hofstede's cultural dimensions

Jn[. Siudict of Man. i Org.. Vol. Xlll. No. 1-2, pp. 46-74M.E. Sharpc. Inc.. 1983

NATIONAL CULTURES IN FOUR DIMENSIONSA Research-based Theory of CulturalDifferences among Nations

Geert Hofstede (the Netherlands)

This report summarizes a large research project,, in-volving 116,000 questionnaires, about the work-relatedvalue patterns of matched samples of industrial employeesin 50 countries and 3 regions at 2 points in time. Half ofthe variance in the countries' mean scores can be ex-plained by four basic dimensions, here labeled powerdistance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versuscollectivism, and masculinity versus femininity. Thesedimensions are offered as a framework for developinghypotheses in cross-cultural organization studies. Indexscores of the countries on the 4 dimensions correlatesignificantly with the outcomes of about 40 existing com-parative studies.

The four dimensions considered here relate to veryfundamental problems which face any human society, but.to which different societies have found different answers.They are used to explain (1) different ways of structur-ing organizations, (2) differentjnotivations of peoplewithin organizations, and (3) different issues people andorganizations face within society. On the basis of com-bined scores, the countries studied can be grouped by cul-

Dr. Hofstede is Director of the Institute for Research onIntercultural Cooperation, Arnhem, the Netherlands.

46

National Cultures in Four Dimensions 47

tural clusters. The data also allow some conclusionsabout trends in value shifts over time.

The Cultural Relativity of Organization Theories

A certain U.S. business organization has a policy that salary-Increase proposals should be initiated by the employee's directsuperior. In its French subsidiary, this policy is interpretedin such away that the superior's superior's superior threelevels above the employee is the one who initiates salary-increase proposals. Why the difference? Because the Frenchmanagers and their employees share some basic values aboutthe exercise of authority that differ from the values that pre-vail among their U.S. colleagues. These basic values are fos-tered in the majority of French and U.S. families, and are rein-forced in French and U.S. schools.

Organization theorists are also products of a national cul-ture: they were reared in families and trained in schools, andthey absorbed the values prevailing in one particular society.They usually collect their life experience and their researchdata in the same society. Organization theories are thereforeculturally bounded. The task of cross-cultural organizationresearch is to broaden both the data bases available to re -searchers/theorists and their awareness of value systems dif-ferent from their own.

If organization theory is to transcend national boundaries,it should go beyond statements such as "In the USA . . . , but inFrance " In this case we treat names of nations as resi-dues of undefined variance. For theories to be truly universalwe should attempt to replace names of nations by explicitlydefined variables. When we find that societies differ with re -gard to a particular characteristic, we should try to specifywhat it is about these societies that causes this difference(Przeworski and Teune, 1970. P. 29).

A Multicountry Data Base (1) . .Replacing country names by variables that explain differ-

48 Geert Hofstede (the Netherlands)

ences in the structure and functioning of organizations presup-poses a base of multicountry data to start from. It is verydifficult to infer such variables from data about only two orthree countries. The scai'city of studies covering more thana handful of countries and the almost inevitable loss of depthwith a gain in breadth explain the slow development of trulyuniversal organization theories.

For the present study (fully described in Hofstede, 1980), ac-cess was obtained to an existing body of organizational datafrom no fewer than 67 countries. All but one of the organiza-tions axe subsidiaries of the same large U.S.-based multina-tional Industrial corporation, which I shall call "Hermes,"The remaining one is a Yugoslav worker-managed organiza-tion that (among other activities) imports and services Hermesproducts in Yugoslavia.

The data consist of answers of individual employees to stan-dardized paper-and-pencil attitude and value survey question- 'naires. The same questionnaires were used twice, around 1968and around 1972. The entire data bank contains the answerson over 116,000 questionnaires, each with about 150 questions.Twenty different language versions were used.

The interest of the present study is in fundamental differ-ences in the way people in different countries perceive andinterpret their world. It has therefore looked at only 32 ques-tions from the data bank, ones that (1) were conceptually re -lated to the respondents' cosmologies (ways of looking at theworld) and (2) showed differences among countries that re -mained relatively stable between the 1968 and the 1972 surveyrounds. Specifically, the questions retained for analysis dealwith;

perceptions of the organizational regime, (such as thepresence or absence of subordinate consultation by superiors);

perceptions of the organizational climate (such as feelingsof job-induced stress);

values in terms of the desirable (reactions to general,ideological statements such as "Competition among employeesusually does more harm than good");


values in terms of the desired (importance personally at-tached to various aspects of a job, such as earnings, coopera-tion, and security).

Treatment of the DataThe Hermes data bank represents a multilevel, multicriteria

data base since responses can be analyzed across individuals,across occupations, across countries, between the sexes, amontage groups, and over time (1968 to 1972). This paper focuseson the analysis across countries. For this purpose, for eachrelevant question a score has been determined for each coun-try. This score was (1) based either on scale means or onagreement percentages, depending on the nature of the question;(2) composed for a constant mix of seven clerical, technical,professional, and managerial occupations, identical for allcountries; and (3) averaged for the 1968 and 1972 survey rounds.

Of the 67 countries in the data bank, 27 were originallyomitted from the analysis because more than half of the neces-sary occupational data was from fewer than eight respondentsand was therefore considered "missing." This correspondedto a minimum number of about 50 respondents per country foreach survey round. Thus, the bulk of the data summarized inthis paper is based on 40 countries (Hofstede, 1980). At alater stage (Hofstede, 1982), countries were added for whichsufficient data were available for at least two occupationalgroups; this increased the data base to 50 countries. Finally,data were also included from three multicountry regions (Arab-speaking countries. East Africa, and West Africa) for whichthe number of available responses from the individual countrieswas insufficient.

