Power distance

Power distance refers to the relationship between those in power and the subordinates in a society where lower ranking individuals depending on the high or low power distance culture react to that authority.[1] The Power Distance Index is a tool to measure the acceptance of power established in this relationship between the individuals with the highest power and those with the least.[1] This is an anthropology concept, used in cultural studies to understand the power index between individuals with varying power, the effects, and the perceptions of those individuals. In these societies, power distance is divided into two categories that resembles that culture's power index. People in societies with a high-power distance are more likely to be in accordance to a hierarchy where everybody has a place, and which needs no further justification. In this case, those in positions with great extent of power are respected and looked up to. In societies with a low power distance, individuals aim to distribute power equally. Without regards to the same level of respect of high-power distance cultures, additional justification is often query among those in low power distance societies. Research has also indicated that before any other relationships in a business can be established, a cross-cultural relationship must be created first. These are the interactions and feelings conveyed between people of different cultures.[2]

Part of a series on
Discrimination
Specific forms
 

Dutch Psychologist Geert Hofstede is a well renown professor of organizational anthropology and international management, as well as the director for the Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation.[3] Prior to his profession, he traveled by sea which influenced his views on cultural diversity and its implications on a global scale. He was the first to conduct a major cross-country study on power distance which spanned fifty different countries and thousands of employees from a major corporation. In this study, Hofstede distributed questionnaires to various IBM employees in different countries, asking if they were afraid to disagree with their superiors.[4] He observed different power distance levels and management styles observed during his studies. Hofstede used his findings to propose four cultural dimensions: individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, power distance and uncertainty avoidance.[5] These dimensions were described in his work, "Culture’s Consequences". He created the Power Distance Index to measure whether a country has high, moderate, or low power distance.

Development and studies on the theory

Geert Hofstede

Cultural dimensions theory

Hofstede, the famous business anthropologist, developed the cultural dimensions theory, used widely as a crucial framework for cross-cultural communication. It is the earliest theory that could be quantified and used to explain perceived differences between cultures and has been applied extensively in many fields, especially in cross-cultural psychology, international business, and cross-cultural communication. It was driven by the statistical procedure (also called "factor analysis") to make the development, based on the result of a global survey of the values of IBM employees conducted from 1967 and 1973. Hofstede's theory identified six dimensions of culture, which are power distance, individualism vs collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity vs femininity, short-term vs long-term orientation, and indulgence vs self-restraint.[6]

Currently, research has suggested that power distance can vary from culture to culture. This can be prevalent especially in international corporations. A recent study[7] found that employees are more inclined to speak up under leaders deemed to be humble by their employees. Humility is a trait often associated with low-power distance cultures. The study found that an employee's self-conceptualization of power determined not only their workplace voice, but the humility of their superior, as well. An environment such as this would also be akin to the collectivism dimension that Hofstede proposed.

Power Distance Index (PDI)

The Power Distance Index is designed to measure 'the extent to which power differs within the society, organization and institutions (like the family) are accepted by the less powerful members'.[8] It indicates the level of power distance and dependent relationships in a country by assigning a score to each country. The PDI also represents society's level of inequality that is defined from below rather than from above. As Hofstede stressed, there is no absolute value and PDI is useful only as a method to compare countries.[9]

Hofstede derived the power distance scores for three regions and fifty countries from the answers given by IBM employees in the same type of positions to the same questions. The detailed steps to calculate the PDI is as follows:

1. Prepare three survey questions:

  • How frequently, in their experience, are they afraid to express disagreement with their managers? (mean score on a 1-5 scale from "very frequently" to "very seldom")[10]
  • Subordinates' perception of their boss's actual decision-making style (percentage choosing either the description of an autocratic or of a paternalistic style, out of four possible styles plus a "none of these alternatives")[10]
  • Subordinates' preference for their boss's decision-making style (percentage preferring an autocratic or a paternalistic style, or, on the contrary, as type based on majority vote, but not a consultative style)[10]

2. Pre-code the answers so that they are represented by a number (e.g. 1,2,3,4...)

3. Compute the mean score for the answers of equal sample of people from each country or percentage for choosing particular answers

