Power distance index (PDI)
The Power Distance Index (PDI) is a cultural measurement that gauges how societies perceive and accept power inequality among individuals. Developed by Dutch theorist Geert Hofstede in the 1970s, PDI emerged from his research on employee values across various cultures while working with IBM. In societies with high PDI, individuals tend to accept significant disparities in power dynamics—where subordinates are less likely to challenge their superiors or engage in decision-making processes. Conversely, low PDI societies prioritize equality, fostering expectations for democratic decision-making and open communication.
Countries such as Russia, China, and many Arab nations exemplify high PDI, while Austria, New Zealand, and Scandinavian countries represent low PDI cultures. The implications of PDI extend beyond business contexts; they also affect educational environments and familial relationships, highlighting patterns of authority and submission. Understanding PDI can be crucial for professionals navigating cross-cultural interactions, as it influences factors like innovation and communication styles within organizations. Despite some criticisms regarding its methodology, the PDI remains a vital tool in the field of cross-cultural studies.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Power distance index (PDI)
Devised in the 1970s by Dutch business theorist Geert Hofstede, the power distance index (PDI) measures people’s attitudes toward inequality in a given society. In countries with a high PDI, people are said to be more accepting of large differences in power (as between managers and employees, or government officials and average citizens), and so subordinates are less likely to question superiors or expect to be involved in decision making. Conversely, in countries with a low PDI, people are likely to have greater expectations of equality between people, regardless of differences in social position, and are likely to expect decision making to be more democratic.
Overview
The power distance index is one component of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory, which he developed as part of a large-scale research project for the multinational technology company IBM in the 1960s and ’70s. The purpose of the study was to determine differences in employee values between cultures in order to improve cross-cultural communication in the business context. Hofstede published his findings in his 1980 book Culture’s Consequences.
Hofstede’s research involved distributing questionnaires to employees in multiple countries. The question most central to his development of the concept of power distance asked how frequently employees are afraid to express disagreement with their managers. Another question asked about employees’ preferred managerial style: autocratic, persuasive/paternalistic, consultative, or democratic. Based on Hofstede’s research, examples of countries with a high PDI include Russia, China, and the Arab countries; those with a low PDI include Austria, New Zealand, and the Scandinavian countries. The United States also falls on the lower end of the scale.
For business researchers, PDI is an important aspect of organizational culture, because fostering innovation is seen as more difficult in cultural contexts with a high PDI: employees may feel less comfortable proposing new ideas or criticizing new ideas proposed by managers. Without this kind of open exchange in an organization, successful innovation is more difficult. Understanding cultural dimensions like PDI is also broadly useful for any businessperson who must sometimes work in other countries or works with people from other countries.
Since Hofstede’s original study, the PDI concept has been studied in relation not just to employees and managers, but also to students and teachers, children and parents, citizens and government officials—any relationship where there is a power inequality. Some researchers have criticized the index’s methodology on a variety of grounds, but it continues to be a reference point for many in the field of cross-cultural studies.
Bibliography
Cheung, Hoi, and Alex Chan. “Education and Competitive Economy: How Do Cultural Dimensions Fit In?” Higher Education 59.5 (2010): 525–41. Print.
Eylon, Dafna, and Kevin Y. Au. “Exploring Empowerment: Cross-Cultural Differences along the Power Distance Dimension.” International Journal of Cultural Relations 23.3 (1999): 373–85. Print.
Hofstede, Geert. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2001. Print.
Hofstede, Geert, Gert Jan Hofstede, and Michael Minkov. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. Print.
“Power Distance Index.” Clearly Cultural. Clearly Cultural, n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2013.
Raghunathan, V. “Power Distance Index and Corruption.” Economic Times [India]. Bennett, Coleman, 25 June 2011. Web. 24 Sept. 2013.
Romm, Norma R. A., and Cheng-Yi Hsu. “Reconsidering the Exploration of Power Distance: An Active Case Study Approach.” Omega 30.6 (2002): 403–14. Print.
Sweetman, Kate. “In Asia, Power Gets in the Way.” Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business School, 10 Apr. 2012. Web. 24 Sept. 2013.