Toward The Three–Level Power Distance Concept: Expanding Geert Hofstede’s Power Distance Beyond Cross–Cultural Context

• Authors: Stępień Mateusz , Dudek Michał

Title variants

PL

W stronę trójpoziomowej koncepcji dystansu władzy: rozszerzenie dystansu władzy Geerta Hofstedego poza kontekst międzykulturowy

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Power distance is one of the most researched dimensions of culture in Geert Hofstede’s framework. The vast majority of scholars refer to power distance as though it were something self-evident. Despite the hundreds of studies conducted on the basis of power distance, to date no one has seriously tried to propose a reconceptualization of power distance. Against that background, this paper aims to redefine Hofstede’s concept of power distance. It focuses on formulating a sketch of the three-level concept of power distance that essentially refers to Hofstedian tradition, but is at the same time entangled in different ontological and epistemological assumptions on the social world. The proposed way of understanding power distance creates space for, among other things, a more interactionfocused study on power dynamics in various settings. It also provides the possibility of formulating completely new hypotheses concerning psychological and sociological dimensions of exercising power.

PL

Dystans władzy jest jednym z najczęściej badanych wymiarów kultury w podejściu Geerta Hofstedego. Jednak zdecydowana większość badaczy odnosi się do dystansu władzy jak do czegoś oczywistego. Pomimo setek badań nad dystansem władzy, do tej pory nikt nie próbował dokonać rekonceptualizacji tej koncepcji. Na tym tle w niniejszy artykule zaproponowano nowe rozumienie dystansu władzy. Wywód koncentruje się na sformułowaniu zarysu trójpoziomowej koncepcji dystansu władzy, która zasadniczo nawiązuje do tradycji Hofstedego, ale jednocześnie jest wolna od jej założeń ontologicznych i epistemologicznych dotyczących świata społecznego. Proponowany sposób rozumienia dystansu władzy stwarza przestrzeń, między innymi, do badań nad dystansem władzy skoncentrowanych na dynamice interakcyjnej w różnych warunkach. Daje także możliwość formułowania zupełnie nowych hipotez dotyczących psychologicznych i socjologicznych wymiarów władzy.

Keywords

EN

power; power distance; Hofstede

PL

władza; dystans władzy; Hofstede

• Publisher: Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Journal: Studia Socjologiczne
• Year: 2021
• Issue: 1(240)
• Pages: 61-87

