What does culture have to do with IBM, the computer technology company?
Well, it’s only the origin of the most comprehensive cross-cultural research studies.
If you are studying intercultural communication, you’ll likely be learning about the cultural
taxonomies developed from this research by Dutch social psychologist, Geert Hofstede.
It started with a survey of 117,000 IBM employees who were working across forty of the world’s
largest countries.
Later, the research was expanded to include an additional ten countries.
That’s a lot of research!
While the research is old (it was conducted in the late 1960s and early 70s), and we can
question the generalizability of it (just think about who was working for IBM at that
time), Hofstede’s research is still considered to be one of the most comprehensive of cross-cultural
research.
As I said earlier, even more research was conducted in the 1990s and 2000s that not
only confirmed the study results but added some additional dimensions.
This video will describe what a taxonomy is before briefly discussing the four original
taxonomies of Individualism vs. Collectivism, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, and
Masculinity vs. Femininity.
Then we’ll discuss the two additional ones of Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation and
Indulgence vs. Restraint.
What, however, is a taxonomy?
Simply put, it is a classification of something: naming, describing, and organizing things
into groups based on similarities.
In the case of Hofstede’s taxonomies, the classification is based on a scale.
For example, you could describe a photograph using different criteria.
Consider a black-and-white photograph, focusing on color: Within the “color” category—and,
again, we are only talking about black and white.
White could be on one end of the scale with black on the other.
And, of course, there are various shades of gray.
The darker the gray, the closer it is to the black side of the scale.
The lighter—well, you get the picture.
“Color,” then, would be the taxonomy, or dimension, often called an Index where
the scores range from low to high.
And, of course, you can continue the categorization process in other areas, looking at size, shape,
type of subject, etc.
Before we discuss these taxonomies, consider a few caveats:
Just because someone identifies with a particular culture doesn’t mean they absolutely fall
into a particular category.
You’ll notice that l use the term, “tends to.”
These are likelihoods, not absolutes.
Secondly, Hofstede really focused on culture as national culture.
Hopefully, you figured out by now that culture is more than that and, if you pay attention,
you may notice that some of these taxonomies could be applied to other types of cultures
as well.
Also, realize that culture is dynamic.
It’s constantly changing.
When I identify where various cultures are on these dimensions, they may not be the same
as what they were in the past or where they may be in the future.
Full Disclosure: If you haven’t figured it out yet, I’m from the United States,
so you may hear some of my biases in our discussion.
With that in mind, we’ll focus on Hofstede’s four original taxonomies, starting with the
one you are likely most familiar with: Individualism versus Collectivism, abbreviated
as IDV.
Collectivism would be on one side of the scale with Individualism on the other.
Think of it as the “I” versus “We” or “Us” mentality.
Which is more important?
The individual or the group?
The higher the number, the higher the culture loads on the Individualism side.
In the United States, Australia, and the UK, individual needs tend to be valued over the
group needs; while in many Asian cultures, like China, Korea, and Japan, the needs of
the group are more important than the needs of the individual.
In the United States, you’ll hear cliches like, “Looking out for number one,” or
“Dare to be different.”
While in Japan, a cliché is, “The nail that sticks out gets pounded down,” as a
reminder to not stand out.
In individualistic cultures, the name of the game is competition, while in collectivist
cultures, the focus is on being helpful, dependable, and focused on the needs of others.
A second dimension is Power Distance, abbreviated PDI—the I stands for Index.
While power between people and organizations can never be 100% equally distributed, some
cultures have more of a centralized, or concentrated, distribution of power while others have a
decentralized, more spread out, power distribution.
In this case, think of “power” as the power others have over you: If someone tells
you to do something, how likely are you to do it?
It often depends on who that someone is, what position they hold, and who you are.
For cultures with high power distances, a decentralized distribution of power, inequality
is accepted as normal, and the positions people occupy come with varying degrees of power.
Authority is highly respected.
If an elder tells you to do something, you do it.
Why?
You recognize that you have less power than your elders (or your teacher or the government);
so you have to do what they say and be polite.
Think about the caste system in India, where it is almost inconceivable to marry “above
your station.”
And in Mexico, where the Spanish language inherently communicates respect with two different
words for “you,” one formal and the other informal.
Malaysia, Guatemala, Panama, and the Philippines are examples of cultures with higher power
distances.
On the other end of the scale, where power is more centralized—equality is more, shall
we say, “equalized”—you’ll find cultures like Austria, Israel and Denmark—and, yes,
the U.S. and UK.
