research about cultural differences

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Research: How Cultural Differences Can Impact Global Teams

• Vasyl Taras,
• Dan Caprar,
• Alfredo Jiménez,
• Fabian Froese

And what managers can do to help their international teams succeed.

Diversity can be both a benefit and a challenge to virtual teams, especially those which are global. The authors unpack their recent research on how diversity works in remote teams, concluding that benefits and drawbacks can be explained by how teams manage the two facets of diversity: personal and contextual. They find that contextual diversity is key to aiding creativity, decision-making, and problem-solving, while personal diversity does not. In their study, teams with higher contextual diversity produced higher-quality consulting reports, and their solutions were more creative and innovative. When it comes to the quality of work, teams that were higher on contextual diversity performed better. Therefore, the potential challenges caused by personal diversity should be anticipated and managed, but the benefits of contextual diversity are likely to outweigh such challenges.

A recent survey of employees from 90 countries found that 89 percent of white-collar workers “at least occasionally” complete projects in global virtual teams (GVTs), where team members are dispersed around the planet and rely on online tools for communication. This is not surprising. In a globalized — not to mention socially distanced — world, online collaboration is indispensable for bringing people together.

• VT Vasyl Taras is an associate professor and the Director of the Master’s or Science in International Business program at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, USA. He is an associate editor of the Journal of International Management and the International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, and a founder of the X-Culture, an international business competition.
• DB Dan Baack is an expert in international marketing. Dan’s work focuses on how the processing of information or cultural models influences international business. He recently published the 2nd edition of his textbook, International Marketing, with Sage Publications. Beyond academic success, he is an active consultant and expert witness. He has testified at the state and federal level regarding marketing ethics.
• DC Dan Caprar is an Associate Professor at the University of Sydney Business School. His research, teaching, and consulting are focused on culture, identity, and leadership. Before completing his MBA and PhD as a Fulbright Scholar at the University of Iowa (USA), Dan worked in a range of consulting and managerial roles in business, NGOs, and government organizations in Romania, the UK, and the US.
• AJ Alfredo Jiménez is Associate Professor at KEDGE Business School (France). His research interests include internationalization, political risk, corruption, culture, and global virtual teams. He is a senior editor at the European Journal of International Management.
• FF Fabian Froese is Chair Professor of Human Resource Management and Asian Business at the University of Göttingen, Germany, and Editor-in-Chief of Asian Business & Management. He obtained a doctorate in International Management from the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland, and another doctorate in Sociology from Waseda University, Japan. His research interests lie in international human resource management and cross-cultural management.

Partner Center

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Hofstede's Six Cultural Dimensions—and Why They Matter

A psychological method for describing the differences between cultures

Cynthia Vinney, PhD is an expert in media psychology and a published scholar whose work has been published in peer-reviewed psychology journals.

d3sign/Moment/Getty Images

Who Is Geert Hofstede?

The six cultural dimensions.

• The Significance of Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions

Real-World Applications and Examples

Final thoughts.

The Cultural Dimensions Theory was developed by Geert Hofstede and his colleagues to explain the way different cultures impact the people who live in them. The study started as an examination of Hofstede’s colleagues across IBM’s offices around the world. At the time, he only included four dimensions in his theory, which he published in 1980: Power Distance, Individualism versus Collectivism, Masculinity versus Femininity, and Uncertainty Avoidance.

Then, with the help of Michael Harris Bond, a Canadian social psychologist working in Hong Kong, he added Long-term Orientation versus Short-Term Orientation in the 1980s. And in 2010, through his work with Michael Minkov, a Bulgarian linguist, Indulgence versus Restraint was added.

Let's dive into the six dimensions that make up the theory, their significance in psychology, and take a look at some real world examples.

Geert Hofstede was a social psychologist who was born in 1928 in the Netherlands. World War II, a defining event in his life, began when he was 12. He became an engineer during the years the country struggled to rebuild but soon became fascinated by the human's role in the system, and, therefore, decided to turn his attention to psychology.

He did a PhD in organizational behavior and landed a job at IBM International where he first started conducting his research on the company’s culture in the late 1960s. That led to his first book, 1980’s Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values , which was the beginning of cross-cultural psychology as a serious discipline.

Hofstede was named one of the 20 most influential business thinkers of the 20 th century by the Wall Street Journal and numerous universities have bestowed honorary doctorates on him. He died on February 12, 2020.

Hofstede’s research helps people understand the differences between world cultures along six dimensions. The dimensions are as follows:

Power Distance

This is the degree to which people in a society expect to be equal. Carl Nassar , PhD, LPC, a professional counselor in Denver, CO, had this to say about power distance. “There’s inequality in all cultures, but ask yourself: Are you in a culture where you’ve got a relatively equal distribution of power (a 'low power distance index') or a culture where the power is held by the few and dictated to the many (a 'high power distance index')?”

Low Power Distance cultures see inequality as needed sometimes, but their goal is for relationships to be as equal as possible. In High Power Distance cultures, on the other hand, inequality is the basis of society.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

This is the degree to which people focus on their groups. Individualistic societies, like the United States, strongly value personal achievement and focus on individual needs, whereas in collectivist societies, achievements and decisions are made with the group in mind.

“How focused is the culture on ‘I’ instead of on ‘we?’” says Nassar. “Do individuals look out for themselves (‘it’s every person for themselves’), or do we look out for each other (‘we’ll rise together and we’ll fall together’.)”

Masculinity vs. Femininity

This is the preference for masculine versus feminine traits in a society.

In Hofstede's theory, masculine traits include assertiveness, competitiveness, power, and material success, while feminine traits include nurturing relationships, a good quality of life, and caring for others.

As Nassar observes, “It’s no surprise to learn the [United States] has a low femininity score.” In masculine cultures, differences in gender roles are very dramatic, whereas in feminine cultures, the roles are fairly fluid.

Uncertainty Avoidance

This dimension deals with how much a society can cope with uncertainty of the future.

While every culture must deal with this, cultures with high uncertainty avoidance rely on their set rules and structures about the way things are done to deal with it, whereas those with low uncertainty avoidance are more relaxed.

As Nassar shares, this dimension boils down to, “Are you willing to take risks and deal with the anxiety this causes, or do you prefer to create structures that keep things organized but also reduce risk and opportunity?”

Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation

This dimension looks at the extent to which people are willing to forego short-term gains for future rewards, in particular, by emphasizing the virtues of persistence, saving, and thrift. On the opposite end of the spectrum is foregoing future rewards for short-term gains in the past or the present, with an emphasis on immediate gratification and quick results.

“The [United States], like its stock market,” Nassar says, “tends to be all about making it now and letting tomorrow take care of itself.” This makes the [United States] a culture with a short-term orientation.

Indulgence vs. Restraint

This dimension deals with how much your culture satisfies human needs or desires versus how much you hold back on your desires to satisfy societal norms. As Nassar puts it, “How’s your impulse control? Do you tend to go for instant gratification, or do you hold off, in part through social norms, deferring gratification…”

For instance, indulgent cultures tend to focus more on individual well-being and personal freedom, whereas happiness and freedom are not given the same level of importance in restrained cultures.

The Significance of Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension Theory continues to be the go-to theory for understanding cultures around the globe. As Alyssa Roberts, a practicing psychologist, researcher, and writer at Practical Psychology shares, “Hofstede’s research is so incredibly relevant to this day that it continues to be the basis for assessing how a culture behaves and what kind of cultural adaptation people from different countries need to undergo in order to fully adapt [to a new country].”

Hofstede’s theory can tell you a lot about the different cultures of the world by dividing them along these six dimensions.

The significance of the theory comes down to this: “For most of humanity’s 200,000 year history on this planet, we grew up in villages...,” Nassar says. “But, beginning some 20,000 years ago, and accelerating over the past 500 years, the collective village cultures of the earth were overrun by a consumer culture, a culture that abandoned the security we found with each other and replaced it with the security of individual fiscal wealth.

Hofstede’s dimensions ask the questions: Did a modern culture retain its village values? Did it instead embrace the consumer culture? Or did it walk a middle road?

Roberts has spent a lot of time in different places around the world, and that has driven home the value of Hofstede’s Six Cultural Dimensions. She’s provided examples of each dimension in action here:

• Power Distance can be very different between cultures. “In some Latin American countries, children are taught from a young age to use formal titles when addressing parents, teachers, or other authority figures,” Roberts says. “This ingrained hierarchy contrasts with Nordic cultures where children call teachers by their first names.”
• Individualism vs. Collectivism emerged for Roberts when she worked with immigrant families in the United States. “Those from collectivist societies like China prioritized family cohesion and group goals over individual pursuits. However, their American-born children tended to absorb more individualistic values causing intergenerational conflicts.”
• Masculinity vs. Femininity is seen in whether cultures are more equal or more traditional.  As Roberts explains, “I counseled a couple struggling to adjust after moving from egalitarian Sweden to traditional India. The wife felt increasing constraints around appropriate 'feminine' roles contrasting with the overlapping gender roles in Scandinavia.”
• Uncertainty Avoidance is experienced by all cultures but some are more prone to take risks than others. “A Japanese exchange student experiencing intense homesickness and difficulty adapting to ambiguous college social norms [was evidence of this],” observes Roberts. “This reflected the security his uncertainty-avoidant native culture provided around social structures and rules.” And the lack of uncertainty-avoidant social norms he experienced at his new college.”
• Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation is the extent to which a culture prepares for the future. Above, Nassar provided one example of short-term orientation: the United States. Roberts provides another examples, “the forward-thinking mindset instilled in many Asian cultures,” which is oriented toward the long-term.
• Indulgence vs. Restraint is experienced in how much people are free to be themselves in public. For Roberts, this “underpinned an Egyptian client’s chronic stress. She found the German culture of strict social restraints and norms around fun-seeking to be at odds with the indulgent festivity permeating Egyptian social life.”

While these dimensions are a popular tool for cross-cultural psychologists and businesses, it’s important to remember that these dimensions are generalizations. Therefore, they may not describe everyone from a specific culture.

Nonetheless, Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory has stood the test of time to show the six dimensions that affect the ways people from different cultures interact.

Gerlach P, Eriksson K. Measuring cultural dimensions: External validity and internal consistency of Hofstede’s VSM 2013 scales .  Front Psychol . 2021;12. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662604

Michael Harris Bond . Geert Hofstede .

Michael Minkov . Geert Hofstede .

Biography . Geert Hofstede .

Professional Life . Geert Hofstede: An Engineer's Odyssey .

Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions. Power Distance . Center for Global Engagement: James Madison University.

Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions. Individualism and Collectivism . Center for Global Engagement: James Madison University.

Worthy LD, Lavigne T, Romero F. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions . In: Culture and Psychology : MMOER; 2020.

Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions. Uncertainty Avoidance . Center for Global Engagement: James Madison University.

Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions. Indulgence versus Restraint . Center for Global Engagement: James Madison University.

By Cynthia Vinney, PhD Cynthia Vinney, PhD is an expert in media psychology and a published scholar whose work has been published in peer-reviewed psychology journals.

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Author Interviews
• Research Curations
• Author Guidelines
• Open Access
• Submission Site
• Why Submit?
• About Journal of Consumer Research
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Cultural Differences (Autumn 2017)

Curator: Sharon Shavitt

Understanding the influence of cultural factors on consumer behavior is crucial because consumption and marketing are global phenomena, and efforts by firms to influence consumers often cross cultural boundaries. This has given rise to a burgeoning literature that examines many implications of cultural variability, including for brand management, consumer well-being, and charitable donations. The papers in this curation address these implications.

Most cross-cultural research investigates distinctions in individualism and collectivism (Hofstede 1984, 2001; Triandis 1995) or independent and interdependent self-construals (Markus and Kitayama 1991). Individualistic cultures, such as those in North America, foster an independent self-construal that casts the self as agentic and distinct from others. Collectivistic cultures, such as those in Asia, foster an interdependent self-construal that views the self as socially embedded and mutually obligated to others. Consumers with an independent self-construal tend to be approach motivated—their self-regulatory goals focus on promotion. In contrast, consumers with an interdependent self-construal tend to be avoidance motivated and focused on prevention ( Aaker and Lee 2001 ), as well as on maintaining adherence to norms through impulse control ( Zhang and Shrum 2009 ) and on attentiveness to social consensus ( Aaker and Maheswaran 1997 ).

Because cross-cultural consumer research is a mature and active subdiscipline, this curation highlights the last few years of research. The first three papers address new motivational and cognitive patterns associated with cultural self-construals. The next two papers address emerging themes regarding cultural views of power and inequality, and ways to leverage brands as cultural icons.

Read the full introduction

Pursuing Attainment versus Maintenance Goals: The Interplay of Self-Construal and Goal Type on Consumer Motivation Haiyang Yang Antonios Stamatogiannakis Amitava Chattopadhyay

This research examines how self-construal (i.e., independent vs. interdependent) and goal type (i.e., attainment vs. maintenance) are conceptually linked and jointly impact consumer behavior. The results of five experiments and one field study involving different operationalizations of self-construal and goal pursuit activities suggest that attainment (maintenance) goals can be more motivating for participants with a more independent (interdependent) self-construal and that differences in salient knowledge about pursuing the goals are one potential mechanism underlying this effect. This interaction effect was found within a single culture, between cultures, when self-construal was experimentally manipulated or measured, and when potential confounding factors like regulatory focus were controlled for. The effect was also found to impact consumer behavior in real life—self-construal, as reflected by the number of social ties consumers had, impacted the likelihood that they opted to reduce versus maintain their bodyweight. Further, after setting their goal, consumers who were more independent exhibited more (less)motivation, as measured by the amount of money they put at stake, when their goal was weight reduction (maintenance). These findings shed light on the relationship between self-construal and goal type, and offer insights, to both consumers and managers, on how to increase motivation for goal pursuit.

Read the Article

Cultivating Optimism: How to Frame Your Future during a Health Challenge Donnel A. Briley Melanie Rudd Jennifer Aaker

Research shows that optimism can positively impact health, but when and why people feel optimistic when confronting health challenges is less clear. Findings from six studies show that the frames people adopt when thinking about health challenges influence their optimism about overcoming those challenges, and that their culture moderates this effect. In cultures where the independent self is highly accessible, individuals adopting an initiator frame (how will I act, regardless of the situations I encounter?) were more optimistic than those adopting a responder frame (how will I react to the situations I encounter?); the converse occurred for individuals from cultures where the interdependent self is highly accessible. Moreover, mediation and moderation evidence revealed that this interactive effect of culture and frame on optimism was driven by people’s ability to easily imagine the recovery process. These effects held for distinct health challenges (cancer, diabetes, flood- related illness, traumatic injury) and across single-country and cross-country samples, and they impacted positive health outcomes and decisions ranging from anticipated energy, physical endurance, and willingness to take on more challenging physical therapy to intentions to get vaccinated, stick to a doctor-recommended diet, and undertake a physically strenuous vacation.

Cultural Differences in Brand Extension Evaluation: The Influence of Analytic versus Holistic Thinking Alokparna Basu Monga Deborah Roedder John

Consumers evaluate brand extensions by judging how well they fit with the parent brand. We examine this process across cultures. We predict that consumers from Eastern cultures, characterized by holistic thinking, perceive higher brand extension fit and evaluate brand extensions more favorably than do Western consumers, characterized by analytic thinking. Study 1 supports the existence of these cultural differences, with study 2 providing support for styles of thinking (analytic vs. holistic) as the drivers of cultural differences in brand extension evaluations.

Accepting Inequality Deters Responsibility: How Power Distance Decreases Charitable Behavior Karen Page Winterich Yinlong Zhang

Could power distance, which is the extent that inequality is expected and accepted, explain why some countries and consumers are more likely to engage in prosocial behavior, including donations of both money and time? This research proposes that higher power distance results in weaker perceptions of responsibility to aid others, which decreases charitable behavior. Both correlational and causal evidence is provided in a series of five studies that examine country-level power distance as well as individual and temporarily salient power distance belief. Consistent with the mediating role of perceived responsibility, results reveal that un- controllable needs and communal relationship norms are boundary conditions that overcome the negative effect of power distance on charitable behavior. These results explain differences in charitable giving across cultures and provide implications for nonprofit organizations soliciting donations.

Extending Culturally Symbolic Brands: A Blessing or a Curse? Carlos J. Torelli Rohini Ahluwalia

Results from four studies uncover a relatively automatic cultural congruency mechanism that can influence evaluations of culturally charged brand extensions, over- riding the impact of perceived fit on extension evaluations. Culturally congruent extensions (i.e., when both the brand and the extension category cue the same cultural schema) were evaluated more favorably than culturally neutral extensions, which in turn were evaluated more favorably than culturally incongruent ones (i.e., cue two different cultural schemas). The effects emerged with both moderate and low fit brand extensions, as well as for narrow and broad brands. However, they only emerged when both the brand and the product were culturally symbolic, likely to automatically activate a cultural schema but did not emerge for brands low in cultural symbolism. The effects were driven by the processing (dis)fluency generated by the simultaneous activation of the same (different) cultural schemas by the product and the brand.

Read all JCR Research Curations

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1537-5277
• Print ISSN 0093-5301
• Copyright © 2024 Journal of Consumer Research Inc.
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

IResearchNet

Cultural Differences

Cultural differences definition.

Cultural groups can differ widely in their beliefs about what is true, good, and efficient. The study of cultural differences combines perspectives in psychology and anthropology to understand a society’s signature pattern of beliefs, behavior, and social institutions and how these patterns compare and contrast to those of other cultural groups.

Cultural differences appear both between and within societies, for example, between Canadians and Japanese, and within the United States between Anglos and Latinos. Descriptions of cultural differences are made in context to the many similarities shared across human groups. Although a variety of attributes differ between cultures, there are also many similarities that exist across human societies. Moreover, even where there are differences between cultural groups, individual differences mean that not every person within a particular culture will have beliefs or exhibit behaviors that resemble predominant patterns in their society.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code, cultural differences context and focus.

Cultural Differences Background and History

Humans have long been interested in cultural differences. The first written accounts of cultural diversity appear as far back as the 4th century B.C.E.in Herodotus’ description of the unique beliefs and customs among the different cultural groups that traded along the shores of the Black Sea. However, it was not until around the 19th century C.E. that scholars began to conduct systematic studies of unique cultural beliefs and practices, such as Alexis de Tocqueville’s writings about the unique aspects of early American culture and Max Weber’s analysis of how religious ideologies developed in Northern Europe created cultural differences in beliefs about the meaning of work. About 100 years later, the field of cultural anthropology emerged with an exclusive focus on understanding the nature of cultural differences around the world. Today, psychological research has brought new understanding about the nature of cultural differences and similarities by combining an anthropological focus on culture with sophisticated experimental methods developed in social and cognitive psychology. This area of research within social psychology is referred to as cultural psychology.

Before psychologists began to study culture, it was often assumed that knowledge gained from psychological research conducted within one culture applied to all humans. This assumption about the universality of human psychology was challenged when researchers then tried to replicate studies in other cultures and found very different results for a number of important phenomena. For example, psychological experiments showing that people tend to exert less effort when working in a group versus alone showed an opposite pattern in East Asian societies. There, people tend to exert less effort when working alone compared to when working in a group. Further, studies conducted in India, and later in Japan, showed an opposite pattern to earlier research conducted in the United States—that people tend to overestimate the influence of personality and underestimate the influence of situational factors on behavior.

Cultural Differences Evidence

Three broad types of evidence have been used to demonstrate cultural differences. First, in-depth studies of single cultures have found a variety of culturally unique ways people think about and engage in interpersonal relations. For example, within Mexico, interpersonal relations are characterized by a sincere emphasis on proactively creating interpersonal harmony (i.e., simpatfa) even with strangers. In Japan and Korea, people also exhibit a heightened focus on interpersonal harmony. However, unlike Mexicans, the concern for harmony among the Japanese is more focused on relationships with one’s ingroup (e.g., friends, family), and it is sustained through a more passive, “don’t rock the boat” strategy. In the United States, the concern for interpersonal harmony differs for casual, social relationships versus work relationships. While it is common in the United States for individuals to create a pleasant and positive social dynamic across most settings, they show a tendency to attend less to interpersonal relations and overall level of harmony while in work settings. To provide evidence of these different relational styles across cultures, researchers have examined, for example, how members of these cultures convey information that could be embarrassing or disappointing to others. When talking with friends or social acquaintances, Americans and Koreans use indirect, subtle cues to avoid embarrassing others when conveying such bad news. However, when talking with someone in a work setting, Americans believe it is more appropriate to be direct even if the message contains bad news for the listener. In contrast, Koreans believe that at work it is even more important to use subtle communication that will convey the message but also save face for the listener. Thus, cultural differences in attention to interpersonal concerns can be more pronounced in some settings (e.g., work) than in other settings (e.g., party).

A second type of evidence comes from multinational surveys that have measured people’s values in every major continent, across hundreds of societies. In these survey studies, people are asked to rate how much they agree with statements like “It is important to be free to make one’s own decisions” and “People are defined by their connection to their social group.” This type of research shows that cultural groups fluctuate significantly in how much they value individual autonomy versus obligations to follow traditions; equality versus respect for differences in status; competition versus cooperation; and distinctions between ingroups and outgroups.

A third and compelling type of evidence for cultural differences is provided by cross-cultural experiments on the way people perceive and react to their social environment. When experimental studies present individuals from different cultures with the exact same situation, for example, a video of two people talking with each other during a workgroup meeting, very different interpretations and responses can emerge. In many Latin American cultures, people notice and remember how hard the individuals in the video are working and how well or poorly they are getting along interpersonally. In North American cultures, people tend to also notice how hard people are working but notice much less information about the level of interpersonal rapport.

There is evidence that cultural differences are the result of people’s experience living and participating in different sociocultural environments. Bicultural groups, for example, Chinese Canadians or Mexican Americans, often exhibit psychological patterns that are somewhere in between those found in their mother country (e.g., China or Mexico) and those in their new adopted culture (e.g., Canada or the United States). Experimental evidence also shows (in certain domains) significant cultural differences between different regions within a society, for example, between individuals from the northern versus southern United States. In relative terms, an insult to one’s honor is a fleeting annoyance for northerners, but a more serious affront to southerners, and although violence is generally no more tolerated among southerners than northerners, it is more likely to be considered justified when honor is at stake.

Cultural Differences Implications

Cultural differences have implications for virtually all areas of psychology. For example, cultural differences have been found in child-rearing practices  (developmental psychology), the range of personality traits in a society (personality psychology), how people process information (cognitive psychology), effective treatments for mental disorders (clinical psychology), teacher-student interactions (educational psychology), motivational incentives important to workers (organizational psychology), and interpersonal styles (social psychology). Research in each of these areas provides knowledge about how cultures can differ and when they are likely to be more similar than different.

The existence of cultural differences has significant implications for people’s daily lives, whether at school, work, or any other setting in which people from diverse cultural backgrounds interact. It is important to recognize that diversity can mean much more than differences in ethnicity, race, or nationality; cultural diversity also includes sometimes subtle, yet important basic differences in the assumptions, beliefs, perceptions, and behavior that people from different cultures use to navigate their social world.

References:

• Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
• Nisbett, R., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291-310.
• Sanchez-Burks, J., Nisbett, R., & Ybarra, O. (2000). Cultural styles, relational schemas and prejudice against outgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(2), 174-189.
• Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory & Examples

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

• Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory, developed by Geert Hofstede, is a framework used to understand the differences in culture across countries.
• Hofstede’s initial six key dimensions include power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, and short vs. long-term orientation. Later, researchers added restraint vs. indulgence to this list.
• The extent to which individual countries share key dimensions depends on a number of factors, such as shared language and geographical location.
• Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are widely used to understand etiquette and facilitate communication across cultures in areas ranging from business to diplomacy.

History and Overview

Hofstede’s cultural values or dimensions provide a framework through which sociologists can describe the effects of culture on the values of its members and how these values relate to the behavior of people who live within a culture.

Outside of sociology, Hofstede’s work is also applicable to fields such as cross-cultural psychology, international management, and cross-cultural communication.

The Dutch management researcher Geert Hofstede created the cultural dimensions theory in 1980 (Hofstede, 1980).

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions originate from a large survey that he conducted from the 1960s to 1970s that examined value differences among different divisions of IBM, a multinational computer manufacturing company.

This study encompassed over 100,000 employees from 50 countries across three regions. Hoftstede, using a specific statistical method called factor analysis, initially identified four value dimensions: individualism and collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity and femininity.

Later research from Chinese sociologists identified a fifty-dimension, long-term, or short-term orientation (Bond, 1991).

Finally, 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

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).

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.

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.

Further Information

• Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological review, 98(2), 224.
• Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological review, 96(3), 506.
• Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological bulletin, 128(1), 3.
• Brewer, M. B., & Chen, Y. R. (2007). Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological review, 114(1), 133.
• Grossmann, I., & Santos, H. (2017). Individualistic culture.

Cultural Difference and Its Effects on User Research Methodologies

• Conference paper
• Cite this conference paper

• Jungjoo Lee 1 ,
• Thu-Trang Tran 1 &
• Kun-Pyo Lee 1  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 4559))

Included in the following conference series:

• International Conference on Usability and Internationalization

4770 Accesses

4 Citations

Various researches have proved that cultural differences affect the process and results of user research, emphasizing that should cultural attention be given in order to obtain sufficient results. After performing three experiment methods: probe, usability test, and focus group interview in the Netherlands and Korea, we discovered that productivity and effectiveness was poorer in Korea. The differences were found due to the contrary between cultures, strongly indicated by Hofstede’s cultural dimension Individualism vs. Collectivism. In addition, we have proved that the different factors made an impact on user research process and result. Based on the analysis, we compiled guidelines for each of the method when performing in Korea.

Download to read the full chapter text

Chapter PDF

Similar content being viewed by others.

The Influences of Culture on User Experience

ISO 9241-210 and Culture? – The Impact of Culture on the Standard Usability Engineering Process

Cross-Cultural Web Usability Model

• Cultural difference
• User research methodology
• User participatory study
• User research guidelines

Brown, P., Levinson, S.: Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1987)

Google Scholar  

Hall, E.: Beyond Culture. Anchor Books Editions (1989)

Hall, M., et al.: Cultural Differences and Usability Evaluation: Individualistic and Collectivistic Participants Compared. Technical Communication, vol. 51 (2004)

Hofstede, G.: Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill International, The United Kingdom (1991)

Hofstede, G.: Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nation, 2nd edn. Beverly Hills (2001)

Rijn, H., et al.: Three Factors for Contextmapping in East Asia: Trust, Control and Nunchi (2006)

Sanders, N.: Design for Experiencing: New Tools. In: Proceeding of the First International Conference on Design and Emotion (1999)

Ting-Toomey, S.: Intercultural Conflicts Styles. A Face-negotiation Theory. In: Kim, Y.Y., Gudykunst, W.B. (eds.) Theories in Intercultural Communication, Sage, Thousand Oaks (1998)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Human-Centered Interaction Design Lab, Department of Industrial Design, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, 373-1 Guseong-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305-701, Republic of Korea

Jungjoo Lee, Thu-Trang Tran & Kun-Pyo Lee

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Lee, J., Tran, TT., Lee, KP. (2007). Cultural Difference and Its Effects on User Research Methodologies. In: Aykin, N. (eds) Usability and Internationalization. HCI and Culture. UI-HCII 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4559. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73287-7_16

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73287-7_16

Publisher Name : Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

Print ISBN : 978-3-540-73286-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-540-73287-7

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open
• v.7(5); 2019 May

Cultural Competence and Ethnic Diversity in Healthcare

Lakshmi nair.

From the * Albany Medical College, Albany, N.Y.

Oluwaseun A. Adetayo

† Division of Plastic Surgery, Albany Medical Center, Albany, N.Y.

Today’s model of healthcare has persistent challenges with cultural competency, and racial, gender, and ethnic disparities. Health is determined by many factors outside the traditional healthcare setting. These social determinants of health (SDH) include, but are not limited to, education, housing quality, and access to healthy foods. It has been proposed that racial and ethnic minorities have unfavorable SDH that contributes to their lack of access to healthcare. Additionally, African American, Hispanic, and Asian women have been shown to be less likely to proceed with breast reconstructive surgery post-mastectomy compared to Caucasian women. At the healthcare level, there is underrepresentation of cultural, gender, and ethnic diversity during training and in leadership. To serve the needs of a diverse population, it is imperative that the healthcare system take measures to improve cultural competence, as well as racial and ethnic diversity. Cultural competence is the ability to collaborate effectively with individuals from different cultures; and such competence improves health care experiences and outcomes. Measures to improve cultural competence and ethnic diversity will help alleviate healthcare disparities and improve health care outcomes in these patient populations. Efforts must begin early in the pipeline to attract qualified minorities and women to the field. The authors are not advocating for diversity for its own sake at the cost of merit or qualification, but rather, these efforts must evolve not only to attract, but also to retain and promote highly motivated and skilled women and minorities. At the trainee level, measures to educate residents and students through national conferences and their own institutions will help promote culturally appropriate health education to improve cultural competency. Various opportunities exist to improve cultural competency and healthcare diversity at the medical student, resident, attending, management, and leadership levels. In this article, the authors explore and discuss various measures to improve cultural competency as well as ethnic, racial, and gender diversity in healthcare.

By 2050, it is estimated that 50% of the US population will consist of minorities and unfortunately, today’s model of healthcare has been noted to have persistent racial and ethnic discrepancies. 1 Diverse populations require personalized approaches to meet their healthcare needs. Minorities have been shown to have decreased access to preventive care and treatment for chronic conditions which results in increased emergency room visits, graver health outcomes, and increased likelihood of developing cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and mental illness. 2 – 5

This disparity has been prominent in the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery. For example, Sharma et al. explains that there are significant racial disparities in breast reconstruction surgery. Specifically, African American, Hispanic, and Asian women are less likely to proceed with breast reconstructive surgery postmastectomy compared with White women. A study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database found that more African American women compared with White counterparts opted not to have immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy, many stating they were unable to afford surgery. This discrepancy has been supported by future studies after Medicaid expansion and coverage. 1

Health is determined by many factors outside the traditional healthcare setting. These social determinants of health (SDH) include housing quality, access to healthy food, and education. 6 It has been proposed that racial and ethnic minorities have unfavorable SDH that contributes to their lack of access to healthcare. 6 Differences in healthcare treatment and outcomes among minorities persist even after adjusting for socioeconomic factors. 3 We hypothesize that lack of female and minority representation in the field of plastic surgery contributes to delayed healthcare and quality of outcomes in these populations. To be able to cater to these healthcare needs down the pipeline, it is critical that we begin efforts for attraction and retention of skilled female surgeons and minorities farther up in the pipeline chain. Although women compose half of all medical school graduates, only 14% of plastic surgeons and 32% of plastic surgery residents are women. 7

The senior author (O.A.A.) wrote a response to Drs. Butler, Britt, and Longaker regarding the scarcity of ethnic diversity in plastic surgery in 2010. At that time, as a Black female in plastic and reconstructive surgery, O.A.A. represented a mere 3.7% of plastic and reconstructive surgery residents and fellows. 8 It is astonishing that nearly a decade later we still face nearly identical statistics. It is imperative to prioritize diversity in plastic surgery so that by the next decade, we can make significant strides in narrowing this enormous disparity in representation. The authors are not advocating for diversity for its own sake at the cost of merit or qualification, but rather, that organizations and specialties initiate efforts to attract, retain, and promote highly motivated and skilled women and minorities.

Advocating for women and minorities in plastic surgery is one step in acknowledging and catering to various cultural differences. Culture is defined as a cumulative deposit of knowledge acquired by a group of people over the course of generations. 4 Cultural competence is the ability to collaborate effectually with individuals from different cultures, and such competence can help improve healthcare experience and outcomes. 3 , 4

Studies have identified limited national efforts to incorporate cultural competency in healthcare. 9 In a national study of organizational efforts to reduce physician racial and ethnic disparities, 53% of organizations surveyed had 0–1 activities to reduce disparities out of over 20 possible actions to reduce disparities. Some examples of these disparity-reducing activities include providing educational materials in a different language, providing online resources to educate physicians on cultural competence, and awards at national meetings to recognize efforts to reduce racial disparities. The membership size of the national physician organization surveyed and the presence of a health disparities committee were found to be positively associated with organizations with at least 1 disparity-reducing activity. Primary care organizations were more likely to participate in disparity-reducing activities and may serve as role models for other physician organizations to take initiative. 9

Various opportunities exist to improve cultural competency. One of such measures is via education of residents and students before they transition into attending roles. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has identified the importance of addressing cultural diversity as part of its professionalism competency, and the Alliance of Continuing Medical Education also devoted lectures at its national annual conference to cultural competency. 10 Such measures will help increase awareness in trainees and bridge the gap of competency as they transition from training to practice. Incorporating diversity training and cultural competence exercises at national plastic surgery meetings such as Plastic Surgery: The Meeting and AAPS with CME accreditation is a feasible way to incorporate this training. Additional efforts at the state and national level are also critical for advancing cultural competency, and some of these efforts are also underway. 6 , 10 For instance, the Health and Human Services Office of Minority Health developed “Think Cultural Health,” a resource center that offers users the ability to earn continuing education credits in cultural competency through online case-scenario-based training. 6 In addition, 5 states established legislature requiring or strongly recommending cultural competency training for physicians. 10 These implementation efforts will help in raising awareness to improve cultural competency and diversity in healthcare.

