The four dimensions

Geert Hofstede has made an effort to classify and measure different cultures against each other, where he has done two surveys with at total of 116000 schemes in 53 countries, spread

all over the world (Strand, 2004). It is the personnel at the sales and service department at every level, that have answered the questions and due to the control over the technology, procedures and the set of genders on the respondents, one could find the national differences.

With help from factor analysis Hofstede could identify four fundamental dimensions which can contribute to separate between the different national cultures. These dimensions are:

1. Distance of power 2. Uncertainty avoidance

3. Individualism versus collectivism 4. Masculinity versus femininity

Further, one will try to give a closer description to the four dimensions, whereas the first one is distance to power. This dimension is an expression for how much the culture allows a superior to execute power. In cultures with high distance to power it is fundamental and normal to empower and protect the role of the powerful ones, while others will be looked at with suspicion because they could be a possible threat to the powerful position. Domination and dependency are the fundamentals for co-operations. High distance to power is typical for countries like Asia, Africa and the Latin countries. However, in a culture with low distance of power, like Norway and Israel, one will have a more collegial relationship and a common perception that the differences should be minimal. Trust is the fundament for cooperation, and leaders cannot show others the power they posses. This culture is typical for the Northern European countries (Ibid.).

The uncertainty avoidance dimension describes to which degree a culture encourage taking risks. All organisations have to deal with changes and uncertainties in the environment and try to learn and adapt to these. This happens in every country, but Hofstede has found that there are some variation to which the different countries cope with this. Countries where one strongly avoids uncertainties, like Greece and Portugal, people feel threatened and nervous towards uncertain situations. This state of mind can be defined by hard work, job safety and intolerance for aberrancy. One seeks to honour absolute values and show great respect for, for example, age and one has a strong need for formal rules. In countries that has a lower need to avoid uncertainty, like Norway and Denmark, one does not need the same amount of formal rules to avoid experiences of anxiety (Ibid.).

Individualism versus collectivism is a dimension which measures how cultures emphasize for individualists compared to collectives or group needs. In individualistic cultures, like USA and Great Brittan, identity is often strongly connected to what the individual are and what they do. It is expected that they take care of themselves and the family, and that effort and performance are being rewarded. Everybody has the right to their opinion and private life, and can only have one determined, calculated relationship to work. In collective cultures, like Pakistan and Peru, the social relations are closer and the people are members of big families, which protect them i exchange for loyalty. They emphasize for affiliation and the goal is to be a good member, while in the individualistic perspective the ideal is to be an outstanding individualist (Ibid.).

The last dimension is regards to masculinity and femininity. In the masculine cultures, like Australia, Japan and Italy, performance is the only thing that counts. Money and material standards and ambitions are the driving force. It is beautiful to be big and fast, manliness is sexy and there is a clear distinguish between male and female activities and attitudes. In feminine cultures, like the Netherlands and the Northern countries, life quality is the most important aspect, together with people and environment, and the relationship to others is a motivational factor. Small-scale and unisex are attractive. In masculine cultures gender roles are separated, the men are dominating and ongoing, while the women are set to be caregivers.

A dominating woman is not seen as feminine. In the feminine cultures gender roles are more flexible and one beliefs in similarity between the genders, in principal. The men can also be caregivers and the state should be more oriented towards inner and outer help tasks, and less towards power assertion (Ibid.).

Hofstede groups the 53 cultures in clusters, which means groups of countries which are most alike regarding some factors, and different compared to other factors. He makes a world map over the different cultures, where he claims to find eight groups. In Europe there are three;

one Germanian, one Anglo-saxian and one Nordic group. In the Asian countries he also finds three groups, whereas Japan might be a special case. Within the Latin countries, but also Europe, he establishes two groups. Later studies give an additional two groups, East- and Vest-Africa. Hofstede`s dimensions are expressed, in the different culture, through school systems, relations at the work place and how the governmental organisation reduces or increases, for example, the distance of power. The Scandinavian countries, together with the Netherlands, have very low distance to power, average collectivism / individualism, a high

degree of ”feminism” and average low degree of uncertainty avoidance (ibid.).

As it is described above, it is difficult to explain what culture could be and is in relation with organisation forms and management styles, and it is difficult to give an exact connection between the different aspects. However, as some organisation forms are more typical or

”normal” in certain national and regional cultures, one can say that there is coherence between culture and which organisational structure that is preferred. Cultures probably gives some fundamental ground stones on how one should organize and structures a company, and also how management and authority are executed within the organisation / country. One can see this due to the different organisation forms emerging and operating in the different geographical areas and by minorities that bring their traditions and ”way of living” into foreign cultures. As an example, this could be the Chinese bringing their family oriented structure into businesses in San Francisco and Montreal, where they live. French small bakeries, Japanese car manufacturers, Norwegian cooperatives within agriculture and American large enterprises must be understood as a phenomenon within the culture they are a part of (Ibid.).

