Every society develops its own customs and rules that allow people to live together on good terms.\nThose habits are influenced by the environment in which people live, by time and by people from other corners of the world.\nWhat exactly are these social dilemmas? <\/p>\n\n
At Connect2Us, we work primarily with the studies of Geert Hofstede, supplemented by insights and concepts from other studies.<\/p>\n\n
When individual life histories are studied, it turns out that the choices people make are not accidental, but can be traced to values deeply embedded in the personality that guide how they respond to the environment.\nIn psychology, these are called mindsets: values that guide the development of new behaviors and set boundaries for the development of those behaviors.\nThese mindsets are developed from childhood, from generation to generation, attuned to the environment.\nThis creates what Hofstede calls “collective mental programming”: the unwritten rules of the social game (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). <\/p>\n\n
Culture, in Hofstede’s definition, is “the collective mental programming that distinguishes members of one group or category of people from those of others” (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).\nHofstede distinguishes four dimensions of culture: <\/p>\n\n
Geert Hofstede is one of Holland’s most translated<\/a> scholars.\nJan Vincent Meertens, president of the Foundation, has written an easily accessible book for intercultural collaboration<\/a>.\nProceeds from that publication will go to the Connect2Us Foundation. <\/p>\n\n You can measure your own cultural preferences with the Culture Compass<\/a>.\nThe Compass also allows you to compare your home country with that of a country of your choice. <\/p>\n\n The following descriptions are taken from Power distance is the degree to which the less powerful people in a culture accept that power is unequally distributed.\nThe Netherlands is a country where power distance is small.\nMost other countries in the world have a culture with a (much) larger power distance.\nThe differences with the Netherlands can be seen when people wait to be allowed to speak: they adopt a dependent attitude and the relationship with a boss is characterized by control and distrust.\nThe organization is centralized and founded on paternalism.\nThe relationship between people is more important than the task at hand.\nStatus is important to show power and rules are not applied the same way for everyone. <\/p>\n\n Basically, this acceptance arises very early in a child’s life because of the way parents and children interact: the first power-holders in their lives.\nIn cultures with a relatively small power distance like the Netherlands, parents want to convey that you are independent, even in relation to people who have more power.\nTypical encouragements from these parents are: say what’s on your mind, speak up, you have a brain of your own, show the back of your tongue.\nAt school, teachers invite students to have discussions, both among themselves and with the teacher.\nIt is even appreciated and rewarded when a student – with good arguments – tries to refute what a teacher claims.\nThe central message conveyed to a child is independence from those in power. <\/p>\n\n In cultures with great power distance, children are taught that first and foremost you must have regard for the older generation; in China, these rules were laid down by Confucius in the wu lun<\/em>, the five basic human relationships.\nThe authority of parents (and elders) is an ascribed authority.\nCultures deal with that attributed authority differently. <\/p>\n\n At school and later at work, behavior or functioning will be influenced by this (family) culture.<\/p>\n\n Education in countries with high power distance still often works on the principle: the teacher tells, the students listen, and occasionally they are allowed to politely ask some questions.\nIn contrast, cultures with low power distance, where the development of an independent, critical mind is central, here the reproduction of knowledge is pursued.\nThese two divergent systems have a major impact on people’s behavior in society. <\/p>\n\n One consequence is the way people hold meetings.\nPeople from cultures with a small power distance count on meetings to discuss openly with each other, defend their interests and ultimately be able to make decisions with each other about actions, strategies or policies.\nIn countries with large power distance, meetings are expected to be places where those in power take the opportunity to brief others on their plans, ideas or strategies and where others may politely ask some questions.\nKindness, deliberation and modesty are often mistaken for weakness and lack of authority, making others quick to doubt the leader’s authority. <\/p>\n\n In countries with a small power distance, it is best for a boss to make himself somewhat invisible.\nAn overly visible boss, someone who is constantly looking over the shoulder to see if things are still happening as agreed, demotivates his people.\n“What do you think?” and “do it yourself” is what employees want to hear.\nOn the contrary, in countries with great power distance, a boss needs to be highly visible to motivate his employees.\nAll roads lead to Rome, Madrid and Paris.\nAfter a decision, he should explain the implementation as he had conceived it using a list on which the tasks and responsibilities are accurately listed.\nAfterwards, he checks whether the tasks have been done properly.\nIn short, an attitude that in countries with small power distance irritates both parties.\nThis is not authoritarian behavior – which is abhorred around the world – but paternalistic behavior: top-down, but with benevolent attention and care for people.\nIf a task is not done well, there are admonitions.\nAnd those are what they are.\nNo feedback and “maybe you could try something different next time. <\/p>\n\n In cultures with small power distance, there is a greater need for independence.\nHierarchy is accepted for ease of communication and decision-making.\nBut basically, rulers toward subordinates and subordinates toward superiors feel the same way about each other: they are people like you and me.\n‘He also just goes to the bathroom.’ Rules apply to everyone. <\/p>\n\n Therefore, people in these cultures generally feel less threatened and are more willing to trust people.\n“No news is good news” is therefore an accepted principle; the higher-ups trust the subordinate to come forward when they need instruction.\nOne strives for decentralization and individual freedom of action.\nAnd the subordinate knows that, from that basic trust, he can raise a problem so that it can be discussed openly.\nThus systems will change through redistribution of power, through evolution. <\/p>\n\n In contrast, in countries with great power distance, people have a greater need for dependency.\nHierarchy in these countries is interpreted more as existential inequality: there should be an order of inequality in which everyone finds his or her rightful place.\nThe relationship of authority must be clear to all.\nSuperiors want to be treated respectfully by subordinates.\nUpward mobility is often difficult.\nSubordinates are a potential threat to one’s power and therefore can hardly be trusted. <\/p>\n\n Subordinates view superiors, as well as their colleagues, equally with some distrust, and despite the dependence they have on their leaders, there is always a fire of conflict smoldering that can flare up just like that.\nThose in power therefore have a greater tendency to control the implementation of laws and rules; subordinates accept that control and even find it a sign of appreciation. <\/p>\n\n To communicate one’s position in the hierarchy, symbols and privileges are important in a culture with great power distance.\nThe title, location and size of an office, especially in relation to other offices, the secretary, the chauffeur and the private toilet must be carefully and dosed to the person who acquires an increasingly powerful position in an organization. <\/p>\n\n Where there is great power distance, information and communication tend to be implicit and indirect.\nFor example, decision-making is centralized and the top boss tends to interfere in the details of the process.\nThe problem that arises here is that the boss is often difficult to access.\nIn cultures with low power distance, it is common, literally or otherwise, to leave the door open.\nIt is also common for the boss to walk around the shop floor and be briefed on how things are going. <\/p>\n\n The cultural dimension individualism reflects the relationship between the individual and the group and affects all negotiation factors.\nThe Netherlands has a distinctly individualistic culture.\nSometimes we call it an “I” culture.\nAlmost all other countries in the world are less individualistic, with the exception of the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries.\nCountries with a low score on individualism have a collectivist culture, a “we” culture.\nThe differences with our culture are reflected in the (strong) loyalty to the group to which one belongs.\nHere the relationship takes precedence over the task at hand, and trust is more important than competence.\nThis can sometimes lead to nepotism.\nPrivate and business are much more intermingled.\nThere is particularism, rules are interpreted differently, communication is more indirect and the meaning of “yes” and “no” is different from ours.\nAnd there is more likely to be shame. <\/p>\n\n In individualistic societies, people are brought up with the idea that first and foremost you have to be true to yourself, to the development of your own talents.\nSelf-realization is the highest rung of American Maslow’s famous pyramid.\nIn social intercourse, therefore, people start from this “self-interest” and they develop social rules of play for it that are basically valid for everyone.\nHofstede adopts the term “universalism”: everyone is equal before the law.\nThe premise: equal monies, equal caps. <\/p>\n\n Early in parenting, the child’s independence is encouraged.\nA personal opinion, dissent, a side job, experimentation: all things a parent in an individualistic culture values in his child.\nMuch later, the child expects his parents to continue to fend for themselves as well; independence goes both ways. <\/p>\n\n In collectivist societies, people believe that first and foremost you must be loyal to your own in-group.\nIn exchange for utter loyalty, the in-group looks after the interests of its members.\nThe concept of in-group may vary from country to country.\nHowever, it always begins with loyalty to the larger family unit.\nIn some countries the tribe comes next, in others the ethnic or religious group or region.\nBut in all cases there is a direct exchange relationship: one receives protection or better (business) conditions in exchange for loyalty.\nFor example, there is a Russian saying that says: it is better to have 100 friends than 100 rubles.\nAnd you quickly get to 100 friends, because your friends’ friends are also your friends. <\/p>\n\n Collectivism often goes beyond the in-group of friends.\nIn the Netherlands we do not show off “our friends” so much.\nThe step from acquaintance to friend is often already a big one and we do not easily flaunt it, let alone ruffle other people’s feathers. <\/p>\n\n In an individualistic culture, it is relatively easy to feel guilty.\nOne is guided by conscience, which one has had to develop from an early age to find a way to independence and freedom.\nConscience functions as an inner guide.\nOne thinks in terms of “me” and finds that honest people say what they think.\nSelf-respect is more important than belonging to a group.\nOne lives with any life partners in relative independence: a lifestyle in which the individual and the family take care of themselves and try to do so for as long as possible even in the face of adversity and old age. <\/p>\n\n In a collectivist culture, it is very important to maintain harmony within the group.\nIn communication with the environment, one learns to avoid causing “ripples” in particular. <\/p>\n\n Where we feel guilt for something we ourselves regret, in and collectivist culture there is a sense of shame.\nDirect questions and direct answers are therefore avoided as much as possible.\nAfter all, a direct question is basically answered with ‘yes’ to avoid embarrassing either of us.\n‘Yes’ can mean ‘yes,’ or ‘no,’ or ‘I’ve heard’ or ‘I’ll try.’\n‘Yes’ can mean anything.\nWe can then react indignantly if the yes turned out to mean no.\nHe’s just lying!\nBut then we have missed the context, including body language.\nThat should show what is really meant.\nWe call that high-context communication.\nIn the Netherlands, with our individualistic culture, we communicate with low context.\nThis means, among other things, that we have no trouble discussing actions to be taken openly, in plain language, and that everyone finds it normal when people defend their own interests.\nWe do not make our hearts a murder pit and say things straight.\nWe think we are straightforward and prefer to fall head over heels.\nThat may be true when everything is cake and egg, but we are not very good at confrontation.\nAt least not like the Americans, who see confrontation as part – perhaps even a prerequisite – of a good relationship.\nThe Dutch tend to beat around the bush. <\/p>\n\n In individualistic countries, the premise is that the values apply to everyone: the same monies are the same.\nThere is universalism.\nIn collectivist cultures, on the other hand, there is particularism: the values apply only to the in-group.\nFor outsiders, different rules apply.\nSo you can’t just rely on being treated the same as others in society.\nPrivate and business mix much more.\nA late night at the karaoke bar, a barbecue on Sunday, going to church together: where in the Netherlands we quickly focus on what we have to do, people in a collectivist culture place more value on developing the relationship. <\/p>\n\n In collective cultures, people take care of each other and that means that jobs are not always divided based on experience and expertise.\nSo you come across all sorts of combinations based on family ties, a shared schooling, favors being repaid and so on. <\/p>\n\n A lot of tea, rice wine or vodka goes through to gain trust.\nThe probing is like a long, winding driveway to the steps.\nCommunication is indirect and takes time (and patience).\nBut once on the steps and through the impressive gate, the former stranger will be included in the circle of confidants.\nThis is not without obligation: where there is drinking, there is pouring.\nIt takes time to gain trust through various discs within the family. <\/p>\n\n The third cultural dimension is about motivation and what people want to achieve in their lives, about achievement orientation, as well as assertiveness or modesty.\nMost cultures, with the exception of the Scandinavian ones, are more achievement-oriented than the Dutch.\nIn Hofstede’s terms: more masculine.\nThe Netherlands has a distinctly feminine culture.\nCultures with a strong(er) performance orientation are more focused on winning and accepting to win or lose.\nThe pie does not have to be divided equally.\nPeople are focused on making decisions and (internal) competition promotes results. Just do it<\/em>! One accepts than one lives to work and that successes may also be shown.\nWinners get sympathy. <\/p>\n\n In masculine societies, people are motivated by competition, ambition, achievement, taking on challenges and making a career.\nAs early as kindergarten, the world is clearly divided into winners<\/em> and losers<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n Just act normal, then you’ll be crazy enough.\nWe Dutch are uncomfortable with terms like “winners” and “losers.\nIt is undesirable at school early on if you boast about your achievements, then you are an overachiever.\nAfter all, if you stick your head out of the dirt, it is quickly chopped off.\nIn that playing field, jealousy lurks and it is important to share in time.\nAfter pride comes the fall.\nIn a feminine culture, people do not pride themselves on achievement or status.\nModesty adorns man.\nThus, talent, wealth, status and power do not necessarily go together. <\/p>\n\n In feminine cultures, people are motivated by cooperation, cohesion, consensus, quality of life, commitment to content, nice colleagues and equality.<\/p>\n\n People from feminine cultures work to live.\nLife is just as important after working hours.\nProvided that there is a reasonable relationship between the nature of work and pay, other elements are important such as: content of work, challenge, quality of cooperation, work environment and harmonizing the interests of heterogeneous groups.\nIn feminine cultures, the task takes precedence over the personal relationship with supervisor or colleagues.\nWith this, one is relatively independent and there is generally little emotional connection between supervisors and subordinates. <\/p>\n\n Thus, networkers are formed from an early age with the idea that inequality is fundamentally undesirable.\nSociety is rational and also secular; Church and state are strictly separated.\nThe political system that has developed on these foundations is pluralistic, with the middle usually having more support than the wings.\nComplicated coalitions are often needed to peacefully manage all participation, with the result that the necessary compromises rarely enjoy full support and are often of questionable mediocrity.\nWe see these soggy solutions in all walks of life.\nNo one is really completely satisfied, but we can all find some common ground with the stroopwafel pie or the rush-hour lane. <\/p>\n\n In masculine cultures, people tend to be more assertive.\nThe Dutch may stand up for themselves, but they do so to claim equality, not to show their own worth.\nAmericans often find us too modest.\nYou see that reflected in resumes and job applications. <\/p>\n\n In a masculine society, emotional gender roles are clearly segregated: men are expected to be assertive, tough and focused on material success; women are supposed to be modest, tender and primarily focused on quality of life (Hofstede, 2010).\nWomen who choose careers are – or behave – as assertive and tough as their male counterparts. <\/p>\n\n The clear division of roles can also be seen externally: dress codes for men and women are often more formal and different.\nWomen are supposed to wear skirts, not pants. <\/p>\n\n The division of roles in feminine cultures sometimes produces a diffuse picture that is difficult to understand by people from more masculine cultures.\nThe man who has to go home early to pick up the children from school, or the female principal who works from home because one of her children is sick, produces surprise at best and usually a certain disdain from visitors from masculine cultures. <\/p>\n\n Family life and love are more easily seen as separate in masculine cultures, while in feminine cultures they are more coincidental: a partner is lover and mate, while responsibility for the family is shared (Mead, 1962).\nIn feminine cultures, alternative forms of relationships are handled in a much more relaxed manner. <\/p>\n\n The uncertainty avoidance dimension indicates the degree to which one feels threatened by uncertain or unknown situations.\nLife is unpredictable.\nHow does one deal with this: try to control the unpredictability through structure or accept that this is the way life is?\nThe Netherlands scores average and it is important to look at the interrelationships between cultures.\nFor example, there are differences with Germany and France, which score higher, and with the Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon countries, which score lower.\nCountries that have a strong need to avoid uncertainty create rules, even if they sometimes do not work.\nPeople are more formal in their dealings.\nOne thinks before one acts and assumes principles, not best practices<\/em>.\nOne is more focused on the content of decisions and their implementation.\nExpertise and technical solutions provide security and confidence.\nThe Michelin Guide will know better which restaurant is good than the one next door.\nDuring a consultation, people will want to know the answers.\n‘I’ll get back to you later’ creates little confidence.\nA sense of unease is more likely to be felt, so that if there is too much uncertainty, people will fall back on superstition, alternative medicine, and shifting to ma\u00f1ana<\/em>.\nIn general, innovation and entrepreneurship benefit from lower levels of uncertainty avoidance. <\/p>\n\n In countries with low uncertainty avoidance scores, “freedom is happiness.\nRegulations from the government or other authorities are experienced as stifling and inhibit people’s ability to act.\nThe government is there to create conditions for entrepreneurial behavior and too much emphasis on regulation creates distrust among citizens. <\/p>\n\n On the contrary, in countries with high uncertainty avoidance scores, regulations and their enforcement are seen as a source of certainty and confidence.\nThere is an emotional need in these cultures to know that order and predictability of life are guarded.\nDeviation and violation lead to stress.\nPeople in these countries work in a much more planned way.\nIt is important to have a clear agenda that is shared in advance.\nEven in school, there is a set curriculum and parents expect teachers to adhere to it.\nA teacher is an expert and will teach rather than facilitate. <\/p>\n\n Lack of trust, especially in cultures with strong uncertainty avoidance, generates additional costs.\nInvolved parties will develop control mechanisms for which additional costs are incurred and which may also lead to less efficient processes. <\/p>\n\n “What is different is dangerous. This credo holds true in uncertainty-avoiding cultures and often leads to xenophobia. The opposite is true when people say, “What’s different is interesting. Countries with strong uncertainty avoidance are generally less open to dissenters and migrants in particular.<\/p>\n\n Uncertainty avoidance combined with power distance and collectivism produces two different leadership styles that can also have an effect on negotiations.\nIn countries where uncertainty avoidance is strong, such as Russia, the Arab world and most Latin American countries, there is an aversion to the unknown.\nRules must be enforced and what is different is threatening.\nThere are powerful institutions to devise rules and enforce them.\nChaos must be quelled.\nThe ruler is a “strict father.\nThe hierarchical relationship is often based on measurable things.\nThere are rules and authority is tied to performance, for example. <\/p>\n\n Where uncertainty avoidance is weaker, as in Asia and central Africa, the leader is strong, but more paternalistic, caring.\nThere is a huge acceptance of hierarchy, but it is generally associated with old age or seniority.\nOld age is then in most cases synonymous with wisdom.\nThere is a “moral” relationship between rulers and subordinates, often creating paternalistic relationships.\nIn these cultures, authority is long-term and transferable.\nThere is less need for a variety of rules to establish relationships.\nIn exchange for loyalty on the part of the subordinate, the “father” looks after the well-being of his “children.\nHis people can always come to him with personal wishes and problems.\nIn principle, this can happen both inside and outside working hours, and it can be about money problems, as well as family troubles.\nA boss who shirks the parental role is a bad boss. <\/p>\n\n Countries with strong uncertainty avoidance have a strong need for formality in social intercourse.\nAt the same time, we see people there talking with their hands, raising their voices and showing emotions.\nThe stress that uncertainty brings finds a quick outlet in this way, and what’s more, everyone knows exactly how they feel about each other. <\/p>\n\n The ma\u00f1ana effect<\/em> is common in societies where people have limited resources and an aversion to uncertainty.\nIt is felt that you cannot influence life.\nThere is a degree of fatalism.\nThis leads to strong uncertainty avoidance and pushing forward actions.\nMaybe tomorrow things will be better or maybe tomorrow the problem will be gone. <\/p>\n\n People who can fulfill the need for predictability of others – experts – are highly regarded.<\/p>\n\n<\/a><\/a><\/a>1 Power distance – what do you think?<\/h2>\n\n
The first cultural dimension<\/h4>\n\n
<\/a><\/a><\/a>2 Individualism – being true to oneself<\/h2>\n\n
<\/a>The second cultural dimension<\/h4>\n\n
<\/a><\/a>3 Performance orientation – yes we can!<\/h2>\n\n
The third cultural dimension<\/h4>\n\n
<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>4 Uncertainty avoidance – it’s all about the principle<\/h2>\n\n
The fourth cultural dimension<\/h4>\n\n