U.S. MULTINATIONALS OPERATING IN RUSSIA: RUSSIAN EMPLOYEES IN THE AMERICAN BUSINESS MODEL Eric Langford A Thesis Submitted to the University of North Carolina Wilmington in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Business Administration Cameron School of Business University of North Carolina Wilmington 2010 Approved by Advisory Committee Rebecca I. Porterfield Carlos L. Rodriguez Daria Konovalova Chair Accepted by Dean, Graduate School
Transcript
U.S. MULTINATIONALS OPERATING IN RUSSIA: RUSSIAN EMPLOYEES IN THE AMERICAN BUSINESS MODEL
Eric Langford
A Thesis Submitted to the University of North Carolina Wilmington in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Business Administration
Cameron School of Business
University of North Carolina Wilmington
2010
Approved by
Advisory Committee
Rebecca I. Porterfield Carlos L. Rodriguez Daria Konovalova
Chair
Accepted by
Dean, Graduate School
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES ..........................................................................................................................v
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vi
A multi-national company based out of the U.S. that wants to do business in Russia should
first learn and understand the culture of the Russian people. This would include similarities and
differences between subcultures within Russia. Then a comprehensive comparison can be done
between the Russian and U.S. culture to identify the similarities and differences. The similarities
form a commonality between the two cultures that can be used to identify American business
practices and policies that should work in the Russian culture. The differences between the two
cultures must be understood and respected in order to avoid misunderstanding and conflict. With
their culture in mind, one can first look at what Russian managers actually do in the workplace.
The next step is to understand how Russian culture influences Russian management style by
looking at how American culture affects U.S. managers. With an insight into the two cultures
and their influences on management, the resulting question would then be whether or not current
American management concepts would directly work in Russia. Can the American business
model be placed unedited in the Russian workplace and find success? This paper explores if
American business theories can be adapted and applied to the Russian business context; and if
so, how.
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Russian Scores on Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions .................................................................2
2. Respondents by Age and Work Experience ..............................................................................3
3. Respondents by Occupation ......................................................................................................3
4. Respondents by Number of Subordinates .................................................................................4
5. Respondents by Region .............................................................................................................4
6. Comparison of Cultural Dimensions across Countries .............................................................9
7. t-Test for Difference in Cultural Value Means .......................................................................16
8. Trait to Success Correlations ..................................................................................................24
9. Russian Scores on Core Dimensions ......................................................................................31
10. Russian Scores with Current Data ..........................................................................................34
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Cultural Traits of Effective Organizations ...............................................................................23
INTRODUCTION
Researchers have examined the reality of globalization and the importance of having local
cultural knowledge while doing business in a host country. “With the increasing levels of
globalization and internationalization of business, managing in an international context seems to
have become an imperative. This has led to increasing recognition of intercultural competence
as a critical success factor for world class firms (Adler, 2002; Cox, 1994; Laurent, 1983;
Trompenaars, 1993).” –Woldu, Budhwar, Parkes, 2006. A domestic company generally
develops its mission through its own core beliefs and values. Accepted cultural values in one
country can vary drastically from those of another country. The counter-productive effects of
multinational companies operating on foreign soil without proper cultural training and awareness
programs are clear and undeniable. Unfortunately this happens often, especially with US
multinationals (Pickard and Brewster, 1994). This indicates a strong need for multinational
organizations to carefully examine their own values as part of their company’s mission (David,
1989; Starky, 1998) in order to ensure understanding and acceptance within the foreign country.
For a company to fit its own values within the accepted context of the host nation, it must first
understand the values of that nation.
2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Understanding Russian Culture
Geert Hofstede has been recognized as a leading authority on culture. His dimensions and
measurement methods have been used and accepted throughout the academic world. Alexander
I. Naumov uses the work of Hofstede to explore Russian culture in his article, “Measuring
Russian Culture using Hofstede’s Dimensions”.
Naumov used the results from 250 surveyed Russians to rank them on each of Hofstede’s 5
cultural dimensions in the subgroups of age, work experience, occupation, number of
subordinates, and geographical region. He accepts Hofstede’s model of national culture as well
as his method of measurement. He defines Hofstede’s dimensions as a means to determine how
a culture’s behavioral patterns are used in problem solving, and how such patterns compare to
those of other countries. He used a 29 item questionnaire to collect data from October 1995 to
June 1996. According to Naumov, the questions and responses were averaged out over the 5
dimensions, and the results were converted to a 100 point scale developed by Hofstede (1980) to
compare with other studies. The results are listed with Hofstede’s (1993) estimates for Russia,
and Bollinger’s (1994) results for 55 Russian managers done in 1989:
Table 1. Russian Scores on Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions
Uncertainty
Avoidance Idividualism Collectivism
Power Distance
Paternalism Masculinity Femininity
Present Study (1996)
68 (15)
41 (20)
40 (17)
59 (17)
55 (18)
Hofstede (1993)
90 50 95 10 40
Bollinger (1989)
92 26 76 NA 28
Source: Naumov, 2000.
3
The number in parenthesis with the original study is the confidence interval to which 50% of
the respondent’s answers fall (uncertainty avoidance had 50% of responses between 53 and 83).
The following charts show responses from the different subgroups of this study:
Table 2. Respondents by Age and Work Experience
Under 25
25-40
Over 40
Under 1yr
1-5 yrs
6-15 yrs
16-25 yrs
Over 25 yrs
Number of Respondents
93
73
84
49
51
26
75
49
Uncertainty Avoidance
66 (11)
71 (9)
67 (10)
64 (10)
64 (11)
68 (10)
69 (9)
67 (11)
Individualism Collectivism
42 (9)
41 (15)
40 (10)
42 (8)
46 (12)
42 (11)
40 (14)
41 (11)
Power Distance
43 (12)
39 (10)
37 (10)
43 (10)
39 (11)
39 (10)
37 (10)
37 (10)
Paternalism
53 (12)
60 (12)
63 (11)
66 (10)
60 (9)
59 (11)
60 (11)
67 (10)
Masculinity Femininity
57 (21)
55 (21)
54 (21)
61 (10)
60 (10)
52 (9)
56 (12)
53 (11)
Source: Naumov, 2000.
Table 3. Respondents by Occupation
Full-time Business Student
Employed Business Student
Faculty Member
University Administrator
Other Admini-strator
Manager
Number of Respondents
48
36
81
22
22
41
Uncertainty Avoidance
64 (11)
70 (10)
66 (11)
64 (10)
73 (8)
72 (9)
Individualism Collectivism
44 (8)
38 (12)
44 (14)
39 (11)
42 (9)
37 (10)
Power Distance
38 (10)
50 (13)
39 (10)
30 (10)
40 (10)
40 (9)
Paternalism 58 (10)
45 (12)
59 (13)
65 (10)
61 (12)
64 (9)
Masculinity Femininity
52 (10)
64 (11)
55 (11)
48 (9)
52 (12)
56 (11)
Source: Naumov, 2000.
4
Table 4. Respondents by Number of Subordinates
None Less than 10 11-30 Over 30 Number of Respondents
165
39
26
20
Uncertainty Avoidance
67 (11)
72 (8)
65 (10)
73 (7)
Individualism Collectivism
43 (12)
40 (10)
38 (10)
36 (9)
Power Distance 42 (11)
38 (8)
32 (10)
39 (10)
Paternalism 56 (12)
64 (10)
67 (9)
63 (10)
Masculinity Femininity
56 (11)
58 (9)
49 (11)
53 (11)
Source: Naumov, 2000.
Table 5. Respondents by Region
Volga Moscow/ Central European
Urals/ Siberia
Belarus/ North-west Russia
Southern Russia/ Northern Caucasus
Number of Respondents
59
76
54
15
12
Uncertainty Avoidance
67 (12)
68 (11)
68 (9)
67 (10)
65 (10)
Individualism Collectivism
42 (10)
41 (10)
39 (15)
43 (10)
49 (13)
Power Distance
37 (10)
44 (13)
39 (9)
39 (10)
40 (6)
Paternalism
61 (12)
53 (12)
57 (10)
63 (11)
66 (14)
Masculinity Femininity
53 (11)
57 (12)
53 (12)
55 (7)
57 (9)
Source: Naumov, 2000. The results are broken down and discussed from each of the 5 cultural dimensions.
Naumov describes Hofstede’s definition of uncertainty avoidance as the degree to which
members of a given culture perceive and react to an undefined threat and unknown situations.
5
While the author’s result for Russia’s uncertainty avoidance was high (68), it was still
significantly lower than both Hofstede’s estimate (90) and Bollinger’s result (92). Naumov
believes the higher result from Bollinger may be caused by the political and economical state of
Russia during the 1980s when citizens were given a decent paying job as long as they did not
challenge the system. During the economic transition of Russia in the 1990s, uncertainty became
more present and individuals were forced to make decisions. Naumov also uses the results from
Veiga et al. (1995), that uncertainty avoidance was declining in the early 1990s from its prior
level, to support and explain his findings.
There was no significant difference among the subgroups of age, work experience, number of
subordinates, or geographic region. Under occupation, however, full-time students, faculty
members, and administrators scored lower than respondents from business sectors. The author
believes this is due to the lack of strict rules in the university setting.
