CHAPTER 2
A Model of Cultural Diversity

At the end of this chapter and in Part III of this book we will answer these questions, but for now we will look at some of the key dimensions that describe cultures and help us to understand better the behaviour of others.

A model of cultural diversity

Over the last 25 years a number of authors have attempted to develop models to help us understand the key dimensions of cultural difference. Some of the key texts are listed in the Further Reading section at the end of this book.

Dr Geert Hofstede conducted perhaps the most comprehensive study of how values in the workplace are influenced by culture. From 1967 to 1973, while working at IBM as a psychologist, he collected and analysed data from over 100000 individuals from 40 countries. From those results, and later additions, Hofstede developed a model that identifies four primary dimensions to differentiate cultures. He later added a fifth dimension.

As with any generalized study, the results may or may not be applicable to specific individuals or events. In addition, although Hofstede's results are categorized by country, often there is more than one cultural group within that country. In these cases there may be significant deviation from the study's result. An example is Belgium, where the majority Dutch-speaking population in the Flanders region and the minority French-speaking population in the Walloon region have moderate cultural differences.

Geert Hofstede's dimensions analysis can assist the trainer in better understanding the intercultural differences within regions and between countries.

The five dimensions are:

• power distance
• individualism
• masculinity
• uncertainty avoidance
• long-term orientation.

The extent to which each of these five dimensions is present or absent from a society determines how it operates and the written and tacit rules. Importantly, from the trainer's perspective, the dimensions determine the mindset of individuals belonging to that group. They will perceive their society's behaviours, norms, rules and expectations as normal and often as better than those of other cultures, which will appear alien and confusing.

Looking at each in turn:

Power Distance

Power distance (PD) focuses on the degree of equality, or inequality, between people in the country's society and indicates the extent to which the less powerful expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. A high power distance ranking indicates that inequalities of power and wealth have been allowed to grow within the society. These societies are more likely to follow a caste system that does not allow significant upward mobility of its citizens. A low power distance ranking indicates the society de-emphasizes the differences between citizens' power and wealth. In these societies equality and opportunity for everyone is stressed.

A country such as India, for example, with its traditional caste system, ranks high on power distance. However, in today's world things can change quickly, creating additional cultural dynamics not part of Hofstede's original work. For India, therefore, with its growth of a sizable, well-educated middle class, it is likely that its power distance rating is declining.

For the trainer it suggests that an authoritative or expert approach will be acceptable to trainees coming from high PD societies, while a more inclusive style will be welcomed by participants from low PD countries. High PD learners expect the trainer to take the initiative, while in low PD cultures the trainer can expect the participants to take initiatives.

Individualism

Individualism (IDV) focuses on the degree to which the society reinforces individual or collective achievement and interpersonal relationships. A high individualism ranking indicates that individuality and individual rights are paramount within the society. The ties between individuals are loose; everyone is expected to look after themselves and their own immediate family. Individuals in these societies may tend to form a large number of loose relationships. A low individualism ranking typifies societies of a more collectivist nature with close ties between individuals. These cultures reinforce extended families and collectives where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. From birth onwards, individuals are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people's lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.

Anglo-Saxon societies tend to value individualism and score highly on this dimension. Arab societies, on the other hand, tend to have a fairly low individualism score, with strong loyalties to family, tribe and sect in that order. When, in Anglo-Saxon societies, for example, individuals come together to protest, then they are in some ways acting counter culturally, driven by a stronger force. On the other hand, in Arab countries, unless banned by the authorities, such protests are just a normal way of expressing loyalty to the local society.

For the trainer it suggests that participants from high IDV countries expect, as of right, to express their viewpoint, while those from low IDV societies will be more consensus oriented. For low IDV participants, trainers must first manage the group, while for high IDV participants, the trainer must first concentrate on the individual. Clearly where there is a mix of participants from high and low IDV cultures the trainer needs to be as aware of the need to manage the group as of the need to pay attention to each individual.

Masculinity

Masculinity (MAS) focuses on the degree the society reinforces, or does not reinforce, the traditional masculine work role-model of male achievement, control and power. A high masculinity ranking indicates the country experiences a high degree of gender differentiation. In these cultures, males dominate a significant portion of the society and power structure, with females being controlled by male domination. Money and possessions are indicators of success. A low masculinity ranking indicates the country has a low level of differentiation and discrimination between genders. In these cultures, females are treated equally to males in all aspects of society. Caring for others and quality of life are of great importance.

Scandinavian societies have low masculinity rankings, while countries such as Afghanistan, Japan, Austria and Germany score high.

Clearly, female trainers will have to work hard to overcome participant perceptions in high MAS countries. Here, trainers are expected to be assertive. In low MAS cultures, humility and modesty are perceived as signs of confidence and competence. Also, in high MAS countries, female participants may need to be encouraged and supported to make contributions and actively express their viewpoint.

Uncertainty Avoidance

Uncertainty avoidance (UA) focuses on the level of tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity within the society, in other words unstructured situations. A high uncertainty avoidance ranking indicates the country has a low tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity. This creates a rule-oriented society that institutes laws, rules, regulations and controls in order to reduce the amount of uncertainty. South American countries such as Guatemala, Uruguay and Panama, as well as European ones such as Portugal and Belgium, have a high ranking. A low uncertainty avoidance ranking indicates the country has less concern about ambiguity and uncertainty and more tolerance for a variety of opinions. This is reflected in a society that is less rule-oriented, more readily accepts change, and takes more and greater risks such as Singapore, Denmark and the United Kingdom.

