HOFSTEDE: Cultures And Organizations - Software of the Mind

Culture as mental programming

In Western languages 'culture' commonly means 'civilization' or 'refinement of the mind' and in particular the results of such refinement, like education, art, and literature. This is 'culture in the narrow sense; 'culture one' Culture as mental software, however, corresponds to a much broader use of the word which is common among social anthropologists: this is culture two. In social anthropology, 'culture' is a catchword for all those patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting referred to in the previous paragraphs. Not only those activities supposed to refine the mind are included in 'culture two', but also the ordinary and menial things in life: greeting, eating, showing or not showing feelings, keeping a certain physical distance from others, making love, or maintaining body hygiene.

CULTURE It is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another.

It is a collective phenomenon, because it is at least partly shared with people who live or lived within the same social environment, which is where it was learned. Culture is learned, not inherited. It derives from one's social environment, not from one's genes. Culture should be distinguished from human nature on one side, and from an individual's personality on the other:

Cultural relativism there are no scientific standards for considering one group as intrinsically superior or inferior to another. 'Cultural relativism affirms that one culture has no absolute criteria for judging the activities of another culture as "low" or "noble".

Symbols, heroes, rituals, and values

Cultural differences manifest themselves in several ways - symbols, heroes, rituals, and values.

The onion diagram: Manifestations of culture at different levels of depth

Symbols are words, gestures, pictures or objects that carry a particular meaning which is only recognized by those who share the culture. The words in a language or jargon belong to this category, as do dress, hairstyles, Coca-Cola, flags. New symbols are easily developed and old ones disappear. Heroes are persons, alive or dead, real or imaginary, who possess characteristics which are highly prized in a culture, and who thus serve as models for behavior. Snoopy in the USA, Asterix in France. Rituals are collective activities, technically superfluous in reaching desired ends, but which, within a culture, are considered as socially essential: they are therefore carried out for their own sake. Ways of greeting and paying respect to others, social and religious ceremonies are examples. Symbols, heroes, rituals can be subsumed under the term practices. The core of culture is formed by values. Values are broad tendencies to prefer certain states of affairs over others. Values are feelings with an arrow to it: they have a plus and a minus side. They deal with: evil vs. good dirty vs. clean ugly vs. beautiful unnatural vs. natural abnormal vs. normal paradoxical vs. logical irrational vs. rational

Values are among the first things children learn - not consciously, but implicitly. Development psychologists believe that by the age of 10, most children have their basic value system firmly in place, and after that age, changes are difficult to make. Because they were acquired so early in our lives, many values remain unconscious to those who hold them. Therefore they cannot be discussed, nor can they be directly observed by outsiders. They can only be inferred from the way people act under various circumstances.

Layers of culture
As almost everyone belongs to a number of different groups and categories of people at the same time, people unavoidably carry several layers of mental programming within themselves, corresponding to different levels of culture. For example: a national level according to one's country ( or countries for people who migrated during their lifetime); a regional and/or ethnic and/or religious and/or linguistic affiliation level, as most nations are composed of culturally different regions and/ or ethnic and/or religious and/or language groups; a gender level, according to whether a person was born as a girl or as a boy; a generation level, which separates grandparents from parents from children; a social class level, associated with educational opportunities and with a person's occupation or profession; for those who are employed, an organizational or corporate level according to the way employees have been socialized by their work organization.

National culture differences invention of nations is recent ... nation is not the same as society Danger in thinking of typically German or French formation of countries in Africa ... But forces push towards integration, - dominant language, common mass media, national army, ... - just a matter of expediency

DIMENSIONS OF NATIONAL CULTURES Social anthropology In the first half of the twentieth century, social anthropology has developed the conviction that all societies, modern or traditional, face the same basic problems; only the answers differ. For some researchers the following issues qualify as common basic problems worldwide, with consequences for the functioning of societies, of groups within those societies, and of individuals within those groups: 1. Relation to authority 2. Conception of self, in particular: a. the relationship between individual and society, and b. the individual's concept of masculinity and femininity 3. Ways of dealing with conflicts, including the control of aggression and the expression of feelings.

Hofstede - survey data about the values of people in over 50 countries around the world. These people worked in the local subsidiaries of one large multinational corporation IBM. A statistical analysis of the answers on questions about the values of similar IBM employees in different countries revealed common problems, but with solutions differing from country to country, in the following areas: 1. 2. 3. 4. Social inequality, including the relationship with authority; The relationship between the individual and the group; Concepts of masculinity and femininity: the social implications of having been born as a boy or a girl; Ways of dealing with uncertainty, relating to the control of aggression and the expression of emotions.

The four basic problem areas represent dimensions of cultures. A dimension is an aspect of a culture that can be measured relative to other cultures.

The basic problem areas correspond to dimensions which Hofstede named as power distance (from small to large ), collectivism versus individualism, femininity versus masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance (from weak to strong). Each of these terms existed already in some part of the social sciences, and they seemed to apply reasonably well to the basic problem area each dimension stands for. Together they form a four-dimensional (4-D) model of differences among national cultures. Each country in this model is characterized by a score on each of the four dimensions. More recently, a fifth dimension of differences among national cultures was identified, opposing a long-term orientation in life to a short-term orientation

(Cultural differences exist also according to region, religion, gender, generation, and class) (Organizational or corporate cultures)

Dimensions of national cultures

Power distance can be defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.
'Institutions' are the basic elements of society like the family, school, and the community; 'organizations' are the places where people work.

Individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. Collectivism as its opposite pertains to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive ingroups, which throughout people's lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. Masculinity indicates the extent to which the dominant values of a society are "masculine" (e.g., assertive and competitive). Masculinity pertains to societies in which social gender roles are clearly distinct (i.e., men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success whereas women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. Femininity pertains to societies in which social gender roles overlap i.e., both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. Uncertainty avoidance can be defined as the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations and try to avoid such situations. This feeling is, among other things, expressed through nervous stress and in a need for predictability: a need for written and unwritten rules.

