Organizational anthropologist Geert Hofstede is well known for his research studies on social values that suggest that cultures of different nations can be compared in terms of five dimensions.
Developed by Geert Hofstede (1984), the cultural dimensions theory ((Hofstede’s Cross Cultural research work)) is a highly recognised framework for cross-cultural communication describing the effects of a society’s culture on the values and beliefs of its people, and how they relate to behaviour.
Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory can also help firms understand consumer culture and organizational culture.
Basis of Study
Hofstede’s primary study on national culture is included in the book “Culture’s Consequences”. He has updated his model a few times, but he has not discussed any significant errors or weaknesses in the study he conducted.
Hofstede’s primary data source was a bank of employee attitude surveys conducted between 1967 and 1973 at IBM companies in 66 countries. He believed that some of the questions were critical for understanding people’s “values,” which he defines as “general dispositions to favor certain states of affairs over others” and which are a “core aspect of culture,” and that he could use them to learn more about them.
He examined the responses to these survey questions using statistics. It was based on the study, in addition to some additional data and “theoretical logic.”
He discovered that a national culture had four primary and “essentially independent” bipolar aspects, and that 40 of the 66 nations where IBM has subsidiaries could be assigned a comparison score on each of these four dimensions.
Each of the nations studied by Hofstede were ranked on each of the four dimensions. The work has continued over the years and it is the most well known model of cultural differences` between nations.
Hofstede’s Typology: The Various Dimensions
Hofstede identified four basic dimensions to express differences between national cultures.
Power Distance
Power Distance talks about the nature and distribution of power in society/organisations/institutions.
Power Distance is arguably the most important cultural dimension in the Hofstede’s study which relates to the degree to which a culture accepts and underpins the fact that power is distributed not evenly in society. It determines the level of hierarchy in workplace and distance between social statuses.
As per Hofstede (1980), “Power Distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally”.
Power Distance refers to the degree of inequality between people and the extent to which the less powerful members of a society accept power to be distributed unequally.
In high power distance societies, power is concentrated among a few people at the top who make all the decisions. People at the lower hand, simply carry out the decisions. Status difference are visible and people are expected to show respect to their superiors. Status distance also exists in the organisational hierarchy but they may also be based on age, social class or family role.
In low power distance societies, power is widely dispersed and relations among people are more egalitarian. People in such cultures are less comfortable with differences in organisational rank or social class and are characterised by more participation in decision making. They relate to other people irrespective of their formal positions. The subordinates are more likely to be comfortable with contributing and criticising the decisions of seniors.
Individualistic/collectivist
The extent to which people look after themselves and their own interests or looks after the extended family and interests of society. This dimension talks about the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members. This is a measure of whether people prefer to work alone or in groups.
Individualism refers to the degree to which people in a country learn to act as individuals rather than as members of a group. In individualist societies, each member of a society is primarily concerned with his or her own interests and those of his/her own immediate family.
Individualist culture are characterised by independence, the importance of individual’s rights and the recognition of personal initiative and achievement.
In collectivist societies, members have group mentality. Collectivist cultures values the overall good loyalty of the group. They are interdependent on each other and they seek mutual accommodation to maintain group harmony.
Collectivism emphasises on collective goals, collective rights, interdependence, and association with the larger collective. Members of collectivist societies distinguish between in-groups and out-groups and are expected to subordinate their individual interests for the benefit of their in-groups. In Hofstede’s studies, this cultural dimension was shown to strongly relate with power distance, which means that individualist cultures tend to have a lower power distance.
Uncertainty Avoidance
This refers to the extent to which people feel threatened by uncertainty or ambiguity.
Uncertainty Avoidance refers to the extent to which the members of a society are uncomfortable with unclear, ambiguous or unstructured situations.
In high uncertainty avoidance societies, people are risk-averse and engage in long-range planning to establish protective barriers to minimize the anxiety associated with future events.
In low uncertainty avoidance societies, people can better deal with unstructured and unclear situations and they are more tolerant of persons whose opinions differ from their own.
Masculine/Feminine
This dimension depicts the degree to which masculine qualities like authority, performance, and success are preferred to female characteristics like personal relationships, quality of life, service, and welfare.
Dominant values are ascribed gender attributes such as quality of life, personal relationships and care of people/environment. Alternatively ambitious, assertiveness acquisition of money and material objects.
Masculinity refers to the degree to which masculine values, such as achievement, performance, success, money, competition prevail over feminine values such as quality of life, maintaining warm personal relationships, service, care for the weak, preserving the environment, and solidarity. In masculine societies, achievement, success, and performance is valued. People are motivated by specific targets and are being able to show that they achieved them either as a group or as individuals.
In feminine societies, quality of life and environment over materialistic needs is valued. In the feminine cultures, both women and men are supposed to be equal, modest, and concerned with the quality of life. Workplace flexibility and work-life balance may be important, both in terms of job design, organisational environment and culture in low masculinity score society.
It is very understandable that people display wealth and desire for achievement in masculine culture and the feminine culture focus on preserving the environment and help under privileged people.
Time Perspective: Long Term Orientation vs. Short Term Orientation
Do people take a long- or short-term point of view.
Time Perspective refers to the degree to which people exhibit a pragmatic future-oriented perspective rather than a conventional history, or short-term point of view.
In long-term orientation societies, persistence is valued and they tend to be future-oriented. They give more significance to the future which fosters pragmatic values oriented towards rewards, saving and capacity of adaptation.
In short-term orientation societies, preserving history and continuing past traditions is valued. Such societies are concerned with fostering of virtues in relation to past and present, respect for tradition and fulfilling social obligations.
How does Hofstede’s Typology help Global Marketers?
Here’s how the knowledge of cultural differences can help guide a range of activities.
- Knowledge about time orientations might provide insights into how business deals are conducted (e.g. ‘business should be fast’ versus ‘business takes time’)
- Knowledge about power distance might provide insights into how business relationships work (e.g. with joint venture partners; team project dynamics; preferences of centralisations)
- Knowledge about uncertainty avoidance might provide useful implication for product features (e.g. the preference of warranties or money-back guarantees)
- Knowledge about individualism might have useful implications for advertising (e.g. featuring individuals or groups) or the success of certain marketing techniques (e.g. word-of-mouth and buzz marketing works good in collectivists societies).
Hofstede (1993) argues that the way people see perceive and understand organisations is culturally conditioned and therefore organisations and theories about management and organisations are also culturally bound.
Countries around the world differ greatly in their scores. For example-western European and states score high on individualism and low on power distance. In contrast Asian countries scored high on collectivism and have high power distance.
Cross-cultural communication, behaviour, leadership and group dynamics
Male and individualist attitudes, for example, have been repeatedly connected to more direct communication tactics, self-promotion, and openness in communication. On the other side, collectivism, femininity, and a high-power distance orientation are often associated with indirectness and humility.
This also implies that communication in individualist societies is context-free, and the verbal components of discussions are given more weight. On the other hand, communication in a collectivist society is often rich in context, with nonverbal indications gaining precedence.
Individuals who live in more individualistic societies with little authority tend to choose participatory leadership. On the other side, collectivism and high-power distance values are associated with a desire for more direct and charismatic leaders.
Individualism, on the other hand, has a significant influence on group dynamics due to its association with collective beliefs. Initially, those with collectivist ideas have a great need to be with other people and to get assistance from others. Additionally, they are more inclined than individualists to want group labour. Additionally, they are much more devoted to their team than individualists are.
On the other side, individualists are less inclined to adhere to group regulations. Collectivists, on the other hand, are passionate about the organizations to which they belong, while individualists have less group ties.
Critique of Hofstede’s Work
Hofstede’s findings can be used as a starting point to understand cultural differences but there are also a number of issues with this work.
Despite many academics appraising the work of Hofstede, the theory also received criticism.
- Looked at mainly the IT industry
- Philosophical ideological debates about classification of cultural attributes
- Limitations of dimensions in explaining extremely complex issues
- Problems with data collection and interpretation
National Culture Can Be Identified by Survey Method
The links between the questions analysed and the dimension they are supposed to indicate are often unclear, sometimes bizarre”. Robinson (1983) describes the dimensions as “hodgepodge” of items “few of which relate to the intended construct” (See Dorfman & Howell, 1988; Bond, 2002, also).
Different questions have ‘revealed’ different dimensions e.g. Schwartz ‘identified’ seven dimensions “quite different than Hofstede’s” (1994).
Bi-polarity of dimensions e.g. either individualism or collectivism but “the two can coexist and are simply emphasised more or less depending on the situation” Harry Triandis, 1996:42.
Looked at only the IT industry
Claims to have identified national culture (or differences) that are nationally pervasive “in the family, at school, … at work, in politics” (1992).
Survey (with all its other limitations) was only of employees, indeed only some categories of employees; undertaken within the workplace which was in a specific location within each country; the question were almost entirely work-related; they were administered within the formal-workplace.
No parallel surveys were undertaken in non-workplaces.
Culture may not be homogenous in a Nation
McSweeney disregards Hofstede’s claim that every nation shares a unique culture, using Great Britain as an example (due to four separate countries creating a nation with attached subcultures).
This implies that culture may not be homogenous in a nation.
Other Problems
Hofstede fails to look for counter-evidence. A partial account of events rather than meaning is fitted to his notion of a particular national culture depiction.
Historical/contemporary events do not support the validity of Hofstede’s assertions in many cases. Popper states that ‘so long as a theory withstands detailed and severe tests … we may say that it has proved its mettle or that it is corroborated.’
Why has it been treated so seriously in the management disciplines with all these flaws?
References / Reading
Hofstede, G., 1984. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (Vol. 5). sage.
McSweeney, B.(2002) ‘Hofstede’s Identification of National Cultural Differences and Their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith – A Failure of Analysis, Human Relations, 55(1)
Williamson, D. (2002)Forward from a critique of Hofstede’s model of national culture, Human Relations, 55(11)
Country Comparison – Hofstede Insights
BATheories.com is managed by a group of educators from Mumbai. We also manage the website StudyMumbai.com. Our panel includes experienced professionals and lecturers with a background in management. BATheories is where we talk about the various business theories and models for BA (Business Administration) students.