4. Sort the questions into groups which are called clusters or factors by using a statistical procedure

5. Add or subtract the three scores after multiplying each with a fixed number

6. Add another fixed number

  • Lower PDI Culture: Low PDI cultures: In lower PDI cultures, the emotional distance is relatively small. There are more democratic or consultative relations between expecting and accepting power. People are relatively interdependent to the power holders, and there is relatively low inequality of power distributed among the people. Under these circumstances, the decentralized authority and flat management structure is common though not universal. It means that both managers and subordinates will, on average, be relatively less concerned with status, and the distribution of decision-making responsibility is extensive. Thus, the 'open door' policy is more easily used then elsewhere, which means the individuals in superior positions are not only more likely to be open to listen to those in inferior positions, but subordinates are also more likely to be willing to challenge or give suggestions to their superiors. For example, in this culture, if one wants to get a promotion, one would prefer to get their ideas across to their boss directly. Examples of countries with low PDI are the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, and the Nordic countries.[11]
  • High PDI Cultures: These are cultures in which the power relations are paternalistic and autocratic, and where there is centralized authority. In other words, there is a wide gap or emotional distance which is perceived to exist among people at different levels of the hierarchy. There is considerable dependence of people on power holders, which, in psychology, is known as counter-dependence (denounce, but with negative sign). In the workplace, the subordinates are willing to accept their inferior positions. The boss, in turn, may not ask for broad participation in the decision making process. Thus, unlike in lower PDI cultures, the 'open door' policy has been replaced by an autocratic leadership style, which means subordinates may be unlikely to approach and contradict their bosses directly.[10] For instance, even though employees may want to be promoted, it is entirely their boss's decision and they have no say in it. Generally, countries with high power distance cultures hold that there is nothing wrong with inequality and thus, everyone could be in specific positions. Additionally, people in higher positions usually display and promote the use of status symbols: for example, powerful individuals would not eat lunch at the same cafeteria as people in lower positions, and there are large numbers of supervisors who are entitled to special privileges. China, Belgium, France, Malaysia, and the Arab World can be regarded as examples of countries or regions with high PDI cultures.[11]

Limitation of Hofstede's model on power distance

Hofstede's study made a great contribution to the establishment of the research tradition in cross-cultural psychology. However, limitations still exist.

Firstly, each stage of the research process reappears as a political act of neutralization—of making the unneutral seem neutral. The questionnaire reflects a large power distance: its questions were explicitly designed to resolve the normative concerns of researchers. To further explain, it primarily served the concerns of those who needed to do comparative analysis and created it through "coercing a culturally distinct axis of comparison" on a variety of employees.[12]

Secondly, the questionnaire adopted an obviously western methodology to analyze non-western countries and it is also relatively selective in representing the inequality within the western countries. For example, the PDI concentrated on the boss and subordinate relationship, which could be seen as biased, as it ignores other forms of western inequality. Apparently, the questions failed to measure the racial, colonial, and broader class inequalities which should be taken into account into the measurement of power distance.

Other notable studies

Early studies
Haire, Ghiselli, and Porter

In the middle of the last century, Haire, Ghiselli, and Porter[13] explored the differences in preferences for power among different cultures with remarkable outcomes, even though they did not mention the concept of power distance. The methodology they adopted was by questionnaire, which was based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs with some modification. The aim of the questionnaire was to evaluate how managers from 14 countries were satisfied regarding their needs when they were in their current positions. The dimensions that were linked to power distance across cultures in their questionnaire were autonomy and self-actualization. Autonomy

  • The authority that comes with their management position.
  • The degree to which independent thinking and action are allowed in their management positions.

Self-Actualization

  • The chance for personal progress and advancement in management positions.
  • The sense of self-achievement one derives from being in a management position.
  • The sense of achievement from being in a management position.

In accordance with the responses to the questions in their questionnaire, the 14 countries were clustered into five main groups, which they labeled Nordic-European (Denmark, Germany, Norway, and Sweden), Latin-European (Belgium, France, Italy, and Spain), Anglo-American (England and the United States), Developing (Argentina, Chile, and India), and Japan (by itself). One important thing from this analysis is the various mean standardized scores that the five groups presented with respect to autonomy and self-actualization. For these figures, positive ones mean greater satisfaction of need than for the average manager across all 14 countries, while negative ones mean lesser satisfaction. Their results are presented in Table 1.

Haire 1966AutonomySelf-Actualization
Nordic European.36.25
Latin European-.16.23
Anglo American-.14-.09
Developing-.25-.11
Japan-.25-.11

Upon the figures listed in the table, some implications are drawn. They are complicated, and summarized as follows: – Nordic-Europeans who were surveyed were extremely contented with the satisfaction of their desire for power; – Anglo-Americans were rather discontented; and – the other clusters desired more power than they currently had in their positions

One important implication from this study is that countries can be clustered according to their preference for power. Besides this, some of their differences can be explained by the influence of the following factors: the predominant religion or philosophy, an established tradition of democracy, the long-term existence of a middle class, and the proportion of immigrants in each country.

Mulder

Another major study of power distance was the one that was undertaken by Mauk Mulder.[14] It was based on the premise that as societies become weaker in power distance, the underprivileged will tend to reject their power dependency. Mulder's laboratory experiments in the social and organizational context of the Netherlands, a low power distance culture, concluded that people attempted to seek "power distance reduction".[14] He found that:

  1. More privileged individuals tend to try to preserve or to broaden their power distance from subordinates.
  2. The larger their power distance is from a subordinate, the more the power holder would try to increase that distance.
  3. Less powerful individuals try to decrease the power distance between themselves and their superiors.
  4. The smaller the power distance, the more likely is the occurrence of less powerful individuals trying to reduce that distance.

