revision of Hofstede’s model of national culture

FIND A SOLUTION AT Academic Writers Bay

A revision of Hofstede’s model
of national culture: old evidence
and new data from 56 countries
Michael Minkov
Sofia Local Center, Varna University of Management, Sofia, Bulgaria
Abstract
Purpose – Hofstede’s model of national culture has enjoyed enormous popularity but rests partly on faith.
It has never been fully replicated and its predictive properties have been challenged. The purpose of this
paper is to provide a test of the model’s coherence and utility.
Design/methodology/approach – Analyses of secondary data, including the World Values Survey, and a
new survey across 56 countries represented by nearly 53,000 probabilistically selected respondents.
Findings – Improved operationalizations of individualism-collectivism (IDV-COLL) suggest it is a robust
dimension of national culture. A modern IDV-COLL index supersedes Hofstede’s 50 year-old original one.
Power distance (PD) seems to be a logical facet of IDV-COLL, rather than an independent dimension.
Uncertainty avoidance (UA) lacks internal reliability. Approval of restrictive societal rules and laws is a facet of
COLL and is not associated with national anxiety or neuroticism. UA is not a predictor of any of its presumed
main correlates: importance of job security, preference for a safe job, trust, racism and xenophobia, subjective
well-being, innovation, and economic freedom. The dimension of masculinity-femininity (MAS-FEM) lacks
coherence. MAS and FEM job goals and broader values are correlated positively, not negatively, and are not
related to the MAS-FEM index. MAS-FEM is not a predictor of any of its presumed main correlates:
achievement and competition orientation, help and compassion, preference for a workplace with likeable people,
work orientation, religiousness, gender egalitarianism, foreign aid. After a radical reconceptualization and a new
operationalization, the so-called “fifth dimension” (CWD or long-term orientation) becomes more coherent and
useful. The new version, called flexibility-monumentalism (FLX-MON), explains the cultural differences
between East Asian Confucian societies at one extreme and Latin America plus Africa at the other, and is the
best predictor of national differences in educational achievement.
Research limitations/implications – Differences between subsidiaries of a multinational company, such
as IBM around 1970, are not necessarily a good source of knowledge about broad cultural differences.
A model of national culture must be validated across a large number of countries from all continents and its
predictions should withstand various plausible controls. Much of Hofstede’s model (UA, MAS-FEM) fails this
test while the remaining part (IDV-COLL, PD, LTO) needs a serious revision.
Practical implications – Consultancies and business schools still teach Hofstede’s model uncritically.
They need to be aware of its deficiencies.
Originality/value – As UA and MAS-FEM are apparently misleading artifacts of Hofstede’s IBM data set, a
thorough revision of Hofstede’s model is proposed, reducing it to two dimensions: IDV-COLL and FLX-MON.
Keywords Masculinity, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, Confucianism, Long-term orientation,
Individualism and collectivism, Uncertainty avoidance
Paper type Viewpoint
1. Introduction
Geert Hofstede is the author of one of the most influential treatises on national culture
(Kirkman et al., 2006), originally published in a short form (Hofstede, 1980), followed by an
expanded version (Hofstede, 2001). According to Bond (2002), cross-cultural psychologists
were “held in thrall” (p. 73) by Hofstede’s intellectual achievement, whereas Peterson (2003)
pointed out that Hofstede’s first book shaped the basic themes, structures, and controversies
Cross Cultural & Strategic
Management
Vol. 25 No. 2, 2018
pp. 231-256
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2059-5794
DOI 10.1108/CCSM-03-2017-0033
Received 13 March 2017
Revised 3 July 2017
14 July 2017
Accepted 1 August 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2059-5794.htm
The collection of primary data for this study was organized by MediaCom Ltd and the Hofstede Center
at Itim International, a Dutch-Finnish cross-cultural consultancy. Financial support was provided by
MediaCom. Neither of the two organizations has influenced the study design, the data analysis, the
decision to write and submit this paper, or any opinion expressed in it, in any way. All main findings in
this study were shared with Geert Hofstede on several occasions by February 2017.
231
A revision of
Hofstede’s
model
of the cross-cultural field for over 20 years. Hofstede popularized the nomothetic approach
to the study of culture, subsequently employed by other leading researchers ( for instance
Inglehart and Baker, 2000; House et al., 2004; Schwartz, 1994, 2008, etc.). Their studies have
proven the utility of this approach. But how accurate is the product that it yielded in
Hofstede’s research? The answer to this question is long overdue. As the issue is complex
and requires a lengthy analysis, a single paper cannot provide all answers. Yet, it can outline
some general conclusions.
This study starts with an analysis of secondary (published) data. Then, it analyzes
primary data from a survey of nearly 53,000 respondents selected probabilistically in
56 countries. The survey was partly designed to check the structure and replicability of
Hofstede’s dimensions.
I remind the readers that Hofstede designed his model at the national level of analysis,
not at the individual. This means that Hofstede’s model explains patterns that are
observable when the agents are whole nations, not individuals. Attempts to transpose
Hofstede’s model to the individual level would be what Hofstede (2001) and others call an
ecological fallacy. Unfortunately, Brewer and Venaik (2014) and Winzar (2015) found that
many authors of articles in leading journals continue to project cultural patterns onto
individuals or organizations. Such attempts amount to expecting the laws of classical
mechanics to apply at the sub-atomic level, where very different quantum physics laws are
in force. Still, if the laws are different at different levels, the logic of the discrepancy needs to
be explained. In one instance, discussed further in this paper, this seems to be a problem for
Hofstede’s model.
Another caveat is also important. Baumann and Winzar (2017) point out that the extent
to which values drive behavior is a function of the circumstances in which individuals find
themselves as well as the relative importance of competing values in particular
circumstances. Minkov’s (2017) work shows that this may be especially true in the East
Asian societies (all those with a Confucian heritage except Vietnam). Nevertheless, this
recently highlighted challenge in the cross-cultural field will be ignored in this study and
Hofstede’s model will be analyzed on the basis of the prevalent conceptualization of culture
at the time of its creation, assuming that culture can be studied through snapshots of static
situations rather than motion pictures.
2. Analysis of secondary data
The analysis of secondary data should shed some light on four basic questions that
entail validity tests for any model in social science or psychology and are therefore relevant
in this study:
RQ1. Did Hofstede’s database, consisting solely of the employees of the IBM Corporation
around 1970, adequately reflect the national cultures of the respondents?
RQ2. Do Hofstede’s dimensions replicate?
RQ3. Do Hofstede’s dimensions have internal reliability? Are their facets really
correlated as the Hofstede model postulates?
RQ4. Do Hofstede’s dimensions have convincing predictive properties? Are they
associated with relevant external variables in accordance with Hofstede’s
theoretical expectations?
2.1 Reliability of Hofstede’s IBM database as a source of knowledge about national culture
In an analysis of data from the World Values Survey (WVS) (www.worldvaluessurvey.org),
Minkov et al. (2015) split all the national samples into several occupational categories.
They found that national samples of respondents from a single category (e.g. only experts)
232
CCSM
25,2
do not necessarily yield the same dimensions of national culture as samples from another
category (e.g. only skilled manual workers) although the items in the analysis are the same.
Smith et al. (2002) explain why some seemingly matched samples may not be equivalent
and, consequently, may not yield the same results: government employment is appreciated
in Japan, but not in western countries. Consequently, Japanese and western government
employees would probably not provide equivalent samples for comparisons of national
cultures because they do not have the same status in their home countries. Likewise, while
teachers enjoy respect in China, their profession is considered low status in some East
European countries, and there are even derogatory words for “teacher” and “school” in those
societies. Thus, it is possible that employment at IBM around 1970 did not carry the same
social status across the world. As a result, the national subsidiaries of IBM may have
attracted dissimilar types of job applicants. National culture also may have affected actual
recruitment procedures, despite IBM’s efforts to enforce universal global standards.
The IBM database has yielded dimensions of national culture called individualism vs
collectivism (IDV-COLL) and power distance (PD) that are strongly correlated with national
wealth (Hofstede, 2001). This external validation means that at least some of the measured
differences between the IBM subsidiaries reflect actual societal differences and are not pure
artifacts of IBM’s organizational cultures, employee selection, or other local factors. But did
the IBM database correctly reflect national culture in every respect? Critics, such as
McSweeney (2002), were not convinced.
One of the pillars of Hofstede’s masculinity-femininity (MAS-FEM) dimension is
Hofstede’s (2001) finding that distances between the values of men and women are greatest
in MAS nations, whereas FEM ones have smaller distances. In other words, men and women
in FEM countries, such as the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries, have the most
similar scores on values, whereas men and women in MAS countries, such as Japan, have
the most dissimilar scores. By 2007, it was well established that this was demonstrably
wrong. Guimond et al. (2007) summarize the literature on that subject, including Schwartz
(2005) and Costa et al. (2001). The summary shows that national differences in distances
between the values and personality traits of men and women are not a function of
MAS-FEM but of gender emancipation, underpinned by national wealth. In other words,
these gender differences are strongly associated with IDV-COLL since gender emancipation
is greatest in the most IDV countries. There are diverse explanations of the larger gender
differences in values and personality in the IDV societies, one of which could be that people
in such societies have greater freedom to express their individuality, whereas in COLL
countries there is strong pressure for men and women to be the same in terms of values and
personality. Whatever the right explanation is, far from having the smallest distances
between the values of men and women, as the MAS-FEM theory claims on the basis of the
IBM findings, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries have the largest distances.
The values sections in the WVS confirm this. It is noteworthy that MAS-FEM is orthogonal
(unrelated) to IDV-COLL and national wealth (Hofstede, 2001). This means that, in terms of
national distances between men’s and women’s values, the IBM database could hardly have
been more misleading than it was, as it showed a 90-degree deviation from reality. It is
highly unlikely that the structure of male-female distances across the globe has changed so
drastically since 1970 that the IBM revealed a true societal pattern back then, which did not
reflect any geo-economic logic, whereas today we see a 90-degree shift to something that
rests on the solid logic of economic differences between nations and their societal
consequences. Much more plausibly, the societal pattern was the same in 1970, yet the IBM
database was contaminated with IBM-specific peculiarities that made it an unreliable source
of information for extrapolations to the societal level.
Further, the IBM data set has yielded an IDV-COLL index that assigns the
English-speaking countries, and particularly the USA, to the top of the ranking.
233
A revision of
Hofstede’s
model
Minkov, Dutt, Varma, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al. (in press) reviewed all large studies
of national IDV-COLL or closely related constructs, and found that the English-speaking
countries do not have top scores on anything related to IDV-COLL. Of note, some of these
studies are based on the nationally representative WVS or probabilistic data sets that are
close in structure to the national census of each country (Minkov, Dutt, Varma, Schachner,
Morales, Sanchez et al., in press). The leading position of the USA on Hofstede’s IDV-COLL
is doubtlessly an artifact of the IBM database, reflecting its national unrepresentativeness.
2.2 Replicability of Hofstede’s dimensions
Only one peer-reviewed publication in an indexed journal so far (Merritt, 2000) describes an
attempt to replicate all of Hofstede’s IBM dimensions in a single study. While IDV-COLL
and PD replicated reasonably well, UA and MAS-FEM did not. Following this failure,
Merritt (2000) tried constructing an UA dimension and a MAS-FEM dimension with items
that were statistically correlated with those two dimensions, even though they had no face
validity. The outcome was confusing. Merritt (2000) did obtain measures that were highly
correlated with IBM’s UA and MAS-FEM, yet MAS-FEM was composed of classic UA
items, such as a feeling of nervousness and agreement that rules should not be broken, and a
PD item (employees afraid to disagree with superior). Besides, instead of being unrelated to
IDV-COLL, as in the IBM study, this new MAS-FEM, just like UA, was strongly correlated
with it. In short, Merritt’s (2000) work showed that UA and MAS-FEM could not be
replicated, suggesting that they are problematic dimensions.
Single-dimension studies have replicated IDV-COLL successfully (Gelfand et al., 2004;
Minkov, Bond, Dutt, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al., in press). This implies that if PD is
seen as a facet of IDV-COLL (Minkov, Dutt, Varma, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al.,
in press), it also replicates. Schwartz’s (1994, 2008) work demonstrates that national
aggregates of values in the domain of what he calls “hierarchy” are conceptually and
statistically similar to PD. Thus, Schwartz’s work indirectly confirms the replicability of PD,
yet without necessarily indicating that it is independent from IDV-COLL.
There are no studies in peer-reviewed journals focusing on the replicability of MAS-FEM.
Hofstede (2001) reported that MAS-FEM is highly correlated with Schwartz’s (1994)
measure of “mastery vs harmony.” Yet, Schwartz (2011) stated that he sometimes regretted
his 1994 publication as researchers continued to cite it despite the existence of much more
refined variants of his measures. Schwartz’s latest, unpublished mastery and harmony
measures (personally provided by Schwartz in 2016), recommended by him for validation
purposes, are unrelated to MAS-FEM.
Project GLOBE (Sully de Luque and Javidan, 2004) attempted to replicate
Hofstede’s UA. Yet, GLOBE conceptualized and operationalized UA very differently,
not as a combination of anxiety and a conviction that rules and laws must be followed
strictly. GLOBE’s UA is reminiscent of Hall’s (1959) high-vs-low-context concept as
it measures the degree to which people perceive their societies as having clearly explained
rules or wish to have such rules. The first of these two GLOBE measures (UA practices) is
a variant of IDV-COLL as it creates a more or less clear contrast between economically
advanced countries (more explicit rule communication) and developing countries (more
implicit rule communication), which conforms to Hall’s theory. GLOBE’s UA practices
measure is correlated with Hofstede’s UA at -0.66 ( po0.001, n ¼ 47), suggesting that
people in countries that Hofstede defines as strongly avoiding uncertainty and ambiguity
actually describe their societies as having ambiguous rule communication. This confusing
result can hardly be taken as a replication of Hofstede’s UA. GLOBE’s alternative UA
measure – the degree to which people wish to have clear rule communication – correlates
weakly with Hofstede’s UA at 0.32 ( p ¼ 0.03, n ¼ 47). Again this cannot be seen as a
replication of Hofstede’s UA by any standard.
234
CCSM
25,2
Taras et al. (2012) reported that their meta-analysis of studies devoted to Hofstede’s
dimensions, most of them done in a small number of countries at a time, yielded national
indices that are reasonably well correlated with all of Hofstede’s IBM measures. The authors
also report that the original IBM indices for IDV-COLL and PD remain highly correlated
with the corresponding meta-analytical scores from the 1980s to the 2000s, However,
measures of MAS-FEM and UA from the 2000s correlate with the Hofstede’s originals at
only 0.56 and 0.46, respectively, suggesting that MAS-FEM and UA are unstable
dimensions whose modern variants have little to do with their counterparts decades ago.
Taras et al. (2012) conceded that they relied on studies that had used not only Hofstede’s
Values Survey Module but also a variety of other tools designed by various authors to
measure Hofstede’s dimensions. Without detailed information about those unknown and
untested tools, it is impossible to pronounce on what they really measure and, consequently,
how valid the conclusions of Taras et al. (2012) are. Of note, the Values Survey Module has
never been properly tested either. There is not a single study in a peer-reviewed journal
showing how it works across at least 30 countries from all continents.
2.3 Internal reliability of Hofstede’s dimensions
The issue of internal reliability is important as Hofstede’s theories are built on some key
assumptions, such as the positive relationship between societal anxiety and societal
restrictiveness with respect to rules and laws, underpinning the UA dimension, as well as a
negative relationship between so-called MAS and FEM values, underpinning the MAS-FEM
dimension. If these relationships were not confirmed, Hofstede’s model would be seriously
challenged even if it were correct in other respects.
2.3.1 Internal reliability of IDV-COLL and PD. The question of whether IDV-COLL and
PD, as operationalized by Hofstede, are internally reliable is probably irrelevant. Hofstede’s
operationalization of IDV-COLL has not been accepted as a paradigm for major replications
of that dimension simply because many of his items have been seen as lacking face validity
and some have even been viewed as a mystery (Bond, 2002). Replications of IDV-COLL with
entirely different items (Gelfand et al., 2004; Minkov, Dutt, Varma, Schachner, Morales,
Sanchez et al., in press) are characterized by good internal reliability and face validity. There
is no doubt that, measured in this way, IDV-COLL is a robust and important dimension of
national culture.
Surprisingly, major replications of PD are simply missing in the literature. Therefore, it is
impossible to pronounce on that dimension’s internal reliability. The relationship between
IDV-COLL and PD has not been elucidated satisfactorily either. Hofstede’s measures of
these two constructs are closely correlated statistically. Minkov, Dutt, Varma, Schachner,
Morales, Sanchez et al. (in press) argue that they are also related conceptually. If IDV-COLL
reflects differences in treatment of people – as individuals or as members of particular
groups – then PD is a logical facet of IDV-COLL, as it reflects differential treatment on the
basis of one’s position in society. Thus, as PD is merely a conceptual facet of IDV-COLL, and
not an independent dimension, the question of its internal reliability becomes irrelevant.
2.3.2 Internal reliability of uncertainty avoidance (UA). According to UA theory, people
in societies with high levels of anxiety (a facet of neuroticism in the Big Five personality
model) value job security (Hofstede, 2001; Minkov and Hofstede, 2014). Minkov and
Hofstede (2014) found support for this theory albeit across European countries only. Yet,
Table I demonstrates that “good job security” as an important job characteristic,
measured by the WVS in 2000-2004 (Item v88, subsequently discontinued) across the
world, is not associated with any reported measure of national neuroticism or anxiety,
including the most recent estimates of national scores on the anxiety facet of neuroticism
by Allik et al. (2017).
235
A revision of
Hofstede’s
model
The UA theory also postulates that societies characterized by high anxiety attempt to
reduce that feeling by believing in, and in fact imposing, strict and unbendable rules and
laws, so as to make life less uncertain (Hofstede, 2001; Minkov and Hofstede, 2014).
However, this theory is not very convincing in view of the fact that anxiety and a
rule-orientation ideology are not correlated at the individual level, which we know
from Hofstede’s (2001) own findings. In other words, the anxious people and the
bureaucratic-minded individuals are not necessarily the same. But if the bureaucrats do not
necessarily have high anxiety levels, what makes them create and insist on unbendable
rules? Are they doing it out of concern for the neurotics who need such rules? If the latter do
need such rules, why do they not, too, believe in them?
Minkov and Hofstede (2014) found that, at the national level, a measure of anxiety is
indeed highly correlated with a measure of the ideology that all laws must be followed
strictly. Yet, this was a study across European countries only. It does not reveal whether
these two facets of UA are correlated highly and positively across a wider set of countries.
There are no secondary data that provide an answer to this question. Yet, the analysis of
primary data below does provide an answer.
Minkov et al. (2013) extracted a dimension of national culture from WVS items
measuring the strength of societal norms in the domain of creation and termination of life,
such as divorce, homosexuality, prostitution, abortion, suicide, and euthanasia. They found
that these items form a strong single factor, called “personal-sexual,” creating a contrast
between economically advanced countries (greater permissiveness) and developing
countries (greater restrictiveness). This factor is closely associated with IDV-COLL
(Minkov, Dutt, Varma, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al., in press), but is not related to any
published national index of neuroticism or anxiety. In fact, according to Hofstede (2001) it is
MAS-FEM, rather than UA, that explains societal restrictiveness as measured by “personalsexual” items in the WVS. Although the logic of this association is not apparent, it will be
tested in the section devoted to the predictive properties of MAS-FEM.
