Table 2. Ranking of Forty Countries on Uncertainty Avoidance

*A high score means the country can be classified as one that does not like uncertainty; a lower score is associated with cultures that do not feel uncomfortable with uncertainty.

As was the case with the first value dimension, differences in uncertainty avoidance affect intercultural communication. In a classroom composed of children from weak, uncertainty-avoidance cultures we might expect to see students feeling comfortable in unstructured learning situations and students also being rewarded for innovative approaches to problem solving.

Approaches to uncertainty avoidance would also affect negotiation sessions involving members from both groups. High-uncertainty-avoidance members would most likely want to move at a rather slow pace and ask for a greater amount of detail and planning. Some older members might also feel uncomfortable with young members of the group. There would also be differences in the level of formality with which each culture would feel comfortable. Low-uncertainty-avoidance members would not become frustrated if the meeting was not highly structured. The negotiation process would see differences in the level of risk taking on each side. Americans, for example, would be willing to take a risk.

Power Distance

Hofstede and Hofstede (2005:39) describe an incident when in 1809 the nobles of Sweden invited Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, a French general who served under their enemy Napoleon, to become king of Sweden. Bernadotte accepted the offer and became King Charles XIV John (his descendants have occupied the Swedish throne to this day). When the new king was installed, he addressed the Swedish parliament in their language. His broken Swedish amused the Swedes, and they roared with laughter. Bernadotte became a victim of culture shock: never in his French upbringing and military career had he experienced subordinates who laughed at the mistakes of their superiors. Historians tell as that he had more problems adapting to the egalitarian Swedish and Norwegian mentality (he became king of Norway as well) and to his subordinates’ constitutional rights. One of the aspects in which Sweden differs from France is the way society handles inequality.

There is inequality in any society. Physical and intellectual capacities, power, wealth and status may or may not go together. In some countries inconsistencies between them are felt as problematic, while in other societies they believe it is a good thing rather than a problem. In the latter case, a high rank in one area is partly offset by a low rank in another. This process increases the size of the middle class in between those who come on top in all respects and those who lack in any kind of opportunity.

The power distance index measures the degree of inequality in society. Power distance reflects the range of answers found in various countries to the basic question of how to handle the fact that people are unequal.

The was done a survey of IBM non-managerial employees on three items:

1. Answers on the question “How frequently does the following problem occur: employees being afraid to express disagreement with their managers?” (mean score from “very frequently” to “very seldom”)

2. Subordinates’ perception of their boss’s actual decision-making style (percentage choosing the description of either autocratic or a paternalistic style, out of four possible styles plus a “none of these” alternative)

3. Subordinates’ preference for their boss’s decision-making style (percentage preferring an autocratic or a paternalistic style or, on the contrary, a style based on majority vote, but not a consultative style)

Power distance classifies cultures on a continuum of large- to small-power distance. Hofstede is talking about the distance between power and the members of a particular culture. This dimension is about the extent to which a society prefers that power in relationships and organizations is distribute unequally. Although all cultures have tendencies for both high- and low-power relationships, one orientation seems to dominate. What Hofstede discovered was that in some cultures, those who hold power and those who are affected by power are significantly far apart (high-power distance) in many ways, while in other cultures, the power holders and those affected by the power holders are significantly closer (low-power distance).

Large-Power Distance. This dimension is reflected in the values of the less powerful members of society as well as in those of the more powerful members. People in large-power-distance countries such as India, Brazil, Singapore, Greece, Venezuela, Mexico, and the Philippines (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 vertical arrangements. Social hierarchy is prevalent and institutionalizes inequality.

In the organizations within large-power-distance cultures you find a greater centralization of power, great importance placed on status and rank, a larger proportion of supervisory personnel, a rigid value system that determines the worth of each job, and the bypassing of subordinates in the decision-making process.

Small-Power Distance. Small-power-distance countries such as Austria, Finland, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, and Israel hold that inequality in society should be minimized. People in these cultures believe they are close to power and should have access to that power. To them, a hierarchy is an inequality of roles established for convenience. Subordinates consider superiors to be the same kind of people as they are, and superiors perceive their subordinates the same way. People in power, be they supervisors or government officials, often interact with their constituents and try to look less powerful than they really are. The powerful and the powerless try to live in concert.

We can observe signs of this dimension in nearly every communication setting. Within the educational context Calloway-Thomas, Cooper, and Blake offer the following summary: 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.