Love for Life

Welcome to Geert Hofstede's Homepage
Welcome to Geert Hofstede's Homepage

Index of Geert Hofstede's Homepage

Geerthofstede and Geert-hofstede: A Tale of Two Websites

For the Values Survey Module

For a summary of my ideas about national culture differences

For training and consulting services

For a summary of my ideas about organizational cultures

For contract research

For available books, including translations

For simulation games and events

For major other publications

For cross-cultural marketing and advertising

For biographical information

For a recent interview

-----------------------------------

A summary of my ideas about national culture differences

These ideas were first based on a large research project into national culture differences across subsidiaries of a multinational corporation (IBM) in 64 countries. Subsequent studies by others covered students in 23 countries, elites in 19 countries, commercial airline pilots in 23 countries, up-market consumers in 15 countries, and civil service managers in 14 countries. These studies together identified and validated five independent dimensions of national culture differences:

1. Power distance, that is the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. This represents inequality (more versus less), but defined from below, not from above. It suggests that a society's level of inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders. Power and inequality, of course, are extremely fundamental facts of any society and anybody with some international experience will be aware that 'all societies are unequal, but some are more unequal than others'.

2. Individualism on the one side versus its opposite, collectivism, that is the degree to which individuals are inte-grated into groups. On the individualist side we find societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) which continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. The word 'collectivism' in this sense has no political meaning: it refers to the group, not to the state. Again, the issue addressed by this dimension is an extremely fundamental one, regarding all societies in the world.

3. Masculinity versus its opposite, femininity, refers to the distribution of roles between the genders which is another fundamental issue for any society to which a range of solutions are found. The IBM studies revealed that (a) women's values differ less among societies than men's values; (b) men's values from one country to another contain a dimension from very assertive and competitive and maximally different from women's values on the one side, to modest and caring and similar to women's values on the other. The assertive pole has been called 'masculine' and the modest, caring pole 'feminine'. The women in feminine countries have the same modest, caring values as the men; in the masculine countries they are somewhat assertive and competitive, but not as much as the men, so that these countries show a gap between men's values and women's values.

4. Uncertainty avoidance deals with a society's tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity; it ultimately refers to man's search for Truth. It indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. Unstructured situations are novel, unknown, surprising, different from usual. Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of such situations by strict laws and rules, safety and security measures, and on the philosophical and religious level by a belief in absolute Truth; 'there can only be one Truth and we have it'. People in uncertainty avoiding countries are also more emotional, and motivated by inner nervous energy. The opposite type, uncertainty accepting cultures, are more tolerant of opinions different from what they are used to; they try to have as few rules as possible, and on the philosophical and religious level they are relativist and allow many currents to flow side by side. People within these cultures are more phlegmatic and contemplative, and not expected by their environment to express emotions.

5. Long-term versus short-term orientation: this fifth dimension was found in a study among students in 23 countries around the world, using a questionnaire designed by Chinese scholars It can be said to deal with Virtue regardless of Truth. Values associated with Long Term Orientation are thrift and perseverance; values associated with Short Term Orientation are respect for tradition, fulfilling social obligations, and protecting one's 'face'. Both the positively and the negatively rated values of this dimension are found in the teachings of Confucius, the most influential Chinese philosopher who lived around 500 B.C.; however, the dimension also applies to countries without a Confucian heritage.

Scores on the first four dimensions were obtained for 50 countries and 3 regions on the basis of the IBM study, and on the fifth dimension for 23 countries on the basis of student data collected by Bond. Power distance scores are high for Latin, Asian and African countries and smaller for Germanic countries. Individualism prevails in developed and Western countries, while Collectivism prevails in less developed and Eastern countries; Japan takes a middle position on this dimension. Masculinity is high in Japan, in some European countries like Germany, Austria and Switzerland, and moderately high in Anglo countries; it is low in Nordic countries and in the Netherlands and moderately low in some Latin and Asian countries like France, Spain and Thailand. Uncertainty avoidance scores are higher in Latin countries, in Japan, and in German speaking countries, lower in Anglo, Nordic, and Chinese culture countries. A Long Term Orientation is mostly found in East Asian countries, in particular in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea.

The grouping of country scores points to some of the roots of cultural differences. These should be sought in the common history of similarly scoring countries. All Latin countries, for example, score relatively high on both power distance and uncertainty avoidance. Latin countries (those today speaking a Romance language i.e. Spanish, Portuguese, French or Italian) have inherited at least part of their civilization from the Roman empire. The Roman empire in its days was characterized by the existence of a central authority in Rome, and a system of law applicable to citizens anywhere. This established in its citizens' minds the value complex which we still recognize today: centralization fostered large power distance and a stress on laws fostered strong uncertainty avoidance. The Chinese empire also knew centralization, but it lacked a fixed system of laws: it was governed by men rather than by laws. In the present-day countries once under Chinese rule, the mindset fostered by the empire is reflected in large power distance but medium to weak uncertainty avoidance. The Germanic part of Europe, including Great Britain, never succeeded in establishing an enduring common central authority and countries which inherited its civilizations show smaller power distance. Assumptions about historical roots of cultural differences always remain speculative but in the given examples they are quite plausible. In other cases they remain hidden in the course of history.

