Contribution of Hofstede and Trompenaars in Understanding the Cultural Differences – Coursework Example

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Contribution of Hofstede and Trompenaars in Understanding the Cultural Differences" is an excellent example of coursework on management. In society, organized groups of individuals live in harmony through shared functional relations. This relationship is developed and defined by their norms, values and shared interests and experience. These values, beliefs, expectations, and goals are the constituents of culture and they result in cultural differences between different groups. According to Schein (2004 qt. Browaeys and Price 2008), culture can be defined as: "... a set of basic assumptions - shared solutions to universal problems of external adaptation (how to survive) and internal integration (how to stay together) - which have evolved over time and are handed down from one generation to the next. ” It is a creation of ‘ the collective programming of the mind’ (Hofstede, 1991), that is, it is achieved only through the dealings among the members of any particular group.

There are different levels of society including organization, class, region, and nation. The cultural differences are found at all levels of society however, they are particularly compelling at the national level.

The fundamental system of values is neither visible nor understandable therefore; understanding the cultural differences among various groups is an immense task. Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions Vs Trompenaars Cultural Dimensions Two Dutchmen, Geert Hofstede, and Fons Trompenaars have made enough contributions to understanding the cultural differences that may vary from country to country. Trompenaars’ research published in 1993 and extended in 1997 was derived principally from the work of sociologist Talcort Parsons. Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars (1993) apply the parameters to capitalism in the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, France, Sweden, and the Netherlands.

Hapmden- Turner, and Trompenaars (1997) apply them to the east (Richard Mead 1998). On the other hand, the dimensions used by Hofstede in his research were empirically derived and he conducted his research between 1967 and 1973. Hofstede and Trompenaars selected different variables in their research work. These cultural dimensions have been shown in the given diagram. When it comes to drawing a comparison between the Hofstede research and that of Trompenaars, then it becomes challenging because both types of research have explored different cultures.

The comparison of the two cultural types of research shows that both are supplementing one another rather than reproducing the work. Various dissimilarities have also found in the findings of the two types of research. There are different reasons because of which both types of research are showing some conflicting results. Hodgetts and Luthans (2000) have explained that these differences are due to the different time frames of the two studies, showing the cultural change has taken place. For example, Trompenaars’ findings categorize the communist countries including Russia, the Czech Republic, and Hungary as individualistic, however, these countries have communist past.


Gielen, P. Uwe, Jefferson M. Fish and Juris G. Draguns, 2004, ‘Handbook of culture, therapy, and healing’, Routledge, pp. 378-381

Hofstede, G. Geert Hofstede. “ Cultural Dimensions: Germany vs. Turkey.” (2008)>

Mead, Richard, 1998, ‘International management: cross-cultural dimensions’, Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 22-50

Nordhaug, Odd and Paul N. Gooderham, 2003, ‘International management: cross-boundary challenges

Management, organizations, and business series’,Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 131-144

Vance, Charles and Yong Paik, 2006, ‘Managing a global workforce: challenges and opportunities in international human resource management’, M.E. Sharpe, pp. 43-48

Workman, D. “German Culture Leadership Style.” 2008

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us