For the original set of 40 countries, the relationships amongthe country scores on the 32 questions were studied. This rep-resents an ecological, not an individual, analysis. The numberof cases used is 40 (countries), not 116,000 (individuals). Eco-logical correlations among variables are mathematically differ-ent from individual correlations (Robinson, 1950), and shouldbe interpreted differently.


Questionnaire items were grouped according to ecologicaldimensions, based upon (1) theoretical relevance, and (2) statis-tical relationships. Four such dimensions were identified.There were labeled power distance, uncertainty avoidance, in-dividualism versus collectivism, and masculinity versus femi-ninity. The positions of each of the 40 countries on each ofthese four dimensions were expressed by an index. A factoranalysis of the country scores for 32 questionnaire items and40countriesshowed that 3 factors explained 49 percent of the totalvariance: one factor combined high power distance and low in-dividualism, one corresponded to uncertainty avoidance, andone, to masculinity. No other meaningful factors were found.The two dimensions of power distance and individualism, al-though negatively correlated (r = 0.67 across 40 countries),have been maintained as separate dimensions for conceptualreasons.

When, later, ten more countries and three regions wereadded, the index scores for these supplementary units werecalculated according to the formulas derived from the firstand larger 40 units. Adding these new units did not substan-tially change the structure of the dimensions (Hofstede, 1983).

Power Distance

A power distance index (PDI) has been composed of the coun-try scores on the following three questionnaire items, whichare intercbrrelated with coefficients between 0.54 and 0.67 {seealso Hofstede, 1977, 1979a).

(1) the percentage of subordinates who perceive that theirboss makes his decisions in an autocratic or paternalistic (per-suasive) way;

(2) subordinates' perceptions that employees in general(their colleagues) are afraid to disagree with superiors (meanscore on a five-point scale from 1 = very frequently to 5 = veryseldom, multiplied by 25 to make it comparable with the per-centage scores for questions 1 and 3);

(3) the percentage of subordinates who do not prefer a boss


who makes his decisions in a consultative way, but who prefera boss who decides either autocratically or paternalisticallyor, on the other hand, who does not decide himself, but goesalong with the majority of his subordinates (for the rationaleof combining the latter categories, see below).

The index is computed-according to the formula: PDI = 135 +a - b -I- c, which brings it into a range between 11 and 104: itstheoretical range is from -90 (no power distance to + 210 (su-preme power distance). The index values for the 50 countriesand 3 regions can be read in Table 1.

The term power distance has been inspired by the work ofMulder (1976, 1977). The country-level correlation of the pre-ferred type of decision making in the superior with the percep-tion of the behavior of both superior and colleagues revealsa fundamental fact about power distance in a hierarchy, namely,that a society's way of dealing with power relationships is es-tablished through the values of superiors as well as of subordi-nates. It appears in the Hermes data that subordinates in asystem in which superiors maintain considerable power dis-tance respond by preferring such superiors (dependent reac-tion) or by going to the other extreme and preferring superiorswho do not decide at all, but govern by a majority vote of theirsubordinates. This latter type of decision making is ratherunlikely to be practiced in complex work organizations: it wouldbe feasible only if departments were autonomous and indepen-dent of other departments, whereas in fact modern work or-ganizations are complex interdependent systems. Therefore,the preference for a majoricy-vote type of decision making ina complex work organization is unrealistic; I interpret it as acollective counterdependent reaction to a situation of greatpower distance. So we see that in systems in which superiorsmaintain a great power distance, subordinates tend to polarizetoward dependence or counterdependence. On the other hand,where superiors maintain less power distance, subordinatestend to prefer the consultative decision style, which can be in-terpreted as a compromise solution, an interdependence ofsuperior and subordinate.

52 Geert Hofstede (the Netherlands)Table i

Index Values and Rank of 50 Countries and 3Regions on Four Cultural Dimensions

Country

ArgentinaAustraliaAustriaBelgiumBrazilCanadaChileColanbia* Co6ta RicaDenmark EquadorFinlandFranceGenrany (F.R.)Great BritainGreece* GuatetmlaHong Kcng IndonesiaIndiaIranIrelandIsraelItaly* JanaicaJapan Korea (S.1" MalaysiaMexicoNetherlandsNorwayNV ZealandPakistan* PananaPeruPhilippinesPortugalScuth Africa* SalvadorSingaporeSpainSvedsnSwitzerlandTaiwanThailandTurtcey UruguayU.S.A.VenezuelaYugcslaviaRegions:' East Africa* West Africa* Arab Ctrs.

Atiirev-iaticn

ARGAULAOTBELBRACANCHLO XCOSDEN

FINFRAGEKCZROiEGOAHOKIDOINDIRAIREISRITAJAMJAPKCRmLMEXNCTtCRNZLPAKPANP I SPHIPORSAFSALSINSPASWESWImiTHATURURUUSAVENVTJ3

EAF

ARA

PowerDistance

lnde.v{PDD

493611656939636735187833683535609568787758281350455460

10481383122559564946349667457313458646661408176

647780

Rank

19-1913

1333915

29-3036

10-123

43-448

37-3810-1210-1226-2748-4937-3843-44

4224-25

52

201721

26-2750

45-4614

6- 74

2248-4931-32

4729-3018-1934-35

4023

6- 79

24-2531-3234-35

2816

45-4641

(31-321( 421(44-451

UncertaintyAvoidance

Index{UAl}

865170947648868086236759866535

112101

29484059358175139285368253504970868744

1044994

o862958696485

100467688

525468

Rank

36-4117

26-2745-4629-3012-1336-41

3136-41

324

20-2136-41

236- 7

5048

4- 512-13

920-216- 7

3228

244

34-358

331816

14-1526-2736-41

421049

14-1545-46

136-414- 5

192522

34-3547U

29-3043

{17-181(18-191(24-251

Indivalisn

Inde.v(IDV)

46905575388023131574

86371673935

6251448417054763946182630806979141116322765192051716817203736911227

272038

Rani;

