Beta

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory – in Context

December 15, 2020

Culture and cultural understanding have never been more important[1]. Whether you’re on your  way to studying abroad, ready to embark on an international volunteering expedition, suiting up to  strike a deal in another country or simply packing up your belongings to go and explore the world  – cultural understanding is a must. With so much opportunity to go pretty much anywhere, it  would be a shame to arrive unprepared and risk ruining your trip. The same way you should  always pack your passport, you should always make time to understand the culture you are going  to visit. With that in mind, Geert Hofstede and his Cultural Dimensions Theory[2] is a great place to  start. 

Geert Hofstede (1928 – 2020) was a Dutch social psychologist[3] who dedicated his career to  cross-cultural communication within organisations. His most profound (and most cited) work was  the 1967 – 2010 cross-cultural study he launched within IBM. The study described involved over  100,000 surveys (in the initial version) distributed across more than 70 different nations (once the  study had gone through multiple rounds) focused on better understanding certain areas of  culture[4]. These areas were described as follows: 

  • Low power distance (0) versus high power distance (100) 
  • Collectivistic (0) versus individualistic (100) 
  • Femininity (0) versus masculinity (100) 
  • Low uncertainty avoidance (0) versus high uncertainty avoidance (100) 
  • Long-term orientation (0) versus short-term orientation (100) 
  • Restraint (0) versus indulgence (100) 

Each area was rated from 0 (which would relate to one end of the spectrum for each area) and  100 (which would relate to the other end of the spectrum for each area)[5]. By analysing all the  data provided, Hofstede and subsequent researchers were able to place all the countries  surveyed along each of these continuums – giving them a deeper understanding of how people  from different cultures might interact in a professional context[6]. In order to help you understand  the relevance of this fantastic study, each of the different dimensions is described in more detail  below. 

Power Distance (PDI)  

Power distance is one of the main 4 dimensions (power distance, individualism, masculinity and  uncertainty avoidance) that were developed in the initial 1967 – 1973 IBM study that was  conducted over 50 different countries[7]. This dimension is described as “…the extent to which the  less powerful members of organisations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that  power is distributed unequally…”[8]. Those societies that demonstrate low power-distance expect  and accept a society that is much more equal, regardless of status. Anyone can message/ communicate with anyone – whether it is up or down the chain of command. Alternatively, high  power-distance societies tend to put a significant gap between those in power and those not.  Once again, this orientation is expected and accepted by the wider society. 

Another way to think about this dimension is how hierarchal/egalitarian[9] members of a group  expect the group to be organised – along with how readily they accept this distribution. It is  important to note the term “expect” as it relates to the way individuals of a certain culture  anticipate the situation to be organised before experiencing it. This “expectation” is explored  further in the GLOBE 2014 study where the research team explored the prototype of a good  manager in a certain culture along with how they actually behave – with special attention to the fit  between the two[10].  

Looking back at the PDI scores, here is a reduced continuum with only a couple of cultural  profiles featured.

It is important to note that for each of these spectrums, the absolute position of the country/ culture doesn’t matter as much as the relative position in relation to another country/culture.  Furthermore, there is no good or bad – just different. Understanding these dimensions and where  your culture is in comparison to someone else’s will give you a more accurate perspective on  those differences. 

Individualism (IDV)  

Individualism is the second of the 4 original dimensions explored by Hofstede at IBM (where he  held a managerial role until 1971). This dimension centres around the concept of in-groups and  the “degree to which people in a society are integrated into groups”[11]. 

So what are in-groups? It is helpful to first visualise the micro of your workplace/university/general  social cross-section. When you look around, do you see people moving between each other  fluidly as individuals, dipping in and out of conversations as they glide around the space? Or do  you see people staying relatively close together with only a few people acting as ambassadors for  the groups – and even then still trying their best to stick with their tribe? Zooming out to the meso,  how do you see people from different workplaces/universities/social-circles interacting with the  overarching group made up by the aforementioned smaller-groups? And going further once again  to the macro, how do you see people from a different society altogether interacting with the in 

group made up of all the micro- and meso-groups that make up the wider society you are familiar  with? This is the beauty of in-groups and each society finds themselves at a different level on the  spectrum. A reduced version taken from the work of Hofstede is pictured below.

Masculinity (MAS)  

Masculinity is one of the more controversial dimensions explored by Hofstede and has  experienced critique as being “Eurocentric and sexist”[12]. Despite these critiques, a masculine  society is described as having “…a preference in society for achievement, heroism, assertiveness  and material rewards for success”, whereas its counterpart, a feminine society, is characterised as  exhibiting a preference for cooperation, modesty, caring for the weak and quality of life.”. Applied  

to real-life, it is suggested that more masculine societies encourage women to be increasingly  assertive and competitive – but still notably less than men. Once more, the position of relative  counties/cultures can be viewed below. 

Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI)  

Uncertainty avoidance marks the final dimension explored in the initial Hofstede study. The  spectrum in question can be described as “a society’s tolerance for ambiguity” which has a  measurable impact on guidelines, laws, infrastructure and many more areas of interpersonal  life[13]. Those with low-uncertainty avoidance embrace uncertainty whereas those on the other end  of the spectrum, high uncertainty-avoidance, will do their best to mitigate it. In order to fully  understand this dimension, it can be helpful to ask yourself, “how comfortable am I with not  knowing when I am going to arrive to work? Once you’ve asked and answered this question, take  a look at the continuum below to see whether it matches with the results Hofstede gained about  your country/culture.

Long-term Orientation (LTO)  

This dimension is the first of the final two that make up the extended study carried out by  Hofstede and Michael Harris Bond et al in 1991[14]. This study looked at a further 23 countries and  had Chinese influence in making the survey instrument – meaning that certain “Western bias” was  mitigated[15]. On the short-term orientation side of the scale, this indicates that traditions are kept  and consistency is highly valued. Long-term orientation differs in that flexibility, adaptation and  pragmatism is a big part of growth and should be embraced. As you will see from the graphic  below, those countries that may be described as “developing” tend to have a more long-term  orientation due to the flexibility with which business must be approached among other reasons.

Indulgence (IND)  

The most recent addition to the study set by Hofstede. This dimension was added in 2010  following research by Michael Minkov using the World Values Survey[16] and carried out over 93  countries. For this final development, an indulgent society is described as one that “…allows  relatively free gratification of basic and natural human desires related to enjoying life and having  fun” whereas a restrictive society tends to “control gratification of needs and regulates it by  means of strict social norms”. Indulgence is featured on the high-end of the scale whereas  restraint is featured on the low-end of the scale. 

With all these methods considered, it can often seem difficult (if not impossible) to grasp how one  might manage across cultures – especially in multicultural teams. However, it should act as  encouragement that even knowing these dimensions will give you a much deeper understanding  of culture and will enhance your ability to spot instances of difference that arise as a result of  cross-cultural ambiguity. If you’re looking for application of these concepts and critiques in  response to Hofstede’s extended study, check out our other articles on these concepts. 

  1. House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Hanges, P. J., & Luque, S. M. (2014). Societal  Culture and Leadership. Strategic Leadership Across Cultures: GLOBE Study of CEO  Leadership Behavior and Effectiveness in 24 Countries (1st ed., pp. 1). Los Angeles, CA:  SAGE Publications, Inc. 
  2. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of  the Mind, Third Edition (3rd ed.). Toronto, Canada: McGraw-Hill Education. 
  3. Toekomst, V. (2020, February 17). Geert Hofstede – CV. Retrieved September 18, 2020, from  https://geerthofstede.com/geert-hofstede-biography/geert-hofstede-cv/
  4. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). The Concept of Culture. Cultures and  Organizations: Software of the Mind, Third Edition (3rd ed., pp. 17 – 21). Toronto, Canada:  McGraw-Hill Education. 
  5. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of  the Mind, Third Edition (3rd ed., pp. 55 – 60). Toronto, Canada: McGraw-Hill Education. 
  6. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of  the Mind, Third Edition (3rd ed., pp. 1 – 7). Toronto, Canada: McGraw-Hill Education. 
  7. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of  the Mind, Third Edition (3rd ed., pp. 37). Toronto, Canada: McGraw-Hill Education. 
  8. Hofstede, G. (2011, December 1). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context  (pp. 9). Retrieved September 18, 2020, from https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://en.wikipedia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1014&context=orpc
  9. Meyer, E., Larsen, L., & PublicAffairs. (2019). How Much Respect Do You Want? The Culture  Map: Breaking Through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business (pp. 125 – 127). New York  City, New York: PublicAffairs. 
  10. House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Hanges, P. J., & Luque, S. M. (2014). Societal  Culture and Leadership. Strategic Leadership Across Cultures: GLOBE Study of CEO  Leadership Behavior and Effectiveness in 24 Countries (1st ed., pp. 5 – 7). Los Angeles, CA:  SAGE Publications, Inc. 
  11. Hofstede, G. (2011, December 1). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context  (pp. 11). Retrieved September 18, 2020, from https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://en.wikipedia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1014&context=orpc
  12. Witte, Anne E. “Making the Case for a Postnational Cultural Analysis of Organizations,”  Journal of Management Inquiry, April 2012, Vol. 21:2, pp. 141–159. 
  13. Hofstede, G. (2011, December 1). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context  (pp. 10). Retrieved September 18, 2020, from https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://en.wikipedia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1014&context=orpc
  14. Toekomst, V. (2016, August 16). Michael H. Bond. Retrieved September 18, 2020, from https:// geerthofstede.com/related-scientists/michael-harris-bond/
  15. Harvard International Review, & Young, A. (2014). Western Theory, Global World: Western Bias  in International Theory. Harvard International Review, 36(1), 29–31. Retrieved from https:// www.jstor.org/stable/43649244

16. Minkov, Michael (2007). What makes us different and similar: A new interpretation of the World  Values Survey and other cross-cultural data. Sofia, Bulgaria: Klasika y Stil Publishing House.  ISBN 978-954-327-023-1. Archived 23 November 2010 at the Wayback Machine

Context Culture Limited | contact@contextculture.uk
Facebook Twitter Youtube Instagram

Deeper than language.®

Powered by