Naumov characterizes collectivism as a culture where members of a group are looked after
and protected in return for unconditional loyalty. In this type of society, the group always comes
before the individual. With Individualism, each person typically takes care of themselves and
their family. The present study shows a result of 41, which is similar to Hofstede’s estimate of
50, but significantly higher than Bollinger’s result of 26. This shows a move from greater
collectivism in the 1980s, at the time of Bollinger’s study, to more of a balance in the 1990s.
This result places Russia at the bottom of the individualism list for developed countries, and at
the top of the list for developing countries.
There are no significant differences in individualism between the subgroups of this study.
Naumov defines power distance as the degree to which the least powerful members of
society, institutions, or organizations expect that power will be distributed unequally. The result
6
for power distance (40) is significantly lower than Hofestede’s (90) and Bollinger’s (76). Veiga
et al. (1995) supports this discrepancy by claiming Russian power distance had been high before
perestroika1 but has been declining since. The author suggests that economic and political
decentralization are the cause of this decline in power distance.
The only significant difference among the subgroups is between university administrators
(30) and employed business students (50).
Naumov explains high paternalism as the protective duties of the family being performed by
the state, and low paternalism as those duties staying with the family. The author uses 7 items
from Hofstede’s long term vs. short term dimension to measure paternalism. Bollinger (1995)
and Veiga et al. (1995) did not have data for paternalism, but the author’s result of 59 was fairly
close to Hofstede’s estimate of 49.
The subgroup results showed lower paternalism among younger respondents, business
students below others in the occupational group, and individuals with no subordinates below
those with subordinates.
The author describes masculinity as having clearly defined social roles for men and women,
and femininity as having overlapping social roles for men and women. The study’s result of 55
is somewhat higher than Hofstede’s estimate (40) and significantly higher than Bollinger’s
(1994) score of 28. Veiga et al. (1995) also found masculinity to be low in Russia.
The largest difference in the subgroups was the high score on masculinity of respondents with
5 yrs or less of work experience.
The results from this study show Russian culture in the mid-1990s having moderate
individualism, power distance, and masculinity, while uncertainty avoidance and paternalism
1 The attempted change from a command economy to a market economy in the Soviet Union, by Mikhail Gorbachev, during the late 1980’s.
7
was fairly high. It is also noted that there are similarities and differences in the results of this
study and those of Hofstede, Bollinger and Veigo. There are also similarities and differences
among the subgroups in this study. Naumov further cautions that since the majority of
respondents had college degrees and were involved in business or business education, they may
not be representative of the general Russian population.
Comparison of Russian and U.S. Cultures
Understanding Russian culture is the first step in understanding how it differs from U.S.
culture. The second step is to compare the two cultures. The following section compares
cultures from Russia and America and looks at how those cultures affect behavior.
In their article, “A cross-national comparison of cultural value orientations of Indian, Polish,
Russian and American employees”, Habte G. Woldu, Pawan S. Budhwar and Carole Parkes
conduct a study of the cultural value orientations (VOs) of employees working in the
professional, technical, and local service industries in India, Poland, Russia and the USA. The
authors state that values guide behavior as they give order and directions to human acts. This
would lead to the importance of understanding the cultural VOs of employees in order to
understand and predict their behavior.
The authors use the following four cultural VOs in their study:
1 Human nature orientation: is perceived as good, a mixture of good and evil, or evil,
2 Man-to-nature orientation: societies can relate to nature by dominating it or living in harmony with it, while others become subjugated by it,
3 Relational orientation: relationships among people are perceived as individualistic, laterally extended groups, or hierarchical groups.
4 Activity orientation: activity in daily living may concentrate on striving for goals and keeping busy (doing) or reflecting and living rationally (thinking) or for others may take the form of living for the moment and exhibiting spontaneity (being).
8
These VOs were then used to create specific classifications. The following are the cultural orientation and dimension classifications:
I. Activity:
Doing (AD): People should continually engage in activity to accomplish tangible tasks. Thinking (AT): People should consider all aspects of a situation carefully and rationally before taking action. Being (AB): People should be spontaneous, and do everything in its own time. II. Relation to environment:
Mastery (RNC): We should control, direct and change the environment around us. Subjugation (RNS): We should not try to change the basic direction of the
broader environment around us, and we should allow ourselves to be influenced by a larger natural or supernatural element.
Harmony (RNH): We should strive to maintain a balance among the elements of the environment, including ourselves.
III. Relationships among people:
Individual (RI): Our primary responsibility is to and for ourselves as individuals, and next for our immediate families.
Collective (RC): Our primary responsibility is to and for a larger extended group of people, such as an extended family or society.
Hierarchical (RH): Power and responsibility are naturally unequally distributed throughout society; those higher in the hierarchy have power over and responsibility for those lower.
IV. Nature of humans:
Good/Evil (HNG): The basic nature of people is essentially good (lower score) or evil (higher score).
Changeable/Unchangeable (HNC): The basic nature of human is changeable (higher score) from good to evil or vice versa, or nor changeable (lower score).
(Source: Adopted from Maznevski et al. (1995; 2002). See also Kluckhohn and Slrodtbcck (1961) for original information.)
9
The researchers used a questionnaire to survey 1,852 workers from the four countries over a
period of 5 years (1998-2002). They used the Cultural Perspectives Questionnaire (CPQ) of
Maznevski et al. (1995) to measure the 11 variations of the four cultural VOs with 79 questions
answered from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). Another 11 questions gather
demographic information. When the results were tallied, a standard deviation measurement was
used to gage the internal consistency of the 11 dimensions. Four of the dimensions fell outside
of the accepted range and the remaining 7 were used for further analysis. The following chart
shows the cultural dimension averages of the 4 countries in the 7 passing categories:
Table 6. Comparison of Cultural Dimensions across Countries
Cultural Dimensions India Poland Russia USA Activity:
Source: Waldu, Budhwar, Parks, 2006. Based on the criteria in the chart above, the U.S. has no cultural similarities to any of the
other three countries. There are however cultural similarities between India and Poland (HNG),
Russia and India (AD, RNH), and between Russia and Poland (RC, RH). This presents a great
challenge to American companies when trying to understand and relate to foreign employees. It
10
is important to understand that if there is no thread of commonality between the U.S. and Russia,
extra sensitivity will be required to understand the mindset of the Russian employee.
Comparison of Activities Between Russian and U.S. Managers
With an understanding of Russian culture and the realization that there is little common link
between Russian and U.S. culture, we can now look at what activities Russian managers engage
in and how they compare to activities of U.S. managers.
Fred Luthans, Dianne H.B. Welsh, and Stuart A. Rosenkrantz explored what managers do,
what successful managers do, and what effective managers do, in their article “What do Russian
Managers Really Do? An Observational Study with Comparisons to U.S. Managers.” Due to
the concern about the validity and reliability of questionnaires and surveys because of translation
problems, the authors rely primarily on direct observations with supplemental questionnaires to
provide data for statistical analysis. A native Russian with a degree from Leningrad University
did the original translation of the LOS (Leader Observation System) for use by Russian student
observers. The retranslation back to English was performed by an American Professor of the
Russian language and a native Russian who is very proficient in the English language. The joint
translation created a double check system that could address any discrepancies. A random
sample of 66 managers from a base of about 2000 was selected for observation. The procedure
used was the same as in their previous study of “Real Managers” in the U.S. to keep a true basis
for comparison.
The Leader Observation System (LOS), developed by Luthans and Lockwood (1984), is used
to measure the frequency of Russian managers’ activities at the Tver Textile Mill. Activities are
classified into the following four categories:
1. Traditional Management Activities: planning/ coordinating, decision making/ problem solving, monitoring/ controlling performance
11
2. Communication Activities: exchanging routine information, processing paperwork
3. Human Resources Management Activities: motivating/ reinforcing, managing conflict, staffing, training/ development
4. Networking Activities: interacting with outsiders, socializing/ politicking during working hours
The results of the observation show that Russian managers spend 3/4 of their time and effort
in traditional and communication activities, some in human resource, and very little in
networking. The study of U.S. managers showed the same order of activities as the Russians, but
had different levels of frequency. Russian managers gave relatively more time and effort to
traditional and communication activities and less relative time to human resource and networking
than their U.S. counterparts.
The researchers used the “manager achievement quotient” (MAQ) developed by Hall (1976)
to measure managers’ success. This index relates a manager’s age to his or her rank or level in
the organization. According to the MAQ, a high level at a low age would indicate a high degree
of success.
Both hierarchical and stepwise regression analysis were used, with and without the outlying
data (“fast trackers” that were extraordinarily successful). The hierarchical model ranked the
managerial duties in the following order based on their influence on success from the U.S. based
study:
1. Networking 2. Communication 3. Traditional 4. Human Resources
This model with fast trackers shows networking as the only significant factor for success.
When fast trackers are removed, networking is still the leading factor with communication also
contributing. In the stepwise regression analysis with fast trackers, the results showed only
12
networking as a factor of success. This is consistent with the hierarchical model and with results
from the U.S. study. When fast trackers were removed from the stepwise model, however,
communication became the leading factor for success with human resources playing a minor
role. Networking was not a significant factor.