In these cultures, members are less likely to do something simply because they are told
to (in fact, it’s common to see US cars with “Question Authority” bumper stickers).
I can tell you that, as a professor, there is a cultural difference between students
who challenge my authority and those who just accept it as appropriate.
A third taxonomy is Uncertainty Avoidance, abbreviated UAI.
This deals with your tolerance for ambiguity, or uncertainty—your comfort level in unstructured
situations.
Are you willing to hold back and see what happens, avoiding judgment, or do you need
to have everything figured out?
Are deviations from what you know intriguing or scary?
In societies that tend to accept or embrace the unknown, meaning they score lower on this
scale, there are fewer regulations and less discomfort with uncertainty, such as Singapore,
Jamaica, Denmark, and Sweden.
In contrast, countries like Greece, Portugal, Guatemala, and Uruguay are on the higher side
of the scale, preferring to avoid what they do not know, with rigid codes or laws to reduce
uncertainty, often believing that there is one truth and one way of doing something.
The last of Hofstede’s original taxonomies is the Masculinity vs. Femininity dimension,
abbreviated as MAS.
This doesn’t refer to biological sex, but the characteristics usually ascribed to a
sex.
Traditionally, males highly value achievement, assertiveness, heroism, and materialism.
Females, on the other hand, value nurturing, cooperation, participation, modesty, and quality
of life.
Further, masculine societies tend to draw a line between what men do (take out the trash)
and women do (take care of the children, cook, etc.).
Men’s work is men’s work and Women’s work is women’s work.
In comparison, feminine societies have greater overlap where men do women’s chores and
vice versa.
Countries scoring high on this scale are considered masculine, such as Japan, Hungary, and Austria.
Those landing more on the feminine side of the scale are Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands.
Those are the original four taxonomies, or dimensions.
Before we go on, notice that there is an ethnocentric bias in the naming of these dimensions.
Hofstede was Dutch and worked for IBM so it’s not surprising that he viewed the research
results through an individualistic and masculine lens.
You’ll notice the names of the dimensions lean toward his cultural values: It’s the
Individualism dimension, not the Collectivism dimension (and.
even when softening the label to Individualism vs. Collectivism, as I’ve done here, Individualism
comes first).
And it’s the Masculinity dimension, not the Femininity dimension, or even the more
neutral “Gender” index.
Which brings us to Michael Bond and the research he did with Hofstede in the late 1980’s.
Bond was doing research in Hong Kong on Asian values.
Together, they proposed a fifth cultural dimension, originally called the Confucianism dynamism—the
name a far cry from the biases of the first four dimensions.
Later, the dimension was renamed Long-Term Orientation, or LTO, sometimes referred to
as the “Time” Dimension.
You can think of this as the difference between living in the moment and planning for the
future.
On the Long-Term Orientation side, the focus is on, well, the long term: You should persevere,
pay attention to your most important relationships, be thrifty and save for the future, and have
a sense of shame.
The flip side, then, would be short-term orientation, focusing on the present and the past: personal
steadiness and stability, respect for tradition (there’s the past focus), saving face, and
reciprocating greetings, favors, and gifts.
Do it now because you don’t know what the future will bring.
With its roots in Asian values, influenced by the teaching of Confucius, it’s not surprising
that the countries scoring the highest, having a long-term orientation, are Asian countries:
China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan; Japan, and South Korea.
On the other side, embracing more of a short-term orientation, are Pakistan, Nigeria, and the
Philippines.
And, yes, the U.S. and the U.K. are somewhere close to the short-term orientation side.
Kind of related is the Indulgence vs. Restraint dimension, or IVR, proposed by Michael Milnov,
a Bulgarian sociologist.
Hofstede added this sixth dimension in 2010, which has to do with the subjective levels
people feel in terms of happiness and life control.
A low rating on this scale is Indulgence where people enjoy life.
They have an optimistic, positive attitude, focusing on individual happiness and well-being.
Having fun and fulfilling your desires is natural.
Smiling is normal and freedom of speech is important.
Brazil and the US are examples of indulgent societies.
On the other side of the scale is Restraint.
In a restrained society, people feel less happy and less in control of their lives—smiling
is viewed with suspicion.
Friends and leisure aren’t as important.
Egypt, Russia, and China fall on the restraint side of the scale.
So, now, you not only know what IBM has to do with culture, but you should have a better
understanding of Hofstede’s cultural taxonomies, both the original four and the two later additions.
Of course, Hofstede’s taxonomies are not only way to look at culture.
Now you can understand some of the newer taxonomies you may come across!