Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions

Theory
Key Points
● Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions
Theory, developed by Geert
Hofstede, is a framework used to
understand the differences in culture
across countries.
● Hofstede’s initial six key dimensions
include power distance, uncertainty
avoidance, individualism-
collectivism, masculinity-femininity,
and short vs. long-term orientation.
Later, researchers added restraint
vs. indulgence to this list.
● The extent to which individual
countries share key dimensions
depends on a number of factors,
such as shared language and
geographical location.
● Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are
widely used to understand etiquette
and facilitate communication across
cultures in areas ranging from
business to diplomacy.
Power-Distance Index
The power distance index describes the
extent to which the less powerful
members of an organization or
institution — such as a family — accept
and expect that power is distributed
unequally.
Although there is a certain degree of
inequality in all societies, Hofstede
notes that there is relatively more
equality in some societies than in
others.
Individuals in societies that have a high
degree of power distance accept
hierarchies where everyone has a place
in a ranking without the need for
justification.
Meanwhile, societies with low power
distance seek to have an equal
distribution of power. The implication of
this is that cultures endorse and expect
relations that are more consultative,
democratic, or egalitarian.
In countries with low power distance
index values, there tends to be more
equality between parents and children,
with parents more likely to accept it if
children argue or “talk back” to
authority.
In low power distance index workplaces,
employers and managers are more
likely to ask employees for input; in fact,
those at the lower ends of the hierarchy
expect to be asked for their input
(Hofstede, 1980).
Meanwhile, in countries with high power
distance, parents may expect children
to obey without questioning their
authority. Those of higher status may
also regularly experience obvious
displays of subordination and respect
from subordinates.
Superiors and subordinates are unlikely
to see each other as equals in the
workplace, and employees assume that
higher-ups will make decisions without
asking them for input.
These major differences in how
institutions operate make status more
important in high power distance
countries than low power distance ones
(Hofstede, 1980).
Collectivism vs. Individualism
Individualism and collectivism,
respectively, refer to the integration of
individuals into groups.
Individualistic societies stress
achievement and individual rights,
focusing on the needs of oneself and
one’s immediate family.
A person’s self-image in this category is
defined as “I.”
In contrast, collectivist societies place
greater importance on the goals and
well-being of the group, with a person’s
self-image in this category being more
similar to a “We.”
Those from collectivist cultures tend to
emphasize relationships and loyalty
more than those from individualistic
cultures.
They tend to belong to fewer groups but
are defined more by their membership
in them. Lastly, communication tends to
be more direct in individualistic societies
but more indirect in collectivistic ones
(Hofstede, 1980).
Uncertainty Avoidance Index
The uncertainty avoidance dimension of
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions
addresses a society’s tolerance for
uncertainty and ambiguity.
This dimension reflects the extent to
which members of a society attempt to
cope with their anxiety by minimizing
uncertainty. In its most simplified form,
uncertainty avoidance refers to how
threatening change is to a culture
(Hofstede, 1980).
A high uncertainty avoidance index
indicates a low tolerance for
uncertainty, ambiguity, and risk-taking.
Both the institutions and individuals
within these societies seek to minimize
the unknown through strict rules,
regulations, and so forth.
People within these cultures also tend to
be more emotional.
In contrast, those in low uncertainty
avoidance cultures accept and feel
comfortable in unstructured situations
or changeable environments and try to
have as few rules as possible. This
means that people within these cultures
tend to be more tolerant of change.
The unknown is more openly accepted,
and less strict rules and regulations may
ensue.
For example, a student may be more
accepting of a teacher saying they do
not know the answer to a question in a
low uncertainty avoidance culture than
in a high uncertainty avoidance one
(Hofstede, 1980).
Femininity vs. Masculinity
Femininity vs. masculinity, also known
as gender role differentiation, is yet
another one of Hofstede’s six
dimensions of national culture. This
dimension looks at how much a society
values traditional masculine and
feminine roles.
A masculine society values
assertiveness, courage, strength, and
competition; a feminine society values
cooperation, nurturing, and quality of
life (Hofstede, 1980).
A high femininity score indicates that
traditionally feminine gender roles are
more important in that society; a low
femininity score indicates that those
roles are less important.
For example, a country with a high
femininity score is likely to have better
maternity leave policies and more
affordable child care.
Meanwhile, a country with a low
femininity score is likely to have more
women in leadership positions and
higher rates of female entrepreneurship
(Hofstede, 1980).
Short-Term vs. Long-Term
Orientation
The long-term and short-term
orientation dimension refers to the
degree to which cultures
encourage delaying gratification or the
material, social, and emotional needs of
their members (Hofstede, 1980).
Societies with long-term orientations
tend to focus on the future in a way that
delays short-term success in favor of
success in the long term.
These societies emphasize traits such as
persistence, perseverance, thrift,
saving, long-term growth, and the
capacity for adaptation.
Short-term orientation in a society, in
contrast, indicates a focus on the near
future, involves delivering short-term
success or gratification, and places a
stronger emphasis on the present than
the future.
The end result of this is an emphasis on
quick results and respect for tradition.
The values of a short-term society are
related to the past and the present and
can result in unrestrained spending,
often in response to social or ecological
pressure (Hofstede, 1980).
Restraint vs. Indulgence
Finally, the restraint and indulgence
dimension considers the extent and
tendency of a society to fulfill its
desires.
That is to say, this dimension is a
measure of societal impulse and desire
control. High levels of indulgence
indicate that society allows relatively
free gratification and high levels of bon
de vivre.
Meanwhile, restraint indicates that
society tends to suppress the
gratification of needs and regulate them
through social norms.
For example, in a highly indulgent
society, people may tend to spend more
money on luxuries and enjoy more
freedom when it comes to leisure time
activities. In a restrained society, people
are more likely to save money and focus
on practical needs (Hofstede, 2011).

