For those of us who believe in work culture differences, here's something to cheer and cry over. We carry a lot of cultural baggage that we often find hard to declare or appreciate every time we enter and leave organizations. Ignorance is not the sole reason, though. More than often, we do not pose any serious kind of risk to our co-workers and/or ourselves and so we are not particularly goaded into knowing how exactly our value-system plays out at work. Moreover culturally, peeping into our psyche is supposed to be the job of a shrink. Besides, even a cursory self-examination of attitudes/values is considered top priority only when people around dub us "dysfunctional".

But, no matter how abstract they are, these values fundamentally constitute the source code that runs us - the application. While some of us are able to alter the code depending on circumstances and experiences, many others are unable to. By themselves, they are not a threat; they may even prove to be our civilizational strength. But at times, we may have to manage without them. Besides, since the ascendancy of the mantra of Flexibility and Agility, the global workplace is no longer culturally easy to negotiate especially when our cultural genes refuse to mutate or accommodate.

Thanks to the path-breaking work done by Prof. Geert Hofstede, we are today more in the know when it comes to identifying a few core workplace values influenced by the national culture. Prof. Hofstede’s comprehensive study was primarily based on analysis of a large data base of employee value scores collected by IBM between 1967 and 1973 covering 100,000 individuals working in more than 70 countries. While, initially Prof. Hofstede’s analysis was restricted to the 40 largest countries, he extended it further on to 50 countries and 3 regions. Subsequent editions of his work have gone on to give values for as many as 74 countries and regions.

Basic to Hofstede’s analysis of workplace culture is his model comprising four primary dimensions or culture differentiators. These are:

Power Distance (PDI):

PDI provides insights into the power dynamics operating inside organizations in different countries. According to Hofstede, workers in large power distance countries, tend to accept centralized power and expect to be told what to do, while workers in small power distance countries, tend to be less tolerant of centralized power, and expect to be consulted. Also, subordinates in countries with high power distance tend to be more submissive towards their superiors whereas in low power distance countries they prefer to view superiors as similar to them and accessible. Does that tell you why your Indian superiors, colleagues and subordinates behave the way they do?

Individualism/Collectivism (IDV):

In societies that are highly individualistic, individuals pursue autonomy and prefer to view their identity as derived from the self rather than the organizations they work for. Everyone is supposed to look after himself/herself and perhaps, pay attention only to one’s immediate family. While the exact implications of this dynamic are yet to be worked out with respect to group cohesiveness at the work-place there are studies to show that individualism can affect the relationship between employer and employee to the extent that the latter begin to look at the relationship from a calculative and utilitarian perspective. Collectivist societies tend to place an accent on family bonding and social ties. Group processes and decisions are valued as much as membership of a network. It is not possible to generalize on the basis of Hofstede's analysis or any such study. But, working in India is still largely a matter of juggling between immediate/extended families and the office. Surely, work-life balance issues are more urgent and require immediate attention on the subcontinent.

Masculinity (MAS):

Hofstede’s analysis reveals that while there is less variation among women’s values across different societies than men's values, there is great fluctuation in the latter from one country to another. Masculine cultures are assertive and competitive and are very different from women's values in the same country. However in cultures that are not gung-ho about masculinity, men also exhibit sensitivity to feminine values like modesty and caring. Without doubt, societies that valorize masculinity admire ambition, achievement, and assertiveness and women in such cultures show the same values to a lesser extent than the men. And in places where feminine values are prioritized, there is faith in the interdependence of relationships and the need to nurture it. Hopefully, chivalry is not a dead institution in India but try putting your female colleagues as your superiors and note what happens. It's not an equal world anymore, right? There is clearly a preponderance to prefer a male boss over a female boss even if she has proven herself several times more.

Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI):

Simply put societies that have a high UAI score feel threatened by ambiguity. Depending on their ability to tolerate ambiguity, individuals respond in a variety of ways to manage the vagueness in a situation. Similarly, societies have various mechanisms to manage uncertainty. Unknown or unfamiliar situations may be neutralized by risk-avoiding cultures through strict laws and rules, safety and security measures. Philosophy and religion may also play a role here and put a premium on absolute Truth rather than the relative nature of truth. Hofstede also found people belonging to uncertainty-avoiding societies more emotional.

In the case of cultures that can tolerate uncertainty, Hofstede found people to be more open to opinions different than theirs. In such societies, while rules are flexibly carved and as few as possible, philosophically and religiously too, all kinds of schools and movements are allowed to compete with each other. More importantly, people are likely to be unconcerned or apathetic, more contemplative and less emotionally expressive.

So how does India fare in this value analysis?

As per the Hofstede study, India has a very special cultural grid.

(Diagrams courtesy: Geert Hofstede - ITIM International - The Sigma Two Group - all rights reserved)

Interestingly, we rank 77 – the highest, in the Power Distance Index when compared with a world average of 56.5. On Uncertainty Avoidance, we rank the lowest at 40 compared with the world average of 65.

What does all this mean to us? Well, for those of us packing our bags to join global employers in Indian and other global locations, a cultural survival kit should inevitably include a master-list on how best to negotiate the widely divergent power distance and uncertainty avoidance values. While we may live in and with uncertainties, our bosses, colleagues and subordinates, might not. Moreover, whereas we may prefer power to be more centralized and regulated rather than shared or delegated, at many places people would rather have us display a lot of initiative.

Frankly, the world is changing here in India as much as it is anywhere else. A brush with employers of all kinds brings about considerable and perceptible differences in attitudes and values. The strength of the Hofstede model rests in its ability to provide a broad country-wise typology of values that need not be used to essentialize a population. But it is indicative of the kind of value systems that may be at work in places here and elsewhere. At best, we may keep this manual in mind just as we keep travel guides/maps in our bags. Actual experience will always vary.

About the Author: Sumeet varghese is the Executive Director for Human Capital Institute (HCI) India. HCI is not-for-profit HR think-tank based in Washington DC with operations in South Africa, North America, Eastern Europe, Russia and India with over 85,000 members. The Author can be reached at svarghese[AT]humancapitalinstitute.org.