Jan Kowalski

Student ID No 9000

Impact of cross cultural differences on

organization management

MSc dissertation
written under the
supervision of
PhD Gavin Rae

Warsaw 2017
 Abstract

Dissertation author: Jan Kowalski

Dissertation title: Impact of cross cultural differences on organization management

Summary

In my work I will be trying to present impact of cross cultural differences on

organization management. To do so I will be focusing on theoretical knowledge of
culture its origins, development and definitions from other scholars. Then I will move to
the concepts of mental programing, layers and levels of culture and their classification.
From that that point I will try to lay background for organization and its most well know
theory’s. After that I will bring up idea of culture dimensions and their measurement.
Firstly study and model proposed by Hofstede along with its criticism by many modern
scholars Secondly other well established cultural dimension models namely
Trompenaars’s and Globe. I will establish the thesis that National cultural differences
have impact on organization and its management in the countries of central Europe. My
work will presents the data acquired and it’s sample, focusing on comparing and
parallel analysis of Germany, Poland and Ukraine. I will try to contrast my results with
work of Professor Gerard Hendrik Hofstede in purely comparative sense. Final chapter
will include quantitative hypothesis verification and qualitative presentation of
participant observation research, followed by summary.

Key words:

Culture, organization, organization management, organizational culture, cultural

dimensions, cultural differences.

Subject area code in “Erasmus for all” program: 04000

TU WSTAW SPIS TREŚĆI

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................7

CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK........................................................9

Culture................................................................................................................................................ 9
Collective programming.......................................................................................................................13
Layers and levels of culture..................................................................................................................14
National................................................................................................................................................15
Organizational......................................................................................................................................15

Organization..................................................................................................................................... 16
Organizational theory...........................................................................................................................17

MODELS OF CULTURAL DIMENSIONS...............................................................18

Hofstede’s Cultural dimensions theory................................................................................................18
Critical approach to Hofstede dimensions............................................................................................24
Trompenaars’ model of national culture differences...........................................................................27
Globe....................................................................................................................................................30
Measuring cultural differences.............................................................................................................32

CHAPTER 2: METHOD..............................................................................................34

Hypotheses....................................................................................................................................... 34

Methodology.................................................................................................................................... 35
Survey...................................................................................................................................................35
Participant observation........................................................................................................................36
Limitations............................................................................................................................................37
Introduction
In my work I will be trying to present impact of cross cultural differences on
organization management, focusing on impact and relations of Cultural dimensions on
organizations and their management in business schools in the countries of communist
states of Central and Eastern Europe.

To do so in the first chapter I will be focusing on theoretical knowledge of culture its

origins, development and definitions from other scholars. Then I will move to the
concepts of mental programing, layers and levels of culture and their classification.

From that that point I will try to lay background for organization and its most well know
theory’s. After that I will bring up idea of culture dimensions and their measurement.
Firstly study and model proposed by Hofstede along with its criticism by many modern
scholars Secondly other well established cultural dimension models namely
Trompenaars’ and Globe.

I will establish the thesis that National cultural differences have impact on organization
and its management in the countries of central Europe

Second chapter of my work will be dedicated to setting auxiliary hypotheses and

describing meanings of conducted quantitative and qualitative research.

Third chapter presents the data acquired and it’s sample focusing on comparing and
parallel analysis of Germany, Poland and Ukraine. I will try to contrast my results with
work of Professor Gerard Hendrik Hofstede in purely comparative sense.

Fourth and final chapter will include quantitative hypothesis verification and qualitative
presentation of participant observation research, followed by summary.

7
Without an understanding of how to navigate diverse cultural beliefs, values, and
traditions, managers are left to take their chances in the new, high stakes, and ever-
changing environment. And the fact that most cultures incorporate multiple subcultures
only exacerbates the problem. As a first step, managers should themselves ask two
questions: What is meant by the rather amorphous term ‘culture’? And what is the
relationship between culture, contexts, attitudes, and behaviors?

8
Chapter 1: Theoretical framework

Culture
One of the first questions which have to be answered during the research on cultural
differences and they implications on organizational management, is: „What is culture?”
1
The word “culture” traces its roots from Latin origin, cultus agri, ambiguous phrase

that means the cultivation of the land, like in agriculture. Noun colore , and derived
therefrom verb colo mean to worship, cherish, cultivate, till, pay homage, honor

However modern definition can be credited to Sir Edward B. Tylor, in his words
Culture is "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law,
custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society." 2
Using an alternative approach proposed by James Paul we can define culture as a social
domain that in the span of time represents social meaning of life in its state between
discontinuity and continuity, sstressing out discourses, practices and material
expressions3

Definition which we can find in Cambridge English Dictionary under culture says that it
is "the way of life, especially the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of
people at a particular time.4

In the most modern languages word is being used in two figurative meanings, these
meanings should not be confused with each other, we will be referring to culture in its
second sense:

1) Civilization – the “ministry of culture” in it most popular meaning this domain

includes manners crafts and arts education and all of the before mentioned
creations.

