Cultural comparison in services
The Hofstede model and service design
In order to design services that are more adapted to (and take into account) culturally accepted values and local rituals, it is necessary to evaluate existing culture present within the group of people you are designing your service for.
Are there any models we could use to evaluate and adapt service experiences to locally present cultural values?
In this article we will take a closer look at the Hofstede model of cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1984, 2003) and its potential use to analyze and compare services amongst different sets of groups of people. The idea is that by exploring different cultural dimensions we could more easily adapt existing services to better accommodate for the groups of people using them.
The Hofstede model
Geert Hofstede, who defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind distinguishing the members of one group or category of people from others”, developed a model consisting of 6 different dimensions that can be used to distinguish countries from each other. Taking culture as a relative and fluid term, the model represents a line of thinking where culture in itself derives its meaning from the comparison of groups of people.
In the act of comparing different groups or communities of people, one can argue that there is a high amount of generalization and ignorance of the individual needs and local differences, especially when comparing nationalities or countries. It does however has the potential to serve as a base to start taking cultural values in account when for example attempting to implement a certain service model that is successful in one region, in another country or continent. Think of multinationals, unifying their service experiences globally, like Uber or Burger King. They could potentially improve their customer’s experience in every country by adapting certain parts of their service offering to take general local cultural preferences into account.
The six cultural dimensions that Hofstede developed are based on societal preferences for one state of affairs over another:
- Power distance index
The first dimension attempts to measure the way that a society is handling inequalities among people. Societies with a large power distance tend to accept a hierarchical order where every person has its place, whereas a lower power distance indicates a general strive to equalize the distribution of power. - Individualism versus collectivism
In a individualist society, people are expected to take care of just themselves and their direct families, whereas in societies that are more collectivistic individuals can expect that their relatives or other members of their specific subgroup or community look after them, in exchange for loyalty. - Masculinity versus femininity
In this dimension masculinity refers to a societal preference for achievement, assertiveness and material rewards for success. Femininity represents a preference for modesty, quality of life and cooperation. Masculinity and femininity here do not refer to male or female, according to Hofstede, but rather refers to an indication of what are considered to be “normal” behaviors and ways of thinking in a specific culture for either boys or girls. - Uncertainty avoidance index
How higher the value for uncertainty avoidance, the more uncomfortable people feel when dealing with uncertainty. In societies with a low uncertainty avoidance index, practice counts more than principles. - Long term orientation versus short term normative orientation
Societies which score high in this dimension, have a pragmatic approach when looking at the future, and encourage education as a means to prepare for it. Low scoring societies have a stronger attachment to traditions and norms that originate from the past. They tend to be more suspicious towards societal change. - Indulgence versus restraint
Indulgence points to a society allowing gratification of basic human drives in relation to enjoying life and having fun. Restraint refers to a society with strict social norms that regulate the gratification of needs.
As an example, I have made a comparison of the Hofstede scores for each country Uncommon has an office. We can see that even though for example the scores for uncertainty avoidance are very similar in comparison, there are clear differences between the three societies when it comes to power distance, long term orientation or indulgence.
Comparing services
Using the comparison model of Hofstede, we could explain some of the differences in the experience of similar services in each of the countries being compared. For example, a 2009 study (Dash, et al.) that compares service quality in banking found that high power distance customers (like in Mexico) find tangible service attributes more important. Customers low on power distance (like in Argentina) expect highly responsive and reliable service. Also, customers who score high on individualism expect lower empathy and assurance from service providers. So, in conclusion we could say that when designing a banking service in Mexico, you should aim to make it empathetic and make sure to include tangible attributes, whereas in Argentina a service that is focused on being reliable and responsive would be better appreciated.
Another example is related to the long term orientation dimension. As we can see Spain scores higher (48) than both Mexico (24) and Argentina (20). This means that in general in Mexico and Argentina people tend to have only a small propensity to save for the future. This could partially explain the low amounts of formal savings accounts in Mexico (among many other reasons), and the apparent ubiquity of (credit) payment plans for many consumer products in both Mexico and Argentina.
Now while the Hofstede cultural comparison model should be used with care and is not always suitable to predict or correctly define actual preferences (for example the individualism-collectivism dimension has been questioned — with Sinha and Tripathi (1994) arguing that strong individualistic and collectivistic orientations may coexist in the same culture), it forms an interesting tool for service designers aiming to design services that are more culturally sensitive. Analysis of an existing service customer’s scores or the creation of new services taking into account the values of the target group could in theory result in improved service experiences, especially when copying and adapting global service models.
Some alternative comparison models that also intent to capture cultural dimensions are GLOBE, the Inglehart-Welzel cultural map, the World Values Survey, Kluckholn, Trompenaars, and the Lewis Model.
Now that we took a closer look at the Hofstede model and possible ways to use it to design culturally more acceptable services, the question remains how to find a model that can specifically map the cultures of groups or communities of people to design for (not only in terms of differences in nationality). How can we adapt the existing comparative cultural models to make it a logical fit within the discipline and existing methodologies of service design?
