Analyzing Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions in International Marketing

This essay provides a reflective summary of Hofstede's cultural dimensions, a framework used to understand cultural differences in international contexts. Developed by Geert Hofstede, the framework initially included five dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, and long-term versus short-term orientation, later adding indulgence versus restraint. The essay explains each dimension, highlighting how they differentiate cultures and influence business interactions. Power distance reflects the acceptance of unequal power distribution, while uncertainty avoidance indicates a society's tolerance for ambiguity. Individualism versus collectivism focuses on the degree to which people are integrated into groups. Masculinity versus femininity describes the preference for achievement and material rewards versus quality of life. Long-term versus short-term orientation relates to future planning versus immediate gratification, and indulgence versus restraint measures the extent to which people try to control their desires and impulses. The essay concludes that understanding these dimensions is crucial for organizations to navigate cultural complexities and resolve conflicts in global environments.

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

International Marketing 2
will help them to follow rules and relax with some principles as well. According to me
uncertainty avoidance aspect highlights the belief that future is unknown to them and they cannot
try to control it. Greece, Portugal and Japan score high degree in this (Rallapalli, and
Montgomery 2015).
The individualism versus collectivism approach states that people present in the society are more
inclined towards making a bond or living life on their own. This aspect explains the feeling in
which people prefer living with their large extended families or like living with immediate
family. I think most people now days hold the feeling of individualism within them. As people
have started going foreign for education and job due to which I believe that people have shifted
their interest to loosely knit groups. US, Australia and UK are individualist societies
(Beugelsdijk, Maseland, and Hoorn 2015).
The masculinity versus femininity aspect explains that the preference in the society for
achievement and materialistic rewards. Society under this case is more competitive as people
believe that they need to earn monetary rewards and positions to gain success whereas, the
femininity aspect explains that people present in the society tend to earn quality of life, modesty
and appreciation in the environment. This difference is related to tough versus tender. I think that
this aspect relates to the personality features of male and female and their different gender roles.
Femininity is followed by Sweden, Netherlands and Norway (Degens, et. al., 2017).
The long term versus short term orientation differentiates the people between people who do
future planning whereas the people who make shot term goals to achieve in life. Further, I
believe long term orientation aspect also includes the people who maintain adequately links with
the past and focus on the future challenges. Whereas, the short term orientation only includes the
people who prefers to fulfill their current objectives of life. China and Japan follow longer term
orientation and US and Canada follows the opposite (Hofstede, et. al., 2010).
Lastly, indulgence versus restraint explains the degree to which people present in the society
loves having an easygoing and enjoyable life. The indulgent people wants to have fun and do not
suppress their feelings for anything in the society. Whereas, under the case of restraint people
follow strict norms and do not do what they like society. Lastly, this framework will help
organizations in understanding different cultures and resolving conflicts.

International Marketing 3
References
Beugelsdijk, S., Maseland, R. and Hoorn, A., 2015. Are scores on Hofstede's dimensions of
national culture stable over time? A cohort analysis. Global Strategy Journal, 5(3), pp.223-240.
Degens, N., Endrass, B., Hofstede, G.J., Beulens, A. and André, E., 2017. ‘What I see is not
what you get’: why culture-specific behaviours for virtual characters should be user-tested across
cultures. AI & society, 32(1), pp.37-49.
Hofstede, G., V. Garibaldi de Hilal, S. Malvezzi, B. Tanure, and H. Vinken, 2010. Comparing
regional cultures within a country: Lessons from Brazil. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
41(3), pp. 336–352.
Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G., 2011. The evolution of Hofstede's doctrine. Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal, 18(1), pp.10-20.
Rallapalli, K.C. and Montgomery, C.D., 2015. Marketing strategies for Asian-Americans:
guidelines based on Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions. In Minority marketing: Research
perspectives for the 1990s (pp. 73-77). Springer, Cham.
Saleem, S. and Larimo, J., 2017. Hofstede cultural framework and advertising research: An
assessment of the literature. In Advances in Advertising Research (Vol. VII) (pp. 247-263).
Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden.