Power distance

Another cultural value dimension revealed by Hofstede’s research is power distance, which classifies cultures on a continuum of high and low power distance (Some scholars use the terms “large” and “small” power distance). Power distance is concerned with how societies manage “the fact that people are unequal” [49]. The concept is defined as, “the extent in which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally” [50].

In this sense, institution refers to family, school, and community, while organizations represent places of employment. The premise of the dimension deals with the extent to which a society prefers that power in relationships, institutions, and organizations be distributed equally or unequally. Although all cultures have tendencies toward both high and low power distance relationships, one orientation seems to dominate.

High Power Distance

“Individuals from high power distance cultures accept power as part of society. As such, superiors consider their subordinates to be different from themselves and vice versa” [51]. People in high power distance countries (see Table 3) believe that power and authority are facts of life. Both consciously and unconsciously, these cultures teach their members that people are not equal in this world and that everybody has a rightful place, which is clearly marked by countless societal hierarchies. In organizations in high power distance cultures, you find a greater centralization of power, more recognition and use of rank and status, and adherence to established lines of authority.

Low Power Distance

Low power distance countries hold that inequality in society should be minimized. “Cultures referred to as ‘low power distance’ are guided by laws, norms, and everyday behaviors that make power distinctions as minimal as possible” [52]. Subordinates and superiors consider each other as equals. People in power, be they supervisors, managers, or government officials, often interact with their constituents and try to look less powerful than they really are. We can observe signs of this dimension in nearly every communication setting, and the following provides an example from the educational context.

In large power distance societies, the educational process is teacher centered.

The teacher initiates all communication, outlines the path of learning students should follow, and is never publicly criticized or contradicted. In large power distance societies, the emphasis is on the personal “wisdom” of the teacher, while in small power distance societies the emphasis is on impersonal “truth” that can be obtained by any competent person [53].

In low power distance work centers, you might observe decisions being shared, subordinates being consulted, bosses relying on support teams, and status symbols being kept to a minimum [54].

TABLE 3. Power Distance Values for Fifty Countries and Three Regions

RANK COUNTRY RANK COUNTRY RANK COUNTRY

1 Malaysia 18/19 Turkey 37 Jamaica

2/3 Guatemala 20 Belgium 38 United States

2/3 Panama 21~23 East Africa 39 Canada

4 Philippines 21~23 Peru 40 Netherlands

5/6 Mexico 21~23 Thailand 41 Australia

5/6 Venezuela 24/25 Chile 42~44 Costa Rica

7 Arab countries 24/25 Portugal 42~44 Germany

8/9 Ecuador 26 Uruguay 42~44 Great Britain

8/9 Indonesia 27/28 Greece 45 Switzerland

10/11 India 27/28 South Korea 46 Finland

10/11 West Africa 29/30 Iran 47/48 Norway

12 Yugoslavia 29/30 Taiwan 47/48 Sweden

13 Singapore 31 Spain 49 Ireland

14 Brazil 32 Pakistan 50 New Zealand

15/16 France 33 Japan 51 Denmark

15/16 Hong Kong 34 Italy 52 Israel

17 Colombia 35/36 Argentina 53 Austria

18/19 El Salvador 35/36 South Africa

The lower the number, the more the country can be classified as a high power distance culture; a

higher number is associated with countries that have low power distance culture. Source: Adapted

from G. Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations

Across Nations, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2001).