Added later:
Confucian dynamism or long-term vs. short-term orientation in life
On the pole which could be labeled 'Long-term orientation' : persistence (perseverance ) ordering relationships by status and observing this order thrift having a sense of shame On the opposite pole 'Short-term orientation': personal steadiness and stability protecting your 'face' Respect for tradition reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts

In each dimension, differences among countries manifest themselves at different levels:

Child/family School workplace citizen/state ideas/philosophy

POWER DISTANCE
Power distance index (PDI) values for 50 countries and 3 regions Score Country or rank region
1 2/3 2/3 4 5/6 5/6 7 8/9 8/9 10/11 10/11 12 13 14 15/16 15/16 17 18/19 18/19 20 21/23 21/23 21/23 24/25 24/25 26 27/28 Malaysia Guatemala Panama Philippines Mexico Venezuela Arab countries Equador Indonesia India West Africa Yugoslavia Singapore Brazil France Hong Kong Colombia Salvador Turkey Belgium East Africa Peru Thailand Chile Portugal Uruguay Greece

PDI score
104 95 95 94 81 81 80 78 78 77 77 76 74 69 68 68 67 66 66 65 64 64 64 63 63 61 60

Score rank
27/28 29/30 29/30 31 32 33 34 35/36 35/36 37 38 39 40 41 42/44 42/44 42/44 45 46 47/48 47/48 49 50 51 52 53

Country or region
South Korea Iran Taiwan Spain Pakistan Japan Italy Argentina South Africa Jamaica USA Canada Netherlands Australia Costa Rica Germany Great Britain Switzerland Finland Norway Sweden Ireland (Republic) New Zealand Denmark Israel Austria

PDI score
60 58 58 57 55 54 50 49 49 45 40 39 38 36 35 35 35 34 33 31 31 28 22 18 13 11

POWER DISTANCE

Key Differences between small and large power distance societies. I: general norm, family, school, and workplace Small power distance 1. Inequalities among people should be
minimized

Large power distance

Inequalities among people are both expected and desired Less powerful people should be dependent on the more powerful; in practice, less powerful people are polarized between dependence and counterdependence Parents teach children obedience Children treat parents with respect Teachers are expected to take all initiatives in class Teachers are gurus who transfer personal wisdom Students treat teachers with respect Both more and less educated persons show almost equally authoritarian values Hierarchy in organizations reflects the existential inequality between higher- ups and lower-downs Centralization is popular Wide salary range between top and bottom of organization Subordinates expect to be told what to do The ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat or good father Privileges and status symbols for managers are both expected and popular

2. There should be, and there is to some extent,

interdependence between less and more powerful people

3. Parents treat children as equals 4. Children treat parents as equals 5. Teachers expect initiatives from students in
class

6. Teachers are experts who transfer

impersonal truths

7. Students treat teachers as equals 8. More educated persons hold less

authoritarian values than less educated persons

9. Hierarchy in organizations means an

inequality of roles, established for convenience

10. Decentralization is popular 11. Narrow salary range between top and bottom
of organization

12. Subordinates expect to be consulted 13. The ideal boss is a resourceful democrat 14. Privileges and status symbols are frowned
upon

POWER DISTANCE
Key differences between small and large power distance societies II: politics and ideas.
Small power distance 1. The use of power should be legitimate and is subject to criteria of good and evil 2. Skills, wealth, power, and status need not go together 3. The middle class is large 4. All should have equal rights 5. Powerful people try to look less powerful than they are 6. Power is based on formal position, expertise, and ability to give rewards 7. The way to change a political system is by changing the rules (evolution) 8. The use of violence in domestic politics is rare 9. Pluralist governments based on outcome of majority votes 10. Political spectrum shows strong center and weak right and left wings Large power distance Might prevails over right: whoever holds the power is right and good Skills, wealth, power, and status should go together The middle class is small The powerful have privileges Powerful people try to look as impressive as possible Power is based on family or friends, charisma, and ability to use force The way to change a political system is by changing the people at the top (revolution) Domestic political conflicts frequently lead to violence Autocratic or oligarchic governments based on cooptation Political spectrum, if aJlowed to be manifested, shows weak center and strong wings Large income differentials in society, further increased by the tax system Prevailing religions and philosophical systems stress hierarchy and stratification Prevailing political ideologies stress and practice power struggle Native management theories focus on role of managers

11. Small income differentials in society, further reduced by the tax system 12. Prevailing religions and philosophical systems stress equality 13. Prevailing political ideologies stress and practice power sharing 14. Native management theories focus on role of employees

INDIVIDUALISM
Individualism index (IDV) values for 50 countries and 3 regions Score rank
1 2 3 4/5 4/5 6 7 8 9 10/11 10/11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22/23 22/23 24 25 26/27 26/27

Country or region
USA Australia Great Britain Canada Netherlands New Zealand Italy Belgium Denmark Sweden France Ireland (Rep) Norway Switzerland Germany F.R. South Africa Finland Austria Israel Spain India Japan Argentina Iran Jamaica Brazil Arab countries

IDV score
91 90 89 80 80 79 76 75 74 71 71 70 69 68 67 65 63 55 54 51 48 46 46 41 39 38 38

Score rank
28 29 30 31 32 33/35 33/35 33/35 36 37 38 39/41 39/41 39/41 42 43 44 45 46 47/48 47/48 49 50 51 52 53

Country or region
Turkey Uruguay Greece Philippines Mexico East Africa Yugoslavia Portugal Malaysia Hong Kong Chile West Africa Singapore Thailand Salvador South Korea Taiwan Peru Costa Rica Pakistan Indonesia Colombia Venezuela Panama Equador Guatemala

IDV score
37 36 35 32 30 27 27 27 26 25 23 20 20 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 14 13 12 11 8 6