The researchers judge effectiveness by performance, productivity, and quality with regards to
output, as well as satisfaction and organizational loyalty from subordinates. The study uses a
triple measure index consisting of:
1. Organizational, unit effectiveness in terms of quantity and quality of performance 2. Subordinate satisfaction with supervision 3. Subordinate organizational commitment
These dimensions are measured with the following standardized questionnaires:
The questionnaires were given to 132 subordinates (2 for each of the 66 selected managers). All three questionnaires were given equal weight. The results were put into the Managerial Effectiveness Index (MEI) through the following equation:
MEI=10 x OEQ raw score / OEQ mean of total sample + 10 x JDI raw score / JDI mean of total
sample + 10x OCQ raw score / OCQ mean of total sample The four manager activity categories are scaled as percentages of each manager’s total activity. Hierarchical and stepwise regression techniques are now used to measure effectiveness. The hierarchical model is again based on the U.S. Real Managers study and enters observed activities in the following order:
1. Communication 2. Human Resources 3. Traditional 4. Networking
13
In this model mostly communication with a little human resources contributed to effectiveness. In the stepwise model, traditional followed by communication were the factors for managerial effectiveness. Two main points emerge from this study:
1. The relationships of networking to success and communication to effectiveness
held across cultures. 2. Success and effectiveness were not defined by the same activities.
Since the results presented were only of successful and effective managers, it is not clear
whether or not all managers would have the same order of activities. If human resource
activities are not commonly practiced by Russian managers, results from stressing those
activities would be scarce. This leads to the question of what affect would placing more
attention on employee related activities such as communication and human resources have on the
success and effectiveness of managers in Russia?
The American Business Model in Russia
With an understanding of Russian culture, how that culture compares to U.S. culture, and
what Russian managers do compared to U.S. managers, we can now look at how American
concepts might work in the Russian cultural context.
In his article, “Can American Management Concepts Work in Russia? A Cross-Cultural
Comparative Study”, Detelin S. Elenkov uses six measures to determine the similarities and
differences in managerial values between Russian and U.S. firms. Elenkov believes that using
these measures to gain insight into the Russian mentality will allow one to determine what type
of business management would naturally evolve, as well as which American concepts would be
most effective in Russia. The measures used are as follows:
1. Power Distance 2. Individualism vs. Collectivism
Research done by Elenkov explains each measure, as well as where both Russian
and American cultures generally fit into them.
The author explains that power distance is the extent to which less powerful members of an
organization or institute accept and expect power to be distributed unequally. This inequality is
supported by the followers as well as the leaders. High power distance is characterized by
centralized power and autocratic behavior. Elenkov points out that Russia has been known for
its centralization of authority and authoritarian leadership. Rulers such as the Russian Orthodox
Church, tsars, landowners, and the communist party have contributed to the suppression of the
Russian individual. The author notes that centralized power and decision making remained in
post Soviet Union Russia and refers to Keith Rosten’s assertion that middle managers in Russia
have little influence in the decision-making process (Rosten, 1991). Elenkov points out that
while power distance in Russia is high, it is viewed as low to moderate in America.
Elenkov describes individualism as the relationship between individuals and the collectivity
of a given society. He notes that in Russia, self-accomplishment is measured in the achievement
of collective goals and individuals that out-perform the group are viewed with suspicion and
contempt, even when it comes legitimately through hard work. As characterized by their high
collectivism, Russian employees expect their employer to take care of them much like a family
would. The author mentions that Russia’s high collectivism is opposite of the high individualism
characterized by the U.S.
The author uses competitive orientation to refer to Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimension of
masculinity vs. femininity with the former being highly competitive and the latter being non-
15
assertive and less competitive. He references Dostoyevsky’s and Gogol’s characterization of
Russians as being pessimistic with feelings of hopelessness and a lack of control over their life.
He points to this as the reason why Russian culture is classified with high femininity and Russian
managers in specific have low assertiveness. In contrast to Russia, the U.S. has moderate to high
masculinity. Elenkov concludes that the competitive American managerial style could be
beneficial for a transitional Russian economy moving towards a free market structure.
Elenkov describes uncertainty avoidance as a culture’s tolerance for uncertainty and
ambiguity. It measures a society’s comfort level in unstructured situations. He mentions that
numerous observers have recorded the Russian need to control uncertainty through rewards for
compliance, and punishment for risky behavior. Elenkov also uses Daniel Bollinger’s (1994)
conclusion that institutions in Russian society seek to create security and avoid risks. The U.S.
on the other hand, has moderate to low uncertainty avoidance according to Hofstede.
Elenkov explains political-influence orientation as the extent to which it is accepted in a
culture to use political influence, informal arrangements, personal connections, and developed
relationships to conduct business. He cites research that shows Russian managers using these
methods to circumvent laws and regulations. This high level of political-influence orientation in
Russia is significantly above the level in the U.S.
The author defines dogmatism as the degree to which a person is not flexible or open to new
ideas. High dogmatism reflects a tendency to strictly adhere to company policy while rejecting
new ideas or methods. Elenkov refers to results of prior studies that Russian managers place a
high value on traditions, habits, and social norms. One would assume that this would lead to
them having high dogmatism. He also points out that U.S. managers have low to moderate
dogmatism, according to David Ralston.
16
Elenkov performed statistical tests on surveys of Russian and U.S. managers in order to
examine cross-national similarities and differences among the chosen cultural dimensions. 179
Russian managers from Moscow and St. Petersburg, and 147 American managers from the
north-eastern U.S. were used for this study.
The results show that Russian managers have a higher power distance, uncertainty avoidance,
and political-influence orientation than American managers. U.S. managers have higher
individualism and dogmatism, and both groups were about the same on competitive orientation.
Table 7. t-Test for Difference in Cultural –Value Means
Managerial Values U.S. Russia t df Power Distance 42.0 88.1 -41.14 317 Individualism 88.7 45.0 +39.88 317 Uncertainty Avoidance 40.3 79.6 -35.30 317 Competitive Orientation 59.7 58.9 +0.89 317 Political Influence 45.0 93.0 -43.40 317 Dogmatism 38.8 30.9 +6.91 317 Source: Elenkov, 1998. Elenkov points out from this chart that the low score on dogmatism by the Russian managers
suggests their possible lack of resistance to the transfer of American management concepts to
Russia.
The common link between U.S. and Russian managers from Elenkov’s study is competitive
orientation. He further supports this finding by quoting A. Shama (1994) as saying, “Russian
Managers… have been quick to recognize the effects of such economic forces as inflation,
uncertainty, competition….Likewise, they have been quick to respond, for example, by
restructuring, developing more competitive strategies, increasing promotions and sales force, and
seeking foreign investors. In these respects, Russian management behavior resembles Western
17
management behavior.” Elenkov makes the further assumption that this cross-cultural similarity
is due to the attempt of Russian managers to adopt Western management styles.
Elenkov believes that when an outside organization enters a host country, it must adapt its
company policy to fit the new local culture in order to successfully transfer its managerial
knowledge. He specifically looks at integrating the following U.S. management concepts into
the Russian culture:
• Leadership Style • Motivation Approaches • Performance Appraisal Systems • Systems for Strategic Planning • Organizational Configurations
Elenkov defines the role of leadership as envisioning the future, coordinating the
development of a coherent mission for the organization, overseeing the development and control
of the company’s products and services, and providing a motivational climate for employees.
The author combines power distance and individualism ratings for a country to determine
leadership styles. The U.S. style of leadership that involves vertical collaboration of ideas
through the chain of command violates Russian power distance. The author uses John French
and Bertram Raven’s “social power framework” to help describe the current Russian leadership
style, and trends for the future. The categories include:
• Legitimate Power: Power based on formal position and authority in an organization.
• Reward Power: Power to bestow recognition (tangible or psychological) upon followers.
• Expert Power: Power obtained through the exercise of specialized skills and knowledge.
• Referent Power: Power based on the follower’s personal liking or admiration of the leader.
• Coercive Power: Power to obtain compliance through fear of punishment or sanctions.
18
Elenkov explains that Russia’s high power distance, collectivism, and political influence lead
to legitimate and referent power being the most effective. The U.S. depends more on expert and
reward power, making fact based and fast decisions, due to their low power distance and high
collectivism. Elenkov believes that future success in Russia will depend on transferring from
legitimate and referent power to reward and expert power.
The author uses individualism and uncertainty avoidance to determine a country’s
motivational approaches. Elenkov says that the high individualism of the U.S. implies a
“calculative involvement in their organizations” which leads to an expectancy theory of
motivation that uses anticipated outcomes as the motivational driver. The Russian motivational
model, based on low individualism and high uncertainty avoidance, focuses on group benefits
and team contributions. Elenkov believes the U.S. system of motivation can be successfully
implemented in Russia by slowly empowering Russian employees through H.R. policies,
recruitment, training, education, information, and group involvement in critical problem solving
activities. By involving management and non-management personnel in group work,
empowerment can be introduced while playing on the collectivist value of Russian employees.
Elenkov uses political-influence and individualism to determine a culture’s general view on
performance appraisal systems. Under this rational, the U.S. place a high value on employee
performance due to a low political-influence orientation. Because of high individualism,
American managers use direct employee feedback to improve their performance. In a
collectivist society such as Russia, indirect feedback is commonly used such as group appraisals
and disciplines. Due to high political-influence orientation, a superior will use a third party
intermediary to give employee feedback. Promotions and demotions are also typically given
through the use of expansion and contraction of responsibilities and duties. Elenkov believes
19
that the American method of direct feedback, used with Russian employees, could destroy their
self-image and ruin their loyalty to the company. He suggests using performance appraisals in a
work team setting, or having individual appraisals done by peers and customers.
