People, Power and Culture part I : 3 Theories for Cross-cultural Management

1. Schwartz, Hofstede and Van de Vliert: Mapping Cultural Dimensions in Organizational Hierarchy

Schwartz’s Cultural Dimensions: Embeddedness vs. Autonomy and Hierarchy vs. Egalitarianism

Shalom Schwartz introduced three bipolar dimensions that are said to represent alternative resolutions to universal societal problems: embeddedness vs. autonomy, hierarchy vs. egalitarianism, and mastery vs. harmony. A societal emphasis on the cultural type at one pole of a dimension typically accompanies a de-emphasis on the polar type, with which it tends to conflict.

The tension between hierarchy and egalitarianism is particularly relevant for the topic of this article:

Hierarchy vs. Egalitarianism:
Schwartz explains that hierarchical cultures (e.g., China, India, Thailand) emphasize unequal power distributions. These cultures value roles, responsibilities, and authority within social groups, where individuals are often expected to follow directives based on position and status. This framework is meant to maintain social order and tradition. In contrast, egalitarian cultures (e.g., The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden) emphasize equality and social justice, where power is distributed more equally, and individuals are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions.

Schwartz also highlights that when one of these values is taken to an extreme, it can create societal issues. Excessive hierarchy can lead to profound social and economic inequalities, while excessive egalitarianism can undermine the acceptance of necessary inequalities in organizations and social institutions. Understanding this balance is critical when creating organizational cultures that are both functional and sensitive to cultural values.

Hofstede’s Power Distance: The Role of Inequality in Organizations

Geert Hofstede’s concept of power distance is defined as “the extend to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations expect and accept that power is distributed inequally”. Through his researches and perspective on our mind as a mental software, he developed the Power Distance Index (PDI) which helps in analysis differences in organizations and creating clusters of countries with similar values, providing a scale for understanding how subordinates perceive power and accept its distribution.

• High Power Distance:
  In high power distance cultures (as for China, India, UAE or France scoring relatively high), there is a strong acceptance of inequality. Generally, organizations in these countries typically feature centralized power structures, with significant gaps between top-level managers and lower-level employees. There is a notable dependence of superiors on bosses, which are seen as paternal or autocratic figures and a bipolar phenomenon that emerges in it is wether accepting and preferring this dependence or rejecting it (usually from negative passed subordinaotes-bosses relationships). Employees are expected to comply with directives and are less likely to engage in open dialogue to contradict directly their superiors.
  

• Low Power Distance:
  Low power distance cultures (as for Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden) favor a more decentralized approach. The gap between subordinates and superiors is smaller, as is the emotional distance, and power is distributed more equally. In these environments, organizations tend to have flatter hierarchies, and employees at all levels are encouraged to contribute ideas and feedback as well as they are looking for being consulted before a decision that implies their scope. The emphasis is on collaboration, open communication, and shared responsibility.

Van de Vliert’s Climatic Influence: How Environment and Wealth Shape Cultural Values

While Schwartz and Hofstede focus on internal cultural logics and societal values, Fons Van de Vliert introduces an external variable, climate and economic resources, as key drivers in shaping whether cultures lean toward hierarchy or egalitarianism.

Van de Vliert argues that environmental stress, particularly in the form of climate severity and national wealth, plays a foundational role in shaping whether societies develop survival-oriented or self-expression-oriented cultures. These orientations, in turn, correlate strongly with levels of hierarchy and power distance in organizations and social structures.

Survival cultures:
These are typically found in poorer countries with harsh climates (either extreme heat or cold). In such contexts, people focus on basic needs: food, shelter, and safety. The social fabric tends to support authoritarian leadership, strict social norms, and collectivist values. Cultures are less tolerant of change and diversity and often rely on hierarchical structures to maintain order and control. Examples: Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Mongolia

Self-Expression cultures:
In contrast, wealthier countries, especially those with similarly harsh climates but abundant resources can shift focus from survival to individual self-expression. Once basic needs are secured, societies tend to favor democratic values, personal freedom, creativity, and egalitarianism. These cultures are more open to diversity and change, and their organizational structures reflect flatter hierarchies and collaborative decision-making. Examples: Sweden, Norway, Canada, Switzerland

Mild Climates –> Wealth as the Key Factor:
In milder climates, environmental pressures are lower, so wealth becomes the dominant variable in shaping culture. Richer nations in these regions tend to develop self-expression values, while poorer nations in the same climate zone may still lean toward more traditional, survival-based orientations.

2. Practical Implications for HR leaders

Talent Management: Understanding Power, Authority, Autonomy, and Mental Wellness

Managing talent effectively across diverse cultural contexts often means appreciating how employees perceive authority, autonomy, and responsibility, alongside their mental wellness, which increasingly influences retention and performance.

In high power distance cultures, employees may place high value on respect for authority, clear role definitions, and loyalty to the organization. They often respond well to structured environments and clear directives. Mental wellness can be supported by predictable routines, clear expectations, and leadership that fosters trust and stability. Providing development opportunities that prepare individuals for progressively greater responsibilities under senior leadership may also help reduce turnover by creating visible career paths.

In low power distance cultures, employees frequently look for empowerment, professional growth, and opportunities to exercise autonomy. They tend to expect chances to contribute ideas, take part in decision-making, and help shape the organization’s future. Supporting mental wellness here often means encouraging work-life balance, open communication, and creating environments where psychological safety allows people to express concerns without fear. Recruitment often favors candidates who are self-driven and comfortable in collaborative, decentralized settings. This can also reduce turnover by fostering a sense of belonging and personal fulfillment.

--

The 3 researches highlighted are demonstrated by data and sometimes lifelong analysis. They do not always speak directly to HR professionals, while it is crucial, in a global environment, to understand these kinds of valuable insights in a world where international communication flow has grown rapidly over the last 20 years. They are valuable insights both for the well-being of talents and to deploy a fruitful strategy for the company. When an individual invests in knowing themselves better through self-development, they sometimes discover that other countries seem to better fit their peculiarities. Others are just curious to experiment different ones, looking for the right match according to their personality. Like me :). I strongly believe that awareness in cross-cultural management and how a society handles inequality can help talents thrive wherever they feel more comfortable. In the following weeks, I'll dig deeper into that topic with comparisons of countries I am familiar with. Thank you for reading.

Lamya Valter Schmidlin

--

To write this article, I have read:

• Schwartz, S. H. (2004). Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around the world. In H. Vinken, J. Soeters, & P Ester (Eds.), Comparing cultures, Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective.

• Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

• Van de Vliert, E. (2009). Climate, affluence, and culture: A preliminary investigation of interactive effects on societal collectivism and political autocracy. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(5), 644–664.

For more insights and talk about this topic, feel free to contact me at lamya@lvsacrosscultures.com or connect with me on LinkedIn here!