28-2949334325

46-4715

58

422

3440-41

364822

116

6- 7302739324426

26-29111720

46-473845

6- 739

2118-19

3512

13-1431

40-413710

13-14242350

418-19

(18-191(13-141( 251

Masculinity

Index(MAS)

566179544952286421166326436666573757465643684770689539506914

858504442643163404842

57045344538627321

414653

Rank

30-313549292528

839-405- 6

437-38

717-1841-4241-4232-33

1132-33

2230-3117-1843-44

2346-4743-44

5013

26-2745

32

3426-27

1915-1639-40

937-38

1424

15-161

46-4720-21

1020-21

123648

5- 6

114-15)( 221128-291

EasecT c-.i data added la ter


Uncertainty Avoidance

An uncertainty avoidance index (UAI) has been composed ofthe Hermes country scores on the following three questionnaireitems, which are intercorrelated with coefficients between 0.40and 0.59:

1. How often do you feel nervous or tense at work? (meanscore on a 5-point scale from 1 = always, to 5 = never).

2. Company rules should not be broken, even when the em-ployee thinks it is in the company's best interest (mean scoreon a 5-point scale from 1 = strongly agree, to 5 = strongly dis-agree).

3. How long do you think you will continue to work for thiscompany? (Percent answering [a] two years at the most, or[b] from two to five years. This is equal to 100 minus the per-cent planning to stay more than 5 years.)

The computation formula has been chosen to obtain equalcontributions from all three questions to the variance in UAI,as follows: UAI = 3 0 0 - 4 0 d - 3 0 e - f . The values for UAIrange from 8 to 112. The theoretical range is from -150 (nouncertainty avoidance) to + 230 (extreme uncertainty avoidance).These Index values can also be read in Table 1.

The term uncertainty avoidance has been inspired by Cyertand March;(1964). The ecological dimension revealed by thethree questions has been associated with "uncertainty avoid-ance" because agreement with question 2 (rules should not bebroken) and a low percentage for answer 1+2 on question 3(few people want to leave the company) indicate two differentways of avoiding uncertainties in life. Feelings of uncertaintycreate anxiety; scores toward the "always" side on question 1indicate greater anxiety.

High scores on the UAI thus mean a higher mean anxietylevel among respondents in a country and avoidance of attitudesand behaviors that could increase this anxiety (doing away withrules, considering leaving one's employer).

Individualism-Collectivism and Masculinity-FemininityThe other 2 ecological indices are derived from mean

54 Geert Hofstede {the Netherlands)

country scores on 14 questions dealing with "values in te rmsof the desired": the importance attached by respondents to theaspects of jobs indicated as challenge, desirable (living) area,earnings, cooperation, training, benefits, recognition, physicalconditions, freedom, employment security, advancement, (rela-tion with) manager, use of skills, and personal time (time forpersonal life).

Answers to these questions were scaled according to fivepoints ranging from "of utmost importance" to "of very littleor no importance." The scores for groups of respondentswere standardized across the 14 goals (that is , given the sameoverall mean and standard deviation) so that tendencies in agroup to score everything as more or as less important wereeliminated (these tendencies were investigated separately; seeHofstede, 1980. Pp. 77 ff. and 224).

The standardized country scores for the 40 countries on the14 goals were factor analyzed and showed two clear factorsexplaining, respectively, 24 and 22 percent of the variance(Hofstede, 1980. P. 241). The factor scores for the countrieson these two factors were transformed into a country "indi-vidualism" and a country "masculinity'" score. For "individu-alism" the formula used was IDV = 50 + 25 x (factor score);for "masculinity," MAS = 50 - 20 x (factor score), yielding anIDV of 6-91 and a MAS of 5-95 (see Table 1).

Individualism (IDV) Indicates the relative importance in thecountry of the job aspects personal time, freedom, and chal-lenge and the relative unimportance of training, of use of skills,of physical conditions, and of benefits. It thus s t resses goalsin which the individual is an active ageni versus those in whichhe or she is dependent on the organization (being trained, skillsbeing used, working conditions, and benefits being provided).

Whereas the power distance index indicated dependence on thesuperior, the individualism index indicates (non-) dependenceon the organization. As mentioned earl ier , the two are nega-tively correlated (r = -0.67). The combination of a low PDIand a low IDV does aot occur (except marginally for Costa Rica);but the combination of a high PDI and a high IDV occurs for the

National Cultures in Four Dimensions S5

Latin European countries France, Belgium, and Italy and mar-ginally for Spain and South Africa. In order to sho_w cle.arly theunique values pattern of Hermes employees in these Latin Euro-pean countries, I have maintained the PDI and IDV as separateindices and not coUapsed them into a single index. The LatinEuropean values pattern means that people in Hermes subsidi-aries in these countries have a need for dependence (or counter-dependence) on hierarchical superiors but, at the same time,stress their personai independence from the organization towhich they belong: they are dependent individualists.

Masculinity (MAS) indicates the relative importance in thecountry of the job aspects earnings, recognition, advancement,and challenge and the relative unimportance of (relation with)manager, cooperation, desirable (living) area, and employmentsecurity. These tend to be also the job aspects on which, v/ith-in countries. Hermes men, in the same jobs, score significantlydifferently from Hermes women. This is in line with the domi-nant pattern of sex roles found to exist in nearly all societies,even nonliterate ones (Barry, Bacon, and Child, 1957): boys aresocialized toward assertiveness and seU-reliance, and girls,toward nurturance and responsibility.

The Hermes data show that not only do men and women inthe same jobs emphasize different j.ob aspects but that coun-tries also differ along these same lines: in some countriesall respondents (both men and women) emphasize job aspectsusually associated with the male role; in others, all emphasizejob aspects usually associated with the female role. Moreover,it appears that in more "masculine" countries, the gap between.the values for the men and for the women in Hermes is wider,whereas in the most "feminine" countries this gap is reducedto zero (Hofstede, 1980. P. 282).

