Long- and short-term orientation

Over the years, Hofstede’s work has been widely critiqued, and one major complaint concerned the Western bias which influenced data collection [62]. To resolve this problem, Hofstede offered a new dimension called long- versus short-term orientation, also referred to as “Confucian work dynamism.”63 Identification of this dimension came from a study of 23 countries using an assessment called the Chinese Value Survey (CVS) developed from values suggested by Chinese scholars [64].

While admitting that Westerners might find this fifth orientation perplexing, Hofstede originally linked the dimension to Confucianism, because it appeared “to be based on items reminiscent of the teachings of Confucius, on both poles” [65]. Recognizing the inherent weakness of basing the dimension on data from only 23 nations, Minkov and Hofstede drew on World Values Survey (WVS)66 data to replicate and extend the study to 38 nations [67]. Reporting the results of their analysis in late 2010, the two researchers disclosed, “China and other East Asian countries tended to score high on the dimension, suggesting a long-term orientation. Continental European countries had average scores, whereas Anglo, African, and South Asian countries had low scores, suggestive of a short-term orientation” [68]. The research was subsequently extended to encompass 93 countries, and the dimension was recently defined as follows:

Long-term orientation stands for the fostering of virtues oriented toward future rewards  in particular, perseverance and thrift. Its opposite pole, short-term orientation, stands for the fostering of virtues related to the past and present—in particular, respect for tradition, preservation of “face,” and fulfilling social obligations [69].

After identifying high scores among some East European nations, Hofstede and his colleagues no longer consider the dimension’s association with Confucianism to be appropriate. Rather, they now see the long-term/short-term orientation to be “a universal dimension of national culture, underpinned by concepts that are meaningful across the whole world ” [70].

You might easily envision how these patterns could influence communication in a business context. Corporate organizations in cultures that rank high on the long-term orientation scale, such as in China and South Korea, would be characterized by a focus on obtaining market share, rewarding employees based on organizational loyalty, strong interpersonal connections, situational ethics, adaptability, and self-discipline. Leisure time would not be a central concern. In contrast, organizations possessing a short-term orientation, like those in Mexico, the U.S., and Egypt, would emphasize short-term profits, use merit to reward employees, experience transient organizational loyalty, and consider ethics to be based on a set of universal principles. Personal freedom and leisure time would be a significant value [71].

Indulgence/restraint

Using World Values Survey data from 93 nations/regions, Michael Minkov, a Bulgarian academic, recently disclosed a sixth dimension, termed indulgence versus restraint. This is defined as, “Indulgence stands for a tendency to allow relatively free gratification of basic and natural human desires related to enjoying life and having fun. Its opposite pole, restraint, reflects a conviction that such gratification needs to be curbed and regulated by strict social norms” [72]. As used in this sense, gratification refers to overall enjoyment of life.

In an indulgent society, people will place a priority on their sense of freedom and personal enjoyment through leisure time and interacting with friends. Consumption and spending would take precedence over fiscal restraint. In contrast, members of a restrained society would feel they had less freedom to enjoy themselves, consider frugality to be important, and that social order and discipline were more important than individual freedoms. In indulgent cultures, individuals are encouraged and expected to smile at everyone, but in a restrained culture, receiving a smile from a stranger would be viewed with suspicion (see Table 5). Looking at Table 6, think for a moment how someone from a culture with a strong sense of restraint, like Russia, may react to the typical greetings from waitstaff in a U.S. restaurant.

TABLE 5. Selected Characteristics of Indulgent and Restrained Cultures

INDULGENT CULTURE Thrift unimportant • Moral discipline relaxed • Positive attitude prevalent • Optimism prevalent • Relaxed gender roles • Smiling a norm • Freedom of speech primary value • Maintaining national order secondary concern

RESTRAINED CULTURE • Thrift important • Moral discipline observed • Cynicism prevalent • Pessimism prevalent • Defined gender roles • Smiling considered suspect • Freedom of speech secondary value • Maintaining national order primary concern

Source: Adapted from G.Hofstede, G.J. Hofstede, and M. Minkov, Cultures and Organizations:

Software of the Mind, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010).

TABLE 6. Indulgent versus Restraint Ranking for 30 of 93 Countries

RANK COUNTRY RANK COUNTRY RANK COUNTRY

1 Venezuela 36 Greece 67/69 Czech Republic

2 Mexico 37/38 Taiwan 67/69 Poland

3 Puerto Rico 37/38 Turkey 75 China

8 Sweden 44 Thailand 77/80 Russia

9 New Zealand 49/51 Philippines 77/80 Montenegro

11 Australia 49/51 Japan 77/80 Romania

15/17 Canada 49/51 Germany 77/80 Bangladesh

15/17 Netherlands 54 Iran 83/84 Hong Kong

15/17 United States 66 Italy 83/84 Iran

26 Brazil 67/69 South Korea 92 Egypt

Lower numbered countries are seen as favoring indulgent traits; a higher score denotes a

preference for restraint traits. Source: Adapted from G. Hofstede, G.J. Hofstede, and M. Minkov,

Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010).