On the industry level, the lack of diversity in healthcare leadership is dramatic, with 98% of senior management in healthcare organizations being White. 4 This disparity in representation is similarly magnified when looking at minority representation in leadership roles within plastic surgery. Only 7% of department chiefs and chairs of plastic surgery are women. Improving representation of women and ethnic minorities in White-male dominated fields like plastic surgery has the potential to improve access to healthcare in minority populations. In fact, female leadership has even been associated with increased effectiveness. 11

Even when individuals from racially or ethnically under-represented populations attain high level executive positions, most earn lower salaries and are overrepresented in management positions serving indigent populations. 12 It is critical to address these gaps and disparities in healthcare. Some measures are being taken to attain culture competency via targeting upper-level executives to identify cultural competency as a high priority. 4 , 12 Others propose targeting cultural competence in healthcare at the root, namely medical education. Some of the problematic themes identified include lack of exposure and insufficient education and teaching curricula regarding diversity; unfortunately, cultural competence is often perceived as a low priority in an overloaded academic curriculum. 13

In the healthcare industry, efforts have been made to achieve cultural competence with the goal of providing culturally congruent care. 4 A review of culturally competent healthcare industry systems identified 5 interventions to improve cultural competence: (1) gear programs to recruit and retain diverse staff members, (2) cultural competency training for healthcare providers, (3) use of interpreter services to ensure individuals from different backgrounds can effectively communicate, (4) culturally appropriate health education materials to inform staff of different cultural backgrounds, and (5) provision of culturally specific healthcare settings. 14 Through increased awareness and by incorporating these interventions, culture competence can be improved in plastic surgery from bedside to the operating room.

Regrettably, there is a lack of literature linking culturally competent education to patient, professional, organizational outcomes. Horvat et al. created a 4-dimensional conceptual framework to assess intervention efficacy: educational content, pedagogical approach, structure of the intervention, and participant characteristics. It is essential that future studies follow methodologic rigor and reproducibility to best document progress. 15

An examination of 119 California hospitals revealed that nonprofit hospitals serve more diverse patient populations, are in more affluent and competitive markets, and exhibit higher cultural competency. It is argued that there will be a market incentive for implementing culturally competent programs as long as cultural competency is linked to better patient experiences. 16 Policymakers and institutions can capitalize on this and incorporate cultural competence practices into metrics for incentive payments. Additionally, enhancing public reporting on patient care and hospital quality will drive competition in the healthcare field and prompt organizations to aim for cultural competence. 16

Striving for ethnic diversity and cultural competency in plastic surgery is necessary to adequately care for an evolving and diverse patient population. It is imperative that plastic surgery departments adopt evidence-based practices to foster cultural competency including promoting recruitment of diverse healthcare-providers, the use of interpreter services, cultural competency training for healthcare team members, and distribution of information on cultural competency to hospital staff members. As population demographics change, plastic surgery departments must also evolve to suit the needs of a diverse array of modern patients.

Published online 16 May 2019.

Disclosure: The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.

Learn More Psychology

• Psychology Issues

Cultural Differences in Psychology

How cultural differences can affect our perception and behavior..

Permalink Print   |  

You might assume that a study in psychology, regardless of where it was undertaken, can be applied to our understanding of human nature as a whole - that, for example, the attachments formed between mother and baby are universal and will be the identical regardless of where a person lives.

However, this assumption has been challenged by those studying cross-cultural psychology, a field of research which analyses cultural biases in the way other research is carried out, and the influence of our society on the way we think and behave. Researchers have discovered that subtle differences between cultures mean that the findings of an experiment in the U.S. cannot necessarily be applied to our understanding of human behavior in a different culture, such as Japan, for instance.

In this article, we look at the challenges facing psychologists in producing experiments that accurately understand behavior across different cultures, and some interesting findings of psychological studies into cross-cultural differences.

Defining Culture

To understand psychological differences amongst cultures, we must first define what we refer to as "culture" and how this can differ from simply the "place" in which we live. In psychology, culture refers to a set of ideas and beliefs which give people sense of shared history and can guide our behavior within society. Culture manifests itself in our language, art, daily routines, religion and sense of morality, among other forms, and is passed down from generation to generation.

Of course, within each culture we often see the influence of other cultures, such as that of other European languages on the English vocabulary, along with wide cultural variations within each country. So, whilst cultures and their boundaries remain fluid, in the study of cross-cultural psychology, research often focuses the differences in cultures at national levels (e.g. between the US and Japan).

Individualism vs Collectivism

One of the key distinctions between national cultures, which can influence the choices that people make, is that of individualistic versus collectivist societies:

Individualistic Societies

Individualistic societies focus on needs of the individual person and encourage each person to strive to achieve their own potential, often in competition with, or sometimes to the detriment of, a person's peers. It emphasises the importance of self-reliance and give each individual the freedom to be oneself, nurturing the idea of self expression.

Many countries in the West, such as the US, UK and other Western European countries are widely considered to be individualistic societies.

Collectivistic Societies

In contrast to individualistic societies, collectivistic societies emphasize the importance of cooperation - working for the benefit of the collective - and assume that societies can only improve by a group effort amongst all members of the community.

Collectivistic behavior may see altruistic acts or favors being carried out without the expectation of a reward other than that which benefits society. For example, a person may work extra hours without additional reward to fix a well, knowing that it will help to satisfy their fellow villagers' need for water.

Collectivism is generally found in Eastern cultures - in countries such as Japan - and also in smaller groups such as Kibbutz farming communities in Israel, where each member works towards the town's collective goals.

• Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Yet, many of these theories ignore the wider, environmental factors which affect an individual's behavior, one of which is the influence of the cultural experiences that a person lives through and which must also affect the behavior of people who interact with them. Is there a reason for culture being looked over in the mission to understand our thoughts and behavior?

Bias in Experiments

The development of psychology as a discipline in the West has inevitably lead to many studies and experiments being carried out in individualistic societies and often more specifically, at universities. Moreover, in 2010, Canadian psychologist Joseph Henrich and his colleagues identified that the participants of such studies tended to be W.E.I.R.D. - Western and Educated, and from Industrialised, Rich and Democratic countries ( Henrich et al, 2010 ). 2 This leads to the question of whether the findings of key psychological studies carry external validity outside not only the experimental situation, but whether they can be generalized to apply outside of the society and culture in which the studies were carried out.

Such criticism of psychology studies from a cross-cultural perspective has lead to researchers attempting to replicate experiments' findings in countries other than their original location. Yet this presents a second problem - is there an inherent cultural bias in the experimental methods used to observe behavior? For example, people in the U.S. have been found to interpret emotions using different facial features to those in other China, for example ( Jack, 2012 ). 3 This casts doubt on whether the same techniques can be reliably used to observe and record emotions in a US study as in an experiment carried out in another culture.

Cultural Differences in Relationships and Attachments

One groundbreaking area of research in psychology was that of interpersonal relationships, and the impact that social interactions as an infant have on a person later in life. Mary Ainsworth developed the Strange Situation test (Ainsworth and Bell, 1970) which built on the work of John Bowlby to demonstrate the different types of attachment to the caregiver that infants experience, including secure, anxious-resistant and anxious-avoidant attachments. 4 Such attachments have been widely recognised and are still used in understanding parent-child relationships today. However, in the Strange Situation test, Ainsworth's subjects were from middle class, Caucasian backgrounds - a demographic which struggles to represent the cultural makeup of the US, still less other countries.

Following numerous studies attempting to replicate Ainsworth's Strange Situation test in non-US cultures, a meta-analysis of the studies revealed that across individualistic and collectivistic cultures, secure attachments were the most common bond formed between parent and child ( Ijendoorn and Kroonenburg, 1988 ), as in the US study. 5 However, in the Western countries studied, the remaining attachments formed were primarily insecure-avoidant - infants showed limited anxiety when the caregiver left them, were relatively unphased by a stranger entering the room and took little comfort from the caregiver returning. By contrast, in Eastern cultures, the remaining attachments were mainly resistant avoidant - the infants became anxious when the caregiver left the room and in the presence of the stranger.

In another study, researchers in Detroit carried out a meta-analysis of studies into the effect that having children can have on couple's relationships. Dillon and Beechler (2010) found that in both individualistic and collectivistic cultures, relationships were reported to be impacted to some degree. However, the negative effect was more significant in individualistic societies. The researchers attributed this difference to the way in which the responsibility for childcare is often shared among different caregivers in Eastern societies, whereas in the West, the mother-child bond may be much stronger as infants tend to be cared for primarily by their mother. 6

Cultural differences in emotions

Relationships are not the only focus of study which have been observed to differ among cultures. As we have seen, the participants of studies in the US and China have been seen to use 'tells' - information gathered from facial expressions - differently when judging a person's emotional state. 2

Cultural differences with respect to emotional intelligence have also been identified in participants in a Japanese study, in which participants were shown cartoons of people displaying varying emotions, surrounded by people who either showed the same or a different emotion.

The researchers found that Japanese participants were more likely to evaluate the emotions of those surrounding the central person when trying to judge their emotion than Western participants did ( Masuda et al, 2008 ). 7 This indicates the influence of a collectivist culture in taking into account the emotions of the whole group, rather than focussing on an individual's emotional state.

Culture and measuring intelligence

Cross-cultural analyses of psychology studies has also had implications for the way levels of intelligence are measured among populations. We might believe that intelligence can be measured objectively, and in the West, the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test is commonly used to quantify and compare people's intelligence. However, across different cultures, this does not always provide an accurate measurement. One study by Sernberg and Grigorenko (2004) , which took the view of intelligence as being a practical ability to survive, measured Kenyans' ability to identify the correct type of herbal medicine to use for infections - an essential skill in their environment. Researchers compared the participants' ability to their intelligence as measured by tests used to quantify intelligence by Western standards, including those evaluating vocabulary and cognitive skills.

The results of the two types of test - one culturally specific and one Western-orientated - had minimal correlation, showing that intelligence in one culture is not necessarily useful in another. 8

Designing better studies

Studies revealing cross cultural differences in such areas have lead to better methodology and more acute criticism of psychological research with regards to its generalisability. John Berry (1969) distinguished between two approaches to research. Firstly he identified emic studies, which focus on a specific culture and do not necessarily carry external validity outside of that culture. The second approach is etic - research which recognises the inherent cultural biases of an experiment's methodology and attempts to either use techniques which can be applied universally, or to use researchers who are familiar with a culture and can create experiments with methods that are suitable for that culture. 9

• Maslow, A.H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychology Review , 50 (4), 370-396.
• Henrich, J., Heine, S.J. and Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences . 33 (2-3). 61-135.
• Jack, R.E., Caldara, R., Schyns, P.G. (2012). Internal Representations Reveal Cultural Diversity in Expectations of Facial Expressions of Emotion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General . 141 (1). 19-25.
• Ainsworth, M.D.S. and Bell, S.M. (1970). Attachment, Exploration, and Separation: Illustrated by the Behavior of One-Year-Olds in a Strange Situation. Child Development . 41 (1). 49-67.
• Van Ijendoorn, M.H. and Kroonenburg, P.M. (1988). Cross-cultural Patterns of Attachment: A Meta-Analysis of the Strange Situation. Child Development . 59 (1). 147-56.
• Dillon, L.M. and Beechler, M.P. (2010). Marital satisfaction and the impact of children in collectivist cultures: a meta-analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology . 8 (1). 7-22.
• Masuda, T., Ellsworth, P.C., Mesquita, B., Leu, J. and Van de Veerdonk, E. (2008). Placing the face in context: cultural differences in the perception of facial emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 94 (3). 365-381.
• Sternberg, R.J. and Grigorenko, E.L. (2004). Intelligence and culture: how culture shapes what intelligence means, and the implications for a science of well-being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London . 1427-1434.
• Berry, J.W. (1969). On Cross-Cultural Comparability. International Journal of Psychology . 4 (2). 119-128.

Which Archetype Are You?

Are You Angry?

Windows to the Soul

Are You Stressed?

Attachment & Relationships

Memory Like A Goldfish?

31 Defense Mechanisms

Slave To Your Role?

Are You Fixated?

Interpret Your Dreams

How to Read Body Language

How to Beat Stress and Succeed in Exams

More on Psychology Issues

Extreme Phobias

Extreme phobias: an extreme case of fear meeting fate.

Extreme Phobias: Collyer Brothers

I Hear Red. I Taste 5.

A look at synesthesia, a condition which causes sufferers to experience a...

When Experiments Just Aren't Enough

Overview of the humanistic approach in psychology. Includes related studies and...

Think Rationally.

Overview to Rational Emotive Therapy as a treatment in psychology. Includes...

Reductionism In Psychology

Introduction to reductionism as a technique in psychological research.

Sign Up for  Unlimited Access

• Psychology approaches, theories and studies explained
• Body Language Reading Guide
• How to Interpret Your Dreams Guide
• Self Hypnosis Downloads
• Plus More Member Benefits

You May Also Like...

Master body language, brainwashed, persuasion with ingratiation, why do we dream, making conversation, dark sense of humor linked to intelligence, psychology of color, nap for performance, psychology  guides.

Learn Body Language Reading

How To Interpret Your Dreams

Overcome Your Fears and Phobias

Psychology topics, learn psychology.

• Access 2,200+ insightful pages of psychology explanations & theories
• Insights into the way we think and behave
• Body Language & Dream Interpretation guides
• Self hypnosis MP3 downloads and more
• Behavioral Approach
• Eye Reading
• Stress Test
• Cognitive Approach
• Fight-or-Flight Response
• Neuroticism Test

© 2024 Psychologist World. Home About Contact Us Terms of Use Privacy & Cookies Hypnosis Scripts Sign Up

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Diverse Cultures and Shared Experiences Shape Asian American Identities

About six-in-ten feel connected to other asians in the u.s., table of contents.

• The making of Asian American identity and knowledge of Asian history in the U.S.
• Immigrant ties shape Asian Americans' identities and their life in the U.S.
• Asians in the U.S. share similar views among themselves and with the U.S. public on what it means to be American
• How Asians in the U.S. describe their identity
• Asian adults and the general public agree: U.S. Asians have many different cultures
• Whom do U.S. Asians consider Asian?
• A majority of Asian adults say others would describe them as Asian when walking past them on the street
• For many Asian adults, where they were born shapes friendships formed in the U.S.
• Most Asian adults are comfortable with intermarriage
• Some Asians say they have hidden their heritage
• Connections with other Asian Americans, politics and political parties
• Need for a national leader advancing the concerns of Asian Americans
• Asian American registered voters and political party
• About one-quarter of Asian adults say they are informed about U.S. Asian history
• What being ‘truly American’ means to U.S. Asians
• Fewer than half of U.S. Asians consider themselves typical Americans
• What do Asian Americans view as important for the American dream?
• Most Asian adults say the American dream is within reach, but about a quarter say they will never achieve it
• Acknowledgments
• Sample design
• Data collection
• Weighting and variance estimation
• Largest origin groups
• Educational attainment
• Immigration status
• Length of time living in the U.S. among immigrants
• Citizenship status among immigrants

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to understand the rich diversity of people of Asian origin or ancestry living in the United States and their views of identity. The study is part of the Center’s multiyear, comprehensive, in-depth quantitative and qualitative research effort focused on the nation’s Asian population. Its centerpiece is this nationally representative survey of 7,006 Asian adults exploring the experiences, attitudes and views of Asians living in the U.S. The survey sampled U.S. adults who self-identify as Asian, either alone or in combination with other races or Hispanic ethnicity. It was offered in six languages: Chinese (Simplified and Traditional), English, Hindi, Korean, Tagalog and Vietnamese. Responses were collected from July 5, 2022, to Jan. 27, 2023, by Westat on behalf of Pew Research Center.

The Center recruited a large sample to examine the diversity of the U.S. Asian population, with oversamples of the Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Korean and Vietnamese populations. These are the five largest origin groups among Asian Americans. The survey also includes a large enough sample of self-identified Japanese adults, making findings about them reportable. In this report, the six largest ethnic groups include those who identify with one Asian ethnicity only, either alone or in combination with a non-Asian race or ethnicity. Together, these six groups constitute 81% of all U.S. Asian adults, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the Census Bureau’s 2021 American Community Survey (ACS), and are the six groups whose attitudes and opinions are highlighted throughout the report. Survey respondents were drawn from a national sample of residential mailing addresses, which included addresses from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Specialized surnames list frames maintained by the Marketing Systems Group were used to supplement the sample. Those eligible to complete the survey were offered the opportunity to do so online or by mail with a paper questionnaire. For more details, see the Methodology . For questions used in this analysis, see the Topline Questionnaire .

The survey research plan and questionnaire were reviewed and approved by Westat’s institutional review board (IRB), which is an external and independent committee of experts specializing in protecting the rights of research participants.

Even though the U.S. Asian population was the fastest growing racial and ethnic group in the country from 2000 to 2019 , it is still a relatively small population. According to the 2021 American Community Survey, the country’s Asian population constitutes 7% of the U.S. population (of all ages) and 7% of adults (those ages 18 and older).

Pew Research Center designed this study with these details in mind to be as inclusive as possible of the diversity of Asian American experiences. Even so, survey research is limited when it comes to documenting the views and attitudes of the less populous Asian origin groups in the U.S. To address this, the survey was complemented by 66 pre-survey focus groups of Asian adults , conducted from Aug. 4 to Oct. 14, 2021, with 264 recruited participants from 18 Asian origin groups. Focus group discussions were conducted in 18 different languages and moderated by members of their origin groups.

Findings for less populous Asian origin groups in the U.S., those who are not among the six largest Asian origin groups, are grouped under the category “Other” in this report and are included in the overall Asian adult findings in the report. These ethnic origin groups each make up about 2% or less of the Asian population in the U.S., making it challenging to recruit nationally representative samples for each origin group. The group “Other” includes those who identify with one Asian ethnicity only, either alone or in combination with a non-Asian race or Hispanic ethnicity. Findings for those who identify with two or more Asian ethnicities are not presented by themselves in this report but are included in the overall Asian adult findings.

To learn more about how members of less populous Asian origin groups in the U.S. identify, see the quote sorter based on our focus group discussions. There, you can read how participants describe their identity in their own words.

For this analysis, an additional national survey of 5,132 U.S. adults was conducted from Dec. 5 to 11, 2022, using Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel . The survey of U.S. adults was conducted in English and Spanish. Respondents are recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses.

Pew Research Center has conducted multiple studies that focus on Asian Americans. Previous demographic studies examined the diversity of origins , key facts , and rising income inequality among Asians living in the U.S. and key findings about U.S. immigrants. Qualitative studies have focused on what it means to be Asian in America as well as barriers to English language learning among Asian immigrants. Previous surveys have focused on concerns over discrimination and violence against Asian Americans, as well as studies about their religious beliefs . Find these publications and more on the Center’s Asian Americans topic page .

Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. The Center’s Asian American portfolio was funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, with generous support from The Asian American Foundation; Chan Zuckerberg Initiative DAF, an advised fund of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation; the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; the Henry Luce Foundation; the Doris Duke Foundation; The Wallace H. Coulter Foundation; The Dirk and Charlene Kabcenell Foundation; The Long Family Foundation; Lu-Hebert Fund; Gee Family Foundation; Joseph Cotchett; the Julian Abdey and Sabrina Moyle Charitable Fund; and Nanci Nishimura.

We would also like to thank the Leaders Forum for its thought leadership and valuable assistance in helping make this survey possible.

The strategic communications campaign used to promote the research was made possible with generous support from the Doris Duke Foundation.

The terms Asian, Asians living in the United States , U.S. Asian population and Asian Americans are used interchangeably throughout this report to refer to U.S. adults who self-identify as Asian, either alone or in combination with other races or Hispanic identity.

Ethnicity and ethnic origin labels, such as Chinese and Chinese origin, are used interchangeably in this report for findings for ethnic origin groups, such as Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Japanese, Korean or Vietnamese. For this report, ethnicity is not nationality. For example, Chinese in this report are those self-identifying as of Chinese ethnicity, rather than necessarily being a current or former citizen of the People’s Republic of China. Ethnic origin groups in this report include those who self-identify as one Asian ethnicity only, either alone or in combination with a non-Asian race or ethnicity.

Less populous Asian origin groups in this report are those who self-identify with ethnic origin groups that are not among the six largest Asian origin groups. The term includes those who identify with only one Asian ethnicity. These ethnic origin groups each represent about 2% or less of the overall Asian population in the U.S. For example, those who identify as Burmese, Hmong or Pakistani are included in this category. These groups are unreportable on their own due to small sample sizes, but collectively they are reportable under this category.

The terms Asian origins and Asian origin groups are used interchangeably throughout this report to describe ethnic origin groups.

Immigrants in this report are people who were not U.S. citizens at birth – in other words, those born outside the U.S., Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories to parents who are not U.S. citizens. I mmigrant , first generation and foreign born are used interchangeably to refer to this group.  

Naturalized citizens are immigrants who are lawful permanent residents who have fulfilled the length of stay and other requirements to become U.S. citizens and who have taken the oath of citizenship.

U.S. born refers to people born in the 50 U.S. states or the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories.

Second generation refers to people born in the 50 states or the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories with at least one first-generation (immigrant) parent.

Third or higher generation refers to people born in the 50 states or the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories with both parents born in the 50 states, D.C., Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories.

The nation’s Asian population is fast growing and diverse. Numbering more than 23 million, the population has ancestral roots across the vast, ethnically and culturally rich Asian continent. For Asians living in the United States, this diversity is reflected in how they describe their own identity. According to a new, nationwide, comprehensive survey of Asian adults living in the U.S., 52% say they most often use ethnic labels that reflect their heritage and family roots, either alone or together with “American,” to describe themselves. Chinese or Chinese American, Filipino or Filipino American, and Indian or Indian American are examples of these variations.

There are other ways in which Asians living in the U.S. describe their identity. About half (51%) of Asian adults say they use American on its own (10%), together with their ethnicity (25%) or together with “Asian” as Asian American (16%) when describing their identity, highlighting their links to the U.S.

And while pan-ethnic labels such as Asian and Asian American are commonly used to describe this diverse population broadly, the new survey shows that when describing themselves, just 28% use the label Asian (12%) on its own or the label Asian American (16%).

The survey also finds that other labels are used by Asian Americans. Some 6% say they most often prefer regional terms such as South Asian and Southeast Asian when describing themselves.

Asian adults see more cultural differences than commonalities across their group as well. When asked to choose between two statements – that Asians in the U.S. share a common culture, or that Asians in the U.S. have many different cultures – nearly all (90%) say U.S. Asians have many different cultures. Just 9% say Asians living in the U.S. share a common culture. This view is widely held across many demographic groups among Asian Americans, according to the survey.

The view that Asian Americans have many different cultures is also one held by the general public, according to another Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults, conducted in December 2022. Among all U.S. adults, 80% say Asians in the U.S. have many different cultures, while 18% say they share a common culture. 1

Though Asian Americans’ identities reflect their diverse cultures and origins, Asian adults also report certain shared experiences. A majority (60%) say most people would describe them as “Asian” while walking past them on the street, indicating most Asian adults feel they are seen by others as a single group, despite the population’s diversity. One-in-five say they have hidden a part of their heritage (their ethnic food, cultural practices, ethnic clothing or religious practices) from others who are not Asian, in some cases out of fear of embarrassment or discrimination. Notably, Asian adults ages 18 to 29 are more likely to say they have done this than Asians 65 and older (39% vs. 5%).

Asian adults in the U.S. also feel connected with other Asian Americans. About six-in-ten (59%) say that what happens to Asians in the U.S. affects their own lives, at least to some extent. 2 And about two-thirds (68%) of Asian Americans say it is extremely or very important to have a national leader advocating for the concerns and needs of the Asian population in the U.S.

The new survey also shows that large majorities of Asian adults share similar views on what it takes to be considered truly American. And they consider many of the same factors to be important in their views of the American dream.

These are among the key findings from Pew Research Center’s new survey of Asian American adults, conducted by mail and online from July 5, 2022, to Jan. 27, 2023. This is the largest nationally representative survey of its kind to date that focused on Asian Americans. The survey was conducted in English and five Asian languages, among a representative sample of 7,006 Asian adults living in the United States. 

Asian Americans are 7% of the U.S. population, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the 2021 American Community Survey. Their population is diverse, with roots in more than 20 countries in East Asia, Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent. About 54% of the national Asian population are immigrants. The six largest origin groups (Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese), a focus of this survey and report, together account for 79% of all Asian Americans.

Overall, about 34% of Asian Americans are the U.S.-born children of immigrant parents, and another 14% are of third or higher generation (meaning their parents were born in the U.S. as well), according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the 2022 Current Population Survey, March Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

This survey and report focus on Asian adults in the U.S. The six largest origin groups together account for 81% of Asian adults. And 68% of Asian American adults are immigrants, according to Center analysis of the 2021 American Community Survey. Additionally, 25% are the U.S.-born children of immigrant parents and 10% are of third or higher generation, according to Center analysis of government data.

The pan-ethnic term “Asian American” emerged in Berkeley, California, in the 1960s as part of a political movement to organize the diverse U.S. Asian population. The creation of an Asian American identity was in reaction to a long history of exclusion of Asians in the country, including the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and a pair of Supreme Court cases in the 1920s clarifying that Asians, including South Asians, are not “free White persons” and therefore were excluded from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. 3 Subsequently, the term was adopted by the federal government and today is the principal identity label used by media, academics, researchers and others to describe today’s diverse Asian American population.

In most cases today, someone is considered Asian or Asian American if they self-identify as such. But Asian Americans do not necessarily agree on which regional or ethnic groups from the Asian continent they consider to be Asian, according to the new survey. The vast majority of Asian adults say they consider those from East Asia, such as Chinese or Koreans (89%); Southeast Asia, such as Vietnamese or Filipinos (88%); and to a lesser extent South Asia such as Indians or Pakistanis (67%) to be Asian.

But Asian adults are split on whether they consider Central Asians such as Afghans or Kazakhs to be Asian (43% of Asian adults say they are). While about half of Indian adults (56%) say they would include Central Asians in the category Asian, fewer than half of Filipino (40%), Chinese (39%), Japanese (34%), Korean (32%) and Vietnamese (30%) adults consider them Asian.

Few Asians say they are knowledgeable about U.S. Asian history

Asian Americans have a long history in the United States. From Chinese laborers who helped build the first transcontinental railroad, to Japanese immigrants who arrived as plantation workers in what is now the state of Hawaii, to the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II, to Filipinos being treated as U.S. nationals while the Philippines was a U.S. territory, the Asian American experience has been a part of U.S. history.

With the passage of the landmark Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, a new wave of immigrants from Asia began arriving in the United States, creating a new, contemporary U.S. Asian history. The Vietnam War and other conflicts in Southeast Asia brought Vietnamese and other Southeast Asian refugees to the U.S. , first with the passage of the 1975 Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act and then with the Refugee Act of 1980. The 1990 Immigration Act raised immigration ceilings and set in place processes that allowed the flows of Asian immigrants, particularly of high-skilled immigrants, to continue and expand. The U.S. technology boom of the 1990s and 2000s attracted many high-skilled immigrants, particularly from India and China, to tech centers around the country.

This rich history, however, is little-known to Asian adults, according to the new survey. One-in-four (24%) say they are very or extremely informed about history of Asians in the United States, while an equal share (24%) say they are little or not at all informed.

The majority of those very or extremely informed about the history of Asians in the U.S. say they learned about this history through informal channels: internet (82%), media (76%) and family and friends (70%). In contrast, 49% learned about it from college or university courses and 39% from elementary through high school.

Immigrant ties shape Asian Americans’ identities and their life in the U.S.

Immigration experiences, connections with home countries, and how long someone has lived in the U.S. shape many Asian Americans’ identities. Among Asian adults in the U.S., immigrants are more likely than those who are U.S. born to describe their identity most often with their ethnic labels, either alone or together with the label American (56% vs. 41%).

Meanwhile, Asian immigrants are less likely than U.S.-born Asians (46% vs. 65%) to say they most often describe themselves as American in some way – whether by their ethnic label combined with American, as Asian American, or simply as American. Still, nearly half of Asian immigrants describe themselves in one of these three ways.

When it comes to identifying with the label Asian – either alone or as Asian American – immigrant and U.S.-born Asians are about equally likely to say they do so (28% and 29% respectively). Immigrant Asians are less likely than U.S.-born Asians to identify most often as Asian American (14% vs. 21%).

On the question of seeing themselves more as a “typical American” or “very different from a typical American,” Asian immigrant adults are far less likely than those born in the U.S. to think of themselves as a typical American (37% vs. 69%).

Nativity is also tied to how Asians in the U.S. develop their friendships. Those who immigrated to the U.S. are more likely to have friends who are Asian or of the same ethnicity as them than are U.S.-born Asians (56% vs. 38%).

Asian immigrants (15%) are also less likely than U.S.-born Asians (32%) to have ever hidden a part of their heritage from people who are not Asian. When asked in an open-ended question to explain why they hide aspects of their culture, some U.S.-born respondents mentioned phrases such as “fear of discrimination,” “being teased” and “embarrassing.”

Views of identity among Asian American immigrants are often tied to time spent in the U.S.

How long Asian immigrants have lived in the U.S. also shapes their identity and experiences. Those who arrived in the U.S. in the past 10 years are more likely than those who arrived more than 20 years ago to say they most often use their ethnicity, such as Filipino or Vietnamese, to describe themselves. And about two-thirds (65%) of those who arrived in the U.S. in the past decade describe their identity most often with their ethnicity’s name, either alone or combined with American, compared with 54% among those who have been in the country for more than two decades.

Roughly half (54%) of those who have arrived in the past 10 years say they most often use only their ethnicity to describe themselves, compared with just 21% of those who arrived more than two decades ago who say the same.

On the other hand, just 17% of Asian immigrants who arrived in the country in the past 10 years describe themselves most often as American, by their ethnic label combined with American, or as Asian American, while 59% of those who arrived more than 20 years ago do so.

When it comes to their circle of friends, 60% of Asian immigrants who arrived in the past 10 years say most or all of their friends are also Asian Americans, while 50% of those who arrived more than 20 years ago say the same.

And when asked if they think of themselves as typical Americans or not, Asian immigrants who arrived in the U.S. in the past decade are substantially less likely than those who arrived more than two decades ago to say they are typical Americans (20% vs. 48%).

The new survey also explored the views Asian Americans have about traits that make one “truly American.” Overall, Asian Americans and the general U.S. population share similar views of what it means to be American. Nearly all Asian adults and U.S. adults say that accepting people of diverse racial and religious backgrounds (94% and 91%), believing in individual freedoms (92% and 94%) and respecting U.S. political institutions and laws (89% and 87%) are important for being truly American.

Similarly, Asian Americans and the U.S. general population share in their views about the American dream. They say having freedom of choice in how to live one’s life (96% and 97% respectively), having a good family life (96% and 94%), retiring comfortably (96% and 94%) and owning a home (both 86%) are important to their view of the American dream. Smaller shares of Asian and U.S. adults (30% and 27%) say owning a business is important to their view of the American dream.

Here are other survey findings highlighting the diverse views and attitudes of Asian adults living in the U.S.:

• Indian adults are the most likely of the six largest Asian origin groups to say they most often use their ethnicity, without the addition of “American,” to describe themselves. About four-in-ten Indian adults (41%) say they do this. By comparison, smaller shares of Korean (30%), Filipino (29%), Chinese (26%) and Vietnamese (23%) adults do the same. Japanese adults (14%) are the least likely among the largest groups to use their ethnic identity term alone.
• Japanese adults are the least likely among the largest Asian origin groups to say they have friendships with other Asians. About one-in-three Japanese adults (34%) say most or all their friends share their own ethnicity or are otherwise Asian. By contrast, about half of all Indian (55%), Vietnamese (55%), Chinese (51%), Korean (50%) and Filipino (48%) respondents say the same.
• One-in-four Korean adults (25%) say they have hidden part of their heritage from people who are not Asian. Some 20% of Indian, 19% of Chinese, 18% of Vietnamese, 16% of Filipino and 14% of Japanese adults say they have done the same.
• Across the largest ethnic groups, about half or more say that what happens to Asians in the U.S. affects what happens in their own lives. About two-thirds of Korean (67%) and Chinese (65%) adults say this. By comparison, 61% of Japanese, 54% of Filipino, 55% of Indian and 52% of Vietnamese adults say they are impacted by what happens to Asians nationally.
• Most Asian adults among the largest ethnic origin groups say a national leader advancing the U.S. Asian community’s concerns is important. Roughly three-in-four Filipino (74%) and Chinese (73%) adults say it is very or extremely important to for the U.S. Asian community to have a national leader advancing its concerns. A majority of Vietnamese (69%), Korean (66%), Japanese (63%) and Indian adults (62%) says the same.  
• About half of Vietnamese registered voters (51%) identify with or lean to the Republican Party. In contrast, about two-thirds of Indian (68%), Filipino (68%) and Korean (67%) registered voters identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party. And 56% of Chinese registered voters also associate with the Democratic Party. 
• This finding is from a nationally representative survey of 5,132 U.S. adults conducted by Pew Research Center from Dec. 5 to 11, 2022, using the Center’s American Trends Panel . ↩
• In recent years, a major source of concern and fear among many Asian adults in the U.S. has been the rise in reported violence against Asian Americans . ↩
• For more on the history of the creation of an Asian American identity, see Lee, Jennifer and Karthick Ramakrishnan. 2019. “ Who counts as Asian .” Ethnic and Racial Studies. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Asian Americans
• Immigrant Populations
• Integration & Identity
• Racial & Ethnic Identity
• Racial Bias & Discrimination

Key facts about Asian Americans living in poverty

Methodology: 2023 focus groups of asian americans, 1 in 10: redefining the asian american dream (short film), the hardships and dreams of asian americans living in poverty, key facts about asian american eligible voters in 2024, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Transform your business with the power of culture.

