Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions: Where Does Your Culture Fall Along the Scale?

Cultures differ.

That’s what Hofstede found in his research.

But in what dimensions can we categorize these differences?

And at what value does your culture fall along the scale?

Last week, we talked about how Hofstede’s research led him to designate four cultural dimensions.

With further research, he developed five.

Hofstede’s Five Cultural Dimensions

Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions scale the opposing extremes:

  • Uncertainty avoidance vs. uncertainty tolerance cultures –

We’ve talked extensively about uncertainty avoidance over the past few posts.

When valuing a culture’s uncertainty avoidance versus their uncertainty tolerance, ask yourself: Does the society prefer a stable environment? Is risk-taking avoided? Or does the culture promote innovation and demonstrate risk-taking behaviors and an ability to adapt quickly to uncertain events and changeable environments?

  • Long-term vs. short-term oriented cultures –

Some cultures want satisfaction here and now, while others are programmed to look toward the future.

Is this a culture of instant gratification? Or is the society accepting of delayed material, emotional, and social needs?

  • High-power distance vs. low-power distance cultures

Power distance has to do with a culture’s perception of the fair distribution of power. Some cultures strive for a level playing field, while for others, power is allotted to few.

Is equality preferred over hierarchy? Are subordinates accepting of their lower positions, or is there a more democratic power structure?

  • Collectivist vs. individualist cultures –

We’ve also discussed collectivist versus individualist cultures in this blog, with individualist cultures championing the success of the individual, while collectivist cultures are geared more toward the prosperity of the group.

Is the culture more family/group-oriented or does it promote individual ambition and achievement?

  • Masculine vs. feminine cultures 

The foundation of a masculine culture is based in more traditionally masculine traits and vice versa.

Does the culture thrive on competition and aggression? Or does it encourage cooperation and the nurturing of its community members?

Additional Cultural Dimensions

Piggybacking off of Hofstede’s research and insights, other researchers have identified further cultural dimensions, including:

  • Rule-based vs. relationship-based cultures –

In rule-based cultures, behavior is governed by rules and laws.

In relationship-based cultures, behavior is governed by one’s relationship with others.

  • Polite vs. rude cultures –

Polite cultures consider the feelings of others, while courtesy takes a backseat to justice in “rude” cultures.

Does the culture “turn the other cheek”? Or is “an eye for an eye” the motto?

  • Shame-based vs. guilt-based cultures –

Guilt-based cultures are primarily motivated by an internalized conscience, while the behaviors of shame-based cultures are motivated by the approval/disapproval of the group.

And the list goes on.

As research into cross-cultural differences progresses, the data discovered will, no doubt, paint a more intricate picture of the many dimensions in which cultures differ.

The data available to us now enables us to understand more clearly what motivates individuals from different cultural backgrounds – and how cultures operate, as a whole.

We’ll delve deeper into these dimensions next week.

The “Japanese Miracle” & “Culture’s Consequences”: Cross-Cultural Research Gains Ground

Imagine your country is number one.

Number one in economic growth.

That’s what Japan was experiencing between the end of WWII and the Cold War.

While the country was still behind the United States, it became the world’s second-largest economy after its defeat in WWII.

Termed the “Japanese Miracle,” Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman were so interested in this economic boom that they wrote a book about it.

In Search of Excellence was written in the early ‘80s. It concluded that the Japanese outperformance of the Americans in terms of growth was due to differences in culture.

Culture and cultural studies were finally becoming a focal point to more than only those who studied social sciences. Big corporate CEOs were starting to see cross-cultural research as a tool for success in business.

Culture’s Consequence

In walks Hofstede.

As we discussed last week, Hofstede had discovered differences in culture while analyzing the outcomes of a company-wide survey for IBM.

In doing so, he offered the first scientifically-founded analysis of cultural differences in the workplace.

In 1980, he also published a book, Culture’s Consequences. By the turn of the century, Hofstede’s work had been cited more than 2000 times, with no empirical work as influential in the fields of psychology or culture.

