Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Critical Review of Models, Containing Cultural Levels Beyond The Organizational One
Critical Review of Models, Containing Cultural Levels Beyond The Organizational One
99
Articles Cultural Levels beyond the Organizational One
1
The articles are accessible either as hard copies in the university library (i.e. in the periodicals reading room) or as electronic
documents through the university sub-site.
The contents of cultural awareness way the Dutchman proposes acceptable ex-
courses at UNWE traditionally present the planations to the observed cultural specifics
points of view of one or more of the follow- at national level, as follows:
ing scientists: Hofstede, Paunov, Trompa- National cultures show their stability
naars and Hampden-Turner, and Todorov. in time, permitting changes in dominating
Hofstede (2010a, 2010b) justifies the exist- value set not until occurrence of an evident
ence of three levels of culture, influencing shift among generations.
to a great extent the formation and evolution The turbulent influences of the envi-
of a target organizational culture, as follows: ronment may cause in most of the cases
national level, professional level, and gen- just changes in the practices (symbols, he-
der level (see figure 1). roes, rituals), while the underlying values
still remain intact. The last ones may under-
National (regional) level go certain changes in extreme occasions,
such as wars, death of a family member,
severe illness, natural disasters, etc.
The cultural unit at national and re-
CULTURAL LEVELS
101
Articles Cultural Levels beyond the Organizational One
CULTURE COMMON TO
ALL MANKIND (UNIVERSAL
CULTURE)
Regions
Races
NATIONAL CULTURE
Ethnicity
Religion
Social strata
Microenvironment
INDIVIDUAL CULTURE
Industry
ORGANIZATIONAL
CULTURE
Functional features
Product features
Sex
Age
Ethnicity, background
Regions, etc.
GROUP SUBCULTURES
more than one cultural system (i.e. a level munications, business culture), although it
beyond the organization). Sixth, the "indus- permits making the logical conclusion of the
trial segmentation criterion" is located in the existence of a strong relationship between
upper right from the organizational culture national and organizational levels. In fact
level (text box) to reveal the logic direction Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2008)
of subordination. use in the examples, accompanying the ex-
Additionally, Paunov (2008) enriches his planation of the proposed framework, stories
perspective on cultural levels beyond the of people’s experiences while entering dif-
organization in order to analyze in a better ferent countries and communicating with dif-
way business-related cultural issues by pre- ferent ethnical groups (for example Burundi,
senting Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s Hutus, Tutsis, Japanese, Eastern Europe,
framework of cultural layers (1998). The no- Dutch, Central Americans, etc.). Traditionally
tion of hidden from all sides cultural layers for the applied by them "union approach" of
is directly illustrated here (see figure 3). But presenting cultural layers, the scientists start
again here the analysis inherently goes on their analysis in the direction from outside to
national level (cross-cultural business com- inside, because they consider that concrete
103
Articles Cultural Levels beyond the Organizational One
factors constitute one’s first experience of an values (what is good or bad, an attribute close
alien culture, i.e. the level of explicit culture. to shared ideals by group members, "a criteri-
The last one is filled up by certain contents, on to determine a choice from existing alterna-
as follows: "the observable reality of the lan- tives") and a classification criterion of one of
guage, food, buildings, houses, monuments, these terms (formality: formal norms – written
agriculture, shrines, markets, fashions and laws; informal laws – social control). The con-
art". All these cultural elements are grouped gruence between norms and values is greatly
as symbols of deeper cultural levels. The appreciated by Trompenaars and Hampden-
great inaccuracy of expressed opinions and Turner who see it as the main source of cul-
made conclusions about a given culture, tural stability, the antipode to which leads to
based just on these items, is heavily under- "a destabilizing tension" and "disintegration".
lined by revealing the impact of individual’s The stability and salience in shared mean-
prejudices, reflecting predominantly his/her ings of norms and values in a community are
background, not the assessed community. considered as a sufficient condition for their
further development and elaboration. Here, it
is assumed that dominating norms and values
influence group members on both conscious
and subconscious level.
