Power Distance and Leadership
Hofstede (1997) defines power distance as “the extent to which less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally” (p. 28). Hofstede believes that power distance is learned early in families. In high power distance cultures, children are expected to be obedient toward parents versus being treated more or less as equals. In high power distance cultures, people are expected to display respect for those of higher status.
Power distance also refers to the extent to which power, prestige, and wealth are distributed within a culture. Cultures with high power distance have power and influence concentrated in the hands of a few rather than distributed throughout the population. These countries tend to be more authoritarian and may communicate in a way to limit interaction and reinforce the differences between people.
In the high power distance workplace, superiors and subordinates consider each other existentially unequal. Power is centralized, and there is a wide salary gap between the top and bottom of the organization. In cultures high in power distance, for example, corporate presidents’ offices are more likely to be luxurious, with controlled access. Company bosses are “kings” and employees “loyal subjects” who don’t speak out. In the low power distance workplace, subordinates expect to be consulted, and ideal bosses are democratic. In more democratic organizations, leaders are physically more accessible. Table 7.3 shows examples of both types.

According to Dickson, Hartog and Mitchelson (2003) power distance is one of the most influential cultural dimension which has been used to have an in-depth analysis of cross-cultural leadership research. Specifically, power distance as a cultural dimension has been used to dictate the leadership styles and behaviors in