Cultures and Organisations (Hofstede)

This article summarises information found in Geert Hofstede’s (1991) book entitled ‘Cultures & Organisations – Intercultural Cooperation and It’s Importance for Survival’ (Harper Collins Publishers). It is based on an empirical questionnaire/study carried out on IBM’s employees in across 50 countries and 3 multi-country regions in the late 1980. He has carried on his work and added to his work in the intervening years.

This information is essential for anyone seeking to address challenges or issues which come about as a result of cultural issues. These can be found in any organisation any where in the world. Management teams, project teams, acquisitions, mergers, working with divisions in different geographical areas or suppliers – the list is endless. Understanding how a culture impacts every day behaviours is imperative to ensure cross cultural performance.

Hofstede’s  originally defined five domains that can be effectively utilised to identify or provide frameworks whereby which to compare different cultures;

1. Power difference – the level at which people relate to power. E.g. Autocratic versus democratic. Hierarchical or flat management styles. Managers treated as highers or equals.
2. Individual and collectivism – whether a culture celebrates individuals (‘I;, ‘me’, nuclear family, rights, personal benefits, opportunity, challenge, truth, confrontation) or collectivism (‘we’, ‘us’, extended family, loyalty, group benefits, non confrontational, saving face)
3. Gender; masculine or feminine – masculine = assertive, competitive, tough, go-getter, strong, alone, hunter, brash, dazzle, bragging, show off – and concerned with achievements outside the home. Feminine = values, harmony, work/life balance, relationships, modesty, gentleness, understated, care, concerned with home.
4. Uncertainty avoidance (what is different is dangerous) – the degree to which a person or culture can handle uncertainty (and is not to do with risk). Intolerant = look for structure in organisations, hierarchy, roles and responsibilities, central government, predictable, facts, more desire for clean, safety.. Tolerant = freedom, open roles, changing job, engaging in activities without boundaries or rules, more ok with dirt, danger, open to differences etc.
5. Pyramids, machines, markets and families. This dimension is to do with how people work or carry out tasks or build organisations. The UK (low power difference, low uncertainty avoidance) tends to deal with situations on an ad-hoc basis (village market – meeting the demands as they arise). Germany (low power difference, high uncertainty avoidance) tends to deal with situations by putting in place clear processes and structures (a well oiled machine). The French (high power difference, strong uncertainty avoidance) rely instead on hierarchical structure (pyramid authority) to get the job done or key decisions to be made. India or China (high power difference, high uncertainty avoidance plus collectivist) will rely on the family head to make the decision (family). The wealthiest corporations are those with a low power difference and low uncertainty avoidance.

Michael Harris Bond and his collaborators subsequently found a sixth dimension which was initially called Confucian dynamism. Hofstede later removed number 5 above and added this into his framework as:

• Long vs. short term orientation – This dimension describes a society’s “time horizon,” or the importance attached to the future versus the past and present. In long term oriented societies, people value actions and attitudes that affect the future: persistence/perseverance, thrift, and shame. In short term oriented societies, people value actions and attitudes that are affected by the past or the present: normative statements, immediate stability, protecting one’s own face, respect for tradition, and reciprocation of greetings, favours, and gifts.

Further, he has added:

• Indulgence: Indulgence stands for a society that allows relatively free gratification of basic and natural human drives related to enjoying life and having fun.  Restraint stands for a society that suppresses gratification of needs and regulates it by means of strict social norms.

Individualistic v Collectivist Cultures

Individualism is “the opposite of collectivism; together they form one of the dimensions of national cultures. Individualism stands for a society in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family only.”   Page 261

This dimension focuses on the relationship between the individual and larger social groups. As mentioned earlier, cultures vary on the amount of emphasis they give on encouraging individuality / uniqueness or on conformity and interdependence.

Review Hofstede’s country ranking for Individualism  / Collectivism.  Note patterns of countries which have high and low rankings;

• Highly individualist cultures believe individual is most important unit
• People taking care of themselves (including immediately family only)
• Self-orientation
• Identity based on individual
• Guilt culture
• Making decisions based on individual needs
• “I” mentality
• Emphasis on individual initiative and achievement
• Everyone has a right to a private life

Highly collectivistic cultures believe group is most important unit;

• Expect absolute loyalty to group (nuclear family, extended family, caste, organization)
• Group orientation
• Decisions based on what is best for the group.
• Identity based on social system
• Shame culture
• Dependence on organisation and institutions (Expects organisation / institution / group to take care of individual)
• “We” mentality
• Emphasis on belonging
• Private life “invaded” by institution and organisation to which one belongs

Traits of Individualism / Collectivism Cultures

Note these traits are generalisations. There are cultures within cultures as well as exceptions. Even within one country there can be more differences than within different countries or continents.

Individuality Country Scores

The higher the number the more individualistic the country.

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions

Source: Raghu Nath and Kunal K. Sadhu, “Comparative Analysis. Conclusions, and Future Directions,” in Comparative Management -A Regional View; Raghu Hath, ed. (Cambridge MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1988), p. 273.

References

Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and Organizations. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Book Company Europe.

More can be found on his excellent website: http://geert-hofstede.com/