The country scores on the five dimensions are statistically correlated with a multitude of other data about the countries. For example, power distance is correlated with the use of violence in domestic politics and with income inequality in a country. Individualism is correlated with national wealth (Per Capita Gross National Product) and with mobility between social classes from one generation to the next. Masculinity is correlated negatively with the share of their Gross National Product that governments of the wealthy countries spend on development assistance to the Third World. Uncertainty avoidance is associated with Roman Catholicism and with the legal obligation in developed countries for citizens to carry identity cards. Long Term Orientation is correlated with national economic growth during the past 25 years, showing that what led to the economic success of the East Asian economies in this period is their populations' cultural stress on the future-oriented values of thrift and perseverance.

----------------------------

A summary of my ideas about organizational cultures

Organization cultures should be distinguished from national cultures. National cultures distinguish similar people, institutions and organizations in different countries. Organizational cultures, the way I use the term, distinguish different organizations within the same country or countries. Cultures manifest themselves, from superficial to deep, in symbols, heroes, rituals and values. My research has shown that organizational cultures differ mainly at the levels of symbols, heroes and rituals, together labelled 'practices'; national cultures differ mostly at the deeper level, the level of values. As a consequence, the five dimensions of national cultures identified in my cross-national research, which are based on values, are not suitable for comparing organizations within the same country. National cultures belong to anthropology; organizational cultures to sociology.

A separate research project into organizational culture differences, conducted by IRIC across 20 organizational units in Denmark and the Netherlands in the 1980s, identified six independent dimensions of practices: process-oriented versus results-oriented, job-oriented versus employee-oriented, professional versus parochial, open systems versus closed systems, tightly versus loosely controlled, and pragmatic versus normative. The position of an organization on these dimensions is partly determined by the business or industry the organization is in. Scores on the dimensions are also related to a number of other 'hard' characteristics of the organizations. These lead to conclusions about how organization cultures can be and cannot be managed.

Managing international business means handling both national and organization culture differences at the same time. Organization cultures are somewhat manageable while national cultures are given facts for management; common organization cultures across borders are what holds multinationals together.

-----------------------

Biographical information about Geert Hofstede

1928 Born at Haarlem, the Netherlands as Gerard Hendrik Hofstede

1932-45 Schools at The Hague and Apeldoorn. Diploma Gymnasium Beta

1945-47 Technical College (HTS); one year of internships, including a voyage to Indonesia as an Assistant Ship's Engineer

1947-53 Delft Technical University. Diploma (M.Sc.) Mechanical Engineering

1953-55 Military service: technical officer Dutch army

1955 Worked incognito as a factory hand in Amsterdam

1955-65 Professional and managerial jobs in 3 Dutch industrial companies

1964-67 Part-time doctoral study at Groningen University. Doctor of Social Science (Ph.D.; cum laude). Thesis: "The Game of Budget Control"

1965-71 Founded and managed the Personnel Research Department of IBM Europe

1971-73 Visiting lecturer of Organizational Behavior, IMD, Lausanne, Switzerland

1973-79 Professor of Management, EIASM (European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management), Brussels, Belgium

1973-79 Visiting Professor of Management, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France

1980-93 Co-founder and first Director, IRIC (Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation), the Netherlands

1980-83 Director of Human Resources, Fasson Europe, Leiden, the Netherlands

1983-86 Dean, Semafor Senior Management Program, Arnhem, the Netherlands

1985-93 Professor of Organizational Anthropology and International Management, Maastricht University, the Netherlands

1993 Professor Emeritus

1992-2000 Honorary Professor, University of Hong Kong

1993-2004 Senior Fellow, IRIC

1995- Extramural Fellow, CentER for Economic Research, University of Tilburg

Honors:

Fellow, Academy of Management, USA; Honorary Fellow, International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology; Eminent Scholar, Academy of International Business; International Honorary Member, AIESEC; Honorary Member, SIETAR Europe; Doctor Honoris Causa, Nyenrode University, the Netherlands; Doctor Honoris Causa, Nov Bulgarski Universitet, Sofia, Bulgaria; Doctor Honoris Causa, Athens University of Economics and Business, Athens, Greece; Doctor Honoris Causa, Göteborgs Universitet, Gothenburg, Sweden. In 2004 an annual Geert Hofstede lecture in the area of intercultural communication was established jointly by the University of Groningen and the Hanze Hogeschool. In 2006 Universiteit Maastricht inaugurated a Geert Hofstede chair in cultural diversity.

Married since 1955 to Maaike A. van den Hoek. Four sons, nine grandchildren.

Autobiographical notes by Geert Hofstede were published as: "A Hopscotch Hike", in A. Bedeian (Ed.), Management Laureates: A Collection of Autobiographical Essays, Volume 4, Greenwich CN: JAI Press, 1996, 85-122 (publication no. 149), and as "The Archimedes Effect", in M.H. Bond (Ed.), Working at the Interface of Cultures: Eighteen Lives in Social Science, London: Routledge, 1997, 47-61 (publication no. 160). A Retrospective section in the Academy of Management Executive, 18, 1, February 2004, 73-93 was devoted to the 1980 first edition of Geert Hofstede's book "Culture's Consequences", with contributions by M. Hoppe (interview with GH), J. Bing and H. Triandis.