2.3.3 Internal reliability of MAS-FEM. MAS-FEM has two main facets: MAS values
(achievement, challenge, recognition, earnings, competition) and FEM values (good human
relationships, including compassion). These two facets should be correlated negatively
(Hofstede, 2001).
The 1995-1999 wave of the WVS allows a test of this theory. Item V73 presents the
respondents with four job characteristics – “good income,” “safe job, no risk,” “working with
people I like,” and “important job, feeling of accomplishment” – and asks the respondents to
choose the most important one. The first item and the last two items should reflect
MAS-FEM goals as they correspond to some of the items that loaded highly on MAS-FEM
in Hofstede’s (2001) factor analyses of IBM items (pp. 256-257, p. 284). “Good income”
corresponds to “earnings,” “working with people I like” corresponds to “friendly
National neuroticism (N) or anxiety (A) measure r with v88 n (countries)
N: McCrae (2002) 0.19 16
N: McCrae and Terracciano (2005) 0.34 20
N: Schmitt et al. (2007) -0.07 20
N: Gebauer et al. (2015) -0.05 31
A: Allik et al. (2017) 0.03 17
Notes: Allik et al. (2017) provide several scores for some countries based on different studies. In those cases, I
used the median score. None of the correlations are significant at 0.05
Source: World Values Survey (2000-2004, Item v88)
Table I.
Correlations between
national neuroticism (N)
or anxiety (A) and
importance of “good
job security”
236
CCSM
25,2
atmosphere,” whereas “important job, feeling of accomplishment” is a measure of the social
importance of prestige and success, and corresponds to “recognition,” “challenge,” and
“advancement to a higher position” in Hofstede’s analysis. This WVS item format measures
relative importance and avoids response style, approximating the effect of ipsatization (also
known as standardization within subject or by subject) used by Hofstede (2001) in his
analysis of work values from which he extracted MAS-FEM.
Table II demonstrates that the three items are not correlated quite as the MAS-FEM
theory predicts. While “good income” and “working with people I like” are indeed opposites,
“important job” yields correlations that contradict the MAS-FEM theory.
Figure 1 demonstrates that if the items measuring the importance of “feeling of
accomplishment” and “working with people I like” were merged into a single dimension,
1 2 3
(1) Good income 1.00 -0.69** -0.43**
(2) Important job, feeling of accomplishment 1.00 0.31*
(3) Working with people I like 1.00
Notes: All correlations are across 51 countries. *,**Correlations are significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels,
respectively
Source: World Values Survey (1995-1999, Item v73)
Table II.
Correlations between
three masculinityfemininity work goals
Dominican Republic
Australia
Norway
Finland
Sweden
China
Puerto Rico
Switzerland
Slovenia
Taiwan
Japan
Germany
Turkey
Hungary
India
South Africa
Chile
Montenegro
Colombia
Romania
Lithuania Moldova
Uruguay
Bosnia
Russia
Serbia
Korea
Philippines
Slovakia
Salvador
Argentina
Spain
Estonia
Venezuela
Georgia
Mexico
Armenia
Ukraine
Azerbaijan
Latvia
Albania
Croatia
Peru
Bangladesh
Nigeria
New Zealand
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 5.00
First choice: Working with people I like
First choice: Important job, feeling of accomplishment
10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
USA
Czech Republic
Republic of Macedonia
Figure 1.
Visualization of the
relationship between
percentages of
respondents choosing
“feeling of
accomplishment” and
“working with people
i like” as most
important job
characteristics, Item
V73, World Values
Survey (1995-1999)
237
A revision of
Hofstede’s
model
it would highlight a contrast between economically developed countries, in the upper right
corner, and developing countries, in the lower left corner. Therefore, the observed
national differences in job priorities are a function of differences in national wealth, not
MAS-FEM, which is unrelated to it. Subsequent waves of the WVS confirm this finding,
although the MAS item in question was fielded without the “feeling of accomplishment”
component. Likewise, across the WVS waves in which these items were fielded,
“good income” and “working with people I like” are negatively correlated and clearly merge
into a single dimension that creates a contrast between economically developed countries
(high priority of people, low priority of income) and developing countries (high priority of
income, low priority of people). Evidently, these contrasts are not a function of MAS-FEM
but are an outcome of differences in economic development, which is unrelated to
MAS-FEM according to Hofstede (2001).
The WVS has fielded some of Schwartz’s items, including importance of success
(V85) and importance of helping (V84) in the 2005-2009 WVS wave, which provides the
largest set of countries that have been scored on both of these items (n ¼ 51). The two items
certainly address societal MAS-FEM values. “Success” is part of Schwartz’s “mastery”
domain, which according to Hofstede (2001, p. 298) contains MAS values. Helping is a major
prerequisite for the maintenance of good relationships. Also, it is found across from
“success” on Schwartz’s (2008) circumplex, suggesting that the two values are opposites,
just as the MAS-FEM theory postulates. A reviewer of this paper helpfully provided the
results of a Monte Carlo simulation analysis of these items, indicating the probability that a
randomly selected male in a specific country will score higher or lower than a randomly
selected female. The results are consistent with the MAS-FEM theory. For example, in 43 of
the 52 countries in the WVS, men are less likely than women to value helping others and
these differences are often substantial, reaching 23 percent (greater probability for males) vs
43 percent (greater probability for females). There is no doubt then that importance of
helping is a FEM value, whereas importance of success is a MAS value.
Across 51 countries, importance of helping and importance of success are correlated
significantly and positively: r ¼ 0.40 ( p ¼ 0.004). Ipsatization at the national level reverses
this correlation and makes it negative, in accordance with the MAS-FEM theory, just like in
Schwartz (2008) where the two items are in opposite sections of the value circumplex,
suggesting a negative correlation. This raises the question of which method is preferable:
comparing raw scores or ipsatized scores? This is a complex issue beyond the topic of this
study. The section on the primary data analysis explains the outcome of fielding MAS and
FEM items as categorical choices without Likert scales, which makes ipsatization irrelevant.
2.3.4 Internal reliability of Confucian work dynamism or long-term orientation (LTO).
Originally called “Confucian work dynamism,” Hofstede’s fifth dimension is also known
as LTO. It is an extremely important dimension as it seems to explain some of the cultural
differences between the Confucian societies of East Asia at one extreme and Africa, the
Middle East, and Latin America at the other. Minkov and Hofstede (2012) successfully
replicated LTO with data from the WVS and confirmed its internal reliability. Still, they
admitted that the dimension lacked theoretical coherence. Minkov, Bond, Dutt, Schachner,
Morales, Sanchez et al. (in press) have provided a radical reconceptualization of this
dimension based on Minkov’s (2011, 2013) work, called “flexibility vs monumentalism”
(FLX-MON). It is partly based on Steven Heine’s self-enhancement and self-stability
theory, and reflects national differences in high vs low self-regard and self-confidence,
being always the same person vs being flexible and adaptable, and liking to help people vs
being reluctant to do that. Minkov, Bond, Dutt, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al.
(in press) do not include the concepts of persistence and thrift in FLX-MON, arguing that
these facets of LTO are controversial.
238
CCSM
25,2
2.4 Predictive properties of Hofstede’s dimensions
The predictive properties of Hofstede’s dimensions are a central topic in Culture’s
Consequences, Hofstede’s (2001) main monograph. The numerous examples in that book
create the impression that all the dimensions in Hofstede’s model are statistically associated
with, and thus seem to predict or explain, variance in many external variables. However,
given a database of diverse variables measured at the national level, it is easy to select some,
or even many, that are associated at least weakly and at least across some countries. For a
particular dimension of national culture to be credible and of practical utility, it should
satisfy two more stringent requirements. First, it should have strong predictive properties,
yielding high correlations with variables of interest across a large sample of countries from
all, or most, continents, adequately representing the cultural variation across the world’s
modern nations. Second, it should be a strong predictor, withstanding plausible controls.
Appendix 6 at the end of Culture’s Consequences (Hofstede, 2001) shows that the great
majority of Hofstede’s validity tests were performed across fewer than 30 countries, often
from the economically developed part of the world, because Hofstede did not have data from
other countries. This makes most of the reported associations unconvincing.
Taras et al. (2012) studied the predictive properties of Hofstede’s original indices and
found reasonably high correlations, at least with respect to a small number of external
variables, in the past decades. Yet, the strength of these predictive properties has been
declining so much since then that, according to Taras et al. (2012), in another decade or so
Hofstede’s indices may not explain adequately anything anymore. In view of the small
number of dependent variables in the analysis of those authors, the lack of control variables,
and the lack of information on the number and geographic location of the countries across
which each correlation was calculated, their conclusions should be viewed with great
caution. A more detailed dimension-by-dimension check would be beyond the scope of any
article, including this one. Yet, it is noteworthy that Taras et al. (2012) found that
IDV-COLL and PD yielded higher correlations with relevant external variables than did
MAS-FEM and UA. This resonates with the finding of the same authors that MAS-FEM and
UA are more temporarily unstable than IDV and PD, and with Merritt’s (2000) unsuccessful
attempt to replicate MAS-FEM and UA, strengthening the impression that these are
problematic dimensions.
2.4.1 Predictive properties of IDV-COLL and PD. Minkov, Dutt, Varma, Schachner,
Morales, Sanchez et al. (in press) show that IBM’s IDV-COLL index is still a reasonably good
predictor of key variables such as rule of law, human inequality, and accident proneness.