From these findings, he concluded that a condition of quasi-equilibrium had arisen. In this condition, power holders have achieved a certain distance from people who lack power, and this distance is hard for the powerless to bridge.

After Hofstede – The GLOBE Study

Following Hofstede,[15] the GLOBE project defined "power distance" as "the degree to which members of an organization or society expect and agree that power should be shared unequally."[16] Power distance was then further analyzed as one of the nine cultural dimensions explained in the "Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness" (GLOBE) Research Program, which was conceived in 1990 by Robert J. House of the Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania.[17]

Given the major premise that leader effectiveness is contextual, the research was conducted by believing that the social and organizational values, norms and beliefs of those who are being led are closely connected to the effectiveness of the leader.[18] GLOBE measures the practices and values that exist at the levels of industry (financial services, food processing, telecommunications), organization (several in each industry), and society (62 cultures).[19] The results are presented in the form of quantitative data based on responses of about 17,000 managers from 951 organizations functioning in 62 societies throughout the world, which shows how each of the 62 societies scores on nine major attributes of cultures, including Power Distance, and six major global leader behaviour.[20]

Regarding power distance, GLOBE researches cultural influences on power distance values, practices and other aspects, including 'Roots of Power Distance', 'The Psychological Stream and Power' and 'The Cross-Cultural Stream and Power Distance'. It also investigates how family power values are taught, and makes a comparison of high versus low power distance societies.[21]

When discussing 'The Cross-Cultural Stream and Power Distance', four primary factors affecting a society's level of power distance are explained separately, and they are the predominant religion or philosophy, the tradition of democratic principles of government, the existence of a strong middle class, and the proportion of immigrants in a society's population.[22] Among the four fundamental phenomena, there always exists connections; however, it is concluded that a society's main beliefs, values, and religion, will have the strongest and longest lasting influence on power distance. Then, this will be moderated by a democratic tradition and the existence of a strong middle class to some extent. Moreover, the two factors are both expected to affect narrowing power distance. Therefore, for a Roman Catholic society, which is exposed to democracy and a middle class, would be on the way to narrowing power distance. Though its level of power distance could be reduced over time, it would still be higher than a Protestant country, which has a democratic tradition and a large middle class. Finally, a large proportion of immigrants in a given society makes the low power distance trend stronger in all circumstances presented above. In addition, it is concluded that regardless of religion, any society that does not have a tradition of democracy or a significant middle class will have a substantially high power distance levels.[23]

Applications and effects

Power distance is such a significant dimension in cross-cultural environments that it unconsciously influences people's behaviour in different countries, which contributes to so–called 'cultural norms'. These 'cultural norms', shaped by perceptions and acceptance of power inequality to a certain degree, lead to various reactions when facing same situations or in the same environment. However, there are some consequences resulting from acquiescence in inequality in organizations and societies, especially for high power distance countries.[24]

The workplace

Effects on management style

In organisations with high power distance, employees acknowledge their lesser standing, and are respectful and submissive towards their superiors; who in turn, are more likely to give orders rather than consult with their employees while making decisions. Status symbols are often displayed and flaunted. Employers or managers would not have meals together with their subordinates, and might have private facilities such as rooms, parking lots, and elevators. Having a high level of education is important to climb the corporate ladder, and the higher-ranking members of the organization are often paid much more than their employees in comparison with companies with lower power distance.[25]

On the other hand, in businesses with low power distance, bosses are not as concerned with status symbols and would be more open to employee discussion and participation. Employees are less submissive to their superiors, and are more likely to make themselves heard or to challenge the management.[25]

The relationship between leadership and voice behavior

The expression and voice behavior of an employee in the workplace is dependent upon the leadership style as well as the power distance.[26] The ability for employees to speak up is described as the voice behavior and expression. Sheng-Min Liu, And Jian-Qiao Liao developed a questionnaire consisting of 495 subordinates (engineers) and 164 leaders (senior engineers and project managers) to determine the outcome of subordinate voice behavior based on the leadership style which is influence by power distance. This leadership style fluctuates in different power distance indexes because of the closeness in proximity and structure of those cultures. The transformational leadership style believes in equipping the subordinates with a mindset of confidence that is change-oriented to succeed beyond what is expected of them. Encouraging to think critically, inspiring motivation, influencing to admire, and attending to each need are ways that the voice behavior of subordinates positively increases leading them to speak out. As shown in the study, low power distance leaders facilitate a change-oriented environment for subordinates to discuss their ideas and concerns which leads to their admiration. This determines by admiring their leaders, the subordinates feel as though they are able to relate to their leaders which changes the interaction between leader and subordinate. On the other hand, the study shows that subordinates in high power distances obey the gap between them and their leaders; they rarely interact with their leaders, if so, it is for a short period of time.[27] The study further confirms that the ideas and solutions in this power index are given to them by their leaders, so it seems contradictory for those in the high-power distance to speak up about their concerns or ideas because they are accustomed to direction.[28] Therefore, trying to inspire voice behavior deviates from the high-power index structure. This contradiction of the high-power index holds true showing that it weakens the leader- subordinate relationship causing a lack of expression. Thus, voice behavior and expression rely on the transformational leadership style often seen in low power distance cultures.[29]  The study concludes that the leadership style which is based on power distance culture correlates with the tools given to an employee to speak up in his or her environment.

