Hofstedesvaluedimensions
Hofstede’s value dimensions (1)
1. Individualism—collectivism
Although Hofstede is often given credit for investigating the concepts of individualism and collectivism, he is not the only scholar who has rearched the crucial intercultural dimensions. Triandis, for example, has derived an entire cross-cultural rearch agenda that focus on the concepts. Therefore , we u Hofstede’s work as our basic organizational scheme; we also examine the findings of Triandis and others. Although we speak of individualism and collectivism as if they are parate entities, it is important to keep in mind that all people and cultures have both individual and collective dispositions.
Having already discusd individualism earlier in the chapters, we need only touch on some of its constituents: the individual is the single most important unit in any social tting, regardless of the size of that unit, and the uniqueness of each individual is of paramount val
ue. According to Hofstede’s findings, the U nited States, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, and New Zealand tend toward individualism.
In cultures that tend toward individualism, an “I” consciousness prevails: competition rather than cooperation is encouraged; personal goals take precedence over group goals; people tend not to be emotionally dependent on organizations and institutions; and every individual has the right to his or her private property, thoughts, and opinions. The cultures stress individual initiative and achievement, and they value individual decision making. When thrust into a situation that demands a decision, people from cultures that stress this trait are often at odds with people from collective cultures.
Collectivism is characterized by a rigid social framework that distinguishes between in-groups and out-groups. People count on their in-group (relatives, clans, organizations ) to look after them, and in exchange for that they believe they owe absolute loyalty to the group. Triandis offers an excellent summary of this situation:
Collectivism means greater emphasis on (a) the views, needs, and goals of the in-group r
ather than onelf; (b) social norms and duty defined by the in-group rather than behavior to get pleasure; (c) beliefs shared with the in-group rather than beliefs that distinguish lf from in-group; and (d) great readiness to cooperate with in-group members.
In collective societies such as tho in Pakistan, Colombia, Venezuela, and Peru, people are born into extended families or clans that support and protect them in exchange for their loyalty. A “we” consciousness prevails: identity is bad on the social system; the individual is emotionally dependent on organizations and institutions; the culture emphasizes belonging to organizations; organizations invade private life and the clans to which individuals belong; and individuals trust group decisions. Collective behavior, like so many aspects of culture, has deep historical roots. Look at the message of collectivism in the words from Confu cius: “If one wants to establish himlf, he should help others to establish themlves at first.”
As is the ca with all cultural patterns, collectivism influences a number of communication variables. Kim, Sharkey, and Singles, after studying the Korean culture, b
elieve that traits such as indirect communication, saving face, concern for others, and group cooperation are linked to the collective orientation found in the Korean culture.
Hofstede’s value dimensions (2)
2. Uncertainty avoidance
At the core of uncertainty avoidance is the inescapable truism that the future is unknown. Though we may all try, none of us can accurately predict the next moment, day, year, or decade. As the American playwright Tenne Williams once n oted, “The future is called
‘perhaps.’ Which is the only possible thing to all the future.” As the terms are ud by Hofstede, uncertainty and avoidance indicate the extent to which a culture feels threatened by or anxious about uncertain and ambiguous situations.
High-uncertainty-avoidance cultures try to avoid uncertainty and ambiguity by providing stability for their members, establishing more formal rules, not tolerating deviant ideas an
d behaviors, eking connsus, and believing in absolute truths and the attainment of experti. They are also characterized by a higher level of anxiety and stress: people think of the uncertainty inherent in life as a continuous hazard that must be avoided. There is a strong need for written rules, planning, regulations, rituals, and ceremonies, which add structure to life. Nations with a strong uncertainty-avoidance tendency are Portugal, Greece, Peru, Belgium, and Japan.
At the other end of the scale we find countries like Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Norway, the United States, Finland, and the Netherland, which have a low-uncertainty-avoidance need. They more easily accept the
