however, in collectivistic societies, individuals are united
into cohesive groups. With less INDV value, societies
display collective decisions leading to a slow adoption
decision process. The studies revealed that in the cultures
with greater INDV, it is easier to adopt new technologies (Van Everdingen & Waarts, 2003). According to
Hofstede (2010), in individualistic societies, the relationships among individuals are not strong and the people of
that culture tend to take care of themselves, while in
collectivistic cultures, people are unified into united
groups. Lesser values of the individualism index (IND)
indicate closer ties among people and the culture is recognized as having collective decisions that lead to a slow
process of technology adoption.
• Uncertainty Avoidance: Uncertainty avoidance (UA)
refers to the level of tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty within the culture. The UAI dimension shows to
what degree a society programs its individuals to feel
either comfortable or uncomfortable in unstructured circumstances. A high UAI reflects a rule-oriented and
structured society having rules, regulations, and controls.
In greater UAI values, societies resist accepting any
innovations. A culture with a high UAI is not able to take
risks to accept innovations and will adopt innovations that
have been already used by others (Im et al., 2011).
Consequently, it will not be easy to adopt innovations in a
culture with a greater UAI index (Van Everdingen, &
Waarts, 2003).
• Masculinity (MASC) versus Femininity: The MAS
dimension shows the distribution role of gender within a
culture (Hofstede, 1980a). In a high masculinity culture,
people are more goal-oriented. The MAS society is
known for recognition for improvement, competition,
more task-oriented, achievement, and success of the
people; and these characteristics of culture lead to the
adoption of new technology (Van Everdingen, & Waarts,
2003). On the other hand, in feminine culture, people are
more people-oriented and therefore they pay more
attention to others’ opinions (Sun & Zhang, 2006). A low
score on this dimension shows that individuals in the
society are caring for others and there is a quality of life.
In other words, managers in less MAS index culture to
seek consensus on majority tasks (Al-Gahtani et al.,
2007).
• Long (LTO) and Short (STO) Time Orientation: A
fifth index (Bond, 2010) was added later as long‐ versus
short‐term orientation (LTO). This dimension was included by Michael Bond, a psychologist at the Chinese
University of Hong Kong. Bond determined that some of
the dimensions are not related to Chinese culture and
recommended the inclusion of ‘Confucian Dynamism’
which was recognized as long‐term and was integrated
into VSM 94 as LTO (long-term orientation). Bond’s
original research was made for students from 23 different
countries focused on comparing Chinese culture with
other cultures. The LTO refers to the society that holds
long-term aspirations and forward-thinking values. LTO
is related to the culture’s time prospect which signifies the
importance linked to the future, the past, and the present.
Cultures characterized by an LTO are focused on future
rewards whereas an STO is typified by a focus on the
short-term rewards of the past and the present
(Al-Gahtani et al., 2007).
• Indulgence: Recently, the two new dimensions that have
been included are indulgence vs restraint index (IVR) and
monumentalism (MON) index (Hofstede, 2010). Both of
these dimensions are experimental at the time of this
research, and for this reason, will not be taken into
account.
4.6.1 Criticism of Hofstede’s Dimensions
Therehas been a broad criticism of Hofstede’s (1980a) study
of national culture. Some researchers have criticized the
Hofstede’s survey instrument because it contains culturally
sensitive and subjective questions (Schwartz, 1999). Another
major criticism of the study was the ‘one company
approach’. Most researchers considered one company’s
employees (i.e. IBM) may not be the best representatives of
the national culture (Sondergaard, 1994). In other words,
‘organizational culture may be so strong that national culture
traits are overshadowed. Ignoring the potential interactions
between the two may lead to erroneous conclusions’ (Nakata
& Sivakumar, 1996). According to Hofstede (1980a), cultural values and beliefs can be measured with the national
identity. Hofstede’s study was criticized by many researchers that measuring only national culture may not be effective
‘ways of’ analysis because cultures are not always confined
by geographic edges but are generally represented within
multiple nations (DiMaggio, 1997). Some researchers have
criticized that the population in Hofstede’s study was
homogenous and there was little of the variety found in true
populations. It was also criticized for overseeing the variations in communities (Smith & Bond, 1998). Hofstede
(1980a) grouped all Arab countries into one cluster as a
homogeneous culture mainly due to the commonalities of
language and religion. This approach became more problematic when Hofstede ignored all cultural differences and
assumed that all Arabs have the same ranking and scoring.
He grouped many countries into clusters based on the
commonalities between the countries. He grouped Latin,
Arabs, Asian and Anglo into one cluster mainly due to
language and religion. Williamson (2002) recommended
observing the individual’s values, behaviors, and differences
4.6 Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and Saudi Arabia
23
into cohesive groups. With less INDV value, societies
display collective decisions leading to a slow adoption
decision process. The studies revealed that in the cultures
with greater INDV, it is easier to adopt new technologies (Van Everdingen & Waarts, 2003). According to
Hofstede (2010), in individualistic societies, the relationships among individuals are not strong and the people of
that culture tend to take care of themselves, while in
collectivistic cultures, people are unified into united
groups. Lesser values of the individualism index (IND)
indicate closer ties among people and the culture is recognized as having collective decisions that lead to a slow
process of technology adoption.
• Uncertainty Avoidance: Uncertainty avoidance (UA)
refers to the level of tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty within the culture. The UAI dimension shows to
what degree a society programs its individuals to feel
either comfortable or uncomfortable in unstructured circumstances. A high UAI reflects a rule-oriented and
structured society having rules, regulations, and controls.
In greater UAI values, societies resist accepting any
innovations. A culture with a high UAI is not able to take
risks to accept innovations and will adopt innovations that
have been already used by others (Im et al., 2011).
Consequently, it will not be easy to adopt innovations in a
culture with a greater UAI index (Van Everdingen, &
Waarts, 2003).
• Masculinity (MASC) versus Femininity: The MAS
dimension shows the distribution role of gender within a
culture (Hofstede, 1980a). In a high masculinity culture,
people are more goal-oriented. The MAS society is
known for recognition for improvement, competition,
more task-oriented, achievement, and success of the
people; and these characteristics of culture lead to the
adoption of new technology (Van Everdingen, & Waarts,
2003). On the other hand, in feminine culture, people are
more people-oriented and therefore they pay more
attention to others’ opinions (Sun & Zhang, 2006). A low
score on this dimension shows that individuals in the
society are caring for others and there is a quality of life.
In other words, managers in less MAS index culture to
seek consensus on majority tasks (Al-Gahtani et al.,
2007).
• Long (LTO) and Short (STO) Time Orientation: A
fifth index (Bond, 2010) was added later as long‐ versus
short‐term orientation (LTO). This dimension was included by Michael Bond, a psychologist at the Chinese
University of Hong Kong. Bond determined that some of
the dimensions are not related to Chinese culture and
recommended the inclusion of ‘Confucian Dynamism’
which was recognized as long‐term and was integrated
into VSM 94 as LTO (long-term orientation). Bond’s
original research was made for students from 23 different
countries focused on comparing Chinese culture with
other cultures. The LTO refers to the society that holds
long-term aspirations and forward-thinking values. LTO
is related to the culture’s time prospect which signifies the
importance linked to the future, the past, and the present.
Cultures characterized by an LTO are focused on future
rewards whereas an STO is typified by a focus on the
short-term rewards of the past and the present
(Al-Gahtani et al., 2007).
• Indulgence: Recently, the two new dimensions that have
been included are indulgence vs restraint index (IVR) and
monumentalism (MON) index (Hofstede, 2010). Both of
these dimensions are experimental at the time of this
research, and for this reason, will not be taken into
account.
4.6.1 Criticism of Hofstede’s Dimensions
Therehas been a broad criticism of Hofstede’s (1980a) study
of national culture. Some researchers have criticized the
Hofstede’s survey instrument because it contains culturally
sensitive and subjective questions (Schwartz, 1999). Another
major criticism of the study was the ‘one company
approach’. Most researchers considered one company’s
employees (i.e. IBM) may not be the best representatives of
the national culture (Sondergaard, 1994). In other words,
‘organizational culture may be so strong that national culture
traits are overshadowed. Ignoring the potential interactions
between the two may lead to erroneous conclusions’ (Nakata
& Sivakumar, 1996). According to Hofstede (1980a), cultural values and beliefs can be measured with the national
identity. Hofstede’s study was criticized by many researchers that measuring only national culture may not be effective
‘ways of’ analysis because cultures are not always confined
by geographic edges but are generally represented within
multiple nations (DiMaggio, 1997). Some researchers have
criticized that the population in Hofstede’s study was
homogenous and there was little of the variety found in true
populations. It was also criticized for overseeing the variations in communities (Smith & Bond, 1998). Hofstede
(1980a) grouped all Arab countries into one cluster as a
homogeneous culture mainly due to the commonalities of
language and religion. This approach became more problematic when Hofstede ignored all cultural differences and
assumed that all Arabs have the same ranking and scoring.
He grouped many countries into clusters based on the
commonalities between the countries. He grouped Latin,
Arabs, Asian and Anglo into one cluster mainly due to
language and religion. Williamson (2002) recommended
observing the individual’s values, behaviors, and differences
4.6 Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and Saudi Arabia
23