Effects on employee behavior

In the realm of business, Power Distance can be defined as the acceptance (by employees) of the relationship between the highest and lowest ranked members in an organization.[30] Studies have suggested that employees in low-power distance workplaces directly impact the distribution of office power. This could be due in part to the employees possessing more power (and therefore, more freedom to make changes) than in a high-power distance setting.  In addition, the opposite has been suggested for employees in high power distance environments, with superiors not varying much in their position. Culture can have an effect on this, as lower-level employees in high power distance cultures might not be able to have a large impact on their workplace.

In high power distance regions, people in the higher positions hold great amounts of power with little challenge. The hierarchy and authority empower employers and supervisors with more rights of resource allocation, rewards and punishment, which in turn reinforce their status, as well as enable them to lead and guide their subordinates autocratically. The hierarchical differentiation between the top and the bottom gradually creates an invisible gap in the workplace, where the subordinates tend to build greater sensitivity and cautiousness when communicating with their supervisors.[31][32]

It is a common phenomenon that junior employees turn to their seniors for help and advice when getting into a new environment. Yet, some researchers recently attested that employees and junior staff from high power distance countries are less likely to seek help from their supervisors.[24] One of the reasons is that lower ranking staff have few chances and time to meet the high ranking managers in person. The hierarchical system is far more sophisticated and restricted that subordinates are usually only able to reach their immediate supervisors.[33] In addition, it is widely believed that the action of asking for help is equivalent to incompetence or lack of ability, which subdues themselves into an unfavourable circumstance. What is worse is that some of the supervisors who are incapable of solving more complicated problems will become suspicious of his or her subordinates, regarding the problems as a challenge to their status and capabilities, or even as humiliation from the lower ranking staff.[34] Such climates have gradually reinforced employees to think that it is more effective and efficient to deal with difficulties by themselves, rather than talking to their managers. The indisputability of power and authority widens the gap between different levels, while the acceptance of inequality consolidates the endurance among the bottom, stopping the subordinates seeking help from the top.

There is another main perspective that leads to a larger gap between the supervisors and subordinates. In a high power distance environment, supervisors tend to pay more attention on tasks rather than human beings that are the main focus for supervisors in a low power distance environment.[35] Apparently, task orientation emphasizes heavily on daily work completion and performance efficiency, yet the top-bottom relationship grows far more slowly since there is a lack of communication beyond work, which in turn reduces subordinates' willingness of seeking help from supervisors.[36] Compared to low power distance countries, equality is embraced by the society that power is minimized to a large extent, where authority and hierarchy are not highlighted and supervisors are accessible and willing to build close relationship with subordinates, whose worries of any harm are turned down when seeking help from the top.[24]

The beliefs employees hold regarding procedural justice shape the nature of their relationships with authority.[37] Procedural justice, in this study, refers to the level of fair treatment by the superiors in the organization toward the employees. Fair treatment in the workplace is incumbent upon three established criteria: Gender, trust amongst authority, and the psychological contract fulfillment. Psychological contract fulfillment is the employee's idea of receiving the benefits promised by the workplace. Often it is misconstrued that people resemble justice in the same way, so these criteria help to distinguish the effect of power distance on an individual's perception and culture. Employee perception of procedural justice is affected by power distance and gender. In low power distance cultures employees are more like to have a strong personal connection, and a better understanding of the authority they are dealing with. Negative behavior inclines in a low power distance culture when organizations treat them poorly because they lack the characteristics of submitting humbly before authority.[38] Therefore, the relationship between employees and superiors are outlined by procedural justice and trust in authority in low power distance cultures. Amongst men more so than women, it is highly favorable that psychological contract fulfillment and an official fair just treatment (procedural justice) be carried out. Whereas, in high power distance cultures employees are less likely to be themselves around authority; They are also less sensitive to insulting remarks, and more likely to accept an erroneous action from authority without consideration of fair treatment (procedural justice).[39] For both low and high-power distance cultures, they perceived fair treatment to be a fulfillment of the psychological contract made by the organization.

