A Company Newsletter Article Promoting Multicultural Offices
Welcome to the inaugural edition of our company newsletter! This week, we are shining the spotlight on the cultural dimensions according to Geert Hofstede, and how they can be used to help us improve our office culture.
As human beings, it is our nature to make assumptions about one another based on little information. We tend to form social biases, stereotypes and even prejudices that can have a significant impact on short-term interactions with colleagues and longer-term development of relationships in the workplace. By understanding the concept of cultural dimensions — which was developed by Dutch psychologist Geert Hofstede — we can all strive for an open-minded office culture that encourages respect for each other’s perspectives regardless of nationality or background.
Hofstede identified six core cultural dimensions: power distance, individualism vs collectivism, masculinity vs femininity, long-term orientation vs short-term orientation, uncertainty avoidance and indulgence vs restraint. Let’s take a look at each one in more detail so you understand why these are important when considering our office culture:
1) Power distance – this dimension describes the degree to which members of a society accept that power and inequality are part of the social structure. It focuses on how individuals in different countries view and respond to differences in power among people. Countries with low Power Distance scores, such as Denmark, Austria, and New Zealand, emphasize equal rights between people regardless of their status or position. These countries tend to have flatter organizational structures in which communication between employees is encouraged and decisions are made collectively. On the other hand, countries with high Power Distance scores, such as Mexico and the Philippines, tend to place stronger emphasis on hierarchies where authority figures are respected and obeyed without question. Various aspects of life can be influenced by Power distance, ranging from decision-making processes within organizations to family dynamics at home; thus it is an important factor when considering cross-cultural communication.
2) Individualism Vs Collectivism – this dimension measures whether people value their individual rights or group rights more highly. Generally speaking countries like the USA and the UK score higher on individualism which means it is more culturally accepted for people to prioritize their own interests over those around them whereas countries such as China and Guatemala are more collectivistic, which means there is greater emphasis placed upon collective goals over personal ones in order to succeed socially. This is also where the concept of “face” fits in. In countries like China, it is seen as an affront to make someone ‘ose face’, that is to say to embarrass someone publicly. This is because people place a high value on preserving social harmony and avoiding causing embarrassment or shame to themselves or others. Therefore, "losing face" refers to a situation where an individual's reputation or social standing is damaged, causing them to lose respect and status in their community. This is in contrast to individualistic cultures where personal achievement and success are highly valued, and losing face may not be as significant of a concern.
3) Masculinity vs Femininity measures how societies evaluate certain attributes associated with the binary genders. It is important to point out that the terms “masculinity” and “femininity” do not describe humans but rather a set of opposing characteristics, which Hofstede uses to compare cultures. Thus, countries scoring high on masculinity emphasize assertiveness and performance-driven behaviors, while countries scoring higher on femininity value quality of life and collaborative behaviors. Examples of nations that score high on masculinity include Japan and Austria, where hard work and success are highly valued, whereas those that score high in femininity such as Sweden or Norway, stress the importance of collaboration, social harmony, and strong relationships.
4) Uncertainty Avoidance measures how comfortable people feel with uncertainty and ambiguity. Countries that score high on this dimension tend to prefer structured environments and have strong rules, regulations, and laws to reduce anxiety due to the unknown. A prime example of a high UA country is Germany, where people have a reputation of following rules and being overly direct - eliminating as much uncertainty as possible. Other examples that score even higher on this dimension are Portugal and Greece. Conversely, countries that score low on Uncertainty Avoidance are more comfortable with ambiguity and risk-taking; examples include Denmark, Singapore and Jamaica. The higher a country scores in terms of Uncertainty Avoidance, the more likely it is for them to have strict social norms which help people feel secure in their environment.
5) Long Term Orientation Vs Short Term Orientation – this dimension is a way to measure how focused a culture is on the past, present, or future. Countries that score high on Long Term Orientation are more likely to plan strategically over multiple generations and invest in things like education, etc., rather than pursuing immediate gratification. As you might expect, East Asian countries such as South Korea or Taiwan tend to focus heavily on long term orientation while many Western countries like the United States, Australia, and Ireland have historically favored quick results and immediate payoffs.
6) Indulgence Vs Restraint – this final dimension is a measure of how societies deal with the conflicting tensions between expressing and suppressing individual desires. Countries that score highly on indulgence are typically more open to free expression and experimentation, such as Mexico or Colombia. Countries that rank highly in restraint on the other hand generally value traditional norms and customs, like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Understanding this difference can be an important tool for navigating culturally diverse situations.
Though we have all been raised in different cultural contexts, we should try to be aware of our own biases and ethnocentric perspectives before making assumptions about others. When talking to colleagues from different backgrounds, it is important to assess whether to take their words at face value or not, and not jump to conclusions about their life experiences or the way they approach tasks. We all have unique skillsets that help us contribute to the success of our company and by being more aware and tolerant of our cultural differences, as explained through Hofstede’s dimensions, we can work together more efficiently as a team.
Ultimately, my wish is for our office culture to become a safe space for everyone, no matter who they are or where they come from. It is my belief that by self-reflecting on our own implicit biases and prejudices against others — and actively striving towards an environment of acceptance — we can foster better relationships between ourselves, which will ultimately benefit both us individually, as well as the company collectively in the long run.
I encourage all employees to take time out of each day to reflect on how our decisions impact those around us and to actively work on having an open mindset. In the end, many of our values are universal, we simply rank them differently. Understanding why we make certain choices in certain ways helps us create a fair workplace that encourages respect among colleagues, regardless of background or nationality. Let's focus on building bridges instead of walls!
Yours truly,
Benedicte,
Communications Manager