However, Minkov, Dutt, Varma, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al.’s (in press) IDV-COLL
index is a considerably better predictor of those key variables, suggesting that the IBM
measure needs updating. Also, Minkov, Dutt, Varma, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al.
(in press) show that the Anglo countries, and especially the USA, do not score particularly
high on IDV-COLL or any measure related to it. With the exception of Japan, the Confucian
countries of East Asia score low on IDV-COLL in the work of Hofstede (2001). Yet, due
to their phenomenal economic development in the past decades, they have all climbed higher
on the IDV-COLL ladder, surpassing many developing countries, and currently occupy
mid-range positions.
Table III compares the correlations that Hofstede’s PD and IDV-COLL yield with relevant
external variables that can be expected to be associated with PD. Hofstede’s PD is the better
predictor of only a few of them and in those cases the significant relationship is lowered and
reduced to insignificance after controlling for a still better predictor. This seriously calls into
question the utility of the PD index.
2.4.2 Predictive properties of UA. Exhibit 6 in Hofstede (2001) contains only one
significant correlation between UA and a dependent variable that exceeds ±0.50 across at
least 30 countries: UA predicts a country’s nurse-doctor ratio.
239
A revision of
Hofstede’s
model
Hofstede and McCrae (2004) reported that UA was associated with McCrae’s national
neuroticism index. Table IV shows correlations between UA and the four large studies
reporting national neuroticism scores based on the NEO-PI-R or BFI questionnaires. As UA
is related to some measures of neuroticism but not to others, the evidence remains
inconclusive. The correlations between the available measures of neuroticism are not
impressive, suggesting that some of the four studies have not measured it convincingly.
Identifying those studies is beyond the scope of this paper.
Table V provides more correlations between UA and relevant societal indicators that UA
could be expected to correlate with. With the exception of the “personal-sexual” factor,
all selected indicators conform to Hofstede’s (2001) expectations concerning the predictive
properties of UA. Namely, it should predict importance of job security, trust, subjective
well-being, a focus on order, racism, corruption, slow acceptance of innovation, and a lack of
economic freedom. Some correlations were calculated twice: across all available countries
and then across countries in the “very high” category on the UNDP’s (2015)
Human Development Index, since Hofstede (2001) reports that some of UA’s predictive
properties are valid only or primarily across economically advanced countries.
The expectation that UA should be positively associated with importance of job security
and negatively with interpersonal trust (Hofstede, 2001) is not confirmed by the WVS data.
Both variables are closely associated with GLOBE’s UA practices. This suggests high trust
and relatively low importance of job security characterize societies with detailed and
properly enforced formal rules that create predictability. This has nothing to do with
national anxiety.
Variable
r with
PD
r with
IDV-COLL n (countries)
GLOBE’s power distance “practices” (Carl et al., 2004)
GLOBE’s power distance “values” (Carl et al., 2004)
Schwartz’s hierarchy (personally provided scores, 2016)
Schwartz’s egalitarianism (personally provided scores, 2016)
Schwartz’s intellectual autonomy (personally provided scores, 2016)
Schwartz’s affective autonomy (personally provided scores, 2016)
Schwartz’s embeddedness (personally provided scores, 2016)
Corruption perception index 2015 (Transparency International, 2017)
Same item after controlling for GDP per person in 2014 (World Bank,
2016) and Welzel’s (2014) emancipative values index
0.54**
0.07
0.32*
-0.48**
0.52**
-0.65**
0.67**
-0.64**
-0.09
-0.46** 50
-0.68** 68
UNDP’s coefficient of human inequality 2015 (Jahan and Jespersen, 2015)
Same item after controlling for GDP per person in 2014 (World Bank,
2016) and Welzel’s (2014) emancipative values index
0.55**
-0.17
Project GLOBE’s “participative” leadership dimension (Dorfman et al., 2004) -0.49**
Same item after controlling for Welzel’s (2014) emancipative values index -0.01
Use of superiors as a source of guidance for managerial decision making
(Smith et al., 2002)
Use of subordinates as a source of guidance for managerial decision
making (Smith et al., 2002)
-0.25
-0.37*
Same item after controlling for Welzel’s (2014) emancipative values index -0.13
Obedience as a desirable trait for children, WVS 2005-2009, item v21
Same item, after controlling for individualism-collectivism (Minkov, Dutt,
Varma, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al., in press)
Obedience as a desirable trait for children, WVS 2011-2014, item v21
Same item, after controlling for individualism-collectivism (Minkov, Dutt,
Varma, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al., in press)
0.53**
0.12
0.44**
-0.01
-0.08 51
-0.38* 38
-0.35* 35
-0.29 24
Notes: *,**Correlations are significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively
Table III.
Correlation patterns of
Hofstede’s power
distance (PD)
compared with those
of Hofstede’s
individualismcollectivism
(IDV-COLL)
240
CCSM
25,2
Although Hofstede (2001) indicated that UA is not associated with risk avoidance,
Table V shows that UA is a positive predictor of preference for a “safe job with no risk” as
measured by the WVS. Yet, controlling for GLOBE’s UA practices reduces this correlation
to statistical insignificance. The strongest preference for job safety is found in societies
without detailed and strictly enforced formal rules (thus scoring low on GLOBE’s UA
practices), which apparently depresses job safety while generating a high desire for it.
One of the most important practical implications of Hofstede’s UA is its presumed
negative association with innovation (Hofstede, 2001). The largest study that supports
this view was conducted across 68 countries more than 20 years ago (Shane, 1995).
It concluded literally that uncertainty-accepting societies may be more innovative than
uncertainty-avoiding societies, based on employees’ preferences for different roles within
their organizations. Intrigued by these findings, Rinne et al. (2012) assessed the predictive
properties of all of Hofstede’s dimensions, using data from the complex Global Innovation
Index as dependent variables. They found that while IDV-COLL and PD were related to
national innovation scores, UA was not related to them. The results in Table V show that
UA is not related to adoption of innovative technologies.
Idiographic analyses further highlight some of the issues that plague the UA dimension
and its index. According to Hofstede (2001), the South East Asian countries tend to score
low on UA. This suggests that their societies should be quite liberal and allow their
members to bend or ignore rules. The observed reality in those countries is precisely the
opposite. They are well known for their harsh punishments, such as flogging for alcohol
consumption during Ramadan in Malaysia, flogging for homosexual intercourse in
Indonesia, prison sentences for graffiti writing in Singapore, and death penalty for
possession of small amounts of light drugs in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore.
Singaporeans do not even have the right to chew gum and jokingly call their home place
“a fine country:” a nice country where one can easily get fined.
2.4.3 Predictive properties of MAS-FEM. Appendix 6 in Hofstede (2001) does not list any
significant correlations between MAS-FEM and a dependent variable that exceeds ±0.50
over at least 30 countries. Nevertheless, some of the presumed key predictive properties of
that dimension are worth examining. Table VI provides correlations between key variables
that MAS-FEM should be associated with according to Hofstede (2001). Some of the
calculations were calculated also across economically developed countries as Hofstede
(2001) indicates that some of the predictive properties of MAS-FEM are valid only across
wealthy countries. Also, some calculations were calculated twice: using raw items and then
ipsatized items, as advocated by Hofstede (2001).
Only two of the variables in Table VI – women’s share of seats in parliament and official
development assistance as share of a nation’s gross domestic product – are associated, albeit
1 2 3 4 5
(1) Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance 1.00 0.57** 0.18 0.32 43**
n ¼ 28 n ¼ 37 n ¼ 37 n ¼ 60
(2) Neuroticism (McRae, 2002) 1.00 40* 0.49** 0.37
n ¼ 27 n ¼ 28 n ¼ 34
(3) Neuroticism (McCrae and Terracciano, 2005) 1.00 0.32* 0.20
n ¼ 38 n ¼ 45
(4) Neuroticism (Schmitt et al., 2007) 1.00 0.23
n ¼ 51
(5) Neuroticism (Gebauer et al., 2015) 1.00
Notes: *,**Significant at 0.05 and 0.01 level, respectively
Table IV.
Correlations between
Hofstede’s uncertainty
avoidance and
measures of national
neuroticism
241
A revision of
Hofstede’s
model
Variable r with UA n (countries)
Importance of job security, WVS (2000-2004, Item v88) (not fielded in the
same form after 2004) -0.11 21
Interpersonal trust, WVS (2005-2009, Item v23) -0.48** 39
Same item after controlling for GLOBE’s UA practices (Sully de Luque and
Javidan, 2004) -0.11 28
Interpersonal trust, WVS (2011-2014, Item v24) 0.41* 36
Same item after controlling for GLOBE’s UA practices (Sully de Luque and
Javidan, 2004) 0.13 24
Personal-sexual factor (Minkov et al., 2013), reflecting restrictive societal
norms with respect to the creation and termination of life -0.11 32
Preference for a “safe job with no risk,” WVS (2000-2004 and 2005-2009,
average of Items v84 and v48) (not fielded after 2009) 0.47* 42
Same item after controlling for GLOBE’s UA practices (Sully de Luque and
Javidan, 2004) 0.23 29
Average life satisfaction, WVS (2005-2009, Item v22) 0.01 35
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015) -0.64** 13
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015), after controlling for Welzel’s (2014) emancipative values index -0.37 13
Average life satisfaction, WVS (2011-2014, Item v23) 0.12 35
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015) -0.25 12
Subjective perception of one’s own state of health, WVS (2011-2014, Item v11) 0.33 30
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015) 0.42 ( p ¼ 0.20) 11
Average happiness, WVS (2011-2014, Item v10) 0.20 28
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015) 0.51 ( p ¼ 0.11) 11
“Maintaining order in the nation” most important of four national goals,
WVS 2005-2009 (not fielded after 2009), Item v71 0.04 38
Percentage respondents choosing “people of a different race” as unwanted
as neighbors, WVS (2005-2009, Item v35) 0.00 48
Percentage respondents choosing “immigrants, foreign workers” as
unwanted as neighbors, WVS (2005-2009, Item v35) -0.04 45
Corruption perception index 2015 (Transparency International, 2017) -0.23 68
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015) -0.64** 27
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015), after controlling for GLOBE’s UA practices (Sully de Luque
and Javidan, 2004) -0.32 ( p ¼ 0.15) 23
Availability of latest technology according to the Global Competitiveness
Report (2014-2015, Item 9.01) (Schwab et al., 2014) -0.20 64
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015) -0.39* 27
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015), after controlling for GLOBE’s UA practices (Sully de Luque
and Javidan, 2004) -0.04 23
Percentage internet users in 2013 according to the Global Competitiveness
Report (2014-2015, Item 9.01) (Schwab et al., 2014) -0.06 64
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015) -0.50** 27
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015), after controlling for GLOBE’s UA practices (Sully de Luque
and Javidan, 2004) -0.22 23
(continued)
Table V.