Elenkov uses political-influence orientation and uncertainty avoidance to develop a typology
of strategic-planning systems. Strategic planning was developed primarily in the U.S. as part of
strategic thinking strategy. This is a valuable tool in a culture of low political-influence
orientation and uncertainty avoidance. In addition, according to Elenkov, the socio-economic
atmosphere in the U.S. is one of competition, capitalism, expansion, political stability and low
government intervention. In the vastly different social, political, and economic environment of
Russia, strategic planning will have to be carefully implemented. Elenkov believes tools such as
short-term feedback and decision making outside of formal strategic-planning structures would
be useful in navigating the Russians’ high uncertainty avoidance and political-influence
orientation.
Individualism and competitive orientation are used by Elenkov for the organizational
configurations’ typology. He believes that work groups and intra-organizational teams can fit
well with the low individualism, moderate competitive orientation of the Russian culture.
Elenkov explains that Russian employees are not used to a team-building environment that
shares decision making with the lowest level possible. He does stress the necessity of top
management’s sincere and constant involvement to satisfy the high Russian power distance
ranking.
Elenkov uses three main ideas to form the conclusion to his research:
1. Attempts at transferring management concepts from the U.S. to Russia that do not take the values of Russian managers into account have little chance of success.
20
2. Any universalistic assumption concerning direct transferability of American management techniques is erroneous.
3. Looking at business approaches that work in other countries is one of the most effective ways of getting new ideas in the area of management and organization.
The author points to the similarities of some U.S. and Russian management values, the
evolution of cultural values in Russia, and the “cultivation of desirable behavioral reinforcers,”
as the reasons why a U.S. to Russia transfer of managerial knowledge could successfully take
place. Elenkov does, however, caution the use of patience, prudence, careful selection, and
appropriate adaptation when attempting to introduce Western managerial styles to Russian
employees.
Transferring U.S. Management Styles to Russia
The research so far has shown us that it would be very difficult to directly place the U.S.
business management model into the Russian workplace with any degree of success. We now
look at how American business theory can be applied in Russia, and possible ways of
transferring that knowledge.
In the article, “Organizational Culture and Effectiveness: Can American Theory Be Applied
in Russia?” the authors, Carl F Fey and Daniel R Denison, perform a multi-method analysis of
culture and effectiveness in a transition economy. There is a good foundation of Russian
characteristics and practices presented in the background information of this article. The
research then looks at the relationship between the culture and effectiveness of foreign owned
companies operating in Russia. Their argument is that effectiveness in Russia depends more on
adaptability and flexibility than it does in the United States (Fey, Denison).
This paper starts with a look into the current situation of Russian owned firms operating at
home. The researchers state the difficulties Russian firms are having in making the successful
21
transition to a market economy, even with a well-educated, low-cost labor force and land that is
rich with natural resources. They point to Russian management and human resource practice as
the short coming. The criticized behavior is the tendency to punish negative results even when
the outcomes are uncontrollable. These actions are not balanced with an individual reward
system for exceptional performance. This causes a risk adverse atmosphere that ultimately
hinders performance and progression.
This article demonstrates a difference in Russian and U.S. business ethics in that Russians are
more accepting of bribery and ignoring senseless rules than Americans. Americans on the other
hand, are more comfortable with large salary differentials, lay-offs, and whistle blowing than
their Russian counterparts.
The authors use insights from the 19th century Russian historian Kliuchevskii (1990) to
describe stereotypical Russian behaviors and attributes:
• Resourcefulness • Patience under adversity • Deprivation • Spurts of Energy • Tendency to dissemble • Inconsistency seeing things through • Circumspect • Cautious • Ambiguous • Preference for looking back rather than forward • Prefer working in groups • Monitor results rather than set goals
The authors use Elenkov’s (1997) work with Russian rankings in Hofstede’s dimensions to
compare Russian managers to U.S. managers. They conclude that Russian managers:
• Value power more • Need gratification less • Place lower value on tradition • Place higher value on security and stability
22
• Are less individualistic • Are less open to change • Are more group oriented • Are more risk adverse • Have a higher power distance
The only dimension that is similar between the two is masculinity. Both are in the middle with the U.S. being slightly higher. The model used for this study is built off of previous work done by Denison and his colleagues. They originally used this model to measure and compare business and managerial effectiveness from different cultural perspectives in U.S. companies operating within the U.S.
23
Figure 1. Cultural Traits of Effective Organizations
Source: Fey and Denison, 2003.
The model uses four cultural traits of effective organizations: Involvement, Consistency, Adaptability, and Mission. Previous research within the U.S. has shown how high rankings from different areas of the model affect business success:
24
Table 8. Trait to Success Correlations
Involvement Consistency Adaptability Mission Profitability X X Innovation X X
Sales Growth X X Source: Fey and Denison, 2003 Another result of this model shows the difficulty in achieving opposite goals simultaneously.
Organizations that are market focused and opportunistic have a hard time with internal
organization. Companies that are well integrated and tightly controlled have difficulties adapting
to their environment. Organizations with a top-down management approach have difficulties
with bottom-up alignment, and conversely companies that promote broad employee participation
and empowerment tend to have poor direction. The authors conclude that the most effective
organizations have found a way to balance these objectives without minimalizing them.
The research conducted by these authors looks at three main issues:
1. The applicability of the model in Russia. 2. Differences in the link between culture and effectiveness in Russia and the
U.S. 3. The underlying meaning and applicability of these concepts in Russia.
The actual research questions are as follows:
1. To what extent are involvement, consistency, adaptability, and mission
associated with the effectiveness of firms in Russia? 2. What is the specific pattern between the four traits and various criteria of
effectiveness in Russia? How does the pattern in Russia differ from the pattern in the U.S.? Do the traits of adaptability and involvement have a stronger impact in Russia than they do in the U.S.?
3. What are the patterns of behavior that illustrate the concepts in the model in Russia? Which patterns of behavior are similar to those that might be observed in the U.S.? Which patterns are different from those that might be observed in the U.S.? What are some of the underlying forces that drive these different patterns of behavior?
25
The authors use a survey of 179 foreign firms operating in Russia to examine
questions one and two. We will focus on the 94 U.S. firms from that survey. The survey items
used are from the Denison Organizational Culture Survey (Denison and Mishra 1995, Denison
and Neale 1996). They measure eight dimensions of effectiveness:
1. Overall Performance 2. Market Share 3. Sales Growth 4. Profitability 5. Employee Satisfaction 6. Quality of Products and Services 7. New Product Development 8. Effectiveness Index
The authors had the survey translated to Russian and back to English, checked by experts, and
pilot tested. The data were collected between October 1997 and January 1998.
The results show that all four cultural dimensions (Involvement, Consistency, Adaptability,
Mission) in the Russian data have a lower correlation than the original U.S. data in:
• Overall Performance • Employee Satisfaction • Quality of Products and Services • New Product Development
U.S. companies in Russia have a higher correlation to the same dimensions than U.S.
companies in the U.S. in:
• Market Share • Sales Growth • Profitability
In answer to research question #1, involvement, adaptability, and mission (but not
consistency) were all found to be strong predictors of effectiveness. Different cultural
dimensions were also found to be related to different areas of effectiveness.
26
The strongest correlations of culture to specific areas of effectiveness in Russia are:
• Mission to Sales Growth • Adaptability to Profitability • Involvement to Employee Satisfaction
Overall, adaptability and involvement are the highest determinates of success in the Russian
context. In the U.S., mission has the highest correlation to overall effectiveness with
involvement second. Involvement is the link between success in both the U.S. and Russian
context. The authors believe mission is the most important factor in the U.S. due to the relative
stability of the economy, while adaptability is most important in Russia due to the transitional
state of its economy. Overall, the stability traits of mission and consistency are less useful in a
transitional economy than flexibility and involvement. The difference in the importance of each
cultural trait to effectiveness in each country answers research question #2.
The third research question was explored using a case study method of 13 Swedish firms from
the first part of the study that had both manufacturing and sales operations in Russia, and at least
70 employees. Ten people from each company were interviewed, including one expatriate and
nine Russians. The interview process was chosen to gain an understanding of each organization
and how its culture impacts effectiveness. The researchers identified patterns that emerged
within each company and among the companies. Comparisons are then made between
operations in Russia, and operations found in ‘Western’ business.
The qualitative results of the interviews fell into two categories:
1. Findings that fit the model with patterns representative of those found in the West.
2. Findings that fit the model with patterns not representative of those found in the West.
One major pattern is the low Russian regard for firm level goals. Their loyalty is to the
functional department with little knowledge or concern for the company as a whole. There is
27
little inter-departmental compatibility or cooperation. They also have a high power distance and
resistance to working jointly with someone above or below them. The employees that fit this
pattern tended to be older Russians who were deemed more traditional. This group mostly
consisted of the manufacturing department and had worked with the companies for years. The
other end of the spectrum was made up of mostly top management, accounting, and the sales
department. This group was typically younger, ambitious, and relatively new to the firms. The
two groups were kept in separate housing and had little communication between them.
A second area of divided subculture occurs from the post communist transfer of duties from
the government to the individual firm. Under the transitional economy, firms now have to
perform the duties of management, finance, strategy, and marketing. These functions are foreign
to most Russian workers who view the changes more as a merger or acquisition than a natural
element of business. With little Russian knowledge or experience in these new fields, outsiders
have to be hired to run these departments. This causes a natural division of culture within the
company and leads to a lack of unity.