The core layer of assumptions about ex-
istence is used to explain the great diversity
among different groups of people in preferred
definitions of norms and values, initiating the
analysis with defining of survival as people’s
most basic value, in terms of "fighting" with
nature on a daily basis and giving examples
again with the specific problems of different
nations and taking into account the specific
conditions of different geographic regions
Source: Trompenaars, Hampden-Turner (1998), and the available resources to the inhabit-
Paunov (2008) ants. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner rely
Fig.3. A Framework of Cultural Layers on the axiom that people tend to self-organ-
Unbiased observer’s posing direct ques- ize in order to maximize the effectiveness of
tions to members of the assessed group, in their problem-solving processes. It seems
order to decipher strange and confusing be- these problems are complex and recurring
haviors for him/herself, is considered as a nor- (revolving) and require continuous efforts in
their daily resolution. The repetitive character
mal way in penetrating into a deeper cultural
of these actions, undertaken by people, for
layer, i.e. the layer of norms and values. Here
the sake of achieving short term successes
the authors describe traditional definitions
in a certain field, causes their gradual disap-
and characteristics of norms (what is right or pearance from human consciousness. In this
wrong, "how I normally should behave") and way individuals find their ways of coping with
105
Articles Cultural Levels beyond the Organizational One
3.1. Erez and Gati’s Model of Cultural Layers A society’s shared meanings are ac-
cepted to a satisfactory extent by the run-
Erez and Gati (2004) propose a five level
ning top-down socialization process. In this
cultural model, bearing its specific structural
way societal values become a part of an
and dynamic dimensions (see figure 4). The
individual’s personality.
model is structured as a hierarchy of layers,
The components of higher rank sys-
consecutively nested one in the other. The
tems (group, organization, national level)
core level in the framework is represented
are constructed by value aggregation and
by the cultural image of the individual who
sharing process.
participates in groups, organizations, nations
and global culture. The authors view at cul- Thus, Erez and Gati succeed in defin-
ture as a system of shared meanings that ing important cultural characteristics of the
may emerge at each of the mentioned levels. mentioned cultural levels:
Model’s dynamics is achieved by maintained Global culture. The contemporary
relations among the levels, especially the working environment is totally transformed
ways in which they influence each other. The by occurred globalization, expressed
last may be summarized, as follows: mostly by the increasing economic inter-
107
Articles Cultural Levels beyond the Organizational One
The scientists use the term "cultural face to the individual and from the core to
layer" to describe the environment in which the global layer. Inside-out transformation
organizations perform. The individual – the occurs in the model when its core is af-
smallest structural, cultural element (unit) – fected (influenced) by transmitted informa-
is located at the core of the model as a tion. All cultural layers are characterized
basic participant in the realization of all cul- by their density and erosion. Each cultural
tural layers. By contrast with Erez and Gati layer possesses specific density, corre-
(2004), Wilhelms, Shaki and Hsiao (2009) sponding to the achieved extent of struc-
deny the existence of specific individual tural complexity, incarnated in the present
culture, considering that the individual may social and organizational forms in it. The
only belong to (or possess) a certain cul- density of a certain cultural layer is meas-
ture, spread at least among the members of ured both by the penetration speed the
a certain group. So, it becomes evident that information flows in it and by the ways in
culture cannot be classified at "individual which information is being filtered during its
level". The proposed cultural layers em- flow. Cultural layer’s density may change
body possible locations of the organizations under the influence of external and inter-
up and down the established environments nal factors (for example enacted laws and
in the model (see figure 5). The content of regulations). The availability of high density
the separate layers is constantly changing. in a cultural layer means that information
The information may be transmitted across cannot penetrate in it because of enacted
the layers in two directions – from the sur- policies, normative acts, etc. In this way the
109
Articles Cultural Levels beyond the Organizational One
two-way informational flow between the lay- may be determined to the effect that the
ers may be ceased with a set purpose – the culture to a given society is "the same as"
flow’s dynamics is blocked, its influence is memories to an individual.
