Intercultural Communication | My Assignment Tutor

Intercultural Communication Studies XV: 1 2006 WuHofstede’s Cultural Dimensions 30 Years Later:A Study of Taiwan and the United States*Ming-Yi Wu, Western Illinois UniversityAbstractHofstede’s (1984, 2001) work on work-related cultural dimensions has beenregarded as a paradigm in the field of cross cultural studies. Specifically, his countryclassification on five work-related cultural values, power distance, uncertaintyavoidance, masculinity-femininity, individualism-collectivism, and Confucian workdynamics, have been frequently cited by researchers in the past few decades. Whilehis work has been used effectively, his data were collected 30 years ago and havebecome dated. By collecting data from one Eastern culture, Taiwan, and one WesternCulture, the United States, this study has updated and re-examined Hofstede’s (1984,2001) cultural dimensions in these two cultures. In addition, this study has extendedHofstede’s work by investigating occupational culture in the higher education setting.The results of this study suggested that work-related cultural values in a specificculture are not static and can be changed over time. When the political, societal, andeconomic environments change, people’s cultural values also change. Thus, manycultural theories should be updated and re-evaluated periodically.IntroductionIn the past 3 decades, Hofstede’s (1984, 2001) work-related cultural dimensionswere used as research paradigm in the field of intercultural communication, cross culturalpsychology, and international management. His country classification on five work-relatedcultural values, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity-femininity, individualismcollectivism, and Confucian work dynamics, has been frequently cited by researchers in thepast few decades. While his work has been used effectively, his data were collected 30 yearsago and have become dated. In order to update and expand Hofstede’s (1984) research, thereare two purposes of this current study. First, this study has collected data from one Easternculture, Taiwan, and one Western culture, the United States, in order to provide updatedinformation about work-related cultural values in these two cultures. Second, this study hasexpanded Hofstede’s (1984, 2001) study by studying work-related cultural values in thehigher education setting. The following section of this paper reviews literature and scholarlyresearch related to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions.Literature ReviewHofstede’s Cultural DimensionsHofstede’s (1984) Culture’s Consequences explores the domain of studyinginternational organizations. He collected data from a large multinational corporation, IBM,and analyzed data collected from forty different countries. Through his empirical data analysis,he concluded that “organizations are cultural-bounded” (p. 252). In addition, he identified33Intercultural Communication Studies XV: 1 2006 Wufour work-related cultural dimensions, including power distance, uncertainty avoidance,individualism, and masculinity, to analyze work-related cultural values in different countries.The first dimension, power distance, refers to the power inequality between superiorsand subordinates. In high power distance organizations, organizational hierarchy is obvious.There is a line between managers and subordinates. Different from high power distanceorganizations, low power distance organizations tend to have a flat organizational structure.The second dimension, uncertainty avoidance, refers to people’s tolerance of ambiguity. Inhigh uncertainty avoidance organizations, there are more written rules in order to reduceuncertainty. In low uncertainty avoidance organizations, there are fewer written rules andrituals. The third dimension, individualism-collectivism, refers to how people valuethemselves and their groups/organizations. People with high individualistic values tend tocare about self-actualization and career progress in the organization, whereas people with lowindividualistic values tend to value organizational benefits more than their own interests. Thefourth dimension, masculinity (MAS), defines the gender roles in organizations. In high MASorganizations, very few women can get higher-level and better-paying jobs. In low MASorganizations, women can get more equitable organizational status.In addition to the original four cultural dimensions, Hofstede (1990) proposed thefifth cultural dimension, called Confucian Work Dynamic. The Chinese Culture Connection(1987) conducted a Chinese Value Survey (CVS) based on traditional Chinese cultural valuesand identified this non-Western cultural dimension. The Chinese Culture Connectionconstructed a survey of Chinese values and administered this survey to university students in22 different countries. The results of factor analysis demonstrated that four factors wereextracted from the 40 scale items. Three of the four factors were correlated with Hofstede’s(1984) work-related