Culture - Geert Hofstede's Model
(based on his 1991 book: Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York, NYM McGraw-Hill.)
Hofstede defines culture as the "software of the mind" that guides us in our daily interactions. Here are some paragraphs from the introduction to his book:
Using the analogy of the way in which computers are programmed; this book will call such patterns of thinking; feeling; and acting mental programs; or; as the sub-title goes: "software of the mind". This does not mean; of course; that people are programmed the way computers are. A person’s behavior is only partially predetermined by her or his mental programs: (s)he has a basic ability to deviate from them, and to react in was which are new, creative, destructive, unexpected.
Hostede, Geert (1991) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Power distance measures how subordinates respond to power and authority. In high-power distance countries (Latin America, France, Spain, most Asian and African countries), subordinates tend to be afraid of their bosses, and bosses tend to be paternalistic and autocratic. In low-power distance countries (the US, Britain, most of the rest of Europe), subordinates are more likely to challenge bosses and bosses tend to use a consultative management style.
2. Collectivism versus Individualism
In individualistic countries (France, Germany, South Africa, Canada, etc.), people are expected to look out for themselves. Solidarity is organic (all contribute to a common goal, but with little mutual pressure) rather than mechanical. Typical values are personal time, freedom, and challenge.
In collectivist cultures (Japan, Mexico, Korea, Greece) individuals are bounded through strong personal and protective ties based on loyalty to the group during one’s lifetime and often beyond (mirrored on family ties). Values include training, physical condition, the use of skills. See Appendix 2 for comments on differences between American and Chinese society on this dimension.
Note: In their book, An Introduction to Intercultural Communication, Condon and Yousef make a distinction between individualism, prevalent in the United States, and individuality, which is different and prevalent in many other parts of the world:
Individuality is different and appears to be much more the norm in the world than United States-style individualism is. Individuality refers to the person's freedom to act differently within the limits set by the social structure. Compared to the United States, many other cultures appear to be much more tolerant of "eccentrics" and "local characters." This confusion of one kind of individualism with individuality at first appears paradoxical: We might suppose that a society which promises apparently great personal freedoms would produce the greatest number of obviously unique, even peculiar people, and yet for more than a century visitors to the United States have been struck by a kind of "sameness" or standardization. As one writer interpreted it, U.S. freedom allows everybody to be like everybody else.... While the individual (glorified as "the rugged individualist") is praised, historically individuals in the United States have made their achievements in loose groupings. What is different here is that the independent U.S. self must never feel bound to a particular group; he must always be free to change his alliances or, if necessary, to move on.... Cultures better characterized by values of individuality are likely to lack this kind of independence from the group, as well as individual mobility. Thus it may be that such cultures allow for greater diversity in personal behavior in order to give balance to the individual vis-à-vis the group, whereas the United States, characterized by loose groupings and high mobility, does not.
Hofstede’s study suggested that men’s goals were significantly different from women’s goals and could therefore be expressed on a masculine and a feminine pole.
Where feminine values are more important (Sweden; France, Israel, Denmark, Indonesia), people tend to value a good working relationship with their supervisors; working with people who cooperate well with one another, living in an area desirable to themselves and to their families, and having the security that they will be able to work for their company as long as they want.
Where the masculine index is high (US, Japan, Mexico, Hong Kong, Italy, Great Britain), people tend to value having a high opportunity for earnings, getting the recognition they deserve when doing a good job, having an opportunity for advancement to a higher-level job, and having challenging work to do to derive a sense of accomplishment.
(adapted from Hoft, Nancy (1995) International Technical Communication. New York: John Wiley and Sons)
4. Uncertainty avoidance
When uncertainty avoidance is strong, a culture tends to perceive unknown situations as threatening so that people tend to avoid them. Examples include South Korea, Japan, and Latin America.
5. Long-term versus Short-term orientation
A long term orientation is characterized by persistence and perseverance, a respect for a hierarchy of the status of relationships, thrift, and a sense of shame. Countries include China; Hong Kong; Taiwan, Japan and India
China and the United States
Henry Steele Commager: American Individualism
Professor Hsu has traced the influence of the principle of individualism in the large and in the small. He observes in the nature of the American political system, the workings of criminal law; the attitude toward nature, the conduct of foreign policy, and the waging of war. He explores it in the relations of parents and children, the attitude toward ancestors and posterity, the cult of youth and the fate of age, the role of sex in literature and art as in life; in incidence of crime, the concepts of success and the ratings of prestige, the psychology of games and of sports, and many other areas of human endeavor. In all of these areas he contrasts American practices and malpractices with Chinese: American insecurity with Chinese security, American exclusiveness with Chinese inclusiveness, American worship of the next generation with Chinese veneration for the last. Individualism, he contends, explains why competition permeates every aspect of American life: the struggle of children for the attention and affection of their parents, and the struggle of parents to win the attention and approval of their children; the concern of the American woman for such beauty and style as will enable her to win her husband anew every day, the anxiety of the husband to prove that he is a success and thus deserves the respect and affection of his wife; the deadly competition for place and recognition within every organization from the corporation to the university; the readiness of churches to vie with each other for membership and contributions and for ostentatious displays of prosperity much as business enterprises vie with each other.
Individualism explains -so Professor Hsu affirms- the determination not only to keep up with the Joneses but visibly to surpass them, that supports the whole never-never world of the advertising industry; the passion for joining almost everything, and the readiness to abandon a club, a society, or a church and join another that proclaims a higher social status or promises quicker social and economic rewards; the constant moving about from one neighborhood to a better one, from one suburb to a more fashionable one. It illuminates the readiness of almost everyone to participate in politics and the conviction -doubtless at the very heart of democracy-that every man and woman can exert some influence and that every one has a right to be heard- even by the president, who receives every day two or three thousand letters of advice and admonition. Nowhere is individualism more ostentatious than in the conviction that everyone has a right to happiness, a right not only rooted in the very laws of nature, but actually guaranteed in the constitutions of state after state, and that happiness consists in the fulfillment of every individual wish -or whim. Inevitably all of this means constant pressure for experimentation, for change, for progress, for how can you attain happiness and success without these, and it carries with it, too, the notion that change is, inevitably, for the better.
Everywhere, as he surveys the American scene, Professor Hsu finds evidence of deep insecurity-the insecurity that comes from dependence on self, or on merely the nuclear family. What Americans lack -so he argues- is anchorage, the anchorage that comes from being part of something bigger than themselves, from a network of interdependencies and associations with family and clan and village and neighborhood, and with past and future. It is because Americans lack this that they are so restless, so discontented, so unfulfilled and unhappy, so ready to abandon home, family, religion, career, friends, and associates for the will-o'-the-wisp of success -a success which, almost by definition, they can never wholly win. It is because they lack security that they feel compelled to prove themselves, over and over -the child to prove himself smarter or stronger or more popular than his playmates, the male to prove himself irresistible to the female, the White to prove himself superior to the Black.
From Irving Kathy J (1986) Communicating in Context: Intercultural Communication Skills for ESL Students. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. pp. 178-179