Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory and
Leadership
As an individualist culture (the UK) can we build a collectivist team? And do we want to?
I heard something the other day, I think it was on the radio, that got me thinking about
leadership training within companies and organisations across the UK and in fact leadership
and management in general and whether or not it’s possible, in our culture, to completely
develop a person as a leader who managers and a manager who leads.
In the UK our collectivism vs individualism ranking is 89/100 which means we are a very
individualistic culture and place a greater importance on attaining personal goals, so if this is
true can we go against the grain (in the long-term) and put aside our personal goals to
develop others and the team before we chase after our dreams?
A very successful person once told me that a successful leader builds other people first and
in turn becomes successful themselves, which is what I have always strived to do. And on
that note, in 20 years of consulting with managers and leadership teams throughout the
world, I have never observed self-serving leaders positively impact “the big three”:
The Big Three
1. Employee engagement
2. Customer service
3. Results and profits
These leaders might get short term
results, but over the long term, each of
the big three are negatively impacted.
Simon Sinek talks about similar in his
book the Infinite Game.
As we know leaders set the vision and live in the future and managers live in the present
and set the steps for the team to reach - to achieve the vision. In my experience of
managing and leading large teams the most effective of Daniel Goleman’s leadership styles
(that will steer the team and business to the vision) are visionary, coaching, affiliative and
democratic which logically are more suited to a society that promote a collectivist culture –
which is not us in the UK
So, I did a little research on the web about the ideology of collectivism vs individualism and
found Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory, not heard of this before and below are my
findings.
Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory, developed by Geert Hofstede, is a framework used
to understand the differences in culture across countries and can be used to recognise the
ways that businesses, organisations, and team are done and work.
Hofstede identified six categories that define culture
Hofstedes Cultural Dimensions Theory six categories
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Power distance index
Collectivism vs. Individualism
Uncertainty avoidance index
Femininity vs. Masculinity
Short-term vs. Long-term orientation
Restraint vs. Indulgence
UK ranking/100
35
89
35
66
51
69
(Above figures from www.hofstede-insights.com)
1. The Power Distance Index
The power distance index considers the extent to which inequality and power are tolerated.
In this category, inequality and power are viewed from the viewpoint of the team members
supporting the leader who sets the vision (the staff).
A high power distance index (PDI) indicates that a culture accepts inequity and power
differences, encourages bureaucracy, and shows high respect for rank and authority. China
(for example) has a PDI ranking of 80 which is high. They are a society that believes that
inequalities amongst people are acceptable. People should not have aspirations beyond
their rank.
A low power distance index indicates that a culture encourages organisational structures
that are flat and feature decentralised decision-making responsibility, a participative style of
management, and they place emphasis on power distribution. The UK has a PDI ranking of
35 which is low. We are a society that believes that inequalities amongst people should be
minimised. A sense of fair play drives a belief that people should be treated in some way as
equals. Could this explain why more than half of the UK’s workforce are dissatisfied with the
working lives? (Source: www.thehrdirector.com)
A report I found in the Guardian (March 2017) makes
for interesting reading
“Women’s presence in the boardroom has grown over
the past four years, according to our research at the
Directory of Social Change, their positions tend to be
non-executive and it’s still a rare company that has a
female chair or CEO. By looking at company corporate
social responsibility policies and annual reports we were able to determine the ratio between
women and men for 399 corporate boards. Analysis of the data shows that the overall
percentage of women on boards was around 22%”.
So, if we are a society in the UK that believes that inequalities amongst people should be
minimised how and why does gender inequality exist, why are the majority of UK company
directors still “Male and Pale”? Interestingly a different report in the HR Magazine shows
that Lithuania (which has a PDI of 42) has 44% of their top executives are female.
2. Individualism Vs Collectivism
The individualism vs. collectivism index considers the degree to which societies are
integrated into groups and their perceived obligations and dependence on groups.
Individualism indicates that there is a greater importance placed on attaining personal
goals. A person’s self-image in this category is defined as “I.” At a score of 89 the UK is
amongst the highest of the Individualist scores, beaten only by Australia and the USA. The
British are a highly Individualist and private people. Children are taught from an early age to
think for themselves and to find out what their unique purpose in life is and how they
uniquely can contribute to society. The route to happiness is through personal fulfilment.
Collectivism indicates that there is a greater importance placed on the goals and well-being
of the group. A person’s self-image in this category is defined as “We”. We’ll use China again
as an example. At a score of 20 China is a highly collectivist culture where people act in the
interests of the group and not necessarily of themselves. Personal relationships prevail over
task and company.
Just from the first two indexes we can see that we already have a potential issue when it
comes to developing managers and leadership teams. We believe that inequalities amongst
people should be minimised a there should be a participative style of management and yet
we are individualists which surely goes against a participative style. We are more interested
in ourselves as team members, mangers, and leaders.
I’ll ask you a question that I ask leadership teams, what is the common word in the English
Language. The answer is “I”. We are primarily interested in ourselves. Don’t believe me? If I
take a photo of you and your team and display big on the wall, who do you look for first?
3. Uncertainty Avoidance Index
The uncertainty avoidance index considers the extent to which uncertainty and ambiguity
are tolerated. This dimension considers how unknown situations and unexpected events are
dealt with.
A high uncertainty avoidance index indicates a low tolerance for uncertainty, ambiguity,
and risk-taking. The unknown is minimised through strict rules, regulations, etc. At 85, South
Korea is one of the most uncertainty avoiding countries in the world. Countries exhibiting
high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant
of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules
(even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy
and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security
is an important element in individual motivation.
