See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/284732557

Six Approaches to Understanding National Cultures: Hofstede's Cultural

Dimensions
Research · November 2015
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.5041.8009

CITATIONS READS
0 21,533

1 author:

Divine Agodzo
Trinity Western University
7 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Divine Agodzo on 27 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running head: Six Approaches to Understanding National Cultures 1

Six Approaches to Understanding National Cultures:

An Overview of Hofstede’s Dimensional Paradigm

Divine Agodzo

Intercultural Communication (COM 609)

Spring Arbor University

November 4, 2014
SIX APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING NATIONAL CULTURES 2

Six Approaches to Understanding National Cultures:

An Overview of Hofstede’s Dimensional Paradigm

This paper presents an overview of Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions framework,

which identifies “overarching cultural patterns or dimensions which influence people’s behavior

in significant ways” (Arasaratnam, 2011, p. 45). The framework brought a distinct quantitative-

comparative approach to the study of cultures by identifying and measuring defining aspects of

world cultures (Hofstede, 2011). The theory, sometimes described as the dimensional paradigm,

or 6-D model, was first unveiled in Hofstede’s (1980) book Culture’s Consequences. Hofstede’s

original model introduced in that work featured four dimensions for analyzing and

understanding national cultures, but subsequent research resulted in the addition of two more

dimensions (Hofstede, Hofstede & Minkov, 2010). The six dimensions that currently make up

Hofstede’s framework are power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, masculinity,

long-term orientation, and indulgence (Arasaratnam, 2011, pp. 45-50; Chen & Starosta, 2005,

pp. 51-54; Dainton & Zelley, 2011, pp. 182-188; Hofstede, 2011).

Theorists Background

The development of the cultural dimensions framework is largely attributed to the work

of Dutch scholar and researcher Geert Hofstede (with later contributions from his son Gert Jan

Hofstede). However, two other collaborators contributed to the expansion and evolution of the

theory. This section provides brief biographical background on Hofstede and the other

contributors to the 6-D paradigm.

Geert Hofstede’s personal website provides several details about his life and research

(Geert Hofstede, n.d.). Hofstede was born in 1928 and his educational background includes a

M.Sc. in Mechanical Engineering and a Ph.D. in Social Science. Between 1965 and 1971,
SIX APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING NATIONAL CULTURES 3

Hofstede established and led the human resources research department of IBM Europe, a role

that gave him access to the data that would serve as the empirical foundation of cultural

dimensions theory. Following his work at IBM, Hofstede held a number of positions in business

as well as in academia, including serving as a professor of management in Belgium and France,

and a professor of organizational anthropology and international management in the Netherlands.

He was also co-founder and first director of the Netherlands-based Institute for Research on

Intercultural Cooperation. In 2008, Hofstede was listed among the Wall Street Journal’s top 20

most influential management thinkers (Geert Hofstede, n.d.).

Canadian Michael Harris Bond and Bulgarian Michael Minkov contributed key research

that led to the incorporation of the fifth dimension (long-term orientation) and sixth dimension

(indulgence) into the framework (Hofstede, 2011; Hofstede & Bond, 1988). Bond’s background

(Curriculum Vita, 2015) includes roles as professor of psychology, business, and sociology at

universities in Hong Kong, Japan, and the U.S., after completing doctoral studies at Stanford

University. According to his biography (Professor Michael Minkov, n.d.), Minkov earned a

doctorate in social anthropology. A disciple of Hofstede, he has served as a professor of cross-

cultural awareness and organizational behaviour in several countries including the U.K.,

Netherlands, Turkey, Denmark, and Russia.

Theory Overview

The following is a description of the six elements of the dimensional framework.

Power Distance

As Chen and Starosta (2005) write, “the dimension of power distance specifies to what

extent a culture adapts to inequities of power distribution in relationships and organizations” (p.

52). Hofstede’s research identified a distinction between those belonging to high-power-distance

SIX APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING NATIONAL CULTURES 4

and low-power-distance cultures, with the former characterized by comparatively larger

hierarchical gaps among individuals on the basis of differentiators such as age, sex, generation,

and status (Chen & Starosta, 2005). In high-power-distance cultures, power tends to be more

centralized and much value is placed on status and rank (Dainton & Zelley, 2011). In contrast to

the prevalence of vertical, authoritarian-leaning relationships in high-power-distance cultures,

low-power-distance cultures exhibit much more horizontal modes of interpersonal interaction.

