Hofstede & Bond• Reanalyzed data collected by Ng et al., in 9 countries using the Rokeach value survey.
From Charles JohnstonThe 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"
The RVS• Was not designed for cross-cultural research but has been adapted for use in cross-cultural research.
Other values measures• Schwartz’ values surveyis 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).
Point of the Hofstede & Bond study is• To compare results using their culture dimensions with the Rokeach value results from the 9 countries.
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.
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.
• His goal was to derive a picture of broad aggregate societal norms (not what individual people are like
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?
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?
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
Low Power Distance Countries• (People prefer expert or legitimate power based on more equal distribution of power between people)• = Norway, Sweden. Denmark & Finland
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
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)
3. Individualism v. CollectivismIndividualism is about your separateness as a person while collectivism is about your obligation to others.
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
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
4. Masculine v. feminine cultureThis 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.)
Masculine culture meansPower Assertivevalues 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.
Feminine culturenurturance and affiliation is valuedmore flexible sex rolesvalue helping others and taking care of peoplefriendly, encouraging work environment if preferredmore female managers and lower job stressThere are other chances if you fail the first timeMore equal opportunities in jobs and educationExamples of cultures that measure low in masculinity include: Finland, Norway, Sweden, & Denmark
5. Long-term Orientation• Fuzzy & somewhat contradictory concept• More on this later.
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.
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)
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.
They are attempting• To show parallelism between similar measures.