Another pattern that emerged is the lack of time as a resource. It was found that once a
problem was passed on, it could take an extremely long time for it to travel through the proper
channels and get resolved. A simple issue that could be resolved quickly would ultimately cause
much longer delays. The general response by those interviewed is that it was no longer their
problem once passed on. This contrasts to the general Western view of ‘time is money’ and time
management. Competitive strategies based on time have been well established in many Western
firms (Stalk 1988).
The patterns that emerged from the interviews show a problem with coordination in Russian
firms. This conclusion would have been missed if only the organizational cultural model was
28
used. These patterns are useful in gaining a deeper understanding of the culture of Russian
organizations. The model alone does show the results of culture on effectiveness, but the case
studies show that a concept can have a different meaning in a different context. Behaviors that
support a cultural trait in a Western business may differ from behaviors supporting that same
trait in Russia. The high correlation of a particular trait to effectiveness, in both a U.S. and
Russian company, may not mean transferability of the U.S. model to the Russian context.
LITERATURE REVIEW SYNOPSIS
In the article on Organizational Culture and Effectiveness by Fey and Denison, it was
concluded that adaptability is the most important cultural trait for managerial effectiveness in
Russia. This is due to the turbulent nature of the transitional economy in Russia. The U.S. was
shown to have mission as the most important cultural trait in the stable American economy.
Involvement was the second strongest trait for both countries and provides a link for managerial
effectiveness between the U.S. and Russia. It was shown, however, that behaviors determining a
cultural trait in one country may not be representative of behaviors showing that same trait in the
other country. This shows us that while involvement may be a means of transferring American
business concepts into the Russian context, we must be sure we understand the reasoning behind
the results that indicate the involvement correlation. It would be easy to misinterpret data and
form biased conclusions based on our own perspective or world view.
One example of this is Fey and Denison’s use of Elenkov’s work to compare Russian culture
to U.S. culture. One of the conclusions from their interpretation of Elenkov is that Russians are
less open to change than Americans. This is in contradiction to the results from Elenkov shown
above, with Russian dogmatism at only 30.9, which is 7.9 points below the U.S. measure of
dogmatism.
29
I would also point out the differences in Naumov’s results of Russian cultural dimensions
between different subgroups, as well as the difference in the results over time between Naumov,
Bollinger, Hofstede, and Veiga et al. It appears to be extremely difficult to obtain consistent data
and results that all researchers agree upon. This could be from an evolutional nature of cultures,
combined with a multitude of subcultures within each.
A subculture can form at any time and alienate itself from its surroundings. This was seen by
Fey and Denison in the example of the Swedish firms operating in Russia. The challenge for
U.S. multi-nationals doing business in Russia therefore becomes not only bridging the cultural
divide between the U.S. and Russia, but also managing and controlling the development of
subcultures within the company itself.
RESEARCH ABSTRACT
The above literary review led to questions and concerns over the inconsistency of the results
of the cultural values measured in Russia over time. The results were published between 1989
and 1996 during the time of Perestroika. This represented a time of intense changes in the life of
Russians and Russian society. Culture and values in Russia should be more stable now which
would provide a chance for accurate measurements. My research measures Russian cultural
values and compares them to the previous results given in this paper. My goals are as follows:
1. Provide reliable current results for Russian cultural values. 2. Predict the outcome of the new results based on existing trends. 3. Compare the new results to the old. 4. Compare the new results to the predictions. 5. Comment on the future of measurable cultural change in Russia.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
I have obtained the VSM-94 in English (appendix 1), in Russian (appendix 2), and permission
to use it from Geert Hofstede. The VSM-94 is the Value Survey Model (1994 version) used by
30
Hofstede and his colleagues to measure cultural values along 5 dimensions. The VSM-94
Manual (appendix 3) gives instructions and equations to translate the questionnaire results into
the cultural value index numbers. Twenty responses are required for an accurate measurement. I
handed out 30 copies of the Russian version of the VSM-94 to a sampling of native Russians.
This sampling consists of Russians that are employed, studying at a university, or both. The
questionnaire results have been compiled onto an Excel spreadsheet (appendix 4) and
transformed into index numbers along Hofstede’s 5 dimensions.
The following are the equations to determine the index numbers:
1. Power Distance Index = –35m(03) +35m(06) +25m(14) –20m(17) –20 2. Individualism Index = –50m(01) +30m(02) +20m(04) –25m(08) +130 3. Masculinity Index = +60m(05) –20m(07) +20m(15) –70m(20) +100 4. Uncertainty Avoidance Index = +25m(13) +20m(16) –50m(18) –15m(19) +120 5. Long-term Orientation Index -20m(10) +20m(12) +40
The index numbers can now be compared to the previous results and to the predictions.
Comparisons and possible explanations will be pointed out, and future trends will be commented
on.
PREDICTIONS
For predictions and comparisons to previous research we will focus on Hofstede’s four basic
cultural dimensions of uncertainty avoidance, individualism, power distance, and masculinity.
The original studies done by Bollinger, Hofstede, and Naumov added a fifth dimension for
paternalism. Paternalism is no longer measured by the VSM-94, but has been replaced with a
new dimension. Long-term orientation has been added which is based on the eastern principle of
Confucian Dynamism (Hofstede, 1991). When looking at the four core dimensions for Russia,
some basic patterns emerge.
31
Table 9. Russian Scores on Core Dimensions
Power Distance
Individuality Masculinity Uncertainty Avoidance
Bollinger (1989)
76 26 28 92
Hofstede (1993)
95 50 40 90
Naumov (1996)
40 41 55 68
Source: Naumov, 2000.
Power distance started high in the 1989 study with a score of 76. It rose to 95 in the 1993
study before dropping down to 40 in 1996. The period of drastic political and economical
change during this time in Russia indicates cultural change will inevitably come with it. As
Russia moves away from communism, the Russian people will be required to provide for
themselves what was previously provided for them. Decisions that were previously made by the
government are also now in the hands of the people. In light of this and because the last score is
significantly lower than the two previous, it would be safe to assume the current result will be
close to or below the former score of 40.
Individuality shows an increase from 26 to 50 before a retraction to 41. Here we see an
increase as measured from 1989 to 1993, or spanning the entire time from 1989 to 1996. This
shows an overall trend of increasing individualism which is consistent with a society that
changes from communism to democracy. I expect this trend to continue in the current study and
for individualism to continue to rise.
Masculinity shows a clear trend by rising steadily in each study. Starting in 1989 the index
value rises from 28 to 40 to 55. I naturally assume this trend will continue and the current results
will be higher than the previous.
32
Uncertainty avoidance shows a steadily decreasing trend from 92 in 1989, to 90 in 1993, and
then to 68 in 1996. I predict this trend to continue with the current results falling below 68.
LIMITATIONS
There are a number of limitations and cautions associated with this study. The VSM-94 was
originally written in English by Hofested but translated into Russian by another person. There is
the possibility of certain nuances becoming lost in translation that may have an effect on
someone’s response. Another concern is due to the limited number of responses. When a
sample is used to represent a whole, it can only perfectly represent that whole when the
characteristics are absolute. This of course is impossible with human opinions and therefore any
sample of a population cannot be completely representative of that population. This is a
limitation even if the sample is of the same culture as the population. An additional risk is that
the sample is not entirely representative of the culture of all Russians. There are many different
sub-cultures that can develop within a country that would elicit different responses to the same
question. Due to the size of Russia, it is naïve to think that there is only one or even only a few
cultures within the country. The difference in culture between those living in Moscow and those
living in Siberia must be extreme. This is due to many factors including distance, climate and
population density. This survey was issued only in Moscow which limits the opinions of rural
Russians.
Here is a list of major subculture biases:
1. Age 2. Education level 3. Work experience 4. Region
33
5. Religion 6. Race 7. Sex
In this case age bias becomes exaggerated due to the extreme change in political and economic
structure. Older respondents who lived mostly under communism and a command economy will
likely answer very differently than younger respondents who either did not live in or do not
remember that time.
CONTRIBUTIONS
During the course of the literature review process, I scanned through hundreds of journal
articles and books. My main source of information was the EBSCO Host online resource from
The University of North Carolina at Wilmington. I used dozens of different search words and
phrases looking for information on Russian culture using Hofstede’s cultural value models. I
also performed the same searches on the open web using Google and Ask.com. Through this
quest the most recent cultural value responses that I could find published were from Alexander
Naumov in 1996. The updated results I am providing for Hofstede’s cultural values in Russia
will be of great importance to anyone doing business in or with Russia, as well as to anyone
interested in Russian culture.
RESULTS
The survey answers, calculations, and transformation process into index numbers can be
found in appendix 3. The rounded results for each of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are as
The table below shows the results for the four core dimensions along with the previous studies.
Table 10. Russian Scores with Current Data
Power Distance
Individuality Masculinity Uncertainty Avoidance
Bollinger (1989)
76 26 28 92
Hofstede (1993)
95 50 40 90
Naumov (1996)
40 41 55 68
Langford (2010)
39 85 96 62
Each of the four cultural dimensions met the predictions and continued to follow the established
trends.
DISCUSSION
The four studies were conducted independently using the same research tool over the span of
21 years. Each category demonstrates a significant change in cultural perspective. The severity
of change in cultural dimensions can be attributed to the changes made in the political and
economical environment in Russia over this time period.
