This research is devoted to consideration connected with similarities of some national cultures. Geert Hofstede’s studies have greatly contributed to the understanding of the differences and similarities of national cultures and, correspondingly, in peculiarities of organizational cultures. With globalization, social and business processes connected with it, it is critical to be aware of the differences and similarities between different cultures, hence the importance of Hofstede’s research. His model characterizing national cultures emphasizes five dimensions. Each of them defines attitudes towards certain state of things in the society, of course, culturally reasoned. These dimensions are Power Distance, Individualism vs. Collectivism, Masculinity vs. Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Long-term vs. Short-term Orientation (“National Culture,” n.d.).
Power Distance lies in the people’s perception of inequality in power distribution. The higher the Power Distance index the broader is inequality accepted and approved in a society (Scarborough, 1998). The countries chosen for examining in this dimension are the UAE, Ukraine, China, Bangladesh, and Burkina Faso. These countries are chosen for their similarly high index of Power Distance which consists in societal confirmation and acceptance of unequal division of power and responsibilities. The index is 90 for UAE, 92 for Ukraine, 80 for China, 80 for Bangladesh, and 70 for Burkina Faso.
Generally, societies in these countries are paternalistic, hierarchical and autocratic, with power belonging to some of their members. The division with those at power and subordinates is massive, and this state of things is well-accepted and justified by laws and traditions, and often historically conditioned. Status is valued, and people in the society behave correspondingly, respecting or at least yielding to those in command, whatever the type of organization is – a family, a company, or a social group of a kind. There is a top-down approach to regulating and solving problems, with possible power abuse, which,
however, also seems accepted.
The next dimension to be discussed is Individualism vs. Collectivism. In this context countries can be seen as more individualist in their culture, or more collectivist. The former implies that individuals see their own benefits and the benefits of their families as a priority, when compared to the interests of their community. The latter means that populations of collectivist societies value the benefits, needs and interests of the community first thing (Landy & Conte, 2010). The chosen countries are known as highly or at least quite individualist societies. They are the USA with the index of 91, Australia (90), Belgium (75), Denmark (74), and Canada (80).
Hofstede in his research defines individualist societies as loosely-knit, with people caring only for themselves and their families and closest friends (“National Culture,” n.d.). Social connections and interests of the community are supported only in cases when it directly relates to personal issues (Verderber, Verderber, & Sellnow, 2009). Therefore, here culture propagates and supports competition, individual rights and privacy, as well as opinions and freedoms. “I” is put up against “We”, and this deeply impacts corporate culture in the chosen countries, too. The individualist nature of the countries under discussion, some way or other, may be attributable to historic peculiarities, especially, when the United States, Canada and Australia are considered (Scarborough, 1998).
The third dimension under discussion is related to the prevalence of Masculinity or Femininity in the culture. As Hofstede himself defines, a society lies in the dimension of Masculinity when men are career- and success-oriented, tough and assertive (Hofstede, 1998). On the other part, there are also societies where the Femininity side is prevalent, with both men and women being soft, modest, and cooperative, and valuing the quality of life. Masculine cultures are characterized by the striving for success, material wealth, achievements, which perfectly correlates with the image of a ‘masculine’ character. Similarly, ‘feminine’ character is seen as valuing relations, environment, people, and comfort (Landy, & Conte, 2010).
Here countries with the low Masculinity index are envisaged. These are Croatia (40), Ukraine (27), South Korea (39), Lithuania (19), and Guatemala (37). This ‘low Masculinity’ index means that people of these chosen countries prefer comfort in major aspects of their lives; they appreciate family and have it as a priority. In business or work they will seldom or never put their tasks over their family duties when it regards to working overtime or at weekends. People would rather prefer co-operation to competition, to assure a friendly working environment. Finally, ‘working to provide the living’ is a common approach, rather than ‘living to work’. People of these cultures tend to be humble; they often underestimate their abilities and even achievements, and are unable to adequately accept praise.
The fourth of the discussed dimensions is Uncertainty Avoidance. Its index characterizes people’s attitude towards uncertainty, unpredictable happenings, people or things. The lower the index, the more tolerant people of the culture are to uncertainty and unknown, the more they are opportunistic when searching for the Truth (Verderber, Verderber, & Sellnow, 2009).
In this research countries with low index of Uncertainty Avoidance are chosen. They are the United Kingdom (35), China (30), Bhutan (28), India (40), and Philippines (44). Here people tend to be more tolerant to unpredictable situations; they seldom make structured and far-reaching plans, and they do not like strict rules and instructions to be given to them (Landy, & Conte, 2010). In means of communication, people from countries with low Uncertainty Avoidance index tend to be more communicative and open to new acquaintances, and are more likely and comfortable to share personal details with others. In means of search for Truth, cultures with low Uncertainty Avoidance index are rather flexible, and Truth perception can sometimes be adapted to a particular situation.
Temporal Orientation dimension is the fifth to discuss. This dimension is connected with the ways of perceiving and understanding time in different cultures, this is how people connect their present lives, actions and challenges with the past of their culture. Hofstede divides long-term and short-term orientation, with the former being peculiar to cultures where persistence, as well as thrift is valued much more than immediate gratification. On the other hand, short-term orientation (or low level of long-time orientation) is connected with weaker focus on tradition, and on longing for immediate reward (Landy, & Conte, 2010). Temporal orientation helps understand how different cultures implement their past experiences to cope with the problems and tasks of the present and the future.
When the five countries are considered, such have been chosen for this research: Bulgaria (69), Estonia (82), Italy (61), Taiwan (93), and Czech Republic (70). What brings them together is the high index of long-term orientation, which implies that in these countries the approach to tradition and past values is rather pragmatic, and people tend to tailor traditional opinions and approaches to present conditions and circumstances. Such societies are not much of traditional ones, and this might reflect in certain amount of liberalism and flexibility in the context of business, social issues, and other aspects of these countries’ lives. Traditions might be easily adapted, and their boundaries extended, when it regards to cultures with high index of temporal orientation.
Geert Hofstede’s model for defining cultural peculiarities, similarities and differences of countries of the world is an interesting approach. It helps understanding that cultures of various countries differ greatly, and it depends on a prominent number of factors, geography, history, and social peculiarities. On the other hand it must be considered that even geographically adjacent states might drastically differentiate. Meanwhile, countries situated in various parts of the globe might appear similar in their traditions and cultural qualities, which could be seen from the research presented.
References:
Hofstede, G. (1998). Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Landy, J. L., & Conte, J. M. (2010). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
National culture. (n.d.). Retrieved from: https://www.geert-hofstede.com/national-culture.html
Scarborough, J. (1998). The origins of cultural differences and their impact on management. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Verderber, R., Verderber, K., & Sellnow, D. (2009). COMM. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
