2.3.2: Geert Hofstede

Low vs. High Power Distance

The first of Geert Hofstede’s original dimensions of national cultures was power distance, or the degree to which those people and organizations with less power within a culture accept and expect that power is unequally distributed within their culture. To determine power differences within a culture, Hofstede originally could examine cultural value survey data that had been collected by IBM. Over the years, Hofstede and his fellow researchers have regularly collected additional data from around the world to make his conceptualization of six cultural differences one of the most widely studied concepts of culture. With power distances, these differences often manifest themselves within a single culture, such as class, education, occupations, and healthcare. With class, many cultures have three clear segments: low, middle, and upper. However, the concepts of what is low, middle, and upper can have enormous differences. For example, the median income for the average U.S. household is $51,100 (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2013) When discussing household incomes, we use the median (middlemost number) because it’s the most accurate representation of income. According to a 2013 report from the U.S. Census Bureau (using income data from 2012), here is how income inequality in the United States looks:

However, income is just one indicator of power distance within a culture. Another aspect of power distance is the ability or the right to access education within a society. Other indicators of power distances can include: health care (who gets it and what type), occupations (what kinds of jobs are available to different segments of society), governmental influence (who can and who can’t create political outcomes), etc. According to Hofstede’s most recent data, the five countries with the highest power distances are: Malaysia, Slovakia, Guatemala, Panama, and the Philippines (Hofstede et al,. 2010).The five countries with the lowest power distances are Austria, Israel, Denmark, New Zealand, and Switzerland (German-speaking part). Notice that the United States does not make it into the top five or the bottom five. According to Hofstede’s data, the United States ranks 16th from the bottom in terms of power distance, placing us in the bottom third. When it comes down to it, despite the issues we have in our country, the power disparity is not nearly as significant as it is in many other parts of our world.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

The United States is number one on individualism, according to Hofstede’s data (Hofstede et al., 2010). Americans are individualistic. We think of ourselves as individuals rather than as a collective group. Most Asian countries are considered collectivistic cultures because these cultures are group-focused. Collectivistic cultures tend to consider actions that might impact the entire group rather than specific group members.

In an individualistic culture, there is a prevailing belief that one can do as they please and follow their dreams or passions. In an individualistic culture, if someone asked what you do for a living, they would answer by saying their profession or occupation. However, in collectivistic cultures, a person would answer in terms of the group, organization, and/or corporation they serve. Moreover, in a collectivistic culture, there is a prevailing belief that one should prioritize the group’s interests. Collectivistic cultures emphasize the group’s potential for growth and productivity. Collectivists are more likely to focus their attention on others than themselves as an individual.

Masculinity vs. Femininity

The notions of masculinity and femininity are often misconstrued to be tied to their biological sex counterparts, female and male. For understanding culture, Hofstede acknowledges that this distinction ultimately has a lot to do with work goals (Hofstede et al., 2010). On the masculine end of the spectrum, individuals are focused on items like earnings, recognition, advancement, and challenge. Hofstede also refers to these tendencies as being more assertive. Femininity involves characteristics such as maintaining a good working relationship with one’s manager and coworkers, cooperating with others at work, and achieving security (both in one’s job and family). Hofstede refers to this as being more relationally oriented. Admittedly, in Hofstede’s research, there is a difference between females and males on these characteristics (females are more relationally oriented and males are more assertive), which is why Hofstede went with the terms masculinity and femininity. Ultimately, we can define these types of cultures in the following way:

The top five most masculine countries are Slovakia, Japan, Hungary, Austria, and Venezuela (the United States ranks 19th out of 76); whereas, Sweden, Norway, Latvia, the Netherlands, and Denmark represent the most feminine countries. As you can imagine, depending on the type of culture you live in, you will have wildly different social interactions with other people. There’s also a massive difference in the approach to marriage. In masculine cultures, women are the caretakers of the home, while men are expected to be healthy and wealthy. As such, women are often placed in a subservient position to their husbands and are socially identified by them. For example, an invitation to a party would be addressed to “Mr. and Mrs. John Smith.” In feminine cultures, men and women are held to the same standards, and their relationships should be based on mutual friendship.

Low vs. High Uncertainty Avoidance

The next category identified by Hofstede involves the concept of uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede et al., 2010). Life is full of uncertainty. We cannot escape it; however, some people are more prone to becoming fearful in situations that are ambiguous or unknown. Uncertainty avoidance then involves the extent to which cultures are afraid of ambiguous and unknown situations. People in cultures with high uncertainty avoidance can view this ambiguity and lack of knowledge as threatening, which is one reason people in these cultures have higher levels of anxiety and neuroticism. In fact, within the latest edition of the book examining these characteristics, Hofstede and his colleagues title the chapter on uncertainty avoidance as “What is Different is Dangerous,” highlighting the threat factor that people in high uncertainty avoidance cultures feel(Hofstede et al., 2010). Cultures at the high end of uncertainty avoidance include Greece, Portugal, Guatemala, Uruguay, and Belgium Flemish; whereas, cultures at the low end of uncertainty avoidance include Singapore, Jamaica, Denmark, Sweden, and Hong Kong. The United States ranks 64^th out of 76 countries analyzed (Singapore was number 76). From an interpersonal perspective, people from high uncertainty avoidant cultures are going to have a lot more anxiety associated with interactions involving people from other cultures. There tend to be higher levels of prejudice and higher levels of ideological, political, and religious fundamentalism, which does not allow for any debate.

Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation

Besides the previous characteristics, Hofstede identified a fifth characteristic of cultures, which he termed long-term and short-term orientation. Long-term orientation focuses on the future, rather than the present or the past. As such, there is a focus on both persistence and thrift. The emphasis on endurance is vital because being persistent today will help you in the future. The goal is to work hard now so you can reap the benefits later. The same is true of thrift. We want to conserve our resources and underspend to build a financial cushion for the future. Short-term oriented cultures, on the other hand, tend to focus on both the past and the present. In these cultures, there is a high respect for the past and the various traditions that have contributed to the greatness of that culture. Additionally, there is a strong emphasis on “saving face,” which we will discuss more in the next section, fulfilling one’s obligations today, and enjoying one’s leisure time. At the long-term end of the spectrum are countries like China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan; whereas, countries like Pakistan, Czech Republic, Nigeria, Spain, and the Philippines are examples of short-term. The United States ranked 31 out of 39, with Pakistan being number 39. Interpersonally, long-term oriented countries were more satisfied with their contributions to “Being attentive to daily human relations, deepening human bonds in family, neighborhood and friends or acquaintances” when compared to their short-term counterparts (Hofstede et al., 2010).

Indulgence vs. Restraint

The final characteristic of cultures is a new one first reported on in the 2010 edition of Cultures and Organizations (Hofstede et al., 2010). The sixth cultural characteristic is called indulgence vs. restraint, which examines issues of happiness and well-being. According to Hofstede and his coauthors, “Indulgence stands for a tendency to allow relatively free gratification of basic and natural human desires related to enjoying life and having fun. Its opposite pole, restraint, reflects a conviction that such gratification needs to be curbed and regulated by strict social norms [emphasis in original]” (Hofstede et al., 2010). The top five on the indulgence end are Venezuela, Mexico, Puerto Rico, El Salvador, and Nigeria, whereas those on the restraint end are Pakistan, Egypt, Latvia, Ukraine, and Albania. The United States is positioned toward the indulgence end of the spectrum and ranks #15, alongside Canada and the Netherlands. Some interesting findings associated with indulgence include experiencing higher levels of positive emotions and recalling those emotions for longer periods. Individuals from more indulgent cultures are more optimistic, while their restrained counterparts are more likely to be cynical. People in more indulgent countries are happier than their restrained counterparts, and individuals within indulgent cultures exhibit lower rates of cardiovascular problems commonly associated with stress. Ultimately, individuals from indulgent cultures are more extroverted and outgoing overall, whereas those from restrained cultures are more neurotic. From years of research examining both extraversion and neuroticism, we know that extroverted individuals have more successful interpersonal relationships than those who are highly neurotic. Ultimately, research examining these differences has shown that people from indulgent countries are more open to other cultures, more satisfied with their lives, and are more likely to communicate with friends and family members via the Internet while interacting with more people from other cultures via the Internet as well.