Typology of cultural dimensions Hofstede

Power Distance Index (PDI)

The power distance index determines the perception of power, the extent to which members of a society, institution or organization with relatively lesser power expect and allow for uneven distribution of power; for cultures with great distance from power (Arab countries, Latin America, Southeast Asia, Russia ^{[ source? ]} ) is characterized by the perception of power as the most important part of life, admiration for the authorities; cultures with a small distance from power (Austria, Denmark, USA, Germany) are characterized by building relationships based on equality and respect for the individual.

Individualism (IDV)

As opposed to cohesion (collectivism), individualism determines the identity of personal goals, self-awareness as “I”, protection of private interests, and connections between individuals who are not burdened with strong obligations to act together (USA); for collectivist culture (Latin America) group goals are inherent, self-awareness as “we”, maintaining relationships, norms.

Masculinity (MAS)

Masculinity means aiming at achieving a result at any cost. Countries with a large value of this indicator are classified as “male” (USA, Japan, Italy, Austria, Mexico, Philippines), they are characterized by such qualities as rivalry, self-confidence, commitment, commitment to material values. Countries with a low value (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) are classified as “female”. They are characterized by honoring relationships, cultural values, caring for the quality of life.

Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI)

Avoiding uncertainty determines the degree of perception and response to unfamiliar situations. For countries with a high value of the uncertainty avoidance indicator, it is typical to avoid ambiguous, unclear situations, striving to establish clear rules of behavior, trust in traditions and foundations, a tendency to intergroup harmony, intolerance towards people with a different lifestyle. For countries with low uncertainty avoidance rates, personal initiative, risk acceptability, calm acceptance of differences, other points of view are typical.

Long Term Orientation (LTO)

Strategic thinking determines the short-term or long-term orientation to the future, the focus on the solution of strategic, long-term goals, the desire to look into the future. The survey on this indicator was conducted in the 1980s in collaboration with Michael Bond among students from 23 countries. For cultures with large values ​​of this parameter (Southeast Asia), thrift, persistence in achieving goals, persistence are characteristic, for cultures with small importance (Europe) - adherence to traditions, fulfillment of social obligations.

Assumption (or indulgence) ^{[ source? ]}

Assumption is essentially a measure of happiness, a degree of satisfaction with the simple joys of life. Societies with high rates of admission are defined as allowing relatively free satisfaction of basic and natural human desires associated with enjoying life and receiving pleasures. Low indicators of this parameter characterize societies that control satisfaction of needs and regulate it with the help of strict social norms. “Allowing” societies are aware of their own control over their lives and emotions, and “restrained” societies believe that other factors influence their lives and emotions.

Hofstede developed his original model based on factor analysis when studying the results of a large-scale study of divisions of the well-known transnational corporation IBM located on different continents and in different countries (116 thousand employees were polled in 40 countries). Answers were evaluated on a five-point scale, then the average rating was calculated. Based on the average value, each index calculated its index: the number 3 was subtracted from the average value, the result obtained was multiplied by 25 and the number 50 was added to it, that is, the answers were transferred from a five-point scale to a 100-point scale. The USSR data were calculated not by the standard method, but on the basis of indirect measurements. Later, the list of countries was expanded to 70. Research took place between 1967 and 1973. The original theory suggested four aspects by which cultural values ​​could be analyzed: distance from power, isolation, masculinity, and the avoidance of uncertainty . Since then, the theory has been improved.

In 1965, Hofstede founded the IBM research and development department (which he headed until 1971). In the period from 1967 to 1973, he conducted a large study of the characteristics of national values ​​and differences between countries around the world. He compared the answers to the same survey of 116,000 IBM employees from different countries. At the beginning, he focused his research on the 40 largest countries, and then expanded it to 50 countries and 3 regions (at that time, probably the largest sample of the cross-national database). The theory has become one of the first quantitative theories that can be used to explain the observed differences between cultures. This initial analysis revealed systematic differences in cultures of different nationalities, which were classified according to four main parameters: distance from power (PDI), isolation (IDV), avoidance of uncertainty (UAI) and masculinity (MAS), which are described below. As Hofstede explains on his academic website, these dimensions look at four anthropological problem areas that different national societies treat differently.

In 1984, Hofstede published the book The Value of Culture, which combines statistical analysis from a survey study with his personal experience. In order to validate the preliminary results of the IBM study and extend them to different populations, six subsequent cross-national studies were successfully carried out, from 1990 to 2002. They covered from 14 to 28 countries, the respondents included commercial airline pilots, students, managers public services, consumers of the “market” and “elite”. The pooled studies have established estimates for four dimensions in total in 76 countries and regions. In 1991, Michael Harris Bond and his colleagues conducted research among students in 23 countries, using a tool developed together with Chinese workers and managers. The results of this study showed Hofstede that it is necessary to add a new fifth dimension to the model: strategic thinking (LTO), originally called "Confucian dynamism." In 2010, this measurement was expanded to 93 countries, thanks to research by Michael Minkov, who used the World Values ​​Survey . Through further research, some of the original values ​​were clarified, and the difference in analysis between country data and individual data was introduced. It also helped Hofstede identify the sixth last dimension assumption.

The Hofstede model, with six dimensions, allows you to make an international comparison or comparative study of cultures:

The distance from power index shows very high scores in Latin and Asian countries, African regions and the Arab world. On the other hand, European countries have a lower value (only 11 for Austria and 18 for Denmark). For example, the United States has 40 points in the Hofstede analysis. Compared to Guatemala, where the distance from power is very high (95) and Israel, where this indicator is very low (13), the United States is in the middle. In Europe, the power distance is usually lower in the northern countries and higher in the southern and eastern parts: for example, 68 in Poland and 57 in Spain versus 31 in Sweden and 35 in the United Kingdom.

As for the index of individualism, there is a clear gap between Western countries, on the one hand, and countries of the East, on the other hand. North America and Europe can be viewed as individualistic societies with relatively high scores: for example, 80 in Canada and Hungary. In contrast, Asia, Africa and Latin America have strong collectivist values: Colombia is only 13 points on the IDV scale and Indonesia 14. The greatest contrast can be drawn when comparing the two extreme countries in this dimension: 6 points from Guatemala and 91 points from the United States. Japan and the Arab world have average values ​​in this dimension. Uncertainty avoidance rates are highest in Latin America, Southern and Eastern Europe, including German-speaking countries and Japan. They are lower for English speaking countries, the Nordic and China. For example, Germany has UAI (65) points, Belgium is even more (94) compared with Sweden (29) or Denmark (23), despite the geographical proximity. However, only a few countries have a very low UAI index.

Masculinity is extremely low in the Nordic countries: Norway has 8 points and only 5 in Sweden. . In contrast, the index is very high in both Japan (95) and some European countries, such as Hungary, Austria and Switzerland, which are influenced by German culture. In the English-speaking world, rates of masculinity are relatively high, for example, 66 in the United Kingdom. Latin countries have contrasting indicators: for example, Venezuela has a figure of 73 points, while in Chile it is only 28.

High rates of strategic thinking tend to be in East Asia, with China 118, Hong Kong 96 and Japan 88. They are moderate in Eastern and Western Europe, and low in English-speaking countries, Muslim countries, in Africa and Latin America. However, there is less data about this dimension than about the rest. Even less data on the sixth dimension. Estimates of assumptions are highest in Latin America, parts of Africa, English speaking countries and the Nordic countries of Europe; Restraint is found mainly in East Asia, Eastern Europe and the Muslim world.

The researchers combined some countries by comparing the measurement of their values ​​with other differences, such as geographical proximity, common language, historical past, religious beliefs and common philosophical influences, the same political systems, in other words everything that follows from the definition of a nation's culture. For example, low distance from power is associated with consultative political practices and own capital, while high distance from power is correlated with uneven distribution of income, as well as bribery and corruption in domestic policy. Individualism is positively correlated with mobility and national wealth. The richer a country becomes, the more individualistic its culture becomes.

