Cultural Dimension Theory: Comparing Hofstede, Trompenaars & Schwartz

Introduction to Globalism and Cross-Cultural Capability

One of the key changes of the late 20th century — certainly accelerated in the early 21st — is the set of economic, political, and cultural movements that broadly move the various countries of the world closer together. This idea, called globalism, refers to a number of theories that see the complexities of modern life as interconnected, such that events and actions are tied together regardless of the geographic location of a specific country. The concept of cross-cultural capability is a relatively new area of study in the academic world, even though we have long recognized that a number of conflicts might have been better resolved with greater understanding and sensitivity toward other cultures. The term itself applies to human behavior across multiple dimensions — psychological, sociological, political, and cultural. We can only imagine the lack of cultural sensitivity that occurred when the Spanish encountered Amerindian populations, when the first Europeans arrived on North American shores, or during the numerous encounters among peoples of the ancient and medieval worlds as they ventured forth on voyages of discovery.

In order to respond appropriately to encounters with other cultures — whether those cultures are nationality-based, religion-based, gender-based, socioeconomically based, or rooted in any other dimension of human existence that shapes our understandings, beliefs, values, and behaviors — it is necessary to acquire knowledge, understanding, and awareness, as well as a willingness to reflect upon one's own position in relation to the other (Killick, 1999, p. 3).

Overview of Cultural Dimension Theories

One way to assess and systematically differentiate national cultures in the modern world is through cultural dimensions theory. Geert Hofstede, drawing on data about the world's values and cultures, built a comprehensive model arguing that people differ based on how they endorse six dimensions of values: power (equality vs. inequality), collectivism vs. individualism, uncertainty vs. tolerance, masculinity vs. femininity, temporal orientation, and indulgence vs. restraint (Hofstede, 2001).

There are other theories of cultural dimensionality as well. Fons Trompenaars, a Dutch author and scholar in cross-cultural communication, together with Charles Hampden-Turner, developed a model with seven cultural dimensions: (1) universalism vs. particularism (rules vs. relationships); (2) individualism vs. collectivism (individual vs. group); (3) neutral vs. emotional; (4) specific vs. diffuse (how separate are our private and working lives); (5) achievement vs. ascription (is status earned or given); (6) sequential vs. synchronic (do we do one thing at a time or several things at once); and (7) internal vs. external control (do we try to control our environment or are we controlled by it) (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1995).

There is also the Schwartz values theory, which examines what we consider most important in our lives. For example, conformity values tend to aggregate culturally similar societies. The Schwartz model identifies ten basic motivational values characterized by central goals: (1) self-direction — independent thought and action; (2) stimulation — excitement and novelty; (3) hedonism — pleasure and sensuous gratification; (4) achievement — personal success through demonstrated competence; (5) power — social status and prestige; (6) security — safety, harmony, and stability; (7) conformity — restraint of actions or impulses that might harm others or violate norms; (8) tradition — respect, commitment, and acceptance of customs; (9) benevolence — preserving and enhancing the welfare of one's in-group; and (10) universalism — understanding, appreciation, and protection for all people and for nature (Schwartz, 2005).

Each model is useful in that it helps explain the similarities and differences in the way cultural paradigms function both independently and in relation to other cultures. They may be visually represented as hubs and spokes, but each has a particular manner in which it allows differences and similarities to juxtapose for more meaningful interpretation. These frameworks are doubly important in the 21st century because they allow one to examine both business and cultural measures distinctly. While the world is clearly moving toward globalism, we must pause and ask: what is it that makes cultures unique, and should that uniqueness be preserved when trends appear to favor a grand amalgamation?

Applying Cultural Dimensions to Global Business and Politics

When we compare cultures that are somewhat dissimilar, we can turn to these theories to help explain those differences. For instance, examining leadership and its role in contrasting Western developed cultures with the developing world can allow for a more robust approach when dealing with international business applications in globalism — particularly when applying theory to management issues involving outsourcing or exporting products into new markets (House et al., 1998). Alternatively, one might examine the validity of cross-cultural theory in the political sphere, looking at how human values influence liberal and conservative paradigm shifts using the Schwartz value scale, which can show representative values over time and illustrate how social culture changes on certain dimensions in response to political culture (Knoppen and Saris, 2009).

When we look at the broad contours of culture, we can make interesting observations based on the three dimensions of cultural theory. Some dimensions fit particular cultures quite well, while others are more ethnocentric and do not map cleanly onto a given society. Still, it is precisely because every aspect does not have an exact fit that we can observe trends evolving toward and away from certain indigenous cultural patterns. For example, when examining attitudinal dimensions of culture, similarities can be found in clusters of geographically or historically related countries. The Anglo-American cultural basis, for instance, flows from Great Britain through to the United States and Australia, whereas the Nordic or Scandinavian subset is better understood through the cluster of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark. The significance of this cluster approach is captured by Ronen and Shenker:

"As multinational companies increase their direct investment overseas, especially in less developed and consequently less studied areas, they will require more information concerning their local employees in order to implement effective types of interactions between the organization and the host country. The knowledge acquired thus far can help one to better understand the work values and attitudes of employees throughout the world. American theories work very well for Western nations. Are they equally applicable in non-Western countries? Clearly, more cluster research is called for, including research in countries from all parts of the globe" (Hodgetts et al., 2005, p. 108).