The Two Faces of Uncertainty Avoidance: Attachment and Adaptation David S. Baker and Kerry D. Carson University of Louisiana at Lafayette ABSTRACT The authors used a sample of 155 field sales personnel from the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand to examine attachment and adaptation as two ways of addressing individual uncertainty avoidance. Results suggest that both attachment and adaptation are used to reduce uncertainty avoidance in the workplace. Individuals low on uncertainty avoidance had no need to attach with their group or adapt to their environment. Those high on uncertainty avoidance used both techniques to deal with risk. Individuals reporting moderate levels of uncertainty avoidance primarily used adaptation rather than attachment to deal with risk. Introduction Geert Hostede’s (1980) theoretical and empirical work on value development within national cultures has served as an important foundation for this field of international study (Triandis, 2004). Hofstede (1980) originally proposed a framework that consisted of four dimensions: uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, power distance, masculinity/femininity. He later added a fifth dimension, time orientation (Hofstede & Bond, 1988). Of particular interest in this study is the macro dimension of uncertainty avoidance measured at an individual level. Cultures high on uncertainty avoidance are risk adverse. Individuals in these cultures prefer stability in their lives and careers. They want their environment to be predictable. To foster compliance among their members, cultures high in uncertainty avoidance structure behavior through such mechanisms as laws, religion or customs. Vague situations are avoided in high uncertainty avoidance cultures, and group norms and rules reduce ambiguity. Individuals tend to attach themselves to the dominant cultural group and