In charitable behaviour

According to research, people from high power distance countries are generally less responsible towards charitable behaviours than people from low power distance countries.[40] The explanation for this phenomenon is that the rooted perception and acceptance of inequality somehow blinds their eyes to any unfair or inappropriate situations, which they may consider as a normal social circumstance and simply accept it rather than making a change.[41][42] Cumulatively, the more inequality they accept, the less inconformity they will notice, and the less responsibilities they will take eventually. The consequence is high power distance enlarging the gap between human beings in terms of relations and wealth conditions. Conversely, people in low power distance countries are more sensitive towards any unequal phenomena. Their unacceptance of dissonance endows them with a greater sense of responsibility for adjusting or correcting the problems in person.[41][42]

Influence of controllable/uncontrollable needs

The types of needs are influencing people's charitable behaviour regardless of their power distance backgrounds. The needs generated are classified into controllable and uncontrollable categories, where the occurrence of the former is due to lack of effort while the occurrence of the latter is due to unforeseeable events such as natural disasters. The ability of whether individuals are able to control the situations affects how they will react to the raising needs.[43][44][45]

On the one hand, the level of power distance does have an influence over a society's reaction towards controllable needs. People with high power distance background perceive most of the issues as rightful inequality, hence are reluctant to get themselves involved with 'troubles', and therefore most of the time they choose to turn a blind eye on such petty things. Conversely, low power distance societies are intolerant with unfairness and thus their higher sense of responsibility motivates people to make an effort in eliminating dissonance in every possibility.[40] Yet, there seems to be an exception. It is found that people are not sympathetic at all to those in trouble due to internal-controllable reasons. In other words, it is most likely that people reckon those who are lazy, careless, greedy or indulgent, deserve such hardship and punishment, instead of giving a hand to them to go through the difficulties.[46] In this situation, even if there is an evident unequal phenomenon emerging, the willingness of charitable behaviours are attenuated to the least in both high and low power distance countries.

On the other hand, people tend to be more responsible in terms of uncontrollable needs, whereby they are more willing to offer aid to. It is assumed that people consider that the aid for uncontrollable needs will not greatly change societal rightful inequality, and hence generous assistance and help will be offered to those in need regardless of power distance background.[43][46][47][48] In such circumstances, a sense of duty is more likely to be raised, where people tend to undertake charitable behaviours.[40]

Influence of communal/exchange relationship norms

The relationship norms behind the needs also affect the sense of responsibility. The types of relationships are mainly classified as exchange relationships, in which people are expecting a reasonable privilege or benefit in return for offering aid; and communal relationships, where those giving assistance are wholeheartedly and generously taking care of those in need without any expectation of material return.[49][50] According to research, people are more likely to refuse to aid when encountering needs associated with exchange relationships rather than needs with communal relationships, which has proved to alleviate the influence of power distance belief and increase the willingness and responsibility of assistance.[40][50][51][52]

Therefore, Winterich recommended that charitable organizations in high power distance countries should stress the significance of uncontrollable needs or salient communal relationship norms, through which the populace are more easily motivated to make a difference on social inequality.[40]

Examples of High and Low Power Distance cultures and its effects

Power distance affects cultures all over the world and the interactions different cultures have with each other.

For example, Malaysia is a country that scores high on the Power Distance Index.[53] Due to high power distance, this is a culture where one may not question someone in power like a manager, a professor, or a government official, because authority is valued and power is not equally distributed. When this country is compared to the United States, a country that scores lower on the Power Distance Index, there are many differences one may come across.[53] The United States, having moderate power distance, allows a person to question a professor or give ideas to a boss.[54]

Due to many changes and advances in today's world, companies have taken over on a worldwide level causing workers to go from country to country, students studying abroad and this all calls for cultures mixing in many ways.[54] If an American manager travels to Malaysia to manage a company over there, they will run into situations that would be surprising to them. The American manager may ask the workers for their opinions on how to do something or improve something and the Malaysians may just sit still and not speak up because they do not feel as if they have the authority to do so.[53] This is reflective of power distance and the views taken upon it by different cultures.

Another example is Egypt which is a country that scores high on the Power Distance Index.[55] Students in this country tend to respect their professors and not question them, this country also has exams that determine whether or not a student can continue studying or not. By doing this, a level of authority is created that cannot be surpassed unless done correctly.[55] Students from this country when compared to students in Canada, a country that scores lower on the Power Distance Index, cannot question a professor on a grade so they may want to have very clear guidelines of what is expected of them in order to succeed. Students from Canada for example, are able to question and challenge their professors on why they got a grade.

Individualism/collectivism and Power Distance

Different cultures have different views on power distance. Something that's related to and overlaps with power distance is individualism vs. collectivism.[56] Geert Hofstede is the scholar behind both power distance and individualism and collectivism. Hofstede defines collectivism as, "...a preference for a tightly knit social framework in which individuals can expect their relatives, clan, or other in-group to look after them, in exchange for unquestioning loyalty" and he defines individualism as, "...a preference for a loosely knit social framework in a society in which individuals are supposed to take care of themselves and their immediate families only."[53] An example of an individualistic country is the United States, so in this country people worry more about themselves and their own well being over the good of the whole group. An example of a collectivist country is China, so in this country people tend to worry more about the overall well being of the group and put that at a higher importance than their personal wants or needs. Individualism and collectivism relate to power distance because they deals with the way a culture behaves in society.[56]