decreased and consequences, associated Micro culture. This layer emerges by
with transmitted information, are prevented the formation of small groups (for instance
from occurrence. friends, followers, etc.), although great vola-
The cultural erosion is an intrinsic, natu- tility in group’s size is possible, limited in the
ral process, running in the model. Gener- interval from the number of members in a
ally it is perceived as some kind of change. family to personnel’s average annual num-
The erosion may come into being at each ber in a company. Subcultures within the
cultural layer as a result of influences from organizational culture context are accepted
within it, due to the passing inside-out or as "values" in this interval, too. Each group,
outside-in informational flow, enacted laws which members hold shared behavioral pat-
and policies and natural changes. terns, may be a part of this cultural layer
Subculture is another basic attribute in including ethnical groups. Single represent-
this model and is identified as a certain so- atives of micro culture are components of
cial or organizational group that belongs to a wider cultural constructs and higher rank
given cultural layer which may be inhabited cultural systems. At this level the strongest
by many subcultures. Wilhelms, Shaki and connection (intimacy) among the members
Hsiao (2009) allow comparing different sub- of a group may be achieved. The option of
cultures only if the last exist in a single layer cultural segmentation is available here.
and there is an acceptable fit between the Meso culture. It is intended to fill up
explored cultural layer and its subcultures. the vacuum between micro and macro cul-
Thus, Wilhelms, Shaki and Hsiao (2009) tural layers. The authors share the concept
become capable of precisely determining that for sure meso culture differs from sub-
the essence of the core and each of the culture. That is why they define precisely
identified cultural layers, as follows: cultural groups, typical for the meso layer
The core, i.e. individual. Individuals as larger than the average number of the
are products of culture they belong to. They personnel in a company and smaller in
have learned to act in specific ways within number than a nation, for example com-
the socio-cultural environment. That is why munities, consisting of two or more firms
they occupy the core of culture with rela- (consortiums, companies with at least two
tion to shared beliefs, attitudes, norms, roles separate business units), or consisting of
and values. In this way the shared elements two or more families (entrepreneurial net-
of subjective culture emerge and last, being works). The group members of meso cul-
transferred between generations as memo- ture are characterized by homogeneity, ex-
ries of personal experience including lan- pressed in some behavioral aspects.
guage, time, and space (layout). Therefore, Macro culture. The scientists define
the relation between memories and culture it as collective programming of human mind
in a specific geographical region with upper tory of two or more continents are labeled
limits, coinciding with territories of separate as global. That is why the scientists claim
states, i.e. the national framework. Thus that the shared beliefs patterns by global
they succeed in restricting spheres and organizations compose the contents of
dimensions of undertaken studies at this global culture. The scientists use an appro-
layer. The macro culture systems take the priate example to illustrate manifestations
shape of clusters from organizations or so- of global culture as functions, performed by
cial groups within a target national frame- the World Trade Organization in connection
work, for example two or more representa- with development of policies for business
tives of meso layer which may not share the organizations on a global scale. The World
same attitudes but obligatory belong to a Bank, The International Monetary Fund,
given national framework. That is why the The United Nations Organization may be
authors conclude that the achieved group accepted as other entities, influencing on a
homogeneity here is weaker in comparison global scale.
to meta culture layer. Wilhelms, Shaki and Hsiao (2009) guar-
Meta culture. Its structure comprises antee that their framework is not static by
of two or more national cultures including considering organizations that may be clas-
their social groups, or multinational geo- sified in a given layer at a definite moment
graphical region or alliance (for example: as dynamically developing systems whose
European Union, North American Free growth strivings may lead them to neces-
Trade Agreement, etc.). Meta cultures are sary penetration into other layers. So it
characterized by existing behavioral simi- sounds logical that localizations (spheres)
larities, discovered in two or more macro within which a given company or industry
(national) cultures. Meta cultures are also operates, and the achieved phase of their
influenced by mighty organizational alli- evolutionary development are the two crite-
ances, functioning within them. The authors ria that predetermine their belonging to a
provide the example of regional industries certain cultural layer. That is why the scien-
that are presented by two or more national tists ground the design and implementation
industry sectors, operating in two or more of a regular monitoring review and assess-
countries. ment process, concerning the current per-
Global culture. The whole planet is formance state of each target organization
the magnitude of the construct that is wide- at a given cultural layer.
