Notes on Power Distance and Inequality (Dimensions of National Cultures)

Bernadotte and culture shock

• Sweden’s peaceful revolution (1809): nobles deposed King Gustav IV and invited Jean Baptiste Bernadotte (a French general under Napoleon) to become king; he became King Charles XIV John.
• Bernadotte’s language and culture clash: he spoke broken Swedish; his delegates laughed at his mistakes; he never tried to speak Swedish again.
• Culture shock in leadership: a French upbringing with subordinates laughing at a superior’s errors was foreign to Bernadotte and his expectations of authority.
• Outcome: Bernadotte adapted and ruled as a highly respected constitutional monarch until 1844, but his initial culture shock illustrates how deeply national culture shapes expectations of rank and authority.

Inequality in Society

• All societies exhibit inequality: physical/intellectual capacities, power, wealth, and status vary among individuals.
• Possible patterns of inequality:
  • Some societies try to make areas of inequality more consistent (e.g., athletes become wealthy; politicians move into business; successful businesspeople enter public office).
  • Other societies value keeping mismatches between ranks in different areas (high rank in one area offset by lower rank in another) to enlarge the middle class.
• Legal and ethical frames:
  • Many countries’ laws treat people as equal regardless of status, wealth, or power, but reality often diverges from this ideal.
  • References to equality rhetoric: Christian praise of poverty and Karl Marx’s call for the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as cultural expressions of equality ideals.

Power Distance Index (PDI): Concept and Measurement

• PDI measures the extent to which less powerful members accept and expect unequal power distribution in institutions and organizations.
• Core idea: Power distance is rooted in the value system of the less powerful; leadership requires obedience to be effective.
• Practical intuition: In small power distance cultures, subordinates feel able to challenge authority; in large power distance cultures, dependence on leaders is greater and nonconfrontation is common.
• Bernadotte’s example (Sweden vs France) is used to illustrate how historical power-distance perceptions can shape expectations of leadership across nations.

How PDI is Measured and Calculated

• Data source: IBM employee surveys across many countries, using standardized questions with numeric responses.
• Three items form the core inside the PDI calculation:
  1) Answer by nonmanagerial employees to the question: "How frequently, in your experience, does the following problem occur: employees being afraid to express disagreement with their managers?" (mean score on a 1–5 scale, from "very frequently" to "very seldom").
  2) Subordinates’ perception of the boss’s actual decision-making style (percentage choosing autocratic or paternalistic styles, out of four possible styles plus a 'none of these' option).
  3) Subordinates’ preference for their boss’s decision-making style (percentage preferring an autocratic or paternalistic style, or preferring a majority-vote style rather than a consultative style).
• The PDI is a country-level index derived from the mean scores of a standard IBM sample on these three questions, using a linear combination with fixed weights to ensure equal contribution from each item and a range roughly from 0 (low power distance) to 100 (high power distance). Two countries added later scored above 100, indicating very high relative power distance.
• Notation (conceptual): Let s1 be the mean 1–5 score for item 1; s2 be the percentage choosing autocratic or paternalistic for item 2; s3 be the percentage preferring autocratic or paternalistic or majority-vote for item 3. Then a linear formula is used:
  PDI = \alpha s1 + \beta s2 + \gamma s_3 + \delta,
  where the fixed weights ((\alpha, \beta, \gamma)) and constant ((\delta)) are chosen so that the index places countries on a 0–100-like scale and gives equal weight to each item. Some countries added later scored above 100.
• Important caveat: PDI reflects relative differences between country cultures, not absolute measures of a culture’s entirety. Replication studies generally corroborate the relative ordering, but absolute positions can shift over time.
• Scale interpretation: Higher PDI means greater acceptance of unequal power distribution and stronger dependence of subordinates on bosses; lower PDI indicates more egalitarian relationships and more subordinate-initiated consultation.

Representative PDI Values and Interpretation

• Sweden: PDI ≈ 31 (low power distance)
• France: PDI ≈ 68 (moderate-to-high)
• Malaysia: PDI ≈ 104 (very high; later values exceed 100 in some additions)
• Philippines: PDI ≈ 93–94 (high)
• Russia: PDI ≈ 6–7 (low) in the table excerpt (illustrative of broad cross-country spread)
• Table 3.1 and Table 3.1 (extended): The dataset covers 76 countries/regions with differentiated values by region and language areas for multilingual countries (Belgium, Canada, etc.).
• Overall pattern observed in Table 3.1 (summary): High PDI values typically appear in many Asian, Eastern European, Latin, Arabic-speaking, and some African countries; low PDI values in German-speaking countries, Israel, Nordic countries, the United States, Great Britain and white-dominated parts of the former empire, and the Netherlands.
• Practical implication: National cultures with higher PDI are more likely to exhibit autocratic/paternalistic leadership norms and broader acceptance of hierarchical authority structures.

How the Three Items Relate to Perceived vs Desired Leadership

• Items 1 and 2 capture the perceived reality of daily work-related power dynamics (how afraid employees feel to speak up and how boss’s style is perceived).
• Item 3 captures desired or preferred leadership style (what people would like the boss to do, e.g., consultative vs autocratic/paternalistic vs majority-rule).
• Relationship: In countries with low perceived fear and low autocratic/paternalistic boss perception, there is a stronger preference for consultative leadership; in high-PDI countries, there is polarization toward autocratic/paternalistic or majority-rule preferences.
• In many organizations, majority vote as a leadership style is rare in practice and can be viewed as manipulative if used as a ritual rather than a real decision process.
• Conceptual takeaway: PDI captures both actual dependence (reality) and the desire for dependence (preference) within a single cluster of questions, reflecting interdependence between what is and what ought to be in a given culture.

Power Distance and Replication Studies

• Six replication studies (1990–2002) used the IBM questions with different cross-national populations.
• Five studies showed highly significant correlations with the original IBM scores across 14–28 countries; the sixth used consumer populations with very different job profiles and did not show enough consistency to justify correction of the original scores.
• Conclusion: The PDI scores measure relative cross-national differences and remain valid across populations, even as cultures shift over time due to global forces.
• Validation links: Bond’s Chinese Value Study (students in 23 countries) showed that a moral discipline dimension correlated with PDI, with high-PDI countries valuing conformist traits (e.g., few desires, moderation, disinterestedness) and low-PDI countries valuing adaptability and prudence. GLOBE’s dimensions correlated with PDI, especially in-group collectivism (as-is). PDI correlated most strongly with uncertainty avoidance in GLOBE.

Power Distance Within Countries: Social Class, Education, and Occupation

• IBM’s PDI estimates were based on middle-class employees across occupations; to enable valid cross-country comparisons, comparisons should be made within the same occupational/education strata.
• The IBM data set used a fixed mix of occupations across subsidiaries to maintain comparability; manufacturing presence varied by country, so only the sales/service staff were used for cross-country comparisons to ensure consistency.
• Occupation-based PDI: It is possible to compute occupational PDI values by correlating the three PDI questions across occupations within a country.
• Key finding across Great Britain, France, and Germany (38 occupations): lower-status/education occupations (unskilled/semiskilled workers) exhibited the highest PDI values, while high-status occupations (managers and professionals) showed the lowest PDI values; the occupational range approximates the country-to-country range (roughly 100 points).
• Interpretation: The gap between high- and low-status occupations concerning power distance is larger in countries with lower overall PDI; in high-PDI countries, occupation-related variation is smaller in relative terms.
• Within-country variation: In high-PDI countries, even high-status workers exhibit relatively high PDI; in low-PDI countries, low-status workers show much higher PDI relative to their national average.
• Cross-country nuance: The national average is heavily influenced by the social structure (class, education, occupation) of the respondents, who are predominantly middle-class IBM employees in this data set.

Occupational PDI Details (Table 3.2) – Summary

• Across six occupation categories, occupational PDI ranged markedly within and across countries (Britain, France, Germany).
• Trend: Higher PDI among unskilled/semiskilled workers; lower PDI among managers and professionals.
• Approximate pattern (illustrative only; values reported in the source show a spread around these tendencies):
  • Unskilled and semiskilled workers: highest PDI (near the upper end, around the 90s)
  • Clerical and nonprofessional workers: lower than unskilled, still relatively high
  • Salespeople and skilled workers/technicians: intermediate values
  • Managers of the preceding categories and professional workers: substantially lower PDI (down toward the 20s–40s range)
• Total across six categories indicates an occupational gradient in PDI similar in magnitude to the country-level differences.
• Important caveat: The occupation-based comparisons were computed within the same country samples (not cross-country directly) to maintain comparability, since occupation mixes could differ across national samples.

Differences Within Countries and the Role of Education and Occupation

• In countries with low overall PDI, differences between occupations are larger: high-status employees still show relatively lower PDI than low-status workers.
• In high-PDI countries, the occupation differences persist but are less pronounced; even higher-status employees may hold relatively high PDI values due to national culture's influence.
• The data suggest that less-educated, lower-status groups hold more authoritarian values in Western countries than do higher-status groups, but the effect is strongest when national culture itself is high in power distance.
• Sociological parallels: Earlier US-Italy studies in the 1960s showed working-class parents demanding more obedience from children than middle-class parents, with a larger gap in the US than in Italy; similar dynamics appear in the occupation-based PDI findings.

Relationships to Other Chapters and Dimensions

• PDI is used as a foundation for analyzing family, school, workplace, state, and ideas in subsequent chapters (Chapters 4–8).
• The approach relies on correlations between country scores and other quantitative studies, complemented by qualitative country-specific information.
• The GLOBE study overlaps with PDI: nine of GLOBE’s eighteen dimensions correlated with PDI; strongest correlation with GLOBE’s in-group collectivism (as-is). There was little correlation between PDI and GLOBE’s power distance in the should-be sense. GLOBE’s
  -power distance (as-is) and (should be) correlated more with uncertainty avoidance than with PDI.
• The PDI framework and GLOBE’s results together offer convergent validity for the cross-cultural study of leadership and organizational behavior.

Leadership, Perception, and the Mirror Effect

• Leadership is co-constructed with subordinates: effective leadership depends on subordinate obedience and compliance.
• Studies show a discrepancy between how managers rate their own style and how subordinates perceive their managers’ style; subordinates’ perceptions often align with how managers perceive their bosses, not with how the managers rate themselves.
• Practical lesson for leaders: if you want to know how subordinates see you, turn the perspective around and imagine yourself in your boss’s position rather than looking in the mirror.
• This finding emphasizes the importance of 360-degree feedback and external perspectives in leadership development and succession planning.

Methodological Notes and Limitations

• The IBM sample was designed to reflect middle-class employees across a fixed mix of occupations to ensure cross-country comparability; comparisons should be made within the same occupation/education strata when possible.
• The PDI is a measure of relative differences and may drift over time with global forces; however, correlations with other constructs (e.g., uncertainty avoidance) and replication studies support its robustness.
• The use of a three-item cluster means that the PDI captures a specific facet of power distance related to workplace dynamics, not the entirety of a nation’s cultural psychology.
• In multilingual countries (Belgium, Canada), PDI scores are reported for the largest language groups; this acknowledges subcultural differences within a country while preserving the cross-country comparability.

Practical and Ethical Implications

• Understanding PDI helps explain why some organizations favor hierarchical, autocratic decision-making in some countries and more participative approaches in others.
• For multinational firms, recognizing PDI differences can guide leadership development, change management, and governance structures to align with local expectations while maintaining organizational coherence.
• Education, class, and occupation strongly influence power dynamics within a country; policy design and workplace practices should consider how these factors shape perceived and desired leadership styles.

Connections to Real-World Relevance

• The concept of power distance informs hiring practices, managerial training, and organizational design in different cultural contexts.
• It explains cross-national variations in conflict resolution, authority structures, and the acceptability of subordinates challenging superiors.
• It also links to broader discussions about social inequality, inclusion, and the trade-offs between efficiency and egalitarian ideals in governance and business.

Quick Reference: Key Terms and Formulas

• Power Distance Index (PDI):
  • A country-level index measuring acceptance and expectation of unequal power distribution in institutions and organizations.
  • Based on three IBM survey items: fear of disagreeing with managers; boss’s autocratic/paternalistic style; preference for autocratic/paternalistic versus majority-vote or consultative styles.
  • Calculation (conceptual): PDI = \alpha s1 + \beta s2 + \gamma s_3 + \delta, with weights chosen to balance item influence and scale to roughly 0–100; some cases exceed 100.
• Key outcomes:
  • Higher PDI: greater dependence on bosses, more acceptance of inequality, more autocratic/paternalistic leadership tendencies.
  • Lower PDI: more consultation, more egalitarian expectations, greater employee voice.
• Within-country occupational PDI: lower-status occupations tend to have higher PDI; high-status occupations tend to have lower PDI; variation across occupations can approach the magnitude of country-level differences.
• Notable examples:
  • Sweden ≈ 31 (low PDI)
  • France ≈ 68 (mid-to-high)
  • Malaysia ≈ 104 (very high)
  • Philippines ≈ 93–94 (high)

Summary

• The More Equal than Others text uses the Bernadotte anecdote to illustrate historical cultural differences in deference and authority, framing power distance as a measurable, cross-cultural construct.
• PDI captures how daily work realities (fear of disagreement, boss’s decision style) relate to preferences for leadership style, revealing how cultures balance dependence and independence.
• Cross-country data show substantial variation in PDI, linked with economic, social, and political structures, and correlated with other cultural dimensions.
• Within-country analyses reveal that social class and occupation shape power distance, with occupational gradients echoing national patterns.
• The PDI framework supports broader inquiries into leadership, management, and organizational behavior across cultures, while acknowledging limitations and the importance of replication and validation across diverse populations.