Power Distance Inequality

533 Words2 Pages

According to Geert Hofstede, power distance defines the levels of inequality that exists between individuals. This is the group that a particular country regards as normal. This dimension provides that all the societies are unequal, and they range from the relatively equal to the extremely uneven. This dimension also measures the levels of acceptance dictated by the powerful people in distinct cultures (Hofstede, 2010). High power distance exhibiting cultures demonstrate centralized authorities that have an impression that the management is paternalistic, and the culture accepts the hierarchical managements regarding nobility. In countries that exhibit power low distance, it is most likely that there will be equal and fair distribution of power. As such the power will also be distributed to the less powerful individuals in the community. In cultures that exhibit low power distance, it is most …show more content…

It is a society that believes that differences among the people are an accepted way of life (Geert-hofstede.com, 2016). For instance, the president of the country holds a considerable and unquestionable amount of power. Japan scores an intermediate score of 54. This means that it is a society that is on the borderline of hierarchical structures (Geert-hofstede.com, 2016). This can be validated by the detail that in the Japanese education system, there is the notion that each and every individual is born equal and have the ability to become what they aspire to be. Bhutan scores 94 in the measure of power distance. This is extremely high which implies that Bhutan exhibits a hierarchical society and that the people of Bhutan have accepted the way the society is structured. This society is therefore characterized by massive inequalities and centralized form of government. As such the subordinates in the society tend to report to the superiors who appear to be benevolent autocrats (Geert-hofstede.com,

Open Document