A low uncertainty avoidance index indicates a high tolerance for uncertainty, ambiguity,
and risk-taking. The unknown is more openly accepted, and there are lax rules, regulations,
etc. At 35 the UK has a low score on uncertainty avoidance which means that as a nation
we are quite happy to wake up not knowing what the day brings and are happy to ‘make it
up as we go along’. As a low UAI country the British are comfortable in ambiguous situations
– the term ‘muddling through’ is a very British way of expressing this. There are generally
not too many rules in British society, but those that are there are adhered to (the most
famous of which of course is the British love of queuing which has also to do with the values
of fair play).
Leadership is about having a vision and management is about creating the steps to reach
that vision. I think that our low UAI in the UK is the reason that the company or
organisations vision statement is not taken as seriously as it should be.
4. Masculinity Vs Femininity
The masculinity vs. femininity dimension is
also referred to as “tough vs. tender,” and
considers the preference of society for
achievement, attitude towards sexuality
equality, behaviour etc.
Masculinity comes with the following
characteristics: distinct gender roles,
assertive, and concentrated on material
achievements and wealth-building.
At 66, Britain is a Masculine society – highly success oriented and driven. A key point of
confusion for the foreigner lies in the apparent contradiction between the British culture of
modesty and understatement which is at odds with the underlying success driven value
system in the culture. Critical to understanding the British is being able to ‘’read between
the lines’’ What is said is not always what is meant. In comparison to Feminine cultures
such as the Scandinavian countries, people in the UK live in order to work and have a clear
performance ambition.
Femininity comes with the following characteristics: fluid gender roles, modest, nurturing,
and concerned with the quality of life. Sweden scores 5 on this dimension and is therefore a
Feminine society. In Feminine countries it is important to keep the life/work balance and
you make sure that all are included. An effective manager is supportive to his/her people,
and decision making is achieved through involvement. Managers strive for consensus and
people value equality, solidarity, and quality in their working lives. Conflicts are resolved by
compromise and negotiation and Swedes are known for their long discussions until
consensus has been reached. Incentives such as free time and flexible work hours and place
are favoured. The whole culture is based around ‘lagom’, which means something like not
too much, not too little, not too noticeable, everything in moderation.
Lagom ensures that everybody has enough and nobody goes
without. Lagom is enforced in society by “Jante Law” which
should keep people “in place” at all times. It is a fictional law
and a Scandinavian concept which counsels’ people not to
boast or try to lift themselves above others.
In recent years I’ve heard loads of managers in our
masculine society strive for feminine values with respect to working conditions. In the UK
we say work/life balance, in Sweden they say life/work balance. I suggest to my clients that
they come up with their own “Jante Laws”. We had one in my company and the team
reminded each other and the management team if the “rules” (Lagom) were ever broken.
Rules like keeping the promise to train the team and meet one to one monthly, a feminist
approach in a masculine society and the team loved it.
5. Long-Term Orientation Vs Short-Term Orientation
The long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation dimension considers the extent to
which society views its time horizon.
With an intermediate score of 51 in this dimension, a dominant preference in British culture
cannot be determined.
Long-term orientation shows focus on the future and involves delaying short-term success
or gratification in order to achieve long-term success. Long-term orientation emphasises
persistence, perseverance, and long-term growth. Germany’s high score of 83 indicates that
it is a pragmatic country. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth
depends very much on situation, context and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions
easily to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and
perseverance in achieving results.
Short-term orientation shows focus on the near future, involves delivering short-term
success or gratification, and places a stronger emphasis on the present than the future.
Short-term orientation emphasises quick results and respect for tradition. Americans are
prone to analyse new information to check whether it is true. Thus, the culture doesn’t
make most Americans pragmatic, but this should not be confused with the fact that
Americans are very practical, being reflected by their “can-do” mentality. American
businesses measure their performance on a short-term basis, with profit and loss
statements being issued on a quarterly basis. This also drives individuals to strive for quick
results within the workplace.
So, the UK is in the middle which could be argued that’s a good thing. To me it means that
we struggle with change, perhaps a short-term gain to get back to up speed for example. I
think it also means that we aren’t vision orientated, we struggle with setting long term goals
in business and life and in business this can be devastating.
6. Indulgence Vs Restraint
The indulgence vs. restraint dimension considers the extent and tendency for a society to
fulfil its desires. In other words, this dimension revolves around how societies can control
their impulses and desires.
Indulgence indicates that a society allows relatively free gratification related to enjoying
life and having fun. A high score of 69 indicates that the British culture is one that is
classified as Indulgent. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally
exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and
having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In
addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and
spend money as they wish.
Restraint indicates that a society suppresses gratification of needs and regulates it through
social norms. China is a Restrained society as can be seen in its low score of 24 in this
dimension (and Russia scores 20). Societies with a low score in this dimension have a
tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained
societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their
desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained
by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.
So according to this we are not generally a pessimistic country? But we do like to moan. I
heard the average person moans about 70 times a day, but what do they have to moan
about. Their freedom to choose, freedom to go out (pandemic permitting?!) and freedom to
work pretty much where they like.
Conclusion
So, the question is, as an individualist culture (the UK) can we build a collectivist team?
I think we can but for managers and leadership teams to be able to build a collectivist
environment in the work place they need to be trained with an ongoing action focused
training (once per month) program with a systematic approach to accountability for the
skills learnt in the sessions and the goals set and achieved between the sessions by the
learners. I did this with my management team and it was one of the main factors that
resulted in the successes we enjoyed.
Traditional one day training works well but a 12-month action focused leadership training
program works better. I know, I have delivered them for a few years now to companies all
over the UK and have even ventured to mainland Europe.
Lucky for us no one is born a leader, that's a myth. Leadership is a skill we learn, develop
and nurture over time and something we never stop learning. I think it would be prudent for
any manager or leadership team to take the above and use it to develop the team to beat
the competition.
Adrian Close
Learning and Development Director