Cultural Patterns and Value Systems: Hofstede and Others

Why Measure Culture

From 1967 to 1973, Dutch sociologist Geert Hofstede conducted the largest cross-cultural study in history: he surveyed about 117,000 IBM employees in 40 countries. The question: what makes cultures different in a professional context? His data revealed four (later—six) dimensions along which cultures systematically differ. This was a breakthrough—not just a description of differences, but a measurable model.

For managers, this is an invaluable tool: instead of a vague “they are different,” there are specific parameters by which one can predict and manage cultural differences.

Hofstede’s Six Dimensions

1. Power Distance (PDI — Power Distance Index) — the extent to which less powerful members of a society accept unequal distribution of power. High PDI (Malaysia, Mexico, Russia): hierarchy is accepted as a given, the boss doesn’t make mistakes, bottom-up initiative is undesirable. Low PDI (Austria, Denmark, Israel): hierarchy is functional, the boss can be challenged, employees expect participation in decisions.

2. Individualism vs Collectivism (IDV) — the degree to which people are integrated into groups. High IDV (USA, Australia, United Kingdom): a person is self-sufficient, personal interests and achievements are more important than group ones. High Collectivism (Guatemala, Ecuador, China): a person belongs to close-knit groups (family, clan, company) that protect him in exchange for loyalty.

3. Masculinity vs Femininity (MAS) — orientation towards competition, achievement, success vs orientation towards quality of life, cooperation, care. High “masculinity” (Japan, Austria, Venezuela): “live to work,” material success. High “femininity” (Sweden, Norway, Netherlands): “work to live,” balance, consensus.

4. Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI — Uncertainty Avoidance Index) — to what extent a culture tolerates ambiguity and the unknown. High UAI (Greece, Portugal, Japan): need for rules, structures, planning; uncertainty causes anxiety. Low UAI (Singapore, Jamaica, Denmark): uncertainty is accepted, improvisation is valued, fewer rules.

5. Long-term vs Short-term Orientation (LTO) — the relative importance of the future versus the past and present. High LTO (China, Japan, South Korea): planning, investments, thrift, willingness to delay gratification. Low LTO (Nigeria, Mexico): traditions, quick results, immediate rewards.

6. Indulgence vs Restraint (IND) — the extent to which people allow themselves to enjoy life and pleasures. High indulgence (Latin America, West Africa): freedom, following desires, happiness as a goal. High restraint (Eastern Europe, Asia): desires are controlled by norms.

Application in Management

Example: an international company introduces a system for anonymous employee suggestions. In countries with low PDI (USA, Germany)—success: employees are used to providing direct feedback. In countries with high PDI (China, Russia)—failure: public criticism of the system is perceived as disloyalty; anonymity does not help, because the very intention to criticize violates a cultural norm.

Another example: a system of bonuses for individual results works perfectly in the USA (high IDV, high MAS). In Japan (low IDV, high MAS), the same system creates conflict: standing out individually is “inappropriate,” group results are more important. Bonuses should be awarded to the team, not individuals.

Criticism and Limitations of Hofstede’s Model

The research was conducted in the 1960s–1970s, only among IBM employees—highly educated, technically oriented staff of a large corporation. This is not a representative sample of a country’s entire population. Cultures also change—what was true for Russia in the 1970s may not be true in the 2020s.

Trom Trnavecic and other critics point out: the model assumes nation = culture. But in any country, there are subcultures, regional differences, class differences. To talk about “Chinese culture” is a generalization that conceals enormous diversity.

Other Models: GLOBE, Trompenaars

The GLOBE Project (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness, 62 countries, 1990s) expanded Hofstede’s model to 9 dimensions and added a distinction between “as is” and “as it should be”—that is, between real values and declared ideals.

Fons Trompenaars developed an alternative model with 7 dimensions, including “universalism vs particularism” (following rules always vs making exceptions for “one’s own”) and “neutral vs emotional” (the extent to which emotions are expressed in a business context).

Cultural Values and Managerial Decisions

Understanding cultural dimensions makes it possible to predict how managerial decisions will be perceived in different contexts. High power distance means that feedback from subordinates to managers is rare; special mechanisms are needed to obtain it. High uncertainty avoidance means employees need clear rules and structures—improvised “agile” without rules will create anxiety, not flexibility.

Question for reflection: On the individualism-collectivism scale: where does your organizational culture fall? What practices reflect this? Does it align with your company’s declared values?