cultural dimensions. Only one factor, Confucian work dynamics, was notcorrelated with Hofstede’s (1984) cultural dimensions. The new cultural dimension includesfour items: (1) ordering relationship, (2) thrift, (3) persistence, and (4) having a sense ofshame. These four items represented the Confucian values in the Chinese society. Hofstede(1990) adopted this Eastern cultural dimension as the fifth work-related cultural dimension inhis book, Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Hofstede (2001) renamed thiscultural dimension as Long-Term Orientation (LTO).Re-Examination of Hofstede’s Cultural DimensionsIn addition to identifying work-related cultural dimensions, Hofstede (1984)proposed six areas for continued research: (1) non-Anglo cultural dimensions; (2) additionalcountries; (3) cultural changes over time; (4) sub-cultures, such as regional, occupational, andorganizational cultures; (5) the consequences of cultural dimensions; and (6) foreignorganizational and management theories. In order to investigate cultural changes over time,Fernandez and his colleagues (1997) conducted a study of Hofstede’s work-related culturaldimensions in 9 countries and discussed the changes in the past 25 years by collecting datafrom senior business students and business professionals. They argued that societal changessuch as economic growth, education, and democracy could affect work-related culturaldimensions. Significant changes in cultural values occur as “external environmental factorsshape a society“(p. 52). The United States was included in their study, but Taiwan was notstudied by Fernandez et al. (1997). This study included both Taiwanese and United Statessamples. In addition, this study investigated university employees’ work-related cultural34Intercultural Communication Studies XV: 1 2006 Wuvalues because Hofstede (1984) had argued that sub-cultures, such as occupational cultures,should be studied further.MethodsPilot StudyIn order to ensure that the scales used in the formal study are statistically reliable, apilot study of Taiwanese and American university administrative workers was conducted inMarch and April 2000. In both universities, 50 questionnaires were distributed. The totalnumber of questionnaires collected from the Taiwanese university was 37 (74% response rate).The number of questionnaires obtained from the American university was 42 (84% responserate). The questionnaire was designed in English and translated into Chinese. The Chineseversion of the questionnaire was back-translated into English by a Taiwanese doctoral student.The researcher compared the original English questionnaire and the back-translatedquestionnaire. After making some minor adjustments, the meanings of the two questionnairesmatched and met Brislin’s (1970) rules for back-translation.A quantitative questionnaire which measured Hofstede’s (1984; 1990; 2001) fivecultural dimensions (power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, masculinity, andConfucian work dynamics) was used as the research instrument. Each of the culturaldimensions was measured by four items. The reliability results demonstrated that two culturaldimensions had low reliability scores. The reliability scores for the power distance culturaldimension and uncertainty avoidance scale were .34 and .49, respectively. The reliabilityscores for individualism (.63), masculinity (.78), and Confucian work dynamics (.66) weresatisfactory. Since the reliability scores for two of the cultural dimensions were low, thescales for measuring work-related cultural dimensions were replaced by Dorfman andHowell’s (1988) cultural scales.Methods of the Formal StudyResearch Instrument. A self-administered quantitative survey questionnaire was usedin this study. Hofstede’s (1984) theory and cultural dimensions were used as the theoreticalbase for the questions and are supported by other authors (Triandis, 1982). Though the fourdimensions are regarded as a paradigm, the items that measure each dimension have beencriticized by several researchers. Dorfman and Howell (1988) pointed out “Hofstede’smeasures and analytical procedures have been subjected to criticism” (p. 130). For instance,they criticized Hofstede’s (1984) uncertainty avoidance index contending that the itemsreflect three different constructs. They also highlighted the level of analysis issue. Accordingto Dorfman and Howell (1988), “the scale only taps power distance at the national level; itcannot measure individual differences” (p. 130).Based on the results of the pilot study and the reviews of previous literature,Hofstede’s (1984) cultural-value items were replaced by Dorfman and Howell’s (1988) newmeasure of Hofstede’s (1984) dimensions. This measure has been used in several crosscultural studies (e.g., Nicholson, 1991; Fernandez, Carlson, Stepina, & Nicholson, 1997). Thisdemonstrated that these two research instruments were theoretically equivalent. Nicholson(1991) also argued that Dorfman and Howell’s (1988) new scales are psychometrically morereliable than Hofstede’s (1984) scales.Data Collection and Sampling. Employees from two public universities, a Taiwaneseuniversity and an American university, were surveyed in this study. These two universitiesdiffered in size, but the missions of these two universities were similar. One hundred and35Intercultural Communication Studies XV: 1 2006 Wueighty questionnaires were distributed to the Taiwanese participants in May, 2001. Onehundred and fifty seven (87.2%) participants returned this survey. After checking completionof the questionnaire, one hundred and fifty six (86.7%) questionnaires were determined to bevalid. One hundred and eighty questionnaires were distributed to the U.S. participants in Juneand July, 2001. One hundred and forty seven (81.7%) participants returned this survey. All ofthem contained sufficient data to be considered valid responses. In each university,questionnaire distribution and data collection were performed by one university worker whohelped the researcher to collect data. All of the questionnaires were put in large envelopes anddistributed to different departments in the university. After anonymously completing thequestionnaire, respondents returned the questionnaire to the data collector in each university.The samples for this study were selected based on the criteria of accessibility,functional equivalence, and representativeness. A sampling issue that is well discussed incross-national surveys is equivalence. According to Frey (1970), “it is essential to note thatequivalence, in any ordinary sense, is not absolutely vital to cross-national comparability.What is absolutely vital is for the researcher to understand the full meaning of his operations,not for these operations to be totally equivalent even in a functional sense in all countries. …Functionally equivalent samples are desirable” (pp. 232-233).In order to meet Frey’s (1970) three criteria, the author tries to match the samplefrom these two cultures as much as possible. The samples in this study were functionallyequivalent because all of the participants did administrative work for universities in theirrespective countries. Their job titles included secretary, specialist, administrative staff, clerk,human resources personnel, accountant, and administrative teaching assistant. To representthe administrative system of universities, both academic units and administrative units weresurveyed in these two universities. A stratified sampling method was used. In bothuniversities, 45 (25%) questionnaires were distributed to academic units; 135 (75%)questionnaires were distributed to administrative units. The data set for this study was basedon 303 respondents from two public universities, one Taiwanese University and one U.S.University. In both cultures, approximately 30% of participants are male. About 70% of theparticipants in both cultures are female. The average age for Taiwanese participants was 38years old. The average age for the U.S. participants was 43 years old. The average yearsworking for the organization was approximately 9 years in both cultures.After the one-dimensional assumption of the scales was confirmed by factor analysis,a reliability test was conducted to check the internal consistency of each scale. According tothe results of the reliability analysis, all of the scales used in this study were above .50 andmet Nunnally’s (1967) standard. Table 1 summarizes the results of the reliability tests.Results and DiscussionsThe results of this study demonstrated that both Taiwan and the United States havesignificant changes in work-related cultural values compared to Hofstede’s (1984; 2001)study. Table 2 summarizes the statistical results of this study. In the following sections, thestatistical results of five work-related cultural dimensions are discussed.Table 1. Reliability Scores for Sub-Scales36Intercultural Communication Studies XV: 1 2006 Wu VariablesTaiwanU.S.A.Power Distance.55.72Uncertainty Avoidance.71.77Masculinity.78.86Collectivism.67.64Confucian Work Dynamics.57.58 Power DistanceAccording to Hofstede’s (1984) study, Taiwan was a medium/high power distanceculture; whereas the United States was a medium/low power distance culture. The result ofthis current study seemed to be somewhat different from Hofstede’s (1984) study. In thisstudy, the Taiwanese participants have a medium score (M=3.01) on power distance; the U.S.participants have a medium/low score (M=2.55) on power distance. The results of the U.S.sample seemed to be in line with Hofstede’s (1984) study. However, the Taiwaneseparticipants seemed to have a lower power distance cultural value compared to the previousstudy. Taiwanese participants’ changing scores on power distance seemed to support theanalysis and findings of some recent studies.Recent studies (e.g., Myers, 1996; Wu, Taylor, & Chen, 2001) suggested that Taiwanhas experienced dramatic societal and cultural changes in the past two decades. For example,Myers (1996) discussed the cultural change phenomenon in Taiwan. He argued thatTaiwanese culture is affected by Chinese culture, Japanese culture, and American culture.Specifically, his article discusses how democracy has replaced authoritarianism in Taiwan.Wu et al. (2001) also proposed that internationalization, democratization, and medialiberalization are three factors that have caused societal changes in Taiwan. Martial law inTaiwan was abolished in 1987. Since then, Taiwan has moved dramatically towarddemocratization. Due to the process of democratization, it is not surprising that the Taiwaneseparticipants in the study have a lower power distance value than before.Table 2. Means for Cultural Dimensions ItemsABPower Distance1. Managers should make most decisions withoutconsulting subordinates.2.792.542. It is frequently necessary for a manager to useauthority and power when dealing withsubordinates.3.643.393. Managers should seldom ask for the opinions ofemployees.2.522.10 37Intercultural Communication Studies XV: 1 2006 Wu 4. Employees should not disagree with managementdecisions.3.462.545. Managers should not delegate important tasks toemployees.2.682.20Total3.022.55Uncertainty Avoidance1. It is important to have job requirements andinstructions spelled out in detail so thatemployees always know what they are expectedto do.5.685.892. Managers expect workers to closely followinstructions and procedures.5.285.353. Rules and regularities are important because theyinform workers what the organization expects ofthem.5.455.564. Standard operating procedures are helpful toemployees on the job.5.355.485. Instructions for operations are important foremployees on the job.5.615.55Total5.475.57Masculinity1. Meetings are usually run more effectively whenthey are chaired by a man.3.441.712. It is more important for men to have aprofessional career than it is for women to have aprofessional career.3.691.713. Men usually solve problems with logical analysis;women usually solve problems with intuition.3.702.404. Solving organizational problems usually requiresan active, forcible approach which is typical ofmen.3.542.085. It is preferable to have a man in a high levelposition rather than a woman.3.521.60Total3.581.90Collectivism1. Group welfare is more important than individualrewards.4.544.062. Group success is more important than individualsuccess.4.924.323. Being accepted by the members of yourworkgroup is very important.5.715.254. Employees should pursue their goals afterconsidering the welfare of the group.4.474.44Total4.914.52Confucian Work Dynamics 38Intercultural Communication Studies XV: 1 2006 Wu 1. Ordering relationships by status and observingthis order is important in the workplace.4.532.792. Thrift is important in the workplace.4.754.313. Persistence is important in the workplace.5.445.234. Having a sense of shame is important in theworkplace.5.542.84Total5.063.79 A=Taiwanese data, N=156, Scale=1-7; B=the U.S. data, N=147, Scale=1-7Uncertainty AvoidanceParticipants from both cultural groups tend to have a high uncertainty avoidancevalue. Hofstede’s (1984) study demonstrated that Taiwan was a medium uncertaintyavoidance culture; whereas the United States was a medium/high uncertainty avoidanceculture. The results of this current study was different from Hofstede’s (1984) study. In thisstudy, both the Taiwanese participants (M=5.47) and the U.S. participants (M=5.57) havehigh scores on uncertainty avoidance. But, the U.S. participants’ high score on uncertaintyavoidance seemed to be in accordance with Fernandez et al.’s (1997) study. In their study, theUnited States was characterized as a high uncertainty avoidance culture. These authorsconclude “the shift made by the United States from a weak uncertainty avoidance country inHofstede’s study to being a strong uncertainty avoidance country in the present study seemsreasonable in light of the political, economic, and social changes the United States hasundergone over the past two decades. In particular, the increased uncertainty about theeconomic power of the United States may be a factor in this change” (Fernandez et al., 1997,p. 50).All of the participants in this study are administrative workers in major universities.Both the Taiwanese participants and the U.S. participants scored high on uncertaintyavoidance which demonstrates that university employees in these two cultures prefer welldefined job descriptions and work procedures.MasculinityThis cultural dimension refers to the expected gender roles in leadership expectation.A higher score on masculinity means that participants prefer men to have power and expectmen to be effective leaders in organizations.According to Hofstede’s (1984) study, Taiwan was a medium/low masculinityculture; whereas the United States was a medium/high masculinity culture. The result of thiscurrent study contradicts Hofstede’s (1984) study. In this study, the Taiwanese participantshave a medium score (M=3.58) on masculinity; the U.S. participants have a very low score(M=1.90) on masculinity. But, the U.S. participant’s low score on Masculinity was verysimilar to Fernandez et al.’s (1997) study. Their research results demonstrated that the UnitedStates is a feminine culture as defined by Hofstede.According to Fernandez et al. (1997), “Hofstede’s rankings classified the UnitedStates as masculine, although the score was close to the mean. In the present study, the UnitedStates scored well below the mean. This is consistent with changes in the work force, inwhich women have increasingly gained positions of power since Hofstede’s data werecollected” (p. 52).39Intercultural Communication Studies XV: 1 2006 WuFernandez et al. (1997) did not study Taiwan. But, they studied China. “China scoredthe highest of the masculinity counties. …This finding may reflect the more traditional roleseparation of men and women in this country” (p. 51). Similar to China, Taiwan was affectedby Confucianism. According to Yang (2000), Confucianism has had a strong influence ongender roles. The gender roles in Confucianism culture are the extroverted male and theintroverted, submissive female (Yang, 2000).Wu Lun, a key concept of Confucianism, defines the five basic relationships:ruler/subject, father/son, husband/wife, older brother/younger brother, and between friends.According to Chen and Chung (1994), “these relationships are assumed to be unequal andcomplementary” (p. 303). Due to the profound influence of Confucianism, Taiwanese have amore clear distinction between male gender roles and female gender roles. Compared with theU.S. participants, Taiwanese university employees perceived male leaders to be moreeffective than female leaders. The results of this study also implied that the U.S. participantshave more awareness about gender equality in the workplace.The different findings between this study and Hofstede’s (1984) study may also bedue to different operationalizations of the Masculinity dimension. Since the concept ofMasculinity was operationalized differently, the different results should be interpreted withcaution. Hofstede (1984) defined Masculinity by stereotypical gender expectations. In hisstudy, masculine work goals are advancement, earnings, training, and up-to-date qualities.Feminine work goals are friendly atmosphere, position security, physical conditions, andcooperation. He also mentioned that “the degree of masculinity and femininity of a country’sdominant value is related to sex role differentiation” (Hofstede, 1984, p. 178). Previousstudies criticized that Hofstede’s (1984) operationalization did not focus on the division of sexroles in a culture (Dorfman & Howell, 1988; Nicholson, 1991). In order to know the divisionof sex roles in the cross cultural context, Dorfman and Howells’ (1988) measurement seemedto be more appropriate.Also, different sampling structures may explain the different research findings.According to Hofstede (1984), “the MAS scores are mainly based on men’s answers”(Hofstede, p. 191). In this dissertation study, most of the participants were women.Hofstede (1984) mentioned that there were very few studies related to the masculinitydimension: “There is room for more cross cultural studies in this area” (Hofstede, 1984, p.199).CollectivismThe Taiwanese participants have a high collectivism value. But, the U.S. participantsseemed to be more collectivistic than participants in Hofstede’s (1984; 2001) study.According to the results of Hofstede’s (1984; 2001) study, Taiwan was a highly collectivisticculture, whereas the United States was the most individualistic culture. Fernandez et al.’s(1997) study also demonstrated that the United States was the most individualistic countryamong the nine countries in their study. The results of this current study are somewhatdifferent from Hofstede’s (1984; 2001) study. In this study, the Taiwanese participants have amedium high score (M=4.91) on collectivism; the U.S. participants also have a medium score(M=4.52) on collectivism. The U.S. participants have a higher score on Collectivism probablybecause of the sampling issue. Hofstede’s (1984) participants were IBM employees.Fernandez et al.’s (1997) participants were business professionals and advanced businessstudents. Different from previous studies, participants in this study were all university40Intercultural Communication Studies XV: 1 2006 Wuemployees. Universities are non-profit organizations. Hence, university workers may be lesscompetitive and less individualistic than business workers.Confucian Work DynamicsThe Taiwanese participants have a high score (M=5.06) on Confucian workdynamics; the U.S. participants have a medium score (M=3.79) on Confucian work dynamics.The importance of Confucianism on Chinese culture has been discussed by previous literature.According to Yum (1988), “in the philosophical and cultural history of East Asia,Confucianism has endured as the basic social and political value system for over one thousandyears” (p. 376). Taiwanese participants’ high score on Confucian work dynamics reveals thatConfucianism still has strong influences on Taiwanese university employees’ work-relatedvalue system. Another interesting finding of this study was that the U.S. participants had amedium score on this Eastern cultural dimension. Especially, the U.S. participants scored highon the persistence item. The work ethic of persistence is highly recognized by both culturalgroups.Conclusion and ImplicationsAs mentioned earlier, Hofstede (1984) has proposed six areas for continued study.This study has expanded Hofstede’s (1984) studies. First, this study examined a non-westerncultural dimension, Confucian work dynamics. The Confucian work dynamics dimension wasoperationalized by Chinese Culture Connection (1987), instead of western scholars. Very fewprevious studies quantitatively investigated the influences of this important cultural dimension.Second, this study was conducted three decades after Hofstede’s study. The changes ofcultural values over time were also compared and discussed. The scores on most of thecultural dimensions were different from Hofstede’s (1984) study. These results are significantbecause this result demonstrated that cultural values can change over time. When the political,societal, and economic environments change, people’s cultural values also change. Thus,many cultural theories should be updated and re-evaluated periodically. For instance, thechanges in power distance will cause changes in expected leadership styles in a culture. Third,this study used universities as examples to study occupational culture. Some findings areinteresting. For example, participants from both cultures scored high on the uncertaintyavoidance dimension. It demonstrated that university workers from both cultures preferredstructured administrative procedures. This finding may reveal the characteristics of universitywork because administrative works were more standardized than creative works, such asadvertising copy writing.In summary, this study has updated and expanded Hofstede’s (1984; 2001) culturalstudies in Taiwan and the United States. The results of the more recent study have broughtsignificant insights to the field of cross cultural communication in the organizational context.Future researchers may continue this chronological line of study of cross culturalcommunication and supplement with the study of more cultures. Then, the knowledge aboutcross cultural communication can be updated and extended.* The author would like to thank Dr. Lea P. Stewart for her advice on the dissertation projectand Dr. Brent Ruben, Ms. Sherrie Tromp, Ms. Yung-Jean Chiou, and Ms. Su-Shiu Chen fortheir assistance with data collection.41Intercultural Communication Studies XV: 1 2006 WuReferencesBrislin, R. (1970). Back-translation for cross cultural research. Journal of Cross CulturalPsychology, 1, 185-216.Chen, G. M., & Chung, J. (1994). The impact of Confucianism on organizationalcommunication. Communication Quarterly, 42(2), 93-105.Chinese Culture Connection, (1987). Chinese values and the value-free dimensions of culture.Journal of Cross cultural Psychology, 18(2), 143-164.Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effectiveleadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. In E.G. McGoun (Ed.), Advances ininternational comparative management, 3, 127-149. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Fernandez, D. R., Carlson, D. S., Stepina, L. P., & Nicholson, J. D. (1997). Hofstede’scountry classification 25 years later. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(1), 43-54.Frey, F. W. (1970). Cross cultural survey research in political science. In R. T. Holt & J. E.Tuner (Eds.), The methodology of comparative research, 173-294. NY: Free Press.Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Hofstede, G. (1990). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGrawHill.Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, andorganizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Myers, R. H. (1996). A new Chinese civilization: The evolution of the Republic of China onTaiwan. The Chinese Quarterly. December, 1072-1090.Nicholson, J. D. (1991). The relationship between cultural values, work belief, and attitudestowards socio-economic issues: A cross cultural study. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Florida State University.Nunnally, J. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Trandis, H. C. (1982). Review of Culture’s consequences: International differences in workrelated values. Human organization, 41(1), 86-90.Wu, M. Y., Taylor, M., & Chen, M. J. (2001). Exploring societal and cultural influences onTaiwanese public relations. Public Relations Review, 27(3), 317-336.Yang, J. (2000). Fathering and children’s sex role orientation in Korea. Adolescence, 35(140),731-745.Yum, J. O. (1988). The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships andcommunication patterns in East Asia. Communication Monographs, 55, 374-388.42