Power distance is the extent to which power is unequally distributed between parties, and the level of acceptance of that unequal distribution, whether it is in the family, workplace, or other organizations.
The concept is used in cultural studies to understand the relationship between individuals with varying power, and the effect this has on society. It was introduced in the 1970s by Geert Hofstede, who outlined a number of cultural theories throughout his work.
Members within a power network may accept or reject the power distance within an institution's cultural framework, and the Power Distance Index (PDI) was created to measure the level of acceptance. It may be low, moderate, or high.
It is theorized that democratic governments occur most commonly among low power-distance societies, where unquestionable hierarchies are not ingrained at an early age, as they tend to be in high power-distance societies.
Origin Geert Hofstede was a Dutch psychologist and professor. He conducted a survey from the 1960s to the 1970s through IBM, a multinational computer manufacturing company, which was the main contribution to his development of the cultural dimensions theory.
In the study, Hofstede distributed questionnaires to various IBM employees in different countries relating to value differences within the company.Groff, Adam. "Power Distance Index (PDI)". Salem Press Encyclopedia, 2018. He observed different power-distance levels and management styles and theorized four cultural dimensions: individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, power distance and uncertainty avoidance.
Later research led to the discovery of a fifth and sixth dimension. Chinese sociologists identified long term/short term orientation as the fifth and a replica of Hofstede's study identified the sixth: indulgence/restraint. These dimensions were described in his popular work, "Culture's Consequences" (2001).Hofstede, G., Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede created a measurement tool for the power-distance dimension. The Power Distance Index (PDI) measures to what degree a country, organization, or institution accepts the distribution of power and authority; it can be high, moderate, or low.
Development and studies on the theory
Hofstede
Cultural dimensions theory Hofstede developed the cultural dimensions theory, which is widely used as a crucial framework for cross-cultural communication. It is the earliest theory that could be quantified and is used to explain perceived differences between cultures and has been applied extensively in many fields, especially in cross-cultural psychology, international business, and cross-cultural communication. It was driven by the statistical procedure (also called "factor analysis") to make the development, based on the result of a global survey of the values of IBM employees conducted from 1967 and 1973. Hofstede's theory identified six dimensions of culture: power distance, individualism vs collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity vs femininity, short-term vs long-term orientation, and indulgence vs self-restraint.
Research has suggested that power distance can vary from culture to culture, which can be particularly prevalent in international corporations. A study performed by Xiaoshuang Lin et al. found that employees are more inclined to speak up under leaders deemed to be humble by their employees. Humility is a trait often associated with low-power distance cultures. The study found that an employee's self-conceptualization of power determined not only their workplace voice, but also their superior's humility. An environment such as this would also be akin to the collectivism dimension that Hofstede proposed.
Power Distance Index (PDI) The PDI is designed to measure the extent to which power differs within the society, organization, and institutions is accepted by less powerful members. Originally published in 1991 as Cultures and organizations: software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. The index assigns a score to each country that indicates its level of power distance and dependent relationships. The PDI also represents society's level of inequality that is defined from below rather than from above. The PDI uses relative values; it is only useful when comparing countries.
Hofstede derived power-distance scores for three regions and fifty countries from the answers given by IBM employees in the same type of positions to the same questions. The PDI was calculated by:
1. Preparing three survey questions: How frequently, in the employees' experience, were they afraid to express disagreement with their managers? (mean score on a 1–5 scale from "very frequently" to "very seldom") Subordinates' perception of their boss's actual decision-making style (percentage choosing either the description of an autocratic or of a paternalistic style, out of four possible styles plus "none of these alternatives") Subordinates' preference for their boss's decision-making style (percentage preferring an autocratic or a paternalistic style, or, as type based on majority vote, but not a consultative style) 2. Pre-coding the answers to be represented as numbers (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4...)
