Kakei 1

Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and Conflict Management

By: Saed Kakei, Ph.D. StudentNSU’s DCAR PhD Program

September 25, 2011

To become involved in a conflict management effort, it is important to apply methods that are acceptableto parties of the conflict and compatible with the interests of the public. Cultural and cross-culturalindifferences have long been among the most pressing causes of present time conflicts. Therefore, onemight ask: What is culture? Why should we understand its dimensions and impacts on conflictmanagement and resolution? This brief paper will answer these questions by highlighting the valuedimensions credited to Geert Hofstede as one of the pioneers of cultural studies of our time.

Hofstede (1991) considered culture as the essential combination of cognitive encoding thatdistinguishes the members of one society from the other. It is a way of life comprised of socio-culturalfactors characterizing the social activities and practices of any given organized society. These activitiesand practices, then, are regulated and shaped by systemic ideals known as a “system of values”. Valuesconceptualize the end results of human experience and culturally graded as positives and negatives or asacceptable and unacceptable. Therefore, it is the “system of values” that fundamentally causes theunderlying differences between any two or more societies.

In his masterpiece of “Culture’s Consequences,” Hofstede (1984) examined the differences invalue systems between multiple cultures. Applying the theory of culture as the key variable, Hofstede wasable to show that applying the value system with cultural dimensions has foreseeable consequences forhuman thinking and his regulated experience. At first, Hofstede (1984) suggested applying four relevantcultural dimensions: Individualism versus Collectivism, Power Distance, Masculinity versus Femininity,and Uncertainty Avoidance. Later, he added the fifth dimension known as the Long-Term Orientationversus the Short-Term Orientation (Hofstede, 1991).

Hofstede’s first dimension, individualism versus collectivism, refers to the “degree to whichindividuals integrated into groups” or societies (1984). In the individualist societies, the ties betweenindividuals are loose and each individual is expected to look after his or her personal affairs and that ofhis or her immediate family. In contrast, the collectivist societies characterized as those that integrate theirmembers into strong, cohesive, and often extended in-groups that care and protect their members inexchange for unquestionable in-group loyalty.

Hofstede’s second dimension, power distance, measures the extent to which less powerful in-groups accept and expect the unequal distribution of power to be normal. Different societies solve thequestion of human inequality according to their system value. For instance, institutional superiors in theindividualist societies are lawful and accessible, whereas in the collectivist societies are inaccessible andtheir legitimacy is irrelevant. Individualists believe that all humans should have equal rights, whereascollectivists believe power-holders are entitled to privileges. Also, individualists tend to blame theirsystem for any inequalities, whereas, collectivists often blame the underdogs for their inequalities.Therefore, the power distance in the individualist societies is small and in the collectivist societies is large(Hofstede, 1991).

Hofstede’s third dimension, masculinity versus femininity, refers to the distribution of rolesbetween the opposite genders. It reflects the different ways in which cultures deal with the biologicaldichotomy of the opposite sexes. Biological differences in masculine cultures equal different social rolesfor the sexes. Men in such societies expected to be assertive, ambitious, and competitive, to strive formaterial success and respect whatever is big, strong and fast. As for women in masculine cultures, theyare expected to nurture, care for quality of life and the weak. In contrast, roles for the sexes in femininecultures are relatively overlapping. According to Hofstede, particular men in feminine societies need not

Kakei 2

be ambitious or competitive. Yet, they may put the quality of life over material success and may valuewhatever is small, weak and slow (Hofstede 1984).

Hofstede’s fourth dimension, uncertainty avoidance, is the extent to which people are madenervous by situations which considered unstructured, unclear or unpredictable. People express uncertaintyavoidance by adopting strict codes of behavior and belief in absolute truth to reflect their need forpredictable rules (Hofstede 1984, 1991). Also, Hofstede found that while weak uncertainty avoidancecultures accept conflict and relatively tolerant of ambiguity, their members are unemotional and lessaggressive. At the other end of this dimension, members from the strong uncertainty avoidance culturesare active, emotional, intolerant and aggressive.

The fifth and the last dimension, long-term orientation versus the short-term orientation (alsoknown as the Confucian dynamism), was developed by Hofstede and Michael Harris Bond in 1988.According to Hofstede, this dimension “can be said to deal with Virtue regardless of Truth” (2011).Values related to Long-Term Orientation are prudence and persistence. As for values related to Short-Term Orientation, they include respect for tradition, satisfying social duties, and defending self-face. It isworth mentioning that since this dimension lacks empirical research; it is, therefore, not widely includedin scholarly examinations.

As provided, cultural differences in value systems with their dimensions may provide a criticalunderstanding on how people interact with one another in conflict. Rahim (1994) argued that our valuesystems have significant consequences for the positive management of intercultural conflict. Hofstede’s(1984, 1991) description of differences in value systems provides a context for exploring the role ofculture in conflict management. Finally, although the growing body of literature on cross-culturalindifferences tries to go beyond Hofstede’s four dimensions, the impact of understanding culturaldimensions on conflict studies is momentous.

References:

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Abridged ed.Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organizations: Software of the mind. London: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensions of national cultures [Web log message]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.geerthofstede.com/culture/dimensions-of-national-cultures.aspx

Rahim, M. A., & Blum, A. A. (1994). Global perspectives on organizational conflict (Eds). Westport: PraegerPublishers.