Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory

Abstract

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory comprise of a framework that revolves across cultural management and communication. The dimensions collectively portrays how culture influences the behaviors of the members of a given nationality. This paper discusses Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory by exploring the six critical dimensions of the theory: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity, short-term and long-term orientation, and indulgence vs. self-restraint. This discussion also incorporates major critics and subsequent response to the theory. Despite the criticism, Hofstede’s cultural framework has remained the basis of research on understanding cultural dimensions.

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory

Introduction

As far as international trade is concerned, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are essential because the knowledge of how different aspects are viewed in diverse cultures can be helpful to a manager in understanding and successfully managing operations in global markets. For this background, the original Hofstede cultural dimension was conceptualized in 1973 following the IBM employees’ value system survey between 1967 and 1973. In the original theory, Hofstede proposed four dimensions, namely power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism vs. collectivism, and masculinity vs. femininity.

Argument

Hofstede argued that national cultures differed; hence management styles should also vary accordingly. Through the research at IBM, Hofstede identified that certain characters fit with some national cultures. Further, Hofstede realized that these classification called for managers to develop leadership techniques to manage foreign employees. Without knowledge of specific behavioral patterns that are common to a given national culture, the manager lacked a basis for developing management techniques.

Consequently, Hofstede developed a model that categorized cultural-based behavior to enable managers to understand national culture’s influence on employee’s behaviors and values. Hofstede included the fifth dimension between 1985 to 1990 known as long-term vs. short-term orientation, based on his research in Hong Kong. The fifth dimension represents the Confucian values in Chinese society.  Later in 2010, Hofstede and Michael Minkov added a sixth dimension, namely the “indulgence vs. self-restraint,” in the edition of “Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind.”’

To date, Hofstede’s dimension has remained relevant in the management of international business, including expansion, communication, human resource management, and marketing. Hofstede’s work also forms a fundamental base in cross-cultural psychology and communication. Many publications that refer to Hofstede’s work show that his work has remained relevant four decades later. The framework for analyzing national culture is still the only comprehensive and relevant study of cultural differences.

This paper discusses Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory by exploring the six critical dimensions of the theory. The discussion also incorporates the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. Crucially, while Hofstede expresses cultural dimensions in terms of values, individual behaviors are a function of one’s values and culture. Hence, the underlying discussion, the influence of multicultural theories on communication.

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory

Individualism-Collectivism

This dimension organizes people based on their level of integration. On one hand, individualistic promote their self-accomplishments, whereas collectivists promote the achievement of the whole society or group (Hofstede, 2010).

Cultures characterized by individualism place more value on self-achievement. In most cases, western countries such as the US, Canada, and Western European countries fall under this category (Brewer & Chen, 2007). Conversely, collective cultures promote the advancements of the whole group even as they pursue individual goals. Tellingly, Hofstede found that collectivist societies lookout for all the members’ interests and tend to demonstrate fierce loyalty (Hofstede, 2011).  

The characters of both cultures stand in stark contrasts to each other, even in communication. Beyond the simple categorization of cultures per individualism-collectivism, there is an excellent insight into how the behavioral patterns exhibited by people from a specific culture can be predicted. As demonstrated by recent research, individualistic and collectivists are characterized by different communication behavioral patterns (Allen, 2010).

For example, public announcements are more befitting for the collectivists, and the opposite is true for the former. This is because collectivists tend to listen without challenge. These members also tend to be more attentive and less confrontational as they place greater emphasis on harmony.

Power Distance 

This dimension refers to the extent of inequality that exists between the leader and subordinate. Cultures that have high power distance are those that the leader is dominant in all major areas, hence there is high inequality in decision making. In contrast, in low power distanced cultures, the leader is democratic and friendlier (Sik et al., 2010).

Therefore, there is no absolute control and power or lack of it. In actuality, power distance exists to legitimize the authority of the superiors in making decision and delegating tasks (Hauff & Richter, 2015).  To this end, the degree of power distance varies significantly between cultures. Western countries typically exhibit lower power distance, while a country such as China may exhibit high power distance.

Considering the impact of power distance on decision making, then how effective multicultural teams are managed is dependent on the ability to recognize potential conflicts that may arise between the manager and subordinates across different supervisory positions. Essentially, the behavior and attitude towards management is the main factor that shows power distance between mangers and the employees.

Smith (2011) noted that high power distance employees have a tendency to accept the hierarchical position, which exists in an organization, implying that communication is for the most part formal and bureaucratic.