Individualism/Collectivism and Power Distance can be linked together in different ways. Geert Hofstede has done extensive research on these topics and their relationships. They are typically studied together because overall in scoring, a country that scores with high on the Power Distance Index typically scores high for collectivism and a country that scores low on the Power Distance Index typically scores high for individualism. This is because countries that are individualistic typically are focused on an individual and what they want to accomplish, and power status plays a much less significant role in this, and in collectivist countries the focus is on the collective good, so the group will listen to authority to tell them what is best for the group.[56] Hofstede also found that Individualism/Collectivism and Power Distance are greatly correlated to a nation's wealth.[57] Usually a wealthy country scores high for individualism and low on the Power Distance Index, and a less wealthy country scores high for collectivism and high on the Power Distance Index.[57] This is because in a wealthy country, people want to prosper and grow individually while in a less wealthy country people are more so the same and there is more emphasize on the specific needs of the whole group. The relationship between Individualism/Collectivism and Power Distance can be seen very clearly and accounts for many cultural differences.

A study conducted by Yuan Feirong and Jing Zhou demonstrate in a conceptual model how individualism and collectivism correlate with power distance as well as its impact on creativity.[58] The conceptual model is composed of examining the creativity of groups based on group member interactions that occur in face to face meeting or teleconferences, and individual employee contribution to the group.  Cultures high on the power distance index typically interact and speak less to group members. This is because they rely heavily on the person with the highest status in the group to determine and make final decisions. Therefore, high power cultures "may not always foster creativity, and can sometimes undermine it. They do not function in actual teams".  Meanwhile, for low power distance cultures it is crucial for each individual to have a say in the overall group function which has proven to increase creativity and develop great innovations. Hence creativity in groups "highlights the value of group member cognitive diversity".[58] Power distance influences cultures based on the index creating different environments for group creativity and interactions.

Linked factors

Climate

It has been hypothesized that there is a link between climate and power distance, with societies in warmer climates more likely to have a higher power distance than societies in colder climates. As food and other necessities are relatively easier to come by in warm, comfortable climates, survival is not as difficult, and thus there is no need for rigorous discipline, preparation, or hardship. It has been argued that these conditions would give rise to a situation whereby it is beneficial for strict organisation and direction to come from superiors in order to propel people to cooperate effectively, even if it goes against the will of some people.[25]

On the other hand, in colder, harsher climates, it is imperative for individuals to have discipline and prudence to work hard and make the right decisions in order to survive. In these societies, if one were to be lazy and rest for a day instead of searching for food, they might not be able to survive. Therefore, self-discipline and restraint is paramount in these climates. With these qualities ingrained in the people, social order does not need to be enforced externally.[25]

Democracy

It has been asserted that democratic governments occur most commonly among low power distance societies, where it is not ingrained into the minds of the people since young age that there are unquestionable hierarchies in life that should not be disputed. It has been found that the 'ideological breach between labour and conservatives' is exceedingly polarised in high power distance socieites, while in low power distance cultures, people would tend to try to attain balance between the two extremes in order to avoid damaging and draining conflicts. This is why unions in high power distance cultures are usually formed by corporations or governments, while those in lower power distance societies are usually less 'ideological' and more 'practical'.[25]

