By Dalat TESOL
A critical look at Hofstede, Hall, and how models help (and fail) to explain cultural differences
🧭 Trying to Map the Invisible
Have you ever been confused by how someone from another culture gives feedback, handles silence, or makes decisions?
Maybe a Vietnamese teacher provides blunt, unfiltered feedback during a class presentation, surprising a Japanese or European student who expected something more tactful. Or a Vietnamese student hesitates to challenge a peer’s point, even when they disagree — not because they lack ideas, but because they’re navigating social expectations.
These behaviors are deeply shaped by cultural norms — subtle values and communication patterns that govern how we interact. For decades, researchers have tried to map these invisible cultural differences through global models.
📊 Enter Hofstede, Hall, and Others
Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions (1980, 2001)
Geert Hofstede proposed that cultures differ in six measurable dimensions. Though his original data came from IBM employees, the model remains influential in intercultural training.
| Dimension | What It Measures | Vietnam vs. USA |
|---|---|---|
| Power Distance | Acceptance of unequal power | Vietnam: high / USA: moderate |
| Individualism vs. Collectivism | Self-focus vs. group-focus | Vietnam: collectivist / USA: individualist |
| Uncertainty Avoidance | Comfort with ambiguity | Moderate in both |
| Masculinity vs. Femininity | Competitive vs. caring values | Vietnam slightly masculine |
| Long-Term Orientation | Tradition vs. future orientation | Vietnam: long-term / USA: short-term |
| Indulgence vs. Restraint | Expression of desires | Vietnam more restrained |
These dimensions can help explain:
- Why Vietnamese students might hesitate to interrupt or challenge a teacher, even if they have something insightful to say (high power distance)
- Why Vietnamese teachers may offer blunt or critical feedback, valuing clarity and honesty over politeness — which can surprise international students expecting softened or hedged responses
- Why Western teachers may encourage independence, while Vietnamese classrooms often emphasize collective responsibility and structured hierarchy
Hall’s High- vs. Low-Context Communication
Edward Hall focused on how messages are delivered and interpreted:
- High-context cultures (like Vietnam, Japan): meaning is often indirect, shaped by relationship, tone, or setting
- Low-context cultures (like Germany, USA): meaning is expected to be clear, explicit, and verbal
A Vietnamese student might express disagreement subtly — through silence, hesitation, or a question. A Western classmate might miss that cue and think they agree. Meanwhile, a Vietnamese lecturer might criticize a student’s presentation openly, expecting them to “accept and improve” — but a Korean or Scandinavian student may find the tone unexpectedly harsh.
🧠 Why These Models Still Matter
These frameworks can be useful tools — especially for:
- Making sense of recurring misunderstandings
- Offering vocabulary for describing cultural differences
- Helping educators reflect on their classroom assumptions
They are also widely used in business, education, and international communication training.
⚠️ …But Use Them with Caution
Like any model, these frameworks have limits:
| Limitation | Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| Essentialism | Cultures are reduced to static labels (“Vietnamese = collectivist”) |
| Context blindness | Ignores variations by gender, region, education, or generation |
| Western bias | Hofstede’s model is based on 1970s male IBM engineers |
| Cultural determinism | Risks blaming behavior on “culture” instead of considering individual agency or local dynamics |
For instance, saying “Vietnamese students are quiet because of power distance” ignores the fact that many Vietnamese students speak up — especially in student-led or internationalized classrooms.
Similarly, “teachers in Vietnam avoid confrontation” is inaccurate. In fact, many Vietnamese university teachers provide direct, pointed, even public feedback, especially when academic standards are at stake. However, this may be done without personal judgment, following a professional norm that values clarity and responsibility.
🔄 Applying These Models Critically
Use cultural models as lenses, not labels. Ask:
- What do these models reveal about possible values at play?
- What do they overlook?
- How might the context (urban vs. rural, academic vs. social, private vs. public) change the dynamic?
Case Example
Scenario: A Vietnamese MA student emails a British lecturer: “Dear Sir, I am so sorry to disturb you. I humbly request an extension due to some issues in my life. I will try my best.”
The lecturer interprets it as overly apologetic and unclear. He prefers: “Hi, could I request a 2-day extension due to illness?”Interpretation: Using Hall’s theory, this can reflect a high-context communication style emphasizing deference and relationship-saving. But we also need to ask: Is this cultural? Or is it the result of language norms taught in Vietnamese schools? Or the student’s personal style?
✍️ Reflection Task
Think of a real or fictional intercultural miscommunication involving feedback, silence, or group work. Use one global cultural model to explain it. Then critique the model’s limits and suggest what else might explain the behavior.
Or in groups:
Discuss: Are global cultural models still useful in an era of hybrid identities, online communication, and international mobility?