Relevance of the Hermes Dimensions forNational Cultures in General

Employees in Hermes subsidiaries are, of course, an ex-tremely narrow and specific sample of their countries' popu-


lations. They belong to the middle class of their society ratherthan to the upper, working, or peasant class. They have doubt-less all been socialized, to some extent, to the internationalperspective a corporation like Hermes maintains.

Valid comparisons among countries in the study of culturaldifferences can use two strategies: a broad sample strategy,or a narrow sample strategy. Broad samples should be repre-sentative of entire populations; they are typically used in pub-lic-opinion research and consumer market research. Narrowsarr^les use respondents who are very well matched: theyshould be similar in many aspects, except nationality, anU be-long to functionally equivalent categories in each country.

Most cross-cultural studies use narrow samples, such asstudents or industrial managers. The Hermes subsidiary re-spondents are also such narrow, but well-matched, samples:they share the same company superstructure and policies;they are selected to belong to the same occupational categories,so they do very much the same kind of work; they are of thesame education level and vary only marginally in age and sexcomposition; they differ systematically only in nationality.Because the data analyzed are differences between Hermesemployees in one country and another, they paradoxically tellus nothing about the Hermes corporate culture, because this -is shared by all employees. Systematic and stable differencesamong the Hermes respondents irom different countries cajibe explained only by country culture; in fact, the differenceswithin Hermes because of the shared corporate structureshould be a conservative estimate of differences to be foundin organizations outside Hermes.

The validity of the Hermes indices (PDI, UAI, IDV, MAS)for characterizing countrywide culture patterns can be checkedwith other data. If the dimensions they measure are meaning-ful for national cultures at large, not just within Hermes, theindices should correlate with measures found in other narrowsamples, in broad samples, and with country-level indicators.The last represent characteristics of countries as total sys-tems not measured by aggregating data collected from indi-


viduals, but measured for the country as a whole, such as itsper capita gross national product (GNP) or its traffic accidentdeath rate.

In an extensive search of theoretically relevant other data,I found 13 comparative survey studies, covering between 5 and19 countries at a time, whose results are significantly corre-lated across the particular countries with one or more of theHermes indices (Hofstede, 1980. Pp. 326-27). I also found 31country-level indicators, available for between 5 and 40 coun-tries, that were significantly correlated with at least one ofthe dimensions (Ibid. Pp. 328-31). Few of these studies andindicators had ever been related to each other before. Oftenthe sets of countries for which data are available overlap onlyvery partially from one study to another. The four Hermesindices provide a framework for fitting these disparate studiestogether; they drop into place like pieces in a large jigsaw puzzle.

Here are a few examples of the correlations found:

With the Power Distance Index (PDI)

The country's political system since 1950: the presenceor absence of periods with autocratic or'oligarchic govern-ments, cross-tabulated against the PDI above or below themean, yields a chi-square of 16.9*** with one degree of free-dom. (2)

Results obtained with translated versions of Gordon's(1976. P. 55) survey of interpersonal values among studentsfrom 17 countries: r = 0.80*** for conformity', r = 0.79***for independence, and r = -0.70*** for "support" (expectingto be treated with understanding).

With the Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI):'

A "neuroticism" factor found in the data of 12 medicaland related indices for 18 developed countries by Lynn andHampson (1975. P. 237): Spearman rank correlation coefficientrho = 0.73***.


Several questions in a public-opinion study on Images ofthe World in the Year 2000, by Ornauer et al. (1976. Pp. 674-95), are comparable with Hermes data across nine countries for example, the statement "To compromise with our opponentsis dangerous because it usually leads to the betrayal of ourside": r = 0.90***.

With the Individualism Index (IDV):

The coimtry's income (1970 per capita GNP). Across the40 countries, the correlation between the individualism indexand income is r = 0.82***.

Data from the International Research Group on Manage-ment (IRGOM) data bank obtained with Bass's exercise "lifegoals" from managers in 12 countries (Bass and Burger, 1979).After having performed an ecological factor analysis, I founda factor opposing "pleasure," "security," and "affection" to"expertness," "prestige," and "duty" that correlates with anIDV with rho = 0.76***.

With the Masculinity Index (MAS):

The percentage of GNP spent on government-sponsoreddevelopment aid to third-world countries for 15 wealtny coun-tries correlates (negatively) with r = -0.81***.

Data from the IRGOM data bank (see above) on "life goals"from managers in 12 countries show a second factor opposing"leadership" and "independence" to "service"; this correlateswith a MAS with rho = 0.84***.-

Combining the connotations of the four dimensions foundwithin Hermes with the connotations of their correlates inother studies, I have made up the integrated lists of connota-tions shown in Tables 2 through 5. For each dimension a tableshows the connotations associated with the extreme positiveand negative poles. Most countries, of course, are somewherebetween these poles.

To avoid misunderstanding, I want to stress again that the


four dimensions are ecologically derived: they apply to coun-tries as social systems, not to individuals within those coun-tries. For example. Table 3 shows that societies with a highuncertainty avoidance index are characterized by "more show-ing of emotions" and a "need for written rules and regulations."This means that the two features tend to be associated at thecountry level, but not that individuals who show their emotionsmore also tend to need more written rules: the reverse mayeven be the case. Psychologists, especially, often have diffi-culties recognizing that characteristics associated with eachother at the society level need not be associated at the indi-vidual level, and vice versa. Societies are not "king-size in-dividuals": eco-logic is not the same as psycho-logic.

Fundamental Problems of Societies

The previous section argues that the four dimensions powerdistance, uncertainty avoidance, individualismcollectivism,and masculinityfemininity represent universal categories forcharacterizing national societies. They transcend the narrowborders of the Hermes corporation. If this is true, they shouldrelate to underlying, fundamental problems of societies, towhich every society should find its own answers.

From the cultural anthropological literature (for example,Mead, 1962. Pp. 102-107), we know that the nonliterate soci-eties that have been the preferred object of study of anthro-pologists differ remarkably in their answers to such funda-mental problems. Some societies have kings and hierarchies;others are ruled by consensus among eq,uals. Some societieshave clearly defined and different sex roles; others have side-by-side collaboration of women and men on the same tasks.

There is no. reason to assume that such differences amongsocieties have entirely disappeared from present-day nation-states; in fact, it would be very surprising if they had. How-ever, because of the complexity of nation-states, the differenceshave become less clearly visible to any single observer. So-ciologically oriented anthropologists such as Inkeles and

60 Geert Hofstede (the Netherlands!

Table 2

Connotations ol the Power Distance DimensionLow PDI

Inequality in society should be mini-mized.

AU should be interdependent.

Hierarchy means an equality ofroles, established for convenience.

Subordinates are people like me.

Superiors are people like me.

The use of power should be legiti-mate, and is subject to the judg-ment between good and evil.

All should have equal rights.

Powerful people should try to lookless powerful than they are.

Stress on reward and legitimateand expert power. (1)

The system is to blame for thingsthat go wrong.

The way to change a social systemis by redistributing power.

People at both high and low powerlevels feel less threatened andmore prepared to trust people.

There is latent harmony betweenthe powerful and the powerless.

Cooperation among the powerlesscan be based on solidarity.

High PDIThere should be an order of in-

equality in this world in whicheverybody has his rightful place:high and low are protected bythis order.

A few should be independent;most should be dependent.

Hierarchy means existentialinequality.

Superiors consider subordinatesas different from themselves.

Subordinates consider superiorsas different from themselves.

Power is a basic fact of societyand antedates good or evil, itslegitimacy is irrelevant.

Power-holders are entitled toprivileges.

Powerful people should try tolook as powerful as possible.

Stress on coercive and referentpower. (1)

The underdog is to blame iorthings that go wrong.

The way to change a social systemis by dethroning those in power.

Other people are a potentialthreat to one's power and canrarely be trusted.

There is latent conflict betweenthe powerful and the powerless.

Cooperation among the powerlessis difficult to achieve becauselittle faith in people is the norm.

1) French and Raven (1959).

National Cultures In Four Dimensions

Table 3

Connotations of the Uncertainty Avoidance Dimension

Low TJAI High UAIThe uncertainty inherent in life is

more easily accepted and each dayis taken as it comes.

Ease, lower stressTime is free.Hard work is not a virtue per se.Weaker superegosAggressive behavior is frowned

upon.Less showing of emotionsConflict and competition can be con-

tained on the level of fair play andused constructively.

More acceptance of dissentDeviance not felt as threatening;

greater toleranceLess nationalismMore positive attitude toward

younger peopleLess conservatismMore willingness to take risks

in lifeAchievement determined in terms

of recognitionRelativism, empiricism

There should be as few rules aspossible.

If rules cannot be kept, we shouldchange them.

Belief in generalists and commonsense

The authorities are there to servethe citizens.

The uncertainty inherent in life isfelt as a continuous threat thatmust be fought.

Higher anxiety and stressTime is money.Inner urge to work hardStrong superegosAggressive behavior of self and

others is accepted.More showing of emotionsConflict and competition can un-

leash aggression and shouldtherefore be avoided.

Strong need for consensusDeviant persons and ideas are

dangerous; intoleranceNationalismYounger people are suspect

Conservatism; law and orderConcern with security in life

Achievement defined in termsof security

Search for ultimate, absolutetruths and values

Need for written rules and regu-lations

If rules cannot be kept, we aresinners and should repent.

Belief in experts and theirknowledge

Ordinary citizens are incompe-tent compared with the author-ities.


Table 4

Connotations of the Individualism-Collectivism Dimension

Low rovIn societ}', people are born into ex-

tended families or clans that pro-tect them in exchange for loyalty'.

"We" consciousnessCollectivity-orientation (1)Identity is based in the social system.Emotional dependence of individual

on organizations and institutions

Emphasis on belonging to organiza-tion; membership ideal

Private life is invaded by organiza-tions and clans to which one belongs;opinions are predetermined.

Expertise, order, duty, security prb-vided by organization or clan

Friendships predetermined by stablesocial relationships, but need forprestige within these relationships

Belief in group decisionsValue standards differ for in-groups

and out-groups; particularism (1)"Jen" philosophy of man (2)

Gemeinschaft (community-based)social order (3)

Involvement of individuals withorganizations primarily moral (4)

High

1) Parsons and Shils (1951)2) Hsu (1971)3) Tdnnies {1887)4) Etzioni (1975)

In society, everybody is supposedto take care of him/herself andhis/her immediate family.

"I" consciousnessSelf-orientation {I)Identity is based in the individual.Emotional independence of indi-

vidual from organizations orinstitutions

Emphasis on individual initiativeand achievement; leadershipideal

Everybody has a right to a pri-vate life and opinion.

Autonomy, variety, pleasure, in-dividual financial security

Need for specific friendships

Belief in individual decisionsValue standards should apply to

all: universalism (_1)"Personality" philosophy of

man (2)Gesellschaft (society-based)

social order [3]Involvement of individuals with

organizations primary calcu-lative (4)

National Cultures in Four Dimensions

Table 5

Connotations of the Masculinity-Femininity Dimension

Low MAS

People orientation

Quality of life and environmentare important.

Work to live.

Service ideal

Interdependence ideal

Intuition

Sympathy for the imfortunate

Leveling: Don't try to be betterthan others.

Small and slow are beautiful.

Men need not be assertive, andcan also assume nurturing roles.

Sex roles in society* should be fluid.

Differences in sex roles should notmean differences in power.

Unisex and androg>'ny ideal

H igh MAS

Money and things orientation

Performance and growth are im-portant.

Live to work.

Achievement ideal

Independence ideal

Decisiveness

Sympathy for the successfulachiever

Excelling: Try to be the best.

Big and fast are beautiful.

Men should behave assertively,and women should be nurturing.

Sex roles in society should beclearly differentiated.

Men should dominate in all set-tings.

Machismo (ostentative manliness)ideal


Levinson (1969. Pp. 447 ff.) have predicted categories forclassifying the "national character" of nation-states. The fourdimensions found in the Hermes data represent such categories,and they fit Inkeles and Levinson's predictions remarkablywell (Hofstede, 1980. P. 313).

The underlying, fundamental problems of societies to whichthe four dimensions apply (compare Tables 2 through 5) in-clude:

Power distance: the problem of human inequality and thetranslation of biological differences in strength and talentsinto social differences in power and wealth.

Uncertainty avoidance: the problem of life and death asso-ciated with the one-way arrow of time, the inescapable uncer-tainty about tomorrow, and the ways in which societies never-theless try to enable their members to sleep in peace.

Individualism: the problem of the relationship of the indi-vidual to his or her fellows, from tightly to loosely Integratedprimary groups. This dimension, as we see in Table 4, is re -lated to some classical dichotomies in sociology: Tonnies's(1887) Gemeinschaft (low IDV) versus Gesellschaft (high IDV)and Etzioni's "moral involvement" versus "calculatlve involve-ment" in organizations. There are indications (Hofstede, 1980.Pp. 224-39) that it also relates to Merton's (1968. P. 447)"local" versus "cosmopolitan" mentality. All, obviously, areassociated at the society level, not necessarily at the indi-vidual level.

Masculinity: the problem of the division of mankind into twosexes, and what represents the appropriate role for men (whotend to make their concept of their own role a model for soci-ety as a whole).

Implications for Organizations

Organizations serve two main functions: distribution ofpower, and control of uncertainty. Organizing is a symbolicactivity: it consists of the manipulation of symbols e.g.,uniforms, orders, rules, forms, rituals, and policies that


have meaning only to the initiated. It is not surprising, there-fore, that the functioning of organizations in a country and the"way of thinking about organizations in that country are relatedto the country's position on the power distance and uncertaintyavoidance scales.

Across the 40 countries surveyed, the PDI and UAI areweakly correlated (r = 0.28*). We nevertheless find countries .in all four quadrants of a PDI x UAI plot. In interpreting themeaning of the countries' positions on the indices, I use con-cepts from two sources. One is the "Aston" approach to thestudy of organizations (Pugh, 1976; Pugh and Hickson, 1976).The Aston researchers found empirically that different organi-zations within one country (Great Britain) varied mainly ac-cording to two dimensions: "concentration of authority" and"structuring of activities" (not counting a third and weaker di-mension). It is obvious that the first is conceptually relatedto the PDI, and the second, to the UAI. This suggests that theAston typology of different organizations in one country applies,mutatis mutandis, also to similar organizations in differentcountries. The second source of concepts is an unpublishedstudy by a former colleague, O. J. Stevens (3), about the im-plicit models for well-functioning organizations that he foundamong British, German, and French management students atthe INSEAD school in Fontainebleau, France.

Hermes subsidiaries with a low PDI and a low UAI (mainlyAnglo and Nordic countries) are characterized by smallerpower distances and weak uncertainty-avoidance tendencies.The Aston typology refers to organizations in the low concen-tration of authority, low structuring of activities quadrant as"implicitly structured." Stevens finds that British INSEADstudents see the effective organization as a "village market":equality of partners and few rules. In these countries we canexpect relative sympathy for decentralized and flexible struc-tures, such as participative management and matrix organiza-tion, and theories that defend the effectiveness of such struc-tures.

Hermes subsidiaries with a low PDI and a high UAI (mainly


German-speaking) combine smaller power distances with stronguncertainty avoidance. The corresponding quadrant in the As-ton typology shows "work-flow bureaucracies," and Stevensfinds for the German INSEAD students a model of the effectiveorganization as a "well-oiled machine." For these countrieswe can e^ec t relative sympathy for decentralized structures,which will, however, be somewhat rigid; there is a greaterneed for creating rules and living by them. Job content, pro-motion criteria, and decision competencies will tend to bestrictly codified. Rules will rarely be broken, because theyhave been internalized in people's superegos. A typical theoryfrom one of these countries is Weber's theory of bureaucracyas an impersonal system (Weber, 1970 [1921], P. 196).

Hermes subsidiaries with a high PDI and a high UAl (allLatin countries, European as well as Latin American, andsome Asian countries) show greater power distances plusstrong uncertainty avoidance tendencies. The Aston studiesplace in this quadrant the "full bureaucracies," and Stevensfinds that French INSEAD students model the ideal organiza-tion as a "pyramid" of people. The tendency toward centrali-zation is strong. The combination of strong uncertainty avoid-ance with great power distances means that in these coimtriesone will look to powerful people for resolving uncertainties.There is a need for formal rules, too, but powerful people canbreak them and so will less powerful people if they can getaway with it when there are no powerful people around. Rulesare personal, not impersonal. Typical theories from thesecountries are Pareto's (1976 [1896]) thoughts about elites andCrozier's (1964) analysis of the French bureaucratic phe-nomenon.

Hermes subsidiaries with a high PDI and a low UAl (mostAsian and all African countries) combine great power distance;with weak uncertainty avoidance. The Aston studies place inthis quadrant "personnel bureaucracies" that have rules forstatus relationships among people, but not to the same extentfor daily work activities. Stevens's study at INSEAD did notcover Indian students, but discussions with Indian colleagues

National Cultures in Four Dimensions ' 67

have led me to fill in the "family" as an implicit model of theorganization among them, with a father-type manager of un-questioned authority, but no deep-seated need for working ac-cording to formal rules.

