Cultural dimensions theory was proposed by the Dutch psychologist Geert Hofstede to explain the differences between national cultures. He believes that culture is the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others. Through factor analysis, he summarized the differences between cultures into six fundamental dimensions of cultural values, as shown in the figure below: 
https://www.simplypsychology.org/hofstedes-cultural-dimensions-theory.html 
a replication of Hofstede’s study, conducted across 93 separate countries, confirmed the existence of the five dimensions and identified a sixth known as indulgence and restraint (Hofstede & Minkov, 2010).
Cultural Dimensions
[hofstede cultural dimensions]
Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory (1980) examined people’s values in the workplace and created differentiation along three dimensions: small/large power distance, strong/weak uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity, and individualism/collectivism.
Power-Distance Index
The power distance index describes the extent to which the less powerful members of an organization or institution — such as a family — accept and expect that power is distributed unequally.
Although there is a certain degree of inequality in all societies, Hofstede notes that there is relatively more equality in some societies than in others.
Individuals in societies that have a high degree of power distance accept hierarchies where everyone has a place in a ranking without the need for justification.
Meanwhile, societies with low power distance seek to have an equal distribution of power. The implication of this is that cultures endorse and expect relations that are more consultative, democratic, or egalitarian.
In countries with low power distance index values, there tends to be more equality between parents and children, with parents more likely to accept it if children argue or “talk back” to authority.
In low power distance index workplaces, employers and managers are more likely to ask employees for input; in fact, those at the lower ends of the hierarchy expect to be asked for their input (Hofstede, 1980).
Meanwhile, in countries with high power distance, parents may expect children to obey without questioning their authority. Those of higher status may also regularly experience obvious displays of subordination and respect from subordinates.
Superiors and subordinates are unlikely to see each other as equals in the workplace, and employees assume that higher-ups will make decisions without asking them for input.
These major differences in how institutions operate make status more important in high power distance countries than low power distance ones (Hofstede, 1980).
Collectivism vs. Individualism
Individualism and collectivism, respectively, refer to the integration of individuals into groups.
Individualistic societies stress achievement and individual rights, focusing on the needs of oneself and one’s immediate family.
A person’s self-image in this category is defined as “I.”
In contrast, collectivist societies place greater importance on the goals and well-being of the group, with a person’s self-image in this category being more similar to a “We.”
Those from collectivist cultures tend to emphasize relationships and loyalty more than those from individualistic cultures.
They tend to belong to fewer groups but are defined more by their membership in them. Lastly, communication tends to be more direct in individualistic societies but more indirect in collectivistic ones (Hofstede, 1980).
Uncertainty Avoidance Index
The uncertainty avoidance dimension of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions addresses a society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity.
This dimension reflects the extent to which members of a society attempt to cope with their anxiety by minimizing uncertainty. In its most simplified form, uncertainty avoidance refers to how threatening change is to a culture (Hofstede, 1980).
A high uncertainty avoidance index indicates a low tolerance for uncertainty, ambiguity, and risk-taking. Both the institutions and individuals within these societies seek to minimize the unknown through strict rules, regulations, and so forth.
People within these cultures also tend to be more emotional.
In contrast, those in low uncertainty avoidance cultures accept and feel comfortable in unstructured situations or changeable environments and try to have as few rules as possible. This means that people within these cultures tend to be more tolerant of change.
The unknown is more openly accepted, and less strict rules and regulations may ensue.
For example, a student may be more accepting of a teacher saying they do not know the answer to a question in a low uncertainty avoidance culture than in a high uncertainty avoidance one (Hofstede, 1980).
Femininity vs. Masculinity
Femininity vs. masculinity, also known as gender role differentiation, is yet another one of Hofstede’s six dimensions of national culture. This dimension looks at how much a society values traditional masculine and feminine roles.
A masculine society values assertiveness, courage, strength, and competition; a feminine society values cooperation, nurturing, and quality of life (Hofstede, 1980).
A high femininity score indicates that traditionally feminine gender roles are more important in that society; a low femininity score indicates that those roles are less important.
For example, a country with a high femininity score is likely to have better maternity leave policies and more affordable child care.
Meanwhile, a country with a low femininity score is likely to have more women in leadership positions and higher rates of female entrepreneurship (Hofstede, 1980).
