+1 (208) 254-6996 [email protected]
  

Note: Country rankings were completed using Geert Hofstede’s Long-Term Orientation (LTO) scores.  High Short-Term refers to countries with scores less than 35 and  High Long-Term refers to countries with scores greater than 60.

Source: Original graphic by Ben Littell under supervision of Professor Jonathan Doh based on data from Geert Hofstede, “Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context,” Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 2 (2011), http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8/.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Note: Country rankings were completed using Geert Hofstede’s Long-Term Orientation (LTO) scores.
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

 

 

Chapter 4 The Meanings and Dimensions of Culture 135

Table 4–4 Ten Differences between Indulgent and Restrained Societies

Indulgent Restrained

Higher percentage of people declar- ing themselves very happy

Fewer very happy people

A perception of personal life control A perception of helplessness: what happens to me is not my own doing

Freedom of speech seen as important Freedom of speech is not a primary concern

Higher importance of leisure Lower importance of leisure More likely to remember positive emotions

Less likely to remember positive emotions

In countries with educated popula- tions, higher birthrates

In countries with educated populations, lower birthrates

More people actively involved in sports

Fewer people actively involved in sports

In countries with enough food, higher percentages of obese people

In countries with enough food, fewer obese people

In wealthy countries, lenient sexual norms

In wealthy countries, stricter sexual norms

Maintaining order in the nation is not given a high priority

Higher number of police officers per 100,000 population

Source: From Geert Hofstede, “Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context,” Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 2 (2011),  http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8/.

High Indulgence

High Restraint

Note: Country rankings were completed using Geert Hofstede’s Indulgence versus Restraint (IVR) scores.  High Indulgence refers to countries with scores greater than 50 and  High Restraint refers to countries with scores less than 25.

Source: Original graphic by Ben Littell under supervision of Professor Jonathan Doh based on data from Geert Hofstede, “Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context,” Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 2 (2011), http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8/.

Figure 4–6 Countries with Very High Indulgence and Restraint Scores

 

 

136 Part 2 The Role of Culture

Integrating the Dimensions A description of the four original and two additional dimensions of culture is useful in helping to explain the differences between various countries, and Hofstede’s research has extended beyond this focus and shown how countries can be described in terms of pairs of dimensions. In Hofstede’s and later research, pairings and clusters can provide useful summaries for international managers. It is always best to have an in-depth understanding of the multicultural environment, but the general groupings outline common ground that one can use as a starting point. Figure 4–7, which incorporates power distance and individualism, provides an example.

Upon first examination of the cluster distribution, the data may appear confus- ing. However, they are very useful in depicting what countries appear similar in values and to what extent they differ from other country clusters. The same countries are not always clustered together in subsequent dimension comparisons. This indicates

Figure 4–7 Power Distance versus Individualism

In d

iv id

u al

is m

(I D

V )

in d

iv id

u al

is t

Power Distance (PDI)small large

co lle

ct iv

is t

5

85

75

65

55

45

35

25

15

95 10 30 50 70 90 110

Guatemala Ecuador

Bang lades

h

Pakis tan

Chin a,

Thail and

Japa n

Hong Kong

Singa pore

Mala ysia

Philip pines

India Moro

cco

Arab ctrs

S. Ko rea

Taiw an Vietn

am W A

frica

E Afr ica

Iran

Indon esia

Colombia

Portugal

CroatiaGreece

Slovakia

S. Africa

Israel

Malta

Finland

Ireland France

Austria

Canada total

Canada Quebec

Poland

Hungary

Italy Belgium NI

Belgium Fr Sweden

Germany

Denmark

Switzerland Ge

Switzerland Fr

Norway

Netherlands

Great Britain

United States

New Zealand

Australia

Estonia, Luxembourg Czech Rep.

Spain

Russia

Romania Bulgaria

Slovenia

Serbia

Argentina Suriname

Jamaica Brazil

Salvador

Chile

Uruguay

Mexico

Peru Trinidad

Costa Rica

PanamaVenezuela

slante d

regular Europe and Anglo countries

Asia and Muslim countries

quadrant partition lines

Latin America

Legend

italics

Turke y

⬥ ⬥

⬥⬥⬥

⬥ ⬥

⬥ ⬥ ⬥

⬥ ⬥

⬥ ⬥

⬥⬥

⬥ ⬥ ⬥ ⬥ ⬥ ⬥

⬥ ⬥ ⬥

⬥ ⬥

⬥ ⬥

⬥ ⬥

⬥ ⬥

⬥ ⬥

⬥ ⬥

⬥ ⬥ ⬥

⬥ ⬥

⬥ ⬥

⬥ ⬥

⬥ ⬥

⬥ ⬥

⬥ ⬥

Source: From G. Hofstede and G. J. Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005).

 

 

Chapter 4 The Meanings and Dimensions of Culture 137

that while some beliefs overlap between cultures, it is where they diverge that makes groups unique to manage.

In Figure 4–7, the United States, Australia, Canada, Britain, Denmark, and New Zealand are located in the lower-left-hand quadrant. Americans, for example, have very high individualism and relatively low power distance. They prefer to do things for them- selves and are not upset when others have more power than they do. The other countries, while they may not be a part of the same cluster, share similar values. Conversely, many of the underdeveloped or newly industrialized countries, such as Colombia, Hong Kong, Portugal, and Singapore, are characterized by large power distance and low individual- ism. These nations tend to be collectivist in their approach.

Similarly, Figure 4–8  plots the uncertainty-avoidance index against the power- distance index. Once again, there are clusters of countries. Many of the Anglo nations tend to be in the upper-left-hand quadrant, which is characterized by small power distance

Figure 4–8 Power Distance versus Uncertainty Avoidance

U n

Order your essay today and save 10% with the discount code ESSAYHELP