ly used by media, academics and business,
3.3. Other Necessary Facets in Hofstede’s
marking the made cultural choice on world-
Work
wide scale. This is the external border of
the model. Two or more continents repre- The results from two large scientific pro-
sent the smallest inhabitant in this cultural jects, led by Hofstede, help the scientist
layer. Large organizations, operating within identify and organize in a sequential order
multiple national boundaries on the terri- different cultural levels, based on the crite-
111
Articles Cultural Levels beyond the Organizational One
rion of respective weight in "the ratio" be- undergone as an adult (above 18 years, for
tween values and practices (symbols, ritu- professionals with higher education at the
als, heroes). Thus, the Dutch reaches the age of above 22 years) whose individual set
conclusions that national cultures differ to of values is already formed. Third, gender
the greatest extent in values, dominating in and nationality are the only two cultural at-
each of them (Hofstede, 1991; Hofstede tributes, present at birth in one’s lifetime.
et. al., 2010), while organizational cultures Forth, values of founders and leaders in a
differ to the greatest extent in practices, given organization may differentiate from the
dominating in each of them (Hofstede et. individual value sets of the employees. That
al., 1990). In this way it becomes clear that is why founders and leaders may create
different mixes of values and practices exist and disseminate only daily practices among
at the identified cultural levels beyond the the organization’s members, embodied in
organizational one (see figure 6). symbols, heroes and rituals. Since the em-
Hofstede explains the availability of dif- ployees have their personal and social lives
ferences in "values – practices" observed out of the organizations, they are not stimu-
mixes at separate cultural levels with di- lated or forced to change the items in their
verse locations of learning or socialization established individual value sets in contrast
of the mentioned couple of attributes. First, to the inhabitants of a prison, a mental hos-
values as "mental programs" are acquired pital, an orphanage, a monastery, a nursing
mainly during childhood and adolescence in home, etc., where the members are isolated
one’s lifetime and in locations as one’s fam- from the wider community for a certain time,
ily, neighborhood and school. Second, the reside and/or work on a confined territory
organizational culture is learned by a new- and generally are in a similar life situation,
comer in a certain entity during the process leading a formally administered way of life.
of his/her socialization which is generally It seems evident that membership in a given
113
Articles Cultural Levels beyond the Organizational One
of Hofstede (1991) and Straub et. al. (2002) related to each other. Thus, the researchers
that there exists a kind of interaction among reject previously dominated Hofstede’s con-
the cultural levels, since manager and em- cept of hierarchical understanding as the
ployee behaviors may be affected by diverse only one perspective in analyzing and clas-
influences of different cultural levels (nation- sifying cultural levels on generality criterion
al, organizational, subculture, etc.). But Kara- within the interval, formed by the upper limit
hanna, Evaristo and Srite (2005) not only of a (supra)national level3 and the lower limit
think that cultural levels and cultural layers2 of a group one (see figure 8).
115
Articles Cultural Levels beyond the Organizational One
Table 4. Targowski and Metwalli’s Cultural Layers, Influencing the Business Communication Process.
Cultural layer Description
Globalization is the driving force here, since it is assumed that people from
different cultures rely on the same rules and behaviours to ensure a certain
Global Culture extent of success during communication process in business contexts, i.e.
the participants try to adapt to the intercultural situation setting by deliberately
deviating from otherwise their dominating cultural behaviours.
It is oriented to traditions, behaviours, feelings, values, etc., that are common to
National Culture
a nation.
Regional Culture It embodies the values that individuals share to some extent within a region.
Organizational Its meaning is limited to a management means to control organizational
Culture performance.
It refers to a group of people, united by a common relationship as work,
Group Culture
profession or family.
Personal Culture It represents an individual’s specific understanding of time, space and reality.
Biological
It outlines the universal reactions by humans to their physical needs.
Culture
117
Articles Cultural Levels beyond the Organizational One
fact the applied framework of cultural lay- propose the existence of three components,
ers, affecting the communication process, forming human learned behavior patterns
is summarized by Targowski and Metwalli and perceptions, starting with the most ob-
(2003) who arrange the components in a vious one, as follows:
sequential order by diminishing generality, The specific body of cultural tradi-
define the individual as a separate cultural tions for a society. People from separate
layer and differentiate the set from already nationalities may be referred to a shared lan-
mentioned ones by adding a biological layer guage, specific traditions and beliefs that dif-
(see table 4). ferentiate them from other peoples. The ma-
But Targowski and Metwalli (2003) go jority of members in a nation have acquired
even further to describe the general struc- their culture from their predecessors.