1
P. G. W. Glare (2012) Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford: OUP
2
E. B. Tylor (1974) Primitive culture: researches into the development of mythology, philosophy,
religion, art, and custom, New York: Gordon Press
3
P. James, L. Magee, A. Scerri, M. Steger (2015), Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles
of Sustainability, London: Routledge, p. 53.
4
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/culture (20.10.2016)

9
 2) The second significance of the word can be derived from social anthropology roots,
which has become more and more popular over the span of last decades entering
common language. We refer to it as a way people feel think and act. Professor
Gerard Hendrik Hofstede in his definition has named it as "the collective
programming”5 mind is able to divide people from different memberships to
categories or groups. The groups can differ from religion, gender, occupations and
nations, so called “the unwritten rules of the social game” by a simpler definition.

Terror Management Theory6 states that culture is chain of views and actions being base
for humans to identify themselves as people of value in the world. That enables them to
ascend above the simple physical aspect of being, distance themselves from animals in
their consciousness of death. In a general sense it is this to perform creative and original
expression through the symbols, something practically unique to us humans.

Origins of culture can be tracked to around 50 000 years ago when it developed together
with behavioral modernity evolution7. Culture is also a defining conception in
anthropology, as it defines what it means to be a human, It reveals a number of
phenomena transmitted through the social science. It is likewise useful for
determination of accumulated knowledge and ideas transmitted through interaction and
social practices in groups of human cultures. Certain aspects of human behavior such as
sex, relationship, marriage, social customs, or language or different universal forms of
presentation contained in all other human societies such as cooking, clothes, religion,
music and art.

The theory of material culture includes all material manifestations of culture in forms
such as art, architecture and technology. While immaterial all other no physical aspects
of culture we have in mind, literature, philosophy, mythology, cultural heritage and
principles of communities8

5
G. Hofstede, G. J. Hofstede (2005) Cultures and Organizations: software of the mind, New York:
McGraw-Hill, p 4
6
S. Solomon, J. Greenberg, T. Pyszczynski (1991), A Terror Management Theory of Social Behavior:
The Psychological Functions of Self-Esteem and Cultural Worldviews, “Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology”, 24(C)
7
S. McBrearty, A. S. Brooks (2000), The revolution that wasn't: a new interpretation of the origin of
modern human behavior, "Journal of Human Evolution”, 39(5)
8
J. J. Macionis, L. M. Gerber (2010), Sociology, Ontario: Pearson Education Canada, p. 53

10
In the humanistic sense we can treat culture as a set of attributes assigned to the entity,
determining to which extent it has assimilated the traits associated with science or art.
By level of cultural advancement we understand the cultural differences between the
perception of less complex societies and civilizations. Such hierarchical perception of
culture, can also be observed in the case of class differences between lower classes and
social elites, multilayered access to cultural capital.

Culture in the tangible sense is seen as a set of values, customs and traditions of a given
society within the meaning of ethnic group or nation. In this sense, multiculturalism is a
concept showing the importance and significance for mutual respect and coexistence
between cultures occurring in the same territory. Culture can also be used to describe
the customs and practices of subgroups, it should be remembered, however that the
theory of cultural relativism9 assumes that culture cannot be subject to easy and
objective evaluation because the evaluation itself is already located in the system of
values of a given culture.

Other definitions of culture we can find in literature are (order after the date of
publication):

 “Collection of beliefs, values, behaviors, customs, and attitudes that distinguish the
people of one society from another.”10 Kluckholn (1962)

 “The fabric of meaning in terms of which people interpret their experience and
guide their action.”11 Geertz (1973)

 “A ‘toolkit’ of symbols, stories, rituals, and worldviews that help the people of a
culture survive and succeed. 12 Swidler (1986)

 “Cumulative deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings,

hierarchies, religion, notions of time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the
universe, and material objects and possessions acquired by a group of people in the

9
J. Tennekes (1971), Anthropology, Relativism and Method, Assen: Van Gorcum, p. 18
10
C. Kluckholn (1962), Culture and behavior, “Handbook of social Psychology”, 2 p.921-976
11
C. Geertz (1974), The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, New York: Basic Books p.145
12
A. Swidler (1986), Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies, “American Sociological Review” , 51(2)

11
 course of generations through individual and group striving.” 13 Porter and Samovar
(1994).

 “The way in which a group of people solves problems and reconciles dilemmas”. 14
Trompenaar (1997)

 “Shared motives, values, beliefs, identities, and interpretations or meanings of

significant events that result from common experiences of members of collectives
that are transmitted across generations.”15 House (2002)

Taken together, these definitions suggest that, from the standpoint of global
management, culture is perhaps best thought of as addressing three questions:

1) Who are we?

2) How do we live?

3) And how do we approach work?

These three questions focus attention on individuals, environments, and work norms and
values, and the answers to these questions allow us to draw some inferential conclusions
about work and society and how managers in general should behave as they work across
cultures.

13
R. E. Porter, L. A. Samovar (1994), Intercultural communication: A reader, Belmont: Wadsworth, p.5
14
F. Trompenaars, C. HampdenTurner (1997), Riding the waves of culture : understanding cultural
diversity in global business, New York: McGraw-Hill
15
M. Javidan, R. J. House (2002), Leadership and cultures around the world: findings from GLOBE: An
introduction to the special issue, “Journal of World Business” 37 (1)

12
Collective programming

Culture is a direct result of hundreds of years of constant evolution, we do not give up

the elements of our behavior that identify us as social mammals, our intellectual social
and skills are gradually increasing. The constant struggle that our ancestors have
endured, rivalry and fighting for dominance all those primal motives are still present
inside of us. Then it cannot be a surprise to anyone, that culture is based upon simple
matters of emotions, gender, group membership and morality Culture shapes our goals
and desires in life, affections and dreams.

Graph 1 Levels of mental Programing16

Then it cannot be a surprise to anyone, that culture is based upon simple matters of
emotions, gender, group membership and morality Culture shapes our goals and desires
in life, affections and dreams. During our childhood we possess enormous capability to
gather information and follow the examples from our environment. It is then when we
collect most of our programming17 from siblings parents and elders. Programming we
will possess in the future is limited by our direct physical vicinity, all us develop culture
as we go and grow.

16
Source: https://www.kon.org/urc/v11/rojas/figure2.jpg (25.09.2016)
17
G. Hofstede, G. J. Hofstede (2005) Cultures and Organizations: software of the mind, New York:
McGraw-Hill, p 2-5

13
Layers and levels of culture

Graph 2 Graph Manifestation of levels of culture18

The Graph above presents the manifestations of culture at different levels of depth,
values being the deepest and symbols the most at the surface with rituals and heroes in
between. Values being the fundamental core of culture are acquired in our early live and
deal with contrasting concepts such as: Rational vs Irrational and Good vs Evil.

We can determine different layers of culture 19 as people inside the same culture possess
different depths of mental programing

 Regional level – Focusing on differences already existing inside a country,

religious, linguistic or ethnic

 Gender level – Shaped by gender differences dependent whether a person was born
as a boy or a girl

 Generation level – associated with difference between generations us our parents

and grandparents

 Social class level – connected to person’s profession or education

18
Source: https://www.iam-afghanistan.org/lcp/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/culture-hofstede.png
(11.11.2016)
19
G. Hofstede, G. J. Hofstede (2005) Cultures and Organizations: software of the mind, New York:
McGraw-Hill, p 11

14
 National level - Associated with the one’s country or countries for people living in
different states after migration

 Organizational level – Those employed within organization, socialized by they

work institution, on departmental or corporate levels

We will be focusing our attention on the two last national and organizational levels.

National

Most of cultural sciences possess a part dedicate to comparing nations, this because we
have a human population divided into over 200 countries. Some of those countries are
more culturally uniformed on the other hand some possess great differences, due to their
geographical size or religious differences within their borders. Despite those constrains
comparison of national cultures is still significantly relevant task. Many scholars have
showed that national culture do differ somewhat in majority of population at the of
unconscious values. As such values we do understand subconscious preference for one
state of things other another deeply rooted inside of us.

As stated in previous subsection of my work national culture is acquired during our

child hood thus making it extremely long lasting and it’s changes are going on between
generations. The above phenomenon we owe differences between countries with
historical continuity. Changes that we see around us are a response to the changes of
symbols, heroes, rituals and practice, while core values lying in the center remain
untouched

Organizational

All of us working spend a lot of time inside organizations, what distinguish them on
social level within the same country is they culture. Previous research has presented that
organizational culture do not diverge on core level of Rituals Heroes and Symbols.
Instead it changes more shallow level of Practices which can be unlearned and learned
much easier. This fact makes organization culture manageable to a certain degree while
national one stays established in core values

15
“Organizations are symbolic entities; they function according to implicit models in the
minds of their members, and these are culturally determined.”20 Hofstede (2005)

Organization
An organization is a system of consciously coordinated activities of two or more people
aiming to achieve common objectives.21

The organization (from gr. Organon, Latin. Organum - specialized part that serves a
22
function in total) - ambiguous and interdisciplinary concept in the field of
management science, sociology, psychology. In management science, and above all in

their subdiscipline sciences organizations, usually takes three meaning of the

organization. 23

1) organization in the sense of substantive - as an entity, of a complex of related parts.

In this sense, the concept of the organization is synonymous with the concept of the
institution (eg. This organization is highly disability).