INDIVIDUALISM

Key differences between collectivist and individualist societies. I: general norm, family, school, and workplace
Collectivist 1. People are born into extended families or other ingroups which continue to protect them in exchange for loyalty 2. Identity is based in the social network to which one belongs 3. Children learn to think in terms of 'we' Individualist Everyone grows up to look after him/ herself and his/her immediate (nuclear) family only

Identity is based in the individual

Children learn to think in terms of 'I'

4. Harmony should always be maintained and Speaking one's mind is a characteristic of an direct confrontations avoided honest person 5. High-context communication 6. Trespassing leads to shame and loss of face for self and group Low-context communication Trespassing leads to guilt and loss of selfrespect

7. Purpose of education is learning how to do Purpose of education is learning how to learn 8. Diplomas provide entry to higher status groups Diplomas increase economic worth and/or self-respect

Relationship employer-employee is a 9. Relationship employer-employee is perceived in moral terms, like a family link contract supposed to be based on mutual advantage 10. Hiring and promotion decisions take employees' ingroup into account 11. Management is management of groups 12. Relationship prevails over task Hiring and promotion decisions are supposed to be based on skills and rules only Management is management of individuals Task prevails over relationship

10

INDIVIDUALISM
Key differences between collectivist and individualist societies. II: politics and ideas

Collectivist 1. Collective interests prevail over individual interests Private life is invaded by group(s) Opinions are predetermined by group membership Laws and rights differ by group

Individualist Individual interests prevail over collective interests Everyone has a right to privacy Everyone is expected to have a private opinion Laws and rights are supposed to be the same for all High per capita GNP Restrained role of the state in the economic system Economy based on individual interests Political power exercised by voters

2. 3.

4.

5. 6.

Low per capita GNP Dominant role of the state in the economic system Economy based on collective interests Political power exercised by interest groups Press controlled by the state Imported economic theories largely irrelevant because unable to deal with collective and particularist interests Ideologies of equality prevail over ideologies of individual freedom Harmony and consensus in society are ultimate goals

7.

8. 9.

Press freedom Native economic theories based on pursuit of individual self-interests

10.

Ideologies of individual freedom prevail over ideologies of equality Self-actualization by every individual is an ultimate goal

11.

11

FEMINISM

Masculinity index (MAS) values for 50 countries and 3 regions Score rank
1 2 3 4/5 4/5 6 7/8

Country or region
Japan Austria Venezuela Italy Switzerland Mexico Ireland (Republic of)

MAS score
95 79 73 70 70 69 68

Score rank
28 29 30/31 30/31 32/33 32/33 34 35/36 68 66 66 64 64 63 63 62 61 58 57 57 56 56 54 53 52 50 50 49 35/36 37/38 37/38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48/49 48/49 50 51 52 53

Country or region
Singapore Israel Indonesia West Africa Turkey Taiwan Panama Iran France Spain Peru East Africa Salvador South Korea Uruguay Guatemala Thailand Portugal Chile Finland Yugoslavia Costa Rica Denmark Netherlands Norway Sweden

MAS score
48 47 46 46 45 45 44 43 43 42 42 41 40 39 38 37 34 31 28 26 21 21 16 14 8 5

7/8 9/10 9/10 11/12 11/12 13/14 13/14 15 16 17 18/19 18/19 20/21 20/21 22 23 24 25/26 25/26 27

Jamaica Great Britain Germany FR Philippines Colombia South Africa Equador USA Australia New Zealand Greece Hong Kong Argentina India Belgium Arab countries Canada Malaysia Pakistan Brazil

12

FEMINISM
Key differences between feminine and masculine societies. I: general norm, family, school, and workplace Feminine
1. Dominant values in society are caring for others and preservation 2. People and warm relationships are important 3. Everybody is supposed to be modest

Masculine
Dominant values in society are material success and progress Money and things are important Men are supposed to be assertive, ambitious, and tough Women are supposed to be tender and to take care of relationships In the family, fathers deal with facts and mothers with feelings Girls cry, boys don't; boys should fight back when attacked, girls shouldn't fight Sympathy for the strong Best student is the norm Failing in school is a disaster Brilliance in teachers appreciated Boys and girls study different subjects Live in order to work Managers expected to be decisive and assertive Stress on equity, competition among colleagues, and performance Resolution of conflicts by fighting them out

4. Both men and women are allowed to be tender and to be concerned with relationships 5. In the family, both fathers and mothers deal with facts and feelings 6. Both boys and girls are allowed to cry but neither should fight 7. Sympathy for the weak 8. Average student is the norm 9. Failing in school is a minor accident 10. Friendliness in teachers appreciated 11. Boys and girls study same subjects 12. Work in order to live 13. Managers use intuition and strive for consensus

14. Stress on equality, solidarity, and quality of work life 15. Resolution of conflicts by compromise and negotiation

13

FEMINISM
Key differences between feminine and masculine societies. II: politics and ideas Feminine
1. Welfare society ideal 2. The needy should be helped 3. Permissive society 4. Small and slow are beautiful 5. Preservation of the environment should have highest priority 6. Government spends relatively large proportion of budget on development assistance to poor countries 7. Government spends relatively small proportion of budget on armaments 8. International conflicts should be resolved by negotiation and compromise 9. A relatively large number of women in elected political positions 10. Dominant religions stress the complementarity of the sexes 11. Women's liberation means that men and women should take equal shares both at home and at work

Masculine
Performance society ideal The strong should be supported Corrective society Big and fast are beautiful Maintenance of economic growth should have highest priority Government spends relatively small proportion of budget on development assistance to poor countries

Government spends relatively large proportion of budget on armaments International conflicts should be resolved by a show of strength or by fighting

A relatively small number of women in elected political positions Dominant religions stress the male prerogative

Women's liberation means that women will be admitted to positions hitherto only occupied by men

14

UNCERTAINTY
Uncertainty avoidance index (UAI) values for 50 countries and 3 regions

Score rank
1 2 3 4 5/6 5/6 7 8 9 10/15 10/15 10/15 10/15 10/15 10/15 16/17 16/17 18 19 20 21/22 21/22 23 24/25 24/25 26 27

Country or region
Greece Portugal Guatemala Uruguay Belgium Salvador Japan Yugoslavia Peru France Chile Spain Costa Rica Panama Argentina Turkey South Korea Mexico Israel Colombia Venezuela Brazil Italy Pakistan Austria Taiwan Arab countries

UAI score
112 104 101 100 94 94 92 88 87 86 86 86 86 86 86 85 85 82 81 80 76 76 75 70 70 69 68

Score rank

Country or region

UAI score
67 65 64 59 59 58 54 53 52 51 50 49 49 48 48 46 44 40 36 35 35 29 29 23 13 8

28 29 30 31/32 31/32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39/40 39/40 41/42 41/42 43 44 45 46 47/48 47/48 49/50 49/50 51 52 53

Equador Germany FR Thailand Iran Finland Switzerland West Africa Netherlands East Africa Australia Norway South Africa New Zealand Indonesia Canada USA Philippines India Malaysia Great Britain Ireland (Republic of) Hong Kong Sweden Denmark Jamaica Singapore

15

UNCERTAINTY
Key differences between weak and strong uncertainty avoidance societies. I: general norm, family, school, and workplace

Weak uncertainty avoidance

Strong uncertainty avoidance

1. Uncertainty is a normal feature of life The uncertainty inherent in life is felt as a and each day is accepted as it comes continuous threat which must be fought 2. Low stress; subjective feeling of wellbeing 3. Aggression and emotions should not be shown 4. Comfortable in ambiguous situations and with unfamiliar risks 5. Lenient rules for children on what is dirty and taboo 6. What is different, is curious 7. Students comfortable with openended learning situations and concerned with good discussions 8. Teachers may say 'I don't know' 9. There should not be more rules than is strictly necessary 10. Time is a framework for orientation High stress; subjective feeling of anxiety

Aggression and emotions may at proper times and places be ventilated Acceptance of familiar risks; fear of ambiguous situations and of unfamiliar risks Tight rules for children on what is dirty and taboo

What is different, is dangerous Students comfortable in structured learning situations and concerned with the right answers

Teachers supposed to have all the answers Emotional need for rules, even if these will never work Time is money

11. Comfortable feeling when lazy; hard- Emotional need to be busy; inner urge to work working only when needed hard 12. Precision and punctuality have to be learned 13. Tolerance of deviant and innovative ideas and behavior 14. Motivation by achievement and esteem or belongingness Precision and punctuality come naturally

Suppression of deviant ideas and behavior; resistance to innovation Motivation by security and esteem or belongingness

16

UNCERTAINTY
Key differences between weak and strong uncertainty avoidance societies. II: politics and ideas

Weak uncertainty avoidance 1. Few and general laws and rules 2. If rules cannot be respected, they
should be changed

Strong uncertainty avoidance

Many and precise laws and rules If rules cannot be respected, we are sinners and should repent Citizen incompetence versus authorities

3. Citizen competence versus

authorities

4. Citizen protest acceptable 5. Citizens positive towards

institutions

Citizen protest should be repressed Citizens negative towards institutions

6. Civil servants positive towards

political process

Civil servants negative towards political process Conservatism, extremism, law and order Negative attitudes towards young people

7. Tolerance, moderation 8. Positive attitudes towards young

people

9. Regionalism, internationalism,
attempts at integration of minorities

Nationalism, xenophobia, repression of minorities Belief in experts and specialization

10. Belief in generalists and common

sense

11. Many nurses, few doctors 12. One group's truth should not be
imposed on others

Many doctors, few nurses There is only one Truth and we have it

13. Human rights: nobody should be

persecuted for their beliefs

Religious, political, and ideological fundamentalism and intolerance In philosophy and science, tendency towards grand theories Scientific opponents cannot be personal friends

14. In philosophy and science, tendency

towards relativism and empiricism

15. Scientific opponents can be personal

friends

17

Index Scores and Ranks for Countries and Regions From the IBM Set
Source: Hofstede(2001:500)
Long/ShortTerm Orientation
Index 31 31a 38a 65 23 Rank 22-24 22-24 18 6 30