Another example of correlation was described by the Sigma Two Group in 2003. They examined the relationship between the cultural dimensions of countries and their predominant religion based on World Factbook 2002. On average, predominantly Catholic countries show a very high uncertainty avoidance index, a relatively high figure of power distance, moderate masculinity and relatively low individualism, while predominantly atheistic countries have low uncertainty avoidance rates, very high power distances, moderate courage and a very low index of individualism.

A group of Coelho researchers (2011) found an inverse correlation between indicators of specific types of innovation in production companies and the percentage of large companies in the country, as well as the employment of a certain type of production strategy. The national culture-measure of power distance correlates positively with the attitude of companies towards innovation processes (28%). Therefore, in countries with a higher power distance index, production companies are more often engaged in developing innovations.

Quantitative cultural measurements allow making inter-regional comparisons and form a picture of differences not only between countries, but also entire regions. For example, in the cultural model of Mediterranean countries, high levels of power and uncertainty avoidance prevail. As far as individualism is concerned, the Mediterranean countries, as a rule, are characterized by a moderate level of individualistic behavior. The same applies to masculinity. In terms of strategic thinking, Mediterranean countries have an average rating, and they prefer indulgences.

Hofstede is perhaps the most famous sociologist and anthropologist in the context of understanding international business.

The model of six dimensions is widely used in many areas of public life, and especially in the field of business. Practical applications were developed almost immediately. In fact, when it comes to business, stimulating cultural sensitivity will help people work more effectively when interacting with people from other countries. Often, communication is one of the main problems for professionals who work at the international level. The Hofstede model provides insights into other cultures. In fact, cross-cultural communication requires being aware of cultural differences, since what can be considered quite acceptable and natural in one country can be misleading or even offensive in another. Cultural aspects affect all levels of communication: verbal (words and language itself), non verbal (body language, gestures), etiquette (clothing, gift giving, customs. When working in international companies, managers can provide training for their employees to make them more sensitive to cultural differences, to develop the nuances of business practices, using protocols in different countries. Hofstede measurements offer recommendations on the definition of acceptable cultural approaches to corporate organizations.

The six-dimensional model is very useful in international marketing because it defines national values ​​not only in a business context, but also as a whole. Marieke de Mooij examined the application of Hofstede’s findings in global branding, advertising strategy and consumer behavior. Поскольку компании стараются адаптировать свои продукты и услуги к местным привычкам и предпочтениям, они должны понимать специфику данных рынков. Разнообразие применения абстрактной теории Хофстеда настолько широко, что она была использована даже в область веб-разработки, которая должна адаптироваться к национальным предпочтениям в соответствии с ценностями культур.

Несмотря на то, модель Хофстеде, как правило, принимается в качестве наиболее всеобъемлющей основы национальных культурных ценностей, она была широко раскритикована.

В 2008 году в статье, опубликованной в флагманском журнале Академии управления, The Academy of Management Review, Galit Ailon деконструирует книгу Хофстеде «Культурные последствия», путем зеркального отображения его против своих собственных предположений и логики. Ailon находит несоответствия на уровне теории и методологии и предостережений против некритического чтения "культурных измерений. Хофстеде ответил на эту критику.

Хофстеде признает, что культурные аспекты он определил, как теоретические конструкции. Они представляют собой инструменты, предназначенные для использования в практических приложениях. Обобщения о культуре одной страны полезны, но они должны рассматриваться как таковые, то есть в качестве руководства для лучшего понимания. Они являются измерением на уровне группы, которое описывает средние показатели, относящиеся к населению в целом. Культурные аспекты Хофстеде позволяют пользователям различать страны, но это не относится к различиям между членами общества. Они не обязательно определяют личности индивидов. Национальные оценки никогда не следует интерпретировать как детерминированные для физических лиц. Например, японский человек может чувствовать себя комфортно в меняющейся ситуации, тогда как в среднем, японцы имеют высокий индекс избегания неопределенности. Есть еще исключения из этого правила.

