Hofstedes value dimensions

Hofstede’s value dimensions (1)

1. Individualism—collectivism

Although Hofstede is often given credit for investigating the concepts

of individualism and collectivism, he is not the only scholar who has

researched these crucial intercultural dimensions. Triandis, for example,

has derived an entire cross-cultural research agenda that focuses on these

concepts. Therefore , we use Hofstede’s work as our basic organizational

scheme; we also examine the findings of Triandis and others. Although we

speak of individualism and collectivism as if they are separate entities,

it is important to keep in mind that all people and cultures have both

individual and collective dispositions.

Having already discussed individualism earlier in the chapters, we

need only touch on some of its constituents: the individual is the single

most important unit in any social setting, regardless of the size of that

unit, and the uniqueness of each individual is of paramount value.

According to Hofstede’s findings, the United States, Australia, Great

Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, and New Zealand tend toward

individualism.

In cultures that tend toward individualism, an “I” consciousness

prevails: competition rather than cooperation is encouraged; personal

goals take precedence over group goals; people tend not to be emotionally

dependent on organizations and institutions; and every individual has the

right to his or her private property, thoughts, and opinions. These

cultures stress individual initiative and achievement, and they value

individual decision making. When thrust into a situation that demands a

decision, people from cultures that stress this trait are often at odds

with people from collective cultures.

Collectivism is characterized by a rigid social framework that

distinguishes between in-groups and out-groups. People count on their

in-group (relatives, clans, organizations ) to look after them, and in

exchange for that they believe they owe absolute loyalty to the group.

Triandis offers an excellent summary of this situation:

Collectivism means greater emphasis on (a) the views, needs, and

goals of the in-group rather than oneself; (b) social norms and duty

defined by the in-group rather than behavior to get pleasure; (c) beliefs

shared with the in-group rather than beliefs that distinguish self from

in-group; and (d) great readiness to cooperate with in-group members.

In collective societies such as those in Pakistan, Colombia,

Venezuela, and Peru, people are born into extended families or clans that

support and protect them in exchange for their loyalty. A “we”

consciousness prevails: identity is based on the social system; the

individual is emotionally dependent on organizations and institutions;

the culture emphasizes belonging to organizations; organizations invade

private life and the clans to which individuals belong; and individuals

trust group decisions. Collective behavior, like so many aspects of

culture, has deep historical roots. Look at the message of collectivism

in these words from Confucius: “If one wants to establish himself, he

should help others to establish themselves at first.”

As is the case with all cultural patterns, collectivism influences

a number of communication variables. Kim, Sharkey, and Singles, after

studying the Korean culture, believe that traits such as indirect

communication, saving face, concern for others, and group cooperation are

linked to the collective orientation found in the Korean culture.

Hofstede’s value dimensions (2)

2. Uncertainty avoidance

At the core of uncertainty avoidance is the inescapable

truism that the future is unknown. Though we may all try, none of us can

accurately predict the next moment, day, year, or decade. As the American

playwright Tennessee Williams once noted, “The future is called

‘perhaps.’ Which is the only possible thing to all the future.” As the

terms are used by Hofstede, uncertainty and avoidance indicate the extent

to which a culture feels threatened by or anxious about uncertain and

ambiguous situations.

High-uncertainty-avoidance cultures try to avoid uncertainty and

ambiguity by providing stability for their members, establishing more

formal rules, not tolerating deviant ideas and behaviors, seeking

consensus, and believing in absolute truths and the attainment of

expertise. They are also characterized by a higher level of anxiety and

stress: people think of the uncertainty inherent in life as a continuous

hazard that must be avoided. There is a strong need for written rules,

planning, regulations, rituals, and ceremonies, which add structure to

life. Nations with a strong uncertainty-avoidance tendency are Portugal,

Greece, Peru, Belgium, and Japan.

At the other end of the scale we find countries like Sweden, Denmark,

Ireland, Norway, the United States, Finland, and the Netherland, which

have a low-uncertainty-avoidance need. They more easily accept the

uncertainty inherent in life and are not as threatened by deviant people

and ideas, so they tolerate the unusual. They prize initiative, dislike

the structure associated with hierarchy, are more willing to take risks,

are more flexible, think that there should be as few rules as possible,

and depend not so much on experts as on themselves, generalists, and common

sense. As a whole, members of low-uncertainty-avoidance cultures are less

tense and more relaxed—traits reflected in the Irish proverb “life

should be a dance, not a race.”

As was the case with our first value dimension, differences in

uncertainty avoidance affect intercultural communication. Imagine a

negotiation session involving members from both groups.

High-uncertainty-avoidance members would most likely want to move at a

rather slow pace and ask for a greater amount of detail and planning. Some

older members might also feel uncomfortable with young members of the

group. There would also be differences in the level of formality with which

each culture would feel comfortable. Low-uncertainty-avoidance members

would not become frustrated if the meeting was not highly structured. The

negotiation process would see differences in the level of risk taking on

each side. Americans, for example, would be willing to take a risk.

Hofstede’s value dimensions (3)

3. Power distance

Another cultural value dimension is power distance, which classifies

cultures on a continuum of high- to low-power distance. The premise of

the dimension deals with the extent to which a society accepts that power

in relationships, institutions, and organizations is distributed

unequally. Although all cultures have tendencies for both high- and

low-power relationships, one orientation seems to dominate. Foster offers

a clear and condensed explanation of this dimension:

What Hofstede discovered as that in some cultures, those who hold

power and those who are affected by power are significantly far apart (high

power-distance) in many ways, while in other cultures, the power holders

and those affected by the power holders are significantly closer (low

power-distance)

This dimension is reflected in the values of the less powerful

members of society as well as in those of the more powerful ones. People

in high-power-distance countries such as India, Brazil, Singapore, Greece,

Venezuela, Mexico, and the Philippines believe that power and

authority are facts of life. Both consciously and unconsciously, these

cultures teach their members that people are not equal in this world and

that everybody has a rightful place, which is clearly marked by countless

vertical arrangements. Social hierarchy is prevalent and

institutionalizes inequality.

We can observe sighs of this dimension in nearly every communication

setting. In schools that are characterized by high-power-distance

patterns, children seldom interrupt the teacher, show great reverence and

respect for authority, and ask very few questions. In organizations, you

find a greater centralization of power, a large proportion of supervisory

personnel, and a rigid value system that determines the worth of each job.

Low-power-distance countries such as Austria, Finland, Denmark,

Norway, New Zealand, and Israel hold that inequality in society should

be minimized. People in these cultures believe they are close to power

and should have access to that power. To consider superiors to be the same

kind of people as they are, and superiors perceive their subordinates the

same way. People in power, by they supervisors or government officials,

often interact with their constituents and try to look less powerful than

they really are. The powerful and the powerless try to live in concert.

Hofstede’s value dimensions (4)

4. Masculinity and Femininity

Hofstede uses the words masculinity and femininity to refer

not to men and women, but rather to the degree to which masculine or

feminine traits prevail. Masculinity is the extent to which the dominant

values in a society are male oriented and is associated with such behaviors

as ambition, differentiated sex roles, achievement, the acquisition of

money, and signs of manliness. Ireland, the Philippines, Greece, South

Africa, Austria, Japan, Italy, and Mexico are among countries that tend

toward a masculine world view. In a masculine society, men are taught to

be domineering and assertive and women nurturing. In Japan, for instance,

despite the high level of economic development, the division of labor

still finds most men in the role of provider and most women as, says Merguro,

“home-maker and breeder.”

Cultures that value femininity as a trait stress caring and

nurturing behaviors. A feminine world view maintains that men need not

be assertive and that they can assume nurturing roles; it also promotes

sexual equality and holds that people and the environment are important.

Gender roles in feminine societies are more fluid than in masculine

societies. Interdependence and androgynous behavior are the ideal, and

people sympathize with the unfortunate, Nations such as Sweden, Norway,

Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands tend toward a feminine world view.

Hofstede’s value dimensions (5)

Long-term vs. Short-term orientation

Bond’s study was much smaller, involving a survey of 100 (50% women)

students from 22 countries and 5 continents. The survey instrument was

the Chinese Value Survey (CVS), based on the Rokeach Value Survey. The

CVS also tapped four cultural dimensions. Three corresponded to

Hofstede’s first three. Hofstede’s fourth cultural dimension,

uncertainty avoidance, was not measured by the CVS. Instead, Bond’s study

isolated the fifth cultural dimension. It eventually was renamed

long-term versus short-term orientation to reflect how strongly a person

believes in the long-term thinking promoted by the teachings of the

Chinese philosopher Confucius (孔子). According to an update by Hofstede,

“on the long-term side one finds values oriented towards the future,

like thrifty (saving) and persistence. On the short-term side one finds

values rather oriented towards the past and the present, like respect for

tradition and fulfilling social obligations.” Importantly, one may

embrace Confucian long-term values without knowing a thing about

Confucius.

摘要-导论-理论+实例-结论