Cultural dimensions research has resulted in the quantification of power distance scores for

several countries. For example, the United States has a power distance score of 40, compared to

a score of 80 for Ghana (The Hofstede Centre, n.d.). This means that comparatively, status and

rank distinctions matter less in the United States, but they have a greater influence in Ghana’s

cultural and value system.

Uncertainty Avoidance

Uncertainty avoidance “measures the extent to which a culture can accept ambiguous

situations and tolerate uncertainty about the future” (Chen & Starosta, 2005, p. 52). As

Arasaratnam (2011) further explains, “cultures high in uncertainty avoidance tend to be

traditional, prefer methods that are tried and true, and prefer stability over change or even

innovation” (p. 49). A country such as Mexico, for example, has an uncertainty avoidance score

of 82, compared to 46 for the Unites States (The Hofstede Centre, n.d.). Thus, Mexican culture

is viewed as more risk averse and more inclined towards stability than U.S. culture.

Individualism

Individualism refers to “a social mentality which focusses on the individual, valuing and

recognizing individual achievement, and encouraging independent thought and action”

(Arasaratnam, 2011, p. 45). These are societies in which “self-concept” (Chen & Starosta, 2005,
SIX APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING NATIONAL CULTURES 5

p. 51) is highly emphasized, as opposed to cultures rooted in collectivism, where “social

framework” (p. 51) is the overriding consideration. To illustrate, cultural dimensions research

scores the United States highly on individualism (91), while Egypt registers a much lower

individualism score of 25 (The Hofstede Centre, n.d.). In practical terms, this means citizens

from these two countries may view the importance of such matters as family obligations and

personal choices from very different perspectives.

Masculinity

Chen and Starosta (2005) describe this dimension as “the extent to which stereotypically

masculine and feminine traits prevail in the culture” (p. 53). Thus, “in masculine cultures, men are

expected to be assertive, ambitious, and competitive; women are expected to be supportive,

nurturing, and deferent” (Dainton & Zelley, 2011, p. 186). Masculine cultures include Japan

(95), Australia (61), Venezuela (73) and the U.K. (66), while feminine cultures include Sweden

(5), Norway (8), Denmark (16), Portugal (31), and Thailand (34) (Chen & Starosta, 2005, pp.

53-54; The Hofstede Centre, n.d.)

Long-term Orientation

Cultures with a long-term orientation are characterized by “thrift, savings, perseverance,

and the willingness to subordinate one’s self to achieve a goal” (Dainton & Zelley, 2011, p. 187),

while life in cultures with a short-term orientation “centers on a desire for immediate

gratification” (p. 187). Additionally, short-term-orientation cultures emphasize the past, stability,

universal morality, nationalism, and luck; long-term-orientation cultures place emphasis on the

future, adaptability, situational morality, internationalism, and effort (Hofstede, 2011). For

comparison, Canada, China, the U.S., Germany, and Japan have long-term orientations of 36, 87,

26, 83, and 88, respectively (The Hofstede Centre, n.d.).

SIX APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING NATIONAL CULTURES 6

Indulgence

In the cultural dimensions framework, a culture inclined towards indulgence suggests “a

society that allows relatively free gratification of basic and natural human desires related to

enjoying life and having fun” (Hofstede, 2011, p. 15). In essence, cultures with high indulgence

scores place greater value on seeking happiness, compared to cultures that lean toward restraint.

Research related to this dimension reveals an indulgence score of 24 for China, 48 for France, 68

for the U.S., 72 for Ghana, and 80 for Trinidad and Tobago (The Hofstede Centre, n.d.).

Examples of Primary Research

The origins of the cultural dimensions framework go back to Hofstede’s work in the

personnel research department of IBM Europe in the 1970s, a position that gained him access to

survey data on employees from more than fifty countries, collected through over 100,000

questionnaires over a four-year period (Hofstede, 2011). In analyzing the data, Hofstede

incidentally noticed correlations between the data for four key values and the nationalities of

employees. To verify that this had nothing to do with IBM’s culture, Hofstede later administered

the same questionnaires to about 400 respondents from 30 countries and found significant

corroboration of the IBM findings (Hofstede, 2011). Hofstede reported his discoveries related to

the four dimensions—power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, and femininity—in

the book Culture’s Consequences. Following the book’s publication, as noted earlier, Hofstede’s

partnership with fellow researchers Bond and Minkov led to the addition of the long-term

orientation and indulgence dimensions (Hofstede, Hofstede & Minkov, 2010).

