The Hofstede Model in Context

Hofstede's Six Dimensions of Culture

In this section I will summarize the content of each dimension opposing cultures with low and high scores. These oppositions are based on correlations with studies by others, and because the relationship is statistical, not every line applies equally strongly to every country.

Power Distance

Power Distance has been defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. This represents inequality (more versus less), but defined from below, not from above. It suggests that a society's level of inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders. Power and inequality, of course, are extremely fundamental facts of any society. All societies are unequal, but some are more unequal than others. 

Table 1 lists a selection of differences between national societies that validation research showed to be associated with the Power Distance dimension. For a more complete review the reader is referred to Hofstede and Hofstede et al.. The statements refer to extremes; actual situations may be found anywhere in between the extremes, and the association of a statement with a dimension is always statistical, never absolute.

In Hofstede et al. Power Distance Index scores are listed for 76 countries; they tend to be higher for East European, Latin, Asian and African countries and lower for Germanic and English-speaking Western countries. 

Uncertainty Avoidance

Uncertainty Avoidance is not the same as risk avoidance; it deals with a society's tolerance for ambiguity. It indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. Unstructured situations are novel, unknown, surprising, and different from usual. Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of such situations by strict behavioral codes, laws and rules, disapproval of deviant opinions, and a belief in absolute Truth; 'there can only be one Truth and we have it'. 

Research has shown that people in uncertainty avoiding countries are also more emotional, and motivated by inner nervous energy. The opposite type, uncertainty accepting cultures, are more tolerant of opinions different from what they are used to; they try to have fewer rules, and on the philosophical and religious level they are empiricist, relativist and allow different currents to flow side by side. People within these cultures are more phlegmatic and contemplative, and not expected by their environment to express emotions. Table 2 lists a selection of differences between societies that validation research showed to be associated with the Uncertainty Avoidance dimension. 

In Hofstede et al. Uncertainty Avoidance Index scores are listed for 76 countries; they tend to be higher in East and Central European countries, in Latin countries, in Japan and in German speaking countries, lower in English speaking, Nordic and Chinese culture countries. 

Individualism

Individualism on the one side versus its opposite, Collectivism, as a societal, not an individual characteristic, is the degree to which people in a society are integrated into groups. On the individualist side we find cultures in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. On the collectivist side we find cultures in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) that continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty, and oppose other in- groups. Again, the issue addressed by this dimension is an extremely fundamental one, regarding all societies in the world. Table 3 lists a selection of differences between societies that validation research showed to be associated with this dimension. 

In Hofstede et al. Individualism Index scores are listed for 76 countries; Individualism tends to prevail in developed and Western countries, while collectivism prevails in less developed and Eastern countries; Japan takes a middle position on this dimension. 

Masculinity – Femininity

Masculinity versus its opposite, Femininity, again as a societal, not as an individual characteristic, refers to the distribution of values between the genders which is another fundamental issue for any society, to which a range of solutions can be found. The IBM studies revealed that (a) women's values differ less among societies than men's values; (b) men's values from one country to another contain a dimension from very assertive and competitive and maximally different from women's values on the one side, to modest and caring and similar to women's values on the other. The assertive pole has been called 'masculine' and the modest, caring pole 'feminine'. The women in feminine countries have the same modest, caring values as the men; in the masculine countries they are somewhat assertive and competitive, but not as much as the men, so that these countries show a gap between men's values and women's values. In masculine cultures there is often a taboo around this dimension. 

Taboos are based on deeply rooted values; this taboo shows that the Masculinity/Femininity dimension in some societies touches basic and often unconscious values, too painful to be explicitly discussed. In fact the taboo validates the importance of the dimension. Table 4 lists a selection of differences between societies that validation research showed to be associated with this dimension. 

In Hofstede et al. Masculinity versus Femininity Index scores are presented for 76 countries; Masculinity is high in Japan, in German speaking countries, and in some Latin countries like Italy and Mexico; it is moderately high in English speaking Western countries; it is low in Nordic countries and in the Netherlands and moderately low in some Latin and Asian countries like France, Spain, Portugal, Chile, Korea and Thailand.

Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation

This dimension was first identified in a survey among students in 23 countries around the world, using a questionnaire designed by Chinese scholars. As all countries with a history of Confucianism scored near one pole which could be associated with hard work, the study's first author Michael Harris Bond labeled the dimension Confucian Work Dynamism. The dimension turned out to be strongly correlated with recent economic growth. As none of the four IBM dimensions was linked to economic growth, I obtained Bond's permission to add his dimension as a fifth to my four. Because it had been identified in a study comparing students from 23 countries, most of whom had never heard of Confucius, I re-named it Long- Term versus Short-Term Orientation; the long-term pole corresponds to Bond's Confucian Work Dynamism. Values found at this pole were perseverance, thrift, ordering relationships by status, and having a sense of shame; values at the opposite, short term pole were reciprocating social obligations, respect for tradition, protecting one's 'face', and personal steadiness and stability. The positively rated values of this dimension were already present in the teachings of Confucius from around 500 BC. There was much more in Confucius' teachings so Long-Term Orientation is not Confucianism per se, but it is still present in countries with a Confucian heritage. In my book for a student readership Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind the fifth dimension was first integrated into my model. It was more extensively analyzed in the second edition of Culture's Consequences and in the new edition of Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, for which my eldest son Gert Jan Hofstede joined me as a co-author. 

