Part 1
The term power distance as per Hofstede is defined as the perception of people within a particular culture or way of behavior on power. The power distance describes the way certain individual from a particular cultural background view power relationship, subordinations, superiority and the degree that people who are not near the power see or accept the nature in which the power has been distributed. More specifically, this dimension explains the extent to which people who are less powerful in the society accept or expect that there is inequity in the power distribution in the society ( Hofstede, 2011). The culture which I come from has large power distance. This society is the society has autocratic leadership kind of management and is very far much behind others. The authorities within the country are centralized, and the society is embrace kind of paternalistic kind of the directorate as result of the large power distance. Within the society, there I kind of hierarchical leadership where there is the council of the elders who foresees other function within their locality, there are other chiefs and the national as well as the federal government. Every level has a responsibility, and there is way of reporting to the next authority following well-articulated channels of power.
Another characteristic of this community is that there is a high issue of supervision on the one who is given position or post that matters in the society. Alternatively, there is acceptance of privileges which arises due to the large power distance which the society has. The last behavior which is very visible in the community is the power inequity and expectation of authority inequality among people which is so prevalent within this community. The Global Leadership and the Organizational Behavior Effective defines culture as shared values, motives, identities, belief and interpretation of the events which are as result of the collective experience of a group of people which are transmitted continuously across the generations. Individuals in this society, the culture has of power inequity has been shared among people and people believe that they are not equal to their states or place of work. They have developed a culture where some people are given more power depending on their status, position and educational background within the community ( Hofstede, 2010). This has been the result of power distance which the community possesses.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The power distance in the Mexico is small. The government in this country allows participatory kind of governance where the people are given a chance to participate on issues which directly affected the county. This has been a culture in the great Mexico to eliminate dictatorship and enhance democracy. Another fact that proves that this country has small power distance is that it is inclined towards the egalitarianism. The country believes that there should be equity among people despite gender and age factor. Several bodies are standing for human rights which are more aggressive on the issue of gender inequity and are so firm on the issues of human equability within the country.
One of the character threads in this country which prove that it has small power distance is that the country has a culture of the consultative style of governance. The next Behavior is self-motivation with low or little kind of supervision when undertaking their activities. Another behavior thread is flexibility since the people within the country have adopted the culture of flat kind of structure with minimal hierarchical issues. The last behavior is the right conciseness which is also fostered by the countries leaders ( Caligiuri & Tarique, 2012).
Leaders are very paramount on how well the state power is reflected. Leadership is according to GLOBE is more of influencing people to achieve certain objective based on the effort put across by the leaders. Or instance, team oriented leaders are more focused on creating a solid foundation for the individuals to work together with less supervision. They create groups and provide them with a common goal which they pursue as they look forward to achieving something within the country. Such leaders are found in countries with less power distance. Moreover, participative leaders are also part and parcel of the countries with low power distance. These are the leaders who believe in equity of power. They create a culture within the organization which brings about equity, flat management and flexibility ( Rinne et al., 2012). On the other hand, autocratic and editorship leaders are found in the countries where power distance is significant. These are leaders who believe lies less in the authority equity. They believe that the only system which works is a hierarchy. They create a culture within the organization where people have to be supervised by them to work efficiently.
Part 2
The difference between Hofstede model and the GLOBE study is crystal clear. First, the Hofstede study is based on the five dimensions and the entire culture dimension rated on a particular scale of zero to one hundred for each dimension. On the other hand, the GLOBE has nine cultural dimensions on the social practices. This can be used be used in the different cultural setting. Alternatively, GLOBE study involved many types of research of about 170 participants who reached out to almost 951 non-organizational organizations to act as respondents (Mendenhall, 2012). On the other hand, Hofstede analyzed a single multinational company for their data and only 53 of its subsidiary branches. There is others difference too.
References
Caligiuri, P., & Tarique, I. (2012). Dynamic cross-cultural competencies and global leadership effectiveness. Journal of World Business , 47 (4), 612-622.
Hofstede, G. (2010). Geert hofstede. National cultural dimensions .
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings in psychology and culture , 2 (1), 8.
Mendenhall, M. E. (Ed.). (2012). Global leadership: Research, practice, and development . Routledge.
Rinne, T., Steel, G. D., & Fairweather, J. (2012). Hofstede and Shane revisited: The role of power distance and individualism in national-level innovation success. Cross-cultural research , 46 (2), 91-108.
