More from Frigid's MPO essay...
...*continued from last post*
Power distance index (PDI) was measured through three questions in the IBM survey: the fear of employees to express disagreement, perception of superiors decision-making style and preference of superiors decision-making style. Hofstede (1991) argued that countries with a low PDI tended to have less inequality in the decision-making process and more interdependence and consultation among superiors and subordinates. In contrast, countries with a high PDI tended to have more inequality in the decision-making process and more dependence of subordinates on superiors. Power distance is, therefore, the extent to which subordinates within one country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally (Hofstede 1991).
The second dimension that Hofstede identified is collectivism versus individualism. Using survey data measuring the employees personal time, freedom, challenges compared to training, physical conditions and use of skills, Hofstede calculated each countrys individualism index (IDV). In countries with high IDV, he believed, individuals tend to be more independent, whereas countries with low IDV, individuals tend to be more dependent on their ingroups.
Another dimension of Hofstedes model is masculinity vs femininity, which is the degree of distinction between gender roles (Hofstede 1991). He identified that individuals in masculine societies (those which have a high MAS index) placed more importance on earnings, recognition and advancement in their survey response, which are masculine signs of assertion and focus on material success. Individuals in more feminine societies (with a low MAS index) placed more emphasis on cooperation, quality of life and security, which are evidence of the feminine signs of modesty and comfort.
The fourth dimension identified is uncertainty avoidance (measured by the UAI), a concept Hofstede admits to have been borrowed from the work of American sociologist James G. March. Collating IBM data in the questions of job stress, rule orientation and projected long term stay, he measured the level of avoidance to uncertainty, the extent to which members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations (Hofstede 1991). Individuals in countries with a high UAI are seen to be under high stress, fear ambiguous situations and see uncertainty as a threat which must be countered. Countries with low UAIs, Hofstede argues, have individuals with less stress and more accustomed to ambiguity and uncertainty.
The addendum of a fifth dimension to complement Hofstedes model was not first undertaken by Hofstede himself but by a Hong Kong academic, Michael H. Bond. In 1987, 40 fundamentally important Chinese values were collated into by Bonds group of Hong Kong academics (the Chinese Culture Connection) into a survey, the Chinese Values Survey (CVS) and was administered to 100 undergraduate students across 22 countries. The resultant findings, as analysed by Bond and Hofstede (1989), show that one dimension of the CVS could not associate with any of Hofstedes original dimensions.
This fifth dimension, Bonds Confucian (work) dynamism, is interpreted by Hofstede (1991) as the timeframe to which individuals orientate themselves. He believed that Chinese (Confucian) values could be polarised into long- and short-term orientations, and that cultures could be classified as long-term or short-term orientated. Long-term orientation contains persistence, thrift and humility, whereas short-term orientation consists of tradition, steadiness and desire for immediate returns (Hofstede 1991).
Application of China and US into Hofstedes Model
*insert Table 1: Table of Value Indices for China and US (adapted from Hofstede 1991 and Pan and Zhang 2004)*
Table 1 is a summary of the value indices for China and US, with their respective ranks in parentheses. What is interesting to note however, beyond the figures themselves, is that China was not originally part of the 53 countries in Hofstedes sample space: it was Cragins (1986) study which presented the data for Mainland China. As identified by Smith and Wang (1996), the figures for China are not and should not be directly comparable to Hofstedes IBM data. Therefore, caution should be taken to judge whether the figures in relation to each other are in fact meaningful or not.
