National Culture Dimensions

Understanding cultural nuances among nations is valuable, but also crucial, in an increasingly globalized world, whether for exporting purposes or to allow a business to effectively establish its presence in another country. This is true all over the world. To obtain this understanding, one must first consider people’s backgrounds, which can then be used to model current and future behavior. Their upbringing has imbued them with a distinct culture.

The term culture implies here the meaning of “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes members of one category of people from another” (Hofstede, 1994, p.1). The

“category of people” may refer to a country, area, or ethnicity (Hofstede, 1994). Geert Hofstede (1994) made a first effort to explain how a specific national culture and attitude affects the actions of a person within the organization. In three different study initiatives, five dimensions of national cultural dimensions were discovered, as amongst branches of a global organization (IBM) in 64 countries as well as the other two involving individuals in 10 and 23 nations, accordingly.

The first dimension is referred to as “Power Distance,” and it denotes the degree to which fewer dominant representatives of organizations and entities agree and assume unequal power distribution. This reflects disparity in terms of more versus fewer, but it is described from below rather than from above. It implies that the degree of disparity in a community is supported equally by the supporters and the representatives. Of course, power and injustice are basic truths of every culture, and everyone with foreign knowledge knows that “all nations are unequal, yet some are more unequal than others.” To understand supervisors, peers, and subordinates in another world, we must first learn about their families and colleges (Hofstede, 1994). Figure 2 presents some of the variations amongst national cultures that verification study found to be correlated with the Power Distance factor.

Figure 2 Ten Differences between Small- and Large- Power Distance Societies (Hofstede, 2011, p.9)

The second dimension is alluded to as “Individualism vs Collectivism,” and it defines the degree that the people are incorporated within communities. Individualist cultures have loose links between individuals meaning that a member of society is compelled to care for himself and his closest family. As far as the collectivism is concerned, we observe societies where people are incorporated into huge and stable communities, mainly close relatives, from birth onwards that fully support its members in exchange for unwavering loyalty. In this context, the term “collectivism” has no political connotation: it applies to the party, not the state.

Again, the topic raised by this factor is incredibly central to all civilizations in the world (Hofstede, 1994). Figure 3 depicts a set of societal disparities that study revealed to be correlated with this dimension.

Figure 3 Ten Differences between Collectivist and Individualist Societies (Hofstede, 2011, p.11)

The third dimension is regarded to as “Masculinity and Femininity,” and it corresponds to the allocation of positions between the sexes and is another central problem within every culture that has a variety of solutions. According to the IBM research: (a) women’s results change fewer across cultures than men’s results; and that (b) men’s results change across countries, ranging from quite forceful and ambitious and completely distinct from female's results on one hand to humble and loving and close to female’s results on another. The forceful side was labeled “masculine,” while the humble, nurturing side was labeled “feminine.” Women in feminine countries have the same humble, nurturing ideals as males; in masculine countries, women are more forceful and ambitious, although not to the same extent as men, resulting in a difference between male and female results (Hofstede, 1994). Figure 4 illustrates a set of societal disparities that study revealed to be correlated with this dimension.

Figure 4 Ten Differences between Feminine and Masculine Societies (Hofstede, 2011, p.12)

The fourth dimension is known as “Uncertainty Avoidance,” and it was discovered in both IBM research as well as in the student one. It is concerned with a society's acceptance for doubt and complexity, and hence essentially relates to man's quest for reality. It reflects the degree to which a society prepare its participants to feel awkward or relaxed in ambiguous contexts. Ambiguous scenarios are unexpected, unfamiliar, shocking, and out of the ordinary.

Uncertainty-averse societies attempt to reduce the likelihood of certain circumstances by stringent laws and regulations, protection, and security procedures, and, on a moral and theological basis, a firm belief in ultimate truth. People in conflict-torn areas are frequently more agitated and driven by an internal anxiety. The reversed kind, confusion embracing societies, are more inclusive of opposing viewpoints; they try to have as few laws as possible, and on a philosophical and theological basis, they are relativists that encourage multiple streams to run concurrently. It is not demanded of such society members to show their emotions (Hofstede, 1994). Figure 5 shows a set of societal disparities that study revealed to be correlated with the Uncertainty Avoidance factor.

Figure 5 Ten Differences between Weak- and Strong- Uncertainty Avoidance Societies (Hofstede, 2011, p.10)

The fifth dimension is referred to as “Long Term versus Short Term Orientation,” and it was discovered in a survey of pupils from 23 nations which used a survey developed by Chinese researchers. It is possible to say that it deals with Virtue regardless of Reality. Hofstede (1994) states that long-term orientation standards involve frugality and tenacity, whereas short-term orientation standards include reverence for culture, meeting social responsibilities, and preserving one's “profile”. The above dimension's favorably and inversely graded qualities recall us of Confucius' beliefs. It was initially known as Confucian dynamism. The factor, though, often refers to countries that do not have a Confucian tradition. (Hofstede, 1994) Figure 6 lists a set of societal discrepancies correlated with the elder and modern

versions of the Long-Term and Short-Term Orientation dimension, as determined by validity analysis.

Figure 6 Ten Differences Between Short- and Long-Term-Oriented Societies (Hofstede, 2011, p.15)

The sixth and final dimension, which was introduced in 2011, employs Minkov’s mark

“Indulgence versus Restraint”. It is likewise supported to certain extent by Long-Term vs.