Recent Research and Applications

The cultural dimensions framework has been applied widely in several research contexts to help

understand and analyze the impact of culture on various spheres of activity. These
SIX APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING NATIONAL CULTURES 7

include public relations and corporate social responsibility practices and perceptions (Bae &

Kim, 2013; Kim & Kim, 2010; Hackert, Krumwiede, Tokle, & Vokurka, 2012), business

management and leadership (Alzeban, 2015; Busse, 2014; Carrasco, Francoeur, Labelle,

Laffarga, & Ruiz-Barbadillo, 2015; Pressentin, 2015; Rejchrt & Higgs, 2015; Tavakoli, Keenan,

& Crnjak-Karanovic, 2003), and the impact of culture on the use of media and technology

(Mertens & d’Haenens, 2014; Pérez, 2014; Zahedi & Gaurav, 2011). There have also been

research applications of the dimensional paradigm in the areas of marketing and sales (Albers-

Miller & Gelb, 1996; Ming-Yi, 2013; Samaha, Beck, & Palmatier, 2014; Tianjiao, 2014; Yang,

2011), human resources, career-related activities, and workplace interactions (Ellis, 2012;

Morrow, Rothwell, Burford, & Illing, 2013; Sartorius, Merino, & Carmichael, 2011), and in

education (Cheung & Chan 2010; Goodall, 2014).

Conclusion

As this paper has shown, the cultural dynamics paradigm, developed by Hofstede

with notable contributions from Bond and Minkov, has had a significant impact, both as a

practical tool for understanding other cultures and as a framework used by researchers across

several disciplines to investigate the consequences of culture. For intercultural interactants,

the six dimensions—power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, masculinity, long-

term orientation, and indulgence—serve as concise, accessible, and potentially powerful tools

for gaining a better understanding of each other’s values and beliefs and how they influence

and shape corresponding communication behaviors.

SIX APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING NATIONAL CULTURES 8

References

Albers-Miller, N. D., & Gelb, B. D. (1996). Business advertising appeals as a mirror of cultural

dimensions: A study of eleven countries. Journal of Advertising, 25(4), 57-70. Alzeban, A.

(2015). The impact of culture on the quality of internal audit: An empirical study.

Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 30(1), 57-77.

Arasaratnam, L. A. (2011). Perception and communication in intercultural spaces. Lanham,

MD: University Press of America.

Bae, J., & Kim, S. (2013). The influence of cultural aspects on public perception of the

importance of CSR activity and purchase intention in Korea. Asian Journal of

Communication, 23(1), 68-85.

Bond, M. H. (2010). Doing a psychology of the Chinese people: Discoveries for the world

from one end of the Silk Road. In R. Schwarzer & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Personality,

human development, and culture (pp. 171-182). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Busse, R. (2014). Is culture driving innovation? A multi-national quantitative analysis.

Human Systems Management, 33(3), 91-98.

Carrasco, A., Francoeur, C., Labelle, R., Laffarga, J., & Ruiz-Barbadillo, E. (2015). Appointing

women to boards: Is there a cultural bias? Journal of Business Ethics, 129(2), 429-444.

Chen, G-M., & Starosta, W. J. (2005). Foundations of intercultural communication. Lanham,

MD: University Press of America.

Cheung, H., & Chan, A. (2010). Education and competitive economy: How do cultural

dimensions fit in? Higher Education, 59(5), 525-541.

Curriculum Vita (2015). Retrieved from

http://www.psy.cuhk.edu.hk/psy_media/Bond_files/mbondcv2015.pdf
SIX APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING NATIONAL CULTURES 9

Dainton, M., & Zelley, E. D. (2011). Applying communication theory for professional life: A

practical introduction (2nd. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Geert Hofstede (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.geerthofstede.nl/geert

Ellis, D. R. (2012). Exploring cultural dimensions as predictors of performance management

preferences: The case of self-initiating expatriate New Zealanders in Belgium.

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(10), 2087-2107.

Goodall, H. (2014). Middle East meets West: Negotiating cultural difference in international

educational encounters. International Review of Education, 60(5), 603-617.

Hackert, A. M., Krumwiede, D., Tokle, J., & Vokurka, R. J. (2012). Global corporate social

responsibility practices and cultural dimensions. SAM Advanced Management

Journal, 77(4), 33-41.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context.