ture of a cultural layer, revealing the intrica- The subculture is the second cul-
cy of its contents and relations (see figure tural layer, forming human identity. The
10). The scientists claim that all identified complex, diverse societies are viewed as a
elements in the structure are present at compound of immigrant groups from differ-
each of the seven levels in spite of the ob- ent parts of the world whose members of-
served inequality in their prominence. The ten preserve much of their original cul-
researchers specify "communication chan- tures. The specific shared cultural traits
nel", i.e. the medium of the message, and allow a certain group to be identified as a
"climate", i.e. people’s openness to commu- subculture in the new society its members
nicate, as other two equally significant fac- have joined. This classification of cultural
tors, concerning the intercultural process. levels uses the society of the USA as an
example: Vietnamese Americans, African
3.7. O’Neil’s Cultural Levels
Americans, and Mexican Americans, to
O’Neil (2006) uses simultaneously the describe differences among these subcul-
terms layers and levels in his framework to tures by identity, food tradition, dialect or
language, and etc., inherited through cousin); (c) raising children in some sort of
common ancestral background and ex- family setting; (d) having a concept of pri-
perience. O’Neil dwells on a typical situ- vacy; (e) having rules to regulate sexual be-
ation in the USA society when the cul- havior; etc. The scientist notes that there is
tural differences between a subculture a great diversity in the way of carrying out or
and the dominant national culture gradu- expressing cultural universals. For instance,
ally blur and eventually disappear. The people with disabilities (deaf and dumb) use
scientist outlines the transition of a given the finger alphabet to communicate with the
subculture into a group of people who sign language instead of verbal language.
identify themselves as citizens of the But both types of languages have their spe-
USA first and claim only a common an- cific grammatical rules.
cestry (for example German Americans
3.8. Steven Kaminski’s
and Irish Americans). View to Cultural Levels
Cultural universals are the attrib-
utes, constituting the third cultural level. Kaminski (2006) analyzes cultural lev-
O’Neil defines them as learned behavior els as pairs, each one consisting of a
patterns, shared by the whole mankind and super-culture and a subculture. A super-
proposes a long list of such "human cul- culture is defined as "an even more exten-
tural" traits, as follows: (a) communicating sive shared perspective that in some way
with a verbal language consisting of a lim- governs the perspective of the subcultures
ited set of sounds and grammatical rules within it" (for example American culture
for constructing sentences; (b) using age, versus General American business cul-
gender, marriage and descent relationships ture), while a subculture is defined as "a
to classify people (e.g., teenager, senior shared perspective within a larger culture".
citizen, woman, man, wife, mother, uncle, The analysis here is concentrated on the
119
Articles Cultural Levels beyond the Organizational One
Levels Descriptions
National level (macro level, social
Culture, shared among the people in a society or a country.
level, cross-cultural level)
Organizational level Culture, shared among people, working in an organization.
Culture, shared among people with similar profession
Group level or occupation, or a subculture of people with specific interests
(a political party, a social stratum).
Subjective culture of the individual – it embodies the extent
Individual level
to which the individual perceives (absorbs, learns) different
(micro culture, subjective culture)
cultures the last belongs to.
Source: Ali and Brooks (2009).
relations between the cultural attributes 3.9. A Framework of Cultural Levels by Ali
within a chosen pair of adjacent levels. and Brooks
The scientist describes two common char-
Ali and Brooks (2009) make a differ-
acteristics of subcultures, as follows:
ence between cultural levels and cultural
Emerging without any influence or
layers (Hofstede’s practices and values).
direct leadership, exerted by the overarch-
The identified tendency of existing corre-
ing super culture.
spondence and relations between levels
Modifying and/or ignoring key ele-
and layers is similar to Hofstede’s ideas of
ments of the overarching super culture.
the changing contents in "values – prac-
The researcher concludes that better un-
tices" mix. The proposed framework of cul-
derstanding the levels of super-cultures and
tural levels by the scientists is based on a
subcultures may be useful to decision-makers
number of cultural studies predominantly in
in bringing to surface important assumptions
the information technologies sphere where
that may generate opportunities for exerting
individuals are labeled not only as the ba-
deliberate influence or may be the targets of a
sic cultural unit, but also constitute the
change program of a certain business related,
least general cultural level (see table 5).
social and religious issue (see figure 11).
Culture Category
Macrocultures Nations, ethnic and religious groups, occupations that exist globally
Organizational cultures Private, public, non-profit, government organizations
Subcultures Occupational groups within organizations
Microcultures Microsystems within or outside organizations
Source: Schein (2010).
3.10. Edgar Schein’s Try in Identification of to outline his contributions within wider cultural
Cultural Levels beyond the Organization constructs (see table 6). That is why he labels
Traditionally, Edgar Schein’s attention is cultural levels beyond the organization as "cat-
directed to deeper study and measurement egories of culture" and analyzes them briefly
of culture only at organizational level (Schein, in the introduction of his book (Schein, 2010).
2004; Schein 1999; Schein 1997; Schein The author describes microsystems as small
- presented by Wilhelms, Shaki and Hsiao (2009)
- presented by Wilhelms, Shaki and Hsiao (2009)
Hierarchical perspective:
Hierarchical perspective:
Perspective of
"valuesPerspective
- practices" of
mixes
"values
across the- practices" mixes
cultural levels:
- presentedacross
by G. the culturalG.
Hofstede, levels:
J. Hofstede,
- presented by G. Hofstede,
Minkov (2010) G. J. Hofstede,
Minkov (2010)
Lateral perspective:
Analyzing Lateral perspective:
- presented by Karahanna, Evaristo and Srite (2005)
cultural levels - presented by Karahanna, Evaristo and Srite (2005)
beyond the
organization
1988). But lately the professor feels forced to coherent units within the organizations (surgi-
take into account the increasing importance
cal teams, task forces), possessing a specific
of cultural levels beyond the organization and
without undertaking a new direction of his "microculture" whose members cut across oc-
dominating scientific interest, i.e. the organi- cupational groups which in fact differentiates
zation, the researcher takes an additional step these units from occupational subcultures.
121
Articles Cultural Levels beyond the Organizational One
123
Articles Cultural Levels beyond the Organizational One
Dimitrov, K., 2009. Several Norms and Be- Hofstede, G., 2001. Culture’s Consequenc-
liefs, Defining the Attitude to Human Re- es. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publi-
sources in the Industrial Organizations. Is- cations,
sue 2EN/2009 (Dimitrov, K., 2009. Normi
i vyarvania, opredelyashti otnoshenieto Hofstede, G. 1994. Cultures and Organisa-
kam choveshkite resursi v industrialnite or- tions. London: HarperCollins.
ganizatsii. Br.2/2009), [online] Available at: Hofstede, G., 1991. Cultures and Organi-
http://alternativi.unwe.acad.bg/ [Accessed zations: Software of the Mind, London:
March, 18th, 2012]. McGraw Hill.
Dimov, M., 2010. Kade sme nie v evropei- Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohavy, D., Sand-
skoto virtualno prostranstvo? Br.4/2010, ers, G., 1990. Measuring Organizational
[online] Available at: http://alternativi.unwe. Cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly,
acad.bg/ [Accessed March, 18th, 2012]. 35, pp. 286-316.
Erez, M., Gati, E., 2004. A Dynamic, Mul- Ivanov, P., Durankev, B., Marinov, M.,
ti-Level Model of Culture: From the Micro Katrandzhiev H., Stoyanova, M., 2001.
Level of the Individual to the Macro Level Firmenata kultura v Bulgaria. Alternativi,
of a Global Culture. Applied Psychology: prilozhenie, Sofia.
an International Review, 2004, 53 (4),
583 –598; Kaminski, S. H., 2006. Cultural Strategies
of Organizational Design. Bob Jones Uni-
Espinar, A. L., 2010. Intercultural Business versity, December 23, 2006, [online stu-
Communication:Ttheoretical Framework and dent resources] Available at: http://www.
Training Methods. AnMal Electr nica 28/2010 shkaminski.com/Classes/BJU_MBA_665/
Universidad de C rdoba, (https://gw.uma. LectureNotes/CP%20Chapter%204.htm/
es/webmail/src/compose.php?send_ [accessed May, 2nd, 2012].
to=ff1laesa%40uco.es), ISSN 1697-4239;
Karahanna, E., Evaristo, J. and Srite, M.,
Genov, J., 2004. Zashto tolkova malko us- 2005. Levels of Culture and Individual Be-
pyavame. Sofia: Izdatelstvo "Klasika I stil". haviour: an Integrative Perspective. Jour-
Hofstede, G., 2010a. Levels of Culture. nal of Global Information Management,
[on-line] Available at: http://www.geerthof- 13, No. 2, April – June, pp. 1-20, ProQuest
stede.nl/culture.aspx,/ [Accessed March, database.
20th, 2012]. Kolev, B., Rakadzhiyska, T., 2009. A Ten-
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., Minkov, M., dency toward New Cultural Attitudes
2010b. Cultures and Organizations. Soft- of Business Agents in Bulgaria. Issue
ware of the Mind. Intercultural Cooperation 2EN/2009 (Kolev, B., Rakadzhiyska, T.,
and Its Importance for Survival, New York: 2009. Kam novi kulturalni naglasi na bi-
McGraw Hill. znes subektite u nas. Br.3/2009), [online]
Kolev, B., Rakadjiiska, T., Stoyanova M., To- Paunova, M., 2007. Kak da harakterizirame i
dorova, S., 2009a. Transformation and Adap- otsenim kulturata na organizatsiata. Br.6/2007,
tation of Bulgarian Business in the Process of [online] Available at: http://alternativi.unwe.
Bulgarian Society’s Euro-integration. A univer- acad.bg/ [Accessed March, 18th, 2012].
sity project N "SRA" 21.03 – 10/2005 (UNWE).
Peycheva, M., 1999. Neobhodimost ot
Lewis R. D., 2006. When Cultures Collide. zashtita na etikata vav firmata. Br. 23-
Leading Across Cultures. Nicholas Brealey 24/1999, 55-56.
International, London.
Reeder, K., Macfayden, L. P., Roche, J.,
Milkov, L., 2006. Informatsionnata kultura & Chase, M., 2004. Negotiating Cultures
na prepodavatelya kato factor za sazda- in Cyberspace: Participation Patterns and
vane na kachestvena obrazovatelna usluga Problematics. Language Learning & Tech-
vav vissheto uchilishte. Br.1/2006, [online] nology, 8(2), 88-105.
Available at: http://alternativi.unwe.acad.
bg/ [Accessed March, 18th, 2012]. Roth, K., 2012. Chalgiziraneto na Bulgaria
– a part of a symposium of German As-
Minkov, M., 2002. Zashto me razlichni? sociation for South-East Europe, newspa-
Mezhdukulturni razlichiya v semeystvoto, per Kapital Daily, April, 4th, 2012 (Friday),
obshtestvoto i biznesa. Sofia: Izdatelstvo pp.3, 77.
"Klasika I stil".
Rutherford, A. G., Kerr, B., 2008. An
O’Neil, D., May, 26th, 2006. What is Inclus ve Approach to Onl ne Learn ng
Culture?[online] Available at: http://an- Env ronments: Models and Resources.
thro.palomar.edu/culture/credits.htm/ [Ac- Turkish Online Journal of Distance Educa-
cessed May, 2nd, 2012]. tion-TOJDE, April/2008 ISSN 1302-6488,
Vol. 9, Number 2, Article 2.
Parusheva, T., 2005. Destinatsia Bulgaria v
konteksta na sotsiokulturnite efekti ot evro- Schein E., 2010. Organizational culture
integratsiata. Br.1/2005, [online] Available and leadership, 4th,ed. JOSSEY – BASS.
at: http://alternativi.unwe.acad.bg/ [Ac-
cessed March, 18th, 2012]. Schein E., 2004. Organizational culture
and leadership, 3rd ed. JOSSEY – BASS.
Paunov, M., 2009. Tsennostite na balgarite.
Savremenen portret na evropeyski fon. So- Schein E., 1999. The Corporate Culture
fia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo "Stopanstvo". Survival Guide. John Wiley & Sons.
Paunov, M., 2008. Organizatsionno pove- Schein, E., 1997. Organizational Culture
denie i korporativna kultura. Sofia: Univer- and Leadership", 2nd ed. San Francisco:
sitetsko izdatelstvo "Stopanstvo". Jossey-Bass;
125
Articles Cultural Levels beyond the Organizational One