The 6-D model of national culture.

Geert Hofstede, assisted by others, came up with six basic issues that society needs to come to term
with in order to organize itself. These are called dimensions of culture. Each of them has been
expressed on a scale that runs roughly from 0 to 100.

Each dimension has been derived by comparing many, but not all, countries in the world. The
findings can be summarized into six world maps of the distribution of that dimension. Of course, in
reality there can be quite a bit of within-country variation; these maps should be seen as rough
‘climate maps’ of culture.

The last two dimensions were found later, and in different studies, than the first four. This is why
different countries appear on the world maps. They are re-scaled to a 0-100 format and the scale is
also reversed for Flexhumility (long-term orientation, blue on the map) versus monumentalism
(short-term orientation, orange on the map).

Remember, the numbers do not really ‘mean’ anything. They are just there for convenience. The
world-wide pattern is what matters.

Individualism
Individualism is the extent to which people feel independent, as opposed to being interdependent as
members of larger wholes.

Individualism does not mean egoism. It means that individual choices and decisions are expected.
Collectivism does not mean closeness. It means that one “knows one’s place” in life, which is
determined socially. With a metaphor from physics, people in an individualistic society are more like
atoms flying around in a gas while those in collectivist societies are more like atoms fixed in a crystal.

The terms individualism and collectivism suggest to many people political ideas. The both words
were used for the first time in the 19 th century for political ideologies. The words had a very strong
value content from the beginning. They were felt to be either good or evil. In the 1920s somebody
used them as the opposite ends of one scale. In the 1960s the word individualism also emerged in
personality psychology and people started to refer to ‘individualist personalities’. Now individualism
versus collectivism is used to describe the differences between national societies.

Individualism is a society in which the ties between individuals are loose. Everyone is expected to
look after her or himself and the immediate family (father, mother and children).
Collectivism is a society in which individuals from birth onwards are part of strong in-groups (Usually
the family, sometimes the extended family, sometimes the village society, sometimes a tribe).

Opposing the societies:

 In collectivist societies people identify with ‘we’, they have a ‘we’-identity. In individualist
societies obviously and ‘i-identity’.
 In collectivist societies they are ‘exclusionists’: they classify others as in- or out-group and if
they are out-group they’re excluded. In the individualist society there is ‘universalism’. Other
people are classified as individuals by their own particular characteristics.
 The competition in collectivist society is not between individuals but between groups/tribes.
In individualist societies the competition is between individuals.
 When it comes to carrying out a task together, in the collectivist society the relationship
comes first. The task comes second. In individualist societies the task comes first and the
relationships may come afterwards.
 High context communication, for the collectivist society, means that many things are
obvious. The communication can be short. In individualist societies, everything must be
specified and therefore the communications take more words and are more extensive. This is
called low context communication
 A key word in collectivist society is ‘harmony’, there should be harmony inside the in-group.
Even if people disagree they should maintain the superficial harmony, because otherwise the
in-group will be weakened (fall apart). In individualist societies there is the idea that
confrontations can do no harm, they can sometimes be healthy.

Measuring a country on the individualism vs collectivism dimension:

It can only be measured relative to other societies, there is no absolute yardstick for it. It is expressed
in individualism scores (IDV). IDV values can be plotted on a scale from zero to a hundred. Scores
close to zero sends for the most collectivist societies and score close to a hundred for the most
individualist society. The highest score for individualism we find in the United States of America,
Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, Germany. In general we find European
countries on the high individualism side. We find collectivist societies, with low IDV scores in places
like India, Japan, Russia, the Arab countries, Mexico and the lowest in China.

What can we do with those scores?