On the other hand, low power distance employees are mostly independent-minded and independently manage their responsibilities. As a result, communication is less unstructured and also informal. Where managers lead low power distance employees, the managers should adjust their leadership styles. According to Hofstede (2010), in such a scenario, the manager may have additional workload because of the need for constant communication and reminders. Hence, he advised that managers should adjust their leadership styles to incorporate flexibility.

Uncertainty Avoidance

Uncertainty avoidance refers to the degree in which members of a given culture are comfortable or comfortable in novel situations’ (Hofstede, 2010). Members from cultures with high uncertainty avoidance tend to minimize uncertainty through observing behavioral codes, and disapproving deviant behaviors based on the rule of law.

In relation to personality Fink et al.  (2006) measured the level of extraversion in Western and Eastern countries and found that the people from Western European countries and the USA demonstrated high extraversion levels, and the opposite is applicable to those from Eastern Europe. Accordingly, extroverts tend to embrace uncertainty and engage in the quest for knowledge; thus, they exhibit high risk-taking and low uncertainty levels.

Conversely, introverted cultures have less interest in uncertainty because it presents risks. Therefore, they have high uncertainty avoidance and tend to accept relatively low-risk levels. In light of this discussion, managers should align communication styles to avoid stress levels caused by ambiguity. Strict codes of communication and procedural manuals should be used to prevent discomfort. Additionally, the manager should figure out a way to structure communication to eliminate uncertainty.

Masculinity and Feminism-Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory

According to this dimension, cultures can be categorized by gender based on the balance between social nurturing and achievement. Accordingly, masculine cultures stress on different expectations for men and women. Thus, assertiveness and competitiveness characterize masculine cultures, while nurturing and caring personalities identify with feminism (Muenjohn & Armstrong, 2015).

Elsewhere, De Mooij and Hofstede (2011) defined masculine culture as one that focused on success and achievement, whereas feminine culture focused on care and nurture. Crucially, the gender roles for feminine cultures are fluid such that men have the masculine characters mentioned above, while they are nurturing and caring. All the characteristics used to describe the dimensions in this cultures are mutually exclusive. Competitors do not naturally care to nurture other parties.

Opposite Friction

However, this exclusivity causes friction between the employees and managers representing the opposite end of the spectrum. It will benefit companies to analyze the masculinity-femininity as a behavioral pattern which is culture-based in communication. For example, numerous research has been published about differences in gender communication.

The notion that men and women exhibit different styles of communication has become a theme for some best-selling books such as Gray’s “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.”

Academic researchers have also advanced such notions and thus need to learn to adjust their communication styles. Men are generally more direct than women. Therefore, when communicating, one should be brief as circuitous conversations will demotivate them. Women also, unlike men, tend to remain silent. There is also the aspect of the influence of culture on gender roles.

Based on the differences therein, then leaders should comply with the cultural context when communicating. It would not make much sense to insist on having a woman address a patriarchal nation because it will not be accorded the necessary respect. Similarly, based on the differences in communication styles, a leader should create avenues for both sexes to elicit a response.

Another critical behavioral pattern a leader should consider is the workplace harassment, which occurs among women in a masculine work environment. In this way, a manager can be able to guide individuals towards proper workplace conduct

Long-Short Term Orientation

Further, Hofstede (2007) differentiated the behavior of members of a nation based on their behavior to orient themselves on either long term or short term goals. Hofstede & Minkov developed this dimension after conducting a cultural and psychological study in the Asia Pacific region (Hofstede & Minkov, 2010).

Like the other dimensions, the one also represents a spectrum where a nation characterized by short term orientation is keen on maintaining stability in both the past and present. Conversely, cultures that have long term orientation focus mainly on the future, at the same time demonstrating thrift and persistence. In actuality, Hofstede and Minkov’s (2010) grouped countries into four major categories.

For example, the China and East Asia fell into long term orientation, some European countries stood at the midpoint between the long term orientation and short term orientation, the USA, UK, and Anglo partners represent short term orientation, and African countries, as well as Pakistan and Philippines, are characterized by extremely short term orientation.

To demonstrate the influence of culture in managing business relationship Kivenzor (2015) cited an article written by Michael (2003), which highlighted the challenges of managing a team of both short term and long term orientation members. The article involved negotiation process between a French-German airline and a Spanish airline company.

