The dimensions
In an earlier post I mentioned psychologist Geert Hofstede. Durin the 60's and 70's he was studying how national cultures effect on peoples thinking, feeling, behaviour and working values in different countries around the world. Whole he was working for IBM, he conducted a large national survey for its employees that covered issues like work and relationships. Based on the survey and its research, Hofstede composed a comparison between 40 countries which was published in 1981. The study measured how values in the workplace are influenced by culture. Professor Hofstede defines culture as "the collective programming of the mind distinguishing the members of one group or category of people from others". At first, The Hofstede Model included four main dimensions and these dimensions were used to define cultural differences:
1. Individualism vs. collectivism
Independence or communality occurring in families, work places and society. Basically covers the idea of "me" or "us".
2. Power Distance
How does one relate to inequality vs. equivalence in the human society and how is society seen between people: is there hierarchy or equality?
3. Uncertainty avoidance vs. uncertainty acceptance
The uncertainty avoidance dimension expresses the degree to which a typical person in a society feels uncomfortable with a sense of uncertainty and ambiguity.
4. Masculinity vs. femininity
This dimension refers to "hard" or "soft" emotional values and roles.
In 2001, Hofstede published another, re-written and extended edition of his book that included another 50 countries more: "Culture´s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations". This book includes a fifth dimension of culture:
5. Long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation
This dimension associates the connection of the past with the current and future actions/challenges. E.g. A poor country that is short-term oriented usually has little to no economic development, while long-term oriented countries continue to develop to a point.
Based on the material Hofstede gathered, the differences between countries were explained best by 1) Power distances and 2) cultural individualism or collectivism. There is a strong correlation between the two, and almost always the power distances were a a lot smaller if the culture was more individual.
Lets have some examples:
USA, Great Britain and Australia were high on individualism. Power distances were huge on Mexico and India, and in Europe in France and Belgium (which I actually find hard to believe...)
Our own Nordic Countries have an individual culture in which power distances are pretty much non-existent. What did professor Hofstede think about Finland then?
Power distance:
Power distances between people are small. Independency is valued and equal rights are highly recognised. In the work environment hierarchy is accepted for convenience only. Supervisors have a high trust towards their employees and control is disliked. The relationship between the employer and the employee is mostly informal.
Individualism:
Finland is an individual society. People are expected to take care only for themselves and their immediate family. In the work community recruiting and career development is expected to be based only on merits.
What motivates people?
On a scale of wanting to be the best (masculine) or wanting to like what they do (feminine), Finland was more feminine. Working life is equal, solidary and has high quality. Flexibly and leisure is appreciated. Status isn't shown, and conflicts are solved through negotiations and compromise.
There is also a sixth dimension called
6.Indulgence vs. restraint : This dimension is essentially a measure of happiness; whether or not simple joys are fulfilled.
I think that there is a lot of truth in Hofstedes research, but in this globally connected and social media influenced world his theories need updating. Think about it: If you go back 50 years (when the first surveys were conducted), do you think that Finland is the same?
More on that later.
-Johanna