The Differences in Value Dimensions Between Britain and the United States

Introduction 

Hofstede defines culture as the collective state of the mind that gives the distinction between members of one group of people and the others. Therefore, according to Hofstede, culture entails systems of values. Values form a very important component of culture. The values of each culture differ sharply. The values of a given culture act as the framework for reference to it. Hofstede was able to develop the cultural dimensions theory that acts as the framework for cross-cultural communication. This theory states the impact of a community’s culture on the values that its members hold. These values held by the members of a given culture then determine the kind of behavior of a person. The cultural dimensions theory is based on a structure developed from factor analysis. Using the five dimensions suggested by Hofstede, it is possible to establish the differences between the cultures of Britain and the United States. It is very important to note that the various factors of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions have a significant impact on the way business and trade are carried out in the modern economy. Differences between Britain and the United States based on values of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions 

Hofstede came up with a dimensional framework for making cross-cultural comparisons in various fields. This paper focuses on the application of the values of Hofstede’s dimensional framework in discussing the cultural differences between the United States and Britain. These values include power distance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance and the short-term/long-term avoidance. 

Power distance 

The value of power distance refers to the level at which members of a given culture do accept that power distributed within the society in a very unequal manner. This value was developed by Hofstede based on the outcome of research on the preferences of power among different cultures. In this case, Hofstede identified centralization of power as quite characteristic of many organizations. 

There is the power distance index that is applied in determining this value for a given culture. According to Hofstede, power distance index refers to the level at which those who are less powerful within a given culture or organization, recognize and expect that power is unequally distributed. Therefore, the framework of Hofstede assumes that inequality and power are perceived from the followers’ or lower level within the ranks of the society. It is also vital to explain that a high degree of the power distance index shows that hierarchy in a given nation is established and wielded clearly, without any form of doubt or even logic ( Samaha, Beck & Palmatier, 2014) . A low degree of the power distance index, on the other hand, shows that people within a given nation usually critique and question the authority in a bid to try and ensure power is distributed. 

Really, power and inequality are among the fundamental aspects of any given society. While it is a fact that all societies have unequal distribution of power, each nation has a distinct level of inequality (Hofstede, 2011). Nations cannot have the same degree of power inequality. There are those countries that have tried to implement democracy and distribute power to the people, although the equal distribution is never achieved. 

Hofstede wrote with his son in the second edition of the book titled Cultures and Organizations (2005) that the power distance dimension normally demonstrates the manner in which a particular culture associates with the authority of one form or the other ( Browaeys & Price, 2008) . The comparisons that are made based on this dimension show the level at which subordinates are reliant on their bosses. 

It is vital to note that the manner in which the subordinates regard their bosses is very significant. Some of the subordinates may respect the position of the superior within the power hierarchy, age or connections to influential individuals. There are also the subordinates who attach high respect to the superior’s level of competence and experience. For instance, if the subordinates attach great respect to the status and life experience of their leader, then they may have some reluctance to show initiative and choose to be instructed without question. However, the subordinates regard their leader to be just the first among equals; they will always want to put the boss’s decisions and instructions on judgment and discussion. They may even challenge these instructions and decisions. 

On the rankings of power distance index, Britain stands at 35 (Hofstede, n.d) . This is a lower degree of power distance index. Therefore, members of the British culture believe that the unequal distribution of power among people has to be minimized. According to empirical research, the power distance index is lower among the high-end social cadre than it is within the working class in Britain. In the British culture, there has been a major tension between the importance of birth rank and the belief that is deeply held, where people feel one should not be limited in terms of the farthest they can travel based on where birthplace. Within the British culture, there is a sense of belief that citizens of the country have to be treated in the same way through equal distribution of power. 

The United States power distance index stands at 40, which means it is low (Hofstede, n.d) . Therefore, the American culture is strongly premised on liberty and justice for all. There is an explicit emphasis on the equal rights of people within all aspects of the American society and even ion government. The United States is among the few countries where there is mature democracy and even women are given the chance to be front-runners for political offices. The quest for equal distribution of power is very high in the United States of America. 

Therefore, there is no significance difference in the cultures of the United States and Britain. Both these two countries value democracy and equal distribution of power among the people. This value is even evident in organizations led by the British people. In organizations, all employees are treated in the same way and given equal opportunities. Both countries value even the distribution of power to women and other minority members of the society. Currently, Britain has a female Prime Minister, Theresa May. Equally, the United States had a female, Hillary Clinton, run for the country’s Presidency and even won the majority votes by a gap over 2 million. These two cases are evidence of the strife to have equal distribution of power within the United States of America and Britain. 

Individualism vs. collectivism 

This cultural dimension looks at the relationship between an individual and a group of people. The aim of this value is simply to establish the extent to which individuals are autonomous within the society or embedded in the group of people (Moseley, 2013). 

