This book was originally published in 1991 and has become a classic text for those studying cross-cultural management. This is however far too important a book to be left on the reading lists of business schools.
Geert Hofstede realized that a survey of people doing the same work for the same company, IBM, would share education, career and most other things in common, except for the fact of their nationality and gender. So he took survey data from IBM employees round the world from other 50 countries, taking their actual work and positions into account and identified four main dimensions which distinguished cultures at a national level.
The four dimensions were: power distance, collectivism versus individualism, femininity versus masculinity and uncertainty avoidance. He later added a fifth dimension, long term versus short term orientation.
Hofstede also found that the findings for each dimension could be related to the way in which individual cultures are organized.
As we live in an increasingly multi-cultural world understanding the differences between cultures is becoming increasingly important. We also need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of our own culture in order to avoid our own blind spots. An Anglo-Saxon tendency (the US and UK along with countries like Australia have virtually identical scores under Hofstede’s system), is to imagine that other cultures will end up copying Anglo-Saxon cultures, and that the current behaviour of other nations is something that can be ignored, as it will soon past away when “they see reason”.
The Five Dimensions
Power Distance
Measures the individual’s perception of the degree of inequality in a society (not wealth). Short power distance countries are more democratic in their approach to power.
The countries with the greatest power distance were Malaysia, Guatemala, Mexico and Arab countries also scored for high power distance. Those countries with the lowest power distance were Austria, Israel, and the Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon countries.
Hofstede found that in those countries with a large power distance there was much greater stress on hierarchies, that politics trends to be extreme and that power is based on family and friends, that the middle class is small and that the exercise of might is seen as legitimate.
In those countries with a low power distance there is a stress on the legal basis of power, a stress on equal rights and equality, and that political parties tend to the centre.
Collectivism versus Individualism
Unsurprisingly the top four individualist national cultures were all Anglo Saxon, headed by the USA, followed by other European countries.
As regards collectivism nations Guatemala and Ecuador headed the list. Portugal and Greece are collectivism European cultures and the Arab countries and Turkey were neutral.
Hofstede says that collectivism nations base their societies on extended families and that social networks define people’s identities and that everything is organized in terms of groups.
In contrast in an individualist nation everyone grows up to look after themselves and identity is based on the individual. These societies are project based and rule-based, but will ignore rules if the individual does not think them justified.
Femininity versus Masculinity
Male dominated societies tend to be assertive and competitive, whereas feminine orientation in societies favours cooperation, good working relationships and security.
Masculine orientated societies are headed by Japan and Austria, Anglo-Saxon countries are also masculine in focus. Feminine orientated nations are the Scandinavian countries, Portugal, and Chile. Arab countries and Singapore are neutral.
Feminine nations are strong on caring values, good relationships and stress equality and solidarity. Masculine nations stress material success and progress. There is greater division between the sexes and managers are expected to be decisive and assertive.
Uncertainty Avoidance
Uncertainty avoidance means the avoidance of risks and the creation of complex rules in order to deal with any possible situation. Nations with weak uncertainty avoidance are more comfortable with ambiguous situations, they also are more relaxed about change and innovation.
The national cultures with have the strongest uncertainty avoidance are Greece and Portugal, other high scoring nations include Japan, Israel, and France, moderately scoring countries include Germany, the Arab countries and Austria, and the lowest scoring countries include Singapore, Sweden, UK, Ireland, Denmark and Jamaica.
This is an area which causes a lot of misunderstanding; people from low uncertainty avoidance cultures like the Danes distrust too many rules and regulations, but for the Greeks and French such rules are essential. The European Union contains nations at the extremes of this dimension and it will be interesting to see how it can deal with the pressures that very different national cultures impose on it. It is interesting that Denmark, UK and Sweden are the three EU members still outside the EuroZone, whereas Portugal and Greece rushed to join.
Strong uncertainty avoidance cultures also have an urge to work hard and an emotional need for rules (and taboos), and a fear of what is different, experts are very important and there is a desire for certainty and intolerance of alternative ideas.
Weak uncertainty avoidance cultures have few taboos, religious or otherwise, and are not naturally punctual, but are tolerant and often lazy.
Long-Term versus Short-Term Orientation
As a result of work in Hong Kong a fifth dimension was added, one dealing with time-orientation. It was found that the ideas of Confucius still have an important influence in China and on other countries in the Far East. Confucian values included perseverance, thrift, having a sense of shame and ordering relationships by status. China scored highest on this dimension, followed by other Far Eastern countries. The Netherlands and Sweden were in the middle and the Anglo Saxon countries scored low.
Conclusions
While it is interesting to look at the different dimensions of national culture, and to see the differences between nations, this subject only becomes of real importance when we consider what this means in terms of the problems of people from different cultures living and working together. For people from a rule-based (strong certainty avoidance culture) living in a country like the UK or Denmark can be very confusing – things do not feel right for them, there is too much tolerance, people are allowed to get away with too much.
By the same token if you come from a high power distance culture it can be very difficult working in a low power distance culture, you may think that there is a lack of respect for the authorities that people are too informal and that you cannot take your boss seriously when he or she says that they just one of the team.
Then a Swede visiting the UK may find the masculine oriented culture too aggressive and socially uncaring, while an English person may find the culture of Denmark too calm and caring. Life gets even more interesting when you start to combine the effects of different dimensions together. So Denmark is both a feminine and a weak uncertainty avoidance culture, contrasting with Japan which is masculine and strong uncertainty avoidance culture.
So the truth of the matter is that your own values are often completely at variance with the values of the people you are dealing with or visiting. If you understand what their culture consists of you can avoid making mistakes and gaining a wider understanding of the people you are dealing with. So if you come from a culture which has a high score for collective values (family etc.), say from Portugal or Egypt, and also a high power distance and you visit London, you are dealing with a culture which is highly individualistic (has little understanding of the importance of institutions like the extended family) and has a low power distance (more than prepared to tell the Prime Minister how to run the country, or shout “rubbish” at political speakers), behaviour which would earn a visit to jail in some countries. It is also a culture which has little interest in rules (Britain does not even have a written constitution), and yet is aggressively sure of itself (the British seem to love going to war). As a sensible and well-educated Egyptian you know that is all wrong, but you can never get the locals to see this.
Other tourists can have a different set of problems, as when a group of British and Dutch plane spotters were thrown into jail by the Greeks for noting aircraft numbers at an air show, in a very strict enforcement of the letter of the law, by a high uncertainty avoidance culture.
So try playing this game – think about what you really cannot understand about the behaviour of your Dutch, or American or Saudi, or French, or Chinese friend, and then think about your own culture – where does it fit on the dimensions described above?
Then you will see that the English are basically untidy, too tolerant, too concerned for themselves and have no family worthy of the name, that the Portuguese are too concerned with hierarchies and titles, find it difficult to see themselves as someone apart from their family and lack aggression. As for yourself … well, you can decide for yourself.
If you have friends from different countries, or travel internationally, then you will enjoy this book and also gain real insights of great value.
