Hofstede's National Culture Model: Dimensions Explained

Introduction to Hofstede's Cultural Model

The term organizational culture did not emerge in the academic literature until the late 1970s and represents a relatively new addition that has since gained considerable attention. Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory arose from a foundational effort to determine whether organizational culture could be studied systematically. Hofstede (1990) posed a series of questions directed at this problem:

First, can organizational cultures be "measured" quantitatively — on the basis of answers provided by organizational members to written questions — or can they only be described qualitatively?

Second, if organizational cultures can be measured in this way, which operationalizable and independent dimensions can be used to measure them, and how do these dimensions relate to what is known about organizations from existing theory and research?

Third, to what extent can measurable differences among the cultures of different organizations be attributed to unique features of the organization in question, such as its history or the personality of its founder?

The quantitative measures of the cultures of the twenty units in the research, aggregated at the unit level, showed that a large part of the differences among these twenty units could be explained by six factors. These factors, related to established concepts from organizational sociology, measured the organizational cultures on six independent dimensions (Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990).

The Six Cultural Dimensions

Since Hofstede and his team published their groundbreaking article, it gained considerable traction in the literature. His original research included four dimensions, and additional dimensions were added later. These dimensions represent various poles on a spectrum, between which different positions can be identified. They include (McSweeney, 2002):

Power Distance: "the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) expect and accept that power is distributed unequally."

Uncertainty Avoidance: "intolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity."

Individualism vs. Collectivism: "the extent to which individuals are integrated into groups."

Masculinity vs. Femininity: "assertiveness and competitiveness vs. modesty and caring."

Hofstede later expanded the model to include two additional dimensions: Long-Term Orientation (also called pragmatism) and Indulgence. The role of culture was considered to be a kind of "software of the mind" that operates subjectively and unconsciously, shaping the values and behaviors of people within a given society.

Criticisms of the Model

Despite the model's widespread popularity, a number of criticisms have been leveled against it. One prominent objection is that there are typically many subcultures present within a single country, which may have characteristics that differ substantially from those of the dominant or mainstream culture (McSweeney, 2002). This means that applying a single national score to all members of a country's population risks oversimplification. Critics such as McSweeney (2002) have argued that Hofstede's methodology conflates national identity with cultural homogeneity, a assumption that may not hold in diverse or multicultural societies.

Brazil's Cultural Profile

The Power Distance Index for Brazil is fairly high compared to Western cultures, stemming from a significant degree of social inequality and a relatively strict hierarchy in decision-making within families and other groups. By contrast, U.S. culture is more egalitarian than hierarchical — a perspective found throughout much of the Western world.

In contrast to this egalitarian outlook, the Brazilian organizational structure tends to be more hierarchical. Brazil's Uncertainty Avoidance score is also high, meaning the population generally dislikes risk and ambiguity. This measure reflects the degree of risk that an individual or community is willing to accept, and suggests that Brazilian individuals would typically be less inclined to embrace uncertainty in their decision-making processes.

Another cultural dimension relevant to Brazil is Long-Term Orientation. The Brazilian culture displays a moderate degree of long-term orientation, reflected in a fairly high-to-moderate indulgence rating. Brazilians score relatively low in pragmatism, which is also considered a component of long-term orientation. By comparison, the U.S. mainstream culture rates among the lowest on this measure of any country. Relative to the United States, therefore, Brazilian culture is more long-term oriented — though less so than many Eastern cultures.

Conclusion

Hofstede first developed his cultural model with four dimensions and later expanded it to include pragmatism and indulgence. Many criticisms can be made of this model, and it is almost certainly imperfect. Nevertheless, it appears to have practical value in helping people understand the general cultural tendencies likely to be found in a given country. These tendencies will not apply to every individual within a nation, but there is a high probability of encountering them more frequently there than elsewhere.

The model can be used to prepare travelers, business professionals, and many other groups for what they might encounter in the culture of another country. Used appropriately — as a starting point for inquiry rather than a definitive judgment — Hofstede's framework remains a widely applied tool in international business, management education, and cross-cultural training.

Works Cited

Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 286–316.

McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith — a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 89–118.

The Hofstede Centre. (N.d.). What about Brazil? Retrieved from The Hofstede Centre: http://geert-hofstede.com/brazil.html

The Hofstede Centre. (N.d.). What about Saudi Arabia? Retrieved from The Hofstede Centre.