6.2 Hofstede's Cultural Framework

Cultural Dimension 1: Power Distance

Hofstede’s original survey of the more than 88,000 employees of the 72 countries revealed four major cultural dimensions. The first cultural dimension is power distance, the degree to which members of a society accept differences in power and authority. In societies with high power distance, people are more likely to accept that power inequality is good and acceptable. People in high power distance societies are more likely to accept that there are some powerful people who are in charge and that these people are entitled to special benefits. In contrast, societies with low power distance tend to consider that all members are equal. Table 6.2 shows the levels of power distance (and the other cultural dimensions discussed later) in 15 selected societies. Hofstede’s scores range from 100 (the highest power distance) to 0 (the lowest). In the table, we break Hofstede’s scores into high (70–100), medium (40–69), and low (0–39).

As Table 6.1 shows, many of the emerging markets in regions such as Asia and Latin America, such as India, Brazil, and Mexico, all have high power distance scores. In such countries, the concern for hierarchy and inequality in organizations is rooted in early socialization in the family and school. In these countries, children are expected to obey their parents and elders. When these children enter school, teachers assume the dominant role. Children must show respect, and they seldom challenge a teacher’s authority. As these individuals take on work roles, the allegiance to teachers is transferred to bosses. Thus, people in high power distance societies will seldom question their supervisors. In contrast, Anglo countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom have low power distance. In these countries, people do not expect power differences, and everyone is seen as an equal.

Cultural Dimension 2: Individualism and Collectivism

The second cultural dimension we consider here is individualism/collectivism. Individualism refers to the degree to which a society focuses on the relationship of the individual to the group. Collectivism refers to the degree to which a society focuses on the relationship of the group as a whole.

In societies with high individualism (or low collectivism) scores, individuals are valued for their achievements and are rewarded and recognized for such achievements. In contrast, people who live in societies with low individualism (high collectivism) are seen as being part of a wider group, known as the in-group. The in-group includes the family, team, or social class, and how individuals relate to such wider groups is seen as important to their success. In other words, people’s success is gauged by how others in their groups view and support them.

Table 6.1 shows the levels of individualism in the selected 15 nations. We again see similar patterns whereby more Anglo cultures such as the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. have relatively high levels of individualism. In contrast, Asian, Latin American, and many emerging countries tend to have cultures that are either on the medium or low range of the individualism dimension. Table 6.3 shows some of the implications of individualism for management. The effects of most management practices are determined by whether they are done at a group or individual level. For example, in countries with low individualism, one will find that employees are hired and promoted mostly on the basis of association with a larger group, such as a university or high school. In such societies, emphasis is placed on loyalty, seniority, and age. To operate smoothly in such societies, companies need to appreciate the importance of the larger social group. Additionally, as Table 6.3 also shows, care should be taken in terms of how rewards are distributed. Rewarding individual team members in low individualism societies can result in tensions because the individual team member may become stigmatized. In such cases, rewards done on a group level may work best.

Cultural Dimension 3: Uncertainty Avoidance

Hofstede’s third cultural dimension is uncertainty avoidance, the degree to which people in a society are comfortable with risk, uncertainty, and unpredictable situations. People in high uncertainty avoidance societies tend to want to avoid uncertainty and unpredictability. As a result, work environments in such countries try to provide stability and certainty through clear rules and instructions. In contrast, societies with low uncertainty avoidance are comfortable with risk, change, and unpredictability. In these countries, risky and ambiguous situations are less likely to upset people.

Table 6.1 shows details of the levels of uncertainty avoidance for the selected 15 countries. We see that Anglo and Scandinavian countries have relatively lower uncertainty avoidance scores. In contrast, many emerging markets (such as Brazil, Mexico, and China) have medium to high uncertainty avoidance scores. Such findings suggest that companies should adapt their practices to conform to the levels of uncertainty avoidance. In high uncertainty avoidance countries, for example, managers are advised to provide structure and order to reduce uncertainty and ambiguity for subordinates. Companies in these cultures have many written rules and procedures that tell employees exactly what the organization expects of them. Additionally, managers should give clear and explicit directions to their subordinates about exactly what is expected of them in performing their jobs. By reducing any ambiguity, subordinates are less anxious.

In contrast, in low uncertainty avoidance countries, subordinates are much more comfortable and ambiguity. Managers can therefore give more flexibility and freedom to employees. Design of organizations also allows for fewer rules and regulations.

Table 6.4 provides more detail on the implications of uncertainty avoidance on several managerial aspects.

Cultural Dimension 4: Masculinity

The fourth and final dimension we consider is masculinity, the degree to which a society emphasizes traditional masculine qualities such as advancement and earnings. In high masculinity societies, work tends to be very important to people, gender roles are clear, and work takes priority over other aspects of a person’s life, such as family and leisure. In addition, masculine societies emphasize earnings and achievements, and employees tend to work very long hours and take very little vacation time.

Table 6.5 shows the masculine scores for selected societies. As the table shows, Anglo cultures such as the U.S. and Canada tend to have high masculinity. This is not surprising given that both the U.S. and Canada tend to have some of the highest number of hours worked. In contrast, Latin European countries such as France and Spain have much lower masculinity as reflected in the importance of leisure in these societies. Scandinavian cultures also reflect low masculinity, a characteristic that is consistent with the preference for quality of life in such countries. We also see that many of the emerging nations have medium to high masculinity.

Table 6.5 provides some more insights into the implications of masculinity differences for work-related issues. As you can see, companies in high masculinity societies can count on very work-oriented employees. Multinationals are therefore advised to motivate their employees through pay and security. In contrast, individuals in more feminine societies tend to prefer interesting work and more leisure. Strong motivational policies in these societies emphasize a balance between work and leisure, and multinationals in such societies tend to have stronger policies catering to both genders.

One of the underlying themes of cross-cultural research is that countries tend to cluster around cultural dimensions. For instance, we saw how Anglo cultures, Latin American cultures, and Scandinavian cultures countries tend to share similar cultural characteristics. Such categorizations are useful because they help managers simplify their organizational world.