Power Distance: Implications for English Language Teaching

1. Introduction

It is a generally accepted notion that expatriate language teachers will experience problems at some time in their career of teaching students from different cultures. In my own teaching situation, when I am consulted by expatriate colleagues for advice about possible solutions to their classroom problems, it is often the case that the advice I give is deemed to be inadequate or in opposition to some preconceptions about task of teaching and the roles of teachers. These problems seem to be exacerbated by an apparent lack of appreciation as to the differences in the interactional aspects of both cultures in question. For example, how is the teacher expected to interact with her students in a given culture? How should students interact with each other? What implications should these cultural dynamics have on the methodology that teachers adopt in the language classroom? This paper attempts to shed light on what may actually be taking place in classrooms, in terms of teacher-student and student-student interactions. Of particular interest will be the issue of power distance, and how this cultural dimension affects classroom interaction. The following will be discussed in this paper: a review of the literature surrounding power distance, an application of this research and how it may affect ELT classrooms, and a consideration of the implications power distance may have for the methodology that I, a nonnative teacher of English, adopt in the classroom. Before considering these issues, however, a number of definitions will be discussed with regard to the topic of power distanceDefinitions The term power distance was first conceptualized by Geert Hofstede in 1980 (Hofstede, 1980, cited in Earley, 1999: 193). He identified four value dimensions in his study of the cultural norms of different countries: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-collectivism and masculinity-femininity. He later added another dimension, called long-term/short-term orientation (Hofstede, 1997: 164-166). According to Hofstede (1997: 28), power distance is

defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. Unequal power distribution exists in any culture, but the degree of tolerance varies from culture to culture (Brown, 1994: 175). Lustig and Koester (1993: 136) describe power distance as a measure of the particular value orientations about status differences and social hierarchies that every culture possesses to one degree or another.In a high power distance (HPD) culture, each member is expected to maintain his rightful place in society (Samovar and Porter, 1991: 129). Lustig and Koester state that those who hold higher status are allowed to exercise their power over the members of lower status. Hierarchy is considered appropriate, and often beneficial. The actions of authorities should not be challenged (Lustig and Koester, 1993: 136). Hofstede (1980, cited in Earley, 1999: 193) argues that in an HPD culture, strict obedience is expected from members of lower power, and a directive style of management even produces greater satisfaction among subordinates. In contrast, a low power distance (LPD) culture is one in which members believe in minimizing unequal power distribution. Hierarchical structures are resisted, authority figures are challenged, and the use of power should be legitimized (Lustig and Koester, 1993: 136). An LPD culture expects more participatory roles from its members, and de-emphasizes strict obedience of subordinates to their superiors (Hofstede, 1980, cited in Earley, 1999: 193). Subordinates and superiors consider each other to be essentially equals, with different roles assigned to them (Samovar and Porter, 1991: 130). With this understanding in mind, let us now survey some of the research that highlights the issue of power distance.

3. Review of the Literature

Hofstedes original research was carried out around 1968 and around 1972 (Hofstede, 1997: 251). He collected more than 116,000 questionnaires from employees of 72 national subsidiaries of IBM, a large multinational company. In this research, the corporate culture of IBM at the time of survey was not taken into consideration. Although the construct validity of the power distance index Hofstede created is not without its critics (Spector, et al., 2001), and cultural patterns areconstantly affected to some degree by economic and political conditions, Hofstede has