3. Computing the mean score for the answers of equal samples of people from each country or percentage that chose particular answers
4. Sorting the questions into groups—known as clusters or factors—by using a statistical procedure
5. Adding or subtracting the three scores after multiplying each with a fixed number
6. Adding another fixed number
Hofstede found that the emotional distance is relatively small in lower PDI cultures. There are more democratic or consultative relations between expecting and accepting power. People are relatively interdependent to the power holders, and there is a relatively low inequality of power distributed among the people. Under these circumstances, the decentralized authority and flat management structure is common but not universal, which suggests that managers and subordinates will, on average, be relatively less concerned with status, and the distribution of decision-making responsibility is extensive. Policies like the "open door" policy are implemented more often, which influence higher-ranking individuals to be more receptive to lower-ranking individuals, and subordinates to be more likely to challenge or give suggestions to their superiors. Examples of countries with low PDIs include the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, and the Nordic countries. (self-published)
In higher PDI cultures, the power relations are paternalistic and autocratic, and centralized authority exists; there is a wide gap or emotional distance which is perceived to exist among people at different levels of the hierarchy. There is considerable dependence (also known as counter-dependence) on individuals who hold power. In the workplace, subordinates are willing to accept their inferior positions, and superiors may not ask for broad participation in the decision-making process. Higher PDI cultures usually adopt an autocratic leadership style, which means subordinates may be unlikely to approach and contradict their bosses directly. Countries with high power distance cultures usually believe that there is nothing wrong with inequality and everyone has specific positions. China, Belgium, France, Malaysia, and the Arab world are regarded as examples of countries or regions with high PDI cultures.
Hofstede's study is limited by two factors: neutralization and analyzing non-Western countries with a Western methodology. Each stage of the research process makes the unneutral seem neutral. The questionnaire reflects a large power distance: its questions were explicitly designed to resolve the normative concerns of researchers; it primarily served the concerns of those who needed to do comparative analysis and created it through "coercing a culturally distinct axis of comparison" on a variety of employees. Additionally, the questionnaire adopted a Western methodology to analyze non-Western countries and was relatively selective in representing the inequality within Western countries. For example, the PDI concentrated on the boss and subordinate relationship, which could be seen as biased, as it ignores other forms of western inequality. Apparently, the questions failed to measure the racial, colonial, and broader class inequalities that should be taken into account when measuring power distance.
Haire, Ghiselli, and Porter Mason Haire, Edwin Ghiselli, and Lyman Porter explored the differences in preferences for power among different cultures with remarkable outcomes, without yet mentioning the concept of power distance. They conducted their study with a questionnaire, which was based on a modified version of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The aim of the questionnaire was to evaluate how managers from 14 countries were satisfied regarding their needs when they were in their current positions. The dimensions that were linked to power distance across cultures in their questionnaire were autonomy and self-actualization.
In accordance with the responses to the questions in their questionnaire, the 14 countries were clustered into five main groups, which Haire et al. labeled Nordic-European (Denmark, Germany, Norway, and Sweden), Latin-European (Belgium, France, Italy, and Spain), Anglo-American (England and the United States), Developing (Argentina, Chile, and India), and Japan. The analysis used various mean standardized scores that the five groups presented with respect to autonomy and self-actualization; positive figures described greater satisfaction of need than for the average manager across all 14 countries, while negative figures described lesser satisfaction. National groupAutonomySelf-actualization Nordic European .36 .25 Latin European -.16 .23 Anglo American -.14 -.09 Developing -.25 -.11 Japan -.25 -.11
Mulder Another major study of power distance was undertaken by Mauk Mulder, whose work was based on the premise that as societies become weaker in power distance, the underprivileged will tend to reject their power dependency. Mulder's laboratory experiments in the social and organizational context of the Netherlands, a low power-distance culture, concluded that people attempted to seek "power distance reduction". He found that: More privileged individuals tend to try to preserve or to broaden their power distance from subordinates. The larger their power distance is from a subordinate, the more the power holder tends to try to increase that distance. Less powerful individuals try to decrease the power distance between themselves and their superiors. The smaller the power distance, the more likely it is that less powerful individuals will try to reduce that distance.
After Hofstede – the GLOBE Study Following Hofstede, the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project defined "power distance" as "the degree to which members of an organization or society expect and agree that power should be shared unequally".Note that this is different from the definition of "power distance" used by other authors, see , as the relative difference in power between the powerful and the powerless. Power distance was further analyzed as one of the nine cultural dimensions explained in the GLOBE Research Program, which was conceived in 1990 by Robert J. House of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania.