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)
High-Indulgence Countries |
High-Restraint Countries |
1 Venezuela |
11 Australia |
74 Morocco |
83 Iraq |
2 Mexico |
12 Cyprus |
75 China |
85 Estonia |
3 Puerto Rico |
12 Denmark |
76 Azerbaijan |
85 Bulgaria |
4 El Salvador |
14 Great Britain |
77 Russia |
85 Lithuania |
5 Nigeria |
15 Canada |
77 Montenegro |
88 Belarus |
6 Colombia |
15 Netherlands |
77 Romania |
88 Albania |
7 Trinidad |
15 USA |
77 Bangladesh |
90 Ukraine |
8 Sweden |
18 Iceland |
81 Moldova |
91 Latvia |
9 New Zealand |
19 Switzerland |
82 Burkina Faso |
92 Egypt |
10 Ghana |
19 Malta |
83 Hong Kong |
93 Pakistan |