Implications for Motivation

McClelland (1961. P. 461) has published scores by countryfor need for achievement (nAch)> need for affiliation (n^ff), andneed for power (npow)> These scores were based on a contentanalysis of children's stories from two periods in time: fromabout 1925 (for 25 countries) and from about 1950 (for 41 coun-tries). McClelland's scores for nAch around 1925 appear tocorrelate strongly with the combination of low uncertaintyavoidance and high masculinity in the Hermes indices (across22 countries represented in both sets; multiple correlationcoefficient R = 0.74***). It is remarkable that McClelland's1925, but not his 1950, data correlate with the (1970) Hermesscores; I explain this by the assumption that the 1925 stories,collected in the 1950s, were largely traditional and thereforemore representative of fundamental cultural themes than the1950 stories, which were more affected by conscious selectionby contemporary educators, who at that time were more sensi-tive to nontraditional fashions.

The correlation of McClelland's country scores with Hermescountry scores shows that need for achievment as a traditionaltheme as defined by McClelland corresponds to a willingnessto take risks (low uncertainty'' avoidance) plus a masculine de-sire for visible success (high masculinity). The countriesshowing this combination are all Anglo-Saxon countries (Aus-tralia, Canada, Great Britain. Ireland, New Zealand. SouthAfrica, the United States), plus a number of their former colo-nies (Hong Kong, India, Jamaica, Malaysia, the Philippines,Singapore). A remarkable fact is that nearly all these coun-tries speak English: the word achievement: is hardly translat-able into any other language.

The discovery that the "achievement motivation" pattern


corresponds to the dominant value patterns of one particulargroup oTcouritrie's", including the United States, should lead toskepticism about the universal vaiidit)' of U.S.-made motiva-tion theories in general. 1 am thinking, in particular, of Mas-low's (1970) theory of human needs. In Maslow's need h ier -archy, self-actualization and esteem needs are placed abovesocial (belongingness) needs, and the latter above securityneeds. We can identify different combinations of the UAI andMAS with a predominance of different needs. We have alreadyseen that a low UAI and a high MAS stand for achievementneeds: weak uncertainty avoidance indicates a predominanceof risk-taking over security, and masculinity implies a p r e -dominance of assertiveness (self-actualization, esteem) overnurturance (belongingness).

Maslow's hierarchy is thus a reflection of the value patternof low-UAI, high-MAS countries. With a low UAI and a lowMAS (Scandinavia and the Netherlands), we should find a re la -tive predominance of belongingness over self-actualization.We might think, for example, of the Swedish approach to hu-manization of work (group centered) versus the U.S. approach(individual job-enrichment centered). With a high UAI weshould find a relative predominance of security over r i sk-taking; if the MAS is low, this relative predominance is com-bined with belongingness (e.g., Yugoslav workers' self-man-agement); if the MAS is high, it is combined with asser t ive-ness (e.g., Japanese performance motivation combined with,life-time employment).

Country Clusters

On the basis oi each country's scores on the four dimen-sions, the units have been clustered, using Ward's groupingmethod (according to a program by Forst and Vogel, 1977).The resulting "dendrogram" is shown in the figure. It shouldbe read from left to right: it indicates what percent of e r ro rshould be tolerated to bring the scores of two countries to-gether. A split into two large clusters cuts off Guatemala


90 100ERROR SUM OF SQUARES IN PERCENT OF TOTAL

Results ot a cluster analysis for 53 countries and regions, using the scores onall four dimensions as variables. The program used was developed by Fprstand Vopel (1977). The analysis was performed at Kiel University. Germany,thanks to the kind assistance of Professor Dr. Klaus Brockhoff.

70 Geert Hofstede (the Netherlands'

through Jamaica from Austria through Finland. A furtherbreakdo\ra shows, lor example, a Belgium-France cluster(No. 6), three Asian clusters (Nos. 3, 8, and 9), an Anglo-Saxoicluster (No. 11), and a Nordic-Dutch cluster (No. 13). Japan(No. 4) is the most different from any other country. It shouldbe realized that the computer that produced this figure knowsneither geography nor history. We see that, nevertheless, inmost cases, geographically or historically close countriescluster together. This illustrates to what extent the mean an-swers of Hermes employees on certain paper-and-pencil questions do reflect basic cultural patterns.

Trends over Time

The fact that the Hermes data were measured twice, around1968 and around 1972. allows some conclusions about world-wide shifts on the four dimensions during this period. Thedimension showing the largest universal shift is individualism.An increase in individualism was found in all countries exceptPakistan. The data suggest that the increase in individualismfollowed an increase in wealth, rather than the other way around.On the dimension of individualism, there was some reductionin the distance between extreme countries, so that we canspeak of a certain convergence over time.

On the dimension of masculinity-femininity, there was, onthe average, a shift toward the masculine side; but this hy nomeans aifected all countries. In general, the trend was formasculine countries to become more masculine and for femi-nine countries to become more feminine, so that there was adivergence rather than a convergence on this dimension overtime.

oh the dimension of power distance, thejcrend was morec-cfinplex. In nearly all the countries. Hermes employees'preference for a more consultative or democratic managerincreased: but only in the countries in which power distances.were already relatively low was this preference matched bya corresponding shift in perceived actual behavior of the man-


agers. In countries with great power distances, there was amarked increase in employees' perceived fear of disagreeingwith superiors. All in all, this dimension, too, showed diver-gence among countries rather than convergence.

On the dimension of uncertainty avoidance, only the questionof stress (feeling nervous or tense at work) showed a distinctworldwide trend: an increase in the vast majority of countries.However, here again the tendency was toward divergence rath-er than convergence of countries at the extremes.

It is possible (Hofstede, 1980. Chap. 8) to relate these vari-ous trends to the age groups of the respondents; it can beshown that the shifts affect all except sometimes the oldest(over 40 or 50) age groups and that there is no evidence for ageneration effect in values that would move along like a waveover time.