We can correlate them with hard data. These concepts correlate with IDV:

 Wealth or poverty of a country. Wealthier countries tend to be more individualist. Poorer

countries tend to be more collectivist. The wealth comes first and then the individualism
follows.
 Collectivist societies have lower press freedom. Individualist societies have more press
freedom.
  Human rights were established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Human
Rights Index is clearly lower for collectivist societies than for individualist societies. The
Declaration was created by people from individualist societies.
 Divorce rates are higher in the families from individualist societies. In collectivist societies the
marriages often have been concluded by the families and they have lower divorce rates.
 The ideal age of marrying. In collectivist societies the model relationship is a somewhat older
husband and a younger wife. In the individualist societies there are smaller age differences
between the spouses.
 The pace of life. In collectivist societies the pace of life is slower than in individualist
societies. Measured, for example, by how fast people walk in the street if they don’t have
any particular place to go.
 Language. The languages of individualist societies use the word ‘I’ more. The most
individuous language is English, it writes I with a capital letter. There are other languages that
writes ‘you’ with a capital letter. In the collectivist societies there are some languages where
the word I is more or less taboo and where you are not supposed to use it.
 Social media. Individualist societies use social media for an active search and collectivist
societies use it for search on indication of the in-group or for communication with the in-
group.
 Relationships with other dimensions: Countries with lower power distance are more often
individualist and countries with a higher power distance are more often collectivist. These
are the effects of wealth. If we take that effect out, if we compare rich countries with rich
countries and poor countries with poor countries, the correlation between power distance
and individualism almost disappears. Horizontal and vertical individualism, that is a
combination of IDV and PDI.

Do IDV scores change over time?

Individualism and collectivism are transferred from generation to generation. But over the 30 years
researched, individualism has only increased, but it has not changed the order of the countries on
the scale. The countries have moved along together to a higher IDV score. But the scores are
measured relatively to other countries, so these scores have not changed. The scores can be
assumed to be stable over time.

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

This dimension is thought to date from the advent of agriculture, and with it, of large-scale societies.
Until that time, a person would know their group members and leaders personally. This is not
possible where tens of thousands and more have to coordinate their lives. Without acceptance of
leadership by powerful entities, none of today’s societies could run.
The term power distance was used for the first time in the 1960s for an experiment where individuals
were given different power relations. Now they are used to describe differences between national
societies. The definition of power distance as a dimension of societal culture is the extent to which
the less powerful members of institutions and organizations expect and accept that power is
distributed unequally. So the power distance lies with the people at the bottom and not with the
people at the top. There is always somebody who wants to take the position at the top if the people
at the bottom let her of him do it and if they accept it. How does the power distance transfer itself in
a society? It is present in the relationship between the children and the parents. The children lead a
position towards the parents and other older people in their environment.

An opposition of the two extremes (large power distance vs. small power distance):

 In large power distance inequality in a society is considered a normal part of society. In a

small power distance the idea is that inequality is somewhere wrong and it should be
reduced if possible.
 In large power distance, the feeling is that superiors are actually superior human beings,
they’re different kind of people. In small power distance the idea is that the hierarchies are
somewhat the rules of the game that are needed to create order, but it doesn’t mean that
the superior is really superior and you can sometimes change roles.
 In large power distance the feeling is that power comes first and good/evil comes afterwards.
In the small power distance the feeling is that power should be used legitimately and
everybody (on the top and on the bottom) is under the same rules of law.
 In the education of children on the large power distance side respect is one of the most
important things a child can learn. On the small power distance side independence is one of
the most important things a child can learn.
 In organizing, the large power distance societies love centralization and small power distance
societies love decentralization.
 The relationship between the subordinates and their boss. In large power distance societies
subordinates simply assume/expect that they will be told what to do. In a small power
distance society the subordinate expects to be consulted when it relates to their work.

How do we measure societal power distances?

There is no absolute standard. All societies are unequal, but some are more unequal than others. We
measure the difference between one society and another. The position of the society’s relative to
each other is measured by the Power Distance Index (PDI). These are plotted on a scale from 0 to 100
and scores close to 0 stands for a smaller power index and scores close to a 100 stands for a larger
power distance. The countries with a higher power distance have on the top Russia, followed by
Mexico, China, the Arab countries, India and from the European countries the largest power
distances are in France. Japan is on the break-even. Just below the break-even is Italy. On the low
side is the United States, the Netherlands, Australia, Germany, Britain, and Denmark.