• Browse solutions

Solutions for Individuals

Whether you work in a management team of a multicultural company or work as a consultant in the cultural field, we have solutions tailored to your business needs.

Solutions for Organisations

By utilising our research-based and practical approach we ensure that the results of the interventions are immediately applicable and with lasting effects.

Get started today with our free collection of resources.

• Browse resources
• Country Comparison Tool

Case Studies

Culture is essential to success. Here’s how to get it right.

Organisational Culture

Intercultural Management

The Culture Factor

Our network

Our international network of culture and management experts with years of experience supporting multinational companies.

Associated Practitioners

A highly selective worldwide network of culture and management consultants.

Discover our trusted partners.

Why more companies, governments and educational institutions choose The Culture Factor Group.

Country Offices

Geert Hofstede

Our Customers

Country comparison tool

Country Comparison tool

Select one or several countries/regions in the menu below to see the values for the 6 dimensions.

The data in the graph below may be used for non-commercial or non-profit purposes only. For inquiries regarding commercial use and to gain access to detailed cultural data, including regional and demographic insights, please contact us.

Learn how AI struggles to navigate cultural complexities and its implications for global business in our in-depth analysis.

Power Distance

Individualism, motivation towards achievement and success, uncertainty avoidance, long term orientation, bosnia and herzegovina, burkina faso, czech republic, dominican republic, el salvador, netherlands, new zealand, north macedonia, philippines, puerto rico, são tomé and príncipe, saudi arabia, sierra leone, south africa, south korea, switzerland, trinidad and tobago, united arab emirates, united kingdom, united states.

With a very high score of 90, Albania is a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

Albania’s low score of 27 indicates that it is a collectivistic society. This is evident in a close, long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies: offense leads to shame and the loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

By receiving a very high score of 80 in this dimension, it is clear that Albania can be considered a “Decisive” society. Behaviour in school, work, and play are based on the shared values that people should “strive to be the best they can be” and that “the winner takes all”. They are proud of their successes and achievements in life, and these offer a basis for hiring and promotion decisions in the workplace. Conflicts are resolved at the individual level and the goal is to win.

Albania, with a high score of 70, has a preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation. Decisions are taken after careful analysis of all available information.

With a score of 56, Albania is pragmatic. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on the situation, context, and time. They show an ability to easily adapt traditions to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results.

The very low score of 15 indicates that Albanian culture is one of Restraint. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are, or should be, Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

With a score of 80, Algeria scores high on this dimension, which means that members of the society accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place, and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, and the different distribution of power justifies the fact that power holders have more benefits than the less powerful in society. Status symbols of power are very important to indicate social position and “communicate” the respect that should be shown.

At a low score of 29, Algeria is a collectivist culture. This is evident in the early integration and close, long-term commitment to a strong, cohesive ‘in-group’. These societies foster strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for and protects fellow members of their group. Loyalty is paramount and overrides most other societal rules. In these societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face.

Algeria’s low score of 35 characterises it as a Consensus society. In countries scoring low on Motivation toward Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”. People in such societies value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. It is important to make sure that everyone is included. Conflicts can be threatening because they endanger the well-being of everyone; they are resolved by compromise and negotiation.

Scoring 70 in this dimension, Algeria demonstrates a high preference for avoiding uncertainty. These societies do not readily accept change and are very risk adverse. They maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. To minimize or reduce the level of uncertainty, there is an emotional need for strict rules, laws, policies, and regulations.

The low score of 25, indicates that Algeria has a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing an absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

The low score of 32 in this dimension shows that Algeria has a culture of restraint. Restrained societies have a tendency toward cynicism and pessimism. Also, they do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People have the perception that their actions are restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

A high score of 83 on this dimension indicates that Angola is a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

Angola’s very low score of 18 means that it is considered a collectivistic society. This is evident in a close, long-term commitment to the member ‘ group’ be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies: offense leads to shame and the loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

With a very low score of 20 on this dimension, Angola is thus considered a relatively Consensus society. In countries scoring low on Motivation toward Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”, managers strive for consensus, people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being and status is not shown or emphasised.

Angola has a relatively high score of 60 on this dimension so there is a preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work), time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted and security is an important element in individual motivation.

Angolan culture can be characterized as normative due to its very low score of 15 on this scale. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

Angola is an Indulgent country; this is evident from the very high score of 83 it received on this dimension. People in societies with a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to fulfill their impulses and desires, especially with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

At a score of 49 Argentina sits on the low end of PDI rankings of – and thus far from the much higher values that characterizes all other Latin American countries (leaving aside Costa Rica). The sources of Argentina´s low score on this dimension is rooted in the migration waves that reached the Rio de la Plata around the turn of the last century. Around 1900, approximately 6.5 M. European immigrants entered Argentina. At about that time over 30 % of its inhabitants (and every second in Buenos Aires) had been born abroad.

In this society status should be underlined. Appearance is very important: the (dark) attire or sober tailleur, the valuable watch, an expensive hotel, these elements allow inferring about power and facilitating the entrée.

With a score of 51, Argentina sits in the middle rankings. As a consequence of the aforementioned migration waves and the early emergence of wide middle classes, Argentina is, by far, the most Individualist of all Latin countries. However, many collectivistic traits prevail: the opinion of and obligations towards the (extended) family or in-group, for example, still count. This notwithstanding, more modern, Individualist traits can also be found, particularly in large urban conglomerates. There, the employer-employee link is rather calculative and there is a strict division between private and work life.

Argentina scores 56 on Motivation toward Achievement and Success, reflecting the presence of slightly more Decisive than Consensus elements. Among the former, it is important to note a strong achievement orientation and assertiveness, the Decisive behavior of female managers and politicians, and the equally strong ego needs. The need to excel and stand out has been noted by many experts. According to Carmo and Yanakiew, former Brazilian chancellor da Silveira admonished his young team members that during negotiations, you have to fear if there is only one Argentine. If there are two, the best practice is to be patient and relax. They are all so brilliant that one will destroy the other.

At 86 Argentina scores very high on UAI – and so do the majority of Latin American countries that belonged to the Spanish kingdom. These societies show a strong need for rules and elaborate legal systems in order to structure life. The individual’s need to obey these laws, however, is weak. Corruption is widespread, the black market sizeable and, in general, you´ll see a deep split between the “pays réel” and the “pays légal”.

To compound the issue, in these societies, if rules cannot be kept, additional rules are dictated. According to recent Nobel Prize winner Vargas Llosa, “A logical consequence of such abundance is that each legal disposition has another that corrects, denies or mitigates it. That means, in other words, that those who are immersed in such a sea of juridical contradictions like transgressing the law, or that – perhaps even more demoralizing – within such a structure, any abuse or transgression may find a legal loophole that redeems or justifies it.”

Argentina, with a low score of 29, is shown to have a very normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

Argentina’s high score of 62 in the dimension means that it is a country that falls under the category of Indulgence. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

With a very high score of 85, Armenia is a nation where power holders are very distant in society. People in this society accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place, and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, and the different distribution of power justifies the fact that power holders have more benefits than the less powerful in society. The discrepancy between the less and the more powerful people leads to a great importance of status symbols.

At a very low score of 17, Armenia is clearly a collectivist culture. This is evident in the early integration and close, long-term commitment to a strong, cohesive ‘in-group’. These societies foster strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for and protects fellow members of their group. Loyalty is paramount and overrides most other societal rules. In these societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face.

With an intermediate score of 50, Armenia has a bit of both worlds: high Motivation towards Achievement and Success for certain parts and low Motivation towards Achievement and Success for others, but no clearly dominant cultural value.

At 88, Armenia scores very high on Uncertainty Avoidance, demonstrating that as a nation they see mechanisms to avoid ambiguity. People do not readily accept change and are very risk adverse. They maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. To minimize the level of uncertainty, there is an emotional need for strict rules, laws, policies, and regulations.

At a score of 38, Armenia exhibits a normative culture. In societies like this, people have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

The low score of 25 in this dimension shows that Armenia has a culture of restraint. Restrained societies have a tendency toward cynicism and pessimism. Also, they do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People have the perception that their actions are restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Australia scores low on this dimension (38). Within Australian organizations, hierarchy is established for convenience, superiors are always accessible and managers rely on individual employees and teams for their expertise. Both managers and employees expect to be consulted and information is shared frequently. At the same time, communication is informal, direct and participative.

Australia, with a score of 73 on this dimension, is a highly Individualist culture. This translates into a loosely-knit society in which the expectation is that people look after themselves and their immediate families. In the business world, employees are expected to be self-reliant and display initiative. Also, within the exchange-based world of work, hiring, and promotion decisions are based on merit or evidence of what one has done or can do.

Australia scores 61 on Motivation toward Achievement and Success and is considered a “Decisive” society. Behavior in school, work, and play are based on the shared values that people should “strive to be the best they can be” and that “the winner takes all”. Australians are proud of their successes and achievements in life, and it offers a basis for hiring and promotion decisions in the workplace. Conflicts are resolved at the individual level and the goal is to win.

Australia scores a very intermediate 51 on this dimension.

Australia scores 56 on this dimension and therefore has a pragmatic culture. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on the situation, context, and time. They show an ability to easily adapt traditions to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results.

With a high score of 71, Australia is an Indulgent country. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

Austria scores very low on this dimension (score of 11) which means that the following characterises the Austrian style: Being independent, hierarchy for convenience only, equal rights, superiors accessible, coaching leader, management facilitates and empowers. Power is decentralized and managers count on the experience of their team members. Employees expect to be consulted. Control is disliked. Communication is direct and participative.

Austria, with a score of 77 is an Individualist society. This means there is a high preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only. In Individualist societies offense causes guilt and a loss of self-esteem, the employer/employee relationship is a contract based on mutual advantage, hiring and promotion decisions are supposed to be based on merit only, and management is the management of individuals.

At 79, Austria scores high on Motivation toward Achievement and Success. In countries scoring high on Motivation toward Achievement and Success, people “live in order to work”, managers are expected to be decisive, and the emphasis is on equity, competition, and performance. Conflicts are resolved by fighting them out. A clear example of this dimension is seen around election time, with ferocious, no-holds-barred battles between candidates.

Austria scores 70 on this dimension and thus has a preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation. Decisions are taken after careful analysis of all available information. The usage of academic titles as part of people’s names is a reflection of Austria’s high score on the Uncertainty Avoidance Index.

The Austrians score 47, this does not indicate a strong preference in either direction.

Austria is an Indulgent country with a high score of 63. People in societies classified by a high score on Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

With a very high score of 85, Azerbaijan is a nation where power holders are very distant in society. People in this society accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place, and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, and the different distribution of power justifies the fact that power holders have more benefits than the less powerful in society. The discrepancy between the less and the more powerful people leads to a great importance of status symbols.

At a low score of 28, Azerbaijan is a collectivist culture. This is evident in the early integration and close, long-term commitment to a strong, cohesive ‘in-group’. These societies foster strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for and protects fellow members of their group. Loyalty is paramount and overrides most other societal rules. In these societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face.

With an intermediate score of 50, Azerbaijan has a bit of both worlds: high Motivation towards Achievement and Success for certain parts and low Motivation towards Achievement and Success for others, but no clearly dominant cultural value.

At 88, Azerbaijan scores very high on Uncertainty Avoidance, demonstrating that as a nation they see mechanisms to avoid ambiguity. People do not readily accept change and are very risk adverse. They maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. To minimize the level of uncertainty, there is an emotional need for strict rules, laws, policies, and regulations.

At a relatively high score of 59, Azerbaijan exhibits a more pragmatic than normative culture. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on the situation, context, and time. They show an ability to easily adapt traditions to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, and thriftiness and perseverance in achieving results.

The low score of 22 in this dimension shows that Azerbaijan has a culture of restraint. Restrained societies have a tendency toward cynicism and pessimism. Also, they do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People have the perception that their actions are restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Bangladesh scores high on this dimension (score of 80) which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

Bangladesh, with a score of 5 is considered a highly collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Bangladesh scores 55 on this dimension and can be considered a Decisive society. In countries scoring high on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, people “live in order to work”, managers are expected to be decisive and assertive. Emphasis is on equity, competition, and performance. Conflicts are resolved by fighting them out.

Bangladesh scores 60 on this dimension and thus has an high score. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

Bangladesh has an intermediate score of 38 and is shown to have a very normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

Bangladesh has a very low Indulgence score of 20. This makes it a Restrained country. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

With a very high score of 95, Belarus is a nation where power holders are very distant in society. People in this society accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place, and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, and the different distribution of power justifies the fact that power holders have more benefits than the less powerful in society. The discrepancy between the less and the more powerful people leads to a great importance of status symbols.

With an Individualism score of 48, Belarus does not show a strong preference in either direction.

Belarus’s low score of 20 characterises it as a Consensus society. In cultures scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”. People in such societies value equality, solidarity, and quality in their work lives. It is important to make sure that everyone is included. Conflicts can be threatening because they endanger the well-being of everyone; they are resolved by compromise and negotiation.

At 95, Belarus scores very high on Uncertainty Avoidance, demonstrating that as a nation they see mechanisms to avoid ambiguity. People do not readily accept change and are very risk adverse. They maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. To minimize the level of uncertainty, there is an emotional need for strict rules, laws, policies, and regulations.

With a score of 53, though Belarusian culture does not show a strong preference in either direction.

Belarus’s very low score of 15 indicates a culture characterised by great Restraint. Restrained societies have a tendency toward cynicism and pessimism. Also, they do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People have the perception that their actions are, or should be, restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

With a score of 65, Belgium scores high on the scale of the PDI. It is therefore a society in which inequalities are accepted. Hierarchy is needed if not existential; the superiors may have privileges and are often inaccessible. The power is centralized in Belgium. It might in the near future not be centralized in Brussels anymore but the Walloons and Flemish will each have their own point of centralized power from where administration, transports, business etc. are managed. In management, the attitude towards managers is more formal and on family name basis (at least, in the first contact, the information flow is hierarchical. The way information is controlled is even associated with power, therefore unequally distributed. Control is normal, and even expected, but considered as formal and not key for efficiency.

At 81 Belgium scores very high on the Individualism index. This means that the Belgians favor individual and private opinions, taking care of themselves and their immediate family rather than belonging to a group. In the work environment, work relationships are contract based, the focus is on the task, and autonomy is favored. Management is the management of individuals and the recognition of one‘s work is expected. People can voice their opinion, but towards power holders, a less direct style is preferred than amongst peers. The Belgian culture (together with the French culture) houses a “contradiction”: although highly Individualist, the Belgians need a hierarchy. This combination (high score on Power Distance and high score on Individualism) creates a specific “tension” in this culture, which makes the relationship so delicate but intense and fruitful once you manage it. Therefore, the manager is advised to establish a second “level” of communication, having personal contact with everybody in the structure, allowing to give the impression that “everybody is important” in the organization, although unequal.

With 54 on average, Belgium has an intermediate score on Motivation towards Achievement and Success. Balancing in the middle of this dimension, contradictions can be found. A confrontational, win-lose negotiating style (typical of the US and Anglo countries) will not be very effective in Belgium. This could mean that the decision process may be slower, as each point of view is considered so that consensus can be achieved. Belgians strive towards reaching a compromise, winning a discussion is generally less important than achieving mutual agreement.

A deeper look into the difference between the Northern part of the country (Flemish) and the Southern part (French) shows a difference in the value for Motivation towards Achievement and Success. The Flemish is at 43, and the French at 60. This certainly explains partly the difficulties the two communities experience. The need for the Flemish to “close the circle” and “stay between natives” is a necessity to establish consensus, typical for a more Consensus culture. The cultural priority for the French-speaking part is the opposite: to be part of a “global Latin culture” typically made of “universal values”.

At 94 Belgium has one of the highest scores on the UAI Index. Their history of frequently being ruled by others partly explains this score. Certainty is often reached through academic work and concepts that can respond for the need of detail, context, and background. Teachings and trainings are more deductive. In management structure, rules and security are welcome and if lacking, it creates stress. Therefore planning is favoured, some level of expertise welcome, when change policies on the other hand are considered stressful. Both communities North [&] South share this score on the dimension, which makes it very painful when negotiating a new set of rules, called a Constitution!

With a very high score of 61, Belgium scores as a pragmatic culture. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on situation, context, and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions easily to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results.

Belgium scores 57 on this dimension, which marks it as Indulgent. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

A very high score of 94 on this dimension indicates that Bhutan definitely has a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

Bhutan has an intermediate score of 52 on this dimension. A score in the middle like this does not indicate a strong preference for either end of the scale.

With a score of 32 on this dimension, Bhutan is thus considered a relatively Consensus society. In countries scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”, managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, and status is not shown or emphasised.

With a very low score of 28, Bhutan is a fairly pragmatic culture in terms of Uncertainty Avoidance. This means that both generalists and experts are needed. There is a focus on planning, and these plans can be altered at short notice and improvisations made. Emotions are not shown much in these societies; people are fairly relaxed and not averse to taking risks. Consequently, there is a larger degree of acceptance for new ideas, innovative products and a willingness to try something new or different, whether it pertains to technology, business practices, or food.

No score for Bhutan is currently available for this dimension.

At a score of 78, Bolivia scores high on this dimension, which means that members of the society accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place, and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, and the different distribution of power justifies the fact that power holders have more benefits than the less powerful in society. Status symbols of power are very important to indicate social position and “communicate” the respect that should be shown.

Bolivia has a very low score of 23, indicating that it is a highly collectivistic society. This is evident in the early integration and close, long-term commitment to a strong, cohesive ‘in-group’. Society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for and protects fellow members of their group. Loyalty is paramount and overrides most other societal rules. In these societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face.

At 42, Bolivia scores relatively low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, thus a moderately Consensus society. This means that society is driven by a certain amount of modesty and fairness. People in such societies value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts can be threatening because they endanger the wellbeing of everyone; they are resolved by compromise and negotiation.

At 87, Bolivia scores very high on Uncertainty Avoidance, demonstrating that as a nation they see mechanisms to avoid ambiguity. People do not readily accept change and are very risk adverse. They maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. To minimize the level of uncertainty, there is an emotional need for strict rules, laws, policies, and regulations.

The low score of 21, indicates that Bolivia has a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing an absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

With an intermediate score of 46, no clear preference between Indulgence and Restraint can be established for Bolivia.

With a very high score of 90, Bosnia and Herzegovina is a nation where power holders are very distant in society. People in this society accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place, and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, and the different distribution of power justifies the fact that power holders have more benefits than the less powerful in society. The discrepancy between the less and the more powerful people leads to a great importance of status symbols.

At a score of 40, Bosnia and Herzegovina is a collectivist culture where people act in the interests of the group and not necessarily of themselves. In-group considerations affect hiring and promotions with closer in-groups (such as family) getting preferential treatment. Employee commitment to the organization (but not necessarily to the people in the organization) tends to be low. Whereas relationships with colleagues are cooperative for in-groups they are cold or even hostile to out-groups. Personal relationships prevail over tasks and company..

With an intermediate score of 48, Bosnia and Herzegovina has a bit of both worlds: high Motivation towards Achievement and Success for certain parts and low Motivation towards Achievement and Success for others, but no clearly dominant cultural value.

At 87, Bosnia and Herzegovina scores very high on Uncertainty Avoidance, demonstrating that as a nation they see mechanisms to avoid ambiguity. People do not readily accept change and are very risk adverse. They maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. To minimize the level of uncertainty, there is an emotional need for strict rules, laws, policies, and regulations.

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s low score of 36 indicates that its culture is normative. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing an absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results. Bosnia's low score is likely influenced by the Yugoslav war in the 90s as wars tend to make societies more short-term oriented.

With an intermediate score of 44, no clear preference between Indulgence and Restraint can be established for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

With a score of 69, Brazil reflects a society that believes hierarchy should be respected and inequalities amongst people are acceptable. The different distribution of power justifies the fact that power holders have more benefits than the less powerful in society. In Brazil it is important to show respect to the elderly (and children take care for their elderly parents). In companies there is one boss who takes complete responsibility. Status symbols of power are very important in order to indicate social position and “communicate” the respect that could be shown.

Brazil has a score of 36 which means that in this country people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive groups (especially represented by the extended family; including uncles, aunts, grandparents, and cousins) which continues protecting its members in exchange for loyalty. This is an important aspect in the working environment too, where for instance an older and powerful member of a family is expected to “help” a younger nephew to be hired for a job in his own company. In business it is important to build up trustworthy and long-lasting relationships: a meeting usually starts with general conversations to get to know each other before doing business. The preferred communication style is context-rich, so people will often speak profusely and write elaborately.

Brazil scores 49, a very intermediate score on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, not showing a clear cultural preference

At 76 Brazil scores high on UAI – and so do the majority of Latin American countries. These societies show a strong need for rules and elaborate legal systems in order to structure life. The individual’s need to obey these laws, however, is weak. If rules however cannot be kept, additional rules are dictated. In Brazil, as in all high Uncertainty Avoidance societies, bureaucracy, laws and rules are very important to make the world a safer place to live in. Brazilians need to have good and relaxing moments in their everyday life, chatting with colleagues, enjoying a long meal or dancing with guests and friends. Due to their high score in this dimension Brazilians are very passionate and demonstrative people: emotions are easily shown in their body language.

At 28, Brazil scores as a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing an absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

Brazil’s high score of 59 marks it as an Indulgent society. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

Bulgaria scores high on this dimension (score of 70) which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

Bulgaria does not show a preference in either direction.

Bulgaria scores 40 on this dimension and is thus considered a relatively Consensus society. In countries scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”, managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, status is not shown.

Bulgaria scores 85 on this dimension and thus has a very high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

With a score of 51, Bulgaria does not show a strong preference in either direction.

Bulgaria has a very low score of 16 in this dimension, making it a strongly Restrained culture. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Burkina Faso scores 70 on this dimension, which shows that it has a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

A very low score of 15 signifies that Burkina Faso is considered a collectivistic society. This is evident in a close, long-term commitment to the member ‘ group’ be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies: offense leads to shame and the loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

An intermediate score of 50 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success means that no dominant cultural value is suggested for Burkina Faso.

With an intermediate score of 55, no inclination for UAI can be chosen for Burkina Faso.

The low score of 27 suggests that Burkina Faso, therefore, has a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

Burkina Faso has a very low score (18) on this dimension; this indicates it has a culture characterised by Restraint. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are, or should be, Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

With a score of 39 on this dimension, Canadian culture is marked by interdependence among its inhabitants and there is value placed on egalitarianism. This is also reflected by the lack of overt status and/or class distinctions in society. Typical of other cultures with a low score on this dimension, hierarchy in Canadian organisations is established for convenience, superiors are always accessible and managers rely on individual employees and teams for their expertise. It is customary for managers and staff members to consult one another and to share information freely. With respect to communication, Canadians value a straightforward exchange of information.

Canada scores 72 on this dimension (its highest dimension score) and can be characterized as an Individualist culture. Similar to its American neighbor to the south, this translates into a loosely-knit society in which the expectation is that people look after themselves and their immediate families. Similarly, in the business world, employees are expected to be self-reliant and display initiative. Also, within the exchange-based world of work, hiring, and promotion decisions are based on merit or evidence of what one has done or can do.

Canada scores 52 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and can be characterized as a moderately “Decisive” society. While Canadians strive to attain high standards of performance in both work and play (sports), the overall cultural tone is more subdued with respect to achievement, success and winning, when compared to the US. Similarly, Canadians also tend to have a work-life balance and are likely to take time to enjoy personal pursuits, family gatherings and life in general. This is not to say that Canadians are not hard workers. As a general rule, Canadians strive to attain high standards of performance in all endeavors.

The Canadian score on this dimension is 48 and Canadian culture is more “uncertainty accepting.” This is indicative of the easy acceptance of new ideas, innovative products and a willingness to try something new or different, whether it pertains to technology, business practices, or consumer products. Canadians are also tolerant of ideas or opinions from anyone and allow the freedom of expression. At the same time, Canadian culture is not rules-oriented and Canadians tend to be less emotionally expressive than cultures scoring higher on this dimension.

Canada scores 54 in this dimension, making it a slightly pragmatic society. has a relatively Pragmatic culture. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on situation, context, and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions easily to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results..

The high score of 68 in this dimension means that Canadian culture is classified as Indulgent. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

NOTE: While the above descriptions apply to Canadian culture overall, one will likely find subtle differences between Anglophone Canadians and Francophone Canadians (the Province of Quebec.) Compared with their Anglophone counterparts, French-Canadians can be more formal, hierarchical, moderately relationship focused, and more emotionally expressive. The scores for Quebec are as follows: pdi 54; idv 73; mas 45; uai 60

With a high score of 75 in this dimension, Cape Verde is a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

Cape Verde’s very low score of 20 means that it is considered a collectivistic society. This is evident in a close, long-term commitment to the member ‘ group’ be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies: offense leads to shame and the loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Because of its very low score (15), Cape Verde is thus considered a relatively Consensus society. In countries scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”, managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being and status is not shown or emphasised.

Scoring only 40 in this dimension, Cape Verde is a fairly pragmatic culture in terms of Uncertainty Avoidance. This means that both generalists and experts are needed. There is a focus on planning, and these plans can be altered at short notice and improvisations made. Emotions are not shown much in these societies; people are fairly relaxed and not averse to taking risks. Consequently, there is a larger degree of acceptance for new ideas, innovative products and a willingness to try something new or different, whether it pertains to technology, business practices, or food.

Cape Verde has one of the lowest scores (12) on this dimension, relative to other countries. It, therefore, has a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

A very high score of 83 indicates that Cape Verde is an Indulgent country. People in societies with a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to fulfill their impulses and desires, especially with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

Though Chile scores lower on Power Distance than most other Latin American countries, at 63 it still occupies an intermediate to high position on this dimension. Remnants of Chile´s authoritarian past linger on in diverse fields. Organisational arrangements show taller pyramids and low degrees of delegation. Status symbols are used to underline power differences. A hierarchical social structure and rather rigid social classes are present; common cafeterias are rare, privileges for the power holders common.

Chile scores 49 on this dimension, not indicationg a strong preference in either direction.

Though difficult to detect, evidence reveals the Consensus character of Chilean society with its score of 28 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success. Far from being arrogant, both Chilean men and women show modest behaviour or attitude. In countries with low scores on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”. People need to feel a sense of “belonging” within a social group; they place value on warm interpersonal links and tacitly search for the approval of their group. Consequently, they tend to be supportive team members and managers strive for consensus. People value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being and status is not shown or emphasised.

At 86 Chile scores high on Uncertainty Avoidance – and so do the majority of Latin American countries that belonged to the Spanish kingdom. These societies show a strong need for rules and elaborate legal systems in order to structure life. Contrary to general practice in other Latin American countries, Chile shows rather low corruption indices. In line with its high Uncertainty Avoidance score and to some extent also fostered by its authoritarian past, you´ll find great dependence on experts, the authorities, particularly among non-managerial employees.

With a very low score of 12, Chile is said to have a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

A high score of 68 in this dimension means that Chile has a relatively Indulgent orientation. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

At 80 China sits in the higher rankings of PDI – i.e. a society that believes that inequalities amongst people are acceptable. The subordinate-superior relationship tends to be polarized and there is no defense against power abuse by superiors. Individuals are influenced by formal authority and sanctions and are in general optimistic about people’s capacity for leadership and initiative. People should not have aspirations beyond their rank.

At a score of 43 China is a collectivist culture where people act in the interests of the group and not necessarily of themselves. In-group considerations affect hiring and promotions with closer in-groups (such as family) getting preferential treatment. Employee commitment to the organization (but not necessarily to the people in the organization) is low. Whereas relationships with colleagues are cooperative for in-groups they are cold or even hostile to out-groups. Personal relationships prevail over tasks and company.

With a score of 66, China is a society with high Motivation towards Achievement and Success. The need to ensure success can be exemplified by the fact that many Chinese will sacrifice family and leisure priorities to work. Service people (such as hairdressers) will provide services until very late at night. Leisure time is not so important. The migrated farmer workers will leave their families behind in faraway places in order to obtain better work and pay in the cities. Another example is that Chinese students care very much about their exam scores and ranking, as these are the main criteria to achieve success or not.

At 30 China has a low score on Uncertainty Avoidance. Truth may be relative though in the immediate social circles there is concern for Truth with a capital T and rules (but not necessarily laws) abound. None the less, adherence to laws and rules may be flexible to suit the actual situation and pragmatism is a fact of life. The Chinese are comfortable with ambiguity; the Chinese language is full of ambiguous meanings that can be difficult for Western people to follow. Chinese are adaptable and entrepreneurial. At the time of writing the majority (70% -80%) of Chinese businesses tend to be small to medium sized and family owned.

China scores 77 in this dimension, which means that it is a very pragmatic culture. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on situation, context, and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions easily to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results.

China is a Restrained society as can be seen in its low score of 24 in this dimension. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

At 67 Colombia scores high on the scale of the PDI, so it is a society that believes that inequalities amongst people are simply a fact of life. This inequality is accepted in all layers of society, so a union leader will have a lot of concentrated power compared to his union management team, and they in turn will have more power than other union members. A similar phenomenon will be observed among business leaders and among the highest positions in government.

At a score of 29, Colombia lies amongst the most collectivistic cultures in the world. Since Colombians are highly collectivistic people, belonging to an in-group and aligning yourself with that group’s opinion is very important. Combined with the high scores in PDI, this means that groups often have their strong identities tied to class distinctions. Loyalty to such groups is paramount and often it is through “cooperative” groups that people obtain privileges and benefits which are not to be found in other cultures. At the same time, conflict is avoided, to maintain group harmony and to save face.

Relationships are more important than attending to the task at hand, and when a group of people holds an opinion on an issue, they will be joined by all who feel part of that group. Colombians will often go out of their way to help you if they feel there is enough attention given to developing a relationship, or if they perceive an “in-group” connection of some sort, however thin. However, those perceived as “outsiders” can easily be excluded or considered “enemies”. The preferred communication style is context-rich, so public speeches and written documents are usually extensive and elaborate.

At 64 Colombia is a society with high Motivation towards Achievement and Success. Colombians are competitive and status-oriented, yet collectivistic rather than individualistic. This means that competition is directed towards members of other groups (or social classes), not towards those who are perceived as members of your own in-group. People seek membership in groups which give them status and rewards linked to performance, but they often sacrifice leisure against work, as long as this is supported by group membership and by power holders.

At 80 Colombia has a high score on Uncertainty Avoidance which means that as a nation they are seeking mechanisms to avoid ambiguity. Emotions are openly expressed; there are (extensive) rules for everything and social conservatism enjoys quite a following. This is also reflected in religion, which is respected, followed by many and conservative. Rules are not necessarily followed, however: this depends on the in-group’s opinion, on whether the group feels the rules are applicable to their members and it depends, ultimately, on the decision of power holders, who make their own rules. In work terms this results in detailed planning that may not necessarily be followed in practice.

The combination of high UAI with the scores on the previous dimensions means that it is difficult to change the status quo, unless a figure of authority is able to amass a large group of people and lead them towards change.

With a very low score of 6, Colombian culture is classified as normative. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

Scoring a very high 83 in this dimension, Colombia is shown to be an Indulgent country. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

As one of the only countries in the Latin America, Costa Rica, with a score of 35, scores the lowest on this dimension in the region. To the surprise of many, especially in Latin America, where many countries have had military rule, Costa Rica abolished their army in 1948. Their president, Oscar Arias (1986-90, 2006-10), received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for his effort to end civil wars in Central America. Costa Ricans, the “Ticos”, are famous for their good human rights record. As they are very much focused on equality and consensus there is a less distance between blue-collar and white-collar workers.

Costa Rica, with a score of 15 is like all the other Latin American countries, a collectivistic society. In collectivistic countries, trust, loyalty, personal relations, and networking are essential. Family, and especially mothers, are very sacred in Costa Rica. To get straight to the point is regarded as rude and no hard selling is being done. Helping somebody out of a difficult situation will never be forgotten. As relationships matter very much, a lot of time is spent on building trust.

