This session is the last dimension I watch among all six in a series and as expected it is the most easily understood one. All other dimensions got something not so intuitive or even to the contrary of daily experience, probably because the concepts have subtle difference in denotation and connotation in my country from the Netherland or the West in general. But interestingly, Power Distance has so much clearity and universality that I put it the last one to watch and only watching only once is enough to understand, while for other 5 dimensions, to be frank, I watched at least 3 times each. I am a coach to business people and I have to be careful about precison. All comments are beautiful, and I think in the disguise of debates, all of you guys and me know what we are talking about exactly. This dimension perhhaps is the most candid and transparent dislosure of human nature in social terms.
Over 20 years ago I had a temp job in a rocket factory. As a temp, a lot of my non-temp coworkers could bounce things off me without fear of repercussions. I had not yet discovered the concept of power distance. Thus I had no problem going into the manager's office and telling him my opinion. I think the reason he kept me as a temp was that he found it amusing, that there was someone who did not fear being fired or demoted. I also didn't do it very often.
how exciting to see Hofstede in youtube！ I can see the wisdom from his words and his eyes. Knowledge is for you to understand society today as well as the relationship between countries, even I firstly totally agree with him that the stability of the PDI score even though it changes with the ages but all the countries are changing at the same time. How impressive! However, I began to have my own concern, since the development of the country is not the same for the last 30 years, why the position of the country in PDI would not change??
Professor Hofstede, you say that power distance exists "to the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. So the power distance lies with the people at the bottom and not the people at the bottom." I think this is a most valuable concept but that it needs care in order to avoid confusion. I recently had an exchange with someone who was saying that the dynamic of power distance is created by less powerful people. Pressed for an example, she offered villages in India. I replied that, having lived for a time in India, I know that upper caste people in India are frequently brutal and violent in India if they feel lower caste people do not respect their superiority. Throughout the world, powerful people have sophisticated means to punish, even terrorize, less powerful people who do not accept the system. Listening carefully now to your presentation, I note that you say a society has high power distance to the extent that less powerful people expect and accept unequal power distribution. So I note that here you refer to their acceptance as an indicator, not as a cause. With that wording I have no quarrel. But I think it would be good to leave no room for the kind of confusion reflected by the woman I describe above. High power inequality is actively maintained by high power people in most settings; they move to reinforce their power whenever they feel it is truly threatened. Less powerful people are often either too intimidated, or too brainwashed, or too exhausted by the daily struggle to survive, to resist. And tragically, of course, many accept the worldview and cosmology of the powerful, accept that they are undeserving of better, and that this is the way things should be. I think it is of utmost important to present your insightful theory in a way that does not suggest that power distance is a creation of or the "fault of" low power people. It is created and actively, often violently maintained by high power people, and it continues with the ongoing acceptance of low power people. Yet even they typically believe that in the next life things will be better; that there they themselves will enjoy the things the powerful today enjoy. This suggests to me that, at some deep level, even the most quiescent and passive victims of low power do not fully accept their status. They simply think the time is not yet here for them to be lifted up.
I think you clarification is absolutely correct Ron. Hofstede also points the phenomenon of revolutions simply replacing the power at the top. This happens, in my opinion, often because the levers and mechanisms whereby the powerful dominate the weak simply pass into new hands. And this is consistent with your explanation.
For a person which is living in a high power distance society, Morocco to be more specific, I totally agree with you. In our country, we still live under the royal system. Whereas the king is one of the wealthiest people in the world, while people still live in really bad conditions, our educational system is really poor, and the Total daily income is measured to be under 2 dollars. now when people try to stand up to change the situation and ask for equality, people in power and even people at the bottom, which I consider to be illiterate, accuse us of treason. our government succeeded in manipulating people to think that in the south Sahara there is a group of terrorists called Polisario, who are trying to destroy our country; and that we should come together and forget our differences in order to defeat them. These claims made people think that any revolution against the system is a move by this group of terrorists to take over our country. Thus, we have a lot of intellectuals and innocent people behind bars. I guess my country is the biggest example of how people in power maintain that notion power distance.
Just to mention something Hofsted have noticed , is that the larger power distance a country embodies . The more revolutions will be . In coutries such as morocco which i consider is one of the larger power distance countries , political systems don't even change using the maintained power of social class. There is a high social stratification . However , we're known only as a startum .
Great investigation It's exactly what happens in Colombia, since kids we are told " Because I'm you mum/dad and we grew up believing that submission means respect It trespasses culture, work and politics, anyone in a bit of power abuses it and anyone in the bottom is too scared as thinking different is dangerous. That was the beginning of guerrillas, really smart people, fed up and never heard went into revolution, creating a new problem
High power index: more income in equality A smaller middle class, larger lower class Power should be legitimate has the trias politica Aggressive political conflict Need a revolution to change, but the system rarely change Business executives tend to be older Innovation comes about if the hierarchy supports it
A very interesting fact about the UK, where I live, is that power distance is actually smaller with middle-class people, and is higher with working-class people, which is the opposite of what you might expect. Also it's different to what is the case in most other countries. But this is what I would have expected myself: working-class people in the UK are far more likely to "boss people around" if they get an opportunity to do so. Middle-class people would view it as vulgar to do so on a regular basis, although some of them may do it occasionally.
meaning of hierarchy? 2. What is a high power distance culture? Does this apply to your culture? Explain with an example to illustrate it applies or not. 3. What is a low power distance culture? Does this apply to your culture? Explain with an example to illustrate it applies or not. Can you answer this for me
A high power distance refers to the idea that those considered subordinate do not feel authorized to question- let alone challenge- the authority of their "superiors." I would assume that generally military regimes operate with a high power distance; meaning that new recruits and infantry would defer entirely to the instruction of those above then within their hierarchy. Alternatively, an organization with a low power distance would recognize and integrate the input and preferences of its members more equitably. A co-op might serve as an example with this sort of dynamic.
How is "power distance" quantified? Where does GH get his world results? It sounds too general to be a legitimate form of scientific research. There's a lotta play in his definitions. A more precise example would be helpful. Michel Foucault wrote a great deal about power, Is there a comparison between MF and GH?
Michel Foucault and Geert Hofstede do not bite, but they work at different levels of analysis. Foucault zooms in much more. Your qualification of general as unlegitimate I do not share. It is the case that you only see the general from a large distance. So you can use Hofstede to compare issues around status and power across societies. I have not attempted to do a 'cross-cultural applications' reading of Foucault, but it would be really interesting.
His research is probably the most legitimate form of scientific research you could possibly hope for. He's been doing it for around 50 years using the best quality information.
Learning so much! Tod bless you, sir. Jesus loves you.I must tell you the good message: Believe in Jesus Christ and the whole good message found in the bible about Him dying on the cross for your sins and can forgive you all your sins. Believe in Him and you will live forever with Jesus and not perish. If you believe in Him and His resurrecton from the dead, you will be forgiven and be given new LIFE in Christ Jesus. If you don't believe in Him, you will remain and die in your sins. The ending consequence of that is to perish and be punished in hell for those who don't believe in Jesus. Hell was made for satan and demons, but Adam and Eve decided to belong to the lie instead of the TRUTH a long time ago. You and I were born of Adam, but if you believe in Jesus, you will be "born again". And you will be saved. You will belong to the TRUTH, WHO is Jesus , and you will never die. Adam dies, but Jesus rose from the dead! If y ou believe in Him, your Spirit will be reborn and will one day receive a new eternal body, too! Choose Christ! Don't die in your sins and remain under the wrath of God almighty! Receive HIs mercy!
Professor Hofstede, you say that power distance exists "to the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. So the power distance lies with the people at the bottom and not the people at the bottom." I think this is a most valuable concept but that it needs care in order to avoid confusion. I recently had an exchange with someone who was saying that the dynamic of power distance is created by less powerful people. Pressed for an example, she offered villages in India. I replied that, having lived for a time in India, I know that upper caste people in India are frequently brutal and violent in India if they feel lower caste people do not respect their superiority. Throughout the world, powerful people have sophisticated means to punish, even terrorize, less powerful people who do not accept the system. Listening carefully now to your presentation, I note that you say a society has high power distance to the extent that less powerful people expect and accept unequal power distribution. So I note that here you refer to their acceptance as an indicator, not as a cause. With that wording I have no quarrel. But I think it would be good to leave no room for the kind of confusion reflected by the woman I describe above. High power inequality is actively maintained by high power people in most settings; they move to reinforce their power whenever they feel it is truly threatened. Less powerful people are often either too intimidated, or too brainwashed, or too exhausted by the daily struggle to survive, to resist. And tragically, of course, many accept the worldview and cosmology of the powerful, accept that they are undeserving of better, and that this is the way things should be. I think it is of utmost important to present your insightful theory in a way that does not suggest that power distance is a creation of or the "fault of" low power people. It is created and actively, often violently maintained by high power people, and it continues with the ongoing acceptance of low power people. Yet even they typically believe that in the next life things will be better; that there they themselves will enjoy the things the powerful today enjoy. This suggests to me that, at some deep level, even the most quiescent and passive victims of low power do not fully accept their status. They simply think the time is not yet here for them to be lifted up.
It has nothing to do with cast system, rules are same for everyone in India , but in any government or private office superiors always treat lower ones terribly, they do not consider them equally , and even in India rules are different sometimes for them