We can validate this PDI with phenomena and society. Things the PDI scores correlate with:

 On the large power distance side there is more income inequality and on the low side less
income inequality.
 On the high side a smaller middle class and a larger lower class and on the small power
distance side a larger middle class.
 High PDI = dictatorships or oligarchies. On the lower power distance side, the use of power
should be legitimate (Trias Politica: the legislative, the judicial and the executive power are
separated). The executive people at the top are subject to the two other powers.
 In the high power distance side you have got a big change of (local) political violence, on the
lower power distance side most conflicts are recently resolved peacefully.
 In order to change the political system, on the large power distance side you need a
revolution. The paradox about revolutions is that revolutions leads to the fact that you got
another face on the top, but not necessarily that the system itself changes. On the low power
distance side, political systems change slower, they change by evolution (there is a change).
 In large power distance societies, business executives tend to be older. If people are in power
they stay in power longer. Whereas in the low power distance societies, business executives
tend to be younger.
 How innovations come about. Either social or technological innovations come about in a
large power distance society only when they are supported by the hierarchy. In low power
distance societies innovations come spontaneous. Mavericks or rebels come with original
ideas, that leads to more frequent innovations.

Do these scores change over time?

The don’t change very quickly, because they’re transferred from parents to children. After
childhood these value rarely change, people carry them with them for their entire life. If you look
at the scores of the last 30 years, there is a small shift towards smaller power distances. But the
positions of countries relative to each other remain the same. The scores are based on relative
position, so the scores don’t change and can be assumed to be stable over time.

Masculinity
Masculinity is the extent to which the use of force is endorsed socially.

In a masculine society, men are supposed to be tough. Men are supposed to be from Mars, women
from Venus. Winning is important for both gender. Quantity is important and big is beautiful. In a
feminine society, the genders are emotionally closer. Competing is not so openly endorsed, and
there is sympathy for the underdog.
This is NOT about individuals, but about expected emotional gender roles. Masculine societies are
much more openly gendered than feminine societies.

Masculine and feminine are not the same as male and female. They are the Latinas words that are
used for men-like and women-like. In anthropology since about the 1930s there has been studies of
the variety of role division between the genders in different societies. This is the only dimension (of
the six) where it matters whether the information comes from women or from men. In the other
dimension whether you collect your data from women or from men, you get the same position of the
dimensions.

The definition: Masculinity is a society in which emotional gender roles are distinct. They are not
social gender roles, because they have nothing to do with the wealth of the country. We’re talking
about the emotional role: what you should feel being born as a boy or as a girl. The boy should be
assertive and tough and focused on material success, and the women should be focused on the
quality of life. A society is called feminine if this role separation is not there or if it is weaker at least
so that especially men are also supposed at times to be modest and tender and focused on the
quality of life.

Opposition between feminine societies to masculine societies:

 In feminine societies, people try to balance family and work. In masculine societies, work
clearly prevails over the family and work is an acceptable excuse to neglect the family. Family
is not an accepted excuse to neglect your work.
 Within the family, in masculine societies fathers should deal with facts and mothers should
deal with feelings. In feminine societies, both father and mother should deal with facts and
feelings.
 Masculine societies admire the strong. Feminine societies are jealous of high flyers. Especially
in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden, Norway) they have a word for this: Yentlhoven, it
means the law of Yentl (being jealous).
 In masculine societies, people disdain the weak. In feminine societies they have sympathy for
the weak.
 In masculine societies, girls cry but boys should not cry and boys fight but girls should not
fight. In feminine societies, both girls and boys may cry but neither should fight.
  Religion. In masculine society the focus is on the powerful Father God. In feminine societies
religion focuses on the fellow human being.
 Sexual relationship. In feminine societies sex is a way for couples to relate. In masculine
societies sex is a way of performing, men is the subject and women are the object.