Not only does Costa Rica stand out on Power Distance, with a score of 21 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, it is considered the society with the lowest score on Motivation towards Achievement and Success in Latin America, and few countries in the world score more. Ticos are very afraid of any kind of personal criticism (together with their collectivistic values). There is a very high acceptance for women in business. Suffrage for women was introduced in 1948 and half of the country’s university students are female.

At 86, Costa Rica scores high on Uncertainty Avoidance. In countries exhibiting a high score of Uncertainty Avoidance, formality and a strong emotional need for structure and rules is important, even if it’s not always working or followed. Bureaucracy is very time consuming in Costa Rica, documentation, need for stamps and written instructions are important. As the Ticos are rather conservative, they do not always embrace strange and different ideas. Despite the very warm weather, a clear and full dress code is followed. As a contradiction to the high Uncertainty Avoidance, “Tico time” means a very flexible attitude to timekeeping.

There is currently no score for Costa Rica on this dimension.

Croatia scores high on this dimension (score of 73) which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

Croatia, with a score of 42 is considered a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘ group’ be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Croatia scores 40 on this dimension and is thus considered a relatively Consensus society. In countries scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”, managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, status is not shown.

Croatia scores 80 on this dimension and thus has a very high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

With a high score of 40, Croatian culture is said to be relatively normative. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

Croatia’s low score of 33 in this dimension marks it as a Restrained country. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

The Czech Republic has a relatively high score on this dimension (57). This means it is a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

The Czech Republic, with a score of 70 is an Individualist society. This means there is a high preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only. In Individualist societies offense causes guilt and a loss of self-esteem, the employer/employee relationship is a contract based on mutual advantage, hiring, and promotion decisions are supposed to be based on merit only, management is the management of individuals

The Czech Republic scores 57 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus a Decisive society. In countries scoring high on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, people “live in order to work”, managers are expected to be decisive and assertive, the emphasis is on equity, competition and performance, and conflicts are resolved by fighting them out.

The Czech Republic scores 74 on this dimension and thus has a high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

With a score of 51, Czech does not show a strong preference in either direction.

The low score of 29 means that Czechs are generally not Indulgent. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

With a score of 18 points, Denmark is at the very low end of this dimension compared to other countries. This matches perfectly with what many foreigners in Denmark express: Danes do not lead, they coach and employee autonomy is required. In fact, Denmark ranks highest amongst the EU27 countries in terms of employee autonomy. With a very egalitarian mind-set the Danes believe in independency, equal rights, accessible superiors and that management facilitates and empowers. Power is decentralized and managers count on the experience of their team members. Respect among the Danes is something, which you earn by proving your hands-on expertise. Workplaces have a very informal atmosphere with direct and involving communication and works on a first name basis. Employees expect to be consulted.

Denmark, with a very high score of 89 is an Individualist society. This means there is a high preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only. It is relatively easy to start doing business with the Danes. Small talk is kept at a minimum and you do not need to create relationships first. Danes are also known for using a very direct form of communication.

Denmark scores 16 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is therefore considered a Consensus society. In countries scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, it is important to keep the life/work balance and you make sure that all are included. An effective manager is supportive to his/her people, and decision making is achieved through involvement. Managers strive for consensus and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation and Danes are known for their long discussions until consensus has been reached. Incentives such as free time and flexible work hours and place are favoured.

With a score of 23 Denmark scores low on this dimension. This means that that Danes do not need a lot of structure and predictability in their work life. Plans can change overnight, new things pop up and the Danes are fine with it. It is a natural part of their work life. Curiosity is natural and is encouraged from a very young age. This combination of a highly Individualist and curious nation is also the driving force for Denmark’s reputation within innovation and design. What is different is attractive! This also emerges throughout the society in both its humour, heavy consumerism for new and innovative products and the fast highly creative industries it thrives in – advertising, marketing, financial engineering.

At the workplace, the low score on Uncertainty Avoidance is also reflected in the fact that the Danes tell you if you are in doubt or do not know something. It is ok to say “I do not know” and the Danes are comfortable in ambiguous situations in the workplace.

A score of 59 indicates that Danish culture is shown to be relatively pragmatic. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on situation, context, and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions easily to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results.

Denmark has a high score of 70 in this dimension, meaning that Denmark is an Indulgent country. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

With a score of 65, the Dominican Republic is a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

The Dominican Republic, with a low score of 38, is considered a collectivistic society. This is evident in a close, long-term commitment to the member ‘ group’ be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies: offense leads to shame and the loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

The relatively high score of 65 indicates that in the Dominican Republic, there is a “Decisive” society. Behaviour in school, work, and play are based on the shared values that people should “strive to be the best they can be” and that “the winner takes all”. They are proud of their successes and achievements in life, and these offer a basis for hiring and promotion decisions in the workplace. Conflicts are resolved at the individual level and the goal is to win.

With a low score (45) in this dimension, the Dominican Republic has a fairly pragmatic culture in terms of uncertainty avoidance. This means that both generalists and experts are needed. There is a focus on planning, and these plans can be altered at short notice and improvisations made. Emotions are not shown much in these societies; people are fairly relaxed and not averse to taking risks. Consequently, there is a larger degree of acceptance for new ideas, innovative products and a willingness to try something new or different, whether it pertains to technology, business practices, or food.

A very low score of 11 means that the Dominican Republic, has a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

The Dominican Republic receives an intermediate score of 54 in this dimension.

At 78 Ecuador sits in the higher rankings of PDI – i.e . a society that believes that inequalities amongst people are simply a fact of life. This inequality is accepted in all layers of society, and often linked to race and social class. People of European extraction often feel themselves as “superior” to those of local Indian extraction, and this is largely accepted by society as a whole. The military, as power holders, are also considered an elite group per se. They play an important role in political life. No political leader in Ecuador will get very far without their support. “Coups d’etat” have been frequent throughout Ecuador’s history, reflecting this aspect.

At a score of 24 Ecuador lies amongst the collectivistic cultures in the world. Since Ecuadorians are highly collectivistic people, belonging to an in-group is very important. Combined with the high scores in PDI, this means that groups often have their strong identities tied to race and class distinctions. Conflict is avoided, to maintain group harmony and to save face. Struggles for power among different political factions, though frequent, seldom have become very violent.

Relationships are prioritized over tasks and groups can quickly enlarge their numbers. This may even result in a task being completed quickly through cooperative effort, or it may be abandoned (if that is the opinion of the group). Of course, this is also linked to PDI, so power holders determine the outcome. Ecuadorians can show a lot of solidarity towards members of their in-groups. Those perceived as “outsiders” can easily be excluded or considered as “enemies”; foreigners can easily be found in that position unless they cultivate relationships and gain access to in-groups. The preferred communication style is context-rich, so people will often speak profusely and write elaborately.

At 63, Ecuador scores high on Motivation towards Achievement and Success. This contradicts the stereotype that Latin Americans avoid hard work. Ecuadorians are competitive and status-oriented, though Collectivistic rather than Individualistic. This means that competition is directed towards members of other groups (or social classes) rather than towards the members of your own in-group. People seek membership in groups which give them status and rewards linked to performance, but they often sacrifice leisure against work. It is difficult to “let go” of work and often this only happens through binge drinking, a common practice among the working classes.

At 67 Ecuador has a high score on Uncertainty Avoidance which means that as a nation they make use of several mechanisms seeking to avoid ambiguity. Emotions are openly expressed; legislation is extensive and detailed; social conservatism prevails. Rules are not necessarily followed, however: this depends ultimately, on the decision of power holders, who make their own rules, and on whether the group feels the rules are applicable to their members.

Religion and superstition have large followings, the tradition of each group is very respected by their members, though they may not necessarily respect another group’s tradition. The combination of high UAI and PDI, combined with Collectivism, results in that the status quo will only change when a figure of authority (such as the military) lead them towards change amassing a large group of followers.

A low score of 24 means that the Ecuadorian has a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

There is currently no score for Ecuador in this dimension.

Egypt scores high on this dimension (score of 100) which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

Egypt, with a score of 13 is considered a very collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘ group’ be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Egypt scores 55 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, reflecting the presence of slightly more Decisive than Consensus elements, making it more success-oriented and driven.

Egypt scores 55 on this dimension and thus has a slight preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

Egypt’s score of 22 indicates that its culture is normative. People in such societies have a concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

With a very low score of 0, Egypt is shown to be a very Restrained country. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Source of 6D data of this country: Almutairi, S., Heller, M., & Yen, D. (2020). Reclaiming the heterogeneity of the Arab states. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management .

At 66 El Salvador occupies an intermediate to high position on this dimension. Remnants of El Salvador´s authoritarian past linger on in diverse fields. Organisational arrangements show taller pyramids and low degrees of delegation. Status symbols are used to underline power differences, though less than in the past.

At 19 El Salvador scores low on this dimension, in line with most other Latin American countries. In collectivistic countries, trust, loyalty, personal relations, and networking are essential. Family is very sacred in El Salvador. To get straight to the point is regarded as rude. Helping somebody out of a difficult situation will never be forgotten. As relationships matter very much, a lot of time is spent on building trust. The communication style is indirect.

At a score of 40, EL Salvador is a country with low Motivation towards Achievement and Success. It means that society is driven by a certain amount of modesty and fairness. The El Salvadorians do not boast about their achievements. Instead, they enhance their character through hard work and diligence and show their competitiveness by letting the results speak for themselves.

At 94 El Salvador scores very high on UAI – and so do the majority of Latin American countries that belonged to the Spanish kingdom. These societies show a strong need for rules and elaborate legal systems in order to structure life. Bureaucracy is very time consuming in El Salvador, documentation, need for stamps and written instructions are important. They are rather conservative, they do not always embrace strange and different ideas. Despite the very warm weather, a clear and full dress code is followed.

El Salvador’s low score of 20 means that its culture is very normative. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

El Salvador has a very high score at 89, this indicates that Salvadoran culture is Indulgent. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

Estonia scores low on this dimension (40), which suggests that the Estonians do not readily obey and respect people in authoritarian positions based merely on their rank and status as power-holders. Instead, Estonians welcome managers that give them the opportunity to state their opinions and express disagreement, as well as to be included in the decision-making process. Estonia has recently passed the transition state, which means however that the older generation and state organisations often demonstrate high PDI tendencies. The older Soviet ways of thinking and relating to the world still remain and the boss-subordinate relationship among Estonians is sometimes more hierarchical than the score suggests.

Estonia is an Individualist country with a score of 62. Among Estonians, there is a solid conviction about personal responsibility and everybody’s achievement and contribution to be self-fulfilled. Most Estonians believe that everyone should be allowed to do his/her own thing, reach new heights, or even dig their graves. Work situations are driven more by a task orientation than by a relationship orientation, which is to say that for Estonians, work relations serve a functional purpose. Achievement is reflected directly on the person responsible. Given the loosely knit social framework of Individualist countries where progress in life does not depend on how well connected you are, transparency and honesty rather than harmony and loyalty are virtues. For this reason, Estonians tend to be direct communicators. They usually say what they mean and mean what they say and there is limited time for small talk.

At a score of 30, Estonia is low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success. It means that society is driven by a certain amount of modesty and fairness. The Estonians do not boast about their achievements. Instead, they enhance their character through hard work and diligence and show their competitiveness by letting the results speak for themselves. As opposed to some countries with high Motivation towards Achievement and Success where conversation overlap is common and people compete for the word, Estonians prefer to take turns out of fairness and consideration of the other person’s time. Passive silence and listening are very much part of the communication style. Although Estonians communicate in a direct way, they do tend to shy away from conflicts. They are reluctant to raise problems for this reason and are quick to take constructive criticism personally. Many of the companies in Estonia are run and staffed by people of a younger generation, who favour an informal, democratic, and consultative management style. Thus, decisions are ideally made by gaining support through participation.

With a score of 60, Estonia thus has a high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work), time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted and security is an important element in individual motivation.

With a very high score of 71, Estonian culture is shown to be highly pragmatic. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on situation, context, and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions easily to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results.

Estonia’s very low score of 16 indicates that its culture is very Restrained in nature. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Ethiopia scores high on this dimension (score of 70) which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

Ethiopia, with a score of 7 is considered a very collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘ group’ be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Ethopia scores 65 on this dimension and is thus a Decisive society. In countries scoring high on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, people “live in order to work”, managers are expected to be decisive and assertive. Emphasis is on equity, competition and performance, and conflicts are resolved by fighting them out.

Ethiopia received an intermediate score of 55 on this dimension.

A very low score of 14 means that Ethiopia has a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

With an intermediate score of 46, no clear preference between Indulgence and Restraint can be established for Ethiopia.

A high score of 78 indicates that Fiji has a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

An incredibly low score of 14 means that Fiji is considered a collectivistic society. This is evident in a close, long-term commitment to the member ‘ group’ be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies: offense leads to shame and the loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Fiji received an intermediate score of 46 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, not showing a clear cultural preference.

With a relatively low score of 48, Fiji has a fairly pragmatic culture in terms of Uncertainty Avoidance. This means that both generalists and experts are needed. There is a focus on planning, and these plans can be altered at short notice and improvisations made. Emotions are not shown much in these societies; people are fairly relaxed and not averse to taking risks. Consequently, there is a larger degree of acceptance for new ideas, innovative products and a willingness to try something new or different, whether it pertains to technology, business practices, or food.

There is currently no score available for Fiji on this dimension.

Finland scores low on this dimension (score of 33) which means that the following characterises the Finnish style: Being independent, hierarchy for convenience only, equal rights, superiors accessible, coaching leader, management facilitates and empowers. Power is decentralized and managers count on the experience of their team members. Employees expect to be consulted. Control is disliked and attitude towards managers are informal and on first name basis. Communication is direct and participative.

Finland, with a score of 75 is an Individualist society. This means there is a high preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only. In Individualist societies offense causes guilt and a loss of self-esteem, the employer/employee relationship is a contract based on mutual advantage, hiring and promotion decisions are supposed to be based on merit only, and management is the management of individuals.

A high score on Motivation towards Achievement and Success indicates that the society will be driven by competition, achievement and success, with success being defined by the winner/best in the field - a value system that starts in school and continues throughout organisational life.

Finland scores 26 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus considered a Consensus society. In countries scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”. Managers strive for consensus, people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, and status is not shown. An effective manager is a supportive one, and decision making is achieved through involvement.

Finland scores 59 on this dimension and thus has a high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work), time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted and security is an important element in individual motivation.

Finland scores 63 in this dimension, making it pragmatic. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on situation, context, and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions easily to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results.

The relatively high score of 57 indicates that Finland is an Indulgent country. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

With a score of 68, France scores fairly high on Power Distance. Children are raised to be emotionally dependent, to a degree, on their parents. This dependency will be transferred to teachers and later on to superiors. It is, therefore, a society in which a fair degree of inequality is accepted. Power is not only centralised in companies and government, but also geographically. Just look at the road grid in France; most highways lead to Paris.

Many comparative studies have shown that French companies have normally one or two hierarchical levels more than comparable companies in Germany and the UK. Superiors have privileges and are often inaccessible. CEO’s of big companies are called Mr. PDG, which is a more prestigious abbreviation than CEO, meaning President Director General. These PDGs have frequently attended the most prestigious universities called “grandes écoles”, big schools.

France, with a score of 74, is shown to be an individualist society. Parents make their children emotionally independent about the groups to which they belong. This means that one is only supposed to take care of oneself and one’s family.

The French combination of a high score on Power Distance and a high score on Individualism is rather unique. We only find the same combination in Belgium and, to some degree, in Spain and northern Italy.

This combination is not unique, but it also creates a contradiction, so to speak. Only so to speak, because scores in the model don’t influence anything. They just give a structured reflection of reality. This combination manifests itself in France in the following ways:

It is claimed that one reason why the French are less obese than people in other EU countries is that parents still have more sway over children than in other EU countries. Whether this is true or not is not known by us. All the same, what is true is that the family has still more emotional glue than in other Individualist cultures. This is a reflection of the high score on Power Distance with its stronger respect for the elderly. Subordinates normally pay formal respect and show deference to their boss, but behind his/her back they may do the opposite of what they promised to do, as they may think that they know better, yet are not able to express so. Another reflection of high Power Distance contrary to formal obedience is the total rejection of those in power as there is no way to change by evolution but only by strikes, revolts, and revolution. Employers and trade unions don’t talk together as they look at each other as almost belonging to a separate species. The need to make a strong distinction between work and private life is even stronger in France than in the US, even though the US scores higher on Individualism. This is a reflection of the fact that employees more quickly feel put under pressure than in the US because of their emotional dependence on what the boss says and does. In cultures that score high on Power Distance and Collectivism, the “normal” combination, such dependence is welcomed. At least, if the power holders act as benevolent fathers. The French prefer to be dependent on the central government, an impersonal power center that cannot so easily invade their private life. What is human, but more pronounced in France, is the need for strong leadership in times of crisis. Despite that, when the crisis is resolved the president should make space for much weaker leadership. Many French need to become a “patron”, whether as mayor of a small village or as the chairman of the bridge club. Customer service is poor in the eyes of all those Anglo-Saxons who believe that the customer is king. Not so in France. The French are self-motivated to be the best in their trade. They, therefore, expect respect for what they do, after which they are very much willing to serve you well.

With a score of 43, France in this dimension is relatively a Consensus society. At face value this may be indicated by its famous welfare system (securité sociale), the 35-hour working week, five weeks of holidays per year and its focus on the quality of life. French culture in terms of the model has, however, another unique characteristic. Comparatively, the upper class scores embody a culture with low Motivation towards Achievement and Success, while the working class scores reflect a Decisive culture. This characteristic has not been found in any other country. This difference may be reflected by the following:

Top managers earn on average less than one would expect given the high score on Power Distance. Married couples of high society could go public with a lover without negative consequences, at least certainly in the past. The scandal in the US about Clinton and Lewinsky has never been understood in France. In addition, “crime passionel”, i.e. crimes of passion, have always been sentenced very leniently in comparison to other murder trials.

At 86, French culture scores high on Uncertainty Avoidance. This is clearly evident in the following:

The French don’t like surprises. Structure and planning are required. Before meetings and negotiations they like to receive all necessary information. As a consequence, the French are good in developing complex technologies and systems in a stable environment, such as in the case of nuclear power plants, rapid trains and the aviation industry. There is also a need for emotional safety valves as a high score on Uncertainty Avoidance and the combination of high Power Distance and high Individualism strengthen each other, so to speak. The French, for example, are very talkative and “engueuler”, giving someone the sharp edge of one’s tongue happens often. There is a strong need for laws, rules and regulations to structure life. This, however, doesn’t mean that most Frenchmen will try to follow all these rules, the same as in other Latin countries. Given the high score on Power Distance, which means that power holders have privileges, power holders don’t necessarily feel obliged to follow all those rules which are meant to control the people in the street. At the same time, commonners try to relate to power holders so that they can also claim the exception to the rule.

France scores 60 in this dimension, making it pragmatic. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on situation, context, and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions easily to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results.

France scores somewhat in the middle (48) where it concerns Indulgence versus Restraint. This, in combination with a high score on Uncertainty Avoidance, implies that the French are less relaxed and enjoy life less often than is commonly assumed. Indeed, France scores not all that high on the happiness indices.

At 65, Georgia demonstrates a slight tendency to the higher side of PDI and thus, a hierarchical society. This means that members of the society to a large extent accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place, and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, and the different distribution of power justifies the fact that power holders have more benefits than the less powerful in society.

Georgia, with a low score of 15, is a collectivist culture. These are characterized by an early integration and close, long-term commitment to a strong, cohesive ‘in-group’. Society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for and protects fellow members of their group. Loyalty is paramount and overrides most other societal rules. In these societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face.

With an intermediate score of 55, Georgia has a bit of both worlds: high Motivation towards Achievement and Success for certain parts and low Motivation towards Achievement and Success for others. However, there is no clearly dominant cultural value.

At 85, Georgia scores very high on Uncertainty Avoidance, demonstrating that as a nation they see mechanisms to avoid ambiguity. People do not readily accept change and are very risk adverse. They maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. To minimize the level of uncertainty, there is an emotional need for strict rules, laws, policies, and regulations.

At a low score of 24, Georgia culture is more normative than pragmatic. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing an absolute truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

The low score of 32 in this dimension shows that Georgia has a culture of restraint. Restrained societies have a tendency toward cynicism and pessimism. Also, they do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People have the perception that their actions are restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Highly decentralised and supported by a strong middle class, Germany is not surprisingly among the lower power distant countries (score 35). Co-determination rights are comparatively extensive and have to be taken into account by the management. A direct and participative communication and meeting style is common, control is disliked and leadership is challenged to show expertise and best accepted when it’s based on it.

The German society is a truly Individualist one (79). Small families with a focus on the parent-children relationship rather than aunts and uncles are most common. There is a strong belief in the ideal of self-actualization. Loyalty is based on personal preferences for people as well as a sense of duty and responsibility. This is defined by the contract between the employer and the employee. Communication is among the most direct in the world following the ideal to be “honest, even if it hurts” – and by this giving the counterpart a fair chance to learn from mistakes.

With a score of 66 Germany is considered a Decisive society. Performance is highly valued and early required as the school system separates children into different types of schools at the age of ten. People rather “live in order to work” and draw a lot of self-esteem from their tasks. Managers are expected to be decisive and assertive. Status is often shown, especially by cars, watches, and technical devices.

Germany is among the uncertainty avoidant countries (65); the score is on the high end, so there is a slight preference for Uncertainty Avoidance. In line with the philosophical heritage of Kant, Hegel and Fichte there is a strong preference for deductive rather than inductive approaches, be it in thinking, presenting or planning: the systematic overview has to be given in order to proceed. This is also reflected by the law system. Details are equally important to create certainty that a certain topic or project is well-thought-out. In combination with their low Power Distance, where the certainty for own decisions is not covered by the larger responsibility of the boss, Germans prefer to compensate for their higher uncertainty by strongly relying on expertise.

Germany’s score of 57 indicates that it is a pragmatic country. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on situation, context, and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions easily to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results.

The low score of 40 on this dimension indicates that the German culture is Restrained in nature. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Ghana scores high on this dimension (score of 80) which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

Ghana, with a very low score of 9 is considered a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Ghana scores 40 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus considered a relatively Consensus society. In countries with high Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”, managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, and status is not shown. An effective manager is a supportive one, and decision making is achieved through involvement.

Ghana scores 65 on this dimension. This is an score expresses a preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

Ghana has an incredibly low score of 1 in this dimension. A score this low indicates a very strong preference for a normative way of thinking. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

On this dimension, Ghana has a high score of 72. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

At 60 Greece has an intermediate score, but it indicates a slight tendency to the higher side of PDI – i.e. a society that believes hierarchy should be respected and inequalities amongst people are acceptable. The different distribution of power justifies the fact that power holders have more benefits than the less powerful in society. In Greece it is important to show respect to the elderly (and children take care for their elderly parents). In companies there is one boss who takes complete responsibility. One should never forget that in the mind of a Greek all other cultures in the Western world inherited something from the ancient Greek culture. Status symbols of power are very important in order to indicate social position and “communicate” the respect that could be shown.

At a score of 59 Greece is an Individualist country. Among Greeks, there is a solid conviction about personal responsibility and everybody’s achievement and contribution to be self-fulfilled. Small families with a focus on the parent-children relationship rather than aunts and uncles are common. And at the same time extended families, with many children and close ties to all other family members are a part of society as well. Loyalty is based on personal preferences for people as well as a sense of duty and responsibility. Communication is direct and expressive.

Scoring 57, Greece has a medium ranking as a society with high Motivation towards Achievement and Success. Men consider it a personal honour to take care of their family. In Collectivistic and Decisive cultures, the success of a member of a family gives social value to the whole in-group; when meeting a new person a foreigner should not be surprised by Greeks speaking of the important and successful people they know in town. Aristoteles Onassis, the Greek tycoon, well known all over the world, was and still is an example of a successful Greek whose status symbols speak of the excellent achievements in a Decisive society.

At 100 Greece has the highest score on Uncertainty Avoidance which means that as a nation Greeks are not at all comfortable in ambiguous situations: the unforeseen is always there ready to “lay an ambush”. The “sword of Damocles”, impending over the head of all of us, can illustrate this anxious and stressing feeling about life. In Greece, as in all high Uncertainty Avoidance societies, bureaucracy, laws and rules are very important to make the world a safer place to live in. Greeks need to have good and relaxing moments in their everyday life, chatting with colleagues, enjoying a long meal or dancing with guests and friends. Due to their high score in this dimension Greeks are very passionate and demonstrative people: emotions are easily shown in their body language. The Greek myth about the “birth” of the world tells us a lot about high Uncertainty Avoidance: at the very beginning there was only Chaos but then Cronos (Time) came in to organize life and make it easier to manage.

Greece has an intermediate score of 51 on this dimension. A score in the middle like this does not indicate a strong preference for either end of the scale.

Greece has an intermediate score of 50 on this dimension, so no clear preference between Indulgence and Restraint can be established.

At 95 Guatemala sits in the highest rankings of PDI – i.e. a society that believes that inequalities amongst people are simply a fact of life. This inequality is accepted in all layers of society, so a union leader will have a lot of concentrated power compared to his union management team, and they in turn will have more power than other union members. A similar phenomenon will be observed among business leaders and among the highest positions in government. The leader typically holds a considerable amount of concentrated power.

At a score of 36 Guatemala has a collectivistic culture. Since Guatemalans are collectivistic people, belonging to an in-group and aligning yourself with that group’s opinion is very important. Combined with the high scores in PDI, this means that groups often have strong identities. Communication is indirect and the harmony of the group has to be maintained, open conflicts are avoided. The relationship has a moral base and this always has priority over task fulfillment. Time must be invested initially to establish a relationship of trust. Nepotism may be found more often. Feedback is always indirect, also in the business environment.

Guatemala scores 37 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success. This means that the softer aspects of culture such as levelling with others, consensus, sympathy for the underdog are valued and encouraged. Conflicts are avoided in private and work life and consensus at the end is important. Leisure time is important for Guatemalans, it is the time when the whole family, clan and friends come together to enjoy life. Status is shown, but this comes more out of the high PDI.

At 98 Guatemala has a very high score on Uncertainty Avoidance. This means that as a nation they are seeking mechanisms to avoid ambiguity. In order to minimize anxiety, people make use of a lot of rituals. Emotions are openly expressed; there are (extensive) rules for everything and social conservatism enjoys quite a following. This is also reflected in religion, which is respected, followed by many and conservative. Rules are not necessarily followed, however: this depends on the in-group’s opinion, on whether the group feels the rules are applicable to their members and it depends, ultimately, on the decision of power holders, who make their own rules. In work terms this results in detailed planning that may not necessarily be followed in practice.

Guatemala has a low score of 25 in this dimension. This score indicates a strong preference for a normative way of thinking. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

There is currently no score for Guatemala on this dimension.

Honduras, with a high score of 80, is shown to have a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

In this dimension, Honduras has a very low score of 20 which shows that it is considered a collectivistic society. This is evident in a close, long-term commitment to the member ‘group’ be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies: offense leads to shame and the loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

A low score of 40 indicates that Honduras can be considered a relatively Consensus society. In countries scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”, managers strive for consensus, people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being and status is not shown or emphasised.

This dimension, Uncertainty Avoidance, has to do with the way that a society deals with the fact that the future can never be known: should we try to control the future or just let it happen? This ambiguity brings anxiety with it, and different cultures have learnt to deal with this anxiety in different ways. The extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations and have created beliefs and institutions that try to avoid these is reflected in the score on Uncertainty Avoidance.

Honduras’ low score of 50 on this dimension means that it is a fairly pragmatic culture in terms of Uncertainty Avoidance. This means that both generalists and experts are needed. There is a focus on planning, and these plans can be altered at short notice and improvisations made. Emotions are not shown much in these societies; people are fairly relaxed and not averse to taking risks. Consequently, there is a larger degree of acceptance for new ideas, innovative products and a willingness to try something new or different, whether it pertains to technology, business practices, or food.

At this time there are no results for Honduras on this dimension.

At 68 Hong Kong has a high score on PDI – i.e. a society that believes that inequalities amongst people are acceptable. The subordinate-superior relationship tends to be polarized and there is no defense against power abuse by superiors. Individuals are influenced by formal authority and sanctions and are in general optimistic about people’s capacity for leadership and initiative.

At a score of 50 Hong Kong does not indicate a strong preference to either end of the scale.

At 57 Hong Kong is somewhat a Decisive society - success oriented and driven. The need to ensure success can be exemplified by the fact that many will spend many hours at work. Service people (such as hairdressers) will provide services until very late at night. Another example is that students care very much about their exam scores and ranking as this is the main criteria to achieve success or not.

At 29 Hong Kong has a very low score on Uncertainty Avoidance. Adherence to laws and rules may be flexible to suit the actual situation and pragmatism is a fact of life. The people in Hong Kong are comfortable with ambiguity; the Chinese language is full of ambiguous meanings that can be difficult for Western people to follow. They are adaptable and entrepreneurial.

The high score of 93 shows that Hong Kong's culture is pragmatic. In societies with a strong pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on situation, context, and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions easily to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results.

Hong Kong’s score on this dimension is very low at 17, this indicated that it is more Restrained. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Hungary scores low on this dimension (score of 46) which means that the following characterises the Hungarian style: Being independent, hierarchy for convenience only, equal rights, superiors accessible, coaching leader, management facilitates and empowers. Power is decentralized and managers count on the experience of their team members. Employees expect to be consulted. Control is disliked and attitude towards managers are informal and on first name basis. Communication is direct and participative.

Hungary, with a score of 71 is an Individualist society. This means there is a high preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only. In Individualist societies offense causes guilt and a loss of self-esteem, the employer/employee relationship is a contract based on mutual advantage, hiring and promotion decisions are supposed to be based on merit only, and management is the management of individuals.

Hungary scores 88 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus a Decisive society. In countries with high scores on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, people “live in order to work”, and managers are expected to be decisive and assertive. Emphasis is on equity, competition and performance and conflicts are resolved by fighting them out.

Hungary scores 82 on this dimension and thus has a preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

Hungary is shown to be a relatively normative country with a score of 45 on this dimension. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

Hungary has a low score of 31 on this dimension. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

With a very low score of 30, it is clear that in Iceland hierarchy is established for convenience, superiors are always accessible and managers rely on individual employees and teams for their expertise. Both managers and employees expect to be consulted and information is shared frequently. At the same time, communication is informal, direct and participative.

Iceland’s very high score of 83 in this dimension indicates that it is a highly Individualist culture. This translates into a loosely-knit society in which the expectation is that people look after themselves and their immediate families. In the business world, employees are expected to be self-reliant and display initiative. Also, within the exchange-based world of work, hiring, and promotion decisions are based on merit or evidence of what one has done or can do.

With an extremely low score of 10, Iceland is considered a definitively Consensus society. In countries scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”, managers strive for consensus, people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being and status is not shown or emphasised.

Iceland’s low score of 50 shows that it is a fairly pragmatic culture in terms of Uncertainty Avoidance. This means that both generalists and experts are needed. There is a focus on planning, and these plans can be altered at short notice and improvisations made. Emotions are not shown much in these societies; people are fairly relaxed and not averse to taking risks. Consequently, there is a larger degree of acceptance for new ideas, innovative products and a willingness to try something new or different, whether it pertains to technology, business practices, or food.

With a score of 57, Iceland, therefore, a score of 57 indicates that it is a relatively pragmatic country. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on situation, context, and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions easily to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results.

Icelandic culture scores 67 in this dimension, meaning that it is an Indulgent country. People in societies with a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to fulfill their impulses and desires, especially with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

India scores high on this dimension, 77, indicating an appreciation for hierarchy and a top-down structure in society and organizations. If one were to encapsulate the Indian attitude, one could use the following words and phrases : dependent on the boss or the power holder for direction, acceptance of un-equal rights between the power-privileged and those who are lesser down in the pecking order, immediate superiors accessible but one layer above less so, paternalistic leader, management directs, gives reason / meaning to ones work life and rewards in exchange for loyalty from employees. Real Power is centralized even though it may not appear to be and managers count on the obedience of their team members. Employees expect to be directed clearly as to their functions and what is expected of them. Control is familiar, even a psychological security, and attitude towards managers are formal even if one is on first name basis. Communication is top down and directive in its style and often feedback which is negative is never offered up the ladder.

India, with a rather low score of 24, is a society with both collectivistic and Individualist traits. The collectivist side means that there is a high preference for belonging to a larger social framework in which individuals are expected to act for the greater good of one’s defined in-group(s). In such situations, the actions of the individual are influenced by various concepts such as the opinion of one’s family, extended family, neighbors, work group, and other such wider social networks that one has some affiliation toward. For a collectivist, to be rejected by one’s peers or to be thought lowly of by one’s extended and immediate in-groups, leaves him or her rudderless and with a sense of intense emptiness. The employer/employee relationship is one of the expectations based on expectations – Loyalty by the employee and almost familial protection by the Employer. Hiring and promotion decisions are often made based on relationships which are the key to everything in a Collectivist society.

