Geert Hofstede's Dimensions of Culture
Geert Hofstede 's Dimensions of Culture an d
Edward T. Hall 's Time Orientations
Hofstede 's "dimensions of culture" were derived mainly from his extensive organizational anthropology research in the late 1970s and early 1980s – the scores are general comparisons of values in the countries and regions he studied and can vary greatly within each country. Although
Hofstede 's work is somewhat dated and has rightly been criticized on a number of grounds the dimens ions are useful in unders tanding that members of various societies are likely to behave in different ways in a given s ituation.
Power Distance Index (PDI)
is defined as “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally”. (Hofstede, 1994, p. 28) A H igh Power Distance ranking indicates that inequalities of power and wealth exis t within the society and that the less powerful members of the society accept this situation. A Low Power Distance ranking indicates the society de-emphasizes the differences between citizen 's power and wealth. In these societies equality and oppor tunity for everyone is stressed. Individualism (IDV)
Hofstede defines this dimension as follows : “individualis m per tains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family ." A High Individualism ranking indicates that individuality and individual rights are paramount within the society. A Low Individualism ranking typifies societies of a more collec tivis t nature w ith close ties among its members. In these societies "…people from bir th onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.” (H ofstede, 1994, p. 51)
Masculinity (MAS)
focuses on the degree to which ‘masculine’ values like
Edward T. Hall 's Time Orientations
Hofstede 's "dimensions of culture" were derived mainly from his extensive organizational anthropology research in the late 1970s and early 1980s – the scores are general comparisons of values in the countries and regions he studied and can vary greatly within each country. Although
Hofstede 's work is somewhat dated and has rightly been criticized on a number of grounds the dimens ions are useful in unders tanding that members of various societies are likely to behave in different ways in a given s ituation.
Power Distance Index (PDI)
is defined as “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally”. (Hofstede, 1994, p. 28) A H igh Power Distance ranking indicates that inequalities of power and wealth exis t within the society and that the less powerful members of the society accept this situation. A Low Power Distance ranking indicates the society de-emphasizes the differences between citizen 's power and wealth. In these societies equality and oppor tunity for everyone is stressed. Individualism (IDV)
Hofstede defines this dimension as follows : “individualis m per tains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family ." A High Individualism ranking indicates that individuality and individual rights are paramount within the society. A Low Individualism ranking typifies societies of a more collec tivis t nature w ith close ties among its members. In these societies "…people from bir th onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.” (H ofstede, 1994, p. 51)
Masculinity (MAS)
focuses on the degree to which ‘masculine’ values like