Correlations With Other Country’s

Differences
Hofstede’s dimensions have been found
to correlate with a variety of other
country difference variables, including:
● geographical proximity,
● shared language,
● related historical background,
● similar religious beliefs and
practices,
● common philosophical influences,
 ● and identical political systems
(Hofstede, 2011).
For example, countries that share a
border tend to have more similarities in
culture than those that are further
apart.
This is because people who live close to
each other are more likely to interact
with each other on a regular basis,
which leads to a greater understanding
and appreciation of each other’s
cultures.
Similarly, countries that share a
common language tend to have more
similarities in culture than those that do
not.
Those who speak the same language
can communicate more easily with each
other, which leads to a greater
understanding and appreciation of each
other’s cultures (Hofstede, 2011).
Finally, countries that have similar
historical backgrounds tend to have
more similarities in culture than those
that do not.
People who share a common history are
more likely to have similar values and
beliefs, which leads, it has generally
been theorized, to a greater
understanding and appreciation of each
other’s cultures.
Applications
Cultural difference awareness
Geert Hofstede shed light on how
cultural differences are still significant
today in a world that is becoming more
and more diverse.
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions can be
used to help explain why certain
behaviors are more or less common in
different cultures.
For example, individualism vs.
collectivism can help explain why some
cultures place more emphasis on
personal achievement than others.
Masculinity vs. feminism could help
explain why some cultures are more
competitive than others.
And long-term vs. short-term orientation
can help explain why some cultures
focus more on the future than the
present (Hofstede, 2011).
International communication and
negotiation
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions can also
be used to predict how people from
different cultures will interact with each
other.
For example, if two people from cultures
with high levels of power distance meet,
they may have difficulty communicating
because they have different
expectations about who should be in
charge (Hofstede, 2011).
In Business
Finally, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions
can be used to help businesses adapt
their products and marketing to
different cultures.
For example, if a company wants to sell
its products in a country with a high
collectivism score, it may need to
design its packaging and advertising to
appeal to groups rather than individuals.
Within a business, Hofstede’s framework
can also help managers to understand
why their employees behave the way
they do.
For example, if a manager is having
difficulty getting her employees to work
together as a team, she may need to
take into account that her employees
come from cultures with different levels
of collectivism (Hofstede, 2011).
Evaluation
Although the cultural value dimensions
identified by Hofstede and others are
useful ways to think about culture and
study cultural psychology, the theory
has been chronically questioned and
critiqued.