Correlations between
uncertainty avoidance
(UA) and relevant
external variables
242
CCSM
25,2
weakly, with MAS-FEM, yet even these correlations become insignificant after controlling
for relevant external variables, such as Welzel’s (2014) emancipative values index and
GLOBE’s assertiveness, proposed by Hartog (2004) as a radical reconceptualization of, and
improvement on, Hofstede’s MAS-FEM. This failure of MAS-FEM to predict female
emancipation should not come as a surprise since it is well known by now that emancipation
is strongly associated with variants of IDV-COLL and national wealth, and is completely
unrelated to MAS-FEM. An example of such an IDV-COLL variant is Welzel’s (2014)
emancipative values index. Welzel’s extensive work in the field of emancipation is fully
convincing and conclusive.
Dimensions of national culture that replicate in one form or another, and have good
predictive properties, produce clear geo-economic spatial configurations as shown by Dobson
and Gelade (2012). This is accepted by Hofstede (Minkov et al., 2013). Yet, MAS-FEM does not
yield a recognizable geo-economic configuration and neighboring countries whose populations
have common ethnic and civilizational origins, such as Mexico and Guatemala, and Japan and
Korea, sometimes have dramatically different scores on MAS-FEM. Naturally, an index that
lacks a geo-economic structure cannot explain variables that have such a structure, such as
most important national statistics and most WVS measures.
2.4.4 Predictive properties of Hofstede’s fifth dimension. Minkov and Hofstede (2012)
showed that their LTO measure predicted national differences in educational achievement.
However, Minkov, Bond, Dutt, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al. (in press) demonstrated
that FLX-MON, a radical reconceptualization of LTO, is the best-known predictor of
national differences on TIMSS and PISA tests, considerably outperforming LTO measures.
3. Analysis of primary data
The analysis of primary data focuses on the internal reliability of the two problematic
dimensions: UA and MAS-FEM. It uses data from a new study of national culture and
personality across nearly 53,000 respondents selected probabilistically from all main geographic
regions and economic sectors of 56 countries, reflecting the ethnic, linguistic, and age structure
of most countries quite adequately. In economically developed countries, the samples are also
close to the national census in terms of educational-level differences, whereas the samples in
developing countries consist predominantly of respondents with higher education. Nevertheless,
in nearly each country in the second group there are at least 100 probabilistically selected
respondents without higher education, thus allowing separate cross-national analyses of
samples with and without higher education. This study excluded the Dominican Republic and
Variable r with UA n (countries)
Mobile phone subscriptions per 100 population in 2013 according to the
Global Competitiveness Report 2014-2015, Item 2.08 (Schwab et al., 2014) 0.08 64
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015) -0.01 27
Index of Economic Freedom 2016 (Heritage Foundation, 2016) -0.33* 63
Same item, after controlling for GLOBE’s UA practices (Sully de Luque and
Javidan, 2004) -0.07 45
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015) -0.74** 27
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015), after controlling for GLOBE’s future orientation practices
(Ashkanasy et al., 2004) and neuroticism (McCrae and Terracciano, 2005) -0.50 ( p ¼ 0.07) 16
Notes: *,**Significant at 0.05 and 0.01 level, respectively Table V.
243
A revision of
Hofstede’s
model
Variable r with MAS-FEM n (countries)
Percentage choosing “Working with people I like” as most important job
characteristic, Item v73, WVS (1995-1999) 0.11 28
Percentage choosing “Working with people I like” as most important job
characteristic, Item v48, WVS (2005-2009) (not fielded after 2009) -0.11 36
Percentage choosing “Important job, feeling of accomplishment” as most
important job characteristic, Item v73, WVS (1995-1999) (not fielded in this
form after 1999) -0.34 28
Percentage mentioning “a job in which you feel you can achieve something,”
WVS (2000-2004) (not fielded after 2004) -0.05 23
Importance of helping as a personal value, WVS (2005-2009, Item v84) 0.29 32
Same item, after ipsatization at the national level, across all 10 Schwartz items 0.18 32
Importance of success as a personal value, WVS 2005-2009, item v85 -0.06 32
Same item, after ipsatization at the national level, across all 10 Schwartz items -0.26 32
“Religious faith” mentioned as an important trait for children, Item v19,
WVS (2005-2009) 0.12 38
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015) 0.28 15
“Religious faith” mentioned as an important trait for children, Item v19,
WVS (2011-2014) 0.20 30
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015) 0.07 11
Importance of family, item v4, WVS 2005-2009 -0.07 37
Same item after ipsatization by nation across five value items in that section
of the WVS -0.09 37
Same item after ipsatization, only countries with a “very high” Human
Development Index (UNDP, 2015) -0.29 19
Importance of work, Item v8, WVS (2005-2009) 0.05 37
Same item after ipsatization by nation across five value items in that section
of the WVS 0.05 37
Same item after ipsatization, only countries with a “very high” Human
Development Index (UNDP, 2015) 0.08 19
Importance of religion, Item v9, WVS (2005-2009) -0.05 37
Same item after ipsatization by nation across the five value items in that
section of the WVS -0.07 37
Same item after ipsatization, only countries with a “very high” Human
Development Index (UNDP, 2015) -0.12 19
Average life satisfaction, WVS (2005-2009, Item v23) 0.01 35
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015) -0.16 12
Average life satisfaction, WVS 2011-2014, item v23 0.03 35
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015) -0.19 12
Subjective perception of one’s own state of health, WVS (2011-2014,
Item v11) 0.09 30
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015) 0.21 11
Gender Inequality Index (UNDP, 2015) 0.08 62
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015) 0.20 27
Schwartz’s mastery (personally provided scores, 2016) 0.08 50
Societal restrictiveness vs permissiveness as measured by the WVS
2005-2009: “personal-sexual” factor (Minkov et al., 2013) -0.13 32
Same item after controlling for Hofstede’s IDV-COLL -0.30 ( p ¼ 0.10) 32
(continued)
Table VI.
Correlations between
masculinity-femininity
(MAS-FEM) and
relevant external
variables
244
CCSM
25,2
Puerto Rico, where the data were collected by phone, unlike all other countries. Details about the
samples are freely available from Itim International (info@itim.org), an international crosscultural management consultancy, licensed by Geert Hofstede.
The questionnaire included 108 items, plus demographic questions, grouped in several
sections. The largest section (52 items) consists of personality items and self-construals,
targeting the Big Five measures of personality and Hofstede’s dimensions. Two smaller
sections measure consumer behavior preferences and sources of guidance in making
purchasing decisions. Analyses of these sections may have interesting implications for
international business.
Comparisons of data from samples with and without higher education did not reveal any
substantial differences in terms of country positions. Below, only results from comparisons
of samples without higher education are reported.
In order to avoid response style associated with Likert scales, all items in this study elicit
categorical responses, plus an intermediate option. Examples are provided below.
3.1 UA
Two items target the two main facets of UA. The first is about anxiety:
1. I worry a lot and often feel nervous. 2. I am somewhere here, in between these two.
3. I am usually relaxed and do not worry much.
The second item is about the conviction that all societal rules and laws must be followed
strictly, which is the societal extrapolation of the conviction that all company rules must be
followed strictly (Minkov and Hofstede, 2014):
1. If I could, I would make all people in our society follow all our laws and rules very
strictly. 2. I am somewhere here, in between these two. 3. If I could, I would allow people to
break useless or meaningless laws and rules.
Scored on a scale from 1 to 3 and aggregated to the national level, the two items correlate
positively at 0.45 ( p ¼ 0.022) across the 26 European countries in the sample, supporting
Minkov and Hofstede’s (2014) findings, and validating the representativeness of the
database used for this analysis, as it produces the same pattern as the nationally
representative European Social Survey used by Minkov and Hofstede (2014). But across
53 countries from all continents, this correlation is -0.23 ( p ¼ 0.094). Figure 2 visualizes the
relationship between the two variables.
Figure 2 suggests that, with the exception of Vietnam[1], it is mostly the economically
advanced IDV societies that have the strongest tendency to give people the discretion to
Variable r with MAS-FEM n (countries)
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015) -0.44 ( p ¼ 0.11) 14
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015), after controlling for Hofstede’s IDV-COLL -0.49 ( p ¼ 0.09) 14
Women’s share of seats in parliament (UNDP, 2015)
Same item, after controlling for Welzel’s (2014) emancipative values index
Same item, only countries with a very high Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015)
Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index
(UNDP, 2015), after controlling for Welzel’s (2014) emancipative value index
Official development assistance in 2015 (OECD, 2015)
Same item, after controlling for Welzel’s (2014) emancipative values index
and GLOBE’s assertiveness “as should be” (Hartog, 2004)
Notes: *,**Significant at 0.05 and 0.01 level, respectively
-0.26*
-0.16
-0.45*
-0.38
-0.47**
-0.36 ( p ¼ 0.14)
Table VI.
245
A revision of
Hofstede’s
model
decide which laws and rules are not worth following. With the exception of Italy, all societies
at the opposite extreme are developing countries. This supports Minkov, Dutt, Varma,
Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al.’s (in press) assertion that this item measures IDV-COLL
differences. In IDV countries, people have greater freedom and individual discretion to
decide whether societal rules are meaningful or not. In COLL societies, people have to follow
the rules that are imposed on them as their fellow countrymen and women do not believe
that giving people discretion is a good idea. This highly meaningful and logical pattern
suggests that the country scores on this item capture logical cultural differences and cannot
be dismissed as a study artifact.
Table VII shows that, unlike Hofstede’s UA, the anxiety item in this study is significantly
correlated with all national measures of neuroticism and anxiety obtained in large-scale
studies. Besides, some of the correlations are quite high. This validates the anxiety item as a
reliable measure of national anxiety. In fact, it may be the best available national measure of
anxiety and neuroticism as it is the only one available that yields such (relatively) high
correlations with each of the remaining measures in the other large-scale studies. In sum,
Japan
2.10
2.00
Would make people follow all laws and rules strictly-Would let people
break useless laws and rules
1.90
1.80
1.70
1.60
1.50
1.40
1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00
Worry-Relaxed
2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40
Portugal
Vietnam
Hungary
Greece
Belgium
Serbia
Finland Chile
Canada
UK
Denmark
Ireland
Switzerland
Norway
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Turkey
Romania
Sweden
Israel
Malaysia
China
Thailand
Colombia
Peru
Venezuela
South Africa
Kenya
Nigeria
Indonesia
Philippines
Kazakhstan
India
Australia
France
Egypt
Germany
Korea
Singapore
Taiwan Spain
Brazil
Poland
Mexico
Hong Kong
Ukraine
Argentina
Russia
Italy
Czech Republic
USA
Figure 2.
Visualization of the
relationship between
anxiety and
preference for strict
laws and rules
(this study)
Variable r n (countries)
Neuroticism in McCrae (2002) -0.62 31
Neuroticism in McCrae and Terracciano (2005) -0.47 35
Neuroticism in Schmitt et al. (2007) -0.67 37
Neuroticism in Gebauer et al. (2015) -0.42 54
Anxiety in Allik et al. (2017) -0.67 37
Note: All correlations are significant at 0.01
Table VII.
Correlations between
the reversely scored
anxiety item used in
this study and
measures of national
neuroticism
and anxiety
246
CCSM
25,2
we have solid evidence that this study has measured anxiety and societal restrictiveness
in a very meaningful and reliable way, and that the two measures are not correlated as
UA theory predicts.
3.2 MAS-FEM
Baumann and Winzar (2017) correctly point out that value prioritizations are complex
processes whose outcome may depend on the values themselves and circumstances. From
this perspective, asking people how much they value achievement may not be informative
enough. Everybody values achievement of some sort, yet some people may value
achievement of good human relationships (a FEM value or goal) more than achievement of
recognition (a MAS value or goal) or vice-versa. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, the
text of the achievement item was quite specific:
1. I would like to achieve fame and glory. 2. I am somewhere here, in between these two.
3. I see fame and glory as useless to me.
This conceptualization of achievement is entirely in accordance with Hofstede (2001) who
indicates explicitly that high MAS stands for “achievement in terms of ego boosting, wealth,
and recognition” (p. 298).
The other MAS item addresses one’s willingness to compete, based on Hofstede’s (2001)
indication that MAS cultures have a “concern” for “performance and competition” (p. 313),
and that “The family in masculine societies socializes especially male children toward
assertiveness, ambition, and competition” (pp. 314-315):
1. I like to compete with people. 2. I am somewhere here, in between these two. 3. I hate to
compete with people.
The following items capture the concept of FEM:
1. I like to help people, even if I have to do something difficult. 2. I am somewhere here, in
between these two. 3. I rarely agree to do something difficult to help people.
1. I am a compassionate person. When others have problems, I feel very sorry for them.
2. I am somewhere here, in between these two. 3. If other people have problems, I am usually
indifferent.
Just like helping, compassion is consistent with MAS-FEM theory since Hofstede (2001)
indicates that “The mas/fem dimension affects priorities in the following areas: (1) solidarity
with the weak in one’s society versus reward for the strong” (p. 317), and that “In masculine
societies more people believe that the fate of the poor is the poor’s own fault” (p. 319).
Our data show that, worldwide, we have the same situation as with the “help” and
“success” items in the WVS: men are more likely to adopt the supposedly MAS
self-descriptions (desire for fame, competitiveness) whereas women are more likely to adopt
the supposedly FEM self-descriptions (desire to help and compassion). Thus, there is no
doubt that these items conform to Hofstede’s MAS-FEM theory.
Table VIII shows correlations between these items, scored on a scale from 1 to 3 and
aggregated to the national level, and Hofstede’s MAS-FEM index.
Table VIII demonstrates that all MAS and FEM items are correlated positively. The use
of conceptual opposites within each item instead of a Likert scale means that this pattern
cannot be due to the well-known preference of some societies to agree with most statements
or rate most items as important, since the respondents are not asked to agree with anything
to any specific degree or rate the importance of anything. They have described themselves
in terms of clear statements that they identify with.
Figure 3 visualizes the relationship between liking to compete and liking to help. The two
items create a clear geographic map, with East Asia in the upper right corner, European and
English-speaking countries in the middle, and Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia, as well
as the Balkans and the Middle East (Turkey, Serbia, Romania and Egypt), in the lower left
corner. These two items obviously measure something very real; otherwise there would not
247
A revision of
Hofstede’s
model
be such a clear geographic pattern. It is evident that the East Asian Confucian cultures are
least likely to socialize their members for a desire to compete and help, whereas the rest of
Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East exhibit the opposite pattern. This pattern
is indicative of FLX-MON differences, explained in the work of Minkov, Bond, Dutt,
Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al. (in press).
This finding does not imply that East Asians do not engage in competitions. In fact, it is
well known that they tend to be fiercely competitive in education. The results of this fierce
competitiveness are also known. Children of Confucian heritage surpass those from any
other societies in educational achievement, especially in mathematics. Yet, the nationally
representative study TIMSS reveals that East Asian children are also those who have the
most negative attitudes toward the study of mathematics (Minkov, 2011), and possibly
toward the educational competitions that they have to engage in, under societal pressure.
2.60
2.40
2.20
Switzerland Germany
Israel
Austria Greece
Norway
Poland
India
Malaysia
Italy
Ukraine
New Zealand
South Africa
Turkey
Myanmar
Chile Portugal
Ireland
Brazil
Kazakhstan
Philippines
Colombia
Vietnam
Nigeria
Kenya
Serbia
Venezuela
Egypt
Indonesia
Mexico
Romania
Peru
The Netherlands
France
Hong Kong
Japan
Korea
China
Taiwan
Singapore
Finland
Canada
Sweden
Russia
Denmark
Czech Republic
Spain Thailand
Belgium
UK
USA
2.00
I like to compete-I hate to compete
1.80
1.60
1.20 1.40
I Like to help-I rarely agree to help
1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20
Figure 3.
Visualization of the
relationship between
liking to compete and
liking to help people
(this study)
1 2 3 4 5
(1) Desire to achieve fame 1.00 0.55** 0.32* 0.47** -0.20
n ¼ 54 n ¼ 54 n ¼ 54 n ¼ 42
(2) Desire to compete 1.00 0.61** 0.59** 0.01
n ¼ 0.54 n ¼ 54 n ¼ 42
(3) Desire to help 1.00 0.77** -0.03
n ¼ 54 n ¼ 42
(4) Compassion 1.00 0.12
n ¼ 42
(5) Hofstede’s masculinity-femininity 1.00
Notes: *,**Correlations are significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively
Table VIII.
Correlations between
masculinity-femininity
items (self-construals)
in this study
and Hofstede’s
masculinity-femininity
index
248
CCSM
25,2
Again, we have evidence of Confucian duality and ability to adapt one’s behavior to the
requirements of the situation even if this means a clash with one’s values and dispositions.
Item v10 in WVS 1999-2004 (subsequently discontinued) measured the importance
of “service to others” as a personal value. The percentages of respondents who have
chosen the “very important” option are highly correlated with the national scores on
the reversely-scored liking-to-help item in this study: r ¼ -0.71 ( po0.001, n ¼ 21).
Considering the 15-year time difference between the two studies, this is a remarkably high
correlation, strongly validating both studies: the WVS and ours. Figure 4 visualizes the
relationship between the two items.
In sum, the MAS and FEM measures in this study are highly reliable and valid as
measures of national culture and the positive correlations between them, refuting the
MAS-FEM theory, are not due to improper measurement.
4. Discussion
Replication and validation studies can have three possible outcomes. First, the original
model may be confirmed and validated. In that case, all is just well. Second, the replication
and validation attempt may produce nonsensical findings. This would not necessarily
invalidate the original model. It may be the case that the original is valid whereas the
replication attempt is plagued by various methodological errors. This study is an example of
the third possible outcome. The original model is not replicated and is not validated but the
new findings are not nonsensical at all. They are underpinned by a very solid logic, which
however differs from Hofstede’s. This new logic is based on nationally representative
studies, mostly the WVS and a survey of 53,000 people chosen probabilistically, reflecting
the structure of the national census more or less closely in each of 56 nations, adequately
representing the world’s national cultures from all continents. Which of the two logics is
stronger – the old or the new – is a question that is not hard to answer.
Egypt
Nigeria
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
WVS 1994-2004 V10 “service to others” percentage “very important”
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
1.20 1.40 1.80 2.00 2.20
I like to help-I rarely agree to help
Venezuela
Mexico
Philippines
Chile
Peru
Serbia
Indonesia
India
Canada
Sweden
Spain
Vietnam
1.60
Singapore China
Korea
Japan
USA
Argentina
South Africa
Figure 4.
Visualization of the
relationship between
liking to help people
(this study) and
importance of “service
to others,” v 10 in
World Values Survey
(1999-2004)
249
A revision of
Hofstede’s
model
This study documents the need for a thorough revision of Hofstede’s model of national
culture. Of the four original IBM dimensions, only IDV-COLL is supported as a coherent and
empirically useful dimension of national culture. Yet, the original IBM operationalization
and the index that it has produced need a substantial correction. First, IBM’s IDV-COLL
does not have good face validity. Second, after Hofstede’s IBM study, the USA and the other
English-speaking countries have never been shown to lead the country rankings on
any major dimension of national culture or any national statistics related to IDV-COLL.
A much-needed correction of the IDV-COLL index is provided by Minkov, Dutt,
Varma, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al. (in press).
The internal reliability of PD and its independence from IDV-COLL could not be
established with the data available for this study. It is however clear that IDV-COLL is a
better predictor of the main variables that PD can be expected to predict, making PD
empirically redundant. And since one of the main facets of IDV-COLL is differential
treatment of people based on their group affiliation, PD is logically a sub-facet of IDV-COLL
that need not be seen as independent from IDV-COLL.
The main pillar of UA – the assumption that societal anxiety accounts for societal
preference for strict rules and laws – collapses upon scrutiny. These two presumed UA
facets are correlated highly and positively only across European countries. An analysis
across countries from all continents reveals quite clearly that societal preference for strict
rules and laws is an aspect of COLL, and is not related to national measures of anxiety or
neuroticism as UA theory predicts. This explains why, despite their low UA scores, the
South and Southeast Asian countries have extremely strict rules in domains that their COLL
cultures have traditionally considered important. The fact that westerners observe some
lack of order in South Asia from their own perspective, such as chaotic driving, simply
means that Western driving regulations are still a foreign import in South Asia that has not
taken root in the local culture as it clashes with older cultural rules.
Apart from its lack of internal consistency, UA does not have any of the main predictive
properties that it has been credited with. Whenever UA produces a significant zero-order
correlation with a relevant external variable, that correlation is reduced to insignificance
after controlling for various aspects or facets of IDV-COLL or closely related constructs,
such as GLOBE’s UA or future orientation practices, or Welzel’s emancipative values index.
MAS and FEM values are correlated positively, not negatively, and are not related to the
IBM MAS-FEM index. This finding, as well as the failure of the IBM’s MAS-FEM index to
demonstrate the predictive properties that it is supposed to have, plus the fact that distances
between the values and personality traits of men and women are not a function of
MAS-FEM, discredits the MAS-FEM dimension and suggests that it is an artifact of the
IBM data set without a societal equivalent.
Figure 5 is a cultural map of the world, using Hofstede’s UA and MAS-FEM as axes. It is
puzzling to see the Confucian countries scattered throughout the map. It is also impossible
to explain the close proximity of pairs of culturally distant countries, such as the USA and
the Philippines, Canada and Indonesia, Taiwan and Brazil, Korea and Peru, Germany and
Ecuador, Austria and Venezuela, and Finland and Thailand, to name just a few pairs. While
the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands have the lowest scores on MAS-FEM, the
other economically advanced countries are at the other extreme on that dimension.
The Latin American countries are also dispersed along the MAS-FEM axis, without any
apparent logic. Some of the Confucian countries score very low on UA whereas others score
very high. Taiwan is in the middle. These patterns do not have close analogues in any
national statistics or other indicators.
Figures 6 and 7 present a new cultural map of the world, using the latest measures of
IDV-COLL (Minkov, Dutt, Varma, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al., in press) and
FLX-MON (Minkov, Bond, Dutt, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al., in press).
250
CCSM
25,2
This new map of the world is very much like the real one, drawn from a traditional European
perspective, without the world’s oceans. There is one logical exception: the English-speaking
countries are not scattered across the world but form a fairly compact cluster right above the
center of the map. Indonesia’s proximity to the Arab world and the African countries should not
Japan
Austria Venezuela
South Africa
Australia
Switzerland
Germany
Italy
Ecuador
Pakistan
Colombia
Mexico
Argentina Greece
Belgium
Turkey
Panama
Serbia
Uruguay
Guatemala
Salvador
Peru
Portugal
Korea
Thailand Chile
Finland
Costa Rica
Slovenia
The Netherlands
Denmark
Sweden
Norway
Israel
Brazil
France
Iran Croatia
East Africa
Ireland
UK
USA
Philippines
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00
Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance
Hofstede’s masculinity
80.00 100.00 120.00
Hong Kong
Jamaica
Singapore
Malaysia
India
Indonesia
Canada
New Zealand
Arab
Taiwan
Figure 5.
A cultural map of the
world produced by
Hofstede’s uncertainty
avoidance and
masculinity-femininity
The Netherlands
Belgium
France
Finland
Korea
Hong Kong
Singapore China
Kazakhstan
Thailand
Taiwan
Japan
New Zealand
Australia
UK
Norway
Denmark
Sweden
Switzerland Germany
Czech Republic
Spain
Hungary
Portugal
Italy
Argentina
Chile
Mexico
Peru
Colombia
Venezuela
South Africa
Romania
Myanmar
Brazil Vietnam Malaysia
Puerto Rico
India
Indonesia
Egypt
Kenya
Nigeria
Philippines
USA
Greece
Ireland
Israel
Poland Russia
Ukraine
Turkey
Canada
200.00
100.00
0.00
–100.00
–100.00
–200.00
–200.00
–300.00
–300.00 0.00 200.00 300.00 100.00
Monumentalism-Flexibility
Collectivism-Individualism
Figure 6.
A cultural map of the
world produced by the
new measures of
collectivismindividualism and
monumentalismflexibility
251
A revision of
Hofstede’s
model
seem surprising. It is supported by proximity on important national indicators, such as
measures of rule of law, transparency vs corruption, accident proneness, and gender inequality
(all associated with IDV-COLL), as well as educational achievement (associated with FLX-MON).
The new cultural map is also the only one available that highlights the cultural
distinctiveness of the Confucian countries of East Asia. They occupy an intermediate
position on IDV-COLL, yet they are leaders in terms of FLX-MON. This explains the leading
position of the Confucian countries in educational achievement, followed by Finland, the
Netherlands, Russia, and Kazakhstan.
This study exposes two perils in cross-cultural research. The first one is over-reliance on
seemingly matched samples whose comparability is not guaranteed. The second is
insufficient testing of the validity of a model of national culture. This includes use of small
and globally unrepresentative samples of nations and reliance on modest zero-order
correlations that have not been tested extensively by controlling for potentially better
predictors. Authors who use Hofstede’s dimensions rarely test the effects of other
predictors, such as Inglehart’s, Schwartz’s, and GLOBE’s measures, alongside Hofstede’s.
This explains why, not only in Hofstede’s work, but also in the studies of many other
authors, UA has been found to be a significant predictor of diverse variables, including
some of those tested in this study. Even MAS-FEM has been reported to produce effects in
some analyses, although it is obviously a fictitious dimension. Most recently, De Mooij
(2017) reported several high zero-order correlations between MAS-FEM and various
variables measured across European countries only. One of these, “agree with university
education is more for boys” (p. 451) is reported to correlate with MAS-FEM at 0.68, without
the number of countries across which the correlation was calculated (p. 451). The same
variable is measured by item v52 in WVS 2011-2014 across the world. Across 30
overlapping countries, it correlates with MAS-FEM at -0.31 ( p ¼ 0.09).
At the time when Hofstede developed his model, and even in 2001, when his main
monograph was published, the scarcity of the available data did not allow adequate
North Europe
Anglo
South Europe
Latin America
Arab
Africa
Russia
South Asia
East Asia
2.00
1.00
0.00
–1.00
–2.00 –1.00
–3.00
–3.00
–2.00
0.00
Monumentalism-Flexibility
1.00 2.00 3.00
Collectivism-Individualism
Figure 7.
A cultural map of the
world produced by the
new measures of
collectivismindividualism and
monumentalismflexibility, showing
the world’s main
cultural regions
252
CCSM
25,2
large-scale tests. Hofstede’s analysis caused the admiration of many scholars, including the
author of this paper. Yet the world has changed enormously since then and the amount of
information about cross-cultural differences worldwide has increased manifold. This wealth
of information today reveals a picture that is very different from what Hofstede extracted
from his IBM data set and, apart from the fact that the Confucian societies are now
somewhat more IDV-oriented, the difference does not seem to be a result of seismic cultural
restructuring across the world. It comes from the nature of Hofstede’s IBM samples: they
were not good representations of the cultures from which they were drawn, whereas the
samples available today are far more representative.