According to Hofstede’s research, nations differed in four cultural dimensions.

The dimensions denoted sets of values, scaled from one extreme to the other. After surveying the populous of various cultures, each nation was valued between these two poles.

One dimension involved “Uncertainty Avoidance” – to what degree a culture’s members are comfortable/uncomfortable in unknown, surprising, or situations that differed from their cultural norm.

This dimension suggests which cultures maintain tradition and fear change and which are open to risk-taking and innovation.

The dimension of Uncertainty Avoidance was discovered when Hofstede looked at the survey’s responses to questions about work-related stress.

An example of a work-related question in the survey:

How often do you feel nervous or tense at work?

Answers ranged from “I never feel this way” to “I always feel this way.”

Another correlating question asked whether one should break company rules if doing so was in the best interest of the company.

Further, employees were asked if they had long-term plans to stay with the company.

The Results

The survey found that some cultures appreciated change, and these were the same cultures that were less affected by stress.

Those cultures that avoided change and were more affected by stress were often also more bound by rituals, laws, bureaucracy, and tradition.

For example, Latin American cultures are layered in procedures and rules and are considered “uncertainty avoiding” cultures.

Next week, we’ll talk about more of the dimensions discovered by Hofstede.

Hofstede and IBM: the Beginning of Significant Cross-Cultural Research

If you looked at Geert Hofstede‘s life, there was nothing particularly remarkable that might make you imagine he’d one day be at the forefront of cross-cultural research.

The Dutch researcher called the Netherlands home. He lived and studied there, after which he entered the military.

He became a management trainer at IBM, as well as the manager of staff research. It was in the latter role that he became entrenched in systematic research which would later hone in on the field of cross-cultural studies.

International Employee Opinion Research Program

In his role as manager of staff research, IBM’s International Employee Opinion Research Program became Hofstede’s brainchild.

Hofstede and his colleagues gathered and analyzed over 116,000 survey questionnaires over six years. The questionnaires were collected from 72 countries and involved 183 questions about the work environment, completed by IBM employees.

Providing a number of options, questionnaires asked employees to choose which option was the most important to them.

An example:

Which is most important to you?

  1. A job that allows personal/family time
  2. Challenging work that provides a sense of accomplishment
  3. Freedom to adapt your approach to work

Employees could choose their preference and, although the word “culture” wasn’t used in any context by IBM staff, and they weren’t charged with researching cross-cultural differences, nevertheless, the data revealed various patterns of cultural opinion and behavior.

Still, no cultural opinions were drawn from the data at the time.

Hofstede’s Findings

Taking a sabbatical from IBM, Hofstede taught at the IMD in Switzerland. It was there that he was allowed the time and academic engagement to analyze the IBM research.

He found that nationality could account for the behavioral differences resultant in the survey.

In order to test his theory, he questioned folks from various countries who didn’t work for IBM.

It became clear that cultural differences were there. 

The value of Hofstede’s research was lost on many for a while…it was lost even on him.

He had no idea what a significant gold mine he’d come across, from the standpoint of international business.

At the time, economic success was not dependent on cultural sensitivities. The United States was the number one unchallenged economic power.

As to the matter, Hofstede said:

“In the 1970s I was living in Brussels when I started developing my ideas of culture and I approached the European Commission about this, but found myself initially directed to an official who was responsible for museums! Such was their idea of culture!”

But all this changed in the ‘80s and beyond – a period which we’ll talk more about next week.

The Six Styles of Leadership Across Cultures, PART II

“The challenge of leadership is to be strong, but not rude; be kind, but not weak; be bold, but not a bully; be thoughtful, but not lazy; be humble, but not timid; be proud, but not arrogant; have humor, but without folly.” – Jim Rohn

Sounds like a lot. But the worst part is that, when you lead across cultures, there’s even more nuance to leadership than Jim Rohn described.

Last week, we talked about the study done by GLOBE, which identified various types of leadership styles.

Universal preference went to the charismatic/value-based leader.

After all, a personable leader who can inspire and motivate his employees is someone anyone can get behind.

However, when it comes to the other styles of leadership, cultural preferences varied.

Good vs. Bad

Unsurprisingly, leadership preferences differed based on the values of the culture.

One example: ambition.

Some cultures see ambition as a good thing, while others see it as bad.

This was reflected in the study on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and in the breakdown of leadership preferences.

additional_charts_CMYK-06

While the charismatic/value-based leader was tops in the US, the UK, and Australia (Anglo-Saxon countries), the same leadership style was least preferred in the Middle East and South Asia, both of which sought self-protective leadership.

Human-oriented leadership was not favored in Nordic Europe but was favored in South Asia, while Latin America preferred team-orientated leadership.

Eastern Europe liked an autonomous leader, which rings true when you look at their history of favoring strong leaders.

The Roads Diverge

The greatest divergence in leadership preferences was between the Middle East and Western cultures.

Charismatic/value-based or team-oriented leaderships were favored least in the Middle East, in comparison to other regions.

Instead, the Middle East views self-protective leadership as less problematic.

Localized research also showed that Middle Eastern cultures preferred leadership attributes to include: humility, faithfulness, and family-orientation. This suggests that Western management styles would not be easily embraced.

Conclusion

The strong insights into how global cultures view leadership and what various populations expect from a leader are what make the GLOBE project a super useful tool for cross-cultural management.

For instance, due to these differences in favored leadership styles, GLOBE researchers remarked that mergers and acquisitions between European and Middle Eastern countries may be difficult.

Knowing the favored leadership styles of another culture allows international managers a blueprint for what sort of patterns are expected of them.

Instead of applying the management style you’ve learned in your own country, when you work internationally, you might tweak how you lead, applying tactical patterns from the local blueprint.

The bottom line is: employees from another culture likely expect a different type of leadership from their boss than you do from your own. So, prepare accordingly.

The Six Styles of Leadership Across Cultures, PART I

Do you prefer an authoritative leader or a supportive one?

Do you like a manager that allows you some autonomy or do you prefer to be micromanaged?

Last week, we talked about how research shows how Maslow’s hierarchy of needs doesn’t stand up across cultures.

This week, we’ll discuss research that has found how management styles differ, according to a society’s values and norms.

Charismatic Leadership

Charismatic leadership was once considered the most effective.

Being as such, by the ‘90s, what makes a charismatic leader and what those behaviors look like had been thoroughly researched.

In 1991, Professor Robert J. House at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania examined research from the Netherlands, India, Singapore, and the United States. He found that charisma was popular in a leader but that other leadership styles were preferred across cultures.

His research led to GLOBE.

GLOBE

Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness is a top cross-cultural research program.

In its formative years, interviews and focus groups of 17,300 managers from 951 organizations in 59 countries by 170 investigators were conducted and gathered for this project.

What did they find?

They found that societal cultures directly influence organizational cultures.

The Six Styles of Leadership

Leadership was defined as the capacity to influence, motivate, and enable employees to contribute toward company objectives.

Six distinct leadership styles were identified by GLOBE:

  • Charismatic/Value-based – a motivational and inspirational leadership style defined by charismatic, value-based leaders expecting high-performance outcomes from employees and colleagues, based on the company/organization’s core values.
  • Participative – a participatory leadership style in which managers often ask the involvement of others in making decisions and implementing them.
  • Team-oriented – a team-building leadership style, in which the implementation of a common goal is sought and work toward it is divided amongst team members.
  • Human-oriented – an empathetic and supportive leadership style, in which modesty, generosity, compassion, and sensitivity to others are promoted.
  • Autonomous – an individualistic and independent leadership style, never before appearing in business literature.
  • Self-protective – a face-saving leadership style, in which the security and safety of each employee or colleague is most important, with a focus on status consciousness. Also, a new dimensional term to business literature.

This outline of distinct leadership personalities allowed GLOBE to identify what type of leadership style was preferred by different cultures. We’ll talk more about that next week.

How Does Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Stack Up Across Cultures

Management trainings often cut out the cross-cultural nature of leadership expectations, hierarchies, and values and norms.