My initial cross-cultural data collected around 1970 by the IBM corporation among its employees in more than 50 countries worldwide represented probably the largest matched-sample cross-national database available anywhere at that time. Bond's Chinese Value Survey showed the power of adding results from other surveys; unfortunately, it covered only 23 countries, and attempts to extend it to other populations were small-scale and hardly reliable.

In the past quarter century the volume of available cross-cultural data on self-scored values and related issues has increased enormously. If I had to start my research now, I would select the best elements from all these new databases. My prime choice would be the World Values Survey. In the early 1980s departments of Divinity at six European Universities, concerned with a loss of Christian faith, jointly surveyed the values of their countries' populations through public opinion survey methods. In the following years their European Values Survey expanded and changed focus: in the hands of U.S. sociologist Ronald Inglehart it grew into a periodic World Values Survey (WVS). Subsequent data collection rounds took place with 10-year intervals; as this is written, a fourth round is in process. The survey now covers more than 100 countries worldwide with a questionnaire including more than 360 forced-choice items. Areas covered are ecology, economy, education, emotions, family, gender and sexuality, government and politics, health, happiness, leisure and friends, morality, religion, society and nation, and work. The entire WVS data bank, including previous rounds and down to individual respondent scores, is freely accessible on the Web (www.worldvaluessurvey.org). So far it has remained under- used; potential users tend to drown in its huge volume of information. 

Michael Minkov, a Bulgarian linguist and sociologist whom I had met on the e-mail at the turn of the millennium, took up the challenge of exploring the riches of the WVS. In 2007 he published a book with a Bulgarian publisher, in which he described three new cross-national value dimensions extracted from recent WVS data, which he labeled Exclusionism versus Universalism, Indulgence versus Restraint and Monumentalism versus Flexumility (the latter a combination of flexibility and humility). Exclusionism versus Universalism was strongly correlated with Collectivism/Individualism and could be considered an elaboration of aspects of it. The other two dimensions were new, although Monumentalism versus Flexumility was moderately but significantly correlated with Short Term/Long Term Orientation.

Minkov's findings initially inspired the issuing of a new, 2008 version of the Values Survey Module, a set of questions available to researchers who wish to replicate my research into national culture differences. Earlier versions were issued in 1982 (VSM82) and 1994 (VSM94). Next to the established five Hofstede dimensions, the VSM08 included on an experimental basis Minkov's dimensions Indulgence versus Restraint and Monumentalism versus Flexumility (which I re-baptized Self-Effacement). The Values Survey Module (VSM) can be downloaded from www.geerthofstede.nl. Aspiring users should carefully study the accompanying Manual before they decide to collect their own data. In most cases, the use of available results of already existing quality research is to be preferred above amateur replications.

The next step in our cooperation with Minkov was that Gert Jan Hofstede and I invited him to become a co-author for the third edition of Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Minkov's Exclusionism versus Universalism was integrated into the Individualism/Collectivism chapter. By combining elements from his Monumentalism versus Flexumility dimension with additional WVS items, Minkov succeeded in converting into a new version of Long- versus Short-Term Orientation, now available for 93 countries and regions. Indulgence versus Restraint became an entirely new dimension that will be described below.

Table 5 lists a selection of differences between societies that validation research showed to be associated with the old and new version of the Long- versus Short-Term Orientation dimension. In our 2010 book, dimension scores have been re-calculated including Minkov's analysis of recent World Values Survey data. 

Long-term oriented are East Asian countries, followed by Eastern- and Central Europe. A medium term orientation is found in South- and North-European and South Asian countries. Short-term oriented are U.S.A. and Australia, Latin American, African and Muslim countries. 

Indulgence versus Restraint

The sixth and new dimension, added in our 2010 book, uses Minkov's label Indulgence versus Restraint. It was also based on recent World Values Survey items and is more or less complementary to Long-versus Short-Term Orientation; in fact it is weakly negatively correlated with it. It focuses on aspects not covered by the other five dimensions, but known from literature on "happiness research". Indulgence stands for a society that allows relatively free gratification of basic and natural human desires related to enjoying life and having fun. Restraint stands for a society that controls gratification of needs and regulates it by means of strict social norms. Scores on this dimension are also available for 93 countries and regions. Table 6 lists a selection of differences between societies that validation research showed to be associated with this dimension.

Indulgence tends to prevail in South and North America, in Western Europe and in parts of Sub-Sahara Africa. Restraint prevails in Eastern Europe, in Asia and in the Muslim world. Mediterranean Europe takes a middle position on this dimension. 

The Six Dimensions at a Glance