Measuring the masculinity or femininity dimension:

It can only be measured relative to other societies. We measure it in a masculinity index (MAS). The
scale goes from 0 (most feminine society) to a 100 (most masculine society). The country with the
highest masculinity score is Japan. Followed by Italy, Mexico, China, Britain, Germany and the USA.
On the other side we find the Arab countries (just on the borderline), France, Russia, Thailand, Costa
Rica, Denmark and the Netherlands. There is no relationship at all between the wealth of a country
and masculinity or femininity. There are poor and wealthy masculine and feminine countries.

We can correlate the scores with hard facts in society:

 The percentage of people who are functionally illiterate. They cannot read or write. In
masculine societies there are more functional illiterates than in feminine societies.
 The poverty level. In masculine societies, there are more people living below the poverty
level than in feminine societies.
 In masculine societies, people spend a lesser part of budget on aid to poor countries.
Feminine societies spend a higher percentage of their budget on aid to poor countries.
 What people blame poverty on. In masculine societies there is a popular opinion that poverty
is blamed on laziness. If people are poor, it is because they are too lazy to work. In feminine
societies, poverty can be blamed on simply bad luck
 Marketing. In feminine societies the food shoppers are women, so advertising for example is
done to a women public. In feminine societies both men and women shop for food.
 Relationship between the employer and the employee when they are negotiating upon the
conditions. In masculine societies salary is clearly more important than leisure. In feminine
societies it leisure is at least as important as salaries. Feminine societies tend to have longer
vacations than masculine societies.
 Social media. In masculine societies use the social media for fact gathering. In feminine
societies they use it more for rapport-building, for developing relationships with other users.

Do masculinity scores change over time?

They are transferred to children in the family, with father and mother as role models. Like other
dimensions, the country differences and scores tend to be rooted in history. For lack of other
evidence, masculinity and femininity at the societal level can be considered as stable.

Uncertainty Avoidance
Uncertainty avoidance deals with a society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity.

Uncertainty avoidance has nothing to do with risk avoidance, nor with following rules. It has to do
with anxiety and distrust in the face of the unknown, and conversely, with a wish to have fixed habits
and rituals, and to know the truth.
The term uncertainty avoidance is used to describe the differences between national societies. It
means the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous and unknown
situations. It does not mean risk avoidance.

The two opposing extremes are the uncertainty avoiding societies and the uncertainty accepting
societies:

 In uncertainty avoiding societies, the uncertainty they inherent in life is a threat that must be
fought. Whereas in uncertainty accepting societies uncertainty is normal and life is accepted
as it comes.
 In avoiding societies there is more stress and anxiety and in accepting societies there is less
stress and anxiety
 In avoiding societies aggression and emotions may sometimes be vented and in accepting
societies aggression and emotions should be controlled.
 Uncertainty avoiding societies have a feeling that wat is different, is dangerous. Uncertainty
accepting societies belief what is different, is curious.
 Avoiding societies have a need for rules, even if they’re impractical or even if they are never
practiced. Accepting societies don’t like rules very much. Even the rules that are necessary
may sometimes be broken in case of necessity.
 Uncertainty avoiding societies believe in formalization and uncertainty accepting societies
believe in deregulation.
 Innovations (technological) are adopted rather slow and carefully in avoiding societies than
in the accepting societies
 In uncertainty avoiding societies people tend to stay in the same job as long as they can
because changing jobs is one of the most uncertain things one can do in life. In uncertainty
accepting societies the changing of jobs is much more easily done.
 People in uncertainty avoiding societies are scared of people that are different, who look
different, who behave different, who come from elsewhere (xenophobia). Whereas in
uncertainty accepting societies people are more tolerant to people who are different.
How do we measure uncertainty avoidance?

There is no absolute measure, you can only measure differences between societies. And the position
is measured on the uncertainty avoidance index (UAI).The countries have been plotted on a 0-100
scale from weak uncertainty avoiding to strong uncertainty avoiding. On the high side we find Russia,
Japan, France, Mexico, Italy, Arab countries and just above average in Germany. On the low side we
find Netherlands, Australia, USA, India, Britain, China, Denmark and the Nordic countries are very
low.