So, when you’re put into a cross-cultural leadership position, you’re a fish out of water, and you don’t have much to guide you.

Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs”

In Maslow’s theory, human motivation is pretty straight forward.

His “hierarchy of needs” is taught across many business administration curriculums and has been since its inception in the early ’40s.

It was in 1943 that researcher Abraham Maslow identified basic human needs and categorized them in a pyramid.

hierarchy of needs
FireflySixtySeven [CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)%5D

At the bottom are the most basic physiological needs:

When a person’s most basic human needs are satisfied, their more complex emotional and psychological needs rise to the top:

  • Love/belonging
  • Esteem
  • Self-fulfillment/actualization

Think about these needs. Do you feel them in this order and manner?

What A Man Can Be

Maslow once wrote:

“What a man can be, he must be.”

This explains the pyramid in a nutshell: if we can achieve something greater than simply meeting our physiological needs, we will seek it out.

The hierarchy of needs may seem instinctive to the Western mind, so much so that Western managers apply this basic model to motivate their teams and incentivize success.

Self-fulfillment would then be the highest motivation, manifesting itself in power and personal career development.

However, as it turns out, this hierarchy of needs hasn’t stood the cross-cultural test.

Security, Social Needs, & Quality of Life

Let’s take a look at Greece and Japan.

Self-actualization in these countries is undercut by security needs.

According to research done within IBM World Trade Corporation:

“At the country level, higher mean stress turned out to be associated with stronger rule orientation and greater employment stability…When [the mean level of anxiety] is higher, people feel more stressed, but at the same time they try to cope with their anxiety by searching for security.”

Both Japan and Greece had high Uncertainty Avoidance Indexes, which indicate higher stress and anxiety levels.

This is why life-long job security supersedes climbing the corporate ladder or seeking out challenging work in these countries and may be another reason Japanese companies keep on workers even though they may be subpar or their positions could be made redundant.

On the other hand, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark place a lot of emphasis on quality of life, thus building a career takes a back burner to social needs.

Hofstede Disagrees

As Geert Hofstede duly notes:

“My interpretation is that this tells us more about Maslow than about the other countries’ managers. Maslow categorized and ordered his human needs according to the U.S. middle-class culture pattern in which he was embedded himself – he could not have done otherwise.”

This can be said about many studies that unintentionally (or intentionally) discount cross-cultural differences.

Cross-cultural values and norms are not much considered when identifying “human needs.”

Instead, every human is painted with one brush; the brush of whichever culture is doing the research.

How Languages Signify the Importance of Family to Culture

When you want to know the importance of large families to a culture, take a look at the language.

As we discussed last week about two-generational and multi-generational families, the definition of what constitutes a family differs across cultures.

This week, we’ll talk about how language reflects this.

The Bloodline

Bloodlines are not of much importance to Western culture.

However, they are to others.

The Yanomami – an indigenous people who live in the Amazon rainforest – have four different words for cousin, all dependent on the specific relationship.

  • Amiwa – daughter of a maternal aunt or paternal uncle
  • Eiwa – son of a maternal aunt or paternal uncle
  • Suwabiya – daughter of a maternal uncle or a paternal aunt
  • Soriwa – son of a maternal uncle or a paternal aunt

Each cousin has a distinctive name, because the bloodline is so important to the Yanomami.

Turkey, as well, has familial vocabulary that distinguishes between bloodlines.

Your father’s brother and sister would be called “amca” and “hala,” respectively, while your mother’s brother and sister would be called “dayı” and “teyze.” Both mean “aunt” and “uncle,” but the terms are distinct to differentiate between bloodlines.

Moreover, the Turkish language also designates between younger and older siblings, in this way signifying the respect shown to elders in their culture.

Younger siblings call their elder siblings not by their names, but by either “abla” or “abi,” for an elder sister or brother, respectively. You can even address elder people in informal settings as such.

The Bloodline Loses Importance

The funny thing is Old English once differentiated specific relatives in a similar fashion; the language for such familial relations has simply gone by the wayside, since such distinctions are no longer important to many English-speaking cultures.

For instance, in Old English, a father’s brother was called fœdra, while a mother’s brother was called eam, a word that survived the 19th century through other dialects in the word “eme,” which generally means “friend” or “uncle.”

So, while someone from an English-speaking culture might find all of this specificity about the bloodline to be overkill, know that in generations past, your own culture did the same. As cultures evolve, and values change, so do norms.

This is one of them.

Differences in Values & Norms Between Multi-generational vs. Two-generational Family Structures

The values and norms of traditional societies versus modern ones are vastly different.

As we’ve previously discussed, while it’s unlikely that a business will ever directly negotiate a contract or deal with a remote population, the knowledge that these fundamentally different values and norms exist is important.

Because if there’s one thing I want you to take away from this blog, it’s this: there’s no “correct” or “superior” way of living; there are only different ways.

Just like your own values and norms, others’ serve a purpose. They may serve either a deep ideological purpose or a more practical one, but purpose is there.

Consider the Purpose

As mentioned in a past post, the Western culture’s idea of family structures is evolving; the modern patchwork family is becoming a norm.

Renowned anthropologist, Marvin Harris, wrote:

“In view of the frequent occurrence of modern domestic groups that do not consist of, or contain, an exclusive pair-bonded father and mother, I cannot see why anyone should insist that our ancestors were reared in monogamous nuclear families and that pair-bonding is more natural than other arrangements.”

Opening up our generalized concept of “normal” family structures can help us more thoroughly understand other cultures.

Consider the purpose that creates the values and norms surrounding these structures and what this purpose might indicate about the broader culture.

Two-Generational vs. Extended

Anthropologists identify differences between two-generation families and extended-generation families.

In the West, when politicians spout slogans in defense of “family values,” the family in question is one of two generations.

That is the nuclear family – the mother and father and their children – as well as divorced families, patchwork families, one-parent families, and unmarried parents. Despite the latter’s complexity, they’re also two-generation families.

However, in other cultures, values and norms centered around extended families – or those of at least three generations – are more common.

Extended families include grandparents on both sides, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, and any other kin of the husband and wife.

This valuation of extended families is more prevalent in the world than the Western concept of two-generational families.

Societies that value extended families are typically built on collectivist values, while those that value two-generational families are built on individualist values.

Extended family societies ensure broader social cohesion, communities that are interconnected in order to ensure survival, and the value of personally caring for the aging population.

We’ll talk more about the link between how societies define “family” and the cultural values that determine that definition later in this blog.

But for now, know that more often than not:

  • Two-generational societies = individualism
  • Multi-generational societies = collectivism

As you move forward in reading the blog over the next few weeks, consider what purpose your own values and norms serve. Consider how they might be viewed from the outside, looking in. Only then will you be able to look at other cultures through their own cultural lens.

China and the Marriage Buyer’s Market

You might think there are universal norms regarding love and marriage, but that is certainly not the case.

Last week, we discussed Japan and the norm of marrying for economic advantage over love. In neighboring China, this idea is also ingrained.

And parents considering marriage prospects take the matter so seriously that, in Shanghai, Beijing, and other Chinese cities, “Marriage Buyer’s Markets” exist.

People’s Park Marriage Market

In the Marriage Buyer’s Market in Shanghai’s People’s Park, a summary outline of daughters and sons, alike, are presented by their parents on cardboard signs.

Similar to a job fair, other parents in search of proper partners for their children are invited to walk around, perusing the signs, which enumerate the pros of marrying the daughter/son in question and attempting to matchmake the best prospects.

Some selling points you might see on signs:

  • Born in the year of the dog/171cm/12.000 Yuan salary
  • Own apartment/76sqm/188cm

Chinese marriages are still dowry-based, like in India; but unlike India, the dowry is paid not by the bride’s parents, but by the groom’s, and is termed “bride prices.”