Short-Term vs. Long-Term Orientation
The long-term and short-term orientation dimension refers to the degree to which cultures encourage delaying gratification or the material, social, and emotional needs of their members (Hofstede, 1980).
Societies with long-term orientations tend to focus on the future in a way that delays short-term success in favor of success in the long term.
These societies emphasize traits such as persistence, perseverance, thrift, saving, long-term growth, and the capacity for adaptation.
Short-term orientation in a society, in contrast, indicates a focus on the near future, involves delivering short-term success or gratification, and places a stronger emphasis on the present than the future.
The end result of this is an emphasis on quick results and respect for tradition. The values of a short-term society are related to the past and the present and can result in unrestrained spending, often in response to social or ecological pressure (Hofstede, 1980).
Restraint vs. Indulgence
Finally, the restraint and indulgence dimension considers the extent and tendency of a society to fulfill its desires.
That is to say, this dimension is a measure of societal impulse and desire control. High levels of indulgence indicate that society allows relatively free gratification and high levels of bon de vivre.
Meanwhile, restraint indicates that society tends to suppress the gratification of needs and regulate them through social norms.
For example, in a highly indulgent society, people may tend to spend more money on luxuries and enjoy more freedom when it comes to leisure time activities. In a restrained society, people are more likely to save money and focus on practical needs (Hofstede, 2011).
Correlations With Other Country’s Differences
Hofstede’s dimensions have been found to correlate with a variety of other country difference variables, including:
geographical proximity,
shared language,
related historical background,
similar religious beliefs and practices,
common philosophical influences,
and identical political systems (Hofstede, 2011).
For example, countries that share a border tend to have more similarities in culture than those that are further apart.
This is because people who live close to each other are more likely to interact with each other on a regular basis, which leads to a greater understanding and appreciation of each other’s cultures.
Similarly, countries that share a common language tend to have more similarities in culture than those that do not.
Those who speak the same language can communicate more easily with each other, which leads to a greater understanding and appreciation of each other’s cultures (Hofstede, 2011).
Finally, countries that have similar historical backgrounds tend to have more similarities in culture than those that do not.
People who share a common history are more likely to have similar values and beliefs, which leads, it has generally been theorized, to a greater understanding and appreciation of each other’s cultures.
Applications
Cultural difference awareness
Geert Hofstede shed light on how cultural differences are still significant today in a world that is becoming more and more diverse.
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions can be used to help explain why certain behaviors are more or less common in different cultures.
For example, individualism vs. collectivism can help explain why some cultures place more emphasis on personal achievement than others. Masculinity vs. feminism could help explain why some cultures are more competitive than others.
And long-term vs. short-term orientation can help explain why some cultures focus more on the future than the present (Hofstede, 2011).
International communication and negotiation
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions can also be used to predict how people from different cultures will interact with each other.
For example, if two people from cultures with high levels of power distance meet, they may have difficulty communicating because they have different expectations about who should be in charge (Hofstede, 2011).
In Business
Finally, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions can be used to help businesses adapt their products and marketing to different cultures.
For example, if a company wants to sell its products in a country with a high collectivism score, it may need to design its packaging and advertising to appeal to groups rather than individuals.
Within a business, Hofstede’s framework can also help managers to understand why their employees behave the way they do.
For example, if a manager is having difficulty getting her employees to work together as a team, she may need to take into account that her employees come from cultures with different levels of collectivism (Hofstede, 2011).
Evaluation
Although the cultural value dimensions identified by Hofstede and others are useful ways to think about culture and study cultural psychology, the theory has been chronically questioned and critiqued.
Most of this criticism has been directed at the methodology of Hofstede’s original study.
Orr and Hauser (2008) note Hofstede’s questionnaire was not originally designed to measure culture but workplace satisfaction. Indeed, many of the conclusions are based on a small number of responses.
Although Hofstede administered 117,000 questionnaires, he used the results from 40 countries, only six of which had more than 1000 respondents.
This has led critics to question the representativeness of the original sample.
Furthermore, Hofstede conducted this study using the employees of a multinational corporation, who — especially when the study was conducted in the 1960s and 1970s — were overwhelmingly highly educated, mostly male, and performed so-called “white collar” work (McSweeney, 2002).
Hofstede’s theory has also been criticized for promoting a static view of culture that does not respond to the influences or changes of other cultures.
For example, as Hamden-Turner and Trompenaars (1997) have envisioned, the cultural influence of Western powers such as the United States has likely influenced a tide of individualism in the notoriously collectivist Japanese culture.
Nonetheless, Hofstede’s theory still has a few enduring strengths. As McSweeney (2002) notes, Hofstede’s work has “stimulated a great deal of cross-cultural research and provided a useful framework for the comparative study of cultures” (p. 83).
Additionally, as Orr and Hauser (2008) point out, Hofstede’s dimensions have been found to be correlated with actual behavior in cross-cultural studies, suggesting that it does hold some validity.
All in all, as McSweeney (2002) points out, Hofstede’s theory is a useful starting point for cultural analysis, but there have been many additional and more methodologically rigorous advances made in the last several decades.
References
Bond, M. H. (1991). Beyond the Chinese face: Insights from psychology. Oxford University Press, USA.
Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, F. (1997). Response to geert hofstede. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21 (1), 149.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International studies of management & organization, 10 (4), 15-41.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings in psychology and culture, 2 (1), 2307-0919.
Hofstede, G., & Minkov, M. (2010). Long-versus short-term orientation: new perspectives. Asia Pacific Business Review, 16(4), 493-504.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences (Vol. Sage): Beverly Hills, CA.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the mind. London, England: McGraw-Hill.
McSweeney, B. (2002). The essentials of scholarship: A reply to Geert Hofstede. Human Relations, 55( 11), 1363-1372.
Orr, L. M., & Hauser, W. J. (2008). A re-inquiry of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions: A call for 21st century cross-cultural research. Marketing Management Journal, 18 (2), 1-19.
Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory is a framework for cross-cultural psychology, developed by Geert Hofstede. It shows the effects of a society's culture on the values of its members, and how these values relate to behavior, using a structure derived from factor analysis.
Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory - Wikipedia
**
普京的長桌：權力距離指數
來源:
百裏舟 於 2024-06-12 20:41:51