For the trainer working with high UA participants it is likely to mean that single, correct answers are being sought by the learners. They prefer tightly structured training and the setting up of rules to govern how the training will be conducted and how the participants will conduct themselves. Low UA participants will feel comfortable with open-ended learning situations where a range of answers are possible, each of which can be correct. They are comfortable with a lack of structure.

Long-Term Orientation

Geert Hofstede added a fifth dimension after conducting an additional international study using a survey instrument developed in collaboration with Chinese employees and managers. That survey resulted in the addition of the Confucian dynamism. Subsequently, Hofstede described that dimension as a culture's long-term orientation (LTO). It focuses on the degree to which the society embraces, or does not embrace, long-term devotion to traditional, forward-thinking values. A high long-term orientation ranking indicates the country subscribes to the values of long-term commitments and respect for tradition. This is thought to support a strong work ethic where long-term rewards are expected as a result of today's hard work. However, businesses may take longer to develop in this society, particularly for an 'outsider'. Countries such as China or Japan are good examples. A low long-term orientation ranking indicates the country does not reinforce the concept of long-term, traditional orientation. In this culture, change can occur more rapidly as long-term traditions and commitments do not become impediments to change. The Philippines, United Kingdom and Canada are examples.

Each country can be analysed along these five dimensions and an example is shown in Table 2.1 for the USA. Its profile can be represented in graphical form, as shown in Figure 2.1.

Table 2.1 Scores

Figure 2.1 Geert Hofstede analysis graph for the USA

In Figures 2.2 and 2.3 the LTO criteria is not plotted because it has only been established for around 20 countries.

Figure 2.2 Power distance vs. individualism

Figure 2.3 Uncertainty avoidance vs. masculinity

In Figure 2.2, power distance is plotted against individualism. Two broad groups are apparent. One group of Anglo-Saxon, northern/central European countries have a relatively high individualism index, with a low power distance index. This contrasts with Central African, South American and Southern European countries which have a moderate/low individualism index and a moderate/high power distance index.

In Figure 2.3, which plots uncertainty avoidance against masculinity, a group of Scandinavian countries and The Netherlands exhibit low/moderate uncertainty avoidance and low masculinity. A group of central/southern European countries, Central/South American countries and South Korea have a high uncertainty avoidance index and moderate/low masculinity. A group where English is the primary or secondary language, and including Switzerland, show moderate/high masculinity and low uncertainty avoidance indices. A variety of countries exhibit moderate to high on both indices: Japan, Austria, Arab countries, Belgium and Greece.

Again it is important to emphasize that the above are the results of a generalized study and that, while valid for the society overall, individuals can and will be different.

Impact of Hofstede's cultural dimensions on management issues

It is helpful, at this stage, to review how Hofstede's cultural dimensions impact on a number of management issues that directly affect the design and implementation of management training.

In Table 2.2 opposite, some management issues relevant to each dimension (excluding long-term orientation) and the implications, in the form of questions, for trainers are listed. Readers should ponder these and, based on the analysis above, develop their own insights.

So, for example, under power distance, particular issues are: the nature of the appropriate organization structure, the use and acceptability of status symbols, the importance of not losing face, the acceptability of participative management and the perceived role of the manager. Taking organization structures, these can be flat, typical of societies with low power distance, or of a hierarchical pyramid nature with many layers typical of high power distance cultures. For the trainer one issue is: should bosses be allowed or encouraged to attend the training sessions of their subordinates? For low PD groups this can be helpful in terms of showing support for the training and helping the manager to understand both the materials and how they can support their staff following the training. For high PD groups it is probably less appropriate as both the manager and subordinate will feel uncomfortable, with the boss dominating and the subordinate obedient.

Table 2.2 Impact of cultural dimensions

Summary

Hofstede's model of cultural diversity identifies four primary dimensions - power distance (PD), individualism (IDV), masculinity (MAS) and uncertainty avoidance (UA). Later, a fifth dimension, long-term orientation (LTO), was added. Each country/culture exhibits a unique combination of these dimensions which has direct implications for the style of training which is likely to be most effective.

It is important to recognize that this is a generalized model and that individuals can and do have different attitudes and behaviours. Therefore, the trainer of international managers needs to be sensitive to these differences and avoid stereotyping participants. In addition, cultures change over time as they evolve and its citizens are increasingly exposed to other cultures.

Nevertheless, Hofstede's model provides a good starting point. Considering the incidents recounted at the beginning of this chapter, Malaysia, from where a number of the participants emanated, is a culture which has a high power distance index and is low in respect of individualism. Managers see themselves benefiting from their position in the organizational hierarchy and the power it bestows, as of right. This means that subordinates accept and respect managers' rights to do what they believe best for the business as the boss is more experienced and has a 'bigger picture' regarding business issues than they do. The subordinate will suppress their view in favour of their manager's.

On the other hand, Malaysia is relatively low regarding uncertainty avoidance. This means that little discomfort is felt by individuals going against the prevailing flow. Hence it is seen as perfectly acceptable to perform prayer rituals in full sight of the rest of the class while the training is proceeding.

How should such situations be handled? More will be said in Part III, but for now the importance of the trainer explicitly developing a set of courtesy rules governing participant behaviour at an early stage of the course is emphasized. While it can also be of value in mono-cultural training situations where acceptable and unacceptable behaviours are implicitly understood, it is vital to agree 'the course rules' in multi-cultural environments. However, the degree to which they will be adhered to is dependent on the level of uncertainty avoidance of the participants. Nevertheless, even in low uncertainty avoidance cultures the rules provide an anchor that the trainer can refer back to.

To help the reader use the contents of this chapter, the questions that follow enable trainers to formalize their perceptions of their own culture and to identify the cultural values that make them feel uncomfortable and with which they may have difficulties in dealing.

Table 2.3 Culture benchmarking