Design across borders: why culture matters in workplace design

Workplace design has gone global. It’s now common for teams in London to shape offices in Singapore, or for studios in New York to deliver projects destined for Dubai or Sydney. As people move across borders to live and work in unprecedented numbers, designers are increasingly tasked with creating spaces for cultures, communities and contexts they don’t directly inhabit.

But striking a balance between universal design and regional or national flair is a tricky line to walk. Research consistently shows that design that aligns with national culture can elevate cognitive performance and wellbeing.

This research even extends into the metaverse. Recent research by Fares and associates uses Hofstedes categorization of global cultures (collectivist and individualistic) suggests that the metaverse shouldn’t be designed the same way everywhere as it need to reflect the priorities of different national cultures. The study found that people from different cultural backgrounds respond differently to digital environments, so design choices should adapt accordingly.

Individualist v collectivist cultures

It’s no surprise that the Fares-lead team refers to Hofstede’s system.  Its categorisations have clear design implications, as described by the Hofstede team itself (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov, 2010). 

People hailing from more individualistic cultures have higher expectations of being able to have privacy, when desired, than those from more collectivistic cultures. Those who grew up in collectivist cultures are more likely to be willing to share things, such as bathrooms or printers, than people from more individualistic ones.

Spaces for people from individualistic cultures need to be flexible, for example, to have moveable furniture, because they are more likely to change environments than those from more collectivist national cultures.

Cultural nuances

Cultures with higher scores on the power distance criteria indicate that they have more tolerance. Those from countries with relatively high-power distance scores are more accepting of people with power having relatively more amenities, for example, executive dining rooms than people without power.

In more ‘masculine’ countries (as described by Hofstede’s classification system), quality of life is not as important as it is in more feminine countries, but achievement is extremely important. Living more sustainable or ‘green’ lifestyles, is a stronger motivator, generally, to people from feminine cultures than it is to people from masculine ones.

People in countries that are more tolerant to uncertainty generally need fewer rules and are more open to new ideas. They also tend to worry less about things being perfectly clean or controlled, which can influence design choices such as materials and finishes. By contrast, people from cultures that prefer clear structure and certainty often value order and predictability more. Those who are more comfortable with ambiguity are also more likely to notice and value opportunities to relax compared to people from cultures that prefer greater clarity and control.

What this means for design

The Hofstede classification system offers an indication of how to design for cultural nuance. It is a system that has been used by other researchers to refine design preferences across different countries, and cultures.

Jordan (2000) found that Hofstede’s cultural dimensions have been correlated against data gathered from surveys of consumer behaviour and attitudes conducted in sixteen separate countries. Links were made between the five cultural dimensions and people’s preferences and tastes with respect to what a product design should communicate through its aesthetics. Some of these links include:

• Power distance: high status environments for cultures where more uneven distributions of power are more widely accepted.
• Individuality: expressive environments for cultures who score relatively highly on individuality, whereas familiarity is better for more collectivist countries.
• Masculine-feminine: performance is key in more masculine cultures, whereas artistry is important for more feminine ones.
• Uncertainty avoidance: reliability is better for uncertainty avoiding groups, whereas novelty  is better for those more comfortable with uncertainty.
• Long-term orientation: timelessness is better for cultures where long-term orientation is stronger, whereas fashionableness is more preferable in countries where short-term orientation prevails.

Designing for cultural communication styles

De Mooij and Hofstede (2011) also report that in relatively collectivist cultures there is more emphasis on indirect, nonverbal communication than in relatively individualistic ones.

Cai and Zimring (2019) in a study focused on health care environments found that:

• In a collectivistic culture there are ‘greater needs for group collocation, physical proximity, and better visual connections that can bring group members together and create internal solidarity. A space with higher visual connectivity and accessibility is helpful to create more opportunities for casual face-to-face interactions and maintain the bond among the group members. In addition, the focus on the distinction between in-group and out-group requires identifiable boundaries between different user groups.’ In collectivistic cultures, ‘Face-to-face interactions become the most important way to communicate to capture between-line messages.’
• In a space consistent with high power distance there is ‘a clear order of hierarchical structure. The central authority and social status are represented as the inaccessibility and high sense of control of the physical location.’
• In areas where ‘saving face’ is of great concern it is very important that private spaces be available for conversations during which an individual might be criticised or corrected or asked a question that might indicate a lack of knowledge, for example.

Good workplace design clearly recognises the national culture of user groups and reflects and responds to those cultures; it ‘speaks’ to users in ways that those users find meaningful, appropriate, and useful.

References:

Hui Cai and Craig Zimring. 2019. ‘Cultural Impacts on Nursing Unit Design: A Comparative Study on Chinese Nursing Unit Typologies and Their US Counterparts Using Space Syntax.’ Environment and Planning B:  Urban Analytics and City Science, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 573-594.

Marieke de Mooij and Geert Hofstede.  2011. ‘Cross-Cultural Consumer Behavior: A Review of Research Findings.’ Journal of International Consumer Marketing, vol. 23, pp. 181-192.

Omar Fares, Shelley Haines, Seung Lee, Ali Azmy, Myuri Mohan, and Selena Le. ‘Retail Metaverse Acceptance: A Meta-Analysis with Hofstede’s Cultural Moderation.’ Journal of Retailing, in press.

Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan Hofstede, and Michael Minkov.  2010. Cultures and Organizations. McGraw Hill:  New York.

Patrick Jordan. 2009.  Designing Pleasurable Products. Taylor and Francis: New York.

Adam Komisarof and Plamen Akaliyski. 2025. ‘New Developments in Hofstede’s Individualism-Collectivism: A Guide for Scholars, Educators, Trainers, and Other Practitioners.’ International Journal of Intercultural Relations, vol. 107, 102200.