Four years, of course, is a very short time for measuringworldwide value shifts. In Hofstede (1980. Pp. 367 fl.), evi-dence from other sources is used to speculate on longer-termtrends. Thus, there seems to be little doubt that since 1965there has been a worldwide trend toward increased stress,anxiety, intolerance, and other uncertainty-avoidance-relatedattitudes, which may be part of an oscillating movement witha wavelength between 25 and 40 years. In power distance, thelonger-term trend is probably one of decrease, and in individu-alism, very clearly of increase; out for masculinity and femi-ninity, the shifts vary from one country to another.

Notes

1) The research project described In this paper was carriedout in 1973-79 at the European Institute for Advanced Studiesin Management at Brussels, Belgium, and continued in 1981 atthe Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation (IRIC),Arnhem, the Netherlands.

2) Significance levels are indicated as follows: *** = 0.001level; ** = 0.01 level: = 0.05 level.

3) 0. J. Stevens (1976) "Negotiation, Arbitration, Organiza-


tion: Planned Intervention Styles in Three European Countries."Notes for draft paper. Fontainebleau, France: INSEAD.

References

Barry, H., Bacon, M. K., and Child, I. L. (1957) "A Cross-cultural Survey of Some Sex Differences in Socialization."Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 327-32.

Bass, B. M., and Burger, P. C. (1979) Assessment of Man-agers: An International Comparison. New York: TheFree Press .

Crozier, M. (1964) The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago:University of Chicago Press .

Cyert, R. M., and March, J. G. (1963) A Behavioral Theoryof the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.

Etzioni, A. (1975) A Comparative Analysis of Complex Or-ganizations (Rev. ed.). New York: The Free Press .

Forst, H. T., and Vogel, F. (1977) Hierarchisch-agglomera-tive Klassifikation von Merkmalstraegern bzw. Merkma-len. Kiel, FRG: Institut fuer Betriebswirtschaft.

French, J. R. P. , and Raven, B. (1959) "The Bases of SocialPower." In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power.

Ann Arbor, Mich.: ISR. Pp. 150-67.Gordon, L. V. (1976) Survey of Interpersonal Values (Rev,)

Chicago: Science Research Associates.Hofstede, G. (1977) "Cultural Elements in the Exercise of

Power." In Y. H. Poortinga (Ed.), Basic Problems in 'Cross-cultural Psychology'. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeit-linger. Pp. 317-28.

Hofstede, G. (1979) "Hierarchical Power Distance in FortyCountries." In C. J. Lammers and D. J. Hickson (Eds.),Organizations Alike and Unlike: International and Inter-institutional Studies in the Sociology of Organizations.London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Pp. 97-119.

Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture's Consequences: InternationalDifferences in Work-related Values. Beverly Hills,CalLE.: Sage Publications.


Hofstede, G. (1983) "Dimensions of National Cultures in FiftyCountries and Three Regions." In J. B. Deregowski, S.Dziurawiec, and R. C. Annis (Eds.), Expiscations in Cross-cultural Psychology. Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets andZeitlinger.

Hsu, F. L. K. (1971) "Psychosocial Homeostasis and Jen:Conceptual Tools for Advancing Psychological Anthro-pology." American Anthropologist, 72, 2344.

Inkeles, A., and Levinson,D. J. (1969) "National Character:The Study of Modal Personality and Sociocultural Sys-tems." In G. Llndzey and E. Aronson (Eds.), The Hand-book of Social Psychology, Vol. 4. Reading, Mass.:Addison-Wesley.

Lynn, R., and Hampson, S. L. (1975) "National Differences inExtraversion and Neuroticism." British Journal of Socialand Clinical Psychology, ]A, 223-40.

Maslow, A. H. (1970) Motivation and Personality (2nd ed.).New York:- Harper & Row.

McClelland, D. C. (1961) The Achieving Society. Princeton,N. J.: Van Nostrand.

Mead, M. (1962) Male and Female: A Study of the Sexes in aChanging World. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Merton, R. K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure (3rded.). New York: The Free P re s s .

Mulder, M. (1976) "Reduction of Power Differences in P r a c -tice: The Power-Distance Reduction Theory and Its Ap-plications." In G. Hofstede and M. S. Kassem (Eds.),European Contributions to Organization Theory. Assen,the Netherlands: Van Gorcum. Pp. 79-94.

Mulder, M. (1977) The Daily Power Game. Leiden: MartinusNijhoff.

Ornauer, H., Wiberg, H., Sicinski, A., and Galtung, J. (Eds.)(1976) Images of the World in the Year 2000: A Compara-

' tive Ten-Nation Study. The Hague: Mouton.Paxeto, V. (1976) [1896] Sociological Writings. Selected and

introduced by S. E. Finer. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Parsons , T., and Shils, E. A. (1951) Toward a General Theory


of Action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Przeworski, A., and Teune, H. (1970) The Logic of Compara-

tive Social Inquiry. New York: Wiley.Pugh, D. S. (1976) "The 'Aston' Approach to the Study of Or-

ganizations." InG. Hofstede and M, S. Kassem (Eds.),European Contributions to Organization Theory. Assen,the Netherlands: Van Gorcum. Pp. 62-78.

Pugh, D. S., and Hickson, D. J. (1976) Organizational Sti-uc-ture in Its Context: The Aston Programme, I. London:Saxon House.

Robinson, W. S. (1950) "Ecological Correlations and the Be-havior of Individuals." American Sociological Review, 15,351-57.

Tonnies, F. (1963) [1887] Community and Society. New York:Harper & Row.

Weber, M. (1970) [1921] Essays in Sociology. Edited by H. H.Gerth andC. W. Mills. London: Routledge L Kegan Paul.

hofstede's cultural dimensions

Documents