Hofstede's cultural dimensions

Culture is a shared societal system of values and norms, which - when taken together - are a "design for living" (Rao, 2008, p. 308). Our values are abstract ideas about what we believe to be good, right, and desirable; whereas our norms are our social rules and guidelines which set out what is 'appropriate behaviour' in most situations. Our values give us context for our norms, helping us establish and justify our culture society (Rao, 2008). And a society? Well, that is a group of people who share a common set of values and norms!

Geert Hofstede worked for IBM, in HR. When doing his PhD, he decided to turn the lens inward on his own work environment, so studied - over 11 years - the 166,000 IBM staff who were working across more than 50 countries. He undertook this study in 1974, published his results in 1984 (and I am guessing that he had access to an IBM mainframe computer to crunch his numbers!). Because he had such a large data set, he was able to identify six cultural or value dimensions which distinguish one national culture from another. This became a framework for understanding how basic values motivate organisational behaviour.

There are four key cultural dimensions which have stood the test of time. They are (Daft, 2008):

• Power distance: "Power distance is the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally." Cultures that endorse low power distance expect and accept power relations that are more consultative or democratic. People relate to one another more as equals regardless of formal positions. Subordinates are more comfortable with and demand the right to contribute to and critique the decision making of those in power. In high power distance countries, less powerful accept power relations that are more autocratic and paternalistic. Subordinates acknowledge the power of others simply based on where they are situated in certain formal, hierarchical positions. As such, the power distance index Hofstede defines does not reflect an objective difference in power distribution, but rather the way people perceive power differences (p. 340). 
• Uncertainty avoidance: "a society's tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity". "It reflects the extent to which members of a society attempt to cope with anxiety by minimizing uncertainty. People in cultures with high uncertainty avoidance tend to be more emotional. They try to minimize the occurrence of unknown and unusual circumstances and to proceed with careful changes step by step by planning and by implementing rules, laws and regulations. In contrast, low uncertainty avoidance cultures accept and feel comfortable in unstructured situations or changeable environments and try to have as few rules as possible. People in these cultures tend to be more pragmatic, they are more tolerant of change (p. 340). 
• Individualism vs. collectivism: "The degree to which individuals are integrated into groups". In individualistic societies, the stress is put on personal achievements and individual rights. People are expected to stand up for themselves and their immediate family, and to choose their own affiliations. In contrast, in collectivist societies, individuals act predominantly as members of a lifelong and cohesive group or organization (note: "The word collectivism in this sense has no political meaning: it refers to the group, not to the state"). People have large extended families, which are used as a protection in exchange for unquestioning loyalty (p. 340). 
• Masculinity vs. femininity: "The distribution of emotional roles between the genders". Masculine cultures' values are competitiveness, assertiveness, materialism, ambition and power, whereas feminine cultures place more value on relationships and quality of life. In masculine cultures, the differences between gender roles are more dramatic and less fluid than in feminine cultures where men and women have the same values emphasizing modesty and caring. As a result of the taboo on sexuality in many cultures, particularly masculine ones, and because of the obvious gender generalizations implied by Hofstede's terminology, this dimension is often renamed by users of Hofstede's work, e.g. to Quantity of Life vs. Quality of Life (p. 340). On reflection, I would prefer that these terms were labelled something less gendered (such as 'task' versus 'relationship'), but this is what we have.

Further, uncertainty avoidance is also about how those in a cultural group are comfortable - or uncomfortable - with uncertainty and ambiguity; and so, how much we support beliefs and behaviours which promise us uncertainty and difference; or promise us certainty and conformity (CSU San Marcos, 2004; Daft, 2008). We might also want to think about how much we, in our national or organisational culture, may feel threatened by ambiguous, uncertain situations; do people around us try to avoid feeling less certain by imposing structure and rules? Or do they say "woohoo, yeah!" and leap right in?

These are very interesting dimensions to consider. And collectively they help us understand just where we feel our cultural values are in sync; or not.

Sam

References:

Daft. R. L. (2008). The Leadership Experience (4th ed.). Thomson South-Western.

CSU San Marcos (2004). Hofstede’s Dimensions of Culture.  http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3542579/hofstedes-theory

Rao, P. L. (2008). International Human Resource Management: Text and Cases. Excel Books India.