We can validate the index by statistical analysis. Phenomena that are related to the index:

 In uncertainty avoiding societies people drive faster on motorways and the speed limits tend
to be higher. Uncertainty accepting societies drive slower. Uncertainty avoidance is NOT risk
avoidance. The risks in traffic are felt to be a known risk, not a source of uncertainty.
 In uncertainty avoiding societies there is more alcoholism and there is less alcohol abuse in
uncertainty accepting societies.
 In avoiding societies it is compulsory to always identify yourself, so you should carry your ID
all the time. In most accepting societies, the carrying of your ID is optional, you only need it
if you need to identify yourself.
 Health care. In avoiding societies there are relatively more doctors and fewer nurses. In
accepting societies there are relatively fewer doctors and more nurses. This means that the
number of tasks which one the one side are performed by the doctor himself can be
delegated to nurses who are less educated and experienced.
 Perceived corruption. Wealthy countries on the uncertainty avoiding side tend to be
perceived as more corrupt. Wealthy countries on the accepting side tend to be perceived as
less corrupt.
 Marketing and advertising. In avoiding societys clean products and pure products tend to be
popular. Cleanness and pureness are key words in marketing a product. Whereas in
accepting society consumers will be more attracted by easy products. Convenience, ready-
made
 Advertisements. In avoiding societies you will see more oftan an expert (in a white coat) who
explains to you why this product is so important. Whereas in accepting societies they often
use more humor.

It is interesting to put the two dimensions power distance and uncertainty avoidance nest to
each other. They are not related. When you make a table and you look at how people organize
themselves, you can see the difference. You can ask people what they imagine if they think of an
organization.
The UAI scores reflect the values that have been transferred from parents to children and they
rarely change in adulthood. There is no worldwide shift or systematic changes in the position of
countries. There is an osccilation in the entire world in the past 80 years. The periods in which
uncertainty avoidance tend to be high is in periods of war and economic crises. And in periods of
peace and economic stability the index tend to go down again. This wave movement is visible
worldwide
Long-term orientation
Long-term orientation deals with change,

In a long-time-oriented culture, the basic notion about the world is that it is in flux and preparing for
the future is always needed. In a short-time-oriented culture, the world is essentially as it was
created, so that the past provides a moral compass, and adhering to it is morally good. As you can
imagine, this dimension predicts life philosophies, religiosity, and educational achievement.

The dimension long-term versus short-term orientation was introduced as a fifth dimension of
differences between national societies. Long-term orientation stands for the fostering in a society
of pragmatic virtues oriented to future rewards (perseverance/persistence, thrift, saving and
adapting to changing circumstances). The opposite short-term orientation stands for the
fostering in a society of virtues related to the past and the present (national pride, respect for
tradition, preservation of face and fulfillingsocial obligations)

What relates to both:

 On the long-term side the feeling is that good and evil are relative, they can change over
time. On the short-term side the feeling is that good and evil are absolute and are always
the same
 On the long-term side, the norms that apply depends on the situation. Where as on the
short-term side fixed norms always apply, whatever the circumstances
 In long-term orientation, the superior person is somebody who knows to adapt to the
circumstances. In the short-term orientation the superior person is someone who is
always the same.
 In the long-term orientation we should be humble about ourselves, whereas in the short-
term orientation we seek positive information about ourselves
 On the long-term side we want to learn from other countries, on the short-term side we
are proud of our own country.
 On the long-term side, traditions can be changed. On the short-term side traditions are
sacrosanct.
  In the long-term side, when two truths oppose each other, they may be integrated into
something new. In short-term orientation there is always a contradictation between A
and B if they are not the same.
 In long-term orientation what is very important to resolve a problem is common sense,
and certainly choosing the middle way. In the short-term orientation we find more
fundamentalism, which is choosing the extreme (religious, ideological and political
fundamentalism)

Measuring the orientation:

No absolute standards, relatively measured on the long-term orientation index (LTI). Scores from 0-
100. 0 short-term 100 long-term.