Contributors

author

Stępień Mateusz

• Uniwersytet Jagielloński

author

Dudek Michał

• Uniwersytet Jagielloński

References

• Ailon, Galit. 2006. What B Would Otherwise Do: A Critique of Conceptualizations of ‘Power’ in Organizational Theory. Organization, 13, 6: 771–800. DOI: 10.1177/1350508406068504.
• Ailon, Galit. 2008. Mirror, Mirror On the Wall: Culture’s Consequences in a Value Test of its Own Design. Academy of Management Review, 33, 4: 885–904. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2008.34421995.
• Ailon, Galit. 2009. A Reply to Geert Hofstede. Academy of Management Review, 34, 3: 571–573. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2009.40633815.
• Arendt, Hannah. 1970. On Violence. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovitch.
• Baskerville, Rachel F. 2003. Hofstede Never Studied Culture. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28, 1: 1–14. DOI: 10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00048-4.
• Beugelsdijk, Sjoerd, Robbert Maseland, André van Hoorn. 2015. Are Scores on Hofstede’s Dimensions of National Culture Stable Over Time? Global Strategy Journal, 5, 3: 223–240. DOI: 10.1002/gsj.1098.
• Beugelsdijk, Sjoerd, Tatiana Kostova, Kendall Roth. 2017. An Overview of Hofstede–inspired Country Level Culture Research in International Business Since 2006. Journal of International Business Studies. 48, 1: 30–47. DOI: 10.1057/s41267-016-0038-8.
• Bourdieu, Pierre. 1989. Social Space and Symbolic Power. Sociological Theory, 7, 1: 14–25. DOI: 10.2307/202060.
• Brewer, Paul, Sunil Venaik. 2014. The Ecological Fallacy in National Culture Research. Organization Studies, 35, 7: 1063–1086. DOI: 10.1177/0170840613517602.
• Brockner, Joel T. et al. 2001. Culture and Procedural Justice: The Influence of Power Distance on Reactions to Voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 4: 300–315. DOI: 10.1006/jesp.2000.1451.
• Chiang, Fiona. 2005. A Critical Examination of Hofstede’s Thesis and its Application to International Reward Management. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 9: 1545–1563. DOI: 10.1080/09585190500239044.
• Dahl, Robert A. 1957. The Concept of Power. Behavioral Science, 2, 3: 201–215. DOI: 10.1002/bs.3830020303.
• Devinney, Timothy M., Jan Hohberger. 2017. The Past is Prologue: Moving on from Culture’s Consequences. Journal of International Business Studies, 48, 1: 48–62. DOI: 10.1057/s41267-016-0034-z
• Dorfman, Peter W., Jon P. Howell. 1988. Dimensions of National Culture and Effective Leadership Patterns: Hofstede Revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3: 127–150.
• Dovey, Kim. 1999. Framing Places: Mediating Power in Built Form. London and New York: Routledge.
• Dudek, Michał, Mateusz Stępień. 2021. Courtroom Power Distance Dynamics. Dordrecht: Springer. (forthcoming).
• Earley, P. Christopher, Miriam Erez. 1997. The Transplanted Executive: Why You Need to Understand How Workers in Other Countries See the World Differently. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Fang, Tony. 2005. From “Onion” to “Ocean”. Paradox and Change in National Cultures. International Studies of Management & Organization, 35, 4: 71–90. DOI: 10.1080/00208825.2005.11043743.
• Forst, Rainer. 2017. Normativity and Power. Analyzing Social Orders of Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Foucault, Michel. 1981. Omnes et Singulatim: Towards a Criticism of “Political Reason”. In: S.M. McMurrin, ed. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 223–254.
• Ghosh, Apoorva. 2011. Power Distance in Organizational Contexts – A Review of Collectivist Cultures. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 47, 1: 89–101.
• Guinote, Ana. 2010. The Situated Focus Theory of Power. In: A. Guinote. T.K Vescio, eds. The Social Psychology of Power. New York: The Guilford Press, 141–173.
• Habermas, Jurgen. 1977. Hannah Arendt’s Communications Concept of Power. Social Research, 44, 1: 3–24.
• Haugaard, Mark, ed. 2002. Power: A Reader. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.
• Hayward, Clarissa Rile. 2004. De–Facing Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Hofstede, Geert. 2002. Dimensions Do Not Exist: A Reply to Brendan McSweeney. Human Relations, 55, 11: 1355–1361. DOI: 10.1177/00187267025511004.
• Hofstede, Geert. 2003. What is Culture? A Reply to Baskerville. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28: 811–813. DOI: 10.1016/S0361-3682(03)00018-7.
• Hofstede, Geert. 2006. What Did GLOBE Really Measure? Researchers’ Minds Versus Respondents’ Minds. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 6: 882–896. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400233.
• Hofstede, Geert. 2009. Who Is the Fairest of Them All? Galit Ailon’s Mirror. Academy of Management Review, 34, 3: 570–571. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2009.40633746.
• Hofstede, Geert, Gert J. Hofstede, Michael Minkov. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw–Hill.
• Kirkman, Bradley L., Kevin B. Lowe, Cristina B. Gibson. 2006. A Quarter Century of Culture’s Consequences: A Review of Empirical Research Incorporating Hofstede’s Cultural Value Framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37: 285–320. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400202.
• Kirkman, Bradley L. et al. 2009. Individual Power Distance Orientation and Follower Reactions to Transformational Leaders: A Cross–level, Cross–cultural Examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 744–764. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2009.43669971.
• Kwek, Dennis. 2003. Decolonizing and Re–presenting Culture’s Consequences: A Postcolonial Critique of Cross–cultural Studies in Management. In: A. Prasad, ed. Postcolonial Theory and Organizational Analysis: A Critical Engagement. Palgrave Macmillan: New York, 121–146.
• Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor–Network–Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Luhmann, Niklas. 2017. Trust and Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Ly, Annelise. 2013. A Critical Discussion of Hofstede’s Concept of Power Distance, SYNAPS, 28: 51–66.
• Markus, Thomas A. 1993. Buildings and Power: Freedom and Control in the Origin of Modern Building Types. London and New York: Routledge.