Might the new model, proposed here, consisting of the new measures of IDV-COLL and
FLX-MON, also be refuted upon closer scrutiny? It may certainly be modified, updated, and
improved, but it cannot be completely dismantled in the near future, before very significant
cultural shifts have occurred across the world. IDV-COLL is a dimension that transpires in
one variant or another from any large study of culture, and each variant is closely associated
with differences in national wealth and a host of other national indicators. The long history
of FLX-MON and its predecessors from diverse studies, including the WVS, is described by
Minkov, Bond, Dutt, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al. (in press). The validity of that
dimension is confirmed by its strikingly close and persistent association with differences in
national educational achievement, and measures of self-consistency and self-esteem from a
variety of reliable studies, covering many countries across the globe, including
self-confidence or self-esteem measures by PISA OECD, which relies on the largest
nationally representative samples in the history of cross-cultural studies. Other national
indicators, such as homicide rates and adolescent fertility seem to follow the same
geographic distribution, rising from Confucian East Asia toward Latin America and Africa,
whereas suicide rates and tobacco consumption seem to rise in the opposite direction.
These, and many other research topics, are awaiting further exploration.
Note
1. Vietnam exhibits an unusual pattern on this item. That country scores relatively high in terms of
percentages of people who would enforce strict laws, like in a typical collectivist country.
The percentage of Vietnamese who would allow others to break useless laws is small in absolute
terms, yet high relative to other countries.
References
Allik, A., Church, T., Ortiz, T., Rossier, J., Hrebickova, M., de Fruyt, F. et al. (2017), “Mean profiles of the
NEO personality inventory”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 402-420.
Ashkanasy, N.M., Gupta, V., Mayfield, M.S. and Trevor-Roberts, E. (2004), “Future orientation”,
in House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (Eds), Culture, Leadership,
and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 282-342.
Baumann, C. and Winzar, H. (2017), “Confucianism and work ethic – introducing the ReVAMB model”,
in Oh, I. and Park, G.S. (Eds), The Political Economy of Business Ethics in East Asia: A Historical
and Comparative Perspective, Elsevier-Chandos, Amsterdam, pp. 33-60.
Bond, M.H. (2002), “Reclaiming the individual from Hofstede’s ecological analysis. A 20-year Odyssey:
comment on Oyserman et al. (2002)”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 73-77.
Brewer, P. and Venaik, S. (2014), “The ecological fallacy in national culture research”, Organizational
Studies, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 1063-1086.
Carl, D., Gupta., V. and Javidan, M. (2004), “Power distance”, in House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Mansour, J.,
Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta., V. (Eds), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations. The GLOBE Study
of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 513-563.
253
A revision of
Hofstede’s
model
Costa, P.T., Terracciano, A. and McCrae, R.R. (2001), “Gender differences in personality traits across
cultures: robust and surprising findings”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81
No. 2, pp. 322-331.
De Mooij, M. (2017), “Comparing dimensions of national culture for secondary analysis of consumer
behavior data of different countries”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 444-456.
Dorfman, P.W., Hanges, P.J. and Brodbeck, F.C. (2004), “Leadership and cultural variation:
The identification of culturally endorsed leadership profiles”, in House, R.J., Hanges, P.J.,
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (Eds), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations:
The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 669-720.
Gebauer, J.E., Sedikides, C., Wagner, J., Bleidorn, W., Rentfrow, P.J., Potter, J. and Gosling, S.D. (2015),
“Cultural norm fulfillment, interpersonal belonging, or getting ahead? A large-scale crosscultural test of three perspectives on the function of self-esteem”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 109, pp. 526-548.
Gelfand, M., Bhawuk, D., Nishii, L.H. and Bechtold, D. (2004), “Individualism and collectivism”, in
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (Eds), Culture, Leadership,
and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 437-512.
Guimond, S., Branscombe, N., Brunot, S., Buunk, A.P., Chatard, A., Desert, M., Garcia, D.M., Haque, S.,
Martinot, D. and Yzerbyt, V. (2007), “Culture, gender, and the self: variation and impact of social
comparison processes”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 6, pp. 1118-1134.
Hall, E.T. (1959), The Silent Language, Anchor Books, New York, NY.
Hartog, D. (2004), “Assertiveness”, in House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V.
(Eds), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 395-436.
Heritage Foundation (2016), “Index of Economic Freedom”, available at: www.heritage.org/index/
ranking (accessed February 15, 2017).
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Sage,
Beverly Hills, CA.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and
Organizations Across Nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hofstede, G. and McCrae, R.R. (2004), “Personality and culture revisited: linking traits and dimensions
of culture”, Cross-Cultural Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 52-88.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (Eds) (2004), Culture, Leadership,
and Organizations. The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Inglehart, R. and Baker, W.E. (2000), “Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional
values”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 19-51.
Jahan, S. and Jespersen, E. (2015), “Human Development Report”, United Nations Development
Program, New York, NY.
Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B. and Gibson, C.B. (2006), “A quarter century of Culture’s Consequences:
a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 37 No. 37, pp. 285-320.
McCrae, R.R. (2002), “NEO-PI-R data from 36 cultures: Further intercultural comparisons”, in McCrae,
R.R. and Allik, J. (Eds), The Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Cultures, Kluwer Academic/
Plenum Publishers, New York, NY, pp. 105-126.
McCrae, R.R. and Terracciano, A. (2005), “Personality profiles of cultures: aggregate personality traits”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 407-425.
McSweeney, B. (2002), “Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences:
a triumph of faith – a failure of analysis”, Human Relations, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 89-118.
Merritt, A. (2000), “Culture in the cockpit: do Hofstede’s dimensions replicate?”, Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 283-301.
Minkov, M. (2011), Cultural Differences in a Globalizing World, Emerald, Bingley.
254
CCSM
25,2
Minkov, M. (2013), Cross-Cultural Analysis: The Science And Art Of Comparing The World’s Modern
Societies and Their Cultures, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Minkov, M. (2017), “Middle responding: an unobtrusive measure of national cognitive ability and
personality”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 113, pp. 187-192.
Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G. (2012), “Hofstede’s fifth dimension: new evidence from the World Values
Survey”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G. (2014), “A replication of Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance dimension
across nationally representative samples from Europe”, International Journal of Cross-Cultural
Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 161-171.
Minkov, M., Blagoev, V. and Hofstede, G. (2013), “The boundaries of culture; do questions about
societal norms reveal cultural differences?”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 7,
pp. 1094-1106.
Minkov, M., Bond, M.H. and Blagoev, V. (2015), “Do different national samples yield similar dimensions
of national culture?”, Cross-Cultural Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 259-277.
Minkov, M., Bond, M.H., Dutt, P., Schachner, M., Morales, O., Sanchez, C.J. et al. (in press),
“A reconsideration of Hofstede’s fifth dimension: new flexibility versus monumentalism data
from 54 countries”, Cross-Cultural Research.
Minkov, M., Dutt, P., Varma, T., Schachner, M., Morales, O., Sanchez, C.J. et al. (in press), “A revision of
Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism dimension: a new national index from a 56-country study”,
Cross-Cultural and Strategic Management.
OECD (2015), “Net ODA”, available at: https://data.oecd.org/oda/net-oda.htm (accessed February 15, 2017).
Peterson, M.F. (2003), “Review of the book Culture’s Consequences, second edition by G. Hofstede”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 127-131.
Rinne, T., Steel, D.G. and Fairweather, J. (2012), “Hofstede and Shane revisited”, Cross-Cultural
Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 91-108.
Schmitt, D.P., Allik, J., McCrae, R.R. and Benet-Martinez, V. (2007), “The geographic distribution of Big
Five personality traits: patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations”,
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 173-212.
Schwab, K., Sala-i-Martin, X., Eide, E.B. and Blanke, J. (2014), “Global Competitiveness Report
2014-2015”, World Economic Forum, Geneva.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994), “Beyond individualism/collectivism: new cultural dimensions of values”,
in Kim, U., Kagitcibasi, C., Triandis, H.C., Choi, S.C. and Yoon, G. (Eds), Individualism and
Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Application, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 85-119.
Schwartz, S.H. (2005), “Sex differences in value priorities: cross-cultural and multimethod studies”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 6, pp. 1010-1028.
Schwartz, S.H. (2008), Cultural Value Orientations: Nature and Implications of National Differences,
State University – Higher School of Economics Press, Moscow.
Schwartz, S.H. (2011), “Studying values: personal adventure, future directions”, Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 307-319.
Shane, S. (1995), “Uncertainty avoidance and the preference for innovation championing roles”, Journal
of International Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 47-68.
Smith, P.B., Peterson, M. and Schwartz, S.H. (2002), “Cultural values, sources of guidance, and their
relevance to managerial behavior: a 47-nation study”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 188-208.
Sully de Luque, M. and Javidan, M. (2004), “Uncertainty avoidance”, in House, R.J., Hanges, P.J.,
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (Eds), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations:
The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 602-653.
Taras, V., Steel, P. and Kirkman, B.L. (2012), “Improving national cultural indices using a longitudinal
meta-analysis of Hofstede’s dimensions”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 329-341.
255
A revision of
Hofstede’s
model
Transparency International (2017), “Corruption Perception Index”, available at: www.transparency.
org/cpi2015/ (accessed February 15, 2017).
UNDP (2015), “Human development report 2015”, UNDP, New York, NY.
Welzel, C. (2014), Freedom Rising; Human Empowerment and the Quest for Emancipation, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, online appendix, available at: www.researchgate.net/profile/
Christian_Welzel2/publication/269992832 (accessed February 15, 2017).
Winzar, H. (2015), “The ecological fallacy: how to spot one and tips on how to use one to your
advantage”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 86-92.
World Bank (2016), “GDP per capita (current USD)”, Cambridge, available at: http://data.worldbank.
org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD (accessed February 15, 2017).
Corresponding author
Michael Minkov can be contacted at: michaelminkov@yahoo.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
256
CCSM
25,2

YOU MAY ALSO READ ...  61923 – hiI need this assignment in 1000 words.Option 1. Individual
Order from Academic Writers Bay
Best Custom Essay Writing Services

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPERNO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER