CHAPTER 3: THE DIMENSIONS OF CULTURE – PART 2
Since the end of World War II anthropologists and particularly psychologists have
studied the dimensions along which cultures vary, and they have found empirical support for at
least 22 dimensions (Osland and Bird, in press; see also Triandis, 2001). We have already
examined many of these dimensions in the previous chapter. In this chapter the work of Geert
each of the 53 nations to a variety of phenomena such as (see Figure 3.1 for the five dimensions):
*Airline accident rates (Philips, 1994). Collectivistic national cultures have about three
times more accidents per capita than individualistic national cultures, and high power-distance
nations have about two and one-half times more accidents per capita than low power-distance
nations. The instructor may want to ask why this is so. One reasonable answer is that there is
prominent psychological and sociological theories within the American and European traditions
that are well over 100 years old; they are empirically derived; they allow us to rank order nations
on each dimension; and they are readily understandable by managers and students. Hofstede’s
prominence is reflected by the fact that he recently surpassed Karl Marx as the most cited
researcher in the Social Science Citation Index. Also, subsequent research has continued to
• Uncertainty avoidance, or the degree to which members of a given national culture deal
with the uncertainty and risk of everyday life and prefer to work with long-term acquaintances
and friends rather than with strangers;
• Individualism-collectivism, or the degree to which individuals in a given national culture
perceive themselves as separate from others and free from group pressure to conform; and
Hofstede’s Data
Hofstede’s Rank Ordering of 53 Nations
on Five Cultural Dimensions, Going From
1 (Highest) to 53 (Lowest)
Nation Power Indivi- Masc. Uncertainty Time
Distance dualism Avoidance Horizon
(1 is Long)
After explaining Hofstede’s five dimensions in Figure 3.1, the instructor can list two to
seven nations from Figure 3.2 on the blackboard or blank overhead. Ask the students or trainees
to indicate where each nation ranks in terms of Hofstede’s five dimensions. Than show Figure
3.2. As a general rule students and trainees interested in global affairs tend to rank each nation
on the same dimensions in a manner similar to what Hofstede’s research indicates.
EXERCISE 3.2: SUPPLEMENTING HOFSTEDE’S FRAMEWORK
Students and managerial trainees typically absorb Hofstede’s study without questioning it.
The instructor can ask students: What is incomplete about Hofstede’s approach or, more
them (see Figure 3.2);
• There are may different types of individualism and of collectivism, for example, the
competitive individualism found in the United States and the egalitarian form associated with
Australia (see Figure 3.3);
• While Hofstede’s dimensions, which are based only on 22 questionnaire items, provide an
German symphony: Subordinated individualism, that is, subordinating individual goals to group
goals.
Italian opera: Exteriorized individualism, that is, expressing individual thoughts and emotions
but within the context of the family and community.
Traditional British house: Tradition-bound and iconoclastic individualism
Irish conversations: Religion-focused individualism
Examples of Different Types of Collectivism
Chinese family altar: Relation-based and differentiated family system
Japanese garden: Kata-based undifferentiated family system
Indian Dance of Shiva: religion-dominated family system
original analysis. In particular, Shalom Schwartz’s work has been widely recognized as being an
important advance over Hofstede’s work, and Hofsede has publicly praised this work (see
Schwartz and Smith, 1996). Schwartz pointed out that Hofstede could not analyze the
Communist nations. Hence Schwartz included a number of former Communist nations in his
survey. He also asked cross-cultural psychologists in 55 nations to contribute items to his
national culture may be highly individualistic, particular individuals within it may be highly
collectivistic or allocentric. Similarly the culture may be collectivistic but particular individuals;
in it may be highly individualistic or idiocentric. In general, Schwartz’s cultural-level analysis
supported Hofstede’s dimensions. But Schwartz’s individual level of analysis provides data not
available in Hofstede’s work.
and individualistic cultures. Cooperation was highest in cell 4, i.e., allocentrics in a collectivist
culture. However, allocentrics were low on cooperation when assigned to an individualistic
culture (cell 3). Idiocentrics assigned to the collectivistic culture were cooperative (cell 2), but
when assigned to individualistic cultures they were low on cooperation (cell 1).
The instructor may want to follow up by asking the students why these results occurred.
values is provided by George England (1975). He. analyzed management values and how they
varied by national culture. Through his work he was able to characterize managers as either
pragmatic, moralistic, affective (feeling) or a combination of the three. England studied five
nations in depth: the United States, Japan, Korea, Australia, and India. He provides the
following definitions for these characterizations:
and away from those judged to be “wrong.”
• The affect or feeling evaluation suggests an evaluative framework that is guided
by hedonism; one behaves in ways that can increase pleasure and decrease pain.
Directions: Employing think-pair-share, the instructor should ask the students to profile each of
these five nations in terms of one or more of these three orientations. The nations are listed
India: Moralistic