"Power Distance"

Scientists like to measure things. Social scientists especially like to measure things that are hard to measure.

In the late 1960s a Dutch scholar by the name of Geert Hofstede took on measuring cultural difference. He ended up having over 100,000 managers at IBM worldwide fill out surveys to test how cultures differ. The result was a titanic tome called Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations.

It became an instant classic when it was first published in 1980; a second edition followed in 2001.

The framework Hofstede created from his findings has become one of only a few standards for intercultural training worldwide. He discovered four "dimensions" along which cultures vary. Years later a colleague in Hong Kong, Michael Harris Bond, discovered a fifth. The dimension we're talking about today is "power distance."

Power distance refers to a how a culture treats differences in power. Think of the power distance score as an answer to the question, "How egalitarian (or hierarchical) is this culture?" Or, "How accepted is distance between those with more power and those with less power?"

Not surprisingly, China and the U.S. come out far apart, with China near the hierarchical end, and the U.S. toward the egalitarian end (though many cultures turn out to be more egalitarian than the U.S., e.g., Denmark, New Zealand, Sweden and others).

This is a big issue for you in your dealings with Chinese people and organizations. Leaders in China are respected because they are leaders. To some extent, they are in the U.S. as well, but in the U.S. leaders tend more to be respected because of some combination of charisma and ability to produce results. If results are primary, then everyone has the right and duty to speak up, regardless of rank; if the leader is primary, you need to be more subtle and tactful in your dealings with those who outrank you.

More on the other Hofstede dimensions in future posts.