See also

References
  1. Mcray, Jenni, ed. (2015). Power Distance. Leadership Glossary: Essential Terms for the 21st Century. 1st edition. Santa Barbara, CA: Mission Bell Media. ISBN 9780990730002.
  2. Auerbach, Michael P. "Cross-Cultural Relations". Salem Press Encyclopedia, 2019.  Accessed 25 Feb. 2020.
  3. "Hofstede, Geert Dutch educator (b. 1928)". In Capstone Press, Capstone Encyclopaedia of Business. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. May 2003. p. 224. ISBN 9780857085559.
  4. Groff, Adam. "Power Distance Index (PDI).” Salem Press Encyclopedia, 2018. EBSCOhost, Accessed 25 February 2020.
  5. "Hofstede, Geert." The New Penguin Business Dictionary, edited by Graham Bannock, Penguin, 1st edition, 2003. Credo Reference, Accessed 25 February 2020.
  6. Hoppe, Michael (February 2004). "An Interview with Geert Hofstede". The Academy of Management Executive (1993–2005). 18 (1): 75–79.
  7. Lin, Xiaoshuang, et al. "Why and When Employees Like to Speak up More Under Humble Leaders? The Roles of Personal Sense of Power and Power Distance". Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 158, no. 4, Sept. 2019, pp. 937–950. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s10551-017-3704-2. Accessed 25 February 2020.
  8. Hofstede, Geert H. (1997). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (second ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-07-707474-6. Originally published in 1991 as Cultures and organizations: software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival.
  9. Velo 2011, p. 26
  10. Hofstede 1997, p. 25
  11. Smit, Chris (26 April 2012). "Power Distance or PDI". culturematters.com. Retrieved 14 September 2015. (self-published)
  12. Ailon, Galit (2008). "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Culture's consequences in a value test of its own design". Academy of Management Review. 33 (4): 885–904. doi:10.2307/20159451. JSTOR 20159451.
  13. Haire, Mason; Ghiselli, Edwin E.; Porter, Lyman W. Managerial Thinking: An international study. Research program of the Institute of Industrial Relations, University of California. New York: Wiley. OCLC 925871372.
  14. Mulder, Mauk (1977). The Daily Power Game. International series on the quality of working life. Leiden, the Netherlands: Martinus Nihoff Social Sciences Division. doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-6951-6. ISBN 978-1-4684-6953-0.
  15. Hofstede, Geert H. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organisations across nations (second ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. ISBN 978-0-8039-7323-7.
  16. Note that this is different from the definition of "power distance" used by other authors, see Mulder 1977, as the relative difference in power between the powerful and the powerless.
  17. House, Robert J.; Hanges, Paul J.; Javidan, Mansour; Dorfman, Peter W.; Gupta, Vipin (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. ISBN 978-0-7619-2401-2.
  18. Hoppe, Michael H. (2007). "Culture and Leader Effectiveness: The GLOBE Study" (PDF). Inspire!Image!Innovate!. Retrieved 16 September 2015.
  19. House 2004, p. xv
  20. House 2004, p. 3
  21. House 2004, p. 513
  22. House 2004, p. 518
  23. House 2004, p. 526
  24. Ji, Yang; Zhou, Erhua; Li, Caiyun & Yan, Yanling (2015). "Power Distance Orientation and Employee Help Seeking: Trust in Supervisor as a Mediator". Social Behavior & Personality. 43 (6): 1043–1054. doi:10.2224/sbp.2015.43.6.1043.
  25. Velo, Veronica (2011). Cross-Cultural Management. New York: Business Expert Press. ISBN 978-1-60649-350-2.
  26. Liu, Sheng-min; Liao, Jian-qiao (1 November 2013). "Transformational Leadership and Speaking Up: Power Distance and Structural Distance as Moderators". Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal. 41 (10): 1747–1756. doi:10.2224/sbp.2013.41.10.1747.
  27. Farh, Jiing-Lih; Hackett, Rick D.; Liang, Jian (2007). "Individual-Level Cultural Values as Moderators of Perceived Organizational Support–Employee Outcome Relationships in China: Comparing the Effects of Power Distance and Traditionality". Academy of Management Journal. 50 (3): 715–729. doi:10.5465/amj.2007.25530866. ISSN 0001-4273.
  28. Kirkman, Bradley L.; Chen, Gilad; Farh, Jiing-Lih; Chen, Zhen Xiong; Lowe, Kevin B. (2009). "Individual Power Distance Orientation and Follower Reactions to Transformational Leaders: A Cross-Level, Cross-Cultural Examination". Academy of Management Journal. 52 (4): 744–764. doi:10.5465/amj.2009.43669971. ISSN 0001-4273.
  29. Walumbwa, Fred Ochieng; Lawler, John J. (2003). "Building effective organizations: transformational leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes and withdrawal behaviours in three emerging economies". The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 14 (7): 1083–1101. doi:10.1080/0958519032000114219. ISSN 0958-5192.
  30. "Power distance." The AMA Dictionary of Business and Management, George Thomas Kurian, AMACOM, Publishing Division of the American Management Association, 1st edition, 2013. Credo Reference, Accessed 25 February 2020.
  31. Kirkman B. L.; Chen G.; Farh J.-L.; Chen Z. X.; Lowe K. B. (2009). "Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination". Academy of Management Journal. 52 (4): 744–764. doi:10.5465/amj.2009.43669971.
  32. Lee F (1997). "When the going gets tough, do the tough ask for help? Help seeking and power motivation in organizations". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 72 (3): 336–363. doi:10.1006/obhd.1997.2746. PMID 9606170.
  33. Lonner, Walter J.; Berry, John W.; Hofstede, Geert H. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship. Abstract
  34. Lee, Fiona (2002). "The Social Costs of Seeking Help". The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 38 (1): 17–35. doi:10.1177/0021886302381002.
  35. Bochner S.; Hesketh B. (1994). "Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job-related attitudes in a culturally diverse work group". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 25 (2): 233–257. doi:10.1177/0022022194252005.
  36. Madlock P. E. (2012). "The influence of power distance and communication on Mexican workers". International Journal of Business Communication. 49 (2): 169–184. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.1031.1789. doi:10.1177/0021943612436973.
  37. Lee, Cynthia; Pillutla, Madan; Law, Kenneth S. (July–August 2000). "Power-Distance, Gender and Organizational Justice". Journal of Management. 26 (4): 685–704. doi:10.1177/014920630002600405. ISSN 0149-2063.
  38. Tyler, Tom R.; Lind, E. Allan (1992), "A Relational Model of Authority in Groups", Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Elsevier, pp. 115–191, doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60283-x, ISBN 978-0-12-015225-4
  39. Bond, Michael H.; Wan, Kwok-Choi; Leung, Kwok; Giacalone, Robert A. (1985). "How are Responses to Verbal Insult Related to Cultural Collectivism and Power Distance?". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 16 (1): 111–127. doi:10.1177/0022002185016001009. ISSN 0022-0221.
  40. Winterich, Karen Page & Zhang, Yinlong (2014). "Accepting Inequality Deters Responsibility: How Power Distance Decreases Charitable Behavior". Journal of Consumer Research. 41 (2): 274–293. doi:10.1086/675927.
  41. Cummings, William H. & Venkatesan, M. (1976). "Cognitive Dissonance and Consumer Behavior: A Review of the Evidence". Journal of Marketing Research. 13 (3): 303–308. doi:10.2307/3150746. JSTOR 3150746. republished from Cummings, William H. & Venkatesan, M. (1975). "Cognitive Dissonance and Consumer Behavior: A Review of the Evidence". In Schlinger, Mary Jane (ed.). Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 2. NA-02. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Association for Consumer Research. pp. 21–32.
  42. Festinger Leon; Carlsmith James M (1959). "Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 58 (2): 203–210. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.497.2779. doi:10.1037/h0041593. PMID 13640824.
  43. Betancourt, Hector (1990). "An Attribution–Empathy Model of Helping Behavior: Behavioral Intentions and Judgments of Help-Giving". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 16 (3): 573–591. doi:10.1177/0146167290163015.
  44. Brickman, Philip; Rabinowitz, Vita Carulli; Karuza, Jurgis Jr; Coates, Dan; Cohn, Ellen & Kidder, Louise (1982). "Models of Helping and Coping". American Psychologist. 37 (4): 368–384. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.37.4.368. ERIC number EJ262702
  45. Shaver, Kelly G. (1985). The Attribution of Blame: Causality, Responsibility, and Blameworthiness. New York: Springer Verlag. ISBN 978-0-387-96120-0.
  46. Skitka, Linda J. & Tetlock, Philip E. (1992). "Allocating Scarce Resources: A Contingency Model of Distributive Justice". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 28 (6): 491–522. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(92)90043-J.
  47. Karasawa, Kaori (1991). "The Effects of Onset and Offset Responsibility on Affects and Helping Judgments". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 21 (6): 482–499. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00532.x.
  48. Lerner Melvin J.; Reavy Patricia (1975). "Locus of Control, Perceived Responsibility for Prior Fate, and Helping Behavior". Journal of Research in Personality. 9 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(75)90029-x.
  49. Aggarwal Pankaj; Law Sharmistha (2005). "Role of Relationship Norms in Processing Brand Information". Journal of Consumer Research. 32 (3): 453–64. doi:10.1086/497557.
  50. Clark, Margaret S.; Ouellette, Robert; Powell, Martha C. & Milberg, Sandra (1987). "Recipient's Mood, Relationship Type, and Helping". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 53 (1): 94–103. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.94. PMID 3612495.
  51. Brockner, Joel; Paruchuri, Srikanth; Idson, Lorraine Chen & Higgins, E. Tory (2002). "Regulatory Focus and the Probability Estimates of Conjunctive and Disjunctive Events" (PDF). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 87 (1): 35–66. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2938.
  52. Johnson, Jennifer Wiggins & Grimm, Pamela E. (2010). "Communal and Exchange Relationship Perceptions as Separate Constructs and Their Role in Motivations to Donate". Journal of Consumer Psychology. 20 (3): 282–294. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2010.06.018.
  53. Schermerhorn, John R. Jr.; Bond, Michael Harris (June–July 1997). "Cross-cultural leadership dynamics in collectivism and high power distance settings". Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 18 (4): 187–193. doi:10.1108/01437739710182287 – via Gale PowerSearch.
  54. Smith, Aileen; Hume, Evelyn C. (2005). "Linking Culture and Ethics: A Comparison of Accountants' Ethical Belief Systems in the Individualism/Collectivism and Power Distance Contexts". Journal of Business Ethics. 62 (3): 209–220. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-4773-1 – via JSTOR.
  55. Geier, Denise (2013). "Cultural differences and the online classroom". Journal of Interdisciplinary Collaboration. 1: 29+ – via JSTOR.
  56. Watson, James; Hill, Anne (2015). Communication: intercultural communication. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
  57. Hofstede, Geert (2011). "Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context". ScholarWorks@GVSU.
  58. Yuan, Feirong; Zhou, Jing (October 2015). "Effects of cultural power distance on group creativity and individual group member creativity: Power Distance and Creativity in Groups". Journal of Organizational Behavior. 36 (7): 990–1007. doi:10.1002/job.2022.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.