Editing Power distance (section)

==Development and studies on the theory==

===Hofstede===

====Cultural dimensions theory====
Hofstede developed the [[Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory|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 and individualism|collectivism]], [[uncertainty avoidance]], [[masculinity]] vs [[femininity]], short-term vs long-term orientation, and [[indulgence]] vs [[Self-control|self-restraint]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hoppe |first=Michael |date=Feb 2004 |title=An Interview with Geert Hofstede |journal=The Academy of Management Executive (1993–2005) |volume=18 |issue=1 |pages=75–79}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lin |first1=Xiaoshuang |last2=Chen |first2=Zhen Xiong |last3=Tse |first3=Herman H. M. |last4=Wei |first4=Wu |last5=Ma |first5=Chao |date=September 2019 |title=Why and When Employees Like to Speak up More Under Humble Leaders? The Roles of Personal Sense of Power and Power Distance |url=https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/436015/1/BUSI_D_17_00921R1_Blinded_manuscript.docx |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |volume=158 |issue=4 |pages=937–950 |doi=10.1007/s10551-017-3704-2 |s2cid=148630892}}</ref> Humility is a trait often associated with low-power distance cultures.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Qian |first1=Jing |last2=Li |first2=Xiaoyan |last3=Song |first3=Baihe |last4=Wang |first4=Bin |last5=Wang |first5=Menghan |last6=Chang |first6=Shumeng |last7=Xiong |first7=Yujiao |date=2018 |title=Leaders' Expressed Humility and Followers' Feedback Seeking: The Mediating Effects of Perceived Image Cost and Moderating Effects of Power Distance Orientation |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |volume=9 |page=563 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00563 |pmid=29720956 |pmc=5915548 |issn=1664-1078|doi-access=free }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite book|last = Hofstede|first = Geert H.|year = 1997|title = Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind |edition=second |location = New York |publisher = McGraw-Hill|isbn=978-0-07-707474-6|page= 27}} Originally published in 1991 as ''Cultures and organizations: software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival''.</ref> 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.<ref name="Velo-26">{{harvnb|Velo|2011|page=26}}</ref>

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")<ref name="GHH-25">{{harvnb|Hofstede|1997|page=25}}</ref>
* 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")<ref name="GHH-25" />
* 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)<ref name="GHH-25" />
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]].<ref name="Smit">{{Cite web|author=Smit, Chris |date=26 April 2012 |title = Power Distance or PDI|url = http://culturematters.com/power-distance-or-pdi/|website = culturematters.com|access-date =14 September 2015}} (self-published)</ref>

In higher PDI cultures, the power relations are [[Paternalism|paternalistic]] and [[Autocracy|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.<ref name="GHH-25" /> 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.<ref name="Smit" />

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.<ref>{{Cite journal|last = Ailon|first = Galit|year=2008 |title =Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Culture's consequences in a value test of its own design|journal = Academy of Management Review |doi=10.2307/20159451 |jstor=20159451 |volume=33 |issue = 4|pages=885–904|doi-access=free}}</ref> 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.{{Citation needed|date=January 2021}}

===Haire, Ghiselli, and Porter===
Mason Haire, Edwin Ghiselli, and [[Lyman W. Porter|Lyman Porter]] explored the differences in preferences for power among different cultures with remarkable outcomes, without yet mentioning the concept of power distance.<ref name="Haire">{{cite book |last1=Haire |first1=Mason |title=Managerial Thinking: An international study |last2=Ghiselli |first2=Edwin E. |last3=Porter |first3=Lyman W. |publisher=Wiley |series=Research program of the Institute of Industrial Relations, University of California |location=New York |oclc=925871372 |date=1966}}</ref>  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.
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
|{{harvnb|Haire|Ghiselli|Porter|1966}} || Autonomy || Self-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 done by Mauk Mulder.<ref name="Mulder">{{Cite book|last1=Mulder|first1=Mauk |year=1977 |title=The Daily Power Game |series=International series on the quality of working life |publisher=Martinus Nihoff Social Sciences Division|location=Leiden, the Netherlands |isbn=978-1-4684-6953-0 |doi=10.1007/978-1-4684-6951-6}}</ref> It 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".<ref name="Mulder" /> 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".<ref>Note that this is different from the definition of "power distance" used by other authors, see {{harvnb|Mulder|1977}}, as the relative difference in power between the powerful and the powerless.</ref> 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 the University of Pennsylvania|Wharton School of Business]] at the [[University of Pennsylvania]].<ref>{{Cite book|last1=House|first1=Robert J.|last2=Hanges|first2=Paul J. |last3=Javidan|first3=Mansour|last4=Dorfman|first4=Peter W.|last5=Gupta|first5=Vipin |year=2004 |title=Culture, Leadership, and Organizations The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies|publisher=Sage|location=Thousand Oaks, California|isbn=978-0-7619-2401-2}}</ref>

Given the premise that leader effectiveness is contextual, the research was conducted by believing that the social and organizational values, norms and beliefs of those who are being led are closely connected to the effectiveness of the leader.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Hoppe|first1=Michael H. |year=2007 |title=Culture and Leader Effectiveness: The GLOBE Study |url=http://www.inspireimagineinnovate.com/pdf/globesummary-by-michael-h-hoppe.pdf|website=Inspire!Image!Innovate!|access-date=16 September 2015}}</ref> GLOBE measures the practices and values that exist at the levels of industry ([[financial services]], [[Food processing industry|food processing]], [[telecommunication]]s), organization (several in each industry), and society (62 cultures).<ref>{{harvnb|House|Hanges|Javidan|Dorfman|Gupta|2004|page=xv}}</ref> The results are presented in the form of quantitative data based on responses from about 17,000 managers from 951 organizations functioning in 62 societies throughout the world, which shows how each of the 62 societies scores on nine major attributes of cultures, including Power Distance, and six major global leader behaviors.<ref>{{harvnb|House|Hanges|Javidan|Dorfman|Gupta|2004|page=3}}</ref>

Regarding power distance, GLOBE researches cultural influences on power distance values, practices and other aspects, including "Roots of Power Distance", "The Psychological Stream and Power", and "The Cross-Cultural Stream and Power Distance". It also investigates how family power values are taught and makes a comparison of high versus low power distance societies.<ref>{{harvnb|House|Hanges|Javidan|Dorfman|Gupta|2004|page=513}}</ref>

When discussing "The Cross-Cultural Stream and Power Distance", four primary factors affecting a society's level of power distance are explained separately: the predominant religion or philosophy, the tradition of democratic principles of government, the existence of a strong middle class, and the proportion of immigrants in a society's population.<ref>{{harvnb|House|Hanges|Javidan|Dorfman|Gupta|2004|page=518}}</ref> Connections exist among the four fundamental phenomena, but the study concluded that a society's main beliefs, values, and religion, will have the strongest and longest lasting influence on power distance, which would be moderated by a democratic tradition and the existence of a strong middle class to some extent. Both factors are expected to narrow power distance. Finally, a large proportion of immigrants in a given society makes the low power distance trend stronger in all circumstances presented above. The study also concludes that regardless of religion, any society that does not have a tradition of democracy or a significant middle class will have a substantially high power distance levels.<ref>{{harvnb|House|Hanges|Javidan|Dorfman|Gupta|2004|page=526}}</ref>