As detailed in The Economist:

“Most of China is patrilocal: in theory, at least, a married woman moves into her husband’s home and looks after his parents…The groom’s parents…are expected to pay for the wedding and give money and property to the couple. These bride prices have shot up, bending the country’s society and economy out of shape.”

This makes shopping for the right partner all the more difficult. If the groom’s family is unable to afford the bride prices, then he is not considered a good match. Moreover, with the male-to-female ratio being 105:100 according to a 2017 census, the gender imbalance in China makes the chances of finding a mate even slimmer.

The bride may also have difficulty. In fact, those women of high income and education who haven’t married before the age of 30 are christened with the derogatory term, “leftover women.”

What this all boils down to is that love is not the currency for successful marriages in China; horoscope, property, and income are.

As one Chinese mother summed up the culture’s values and norms regarding marriage:

“First you build your life, and only then also your love.”

Love Happiness vs. Team Happiness

In this way, the West’s focus on love equating a happy life differs from the Chinese focus on economic teamwork equating the same.

The perfect Chinese mate is someone to help you stay afloat financially, raise a family, and succeed mutually in the balancing act of life…and, perhaps most importantly, not be considered “leftover.”

And searching out this perfect mate is not a private concern; it’s a familial affair.

As Wlada Kolosowa, a journalist for the German magazine, Spiegel, sums up:

“In the Western world, love is a matter between two individuals; in China, it is a union between two families.”

Next week, we’ll talk about two-generation families versus extended-generation families. Stay tuned.

Marriage for Economic Advantage in Japan & How Saving Face Impacts Job Loss

The norm in the West is that one should marry for love.

But imagine growing up in a culture where economic advantage was given priority.

This is largely the case in Japan.

History Repeats Itself

Prioritizing economic advantage in marriage is not unique to Japan and other Asian countries; in fact, it was once a Western norm, as well – and pretty recently, at that.

People were often coupled in European countries according to class and, thus, economic advantage.

If you’ve ever read a Jane Austen novel, then you know that locking down a wealthy suitor, preferably one with plenty of property, was much more advantageous to a young woman (and her parents) than finding someone she loved.

It was only at the beginning of the twentieth century that “love marriages” were more commonly sought.

But Confucius saw it differently. He placed economic advantage above love, and in this, the Japanese agree.

Head of Household

One way in which Japanese society differs from the West is that women are more often the heads of household when it comes to finances.

While Japanese husbands have long been responsible for bringing home the bacon just like everywhere else, women are largely in charge of this bacon.

So, what happens when a man should lose his job in Japan?

Well, this is seen as a huge failure on his part – and a personal one, regardless of whether the firing was only an economical company decision.

Job Loss & Suicide Rates

Whereas in a love marriage, a wife would be expected to support her husband through such a crisis, in Japan, not so.

If a Japanese man loses his job, he also loses his social standing…and he may lose his wife too.

Because of the fact that the man would no longer be fulfilling the primary task in the economic marriage compact – making money – he would not expect support from his wife.

Instead, he might expect to lose honor, lose face, and feel the powerful shame that accompanies that loss. This is one of the reasons that suicide rates in Japan after job loss are incredibly high.

According to National Jobs for All Coalition:

“From 1953 to 2003, each 1 percentage point increase in the cyclical component of the male unemployment rate led to a 5.39 percentage point increase in the cyclical component of the male suicide rate. This effect is 38 times larger for Japan than for the United States.” 

Moreover, Japanese companies are very reluctant to fire staff, because of this societal loss of honor and the resulting shame. Layoffs, in fact, are considered taboo. So, instead of firing employees, companies may demote those who are ineffective but keep them on the payroll.

However, don’t consider this act too merciful; although they refrain from firing ineffective employees, they also try to make the office more uncomfortable for them – think smaller, windowless offices without air-conditioning. In fact, they have places called “boredom rooms,” where they essentially try to drive staff to voluntarily quit.

In this way, Japanese norms and values reverberate throughout their culture, with the need to save face permeating up into the very policies and procedures of company culture.

Next week, we’ll continue our tour through marriage in Asia by exploring the “marriage buyer’s market” in China.