2) organization in the sense of functional - as the process of making things complex.

In this sense, the concept of the organization is synonymous with the concept of the
organization (eg. The organization of sporting events is the domain of the activities
of our committee).

3) organization in the sense of attribute-based - as a set of characteristics for things

organized. In this sense, the concept of the organization is synonymous with the
concept of organized (eg. In this house there is excellent organization).

20
G. Hofstede, G. J. Hofstede (2005) Cultures and Organizations: software of the mind, New York:
McGraw-Hill, p 35
21
R. M. Steers, L. Nardon, C. J. Sanchez-Runde (2016), Management across cultures: developing global
competencies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press p.84
22
P. G. W. Glare (2012) Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford: OUP
23
S. Marek, M. Białasiewicz (2011), Podstawy nauki o organizacji, Warsaw: PWE, p. 15

16
Organizational theory

The theory of organization is an interdisciplinary social science, based on empirical

experience and inductive reasoning and auxiliary discipline for sociology.
Organizational theory advances on organizational analysis and recognizes different
points of view as correct. The most well know theories of organization include:

 Bureaucratic theory – Concept started by Max Weber, includes acquired not

inherited impersonal positions and decision making governed by strict rules. Other
aspects of the theory assume professionalism, governance, limited power and
defined responsibility.

 Contingency theory - Organization have to minimize the internal and environmental

constrains, while maximizing performance.

 Division of labor –Assumes specialization of professional roles, related to increase

of trade and production.

 Modernization theory – Claims that we are in the middle of evolutionary progress

in the direction of more effective forms of institutions,

 Rational system perspective – Organization possesses two important elements,

formalization and specified goals

"Modern organization theory is characterized by vogues, heterogeneity, claims and

counterclaims"24 Waldo (1978)

The theory of organization is developing in the direction of recommendations for

practice and issues in which is it applied, such as organizational culture.

24
D. Waldo (1978), Organization Theory: Revisiting the Elephant, “Public Administration Review”, 38,
p.597.

17
Models of cultural dimensions

Graph 3 Models of cultural dimensions

In the modern cultural science there are several established cultural dimensions models,
in further part of my work I will try to bring up selected ones

Hofstede’s Cultural dimensions theory

Theory developed by Hofstede laid foundations for cross cultural communication,

25
dimensions of national culture describe how culture affects values describing society
members and how they further effect aspects of behavior.

Model origins can be tracked to factor analysis used by Hofstede when reviewing IBM
employees worldwide survey conducted between 1967 and 1973, it has been under
development ever since. Formerly initial theory assumed analysis of four cultural
dimensions:

1) Power distance

2) Individualism

3) Masculinity

4) Uncertainty avoidance

25
G. Hofstede, G. J. Hofstede (2005) Cultures and Organizations: software of the mind, New York:
McGraw-Hill, p 22

18
 Later additional two has been supplemented:

5) Long-term orientation - Added by Hofstede after additional research on 23

countries to incorporate conditions not included in previous four dimensions

6) Indulgence - The sixth dimension has been added in 2010 by Hofstede after
analyzing data from World Values Survey of 93 country population samples

Above dimensions try to target issues at the anthropological level and asses the
differences in how different national cultures approach them.

Hofstede’s research has laid framework for further exploration of the topic of national
diversity in cross-cultural psychology. Many modern researchers and scholars refer to it
and compare they own work and studies.in the areas of management and organizational
science. The theory managed to establish its own paradigm and continuous to be main
reference in cross cultural research and many other fields of study

Graph 4 Hofstede’s cultural dimensions 26

26
Source: http://www.hpocenter.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Hofstede%E2%80%99s-cultural-
dimensions-and-the-HPO-Framework-1.png (23.11.2016)

19
Power Distance

This index shows us a degree to which, group members associated with less power are
able to accept the fact that power distribution is not equal.

The dimension represents that power and inequality are regarded from the lower level or
the followers. Societies with a low Power Distance Index, tend to question the authority
and distribute power. The ones with higher Index, however, have a strong recognition of
authority, where everybody has their own place and gives no doubts to it.

Power Distance dimension takes into consideration inequality of the societies and shows
cultural posture by the irregularities in people’s behavior. The degree to which the
institutional and organizational members that are less powerful within a country adopt
and expect that the power will be unequally distributed is the definition of Power
Distance.

Individualism

This indicator displays the level of integration for people within societies.

The societies using individualistic approach have a preference for loose ties, which
mostly are related between individuals and their closest family. The strong emphasis on
myself rather than a member of the group. Collectivism, however, as its contrast,
present a society as an integrated relationship, which tend to form ties with families or
other groups of people. Members of groups are often representing the support and
unquestionable allegiance in the occurrence of a conflict with another member of the
group.

Sovereignty of the society, which it maintains between its members is the primary issue
addresses by the degree of Individualism dimension. It deals with the people
representing themselves either as “I” or as “me”. Therefore, in societies build with
collectivists, people tend to have a need to belong to the group that cares about them for
their loyalty. On the other hand, in societies build by individualists, people predicted to
take care for themselves and only their closest families.

20
Uncertainty Avoidance

The definition of Uncertainty Avoidance index might be formulated as an ambiguity

tolerance of the society. It means that members of societies can accept or not a situation,
where an event is unknown or unexpected. Societies with low level of index tend to be
more open minded. They have absolute tolerance and acceptance for new and different
ideas or situations. The rules are vaguely obeyed where truth is not obvious and might
be customize to the needs. Societies, however, with high level of index tend to act by
the strict laws. They have their own sets of behaviors, rules and codes, where the only
and one truth have its existence.

The index shows how people are associating with change and the fact that future can
never be fully predicted. There are certain ways of dealing with such circumstances.
One culture is open and just let it be and the other creates rules or religions in order to
give its members something that will not make them realize of what is happening. The
score on Uncertainty Avoidance reflects what is the scope of feeling threatened by
unknown occurrences.

Masculinity

The dimension of masculinity might be defined as the need of the strong position, high
achievement, materialism, taking pleasure of own good and assertiveness. It opposites
with the reconciliation with carrying for weakness, modesty, cooperation and not
assertiveness. However females in particular societies represent another values, while
they share equally with their men the carrying atmosphere and modesty. Therefore, in
the masculine societies, females tend to be more competitive and less than males, but
visibly emphatic.

Societies with high level of Masculinity index show strive for achievement, success and
competition. The success is the most important factor in life, which from the early age is
born in people and then proceed through the life of the organization. The societies with
low level of Masculinity, however, reflect the success is measured in quality of life,
where being the best is far from being the most important. Therefore the primary issue
is what motivates people, while some want to be exquisite and the others are just
satisfied with what they have and do.

21
Long Term Orientation

This dimension relates to the concept of time and is associated with understanding how
past current and future is perceived by individuals. A low score of this indicator means
that tradition and dedication are up hold and honored, social changes are viewed with
skepticisms. High score societies are usually well adapted and pragmatic view as
inevitable

Short term orientation is often attributed to poorly economically developed counties

while long term orientation is view as characteristic of developed ones

Indulgence

In the most basic definition we can describe indulgence as a level of happiness. It can be
measured as an amount to which individuals are able to hold on their impulses and
carvings. Restrain is the opposite of the indulgence with comparably strong control over
those desires.

Indulgence is heavily dependent on the ones childhood and how they were brought up.
Indulgent cultures usually easily reward their members, value fun and generally are
appreciating their way of life. Restrain societies feel the need for limiting pleasures and
administer them under restrictions and regulations.

Restrained communities often see that they are not in control of emotions in their life,
while indulgent believe they have power other them

Differences between cultures on the values dimensions

National results on a hundred twenty-point scale allows for cross country observations
between cultures in the form of comparative analysis.

General tendencies are that can highlighted here are that:

 Power distance index generally tends to achieve high values in Asian and Latin
countries, while countries based on Germanic and Anglo-Saxon culture acquire
lower scores. This difference can be clearly seen in Europe for northern and
southern countries cultures.

22
  Individualism index shows a divide between Western countries with high
individualism and eastern with much lower score values

 Uncertainty avoidance index- assumes high values for the countries of Southern
and Eastern Europe as well as Latin America

 Masculinity index reaches acute values for Nordic (low end of the scale) and Asian
Countries (high end of the scale)

 Indulgence index is have particularly high values for the countries of Africa and
Latin America while Eastern Europe and Asia remain restraint.

We are able to associate certain country differences with other describing them
qualities. Such traits can be language, common past history, religion, geographic
location or political system. All of these can be affiliated with national culture.

Individualism can correspond to national countries wealth, in general as country

economy grow so does it population cultural dimension of individualism.

High power distance is connected with uneven income distribution and fraud and
bribery, while even income distribution and development of democracy with low power
distance

Critical approach to Hofstede dimensions

During the analysis of the literature on the subject of culture, classification and
dimensions and I was also able to find several critical approaches towards Hofstede’s
Cultural Dimensions Theory’s. One of the most interesting ones was article “Are
Hofstede’s dimensions valid? A test for measurement invariance of Uncertainty
Avoidance” published in Interculture Journal in August 2014 by Schmitz and Weber.
authors were disputing whether Hofstede's dimensions of national culture are still valid
and basing their work on Uncertainty Avoidance research and measurement. Their
research has found that: “The items which were supposed to reflect the Uncertainty
Avoidance dimension according to Hofstede, do not act as expected.” 27 So the study
aimed to test the validity of original model has found contradictions to Hofstede’s

27
L. Schmitz, W. Weber (2014), Are Hofstede's dimensions valid? A test for measurement invariance of
uncertainty avoidance, “Interculture Journal”, 13(22)

23
theses that this dimensions can be applicable to greater number of nations and even
samples inside those countries. In their criticism they have stated that this particular
cultural dimensions should not be used in a field of cross cultural national comparison
not even in context of general description.