Power distance was high during the time of communism in Russia due to central planning of
the government and job security. As democracy takes over and the government exerts less
control over society, power distance lowers from 76 to 39. Individualism during communism
was at 26, which reflects the high collectivism of a communistic society. It has now climbed all
the way up to 85 showing a strong cultural embrace of individualistic tendencies. Masculinity
has shown a dramatic rise from 28 during communism to 96 currently. A feministic society is
characterized by modest and caring tendencies displayed by both men and women. A masculine
society is characterized by more assertive and competitive tendencies as displayed by the men
35
only (Hofstede, 1991). As a society goes through turmoil and transition it creates a competitive
environment which may lead to a more masculine society as demonstrated in these studies.
Uncertainty avoidance started high at 92 during communism. This is due to the centrally
planned government exerting tight control and regulations over its people. The high government
involvement in the lives of citizens created a lack of uncertainty and ambiguity. As the role of
the government lessened, people were forced to make decisions that were not previously
available to them. This forcing of decision making gave the people the courage and ability to
face uncertainty which is demonstrated by the low current index number of 62.
FUTURE RESEARCH
As a society evolves and changes, the cultural values also change. Russia has shown dramatic
change in all major cultural dimensions over the last 21 years. Any business that wants to work
with Russian employees must know the current cultural values of those employees in order to be
successful.
This paper has gone through the transgression of analyzing Russian culture, comparing
Russian culture to that of the U.S., and comparing activities of Russian and U.S. managers.
Activities were isolated and categorized that led to success and effectiveness. The American
business model was explored with regard to Russian employees and their culture. Methodology
and criteria was discussed for the successful transfer of U.S. management styles to Russia.
Through this research it became overwhelmingly apparent that a current and accurate measure
of Russian culture is necessary before beginning any business endeavors. Geert Hofstede has
asserted himself as the leading authority on culture and his tools for the measurement of culture
are the most commonly used and accepted. The latest publicly published measure of Russian
36
culture using Hofstede’s survey (VSM) is from 1996. This presented a need for updated research
and led to my work in updating the cultural value measurements for Russia.
The dramatic changes in the results of the VSM over time suggest a need for close interval
monitoring of the cultural responses in Russia in order to maintain updated information. Future
research should continue to monitor and chart the VSM responses in Russia until a stable trend is
demonstrated.
REFERENCES Adler, N.J. (2002). International Dimensions of Organizational Behaviour. Cincinnati, OH:
Thomson Learning. Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York, NY:
Harper & Row. Bollinger, D. (1994). The four cornerstones and three pillars in the ‘House of Russia’
management system. Journal of Management Development, 13(2), 49-54. Cox, T. (1994). Cultural Diversity in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers. David, F.R. (1989). How companies define their mission. Long Range Planning, 22(1), 90-7. Denison, D.R. (1984). Bringing corporate culture to the bottom line. Organ. Dynam. 13(2), 4-22. Elenkov, D.S. (1997). Differences and similarities in managerial values between U.S. and
Russian managers. Internat. Stud. Management Organ. 27(1), 85-106. Elenkov, D.S. (1998). Can american management concepts work in Russia? a cross-cultural
comparative study. California Management Review, 40(4), 133-156. Fey, C. F. & Denison, D. R. (2003). Organizational culture and effectiveness: can American
theory be applied in Russia? Organizational Science, 14(6), 686-706. Hall, Jay. (1976). To achieve or not: the manager’s choice. California Management Review, 18,
5-18. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw Hill. Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management
Executives, 7(1), 81-94. Kiblitskaya, M. (2000). Russia’s female breadwinners, In Ashwin, S. (ed.) Gender, State and
Society in Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia. London: Routledge. Kliuchevskii, V.O. (1990). Kliuchevskii’s Collected Works (in Russian). Mysl, Moscow,
Russia. Laurent, A. (1983). The cultural diversity of western conceptions of management. International
Studies of Management and Organization, 13(1-2), 75-96.
38
Luthans, F. & Lockwood, D. L. (1984). Toward an observation system for measuring leader behavior in natural settings. In James G. Hunt, Diane Hosking, Chester Schriesheim & Rosemary Stewart, editors, Leaders and managers: International perspectives on managerial behavior and leadership, 117-41. New York: Pergamon Press.
Luthans, F., Welsh, D., & Rosenkrantz, S. A. (1993). What do Russian managers really do? An
observational study with comparisons to U.S. managers. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4).
London, Ontario, and Charlottesville, VA: The University of Western Ontario and The University of Virginia.
Mott, Paul E. (1972). The characteristics of effective organizations. New York: Harper & Row. Mowday, Richard T., Lyman W. Porter & Richard M. Steers. (1982). Employee-organizational
linkages: the psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Naumov, A.I. (2000). Measuring Russian culture using Hofstede’s dimensions. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 49(4), 709-718. Pickard, J. & Brewster, C. (1994). Evaluating expatriate training. International Studies of
Management and Organization, 24(3), 18-35. Rosten, K. (1991). Soviet-U.S. joint ventures: pioneers on a new frontier. California
Management Review, 33(2), 88-108. Shama, A. (1994). Transformation of marketing management in Russia: a qualitative and theory
building approach. International Executive, 36(5), 599-624. Smith, Patricia C., L.M. Kendall & Charles L. Hulin. (1969). The Measurement of Satisfaction in
Work and Retirement. Chicago, Ill: Rand McNally. Stalk, G. (1988). Competing Against Time: How Time-Based Competition is Reshaping Global
Markets. Free Press, New York. Starkey, K. (1998). Durkheim and the limits of corporate culture: whose culture? Journal of
Management Studies, 35(2), 125-36. Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the Waves of Culture. London: The Economist Books. Veiga, J.F., Yanouzas, J.N., & Buchholtz, A. K. (1995). Emerging cultural values among
Russian managers: what will tomorrow bring? Business Horizons, July-August: 20-27.
39
Woldu, H.G., Budhwar, P.S. & Parkes, C. (2006). A cross-national comparison of cultural value orientations of Indian, Polish, Russian and American employees. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(6), 1076-1094.
APPENDIX 1
V S M 9 4
VALUES SURVEY MODULE 1994
QUESTIONNAIRE
English version
MAY BE FREELY USED FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES
FOR REPRODUCTION IN COMMERCIAL PUBLICATIONS, PERMISSION IS NEEDED
Please think of an ideal job, disregarding your present job, if you have one. In choosing an ideal job, how important would it be to you to ... (please circle one answer in each line across):
1 = of utmost importance 2 = very important 3 = of moderate importance 4 = of little importance 5 = of very little or no importance
1. have sufficient time for your personal or family life 1 2 3 4 5 2. have good physical working conditions (good ventilation and lighting, adequate work space, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 3. have a good working relation- ship with your direct superior 1 2 3 4 5 4. have security of employment 1 2 3 4 5 5. work with people who cooperate well with one another 1 2 3 4 5 6. be consulted by your direct superior in his/her decisions 1 2 3 4 5 7. have an opportunity for advance- ment to higher level jobs 1 2 3 4 5 8. have an element of variety and adventure in the job 1 2 3 4 5
In your private life, how important is each of the following to you? (please circle one answer in each line across):
13. How often do you feel nervous or tense at work? 1. never 2. seldom 3. sometimes 4. usually 5. always 14. How frequently, in your experience, are subordinates afraid to express disagreement with their
superiors? 1. very seldom 2. seldom 3. sometimes 4. frequently 5. very frequently To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? (please circle one answer in each line across):
15. Most people can be trusted 1 2 3 4 5 16. One can be a good manager without having precise answers to most questions that subordinates may raise about their work 1 2 3 4 5 17. An organization structure in which certain subordinates have two bosses should be avoided at all costs 1 2 3 4 5 18. Competition between employees usually does more harm than good 1 2 3 4 5 19. A company's or organization's rules should not be broken - not even when the employee thinks it is in the company's best interest 1 2 3 4 5 20. When people have failed in life it is often their own fault 1 2 3 4 5
43
INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE (VSM 94)
Some information about yourself (for statistical purposes): 21. Are you: 1. male 2. female 22. How old are you? 1. Under 20 2. 20-24 3. 25-29 4. 30-34 5. 35-39 6. 40-49 7. 50-59 8. 60 or over 23. How many years of formal school education (or their equivalent) did you complete (starting with
primary school)? 1. 10 years or less 2. 11 years 3. 12 years 4. 13 years 5. 14 years 6. 15 years 7. 16 years 8. 17 years 9. 18 years or over 24. If you have or have had a paid job, what kind of job is it / was it? 1. No paid job (includes full-time students) 2. Unskilled or semi-skilled manual worker 3. Generally trained office worker or secretary 4. Vocationally trained craftsperson, technician, informatician, nurse, artist or equivalent 5. Academically trained professional or equivalent (but not a manager of people) 6. Manager of one or more subordinates (non-managers) 7. Manager of one or more managers 25. What is your nationality?
26. What was your nationality at birth (if different)?
Thank you very much for your cooperation!
