From LibreTexts, under CC BY-NC 4.0, as the source states it; its equations are written in TeX, which the PDF shows typeset. This page at LibreTexts.
6.2: Hofstede’s dimensions of culture theory
Opening the book…
Geert Hofstede articulated a Dimensions of Culture theory in the 1980s, and has updated and revised it over the years. Hofstede’s theory currently gets a lot of attention in basic texts that include discussion of cultural values. Based on survey data collected from IBM employees, Hofstede has argued that his theory is particularly useful for highlighting similarities and differences between national cultures. Hofstede initially identified four dimensions.
Power Distance
Power distance is a measure of the degree to which less powerful members of society expect and accept an unequal distribution of power. There is a certain degree of inequality in all societies, notes Hofstede; however, there is relatively more equality in some societies than in others. Countries vary along a continuum from countries where power distance is very low to countries where power distance is very high. Measured on a scale of 1-100 for instance, Denmark scores very low and Mexico scores quite high. The U.S. falls somewhere in between.
Countries with lower PDI values tend to be more egalitarian. For instance, there is more equality between parents and children with parents more likely to accept it if children argue with them, or “talk back” to use a common expression. In the work place, bosses are more likely to ask employees for input, and in fact, subordinates expect to be consulted. On the other hand, in countries with high power distance, parents expect children to obey without questioning. People of higher status may expect conspicuous displays of respect from subordinates. In the workplace, superiors and subordinates are not likely to see each other as equals, and it is assumed that bosses will make decisions without consulting employees. In general, status is more important in high power distance countries.
Table 6.2 – Power distance index (PDI) for 50 countries and 3 regions (Hofstede, 1997: 26)
Country/
Region
PDI
Country/
Region
PDI
Country/
Region
PDI
Country/
Region
PDI
Malaysia
*104
France
68
South Korea
60
Australia
36
Guatemala
95
Hong Kong
68
Iran
58
Costa Rica
35
Panama
95
Colombia
67
Taiwan
58
Germany
35
Philippines
94
Salvador
66
Spain
57
Great Britain
35
Mexico
81
Turkey
66
Pakistan
55
Switzerland
34
Venezuela
81
Belgium
65
Japan
54
Finland
33
Arab countries
80
East Africa
64
Italy
50
Norway
31
Ecuador
78
Peru
64
Argentina
49
Sweden
31
Indonesia
78
Thailand
64
South Africa
49
Ireland
28
India
77
Chile
63
Jamaica
45
New Zealand
22
West Africa
77
Portugal
63
USA
40
Denmark
18
Yugoslavia
76
Uruguay
61
Canada
39
Israel
13
Singapore
74
Greece
60
Netherlands
38
Austria
11
Brazil
69
* A country may score above 100 if it was added after a formula for the scale had already been fixed.
Table 6.3 – Individualism index (IDV) for 50 countries and 3 regions (Hofstede, 1997: 53)
Country/
Region
IDV
Country/
Region
IDV
Country/
Region
IDV
Country/
Region
IDV
USA
91
Germany
67
Turkey
37
Thailand
20
Australia
90
South Africa
65
Uruguay
36
Salvador
19
Great Britain
89
Finland
63
Greece
35
South Korea
18
Canada
80
Austria
55
Philippines
32
Taiwan
17
Netherlands
80
Israel
54
Mexico
30
Peru
16
New Zealand
79
Spain
51
Yugoslavia
27
Costa Rica
15
Italy
76
India
48
East Africa
27
Indonesia
14
Belgium
75
Japan
46
Portugal
27
Pakistan
14
Denmark
74
Argentina
46
Malaysia
26
Colombia
13
France
71
Iran
41
Hong Kong
25
Venezuela
12
Sweden
71
Jamaica
39
Chile
23
Panama
11
Ireland
70
Arab countries
38
West Africa
20
Ecuador
8
Norway
69
Brazil
38
Singapore
20
Guatemala
6
Switzerland
68
Individualism vs. collectivism
Individualism vs. collectivism anchor opposite ends of a continuum that describes how people define themselves and their relationships with others. Countries that score higher on individualism measure are considered by definition less collectivistic than countries that score lower. In more highly individualistic societies, the interests of individuals receive more emphasis than those of the group (e.g., the family, the company, etc.). Individualistic societies put more value on self-striving and personal accomplishment, while more collectivistic societies put more emphasis on the importance of relationships and loyalty. People are defined more by what they do in individualistic societies while in collectivistic societies, they are defined more by their membership in particular groups. Communication is more direct in individualistic societies but more indirect in collectivistic societies. The U.S. ranks very high in individualism, and South Korea ranks quite low. Japan falls close to the middle.
Masculinity vs. femininity
Masculinity vs. femininity refers to a dimension that describes the extent to which strong distinctions exist between men’s and women’s roles in society. Societies that score higher on the masculinity scale tend to value assertiveness, competition, and material success. Countries that score lower in masculinity tend to embrace values more widely thought of as feminine values, e.g., modesty, quality of life, interpersonal relationships, and greater concern for the disadvantaged of society. Societies high in masculinity are also more likely to have strong opinions about what constitutes men’s work vs. women’s work while societies low in masculinity permit much greater overlapping in the social roles of men and women.