Hofstede focused his research on staff from only one company (IBM) so naturally
question arise how accurately that staff will be able to serve as a sample to evaluate
entire nation. Study which have been conducted only in one global company most likely
will not be able to provide scientific results for entire nation cultural dimensions
28
(McSweeney 2002) . Limited survey questions cannot be used to measure such
complex conception as culture, study need to be diverse and conducted on a far larger
sample.

I another publication presented during Oxford Business & Economics Conference M. L.

Jones draws the attention to the fact that Hofstede’s research treats population as
homogenous entity29.

Yet different work by Dermot Williamson 30 rises question about three dangerous
assumptions made in Hofstede’s work:

1) Culture can be uniform and all group members carry it’s attributes
2) Validity of separate individuals as proper relays for analysis of cultural background
of greater population
3) Confusion in between cultural constructs and dimensions

Other authors suggest that Hofstede Have a tendency to undermine the importance of
community as a factor shaping culture( Papamarcos 2007)31

Richard Mead and Tim G. Andrews in their book “International management: culture
and beyond” finds its extremely difficult to differentiate between subcultures and
culture and they relations those two are constantly being shaped by historical, economic
28
B. McSweeney (2002), Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A
triumph of faith - a failure of analysis, “Human Relations”, 55(1)
29
M. L. Jones (2007), Hofstede - Culturally questionable?, Oxford Business & Economics Conference
30
D. Williamson (2002), Forward from a critique of Hofstede’s model of national culture, “Human
Relations”, 55(11)
31
S. D. Papamarcos, C. Latshaw, G. W. Watson (2007), Individualism - Collectivism and Incentive
System Design as Predictive of Productivity in a Simulated Cellular Manufacturing Environment,
“International Journal of Cross Cultural Management”, 7(2)

24
and political factors. They are debating whether its valid to use Hofstede’s model of
cultural dimensions to measure global organizations where multiple culture and
influencing and interacting with one another.32

Another interesting approach was presented by Beugelsdijk, Maseland and Van Hoorn
in they work in Global Strategy Journal “Are Scores on Hofstede's Dimensions of
National Culture Stable over Time?”33 Authors were able to undermine the stability of
cultural dimensions over time.

To conclude Many scholars have found that culture is too complex for Hofstede’s
cultural dimensions model, and dimensions of culture as such exist but cannot be
measured employing the items from the IBM study. Nonetheless most see that
Hofstede's model gives foundations for further cultural study and research. Therefore I
have decided to present others methods and approaches towards measuring culture and
its aspects

32
R. Mead, T. G. Andrews (2009), International management: culture and beyond, London: Wiley
33
S. Beugelsdijk, R. Maseland, A. Van Hoorn (2015), Are Scores on Hofstede's Dimensions of National
Culture Stable over Time? A Cohort Analysis, “Global Strategy Journal”, 5(3)

25
Trompenaars’ model of national culture differences

Graph 5 Trompenaars’ model of national culture differences34

Trompenaars’ model35 presents differences in national culture and its dimensions

similarly to work of Hofstede36 and can be treated as peculiar groundwork for cross
cultural communication and it’s appliances in management and business. It assumes that
there are seven cultural dimensions and five orientations characterizing humans
interactions with each over environment which surrounds them and time

34
Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/7_Dimensions_of_culture.svg
(25.11.2016)
35
F. Trompenaars, C.HampdenTurner (1997). Riding the waves of culture: understanding cultural
diversity in global business, New York: McGraw-Hill
36
G. Hofstede (1996), Riding the waves of commerce: A test of Trompenaars' "model" of national culture
differences, “International Journal of Intercultural Relations”, 20(2) p.189-198

26
Origins of the model comes from broad range survey conducted on employees and
managers form 43 countries by Charles Hampden-Turner and Fons Trompenaars37.

Universalism versus Particularism

Universalism can be brought to the design that culture and it ideas can be successfully
used in different situation even without previous adjustments. Cultures characterized by
this dimension are known for rules and order

Particularism contradicts claims of universalism, assuming that circumstances are the

deciding factor of that how and when we can use practices, Countries having a high
level of particularism are believed to prioritize relationships

Individualism versus Communitarianism

Individualism means that people culture makes tem perceive themselves as separate
individuals. This dimension is usually thought to be connected with western world
culture focusing on the power of the one entity.

Communitarianism assume that people think of themselves as part of the bigger whole,
as a group. It is believed to occur frequently in nonwestern countries appreciating the
idea of collectivism

Neutral versus Emotional

Neutral dimensions is characterized by hiding and keeping emotions in check,

emotional culture shows emotions naturally and openly, people are generally loud and
talkative.

