Leadership and Cooperation in Marketing Channels: A Comparative Empirical Analysis of the U.S., Finland and Poland

(1) The following questions are based on the article entitled “Leadership and Cooperation in Marketing Channels: A Comparative Empirical Analysis of the U.S., Finland and Poland” as well as the Video Module discussion of Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions both of which went above and beyond the textbook description and application of Hofstede’s theory. 

(a) Define and discuss in SUBSTANTIVE DETAIL EACH of the SEVEN dimensions of culture.

In the article entitled “Leadership and Cooperation in Marketing Channels: A Comparative Empirical Analysis of the USA, Finland and Poland” written by Rajiv Mehta, Trina Larsen, Bert Rosenbloom, Jolanta Mazur, and Pia Polsa, the authors defined and discussed seven dimensions of culture.  Culture can be defined as the “set of unique values, norms, attitudes, beliefs, morals, laws, customs, and habits shared by members of a particular group.”  According to Geert Hofstede, culture refers to the “collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one category of people from another.”  Hofstede’s cultural typology is a conceptual framework used to extend one’s knowledge of culture, going beyond customs, traditions, values, and belief systems of a group of people.  In essence, the seven cultural dimensions defined and discussed by Hofstede are power distance, individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, uncertainty (or risk) versus avoidance (weak and strong), short-term versus long-term orientation, indulgence-restraint, and monumentalism-flexhumity.  It is imperative for managers to understand different cultural dimensions in different countries and apply them accordingly.  

Power Distance (Low and High):

The dimension of power distance reflects the extent to which power resides in the hands of a few and, therefore, is distributed unequally in contrast to those societies in which power is distributed equally among members of a society.  In other words, the degree to which less powerful members of society accept that influence is unequally divided is the measure of power distance.  Inequality is defined from below, not from above.  Society’s level of inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders.  In low power distance, there is a greater practice of equality among people and people have low dependence needs.  Because participation in decision making from subordinates is encouraged, there is more trust in others and latent harmony exists among superiors and subordinates.  Also, the concept of low power distance allows hierarchy for convenience which provides a means to an end.  Overall, superiors are more accessible to subordinates, and change comes through evolution.  In the concept of high power distance, a degree of social inequality is considered normal by people.  In other words, there is a place for everyone and everyone is in his or her place.  People tend to have high dependence needs in the concept of high power distance, they believe hierarchy is needed and the distance between individuals at different levels of a hierarchy is high.  Also, power holders have significant privileges such that subordinate compliance is expected and paternalism is the norm.  Although superiors are inaccessible to subordinates, the leader is expected to give orders and dictate rules and regulations.  Lastly, in high power distance, change comes through revolution instead of evolution.  The organizations are more bureaucratic with less delegation of decisions.  In other words, the boss is expected to make decisions, which is what he or she is paid for.

Individualism – Collectivism

The dimension of individualism-collectivism reflects the extent to which members of a society define themselves as individuals concerned with materialism and success, in comparison to societies in which members are integrated into groups such as extended family, clan, or organization where importance is placed on society at large.  In other words, individualism is a combination of the degree to which society expects people to take care of themselves and their immediate families and the degree to which individuals believe they are masters of their own destinies.  Collectivism refers to a tight social framework in which group members such as family, clan, organization, and nation focus on the common welfare and feel strong loyalty toward one another.  In individualism, there is a strong emphasis on “I” orientation or obligation to self.  It emphasizes on self-interest, acquisition of wealth, and individual achievements are valued.  It also emphasizes on achieving individual goals and winning.  It places a greater importance on individual identity than the group or organization to which a person belongs.  Lastly, performance is of paramount importance in individualism.  In collectivism, people are motivated by group interest and they expect groups to which they belong to look after them.  Collectivism orientation places a strong emphasis on “we” orientation or obligations to the group.  In this orientation, an organization is viewed as a social system, and absolute loyalty is owed to the group or organization.  Since interdependence among group members assures success of the whole, people with this orientation emphasizes on building trust and close relationships.  Lastly, relationships are more important than tasks or performance.