Online Readings in Psychology & Culture, 2(1), 1-25.

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to

economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 4-21.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the

mind (3rd. ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Kim, Y., & Kim, S-Y. (2010). The influence of cultural values on perceptions of corporate social

responsibility: Application of Hofstede’s dimensions to Korean public relations

practitioners. Journal of Business Ethics, (4). 485-500.

Mertens, S., & d'Haenens, L. (2014). Parental mediation of internet use and cultural values
SIX APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING NATIONAL CULTURES 10

across Europe: Investigating the predictive power of the Hofstedian paradigm.

Communications. The European Journal of Communication Research, 39(4), 389-414.

Ming-Yi, W. (2013). Cultural influences on consumers’ on-line shopping preferences: A cross-

cultural study of Taiwan and the United States. China Media Research, 9(3), 42-51.

Morrow, G., Rothwell, C., Burford, B., & Illing, J. (2013). Cultural dimensions in the transition

of overseas medical graduates to the UK workplace. Medical Teacher, 35(10), 1537-

1545.

Pressentin, M. (2015). Universal leadership approaches and cultural dimensions: The expression

of Asian leadership traits. Amity Global Business Review, 10, 19-38.

Professor Michael Minkov (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.vumk.eu/en/lecturer/37-prof-michael-minkov

Rejchrt, P., & Higgs, M. (2015). When in Rome: How non-domestic companies listed in the UK

may not comply with accepted norms and principles of good corporate governance. Does

home market culture explain these corporate behaviours and attitudes to compliance?

Journal of Business Ethics, 129(1), 131-159.

Pérez, F. I. (2014). Cultural values and digital discourse. Journal of Intercultural

Communication, 36, 1+.

Samaha, S. A., Beck, J. T., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). The role of culture in international

relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 78(5), 78-98.

Sartorius, K., Merino, A., & Carmichael, T. (2011). Human resource management and cultural

diversity: A case study in Mozambique. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 22(9), 1963-1985.

Tavakoli, A. A., Keenan, J. P., & Crnjak-Karanovic, B. (2003). Culture and whistleblowing: An
SIX APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING NATIONAL CULTURES 11

empirical study of Croatian and United States managers utilizing Hofstede's

cultural dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1), 49-64.

The Hofstede Centre (n.d.). Retrieved from http://geert-hofstede.com/countries.html

Tianjiao, Q. (2014). Product diversification and market value of large international firms: A

macroenvironmental perspective. Journal of International Marketing, 22(4), 86-107.

Yang, K. C. (2011). The effects of cultural dimensions on consumers’ use of mobile SMS

advertising in Taiwan. China Media Research, 7(3), 101-110.

Zahedi, F. M., & Gaurav, B. (2011). Cultural signifiers of web site images. Journal of

Management Information Systems, 28(1), 147-200.

 Enam Pendekatan untuk Memahami Budaya Nasional:
Tinjauan tentang Paradigma Dimensi Hofstede
Makalah ini menyajikan ikhtisar kerangka dimensi budaya Hofstede (1980), yang mengidentifikasi "pola atau
dimensi budaya menyeluruh yang memengaruhi perilaku orang secara signifikan" (Arasaratnam, 2011, hlm.
45). Kerangka kerja membawa pendekatan kuantitatif-komparatif yang berbeda untuk studi budaya dengan
mengidentifikasi dan mengukur aspek mendefinisikan budaya dunia (Hofstede, 2011). Teori, kadang-kadang
digambarkan sebagai paradigma dimensi, atau model 6-D, pertama kali diperkenalkan dalam buku Hofstede's
(1980) Culture's Consequences. Model asli Hofstede yang diperkenalkan dalam karya itu menampilkan empat
dimensi untuk menganalisis dan memahami budaya nasional, tetapi penelitian selanjutnya menghasilkan
penambahan dua dimensi lagi (Hofstede, Hofstede & Minkov, 2010). Enam dimensi yang saat ini membentuk
kerangka kerja Hofstede adalah jarak kekuasaan, penghindaran ketidakpastian, individualisme, maskulinitas,
orientasi jangka panjang, dan kesenangan (Arasaratnam, 2011, hlm. 45-50; Chen & Starosta, 2005, hlm. 51-54;
Dainton & Zelley, 2011, hlm. 182-188; Hofstede, 2011).
Latar Belakang Teori
Pengembangan kerangka dimensi budaya sebagian besar disebabkan oleh karya sarjana Belanda dan peneliti
Geert Hofstede (dengan kontribusi kemudian dari putranya Gert Jan Hofstede). Namun, dua kolaborator
lainnya berkontribusi pada perluasan dan evolusi teori. Bagian ini memberikan latar belakang biografi singkat
tentang Hofstede dan kontributor lain untuk paradigma 6-D.
Situs web pribadi Geert Hofstede memberikan beberapa detail tentang kehidupan dan penelitiannya (Geert
Hofstede, n.d.). Hofstede lahir pada tahun 1928 dan latar belakang pendidikannya termasuk M.Sc. di bidang
Teknik Mesin dan Ph.D. dalam Ilmu Sosial. Antara 1965 dan 1971,

