6.2: Hofstede’s dimensions of culture theory

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