There are cultures that put much significance on the personal relationships at the expense of the performance of a specific task or even completion of a given deal. Such relationships may be of the extended family. In this case, the blood-ties are believed to guarantee trust as well as loyalty. It is about the importance that a given cultural group accords relationships. For the case of the relations that are outside the family, they are based on the face-to-face social interactions. Normally the loyalty to individuals that are within a specific circle of relations and friends is regarded to be very significant and rewarded in various ways. 

In some instances, the collective achievement is the focus of people, but not the attainment of individual goals and careers (Hofstede, 2011). Personal sacrifices are made in order to achieve the collective goal. However, for the individualist cultures the focus is highly and exclusively on the attainment of the personal goals and rights. 

The United Kingdom has an individuality index score of 89, implying that it has an individualist culture (Hofstede, n.d). Britain has one of the highest individualist scores in the world. Normally, the British are highly individualist and private people. Within the British culture, children are normally trained and conditioned to always reason for themselves and solve their problems without dependence on anyone else. Each person within the British culture contributes to the society in a unique way. It is also vital to mention that the way to achieve happiness in Britain is through fulfillment of the personal goals and objectives. For instance, as with the increase in the affluence of Britain throughout the past 10 years coupled with its wealth spreading to the North, there has emerged a debate on the rise of rampant consumerism as well as strengthening of the ‘ME’ culture. 

Similarly, the United States has one of the highest individualism index scores in the world. The only difference between Britain and the United States is in terms of the extent of this individualist culture. The United States of America has a greater score of 91 (Hofstede, n.d). In the United States, people look after themselves and their close family relatives. They do not depend on the authorities like government for support in life. The Americans never even engage in deep friendships. Each person lives a very private and independent life. 

Masculinity vs. femininity 

Hofstede also classified cultures of societies based on the values of being caring, assertive and competitive. The assertive and quite competitive cultures were regarded as masculine in nature. However, societies that are highly caring were regarded as feminine in nature. Feminine cultures are less self-centered and very caring to others. Masculine cultures are made up of members who exert huge power and compete stiffly to achieve success. Work is viewed as a challenge within the highly masculine societies hence there is a reward for those who accomplish their duties and responsibilities (Chiang, 2005). In a masculine culture, the stress is normally on the performance of a person and one has to compete with others in order to achieve the set goals. Masculinity is, thus, described as the culture where there is high preference for achievement, heroism, material rewards as well as recognition and assertiveness. 

On the other hand, the highly feminine cultures normally accord much focus on the broader picture of things. For instance, the focus of a feminine culture is on cordial relationships with others at the workplace. Femininity, thus, refers to a culture where there is high preference for co-operation, caring for the weak, focus on quality of life and modesty. 

On the masculinity/femininity index, a high score implies the culture of a given society is masculine while a low one means it is feminine. Britain stands at 66 on the masculinity/femininity index (Hofstede, n.d). This high score of Britain implies that the British culture is highly masculine in nature. The British culture values success achieved through stiff competition. It is clear that people in Britain live in order to work and have performance ambitions. The British culture values heroism and recognition for those who achieve great goals. 

On the other hand, the United States has a masculinity/femininity index score of 62 (Hofstede, n.d). This high score implies that the United States of America has a culture, which is equally masculine in nature. This fact is evident in the typical American behavioral patterns. The only difference between the British culture and the American one is that the former show masculine tendencies by surprise while the latter just express it up-front hence it is very predictable with them. It is very difficult to predict the masculine tendencies with the British culture, but one can clearly see these tendencies in the American culture. 

Uncertainty avoidance 

The uncertainty avoidance index gauges the level at which people, in a given culture, avoid risk. The concern is to determine the extent to which individuals in a specific culture feel threatened by circumstances that are ambiguous and risky. The uncertainty avoiding cultures normally view life as a struggle against stress and anxiety. Members of the uncertainty avoiding culture are always willing to take familiar risks, but not the danger of that which is completely unknown to them (Minkov & Hofstede, 2011). Therefore, they have a tendency of resisting innovation and any other thing that is not familiar with them. Members of the uncertainty avoiding culture value keeping the existing state of things. For the uncertainty avoiding culture, authorities that lay down structures to avoid ambiguity are favored. 

On the other, cultures that have very low uncertainty avoidance are not worried by ambiguity and always ready to take risks. Members of such cultures are quite flexible and dynamic. They embrace positive change and innovation. They believe that laws cannot be rigidly applied to circumstances, but have to be changed in order to fit in and adapt to the existing situation. Members of the culture that has low uncertainty avoidance believe that problems may not have pre-determined and clear solutions, but they have to be solved as and when they occur. 

