Geert Hofstede's Dimensions of Culture and Edward T. Hall's Time ...

Geert Hofstede's Dimensions of Culture
and
Edward T. Hall's Time Orientations

Hofstede's "dimensions of culture" were derived mainly from his extensive organizational
anthropology research in the late 1970s and early 1980s – the scores are general comparisons of
values in the countries and regions he studied and can vary greatly within each country. Although
Hofstede's work is somewhat dated and has rightly been criticized on a number of grounds the
dimensions are useful in understanding that members of various societies are likely to behave in
different ways in a given situation.
Power Distance Index (PDI) is defined as “the extent to which the less powerful members
of institutions and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed
unequally”. (Hofstede, 1994, p. 28) A High Power Distance ranking indicates that inequalities of
power and wealth exist within the society and that the less powerful members of the society accept
this situation. A Low Power Distance ranking indicates the society de-emphasizes the differences
between citizen's power and wealth. In these societies equality and opportunity for everyone is
stressed.
Individualism (IDV) Hofstede defines this dimension as follows: “individualism pertains to
societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or
herself and his or her immediate family." A High Individualism ranking indicates that individuality and
individual rights are paramount within the society. A Low Individualism ranking typifies societies of a
more collectivist nature with close ties among its members. In these societies "…people from birth
onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to
protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.” (Hofstede, 1994, p. 51)
Masculinity (MAS) focuses on the degree to which ‘masculine’ values like competitiveness and
the acquisition of wealth are valued over ‘feminine’ values like relationship building and quality of life.
A High Masculinity ranking indicates the society values assertive and aggressive 'masculine' traits.
A Low Masculinity ranking typifies societies in which nurturing and caring 'feminine' characteristics
predominate.
Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) focuses on the level of tolerance for uncertainty and
ambiguity within the society. 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. A Low Uncertainty
Avoidance ranking indicates the country has less concern about ambiguity and uncertainty and has
more tolerance for a diversity of opinions. This is reflected in a society that is less rule-oriented, more
readily accepts change, and takes more and greater risks.
Long-Term Orientation (LTO) (formerly called "Confucian dynamism") focuses on the
degree the society embraces, or does not embrace, long-term devotion to traditional values. A High
Long-Term Orientation ranking indicates the country prescribes to the values of long-term
commitments and respect for tradition and where long-term rewards are expected as a result of
today's hard work. A Low Long-Term Orientation ranking indicates the country does not reinforce
the concept of a long-term, traditional orientation and people expect short-term rewards from their
work.
An Intercultural Organization Development Tool compiled by Andy Tamas (www.tamas.com) 2007

---

Hofstede's Dimension of Culture Scales
Country
Power
Individualism
Uncertainty
Long term
Distance
Avoidance
Masculinity
Orientation
Arab Countries
80
38
68
53

Argentina
49
46
86
56

Australia
36
90
51
61
31
Austria
11
55
70
79

Bangladesh




40
Belgium
65
75
94
54

Brazil
69
38
76
49
65
Canada
39
80
48
52
23
Chile
63
23
86
28

China
80
20
40
66
118
Colombia
67
13
80
64

Costa Rica
35
15
86
21

Czech Rep.
57
58
74
57

Denmark
18
74
23
16

Ecuador
78
8
67
63

East Africa
64
27
52
41
25
El Salvador
66
19
94
40

Ethiopia
64
27
52
41
25
Finland
33
63
59
26

France
68
71
86
43

Germany
35
67
65
66
31
Great Britain
35
89
35
66
25
Greece
60
35
112
57

Guatemala
95
6
101
37

Hong Kong
68
25
29
57
96
Hungary
46
55
82
88

India
77
48
40
56
61
Indonesia
78
14
48
46

Iran
58
41
59
43

Ireland
28
70
35
68

Israel
13
54
81
47

Italy
50
76
75
70

Intercultural Organizational Development – Tamas Consultants Inc.
2

---

Country
Power
Individualism
Uncertainty
Long term
Distance
Avoidance
Masculinity
Orientation
Jamaica
45
39
13
68

Japan
54
46
92
95
80
Malaysia
104
26
36
50

Mexico
81
30
82
69

Netherlands
38
80
53
14
44
New Zealand
22
79
49
58
30
Norway
31
69
50
8
20
Pakistan
55
14
70
50
0
Panama
95
11
86
44

Peru
64
16
87
42

Philippines
94
32
44
64
19
Poland
68
60
93
64
32
Portugal
63
27
104
31

Singapore
74
20
8
48
48
South Africa
49
65
49
63

South Korea
60
18
85
39
75
Spain
57
51
86
42

Sweden
31
71
29
5
33
Switzerland
34
68
58
70

Taiwan
58
17
69
45
87
Tanzania
64
27
52
41
25
Thailand
64
20
64
34
56
Turkey
66
37
85
45

United States
40
91
46
62
29
Uruguay
61
36
100
38

Venezuela
81
12
76
73

West Africa
77
20
54
46
16
Yugoslavia
76
27
88
21

(Adapted primarily from http://spectrum.troy.edu/~vorism/hofstede.htm and
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/culture2.html )
Intercultural Organizational Development – Tamas Consultants Inc.
3

---

Edward T. Hall's Time Orientations
Anthropologist Edward T. Hall’s concept of polychronic versus monochronic time orientation describes
how cultures structure their time. The monochronic time concept follows the notion of “one thing at a
time”, while the polychronic concept focuses on multiple tasks being handled at one time, and time is
subordinate to interpersonal relations. The following table gives a brief overview of the two different
time concepts, and their resultant behaviour.
While Hall's publications1 indicated countries or societies in each group, he did not conduct systematic
research to provide scores for individual countries or regions on a 'dimension' similar to Hofstede's
work. Direct observation of behavior in a society will readily identify the time orientation that is likely to
predominate in an organization.



Monochronic and Polychronic Cultures

Monochronic
 Culture
Polychronic
 Culture
Interpersonal
 Relations
Interpersonal
 relations are
Present
 schedule is subordinate
subordinate to present schedule
to interpersonal relations
Activity 
Co-ordination
Schedule 
co-ordinates activity;
Interpersonal 
relations co-
appointment time is rigid.
ordinate activity; appointment
time is flexible
Task 
Handling
One 
task at a time
Many 
tasks are handled
simultaneously
Breaks 
and Personal Time
Breaks 
and personal time are
Breaks 
and personal time are
sacrosanct regardless of
subordinate to personal ties.
personal ties.
Temporal 
Structure
Time 
is inflexible; time is tangible Time 
is flexible; time is fluid
Work/personal
 time separability
Work 
time is clearly separable
Work 
time is not clearly separable
from personal time
from personal time
Organisational 
Perception
Activities 
are isolated from
Activities 
are integrated into
organisation as a whole; tasks
organisation as a whole; tasks
are measured 
by output in time
are measured 
as part of overall
(activity per hour or minute)
organisational goal
(Adapted from http://stephan.dahl.at/research/online-publications/intercultural-research/halls-classic-
patterns/)


1 Edward T. Hall's publications are readily available. They include The Silent Language, The Hidden
Dimension, Beyond Culture, The Dance of Life and more.
Intercultural Organizational Development – Tamas Consultants Inc.
4

---