Relevant and practical ways

The final aspect of Hofstede's theory is the long term or short term orientation of a firm, this focuses on the degree the society embraces, or does not embrace, long-term devotion to traditional, forward thinking values. A culture with a high long-term orientation ranking is China, indicating the country prescribes to the values of long term commitment and respect for tradition; this therefore supports a strong work ethic where long term rewards are as a result of hard work.

This theory facilitates the ease of successful relationships, which is one of the three main sources of competitive advantage. The theory is based upon understanding your associate by appreciating their culture which can act as a barrier to communication in the same way as a foreign language. Hofstede's theory is a guide to translating culture, making good business relationships possible. One issue with Hofstede's theory is that as with any generalised study, the results may not applicable to specific individuals or events.

In addition, although Hofstede's results are categorised by country, often there is more than one cultural group within that country. In these cases there may be significant deviations from the study's results. An example is Canada, where the majority of English speaking population and the minority French speaking population in Quebec has moderate cultural differences. Hofstede's theory is not the only way to build a competitive advantage for an international company, Michael Porter pales a great emphasises the importance of acquiring and using knowledge.

Porter highlights the significance of watching for trends in the market in order to become aware of any regional changes before its competitors do. Porter also proposes that multi-nationals shift production to countries of low exchange-rates as well as using lessons learnt in one country to their advantage. There are many theory's and models to increase the competitive advantage of international countries and all of which have their individual benefits to different companies, not one theory is wrong.

I would think a successful company should not choose one model to follow, but take different ideas, inspirations and proposals from many different models including both Geert Hofstede's and Michael Porters. Hofstede proposes very relevant and practical ways to aid flourishing, international communications, which is not a choice for a company that wants to be a success, it is a necessity, therefore meaning Hofstede's framework for maximising competitiveness is of the highest value to such companies.