Short-Term Orientation; in particular, it seems to be mildly related to that. It reflects on topics which are not addressed in any other dimension, and it is understood from “happiness studies”

research. Indulgence represents a culture that provides for the comparatively free fulfillment of simple and inherent human impulses linked to getting fun and loving life. Restraint represents a culture that monitors and governs fulfillment of needs by strict societal standards.

(Hofstede, 2011) Figure 7 displays a set of societal disparities that study revealed to be correlated with this dimension.

Figure 7 Ten Differences Between Indulgent and Restrained Societies (Hofstede, 2011, p.16)

Based on the first five national dimensions, research was conducted for twelve countries (Figure 8). The classification of nation ratings hints at many of the underlying causes of cultural disparities. Most can be found in the shared experience of countries with identical scores. For instance, all Latin American countries rank reasonably well in the dimensions of power distance as well as uncertainty avoidance. The Roman empire left at least some of its culture to Latin countries. The Roman empire was distinguished by the presence of a centralized government in Rome and a legal code that applied to civilians everywhere. This developed in its citizens the moral system which we now recall – centralization generated a considerable power difference, but an emphasis on norms created a profound avoidance of uncertainty. The Chinese empire was similarly used to centralization, and it operated without a formal legal framework, instead relying on men to rule instead of law. The mentality fostered by the empire is mirrored in today’s countries that were once under Chinese control by a significant power distance but an intermediate to moderate uncertainty avoidance.

Germany, like Great Britain, was never able to establish a long-lasting collective central authority, and nations that acquired its cultures have a narrower power distance. Claims regarding the historical origins of cultural distinctions are still hypothetical, but in the examples presented, they are very probable (Hofstede, 1994).

Figure 8 Scores for twelve countries (Ranks: 1 = highest, 53 = lowest) (Hofstede, 1994, p.5)

Power distance ratings are higher in Hispanic and Asiatic countries whereas they are lower in German countries. Individualism predominates in industrialized countries on the West, while collectivism predominates in developing countries on the East; Japan falls in between of the two. In the third dimension, masculinity, the highest scores obtain Japan, countries of DACH region and Anglo-Saxon nations got a moderate score. On the other side of spectrum there are the Nordics and Hispanic countries. Japan, Hispanic countries, and countries of DACH region have greater levels of uncertainty avoidance than Anglo-Saxon, the Nordics, and Asiatic countries. Power distance, for example, has been related with the use of aggression in national affairs as well as regional wealth disparities. Individualism is linked to national wealth (GNP per capita) and social rank migration from era to era. Masculinity is negatively related to the share of GNP spent by industrialized countries on Third-World development aid (Hofstede, 1994). Uncertainty avoidance is linked to Catholic Faith and the legal requirement in developing countries for people to hold identification documents. Long-term orientation is associated with national financial development over the last three decades, indicating that the East Asian economies’ financial prosperity over this time was due to their peoples’ cultural emphasis on the future-oriented virtues of prudence and persistence (Hofstede, 1994).

According to the results above, a country’s culture influences all its people, including trade union representatives and supporters, administrators, and subordinates. As a result, a nation’s management activities are culturally based as well as whatever functions in one country cannot function in another. However, management instructors, the ones who construct management ideas, are often individual and bound by the societal context with which they grew up and are familiar with. Such ideas and principles cannot be replicated in another nation without additional evidence, and whether they are valid at all, it is always only after significant adaptation. Hofstede (1994) defines four managerial concepts that are important to workforce management.

The first concept is referred to as “Performance Appraisal Systems” and it is advocated in the Western management books. They believe that if workers get direct input on what their supervisor thinks about them, their success will increase, which might be true in individualist

societies. Direct input, on the other hand, undermines the equilibrium that is supposed to rule intimate interactions in collectivist countries. It can irreparably damage the employee’s

“profile” and jeopardize his or her commitment to the company. Feedback can be provided implicitly in those cultures, which include every Eastern Asiatic and Third World countries, for example, through withholding a favor or through the use of an intermediate figure respected by all of the supervisors and the employees (Hofstede, 1994).

The second concept is known as “Management by Objectives (MBO)” and it is a managerial idea that originated in the United States. Subordinates in an MBO scheme must discuss their targets with their supervisors. As a result, the framework implies a cultural context whereby problems are handled by discussion instead of through regulations, meaning a moderate to small power distance and a moderate level of uncertainty avoidance. This would have to be tailored towards the more formal culture of uncertainty avoidance in the German climate (Hofstede, 1994).

The third concept is regarded to as “Strategic Management” and this concept was developed in the USA as well. It is based on a poor uncertainty avoidance environment whereby the atypical tactical concepts have been encouraged. This was addressed in nations where there is a higher level of confusion avoidance, such as Germany or France, its guidelines are seldom practiced because it is perceived as the top managers' job to stay active in day-to-day activities in these cultures (Hofstede, 1994).

The final definition introduced by Hofstede (1994) is named “Humanization of Work,” and it applies to a broad category of methods taken in various nations to render jobs more enjoyable as well as meaningful for those who perform them. The primary approach of humanization of jobs in the United States, which is a masculine and individualist culture, seems to have been “job enrichment”: offering individual roles more genuine substance. In Germany and German-speaking Switzerland, variable office hours are a frequent approach of tailoring the workplace to the individual. This does not apply as widespread in most countries.

The predominance in German-speaking nations is attributed to a small power imbalance paired with a relatively high level of uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1994).

According to Hofstede (1994), these results demonstrate how cultural artifacts include not just actions, beliefs, and hypotheses, and also the principles around which concepts are built. It does indeed have implications for management education in a globalized context.