provided the best available framework with which to presently measure the interactional aspects of a culture (Lustig and Koester, 1993: 136). Since Hofstedes first research, only limited attention has been paid to the dimension of power distance (Earley, 1999: 193). Most of this research has been conducted in the field of organizational behavior in business interactions. Through his study on 288 senior managers from four different countries, for instance, Earley (1999) finds that power distance may influence a members status on the collective decisions made by a group. He demonstrates that in HPD cultures, higher status members personal judgments have much more influence than those of lower members, whereas in LPD cultures, every member seems to contribute to the decision making process rather equally. He also maintains that the content of the hierarchies differs across cultures, suggesting the need to develop a systematic way to assess the content of a trait hierarchy within a culture, including gender, nationality, race, religion, socioeconomic status as well as achieved roles including profession and education (Earley, 1999: 208-209). Another recent study in the field of business was conducted by Merritt (2000). She surveyed 9,400 commercial airline pilots in 19 countries. In spite of the fact that pilots are typically thought to be working in a highly regulated, high-technology environment which transcends national influences, Merritt concludes that the differences in the degrees of power distance in the cockpit are clearly observed, and that a standardized pilot training program across the world is not advisable. As to power distance in classroom interactions, even fewer accounts have been published. The seminal work of Hofstede (1986) lists differences in teacher-student and student-student interaction in relation to power distance. His analysis was based primarily on his extensive research on the work-related values mentioned earlier, and his personal experiences as a teacher and parent in different cross-cultural situations.In the field of language education, a survey of twenty years of reputable publications such as the ELT Journal and JALT Language Teachers reveal only a cursory mentioning of the topic. The purpose of this article, therefore, is to seek greater insight about the possible mental constructs which teachers and students employ in classroom with regard to power distance, and to relate these findings to the classes I teach at a

national university in Japan. It is hoped that these findings will offer fellow teachers an opportunity to reflect upon their own teaching situations as well.

4. Discussion of Power Distance in Classrooms

Hofstede (1997:35) finds that a persons attitudes toward his parents and teachers are often transferred to his managers. Because of this apparent connection in the constructs defining the role of parent, teacher and manager, it seems logical to assume that much of the research on power distance in supervisory and subordinate roles could also be considered when attempting to grapple with the dynamics taking place in the language classroom. It would follow then that, in general, HPD cultures would most likely view the teacher in the role of an authoritative manager, while LPD cultures should tend to define the role of the teacher in terms of an easilyapproachable boss.Based upon the research described earlier, and from my experiences as both a student and teacher in Japan, and a student and office worker in the United States, and also from discussions with and observations of non-Japanese teachers of English at the Japanese universities where I currently teach, the following tables on the interactional differences in the dimension of power distance have been provided (see Table 1 and Table 2). Nevertheless, more research will be needed to determine if these observations are indeed valid.

4.1 Teacher/Student Interaction

In HPD cultures, according to Hofstede (1997: 34), the authoritative parent role is transferred to the teacher. The image of the ideal teacher is that of a good parent. There is considerable dependence of students on the teacher, yet the emotional distance between the two parties is large. The wisdom of the teacher is passed down to the students in a highly personalized manner. If this system fails for reasons such us excessive power abuse and extreme irresponsibility on the side of the teacher, students may entirely reject their dependence on the teacher, which is known in psychology as counterdependence (Hofstede, 1997: 27). In LPD culture, on the other hand, student independence is encouraged, just as a childs independence is fostered within a family. Students are treated as more or less equals to the teacher, which makes emotional distance between them considerably less. The ideal teacher is somewhat like a resourceful friend. The teacher facilitates the students independent pursuit of

truths and knowledge. The quality of learning is determined considerably by the effort and ability of each student, and students need for dependence decreases as they progress in their studies (Hofstede, 1997: 34-35). Table 1 shows differences in teacher-student interaction between HPD and LPD cultures. In this table, the possible difficulties experienced by many native-speaking teachers of English in Japan have been highlighted. These are further divided by the events that are in class and out of class.

4.2 Student/Student Interaction

In HDP cultures, members with lower power enhance their positions by paying due respect to their superiors, and thus conforming to and endorsing the existing hierarchy (Triandis, 1989, 1994 and Turner, 1985, cited in Earley, 1999: 194). Hierarchical roles are often transferred to the interactions of students as well. Table 2 contrasts the student-student interaction in HPD cultures and that of LPD cultures.