The Individualist aspect of Indian society is seen as a result of its dominant religion/philosophy – Hinduism. The Hindus believe in a cycle of death and rebirth, with the manner of each rebirth being dependent upon how the individual lived the preceding life. People are, therefore, individually responsible for the way they lead their lives and the impact it will have upon their rebirth. This focus on individualism interacts with the otherwise collectivist tendencies of Indian society which leads to its intermediate score on this dimension.

India scores 56 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus considered a Decisive society. India is actually very Decisive in terms of visual display of success and power. The designer brand label, the flash and ostentation that goes with advertising one’s success, is widely practiced. However, India is also a spiritual country with millions of deities and various religious philosophies. It is also an ancient country with one of the longest surviving cultures which gives it ample lessons in the value of humility and abstinence. This often reigns in people from indulging in Decisive displays to the extent that they might be naturally inclined to. In more Decisive countries the focus is on success and achievements, validated by material gains. Work is the center of one’s life and visible symbols of success in the workplace are very important.

India scores 40 on this dimension and thus has a medium low preference for avoiding uncertainty. In India, there is acceptance of imperfection; nothing has to be perfect nor has to go exactly as planned. India is traditionally a patient country where tolerance for the unexpected is high ; even welcomed as a break from monotony. People generally do not feel driven and compelled to take action-initiatives and comfortably settle into established rolls and routines without questioning. Rules are often in place just to be circumvented and one relies on innovative methods to “bypass the system”. A word used often is “adjust” and means a wide range of things, from turning a blind eye to rules being flouted to finding a unique and inventive solution to a seemingly insurmountable problem. It is this attitude that is both the cause of misery as well as the most empowering aspect of the country. There is a saying that “nothing is impossible” in India, so long as one knows how to “adjust”.

With an intermediate score of 51 in this dimension, a dominant preference in Indian culture cannot be determined. In India, the concept of “karma” dominates religious and philosophical thought. Time is not linear, and thus is not as important as to western societies which typically score low on this dimension. Countries like India have a great tolerance for religious views from all over the world. Hinduism is often considered a philosophy more than even a religion; an amalgamation of ideas, views, practices, and esoteric beliefs. In India, there is an acceptance that there are many truths and often depends on the seeker. Societies that have a high score on pragmatism typically forgive a lack of punctuality, a changing game plan based on changing reality, and general comfort with discovering the fated path as one goes along rather than playing to an exact plan.

India receives a low score of 26 in this dimension, meaning that it is a culture of Restraint. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Indonesia scores high on this dimension (score of 78) which means that the following characterises the Indonesian style: Being dependent on hierarchy, unequal rights between power holders and non power holders, superiors in-accessible, leaders are directive, management controls and delegates. Power is centralized and managers count on the obedience of their team members. Employees expect to be told what to do and when. Control is expected and managers are respected for their position. Communication is indirect and negative feedback hidden. High Power Distance also means that Indonesian co-workers would expect to be clearly directed by the boss or manager – it is the classic Guru-Student kind of dynamic that applies to Indonesia. Westerners may be considerably surprised with the visible, socially acceptable, wide and unequal disparity between the rich and poor .

Indonesia, with a super low score of 5 is a Collectivist society. This means there is a high preference for a strongly defined social framework in which individuals are expected to conform to the ideals of the society and the in-groups to which they belong. One place this is visible is in the aspect of the Family in the role of relationships. For example, In Indonesia, if one wishes to marry, it is important to meet a woman’s family because the family is so important to her. If a man wants to be taken seriously by a woman, he has to visit the latter’s family and introduce himself formally to the parents of the girl. It is inappropriate to court a woman and formalize the relationship without informing the parents of the girl first. Another example of the collectivist culture of Indonesia is in the equation between child and parent

Indonesian children are committed to their parents, as are the parents committed to them all their growing lives. They desire to make their parents’ life easier. There is a desire to take care of parents and give them support in their old age. An Asian saying that is accepted in Indonesia, “ You can get another wife or husband but not another mother or father” This family loyalty is also apparent in the fact that Indonesian families keep elders (such as grandparents) at home instead of sending them to any institution. In Individualist societies the focus is on the nuclear family only.

Indonesia scores (46) on this dimension and is thus considered a society with low Motivation towards Achievement and Success. While not entirely like most North European countries who are very low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and thus considered Consensus, Indonesia is less Decisive than some other Asian countries like Japan, China and India. In Indonesia, status and visible symbols of success are important but it is not always material gain that brings motivation. Often it is the position that a person holds which is more important to them because of an Indonesian concept called “gengsi” – loosely translated to be, “outward appearances”. It is important that the “gengsi” be strongly maintained thereby projecting a different outward appearance aimed at impressing and creating the aura of status.

In countries scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”, managers strive for consensus, people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, status is not shown. An effective manager is a supportive one, and decision making is achieved through involvement. In contrast, countries scoring high on Motivation towards Achievement and Success (that do not score too low on the scale to be called Consensus countries), display the traits of Decisive societies but to a lesser degree.

Indonesia scores (48) on this dimension and thus has a low preference for avoiding uncertainty. This means that there is a strong preference in Indonesia toward the Javanese culture of separation of internal self from external self. When a person is upset, it is habitual for the Indonesian not to show negative emotion or anger externally. They will keep smiling and be polite, no matter how angry they are inside. This also means that maintaining work place and relationship harmony is very important in Indonesia, and no one wishes to be the transmitter of bad or negative news or feedback. Another aspect of this dimension can be seen in Conflict resolution. Direct Communication as a method of conflict resolution is often seen to be a threatening situation and one that the Indonesian is uncomfortable in. A tried and tested, successful method of conflict diffusion or resolution is to take the more familiar route of using a third party intermediary, which has many benefits. It permits the exchange of views without loss of face as well as since one of the main manifestations of Indonesia’s Uncertainty Avoidance is to maintain the appearance of harmony in the workplace; an intermediary removes the uncertainty associated with a confrontation. Perhaps one very key phrase in Indonesia that describes how this works is “Asal Bapak Senang” (Keep the Boss Happy). The reason is multifold; but if you extrapolate to UAI dimension you can see that keeping the boss happy means you will be rewarded and if you are rewarded you have no economic or status uncertainty as you will keep being a valuable member of the company.

Indonesia, a score of 29 indicates it has a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

The low score of 38 in this dimension shows that Indonesia has a culture of Restraint. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Iran receives an intermediate score of 58 on this dimension so it is a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

Iran, with a score of 23 is considered a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Iran scores 43 on this dimension and is thus considered a relatively Consensus society. In countries scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”, managers strive for consensus, people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, status is not shown.

Iran scores 59 on this dimension, and thus has a high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high uncertainty avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work), time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted and security is an important element in individual motivation.

Iran, with a low score of 30 indicates that it has a strongly normative cultural orientation. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

The low score of 40 in this dimension means that Iran has a culture of Restraint. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Iraq scores high on this dimension (score of 97) which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

Iraq, with a score of 25 is considered a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’ be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

With an intermediate score of 53, Iraq has a bit of both worlds: high Motivation towards Achievement and Success for certain parts and low Motivation towards Achievement and Success for others, but no clearly dominant cultural value.

Iraq scores 96 on this dimension and thus has a high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

Iraq’s low score of 11 reveals that it has a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

The very low score of 23 in this dimension means that Iraqi society is one of Restraint. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

At 28 Ireland sits in the much lower rankings of PDI – i.e. a society that believes that inequalities amongst people should be minimized. Within Irish organisations, hierarchy is established for convenience, superiors are always accessible and managers rely on individual employees and teams for their expertise. Both managers and employees expect to be consulted and information is shared frequently. At the same time, communication is informal, direct and participative.

At a score of 58 Ireland has a relatively Individualist culture. In the business world, employees are expected to be self-reliant and display initiative. Also, within the exchange-based world of work, hiring, and promotion decisions are based on merit or evidence of what one has done or can do.

At 68, Ireland is high on Motivation towards Achievement and Success. Behaviour in school, work, and play are based on the shared values that people should “strive to be the best they can be” and that “the winner takes all”. The Irish are proud of their successes and achievements in life, and it offers a basis for hiring and promotion decisions in the workplace. Conflicts are resolved at the individual level and the goal is to win.

At 35 Ireland has a low score on Uncertainty Avoidance. Ideas are important, being imaginative is appreciated. Irish businesses embrace creativity and are always looking for new ways to approach problems. Making a point with practical facts is more appreciated than the use of too much technical language.

With a score of 51 on this dimension, Ireland does not have a strong preference for either end of the scale.

With a high score of 65, it is clear that Irish culture is one of Indulgence. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

With a score of 13 points Israel is at the very low end of this dimension compared to other countries. With an egalitarian mindset the Israelis believe in independency, equal rights, accessible superiors and that management facilitates and empowers. Power is decentralized and managers count on the experience of their team members. Respect among the Israelis is something, which you earn by proving your hands-on expertise. Workplaces have an informal atmosphere with direct and involving communication and on a first name basis. Employees expect to be consulted.

The Israeli society is a blend of Individualist and collectivistic cultures (56). Small families with a focus on the parent-children relationship rather than aunts and uncles are common. And at the same time extended families, with many children and close ties to all other family members are a part of society as well. There is a strong belief in the ideal of self-actualization. Loyalty is based on personal preferences for people as well as a sense of duty and responsibility. Communication is direct and expressive.

With a score of 47, Israel is neither a clear Decisive nor Consensus society. Some elements point at more Decisive features. Performance is highly valued. Managers are expected to be decisive and assertive. Status is often shown, especially by cars, watches, and technical devices.

Israel is among the stronger uncertainty avoidant countries (81). In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work), time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, security is an important element in individual motivation. Cultures with a high score on this dimension are often very expressive. Something the Israelis clearly show while talking with their hands, gesticulating and vocal aggressiveness.

With a score of 47 on this dimension, Israel does not have a strong preference for either end of the scale.

There is currently no score for Israel on this dimension.

With a score of 50, Northern Italy tends to prefer equality and a decentralisation of power and decision-making. Control and formal supervision is generally disliked among the younger generation, who demonstrate a preference for teamwork and an open management style. Bear in mind that the high score on Individualism accentuates the aversion of being controlled and told what to do.

In Southern Italy all the consequences of PDI are often high, quite the opposite of Northern Italy.

At a score of 53, Italy, as a whole, does not have a strong preference for either end of the scale. Yet, a regional divide can be observed: the Northern and Central parts of Italy have an individualistic culture, especially in the big and rich cities where people can feel alone even in the middle of a big and busy crowd.

For Italians, having their ideas and objectives in life is very motivating and the route to happiness is through personal fulfilment. Southern Italy is on the collectivistic side of the scale: the family network and the group one belongs to are important social aspects, and rituals such as weddings or Sunday lunches with the family are occasions that one can’t miss. People going from Southern Italy to the North say that they feel cold not only because of the different climate but also because of the less “warm” approach in relationships.

With a score of 70, Italy is a Decisive society – highly success oriented and driven. Children are taught from an early age that competition is good and to be a winner is important in one’s life. Italians show their success by acquiring status symbols such as a beautiful car, a big house, a yacht and travels to exotic countries. As the working environment is the place where every Italian can reach his/her success, competition among colleagues for making a career can be very strong.

At 75 Italy has a high score on Uncertainty Avoidance which means that as a nation Italians are not comfortable in ambiguous situations. Formality in Italian society is important and the Italian penal and civil code are complicated with clauses, codicils etc. What is surprising for the foreigner is the apparent contradiction between all the existing norms and procedures and the fact that Italians don’t always comply with them. But in a bureaucratic country one learns very soon which the important ones are and which are not, in order to survive the red tape. In work terms high Uncertainty Avoidance results in large amounts of detailed planning. The low Uncertainty Avoidance approach (where the planning process can be flexible to changing environment) can be very stressful for Italians.

In Italy the combination of high Masculinity and high Uncertainty Avoidance makes life very difficult and stressful. To release some of the tension that is built up during the day Italians need to have good and relaxing moments in their everyday life, enjoying a long meal or frequent coffee breaks. Due to their high score in this dimension Italians are very passionate people: emotions are so powerfully that individuals cannot keep them inside and must express them to others, especially with the use of body language.

Italy, a score of 39 on this dimension shows that Italian culture is a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

A low score of 30 indicates that Italian culture is one of Restraint. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Jamaica scores low on this dimension (score of 45) which means that the following characterises the Jamaican style: Being independent, hierarchy for convenience only, equal rights, superiors accessible, coaching leader, management facilitates and empowers. Power is decentralized and managers count on the experience of their team members. Employees expect to be consulted. Control is disliked and attitude towards managers are informal and on first name basis. Communication is direct and participative

Jamaica, with a score of 39 is considered a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Jamaica scores 68 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus considered a Decisive society. In Decisive countries, people “live in order to work”, and managers are expected to be decisive and assertive. Emphasis is on equity, competition and performance and conflicts are resolved by fighting them out.

Jamaica scores 13 on this dimension and thus has a low preference for avoiding uncertainty. Low UAI societies maintain a more relaxed attitude in which practice counts more than principles and deviance from the norm is more easily tolerated. In societies exhibiting low UAI, people believe there should be no more rules than are necessary and if they are ambiguous or do not work they should be abandoned or changed. Schedules are flexible, hard work is undertaken when necessary but not for its own sake, precision and punctuality do not come naturally, innovation is not seen as threatening.

There is currently no score for Jamaica on this dimension.

At an intermediate score of 54, Japan is a borderline hierarchical society. Yes, Japanese are always conscious of their hierarchical position in any social setting and act accordingly. However, it is not as hierarchical as most of the other Asian cultures. Some foreigners experience Japan as extremely hierarchical because of their business experience of painstakingly slow decision making process: all the decisions must be confirmed by each hierarchical layer and finally by the top management in Tokyo. Paradoxically, the exact example of their slow decision making process shows that in Japanese society there is no one top guy who can take decision like in more hierarchical societies. Another example of not so high Power Distance is that Japan has always been a meritocratic society. There is a strong notion in the Japanese education system that everybody is born equal and anyone can get ahead and become anything if he (yes, it is still he) works hard enough.

Japan scores 62 on the Individualism dimension. Japanese society shows the characteristics of an individualistic society. Japanese society does not have an extended family system like China and Korea. Japan has been a paternalistic society and the family name and asset was inherited from the father to the eldest son. The younger siblings had to leave home and make their living with their core families. Japanese are famous for their loyalty to their companies, which people have chosen for themselves, which is an Individualist thing to do. You could say that the Japanese in-group is situational. Japanese are more private and reserved than most other Asians.

At 95, Japan is one of the most Decisive societies in the world. However, in combination with their mild collectivism, you do not see assertive and competitive individual behaviors which we often associate with a Decisive culture. What you see is severe competition between groups. From a very young age at kindergartens, children learn to compete on sports day for their groups (traditionally red team against white team). In corporate Japan, you see that employees are most motivated when they are fighting in a winning team against their competitors. What you also see as an expression of Decisiveness in Japan is the drive for excellence and perfection in their material production (monodukuri) and in material services (hotels and restaurants) and presentation (gift wrapping and food presentation) in every aspect of life. Notorious Japanese workaholism is another expression of their Decisiveness. It is still hard for women to climb up the corporate ladders in Japan with their Decisive norm of hard and long working hours.

At 92 Japan is one of the most uncertainty avoiding countries on earth. This is often attributed to the fact that Japan is constantly threatened by natural disasters from earthquakes, tsunamis (this is a Japanese word used internationally), typhoons to volcano eruptions. Under these circumstances Japanese learned to prepare themselves for any uncertain situation. This goes not only for the emergency plan and precautions for sudden natural disasters but also for every other aspects of society. You could say that in Japan anything you do is prescribed for maximum predictability. From cradle to grave, life is highly ritualized and you have a lot of ceremonies. For example, there is opening and closing ceremonies of every school year which are conducted almost exactly the same way everywhere in Japan. At weddings, funerals and other important social events, what people wear and how people should behave are prescribed in great detail in etiquette books. School teachers and public servants are reluctant to do things without precedence. In corporate Japan, a lot of time and effort is put into feasibility studies and all the risk factors must be worked out before any project can start. Managers ask for all the detailed facts and figures before taking any decision. This high need for Uncertainty Avoidance is one of the reasons why changes are so difficult to realize in Japan.

At 100 Japan scores the most Long Term Orientation oriented societies. Japanese see their life as a very short moment in the long history of mankind. From this perspective, some kind of fatalism is not strange to the Japanese. You do your best in your lifetime and that is all that you can do. The notion of the one and only almighty God is not familiar to the Japanese. People live their lives guided by virtues and practical good examples. In corporate Japan, you see long-term orientation in the constantly high rate of investment in R[&]D even in economically difficult times, higher own capital rate, priority to steady growth of market share rather than to a quarterly profit, and so on. They all serve the durability of the companies. The idea behind it is that the companies are not here to make money every quarter for the shareholders but to serve the stakeholders and society at large for many generations to come (e.g. Matsuhista).

Japan, with a low score of 42, is shown to have a culture of Restraint. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

With a high score of 70, Jordan has a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

Jordan’s low score of 20 on this dimension means that it is considered a collectivistic society. This is evident in a close, long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies: offense leads to shame and the loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Jordan has a moderately low score of 45, meaning that it is thus considered a Consensus society. In countries scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”, managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, and status is not shown or emphasised.

In this dimension Jordan receives an intermediate score of 65, and thus has a high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high uncertainty avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work), time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted and security is an important element in individual motivation.

The very low score of 20 indicates that Jordan is expected to have a strongly normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

Jordan’s relatively low score of 43 indicates that its culture is one of Restraint. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are, or should be, Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

With a very high score of 88, Kazakhstan is a nation where power holders are very distant in society. People in this society accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place, and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, and the different distribution of power justifies the fact that power holders have more benefits than the less powerful in society. The discrepancy between the less and the more powerful people leads to a great importance of status symbols.

Kazakhstan’s very low score of 20, indicates that it is a highly collectivistic society. This is evident in the early integration and close, long-term commitment to a strong, cohesive ‘in-group’. Society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for and protects fellow members of their group. Loyalty is paramount and overrides most other societal rules. In these societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face.

With an intermediate score of 50, Kazakhstan has a bit of both worlds: high Motivation towards Achievement and Success for certain parts and low Motivation towards Achievement and Success for others, but no clearly dominant cultural value.

At 88, Kazakhstan scores very high on Uncertainty Avoidance, demonstrating that as a nation they see mechanisms to avoid ambiguity. People do not readily accept change and are very risk adverse. They maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. To minimize the level of uncertainty, there is an emotional need for strict rules, laws, policies, and regulations.

With a very high score of 85, Kazakhstani culture is shown to be highly pragmatic. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on situation, context, and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions easily to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results.

The low score of 22 in this dimension shows that Kazakhstan has a culture of restraint. Restrained societies have a tendency toward cynicism and pessimism. Also, they do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People have the perception that their actions are restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Kenya’s relatively high score of 70 means that it has a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

With a very low score of 4 on this dimension, Kenya is certainly a collectivistic society. This is evident in a close, long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies: offense leads to shame and the loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Kenyan culture measures high on Motivation towards Achievement and Success. With a score of 60, Kenya, therefore, is considered a “Decisive” society. Behaviour in school, work, and play are based on the shared values that people should “strive to be the best they can be” and that “the winner takes all”. They are proud of their successes and achievements in life, and these offer a basis for hiring and promotion decisions in the workplace. Conflicts are resolved at the individual level and the goal is to win.

The intermediate score of 50 indicates that Kenya has no clear preference in this dimension.

The very low score of 11 indicates that Kenya is expected to have a strongly normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

There is currently no score available for Kenya on this dimension.

Kuwait scores high on this dimension (score of 90) which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

Kuwait, with a score of 28 is considered a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Kuwait scores 40 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus considered a relatively Consensus society. In countries with low scores on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”. Managers strive for consensus, people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, status is not shown. An effective manager is a supportive one, and decision making is achieved through involvement.

Kuwait scores 80 on this dimension and thus has a preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

The low score of 31 indicates that Kuwait is expected to have a normative culture. People in such societies have a concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

There is currently no score for Kuwait on this dimension.

With a low score on this dimension (44), Latvians show tendencies to prefer equality and a decentralisation of power and decision-making. Control and formal supervision is generally disliked among the younger generation, who demonstrate a preference for teamwork and an open management style. However, similar to the other Baltic States, there is a sense of loyalty and deference towards authority and status among the older generation, who has experienced Russian and Soviet dominance. It is important to note that Latvia showed a preference for teamwork even during the Communist era, where work units commonly met to discuss ideas and create plans. The scepticism towards power-holders is due to the fact that those ideas and plans rarely resulted in implementation. Bear in mind that the high score on Individualism accentuates the aversion of being controlled and told what to do.

Latvia is an Individualist country with a high score of 70, and it is important to remember that Latvia remained Individualist during the Soviet occupation. The ideal of a nuclear family has always been strong and close family members are usually regularly in touch while respecting each other’s space. Children are taught to take responsibility for their own actions and are considered young adults at an early age. The country has seen an increase in individualism since independence in 1990, due to an increase in national wealth as represented by less dependency on traditional agriculture, more modern technology, more urban living, more social mobility, a better educational system, and a larger middle-class. Today the new generation of workers is more focused on their own performance rather than that of the groups. Although there is a hesitancy to open up and speak one’s mind, Latvians speak plainly without any exaggeration or understatement; this too represents individualism. They are tolerant in that they do not care too much about what other people do as long as it does not annoy them; what you do and how you live your life is your business.

As a Consensus country with a score of 9 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, Latvians have a tendency to feel awkward about giving and receiving praise, arguing that they could have done better or really have not achieved anything worthy of note. As such, they are modest, keep a low profile, and usually communicate with a soft and diplomatic voice in order not to offend anyone. Conflicts for Latvians are usually threatening because they endanger the wellbeing of everyone, which is also indicative of a Consensus culture. Although the Latvians are considered a relatively reserved culture, they are tolerant towards the culture of other nations. This is partly due to their long experience of mixing with other nationalities.

With a score of 63, Latvia has a high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high uncertainty avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work), time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted and security is an important element in individual motivation.

Latvia’s high score of 69 indicates that its culture is pragmatic in nature. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on situation, context, and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions easily to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results.

With a very low score of 13, it can be seen that Latvian culture is one clearly marked by Restraint. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Lebanon scores high on this dimension (score of 62) which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

Lebanon, with a score of 27 is a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

With a score of 48, Lebanon scores average on this dimension. It is neither a clear Decisive nor Consensus society

Lebanon scores 57 on this dimension and thus has a preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

The score of 47 on this dimension shows that Lebanese culture is relatively normative. People in such societies have a concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

The score for this dimension is 10 which means that the culture of Lebanon is one of Restraint. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

With a very high score of 100, Libya is a clearly hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

The very low score of 17 on this dimension means that Libya is considered a collectivistic society. This is evident in a close, long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies: offense leads to shame and the loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

With a score of 66, Libya is a Decisive society – success-oriented and driven.

The high score of 67 correlates with Libya’s high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work), time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted and security is an important element in individual motivation.

With a low score of 22, Libya, therefore, has a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

At a high score of 74, Libya is shown to be an indulgent country. People in indulgent societies have a tendency towards optimism.

With a low score on this dimension (42), Lithuanians show tendencies to prefer equality and a decentralisation of power and decision-making. Control and formal supervision is generally disliked among the younger generation, who demonstrate a preference for teamwork and an open management style. However, similar to the other Baltic States, there is a sense of loyalty and deference towards authority and status among the older generation, who has experienced Russian and Soviet dominance. It is important to note that Lithuania showed a preference for teamwork even during the Communist era, where work units commonly met to discuss ideas and create plans. The scepticism towards power-holders is due to the fact that those ideas and plans rarely resulted in implementation. Bear in mind that the high score on Individualism accentuates the aversion of being controlled and told what to do.

Lithuania is an Individualist country with a score of 55, and it is important to remember that Lithuania remained Individualist during the Soviet occupation. The ideal of a nuclear family has always been strong and close family members are usually regularly in touch while respecting each other’s space. Children are taught to take responsibility for their actions and are considered young adults at an early age. The country has seen an increase in individualism since independence in 1990, due to an increase in national wealth as represented by less dependency on traditional agriculture, more modern technology, more urban living, more social mobility, a better educational system, and a larger middle-class. Today the new generation of workers is more focused on their performance rather than that of the groups. Although there is a hesitancy to open up and speak one’s mind, Lithuanians speak plainly without any exaggeration or understatement; this too represents individualism. They are tolerant in that they do not care too much about what other people do as long as it does not annoy them; what you do and how you live your life is your business.

As a Consensus country with a score of 19 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, Lithuanians have a tendency to feel awkward about giving and receiving praise, arguing that they could have done better or really have not achieved anything worthy of note. As such, they are modest, keep a low profile, and usually communicate with a soft and diplomatic voice in order not to offend anyone. Conflicts for Lithuanians are usually threatening because they endanger the wellbeing of everyone, which is also indicative of a Consensus culture. Although the Lithuanians are considered a relatively reserved culture, they are tolerant towards the culture of other nations. This is partly due to their long experience of mixing with other nationalities.

With a score of 65 on this dimension there is an emphasis on Uncertainty Avoidance. Lithuanians have a built-in worry about the world around them, which society provides legitimate outlets for. In the work environments of countries with a low Uncertainty Avoidance, one can be a good manager without having precise answers to most questions that subordinates may raise about their work. Among Lithuanians it is the other way around; a manager is a manager, because he knows everything and is able to lead. This takes the uncertainty away and also explains why qualifications and formal titles should be included on business cards. Other signs of high Uncertainty Avoidance among Lithuanians are a reluctance to taking risks, bureaucracy and a emotional reliability on rules and regulations, which may not be followed but reduce uncertainty.

With a score of 49 on this dimension, Lithuania does not have a strong preference for either end of the scale.

With a very low score of 16, Lithuanian culture is one of Restraint. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

At 40, Luxembourg sits in the lower rankings of PDI – i.e. a society that believes that inequalities amongst people should be minimized. Interestingly this may not appears at first, but is a well established fact within the Luxembourgers. Actually, history shows that the people living in Luxemb0urg are very respectful to authorities, hierarchies, and have always shown attachment to structure. It is an apparent contradiction which make the5-D Model so interesting, by revealing the reality behind the image.

Luxembourgers respect hierarchy like the German do: everybody does his job, at the right place, and that‘s it! If changes must be implemented, no need to make revolution, but communication and “common sense” will prevail. A good example of this in recent history is the way Luxembourger freed themselves from the Dutch Orange Nassau, in comparison to the Belgium. Both countries have been “given” to the Dutch King by the Vienna Treaty in 1815. Belgium “started a revolution” in 1830, Luxemburg negotiated gently in 1862.

At a score of 60 Luxembourger must be seen as “reasonably Individualist”. Not as much as all his neighbors who all show higher scores. Private property, family, and money are real values and will be protected by society. People look after themselves and their immediate family, but – the score shows it clearly – all that is within “reasonable limits”. Social caring, medical help, “village atmosphere” will guarantee welfare for everybody.

At 50, Luxembourg has a bit of both worlds: high Motivation towards Achievement and Success for certain parts and low Motivation towards Achievement and Success for others. Decisive at work – where the best will win, but Consensus in social affairs, like caring for others and having a great sense of community.

At 70 Luxembourg has a high score on Uncertainty Avoidance which means that as a nation they are quiet reluctant to test unknown territories. Security is a key word in Luxembourg: there is not one activity which is not depending on some sort of security control from authorities; from banker’s money to safety exits in a restaurant. It makes the live in Luxembourg very safe, but some would argue a bit boring. New ideas, new methods, new management techniques must first be proven to work in other countries in order to be accepted in Luxembourg. Historically more “farmers” than “traders” the inhabitants kept that good old “common sense” made of cautiousness which has proven to be profitable for a country who managed not to be at war since the Napoleonic time!

With a high score of 64, the culture of Luxembourg is clearly pragmatic. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on situation, context, and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions easily to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results.

Luxembourg’s score of 56 in this dimension means that it has a culture of Indulgence. People in societies classified by a high score Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish

With a high score of 70, it is evident that Malawian culture has resulted in a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

The disposition towards a collectivistic society in Malawi is supported by its low score of 30 in this dimension. This is evident in a close, long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies: offense leads to shame and the loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Malawi’s low score (40) on Motivation towards Achievement and Success meant that it is relatively considered a Consensus society. In countries scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”. Managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, and status is not shown or emphasised.

An intermediate score of 50 in this dimension means that Malawi has no clear cultural preference for UAI.

There is currently no score available for Malawi on this dimension.

Malaysia scores very high on this dimension (score of 100) which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat. Challenges to the leadership are not well-received.

Malaysia, with a score of 27 is a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the “member” group, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. Such a society fosters strong relationships, where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivistic societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face. Employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), and hiring and promotion take account of the employee’s in-group. Management is the management of groups.

With an intermediate score of 50, a preference for Motivation towards Achievement and Success cannot be determined for Malaysia.

Malaysia scores 36 on this dimension and thus has a low preference for avoiding uncertainty. Low UAI societies maintain a more relaxed attitude in which practice counts more than principles and deviance from the norm is more easily tolerated. In societies exhibiting low UAI, people believe there should be no more rules than are necessary and if they are ambiguous or do not work, they should be abolished or changed. Schedules are flexible, hard work is undertaken when necessary but not for its own sake. Precision and punctuality do not come naturally, innovation is not seen as threatening.

The score of 47 in this dimension means that Malaysia has a relatively normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

Malaysia’s high score of 57 indicates that the culture is one of Indulgence. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

Malta scores high on this dimension (score of 56) which means that it is a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

Malta, with a score of 59 is an Individualist society. This means there is a preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only. In Individualist societies offense causes guilt and a loss of self-esteem, the employer/employee relationship is a contract based on mutual advantage, hiring and promotion decisions are supposed to be based on merit only, and management is the management of individuals.

Malta scores 47 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, as this is an intermediate score, no clear cultural tendency is shown.

Malta scores 96 on this dimension and thus has a preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

With an intermediate score of 47, a cultural tendency cannot be determined for this dimension.

The high score of 66 shows that Malta’s culture is one of Indulgence. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

At a score of 81, Mexico is a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

Mexico, with a score of 34 is considered a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Mexico scores 69 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus a Decisive society. In countries scoring high on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, people “live in order to work”. Managers are expected to be decisive and assertive, the emphasis is on equity, competition and performance and conflicts are resolved by fighting them out.

Mexico scores 82 on this dimension and thus has a very high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

The relatively low score of 23 means that the Mexican culture is normative. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

With a very high score of 97, Mexican culture has a definite tendency toward Indulgence. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

With a very high score of 90, Moldova is a nation where power holders are very distant in society. People in this society accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place, and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, and the different distribution of power justifies the fact that power holders have more benefits than the less powerful in society. The discrepancy between the less and the more powerful people leads to a great importance of status symbols.

At a low score of 27, Moldova is a collectivist culture. This is evident in the early integration and close, long-term commitment to a strong, cohesive ‘in-group’. These societies foster strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for and protects fellow members of their group. Loyalty is paramount and overrides most other societal rules. In these societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face.

At 39, Moldova scores relatively low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus considered a moderately Consensus society. This means that society is driven by a certain amount of modesty and fairness. People in such societies value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts can be threatening because they endanger the wellbeing of everyone; they are resolved by compromise and negotiation.

At 95, Moldova scores very high on Uncertainty Avoidance, demonstrating that as a nation they see mechanisms to avoid ambiguity. People do not readily accept change and are very risk adverse. They maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. To minimize the level of uncertainty, there is an emotional need for strict rules, laws, policies, and regulations.

Moldova’s high score of 71 indicates that its culture is pragmatic in nature. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on the situation, context, and time. They show an ability to easily adapt traditions to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, and thriftiness and perseverance in achieving results.

Moldova’s very low score of 19 indicates a culture characterised by great Restraint. Restrained societies have a tendency toward cynicism and pessimism. Also, they do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People have the perception that their actions are, or should be, restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

With a very high score of 88, Montenegro is a nation where power holders are very distant in society. People in this society accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place, and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, and the different distribution of power justifies the fact that power holders have more benefits than the less powerful in society. The discrepancy between the less and the more powerful people leads to a great importance of status symbols.

At a low score of 27, Montenegro is a collectivist culture. This is evident in the early integration and close, long-term commitment to a strong, cohesive ‘in-group’. These societies foster strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for and protects fellow members of their group. Loyalty is paramount and overrides most other societal rules. In these societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face.

With an intermediate score of 48, Montenegro has a bit of both worlds: high Motivation towards Achievement and Success for certain parts and low Motivation towards Achievement and Success for others, but no clearly dominant cultural value.

At 90, Montenegro scores very high on Uncertainty Avoidance, demonstrating that as a nation they see mechanisms to avoid ambiguity. People do not readily accept change and are very risk adverse. They maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. To minimize the level of uncertainty, there is an emotional need for strict rules, laws, policies, and regulations.

Montenegro’s score of 40 indicates that its culture is relatively normative. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

Montenegro’s very low score of 20 indicates a culture characterised by great Restraint. Restrained societies have a tendency toward cynicism and pessimism. Also, they do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People have the perception that their actions are, or should be, restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

At a score of 70, Morocco is a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

Morocco, with a score of 24 is a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Morocco gets an intermediate score of 53 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success. Consequently, there is no clearly dominant cultural value.

Morocco scores 68 on this dimension and thus has a very high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

With a low score of 25, Moroccan culture is clearly normative. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

Morocco’s low score on this dimension (25) indicates that is has a culture of Restraint. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Mozambique’s very high score of 85 indicates that it is a strongly hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

With a very low score of 15, Mozambique is considered a collectivistic society. This is evident in a close, long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies: offense leads to shame and the loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

A relatively low score of 38 means that Mozambique is considered a Consensus society. In countries scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”. Managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being and status is not shown or emphasised.

With a low score of 44, Mozambique is a fairly pragmatic culture in terms of Uncertainty Avoidance. This means that both generalists and experts are needed. There is a focus on planning, and these plans can be altered at short notice and improvisations made. Emotions are not shown much in these societies; people are fairly relaxed and not averse to taking risks. Consequently, there is a larger degree of acceptance for new ideas, innovative products and a willingness to try something new or different, whether it pertains to technology, business practices, or food.

An extremely low score of 11 on this dimension means, therefore, that Mozambique has a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

Mozambique is an Indulgent country. This is attested to by its very high score of 80 in this dimenstion. People in societies with a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to fulfill their impulses and desires, especially with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

With a slightly high score of 65, Namibia is a relatively hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

A low score of 30 in this dimension means that Namibia is considered a collectivistic society. This is evident in a close, long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies: offense leads to shame and the loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Namibia scores 40 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, and is thus considered a Consensus society. In countries scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”, managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being and status is not shown or emphasised.

The intermediate score of 45 does not indicate that Namibia has a preference on this dimension.

A low score (35) in this dimension means that Namibia is, therefore, a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

There is currently no score for Namibia in this dimension.

With a slightly high score of 65, Nepal is a relatively hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

A low score of 30 in this dimension means that Nepal is considered a collectivistic society. This is evident in a close, long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies: offense leads to shame and the loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Nepal, with a score of 40 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, is considered a Consensus society. In countries scoring low Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”. Managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being and status is not shown or emphasised.

Scoring only 40 in this dimension, Nepal has a medium low preference for avoiding uncertainty. This means that both generalists and experts are needed. Aggression and emotions are not shown much in these societies. This means that stress cannot be released in activity; it has to be internalized. In these societies rules are more flexible, superegos are weaker, and the world is pictured as basically benevolent. People are fairly relaxed and not averse to taking risks. Consequently, there is a larger degree of acceptance for new ideas, innovative products and a willingness to try something new or different, whether it pertains to technology, business practices, or food .

There is currently no score for Nepal in this dimension.

The Netherlands scores low on this dimension (score of 38) which means that the following characterises the Dutch style: Being independent, hierarchy for convenience only, equal rights, superiors accessible, coaching leader, management facilitates and empowers. Power is decentralized and managers count on the experience of their team members. Employees expect to be consulted. Control is disliked and attitude towards managers are informal and on first name basis. Communication is direct and participative.

The Netherlands, with the highest score of 100 is an Individualist society. This means there is a high preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only. In Individualist societies offense causes guilt and a loss of self-esteem, the employer/employee relationship is a contract based on mutual advantage, hiring and promotion decisions are supposed to be based on merit only, and management is the management of individuals.

The Netherlands scores 14 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is therefore considered a Consensus society. In countries with low scores on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, it is important to keep the work-life balance and make sure that all are included. An effective manager is supportive to their people, and decision making is achieved through involvement. Managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation and the Dutch are known for their long discussions until consensus has been reached.

The Netherlands scores 53 on this dimension and thus exhibits a slight preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

The Netherlands receives a high score of 67 in this dimension, which means that it has a pragmatic nature. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on the situation, context, and time. They show an ability to easily adapt traditions to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results.

With a high score of 68, the culture of the Netherlands is clearly one of Indulgence. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

New Zealand scores very low on this dimension (22). Within organizations, hierarchy is established for convenience, superiors are always accessible and managers rely on individual employees and teams for their expertise. Both managers and employees expect to be consulted and information is shared frequently. At the same time, communication is informal, direct and participative.

New Zealand, with a score of 69 on this dimension, is an Individualist culture. This translates into a loosely-knit society in which the expectation is that people look after themselves and their immediate families. In the business world, employees are expected to be self-reliant and display initiative. Also, within the exchange-based world of work, hiring, and promotion decisions are based on merit or evidence of what one has done or can do.

New Zealand scores 58 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is considered a “Decisive” society. Behaviour in school, work, and play are based on the shared values that people should “strive to be the best they can be” and that “the winner takes all”. New Zealanders are proud of their successes and achievements in life, and it offers a basis for hiring and promotion decisions in the workplace. Conflicts are resolved at the individual level, and the goal is to win.

New Zealand scores an intermediate 49 on this dimension. This score does not show a preference.

With a score of 55 in this dimension, New Zealand has a relatively pragmatic nature. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on the situation, context, and time. They show an ability to easily adapt traditions to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results.

New Zealand’s relatively high score of 75 indicates that its culture is one of Indulgence. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

Nigeria scores high on this dimension (score of 80) which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

Nigeria, with a score of 0, the lowest score in the database, is a highly collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Nigeria scores 60 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus a Decisive society. In countries scoring high on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, people “live in order to work”. Managers are expected to be decisive and assertive, the emphasis is on equity, competition and performance and conflicts are resolved by fighting them out.

Nigeria receives an intermediate score of 55 on this dimension, which does not show a clear preference.

Nigeria scores very low (8) on this dimension, meaning that Nigerian culture is very normative instead of pragmatic. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

With a very high score of 84, Nigerian culture is said to be one of Indulgence. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

With a very high score of 90, North Macedonia is a nation where power holders are very distant in society. People in this society accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place, and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, and the different distribution of power justifies the fact that power holders have more benefits than the less powerful in society. The discrepancy between the less and the more powerful people leads to a great importance of status symbols.

At a score of 40, North Macedonia is a collectivist culture. This is evident in the early integration and close, long-term commitment to a strong, cohesive ‘in-group’. These societies foster strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for and protects fellow members of their group. Loyalty is paramount and overrides most other societal rules. In these societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face.

With an intermediate score of 45, North Macedonia has a bit of both worlds: high Motivation towards Achievement and Success for certain parts and low Motivation towards Achievement and Success for others, but no clearly dominant cultural value.

At 87, North Macedonia scores very high on Uncertainty Avoidance, demonstrating that as a nation they see mechanisms to avoid ambiguity. People do not readily accept change and are very risk adverse. They maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. To minimize the level of uncertainty, there is an emotional need for strict rules, laws, policies, and regulations.

At a score of 35, North Macedonia exhibits a relatively normative instead of pragmatic. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

The low score of 35 in this dimension shows that North Macedonia has a culture of restraint. Restrained societies have a tendency toward cynicism and pessimism. Also, they do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People have the perception that their actions are restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Norway scores low on this dimension (31) which means that the following characterises the Norwegians style: Being independent, hierarchy for convenience only, equal rights, superiors accessible, coaching leader, management facilitates and empowers. Power is decentralized and managers count on the experience of their team members. Employees expect to be consulted. Control is disliked and attitude towards managers are informal and on first name basis. Communication is direct, participative and consensus orientated.

Norway with a very high score of 81 is certainly an Individualist society. This means that the “Self” is important and individual, personal opinions are valued and expressed. Communication is explicit. At the same time, the right to privacy is important and respected. There are clear lines between work and private life. Job mobility is higher and one thinks in terms of individual careers. The employer-employee relationship is based on a contract and leaders focus on the management of individuals. Feedback is direct and nepotism is not encouraged.

Norway scores 8 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus described as the second most Consensus society (after the Swedes). This means that the softer aspects of culture are valued and encouraged, such as levelling with others, consensus, “independent” cooperation and sympathy for the underdog. Taking care of the environment is important. Trying to be better than others is neither socially nor materially rewarded. Societal solidarity in life is important; work to live and DO your best. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Interaction through dialogue and “growing insight” is valued and self development along these terms is encouraged. Focus is on well-being; status is not shown. An effective manager is a supportive one, and decision making is achieved through involvement.

Norway scores 50 and thus does not indicate a preference on this dimension.

With a relatively low score of 55, Norway has a relatively pragmatic nature. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on the situation, context, and time. They show an ability to easily adapt traditions to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results

Norway has an intermediate, therefore inconclusive, score of 55 in this dimension.

With an intermediate score of 55, it is not possible to determine a preference for Pakistan in this dimension.

Pakistan, with a very low score of 5, is a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Pakistan scores 50 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success. As this is exactly an intermediate score, it cannot be said if Pakistan has a preference for high Motivation towards Achievement and Success or low Motivation towards Achievement and Success.

Pakistan scores 70 on this dimension and thus has a high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

With a score of 19, the culture of Pakistan is strongly a normative-oriented one. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing an absolute truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

Pakistan, with an extremely low score of 0 on this dimension, can be said to be a very Restrained society. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

At a very high score of 95, Panama is a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

Panama, with a score of 11, is considered a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Panama scores 44 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus considered a relatively Consensus society. In countries with low scores on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”. Managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, and status is not shown.

Panama scores 86 on this dimension and thus has a high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

There is currently no score for Panama on this dimension.

With a score of 70, Paraguay scores high on this dimension, which means that members of the society accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place, and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, and the different distribution of power justifies the fact that power holders have more benefits than the less powerful in society. Status symbols of power are very important to indicate social position and “communicate” the respect that should be shown.

Paraguay has a very low score of 12, which indicates that it is a highly collectivistic society. This is evident in the early integration and close, long-term commitment to a strong, cohesive ‘in-group’. Society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for and protects fellow members of their group. Loyalty is paramount and overrides most other societal rules. In these societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face.

At 40, Paraguay scores relatively low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus considered a moderately Consensus society. This means that society is driven by a certain amount of modesty and fairness. People in such societies value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts can be threatening because they endanger the wellbeing of everyone; they are resolved by compromise and negotiation

With 85, Paraguay scores very high on Uncertainty Avoidance, demonstrating that as a nation they see mechanisms to avoid ambiguity. People do not readily accept change and are very risk adverse. They maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. To minimize the level of uncertainty, there is an emotional need for strict rules, laws, policies, and regulations.

With 20, Paraguay scores very low in this dimension. A score this low indicates a strongly normative cultural orientation. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing an absolute truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

At a relatively high score of 56, Paraguayan culture is more indulgent than restrained. People in indulgent societies generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires regarding enjoying life and having fun. They have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time and spend money as they wish.

There is ample evidence for Peru´s high PDI score of 67 at organisational level. In general, it is possible to find rather tall, centralised structural arrangements. By the same token, there are larger proportions of supervisory personnel and wage differentials.

Some observers trace back Peru´s PDI score to the tightly structured and centralized Inca empire; others point out that it has been fostered by colonial and authoritarian governments as well as the church. However, subordinates still perceive superiors as difficult to access and do not trust them. Superiors consider subordinates as being of a different kind and ask for respect – particularly if the latter are of black or indigenous origin.

With a value of 20 Peru shows a very collectivistic score, in line with most other Latin American countries. Among other consequences, it is interesting to highlight that in general people here find large companies attractive and that, particularly among blue-collar workers, the involvement with the company is moral – and not calculative. Managers endorse more traditional points of view and only slowly start supporting employee initiative and group activity. In general, they aspire to conformity and prefer having security over having autonomy in their position.

At 42, Peru is rather a Consensus society. This trait has been the source of many cultural clashes and misunderstandings. For expatriates, locals were aloof or downright lazy. The actual reasons, however, were the locals' weaker achievement motivation, their preference for human contacts and family over recognition or wealth, and the marginal role awarded to work by large sectors of the population.

At 87 Peru scores high on UAI – and so do the majority of Latin American countries that belonged to the Spanish kingdom. These societies show a strong need for rules and elaborate legal systems in order to structure life. The individual’s need to obey these laws, however, is weak. Corruption is widespread, the black market sizeable and, in general, you´ll see a deep split between the “pays réel” and the “pays légal”.

To make things worse, in these socienties, if rules cannot be kept, additional rules are dictated. According to Peruvian Nobel prize winner Vargas Llosa, “A logical consequence of such abundance is that each legal disposition has another that corrects, denies or mitigates it. That means, in other words, that those who are immersed in such a sea of juridical contradictions live transgressing the law, or that – perhaps even more demoralizing – within such a structure, any abuse or transgression may find a legal loophole that redeems or justifies it.

With a very low score of 5, Peruvian culture is more normative than pragmatic. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

Peru has an intermediate score of 46 on this dimension.

At a score of 94, The Philippines is a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

The Philippines, with a very low score of 17, is considered a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

The Philippines scores 64 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus a Decisive society. In countries scoring high on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, people “live in order to work”, and managers are expected to be decisive and assertive. Emphasis is on equity, competition and performance and conflicts are resolved by fighting them out.

The Philippines scores 44 on this dimension and thus has a low preference for avoiding uncertainty. Low UAI societies maintain a more relaxed attitude in which practice counts more than principles and deviance from the norm is more easily tolerated. In societies exhibiting low UAI, people believe there should be no more rules than are necessary and if they are ambiguous or do not work they should be abandoned or changed. Schedules are flexible, hard work is undertaken when necessary but not for its own sake, precision and punctuality do not come naturally, innovation is not seen as threatening.

At a score of 46 indicates that the Philippines are relatively normative. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

With a low score of 42, the culture of the Philippines is one of Restraint. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

At a score of 68, Poland is a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

Poland, with a score of 47, does not have a strong preference for either end of the scale.

Poland scores 64 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus considered a Decisive society. In countries with high Motivation towards Achievement and Success, people “live in order to work”, and managers are expected to be decisive and assertive. Emphasis is on equity, competition and performance and conflicts are resolved by fighting them out.

Poland scores 93 on this dimension and thus has a very high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

Poland, a score of 49 in this dimension means that it does not have a strong preference for either end of the scale.

With a low score of 29, Polish culture is one of Restraint. Societies with a low score on this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Portugal’s score on this dimension (63) reflects that hierarchical distance is accepted and those holding the most powerful positions are admitted to have privileges for their position. Management controls, i.e. the boss requires information from his subordinates and these expect their boss to control them. A lack of interest towards a subordinate would mean this one is not relevant in the Organization. At the same time, this would make the employee feel unmotivated. Negative feedback is very distressed so for the employee it is more than difficult to provide his boss with negative information. The boss needs to be conscious of this difficulty and search for little signals in order to discover the real problems and avoid becoming relevant.

Portugal, with a score of 59 has a moderate score in Individualism. This translates into a loosely-knit society in which the expectation is that people look after themselves and their immediate families. In the business world, employees are expected to be self-reliant and display initiative. Also, within the exchange-based world of work, hiring, and promotion decisions are based on merit or evidence of what one has done or can do.

Portugal scores 31 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is a country where the key word is Consensus. So polarization is not well considered or excessive competitiveness appreciated. In countries scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, like Portugal, the focus is on “working in order to live”. Managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, status is not shown. An effective manager is a supportive one, and decision making is achieved through involvement.

If there is a dimension that defines Portugal very clearly, it is Uncertainty Avoidance. Portugal scores 99 on this dimension and thus has a very high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

A score of 42 shows that Portuguese culture prefers normative thought over pragmatic. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

A relatively low score of 33 indicates that Portugal has a culture of Restraint. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

With a score of 68, Puerto Rico is a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

Puerto Rico, with a score of 43, is considered a collectivistic society. This is evident in a close, long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies: offense leads to shame and the loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

An intermediate score of 56 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success indicates that Puerto Rico is a “Decisive” society with “Consensus” tendencies. Behaviour in school, work, and play are based on the shared values that people should “strive to be the best they can be” and that “the winner takes all”. They are proud of their successes and achievements in life, and these offer a basis for hiring and promotion decisions in the workplace. Conflicts are resolved at the individual level and the goal is to win.

With a low score (38) in this dimension, Puerto Rico has a fairly pragmatic culture in terms of uncertainty avoidance. This means that both generalists and experts are needed. There is a focus on planning, and these plans can be altered at short notice and improvisations made. Emotions are not shown much in these societies; people are fairly relaxed and not averse to taking risks. Consequently, there is a larger degree of acceptance for new ideas, innovative products and a willingness to try something new or different, whether it pertains to technology, business practices, or food.

A low score of 27 means that Puerto Rico has a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

With a very high score of 90, Puerto Rican culture has a definite tendency toward Indulgence. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

Qatar scores high on this dimension (aggregate score of 93), which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place, and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat. Power is centralized, and managers count on the obedience of their team members in return for protection from the power holders. The manager/boss is expected (and often the only authorized party) to make decisions. Titles and proximity to the Royal family play an important role and it helps the Qatari people place their colleagues or counterparts in the hierarchy, allowing them to give appropriate respect to superiors.

Qatar scores low on this dimension (aggregate score of 18). With a score of 18, Qatar is certainly a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Qatar shows a moderately Decisive score on Motivation towards Achievement and Success (aggregate score of 55). Qatar’s score on this dimension indicates a tendency towards a Decisive society. In countries scoring high on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, people “live to work”, managers are expected to be decisive and assertive, the emphasis is on equity, competition and performance and conflicts are resolved by fighting them out.

Qatar scores high on this dimension (aggregate score of 80) This scores for Uncertainty Avoidance dimension, is indicative of a high preference to avoid unpredictability. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behavior and are intolerant of unorthodox behavior and ideas. In these cultures, there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

A low score of 14 means that Qatar has a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

There is currently no score available for Qatar on this dimensions.

Romania scores high on this dimension (score of 90) which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

Romania, with a score of 46 is considered a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Romania scores 42 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus considered a relatively Consensus society. In countries scorin low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”. Managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, and status is not shown.

Romania scores 90 on this dimension and thus has a very high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

Romania has a score of 32 on this dimension, it means that Romania has a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

With a very low score of 20, Romanian culture is one of Restraint. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Russia, scoring 93, is a nation where power holders are very distant in society. This is underlined by the fact that the largest country in the world is extremely centralized: 2/3 of all foreign investments go into Moscow where also 80% of all financial potential is concentrated. The huge discrepancy between the less and the more powerful people leads to a great importance of status symbols. Behaviour has to reflect and represent the status roles in all areas of business interactions: be it visits, negotiations or cooperation; the approach should be top-down and provide clear mandates for any task.

If Russians plan to go out with their friends they would say “We with friends” instead of “I and my friends”, if they talk about brothers and sisters it may well be cousins, so a score of 46 even finds its manifestations in the language. Family, friends, and not seldom the neighborhood are extremely important to get along with everyday life’s challenges. Relationships are crucial in obtaining information, getting introduced, or successful negotiations. They need to be personal, authentic, and trustful before they can focus on tasks and build on a careful to-recipient, rather implicit communication style.

Russia’s relatively low score of 36 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success may be surprising with regard to its preference for status symbols, but these are in Russia related to the high Power Distance. At second glance, one can see that Russians at workplace as well as when meeting a stranger rather understate their personal achievements, contributions or capacities. They talk modestly about themselves, and scientists, researchers or doctors are most often expected to live on a very modest standard of living. Dominant behaviour might be accepted when it comes from the boss but is not appreciated among peers.

Scoring 95 Russians feel very much threatened by ambiguous situations, as well as they have established one of the most complex bureaucracies in the world. Presentations are either not prepared, e.g. when negotiations are being started and the focus is on the relationship building, or extremely detailed and well prepared. Also detailed planning and briefing is very common. Russians prefer to have context and background information. As long as Russians interact with people considered to be strangers they appear very formal and distant. At the same time formality is used as a sign of respect.

With a score of 58, Russia is a country with a pragmatic mindset. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on situation, context, and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions easily to changed conditions, and a strong propensity to save and invest. thriftiness and perseverance in achieving results.

The Restrained nature of Russian culture is easily visible through its very low score of 20 on this dimension. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

São Tomé and Príncipe scores high on this dimension (75), which means that members of the society accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place, and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, and the different distribution of power justifies the fact that power holders have more benefits than the less powerful in society. Status symbols of power are very important to indicate social position and “communicate” the respect that should be shown.

São Tomé and Príncipe, with a relatively low score of 37, tends towards a collectivist culture. These are characterized by an early integration and close, long-term commitment to a strong, cohesive ‘in-group’. Society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for and protects fellow members of their group. Loyalty is paramount and overrides most other societal rules. In these societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face.

São Tomé and Príncipe’s low score (24) on Motivation towards Achievement and Success characterises it as a Consensus society. In cultures scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”. People in such societies value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. It is important to make sure that everyone is included. Conflicts can be threatening because they endanger the well-being of everyone; they are resolved by compromise and negotiation.

Scoring 70 in this dimension, São Tomé and Príncipe demonstrates a high preference for avoiding uncertainty. These societies do not readily accept change and are very risk adverse. They maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. To minimize or reduce the level of uncertainty, there is an emotional need for strict rules, laws, policies, and regulations.

The low score of 32, indicates that São Tomé and Príncipe have a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing an absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

São Tomé and Príncipe’s relatively low score of 41 indicates that its culture tends toward Restraint rather than Indulgence. Restrained societies have a tendency toward cynicism and pessimism. Also, they do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. Their actions are restrained by social norms and they feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Saudi Arabia scores high on this dimension (score of 72) which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

Saudi Arabia, with a score of 48 is considered a slightly collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Saudi Arabia scores 43 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus considered a relatively Consensus society.

Saudi Arabia scores 64 on this dimension and thus has a preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

The normative nature of Saudi Arabian society can be seen in its low score of 27 on this dimension. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

Saudi Arabia, with a low score of 14 on this dimension, can be said to be a Restrained society. In contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

With a high score of 70, Senegal is a relatively hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

A low score of 25 in this dimension means that Senegal is considered a collectivistic society. This is evident in a close, long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies: offense leads to shame and the loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Senegal, with a score of 45 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success is considered a Consensus society. In countries with low scores on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”. Managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, and status is not shown or emphasised.

The intermediate score of 55 indicates that Senegal no clear preference for avoiding uncertainty.

A low score (25) in this dimension means that Senegal is, therefore, a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

There is currently no score for Senegal in this dimension.

Serbia scores high on this dimension (score of 86) which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

Serbia, with a score of 42 is considered a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Serbia scores 43 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus considered a relatively Consensus society. In countries scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”. Managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, and status is not shown.

Serbia scores 92 on this dimension and thus has a very high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

A score of 37 on this dimension means that in Serbian the culture is more normative than pragmatic. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

A low score of 28 on this dimension indicates that Serbian culture is one of Restraint. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Sierra Leone scores high on this dimension (score of 70) which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

Sierra Leone, with a score of 20 is considered a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Sierra Leone, at a score of 40, scores low on Motivation for Achievement and Success. In such countries, the focus is on “working in order to live”. Managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, and status is not shown. An effective manager is a supportive one, and decision making is achieved through involvement.

Sierra Leone scores 50 on this dimension and thus has a low preference for avoiding uncertainty. Low UAI societies maintain a more relaxed attitude in which practice counts more than principles and deviance from the norm is more easily tolerated. In societies exhibiting low UAI, people believe there should be no more rules than are necessary and if they are ambiguous or do not work they should be abandoned or changed. Schedules are flexible, hard work is undertaken when necessary but not for its own sake, precision and punctuality do not come naturally, innovation is not seen as threatening.

There is currently no score for Sierra Leone on this dimension.

Singapore scores high on this dimension (score of 74). With a Confucian background (the Chinese) they normally have a syncretic approach to religion, which is also the dominant approach in Singapore. One of the key principles of Confucian teaching is the stability of society, which is based on unequal relationships between people. Confucius distinguished five basic relationships: ruler-subject; father-son; older brother-younger brother; husband-wife; and senior friend-junior friend. These relationships are based on mutual and complementary obligations. Here we can see the high PDI as a consequence.

Power is centralized and managers rely on their bosses and on rules. Employees expect to be told what to do. Control is expected and attitude towards managers is formal. Communication is indirect and the information flow is selective. We can see the high PDI also in the government’s defined five “shared values”: 1) Nation before community and society above self.

Singapore, with a score of 43 is a collectivistic society. This means that the “We” is important, people belong to in-groups (families, clans, or organizations) who look after each other in exchange for loyalty. Here we can also see the second key principle of Confucian teaching: The family is the prototype of all social organizations. A person is not primarily an individual; rather, he or she is a member of a family. Children should learn to restrain themselves, to overcome their individuality to maintain harmony in the family. Harmony is found when everybody saves face in the sense of dignity, self-respect, and prestige. Social relations should be conducted in such a way that everybody’s face is saved. Paying respect to someone is called giving face.

Communication is indirect and the harmony of the group has to be maintained, open conflicts are avoided. A “yes” doesn’t necessarily mean “yes”; politeness takes precedence over honest feedback. The relationship has a moral basis and this always has priority over task fulfilment. The face of others has to be respected and especially as a manager calmness and respectability are very important.

Singapore scores 48 and falls into the “middle” of the scale. However, it is more on the Consensus side. This means that the softer aspects of culture such as levelling with others, consensus, and sympathy for the underdog are valued and encouraged. Modesty and humility are seen as very important; thus showing that one knows it all and has come to educate the counterparts is not liked. Conflicts are avoided in private and work life, and consensus at the end is important. During discussions, being cautious is important, as not being too persistent. We can also see the attributes of a Consensus society reflect on the five “shared values” defined by the Singaporean government. #3) Community support and respect for the individual.

Singapore scores 8 on this dimension and thus scores very low on this dimension. In Singapore people abide to many rules not because they have need for structure but because of high PDI. Singaporeans call their society a “Fine country. You’ll get a fine for everything”.

Singapore scores 67, this score reflected in Singapore which shows cultural qualities supporting long-term investment such as perseverance, sustained efforts, slow results, thrift; being sparse with resources, ordering relationships by status, and having a sense of shame (see also again the Confucian teaching). Singapore has also become one of the five dragons with immense economic success.

Whereas Westerners have been looking for the truth, Singaporeans are emphasizing virtue and the way you do things. They are always keeping their options open as there are many ways to skin a cat. Westerners believe that if A is right, B must be wrong, whereas people from East and Southeast Asian countries see that both A and B combined produce something superior. This mindset allows for a more pragmatic approach to business.

Is it not possible to determine a preference on this dimension because of Singapore’s intermediate score of 46.

With a score of 100 points Slovakia is at the highest end of this dimension compared to other countries. Remember that it is possible to score more than 100 points as Slovakia was not a part of the original survey. In societies scoring high on Power Distance it is perfectly accepted that some people have more power than others. It is accepted and expected that these people also use their power. Not in a negative way but to create clarity and structure for people around them. The Ideal boss can therefore be compared with a “good father” who supervises you, is highly visible and tells you what to do. Hierarchical organizations are normal. A key issue for foreigners to understand is that in spite of the very high score on PDI, a manager still has to prove him or herself in order to make people respect and accept decisions from above or the (foreign) headquarter. Visibility and showing results is key.

Slovakia, with a score of 57, is a relatively Individualist society. This means there is a preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only. In Individualist societies offense causes guilt and a loss of self-esteem, the employer/employee relationship is a contract based on mutual advantage, hiring, and promotion decisions are supposed to be based on merit only, and management is the management of individuals..

At a score of 100 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, Slovakia is a strongly Decisive society. It is important to be regarded as successful and to reach your goals. Status is an important aspect of this society, and of course, the ability to show your status. Status symbols like cars, impressive houses, clothes etc. play a big role. People work hard to achieve a high living standard and to be able to “show their achievements”. Long working hours and dedication to work are needed in order to achieve this.

With an intermediate score of 51 on this dimension, Slovakia shows no clear preference.

With a score of 53, it shows that Slovakia has a relatively pragmatic culture. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on situation, context, and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions easily to changed conditions, and a strong propensity to save and invest. thriftiness and perseverance in achieving results.

A low score of 28 on this dimension means that Slovakia has a culture of Restraint. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Slovenia scores high on this dimension (score of 71) which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

Slovenia, with a score of 81 is an Individualist society. This means there is a high preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only. In Individualist societies offense causes guilt and a loss of self-esteem, the employer/employee relationship is a contract based on mutual advantage, hiring, and promotion decisions are supposed to be based on merit only, management is the management of individuals.

Slovenia scores 19 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus considered a Consensus society. In countries scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”. Managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, and status is not shown.

Slovenia scores 88 on this dimension and thus has a very high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

With an intermediate score of 50 on this dimension, no clear preference can be determined for Slovenia.

Slovenia receives an intermediate score of 48 on this dimension, thus no preference is indicated.

South Africa scores 49 on this dimension which means that people to a larger extent accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

South Africa, with a score of 23 is considered a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

South Africa scores 63 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is categorised as a Decisive society. In countries scoring high on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, people “live in order to work”, and managers are expected to be decisive and assertive. Emphasis is on equity, competition and performance and conflicts are resolved by fighting them out.

South Africa scores 49 on this dimension and thus has a low preference for avoiding uncertainty. Low UAI societies maintain a more relaxed attitude in which practice counts more than principles and deviance from the norm is more easily tolerated. In societies exhibiting low UAI, people believe there should be no more rules than are necessary and if they are ambiguous or do not work they should be abandoned or changed. Schedules are flexible, hard work is undertaken when necessary but not for its own sake, precision and punctuality do not come naturally, innovation is not seen as threatening.

A low score of 18 on this dimension means that in South Africa the culture is more normative than pragmatic. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

With a high score of 63 it is clear that South Africa has a culture of Indulgence. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

NOTE: The scores here are for the white population of South Africa. The majority of the population is Black African, and their scores may be very different from those presented above.

At an intermediate score of 60, South Korea is a slightly hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

At a score of 58 South Korea has a relatively Individualist culture. In the business world, employees are expected to be self-reliant and display initiative. Also, within the exchange-based world of work, hiring, and promotion decisions are based on merit or evidence of what one has done or can do.

South Korea scores 39 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus considered a Consensus society. In countries with low scores on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”. Managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, and status is not shown. An effective manager is a supportive one, and decision making is achieved through involvement.

At 85 South Korea is one of the most uncertainty avoiding countries in the world. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

South Korea scores 86, making it a pragmatic, long-term orientation culture. Societies with this orientation show an ability to adapt traditions to a modern context i.e. pragmatism, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, perseverance in achieving results, and an overriding concern for respecting the demands of Virtue. The countries of South East Asia and the Far East are typically found at the long-term end of this dimension.

With a low score of 29, South Korean society is shown to be one of Restraint. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Spain’s score on this dimension (57) is a high score, which means that Spain has a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

Spain, with a score of 67 is an Individualist society. This means there is a high preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only. In Individualist societies offense causes guilt and a loss of self-esteem, the employer/employee relationship is a contract based on mutual advantage, hiring, and promotion decisions are supposed to be based on merit only, management is the management of individuals. This has made Spaniards quite easy to relate with certain cultures -mainly non-European- whereas other cultures can be perceived as aggressive and blunt. On the other hand, teamwork is considered something natural, employees tend to work in this way with no need for strong motivation from Management.

Spain scores 42 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is a country where the key word is consensus. Polarization is neither well considered nor excessive competitiveness appreciated. Spanish children are educated in search of harmony, refusing to take sides or stand out. There is a concern for weak or needy people that generate a natural current of sympathy. Regarding management, managers like to consult their subordinates to know their opinions and, according to it, make their decisions. In politics, it is desirable to have the participation of all minorities in an effort to avoid the dominant presence of just one winning party. In this society, it is the country opposite to ‘the winner takes it all’.

If there is a dimension that defines Spain very clearly, it is Uncertainty Avoidance, as is reflected in a high score of 86. Spain is considered the second noisiest country in the world. People like to have rules for everything, changes cause stress, but, at the same time, they are obliged to avoid rules and laws that, in fact, make life more complex. Confrontation is avoided as it causes great stress and scales up to the personal level very quickly. There is great concern for changing, ambiguous and undefined situations. Thus, for example, in a very recent survey 75% of Spanish young people wanted to work in civil service (i.e. a job for life, no concerns about the future) whereas in the USA only 17% of young people would like it.

Despite an intermediate score of 47, Spain is a normative country. Spanish people like to live in the moment, without a great concern about the future. Spain is the country that has given the meaning of ‘fiesta’ to the world. In Spain, people look for quick results without delays. Moreover, there is a need for clear structures and well-defined rules prevailing against more pragmatic and relaxed approaches to life, particularly, in the long term time.

With a low score of 44, Spain is not an Indulgent society. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

With a slightly high score of 80, Sri Lanka is a relatively hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

A low score of 35 in this dimension means that Sri Lanka is considered a collectivistic society. This is evident in a close, long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies: offense leads to shame and the loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Sri Lanka, with a very low score of 10, is considered a Consensus society. In countries scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”. Managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, and status is not shown or emphasised.

The relatively intermediate score of 45 indicates that Sri Lanka does not indicate a strong preference.

With an intermediate score of 45, Sri Lanka does not indicate a strong preference in this dimension.

There is currently no score for Sri Lanka in this dimension.

Suriname scores high on this dimension (score of 85) which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

Suriname, with an intermediate score of 47 is considered a slightly collectivistic society. This is manifested in a close, long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Suriname scores 37 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus considered a Consensus society. In countries scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”. Managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, and status is not shown.

Suriname scores 92 on this dimension and thus has a very high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

There is currently no score for Suriname on this dimension.

Sweden scores low on this dimension (score of 31) which means that the following characterises the Swedish style: Being independent, hierarchy for convenience only, equal rights, superiors accessible, coaching leader, management facilitates and empowers. Power is decentralized and managers count on the experience of their team members. Employees expect to be consulted. Control is disliked and attitude towards managers are informal and on first name basis. Communication is direct and participative.

Sweden, with a score of 87 is an Individualist society. This means there is a high preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only. In Individualist societies offense causes guilt and a loss of self-esteem, the employer/employee relationship is a contract based on mutual advantage, hiring, and promotion decisions are supposed to be based on merit only, management is the management of individuals.

Sweden scores 5 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is therefore regarded as a Consensus society. In countries scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, it is important to keep the work-life balance, and ensure that all are included. An effective manager is supportive to their people, and decision making is achieved through involvement. Managers strive for consensus and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation, and Swedes are known for their long discussions until a consensus has been reached. Incentives such as free time and flexible work hours and place are favoured. The whole culture is based around ‘lagom’, which means something like not too much, not too little, not too noticeable, everything in moderation. Lagom ensures that everybody has enough and nobody goes without. Lagom is enforced in society by “Jante Law” which should keep people “in place” at all times. It is a fictional law and a Scandinavian concept which counsels people not to boast or try to lift themselves above others.

Sweden scores 29 on this dimension and thus has a very low preference for avoiding uncertainty. Low UAI societies maintain a more relaxed attitude in which practice counts more than principles and deviance from the norm is more easily tolerated. In societies exhibiting low UAI, people believe there should be no more rules than are necessary and if they are ambiguous or do not work they should be abandoned or changed. Schedules are flexible, hard work is undertaken when necessary but not for its own sake, precision and punctuality do not come naturally, innovation is not seen as threatening.

With an intermediate score of 53 Sweden is seen to not express a clear preference on this dimension.

A high score of 78 in this dimension indicates that Swedish culture is one of Indulgence. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

At 34, Switzerland sits in the lower rankings of PDI – i.e. a society that believes that inequalities amongst people should be minimized. This means that the following characterizes the German Swiss style: Being independent, hierarchy for convenience only, equal rights, superiors accessible, coaching leader, management facilitates and empowers. Power is decentralized and managers count on the experience of their team members. Employees expect to be consulted. Control is disliked and attitude towards managers are informal and on first name basis. Communication is direct and participative.

On this dimension, there is a vast difference with the French speaking part of Switzerland, which scores higher in PDI (very similar to France), which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat. Challenges to the leadership are not well-received.

Both German and French-speaking Switzerland score relatively high on this dimension, giving Switzerland a score of 79, and it is therefore considered an Individualist society. This means there is a high preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only. In Individualist societies offense causes guilt and a loss of self-esteem, the employer/employee relationship is a contract based on mutual advantage, hiring, and promotion decisions are supposed to be based on merit only, management is the management of individuals.

Switzerland scores 70 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, with both rankings for German speaking and the French speaking Swiss, thus indicating a Decisive society, albeit with the impact more noticeable in the German speaking part of the society. In countries with high scores on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, people “live in order to work”, managers are expected to be decisive, and the emphasis is on equity, competition and performance. Conflicts are resolved by fighting them out.

Switzerland scores 58 in UAI, perhaps reflecting the difference between the French and German parts. French speaking Switzerland has a strong preference for avoiding uncertainty while German speaking Switzerland scores lower. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation. Decisions are taken after careful analysis of all available information.

With a high score of 42, Swiss culture is relatively a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

Switzerland scores high in this dimension, its score of 66 indicates that the culture is one of Indulgence. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

With a high score of 80, Syria is a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

A low score of 35 in this dimension means that Syria is considered a collectivistic society. This is evident in a close, long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies: offense leads to shame and the loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Syria, with an intermediate score of 52, does not have a clearly dominant preference on Motivation towards Achievement and Success.

With an high score of 60 in this dimension, Syria has a high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work), time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted and security is an important element in individual motivation.

A low score (30) in this dimension means that Syria is, therefore, a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

There is currently no score for Syria in this dimension.

Taiwan has an relatively high score of 58 on this dimension which indicates that it is a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

Taiwan, with a score of 40 is a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the “member” group, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. Such a society fosters strong relationships, where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivistic societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face. Employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), and hiring and promotion take account of the employee’s in-group. Management is the management of groups.

Taiwan scores 45 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, a lower intermediate and is thus considered a slightly Consensus society. In Consensus countries, the focus is on “working in order to live”. Managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, and status is not shown. An effective manager is a supportive one, and decision making is achieved through involvement.

Taiwan scores 69 on this dimension and thus has a high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

Taiwan scores 87, making it a pragmatic, long-term orientation culture. Societies with this orientation show an ability to adapt traditions to a modern context i.e. pragmatism, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, perseverance in achieving results, and an overriding concern for respecting the demands of Virtue. The countries of South East Asia and the Far East are typically found at the long-term end of this dimension.

Taiwan has a very intermediate score of 49 which does not indicate the dominant preference on this dimension.

Tanzania scores high on this dimension (score of 70) which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

Tanzania, with a score of 25 is considered a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Tanzania scores 40 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus considered a Consensus society. In countries scoring low on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”. Managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, status is not shown. An effective manager is a supportive one, and decision making is achieved through involvement.

Tanzania scores 50 on this dimension and thus no preference is indicated.

Tanzania scores 34 on this dimension, making it a normative, short-term-oriented culture. Societies with this orientation generally exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save, impatience for achieving quick results, and a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth i.e. normative.

With a low score of 38, Tanzanian culture is one characterized by Restraint. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Thailand scores 64 on PDI index, slightly lower than the average Asian countries (71). It is a society in which inequalities are accepted; a strict chain of command and protocol are observed. Each rank has its privileges and employees show loyalty, respect and deference for their superiors in return for protection and guidance. This may lead to paternalistic management. Thus, the attitude towards managers are more formal, the information flow is hierarchical and controlled.

With a score of 19 Thailand is a highly collectivist country. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’ (a family, extended family, or extended relationships). Loyalty to the in-group in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. To preserve the in-group, Thai are not confrontational and in their communication a “Yes” may not mean an acceptance or agreement. An offense leads to loss of face and Thai are very sensitive not to feel shamed in front of their group. Personal relationship is key to conducting business and it takes time to build such relations thus patience is necessary as well as not openly discussing business on first occasions.

Thailand scores 34 on this dimension and is thus considered a Consensus society. Thailand has the lowest ranking on 'Motivation for Achievement and Success' among the average Asian countries of 53 and the World average of 50. This lower level indicates a society with less assertiveness and competitiveness compared to one where these values are considered more important and significant. This situation also reinforces more traditional male and female roles within the population.

Thailand scores an intermediate 64 on this dimension, but it slightly indicating a preference for avoiding uncertainty. In order to minimize or reduce this level of uncertainty, strict rules, laws, policies, and regulations are adopted and implemented. The ultimate goal of this population is to control everything in order to eliminate or avoid the unexpected. As a result of this high Uncertainty Avoidance characteristic, the society does not readily accept change and is very risk adverse. Change has to be seen for the greater good of the in group.

Thailand scores 67 in this dimension, which means that it is a pragmatic culture. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on situation, context, and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions easily to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results.

With an intermediate score of 45, a preference on this dimension cannot be determined for Thailand.

Trinidad and Tobago scores relatively low on this dimension (score of 47) which means that the following characterises the style: Being independent, hierarchy for convenience only, equal rights, superiors accessible, coaching leader, management facilitates and empowers. Power is decentralized and managers count on the experience of their team members. Employees expect to be consulted. Control is disliked and attitude towards managers are informal and on first name basis. Communication is direct and participative

Trinidad and Tobago, with a score of 25 is considered a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Trinidad and Tobago scores 58 on this dimension and is thus identified as a Decisive society. In countries scoring high on Motivation toward Achievement and Success, people “live in order to work”, managers are expected to be decisive and assertive. Emphasis is on equity, competition and performance and conflicts are resolved by fighting them out.

Trinidad and Tobago scores an intermediate score of 55 on this dimension.

Trinidad and Tobago have a very low score of 17 on this dimension, making it a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

With a very high score of 80, the culture of Trinidad and Tobago is characterized as Indulgent. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

Tunisia scores high on this dimension (70), which means that members of the society accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place, and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, and the different distribution of power justifies the fact that power holders have more benefits than the less powerful in society. Status symbols of power are very important to indicate social position and “communicate” the respect that should be shown.

Tunisia, with a low score of 27, tends to be a collectivist culture. These are characterized by an early integration and close, long-term commitment to a strong, cohesive ‘in-group’. Society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for and protects fellow members of their group. Loyalty is paramount and overrides most other societal rules. In these societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face.

At 40, Tunisia scores relatively low on Motivation for Achievement and Success. This means that society is driven by a certain amount of modesty and fairness. People in such societies value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts can be threatening because they endanger the wellbeing of everyone; they are resolved by compromise and negotiation.

Scoring 75 in this dimension, Tunisia demonstrates a high preference for avoiding uncertainty. These societies do not readily accept change and are very risk adverse. They maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. To minimize or reduce the level of uncertainty, there is an emotional need for strict rules, laws, policies, and regulations.

The normative nature of the Tunisian society can be seen in its low score of 24 on this dimension. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

There is currently no score available for the Tunisia on this dimension.

Turkey scores high on this dimension (score of 66) which means that the following characterises the Turkish style: Dependent, hierarchical, superiors often inaccessible and the ideal boss is a father figure. Power is centralized and managers rely on their bosses and on rules. Employees expect to be told what to do. Control is expected and attitude towards managers is formal. Communication is indirect and the information flow is selective. The same structure can be observed in the family unit, where the father is a kind of patriarch to whom others submit.

Turkey, with a score of 46 is a collectivistic society. This means that the “We” is important, people belong to in-groups (families, clans, or organizations) who look after each other in exchange for loyalty. Communication is indirect and the harmony of the group has to be maintained, open conflicts are avoided. The relationship has a moral base and this always has priority over task fulfillment. Time must be invested initially to establish a relationship of trust. Nepotism may be found more often. Feedback is always indirect, also in the business environment.

Turkey scores 45 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and lies on the Consensus side of the scale. This means that the softer aspects of culture, such as levelling with others, consensus and sympathy for the underdog are valued and encouraged. Conflicts are avoided in private and work life and consensus at the end is important. Leisure time is important for Turks, it is the time when the whole family, clan and friends come together to enjoy life. Status is shown, but this comes more out of the high PDI.

Turkey scores 85 on this dimension and thus there is a huge need for laws and rules. In order to minimize anxiety, people make use of a lot of rituals. For foreigners they might seem religious, with the many references to “Allah”, but often they are just traditional social patterns, used in specific situations to ease tension.

The normative nature of Turkish society can be seen in its low score of 35 on this dimension. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

With an intermediate score of 49, a characteristic corresponding to this dimension cannot be determined for Turkey.

Ukraine, scoring 92, is a country where power holders are very distant in society. Being the largest country entirely within Europe and being for almost a century part of the Soviet Union, Ukraine developed as a very centralized country. The discrepancy between the less and the more powerful people leads to a great importance of status symbols. Behavior has to reflect and represent the status roles in all areas of business interactions: be it visits, negotiations or cooperation; the approach should be top-down and provide clear mandates for any task.

Ukraine scores 55 on this dimension, it is a relatively Individualist society. This means there is a high preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only. In Individualist societies offense causes guilt and a loss of self-esteem, the employer/employee relationship is a contract based on mutual advantage, hiring, and promotion decisions are supposed to be based on merit only, management is the management of individuals.

Ukraine’s relatively low score of 25 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success may be surprising with regard to its preference for status symbols. However, these are in Ukraine related to the high Power Distance. At second glance, one can see that Ukrainians at workplace as well as when meeting a stranger rather understate their personal achievements, contributions or capacities. They talk modestly about themselves, and professionals such as scientists, researchers or doctors are often expected to live on a very modest standard of living. Dominant behaviour might be accepted when it comes from the boss, but is not appreciated among peers.

Scoring 95 Ukrainians feel very much threatened by ambiguous situations. Presentations are either not prepared, e.g. when negotiations are being started and the focus is on the relationship building, or extremely detailed and well prepared. Also detailed planning and briefing is very common. Ukrainians prefer to have context and background information. As long as Ukrainians interact with people considered to be strangers they appear very formal and distant. At the same time formality is used as a sign of respect.

Ukraine scores 51 in this dimension, a dominant preference in Ukranian culture cannot be determined.

The Restrained nature of Ukrainian culture is easily visible through its very low score of 14 on this dimension. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

The United Arab Emirates scores high on this dimension (score of 74) which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat

The United Arab Emirates, with a score of 36 is considered a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

With a score of 52, the Arab Emirates score average on Motivation toward Achievement and Success. Thus, society does not have a clearly dominant preference on this dimension.

Arab Emirates scores 66 on this dimension and thus has a high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high Uncertainty Avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In these cultures there is an emotional need for rules (even if the rules never seem to work) time is money, people have an inner urge to be busy and work hard, precision and punctuality are the norm, innovation may be resisted, security is an important element in individual motivation.

The normative nature of the Emirati society can be seen in its low score of 22 on this dimension. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

The United Arab Emirates, with a low score of 22 on this dimension, can be said to be a Restrained society. In contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

At 35 Britain sits in the lower rankings of PDI – i.e. a society that believes that inequalities amongst people should be minimized. Interestingly is that research shows PD index lower amongst the higher class in Britain than amongst the working classes. The PDI score at first seems incongruent with the well established and historical British class system and its exposes one of the inherent tensions in the British culture – between the importance of birth rank on the one hand and a deep seated belief that where you are born should not limit how far you can travel in life. A sense of fair play drives a belief that people should be treated in some way as equals.

At a score of 76 the UK is an Individualist society. The British are highly Individualist and private people. Children are taught from an early age to think for themselves and to find out what their unique purpose in life is and how they uniquely can contribute to society. The route to happiness is through personal fulfillment. As the affluence of Britain has increased throughout the last decade, with wealth also ‘spreading North’, a much-discussed phenomenon is a rise of what has been seen as rampant consumerism and a strengthening of the ‘ME’ culture.

At 66, Britain is a Decisive society – highly success oriented and driven. A key point of confusion for the foreigner lies in the apparent contradiction between the British culture of modesty and understatement, which is at odds with the underlying success driven value system in the culture. Critical to understanding the British is being able to ‘’read between the lines’’ What is said is not always what is meant. In comparison to Consensus cultures, such as the Scandinavian countries, people in the UK live in order to work and have a clear performance ambition.

At 35 the UK has a low score on Uncertainty Avoidance which means that as a nation they are quite happy to wake up not knowing what the day brings and they are happy to ‘make it up as they go along’ changing plans as new information comes to light. As a low UAI country the British are comfortable in ambiguous situations – the term ‘muddling through’ is a very British way of expressing this. There are generally not too many rules in British society, but those that are there are adhered to (the most famous of which of of course the British love of queuing which has also to do with the values of fair play).

In work terms this results in planning that is not detail oriented – the end goal will be clear (due to high MAS) but the detail of how we get there will be light and the actual process fluid and flexible to emerging and changing environment. Planning horizons will also be shorter. Most importantly the combination of a highly Individualist and curious nation is a high level of creativity and strong need for innovation. What is different is attractive! This emerges throughout the society in both its humour, heavy consumerism for new and innovative products and the fast highly creative industries it thrives in – advertising, marketing, financial engineering.

With a score of 60 in this dimension, making Britain a pragmatic culture. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on situation, context, and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions easily to changed conditions, and a strong propensity to save and invest. thriftiness and perseverance in achieving results.

A high score of 69 indicates that the British culture is one that is classified as Indulgent. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

The United States score low on this dimension (40) which underscores the American premise of “liberty and justice for all.” This is also evidenced by the focus on equal rights in all aspects of American society and government. Within American organizations, hierarchy is established for convenience, superiors are always accessible and managers rely on individual employees and teams for their expertise. Both managers and employees expect to be consulted and information is shared frequently. At the same time, communication is informal, direct and participative.

A score of 60 indicates that the US is an individualistic culture. It reflects itself in the American premise of “liberty and justice for all”, which is evidenced by an explicit emphasis on equal rights in all aspects of American society and government. Within American organizations, superiors are accessible, and managers rely on individual employees and teams for their expertise. Both managers and employees expect to be consulted, and information is shared frequently. At the same time, communication is informal, direct, and participative to a degree. The society is loosely knit in which the expectation is that people look after themselves and their immediate families only and should not rely (too much) on authorities for support. There is also a high degree of geographical mobility in the United States. Americans are the best joiners in the world; however, it is often difficult to develop deep friendships. Americans are accustomed to doing business or interacting with people they don’t know well. Consequently, Americans are not shy about approaching their prospective counterparts to obtain or seek information. In the business world, employees are expected to be self-reliant and display initiative. Also, within the exchange-based world of work, we see that hiring, promotion, and decisions are based on merit or evidence of what one has done or can do.

It is noteworthy that American culture is the melting pot of different cultures, with Caucasians scoring more individualistic than other ethnic groups.

The score of the US on Motivation for Achievement and Success is high at 62, and this can be seen in the typical American behavioural patterns. This can be explained by the combination with Individualism. In other words, Americans, so to speak, all show their Motivation for Achievement and Success individually. The British, however, have the same culture in this respect. The question, therefore, should be: is the same drive not normally to be seen on the surface? This difference is a reflection of the higher score of the US on Uncertainty Avoidance than of the UK. In other words, in both societies, we find the same drive, but Americans show it up-front, whereas the British will take you by surprise.

This American combination reflects itself in the following:

Behavior in school, work, and play are based on the shared values that people should “strive to be the best they can be” and that “the winner takes all”. As a result, Americans will tend to display and talk freely about their “successes” and achievements in life. Being successful per se is not a great motivator in American society, but being able to show one’s success. Many American assessment systems are based on precise target setting, by which American employees can show how well a job they did. There exists a “can-do” mentality which creates a lot of dynamism in the society, as it is believed that there is always the possibility to do things in a better way. Typically, Americans “live to work” so that they can obtain monetary rewards and, as a consequence, attain higher status based on how good one can be. Many white collar workers will move to a more fancy neighbourhood after each and every substantial promotion. It is believed that a certain degree of conflict will bring out the best in people, as it is the goal to be “the winner”. As a consequence, we see a lot of polarization and court cases. This mentality nowadays undermines the American premise of “liberty and justice for all.” Rising inequality is endangering democracy, because a widening gap among the classes may slowly push Power Distance up and Individualism down.

The US scores below average, with a low score of 46, on the Uncertainty Avoidance dimension. . As a consequence, the perceived context in which Americans find themselves will impact their behaviour more than if the culture would have either scored higher or lower. Thus, this cultural pattern reflects itself as follows:

There is a fair degree of acceptance for new ideas, innovative products and a willingness to try something new or different, whether it pertains to technology, business practices or food. Americans tend to be more tolerant of ideas or opinions from anyone and allow the freedom of expression. At the same time, Americans do not require a lot of rules and are less emotionally expressive than higher-scoring cultures. At the same time, 9/11 has created a lot of fear in the American society culminating in the efforts of government to monitor everybody through the NSA and other security organisations

The United States scores 50 on this dimension, which shows that there is no dominant preference.

On the one hand, Americans are prone to analyse new information to check whether it is true. This should not be confused with the fact that Americans are very practical, reflected by the “can-do” mentality. American businesses measure their performance on a short-term basis, with profit and loss statements being issued every quarter, driving individuals to strive for quick results within the workplace.

The United States scores as an Indulgent (68) society on the sixth dimension. This, in combination with a normative score, is reflected by the following contradictory attitudes and behaviour:

Work hard and play hard. The States has waged a war against drugs and is still very busy in doing so, yet drug addiction in the States is higher than in many other wealthy countries. It is a prudish society yet even some well-known televangelists appear to be immoral.

At 61, Uruguay demonstrates a slight tendency to the higher side of PDI and thus, a hierarchical society. This means that members of the society to a large extent accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place, and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, and the different distribution of power justifies the fact that power holders have more benefits than the less powerful in society.

Uruguay, with a score of 60, tends towards an individualistic culture. This means there is a high preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only. In Individualist societies offense causes guilt and a loss of self-esteem, the employer/employee relationship is a contract based on mutual advantage, hiring, and promotion decisions are supposed to be based on merit only, management is the management of individuals. This has made Spaniards quite easy to relate with certain cultures -mainly non-European- whereas other cultures can be perceived as aggressive and blunt. On the other hand, teamwork is considered as something natural, employees tend to work in this way with no need for strong motivation from Management. Relationships are crucial in obtaining information, getting introduced, or successful negotiations. They need to be personal, authentic, and trustful before they can focus on tasks and build on a careful to-recipient, rather implicit communication style.

At 38, Uruguay scores relatively low on Motivation toward Achievement and Success, categorizing it as a moderately Consensus society. This means that society is driven by a certain amount of modesty and fairness. People in such societies value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts can be threatening because they endanger the wellbeing of everyone; they are resolved by compromise and negotiation.

At 98, Uruguay scores very high on Uncertainty Avoidance, demonstrating that as a nation they see mechanisms to avoid ambiguity. People do not readily accept change and are very risk adverse. They maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. To minimize the level of uncertainty, there is an emotional need for strict rules, laws, policies, and regulations.

The low score of 28, indicates that Uruguay has a normative culture. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing an absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

With an intermediate score of 53, no clear preference between Indulgence and Restraint can be established for Uruguay.

At 81 Venezuela sits in the higher rankings of PDI – i.e. a society that believes that inequalities amongst people are simply a fact of life. This inequality is accepted in all layers of society, so a union leader will have a lot of concentrated power compared to his union management team, and they in turn will have more power than other union members. A similar phenomenon will be observed among business leaders and among the highest positions in government. This is regardless of political orientation (right-wing or left-wing) and holds true for parties which are in power or playing an opposition role in Congress. The President typically holds a considerable amount of concentrated power and this has been true for decades and even centuries. The main leader, even when democratically elected, tends to stay in power for a long period, exceeding a single mandate, and will try to avoid relinquishing power.

At a score of 26 Venezuela is amongst the lowest Individualist scores; in other words, it lies amongst the most collectivistic cultures in the world, such as Ecuador, Panama, and Guatemala. Since Venezuelans are highly collectivistic people, belonging to an in-group and aligning yourself with that group’s opinion is very important. Combined with the high scores in PDI, this means that groups often have their strong identities tied to class distinctions. Loyalty to such groups is paramount and often it is through “corporative” groups that people obtain privileges and benefits which are not to be found in other cultures. At the same time, conflict is avoided, to maintain group harmony and to save face. There have been many struggles for power among different political factions and between unions and employers, but seldom have such conflicts become as violent as what has been observed in other countries in Latin America.

Relationships are more important than attending to the task at hand, and when a group of people holds an opinion on an issue, they will be joined by all who feel part of that group. This may result in the task being completed quickly through cooperative effort, or it may result in the task being abandoned (if that is the opinion of the initial group articulating an opinion). Of course, this is also linked to PDI, so power holders can more easily get a group formed around them, rather than people who are perceived as having less power.

Venezuelans will often go out of their way to help you if they feel there is enough attention given to developing a relationship, or if they perceive an “in-group” connection of some sort, however thin. However, those perceived as “outsiders” can easily be excluded or considered “enemies”. The preferred communication style is context-rich, so public speeches and written documents are usually extensive and elaborate.

At 73, Venezuela scores high on Motivation for Achievement and Success. This contradicts the stereotype that Latin Americans avoid hard work. Venezuela is the most performance-oriented country in Latin America. Venezuelans are competitive and status-oriented, yet Collectivistic rather than Individualistic. This means that competition is directed towards members of other groups (or social classes), not towards those who are perceived as members of your own in-group. People seek membership in groups which give them status and rewards linked to performance, but they often sacrifice leisure against work as long as this is supported by group membership and by power holders.

At 76 Venezuela has a high score on Uncertainty Avoidance which means that as a nation they are seeking mechanisms to avoid ambiguity. Emotions are openly expressed; there are (extensive) rules for everything and social conservatism enjoys quite a following. This is also reflected in religion, which is respected, followed by many and conservative. Rules are not necessarily followed, however: this depends on the in-group’s opinion, on whether the group feels the rules are applicable to their members and it depends, ultimately, on the decision of power holders, who make their own rules.

In work terms this results in detailed planning that may not necessarily be followed in practice. The combination of high UAI with the scores on the previous four dimensions means that it is difficult to change the status quo, unless a figure of authority is able to amass a large group of people and lead them towards change.

With a very low score of 0, the culture of Venezuela is decidely normative in nature. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

Venezuela has the highest score possible (100) in this dimension. People in societies classified by a high score in Indulgence generally exhibit a willingness to realise their impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and have a tendency towards optimism. In addition, they place a higher degree of importance on leisure time, act as they please and spend money as they wish.

Vietnam scores high on this dimension (score of 70) which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat. Challenges to the leadership are not well-received.

Vietnam, with a score of 30 is a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the “member” group, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. Such a society fosters strong relationships, where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivistic societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face. Employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), and hiring and promotion take account of the employee’s in-group. Management is the management of groups.

Vietnam scores 40 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus considered a Consensus society. In countries with low scores on Motivation towards Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”. Managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, and status is not shown. An effective manager is a supportive one, and decision making is achieved through involvement.

Vietnam scores 30 on this dimension and thus has a low preference for avoiding uncertainty. Low UAI societies maintain a more relaxed attitude in which practice counts more than principles and deviance from the norm is more easily tolerated. In societies exhibiting low UAI, people believe there should be no more rules than are necessary and if they are ambiguous or do not work they should be abandoned or changed. Schedules are flexible, hard work is undertaken when necessary but not for its own sake, precision and punctuality do not come naturally, innovation is not seen as threatening.

Vietnam, with a score of 47, has a moderate score in Long-Term Orientation, suggesting a balanced approach between traditional values and a willingness to adapt to modern influences. There is an appreciation for both long-standing cultural practices and the need for progress and innovation.

A low score of 35 on this dimension indicates that the culture of Vietnam is characterised as Restrained. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Zambia scores at an intermediate level on this dimension (score of 60), which means that a it has a hierarchical society. This means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organisation is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralisation is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat.

Zambia, with a score of 35 is considered a collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount and over-rides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In collectivist societies, offense leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, and management is the management of groups.

Zambia scores 40 on Motivation towards Achievement and Success and is thus considered a Consensus society. In countries scoring low on Motivation toward Achievement and Success, the focus is on “working in order to live”. Managers strive for consensus, and people value equality, solidarity and quality in their work lives. Conflicts are resolved by compromise and negotiation. Incentives such as free time and flexibility are favoured. Focus is on well-being, and status is not shown. An effective manager is a supportive one, and decision making is achieved through involvement.

Zambia scores an intermediate 50 on this dimension, and thus no preference can be predicted.

A low score of 30 on the scale means that Zambian culture is more normative than pragmatic. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

The relatively low score of 42 on this dimension indicates that the culture of Zambia can be classified as one of Restraint. Societies with a low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

Mongolia scores 37 on this dimension, making it a collectivistic society where there is a tradition of caring for immediate social groups over the well-being of society as a whole. Mongolians express a strong family and regional orientation, which views outsiders with mistrust. They have adopted certain social practices as part of a nomadic lifestyle where cooperation is essential for survival. On the other hand, Mongolians like to show their ability to manage their own way and take credit for their accomplishments. This could also explain the predominance of small business owners, even for those working in salaried positions, as it aligns with their desire to be self-sufficient.

Mongolia scores 50 on this dimension, thus displaying an intermediate position despite the East-Asian tendency toward long-term orientation. In Mongolia, there is a growing level of personal debt and the use of resources now, as they might not be available in the future. Mongolians tend to prefer tangible assets and things that make them appear successful.

This dimension deals with the fact that all individuals in societies are not equal - it expresses the attitude of the culture towards these inequalities amongst us. Power Distance 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.

The fundamental issue addressed by this dimension is the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members. It has to do with whether people's self-image is defined in terms of "I" or "We". In Individualist societies people are supposed to look after themselves and their direct family only. In Collectivist societies people belong to 'in groups' that take care of them in exchange for loyalty.

A high score (Decisive) on this dimension indicates that the society will be driven by competition, achievement and success, with success being defined by the winner / best in field - a value system that starts in school and continues throughout organisational life. A low score (Consensus-oriented) on the dimension means that the dominant values in society are caring for others and quality of life. A Consensus-oriented society is one where quality of life is the sign of success and standing out from the crowd is not admirable. The fundamental issue here is what motivates people, wanting to be the best (Decisive) or liking what you do (Consensus-oriented).

The dimension Uncertainty Avoidance has to do with the way that a society deals with the fact that the future can never be known: should we try to control the future or just let it happen? This ambiguity brings with it anxiety and different cultures have learnt to deal with this anxiety in different ways. The extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations and have created beliefs and institutions that try to avoid these is reflected in the score on Uncertainty Avoidance.

This dimension describes how every society has to maintain some links with its own past while dealing with the challenges of the present and future, and societies prioritise these two existential goals differently. Normative societies. which score low on this dimension, for example, prefer to maintain time-honoured traditions and norms while viewing societal change with suspicion. Those with a culture which scores high, on the other hand, take a more pragmatic approach: they encourage thrift and efforts in modern education as a way to prepare for the future.

One challenge that confronts humanity, now and in the past, is the degree to which small children are socialized. Without socialization we do not become "human". This dimension is defined as the extent to which people try to control their desires and impulses, based on the way they were raised. Relatively weak control is called "Indulgence" and relatively strong control is called "Restraint". Cultures can, therefore, be described as Indulgent or Restrained.

What about Albania?

If we explore the Albanian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Albanian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Algeria?

If we explore the Algerian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Algerian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Angola?

If we explore the Angolan culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Angolan culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Argentina?

If we explore the Argentinian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Argentinian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Armenia?

If we explore the Armenian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Armenian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Australia?

If we explore the Australian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Australian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Austria?

If we explore the Austrian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Austrian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Azerbaijan?

If we explore the Azerbaijani culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Azerbaijani culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Bangladesh?

If we explore the Bangladeshi culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Bangladeshi culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Belarus?

If we explore the Belarusian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Belarusian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Belgium?

If we explore the Belgian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Belgian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Bhutan?

If we explore the Bhutani culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Bhutani culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Bolivia?

If we explore the Bolivian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Bolivian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Bosnia and Herzegovina?

If we explore the Bosnia and Herzegovina`s culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Bosnia and Herzegovina`s culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Brazil?

If we explore the Brazilian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Brazilian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Bulgaria?

If we explore the Bulgarian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Bulgarian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Burkina Faso?

If we explore the Burkinabe culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Burkinabe culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Canada?

If we explore the Canadian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Canadian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Cape Verde?

If we explore the Cape Verdean culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Cape Verdean culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Chile?

If we explore the Chilean culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Chilean culture relative to other world cultures.

What about China?

If we explore the Chinese culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Chinese culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Colombia?

If we explore the Colombian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Colombian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Costa Rica?

If we explore the Costa Rican culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Costa Rican culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Croatia?

If we explore the Croatian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Croatian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Czech Republic?

If we explore the Czech culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Czech culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Denmark?

If we explore the Danish culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Danish culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Dominican Republic?

If we explore the Dominican culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Dominican culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Ecuador?

If we explore the Ecuadorian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Ecuadorian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Egypt?

If we explore the Egyptian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Egyptian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about El Salvador?

If we explore the Salvadoran culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Salvadoran culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Estonia?

If we explore the Estonian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Estonian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Ethiopia?

If we explore the Ethiopian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Ethiopian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Fiji?

If we explore the Fijian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Fijian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Finland?

If we explore the Finnish culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Finnish culture relative to other world cultures.

What about France?

If we explore the French culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of French culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Georgia?

If we explore the Georgian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Georgian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Germany?

If we explore the German culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of German culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Ghana?

If we explore the Ghanaian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Ghanaian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Greece?

If we explore the Greek culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Greek culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Guatemala?

If we explore the Guatemalan culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Guatemalan culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Honduras?

If we explore the Honduran culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Honduran culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Hong Kong?

If we explore the Hong Kong culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Hong Kong culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Hungary?

