User:Pdecombe/Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions theory

Pdecombe (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Geert Hofstede proposes a systematic framework for assessing and differentiate national cultures best-known as the Cultural Dimensions theory. He gathered and analyzed extensive data on the world's values and cultures in order to build a comprehensive model which includes 6 dimensions.

Research history and methodology
In 1965, Geert Hofstede founded the Personnel Research Department of IBM Europe (which he managed until 1971). Between 1967 and 1973, he realized a large study regarding national values differences across the worldwide subsidiaries of this multinational corporation: he compared the answers of 117,000 IBM matched employees samples to the same attitude survey research in different countries. He first focused his research on the 40 largest countries, and then extended it to 50 countries and 3 regions, “at that time probably the largest matched-sample cross-national database available anywhere.”. This initial analysis made appear clear and systematic differences between nations, and enabled Geert Hofstede to identify four primary Dimensions to assess and differentiate national cultures: Power Distance (PDI), Individualism (IDV), Masculinity (MAS) and Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI). In 1980 he published the book Culture's Consequences, in which he expounds the statistical analysis of his research combined with his personal experiences. In order to confirm the early results from the IBM study and to extend the results to a variety of populations, six subsequent cross-national studies have successfully been conducted between 1990 and 2002. Covering between 14 to 28 countries, they included commercial airline pilots, students, civil service managers, 'up-market' consumers and 'elites'. From now on, Dimensions’ scores cover a total of 76 countries and regions. In 1991, Michael Harris Bond and colleagues conducted a study among students in 23 countries, using a survey instrument developed with Chinese employees and managers. The results from this study led Geert Hofstede to add a new fifth Dimension to his model: Long Term Orientation (LTO) initially called Confucian dynamism. In 2010, the scores for this Dimension have been extended to 93 countries thanks to the research of Micheal Minkov who used recent World Values Survey. Finally, Minkov’s World Values Survey data analysis of 93 representative samples of national populations also led Geert Hofstede to identify a sixth last Dimension: Indulgence versus Restraint.

The first four Dimensions
Geert Hofstede’s IBM study enabled him to define the first four dimensions of culture. These dimensions group together values which distinguish countries and regard “four anthropological problem areas that different national societies handle differently: ways of coping with inequality, ways of coping with uncertainty, the relationship of the individual with her or his primary group, and the emotional implications of having been born as a girl or as a boy”.


 * Power Distance Index (PDI): “Power distance is the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally.” Low power distance expect and accept power relations that are more consultative or democratic. People relate to one another more as equals regardless of formal positions. Subordinates are more comfortable with and demand the right to contribute to and critique the decision making of those in power. In High power distance countries, less powerful accept power relations that are more autocratic and paternalistic. Subordinates acknowledge the power of others simply based on where they are situated in certain formal, hierarchical positions. As such, the Power Distance Index Hofstede defines does not reflect an objective difference in power distribution, but rather the way people perceive power differences.


 * Individualism (IDV) vs. collectivism: “The degree to which individuals are integrated into groups”. In individualistic societies, the stress is put on personal achievements and individual rights. People are expected to stand up for themselves and their immediate family, and to choose their own affiliations. Whereas in collectivist societies, individuals act predominantly as members of a life-long and cohesive group or organization (note: “The word collectivism in this sense has no political meaning: it refers to the group, not to the state”). People have large extended families, which are used as a protection in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.


 * Uncertainty avoidance Index (UAI): “a society's tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity”. It reflects the extent to which members of a society attempt to cope with anxiety by minimizing uncertainty. People in cultures with high uncertainty avoidance tend to be more emotional. They try to minimize the occurrence of unknown and unusual circumstances and to proceed with changes step by step by planning everything carefully and implementing rules, laws and regulations. On the opposite, low uncertainty avoidance cultures accept and feel comfortable in unstructured situations or changeable environments and try to have as few rules as possible. People in these cultures tend to be more pragmatic, they are more tolerant to change.


 * Masculinity (MAS), vs. femininity: “The distribution of emotional roles between the genders”. Masculine cultures’ values are competitiveness, assertiveness, materialism, ambition and power, whereas Feminine cultures place more value on relationships and quality of life. In Masculine cultures, the differences between gender roles are more dramatic and less fluid than in Feminine cultures where men and women have the same modest, caring values. As a result of the taboo on sexuality in many cultures, particularly masculine ones, and because of the obvious gender generalizations implied by Hofstede's terminology, this dimension is often renamed by users of Hofstede's work, e.g. to Quantity of Life vs. Quality of Life.

The fifth Dimension

 * Long-Term Orientation (LTO), vs. Short Term Orientation: Firstly called “Confucian dynamism”, it describes societies’ time horizon. Long term oriented societies attach more importance to the future. They foster pragmatic values oriented towards rewards, including persistence, saving and capacity for adaptation. In short term oriented societies, values promoted are related to the past and the present, including steadiness, respect for tradition, preservation of one’s face, reciprocation and fulfilling social obligations.

The sixth Dimension

 * Indulgence, vs. Restraint: Societies with a high rate of indulgence allow hedonistic behaviors: people can freely satisfy their basic needs and desires. On the opposite, Restraint define societies with strict social norms, where gratification of drives are suppressed and regulated.

Observations
Putting together national scores (from 1 for the lowest to 120 for the highest), Geert Hofstede’s 5-D Model allow international comparison between cultures, also called comparative research:


 * Power Distance Index shows very high scores for Latin and Asian countries, African areas and the Arab world. On the other hand Anglo and Germanic countries have a lower Power Distance (only 11 for Austria and 18 for Denmark).
 * For example, the United States have a 40 on the cultural scale of Hofstede’s analysis. Compared to Guatemala where the power distance is very high (95) and Israel where it very low (13), the United States are somewhat in the middle. In fact the United States do not have a large gap between the wealthy and the poor, but have a strong belief in equality for each citizen. American people have the opportunity to rise in society.
 * At the European scale, Power Distance tends to be lower in Northern countries and higher in Southern and Eastern parts: 90 for Romania, 57 for Spain vs. 31 for Sweden and 35 for the United Kingdom.


 * Regarding the Individualism Index, there is a clear boundary between on one hand developed and Western countries, and on the other hand less developed and Eastern countries. In fact, North America and Europe can be considered as individualistic with relatively high scores: for example, 80 for Canada and Hungary as well. Whereas Asia, Africa and Latin America have strong collectivistic values: Colombia has only 13 points on the IDV scale, and Indonesia 14. The greatest contrast can be drawn comparing the two more extreme countries on this scale: 6 points score for Guatemala vs. 91 points score for the United States. Regarding this dimension Japan and the Arab world take a middle position.


 * Uncertainty avoidance scores are the highest in Latin American countries, Southern and Eastern Europe countries including German speaking countries, and Japan. They are lower for Anglo, Nordic, and Chinese culture countries. However few countries have very low UAI. For example, Germany has a quite high UAI (65) and Belgium even more (94) compared to Sweden (29) or Denmark (23) despite their geographical proximity.


 * Masculinity is extremely low in Nordic countries: Norway scores at 8 and Sweden only at 5. We can also mention Denmark with 16 and the Netherlands with 14. On the other side, Masculinity is very high in Japan (95), and in German culture European countries like Hungary, Austria and Switzerland. In the Anglo world, masculinity scores are relatively high with 66 for the United Kingdom for example. And Latin countries present contrasting scores: for example Venezuela has a 73 point score whereas Chile’s is only 28.


 * Typically, high long-term orientation scores are found in East Asia: China has a 118 points score, Hong Kong 96 and Japan 88. They are moderate in Eastern and Western Europe, and low in the Anglo countries, the Muslim world, Africa and in Latin America. However we have less information about this Dimension.


 * We have even less data about the 6th Dimension. Indulgence scores are highest in Latin America, parts of Africa, the Anglo world and Nordic Europe; restraint is mostly found in East Asia, Eastern Europe and the Muslim world.

Correlations
Comparing countries’ 5 Dimensions scores, similarities appear between countries. Some countries can be group together as they are closely related according to different factors: geographical proximity, shared language, related historical background, similar religious beliefs and practices, common philosophical influences, identical political systems, in other words everything which is implied by the definition of one nation’s culture. Therefore, we can draw correlations according to a multitude of other data about the countries. For example, low power distance is associated with consultative political practices and income equity, whereas high power distance is correlated with the use of bribery and corruption in domestic politics and the unequal distribution of income. Individualism is positively correlated with mobility between social classes and with national wealth. In fact, when a country gets richer it has been observed that people get more individualistic. Another example of correlation has been drawn by the Sigma Two Group in 2003. They have studied the correlation between countries cultural dimensions and their predominate religion, based on the World Factbook 2002. On average, predominantly Catholic countries show very high uncertainty avoidance, relatively high power distance, moderate masculinity and relatively low individualism. Whereas predominantly atheist countries tend to be collectivistic, with low uncertainty avoidance, moderate masculinity score and very high power distance.

Why is it important to be aware of cultural differences?
" Culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy. Cultural differences are a nuisance at best and often a disaster." (Geert Hofstede) Despite the evidence that groups are different from each other, we tend to believe that deep inside all people are the same. In fact, as we are generally not aware of other countries’ cultures, we tend to minimize cultural differences. This leads to misunderstandings and misinterpretations between people from different countries. Instead of the convergence phenomena we expected with information technologies availability (the “global village culture”), cultural differences are still significant today and diversity tends to increase. So, in order to be able to have cross-cultural relations, we have to be aware of these cultural differences. With his 5 Dimensions model, Geert Hofstede has lighted on these differences. Therefore, it is a great tool to use in order to have a general overview and an approximate understanding of other cultures and, to know how to behave towards individuals from other countries. Because, we still need to cooperate with members of other cultures, and maybe more than ever with the new problems which have arisen for several decades like environmental issues. Therefore cross-cultural understanding is indispensable.

What are the practical applications of the theory?
Geert Hofstede is perhaps the best known sociologist of culture and anthropologist in the context of applications for understanding international business. Many articles and publications refer to his work. The 5 Dimensions model is widely used in many domains of human social life, and particularly in the field of business. Practical applications were developed almost immediately. In fact, when it comes to business, promoting cultural sensitivity will help people work more effectively when interacting with people from other countries, and will participate to make transactions are successful.

International communication
In business, communication is the primary concern. So, for professionals who work internationally; people who interact daily with other people from different countries within their company or with other companies abroad; Hofstede’s model gives insights into other cultures. In fact, cross-cultural communication requires being aware of cultural differences because what may be considered perfectly acceptable and natural in one country, can be confusing or even offensive in another. All the levels in communication are affected by cultural dimensions: verbals (words and language itself), non verbals (body language, gestures) and etiquette do’s and don’ts (clothing, gift-giving, dining, customs and protocol). And this is also valid for written communication as explained in William Wardrobe’s essay ‘‘Beyond Hofstede: Cultural applications for communication with Latin American Businesses’’.

International negotiation
In international negotiations, communication style, expectation, issue ranking and goals will change according to the negotiators’ countries of origin. If applied properly, the understanding of cultural dimensions should increase success in negotiations and reduce frustration and conflicts. For example, in a negotiation between Chinese and Canadian, Canadian negotiators may want to reach an agreement and sign a contract, whereas Chinese negotiators may want to spend more time for non business activities, small talks and hospitality with preferences for protocol and form in order to first establish the relationship. “When negotiating in Western countries, the objective is to work toward a target of mutual understanding and agreement and 'shake-hands' when that agreement is reached - a cultural signal of the end of negotiations and the start of 'working together'. In Middle Eastern countries much negotiation takes place leading into the 'agreement', signified by shaking hands. However, the deal is not complete in the Middle Eastern culture. In fact, it is a cultural sign that 'serious' negotiations are just beginning.”

International management
These considerations are also true in international management and cross-cultural leadership. Decisions taken have to be based on the country’s customs and values. When working in international companies, managers may provide training to their employees in ordrer to make them sensitive to cultural differences, develop nuanced business practices, with protocols across countries. Hofstede's dimensions offer guidelines for defining culturally acceptable approaches to corporate organizations.

As a part of the public domain, Geert Hofstede’s work is used by numerous consultancies worldwide. But only 3 of them are regarded as partners and have Hofstede’s a full support with regular contacts.
 * The American firm ITAP International Inc. and its ITAP International Alliance propose full-service consulting based on Hofstede’s approach using the Culture in the Workplace Questionnaire™
 * Similarly, Itim international, headquartered in Sweden offers culture and management consultancy, training and coaching.
 * Itim focus, in the Netherlands and Finland, concentrate on change consultancy at organizational level.

International marketing
As in communication, negotiation and management, the 5 Dimensions model is very useful in international marketing too because it defines national values not only in business context but in general. [www.mariekedemooij.com Marieke de Mooji] has studied the application of Hofstede’s findings in the field of global branding, advertising strategy and consumer behavior. As companies try to adapt their products and services to local habits and preferences they have to understand the specificity of their market.

For example, if you want to market cars in a country where the uncertainty avoidance is high, you should emphasize on their safety, whereas in other countries you may base your advertisement on the social image they give you. Cell phone marketing is another interesting example of the application of Hofstede’s model for cultural differences: if you want to advertise cell phones in China, you may show a collective experience whereas in the United-States you may show how an individual uses it to save time and money. The variety of application of Hofstede’s abstract theory is so wide that it has even been translated in the field of web designing in which you have to adapt to national preferences according to cultures’ values.

Limitations of Hofstede’s model
Even if Hofstede’s model is generally accepted as the most comprehensive framework of national cultures values, its validity and its limitations have been extensively criticized. To give only one example, in a recent article in the Academy of Management's flagship journal, The Academy of Management Review, Galit Ailon deconstructs Hofstede's book Culture's Consequences by mirroring it against its own assumptions and logic. Ailon finds several inconsistencies at the level of both theory and methodology and cautions against an uncritical reading of Hofstede's cultural dimensions.

Cultural dimensions vs.indivudal personalities
Hofstede acknowledges that cultural dimensions, as Culture and Values, are theoretical constructions. They are tools meant to be used in practical applications. Generalizations about one country’s culture are helpful but they have to be regarded as such, i.e. as guidelines for a better understanding. They are group-level dimensions which describe national averages which apply to the population in its entirely. Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions enable to distinguish countries but are not about differences between members of societies. They don’t necessarily define individuals’ personalities. National scores should never be interpreted as deterministic for individuals. For example, a Japanese person can have very comfortable in changing situation whereas on average, Japanese people have high uncertainty avoidance. There are still exceptions to the rule. We can contrast Hofstede’s theory with its equivalence at individual level: the trait theory about human personality.