Specific versus Diffuse

Specific culture let individuals to possess small personal space and large public for the
others. Personal space is shared only with the closest relatives and friends

Diffuse culture assume that private and public space have similar capacity and
intertwine with one another, therefore individuals need to protect both as granting entry
to one lets you to access to the other
37
P. B. Smith, S. Dugan, F. Trompenaars (1996), National Culture and the Values of Organizational
Employees A Dimensional Analysis Across 43 Nations, “Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology”, 27(2)

27
Achievement versus Ascription

Achievement culture consider simple measurement of ones worth by his performance

and fulfillment of assigned tasks.

Ascription culture value person for who he is and not what he does, personal status is
usually specified in advance from factors such as

Sequential versus Synchronous time

Sequential time usually means the way of acting like computing processor one
operation is started after another is already finished

Synchronous time is concept of the ability to being able to do many things at the same
time simultaneously which bring the risk of not completing the actuals tasks.

Internal versus Outer direction

Internal direction means accepting that there are external factors out of reach of our
control nonwestern cultures people living in harmony and adapt to external conditions.

Outer direction focus on control of our external environment, typically associated with
western culture, where people do not accept the existing state of things and tret them as
potential threats.

28
Globe

Globe was one of the most determined examinations of cross cultural differences.
Group project of international team of scholars led by Robert House. Their work
targeted principal perspective of cultural differences and their impact on leadership
mechanism. Their analysis was called the "GLOBE study for Global Leadership and
Organizational Behavior Effectiveness”38.

In the study team of Globe researchers was able to distinguish nine cultural
competencies:

1) Assertiveness orientation is the extent to which particular individuals in societies

and organizations are aggressive and assertive in their social relations and
interactions.

2) Future orientation is the extent to which particular individuals in societies and

organizations employ future oriented behaviors, such as postponing rewards,
planning, provide for future actions.

3) Gender egalitarianism is the extent to which particular individuals in societies and

organizations are reduce gender discrimination and discrepancy.

4) Humane orientation is the extent to which particular individuals in societies and

organizations are boosting and gratifying members for altruism, generosity, fairness
and being kind to other members.

5) Collectivism I (In group collectivism) is the extent to which particular individuals

in societies and organizations are showing consistency, loyalty and pride for their
families and social groups

6) Collectivism II (Institutional collectivism) is the extent to which particular

individuals in societies and organizations are using forms of institutional even
distribution of goods and assets, and encourage collective actions.

7) Performance orientation is the extent to which societies and organizations are

gratifying its particular individuals for performance enhancements and virtue.
38
R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, V. Gupta (2004), Culture, Leadership, and
Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, London: Sage Publications

29
8) Power distance is the extent to which particular individuals in societies are able to
accept and understand that power and influence is not evenly distributed and
shared.

9) Uncertainty avoidance is the extent to which particular individuals in societies are

trying to evade uncertainty by depending on rituals, social norms and bureaucracy
to mitigate unpredictability of future circumstances.

Globe study is a good example of interdisciplinary research focusing on what

dimensions future leaders should make themselves familiar with. After the
comprehensive analysis of obtained results, scholars were able to further explore
leadership and group it culturally endorsed implicit leadership dimensions into six
categories:

1) Autonomous- capable of acting without the need continual consultation

2) Charismatic/value based – defined by principle and honesty, integral in his

decisions and performance orientation. Usually presenting himself as inspirational
and visionary, however can make autocratic decisions and commands.

3) Human orientation –defined by decency and humility, caring for others without the
need for being rewarded for it.

4) Participative – defined by not authoritative actions, being supportive for those who
are managed by them

5) Self-protective – defined by egocentric behavior, aware and afraid of his status to a

degree of conflict making to preserve it.

6) Team oriented – defined by team orientation and integration, conciliatory and

competent encouraging collaboration and team work.

30
Measuring cultural differences

As it has been shown I cases of previously mentioned cultural dimensions models,

cultural differences can be measured in many ways. Researchers have developed
composite and single measure techniques. A single measure technique assume that we
will be using a single indicator to measure given variable. While composite measure
techniques presume that multiple indicators will serve to build an index describing
observational domain. In the next two paragraphs I would like to exhibit two most well
established cultural dimensions surveys.

Values Survey Module

Newest 2013 version of the values survey model have been adapted from its previous
version conducted in 2008. It includes concepts previously absent in the study
introduced by new 2010 edition of the book by Hofstede “Cultures and Organizations:
Software of the Mind”. Survey has a form of paper questionnaire including thirty
questions, twenty four of which are related to measuring cultural dimensions and others
have demographic purposes. Research tries to approach fundamental concerns of cross
culture science, comparing countries by answers to questions determined by the
nationality of the respondents Survey in its assumptions requires sample population of
at least 20 individuals The first know version of the survey was published in 1982
followed by consecutive versions

World Values Survey

Global research project designed to exploration values of people, their change over
time, and what do they influence. Since 1981 it has been organized in other 100
countries and supervised by international scientific network.