[檔案] [博客] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀： 861 次 (2191874 bytes)本文內容已被 [ 百裏舟 ] 在 2024-06-13 09:21:48 編輯過。如有問題，請報告版主或論壇管理刪除.
普京的長桌：權力距離指數
兩年前，普京在會見內閣官員時用的長桌，在網上吸引了大量的關注，一度成為網民們津津樂道的話題。其實，普京的長桌，非常生動形象地詮釋了文化維度理論中的權力距離指數。
文化維度理論是是荷蘭心理學家吉爾特·霍夫斯泰德提出的，用來解釋不同國家文化差異的理論框架。他認為文化是在一個環境下人們共同擁有的心理程序，能將一群人與其他人區分開來。他通過因素分析，將不同文化間的差異歸納為六個基本的文化價值觀維度，如下圖所示：
權力距離指數（power distance index，縮寫為PDI），指在政府、家庭、公司、社區等組織機構中地位較低的成員對於權力分配不平等的接受程度。在權力距離指數高的社會，地位較低的成員更傾向於服從地位較高的成員的命令，而同樣的情形在指數低的社會，則需要合理化命令。簡而言之，權利距離指數是指該文化中人們對權威或特權的接受程度。
高權力距離指數（High PDI）表明文化中能接受不公平和權力差異，接受官僚主義，並表現出對等級和權威的高度尊重。典型國家是：俄羅斯，中國、墨西哥、馬來西亞等。這種文化下的具體表現包括：尊重權威和長者；接受權威、期待權威；更具依賴性；為社會地位而消費。
低權力距離指數（Low PDI）表明文化鼓勵扁平的組織結構，具有分散的決策責任、參與式管理風格和強調權力分配的特點。典型國家是：英國、挪威、丹麥、芬蘭等歐洲國家。這種文化下的具體表現包括：縮小不平等，反對權威論點；有批判性思維，尊重年輕觀點；更具獨立性；為實用性消費。
最初，人們對權力距離的研究大多集中於跨文化領域，並將其作為文化的一個維度進行闡述。現在，權力距離指數的研究已經廣泛存在於管理學、市場學、政治學和社會學等領域。
有專家發現，權力距離指數和風險規避措施的有效性關係密切。具有高權力距離指數團體或企業，成員在表達自己觀點時，往往使用一些極度含蓄的話，從而很難將情景準確地反映出來。當群體麵對風險或危機時，下屬往往忌憚於上級的權威，很難及時與上級溝通，或是在上報時使用一些較為含蓄詞語，使上司很難準確或及時把握實際情況，從而延誤風險診斷時間，給群體造成較大的經濟損失。
譬如，１９８８年到１９９８年１０年間，韓國航空飛機失事率為４．７９架／百萬次，相當於美國運聯的１７倍多。美國國家交通安全委員會將大韓航空後續發生的所有失事事件都記錄備案。調查顯示，大韓航空事故頻發，跟飛機性能關係不大，而是飛機上的溝通機製出了問題。在他們的一次墜機事故前，黑匣子記錄飛機曾發出了１４次警鈴，卻仍然無法避免悲劇。事故很大程度上歸咎於機師對機長權威的敬畏與服從。一方麵，機師很難及時並且準確地向機長反映問題，並認為自己向機長提出解決選項是不合適的；另一方麵，機師由於對機長權威的依賴必須等待機長給出明確的指令。類似情況是高權力距離國家國民的典型心態，這不僅會延誤問題解決的最佳時機，也可能會對領導者的決策失誤變本加厲。
隻有當問題凸顯在大眾麵前時，高權力距離國家才能在解決問題的效率上有所優勢。但是，冰山位於水下的部分往往多於浮在水麵的部分。因此，權力距離指數較高的情況下，不利於風險的及時規避。
權力距離指數高的國家，更容易滋生腐敗。英國政治家阿克頓爵士有一句名言：“權力導致腐敗，絕對的權力導致絕對的腐敗”。
一方麵，權力距離越大，對管理人員職權濫用的製約越少，腐敗分子越是無所忌憚。有研究人員收集了１８個發達國家的政府工作人員、企業領袖等的權力距離指數和腐敗指數，發現二者有顯著的正相關關係。反腐組織---透明國際發布的腐敗指數中，７６％的差異可以通過權力距離指數預測出來。
另一方麵，權力距離指數越高越容易滋生行賄行為。對權力的追求和對權威的依賴，使權力擁有者成為社會資源的分配者，擁有較少權力的人為了追求更高的地位，傾向於抑製正常消費（除奢侈消費品外），節約資源用於對權力的追捧。研究統計了２１個國家的行賄指數，結果和權力距離指數顯著相關，行賄指數中４５％的差異可以通過權力距離指數預測出來。
普京的長桌，形象地宣示俄羅斯是權力距離指數高高在上的國家。我推測，俄烏戰爭初期，俄軍遭受的挫折，就和權力距離指數高有關。
還有，馬來西亞是權力距離指數最高的國家，這是不是也導致了馬航前些年出了好幾起大事故？
附：各國及地區權力距離指數（從高到低排列，摘自網絡，僅供參考）：
馬來西亞 104；危地馬拉95；巴拿馬 95；菲律賓 94；俄羅斯 93；墨西哥 81；委內瑞拉 81；中國 80；埃及 80；伊拉克 80；科威特 80；黎巴嫩 80；利比亞 80； 沙特阿拉伯 80； 阿拉伯聯合酋長國 80；厄瓜多爾 78；印度尼西亞 78；加納 77；印度 77；尼日利亞 77；塞拉利昂 77；新加坡 74；巴西 69；法國 68；香港 68；波蘭 68；哥倫比亞 67；厄瓜多爾 66；土耳其 66；比利時 65；埃塞俄比亞 64；肯尼亞 64；秘魯 64；坦桑尼亞 64；泰國 64；讚比亞 64；智利 63；葡萄牙 63；烏拉圭 61；希臘 60；韓國 60；伊朗 58；台灣 58；捷克共和國 57；西班牙 57；巴基斯坦 55；日本 54；意大利 50；阿根廷 49；南非 49；匈牙利 46；牙買加 45；美國 40；荷蘭 38；澳大利亞 36；哥斯達黎加 35；德國 35；英國 35；瑞士 34；芬蘭 33；挪威 31；瑞典 31；愛爾蘭 28；新西蘭 22；丹麥 18；以色列 13；奧地利11。
寫於2024-06-12 蒙村
更多我的博客文章>>>
已有5位網友點讚!查看
(0 bytes) (1 reads) 06/12/2024 postreply 20:56:12
(0 bytes) (1 reads) 06/13/2024 postreply 09:25:25
