensions to be less valid. On an aggregate, these studies imply the emergence of finding the reliability of hofstede’s cultural framework (Carlos M. Rodriguez,2005).In addition to Hoftstede’s cultural framework there are a number of other frameworks that developed concurrently such as Fons Trompanaar’s framework , the Chinese Value Survey , Schwartz’s Value Survey , The Wolrd Value Surveys and more. However, I would like to furtherly address and compare the Chinese Value Survey and Trompanaar’s framework against Hofstede’s cultural framework.The Chinese Value Survey was developed by Bond and a group of research workers known collectively as the Chinese Culture Connection in response to their perceived need to measure and evaluate cultural values within the setting of a Chinese social value system that is derived from the Confucian ethos.The underlying human universals measured by Bond and his co-workers do not fit with any extant survey evaluating Western value responses. The values measured by Bond and his colleagues remain universal in nature, but they also include some values which are uniquely Confucian (Hofstede, 1991). Examples are respect for tradition, humility, filial piety, and protecting one’s face .
On the other hand Fons Trompenaars is another Dutch expert of cultural framework, had founded seven cultural orientation in his book “Riding the waves of culture” (1997). These seven dimensions are