Essay on Geert Hofstede and Uncertainty Avoidance

Submitted By Jing3L2
Words: 637
Pages: 3

MGMT321 Final case analysis 1

1) First, Lincoln has low power distance index because of its management style and value. In low power distance cultures, superiors treat subordinates with respect and share blame and responsibility. Lincoln’s superiors try to avoid barriers between superiors and workers, intends to build close relationship with workers and set flat organizational hierarchy. Then, Lincoln scores high on Individualism and Masculinity due to the culture of competition. Individualism means high self-oriented identities and the core value of Lincoln-competition and incentives create efficiency and develop potential-emphasizes the idea of self-oriented. Because of the compensation policies that wages based on piecework and a year-end bonus based on workers’ contributions emphasize the idea of competition and worker’s own efficiency. Additionally, the compensation and monetary incentives of Lincoln attract those people who pursue success in money and possessions and represent the concept of Masculinity. The uncertainty avoidance is relatively high because clear orders facilitate the efficiency that is required and associated with worker’s wages. However, because of the flexibility in manufacture process, the uncertainty avoidance cannot be too high. Finally, Lincoln tends to be of short-term orientation because Lincoln heavily focuses on worker’s steadiness and stability, which are associated with productivity and efficiency, and the “truth” (or result) of outcome rather than virtue.
2) SAS scores low on Power Distance Index as well as Lincoln by treating people fairly and equally, setting few organizational levels, both superiors and workers sharing blames and responsibilities and creating close relation between them. However, SAS represents low scores on both Individualism and Masculinity. Compared to Lincoln, SAS tend to be of collectivism because the core principle aims to create the sense of belonging and family, and avoid high pressure and Oracle culture. Sharing facility of SAS and representing care from superiors show that SAS aims to make workers belong to the group that take care of them in exchange of loyalty. Furthermore, SAS use bottom-up decision making (ex. never set up specific financial goal), provide flexibility to their workers and never measure outcomes, which are likely immeasurable. That represents low uncertainty avoidance. Finally, SAS scores high on long-term orientation for two main reasons: First, SAS focus on company’s long-term virtue and philosophy, which is to create sense of belonging of their workers. Second, SAS tends to take a long-term view of all issues instead of current outcomes.