Hofstede mendirikan dan memimpin departemen penelitian sumber daya manusia IBM Eropa, peran yang
memberinya akses ke data yang akan berfungsi sebagai landasan empiris teori dimensi budaya. Menyusul
pekerjaannya di IBM, Hofstede memegang sejumlah posisi di bidang bisnis maupun akademik, termasuk
melayani sebagai profesor manajemen di Belgia dan Prancis, dan profesor antropologi organisasi dan
manajemen internasional di Belanda. Ia juga merupakan salah satu pendiri dan direktur pertama Institut
Penelitian Kerjasama Antar Budaya yang berbasis di Belanda. Pada 2008, Hofstede terdaftar di antara 20
pemikir manajemen paling berpengaruh di Wall Street Journal (Geert Hofstede, nd.).
Kanada Michael Harris Bond dan Bulgaria Michael Minkov berkontribusi penelitian utama yang mengarah
pada penggabungan dimensi kelima (orientasi jangka panjang) dan dimensi keenam (kesenangan) ke dalam
kerangka kerja (Hofstede, 2011; Hofstede & Bond, 1988). Latar belakang Bond (Curriculum Vita, 2015)
mencakup peran sebagai profesor psikologi, bisnis, dan sosiologi di universitas di Hong Kong, Jepang, dan AS,
setelah menyelesaikan studi doktoral di Universitas Stanford. Menurut biografinya (Profesor Michael Minkov,
n.d.), Minkov meraih gelar doktor dalam antropologi sosial. Seorang murid Hofstede, ia telah melayani sebagai
profesor kesadaran lintas budaya dan perilaku organisasi di beberapa negara termasuk Inggris, Belanda, Turki,
Denmark, dan Rusia.
Tinjauan Teori
Berikut ini adalah deskripsi dari enam elemen kerangka dimensi.
Jarak kekuasaan
Seperti yang ditulis oleh Chen dan Starosta (2005), "dimensi jarak kekuasaan menentukan sejauh mana suatu
budaya beradaptasi terhadap ketidakadilan distribusi kekuasaan dalam hubungan dan organisasi" (hal. 52).
Penelitian Hofstede mengidentifikasi perbedaan antara mereka yang memiliki jarak kekuatan tinggi

dan budaya jarak-daya-rendah, dengan yang pertama ditandai dengan kesenjangan hierarkis yang relatif lebih
besar di antara individu berdasarkan pembeda seperti usia, jenis kelamin, generasi, dan status (Chen & Starosta,
2005). Dalam budaya jarak-daya tinggi, kekuasaan cenderung lebih terpusat dan banyak nilai ditempatkan pada
status dan pangkat (Dainton & Zelley, 2011). Berbeda dengan prevalensi hubungan vertikal, otoriter-condong
dalam budaya jarak tinggi, budaya jarak rendah menunjukkan mode interaksi interpersonal yang jauh lebih
horizontal. Penelitian dimensi budaya telah menghasilkan kuantifikasi skor jarak daya untuk beberapa negara.
Misalnya, Amerika Serikat memiliki skor jarak daya 40, dibandingkan dengan skor 80 untuk Ghana (The
Hofstede Center, n.d.). Ini berarti bahwa secara komparatif, perbedaan status dan peringkat kurang penting di
Amerika Serikat, tetapi mereka memiliki pengaruh yang lebih besar dalam budaya dan sistem nilai Ghana.

Penghindaran ketidakpastian
Penghindaran ketidakpastian "mengukur sejauh mana suatu budaya dapat menerima situasi ambigu dan
mentolerir ketidakpastian tentang masa depan" (Chen & Starosta, 2005, hal. 52). Seperti yang dijelaskan
Arasaratnam (2011) lebih lanjut, "budaya yang tinggi dalam penghindaran ketidakpastian cenderung
tradisional, lebih suka metode yang dicoba dan benar, dan lebih suka stabilitas daripada perubahan atau bahkan
inovasi" (hal. 49). Negara seperti Meksiko, misalnya, memiliki skor penghindaran ketidakpastian 82,
dibandingkan dengan 46 untuk Amerika Serikat (The Hofstede Center, n.d.). Dengan demikian, budaya
Meksiko dipandang sebagai lebih enggan mengambil risiko dan lebih condong ke stabilitas daripada budaya
A.S.
Individualisme
Individualisme mengacu pada "mentalitas sosial yang berfokus pada individu, menghargai dan mengakui
pencapaian individu, dan mendorong pemikiran dan tindakan independen" (Arasaratnam, 2011, p. 45). Ini
adalah masyarakat di mana "konsep diri" (Chen & Starosta, 2005,

hal. 51) sangat ditekankan, berlawanan dengan budaya yang berakar pada kolektivisme, di mana "kerangka
sosial" (hal. 51) adalah pertimbangan utama. Untuk menggambarkan, penelitian dimensi budaya skor Amerika
Serikat sangat pada individualisme (91), sementara Mesir mencatat skor individualisme yang jauh lebih rendah
dari 25 (The Hofstede Center, n.d.). Dalam istilah praktis, ini berarti warga negara dari kedua negara ini dapat
memandang pentingnya hal-hal seperti kewajiban keluarga dan pilihan pribadi dari perspektif yang sangat
berbeda.
Kejantanan
Chen dan Starosta (2005) menggambarkan dimensi ini sebagai "sejauh mana sifat maskulin dan feminin
stereotip berlaku dalam budaya" (hal. 53). Jadi, “dalam budaya maskulin, laki-laki diharapkan bersikap asertif,
ambisius, dan kompetitif; perempuan diharapkan untuk mendukung, memelihara, dan menghormati ”(Dainton
& Zelley, 2011, hlm. 186). Budaya maskulin termasuk Jepang
(95), Australia (61), Venezuela (73) dan Inggris (66), sedangkan budaya feminin meliputi Swedia
(5), Norwegia (8), Denmark (16), Portugal (31), dan Thailand (34) (Chen & Starosta, 2005, hlm. 53-54; The
Hofstede Center, n.d.)
Orientasi jangka panjang
Budaya dengan orientasi jangka panjang dicirikan oleh "penghematan, tabungan, ketekunan, dan kemauan
untuk menundukkan diri seseorang untuk mencapai tujuan" (Dainton & Zelley, 2011, hlm. 187), sedangkan
kehidupan dalam budaya dengan jangka pendek orientasi "berpusat pada keinginan untuk kepuasan segera" (p.
187). Selain itu, budaya orientasi jangka pendek menekankan masa lalu, stabilitas, moralitas universal,
nasionalisme, dan keberuntungan; budaya orientasi jangka panjang menekankan pada masa depan, kemampuan
beradaptasi, moralitas situasional, internasionalisme, dan upaya (Hofstede, 2011). Sebagai perbandingan,
Kanada, Cina, AS, Jerman, dan Jepang memiliki orientasi jangka panjang masing-masing 36, 87, 26, 83, dan 88
(The Hofstede Center, n.d.).

Kesenangan
Dalam kerangka dimensi budaya, budaya yang condong ke arah kesenangan menunjukkan "sebuah masyarakat
yang memungkinkan pemuasan keinginan manusia dasar dan alami yang relatif bebas terkait dengan
menikmati hidup dan bersenang-senang" (Hofstede, 2011, p. 15). Pada dasarnya, budaya dengan skor
kesenangan tinggi menempatkan nilai lebih besar dalam mencari kebahagiaan, dibandingkan dengan budaya
yang condong ke arah pengekangan. Penelitian yang terkait dengan dimensi ini mengungkapkan skor
indulgensi 24 untuk Cina, 48 untuk Perancis, 68 untuk AS, 72 untuk Ghana, dan 80 untuk Trinidad dan Tobago
(The Hofstede Center, n.d.).
Contoh Penelitian Primer
Asal-usul kerangka dimensi budaya kembali ke pekerjaan Hofstede di departemen penelitian kepegawaian IBM
Eropa pada tahun 1970-an, posisi yang membuatnya mendapatkan akses ke data survei tentang karyawan dari
lebih dari lima puluh negara, dikumpulkan melalui lebih dari 100.000 kuesioner melalui empat. periode tahun
(Hofstede, 2011). Dalam menganalisis data, Hofstede secara tidak sengaja melihat korelasi antara data untuk
empat nilai kunci dan kebangsaan karyawan. Untuk memverifikasi bahwa ini tidak ada hubungannya dengan
budaya IBM, Hofstede kemudian memberikan kuesioner yang sama kepada sekitar 400 responden dari 30
negara dan menemukan bukti yang kuat dari temuan IBM (Hofstede, 2011). Hofstede melaporkan
penemuannya yang terkait dengan empat dimensi — jarak kekuasaan, penghindaran ketidakpastian,
individualisme, dan femininitas — dalam buku Culture's Consequences. Setelah publikasi buku, seperti
disebutkan sebelumnya, kemitraan Hofstede dengan sesama peneliti Bond dan Minkov mengarah pada
penambahan orientasi jangka panjang dan dimensi kesenangan (Hofstede, Hofstede & Minkov, 2010).
Penelitian dan Aplikasi Terbaru

Kerangka dimensi budaya telah diterapkan secara luas dalam beberapa konteks penelitian untuk membantu
memahami dan menganalisis dampak budaya pada berbagai bidang kegiatan. Ini

termasuk hubungan masyarakat dan praktik tanggung jawab sosial dan persepsi (Bae & Kim, 2013; Kim &
Kim, 2010; Hackert, Krumwiede, Tokle, & Vokurka, 2012), manajemen bisnis dan kepemimpinan (Alzeban,
2015; Busse, 2014; Carrasco, Francoeur, Labelle, Laffarga, & Ruiz-Barbadillo, 2015; Pressentin, 2015; Rejchrt
& Higgs, 2015; Tavakoli, Keenan, & Crnjak-Karanovic, 2003), dan dampak budaya terhadap penggunaan
media dan teknologi (Mertens & d'Haenens, 2014; Pérez, 2014; Zahedi & Gaurav, 2011). Ada juga aplikasi
penelitian dari paradigma dimensi di bidang pemasaran dan penjualan (Albers-Miller & Gelb, 1996; Ming-Yi,
2013; Samaha, Beck, & Palmatier, 2014; Tianjiao, 2014; Yang, 2011), sumber daya manusia, kegiatan terkait
karier, dan interaksi di tempat kerja (Ellis, 2012; Morrow, Rothwell, Burford, & Illing, 2013; Sartorius, Merino,
& Carmichael, 2011), dan dalam pendidikan (Cheung & Chan 2010; Goodall, 2014) .

Kesimpulan

Seperti yang ditunjukkan makalah ini, paradigma dinamika budaya, yang dikembangkan oleh Hofstede dengan
kontribusi penting dari Bond dan Minkov, telah memiliki dampak yang signifikan, baik sebagai alat praktis
untuk memahami budaya lain dan sebagai kerangka kerja yang digunakan oleh para peneliti lintas beberapa
disiplin ilmu untuk menyelidiki konsekuensi budaya. Untuk interaksi antarbudaya, enam dimensi — jarak
kekuasaan, penghindaran ketidakpastian, individualisme, maskulinitas, orientasi jangka panjang, dan
indulgensi — berfungsi sebagai alat yang ringkas, mudah diakses, dan berpotensi kuat untuk mendapatkan
pemahaman yang lebih baik tentang nilai-nilai dan keyakinan masing-masing dan bagaimana mereka pengaruh
dan bentuk perilaku komunikasi yang sesuai.
saya setuju terhadap teori dari geert hofstede terkait dengan budaya organisasi pada
layanan kesehatan.

dimana budaya tempat kita kerja sangat lekat kaitannya dengan negara dimana tempat
kerja kita berada saat ini.

bisa kita lihat dari 6 dimensi budaya yang dibangun oleh hofstede, yaitu :

power distance : negara tempat kita bekerja saat ini yaitu indonesia merupakan negara
yang dengan jarak kekuasaan yang lebar dimana budaya kita mengajarkan untuk
menghormati atasan atau orang yang lebih tua.
contoh memanggil atasan atau orang yang lebih tua dari kita dengan panggilan bapak atau
ibu.

collectivism :