• Maznevski, Martha L. et al. 2002. Cultural Dimensions at the Individual Level of Analysis: The Cultural Orientations Framework. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2, 3: 275–295. DOI: 10.1177/147059580223001.
• McSweeney, Brendan. 2002a. Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and Their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith – A Failure of Analysis. Human Relations, 55, 1: 89–118. DOI: 10.1177/0018726702551004.
• McSweeney, Brendan. 2002b. The Essentials of Scholarship: A Reply to Geert Hofstede. Human Relations, 55, 11: 1363–1372. DOI: 10.1177/0018726702055011922.
• McSweeney, Brendan. 2009. Dynamic Diversity: Variety and Variation Within Countries. Organization Studies, 30, 9: 933–957. DOI: 10.1177/0170840609338983.
• McSweeney, Brendan, Donna Brown, Stravroula Iliopoulou. 2016. Claiming Too Much, Delivering Too Little: Testing Some of Hofstede’s Generalisations. The Irish Journal of Management, 35, 1: 34–57. DOI: 10.1515/ijm-2016-0003.
• Minkov, Michael, Geert Hofstede. 2011. The Evolution of Hofstede’s Doctrine. Cross Cultural Management, 18, 1: 10–20. DOI: 10.1108/13527601111104269.
• Minkov, Michael. 2018. A Revision of Hofstede’s Model of National Culture: Old Evidence and New Data From 56 Countries. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 25: 231–256. DOI: 10.1108/CCSM-03-2017-0033.
• Morriss, Peter. 2002. Power: A Philosophical Analysis (2nd ed.). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
• Moulettes, Agneta. 2007. The Absence of Women’s Voices in Hofstede’s Cultural Consequences. Women in Management Review, 22, 6: 443–455. DOI: 10.1108/09649420710778682.
• Mulder, Mauk. 1977. Daily Power Game. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. Nakata, Cheryl, ed. 2009. Beyond Hofstede: Culture Frameworks for Global Marketing and Management. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Pałecki, Krzysztof. 2003. Wprowadzenie do normatywnej teorii władzy politycznej [Introduction to Normativity–centered Theory of Political Power]. In: B. Szmulik, M. Żmigrodzki, eds. Wprowadzenie do nauki o państwie i polityce [Introduction to the Science on State and Politics], 183–217. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej.
• Pałecki, Krzysztof. 2016. Wprowadzenie do dyskusji nad koncepcją opozycji politycznej [Introduction to the debate on the concept of political opposition]. Polityka i Społeczeństwo, 14, 1: 5–11. DOI: 10.15584/polispol.2016.1.1.
• Parsons, Talcott. 1957. The Distribution of Power in American Society. World Politics, 10, 1: 123–143. DOI: 10.2307/2009229.
• Parsons, Talcott. 1963. On the Concept of Political Power. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 107, 3: 232–262.
• Paulus, Trena M. et al. 2005. Power Distance and Group Dynamics of an International Project Team: A Case Study. Teaching in Higher Education, 10, 1: 43–55. DOI: 10.1080/1356251052000305525.
• Pellizzoni, Luigi. 2016. Catching Up with Things? Environmental Sociology and the Material Turn in Social Theory. Environmental Sociology, 2, 4: 312–321. DOI: 10.1080/23251042.2016.1190490.
• Phillips, Tim. 2018. The Concepts of Asymmetric and Symmetric Power Can Help Resolve the Puzzle of Altruistic and Cooperative Behaviour. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 93, 1: 457–468. DOI: 10.1111/brv.12352.
• Rapoport, Amos. 1990. The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
• Romm, Norma R.A., Cheng–Yi Hsu. 2002. Reconsidering the Exploration of Power Distance: An Active Case Study Approach. Omega, 30: 403–414. DOI: 10.1016/S0305-0483(02)00060-9.
• Spector Paul E., Cary L. Cooper, Kate Sparks. 2001. An International Study of the Psychometric Properties of the Hofstede Values Survey Module 1994: A Comparison of Individual and Country/Province Level Results. Applied Psychology, 50, 2: 269–281. DOI: 10.1111/1464-0597.00058.
• Sztompka, Piotr. 2019. O pojęciu kultury raz jeszcze [On the Concept of Culture Once Again]. Studia Socjologiczne, 1: 7–23. DOI: 10.24425/ 122488.
• Taras, Vas, Bradley L. Kirkman, Piers Steel. 2010. Examining the Impact of Culture’s Consequences: A Three–decade, Multilevel, Meta–analytic Review of Hofstede’s Cultural Value Dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 5: 405–439. DOI: 10.1037/a0018938.
• Todeva, Emanuela. 1999. Models for Comparative Analysis of Culture: The Case of Poland. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10, 4: 606–623. DOI: 10.1080/095851999340297.
• Triandis, Harry C. 1993. Collectivism and Individualism as Cultural Syndromes. Cross–Cultural Research, 27, 3–4: 155–180. DOI: 10.1177/106939719302700301.
• Tung, Rosaline L., Alain Verbeke. 2010. Beyond Hofstede and GLOBE: Improving the Quality of Cross Cultural Research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41: 1259–1274. DOI: 10.1057/jibs.2010.41.
• Tyler, Tom R., E. Allan Lind, Yuen J. Huo. 2000. Cultural Values and Authority Relations: The Psychology of Conflict Resolution Across Cultures. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6: 1138–1163. DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.6.4.1138.
• van den Bos, Kees et al. 2013. Delineating a Method to Study Cross-cultural Differences with Experimental Control: The Voice Effect and Countercultural Contexts Regarding Power Distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 4: 624–634. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.005.
• Venkateswaran, Ramya T., Abhoy K. Ojha. 2019. Abandon Hofstede–based Research? Not Yet! A Perspective From the Philosophy of the Social Sciences. Asia Pacific Business Review, 25, 3: 413–434. DOI: 10.1080/13602381.2019.1584487.
• Venaik, Sunil, Paul Brewer. 2016. National Culture Dimensions: The Perpetuation of Cultural Ignorance. Management Learning, 47, 5: 563–589. DOI: 10.1177/1350507616629356.
• Warf, Barney, Santa Arias, eds. 2014. The Spatial Turn: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. New York: Routledge.
• Zhang, Yi, Thomas M. Begley. 2011. Power Distance and Its Moderating Impact on Empowerment and Team Participation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22: 3601–3617. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2011.560877.
• Zimmerling, Ruth. 2005. Influence and Power: Variations on a Messy Theme. Dordrecht: Springer.

Identifiers

DOI

10.24425/sts.2021.136279