4.3 Cautions upon Interpretation of the Tables

It should be noted, however, that the descriptions in the tables are at the extreme ends of the power distance continuum, and that the reality in a given culture is found somewhere in between (Hofstede, 1997: 39). Particularly in the field of English language education, where methodology and materials are often imported from lower power distance countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States, presumably LPD classroom traits are sometimes copied in HDP classrooms. It is a clash between the values and beliefs behind these differing traits that is at the root of many of the problems experienced by expatriate teachers in the language classrooms. There is another point that also needs mentioning here. Although it is true that careless cultural stereotyping has caused many pains and troubles in history, cultural differences do exist, and in this era of globalization, cautious analysis of cultural traits is very much needed to facilitate effective intercultural communication. One must recognize the constraints of ones mental programs, which have been developed in the culture where one grows up, and develop creative ways to solve the problems caused by cultural differences (Hofstede, 1997: 235-237). It should be made clear, however, that while a stereotyped image of a particular culture may help to show the tendency of its people, it should never automatically be applied to every individual in the culture.

5. Implications for Japanese ELT Classrooms

The tables suggest numerous avenues for research and discussion. In this paper, however, only the implications of this research for Japanese ELT classrooms and for my own situation will be, discussed. Based upon the above research and my personal experiences, the current Japanese educational culture is best classified as a medium to high power distance culture. It means that shifts from an HPD educational culture to an LPD culture have been observed in classroom as the society experiences economical and political changes, and that aspects of both HPD and LPD cultures can take place depending on a group dynamic of a class and their interaction with the teacher. Interestingly, Hofstede (1997: 42) suggests that, in most cases, the language used in a culture has something to do with the power distance of the culture. Roman languages such as French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian, seem to foster medium to high power distance cultures, whereas Germanic languages such as German, English, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, are spoken in medium to low power distance cultures. Hofstede argues that some roots of the differences seem to go back to the Roman Empire. Cultures influenced by the teachings of Confucius, such as Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, score medium to high on his power distance scale.This creates a tendency to make ELT classrooms in Japan more susceptible than any other classroom to the influences of the lower power distance cultures of the target language. Although many of the HPD cultural traits are still preserved in most ELT classrooms, particularly with Japanese teachers of English, the influence is exerted not only by the language itself, but also teaching materials and native-speaking teachers coming from AngloAmerican countries.

5.1 Teacher/Student Interaction in Japanese ELT ClassroomThe following are some

examples of the traditional HPD interactions between the teacher and students which are still observed in many ELT classrooms in Japan: The ideal role of a teacher is that of a loving parent (Hadley and Evans, 2001:139). The overall educational process is teacher-centered. Self-selected turn-taking is seldom among students (Sato, 1982, cited in Chaudron, 1988: 105). In other words, students do not ask or answer questions in class unless they are called upon by the teacher. Students generally do not doubt the teachers view, but instead, tend to conform to her preferences and expectations. Public displays of disagreements or confrontations with the

teacher are to be avoided. The introduction of student autonomy to class faces difficulty because the teacher is expected to be in perfect control of the class management (Griffee, 1995). Student feedback, therefore, is seldom expected, unless it is specifically asked by the teacher. On the tertiary level, there still exists, although it is not as common as before, the practice of a professor adopting a superior student as someone who will carry on the knowledge and wisdom of the professor. As for facilities, schools usually designate separate restroms and parking lot for teachers.However, one can observe shifts from the old to the new patterns of teacher-student interaction emerging in ELT classrooms. Teachers used to be respected just because they were in the position of teacher, but recently, their expertise and personality have begun to play a considerable role in winning respect from students. Student negotiation with the teacher on their assignments and grades has been observed on a small scale. Most universities, these days, designate days when students can request the teacher, through the administration office, to justify the grade they received. Instead of the traditional rote learning by drills, many teachers are now experimenting on problem solving tasks, and encouraging students to be creative in communicating the meaning to others. Teachers feedback to students is less focused on the correctness of final products but more on the process. Recent institution-wide development includes end-of-semester student evaluations and a system for handling cases of teacher power abuse. The former has been widely introduced to tertiary schools throughout the country since the early to mid-90s, although some fear the possibility of negative implications for nativespeaking teachers of English, due to the culturally determined expectations Japanese students may have toward teachers (Ryan, 1998: 9). The latter, at this moment, focuses on sexual harassment in schools. A large number of institutions now have guidelines stipulating how to deal with it, although it is not clear as to how many cases of such abuse are actually reported without first being covered up by those in power.

5.2 Student/Student Interaction in Japanese ELT Classrooms

As for interaction among students, a similar shift is taking place due to the societal change and influence of the culture of the target language. Under a teacher or parental figure, students still identify themselves as a group rather than individuals. Within a group, there is a hierarchical structure of some degree, which is based on age (Hadley and Hadley, 1996: 54), ability, and, to a less extent in todays classrooms, gender. Interestingly, however, gifted students tend to hide

their ability in order not to be excluded by their peers. This might be explained by the negative correlation of the two cultural dimensions, that is, power distance and individualism. Hofstede (1997: 54-55) points out that HPD cultures are less likely to be individualistic. It might be argued, therefore, that students are more affected by cultural collectivist tendencies. On the other hand, some shifts can be observed among student-student interaction as well. It seems that students are seeking more help from the teacher than before, and ambitious students are accommodated to participate more actively in class regardless of her level of mastery of the target language.

6. Implications on My Teaching Methodology

In contrast to the national trends described above, my teaching style went through some adjustment in the opposite direction. I have taught English in Niigata, on the northwest coast of Japan, since 1992, when I came back to Japan with my American husband after five-year residence in the midwestern state of Missouri. Returning from the U.S., which scores medium to low on Hofstedes power distance scale (1997: 26), I began to increasingly feel the need to adjust my teaching style in order to effectively interact with my students in a more personable way. I remembered my upbringing. My father, who was a school teacher, and my mother a nurse, were firm in holding high standards for my sister and me, but caring under their tough appearances. They knew both of us were made of different material, and accepted each of us when we reached our limits. They were, in most cases, sensitive to our unexpressed needs. It seems rather clear, in retrospect, that I adopted my parents as models in my teaching career (Hofstede, 1997), and gradually adjusted my approach to teaching from an LPD to an HPD style Although Communicative Language Teaching was gaining popularity here in Japan at the time when I started teaching, as a non-native speaker, I lacked the confidence to implement it in my classes (Richards and Rodgers, 1986: 79). Furthermore, I felt that the approach might not be effective in this culture. Even if it was, I felt that the effectiveness would soon wear out once students finished the course and were out in the Japanese society, unless the approach was somehow adjusted to the interpersonal cultural context of Japan. I, therefore, decided to define my classes as a bridge between the Japanese traditional approach to ELT classes and the native-speaking teachers classes where students come in contact with authentic English. I hoped to assist students to eventually adapt what they learned from native speakers to their own cultural

settingFor the detailed discussions below, my freshman classes at Niigata University will be offered as examples. The role of the teacher, and issues such as turn-taking, wait-time, a safety net for weak students, and student feedback will be discussed in the following section

6.1 Teacher as an Authoritative Figure

The most important adjustment I made, I believe, was my role as a teacher. I remained as unthreatening and approachable as possible, but at the same time assumed the role of authority figure. It is not dissimilar, in effect, to the ringi-sei system traditionally adopted in Japanese companies, in that those of higher status can listen to the voices of their subordinates, and at the same time maintain their authority. (Misumi, 1984; Misumi and Peterson, 1985; Nakane, 1970, all cited in Earley, 1999: 193). In this system, while employees are encouraged to submit their proposed solution to a problem, final decision reflects the idea of the top executives. It is guided participation in an existing hierarchy (Earley, 1999: 194) I find it necessary for a teacher to maintain high academic standards for students, and show the appearance of being in charge of her class in an HPD culture. Otherwise, students may become demotivated and lose confidence in their teacher, and the balance of power shifts from the teacher to students. I have seen some cases where a native-speaking teacher lost control of a class because it appeared to her students that she was more like a friend than a teacher. I myself once had a high schoollass, where I lost control over a group of problem students, and subsequently lost control of the entire class because of the same reason

6.2 Encouraging Turn-Taking

There were several other adjustments I had to make in my teaching practices. First, I introduced a participation point system (Hadley, 1995) to my classes. Under my version of this system, a student receives a poker chip when he answers correctly, and can collect as many as he can in class. At the end of the semester, the number of chips collected is converted into participation points of the student, which will comprise one third of his final grade. I adopted this system in order to give students additional extrinsic motivation other than teacher recognition. By providing students a sense of advancement in their grade, this system has proven to be a highly effective motivator, although it has sometimes been criticized as being behavioristic. Another

reason for introducing this system was to make questioning and answering into a type of game. In a game-like setting, gifted and inferior students, both of them having difficulty expressing themselves in the Japanese educational culture, can openly participate without worrying about what other students might think of them. It creates an active two-way communication environment between the teacher and students, and also allows me to be more a facilitator than controller.

6.3 Extending Wait-Time

Secondly, I had to learn to deal with quiet and unresponsive students. Having lived in the States for some years, with little contact with people of the same nationality, I had forgotten what it was like to be a student in Japan. I took student silence as resistance to my teaching, and got angry. But as I began to readjust to the society, I learned to look into what was behind the unresponsiveness as any concerned parent would do, and try to attend to their hidden needs, which vary from not knowing how to pronounce a particular word to the insecurity due to not personally knowing the partner in pair work. I also increased wait-time in answering a question not only to 5 seconds (Richards and Lockhart, 1994: 188), but to 20 seconds when necessary, which was helpful to a number of students, but considerably slowed down the classes.

Providing a Safety Net for Weak StudentI, then, had to deal with the problem of having
extremely low-level students in each class. There were no remedial classes or tutors for weak students available outside of class, and teachers were almost expected to find a way to pass them. So I arranged my grading system in a way that the attendance itself counts for one third of their final grade. Weak students were also encouraged to consult with me after class if they had any questions.

6.5 Stimulating Feedback

Lastly, I devised a safe way to elicit student feedback. I was unsure of how well or badly I was doing in my class, because there was no feedback, good or bad, either from my students or from my superiors. I later learned that it was a typical situation at universities in Japan. I decided to hand out a piece of paper to each student three weeks after the semester started and right before it ended. I ask the students to anonymously comment on the class in any way they like in

Japanese. At the beginning of the semester, they often write how much they can comprehend in the class, and express their needs. At the end of the semester, they write their comments such as how much they learned and what they thought about the class. Making it a free-style writing, I can appreciate the personality of each student coming out of her writing, and sometimes learn unexpected things from my students. To avoid misleading students to think they have a control over what I do in the class, I keep this practice only twice a semester

7. Conclusion
This paper has sought to highlight the following points: a definitions of the terms, a review of the literature, discussion of power difference in terms of teacher-student and student-student interactions, and its implications in ELT classrooms in Japan and on my teaching methodology at Niigata University. Language teachers will almost universally agree that cultural difference contributes to the problems in classrooms. This realization alone, however, is not helpful in finding solutions to improve our methodologies. Focusing upon a specific dimension of cultures, such as that of power distance, can yield rich information on the different underlying value systems the teacher and students may possess in a language classroom. This research on power distance has revealed some of my mental constructs, and has assisted me in developing a conscious awareness of my own interaction with students in classrooms. Having examinedwhere I was nine years ago, and how I have adjusted my approach to teaching since then, I am learning to craft a personal teaching methodology to compliment the affective needs of my students, thereby better facilitating their acquisition of the target language.