APPENDIX 2
ИССЛЕДОВАТЕЛЬСКИЙ ИНСТИТУТ МЕЖКУЛЬТУРНОГО СОТРУДНИЧЕСТВА
Представьте себе, пожалуйста, идеальное место работы. О своей настоящей работе, если Вы уже работаете, на время забудьте. При выборе идеальной работы, насколько важным для Вас будет следующее... (пожалуйста, обведите кружочком цифру, наилучшим образом выражающую Вашу точку зрения по каждому из 8 пунктов):
1 = чрезвычайно важно 2 = очень важно 3 = более или менее важно 4 = не особенно важно 5= не очень важно или не имеет значения совсем
1. Иметь достаточно времени
для семьи, для личной жизни 1 2 3 4 5 2. Работать в хороших условиях
(при достаточном освещении, в хорошо проветриваемом и просторном и.т.д) 1 2 3 4 5
3. Поддерживать хорошие деловые
отношения с непосредственным начальством 1 2 3 4 5
4. Не бояться потерять работу 1 2 3 4 5 5. Работать с людьми, которые
умеют сотрудничать 1 2 3 4 5 6. Иметь такого начальника,
который будет советоваться с Вами, принимая то или иное решение 1 2 3 4 5
7. Иметь хорошие возможности
продвижения по службе 1 2 3 4 5 8. Иметь достаточно разнообразную
работу, с элементами риска 1 2 3 4 5
46
А вне работы, в Вашей частной жизни, насколько важны для Вас следующие черты? (Пожалуйста, обведите кружком один из ответов в каждой строчке.) 9. Личная уравновешенность
и стабильность 1 2 3 4 5 10. Бережливость 1 2 3 4 5 11. Настойчивость (упорство) 1 2 3 4 5 12. Уважение традиций 1 2 3 4 5 13. Как часто Вы нервничаете на работе, испытываете напряжение?
1 = никогда 2 = редко 3 = иногда 4 = часто 5 = всегда
14. Как часто, судя по Вашему опыту, подчиненные бояться выразить несогласие с мнением
вышестоящего начальства?
1 = никогда 2 = редко 3 = иногда 4 = часто 5 = всегда
В какой степени Вы можете согласиться или не согласиться со следующими утверждениями? (Пожалуйста, обведите одну из цифр на каждой строчке).
1 = полностью согласен 2 = не согласен 3 = не знаю 4 = не согласен 5 = совершенно не согласен
15. Большинству людей можно доверять 1 2 3 4 5 16. Можно быть хорошим руководителем,
менеджером, и не зная точных ответов на большинство вопросов, которые не могут задать подчиненные 1 2 3 4 5
17. Необходимо любой ценой избегать
создания такой организационной структуры, при которой у подчиненного будет двое начальников 1 2 3 4 5
47
18. Конкуренция между сотрудниками
обычно приносит больше вреда, чем пользы 1 2 3 4 5
19. Правила, принятые на предприятии
или в учреждении, нарушать нельзя, даже если работник считает, что действует в интересах своего предприятия или учреждения 1 2 3 4 5
20. Если человеку не везет в жизни, он
сам виноват в своих неудачах 1 2 3 4 5 А теперь ответьте, пожалуйста, на несколько вопросов о себе (информация необходима для статистического анализа). 21 Ваш пол: 1 = мужской
2 = женский 22 Ваш возраст? 1 = менее 20 лет 2 = 20 – 24 года 3 = 25 – 29 лет 4 = 30 – 34 года 5 = 35 – 39 лет 6 = 40 – 49 лет 7 = 50 – 59 лет 8 = более 60 лет 23 Длительность Вашей учебы (начиная с начальной школы, считайте только официально
установленный срок для каждого курса обучения. Например, если Вы остались на второй год, это не считается, если Вы перескакивали через класс, надо считать оба класса)?
1 = 10 лет 2 = 11 лет 3 = 12 лет 4 = 13 лет 5 = 14 лет 6 = 15 лет 7 = 16 лет 8 = 17 лет 9 = 18 лет
48
24 ли Вы работаете или раньше работали, что это (была) за работа?
1 = лачиваемая работа (включая дневную учебу) 2 = Неквалифицированный или полуквалифицированный ручной труд 3 = Конторская или секретарская работа, требующая общей подготовки 4 = Работа ремесленника, требующая профессиональной подготовки: работа техника, медсестры
и.т.д. 5 = Профессиональный труд, требующий высокого уровня образования (ВУЗ или университет),
но не руководящая должность 6 = Руководитель (начальник), имеющий одного или несколько подчиненных (которые в свою
очередь не имеют подчиненных) 7 = Руководитель (начальник), имеющий в подчинении руководителей (начальников)
25 де, в какой стране (республике, области, крае) Вы проживаете? 26 де, в какой стране (республике, области, крае) Вы родились (если Вы меняли место жительства с
тех пор)?
APPENDIX 3
V S M 94
VALUES SURVEY MODULE 1994
MANUAL
by Geert Hofstede
MAY BE FREELY USED FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES
FOR REPRODUCTION IN COMMERCIAL PUBLICATIONS, PERMISSION IS NEEDED
The Values Survey Module 1994 (VSM 94) is a 26-item questionnaire developed for comparing culturally determined values of people from two or more countries or regions. It allows scores to be computed on five dimensions of national or regional culture, on the basis of four questions per dimension: for this, it needs 5 x 4 = 20 questions. The remaining six questions are demographic; they ask for the respondent’s gender, age, education level, kind of job, present nationality, and nationality at birth. Experience has shown that the answers to the 20 content questions vary substantially between nationalities. This is not to say that every respondent of one nationality gives one answer and everyone of another nationality gives another answer, but on average, a sample of respondents of nationality A will (nearly) always score higher, or always score lower, than a comparable sample of people of nationality B (in statistical terms, an analysis of variance shows a significant country effect). However, answers to the 20 content questions will also be influenced by other characteristics of the respondents, such as gender, age, level of education, occupation, kind of work, and year that the survey was held. Therefore, comparisons of countries or regions should in as far as possible be based on samples of respondents who are matched on all criteria other than nationality or region. They should be matched on any criterion (other than nationality) that can be expected to affect the answers. The 5 x 4 content questions were selected because, when matched samples from different countries are compared, the mean scores for the countries on the four questions belonging to the same dimension usually vary together (if one is high, the other is high, or low if it is a negatively formulated question; if one is low, the other is low, etc.). In statistical terms, the country mean scores are strongly correlated. The mean scores for the countries on questions belonging to different dimensions usually do not vary together (are uncorrelated). Therefore, the 20 questions form 5 clusters of 4 questions each. The five clusters stand for the five dimensions of national culture identified in research by Hofstede and Bond. When samples of respondents of the same nationality but with different occupations or different employers were compared (matched on criteria other than occupation or employer), the same dimensions were not found. Nor were they found when the answers of individual respondents were compared. The answers to most of the questions do vary somewhat from one occupation to another and sometimes from one employer to another, and the answers to all of the questions vary from one individual to another. However, the mean scores on the questions for different occupations or for different employers will not form the same five clusters. Nor will scores from individual respondents (instead of mean scores for groups of respondents of the same nationality) form the same clusters. If the questionnaire is used to compare responses from individuals, from respondents with different occupations or employers, or from respondents belonging to any category other than nations or regions, the answers should be examined question by question and not combined into these five dimensions. There is no reason to assume that the present questionnaire is the most suitable instrument! The questions and dimensions in this questionnaire have been chosen for comparing countries, and the questionnaire is meant for use at country level. It should also be suitable for the comparison of geographical regions other than countries (within one nation or across nations). The minimum number of respondents per country or region to be used in comparisons is 20. Below that number, the influence of single individuals becomes too strong. The ideal number is 50. Even better is to use more than one respondent sample per country, such as men and women; or people of higher, middle, and lower education. In this case, of course, the numbers 20 and 50 apply to each separate sample.
52
2. Formulas for index calculation The 20 content questions allow index scores to be calculated on five dimensions of national value systems as components of national cultures: Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Long-term Orientation. All content questions are scored on five-point scales (1-2-3-4-5). Index scores are derived from the mean scores on the questions for national or regional samples of respondents. Any standard statistical computer program will calculate mean scores on five-point scales, but the calculation can also be done simply by hand. For example, suppose a group of 57 respondents from Country C produces the following scores on question 04 (security of employment): 10 x answer 1 24 x answer 2 14 x answer 3 5 x answer 4 1 x answer 5 3 x invalid answer∗ 57 in total The calculation now goes as follows: 10 x 1 = 10 24 x 2 = 48 14 x 3 = 42 5 x 4 = 20 1 x 5 = 5 Total 54 cases = 125 Mean score: 125 / 54 = 2.31∗∗ ∗ Invalid answers are blanks (no answer) or multiples (more than one answer). Invalid answers are excluded from the calculation (treated as missing). ∗∗ Mean scores on five-point scales should preferably be calculated in two decimals. More decimals are unrealistic because survey data are imprecise measures. Using fewer decimals loses valid information. Power Distance Index (PDI) Power Distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a society expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. The index formula is
PDI = –35m(03) +35m(06) +25m(14) –20m(17) –20
in which m(03) is the mean score for question 03, etc.
53
The index normally has a value between 0 (small Power Distance) and 100 (large Power Distance), but values below 0 and above 100 are technically possible. Individualism Index (IDV) Individualism is the opposite of Collectivism. Individualism stands for a society in which the ties between individuals are loose: a person is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family only. Collectivism stands for a society in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which continue to protect them throughout their lifetime in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. The index formula is
IDV = –50m(01) +30m(02) +20m(04) –25m(08) +130
in which m(01) is the mean score for question 01, etc. The index normally has a value between 0 (strongly collectivist) and 100 (strongly individualist), but values below 0 and above 100 are technically possible. Masculinity Index (MAS) Masculinity is the opposite of Femininity. Masculinity stands for a society in which emotional gender roles are clearly distinct: men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success; women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. Femininity stands for a society in which emotional gender roles overlap: both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life.
The index formula is
MAS = +60m(05) –20m(07) +20m(15) –70m(20) +100
in which m(05) is the mean score for question 05, etc. The index normally has a value between 0 (strongly feminine) and 100 (strongly masculine), but values below 0 and above 100 are technically possible. Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) Uncertainty Avoidance is defined as the extent to which the members of institutions and organizations within a society feel threatened by uncertain, unknown, ambiguous, or unstructured situations. The index formula is
UAI = +25m(13) +20m(16) –50m(18) –15m(19) +120
54
in which m(13) is the mean score for question 13, etc. The index normally has a value between 0 (weak Uncertainty Avoidance) and 100 (strong Uncertainty Avoidance), but values below 0 and above 100 are technically possible. Long-term Orientation Index (LTO) Long-term Orientation is the opposite of Short-term Orientation. Long-term Orientation stands for a society that fosters virtues oriented towards future rewards, in particular perseverance and thrift. Short-term orientation stands for a society that fosters virtues related to the past and present, in particular respect for tradition, preservation of “face”, and fulfilling social obligations. The index formula is
LTO = -20m(10) +20m(12) +40
(revised version 1999) in which m(10 is the mean score for question 10, etc. The index normally has a value between 0 (very short-term oriented) and 100 (very long-term oriented), but values below 0 and above 100 are technically possible. The formula was originally: LTO = +45m(09) – 30m(10) – 35m(11) + 15m(12) + 67. Experience with the first larger-scale application of the LTO questions, across 15 European countries in the context of a large-scale consumer survey, has shown that only questions 10 and 12 produced country scores correlated with other LTO measures. The questions 9 and 11 should be replaced by new questions which are still being developed. For the time being the questions 9 and 11 were maintained for research purposes.
55
3. History of the VSM 94 Appendix 1 of Geert Hofstede’s book “Culture’s Consequences” (both the 1980 and the 2001 editions) lists the original questions from the 1966-1973 IBM attitude survey questionnaires referred to in his international comparisons of work-related values. Appendix 4 of the 1980 edition presented the first “Values Survey Module” for future cross-cultural studies. It contained 27 content questions and 6 demographic questions. This “VSM 80” was a selection from the IBM questionnaires, with a few questions added from other sources about issues missing in the IBM list and judged by the author to be of potential importance. A weakness of the VSM 80 was its dependence on the more or less accidental set of questions used in IBM. The IBM survey questionnaire had not really been composed for the purpose of reflecting international differences in value patterns. However, the IBM questions could not meaningfully be replaced by other questions until these had been validated across countries; and to be validated, they had to be used in a large number of countries first. Therefore, in 1981, IRIC (the Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation that distributed the questionnaires between 1980 and 2004) issued an experimental extended version of the VSM (VSM 81). On the basis of an analysis of its first results, a new version was issued in 1982, the VSM 82. The VSM 82 contained 47 content questions plus the 6 demographic questions. Only 13 of the questions were needed to compute scores on the four dimensions identified by Hofstede. The other items were included for experimental use, and IRIC maintained a file on the answers collected by different users in different countries. An initial analysis of replications using the VSM 81 and VSM 82 was produced by Nico Bosland in a Master’s thesis. He analysed (1) what happens if the VSM is used as a test of individual personality (showing that the dimensions do not apply in this case); (2) the results of the replications, including tables to correct for the effect of education level differences on the dimension scores; and (3) the stability of the dimension scores when applied to a new set of country samples (which was less than perfect – a good reason to continue looking for an improved instrument). Bosland’s tables to correct for education level have been reproduced in the 2001 edition of Geert Hofstede’s “Culture’s Consequences”, Appendix 4. An additional reason after 1982 to look for an improved version was that two questions in the VSMs were not applicable to respondents not employed in an organization, like entrepreneurs, students, and housewives (that is, a question about the behavior of the boss, and a question about how long one wanted to stay with this employer). The number of replications using the VSM 82 in IRIC’s file increased, but, unfortunately, it turned out that the samples from different researchers were insufficiently matched for producing a reliable new VSM. This changed when Michael Hoppe published his Ph.D. thesis on a survey study of elites (Salzburg Seminar Alumni) from 19 countries, using among other instruments the VSM 82 (Hoppe, 1990). Eighteen of these countries were part of the IBM set (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the USA). One problem in the validation of the questions was the high level of education of Hoppe’s population; his scores had to be corrected using the Bosland tables (see above). A second problem was a restriction of range within Hoppe’s set of countries on the dimension of Individualism (very collectivist countries were missing in the set). A third problem was the strong correlation in his set of countries between Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance (no countries for the large PD, weak UA quadrant in the PD x UA plot). The latter two problems were resolved by adding data from other surveys for China, Costa Rica, Malaysia, Nigeria, Taiwan, and Tanzania, although these were, of course, not perfectly matched with the Hoppe data. In the meantime, the research of Professor Michael Harris Bond from Hong Kong, using the Chinese Value Survey (The Chinese Culture Connection, 1987), had led to the identification of a fifth dimension: Long-term versus Short-term Orientation. In the VSM 94, this dimension appears for the first time together with the other four. The formula for LTO in this manual is based on Bond’s CVS survey among students in 23 countries (Hofstede and Bond, 1988; Hofstede, 1991, Chapter 7).
56
4. Comparison of the VSM 94 with the VSM 82 The table below lists the question numbers in the VSM 82 that correspond to questions in the VSM 94. Please note that the sequence of the answers for questions 13 and 14 (previously I-21 and I-22) has been reversed, so that answer 5 has become 1, 4 has become 2, 2 has become 4, and 1 has become 5. Indexes calculated using the old and new formulas are not necessarily the same! However, the old and new formulas should produce approximately the same score differences between countries. Comparison of old and new Values Survey Module:
Questions I-11, I-13, I-19, I-20, and I-23 of the VSM 82, which were part of the formulas for calculating the first four dimensions, were not included in the VSM 94. Whoever wants to compute the scores using both the old and the new formulas for the sake of longitudinal comparison, should add these five questions to the VSM 94. The five questions are: I-11 (format of VSM 94, 01 through 08): have an opportunity for high earnings. I-13 (same format): live in an area desirable to you and your family. I-19 and I-20: the descriptions below apply to four different types of managers. Please read through these descriptions first.
Manager 1: Usually makes his/her decisions promptly and communicates them to his/her subordinates
clearly and firmly. He/she expects them to carry out the decisions loyally and without raising difficulties.
57
Manager 2: Usually makes his/her decisions promptly, but, before going ahead, tries to explain them fully to
his/her subordinates. He/she gives them the reasons for the decisions and answers whatever questions they
may have.
Manager 3: Usually consults with his/her subordinates before he/she reaches his/her decisions. He/she
listens to their advice, considers it, and then announces his/her decision. He/she then expects all to work
loyally to implement it whether or not it is in accordance with the advice they gave.
Manager 4: Usually calls a meeting of his/her subordinates when there is an important decision to be made.
He/she puts the problem before the group and invites discussion. He/she accepts the majority viewpoint as
the decision.
I-19. Now, of the above types of managers, please mark the one which you would prefer to work under (circle one answer only):
I-20. And, to which one of the above four types of managers would you say your own superior most closely corresponds?
1. Manager 1 2. Manager 2 3. Manager 3 4. Manager 4 5. He/she does not correspond closely to any of them
I-23. How long do you think you will continue working for the organization or company you work for now?
1. Two years at the most 2. From two to five years 3. More than five years (but I will probably leave before I retire) 4. Until I retire.
The formulas used for index calculation of the VSM 82 were (question numbers refer to the VSM 94 except for the five questions listed above): PDI = (% mgr 1 or 2 in I-20) – (% mgr 3 in I-19) + 25 m(14) – 15 IDV = - 43 m(01) + 76 m(02) + 30 m(05) – 27 m(I-13) – 29 MAS = 30 m(04) + 60 m(05) – 39 m(07) – 66 m(I-11) + 76 UAI = 60 + 40 m(13) – 30 m(19) – (% answers 1 or 2 in I-23)
58
Note that m(05) occurs both in the IDV and in the MAS formula. For m(13) and m(14), the formulas are based on the reversed numbering of the answers in the VSM 94. 5. A note on translations The base version of the VSM94 is in English. The Dutch, French and German versions are authorized, that is, approved by the author of the VSM. For the other versions, the quality of the translations cannot be guaranteed by the author; they were the responsibility of the users who made them. For various languages, translations may have to be adapted to the country of use, such as Spanish for Spain and for different parts of Latin America, and Portuguese for Portugal and for Brazil. 6. Literature Hofstede, Geert (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly
and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, Geert (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill U.K. Hofstede, Geert and Michael Harris Bond (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic
growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16,4: 4-21. Hofstede, Geert and Gert Jan Hofstede (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Revised
and expanded second edition. New York NY: McGraw-Hill U.S.A.. Hoppe, Michael H. (1990). A Comparative Study of Country Elites: International Differences in Work-related
Values and Learning and their Implications for Management Training and Development. Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The Chinese Culture Connection (a team of 24 researchers) (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-
free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18,2: 143-164.
