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/.
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
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