The former represents short-term oriented cultures that are anxious to close negotiations in the shortest time possible. In contrast, the latter is characterized by long term orientation typified by the leisurely decision-making process. By being aware of such dynamism, especially in communication, the parties should adjust their expectations to suit their cultures.

Indulgence Restraint

This dimension relates to the short-term and long-term orientation because it considers the possible future consequences of actions that are made in the present time. Cultures that are indulgent, such as Poland and Netherlands, have an immediate desire to fulfill their gratifications while cultures that are restraint comprise people who exercise control.

Thus, they delay gratification to promote future wellbeing (Zbierowski, 2015). While restraint cultures rather than indulgence cultures appear to be better at attaining goals, both cultures have their pros and cons. Hofstede (2011) noted that indulgent cultures were typically more proactive in completing tasks and solving problems, while restraint cultures took a significantly longer time to complete tasks and solve problems. This could prove to be futile for the company because it may expend significant resources but end up gaining nothing.

Restraint cultures practice trial and errors as they exercise control. This may be beneficial to a company because in doing so, they end up developing innovative solutions. In parallel, Griffith & Rubera (2014) highlighted that innovativeness in a team increased with the inclusion of members of indulgent cultures.

According to the author, indulgent members’ inclusion resulted in greater overall diversity within the product design groups. Multinational members leading teams consisting of both members, must create environments that both cultures can thrive. Team members from low indulgent cultures may find it insulting to high indulgence members’ enthusiasm to execute decisions.

On the other hand, because low indulgent members take a long time to make decisions, their behavior may make the high indulgence members impatient. Seemingly, managers should thereby create a holistic environment to leverage the efficiencies that come with multiculturalism teams.

Criticisms of Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory

In culmination, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions allow for the cross-cultural analysis of cultures in new and unprecedented ways. Despite acceptance, many researchers have criticized Hofstede’s framework. Famously, McSweeney (2002) criticized Hofstede’s framework on several perspectives. To mention but a few, he argued that surveys are not suitable in capturing cultural differences. He also questioned the generalization of the survey from one company to the broader population and argued that the five dimensions do not adequately capture cultural dimensions.

In response, Hofstede (2002) opinioned that the survey did not measure absolute numbers. He agreed that nations are not the most applicable way of capturing cultural aspects but are available for conducting this research. Similarly, Hofstede (2002) agreed that surveys are not adequate and called for researchers to use other approaches to define additional dimensions. 

Elsewhere, Jones (2007) compared the strengths as well as the weaknesses of Hofstede’s methodology and agreed with McSweeney’s (2002) sentiments. Additionally, Jones (2007) added that the Cold War’s political bias was at play in the delineation of some of the dimensions, including the masculine and feminism and uncertainty avoidance.

Several other authors have criticized Hofstede’s theoretical constructs. Signorini et al. (2009) argued that Hofstede’s cultural differences were too oversimplified, considering that cultures are not static but dynamic. Additionally, several Chinese authors have also criticized the fifth dimension arguing that Hofstede’s analysis is insufficient.

Phylosophical Flaw

In particular, Fang (2003) contend that the philosophical flaw that underlines the assumptions in the fifth dimension violates the Chines philosophy of Yin and Yang. Fang (2003) also argued that the sample collected from students do not present the views of majority of the population. Consequently, he recommended that the fifth dimension should be revised to consider the concepts of yin and yang. According to Fang (2011), the Chinese philosophy of Yin Yang, conceptualizes culture as possessing inherent paradox orientation values that enable it to embrace duality in opposing traits of any given cultural dimension.

In response, Minkov and Hofstede (2011) argued that they arrived at the fifth dimension in an attempt to solve the western bias in the original dimensions. The fifth dimension was particularly important because of the Chinese respondents. Nevertheless, many publications that refer to Hofstede’s work decades later indicate that the cultural framework has become widely recognized and appropriate, especially now in the context of globalization and multiculturalism.

Conclusion-Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory

This paper reviewed the Hofstede’s six cultural dimensions and revealed the ubiquity of multicultural teams and the need for managers to lead against the backdrop of multiculturalism. Differences in culture, especially between the employees and the supervisors, often create ineffective working environments as managers may use ineffective management techniques.

Poor communication that may arise out of the mismatch can result in misaligned goals, thereby producing suboptimal performance. Altogether, the dimensions provide a system for understanding the influence of culture on people’s behaviors and the need for sensitive multicultural communication techniques. Regardless of the criticism over time, Hofstede’s cultural dimension remains a robust framework for understanding cultural dimensions.