1

Cultural Dimensions: An Insight into Philippine Dysfunction Culture, in the practical sense in which most people understand it, is the unique combination of attributes that make a particular group of people a definable entity. The noted Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede explains it in more exacting terms: “Our shared human nature is intensely social: we are group animals. We use language and empathy, and practice collaboration and intergroup competition. But the unwritten rules of how we do these things differ from one human group to another. ‘Culture’ is what we call these unwritten rules

about how to be a good member of the group. Culture provides moral standards about how to be an upstanding group member; it defines the group as a ‘moral circle.’ It inspires symbols, heroes, rituals, laws, religions, taboos, and all kinds of practices - but its core is hidden in unconscious values.”

The old anthropological notion of cultural relativism holds that “all cultures are valid,” and so no culture can necessarily be judged as “good” or “bad,” but simply as “different.” From this point of view, our perception of flaws in the Philippine culture that prevent the country from effectively developing and prospering is formed from erroneously comparing the culture to others – apples to oranges. The Filipinos who get hopping mad when Adam Carolla points out – crudely, but nonetheless accurately – certain cultural flaws, or who take to the streets to defend their table manners are (though they most likely don’t know it) expressing the relativist point of view. The problem with relativism, according to one of the idea’s most formidable critics, Professor Renato Rosaldo of Santa Clara University, is that “...the idea of separate but equal cultures no longer seems accurate. Cultures are not separate; they are not confined to their own individual museum cases. They exist side by side in the same space.” Cultural definitions, therefore, are only relevant in terms of comparisons to different cultures. That is a bit of a problem as well; just as strict relativism is not a rational way to view culture, neither is its polar opposite, universalism – there is not, after all, such a thing as an “ideal” culture against which all others can be judged, yet cultural judgments are unavoidable. The culture examining itself must understand the components of the “recipe of attributes” that make it what it is, and which of those may be out of proportion to the

2

others to cause the social ills it suffers. Externally, cultures must have a common framework with which to understand each others’ makeup so they can productively interact. It is this latter requirement which led Hofstede to conceptualize his Cultural Dimensions in the mid-1970’s. Hofstede was the founder and first director of IBM’s Department of Personnel Research in Europe, and took a scholarly interest in how culture affected the workplace, in particular in the conduct of international business. His Cultural Dimensions framework, which evolved into its current form with the publication of his book Cultural Consequences in 2000, defines culture in terms of five dimensions: Power Distance Index (PDI): The Power Distance Index is an expression of the degree to which the subordinate and less-powerful members of organizations and institutions (in any scale of social unit from the society as a whole to the family) in a culture accept that power is distributed unequally. It is in that sense a “bottom-up” definition of inequality – a description of how much inequality is endorsed by the “followers” rather than how much it is imposed by the “leaders.” Individualism (IDV): Individualism has its opposite in collectivism, and describes the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. The measure is inverse; the higher the score for ‘individualism’, the less integrated and group-oriented the culture is. As Hofstede explains,

“On the individualist side we find societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) which continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.”

The word ‘collectivism’ in this usage is a social rather than a political description, although the two sometimes coexist (such as in China, for example). Masculinity (MAS): Masculinity is a way in which to generalize gender roles in society. In Hofstede’s original studies he determined that women’s values differed much less than men’s values from one culture to another, and that men’s values in any particular culture could be described in terms of a point along a continuum from being very dominant, assertive, and competitive (very male, in other words) to being modest, caring, and nurturing (very female). The degree of Masculinity describes the distance of the culture as a whole from the very female end of the continuum; the higher the score, the more Masculine the culture is.

Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI): The Uncertainty Avoidance Index is a description of how strongly the culture seeks to avoid uncertainty and ambiguity; in Hofstede’s words, it “ultimately refers to man's search for Truth.” Another way to describe the Uncertainty Avoidance Index is as a degree to which a culture “programs” its members to be

3

uncomfortable in new or unstructured situations. For example, a culture with strong uncertainty avoidance tends to be one which is strongly religious, and adheres to a rigid body of laws, rules, and social conventions. In anthropological terms, high uncertainty avoidance is more universalist and intolerant, and low uncertainty avoidance, or the acceptance of a higher degree of uncertainty, is more relativist and tolerant. Long-Term Orientation (LTO): Long-Term Orientation is a dimension that Hofstede added later to his framework, after he had included more Asian cultures in his studies. It is drawn from the Confucian philosophy, but is nevertheless applicable to cultures without a Confucian heritage; the easiest way to understand it is as a description of a culture’s perception of Virtue. As Hofstede explains, “Values associated with Long Term Orientation are thrift and perseverance; values associated with Short Term Orientation are respect for tradition, fulfilling social obligations, and protecting one’s ‘face’.” Although Hofstede himself doesn’t draw the conclusion, his data suggests that a Long-Term Orientation represents a more Eastern outlook, while Western cultures have a comparatively shorter-term orientation.

The application of the framework in business is obvious – as well it should be, since that is the use Hofstede originally intended for it. Understanding the differences between cultures is critical; an American businessman accustomed to the highly-individualized, short-term orientation of his own culture will be thoroughly stymied if he tries to rely on those modes of interaction with an Asian counterpart. Most good businessmen know this, of course, at least on an abstract level, but what the Cultural Dimensions framework provides is a consistent basis of comparison for all cultures so the degree of differences can be conceptualized and specific behaviors identified with particular dimensions. The framework is universalist in the respect that it is intended as tool to help people of different cultures find common terms of reference, but relativist in the sense that there is no ‘baseline,’ or

ideal from which the dimensions are expressions of a deviation. There is a “world average,” and a strict universalist might consider this a sort of ideal, but it is provided by Hofstede as a statistical comparison rather than as a suggestion of a “perfect” culture.

4

So How Does the Cultural Dimensions Framework Help the Philippines?

The Cultural Dimensions framework is an example of what J.M. Balkin in his book Cultural Software calls a “toolmaking tool”: by itself it cannot be used to repair the specific behaviors and habits that represent cultural flaws, but it can be used to build the tools to do so. As a simple example, consider what the Cultural Dimensions framework reveals when applied to what is often a cultural shortcoming for Filipinos – the convoluted social mechanism of reciprocity or social debt called utang na loob. The respect for tradition, social obligations, and maintaining “face” that are components of utang na loob are signs of the Pinoy culture’s distinct Short-Term Orientation. Utang na loob also reveals, at least in some ways, the culture’s high Power Distribution Index – meaning that social inequality is accepted and expected by those in inferior social positions. The almost taboo-level of acceptance of the concept of utang na loob – the idea of willfully violating it is anathema to most Filipinos – reflects a high level of conformity (pakikisama) and a low measure of Individuality.

These characteristics are not necessarily bad or unproductive on their own. In Balkin-esque terms, they represent parts of the ‘operating system’ of Pinoy culture. In certain social contexts, however, they can and often do have negative consequences; in other words, the ‘operating system’ is trying to run programs that do not suit its design. We often see this in business or in politics, where people earn positions not with their talents or competencies for the job, but based on their personal connections and favors owed. Understanding that the root causes of the inevitable poor results lie not in the actions of people in the wrong positions but in the fundamental make-up of the culture is what the Cultural Dimensions allow us to do, and with that understanding, real and positive changes can be made.

That may be an uncomfortable notion for some to accept. After all, if the fundamental dimensions of what makes the culture “Filipino” are changed, the result may likely be something which is “no longer Filipino.” Unfortunately, there is no comfort that can be offered on that account. Cultures do change; the ones that are successful are those that are able to periodically redefine themselves. At the very least, the Cultural Dimensions offer the Philippines a starting point, and a clear definition, for good or ill, of what “Filipino” really means. All the people need to find is a reason to change, and the courage to do so.

Further Reading: Balkin, J.M. (1998) Cultural Software. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Hofstede, Geert. (2001) Cultural Consequences, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Rosaldo, Renato. (2000) “Of Headhunters and Soldiers: Separating Cultural and Ethical Relativism”. Issues in Ethics, Vol. 11, No. 1.

5

About the Author:

Ben Kritz is a management and business process consultant, and the publisher of GR Business Online.

© 2011, Ben Kritz. All rights reserved.