Power Distance

Uncertainty Avoidance
Index Rank

Individualism/ Collectivism
Index Rank

Masculinity/ Femininity
Index Rank

Country

Index

Rank

49 35-36 86 10-15 46 22-23 56 20-21 Argentina 36 41 51 37 90 2 61 16 Australia 11 53 70 24-25 55 18 79 2 Austria 65 20 94 5-6 75 8 54 22 Belgium 69 14 76 21-22 38 26-27 49 27 Brazil 39 39 48 41-42 80 4-5 52 24 Canada 63 24-25 86 10-15 23 38 28 46 Chile 67 17 80 20 13 49 64 11-12 Colombia 35 42-44 86 10-15 15 46 21 48-49 Costa Rica 18 51 23 51 74 9 16 50 Denmark 78 8-9 67 28 8 52 63 13-14 Ecuador 33 46 59 31-32 63 17 26 47 Finland 68 15-16 86 10-15 71 10-11 43 35-36 France 35 42-44 65 29 67 15 66 9-10 Germany 35 42-44 35 47-48 89 3 66 9-10 Great Britain 60 27-28 112 1 35 30 57 18-19 Greece 95 2-3 101 3 6 53 37 43 Guatemala 68 15-16 29 49-50 25 37 57 18-19 Hong Kong 78 8-9 48 41-42 14 47-48 46 30-31 Indonesia 77 10-11 40 45 48 21 56 20-21 India 58 29-30 59 31-32 41 24 43 35-36 Iran 28 49 35 47-48 70 12 68 7-8 Ireland 13 52 81 19 54 19 47 29 Israel 50 34 75 23 76 7 70 4-5 Italy 45 37 13 52 39 25 68 7-8 Jamaica 54 33 92 7 46 22-23 95 1 Japan 60 27-28 85 16-17 18 43 39 41 Korea (South) 104 1 36 46 26 36 50 25-26 Malaysia 81 5-6 82 18 30 32 69 6 Mexico 38 40 53 35 80 4-5 14 51 Netherlands 31 47-48 50 38 69 13 8 52 Norway 22 50 49 39-40 79 6 58 17 New Zealand 55 32 70 24-25 14 47-48 50 25-26 Pakistan 95 2-3 86 10-15 11 51 44 34 Panama 64 21-23 87 9 16 45 42 37-38 Peru 94 4 44 44 32 31 64 11-12 Philippines 63 24-25 104 2 27 33-35 31 45 Portugal 49 35-36 49 39-40 65 16 63 13-14 South Africa 66 18-19 94 5-6 19 42 40 40 Salvador 74 13 8 53 20 39-41 48 28 Singapore 57 31 86 10-15 51 20 42 37-38 Spain 31 47-48 29 49-50 71 10-11 5 53 Sweden 34 45 58 33 68 14 70 4-5 Switzerland 58 29-30 69 26 17 44 45 32-33 Taiwan 64 21-23 64 30 20 39-41 34 44 Thailand 66 18-19 85 16-17 37 28 45 32-33 Turkey 61 26 100 4 36 29 38 42 Uruguay 40 38 46 43 91 1 62 15 United States 81 5-6 76 21-22 12 50 73 3 Venezuela 76 12 88 8 27 33-35 21 48-49 Yugoslavia Regions: 80 7 68 27 38 26-27 53 23 Arab countries 64 21-23 52 36 27 33-35 41 39 East Africa 77 10-11 54 34 20 39-41 46 30-31 West Africa NOTE. 1 = highest rank. LTO ranks. 1 = China; 15-16 = Bangladesh; 21 = Poland; 34 = lowest a - Based on EMS consumer survey.

46a 41a 39a 31 25

10 14 17 22-24 28-29

96 61 43a 34a 80 75

2 7 13 19 4 5

44 44a 30 0

11-12 11-12 25-26 34

19 30a

31-32 25-26

48 19a 33 40a 87 56

9 31-32 20 15-16 3 8

29

27

25 16

28-29 33

18

Index Scores by Language Area for Multilingual Countries

Source: Hofstede(2001:501)

Country and Part Belgium totala a Dutch speakers French speakersa Switzerland total a, c German speakers French speakersa Yugoslavia totala Croatia (Zagreb) b Serbia (Beograd) Slovenia (Ljubljana) Canada totala d French speakers Australia total e Aborigines
a b b a

Power Uncertainty Distance Avoidance Index Index 65 61 67 34 26 70 76 73 86 71 39 54 36 80 94 97 93 58 56 70 88 80 92 88 48 60 51 128

Individualism Index 75 78 72 68 69 64 27 33 25 27 80 73 90 89

Masculinity Index 54 43 60 70 72 58 21 40 43 19 52 45 61 22

Long-Term Orientation Index

23 30 31 -10

a Based on IBM survey data, b Based on reanalysis of IBM survey data (Hofstede, 1993) c See also Kopper (1993), d Based on my interpretation of Rokeach Value Survey scores collected by McCarrey, Edwards, and Jones (1978); of work goal importance scores collected by Jain, Normand, and Kanungo (1979); IDV based on regression from data collected by Lambert and Klineberg (1967); and observations by Dr Christoph Barmeyer (personal communication, 1999) e. Based on observations of Dr. Ray Simonsen, Victoria University, Darwin (personal communication, 1998)

19

Index Score Estimates for Countries Not in the IBM Set

Source: Hofstede(2001:502)

Power Distance Country and Part Bangladesh Bulgaria China Czechia Estonia Hungary Luxembourg Malta Morocco Poland Romania Russia Slovakia Surinam Trinidad Vietnam Index 80 70 80 57 40 46 40 56 70 68 90 93 104 85 47 70

Uncertainty Avoidance Index 60 85 30 74 60 82 70 96 68 93 90 95 51 92 55 30

Individualism Masculinity Index 20 30 20 58 60 80 60 59 46 60 30 39 52 47 16 20 Index 55 40 66 57 30 88 50 47 53 64 42 36 110 37 58 40

Long-Term Orientation Index 40 118 13 50

32

38

80

SOURCES. Bangladesh: LTO, see Chapter 7; other dimensions based on descriptive information. Bulgaria: based on observation and descriptive information. China: MAS, see Hofstede (1996b); LTO, see Chapter 7; other dimensions based on observation and an extensive literature (see Chapters 3,4, 5, and 7). Czechia: Kruzela ( 1995), Thorpe and Pavlica ( 1996), and Kolman, Hofstede, Noorderhaven, and Dienes (1999). Eslonia MAS, Hofstede, Kolman, Nicolescu, and Pajumaa (1996); other dimensions, observation. Hungary: Varga (1986) and Kolman et al (1999). Luxembourg: observation and clustering in European Union data. Malla: Hoppe (1990). Morocco: POI and IDV from Helmreich and Merritt ( 1998); other dimensions, Arabic-speaking countries scores Poland: Nasierowski and Mikula ( 1998) and Kolman et aI (1999). Romania: MAS, Hofstede et al (1996); other dimensions, observation, and descriptive data. Russia: MAS, Hofstedeet al. (1996); other dimensions, raw data from unpublished studies by Bollinger(1988) and Bradley (1998), observation and descriptive data. Slovakia: Kolman et al (1999) Surinam: Nanhekhan (1990). Trinidad: Punnett, Singh, and Williams (1994) Vielnam: observation and descriptive information.