• Как и во всех исследованиях национальных культур, здесь предполагается, что национальная территория и границы культуры совпадают. Но культурную однородность нельзя принимать как данность в странах, которые включают несколько культурных групп или в которых есть социально доминирующие и подчиненные культурные группы, как обстоит дело в США, Италии (противоречия между севером и югом), Бельгии (французская и фламандская культуры) и Испании (баскская, каталонская и кастильская культуры). Распад Югославии в 1990-х гг. продемонстрировал тщетность попыток создания тесных политических единиц из несопоставимых национальных культур.
• Hofstede respondents worked in the same industry (computer) and in one multinational company. This can be misleading for two reasons. In any country, IBM employee values ​​are typical only for a small group (educated, usually middle class, city dwellers); other social groups (for example, unskilled, manual workers, public sector employees, family business representatives, etc.) are not covered to some extent by research. This problem of representativeness would have occurred, no matter how one company provided the respondents.
• Hofstede research can create technical difficulties associated with the overlap of parameters, for example, a small distance of power / female and a large distance of power / male.
• The value of the parameters may be different in different cultures - for example, collectivist behavior, perceived somewhere positively, in another place may bring negative consequences. A vivid illustration of this is the Japanese collectivism based on the organization’s duty, and the Chinese based on the family’s duty. According to Japanese concepts, a Taiwanese employee who puts the interests of his family over the interests of a Japanese multinational company is not loyal to her, and he cannot be fully trusted.

• Culture, leadership, and organizations: the GLOBE study of 62 societies. - 1st. - SAGE Publications , 29 April 2004. - ISBN 978-0-7619-2401-2 . Read it
• Alvesson, M. & Deetz, S. (2006). Critical Theory and Postmodernism Approaches to Organizational Studies . In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. Lawrence, W. Nord (Eds.). Handbook of Organization Studies (2nd ed). London: Sage, 255-283.
• Coelho, DA (2011). A small group of countries in the world . International Journal of Business and Globalization, 7 (2), 152-165.
• Fischer, R. (2009). What is a Shared Meaning System ? International Journal. of Cross Cultural Management, 9: 25-48.
• Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development . Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press .
• Inglehart, Ronald (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies . Princeton, Princeton University Press .
• Inglehart, Ronald & Miguel Basanez, Jaime Diez-Medrano, Loek Halman & Ruud Luijkx (2004) (eds.) A 1999/1/2002 surveys . Mexico, Siglo Beintiuno editors.
• Moussetes, A. (2007). The absence of women's voices in Hofstede's Cultural Consequences: A postcolonial reading. Women in Management Review, 22, 443-445.
• Schwartz, SH (1992). Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries . In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , New York: Academic Press , 25, 1-65.
• Schwartz SH (1994). Beyond Individualism and Collectivism: New Cultural Dimensions of Values . In U. Kim, HC Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S., Choi, C. & Yoon, G. (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method and application . Thousand Oaks CA: Sage, 85-119.
• Schwartz, SH (2007). Value Orientations: Measurement, Antecedents and Consequences across Nations . In J. Jowell, C. Roberts, R. Fitzgerald, G. Eva (Eds.), Measuring Attitudes Cross-Nationally: Lessons from the European Social Survey . London: Sage.
• Smith, PB (2004). Nations, Cultures and Individuals: New Perspectives on Old Dilemmas . Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 6-12.
• Smith, P. (2008). Indigenous Aspects of Management . In P. Smith, Peterson, M., Thomas, D. (Eds.), The Handbook of Cross-Cultural Management Research . Sage, Thousand Oaks CA: Sage, 319-332.
• Smith, P., Peterson, M., Thomas, D. (Eds.). (2008). The Handbook of Cross-Cultural Management Research . Thousand Oaks CA: Sage ,.
• Triandis, HC (1995). Individualism and Collectivism . Boulder CO: Westview Press.
• Van de Vijver, FJR, van Hemert, DA, Poortinga, YH (Eds.). (2008). Individuals and Cultures in Multilevel Analysis . Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• Gert Hofstede website