Exploring Cultures: Evaluating the Hofstede dimensional model

In the blog last week, we focused on an analysis of the social origins of cultural values. This week we will move on to explore a foundational model of culture that introduces the argument that societies can be differentiated by distinctive value dimensions that are applicable to a variety of practical context. Moreover, the premise of this approach is that an understanding of the combination of such values can enable improved cross-cultural communication while reducing factors that can trigger misunderstandings or even conflict.

Introduction to the Hofstede model

The Hofstede dimensional approach provides a framework for understanding the influence of culture on the values, expectations, and behaviour of global societies. The original 4 dimensions have now been extended because of further research to 6. These dimensions have a significant practical application in various areas such as international management, interpersonal communications, and cross-cultural negotiations. The original foundational research was based on an analysis of 88,000 employees from 72 nations at IBM subsidiaries in 1980.

The underlying guiding assumption of the research is that most people are so absorbed in the daily routine of their domestic cultural expectations that they are typically unable to perceive the impact or consequence on members from other societal contexts.

An introduction to the cultural dimensions

The power distance index

This dimension illustrates the extent to which members are willing to tolerate and even respect an unequal distribution of power across the domestic social context. In nations listed as reflecting large levels of power distance, there is an inclination to accept hierarchical authority, significant disparities in wealth, together with unequal life opportunities as being the natural order of everyday societal experience. In contrast, countries with a small power distance index are orientated towards the prioritisation of a more equal distribution of power while endorsing relationships that are consultative, egalitarian, and democratic.

Examples of dimensional distribution:

Large: Malaysia, Russia, China, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia

Small: Austria, Norway, UK, Estonia, Jamaica

The contrast between individualism and collectivism

Here, emphasis is placed on the extent to which members are orientated more towards the expression of individual initiatives, or respect and conformity to collective norms. Moreover, within individualistic societies, stress is placed on personal rights, achievement, and free expression, while collectivist cultures prioritise the maintenance of harmonious relationships and group loyalty. Finally, the communication style in individualistic societies tends to be more direct and ‘me’ focused, while being indirect and ‘we’ inclined in a collectivist context.

Examples of dimensional distribution:

Individualist: Netherlands, UK, Japan, Israel, Italy

Collectivist: Nigeria, Egypt, Thailand, India, Iraq

The motivation to achievement and success

This is a more recently introduced dimension that replaced what was previously labelled as the contrast between feminine or masculine values. In this new approach, a distinction is drawn between societies that are either more actively decisive in relation to social interventions or consensus orientated. In decisive inclined societies, members are driven by values of personal competition, achievement, and success. Conversely, in a consensus context, the dominant perception is shifted towards caring for others and the quality of life. Indeed, the objective of achieving a meaningful and qualitative lifestyle is itself considered a sign of success while standing out from others is typically regarded as an undesirable characteristic.

Examples of dimensional distribution:

Decisive: Japan, UK, China, India, Belgium

Consensus: Sweden, Ukraine, Thailand, South Korea, Ghana

The uncertainty avoidance index

This dimension defines the degree to which members are comfortable when exposed to unfamiliarity and ambiguity in everyday experiences. A strong uncertainty index indicates a limited tolerance for change and risk taking. In contrast, those in weak uncertainty cultures are more orientated towards an acceptance of ambiguity while feeling more comfortable in less structured and changeable environments in which there are fewer rules or regulations. Consequently, members are more tolerant and open to what is perceived to be inevitable social change.

Examples of dimensional distribution:

Strong: Greece, Japan, Kazakhstan, Spain, Israel

Weak: Denmark, China, UK, Indonesia, Kenya

The long- versus short-term orientation

This dimension can be defined as the orientation of members of a society towards being either rooted more in the past or future in relation to values, customs, and behaviour. Long-term cultures focus on achieving future rewards by deferred gratification, perseverance, persistence, and thrift, while valuing the capacity for adaptation. In contrast, the orientation in short-term societies tends towards the prioritisation of more immediate results, personal achievement, the satisfaction of desires, along with respect for traditionally established conventions.

Examples of dimensional distribution:

Long-term: Japan, China, UK, Norway, India

Short-term: Ghana, Chile, UAE, Algeria, Brazil

The restraint versus indulgence norms

The emphasis here is on the extent to which members are motivated by more immediate gratification or inclined to resist impulsive behaviour by exercising control. Indulgent societies tend to allow a greater degree of immediate personal satisfaction of desires expressed in terms of the philosophy of ‘live for today’. This is also illustrated in a tendency to spend more money on luxury goods and leisure activities. Conversely, in a restraint cultural context, members are encouraged to suppress the desire for immediate satisfaction while focusing on behaviour such as saving money for the future and only addressing immediate unavoidable practical needs and actions.

Examples of dimensional distribution:

Indulgence: Mexico, New Zealand, UK, Argentina, Finland

Restraint: Pakistan, Estonia, Russia, China, Iran

The application, value, and limitations of the model

The value of Hofstede’s dimensions is that they help to reduce the potential shock of unexpected behavioural differences between nations while greatly enhancing effective cross-cultural communication. The model is also applicable to several practical contexts such as international commerce, organisational management, and global marketing.

Put simply, understanding the dimensions encourages people to avoid taking behavioural expectations for granted while reflecting more deeply on universal values that help to make unfamiliar cultural context less intimidating.

However, there are limitations to the Hofstede framework. First, the original research methodology has been subject to considerable criticism. The primary reason for this is the survey was carried out exclusively on IBM employees and only those in sales and marketing positions. Clearly this company level of membership is not necessarily representative of even the wider IBM organisation and certainly not of the broader cultural context. Secondly, there is a constant need to update and modify the dimensions as globally cultures are in a state of continuous flux, especially in terms of environmental issues, the economic context, and significant developments in technological advancement.

In conclusion, following our review of the Hofstede dimension, we have completed another key step in understanding the importance of culture when attempting to interpret how values, behaviour, and expectation vary significantly across national boundaries. Next week, we will move on to explore why communication between some national cultural clusters is more comfortable than with others.

---

Question 1

Is the dimensional model focused more on collective rather than individual behavioural norms?

Question 2

Does the increasing influence of technology on culture warrant the creation of a new dimension?

Question 3

Might communication be more comfortable between some nations rather than others?

---

We shall explore Question 3 in the next blog.