A Critique of Hofstede’s 6-D Model from a UX perspective
Invented by the Dutch social psychologist, organizational anthropologist and IBM employee Geert Hofstede, the 6-Dimension National Culture Model(originally only 4 dimensions, with 2 more added in 1991 and 2010) has been adopted by businesses as the framework for international research and reference for management decisions since it was first published in the 1980s.
The Hofstede model treats each nation-state as a collective cultural entity, the predominant characteristics of which guide and explain the mental tendencies of the individual constituents of the society. There have been a total of 6 bi-polar dimensions quantified on a scale of 0 to 100, calculated based on data collected from IBM employees in IBM subsidiaries across the world:
- Power Distance: the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.
- Uncertainty Avoidance: intolerance
for uncertainty and ambiguity. - Individualism versus Collectivism: the extent to which
individuals are integrated into groups. - Masculinity versus Femininity: assertiveness and
competitiveness versus modesty and caring. - Long Term Orientation versus Short Term Orientation: the emphasis a culture places on time-honored traditions and entrenched norms.
- Indulgence versus Restraint: gratification of pleasure and natural human drives versus restrictions of them by strict social norms
While it may be convenient to operationalize cultures by Hofstede’s dimensions to gain general insights pertaining to variations of business practices (as vague as “practices” appear to be) internationally, many scholars in the past have challenged the model on the ground of the validity of its research methodology. In this article, I will focus on the dangers of applying the model as is to the world of international user experience design and research, especially as the field marches towards a greater emphasis on personalization and inclusivity. In the following section, I will point out some of the limitations and implications of the model in the context of UX discipline.
1. Small sample size and assumption of cultural homogeneity:
Hofstede collected his primary data via the two rounds of surveys distributed from 1968 to 1971 to IBM employees, which had a total of fewer than 200 respondents in 15 countries, and fewer than 1000 in 34 countries (Hofstede, 1980), calling into question the representativeness of the sampled population.
One assumption the proclaimed representativeness rests on is cultural homogeneity, which flies in the face of any country characterized by rigorous subcultures, diverse ethnic groups and spatially scattered territory.
The complex and ever-changing group dynamics would not lend itself to the broad-stroked characterization afforded by Hofstede’s model. For example, Indonesia itself has 633 recognized ethnic groups spread across about 6000 islands. A Chinese Javanese Muslim community would perhaps get a different rating on Indulgence than a Minahasan Christian community that has been heavily influenced by the Dutch colonists. And yet both of them exist in Indonesia.
So what does it say about incorporating the averaged Indulgence index of Indonesia in Hofstede’s model into user research to inform the design of a short-video streaming app targeting both groups? The results would be misleading, at least to me.
If user experience professionals solely operate on the statistical averages of the scores derived from a small population in Indonesia when they try to push for viral adoption of their product, it would risk leaving out or underestimating the consumption potential of user segments with located close to both ends of the distribution instead of its midpoint.
2. Differences in abilities are not in the picture
Even for countries with a high degree of homogeneity in its broad sense (thinking South Korea, where more than 99% of the population self-identify as ethnically Korean and 81.8% of them inhabit urban areas), the differences in people’s abilities at both situational and clinical levels when it comes to interacting with technology solutions persist. And those differences are left out by the model.
As primary functional needs have been addressed by the proliferation of mature design solutions, the degree of customization that takes into account the widest range of scenarios and abilities increasingly becomes a differentiating marker of customer and business success.
It is in this context that the UX world demands nuanced understandings of how people with different abilities interact with their devices and with each other, how they tend to perceive and be perceived.
Granted, one may argue that Hofstede’s model may inform what socially acceptable interactions might look like by suggesting how differences in abilities are expected to play out in different cultural contexts. For example, an understanding of, say, how much a Chinese community uphold “collectivistic” versus “individualistic” values in its work settings would help design assistive devices that better fit with the interdependency norms of said community.
However, Hofstede’s use of a deterministic model of permanently programmed values from childhood and adolescence cannot be straight mapped onto the complex interactions that people with varying levels of able-ness encounter in different stages of their lives.
It is only with in-depth qualitative insights and patient field observations rather than merely short-term quantitative surveying can we uncover the social expectations and psychological realities surrounding those subtle and less-spoken-about scenarios.
3. The co-existence of contradictory notions is ruled out
Hofstede’s model, by locating each country on a fixed place of the bi-polar scales, posits the incompatibility of the two contrasting poles. However, those values may be placed in a dynamically evolving, symbiotic relationship instead of a clean-cut dichotomy.
Yes, we are self-contradictory beings — Neo-Freudian psychoanalyst Karen Horney believes that our inner conflicts are the driving forces of neuroses as we are torn between the needs to move towards, against and away from people. Behaviorist Leon Festinger after her invented the concept of cognitive dissonance to shed light on the inconsistencies in one’s actions, beliefs and ideas. Someone who publicly denounces tyranny and advocates for flat hierarchy may secretly enjoy the feeling of being in total power. The Japanese cultural motif of delicate cherry blossoms may fit well with the relentless and grotesque aggression committed to expanding its presence. In the meantime, Psychological Anthropology cautions that the variations within groups outweigh those across group and adopts an individual-centered and phenomenological perspective. And so on and so forth.
The idea is that different disciplines have strived to approach those contradictions differently. So, how, in the field of UX, do we make sense of all these?
Perhaps what’s more useful than applying overarching national values to understand users’ psychological processes is zooming in on how our target user communities have or have not reconciled their inner contradictions to achieve unity.
With methodological validity, the contradictions identified might reveal interesting patterns of cultural and psychological tension that inspire design features.
What are our users’ underlying motivations and what new opportunities lie ahead that can help them reconcile contradictory motivations?
When users seek both “Indulgence” — dopamine boost offered by instant gratification — and “restraint” — a more profound sense of fulfillment — that is at odds with the former from the digital product they use, how can we, as architects of their experiences, find the sweet spot that provides a customizable balance? Like Anthropologist Margaret Mead aptly summarized, what people say, what people do and what they say they do are three different things, capturing and interpreting those differences would be on the shoulder of UX professionals.
With all that is being said, Hofstede’s model may provide some good points of departure for designers and researchers to conceptualize different realms of cultural patterns regulating our everyday lives (assuming that a proper understanding of each index and the methods used to arrive at it have been achieved, which is another different story). However, chances are it may engender more misleading assumptions than applicable insights if relied on solely as design guidelines.
In today’s world, when personalization, accessibility, and strategies to ease seemingly contradictory user needs become key differentiators of product experiences, we need other frameworks in our toolkit to make progress.