World value survey researches such concepts as political preference, tolerance, freedom
of religion, globalization and many others. Data gathered makes foundations for
legislation in many states and building young societies and employed for the purpose of
international institutions and world governments.

It has been used to monitor and understand such events as genocides, wars and uprisings
in the modern world.

31
Research Gap

During Analysis of previous research and studies conducted by scholars on the matter of
national cultural differences I have not encountered a specify study focusing on impact
and relations of Cultural dimensions on organizations and their management in business
schools in the countries of communist states of Central and Eastern Europe formerly
known as Eastern Bloc. Because of my background I was particularly interested in
impact of Polish Ukrainian and German cultures. Therefore I have decided to try and
carry quantitative and qualitative study in the forms of survey and participant
observation. This let me to believe that I will be able to prove that national cultural
differences have impact on organization and its management in the countries of central
Europe. I will be basing on the case study of Germany, Poland and Ukraine.

32
Chapter 2: Method

Hypotheses
Thesis Statement: National cultural differences have impact on organization and its
management in the countries of central Europe

The hypothesis which we will be testing are:

Hypothesis 1: Differences in national culture between countries are stable and did not
decreased over time

Hypothesis 2: Indicators for specific cultural dimensions are different for women and
for men in more than two cases.

Hypothesis 3: In the researched countries, level of Indulgence is about the same for
men than for women

Hypothesis 4: Masculinity level is higher in Germany then in Ukraine

Hypothesis 5: Power Distance is higher in Ukraine than in Poland

33
Methodology

Survey

Primary method I decided to use in my study was quantitative research in the form of
online survey. Questionnaire was distributed through friends, family, students of
Kozminski University and social media. Required factor for participation in the study
was the national affiliation to one of the three study groups. Intention of the survey is
not to compare individual results but criteria groups.

The online survey39 consists of five general questions about: country, gender, age,
education, residence, and 24 statements grouped in 6 categories 4 statements per group.
Each category corresponds to one of Hofstede cultural dimensions 40 which have been
previously described in first chapter of my work:

 Power Distance – questions from 1 to 4

 Individualism – questions from 5 to 8

 Uncertainty Avoidance – questions from 9 to 12

 Masculinity – questions from 13 to 16

 Long Term Orientation – questions from 17 to 20

 Indulgence – questions from 21 to 24

The items on this questionnaire are adapted from the items used in the GLOBE studies 41
to assess the dimensions of culture, Values Survey Module 2013 questionnaires 42 and
World Values Survey43.

The obtained results were analyzed using a statistical software called IBM SPSS
(Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and data presentation and calculation in

39
http://x.alk.edu.pl/crossculturaldifferences (15.11.2016)
40
G. Hofstede, G. J. Hofstede (2005) Cultures and Organizations: software of the mind, New York:
McGraw-Hill, p 22
41
R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, V. Gupta (2004), Culture, Leadership, and
Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, London: Sage Publications
42
http://geerthofstede.com/research-and-vsm/ (10.09.2016)
43
http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp (10.09.2016)

34
Microsoft Excel. For the calculation of our cultural dimensions and establishing their
indexes we have used the below formula:

M – Maximum achievable value for the population sample

m – Minimum achievable value for the population sample
S – Setting

Participant observation

Secondary method I decided to use in my study was Participant observation. Author

decided to use this type of data collection method mostly due to place where he does his
work. Participant observation is a research methodology based on qualitative data
collection, mostly used in Cultural exploration and anthropology. At its definition it
requires the investigator to dive into a part of environment and observe the occurring
changes from the inside The main superiority of this method is fact that researcher is
required to embrace the perspective of the respondents and their cultural group.
However at the same time distortion of the wider angle view presents some
disadvantages and space for research errors caused by stereotypes and biased beliefs
about the suspects We can distinguish four stages of participant observation44:

1) Meeting people

2) Exploration of the domain

3) Documentation of observation and data

4) Unification of gathered information

44
J. T. Howell, (1972), Hard Living on Clay Street: Portraits of Blue Collar Families, Prospect Heights:
Waveland Press

35
Limitations

Collation to results obtained by Hofstede in 2013 is purely comparative. Its purpose is

neither to undermine nor to make their results more credible. According to statistical
sampling theory’s The survey conducted for this research has a smaller sample and a
much smaller range. However we managed to reach the minimal limit of the sample size
in values survey module which is 20. The similarities or differences resulting from these
studies can be purely accidental. The experiment can be unreliable and, in fact,
significantly differ from the rest of the population

Furthermore author is aware that his observations are made inside organization he is
working at and may be liable to major distortions as research itself was not his reason
for employment there.

36