20

In the area of organizations and management, theories, models and techniques developed in a given country usually in the United States are not valid and ready to be applied, without further considerations, in countries with very different cultures. EXAMPLES:

MbO
Mexico is characterised by a very high level of power distance, the United States by a very low one (scores from 81 to 40, respectively, or, among 53 countries, the fifth place for Mexico and 38th for United States). As a result of this gap it is only to be expected that a management technique such as Management by Objectives, popular in the United States, may be inappropriate in Mexico the Mexican managers would not accept delegating important tasks to their subordinates and these, in turn, due to their weak sense for egalitarianism , would not feel comfortable with a model of participative characteristics

Matrix structures
Matrix structures were seen a few years ago as combining the advantages of structures by product, geography and function. Decentralized decision processes, overlapping responsibilities and multiple channels of information permitted dealing better with external complexity, overcoming the internal tensions and responding more rapidly and more flexibly to new challenges. Although overall the matrix structure never experienced the success that had been anticipated, in countries like Germany and France it encountered special difficulties.In France this was because the matrix structure violates the principle of unity of command and hierarchical line. In Germany it was because it goes against the absolute need for clear structures, information channels, roles and responsibilities.This rejection could be explained by the high levels of power distance in France and of large uncertainty avoidance in Germany

Maslows hierarchy of needs. Maslow defended the existence of five basic human
needs, forming a hierarchy comprising physiological, safety, social nature, esteem and selfactualisation needs. Those of a higher level are active and may be motivating, when the inferior ones are satisfied. What Maslow thought were universal needs of any human being, and what is taught in management manuals, proved in reality to be valid only for the North Americans and some nations of similar cultural characteristics.In countries of high uncertainty avoidance, safety needs may be much more important than Maslow thought, the job for the whole life is more important than having a more interesting and challenging position.In countries with a low level of masculinity, social needs will tend to be more important, the same holding in less individualist countries (more collective).

21

Culture and international competition: competitive advantages of different cultural profiles

Power distance small: Power distance large: Individualism: Collectivism: Masculinity:

acceptance of responsibility discipline management mobility employee commitment mass production; efficiency; heavy industry, bulk chemistry

Femininity:

personal service; custom-made products; agriculture, biochemistry

Uncertainty avoidance weak: Uncertainty avoidance strong:

basic innovations precision

Hofstede: Cultures and Organizations, p.240

22

CASE STUDY - Middle-sized textile printing company

Somewhere in Western Europe a middle-sized textile printing company struggled for survival. Cloth, usually imported from Asian countries, was printed in multicolored patterns according to the desires of customers, firms producing fashion clothing for the local market. The company was run by a general manager to whom three functional managers reported: one for design and sales, one for manufacturing, and one for finance and personnel. The total work force numbered about 250. The working climate in the firm was often disturbed by conflicts between the sales and manufacturing managers. The manufacturing manager had an interest, as manufacturing managers have the world over, in smooth production and in minimizing product changes. He preferred grouping customer orders into large batches. Changing color and/or design implied cleaning the machines which took productive time away and also wasted costly dyestuffs. The worst was changing from a dark color set to a light one, because every bit of dark-colored dye left would show on the cloth and spoil the product quality. Therefore the manufacturing planners tried to start on a clean machine with the lightest shades and gradually move towards darker ones, postponing the need for an overall cleaning round as long as possible. The design and sales manager tried to satisfy his customers in a highly competitive market. These customers, fashion clothing firms, were notorious for short-term planning changes. As their supplier, the printing company often received requests for rush orders. Even when these orders were small and unlikely to be profitable the sales manager hated to say 'no'. The customer might go to a competitor and then the printing firm would miss that big order which the sales manager was sure would come afterwards. The rush orders, however, usually upset the manufacturing manager's schedules and forced him to print short runs of dark color sets on a beautifully clean machine, thus forcing the production operators to start cleaning allover again. There were frequent hassles between the two managers over whether a certain rush order should or should not be taken into production. The conflict was not limited to the department heads; production personnel publicly expressed doubts about the competence of the sales people and vice versa. In the cafeteria, production and sales people would not sit together , although they had known each other for years.

PLEASE Write down (1) your diagnosis of the problem and (2) your suggested solution

23

IMPLICIT MODELS OF ORGANIZATIONS

Like most organizational problems, it has both structural and human aspects. The people involved react according to their mental software. Part of this mental software consists of people's ideas about what an organization should be like. From the four dimensions of national culture power distance and uncertainty avoidance in particular affect our thinking about organizations. Organizing always demands the answering of two questions: (1) who has the power to decide what? and (2) what rules or procedures will be followed to attain the desired ends? The answer to the first question is influenced by cultural norms of power distance; the answer to the second question, by cultural norms about uncertainty avoidance. The remaining two dimensions, individualism and masculinity, affect our thinking about people in organizations, rather than about organizations themselves. Power distance and uncertainty avoidance have been plotted against each other in the Figure and if the above analysis is correct, the position of a country in this diagram should tell us something about the way to solve organizational problems in that country.

There is empirical evidence for the relationship between a country's position within the PDI-UAI matrix, and models of organizations implicit in the minds of people from those countries which affect the way problems are tackled.
In the 1970s Owen James Stevens, an American professor at INSEAD business school in Fontainebleau, France, used as an examination assignment for his organizational behavior course a case study very similar to the one presented at the beginning of this chapter. This case, too, dealt with a conflict between two department heads within a company. Among the INSEAD MBA (Master of Business Administration) students taking the exam, the three largest national contingents were French, German, and British. In the Figure we find their countries in the lower right, lower left, and upper left quadrants, respectively.

Stevens had noticed earlier that the students' nationality seemed to affect their way of handling this case. He had kept a file of the examination work of about 200 students, in which, with regard to the case in question, the students had written down, individually (1) their diagnosis of the problem and (2) their suggested solution. Stevens had sorted these exams by the nationality of the author, and he went separately through all French, all German, and all British answers.
The results were striking. The French in majority diagnosed the case as negligence by the general manager to whom the two department heads reported. The solution preferred by the French was for the opponents to take the conflict to their common boss, who would issue orders for settling such dilemmas in the future. Stevens interpreted the implicit organization model of the French as a 'pyramid of people': the general manager at the top of the pyramid, and each successive level at its proper place below. The majority of the Germans diagnosed the case as a lack of structure. The competence of the two conflicting department heads had never been clearly laid down. The solution preferred by the Germans was the establishment of procedures. Ways to develop these could be calling in a consultant, nominating a task force, or asking the common boss. The Germans, Stevens felt, saw an organization ideally as a 'well-oiled machine' in which management intervention is limited to exceptional cases because the rules should settle all daily problems. The majority of the British diagnosed the case as a human relations problem. The two department heads were poor negotiators, and their skills in this respect should be developed by sending them on a management course, preferably together. 'Transactional analysis' had not yet been invented at that time, but it would be a good term to describe the kind of training recommended. The implicit model of an organization in the minds of the British, Stevens thought, was a 'village market' in which neither hierarchy nor rules, but the demands of the situation, determine what will happen. Stevens' experience happened to coincide with the discovery, in the context of the IBM research project, of power distance and uncertainty avoidance as dimensions of country cultures. These two dimensions resembled those found a few years earlier through a piece of academic research commonly known as the 'Aston Studies'. From 1961 through

24

1973 the University of Aston in Birmingham, UK, hosted an 'Industrial Administration Research Unit'. Among the researchers involved were Derek S. Pugh, David J. Hickson, Roy L. Payne, Diana C. Pheysey, and John Child (see Pugh and Hickson, 1976). The Aston Studies represented a large-scale attempt to assess quantitatively, that is to measure, key aspects of the structure of different organizations. At first the research was limited to the UK, but later it was replicated in a number of other countries. The principal conclusion from the Aston Studies was that the two major dimensions along which structures of organizations differ are 'concentration of authority' and 'structuring of activities'. It did not take much imagination to associate the first with power distance, and the second with uncertainty avoidance. The Aston researchers had tried to measure the 'hard' aspects of organizational structure: objectively assessable characteristics. Power distance and uncertainty avoidance indices measure soft, subjective characteristics of the people within a country. A link between the two would mean that organizations are structured in order to meet the subjective cultural needs of their members. Stevens' implicit models of organization in fact provided the proof. French INSEAD MBA students with their 'pyramid of people' model, coming from a country with large power distance and strong uncertainty avoidance, advocated measures to concentrate the authority and structure the activities. Germans with their 'well-oiled machine' model, coming from a country with strong uncertainty avoidance but small power distance, wanted to structure the activities without concentrating the authority. British INSEAD MBA students with a 'village market' model and a national culture characterized by small power distance and weak uncertainty avoidance, advocated neither concentrating authority nor structuring activities-and all of them were dealing with the same case study. People with international business experience have confirmed many times over that, other things being equal, French organizations do concentrate authority more, German ones do need more structure, and people in British ones do believe more in resolving problems ad hoc. Stevens' three implicit models leave one quadrant in the Figure unexplained. The upper right-hand corner contains no European countries, only Asian and African ones. People from these countries were rare at INSEAD, so that there were insufficient data from this group. A discussion of Stevens' models with Indian and Indonesian colleagues led to the suggestion that the equivalent implicit model of an organization in these countries is the ( extended) 'family', in which the owner-manager is the omnipotent (grand)father. It corresponds to large power distance but weak uncertainty avoidance, a situation in which people would resolve the conflict described by permanent referral to the boss: concentration of authority without structuring of activities. Negandhi and Prasad, two Americans originally from India, quote a senior Indian executive with a Ph.D from a prestigious American university: 'What is most important for me and my department is not what I do or achieve for the company, but whether the Master's favor is bestowed on me. ...This I have achieved by saying "yes" to everything the Master says or does. ...To contradict him is to look for another job. ...I left my freedom of thought in Boston.' (Negandhi and Prasad, 1971, p. 128).

25

The position of 50 countries and 3 regions on the power distance and uncertainty avoidance dimensions

26

IMPLICIT MODELS OF ORGANIZATION

ITIM: Consultants in business culture and international management www.itim.org

The contest model (`winner takes all)

Competitive Anglo-Saxon cultures with low power distance, high individualism and masculinity, and fairly low scores on uncertainty avoidance. Examples: Australia, New Zealand, UK and USA.

The network model (consensus)

Highly individualistic, `feminine societies with low power distance like Scandinavia and the Netherlands. Everyone is supposed to be involved in decision-making.

The organization as a family (loyalty and hierarchy)

Found in societies that score high on power distance and collectivism and have powerful in-groups and paternalistic leaders. Examples: China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Singapore.

The pyramidal organization (loyalty, hierarchy and implicit order)

Found in collective societies with large power distance and uncertainty avoidance. Examples: much of Latin America (especially Brazil), Greece, Portugal, Russia and Thailand.

The solar system (hierarchy and an impersonal bureaucracy)

Similar to the pyramid structure, but with greater individualism. Examples: Belgium, France, Northern Italy, Spain and French speaking Switzerland.

The well-oiled machine (order)

Found in societies with low power distance and high uncertainty avoidance, carefully balanced procedures and rules, not much hierarchy. Examples: Austria, Germany, Czech Republic, Hungary, German speaking Switzerland.

27

MANAGEMENT PROFESSORS ARE HUMAN

Not only organizations are culture bound; theories about organizations are equally culture bound. The professors who wrote the theories are children of a culture: they grew up in families, went to schools, worked for employers. Their experiences represent the material on which their thinking and writing have been based. Scholars are as human and as culturally biased as other mortals.
For each of the four corners of the Figure a classical author described organizations in terms of the model belonging to his corner of the diagram: the pyramid, the machine, the market, or the family. The four are approximate contemporaries; all were born in the mid-nineteenth century. Henri Fayol (1841-1925) was a French engineer whose management career culminated in the position of presidentdirecteur-generat of a mining company. After his retirement he formulated his experiences in a pathbreaking text on organization: Administration industrielle et generate. On the issue of the exercise of authority Fayol wrote: 'We distinguish in a manager his statutory authority which is in the office, and his personal authority which consists of his intelligence, his knowledge, his experience, his moral value, his leadership, his service record, etc. For a good manager , personal authority is the indispensable complement to statutory authority. In Fayol's conception the authority is both in the person and in the rules (the statute). We recognize the model of the organization as a pyramid of people with both personal power and formal rules as principles of coordination. Max Weber (1864-1920) was a German academic with a university training in law and some years' experience as a civil servant. He became a professor of economics and a founder of German sociology. Weber quotes a seventeenth-century Puritan Protestant Christian textbook about: '. ..the sinfulness of the belief in authority, which is only permissible in the form of an impersonal authority.' (Weber, 1976, p. 224). In his own design for an organization Weber describes the bureaucracy. The word was originally a joke, a classical Greek ending grafted onto a modern French stem. Nowadays it has a distinctly negative connotation, but to Weber it represented the ideal type for any large organization. About the authority in a bureaucracy Weber wrote: 'The authority to give the commands required for the discharge of (the assigned) duties should be exercised in a stable way. It is strictly delimited by rules concerning the coercive means, which may be placed at the disposal of officials.' In Weber's conception the real authority is in the rules. The power of the 'officials' is strictly delimited by these rules. We recognize the model of the organization as a well-oiled machine, which runs according to the rules. Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915) was an American engineer who, contrary to Fayol, had started his career in industry as a worker. He attained his academic qualifications through evening studies. From chief engineer in a steel company he became one of the first management consultants. Taylor was not really concerned with the issue of authority at all; his focus was on efficiency. He proposed to split the task of the first-line boss into eight specialisms, each exercised by a different person. Thus, each worker would have eight bosses, each with a different competence. This part of Taylor's ideas was never completely implemented, although we find elements of it in the modern 'matrix organization' in which an employee has two (or even three) bosses, usually one concerned with productivity and one with technical expertise. Taylor's book Shop Management (1903) appeared in a French translation in 1913, and Fayol read it and devoted six full pages from his own 1916 book to Taylor's ideas. Fayol shows himself generally impressed but shocked by Taylor's 'denial of the principle of the Unity of Command' in the case of the eight-boss system. 'For my part,' Fayol writes, 'I do not believe that a department could operate in flagrant violation of the Unity of Command principle. Still, Taylor has been a successful manager of large organizations. How can we explain this contradiction?' (Fayol, 1970, p. 85). Fayol's rhetorical question had been answered by his compatriot Blaise Pascal two and a half centuries earlier: there are truths in one country which are falsehoods in another ('Verite en-dea des Pyrenees, erreur au-det').

In a 1981 article Andre Laurent, another of Fayol's compatriots, demonstrated that French managers in a survey reacted very strongly against a suggestion that one employee could report to two different bosses, while for example Swedish and US managers in the same survey showed fewer misgivings in this respect (Laurent, 1981). Matrix organization has never become as popular in France as it has in the USA. It is amusing to read Laurent's suggestion that in order to make matrix organizations acceptable in France they should be translated into hierarchical terms, i.e., one real boss plus one or more staff experts. Exactly the

28

same solution was put forward by Fayol in his 1916 discussion of the Taylor system; in fact, Fayol wrote that he supposed this was how the Taylor system really worked in Taylor's companies.
Whereas Taylor dealt only implicitly with the exercise of authority in organizations, another American pioneer of organization theory, Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933), did address the issue squarely. She wrote: 'How can we avoid the two extremes: too great bossism in giving orders, and practically no orders given? ...My solution is to depersonalize the giving of orders, to unite all concerned in a study of the situation, to discover the law of the situation and to obey that. ..One person should not give orders to another person , but both should agree to take their orders from the situation.' (Metcalf and Urwick, 1940, pp. 58-59).

In the concepts of Taylor and Follett the authority is neither in the person nor in the rules, but, as Follett puts it, in the situation. We recognize the model of the organization as a market, in which market conditions dictate what will happen.
Sun Yat-sen (1866-1925) was a scholar from the fourth corner of the power distance-uncertainty avoidance diagram, from China. He received a Western education in Hawaii and Hong Kong and became a political revolutionary. As China began industrialization much later than the West there is no indigenous theorist of industrial organization contemporary with Fayol, Weber , and Taylor. However, Sun was concerned with organization, albeit political. He wanted to replace the ailing government of the Manchu emperors by a modern Chinese state. He eventually became, for a short period, nominally the first President of the Chinese Republic. Sun's design for a Chinese form of government represents an integration of Western and traditional Chinese elements. From the West, he introduced the Trias Politica: the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. However, unlike in the West, all three are placed under the authority of the President. Two more branches are added, both derived from Chinese tradition and bringing the total up to five: the examination branch (determining access to the civil service) and the control branch, supposed to audit the government. This remarkable mix of two systems is formally the basis of the present government structure of Taiwan, which has inherited Sun's ideas through the Kuomintang party. It stresses the authority of the President (large power distance) : the legislative and judicial powers which in the West are meant to guarantee government by law are made dependent on the ruler and paralleled by the examination and control powers which are based on government of man (weak uncertainty avoidance). It is the family model with the ruler as the country's father and whatever structure there is, based on personal relationships. Paradoxically in the other China which expelled the Kuomintang, the People's Republic, the Cultural Revolution experiment can also be interpreted as an attempt to maintain the authority of the ruler (in this case Chairman Mao) while rejecting the authority of the rules which were felt to suffocate the modernization of the minds. The Cultural Revolution is now publicly recognized as a disaster. What passed for modernization may in fact have been a revival of centuries-old unconscious fears. Some countries with a Chinese inheritance, like Singapore and Hong Kong from the upper right-hand corner of the power distance-uncertainty avoidance diagram, have been doing very well in modernizing themselves.

SOURCE: Hofstede: Cultures and Organizations

29