Sino-Indian Cultural Parallels: A Comparison Using Hofstede’s Research Method
Vishwesh Sundar
As countries become more integrated economically and socially, there are greater cultural interactions between them. This is especially because globalization has made mobility of assets and people easier. Businessmen and politicians are travelling more often than ever to negotiate deals and businesses. With such higher levels of interaction, certain tools can help ease communication between parties and avoid misunderstandings. These steps include getting oneself acquainted with another culture prior to official negotiations or private meetings. Interestingly, research provides a channel for such cultural comprehension. In fact, with the availability of more data, studies on culture are becoming more scientific and reliable.
One such study on culture was design by a Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede. He developed six cultural dimensions to analyze cultures of different countries. Between 1967 and 1973, he collected data from employees of IBM and its subsidiaries for over 70 countries[1]. Initially, he studied only four components namely: i. Power Distance ii. Individualism iii. Masculinity and iv. Uncertainty Avoidance. Later, two more components namely v. Long Term Orientation and vi. Indulgence were added to his study. The relative positions of the countries were expressed in a scale between 0 and 100[2]. Although it is a very simple test administered to a certain socio-economic section of a country, it is nevertheless used by business men, academics and others to understand cultures of different countries.
This article draws a comparison between the cultures of India and China while employing Hofstede’s method of analysis. More often than not, we are born into a particular culture and take certain norms for granted. Scientific studies such as these help to demystify one’s culture and debunk stereotypes.
Considering the mammoth sized populations in India and China, the regional variations cannot be ignored. However, it must be noted that this is only an average score of the population and there will always be individual exceptions to these claims. The similarities and differences in India and Chinese cultures are explained below with the help of the Hofstede’s cultural dimension scores.
Score of India and China in different cultural dimensions
Based on the data tabled above, the two countries score similar in:
· Power Distance- “This dimension expresses the degree to which the less powerful members of a society accept and expect that power is distributed unequally.”[3]
Both countries accept hierarchy in society and do not question the power distribution. For instance, in both China and India the words of elders or superiors are often accepted and not questioned. These characteristics are also reflected in the institutional structures of the two countries. All institutions, whether public or private have clearly defined hierarchy and positions.
· Masculinity- “This dimension represents a preference in society for achievement and material rewards. Society at large is more competitive.” [4]
A Wall Street Journal article claims that Indian and Chinese millennials work for 52 hours and 48 hours respectively per week, which is higher than most countries of the world[5]. Thus, accumulation of wealth and prestige is more important than leisure and quality of life in the two countries. Hofstede argues that countries that score high on masculinity also have rigid division of roles for different genders[6]. This could also explain why women still do not represent 33% of the seats in the Indian parliament. Similarly, this applies to the fact that even today there is only a minuscule presence of women in China’s Politburo.
· Uncertainty Avoidance- “The Uncertainty Avoidance dimension expresses the degree to which the members of a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity”[7]
The score observed in the table indicates that both India and China are comfortable with broad and abstract ideas and are comfortable functioning without all rules and regulations being codified. This score becomes relevant in International Relations especially with projects such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which is often abstract and less codified. Western countries, which generally have a high score in this component, often find it hard to comprehend such projects due to a lack of paper work and institutional structures in place.
· Indulgence: “Indulgence stands for a society that allows relatively free gratification of basic and natural human drives related to enjoying life and having fun.”[8]
In other words, the freedom of expressing one’s inner feelings are not controlled in a society that score high on this trait. Success and achievement are also attributed to personal factors rather than external factors.
This component also measures the degree to which norms and rules are able to control an individual of a society. India and China are restrained societies and score about the same. A high emphasis on achievement and a low score on indulgence could result in a population which gives greater importance to work over leisure and a culture of not giving into personal pleasures.
There are many similarities in the cultures of the two countries. However, the differences in the cultures are more interesting to note.
· Individualism: This study breaks the myth of classifying both India and China in the same ‘Collectivist societies’ box. “Individualism can be defined as a preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families.”[9]
This trait of individualism also measures the emphasis given on creativity and individuality as opposed to conformity and interdependence[10]. China scores very low on this component meaning that greater emphasis is laid on conforming to the established norms and values. It seems rather ironic to emphasize on innovation and creativity in a society that is highly monitored and controlled. India, although not scoring in the upper quartile of this trait, certainly has a mix of individualism and collectivism in its culture. While being part of social groups such as family, religion and community matter to individuals, the deeds that one performs (commonly referred to as Karma) is very individualistic[11] and determines if a person attains salvation or not. Many in both India and China have started to acknowledge that such high levels of conformity affect creativity and innovation. It is promising to see that Indians are emphasizing not just creativity and innovation but frugal innovations that benefit the masses.
Hofstede also argues that Western theories of economics (Laissez Faire of Adam Smith) or psychology (Maslow’s hierarchy of needs) are built keeping the individual as the main focus[12]. These models or theories would perfectly fit Western societies, but it is important to also build indigenous models and theories to suit indigenous populations and cultures.
· Long Term Orientation (LTO): “Long term orientation stands for fostering in society pragmatic virtues oriented to future rewards.”[13]
Countries that score high on this component generally tend to look into the future, while countries that score low on this scale tend to look back in the past and focus on the present[14]. Societies with a high LTO score focus on qualities such as persistence and adaptability as opposed to a focus on qualities such as tradition and social obligations in countries that score low in this dimension.
The difference between India and China in this component can be attributed to the differences in the political systems of the two countries. In a democratic political system, such as India, governments tend to have many short term goals with a focus on the upcoming election. On the contrary, the political system of China allows leaders to have a broader and long sighted vision for the country.
Norms and rules of a society with high LTO scores are generally more fluid in comparison to countries that score low on this scale. Rules are more ‘grey’ in China and are built to suit ‘convenience’[15]. China, with a score of 87 is one of the highest scoring countries in this dimension. On the contrary, rules in India have a mix of both rigidity and flexibility, thus giving a score of 51.
These scores are just a description of cultures and are not an evaluation of, whether a culture is good or bad. It would be wrong to score a culture and give national cultures a ranking as each of them are unique and serves society a particular purpose.
In conclusion, we find that Chinese and Indian cultures are similar in the components such as Power Distance, Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance and Indulgence. While some of these traits can be generalized as ‘Asian’ traits, oversimplifying them puts us at the risk of stereotyping cultures. For instance, we notice a large gap in scores for Indian and Chinese cultures in the Individualism and LTO component. Furthermore, what is considered Asian is also evolving over time and becoming more fluid with greater interactions with people of other cultures and nationalities. Despite culture being so dynamic, learning about another country’s culture before entering negotiations or doing business can help in strengthening communications between both parties and avoid faux pas encounters.
Hofstede’s website also provides the six cultural dimensions scores for other countries: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/
[1] National Culture. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/models/national-culture/
[2] Our Models. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/models/
[3] National Culture. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/models/national-culture/
[4] Ibid.
[5] Bhattacharya, S. (2016, May 31). Indian Millennials Clock Way More Work Hours Than Their Global Competition. Retrieved April 20, 2018, from https://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2016/05/31/indian-millennials-clock-way-more-work-hours-than-their-global-competition/
[6] Hoftstede, G. (1984), “Cultural Dimensions in Management and Planning”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 1, №2, pp. 98
[7] National Culture. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/models/national-culture/
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Country Comparison. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/india/
[12] Hoftstede, G. (1984), “Cultural Dimensions in Management and Planning”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 1, №2, pp. 86
[13] 10minutes with. “10 minutes with Geert Hofstede on Long versus Short Term Orientation 01032015”. Youtube, 7 March 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ygYIGsIQ4&t=199s
[14] National Culture. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/models/national-culture/
[15] Singh, T.D. (2016, 13 August). Thakur Digvijay Singh’s Answer to What is the basic difference in work culture between India and China? Retrieved from https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-basic-difference-in-work-culture-between-India-and-China
