DIMENSIONALIZING-CULTURES-Hofstede-model-in-Contex

DIMENSIONALIZINGCULTURES:THEHOFSTEDEMODELINCONTEXTGeertHofstedeUniversitiesofMaastrichtandTilburgTheNetherlandsABSTRACTThisarticledescribesbrieflytheHofstedemodeloffivedimensionsofnationalcultures:PowerDistance,UncertaintyAvoidance,Individualism,MasculinityandLongTermOrientation.Itshowstheconceptualandresearcheffortsthatprecededitandleduptoit,andonceithadbecomeaparadigmforcomparingcultures,researcheffortsthatfollowedandbuiltonit.Thearticlestressesthatdimensionsdependonthelevelofaggregation;itdescribesthesixentirelydifferentdimensionsfoundintheHofstedeetal.researchintoorganizationalcultures.Itwarnsagainstconfusionwithvaluedifferencesattheindividuallevel.Itconcludeswithalookaheadinwhatthestudyofdimensionsofnationalculturesandthepositionofcountriesonthemmaystillbring.INTRODUCTIONCulturehasbeendefinedinmanyways;thisauthor’sshorthanddefinitionis:Cultureisthecollectiveprogrammingofthemindthatdistinguishesthemembersofonegrouporcategoryofpeoplefromothers.Itisalwaysacollectivephenomenon,butitcanbeconnectedtodifferentcollectives.Withineachcollectivethereisavarietyofindividuals.Ifcharacteristicsofindividualsareimaginedasvaryingaccordingtosomebellcurve;thevariationbetweenculturesistheshiftofthebellcurvewhenonemovesfromonesocietytotheother.Mostcommonlythetermcultureisusedfortribesorethnicgroups(inanthropology),fornations(inpoliticalscience,sociologyandmanagement),andfororganizations(insociologyandmanagement).Arelativelyunexploredfieldisthecultureofoccupations(forinstance,ofengineersversusaccountants,orofacademicsfromdifferentdisciplines).Thetermcanalsobeappliedtothegenders,togenerations,ortosocialclasses.However,changingthelevelofaggregationstudiedchangesthenatureoftheconceptof‘culture’.Societal,nationalandgendercultures,whichchildrenacquirefromtheirearliestyouthonwards,aremuchdeeperrootedinthehumanmindthanoccupationalculturesacquiredatuniversity,orthanorganizationalculturesacquiredonthejob.Thelatterareexchangeablewhenpeopletakeanewjob.Societalculturesresidein(oftenunconscious)values,inthesenseofbroadtendenciestoprefercertainstatesofaffairsoverothers(Hofstede,2001:5).Organizationalculturesresideratherin(visibleandconscious)practices:thewaypeopleperceivewhatgoesonintheirorganizationalenvironment.CLASSIFYINGCULTURES:CONCEPTUALDIMENSIONSInanarticlefirstpublishedin1952,U.S.anthropologistClydeKluckhohnarguedthatthereshouldbeuniversalcategoriesofculture:Inprinciple...thereisageneralizedframeworkthatunderliesthemoreapparentandstrikingfactsofculturalrelativity.Allculturesconstitutesomanysomewhatdistinctanswerstoessentiallythesamequestionsposedbyhumanbiologyandbythegeneralitiesofthehumansituation....Everysociety'spatternsforlivingmustprovideapprovedandsanctionedwaysfordealingwithsuchuniversalcircumstancesastheexistenceoftwosexes;thehelplessnessofinfants;theneedforsatisfactionoftheelementarybiologicalrequirementssuchasfood,warmth,andsex;thepresenceofindividualsofdifferentagesandofdifferingphysicalandothercapacities(Kluckhohn,1962:317-18).Manyauthorsinthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcenturyhavespeculatedaboutthenatureofthebasicproblemsofsocietiesthatwouldpresentdistinctdimensionsofculture(forareviewseeHofstede,2001,29-31).Themostcommondimensionusedfororderingsocietiesistheirdegreeofeconomicevolutionormodernity.Aone-dimensionalorderingofsocietiesfromtraditionaltomodernfittedwellwiththenineteenth-andtwentieth-centurybeliefinprogress.Economicevolutionisboundtobereflectedinpeople’scollectivementalprogramming,butthereisnoreasonwhyeconomicandtechnologicalevolutionshouldsuppressotherculturalvariety.Theremustbedimensionsofcultureunrelatedtoeconomicevolution.U.S.anthropologistEdwardT.Hall(1976)dividedculturesaccordingtotheirwaysofcommunicating,intohigh-context(muchoftheinformationisimplicit)andlow-context(nearlyeverythingisexplicit).Inpracticethisdistinctionoverlapslargelywiththetraditionalversusmoderndistinction.U.S.sociologistsTalcottParsonsandEdwardShils(1951:77)suggestedthatallhumanactionisdeterminedbyfivepatternvariables,choicesbetweenpairsofalternatives:(1)Affectivity(needgratification)versusaffectiveneutrality(restraintofimpulses);(2)Self-orientationversuscollectivity-orientation;(3)Universalism(applyinggeneralstandards)versusparticularism(takingparticularrelationshipsintoaccount);(4)Ascription(judgingothersbywhotheyare)versusachievement(judgingthembywhattheydo);(5)Specificity(limitingrelationstootherstospecificspheres)versusdiffuseness(nopriorlimitationstonatureofrelations).ParsonsandShilsclaimedthatthesechoicesarepresentattheindividual(personality)level,atthesocialsystem(groupororganization)level,andatthecultural(normative)level.Theydidnottakeintoaccountthatdifferentvariablescouldoperateatdifferentaggregationlevels.U.S.anthropologistsFlorenceKluckhohnandFredStrodtbeck(1961:12)ranafieldstudyinfivegeographicallyclose,smallcommunitiesintheSouthwesternUnitedStates:Mormons,SpanishAmericans,Texans,NavahoIndians,andZuniIndians.Theydistinguishedthesecommunitiesonthefollowingvalueorientations:(1)Anevaluationofhumannature(evil-mixed-good);(2)The