Summary of Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension

Running Head: International Marketing
International Marketing

International Marketing 1
“Summary of Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension”
The purpose of this paper is to explain information about the Hofstede’s cultural dimension
presented in the presentation. The summary is a reflective review of Hoftstede’s culture theory.
Hofstede’s culture dimension is an explanation of the different cultures present in the
environment. According to me this framework is mainly used in initiating the cross culture
communication in the organization. The framework is developed by Greet Hofstede who
founded it after working with people with different beliefs, background, culture and norms. The
psychologist made a research on the culture of forty different countries in which the company
IBM was initiating its activities. After researching, Hofstede found five different dimensions that
will adequately explain the culture of all the countries. Further, in the late 2010s, the
psychologist introduced one more dimension into the cultural dimension framework. This
framework is collectively called cultural differences (Minkov, and Hofstede 2011).
I believe that Hofstede has adequately highlighted all the important aspects in his theory of
cultural dimension. All the cultural differences help the reader in gaining information about
different cultures of countries. Six dimensions in this case are power distance, indulgence versus
restraint, long term versus short term orientation, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity versus
femininity and lastly, individualism and collectivism. According to my understanding, all these
aspects completely differentiate the culture of one country from other.
Power Distance feature explains the degree to which less powerful people present in the country
accept or differ that power is distributed unequally. Under this case, the people have less power
are suppressed by the people having high power in hand. A society that has low power distance
states that the people in the country struggle to equalize the distribution of power in the society. I
think due to low degree of power distance in the society people are unable to attain the level of
success that they can achieve in the society (Saleem, and Larimo 2017). Japan and Singapore
score highest in this.
Further, the second dimension that is uncertainty avoidance states that it is the degree to which
people in the society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity present in the
environment. This aspect explains the risk taking ability of people present in the environment. As
per my understanding the countries should have a medium range of this aspect within them as it