On the uncertainty avoidance index, Britain has a score of 35 (Hofstede, n.d). This implies that the British culture has very low uncertainty avoidance. The British people are always happy to wake up the following day when they are not aware of what it holds for them. They prefer approaching issues as and the way they come, changing strategies of tackling challenges when new information emerges. For instance, Britain has no written constitution, a situation it has been able to survive in for a very long period of time. The British society has very few rules and laws. One would confess that such a situation is very risky for any country. In the British culture, the goals of a given process are the sole guidance that people depend on since there are no detailed procedures of doing things. 

The United States of America has a low uncertainty avoidance index of 46, but higher than that of Britain (Hofstede, n.d). Overall, the United States of America is also a culture where members value living and thriving in a risky atmosphere. Americans like new ideas and this is evident in the many new products that are innovated and consumed in this country. However, the United States may be having a higher degree of uncertainty avoidance than Britain because of the impact of 9/11 attack, which created fear and made the government to start monitoring everybody through the security organs of the nation. 

Long-term vs. short-term orientation 

The culture that is highly short-term oriented has people who focus much on the past and the present in life. These people are largely static in nature. The culture that is long-term oriented has people who highly focus on the future. These people are quite dynamic in nature. For the short-term orientation of a given culture, there is huge practice of virtues that are related with the past and the present. For instance, the short-term orientation in a given culture entails practicing respect and recognition of traditions. Moreover, people whose culture is short-term oriented value the preservation of one’s reputation and fulfillment of the social obligations. People shoes culture is long-term oriented always value virtues like perseverance, patience and ordering of associations based on their status. It is vital to note that a low degree index score implies the short-term orientation of the particular culture while a high one shows the long-term orientation of the given society. 

With the current score of 51, Britain has no dominant orientation between the short-term and long-term in its culture (Hofstede, n.d). Therefore, it can be concluded that the British culture is both short-term and long-term oriented with values for the past, present and future. 

However, the United States that has a score of 26 has a culture that is short-term oriented (Hofstede, n.d). The Americans always check new information in order to find out if it is true. This character makes a lot of the American people not to be pragmatic. Moreover, many Americans hold strong views on important societal issues like abortion and gun-control. Furthermore, most businesses in America normally measure performance on short-term basis. 

How these factors impact business and trade in today's economy 

The dimensions mentioned by Hofstede have a very significant impact on international business and trade in the modern economy. The practices of the management of a specific business suited in one cultural environment may not successfully operate in another. It is, thus, vital for the modern managers and traders to understand the various dimensions of cultures around the world. The differences in national culture greatly impact on the performance of international business managers and traders. 

The factor of power distance has significant impact on the way managers relate with the subordinates in the company. One must know that effective managers who come from the high power distance are usually autocrats, who concentrate on the task (Minkov & Hofstede, 2014). These managers are very inaccessible and like enjoying the trappings of their power. In this case, the subordinates are blamed when mistakes happen. The subordinates are highly dependent on their bosses. It is evident that the power distance of a given culture affects the way corporate managers lead the organization and how the employees treat them. The culture of collectivism may impact on the employees to embrace teamwork (Moran, Abramson & Moran, 2014). An individualist worker will always want to achieve his or her goals by herself. It is also important to note that business people from nations that are masculine in nature always want to compete in the market and win against the rival firms. Organizations that have a high degree of uncertainty avoidance ensure plans are put in place to avoid risk, whereas those that have low degree of uncertainty avoidance like venturing into risky projects in order to earn windfall profits. Moreover, there is very minimal bureaucracy in business organizations that have very low degree of uncertainty avoidance. Managers who come from a long-term oriented culture are highly pragmatic in nature. 

Conclusion 

Hofstede gave an effective dimensional framework of analyzing the cultures of societies and nations, which significantly affect international business and trade. The dimensions given by Hofstede have found even more relevance in the modern economy where globalization is increasing at a very high rate hence bringing different cultures together. Corporate managers and international traders have to study this dimensional framework of assessing different national cultures in to know ways of dealing with people from different nations. 

References 

Browaeys, M. J., & Price, R. (2008).  Understanding cross-cultural management . London: Pearson education. 

Chiang, F. (2005). A critical examination of Hofstede's thesis and its application to international reward management.  The International Journal of Human Resource Management ,  16 (9), 1545-1563. 

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context.  Online readings in psychology and culture ,  2 (1), 8. 

Hofstede, G. (n.d). The United Kingdom. Itim International . Retrieved from https://geert-hofstede.com/united-kingdom.html on 14/3/17. 

Hofstede, G. (n.d). The United States of America. Itim International . Retrieved from https://geert-hofstede.com/united-states.html on 14/3/17. 

Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2011). The evolution of Hofstede's doctrine. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal ,  18 (1), 10-20. 

Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2014). A replication of Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance dimension across nationally representative samples from Europe. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management ,  14 (2), 161-171. 

Moran, R. T., Abramson, N. R., & Moran, S. V. (2014).  Managing cultural differences . Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge. 

Moseley, J. L. (2013). Understanding Cross ‐ Cultural Management. Performance Improvement ,  52 (1), 43-45. 

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.