Confucian Masculinity vs Femininity dimension of Hofstede’s framework.

Confucian Dynamism

Originating
from Confucian teachings, this dimension emphasizes the importance of loyalty
and respect for tradition and the expected formalities in social settings.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

1.2.          
10 propositions

 The first two propositions below, relate to
the role of interactional and procedural justice on employee perceptions of
fairness and their attitudes in consequence of it.

“P1: Employees of all cultural
backgrounds will respond to a management approach characterized by high levels
of interactional and procedural justice with higher levels of employee
commitment …”.

“P2: Employees of all cultural
backgrounds will respond to a management approach characterized by high levels
of interactional and procedural justice with higher levels of trust …”.

 

The
third proposition entails the Individualism vs Collectivism dimension of Hofstede’s framework. Persons in both
individualistic and collectivist societies are concerned to the same extent
with topics related to the equitability of distributive justice and procedural
justice.

“P3: In cultures characterized by high
levels of interactional justice and procedural justice, the levels of
commitment to engage in extra-role behaviors for individualistic cultures will
be no greater than organizations which have collectivist cultures.”

 

The
fourth and fifth propositions entail the Uncertainty Avoidance dimension of
Hofstede’s framework. Individuals with high uncertainty avoidance tend to
prefer well stablished processes and rules (procedural justice). On the other
hand, individuals with low uncertainty avoidance tend to give more importance
to interactional justice and the way in which relationships are established.

“P4: Organizations made up of
employees from cultures high in uncertainty avoidance will respond to a
management approach characterized by high levels of procedural justice with
greater levels of trust and cooperative behavior than organizations
characterized by low levels of procedural justice.”

“P5: Organizations made up of
employees from cultures which have low levels of uncertainty avoidance will
respond to a management approach characterized by high levels of interactional
justice with higher levels of trust than organizations characterized by high
levels of uncertainty avoidance.”

 

The
next two propositions are on Interactional Justice, Procedural Justice and
Distributive Justice in light of Masculinity vs Femininity dimension of
Hofstede’s framework. Masculine societies are inclined towards distributive justice
that considers highly the equity dimension. Feminine societies are more
relationship-based (Interactional Justice) and concerned with procedural
fairness.

“P6: Organizations from cultures which
have high levels of masculinity will respond to a managerial approach
characterized by high levels of equity-based distributive justice with higher
levels of trust than organizations with low levels of masculinity.”

“P7: Organizations from cultures which
have high levels of femininity will respond to a managerial approach
characterized by equality-based and need-based distributive justice with higher
levels of trust than organizations with low levels of femininity.”

 

Proposition
number eight, is on Interactional Justice, Procedural Justice and Distributive
Justice in light of Confucian Dynamism dimension of Hofstede’s framework. In
high Confucian Dynamism societies, importance is placed in Distributive Justice
and Procedural Justice, in high and low levels of the organization
respectively. Notwithstanding, these societies also place great importance on
the quality of their relationships; which are generally established with
managers (or superiors) rather than with the organization.

“P8: Organizations from cultures which
have high levels of Confucian dynamism will respond to a managerial approach
characterized by high procedural and distributive justice with higher levels of
trust and extra-role behaviors than organizations with low levels of procedural
and distributive justice.”

 

The
last two propositions are on Interactional Justice, Procedural Justice and
Distributive Justice in light of the Power Distance dimension of Hofstede’s
framework. In low power distance communities, discrepancy in procedural justice
is accepted. Nevertheless, in societies where this characteristic is
predominant, employees respond with more trust when Distributive Justice
(specially related to equity) and Procedural Justice are well stablished.
Furthermore, they will personally commit in the presence of Interactional
Justice.

“P9: Individuals in organizations who
have low levels of power distance will respond to a managerial approach
characterized by high levels of equity-based distributive justice and high
procedural justice with more trust in supervisors than individuals in
organizations who have high levels of power distance.”

“P10: Individuals in organizations who
have low levels of power distance will respond to a managerial approach
characterized by high levels of managerial flexibility with more personal
commitment than individuals in organizations who have low1
high levels of power distance.”

1 The original text presents the word ‘low’, however, after analysis
of the work and careful consideration of the results, it was stablished that a
mistake had happened. When citing the work, the word ‘high’ was introduced
instead.