High side: Japan, China, Germany, Russia, Netherlands, France, Italy

Midden: Sweden

Low: Britain, India, Israel, US, Mexico, Australia, Nigeria (and other African countries) and than short
Egypt and other Islamic countries.

What can we do with this long term orientation index? Correlate it with other phenomena

 The performance of secondary school students at mathematics. LTO: tend to score higher at
mathematics, but to rate their own results lower. STO: perform relatively poorly at
mathematics, but they tend to overrate their own math results
 LTO: larger savings quote and funds are available for investments. STO; smaller savings quote
and little money for investment
 LTO: companies seek market share and long term profits. STO: companies report quarterly
results and very important is the bottom line and that are the results in that particular period
 LTO: investors prefer family business and real estates. STO: More preference for shares and
mutual funds.
 Only true for poorer countries: LTO: economic growth goes faster. STO: economic growth
goes slow. This is no longer true when countries become wealthy  no difference

These LTO scores reflect values transferred from parents to children. Values acquired in childhood
change rarely in adulthood. No worldwide shift for this dimension and no changes in the relative
position of countries. True inspite of the enorm technological changes and globalization. The same
technology does not mean that it is used in the same way, it is used according to the values in that
country. LTO plays an important role in the economic development of poor countries, they develop
faster than in STO poor countries (they stagnate).

Indulgence
Indulgence is about the good things in life.

In an indulgent culture it is good to be free. Doing what your impulses want you to do, is good.
Friends are important and life makes sense. In a restrained culture, the feeling is that life is hard, and
duty, not freedom, is the normal state of being,
The sixth and most recent dimension. It is mainly related to feeling of subjective happiness or
unhappiness and the control of the people’s owned life or the opposite.

Indulgent societies allow relatively free gratification of basic and natural human desires leading to
enjoying life and having fun. Restaint societies have a suppressed gratification of needs and regulated
by strict social norms

Opposing the societies:

 On the indulgent side, people tend to feel healthier and happier. On the restraint side,
people feel less happy and less healthy. Although objectively they may be equally healthy
 In indulgent societies, people have a perception of personal life control. They’re masters of
their own life. In restraint societies, people tend to feel that what happens to them is not
their own doing, it depends on other factors.
 Indulgent societies have a leisure-ethic and restraint societies have a work-ethic.
 Indulgent societies have a more optimist, positive attitude and restraint societies have a
more pessimist, cynical attitude.
 Indulgent societies have more extraverted personalities and restraint societies have more
introverted personalities.
 In indulgent societies, having friends is relatively important. In restraint societies, having
friends is less important. This is evident in something like Facebook.
 People participate actively in sports in indulgent societies. In restraint societies, there is less
sports participation. Sports are things you watch, you see others do, but you don’t do it
yourselves.
 Indulgent societies have less moral disciplines (sexual mores are loser). Restrictive societies
have stricter moral disciplines.

Measuring: There is no absolute standard  relative difference between societies.

Indulgence versus restraint index (IVR); 0 to 100. 0 restraint 100 indulgent

Indulgent: Mexico, Nigeria (& other African countries), Sweden, Australia, Britain, Netherlands, USA,
Brazil
Restraint: France, Japan, Germany, Italy, India, China, Russia, Egypt and other Islamic countries

Correlating with:

 What is important to people. Indulgent: freedom of speech for all. Restraint: Maintaining
order in the nation.
 Indulgent: higher crime rates but smaller police forces. Restraint: lower crime rates and
larger police forces
 In countries with educated population. Indulgent: higher birth rates. Restraint: lower birth
rates.
 In wealthy countries. Indulgent: more obesitas. Restraint: less obesitas
 Indulgent: higher approval of foreign music and films. Restraint: less approval

The combination of LTO/STO and Indulgence vs restraint:

 Indulgent + short term: African countries, South America and North aAmerica and Australia
 Restraint + Short term: Poland Portugal,African countries, Islamic countries
 Restraint LTO: japan india china, eastern Europe, Italy Germany
 Indulgent LTO: Austria zwistselnad NL Belgium zweden en britain

Values transferred from parents to children, not changed later in life. Stable over time