If we explore the Hungarian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Hungarian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Iceland?

If we explore the Icelandic culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Icelandic culture relative to other world cultures.

What about India?

If we explore the Indian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Indian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Indonesia?

If we explore the Indonesian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Indonesian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Iran?

If we explore the Iranian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Iranian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Iraq?

If we explore the Iraqi culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Iraqi culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Ireland?

If we explore the Irish culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Irish culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Israel?

If we explore the Israeli culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Israeli culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Italy?

If we explore the Italian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Italian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Jamaica?

If we explore the Jamaican culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Jamaican culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Japan?

If we explore the Japanese culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Japanese culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Jordan?

If we explore the Jordanian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Jordanian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Kazakhstan?

If we explore the Kazakhstani culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Kazakhstani culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Kenya?

If we explore the Kenyan culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Kenyan culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Kuwait?

If we explore the Kuwaiti culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Kuwaiti culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Latvia?

If we explore the Latvian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Latvian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Lebanon?

If we explore the Lebanese culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Lebanese culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Libya?

If we explore the Libyan culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Libyan culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Lithuania?

If we explore the Lithuanian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Lithuanian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Luxembourg?

If we explore the Luxembourgish culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Luxembourgish culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Malawi?

If we explore the Malawi culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Malawi culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Malaysia?

If we explore the Malaysian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Malaysian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Malta?

If we explore the Maltese culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Maltese culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Mexico?

If we explore the Mexican culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Mexican culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Moldova?

If we explore the Moldovan culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Moldovan culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Montenegro?

If we explore the Montenegrin culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Montenegrin culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Morocco?

If we explore the Morroccan culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Morroccan culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Mozambique?

If we explore the Mozambican culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Mozambican culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Namibia?

If we explore the Namibian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Namibian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Nepal?

If we explore the Nepalese culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Nepalese culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Netherlands?

If we explore the Dutch culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Dutch culture relative to other world cultures.

What about New Zealand?

If we explore the New Zealand culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of New Zealand culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Nigeria?

If we explore the Nigerian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Nigerian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about North Macedonia?

If we explore the Macedonian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Macedonian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Norway?

If we explore the Norwegian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Norwegian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Pakistan?

If we explore the Pakistani culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Pakistani culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Panama?

If we explore the Panamanian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Panamanian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Paraguay?

If we explore the Paraguayan culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Paraguayan culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Peru?

If we explore the Peruvian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Peruvian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Philippines?

If we explore the Philippine culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Philippine culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Poland?

If we explore the Polish culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Polish culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Portugal?

If we explore the Portuguese culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Portuguese culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Puerto Rico?

If we explore the Puerto Rican culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Puerto Rican culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Qatar?

If we explore the Qatari culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Qatari culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Romania?

If we explore the Romanian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Romanian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Russia?

If we explore the Russian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Russian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about São Tomé and Príncipe?

If we explore the São Toméan culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of São Toméan culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Saudi Arabia?

If we explore the Saudi Arabian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Saudi Arabian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Senegal?

If we explore the Senegalese culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Senegalese culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Serbia?

If we explore the Serbian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Serbian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Sierra Leone?

If we explore the Sierra Leonean culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Sierra Leonean culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Singapore?

If we explore the Singaporean culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Singaporean culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Slovakia?

If we explore the Slovak culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Slovak culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Slovenia?

If we explore the Slovenian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Slovenian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about South Africa?

If we explore the South African culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of South African culture relative to other world cultures.

What about South Korea?

If we explore the South Korean culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of South Korean culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Spain?

If we explore the Spanish culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Spanish culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Sri Lanka?

If we explore the Sri Lankan culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Sri Lankan culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Suriname?

If we explore the Surinamese culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Surinamese culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Sweden?

If we explore the Swedish culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Swedish culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Switzerland?

If we explore the Swiss culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Swiss culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Syria?

If we explore the Syrian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Syrian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Taiwan?

If we explore the Taiwanese culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Taiwanese culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Tanzania?

If we explore the Tanzanian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Tanzanian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Thailand?

If we explore the Thai culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Thai culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Trinidad and Tobago?

If we explore the Trinidadian, Tobagonian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Trinidadian, Tobagonian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Tunisia?

If we explore the Tunisian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Tunisian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Turkey?

If we explore the Turkish culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Turkish culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Ukraine?

If we explore the Ukrainian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Ukrainian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about United Arab Emirates?

If we explore the Emirati culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Emirati culture relative to other world cultures.

What about United Kingdom?

If we explore the British culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of British culture relative to other world cultures.

What about United States?

If we explore the American culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of American culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Uruguay?

If we explore the Uruguayan culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Uruguayan culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Venezuela?

If we explore the Venezuelan culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Venezuelan culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Vietnam?

If we explore the Vietnamese culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Vietnamese culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Zambia?

If we explore the Zambian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Zambian culture relative to other world cultures.

What about Mongolia?

If we explore the Mongolian culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of Mongolian culture relative to other world cultures.

About the Country Comparison

We define culture as the collective mental programming of the human mind distinguishing one group of people from another. This programming influences patterns of thinking which are reflected in the meaning people attach to various aspects of life and which become crystallised in the institutions of a society. Culture does not imply that everyone in a given society is programmed in the same way; differences among the values of individuals in one country tend to be bigger than the value differences between countries. Nevertheless, we can still use such country scores based on the law of the big numbers and on the fact that most of us are strongly influenced by social control. Please realise that statements about countries are generalisations and should be interpreted relative to other countries. Only by comparison a country score is meaningful. Source of country scores Scores are updated on our website when they have been published in scientific journals. Country scores not covered in scientific journals were added through studies or commercial projects involving our own research team and our certified practitioners. The latest update on our website was on October 16, 2023 (IDV and LTO).

References (in reverse chronological order):

• Minkov, M., & Kaasa, A. (2022). Do dimensions of culture exist objectively? A validation of the revised Minkov-Hofstede model of culture with World Values Survey items and scores for 102 countries. Journal of International Management, 28(4), 100971.
• Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind (2010). Scores of the Arabic States are based on Almutairi, S., Heller, M., & Yen, D. (2020). Reclaiming the heterogeneity of the Arab states. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management.
• Hofstede, Geert. 1991, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival, McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.
• Hofstede, Geert. 1984, Culture`s Consequences, Sage Publications.

Note: Granular dimension scores such as splits by region, ethnicity, or demographic background (age, gender, level of education, profession) are used exclusively in client projects and are not public. If you are interested in applying granular data in your business, please contact [email protected] .

15 Cultural Differences Examples

Examples of cultural differences include differences in values, norms , beliefs, mores , rituals , mannerisms, and expressions between different societies.

We can also identify cultural differences in eating and drinking habits, religious beliefs, moral beliefs, rituals, time management, sanitation, greeting, gift giving, exchange, conformity , rebelliousness, sports, language, work ethic , marriage, and so on can all be cultural.

It is common to apply Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory to analyze different dimensions of cultures (Hofstede, 2011).

Cultural Differences Examples

• Kinship – Kinship principles generally form the basis of societal organization. Families consisting of at least one parent and one child are customary in all societies, but there are many differences beyond this.
• Marriage – Marriage and families seem to be human universals, but there is significant variability in customs related to these aspects of social life.
• Sexuality – Interestingly enough, societies vary significantly in the degree to which they encourage or discourage intimacy and its different forms at different stages of life.
• Art – Virtually all societies have some forms of art. Visual art, music, song, dance, literature, etc. of different cultures vary significantly.
• Religion – Religious beliefs and practices are features of all known societies, but they vary significantly between cultures.
• Gender – Categorizing children into the binary categories of female and male is fairly common, but there is significant cultural variability in the toleration of switching categories and the number of genders .
• Sports – Games and sports seem to be human universals, but the types of games and sports played by different cultures vary.
• Dwellings – Different societies, often due to environmental as well as cultural reasons, have very different types of houses or dwellings.
• Celebrations – Cultural celebrations in different cultures include New Years Eve, Chinese new year, birthdays, and Diwali.
• Cultural taboos – While there are some universal taboos, you’ll also notice that some cultures consider certain things you consider ‘normal’ to be very much taboo! For example, some cultures encourage eye contact while other cultures find it offensive.
• Rites of passage – Rites of passage can include the walkabout in Indigenous Australian culture, baptisms in Christianity, school graduation ceremonies, and so forth.
• Worldviews – In broad strokes, Western nations like the modern United States have had a strong history of individualism , while Indigenous cultures often embrace communalism and stewardship of nature.
• Dress codes – When you travel the world, you quickly learn that some cultures encourage conservative dress, such as covering your shoulders and knees in public.
• Food and eating habits ( foodways ) – This includes not only what you eat, but when. Go to Spain, for example, and learn all about very late dinners!
• Educational methods – In 21 st Century Western nations, we are accustomed to formal education in classrooms and standardized testing. But go to Indigenous Australian communities, and we can see that they have their own learning styles heavily reliant on story sharing, symbolism, and non-verbal cues.

Thought Bubble: Are We Really All That Different?

Some anthropologists and biologists have argued against the empirical assumption that cultures are as variable as we might think.

These anthropologists argue that there are cultural universals – concepts that unite all cultures.

Kinship, mourning, birth, the experience of empathy and sympathy, fear, concepts of luck, the use of grammar, exchange, cooperation, competition, aggression, reciprocity, and the biological needs, are some of the constant elements of human experience that go against the assumption that world cultures are fundamentally different (Brown 2004).

Common Categories of Cultural Difference

Unlike many other mammals, human adults rarely live alone. Families are the basic building blocks of any society.

How big these families are and how they are composed varies significantly between cultures.

Consider this example: you are a parent worried about your children no longer living with you when you’re too old for productive work. Some children will grow up and get married. Once they’re married, some children will have to stop living with their parents.

It is, therefore, necessary to decide who lives where. Rules that determine this are called marital residence rules. They differ significantly between cultures (Ember, 2022).

The two most common marital residence rules specify the gender expected to stay and the one expected to leave. When the rule states that the daughter must stay and her husband must move to where her family resides, it is called a matrilocal residence rule.

The inverse is called a patrilocal residence rule. These account for around 85% of the cases social scientists know about, but patrilocal residence is far more common among cultures.

2. Marriage

Different cultures have varying rules for how many people one can be married to simultaneously, what kind of marriage partner one is allowed, and so on.

In virtually all societies known to social scientists today, it is prohibited to marry one’s brother, sister, or parent. Most societies extend this to include the entire kin group.

There are, however, significant cultural differences regarding community exogamy/endogamy, cousin marriage, arranged marriage, polygyny/polyandry, and so on (Ember, 2021).

Let’s take the example of community exogamy and endogamy. Community exogamy refers to marriage with a spouse from another community. Endogamy refers to marriage within the community.

The most common rule is to allow marriage both within and outside of the community, as it is accepted in, for example, European countries. Community exogamy occurs in around 33% of the world’s societies, while endogamy occurs in 7.5% (Kirby et al., 2016).

Another example of cultural variation can be observed in rules concerning the toleration of cousin marriage. Some societies, like the Selk’nam of Tierra del Fuego, are averse to marriage between related people (Gusinde, 1931). Others, like the Komachi of southern Iran, prefer being married to their kin (Bradburd, 1990, p. 115).

There are interesting differences regarding the arts of different cultures that can be seen through analysis.

For example, since egalitarian societies tend to value sameness and stratified societies tend to value hierarchies, the art of egalitarian societies will often contain more repetition than the art of stratified ones (Fischer, 1961).

4. Religion

Religious beliefs and practices vary significantly from culture to culture and change over time.

Different societies have different gods, spirits, types of rituals , and supernatural forces.

Religion itself appears to be common across many cultures, but the specifics are not. According to Émile Durkheim and his followers, religion is the glue that holds societies together (Atran & Henrich, 2010).

The vast body of research conducted by social scientists about human societies and cultures allows us to find, compare, and analyze human cultural universals and differences. If there are different cultures, there are differences between them. It is the task of social scientists to research those differences.

Atran, S., & Henrich, J. (2010). The Evolution of Religion: How Cognitive By-Products, Adaptive Learning Heuristics, Ritual Displays, and Group Competition Generate Deep Commitments to Prosocial Religions. Biological Theory , 5 (1), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1162/BIOT_a_00018

Baghramian, M., & Carter, J. A. (2022). Relativism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/relativism/

Boas, F. (1940). Race, Language, and Culture . University of Chicago Press.

Bradburd, D. (1990). Ambiguous relations: Kin, class, and conflict among Komachi pastoralists . Smithsonian Institution Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=mgRuAAAAMAAJ

Broude, G. J. (1980). Extramarital Sex Norms in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Behavior Science Research , 15 (3), 181–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/106939718001500302

Broude, G. J. (2004). Sexual Attitudes and Practices. In C. R. Ember & M. Ember (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender: Men and Women in the World’s Cultures Volume I: Topics and Cultures A-K Volume II: Cultures L-Z (pp. 177–186). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29907-6_18

Brown, D. E. (2004). Human universals, human nature & human culture. Daedalus , 133 (4), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1162/0011526042365645

Ember, C. R. (2019). Sexuality . https://hraf.yale.edu/ehc/summaries/sexuality

Ember, C. R. (2021). Marriage and Family . https://hraf.yale.edu/ehc/summaries/marriage-and-family

Ember, C. R. (2022). Residence and Kinship . https://hraf.yale.edu/ehc/summaries/residence-and-kinship

Fischer, J. L. (1961). Art Styles as Cultural Cognitive Maps1. American Anthropologist , 63 (1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1961.63.1.02a00050

Gusinde, M. (1931). The Fireland Indians: Vol. 1. The Selk’nam, on the life and thought of a hunting people of the Great Island of Tierra del Fuego . https://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/cultures/sh04/documents/001

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture , 2 (1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014

Kirby, K. R., Gray, R. D., Greenhill, S. J., Jordan, F. M., Gomes-Ng, S., Bibiko, H.-J., Blasi, D. E., Botero, C. A., Bowern, C., Ember, C. R., Leehr, D., Low, B. S., McCarter, J., Divale, W., & Gavin, M. C. (2016). D-PLACE: A Global Database of Cultural, Linguistic and Environmental Diversity. PLOS ONE , 11 (7), e0158391. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158391

Lenard, P. T. (2020). Culture. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/culture/

van de Vijver, F. (2009). Types of Comparative Studies in Cross-Cultural Psychology . Online Readings in Psychology and Culture , 2 (2). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1017

Tio Gabunia (B.Arch, M.Arch)

Tio Gabunia is an academic writer and architect based in Tbilisi. He has studied architecture, design, and urban planning at the Georgian Technical University and the University of Lisbon. He has worked in these fields in Georgia, Portugal, and France. Most of Tio’s writings concern philosophy. Other writings include architecture, sociology, urban planning, and economics.

• Tio Gabunia (B.Arch, M.Arch) #molongui-disabled-link 6 Types of Societies (With 21 Examples)
• Tio Gabunia (B.Arch, M.Arch) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Public Health Policy Examples
• Tio Gabunia (B.Arch, M.Arch) #molongui-disabled-link Social Interaction Types & Examples (Sociology)
• Tio Gabunia (B.Arch, M.Arch) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Common Good Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.

• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Positive Punishment Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Dissociation Examples (Psychology)
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 15 Zone of Proximal Development Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link Perception Checking: 15 Examples and Definition

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cultural Differences in Parenting

April 24, 2024

CEU Webinar

August 16, 2024 12:00-2:00pm 2.0 ceus for lcsw/lsw or lcpc/lpc $20 for ceus, $10 for no ceus this course fulfills the cultural competency requirement for licensure in illinois (lcsw/lsw and lcpc/lpc)..

This course will help professionals understand how cultural and/or differences and historical perspectives have a direct and indirect impact on influencing parenting styles. Predetermined stereotyped (socially engineered and generational) rules have been established for children of color throughout our society; this course will help professionals take culture into consideration and empower parents in preparing their children to survive and thrive.

Learning Objectives:

• Identify common parenting styles of Modern Society.
• Explore cultural and/or racial differences in parenting, and how historical perspectives could influence them.
• Employ awareness of the significant impact that culture and/or race have on diverse parenting approaches.

Registration Options:

If you do not need CEUs for social work licensure, register via the link below:

NON-CEU REGISTRATION

If you  do need CEUs for LCSW/LSW or LCPC/LPC, register via the link below:

CEU REGISTRATION

Workshop Presenters

LaDonna Bracy, MBA, is a Family Advocate Specialist with a passion for empowering individuals through education and training. With over six years of experience in the field, LaDonna has honed her skills as a Trainer Facilitator, specializing in Cultural Humility and Family Peer Support. Her professional journey includes serving at The University of Illinois School of Social Work’s Office of Learning and Professional Development and the Provider Assistance Training Hub (PATH), where she facilitated training programs for diverse audiences. LaDonna holds certifications in Online Teaching, Professional Training Facilitation, and Standards of Quality for Family Strengthening & Support, showcasing her commitment to professional development. Known for her relatable and engaging training style, LaDonna excels at making complex topics understandable while fostering an inclusive learning environment.

Phlona Williams graduated with her bachelor’s degree in Social Work from the University of Illinois Springfield in 2002.  Phlona has worked as a direct social service provider serving youth and adults in various capacities in mental and behavioral health services, school-based behavioral management, foster care services, truancy services, child welfare, area agency on aging support and public health services.  Her roles have ranged from SASS Case Manager, Home Health Operations Manager to Emergency Preparedness Coordinator.  Prior to coming to PATH, she held the position of Instructional Designer for the Office of Learning and Development with the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign School of Social Work in collaboration with the Department of Children and Family Services.

Phlona is a Family Advocate Specialist on the Path Team at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, School of Social Work.  Phlona is responsible for Collaborating with other members of the PATH Family Advocate Specialists Team to develop training curriculum that supports prepares and sustains family peer supporters in the field. In this role, Phlona conducts research for training development, collaborates in various workgroups for training planning and content development, and delivers web-based and on-site training for family peer support staff.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

David French

The Line Between Good and Evil Cuts Through Evangelical America

By David French

Opinion Columnist

I’m afraid that an exit poll question has confused America.

Every four years, voters are asked, “Are you a white evangelical or born-again Christian?” And every time, voters from a broad range of Protestant Christian traditions say yes, compressing a diverse religious community into a single, unified mass.

It’s not that the question is misleading. People who answer yes do represent a coherent political movement. Not only do they vote overwhelmingly for Republicans; they’re also quite distinct from other American political groups in their views on a host of issues, including on disputes regarding race, immigration and the Covid vaccines.

But in other ways, this exit poll identity misleads us about the nature and character of American evangelicalism as a whole. It’s far more diverse and divided than the exit poll results imply. There are the rather crucial facts that not all evangelicals are white and evangelicals of color vote substantially differently from their white brothers and sisters. Evangelicals of color are far more likely to vote Democratic, and their positions on many issues are more closely aligned with the American political mainstream. But the differences go well beyond race.

In reality, American evangelicalism is best understood as a combination of three religious traditions: fundamentalism, evangelicalism and Pentecostalism. These different traditions have different beliefs, different cultures and different effects on our nation.

The distinction between fundamentalism and evangelicalism can be the hardest to parse, especially since we now use the term “evangelical” to describe both branches of the movement. The conflict between evangelicalism and fundamentalism emerged most sharply in the years following World War II, when so-called neo-evangelicals arose as a biblically conservative response to traditional fundamentalism’s separatism and fighting spirit. I say “biblically conservative” because neo-evangelicals had the same high view of Scripture as the inerrant word of God that fundamentalists did, but their temperament and approach were quite different.

The difference between fundamentalism and neo-evangelicalism can be summed up in two men, Bob Jones and Billy Graham. In a 2011 piece about the relationship between Jones and Graham, the Gospel Coalition’s Justin Taylor called them the “exemplars of fundamentalism and neo-evangelicalism.” Jones was the founder of the university that bears his name in Greenville, S.C., one of the most influential fundamentalist colleges in America.

Bob Jones University barred Black students from attending until 1971, then banned interracial dating until 2000 . The racism that plagued Southern American fundamentalism is a key reason for the segregation of American religious life. It’s also one reason the historically Black Protestant church is distinct from the evangelical tradition, despite its similar views of the authority of Scripture.

Graham attended Bob Jones University for a semester, but soon left and took a different path. He went on to become known as “America’s pastor,” the man who ministered to presidents of both parties and led gigantic evangelistic crusades in stadiums across the nation and the world. While Jones segregated his school, Graham removed the red segregation rope dividing white and Black attendees at his crusades in the South — before Brown v. Board of Education — and shared a stage with Martin Luther King Jr. at Madison Square Garden in 1957.

But since that keen Jones/Graham divide, the lines between evangelicalism and fundamentalism have blurred. Now the two camps often go to the same churches, attend the same colleges, listen to the same Christian musicians and read the same books. To compound the confusion, they’re both quite likely to call themselves evangelical. While the theological differences between fundamentalists and evangelicals can be difficult to describe, the temperamental differences are not.

“Fundamentalism,” Richard Land, the former head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, once told me, “is far more a psychology than a theology.” That psychology is defined by an extreme sense of certainty, along with extreme ferocity.

Roughly speaking, fundamentalists are intolerant of dissent. Evangelicals are much more accepting of theological differences. Fundamentalists place a greater emphasis on confrontation and domination. Evangelicals are more interested in pluralism and persuasion. Fundamentalists focus more on God’s law. Evangelicals tend to emphasize God’s grace. While many evangelicals are certainly enthusiastic Trump supporters, they are more likely to be reluctant (and even embarrassed) Trump voters, or Never Trumpers, or Democrats. Fundamentalists tend to march much more in lock step with the MAGA movement. Donald Trump’s combative psychology in many ways merges with their own.

A Christian politics dominated by fundamentalism is going to look very different from a Christian politics dominated by evangelicalism. Think of the difference between Trump and George W. Bush. Bush is conservative. He’s anti-abortion. He’s committed to religious liberty. These are all values that millions of MAGA Republicans would claim to uphold, but there’s a yawning character gap between the two presidents, and their cultural influence is profoundly different.

While the difference between evangelicalism and fundamentalism can be difficult to discern, Pentecostalism is something else entirely. American evangelicals can trace their roots to the Reformation; the Pentecostal movement began a little over 100 years ago, during the Azusa Street revival in Los Angeles in 1906. The movement was started by a Black pastor named William Seymour, and it is far more supernatural in its focus than, say, the Southern Baptist or Presbyterian church down the street.

At its heart, Pentecostalism believes that all of the gifts and miracles you read about in the Bible can and do happen today. That means prophecy, speaking in tongues and gifts of healing. Pentecostalism is more working class than the rest of the evangelical world, and Pentecostal churches are often more diverse — far more diverse — than older American denominations. Hispanics in particular have embraced the Pentecostal faith, both in the United States and in Latin America, and Pentecostalism has exploded in the global south .

When I lived in Manhattan, my wife and I attended Times Square Church, a Pentecostal congregation in the heart of the city, and every Sunday felt like a scene from the book of Revelation , with people “from every nation, tribe, people and language” gathered together to worship with great joy.

Pentecostalism is arguably the most promising and the most perilous religious movement in America. At its best, the sheer exuberance and radical love of a good Pentecostal church is transformative. At its worst, the quest for miraculous experience can lead to a kind of frenzied superstition, where carnival barker pastors and faux apostles con their congregations with false prophecies and fake miracles, milking them for donations and then wielding their abundant wealth as proof of God’s favor.

The Pentecostal church, for example, is the primary home of one of the most toxic and dangerous Christian nationalist ideas in America — the Seven Mountain Mandate , which holds that God has ordained Christians to dominate the seven “mountains” of cultural influence: the family, the church, education, media, arts, the economy and government. This is an extreme form of Christian supremacy, one that would relegate all other Americans to second-class status.

Pentecostalism is also the primary source for the surge in prophecies about Trump that I’ve described before . It’s mostly Pentecostal pastors and leaders who have told their flocks that God has ordained Trump to rule — and to rule again. Combine the Seven Mountain Mandate with Trump prophecies, and you can see the potential for a kind of fervent radicalism that is immune to rational argument. After all, how can you argue a person out of the idea that God told him to vote for Trump? Or that God told him that Christians are destined to reign over the United States?

When I look at the divisions in American evangelicalism, I’m reminded of the Homer Simpson toast : “To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life’s problems.” The American church has been the cause of much heartache and division. It is also the source of tremendous healing and love. We saw both the love and the division most vividly in the civil rights movement, when Black Christians and their allies faced the dogs and hoses all too often unleashed by members of the white Southern church. We saw this on Jan. 6, when violent Christians attacked the Capitol, only to see their plans foiled by an evangelical vice president who broke with Trump at long last to uphold his constitutional oath and spare the nation a far worse catastrophe.

I’ve lived and worshiped in every major branch of American evangelicalism. I was raised in a more fundamentalist church, left it for evangelicalism and spent a decade of my life worshiping in Pentecostal churches. Now I attend a multiethnic church that is rooted in both evangelicalism and the Black church tradition. I’ve seen great good , and I’ve seen terrible evil .

That long experience has taught me that the future of our nation isn’t just decided in the halls of secular power; it’s also decided in the pulpits and sanctuaries of American churches. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote that the line between good and evil “cuts through the heart of every human being.” That same line also cuts through the heart of the church.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

David French is an Opinion columnist, writing about law, culture, religion and armed conflict. He is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a former constitutional litigator. His most recent book is “Divided We Fall: America’s Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation .” You can follow him on Threads ( @davidfrenchjag ).

Asking the better questions that unlock new answers to the working world's most complex issues.

Trending topics

AI insights

EY podcasts

EY webcasts

Operations leaders

Technology leaders

Marketing and growth leaders

Cybersecurity and privacy leaders

Risk leaders

EY Center for Board Matters

EY helps clients create long-term value for all stakeholders. Enabled by data and technology, our services and solutions provide trust through assurance and help clients transform, grow and operate.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Strategy, transaction and transformation consulting

Technology transformation

Tax function operations

Climate change and sustainability services

EY Ecosystems

Supply chain and operations

EY Partner Ecosystem

Explore Services

We bring together extraordinary people, like you, to build a better working world.

Experienced professionals

MBA and advanced-degree students

Student and entry level programs

Contract workers

EY-Parthenon careers

Discover how EY insights and services are helping to reframe the future of your industry.

Case studies

Energy and resources

How data analytics can strengthen supply chain performance

13-Jul-2023 Ben Williams

How Takeda harnessed the power of the metaverse for positive human impact

26-Jun-2023 Edwina Fitzmaurice

Banking and Capital Markets

How cutting back infused higher quality in transaction monitoring

11-Jul-2023 Ron V. Giammarco

At EY, our purpose is building a better working world. The insights and services we provide help to create long-term value for clients, people and society, and to build trust in the capital markets.

EY is now carbon negative

19-Sep-2022 Carmine Di Sibio

Our commitment to audit quality

13-Nov-2023 Julie A. Boland

No results have been found

Recent Searches

BEPS 2.0: as policies evolve, engagement is key

It remains to be seen whether the US will align its tax law with the OECD/G20’s global BEPS 2.0 rules. MNEs will feel the impact in 2024. Learn more.

How GenAI strategy can transform innovation

Companies considering or investing in a transformative GenAI strategy should tie generative artificial intelligence use cases to revenue, cost and expense. Learn more

Top five private equity trends for 2024

Read about the five key trends private equity firms will emphasize in 2024 as they create value

Select your location

close expand_more

New EY research reveals the majority of US employees feel AI anxiety amid explosive adoption

Press contact

EY US Public Relations Manager

• Send e-mail to Jennifer Hemmerdinger
• Open Twitter profile of Jennifer Hemmerdinger

The artificial intelligence (AI) boom across all industries has fueled anxiety in the workforce, with employees fearing ethical usage, legal risks and job displacement, according to  new data  from Ernst & Young LLP ( EY US ).

The AI Anxiety in Business Survey  is based on findings from 1,000 employed US workers at least somewhat familiar with artificial intelligence (AI) about their perception of and experience with AI-backed technologies, revealing a majority (71%) of employees are concerned about AI. On the heels of a year of generative AI-fueled disruption, about half (48%) of respondents said they are more concerned about AI today than they were a year ago, and of those, 41% believe it is evolving too quickly.

“Generative AI has evolved to one of the fastest user-adopted technologies, and as regulators and C-suite leaders struggle to keep up, it’s causing a sense of discontinuity, confusion, and even a loss of control among employees,” said  Dan Diasio , EY Global Artificial Intelligence Consulting Leader. “As businesses continue to adopt generative AI, leaders must keep employees at the center and help overcome fear-based barriers to usher in a new era of productivity and growth.”

Employee concerns accelerating

Given the uncertainty around AI in the workplace, employees and leaders alike are bracing for disruptions. A staggering 75% of employees are concerned AI will make certain jobs obsolete — and more alarmingly, about two-thirds (65%) say they are anxious about AI replacing their job.

Employees overwhelmingly have concerns that AI will hurt their financial wellbeing and professional growth, including:

• Negatively impact salary or pay (72%)
• Losing out on promotions for not knowing how to use AI (67%)
• Falling behind if they don’t use AI at work (66%)

A lack of guidance from leaders on responsible usage is also fueling new anxieties. In fact, about two-thirds (65%) of employees are anxious about not knowing how to use AI ethically, and a majority are concerned about the legal risks (77%) and cybersecurity risks (75%).

Generational differences impact worker perception of AI

Despite being the first true digital natives to enter the workforce, Gen Z employees are not the most likely to be using AI at work and significantly less convinced of its benefits compared to their Gen X and Millennial counterparts. According to the survey, Gen Z are less likely than other generations to:

• Use AI at work (63% for Gen Z vs. 74% Millennials but on par with Gen X 70%)
• Say AI will make them more more efficient (72% for Gen Z vs. 89% Gen X and 85% Millennials)

“It may be surprising that the most digitally connected segment of workers are not the most likely to be utilizing AI, but unlike their older counterparts, Gen Z’s concerns aren’t related to safety and security but whether the technology works,” said  Marcie Merriman , EY Americas Cultural Insights & Customer Strategy Leader. “Building an AI-powered workforce will require business leaders to engage Gen Z employees in the integration process, educate them on the potential business benefits of the tools at their fingertips and get it right on the first try.”

Workers want guidance, transparency and regulation

AI anxiety hasn’t derailed excitement or growth — 90% of survey respondents work for an organization that has already adopted at least one AI technology, and about two-thirds (67%) of employees have personally pushed for AI adoption at their organization.

However, while 80% say more training/upskilling would make them more comfortable using AI at work, nearly as many (73%) have concerns about their organization not offering sufficient training or upskilling. Even more worrisome is that 63% are anxious they won’t have access to AI learning opportunities.

Employees also want transparency, with the majority saying they would view an organization more positively if it:

• Offered AI responsibility/ethics training for employees (80%)
• Created an AI responsibility/ethical task force (77%)
• Had a trusted third-party review of AI built in the process (76%)

But the burden of defining guardrails isn’t just on the employer: 4-in-5 (81%) employees believe AI technology organizations need to self-regulate more, and 78% say the government needs to play a bigger role in regulating AI technology.

Build a culture of confidence to empower employees

Employees play a crucial role in the successful integration of new technologies, so leaders must prioritize alleviating fear-based obstacles for their organization to harness the full potential of AI. The EY survey found employees would be more comfortable using AI at work if employees from all levels were involved in the adoption process (77%) and if senior leadership promoted using AI responsibly and ethically (77%). And employees are open to the AI opportunity despite their concerns: 4-in-5 see its value at work and believe it will make them more efficient (82%), more productive (81%) and able to focus on higher-value work (81%).

"Leaders must prioritize upskilling every employee, redefine AI as augmented intelligence and proactively reshape work processes to avoid reducing workers to interface prompts," Diasio said.

Methodology

EY US commissioned a third-party vendor to conduct the AI Anxiety in Business Survey. The online survey among 1,000 Americans who work an office/desk job, either full-time or part-time, and are at least somewhat familiar with artificial intelligence (AI) was completed between October 5–16, 2023. The margin of error for the total sample is +/- 3 percentage points.

EY exists to build a better working world, helping create long-term value for clients, people and society and build trust in the capital markets.

Enabled by data and technology, diverse EY teams in over 150 countries provide trust through assurance and help clients grow, transform and operate.

Working across assurance, consulting, law, strategy, tax and transactions, EY teams ask better questions to find new answers for the complex issues facing our world today.

EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. Information about how EY collects and uses personal data and a description of the rights individuals have under data protection legislation are available via ey.com/privacy. EY member firms do not practice law where prohibited by local laws. For more information about our organization, please visit  ey.com .

Ernst & Young LLP is a client-serving member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited operating in the US.

• Connect with us
• Our locations
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Legal and privacy
• Accessibility
• Open Facebook profile
• Open X profile
• Open LinkedIn profile
• Open Youtube profile

EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients.