1. Hofstede
5 cultural dimensions

2. Hofstede & Bond

3. Hofstede & Bond
• Reanalyzed data collected by Ng et al., in
9 countries using the Rokeach value
survey.

4. From Charles Johnston
The Rokeach Value Survey consists of 36 items; 18 terminal and 18
instrumental values listed in alphabetical order.
Terminal values are concerned with "end states of existence"; instrumental
values are concerned with "modes of conduct" ( Rokeach, 1973, p. 7).
Examples of terminal values include "a comfortable life (a prosperous life)"
and "a world at peace (free of war and conflict)";
ambitious (hard-working, aspiring)" and "honest (sincere, truthful)" are
examples of instrumental values ( Rokeach, 1973, p. 28).
The task of the research participant is to arrange the 18 terminal values,
followed by the 18 instrumental values, "in order of importance to YOU,
as guiding principles in YOUR life"

5. The RVS
• Was not designed for cross-cultural
research but has been adapted for use in
cross-cultural research.

6. Other values measures
• Schwartz’ values survey
is composed of three parts: Two value lists
(individual values & cultural values) and one part
with demographical questions.
The two value lists contain overall 57 items. The
task is to rate how important each value is for
the respondent as a guiding principle in life. The
importance is rated on a scale between 0 (not at
all important) and 6 (very important).

7. Point of the Hofstede & Bond study
is
• To compare results using their culture
dimensions with the Rokeach value results
from the 9 countries.

8. Data for the original H study were
collected
• In 53 countries with 117,000 personnel
working for the Hermes Company which
was an affiliate of IBM mostly mid-level
managers between 1967 and 1973.

9. Hofstede’s goals
• to learn about cultural differences in
management and consumer behavior
as a consultant for IBM who wanted to
extend their international business ties.

10. • His goal was to derive a picture of broad
aggregate societal norms (not what
individual people are like

11. 1. Power distance
• To what extent do people accept lack of
social mobility?
• Is there social mobility from the class
where you were born or are you stuck
there?

12. Power distance derives from 3
questions
• To what extent is there fear about
disagreeing with people in charge?
• To what extent do subordinates fear
supervisor decision style?
• To what extent do subordinates like
supervisor decision style?

13. High power distance
• High Power Distance countries based
on unequal distribution of power as a
basic fact of life based on coercive or
referent power. = Malaysia, Mexico, the
Philippines, Arab Countries

14. Low Power Distance Countries
• (People prefer expert or legitimate power
based on more equal distribution of power
between people)
• = Norway, Sweden. Denmark & Finland

15. 2. Uncertainty Avoidance = extent to which people
feel uncomfortable with uncertainty
• high uncertainty avoidance
• Means uncertainty is disliked and causes high
cognitive dissonance
• very low tolerance for deviant behavior
• conflict avoidant
• resistant to change
• low in tolerance for ambiguity
• open competition is discouraged if not suppressed
• examples of countries ranking high in the avoidance
of uncertainty include: Japan, Peru, Brazil, Greece,
Chile, Turkey, Pakistan

16. Low uncertainty avoidance
* Likes uncertainty and can deal with it easily.
• tolerate ambiguity easily
• positive attitude toward change
• likes competitive climate
• deviance often admired.
• Examples of countries with that like to deal with
uncertainty include: US, Sweden, Denmark,
Great Britain, Ireland, Hong Kong, South Africa
(Hofstede, 1984, p. 122)

17. 3. Individualism v. Collectivism
Individualism is about your separateness
as a person while collectivism is about
your obligation to others.

18. Individualism
• “I” consciousness
• Distinction between ingroup & outgroup less
important
• More social mobility
• Direct communication
• Express opinion openly
• Examples of IND cultures: U.S., Great Britain,
Canada, Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand,
Denmark, Germany

19. Collectivism
• “We” consciousness
• Ingroup is preferred to outgroup
• Less social mobilityPakistan, Thailand, Taiwan,
Japan
• Indirect communication
• Keep opinion to oneself
• Examples of Collectivist cultures: Pakistan,
Thailand, Taiwan, Japan, Columbia, Philippines,
India

20. 4. Masculine v. feminine culture
This factor looks at the dominant values in a
society and whether they may be
described as masculine & feminine (along
the stereotypes for each. A competitive
society is mas, a nurturant society is
feminine.)

21. Masculine culture means
Power Assertive
values rewards, prestige, achievement, competition,
advancement
• traditional sex roles
• need to be in charge.
• Fewer female managers & more job stress
• Failing in school is a disaster in MAS cultures
• Fewer equal opportunities in jobs & education
• Report talk (Tannen)
• Examples of cultures that measure high in masculinity
include: Japan, Austria, Switzerland, Germany
• US is moderately masculine.

22. Feminine culture
nurturance and affiliation is valued
more flexible sex roles
value helping others and taking care of people
friendly, encouraging work environment if preferred
more female managers and lower job stress
There are other chances if you fail the first time
More equal opportunities in jobs and education
Examples of cultures that measure low in
masculinity include: Finland, Norway, Sweden,
& Denmark

23. 5. Long-term Orientation
• Fuzzy & somewhat contradictory concept
• More on this later.

24. To what extent do Ng’s Rokeach values in 9
countries correlate with Hofstede’s dimensions?
• Ng et al. added 4 more terminal values (n=
22) and changed the ranking format to a
Likert rating scale for each value.

25. Likert scale
• is a psychometric scale commonly used in
questionnaires, and is the most widely
used scale in survey research. When
responding to a Likert questionnaire item,
respondents specify their level of
agreement to a statement. (< Wikipedia)

26. Data were gathered from
participants in 9 countries
• 7 countries were in the Hofstede study.
• Using factor analysis, 4 factors were
derived from the Ng et al., data for
comparison with the 4 Hofstede cultural
values. Their tables make no sense to me.
They don’t show cross-loadings for
example on their factor analysis.

27. They are attempting
• To show parallelism between similar
measures.