Table 6.4 – Masculinity index (MAS) for 50 countries and 3 regions (Hofstede, 1997: 84)
Country/
Region
MAS
Country/
Region
MAS
Country/
Region
MAS
Country/
Region
MAS
Japan
95
USA
62
Singapore
48
South Korea
39
Austria
79
Australia
61
Israel
47
Uruguay
38
Venezuela
73
New Zealand
58
Indonesia
46
Guatemala
37
Italy
70
Hong Kong
57
West Africa
46
Thailand
34
Switzerland
70
Greece
57
Turkey
45
Portugal
31
Mexico
69
India
56
Taiwan
45
Chile
28
Ireland
69
Argentina
56
Panama
44
Finland
26
Jamaica
68
Belgium
54
France
43
Yugoslavia
21
Germany
66
Arab countries
53
Iran
43
Costa Rica
21
Great Britain
66
Canada
52
Peru
42
Denmark
16
Philippines
64
Malaysia
50
Spain
42
Netherlands
14
Colombia
64
Pakistan
50
East Africa
41
Norway
8
Ecuador
63
Brazil
49
Salvador
40
Sweden
5
South Africa
63
Uncertainty avoidance
Uncertainty avoidance measures the extent to which people value predictability and view uncertainty or the unknown as threatening. People in societies that measure high in uncertainty avoidance prefer to know exactly what to expect in any given situation. They want firm rules and strict codes of behavior. They dislike ambiguity. People from countries that score low on uncertainty avoidance generally have a higher tolerance for ambiguity. They are happy to have few rules and prefer less structured rather than more tightly structured contexts. In educational settings, people from countries high in uncertainty avoidance expect their teachers to be experts with all of the answers. People from countries low in uncertainty avoidance don’t mind it when a teacher says, “I don’t know.”
Table 6.5 – Uncertainty avoidance index (UAI)/ 50 countries and 3 regions (Hofstede, 1997: 113)
Country/
Region
UAI
Country/
Region
UAI
Country/
Region
UAI
Country/
Region
UAI
Greece
112
Costa Rica
86
Ecuador
67
Indonesia
48
Portugal
104
Turkey
85
Germany
65
Canada
48
Guatemala
101
South Korea
85
Thailand
64
USA
46
Uruguay
100
Mexico
82
Iran
59
Philippines
44
Salvador
94
Israel
81
Finland
59
India
40
Belgium
94
Colombia
80
Switzerland
58
Malaysia
36
Japan
92
Venezuela
76
West Africa
54
Great Britain
35
Yugoslavia
88
Brazil
76
Netherlands
53
Ireland
35
Peru
87
Italy
75
East Africa
52
Hong Kong
29
Panama
86
Pakistan
70
Australia
51
Sweden
29
France
86
Austria
70
Norway
50
Denmark
23
Chile
86
Taiwan
69
South Africa
49
Jamaica
13
Spain
86
Arab countries
68
New Zealand
49
Singapore
8
Argentina
86
Long-term vs. short-term orientation
Long-term vs. short-term orientation is a 5th dimension developed some years after the initial four. It emerged as a result of an effort by a research group (The Chinese Culture Connection, 1987) to develop a universal values framework with a non-Western bias. According to Hofstede (1997: 161), the resulting Chinese Values Survey overlapped with three of Hofstede’s dimensions: power distance, individualism, and masculinity although not with the uncertainty avoidance dimension. In addition, the group found a unique factor not reflected in Hofstede’s work, which they called Confucian dynamism. Hofstede has since incorporated Confucian dynamism into his own theory as long-term vs. short-term orientation. Long-term orientation is associated with thrift, savings, persistence toward results, and the willingness to subordinate oneself for a purpose. Short-term orientation is associated with less saving, a preference for quick results, and unrestrained spending in response to social pressure (often referred to in English as “keeping up with the Joneses”).
Table 6.6 – Long-term orientation (LTO) for 23 countries (Hofstede, 1997: 166)
Country
LTO
Country
LTO
Country
LTO
Country
LTO
China
118
India
61
Poland
32
Zimbabwe
25
Hong Kong
96
Thailand
56
Germany
31
Canada
23
Taiwan
87
Singapore
48
Australia
31
Philippines
19
Japan
80
Netherlands
44
New Zealand
30
Nigeria
16
South Korea
75
Bangladesh
40
USA
29
Pakistan
0
Brazil
65
Sweden
33
Great Britain
25
Indulgence vs. self-restraint
Indulgence vs. self-restraint represents another new dimension. People living in countries that score high on indulgence are more likely to value the free gratification of human desires. Enjoying life and having fun are important to them. On the other hand, people in countries high on restraint are more likely to believe that gratification should be curbed and that it should be regulated by strict social norms (Hofstede, Hofstede & Minkov, 2010: 281).
Table 6.7 – Indulgence vs. Restraint. Ranking of 40 countries from most to least indulgent (reproduced from Jandt, 2016: 175)