Further, if one wants to find out how culture effects organisations and management, one has to select some dimensions which are considered important and vital to the situation. A good beginning towards this is to imagine where the society and organisations are situated on a scale or dimension from traditional to post modern culture. However, this is not an unambiguous way to characterize an organisation or culture, but with the help of Hofstede`s four dimensions, one gets a map of different organisational and management cultures.

Possible examples on how these dimensions are combined can be as described below:

 Where there is large distance of power and little tolerance for uncertainty an organisation will have many layers and rules, and one example of this could be the French bureaucracy, both in public and private sector. It could be that with this there exists an obesity of such organisation forms, and the management is likely to perform and operate through formal structures, but may at the same time keep distance and retain the privileges.

 Slightly less distance of power one may find in Germany, but the need for order and rules are still apparent. This gives some conditions for what one may call the German emphasize for expert organisations or professional bureaucracy. Order and quality

characterize such organisations, and the professional is primarily the one that has the authority to lead and manage.

 In Nordic countries the less formal leader, who also accepts the women’s role, is more typical than in France and Germany. There exist a less need for rules, and organisations will have a more informal character. The last aspect also goes for England, and something that can be compared to group organisations or cooperatives in England, ”the village market”, will be an ingrediance in the organisation life. The management styles are less obvious and clear.

 In USA the strong individualism is prominent, where the strong leader gets mandate to lead and the masculine qualities are emphasized. The attitude is to handle and deal with much uncertainty. For other reason than mentioned here, American organisations may also be large, but there is room for leadership and management at the same time as there is bureaucratic arrangements and systems.

Cultures seem to contingent not only valid authority forms, but also how economic rational business can or may be executed. Some cultures are closer than others, with many and stabile formal and informal norms. This also gives the basis for exercising authority and the membership in the culture or group can be virtually mandatory. This will, for example, apply to many of the Asian countries, including Japanese business organisations. However, one can imagine cultures and situations where there are fewer and less binding general features of culture that provides a basis for organisation and leadership. A variation that probably occurs occasionally, but usually not referred to in texts about organisation and management, the situation where there are many standards, but it has not formed groups that influence and are included in the standard system. The individuals are fatalistic. Cultures may be, more or less, close and have obvious consequences for the organisation and management style one get, but in general, one perceive it in a way that the culture is not something that surrounds the organisations and management, rather it is within the organisations and management (Ibid.).

We have now seen how the phenomenon culture can be understood as a, more or less, visible connection for organisation and management:

 Cultures can be understood as basic fundamental common assumptions, values and orientations which are typical within a national area, but does not always apply for all

and may sometimes have competitors through professions and regions etc.

 Cultures gives the basis for that particular organisations and leadership forms are the most likely or are preferred by the culture.

 Cultures can in different scale be controlling for these organisations and leadership forms, and they may also have varied conditions within a culture.

 The organisations and leadership forms are characterized by the culture – the culture lies within them.

Examples on how the culture and the environment, in different scale, affect the organisations are illustrated by combinations of the dimensions institutionalized environment and technical environment. The table below illustrates possible outcomes.

Table 3.4.1 Norms in the environment and organisation forms (Strand, 2004, pp. 212).

This is a way of perceiving cultures or the environment surrounding the organisations in a way that separates between the norms that are incorporated in the environment and the technical solutions that are available and applicable (Ibid.). A hospital will, for instance, be characterized by strong, institutional norms, such as health, care and the patient’s best interest. At the same time the hospital will practice techniques for diagnosis and treatment.

Biochemical and radiographic tests, together with complex technology for treatment constitute a close technological environment. In the other corner of the table, one can find for example day care for children, who are loosely organized with regards to the norms that apply, and not much of technical equipment characterizes the organisation.

Institutionalized environment

Close Looser

Technical environment

Close Banks Hospitals

Courts

Industrial

Looser Schools

Social offices Churches

Wellness clinics Cafes

Day care

A particularly interesting subject for further studies are the question regarding how different organisations creates links between their own organisation and the network surrounding them, such as suppliers, clients, resources and information, and stakeholders and supporters.

Normally, one will find that these connections are rather close and that the organisations cannot exist as something that differs from the norms and the normal possibilities that exists in the environment. An important task for the management will be to find these codes for transaction between the environment and organisation, and negotiate and administrate relations.