Hofstede Matters (Routledge Advances in Management and Business Studies) [1 ed.] 1032518448, 9781032518442

Citation preview

Hofstede Matters

Hofstede Matters offers an updated presentation of the evolving views of academics and teachers who have worked with Hofstede’s research findings since the publication of the first edition of Culture’s Consequences in 1980. The authors reflect on their changing beliefs about the concept of cultural dimensions that led to a radical change in the way cultures were dealt with in business schools across Europe and beyond. Hofstede’s dimensions made “thinking” about culture more accessible overnight by creating a conceptual framework that teachers, students, managers, and consultants could grasp and easily apply in international comparisons. The book shows the man behind the value dimensions framework through the eyes of teachers and academics, many of whom dealt with Hofstede personally. Contemporary contributors as well as younger academic fellow researchers evaluate the past paradigms and look behind the scenes to better understand the developments of the more recent ones. Jointly, they try to decide if Hofstede still helps us to overcome uncertainty when confronted with actions undertaken with different values in mind. Did he nudge us in the desirable direction? Offering a unique analysis of the strengths, criticisms, and legacy of Hofstede’s work, this book will appeal to academics and students across disciplines including cross-cultural management, critical management studies, and international management. Sławomir J. Magala is a philosopher of science, cultural sociologist, retired professor of cross-cultural management at the Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and Visiting Professor at the University of Warsaw, Poland. Christiane Erten has experience in the professional and academic field with a focus on HRM, intercultural management and training, and leadership in SMEs. She has worked as Assistant Professor at the WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria, and still lectures at universities worldwide. Roger Matthew Bell was Lecturer in cross-cultural management in the Department of People Management and Organization of ESADE, Barcelona, Spain, for 15 years. Marie-Therese Claes is Head of the Institute for Gender and Diversity at the WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria. Senem Yazici (PhD) is Assistant Professor in the fields of Strategy and International Management at Niederrhein University of Applied Sciences and Council Member of the IACCM. Atila Karabag (PhD) is Scientist at Georg Simon Ohm University of Applied Sciences Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Germany, and Council Member of the IACCM.

Routledge Advances in Management and Business Studies

Corporate Social Hypocrisy CSR in the Era of Global Crises Dalia Streimikiene, Asta Mikalauskiene and Gabija Stanislovaityte Information, Security and Society in the COVID-19 Pandemic Edited by Natalia Moch, Wioletta Wereda and Jerzy Stańczyk Technologies and Trends in the Halal Industry Edited by Nor Aida Abdul Rahman, Kamran Mahroof and Azizul Hassan Digital Transformation, Perspective Development, and Value Creation Research Case Studies Edited by Małgorzata Pańkowska Responsible Management and Sustainable Consumption Creating a Consumer and Enterprise Social Responsibility Index Edited by Piotr Wachowiak, Anna Dąbrowska, Monika Zajkowska and Celina Sołek-Borowska Co-operative and Mutual Enterprises Research A Comprehensive Overview Tim Mazzarol Corruption and the Management of Public Safety The Governance of Technological Systems Simon Ashley Bennett Hofstede Matters Edited by Sławomir J. Magala, Christiane Erten, Roger Matthew Bell, Marie-Therese Claes, Senem Yazici and Atila Karabag For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/Routledge-Advances-inManagement-and-Business-Studies/book-series/SE0305

Hofstede Matters Edited by Sławomir J. Magala, Christiane Erten, Roger Matthew Bell, Marie-Therese Claes, Senem Yazici and Atila Karabag

First published 2024 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 and by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Sławomir J. Magala, Christiane Erten, Roger Matthew Bell, Marie-Therese Claes, Senem Yazici and Atila Karabag; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Sławomir J. Magala, Christiane Erten, Roger Matthew Bell, Marie-Therese Claes, Senem Yazici and Atila Karabag to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. ISBN: 978-1-032-51844-2 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-53111-3 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-41034-8 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003410348 Typeset in Times New Roman by Apex CoVantage, LLC

We dedicate this book to Gerhard Fink, who networked us into the International Association of Cross-Cultural Competence in Management.

Contents

List of contributors Figures and tables

Introduction

ix xiii 1

SŁAWOMIR J. MAGALA

PART 1

Hofstede himself

5

  1 In memory of Geert Hofstede: a pioneer in comparative cross-cultural management research and practice

7

SENEM YAZICI

  2 Organizational culture – personality traits and Hofstede

38

CHRISTIANE ERTEN AND ATILA KARABAG

PART 2

Hofstede’s rise and fall in context

43

  3 Cultural relativity: the case of Hofstede

45

SŁAWOMIR J. MAGALA

  4 War refugees and their plans for the future: Hofstede’s concept somewhere between Ukraine and Poland

66

JAKUB ISAŃSKI AND MAREK NOWAK

  5 Two teachers’ life with Hofstede ROGER MATTHEW BELL AND MARIE-THERESE CLAES

81

viii  Contents   6 Hofstede’s Six: the career of a concept and the importance of context

95

WOLFGANG MAYRHOFER

PART 3

Collaborators and critics

117

  7 Evolution of the Minkov–Hofstede model: parallels between objective and subjective culture

119

MICHAEL MINKOV

  8 Hofstede’s imagined cultures

135

BRENDAN McSWEENEY

  9 Hofstede’s consequences: criticizing his oeuvre and honoring the pioneer in the history of social sciences

161

PAWEŁ BOSKI

10 Putting critique into context: an appraisal of four ­methodological objections to Hofstede

190

MICHAEL SCHIFFINGER

PART 4

Reviews and replications

207

11 Hofstede’s Consequences, 1980–2022

209

MIKAEL SØNDERGAARD



Conclusion

247

CHRISTIANE ERTEN

Author Index 249 Index256

Contributors

Roger Matthew Bell Roger Matthew Bell lectured in cross-cultural management in ESADE Business School, Barcelona, Spain, for 20  years. He created, coordinated, and taught courses on comparative culture, cross-cultural communication, and ­inter-cultural negotiation, representing ESADE on CEMS faculty groups and publishing and presenting widely on the impact of culture on business. He retired in 2014. Paweł Boski Paweł Boski is a professor of cross-cultural psychology at SWPS University in Warsaw. He has worked in this position since 1996 and is credited with founding cross-cultural psychology in Poland. Boski has also worked at the University of Jos in Nigeria and various universities in Canada and the United States. He is an active member of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology and serves as an associate/consulting editor of the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Boski is an internationally recognized researcher of acculturation and intercultural relations. Marie-Therese Claes She held research and leading positions at WU, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria, the Catholic University of Louvain, the Asian Institute of Technology, the KIMBA International MBA, and Kasetsart University. Her research interests are in diversity, gender, and culture. She also created and taught courses on comparative culture, CC-communication, and negotiation, published widely like, for example, “Eurodiversity” (2012) and “Global Leadership Practices. A Cross-Cultural Management Perspective” (2014). Christiane Erten Christiane Erten worked as Assistant Professor at WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria, and still lectures at universities all over the world. She has professional and academic experience with a focus on HRM, CCM, CCT, OB, and leadership in SMEs. In her fields of expertise she has published

x  Contributors several books and many articles. She is in the executive board of Akustik Buch GmbH and is a partner of AT Consult. Gerhard Fink Gerhard Fink is Professor Emeritus (retired) at WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria; he was a Jean Monnet Professor for applied micro-­ economics in European integration from 1997 to 2003 and Director of the Institute for European Affairs. He is the author and coauthor of about 200 publications in learned journals; In 2005 he was Guest Editor of the Academy of Management Executive. He has been founding member and promotor of the IACCM. Jakub Isański Jakub Isański is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland, specializing in global migration studies; important publications: Selling One’s Favourite Piano to Emigrate. Mobility Patterns in Central Europe at the Beginning of the 21st Century (2011, with P. Luczys), latest paper “Feminized Forced Migration:Ukrainian War Refugees”, in: Women’s Studies International Forum, special issue on Women and the 2022 War in Ukraine (1–10, 2023, with J. Andrews, A. Vacroux, H. Vakhitova, V. Sereda, and M. Nowak). Atila Karabag Atila Karabag works in Georg-Simon-Ohm University Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Germany, and holds a PhD from Vienna University of Business and Economics, Vienna, Austria. His expertise and academic experience focus on agile development, organizational culture and learning, knowledge management, and innovation. Sławomir J. Magala Sławomir J. Magala is currently based in Warsaw University, Poland (since 2019); before, he has been at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, The Netherlands (1985–2015), and Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland (2016–2019). Editor in Chief, Journal of Organizational Change Management since 2004. His books are Class Struggle in Classless Poland (1982), Cross Cultural Management (2005), The Management of Meaning in Organizations (2009), and The Third Enlightenment or Globalizing Meritocracies (2021). He supervised 100 master theses and 25 PhD dissertations. Wolfgang Mayrhofer Wolfgang Mayrhofer is Full Professor at WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria. He previously has held full-time positions at the University of Paderborn, Germany, and at Dresden University of Technology, Germany. He conducts research in comparative international human resource

Contributors  xi management and work careers, spirituality, management and religion as well as systems theory and management. Brendan McSweeney Brendan McSweeney is Professor Emeritus of Management, Royal Holloway, University of London, United Kingdom. He is a former banker, trade union official, and for over a decade member of the Europe, Middle East, and Africa advisory board of a multinational company. He has publications in scholarly journals including Accounting, Organizations and Society; Human Relations; International Marketing Review; JIBS; Journal of Organizational Change Management; Organization Studies; and The Political Quarterly. Michael Minkov Michael Minkov works in Varna University of Management, Bulgaria. He is co-author of Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (third ­edition, with Geert Hofstede and Gert Jan Hofstede, 2011, McGraw Hill). He is the author of CrossCultural Analysis; The Science and Art of Comparing the World’s Modern Societies and Their Cultures. Marek Nowak Marek Nowak works in Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland. His recent articles include Late modern community in a late socialist block: the question of urban neighborhood vitality in Poland. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 37, 101–123 (2022) (with A. Siatkowski) and The theory of irrational action. A sociological study on volunteerism and social activism (Poznan 2015). Michael Schiffinger Michael Schiffinger began with the (still running) Vienna Career Panel Project in 2000 working as a Project and then University Assistant at the Interdisciplinary Institute for Management and Organizational Behavior (ivm) of WU, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria. Since 2013, he is Senior Scientist with a double affiliation at the ivm and the WU Competence Center for Empirical Research Methods. Mikael Søndergaard Mikael Søndergaard is Associate Professor at the Aarhus Business School at the University of Southern Denmark, Aarhus, Denmark. He has published in Organization Studies,  Academy of Management Proceedings,  International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management,  and  European Business Forum. He has organized international seminars on empirical cross-cultural management research in Aarhus, Maastricht, and Istanbul (2004–2018).

xii  Contributors Senem Yazici Senem Yazici is Assistant Professor of Strategic Management and OB at Niederrhein University, Germany, and Council Member of the International Association of Cross-Cultural Competence and Management, with a PhD from Vienna University of Business and Economics. Her expertise includes strategy development, working with multinationals and public institutions. At Germany’s GEMiT Institute, her research centers on digital transformation and cybernetics.

Figures and tables

Figures 6.1 On the left: Articles building on Hofstede’s work 1980–2018 without book chapters, etc. 6.2 Percentage of Hofstede-citing articles in top journals 7.1 A Minkov–Hofstede cultural map of the world 7.2 Main elements of individualism-collectivism and flexibility-monumentalism 7.3 Contrasting types of advice for children across the world associated with cultural differences 7.4 Budget prioritizations revealing cultural values across the world 7.5 Main differences in objective culture 7.6 A cultural map of the main regions of the United States 9.1 Trust, IDV, and family collectivism 9.2 Hofstede’s MAS and GLOBE’s transformed gender (in)equality scales: contrasting profiles in 20 European countries 9.3a Theoretical predictions of gender differences in tender and tough in countries scoring low and high in MAS 9.3b Empirical [%M] in real self categories in low (the Netherlands) and high (Venezuela) MAS cultures 9.4 Hofstede’s versus GLOBE uncertainty avoidance scales: contrasting profiles in 20 European countries 11.1 Citations of Hofstede’s publications in Web of Science, 1980–2022 11.2 Overview of researchers citing Hofstede’s publications 11.3 Focused overview of researchers citing Hofstede’s publications 11.4 Hofstede’s part in scholarly debates 11.5 Important Authors of the Debate related to Hofstede’s Publications 11.6 Three Distinct Debates: Topics and Hofstede Publications 11.7 Main researchers of the first debate 11.8 Main researchers of second debate 11.9 Main researchers of the third debate 11.10 Interconnecting role of Kirkman et al. (2006) 11.11 Similarities and differences between societies

96 97 124 125 128 129 130 131 174 176 178 178 180 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 236

xiv  Figures and tables 11.12 Citations, 1980–2022 11.13 Hofstede terms relating to topics within business and HR, 1980–2022 11.14 Power distance connected with HR terms and in some diffuse ways to business economics 11.15 Individualism connected with HR terms and other Hofstede concepts 11.16 The term interconnects from leadership citing Hofstede (1980, 1983) from 1980 to 2022 11.17 Employee related research interconnect associated topics with Hofstede’s concepts 11.18 Research on globalization related issues does not use Hofstede’s work 11.19 Research on distance related issue does not use Hofstede’s work

237 238 239 240 240 241 242 242

Tables

7.1 7.2 9.1 9.2

9.3 9.4 9.5 10.1 10.2

Main features of collectivism versus individualism Main features of monumentalism versus flexibility The IDV and MAS joint factorial structure Correlations between Hofstede and GLOBE scales: toward converging validity Women’s full-time employment at four maternity periods: correlations with MAS and IDV MAS and IDV contrasting correlations with other measures of gender equality and identity Hofstede and GLOBE uncertainty avoidance scales: correlations with selected macro-level scales Methodological criticisms discussed in this chapter Qualifications of the criticism regarding Hofstede’s method: catchword summary

126 126 166 172 176 177 181 191 199

Introduction Sławomir J. Magala

Imagine that you, our reader, were looking for scientific and scholarly reports that promised a diagnosis of how it was in 1964, more than 50 years ago. You might pick up a treatise by a German sociologist from California, Herbert Marcuse, OneDimensional Man. You would learn that neither East nor West is the best, and managerial bureaucracies impose false needs on societies in order to reduce individuals to the status of one-dimensional consumers controlled by advertising. At the same time, on the other side of the Iron Curtain, citizens were kept in check by the totalitarian communist propaganda, which brainwashed them into being an obedient workforce. Now imagine that you were looking for scholarly and scientific diagnoses of two decades later. Which studies would help you gain an understanding of the world in the 1980s when consumers in the West “could get no satisfaction”, while followers in the East chose solidarity with “Solidarity”? You might pick up a slim volume by Dutch engineer and social psychologist Geert Hofstede entitled Culture’s Consequences. The subtitle “International differences in work-related values” would perhaps lead you to the four dimensions of culture. The number of dimensions grew later to five, six, and even more, but in any case, you would have met a multidimensional person, not a one-dimensional man. We would like to share with you our thoughts about the importance of Hofstede’s part in the history of research in social sciences, particularly in the history of applied social sciences. “Applied” here means involved in shaping a generalized managerial competence. The significance of this cross-cultural competence has grown in the increasingly interconnected global networks of research, education, production, consumption, and communication bureaucracies. All of these bureaucracies need to be professionally managed. Perhaps by looking into our attempts to understand the man (1928–2020) and his ideas (1980–2023), you will find an answer to at least some of the questions you have always wanted to ask but never did. In trying to recover past events and understand the relationships between them, we must reconstruct events and imagine their relationships; that is, frame events into credible stories. We must locate events in space and time. By contributing to the history of science and scholarship, we hope to convince our readers that it is worth traveling through the facts with our maps in mind. Reviewing the events that compose the Hofstede chapter in the history of social sciences and humanities, we are aware that the old inequalities between domains of research do not die easily. DOI: 10.4324/9781003410348-1

2  Sławomir J. Magala Our reviews and reconsiderations are bound to modify the way we look not only at the history of science but also at the philosophy of scientific research and the pragmatic toolboxes of knowledge and skills designed with future managers in mind. These toolboxes are being increasingly popularized among future managers by growing networks of academically legitimized schools of management. Dense networks of schools of management were not yet in place when Culture’s Consequences was published for the first time (Sage, 1980). By the time Hofstede had published the second, much longer version of his first book on cultural dimensions (Sage, 2001), he had been quoted more frequently than any other living Dutch social researcher or contemporary managerial guru. Hofstede’s ideas traveled faster because of this context of educational institutions breaking out of the grid of academic disciplines. The education industry’s response to the demand for managerial know-how grew very quickly in the 1980s and 1990s as a result of the long period of relative world peace (1945 to 2014) and the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet empire. This long global Cold War witnessed waves of “countercultural” manifestations and events, but the post-World War II supranational institutions held. The United Nations Organization survived all crises, and so did the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; World Bank; World Health Organization; European Community; and a host of other global, intercontinental, and regional networks run by professional bureaucracies. Until the Russian invasions of Ukraine (first in 2014, second in 2022), the entire global architecture of the Cold War institutions held. The present book appears after the breakdown of this long period of relative stability. We, the coauthors and coeditors, are aware that our attempt at evaluating Hofstede’s consequences takes place at the beginning of the third decade of the 21st century – in other words – in a different historical context in which the cultural values of entire communities are being put through a series of empirical tests (pandemic spread of contagious diseases that damage supply chains, interrelated local wars that mobilize global actors, among others) and theoretical reevaluations. We would like to open the public discussion on the importance of Hofstede’s contribution about 50 years after the Dutch engineer and social psychologist introduced the framework of cultural dimensions to the borderlands between social sciences and managerial skills. Hofstede moved in the twilight zone between the knowledge of a researcher and the know-how of a skilled professional. Half a century and another world war later, we propose a new look at Geert Hofstede’s contribution. Should we consider the author of Culture’s Consequences and Cultures and Organizations to be a Linnaeus or a Darwin of the cultural sciences of management? Or should we place him on a lower shelf in our library, somewhere between Philippe d’Iribarne’s The Logic of Honour with its comparison of American, French, and Dutch companies, and Robert House’s GLOBE study of 62 societies from the points of culture, leadership, and organization? Should we consider him a game changer in interpreting organized activities and management with shared values in mind? We would like to enlist your help, our dear readers, in our argument about the relative importance of Hofstede’s contribution to the ongoing investigation of the cultural software of the human mind. In the debate about the ongoing competition

Introduction  3 for managing organizations and organizing managers, we would like to make a modest contribution to the – “managerialist” – thread of the conversation of mankind, which is better known as “culture” – globalized and regionalized, nationalized and internationalized, organized and disorganized but, according to Hofstede, manageable. Let me finish on a personal note. In one of our last conversations in Velp, where Hofstede had moved after retirement, the author of Culture’s Consequences told me about his first job as an engineer. Before arriving as a manager, he took a summer job in the same company, meeting the employees as their temporary colleague and not as a supervisor. He gained first-hand knowledge and acquired unique experience, which helped him face his managerial tasks. But he also admitted to an awkward feeling when he met his summer job colleagues and peers as their manager – their boss. Perhaps his awareness of this ambiguity of managerial knowledge in sustaining power distances belongs to the most sustainable legacies of Geert Hofstede?

Part 1

Hofstede himself

1 In memory of Geert Hofstede A pioneer in comparative cross-cultural management research and practice Senem Yazici Introduction Geert Hofstede was a prominent Dutch social psychologist who revolutionized the field of cross-cultural research with his groundbreaking work on national culture and its impact on organizations. Throughout his career, he demonstrated a tireless commitment to advancing our understanding of the complex interplay among culture, communication, and management. Hofstede’s contributions to the field have been widely recognized and lauded, and his legacy continues to inspire scholars and practitioners around the world. Hofstede’s research was characterized by a rigorous scientific approach and a deep understanding of the complexities of cross-cultural interactions. His seminal work, Culture’s Consequences, presented a comprehensive framework for understanding cultural differences based on six dimensions: power distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term versus short-term orientation, and indulgence versus restraint. This framework has become a cornerstone of cross-cultural research and has been used extensively to inform policies and practices in organizations around the world. In addition to his groundbreaking work on national culture, Hofstede also made important contributions to the study of organizational culture and subcultures. His research showed that organizations have their own unique cultural norms and values that can vary significantly across different departments or functions. This insight has been invaluable in helping organizations to understand and manage cultural differences within their own ranks. Despite his passing, Geert Hofstede’s influence continues to be felt in the field of cross-cultural research. His work remains an essential reading for anyone seeking to understand the complexities of cultural differences and their impact on organizations and society as a whole. His tireless dedication to advancing our understanding of culture and communication has left an indelible mark on the field, and his legacy will continue to inspire and inform generations of scholars and practitioners to come. Each of the different social sciences developed a perspective on culture that enables us to understand the behavior of individuals and groups in organizations, utilizing highly divergent approaches to the study of culture. Still, these developments DOI: 10.4324/9781003410348-3

8  Senem Yazici initiated academic debates over issues such as the different theoretical and conceptual orientations, definition of culture, research designs, and right level of analysis to apply. In Hofstede’s own words: That confusion is partly due to a lack of interdisciplinary orientation. We all come from our own discipline, and we tend to see only our side of the social world. When you study cultures, you have to be open to relevant information from various disciplines, from anthropology, from sociology, from social psychology, and even from individual psychology and from economics. (Hofstede & Fink, 2007: 15) In his own words “I have called myself in Dutch ‘scharrelprofessor’, which is a kind of professor at large. Without necessarily attributing myself to any particular discipline” (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2011). The aim of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive overview of Geert ­Hofstede’s life and achievements, including both his personal and professional experiences. By delving into his personal life, the chapter seeks to contextualize his work on cross-cultural management within the broader context of his personal experiences, beliefs, and values. To achieve this aim, the chapter draws on a range of qualitative research methods, including interviews with colleagues and professionals who have worked with Hofstede or have been influenced by his work, analysis of publicly available multimedia sources, and visits to places where he lived and worked, including exhibitions and archives. This allowed for a more in-depth analysis of Hofstede’s background, personal experiences, and the broader societal and historical contexts that shaped his work. The author also had the opportunity to meet Geert Hofstede and Gert Jan Hofstede at the IBM anniversary celebration, which she attended after being invited by Hofstede Insights. This encounter provided a unique opportunity to gain insights into Hofstede’s personality and his views on his own work, as well as the impact that his work has had on the field of cross-cultural management. By providing a detailed and nuanced analysis of Hofstede’s life and achievements, the chapter seeks to deepen our understanding of his contributions to the field of cross-cultural management and to highlight the interplay between his personal experiences and his theoretical insights. Through this approach, the chapter aims to provide a more complete and holistic understanding of Hofstede’s legacy, both as a scholar and as a human being. While preparing this chapter on the life and achievements of Geert Hofstede, the author had the opportunity to visit Gert Jan Hofstede at Wageningen University and conduct an interview with him. This interview provided a unique perspective on Hofstede’s personal life and work and served as a valuable source of insights and information for the chapter. The structure of the chapter follows that of the interview with Hofstede’s son, providing a logical and coherent framework for the analysis of his life and achievements. By organizing the chapter in this way, the author was able to provide a comprehensive overview of Hofstede’s life and work, while also highlighting the unique insights provided by the interview with his son.

In memory of Geert Hofstede  9 Place of socialization Gerard “Geert” Hendrik Hofstede was born into an intellectual family in Haarlem, the Netherlands, on 2 October 1928. He was the third and youngest child of Gerrit and Evertine Hofstede-Veenhoven. Gerrit Hofstede was a professor at the technical university in Delft. Evertine “Eefje” Hofstede worked as a medical analyst. Geert Hofstede described his mother as a technically talented women: “if anything needed repairing in the home, she was the one to do it”. She was a religious woman and a board member of the Protestant Union for a long time (Hofstede, 2022). Geert Hofstede depicted his father as a person who did not engage in playing with his children. He described him further as “law-abiding citizen, he tried to be an honest civil servant until the middle of World War II, when he discovered he just couldn’t do it anymore”. Hofstede grew up in the Netherlands during World War II, which was a tumultuous and challenging period in the country’s history due to its occupation by Nazi Germany. Hofstede was 17 when World War II ended, and he lived in rather difficult circumstances. He describes the relationship with his parents as cool, and he never saw not only intimacy, but no fighting as well. “They did respect each other. And we never spoke about sex” (Hofstede, 2022). Hofstede wanted an intimate relationship in his life, unlike the rather cool relationship between his parents. His grandfather was a locally renowned schoolmaster in Hengelo and well known as an educationalist. He assisted two entrepreneurs in setting up educational activities for personnel. He died nine months before Geert was born. Geert felt a deep affinity with his educational work and noted later: “if you want to believe in spirits that transfer, then maybe I have my grandfather’s” (Hofstede, 2022). An important role in Geert Hofstede’s socialization was also played by a neighboring family, including his childhood best friend, who provided him with emotional warmth and support during his formative years. While Geert attributes his intellectual development to his biological family, he credits his emotional development to the neighboring family (Siegmund & Smit, 2015). In his later work, Hofstede was to discuss the impact of his socialization as a child. He argued that the cultural values and beliefs individuals acquire in their early childhood shape their behavior and attitudes as adults and that these values and beliefs are often deeply embedded and resistant to change. Learning practices in school and university After leaving school in 1945, where Hofstede had jumped two grades, he entered technical college at the age of 16. His eagerness and intelligence made him an outstanding pupil in all areas of his education. He was always respectful to his teachers and never questioned them for the sake of challenging authority. Rather, he had a genuine desire to learn as much as possible and apply that knowledge in practical ways (Hofstede & Yazici, personal communication, June 10, 2022). Hofstede was always intellectually ahead but struggled emotionally and socially. “I was younger than the rest of my class and that to some extent also determined my mentality.

10  Senem Yazici I was always that little boy who had to put in some extra to be accepted, but I was accepted” (Siegmund & Smit, 2015). In 1947, Hofstede entered Delft University, where he studied mechanical engineering and graduated (MSc) on 21 April  1953 with work on four-stroke diesel engines. He was a member of different student groups. “He enjoyed that period of time very much and he very soon became the president of a student association” (Hofstede & Yazici, 2022) – the Association of the Liberal Christian Student (Hofstede, 2022). During this time, he gained experience with the different academic cultures of various disciplines and universities. Later, he noted “I tried to understand the reactions of people” (Hofstede, 2022). In the last year at the Delft University, Hofstede got interested in the nontechnical side (Siegmund  & Smit, 2015), particularly in human relations issues – the social side of work. He took an elective course, where he had to study the dissertation of a Jesuit, priest Kuylaars, a researcher in human behavior. The main message of the book Work and Life of the Industrial Worker as an Object of Socially Responsible Company Policy was that work has a double productivity: externally, to produce things, and internally, to develop people. The book challenged his previous assumptions about the role of technical expertise in improving workplace productivity and satisfaction and instead emphasized the importance of understanding the social and cultural aspects of work. This book inspired Hofstede to move from his background in engineering to the field of social psychology. It was a major influence on Hofstede’s development of his own theories on cultural dimensions. Later, he noted: “In my student days, I was simply fascinated by motivation, the relationship between work and play” (Hofstede, 2022). During that time (1953–1955), after the end of World War II and the end of the five-year Nazi Occupation, he started his two-year Dutch military service, which was mandatory for all young men in the Netherlands at the time. He served as an assistant engineer on a steamship that sailed to Indonesia and back to the Netherlands (Hofstede & Bartelds, 2010). At that time, he was still expecting to work as an engineer, but he was to go into management. Shortly after this first intercultural experience, he met an English girl, “Audrey”, who was spending her holidays in the Netherlands. They became friends, and he later visited her in London for several weeks. During this time, he had his first intercultural experience of being in a family in a different place that he was not familiar with. He was struggling to adapt to the different cultural norms and values of British society. It was a cultural shock, and it was the intercultural experience that most marked him, as he noted later (Hofstede & Bartelds, 2010). This experience had a profound impact on Hofstede and played a significant role in shaping his later work on cultural dimensions. Learning practices in “incognito” jobs After completing his Dutch military service, he worked for various companies in the Netherlands for the next ten years (1955–1965). The shift to social psychology was also influenced by his experience as an “incognito” semiskilled factory worker in a printing press company and as an

In memory of Geert Hofstede  11 unskilled laborer in a tobacco factory, where he gained insights into different groups, values, and behavior of the Dutch working class. The overall aim was to explore and uncover hidden organizational realities, crossing the boundaries of psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Through these experiences, he wanted to gain insights into the impact of jobs on people, power, and control in organizations and training settings. This idea was inspired by his father, who had told him if he wants to understand managers from the top, then he must understand the life of those who are managed at the bottom first. He had to look at the organization from below. Hofstede “was uneasy about it, because he felt he was an imposter”, but he wanted to know “how it is to be managed by managers” (Hofstede & Yazici, 2022). Hofstede experienced not only stress but also warmth during the first four months. He built true friendships in that period of time. Later, he noted that “the people were emphatic, not arrogant students” (Hofstede, 2022). Finally, he was very happy and proud to have done that. It gave him street credibility in speaking about managers (Hofstede  & Yazici, 2022). Many years later, he published his experiences and findings in a Dutch sociology journal, and in 1994, his reports were translated into English and published as the book Uncommon Sense About Organizations: Cases, Studies, and Field Observations by Sage Publications. “Sometimes lay people say that the social sciences only prove what common sense has already made clear. The studies I present demonstrate the opposite, hence the choice of the title” (Hofstede & Hodgetts, 1993). The interest in humans in working situations certainly came from his father. His father had a very strong influence on his later orientation that combined his previous career as an engineer with issues in the social sciences (Hofstede & Yazici, 2022). Although his father was a trained engineer, it was rather his mother who inspired his career as an engineer. “The irony is that I owe my engineer-like mind to my mother, who was the technical person of the family” (Hofstede & Schmidt, 2010: 4). His father had a talent for languages and was also interested in technology but more in the people and their motivations in technology processes. He wrote engineering textbooks, and each of these books started with a glossary in four languages. “It was this sort of intellectual atmosphere that broadened my mind” (Hofstede & Schmidt, 2010: 4). These life experiences as an “unskilled worker” and this intellectual background certainly shaped him as the scholar he would become. Learning managerial practices and the building of a family enterprise Hofstede took his first job at Stork in 1955, a Dutch manufacturing company based in Hengelo, the Netherlands. He completed a one-year course in management at Berenschot Consulting Group before starting the job. He worked as an “assistant to the director” and an internal consultant for the company. In the same year, Hofstede married Maaike van den Hoek. Hofstede mentioned in interviews and writing how important his family was to him and to his success. He has been quoted as saying “I  think she was 90  percent of my success” with reference to his wife Maaike. Hofstede was a family man who valued family life.

12  Senem Yazici Later, he noted: “I always fantasized about a family”. Together, they built a “Family Enterprise” (Hofstede, 2022). His eldest son Gert Jan Hofstede, with whom he later coauthored several publications, was born in Hengelo in 1956. “When you talk with Geert about his family, Maaike his sons or his grandchildren His eyes light up and he is a different man. He is totally natural, he is himself”, one of his friends noted later in an interview (Siegmund & Smit, 2015). In 1959, Hofstede started a job at a hosiery company making ladies’ stockings. “That was a disaster – I ended up getting fired along with another manager – but it was a good experience; I learned a lot about people and Machiavellian power politics”, he noted later in an interview (Hofstede & Schmidt, 2010: 2). In the same year, the family grew. When Rokus Hofstede was born, the family moved to Enschede. Elisabeth was born in 1962. She died suddenly of child diabetes in 1964. “It was a big taboo to speak about the daughter” (Hofstede & Yazici, 2022). The couple suffered greatly over the death of their only daughter, and Hofstede “worked and worked” (Hofstede  & Yazici, 2022). Bart Hofstede was born later in 1964 and Gideon in 1967. Geert and Maike had four sons and a daughter, ten grandchildren, and have seven great-grandchildren to date. Gert Jan Hofstede described his mother as having an observer’s attitude to life with a strong sense of linguistics and a keen interest in a wide range of subjects. He noted that she did not actively seek to change the course of events but was content to observe. He further stated that his father’s intellectual ideas and plans could satisfy her curiosity and that she was not required to make decisions, as she possessed a great capacity for listening to him without becoming emotional or losing her temper (Hofstede & Yazici, 2022). The shift from mechanical engineering to social psychology In 1964, Hofstede took a new job in the textile factory Menko N.J. in Enschede, the Netherlands. The finance director saw potential in Hofstede’s academic and professional abilities and offered him the opportunity to pursue a doctorate in Social Science while working part-time at the textile factory if he helped modernize the factory in the next two years. This was of great benefit to Hofstede, as it enabled him to fulfill his family obligations as a young father while also developing his academic and professional abilities. As a young father, Hofstede started his PhD in Social Psychology at the University of Groningen in 1964, while also working part-time at the Menko textile factory. Hofstede assisted the finance director in modernizing the factory for the next two years, while also working on his PhD. Being originally trained as a mechanical engineer, he had disciplined his mind to order experiences in a systematic and parsimonious way. He didn’t have to take classes, but he had to “transform himself from an engineer into a psychologist and that meant ‘reading and studying many, many books’ ” (Hofstede & Schmidt, 2010: 5). It was at Menko that he did his dissertation studies focusing on the “internal and external productivity” of employees and management control systems in organizations. For his thesis, he conducted interviews and surveys in six Dutch manufacturing plants. Hofstede investigated both the internal factors (such as motivation and job satisfaction) and external factors

In memory of Geert Hofstede  13 (such as job design and technology) that contribute to productivity. Later he noted: “The message in the thesis is that for a budget to be motivating, you should allow a margin of play or game in it” (Hofstede & Schmidt, 2010: 5). Many of the skills that he perfected in his cultural studies were developed during his PhD at Menko. Hofstede earned his PhD, cum laude, at the University of Groningen in social psychology in 1967. His Dissertation “The Game of Budget Control” was widely cited and translated into several languages (Hofstede, 1967). It was first published in 1968 and has seen several editions, the latest being in 2011 by Routledge. For his work on budgeting, he received the Yearly Efficiency prize in 1968. It established him as a good social psychologist. His thesis became quite popular in the field of accounting and led to a new field, “behavioral accounting”. Later, he even received an honorary doctorate for it. Although he was proud of his achievements, Hofstede never felt completely accepted as a psychologist. Not even many years later. During his graduate work in 1965, he joined the multinational company “International Business Machines (IBM) Europe”, an American technology corporation, with operations in over 170 countries. Hofstede was initially hired as a management trainer in the international executive development department. Later, he would coordinate personnel research in the European subsidiaries. Here he worked from 1965 to 1971, fascinated by the human behavior in systems. This fascination was to guide him for the rest of his life. Hofstede at IBM IBM was not economically challenged at the time. The United States was the undisputed economic number one power. To strengthen its market position, it was of interest to explore how employees fulfill their daily tasks for the multinational company. Hofstede was hired to gain insights into its employees’ perception of their daily work at IBM. The initial idea and the real purpose of this research were developed together with Watson, Thomas John Jr., the head of IBM, who had an egalitarian mindset. He believed that “if you make your workers happy by giving them what they value and want, then they will work better”, which contrasts with the traditional view of “trust is good, control is better” (Hofstede & Yazici, 2022). This impression served as the rationale behind his research, which was primarily motivated by intellectual curiosity (Hofstede & Yazici, 2022; Hofstede & Hoppe, 2004: 75). At that time, the economic success of an organization was not yet associated with cultural sensitivity. Hofstede later founded and managed the Personnel Research Department of IBM Europe in Blaricum, where he conducted an employee opinion survey in over 70 national subsidiaries of the large multinational company IBM around the world. He was one of the architects of IBM’s opinion surveys among their employees of all ranks (unskilled workers to top managers) in national subsidiaries in over 64 countries. The team first carried out a round of in-depth interviews. Based on his experiences during his PhD research on “the Game of Budget Control” (1964– 1967), Hofstede had become familiar with open-ended interviewing as a way to discover issues that the researchers might not have found on their own. It created space for interviewees’ minds, not just researchers’ minds. He asked simple

14  Senem Yazici questions that people understood, and he wanted to learn whether the employees agreed with statements regarding values and their perceptions of work situations. The interviews were conducted in ten countries with general managers who were all nationals of the countries and from suggestions by frequent travelers among the international headquarters’ staffs who reported on value differences they had observed and noticed among the subsidiaries (Hofstede et al., 1990). “As a product of the Dutch school system of the 1940s – I could converse with people in Dutch, English, French, German, and Italian, and I picked up bits and pieces of other languages, like Greek and Turkish” (Hofstede & Hoppe, 2004: 75). Data access was difficult because new executives did not support opinion research in the United States. They did not want the interviews to be conducted, but Hofstede found some local general managers at lower levels in the organization structure who were willing to have personal interviews. They gave him and his colleagues the freedom to introduce new ways to approach their work tasks, and so he got the US data. IBM paid attention to what its employees need and to the physical work environment. The personnel Research Department was situated in a chic family villa which belonged to painters and singers. It was a creative professional setting that encouraged innovative ideas and practices. About 40 employees worked together in the international work environment and celebrated their successes together with their families and children. Hofstede noted later: “I had my finest hours at IBM and made many friends in the company” (Hofstede & Schmidt, 2010: 6). Historically, in the 1960s, opinion research studies and the corresponding scientific expertise for such research designs were still very rare. “Everything was really new and there was a spirit of innovation among the people who were doing this kind of work” (Hofstede & Yazici, 2022). The questionnaire Based on the interviews, Hofstede and his colleagues developed about 150 forcedchoice questions (answers on a scale from 1 to 5) about things such as salary, working conditions, job security, or the relationship with bosses and colleagues. They categorized the answers by independent variables: age, sex, job level, time spent at IBM, and country. The survey was managed by an international team of social scientists, both inside and outside the multinational corporation. The total database contained the answers on over 116,000 survey questionnaires collected from 72 countries in two rounds of survey. The standardized paper-and-pencil questionnaires were available and used in 20 different language versions. Hofstede traveled to all the places where the questionnaires were administered to avoid nonresponse bias. A lot of care was invested in the distribution of the questionnaires to the right people with the collaboration of their local managers, so that people would be motivated to fill out those self-report questionnaires. Opinion surveys were not very well known at the time, so the employees were not used to getting questionnaires. It might have been the very first time for almost all those people that anybody asked their opinion as a worker. The cross-cultural survey instrument also faced the researchers with major challenges. Although the questionnaire had been translated into the local language with back-translation, it could not be

In memory of Geert Hofstede  15 assumed that the participants attached the same meaning to the questions (Van de Vijver & Tanzer, 2004). It is important to note that the questionnaire was not purposely designed to measure culture. Hofstede in his role as the manager traveled widely in that period to access data for the IBM’s International Employee Opinion Research. It was a relaxed time politically, with easy access to countries. But business travel often came at a cost to his family life. He did not have sufficient time for his personal or home life. His next step was a two-year sabbatical, an unpaid leave from 1971 to 1973 from IBM, which allowed him to spend time with his family, teaching organizational behavior and the analysis of the data. During those years, the family lived and worked in four different countries (Hofstede et al., 1990). Sabbatical For the sabbatical, Hofstede moved with his family to the Swiss city of Lausanne, where he was a visiting lecturer in organizational behavior at IMEDE (now IMD), a business school. This gave him a platform to discuss the questions with his students from 30 different countries and from a variety of private and public organizations. At IMEDE, Hofstede administered the English version of his IBM questionnaire to the international student population. At that time, he did not have a clear concept of the dimensions in the IBM Database, but the replication and thus the first external validation of the data showed that the countries ranked almost the same as they had at IBM. It provided statistical proof that the differences in the answers to the IBM questions were due to the nationalities of the respondents. He read extensively and solidified his “dimensions of culture”, which he had formed the idea of during his time in Lausanne. There were clear parallels between his initial ideas on the formulation of the cultural dimensions and the results of a literature study by the American sociologist Alex Inkeles and the psychologist Daniel Levinson published in 1969 (Inkeles & Levinson, 1969). They analyzed the following three points as basic problems of all societies: 1. Relation to authority; 2. Conception of self, including the relationship between individual and society and individual’s concepts of masculinity and femininity 3. Primary dilemmas or conflicts and ways of dealing with them, including the control of aggression and the expression versus inhibition of affect. (Hofstede, 2001: 31) Geert assumed that the results and therefore the dimensions were also valid beyond the IBM-internal level. The data revealed various patterns of cultural opinion and behavior. “This told him that he was really on to something” (Hofstede, 2022). He felt that this was no coincidence, and he was convinced that his data was worth a thorough study of cultural differences. This time at IMEDE in Lausanne was the starting point of his academic career. By the end of June 1973 until October 1973, after he quitted his job at IMEDE, the Hofstede family started a caravan trip to Greece and Turkey to visit ancient

16  Senem Yazici places and cultures (e.g., Knossos, Delphi, Olympia, Pamukkale, and Nemrut Dağı). It was a kind of pioneering thing to do at that time, always inventing a new plan and not taking no for an answer (Hofstede & Yazici, 2022). During the sabbatical, the Hofstede family had sufficient free time for their private lives and their own further development. It was a “Learning Experience”, “an exercise in living together as a family” (Hofstede, 2022). The sudden change of school was not easy for the children but also not for the parents. Gert Jan Hofstede returned at the age of 16 to the Netherlands to finish high school. The younger siblings moved with their parents to Brussels, where Hofstede started a new job. This background provided a qualitative context to the cross-national study (Hofstede et al., 1990). Leaving IBM with his treasure Returning to IBM after the sabbaticals, Hofstede asked to be given more time on the data to further process those results and submit a proposal to IBM for researching the data. His new IBM boss refused, saying that was something for academia. Hofstede realized that he and IBM had different interests and goals regarding further data analysis. For him, there was no perspective of further research. That is how Geert decided to quit his job at IBM and go into academia. IBM’s parting gift was the database “HERMES” or, as Hofstede puts it, his treasure. “HERMES” was used as a code name for IBM in the early versions of Hofstede’s work, before IBM had agreed to make its identity public. The treasure went way beyond the situation of IBM as a company. From that point, he was no longer committed to IBM. Later, he noted: “IBM has never been a good user of my research. Actually, they probably considered my research politically incorrect” (Siegmund  & Smit, 2015). Hofstede demonstrated by comparing national samples that people thought differently and acted differently. He was unveiling things that were contrary to the egalitarian mindset of the board of IBM and beyond the control of management. Hofstede’s work challenged many traditional views on cultural differences, particularly regarding the role of national culture in shaping workplace behavior and attitudes: social inequality, including the relationship between individuals and authorities, the concepts of masculinity and femininity, and ways of dealing with uncertainty and ambiguity, which turned out to be related to the control of aggression and the expression of emotions. It is important to note that Hofstede’s departure from IBM was not directly related to any conflict over his research or its implications. Rather, he left the company to pursue independent research. Data analysis To be able to work further on his IBM Database (work that was interesting), Hofstede took a job at the “European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management” (EIASM) in Brussels, which had recently been founded. It is in Brussels that Hofstede did most of the work on his IBM data, while also serving as a visiting professor of management at INSEAD in Fontainebleau, France. At EIASM, he was allowed to continue his research on national differences. The data analysis took place over the period 1973–1979. During this six-year period of analysis,

In memory of Geert Hofstede  17 he devoted himself intensively to the study of anthropological and international management literature. Later he noted: “I’d read anything in order to make sense of the results I had (Hofstede & Schmidt, 2010: 6). The greatest methodological difficulties to overcome were ‘the level of analysis issues!’ ” (Hofstede & Hoppe, 2004: 76). Hofstede was inspired by Adriaan de Groot, a Dutch mathematician and founder of psychological measurement in the Netherlands, who justified Hofstede’s structured approach toward human issues (Hofstede & Hoppe, 2004). Herbert Simon’s work on the empirical study of decision-making and the limits to rationality influenced him during that time. Another important source of influence was Karl Popper’s theory of the progress of science through falsification; in his own words: “I see my work as exploratory research, not as a finished theory” (Hofstede, 2003: 813). Alex Inkeles and Daniel Levinson predicted the dimensions of national culture from a broad analysis of the anthropological, sociological, and psychological literature, which Hofstede later discovered empirically in the 1970s. The later empirical findings in the IBM Database provide a strong support for the theoretical predictions of the three problems that are basic to all human societies described by Inkeles and Levinson. Finally, his thinking was influenced by the work of Thomas Kuhn, whose idea of the structure of scientific revolutions helped him understand the initial and later reactions to his own publications on culture (Kuhn, 1970; Hofstede & Hoppe, 2004). Initially, from the 72 different national subsidiaries, only the largest 40 were selected for further analysis “for reasons of stability of data” (Hofstede, 1980: 54). Subsequent follow-up research showed data from another 24 subsidiaries to be usable, 10 as separate countries, and 14 grouped into three geographical regions (Arabspeaking countries, West Africa, and East Africa), thus raising the total number of units in the analysis to 53. In the remaining eight countries, the number of native respondents was insufficient to allow statistical use of their data (Hofstede, 1980). Regarding its historical context, it is rooted in an attitude survey from more than 50 years ago, when technological and methodological standards were clearly different. Hofstede had to use mainframe computers using punched cards for data processing and program input. Hofstede made an enormous effort in his research. “There were boxes full of computer printouts which he meticulously color coded to track the results to develop the dimensions” (Hofstede & Yazici, 2022). For data analysis, he used an old version of SPSS, which was a mainframe command language at that time. Hofstede was one of the first researchers who conducted factor analysis to reduce cross-national data collected from matched samples to country scores on a limited number of dimensions of societal culture: power distance (PD), related to the different solutions to the basic problem of human inequality; uncertainty avoidance (UAI), related to the level of stress in a society in the face of an unknown future; individualism versus collectivism, related to the integration of individuals into primary groups; and masculinity versus femininity, related to the division of emotional roles between women and men. Hofstede’s first dimension was PD, which was a significant topic during the 1960s – a time marked by the student revolutions in Europe. This was the period when Hofstede recognized the impact of these global events on the European

18  Senem Yazici subsidiaries of IBM, where employees exhibited different behaviors in relation to power and powerlessness. When analyzing the data, Hofstede discovered that the patterns were most distinct when aggregated at the country level. He observed that different job roles, such as secretaries and engineers, provided varying responses. However, he found that when these responses were ordered by country, the order was consistent across job roles. As Hofstede noted, “Secretaries would give a different answer than the engineers. But if you ordered the secretaries by country, they would produce the same order as when you ordered the engineers by country”. During that time, he wrote “Cultures Consequences”. The manuscript was completed in 1979, but he had difficulty publishing it. There were many unsuccessful attempts to get his book published. There were 19 attempts in total in different publishing houses. Hofstede had great perseverance. “Anybody else would have given up, even if they were just as good”, his eldest son noted later (Hofstede & Yazici, 2022). One day, Geert received a letter from Sara Miller McCune, the founder of Sage Publications (Sage Publishing today), asking for a copy of the manuscript she had heard about. His magnum opus, Culture´s Consequences, was finally published in 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values became one of the most successful publications and has grown into a classic. “When it went on to become one of the Financial Times One Hundred Top Business Books of the Year, no one was prouder than I”, Miller McCune noted later (Siegmund & Smit, 2015). Hofstede later reflected: It was an idealistic thing to work as a factory worker, it was an idealistic thing to try and become a psychologist if you had 10 years work as an engineer, it was certainly an idealistic thing to leave my job at IBM just because they didn’t want me to study the things I wanted to study. (Siegmund & Smit, 2015) Later, a fifth and sixth dimension, long-term orientation (Hofstede  & Bond, 1988) and Indulgence versus restraint (Minkov, 2007; Hofstede et  al., 2010), were added. The social psychologist Michael Harris Bond, originally Canadian but working from Hong Kong on societal values, met Hofstede in a cross-cultural conference in India. Bond was presenting his research on values in Asia. After he held his presentation, “a bald-headed man in the room stood up and told him that he analyzed his data incorrectly. This was the beginning of a wonderful colleagueship”, Bond noted later (Siegmund & Smit, 2015). Hofstede and Bond compared the IBM studies with a modified Rokeach Value Survey, a well-known questionnaire developed by the psychologist Milton Rokeach for measuring values and beliefs of people in different cultures. All four IBM dimensions were present in that data, but there was a fifth dimension, which the researcher had not been able to interpret. There were many concerns about the researcher’s own culture concerning the result. It was assumed that survey items reflect Western interests and views which may be insignificant or even unimportant in non-Western countries and that the study results are biased by the Western mindset of the researcher. Other culturespecific elements could be completely “unquestioned” due to the Western way of

In memory of Geert Hofstede  19 thinking and thus remain unrecognized. The interpretation of the results was presumed to be the result of the researcher’s Western cultural bias. These concerns led to the development of the Chinese value survey (CVS) (Hofstede & Bond, 1988). The long-term orientation dimension was discovered in a study among 23 countries around the world, using a value questionnaire designed by Chinese scholars (Chinese Culture Connection, 1987). “The overlap between the IBM studies and Chinese Value Survey is remarkable because the two projects used different questionnaires on different populations during different years in only partly overlapping sets of countries” (Hofstede & Bond, 1988: 16). The analysis produced four national dimensions. Three of CVS dimensions correlated significantly with Hofstede’s IBM dimensions, but none of the dimensions correlated with UAI. However, they found another quite clearly marked dimension made up of the values. This study showed that none of the four IBM dimensions were associated with economic growth across all countries. However, the new dimension turned out to be strongly correlated with economic growth over the period between 1965 and 1985 across all 22 countries that were covered. The new dimension “Confucian Work Dynamism” was originally named by Bond to represent the values associated with the Confucian school (Hofstede & Bond, 1988). However, Hofstede later noted that this dimension also applies to countries that do not have a Confucian heritage (Hofstede, 1994). Hofstede later reformulated the name to the more general “long-term versus short-term orientation” (LTO). The relationship with economic growth Hofstede (1991) considered sufficient reason for adding it to his model as a fifth dimension (Minkov & Hofstede, 2012). The relationship was especially important in the late eighties when the “East-Asian economic miracle” started. Based on this dimension, countries could be distinguished in fast-growing economies, which tend to score on the long-term orientation side, while the slow-growing economies tend to score on the short-term orientation side (Siegmund & Smit, 2015). The new 5-D-Model was published in his second book, entitled Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (Hofstede, 1991). It was more extensively analyzed in the second edition of Culture’s Consequences (Hofstede, 2001). Later, LTO was replicated by analyzing the World value survey data (Hofstede & Minkov, 2012; Hofstede et al., 2010). Michael Minkov, a Bulgarian linguist and sociologist exploring national value indicators based on the world value survey data, contacted Hofstede via e-mail at the turn of the millennium (Hofstede, 2011). He discovered three cross-national dimensions of values, labeled exclusionism versus universalism, monumentalism versus flexumility (a new word combining flexibility and humility), and indulgence versus restraint (Minkov, 2007; Hofstede, 2011). Exclusionism versus universalism refers to the extent to which people prioritize the welfare of their in-group (such as family or nation) versus the welfare of all people in general. People who score high on exclusionism tend to place more importance on loyalty, obedience, and respect for authority, while those who score high on universalism tend to value equality, social justice, and concern for the well-being of all people. Exclusionism versus universalism was strongly correlated with collectivism/individualism.

20  Senem Yazici Monumentalism versus flexibility (or Flexumility) refers to the extent to which people value tradition and stability versus innovation and change. People who score high on monumentalism tend to value established traditions and social norms, while those who score high on flexumility tend to be more open to change and value adaptability. Monumentalism versus flexumility was significantly correlated with “Short-Term versus long-term orientation” (Hofstede, 2011). Indulgence versus restraint refers to the extent to which people prioritize enjoyment and self-­ expression over self-control and restraint. People who score high on Indulgence tend to value personal freedom, leisure time, and pleasure, while those who score high on Restraint tend to prioritize self-discipline, responsibility, and duty. The values survey module (VSM) 08, a set of questions available to researchers who wished to replicate Hofstede’s research into national culture differences (announced in 2008), was inspired by Minkov’s findings. Geert and Gert Jan Hofstede invited him to become a coauthor for the third edition of Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (Hofstede et al., 2010). Minkov’s Exclusionism versus Universalism was integrated into Individualism/Collectivism. Monumentalism versus Flexumility dimension with additional WVS items could be converted into a new version of long- versus short-term orientation, now available for 93 countries and regions. Indulgence versus Restraint became an entirely new dimension and was added as the sixth and final dimension in Hofstede’s Framework (Hofstede et al., 2010). Hofstede worked extensively with his eldest son Gert Jan Hofstede, a population biologist and professor of Artificial Sociality. The two coauthored several works, among which were the second and third editions of Hofstede’s best-selling book Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (Hofstede et  al., 2010; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Critics, impact, and relevance Hofstede’s framework greatly shaped the study and methodology of many academic disciplines and spawned numerous dissertations (Hofstede & Hoppe, 2004), academic studies, and practical applications. It goes beyond the scope of this chapter to describe the many ways in which researchers have related Hofstede’s national culture dimensions to phenomena in societies. In particular, Kirkman Lowe and Gibson (2006) conducted a comprehensive review of 180 empirical studies that utilized Hofstede’s dimensions, which were published in 40 business and psychology journals and book series between 1980 and 2002. The review emphasizes the broad application of Hofstede’s framework in different fields and highlights its value in facilitating cross-cultural comparisons. All these studies highlight the significant impact Hofstede’s framework has had on various fields, specifically cross-cultural management, cross-cultural psychology, and international business studies. Hofstede, like any other researcher, has his critics (see chapter by Schiffinger). He actively engaged with critics who raised theoretical, conceptual, and methodological concerns. He has written several articles in response to criticisms of his cultural dimensions theory and used these criticisms to refine and develop his

In memory of Geert Hofstede  21 approach (Hofstede, 2002; Hofstede, 2003). Hofstede has also engaged in debates with other scholars about the nature of culture and the best methods for studying it. For example, he has responded to criticisms of his functionalist approach by arguing that culture does indeed serve a specific function in society and that his framework helps to identify and measure this function. To use his own words, “if no one disagrees, you have no message” (Hofstede, 2022). Hofstede listed five standard criticisms of his approach found in the literature (Hofstede, 2001: 73; Hofstede, 2002). The first critique argues that “Surveys are not a suitable way of measuring cultural differences” (Hofstede, 2002). McSweeney’s criticism of Hofstede’s approach is rooted in his argument that the average number of questionnaires per country in Hofstede’s database is too small and, in some cases, even minuscule. This limited sample size can result in generalizations that are not representative of the population’s characteristics (McSweeney, 2002). In his direct reply to McSweeney, Hofstede argues that he reiterates some of the old comments and focuses very much on the details of the analysis of the IBM Database but does not write a word about the validation of the country differences in the IBM study on other data (Hofstede, 2002). Hofstede explains in his 1980 book Culture’s Consequences that the process of external validation yields statistical evidence, proving that a substantial proportion of the differences in responses are attributable to the nationalities of the respondents (Hofstede, 2002). Additionally, Hofstede notes that most crosscultural researchers rely on central tendencies calculated from individual survey responses to draw conclusions, indicating that he is following a common statistical inference practice. While surveys can be a valuable tool for studying cultural differences, Hofstede has consistently emphasized that they should not be the only instrument used to gain a comprehensive understanding. Instead, it is important to employ surveys in conjunction with other research methods to develop a more complete understanding of cultural differences. Second, it is argued that nations are not the best units for studying cultures (McSweeney, 2002; Baskerville, 2003; Taras et  al., 2012). Baskerville criticizes equating nations with culture by pointing out that cultures are not defined by political boundaries and that there are many cultural variations within and across countries. Within any given nation, there may be significant variations in culture based on factors such as ethnicity, religion, and regional differences. She argues that Hofstede’s approach is too simplistic and ignores the complexity and diversity of human societies. Hofstede recognizes the potential limitations of using nations as the unit of comparison in cultural studies, as it may not fully capture the internal variations within a country. However, he maintains that surveys are often the most feasible method for investigating cultural differences and can still provide valuable insights into a culture’s characteristics. In his own words: “True, but they are usually the only kind of units available for comparison and better than nothing” (Hofstede, 2003: 812). Hofstede addressed the third standard critique, which argues that studying the subsidiaries of one company cannot provide information about entire national cultures. He contended that the constructs underlying his study were not primarily intended to quantify cultural differences between nations, but rather that any

22  Senem Yazici collection of comparably matched samples obtained from national populations could potentially yield data regarding such differences. Therefore, according to Hofstede, any set of functionally equivalent samples from national populations can provide information about such differences. Furthermore, he noted that the sample used in his study was an unusually well-matched one for an unusually large number of countries. He also argued that the extensive validation of his work demonstrated that the country scores obtained from his study were highly correlated with other data, including results obtained from representative samples of entire national populations (Hofstede, 2002) The fourth standard criticism is that the “IBM data are old and therefore obsolete” (Hofstede, 2002; McSweeney, 2002). There are several arguments that have been made about the temporal stability of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions being outdated and no longer representative of contemporary cultural values (Taras et al., 2012; McSweeney, 2002). McSweeney has argued that Hofstede’s original data was collected more than 45 years ago and may not accurately reflect cultural values in the present day. He has also argued that the dimensions are overly simplistic and fail to capture the complexity and diversity of cultural values in different societies. Hofstede answers that cultural values are deeply rooted in a country’s history and traditions and that these values do not change quickly or easily (Hofstede, 2002; Inglehart & Baker, 2000). The stability of the Hofstede dimensions can be explained by the fact that cultural values have deep historical roots that are difficult to change quickly over short periods of time. Therefore, even if there are some changes in cultural values over time, the Hofstede dimensions remain relatively stable because the pace of change is slow. Cultural values are deeply embedded in social norms, institutions, and other cultural factors. Even if external factors such as globalization and technological change are causing some changes in cultural values, the underlying resistance to change may help to maintain the stability of the Hofstede dimensions. Another recurring concern in the literature is the temporal stability of measured national cultural differences (Shenkar, 2001; McSweeney, 2009; Tung & Verbeke, 2010). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions have been validated against external measurements; recent studies showed no loss of validity (Hofstede, 2002). The dimensions remain relatively consistent across different cultures, levels of analysis, and different time periods (Beugelsdijk et al., 2015; Kaasa et al., 2014). Finally, the fifth standard critique is that four or five dimensions are not enough (Hofstede, 2002). Critics argue that reducing culture to a limited set of dimensions oversimplifies its complex and multifaceted nature (Sivakumar & Nakata, 2001; McSweeney, 2002; Taras et  al., 2012). In response to these criticisms, Hofstede has proposed that any new dimensions should meet two requirements. First, they should be conceptually and statistically independent from the five dimensions already identified. Second, they should be validated through significant correlations with conceptually related external measures. Hofstede has encouraged researchers to apply these criteria in their research (Hofstede, 2001, 2002). Hofstede’s national dimensions and country scores were validated through replications, using the same questions in other cross-national samples (Hofstede et al., 2010: 35). The major large-scale replications covered between 15 and 32 countries,

In memory of Geert Hofstede  23 on European country elites (Hoppe, 1990), employees (Shane, 1995), airline staff (Merritt, 2000), consumers (de Mooij, 2001), civil servants (Mouritzen & Svara, 2002), and employees of a multinational bank (Van Nimwegen, 2002). The results of all six studies provided substantial support for the findings of the original IBM study. Since Hofstede’s publication of Culture’s Consequences in 1980, the paradigm of cultural dimensions has been extensively followed, and other scholars have proposed additional dimensions or alternative frameworks for understanding cultural differences (Trompenaars, 1993; Triandis, 1995; Schwartz, 1994; House et  al., 2004). For example, Schwartz has proposed a theory of basic human values, which identifies ten basic values that are believed to underlie cultural differences across societies. Similarly, Fons Trompenaars has developed a model of cultural dimensions, which includes seven dimensions such as universalism versus Particularism and achievement versus Ascription. Another popular framework is the large-scale GLOBE study, which stands for Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness. The GLOBE project identified nine cultural dimensions that are believed to have a significant impact on organizational behavior and leadership, including performance orientation and humane orientation. A variety of frameworks and approaches have been developed, but none of them has had such an impact as Hofstede’s. Despite the critiques, Hofstede’s theory of cultural dimensions remains widely used and influential in the field of cross-­cultural management and cross-cultural psychology. Although Hofstede’s work has fallen out of favor with serious critical scholars over the last decade, he is still recognized as the main founder of cross-cultural management studies. From national cultures to organizational cultures Since the late 1970s, there has been an intense academic debate on organizational cultures, when Asian countries experienced a remarkably high economic growth compared to US and European countries (e.g., Deal  & Kennedy, 1982; Ouchi, 1981; Hofstede, 1980; Pascale & Athos, 1981; Peters & Watermann, 1982; Schein, 1985; Williamson, 1985). During a time when numerous organizations were beginning to expand globally, they encountered cultural challenges and sought to identify factors contributing to the success of Asian companies and overall economic growth. This prompted the first comparative cultural studies, which aimed to explain and identify determinants of success and economic growth, highlighting the growing significance of culture. However, the differentiation between national and organizational cultures was not yet well-defined among many researchers and practitioners. The term “organizational culture” was first mentioned in the US academic literature in an article in the journal Administrative Science Quarterly by Pettigrew in 1979 and entered the management literature (Pettigrew, 1979). There were many approaches and theories; however, it was Hofstede who had done any serious empirical research in the field. From now on, Hofstede would be involved in academic debates based on his comparative cross-national culture study and

24  Senem Yazici later make a significant contribution in comparative cross-organizational cultures research. During the time frame 1980 to 1983, Hofstede served as the director of Human Resources for Fasson Europe in Leyden, the Netherlands, marking his return to industry (Hofstede et al., 2010: 559). Simultaneously, in 1980, he cofounded the Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation (IRIC). IRIC was an independent foundation cooperating with the Catholic University of Brabant in Tilburg and the University of Limburg in Maastricht. Hofstede became its first director. At the same time, in 1983, he returned to academia and served as dean of the Semafor Senior Management Program in Arnhem (Hofstede & Hoppe, 2004: 75). Two years later in 1985, Hofstede was introduced as professor of Organizational Anthropology and International Management at the Maastricht University, a title he coined himself. The IRIC Institute moved with him to Maastricht. IRIC’s focus was on value differences as part of national cultures and on the implications of these differences for management and public policy. Contrary to Hofstede’s research project on national culture (Hofstede, 1980, 2001), which compared national samples within the same organization, the IRIC research project compared matched samples from different organizations within the same culture. Although Hofstede did not gain any insights into IBM’s organizational culture, the study served him as a model for the study of organizational cultures. The model of cross-organizational culture was developed by Hofstede et  al. (1990). The research was carried out under the auspices of the IRIC and took place from 1985 to 1987 (Hofstede et al., 1990). Based on the national culture dimensions, Denmark and the Netherlands scores were fairly similar: both countries belong to the Nordic-Dutch Cluster. Twenty organizational units from ten different organizations participated. The unit size varied from 60 to 2,500 employees (Hofstede et al., 1990: 290). The number of units was small enough to allow each unit to be studied qualitatively as a separate case study. At the same time, it was large enough to permit a statistical analysis of comparative quantitative data to cover all cases (Hofstede et al., 1990) The cross-organizational research started with in-depth interviews to get a qualitative feel for the gestalt of the unit’s culture and to generate “a collection of issues to be included in the questionnaire for the ensuing survey” (Hofstede, 2010: 315). The unit’s cultures were described by nine respondents at all levels. In total, 180 interviews were used to “create a qualitative, empathic description of the culture of each of the twenty cases” (Hofstede et al., 1990: 292). The interview team consisted of 18 Dutch and Danish members. Each unit’s interviews were divided between two interviewers, one woman and one man, as the gender of the interviewer might affect the observations obtained (Hofstede et al., 1990). All the members received project training, and all used the same checklist of open-ended research questions along the following lines (Hofstede, 2010: 350–351): organizational symbols (e.g., what are special terms here that only insiders understand?), heroes (e.g., what kinds of people are most likely to advance quickly in their careers here?), rituals: (e.g., in what periodic meetings do you participate?), and values (what things do people very much like to see happening here?).

In memory of Geert Hofstede  25 In the second phase, a paper-and-pencil questionnaire of 135 pre-coded questions was conducted and administered to a random sample from the units. The sample was composed of managers, college-level non-managers, and non-college-level non-managers (Hofstede et al., 1990). Fifty-seven questions dealt with values and were partly taken from the earlier cross-national study (Hofstede, 1980) and its later replications (22 standardized work goals, 28 general beliefs, 7 other questions). The remaining 74 questions were developed on the basis of interviews in the first phase: 54 questions assessed perceived practices (39 questions based on interviews, 15 questions inspired by Reynolds, 1986), 7 questions asked about “the behavior of a typical member of the organization”, and 13 questions were about reasons for promotion and dismissal. Four demographic questions were added. Finally, there was an open question asking for additions and remarks (Hofstede et al., 1990: 295–296). The practice questions were formulated in a bipolar format. The practice questions were formulated around all issues of daily practices that the interviewers suspected to differ substantially between units. Over 1,295 questionnaires were collected and were suitable for further analysis. They were analyzed on the level of organizational units (N = 20), not on the individual level. Separate factor analysis with orthogonal varimax rotations was conducted on the 57 value questions and 61 practices questions (54 questions of perceived practices, 7 questions about the behavior of a typical member). The scree test on value items indicates three factors: V1 Need for Security, V2 Work Centrality, V3 Need for Authority (Hofstede et  al., 1990: 300). The scree test on the practice questions showed a six-factor structure. The 20 units differed only slightly with respect to the cultural values of their members, but they varied considerably in their practices. So only the practice factors were used for the dimensions of organizational culture. The major outcome of their study into organizational culture was a six bipolar dimensional model of organizational culture of perceived practices distinguishing the 20 organization units from each other: “P1 Process-oriented versus Results-­oriented” contrasts a concern for means to a concern for goals; “P2 Employee-­oriented versus Job-oriented” contrasts a concern for people with a concern for getting the job done; “P3 Parochial versus Professional” contrasts units whose members derive their identity largely from the organization to units in which people identify with their type of jobs; “P4 Open system versus Closed system” describes the communication climate; “P5 Loose control versus Tight control” refers to the degree of internal structuring which affects behavior; and “P6 Normative versus Pragmatic” deals with aspects of customer orientation (Hofstede et al., 1990: 303–304). These dimensions describe most of the variety in organizational practices (Hofstede, 1994). The position of an organization on these independent dimensions is partly determined by the characteristics of an industry or the business the organization is in. All six organizational dimensions were, to some extent, already described in earlier organizational sociology or in management studies (Selznick, 1949) The key conclusions of the two large studies (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede et al., 1990) on cultural differences showed that organizational and national culture are very different phenomena and cannot even be measured with the same questions. The IRIC study found that organizational culture differs at the level of practices,

26  Senem Yazici whereas national culture differs mainly at the deeper level of values. The differences between national culture and organizational culture can be explained by the different contexts of socialization. Values are acquired in early youth at the pre-puberty level, mainly from the social environment, the family and the neighborhood and later in school. The school education period mostly bridges puberty and mixes values and practices. Organizational practices are learned through socialization at the workplace which people enter as adults at the post-puberty level. In contrast to Peters and Waterman (1982), who found values as the core of organizational culture, the IRIC study proposes perceived practices as the core of organizational culture. The differentiation between national and organizational cultures has profound implications for dealing with national cultures and managing organizational cultures (Hofstede, 1990, 1995, 1998; Hofstede et al., 2010). During his time at Maastricht, Hofstede published a student-level book which integrated the findings about organizational cultures with their earlier findings about national cultures and drew conclusions about their implications for management: Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (Hofstede, 1991). From organizational cultures to subcultures Organizations have cultures, but parts of organizations may have distinct subcultures (Hofstede, 1998: 1). In 1988, IRIC was invited to investigate organizational subcultures in a Danish insurance company (3,400 employees). The subcultural study used the same design as the previous IRIC study on cross-organizational culture, starting with in-depth interviews with employees of all levels and departments of the organization (in total 24 interviews) leading to the composition of a survey questionnaire. In total, 2,590 questionnaires were completed and were found suitable for the analysis of attitudes, values, and culture. The subculture questionnaire consisted of 120 questions, divided into 50 about attitudes, 29 about values, 31 “culture” questions about practices, and 10 questions about demographics (Hofstede, 1998). The 31 culture questions about work practices include the 18 key questions from the earlier cross-organizational study (Hofstede et al., 1990: 303). The remaining 13 items were based on the interviews. Based on the survey answers, the scores were determined separately for 131 work groups, and these were subjected to a hierarchical cluster analysis, from which a dendrogram could be derived. The tree diagram indicated that within the company, there were three distinct subcultures: a professional subculture, an administrative subculture, and a customer interface subculture. The categorization of the three subcultures corresponds well with a theoretical prediction made by Jones (1983). Jones (1983) predicted the existence of three distinct organizational cultures based on a transaction cost approach: production culture, bureaucratic culture, and professional culture. The split of the subcultures observed in the insurance company study aligned with Jones’ prediction. The administrative subculture displayed a process orientation; the customer interface subculture was results-oriented but had to adhere to company norms, and the professional subculture was skilled and

In memory of Geert Hofstede  27 specialized. Each subculture also exhibited varying levels of control, formality, and openness. Hofstede’s empirical approach for evaluating subcultures within an established organization has made significant contributions to the understanding of the complexity of subcultures in relation to culture-conscious management. Although the results are limited to a single case study of an insurance company in Denmark, this approach provides managers at all levels with subculture maps to recognize the diversity of cultures within an organization. This will enable discussions on the extent of subcultural variety and its desirability, taking into account organizationwide and unit-specific cultural elements (Sackmann, 1992). Managers should be trained to comprehend and apply subcultural needs and expectations in complex organizations, taking into account different national values (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Sagiv & Schwartz, 2007). As a result, parts of the organization will not inadvertently be neglected due to conflicts with their subcultural needs (Hofstede, 1998: 11). Thus, culture surveys, such as the one presented in this study, can facilitate the management of complex organizations with cultural sensitivity by providing subculture maps to managers and enabling discussions on desirable levels of cultural variety. Cultures and individuals The Five-Factor Model, which consists of five personality dimensions, also known as the “Big Five”, has gained widespread acceptance as a model for personality traits. These dimensions are Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, as established by US psychologists Paul T. Costa and Robert R. McCrae. They developed a self-scored personality assessment tool known as the revised NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R), which is based on these five dimensions (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Hofstede and McCrae (2004) conducted a joint study to examine the relationship between the NEO-PI-R Dimensions scores and national culture dimension scores as defined by Hofstede’s framework (1980). This research was inspired by Hofstede’s son, Gert Jan, exploring the connection between individual personality and national culture (Hofstede & Yazici, 2022). Their joint study showed that culture and personality are not independent. The mean scores for more than 30 countries correlated significantly with the Hofstede dimensions of national culture (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004). Although these five factors are found in many different cultures, they vary in weight across cultures, and these variations relate to Hofstede’s national cultural dimensions (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004). We show the correlations we found and then we interpret them in two ways: causality going from personality to culture or from culture to personality test scores. Actually, McCrae, who is a psychologist, takes the first position and I, the culture student, take the opposite position, and we offer both interpretations to the judgement of the reader. (Hofstede & Fink, 2007)

28  Senem Yazici For example, 55% of national differences on Neuroticism can be explained by a combination of uncertainty avoidance and masculinity, and 39% of country differences on Extraversion by Individualism alone (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004). The relationship between personality and national culture is a complex system that can predict human behavior over time (Hofstede et al., 2010). This relationship is influenced by both individual life experiences and cultural changes. It is important to note that there is a wide range of personality traits within each national culture, and national culture scores should not be used to stereotype individuals. The IRIC study of organizational culture (Hofstede et al., 1990), which investigated the differences between organizations and organizational units, did not explore the differences between individuals. In the extended individual perception study, the IRIC data was reanalyzed at the individual level by Michael Bond and Chung-Leung Luk to find out in what ways individuals’ answers differed after organizational culture differences were eliminated. They analyzed the value questions and practices dimensions separately. Individuals within the same unit differed more in their values than in their perception of shared practices. It became clear that for individuals, values and perceived practices were related. In the Organizational Culture Study, respondents’ personality traits influence their answers, resulting in six dimensions of individual responses when combined (Hofstede et al., 1993: 500–501). Five of these dimensions align with the Big Five personality traits, while the sixth dimension lacks an equivalent. However, research on personality in Asia suggested that the Big Five should be extended with a sixth dimension, Dependence on Others, for true universality (Hofstede, 2007), thereby filling the missing sixth individual dimension identified in the Organizational Culture Study. Culture differences between individuals are a paradox (Fink  & Mayrhofer, 2009). Culture is a collective phenomenon that is inherently shared among a group of individuals. Hofstede defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another” (Hofstede, 1980: 25). He emphasizes that culture is not a property of individuals but of groups. Individuals have their individual personalities, but what they share with others is their culture. Cultures are precisely what one individual shares with other individuals with the same background. Psychological models, such as the Five-Factor Model, can only be applied to individuals as they measure personality variables based on individual questionnaire responses. Cultural pressures may influence personality, but cultural dimensions cannot predict individual behavior. National cultural dimensions indicate a tendency in an aggregate and cannot be used to predict individual behavior. Inferences made about individuals based on aggregates of national culture dimensions or organizational culture dimensions can result in ecological fallacies (Robinson, 1950; Hofstede, 1995, 2001). Levels of social complexity Hofstede emphasized the differences between national values (Hofstede, 1980) and perceived organizational practices (Hofstede et al., 1990) and thus also various levels of social complexity. He presents a model known as the “onion model” which

In memory of Geert Hofstede  29 depicts the various layers of cultural manifestation at different levels (Hofstede et al., 1990). The core of culture is formed by values that are “broad tendencies to prefer certain states of affairs over others” and often unconscious (Hofstede, 2010: 9). In using this definition, “values have intensity in the sense of strength, and direction in the sense that some states of affairs are viewed as preferable to others” (Peterson, 2007: 372). The surrounding skins of the onion are subsumed under the term practices consisting of Symbols, Heroes, and Rituals, specific to one culture as opposed to others. Practices are visible to an outside observer although their cultural meaning is invisible and lies in the way they are perceived by insiders (Hofstede, 1980, 2010; Hofstede et al., 1990). To use his own words, using the Worldwide web as an example: [W]ell you must make a difference here between practices and values. I think there will be a harmonization of practices simply because we all use this worldwide web, and you need some practices to use it. But what you feel doing it and what you value doing it will differ and this amount of information is so huge that within that system there is room for all kinds of values. (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2011) Values can be reflected in three types of practices – symbols, heroes, and rituals. The meaning of each in a given culture is based on the link of a particular practice to the value that it reflects. Practices can be considered as meaningful behaviors that hold significance not only for the individuals who engage in them but also for others involved. In conducting Comparative Management research in culturally diverse settings, it is crucial to clearly specify the particular levels and units of analysis that are addressed by various cultural dimensions. This requires adopting a comparative perspective that allows for reasoning and considering different levels of social complexity. The implications for managing organizational cultures are influenced by the understanding that national cultures cannot be effectively managed, as they are not easily alterable and not amenable to deliberate change. According to Hofstede’s research, national culture scores remain stable over time, except for rare occurrences of significant disturbances such as disasters or pandemics (Hofstede et al., 2010; Beugelsdijk et  al., 2015). Hofstede identified family, education, political systems, and law as the primary institutions that sustain culture. These institutions reinforce the values that form the foundation of culture, as they facilitate socialization and knowledge development within the society. A  symbiotic relationship between society’s institutions and its population’s mental models results in a high level of stability in both culture and formal institutions (Hofstede, 2001; Beugelsdijk et al., 2015; North, 1992). In contrast to national cultures, organizational cultures can be changed through deliberate learning processes (Yolles & Fink, 2021; Yazici, 2015). Managing such changes, however, requires an understanding of the complex and collective nature of organizational cultures. While national cultures are shaped by a variety of institutions, organizational cultures are developed through repeated interactions among

30  Senem Yazici individuals who share a common set of practices. “You have to know the hidden rules. Despite their relatively superficial nature organizational cultures are hard to change because they have developed into collective meaningful behaviours. Organizational Culture can be managed, but it takes ages” (Hofstede  & Yazici, 2022). It requires navigating a web of emotions and social interactions. Managing international companies requires a nuanced understanding of national values and organizational practices. A multinational corporation’s success is dependent on its ability to navigate the complexities of different cultural contexts. Organizational culture is an essential component that helps to maintain unity and a shared sense of purpose within such organizations. As such, it is crucial for managers to recognize the importance of organizational culture in creating an effective work environment that supports the company’s goals and objectives. Societies are the gardens of the social world, organizations the bouquets, and individuals the flowers; a complete social gardener should be able to deal with all the three. In order to have a complete understanding of the social world, one must be able to deal with all three aspects. Dealing with national culture falls under the realm of anthropology, while organizational culture is a part of organizational sociology. The study of cultural differences between individuals, on the other hand, can be attributed to the field of psychology (Hofstede, 1995). Honorary recognition and contribution to an interdisciplinary field In 1993, Geert turned 65 and became emeritus. He delivered his valedictory address on the topic of “Images of Europe: past, present and future”. After retiring, Hofstede served as a fellow at the IRIC and of the Center for Economic, Research, both at Tilburg University, and held visiting professorships in Hong Kong, Hawaii, and Australia. Hofstede was a fellow of the Academy of Management and an eminent scholar with the Academy of International Business. He received honorary doctoral degrees from universities in the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Greece, Sweden, Belgium, Lithuania, Hungary, Estonia, Czech Republic, and Romania. He was a fellow and distinguished international scholar in the Academy of International Business (the United States) and the Academy of Management (the United States). He was also honorary professor at the University of International Business and Economics in the Beijing Renmin University of China and honorary member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Section of Economics and Law. He received the “Life Achievement Award ‘Deutsche Weiterbildungsbranche’ ” (Hofstede Exhibition). The Wall Street Journal named him one of the 20 most influential business thinkers of the 20th century. However, Hofstede never felt accepted as a social psychologist until becoming an honorary fellow of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology in 2006 (Siegmund & Smit, 2015). In 2011, Hofstede was knighted by Her Majesty Beatrix, Queen of the Netherlands, in the Order of the Netherlands Lion (Ridder in de Orde van de Nederlandse Leeuw).

In memory of Geert Hofstede  31 Future directions Despite significant progress in cross-cultural research, culture-centered aspects remain neglected in management studies, limiting our ability to address the social complexity and dynamic nature of cultural evolution in both the internal and external environments of organizations. To enhance our understanding of the behavior of organizational members with different values in mind, it is crucial for researchers to incorporate culture-centered aspects in their investigations. Acquiring and sustaining legitimacy in organizations necessitate dealing with cultural diversity and varied attitudes. Therefore, future research should aim to integrate culturecentered approaches in order to gain a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of organizational behavior in a cross-cultural context. Acknowledging the cross-level nature of phenomena that has been overlooked by many researchers presents an opportunity for significant progress in crossnational organizational behavior research. To broaden the conceptualization and operationalization of culture, it is essential to take into account the interplay and interaction between different levels of culture and institutional fields. Another potential area of research is to include national differences beyond culture and adopt a polycontextual approach (Shapiro et al., 2007). The argument is that nations differ in many aspects beyond cultural values, and it is challenging to interpret the results from studies that use the nation as a proxy without directly measuring culture. By incorporating multiple contexts, a holistic and valid understanding of any phenomenon can be achieved. The suggested national contexts that may be relevant in analyzing organizational behavior in different nations are physical, historical, political, economic, social, and cultural. These contexts lay the foundation for different ways of knowing available to people in that nation. The ways of knowing, in turn, determine the meaning of work or organizations. To illustrate this, employees in different nations have different implicit leadership theories or different leadership prototypes, and they have different mental images or metaphors of teamwork (Brodbeck et al., 2000). Therefore, cross-national studies of organizational behavior need to expand beyond using culture as a meaningful differentiator and include other national variables for building theories on crossnational differences in organizational behavior (Tsui et al., 2007). In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of cross-national organizational behavior, it is recommended that future research explore the interrelationships between various dimensions and identify patterns that may characterize specific nations or groups of nations. Past studies, such as Ronen and Shenkar’s (1985) analysis of eight empirical studies that clustered countries based on employee work attitude similarities, serve as examples of such approaches. Hofstede’s (1980) framework also highlights the identification of countries with similar cultural value profiles, which has not been extensively pursued in subsequent empirical research. Adopting foundational recommendations, such as avoiding the concept of nation as a proxy for culture and ensuring construct equivalence, can significantly contribute to the field’s progress. Cultural research in cross-cultural studies could explore values that complement Hofstede’s national culture dimensions as well as cultural

32  Senem Yazici values that are unique to specific regions or countries (Kirkman, 2006). Additionally, it could investigate individual attributes that have a closer relationship with employee behavior than cultural values, such as cognitive processes. It is important to identify these factors in order to improve the understanding of cultural differences and their impact on organizational behavior. By going beyond Hofstede’s framework and adopting a new paradigm, researchers may discover novel insights that could lead to breakthroughs in cross-cultural research. In Hofstede’s own words, “crossing into neighboring disciplines can be very productive” (Hofstede & Fink, 2007: 17). In order to enrich cross-cultural research, the integration of multiple scientific directions is crucial as it holds the potential to generate valuable insights and facilitate a deeper understanding of the subject matter in upcoming studies. To attain a comprehensive and informed understanding of cross-cultural phenomena in future research endeavors, an interdisciplinary, dynamic, and holistic approach is recommended. The proliferation of culture dimensions and associated measures does not necessarily contribute to our understanding of culture. Instead, consolidating cultural values and creating configuration models can enhance conceptual clarity and advance research. Both theory and empirical research should compare the predictive validity of the dimensional and configurational approaches to understanding cultural effects. This approach places a great emphasis on collaboration and communication between different disciplines, requiring the integration of diverse perspectives and methodologies to gain a thorough comprehension of culture. It recognizes the interconnectedness of various cultural elements and seeks to comprehend culture as a complex and dynamic system. Moreover, this approach acknowledges that cultures are continuously evolving and changing over time and thus aims to investigate the factors that contribute to these changes. Although cross-cultural research is a relatively young field, a variety of approaches, models, and concepts have been developed from different perspectives of scientific disciplines aiming at explaining culture and its impact on, as well as relevance for, organizations. While there are linkages between single scientific disciplines (e.g., Allaire & Firsirotu, 1984; Schein, 1985; Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006; Cameron & Quinn, 2006), the connections are unspecified (Yolles & Fink, 2021; Yazici, 2015). However, this plethora of cultural frameworks, sometimes tied to specific contexts or phenomena, “perpetuates the lack of a paradigm and is a hindrance to accumulation of knowledge” (Tsui et al., 2007: 461) and what individual attributes (e.g., cognitions) might be more proximate to employee’s feelings or behaviors than cultural values (Leung & Bond, 2004; Kirkman et al., 2006). Prospective scholars have the potential to generate innovative insights concerning the impact of national culture on the conduct of individuals and teams in organizational contexts through the formulation of theoretical frameworks that emphasize the configurational nature of the cultural construct. Future research could revisit the earlier findings on the relationships between cultural values and organizational/societal phenomena using the more precise tools provided by meta-analytical cultural scores (Taras et al. 2012). Ensuring construct validity is critical in cross-cultural research, and translation alone is not enough to achieve it (Tsui et  al., 2007). The authors propose three

In memory of Geert Hofstede  33 approaches, including adaptation, decontextualization, and contextualization to ensure construct validity. They also caution against the use of a reduced set of common items, known as the “pseudo-etic” approach, which may be detrimental to the construct validity of the measure. Instead, they suggest using a combined etic–emic approach that includes both common and culture-specific items to improve construct equivalence across samples. The authors recommend identifying emic indicators and performing statistical tests to ensure measurement equivalence, rather than relying solely on translation and back-translation procedures. Concluding remarks Hofstede’s life’s achievements have been a major contribution to cross-cultural research. Hofstede provided the first systematic holistic research which challenged the existing theories in Social Sciences and questioned the accepted wisdom of universality in cross-cultural management research. Geert Hofstede’s pioneering work in the field of cross-cultural management has been widely recognized for its profound impact on our understanding of how culture shapes behavior and attitudes in organizations. His research has been influential in shaping the field of cross-cultural management, and his contributions to the study of culture and its impact on organizational behavior have been invaluable. Hofstede’s work emphasized the importance of cultural diversity within organizations and provided practical guidelines for navigating this complexity at different levels, from the individual to the national. He also highlighted the role of culture in shaping behavior and attitudes in organizations and emphasized the need for managers to be aware of these differences in order to effectively manage and lead diverse teams. In addition to his scholarly contributions, Hofstede has also been recognized for his significant impact on the business world. The Wall Street Journal named him one of the 20 most influential business thinkers of the 20th century, and he received numerous honorary doctoral degrees and awards for his contributions to the field of cross-cultural management. Overall, Geert Hofstede’s lifelong dedication to understanding the complex interplay between culture and organizational behavior has been an inspiration to many in the field of management and beyond. His legacy will continue to shape our understanding of how cultural diversity impacts organizations and guide us in developing practical solutions for managing this complexity in the future. In this way, we will conserve the advantages of the “cultural” look for posterity and avoid the situation where “cross-cultural management” fades away as a wornout fad like so many before by taking an evolutionary perspective. Acknowledgements The author thanks Prof. Gert Jan Hofstede for the wonderful interview, and Prof. Gerhard Fink and IACCM Council Members in the Hofstede Group and ­Brigitte Opel (Hofstede Insights) for their helpful suggestions and comments.

34  Senem Yazici References Allaire, Y.,  & Firsirotu, M. E. (1984). Theories of Organizational Culture. Organization Studies, (3): 193–226. Baskerville, R. F. (2003). Hofstede Never Studied Culture. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28: 1–14. Beugelsdijk, S., Maseland, R., & van Hoorn, A. (2015). Are Hofstede’s Culture Scores Stable Over Time? Global Strategy Journal, 5: 223–240. Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., Akerblom, S., Audia, G., Bakacsi, G., Bendova, H., Bodega, D., Bodur, M., Booth, S., Brenk, K., Castel, P., Den Hartog, D., Donnelly-Cox, G., Gratchev, M. V., Holmberg, I., Jarmuz, S., Jesuino, J. C., Jorbenadse, R., Kabasakal, H. E., Keating, M., Kipiani, G., Konrad, E., Koopman, P., Kurc, A., Leeds, C., Lindell, M., Maczynski, J., Martin, G. S., O’Connell, J., Papalexandris, A., Papalexandris, N., Prieto, J. M., Rakitski, B., Reber, G., Sabadin, A., Schramm-Nielsen, J., Schultz, M., Sigfrids, C., Szabo, E., Thierry, H., Vondrysova, M., Weibler, J., Wilderom, C., Witkowski, S., & Wunderer, R. (2000). Cultural Variation of Leadership Prototypes Across 22 European Countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73: 1–29. Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Chinese Culture Connection. (1987). Chinese Values and the Search for Culture-Free Dimensions of Culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18(2): 143–164. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal Personality Assessment in Clinical Practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1): 5–13. De Mooij, M. K. (2001). Convergence and Divergence in Consumer Behavior: Consequences for Global Marketing and Advertising. Doctoral dissertation, Pamplona, Spain: Universidad de Navarra. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. Reading: Addison Wesley Publishing Company. Fink, G., & Mayrhofer, W. (2009). Cross-Cultural Competence and Management: Setting the Stage. European Journal of Cross-Cultural Competence and Management, 1(1): 42–65. Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006). Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hofstede, G. (1967). The Crame of Budget Control. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum and (1968) London: Tavistock. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations – Software of the Mind. London et al.: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. (1994). The Business of International Business is Culture. International Business Review, 3(1): 1–14. Hofstede, G. (1995). Multilevel Research of Human Systems: Flowers, Bouquets and Gardens. Human Systems Management, 14: 207–217. Hofstede, G. (1998). Identifying Organizational Subcultures: An Empirical Approach. Journal of Management Studies, 35(1): 1–12. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. (2002). Dimensions Do Not Exist: A Reply to Brendan McSweeney. Human Relations, 55(11): 1355–1361. Hofstede, G. (2003). What is Culture? A Reply to Baskerville. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(7): 811–813.

In memory of Geert Hofstede  35 Hofstede, G. (2007). A European in Asia. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 10(1): 16–21. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1): 1–26. Hofstede, G. (2022). An Engineer’s Odyssey (Exhibition). https://exhibition.geertHofstede.com/ Hofstede, G., & Bartelds, V. (2010, June 2). Wonderful Interview of Geert Hofstede. Youtube. www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLQxU8BbGCY. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots to Economic Growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4): 5–21. Hofstede, G., Bond, M. H., & Luk, C. L. (1993). Individual Perceptions of Organizational Cultures: A Methodological Treatise on Levels of Analysis. Organizational Studies, 14: 483–503. Hofstede, G., & Fink, G. (2007). Culture: Organisations, Personalities and Nations. Gerhard Fink Interviews Geert Hofstede. European Journal of International Management, 1(1–2): 14–22. Hofstede, G., & Hodgetts, R. (1993). A Conversation with Geert Hofstede. Organizational Dynamics, 21(4): 53–61. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G.-J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G.-J. (2011, October 10). Geert Hofstede on Culture. YouTube. www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdh40kgyYOY. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.-J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G., & Hoppe, M. H. (2004). An Interview with Geert Hofstede. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1): 75–79. Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and Culture Revisited: Linking Traits and Dimensions of Culture. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 38(1): 52–88. Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring Organizational Cultures: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study Across Twenty Cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2): 286–316. Hofstede, G., & Schmidt, P. (2010, September). Geert Hofstede A Pioneer – Continued. SIETAR EUROPA  – Newsletter. www.sietareu.org/wp-content/uploads/SEU_Journal_201009-Sept.pdf. Hofstede, G.-J., & Yazici, S. (2022, June 10). Personal communication. Hoppe, M. (1990). A Comparative Study of Country Elites: International Differences in Work-Related Values and Learning and Their Implications for Management Training and Development. PhD Thesis, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. (2000). Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values. American Sociological Review, 65(1): 19–51. Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. J. (1969). National Character: The Study of Modal Personality and Sociocultural Systems. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. [Original work published 1954]. Jones, G. R. (1983). Transaction Costs, Property Rights, and Organizational Culture: An Exchange Perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3): 454–467.

36  Senem Yazici Kaasa, A., Vadi, M., & Varblane, U. (2014). Regional Cultural Differences Within European Countries: Evidence from Multi-Country Surveys. Management International Review, 54(6): 825–852. Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & 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, 37(3): 285–320. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2004). Social Axioms: A Model for Social Beliefs in Multicultural Perspective. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36: 119–197. McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and Their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith – A Failure of Analysis. Human Relations, 55(1): 89–118. McSweeney, B. (2009). Dynamic Diversity: Variety and Variation Within Countries. Organization Studies, 30: 933–957. Merritt, A. (2000). Culture in the Cockpit: Do Hofstede’s Dimensions Replicate? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(3): 283–301. Minkov, M. (2007). What Makes Us Different and Similar: A  New Interpretation of the World Values Survey and Other Cross-Cultural Data. Sofia, Bulgaria: Klasika i Stil. Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2012). Hofstede’s Fifth Dimension: New Evidence from the World Values Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(1): 3–14. Mouritzen, P. E., & Svara, J. H. (2002). Leadership at the Apex: Politicians and Administrators in Western Local Governments. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. North, D. C. (1992). Institutions, Ideology, and Economic Performance. Cato Journal, 11(3): 477–489. Ouchi, W. (1981). Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge. Reading, Menlo Park, London, Amsterdam, Don Mills, Sydney: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Pascale, R. T., & Athos, A. G. (1981). The Art of Japanese Management, Applications for American Executives. New York: Simon and Schuster. Peters, T. J., & Watermann, R. H. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America´s Best-Run Companies. New York: Harper Collins Publisher Inc. Peterson, M. F. (2007). The Heritage of Cross-Cultural Management Research Implications for the Hofstede Chair in Cultural Diversity. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 7(3): 359–377. Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On Studying Organizational Cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4): 570–581. Reynolds, P. D. (1986). Organizational Culture as Related to Industry, Position, and Performance: A Preliminary Report. Journal of Management Studies, 23: 333–345. Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological Correlations and the Behavior of Individuals. American Sociological Review, 15: 351–357. Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering Countries on Attitudinal Dimensions: A Review and Synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10(3): 435–454. Sackmann, S. A. (1992). Culture and Subcultures: An Analysis of Organizational Knowledge. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1): 140–161. Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Cultural Values in Organisations: Insights for Europe. European Journal International Management, 1(3): 176–190. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. A Dynamic View. San Francisco et al.: Jossey-Bass.

In memory of Geert Hofstede  37 Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Cultural Dimensions of Values: Towards an Understanding of National Differences. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theoretical and Methodological Issues: 85–119. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Selznick, P. (1949). The TVA and the Grass Roots: A  Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization. Berkeley: University of California Press. Shane, S. A. (1995). Uncertainty Avoidance and the Preference for Innovation Championing Roles. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(1): 47–68. Shapiro, D. L., Von Glinow, M. A., & Xiao, Z. (2007). Toward Polycontextually Sensitive Research Methods. Management and Organization Review, 3(1): 129–152. Shenkar, O. (2001). Cultural Distance Revisited: Towards a More Rigorous Conceptualization and Measurement of Cultural Differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3): 519–535. Siegmund, M.,  & Smit, I. (2015). An Engineer’s Odyssey, the Life and Work of Geert Hofstede. Siegmund Audiovisuele Produkties. http://siegmundaudiovisueel.nl/work/ an-engineers-odyssey/. Sivakumar, K., & Nakata, C. (2001). The Stampede Toward Hofstede’s Framework: Avoiding the Sample Design Pit in Cross-Cultural Research. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3): 555–574. Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. L. (2012). Improving National Cultural Indices Using a Longitudinal Meta-Analysis of Hofstede’s Dimensions. Journal of World Business, 47(3): 329–341. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & Collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press. Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business. Chicago, IL: Irwin Professional Publishing. Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A. Y. (2007). Cross-National, Cross-Cultural Organizational Behavior Research: Advances, Gaps, and Recommendations. Journal of Management, 33(3): 426–478. Tung, R. L., & Verbeke, A. (2010). Beyond Hofstede and GLOBE: Improving the Quality of Cross-Cultural Research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8): 1259–1274. Van de Vijver, F., & Tanzer, K. N. (2004). Bias and Equivalence in Cross-Cultural Assessment: An Overview. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée, 54(2): 119–135. Van Nimwegen, T. (2002). Global Banking, Global Values: The In-House Reception of the Corporate Values of ABN AMRO. Doctoral dissertation, Delft, Eburon: Nyenrode University. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. New York: Free Press. Yazici, S. (2015). Organisationskultur und Ziele in einer deutschen staatlichen Hochschule. Doctoral thesis, Austria, Vienna: Vienna University of Economics and Business, Department Management, WU Vienna. Yolles, M.,  & Fink, G. (2021). A Configuration Approach to Mindset Agency Theory: A Formative Trait Psychology with Affect, Cognition and Behaviour. New York: Cambridge University Press.

2 Organizational culture – personality traits and Hofstede Christiane Erten and Atila Karabag

In line with our objective to provide new insights into Geert Hofstede as a private individual as well as to highlight parts of his research that have received less attention from the public, we also aim to incorporate excerpts from an interview conducted by phone on 2 October 2006, with Gerhard Fink talking to Geert Hofstede himself (Fink, 2007). This interview primarily delves into his contributions in the realm of organizational culture and his collaboration with McCrae in the less well-known field of personality traits. It sheds light on Hofstede’s passion and his keen desire to understand people and reflects his curiosity in exploring related disciplines. Hofstede’s impact on global businesses navigating the intricacies of the international marketplace has been substantial. Therefore, multinational organizations as well began incorporating his cultural insights into their strategies for managing cross-cultural teams, negotiating with foreign partners, and tailoring their products and services to diverse markets. The appeal of his success lay in the simplicity of his model, which was easily comprehensible and applicable, especially for business professionals who lacked the time or intellectual inclination for deep dives into theoretical foundations. However, this simplicity also drew criticism. Simultaneously, his contributions in the field of organizational culture, which cannot be neatly encapsulated within a few dimensions, did not achieve the same level of popularity. Hofstede aimed to demonstrate how his cultural dimensions manifested within specific companies and institutions. Nevertheless, as we present our book also to a community of researchers, it is even more crucial for us to incorporate this aspect and foster discussion about it. In the following paragraphs, we strive to retain as many of Hofstede’s personal statements as possible to ensure the utmost authenticity. Hofstede: My thinking about corporate, or rather organizational, cultures is influenced by a research project at my institute in the 1980s (Hofstede et al., 1990) across 20 different organization units, half of them in Denmark, half of them in Holland. We started right from scratch. We interviewed a number of people in these units at all levels, from the head, the director, to the doorman and to the Labor Union representative and so on. Based on that, we made a questionnaire, which we administered to a sample of people in all those 20 units. We also included the questions I had used earlier in my research on national cultures. DOI: 10.4324/9781003410348-4

Organizational culture – personality traits and Hofstede  39 The conclusion was that the differences between organizations did not follow the same dimensions as differences in national cultures. Organizational cultures are a different phenomenon from national cultures. National cultures belong to anthropology, organizational cultures to sociology. Organizational cultures are rooted in practices and national cultures are rooted in values. Organizational cultures are learned when we are adults, and national cultures were learned when we were small children. Most are at the level of very basic values, which we acquired before puberty. Physiologically, human beings, at puberty, switch from one learning mode to another learning mode. As small children, we are able to acquire an enormous amount of implicit diffuse information, everything we need to function as human beings. At puberty, our way of learning becomes more conscious, based on explicit knowledge, but we continue to carry the programs we acquired as children. While national cultures were acquired at the pre-puberty level, organizational cultures are obviously at the post-puberty level, because we acquire them when we enter the organization. Our project found six mutually independent dimensions of organizational cultures (Hofstede et  al., 1990). All six were, to some extent, already described in organizational sociology or in the management literature. The differences among the organizational units on my five national culture dimensions were small. They reflected the fact that some of the units were in Denmark and some in Holland, but the national cultures of these two countries are fairly similar. Fink: Does the lack of knowledge of this distinction contribute to some confusion in the context of group cultures or in-group collectivism with respect to your collectivism/ individualism dimension? Hofstede: That confusion is partly due to a lack of interdisciplinary orientation. We all come from our own discipline, and we tend to see only our side of the social world. When you study cultures you have to be open to relevant information from various disciplines, from anthropology, from sociology, from social psychology, and even from individual psychology and from economics. All those disciplines play some role and without being an expert on all of them, one should at least be prepared to listen to what the experts from the other side say. Fink: You have written many times that national cultures are not easily changeable. In contrast to that, there is a good chance that the culture of an organization could be changed, because it is learned in a different way. Hofstede: Organizational cultures are less deeply rooted, and because of that we can acquire a new culture when we move from one organization to another. Cultures of existing organizations can be changed too, but that is often taken too lightly. It takes great effort, lots of management attention, time, and money. Fink: To say it in my own words, if foreign firms want to impose new corporate cultures on local subsidiaries abroad would they have to consider that it takes time and needs particular explicit and tacit information until their corporate culture will be adopted? Hofstede: Right, it is difficult to impose one’s corporate culture when moving to a different place. The easiest way is by starting a “greenfield site”, building up

40  Christiane Erten and Atila Karabag one’s own subsidiary in the other country from scratch. In this case you select the people you think will fit into your organization. Right from the start, they will get accustomed to act in the corporate cultural way. This is the way IBM did it at the time. . .. IBM had almost exclusively grown by “greenfield investment”. Everybody who worked there had been an IBMer from the moment he or she joined that branch of the company. And, they had learned things in the IBM way. Nevertheless, they held their national values, as I discovered comparing survey data from different national subsidiaries. Sometimes these fitted more easily with the Head Office national values than at other times. All international firms I know a bit more about have their favorite nations. They have countries where they feel more at home than elsewhere. That might pose some constraints to global expansion of firms. Fink: Apparently, two kinds of tensions persist. One of the tensions could be that a corporate culture does not have a good fit with the national culture into which it is transferred and the other, that individuals, who are hired by these firms, may carry different personality characteristics. Discussing individuals and the societies, please share your views with us about your impressive study you undertook with Robert R. McCrae (Hofstede and McCrae, 2004). Hofstede: One day I received an e-mail from McCrae. I knew and admired his work on the Big Five personality test, but I had never met him personally. McCrae wrote, “I now got data on my test on the NEO-PI-R (Costa and McCrae, 1992) 3 from some 30 odd countries. If we transfer these into standard samples (taking the same kind of people in each country), then we have a certain amount of variance left. I initially believed that would be random, but it correlates quite significantly with your culture dimensions”. Then I  said “That’s interesting, could you send me the data so I can do my own calculations?” I got exactly the same results and proposed to him to write a joint paper about it. In the paper we offer two opposing conclusions. We show the correlations we found and then we interpret them in two ways: causality going from personality to culture or from culture to personality test scores. Actually, McCrae, who is a psychologist, takes the first position and I, the culture student, take the opposite position, and we offer both interpretations to the judgement of the reader. We think this is a very useful exercise, for students both on the individual psychological side (which is McCrae’s) and on the culture side (which is mine). And you see, what at least is clear is that inside every nation we have a distribution of personalities. Imagine them to be distributed along a bell curve. The top of the bell curve is not at the same place from one country to another. A small but significant part of the variance relates to national culture, and this produces the correlations with my dimensions. Fink: The unresolved issue of causality from national culture to personality or vice versa shows that it is not only corporations that are bound by culture. Scholars, too, are bound by their professional cultures. Hofstede: Yes, and crossing into neighboring disciplines can be very productive. One example is a piece of research that emerged as a follow-up of our study into organizational cultures. I gave the data from that project to my colleague, Michael Bond (Hofstede et  al., 1993) in Hong Kong who was interested in personality

Organizational culture – personality traits and Hofstede  41 differences inside organizations. Bond and his Research Assistant Chung-Leung Luk split the variance in the answers that people gave to those organizational culture questions into variance between and variance within organizational units. The variance between organizational units was what I had been looking at so far, and it led to the six dimensions mentioned earlier. Bond and Luk looked at the variance across individual respondents within organizational units. After standardizing the data, they could add them up across all 20 units. A factor analysis of their matrix produced six dimensions of individual variance, of which five correspond to the Big Five of McCrae. It takes a little bit of interpretation, because the dimensions were not formulated exactly the same way, but they are clearly describing the same things as the McCrae Big Five. A continuation of this line of research will be published shortly in an article from my hand in the Asian Journal of Social Psychology (Hofstede, 2007). It argues that if we want to use the “Big Five” worldwide it should actually become a “Big Six”. Based on follow-up studies of McCrae’s work in countries of East Asia and on Bond’s analyses, and looking at other European data as well, I suggest the inclusion of a sixth personality dimension, called “dependence on others”. Summarizing the preceding discussion, we can assert that Hofstede’s somehow neglected contributions in the field of organizational culture and personality traits introduced a structured and systematic approach for comprehending cultural dynamics within companies. His development of the Organizational Culture Model not only promoted improved internal coherence and alignment with strategic goals but also bolstered organizations’ capacity to confront the complexities of operating in a globalized world where cultural diversity is the standard, and understanding personalities is a key factor to understand each other better. References Costa Jr., P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1992) Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI), Professional Manual, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL. Fink, G. (2007) ‘Culture: Organizations, Personalities, Nations. Gerhard Fink Interviews Geert Hofstede’, European Journal of International Management, Vol. 1, pp. 14–21. Hofstede, G., et al. (1990) ‘Measuring Organizational Cultures: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study Across Twenty Cases’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 286–316. Hofstede, G. (2007) ‘A European in Asia’, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 10, pp. 16–21. Hofstede, G., Bond, M.H. and Luk, C.L. (1993) ‘Individual Perceptions of Organizational Cultures: A Methodological Treatise on Levels of Analysis’, Organization Studies, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 483–503. Hofstede, G. and McCrae, R.R. (2004) ‘Culture and Personality Revisited: Linking Traits and Dimensions of Culture’, Cross-Cultural Research, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 52–88. Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D.D. and Sanders, G. (1990) ‘Measuring Organizational Cultures: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study Across Twenty Cases’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 286–316.

Part 2

Hofstede’s rise and fall in context

3 Cultural relativity The case of Hofstede Sławomir J. Magala

The world at large and the social worlds of most societies in it are affected by global (as distinct from nationalizing) forces that can be called “multicultural” in the sense that peoples of different and often incommensurable cultural affinities live in sufficiently real – or, at least, televisual – proximity to each other as to be well aware of each other, and their differences – often to the point of open civil, or, even armed, conflict. (Lemert, 2003, 298) Over the past 25 years, a strong case had been made by Anna Wierzbicka that a small number of universal concepts are found as lexical items in all languages (Wierzbicka, 1972, 1992). Wierzbicka argued that these words are conceptual primes or primitives that form the basic units from which all other concepts are constructed. Wierzbicka’s goal is to construct a simple, clear, universal semantic metalanguage, a language made up of the ordinary little words that everyone knows. . . . Wierzbicka’s universal terms are analogous to the atoms of the physical world. . . . Of the enormous number of combinations of these terms that make up the sentences that correspond to the possible ideas/meanings/knowledge/understandings of a person, some are cultural – that is are intersubjectively shared by collectives within a society. Just as more than a hundred kinds of atoms can combine into more than 20 million kinds of molecules, so the 50 or more universal concepts can combine into hundreds of thousands of ideas. This puts the anthropologist who knows and is able to use the Natural Semantic Metalanguage in the same position as the chemist who knows about atoms. (D’Andrade, 2001, 246, 248) Anti-abstract The 20th century opened with the launching of the theory, which gradually acquired the popular name of the special theory of relativity, to be followed by a general theory of relativity. Both theories are abstract, mathematically expressed attempts to deal with the post-Newtonian and post-Maxwellian world in which researchers pursue quantum mechanics and other increasingly abstract and relativistic DOI: 10.4324/9781003410348-6

46  Sławomir J. Magala reconstructions of our understanding of the physical world. The term “abstract” as in an “abstract of a full academic presentation” refers to a very brief summary of a longer text, a summary which makes use of abstract concepts to relate to the core of reasoning conveyed by an author. This abstract as an abbreviated and generalized summary usually precedes the main body of a more concrete, empirically based presentation. The idea of this abstract as a preceding summary includes a tacit assumption. Writing an abstract, one believes that it is possible to distill the perfect core of the relations and links between elements of abstracted presentation and to render this “core” in a very general, abstract, limited number of terms. This assumption is – at the very least – questionable. The Hofstede episode in the social sciences of management and quality (1980– 2020) points to the necessity of investigating the question of the desirable level of abstraction. Hofstede’s contribution to the sciences of management and quality is currently being investigated from some of the available methodological points of view. Dimensions and models and typologies and classifications are relevant for empirical researchers, who need guidance in identifying, measuring, and comparing artifacts and behavior, which represent culture in their trained eyes. Researchers seek to distinguish between cultural influences on cognitive and material decisions and actions from noncultural determinants and environmental coincidences. While the academic discussions in the managerial sciences tend to shy away from the study of culture’s consequences, Hofstede’s model of cultural dimensions is still popular among business consultants, who need a cultural map of the world to do business and influence people. Their need is satisfied even with a rough map, which is still preferable to none at all. Globally active consultants have to assume that cultural values are not entirely lost in translation from one culture to another (cf. Wierzbicka, 2014). But not being lost in translation is not enough to explain the influence of cultural values on individual or collective actions. At most, it allows practitioners and researchers to identify desirable universals. Most people dealing with cross-cultural differences feel what researchers formulate more clearly: they want to know if we can rely on our core values to explain how political decisions are made and to predict the actions of consumers or investors, of elected politicians, and of the voters who had them elected. Political beliefs, religious faith, advertising myths, and ideological dreams are never far from the ingredients, which the flow of interactions, the course of events mixes with the cultural “universals” in different proportions. Reality, measured in Ceuta or Suwałki, Las Vegas or Pyongyang, looms large on the research horizon. We cannot ignore the emergent political and economic consequences of world migrations (either spontaneous or engineered, either enhanced or slowed-down). The latest border-crossings are immediately reported in a global village full of networked, individualized, digital tam-tams. Realities check us as much as we check them. Reality – represented by quarreling parties of experts and parties of competing politicians who shape our perceptions of reality – “checks” the multicultural, cross-cultural, and intercultural understanding of differences in individual world views. Reality checks accumulate into evaluations of successes and failures of collective policies and individual decisions. Evaluations of both conflicts and of cooperations and of collisions and

Cultural relativity  47 of collaborations are compared and mediated, their relative values assessed. Will the hard core of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions survive the breakdown of globalization, which was expected to be smoothed, legitimized, and facilitated by “multi-culti” visions and policies? Will a more sober and robust Hofstede/Minkov approach salvage the surviving two cultural dimensions? Will it throw a new light on the relativity of cultural environments taken for granted before they were examined in the light of what we knew? Will the Natural Semantic Metalanguage offer insights for the successor of English as a global metalanguage by default? Will it open up alternatives to the universal logical grid as a cognitive weapon of choice for investigating a brain in an idealized vat? Abstract grids and concrete socialization “This, I  submit, is the freedom of real education, of learning how to be welladjusted. You get to consciously decide what has meaning and what doesn’t” (­Wallace, 2009, 95). How do we learn to be well-adjusted? How do we socialize into acceptable patterns of behaviors? We learn how to avoid threats and extremes and how to maintain the mainstream balance when experiencing different events we become aware of. We plan our movement through space and time, and we cultivate or limit relations which are available in many directions and which can be interpreted in many dimensions. We are making choices and evaluating earlier ones or ones yet to be made – while making, following, and changing our way through the world. “Dimensions” of culture have been introduced by Hofstede as a theater stage metaphor for modeling meaningful actions in space. Dimensions (collective – individual, masculine – feminine, large power distance – small power distance, uncertainty avoidance – accepted risk and assumption of responsibility) are tacitly expected to form a universal grid. A grid of cultural dimensions can be imposed on any community’s members’ acts in order to explain why some actions are undertaken and why they make sense to the actor and to others – both participants and observers. Dimensions are consulted when we compare “meaningful” artifacts which can be found somewhere − anywhere. When dimensions are imposed, the scores of the natives can be measured and recorded on universally comparable, hence presumably valid, scales. Comparing these records is supposed to guide outsiders in the ways natives think, thus providing the first insight into the unknown culture, the first map of the new cultural space, the first outline of the unknown territory. This is the fastest way to make a start in investigating a culture from the “outside” and from the abstract “above”. Sometimes, the application of the grid is considered a desirable introduction to the unknown cultural backgrounds, before a researcher decides to go native and before a researcher turns empirical and experiential, that is, before he or she begins living with others. Going native is supposed to further facilitate trying to decipher the “strange”, “foreign”, “exotic” cultural codes “from the inside” by “being there”. Geert Hofstede worked for the globally active US business corporation – IBM, which went native in the limited sense of opening production and assembly plants

48  Sławomir J. Magala in distant locations (trying to suit local employees a little, within reasonable limits decided by men, not yet women, of the corporation). Hofstede wanted to investigate this “going native” of IBM, even if from our point of view today, after a much stronger wave of globalization and a series of global crises, this IBM-led brand of “going native” does not seem to us to be much more than a superficial local adjustment, a PR stunt, rather than a long-term policy based on well thought-out premises. However, one should not underestimate the creative talent and courage of a young engineer dreaming of doing a PhD in social psychology – Geert Hofstede as a young employee of IBM. He did not work in the same social, political, economic, and cultural environment in which he had grown up, and when he entered the white collar job market, the job market started to evolve – rendering some of his certainties less universal and more relative. If we look at the photographs of the young engineer Geert Hofstede, we see a slightly parochial Dutch middle-class professional, shortly before the shocks of the youth rebellion in the 1960s arrived and washed away the cornerstones of a bourgeois stability in lifestyle and socialization patterns. When Hofstede as a young university graduate decided to take a look at cultural determinants of organizational behaviors as a social psychologist, a younger generation, composed of individuals 10–15 years younger than him, went further. They started breaking out of the patterns of socialization which had been followed after World War II. They declared countercultural turning on (music, hair length, attitudes toward religion and sex), tuning in (occupying university offices of deans and rectors, camping in illegally occupied empty flats, protesting the political choices of the power elites and demanding a broadening of available political choices), or even dropping out altogether. Hofstede had studied cross-cultural differences when student rebellion, political unrest, pop music, and youth counterculture had already started exploding in many localities and institutions (including universities), not only in Berkeley but also in Amsterdam, and not only in Paris but also in Utrecht. The echoes of this explosion reached social sciences but gradually, slowly, and in a roundabout way. The Burawoys did not replace the Smelsers overnight on top of the academic hierarchies, nor did the Beckers immediately replace the Parsonses. C. Wright Mills might have parked his Harley-Davidson motorcycle next to his lecture hall rostrum – but his studies of the power elite had not been the mainstream of academic sociology in the United States. In order for a shift toward “the left” to occur, a few generations were needed. In order for this shift, which swung the pendulum of fellow teachers to the left, to occur, historical processes had to reshape the body (and the mind) of public opinion. When they did, the bold concept of Hofstede’s dimensions of culture rapidly became too modest, too conservative, and too obsolete. The outburst of the student protest demonstrated by an occupation of the dean’s offices was not immediately followed by institutional reforms of the academia, and no revolutionary changes in educational programing or uses of university were immediately forthcoming. Likewise, nobody was keen to immediately replace Popper with Kuhn in a PhD course curriculum. Popper was not immediately forgotten, not even when their debate on “criticism and the growth of knowledge” was published at the beginning of the 1970s. Nevertheless – surprisingly – fairly

Cultural relativity  49 shortly afterwards, Popper fell in number of citations, while Kuhn rose steadily. Karl Popper represented the London School of Economics, where he taught after his post-WWII return from New Zealand. Thomas Kuhn worked at Harvard University (where he had arrived in spite of his peers’ resistance, pushed by the architects of the Cold War intellectual arms race), which illustrates the shift of attention of globally distributed academics and of the relative status of British (declining) and US American (rising) universities. The declining party is represented by LSE (a younger, more leftish sister to Oxford and Cambridge) on the one hand, and the rising party, on the other hand, is represented by Harvard (accompanied by Chicago, Princeton, and Stanford). By the way, Kuhn would not have been accepted by the other members of Harvard professorial body, and so he would not have undermined Popper – had it not been for the president of Harvard, the Cold War warrior James Connant, who insisted on employing the future author of “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. Ironically, Connant’s ideas on scientific progress were subsequently criticized by his nominee. Nevertheless, when Hofstede was inventing his research program and constructing the model of “dimensions” of the cultural software of our minds, the shifts in ranking and status of methodologies accepted by British or US American academic communities were not yet evident (in spite of the fact that Chicago economists started getting Nobel prizes, and Keynes was quietly disregarded). From the vantage point of mainstream social sciences, however, the established authority and the tacitly accepted rankings of academic institutions were not immediately compromised by the trans-Atlantic shift in rankings. Voluntary negotiation with the rebellious students instead of punitive expeditions (riot police on the campuses) was preferred to the arbitrary exercise of power. In most cases (although not all – the Kent state university shootings being the case in point), a belief in progress and academic liberties made the academic powers to be more moderate. Eventually and gradually, university-level education expanded, and the establishment gave up some of the more authoritarian controls of the socialization processes of the younger generations. Students may have had their dream of the immediate handing over of “power” to “imagination”, but the authorities still had the entrance exams, riot police and media control, PhD scholarships and tenure committees, and, last not least, a competitive job market. The university administrators had “deep pockets” for research grants, and “deep states” had a broad range of repressive measures for the political control of social activities of students (though the latter measures and the repressive machinery of state started to show fatigue, as the war in Vietnam continued and protests became more difficult to contain). Two aspects of the student unrest in the last 1960s and early 1970s were not immediately acknowledged by the leaders and influencers of public opinion. The first was the fact that students on the communist side of the Iron Curtain, for instance, the Polish or Czech ones, turned out to be as anti-establishment as their Western counterparts. The second was that the emergence of a counterculture was not only an immediate response to the established authorities’ exercising power over socialization, education, and working lives but also a ticking time bomb, which exploded much more powerfully due to the gradually increasing density of media facilitating communications on a global scale. This countercultural thinking

50  Sławomir J. Magala had already been felt from the very beginning, that is, from the second half of the 1960s. The locations and institutions which bore the brunt of the anger of protesting student masses could have been dispersed throughout the global village – but they remained linked to public attention by increasingly sophisticated electronic tam-tams (manned by the “Grateful Dead” as much as by Jimmy Hendrix, by “The Rolling Stones” as much as by Janis Joplin). Did the songs of The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Doors, or The Grateful Dead matter more than their grandparents’ tales, the educational tracks, and the other transmission belts of sacred traditions? At some point, the rock and pop and counterculture, the rappers and the disc jockeys, the guru-celebrities, the influencers, and trendsetters certainly reached more individuals and certainly enjoyed more numerous audiences than ever before. In a sense, these new messages and the evolving new media infrastructures started isolating younger generations from patterns of traditional socialization (the faint echoes of this isolation are felt nowadays in complaints that schoolchildren spend too much time in front of the computers, iPads, or mobile phone screens and miss their chance to talk to their parents, their grandparents, even their peers, who are also addicted to the mobile phone or iPad screens). The question “Is nothing sacred?” is answered with a definite “yes”, although the novelists as public intellectuals who announce this answer in the media still point out that their freedom of expression is sacred enough to leave intact their absolute power to determine the world depicted on the pages of their novels (Rushdie, 1990; Shriver, 2022). The opposition of the young cohorts of citizens to cultural policies and censorships of the Cold War were indicators of this shift. Protest activities increased during a hot intervention in Vietnam and Czechoslovakia, followed by hot coups d’etat in Chile and in Afghanistan. Threat of a draft mobilized students to resistance against authority and influenced the political scene in the Western world. After the 1968 student riots on the eastern side of the “Iron Curtain”, the communist politicians resorted to drafting rebellious students and their perceived leaders into the ranks of the people’s army. Subjecting them to a long training schedule supervised by the communist military commissars was also supposed to pacify them and defuse their readiness for a political demonstration (it did not quite succeed: the military cadre found itself unable to capture minds inside uniformed bodies). From the point of global politics, we can already conclude that a comparably intensive protest exploded almost simultaneously about 20 years after World War II on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Social sciences, still ideologically controlled by power elites, prevented academically formed researchers in sociology and political sciences from immediately recognizing the meaning of these “protest” activities. Although the communist political camp on the eastern side of the Iron Curtain collapsed first, while the Western camp appeared for a brief time to enjoy the end of history and to celebrate the neoliberal victory, ultimately the velvet cages of Cold War, west of the Elbe started to show fatigue as well. The younger generation of citizens distrusted politicians in a free world of capital markets and parliamentary democracies, too. Thus, not only in the east of the Elbe did the iron cages of Cold War start to shake. They also shook the west of Elbe. The solemn sermons of Graeber (on the management of debt in history, cf. Graeber,

Cultural relativity  51 2012) or Piketty (on the management of inequality in capital accumulation, cf. Picketty, 2017) in the early 21st century were the belated recognition of this process, signaled earlier by David Noble in a comparative social history of industrial automation (cf. Noble, 1984). From Cold War to cool countercultures Suddenly, with riot police on the campuses in the 1960s, public opinion was reminded that these iron cages of the Iron Curtain of the Cold War had already been shaken earlier in the 1950s. The mass protests happened most significantly in 1953 (east Berlin) and in 1956 (Budapest and Poznan). The process of growing resistance to the communist rule led to further protests in 1968 (Prague and Warsaw) and in 1970 (Gdynia and Gdansk). East Germans were crushed by Russian tanks in 1953. Hungarians were pacified by Russian military intervention in 1956. Czechs were disciplined by the Warsaw Pact military units in 1968. Polish communists were allowed to crush the Poznan protests themselves in 1956, and again they were allowed by the Russians to extinguish student riots in 1968 (a pattern repeated in shooting the shipyard workers in 1970 and in crushing the reluctantly legalized independent trade union “Solidarity” with the imposition of martial law on 13 December 1981). Thus, local communist power elites in nation-states dominated by the Soviet Union’s nomenklatura had been allowed to play a game of relaxing some Cold War constraints, but just some. The Polish citizens even accepted Hungarian refugees from their socialist fatherland, which had been invaded by Russians in 1956 (following a pattern of accepting Greek communist refugees in 1949, after the communists lost the civil war, and anticipating the acceptance of Ukrainian refugees in 2022, after the Russian Federation invaded the Republic of Ukraine). Both the older and the younger generations of citizens distrusted nomenklaturas in the unfree world of the Soviet communist dictatorships, and sometimes (1956 and 1980 in Poland, 1968 in Czechoslovakia, and 1970s in Yugoslavia) they could express their distrust in public. A  pattern of relaxing communist dictatorship was linked to Cold War temperatures: for instance, the Polish “thaw” after a freezing winter of Stalinism was a “bonus” – paid by the communist rulers to the oppressed population after the death of Stalin and after the reshuffling of the power elite in Moscow. The explosion of the young generation’s dissatisfaction with the ruling ideologies on both sides of the “Iron Curtain” in the late 1960s was close in time, but temporal proximity masked vital differences in patterns of thinking and responding of the power elites (and their belief in securing services of “the best and the brightest”). The Polish students of 1968, who organized the anti-government, anti-ruling party demonstrations, were conscious of the fact that they fought communist censorship in theaters and in literature, in visual arts and in music. Their spontaneous recognition of the dimensions of their cultural environment prompted them to action in order to open up the platforms of public communication and to influence less constrained public opinion forming, formatting, and institutionalizing. This nourishing and encouraging public sphere, a relatively under-censored civic platform inside a totalitarian shell, was considered indispensable for a civil

52  Sławomir J. Magala society. In Poland, the rebels of 1968, 1970, and 1976 criticized totalitarian dictatorship and economic slavery. The awareness of this dictatorship increased after a successful anchoring of intellectuals among the masses of state employees with the invention of “Workers’ Defence Committees” (Komitet Obrony Robotnikow – KOR in Polish) by Antoni Macierewicz and Piotr Naimski. A  practical alliance of intellectuals and industrial workers allowed for the mobilization of resistance resources. This alliance brought about a successful mass movement disguised as a trade union and growing as grassroots from a collective imagination of the oppressed. The invention of “Solidarity” could not be undone, and the Warsaw Pact collapsed without NATO’s military response. In the United States, students fought in their velvet cages of class struggle, conveniently relabeled as repressive tolerance by the late representatives of the Frankfurt School, for instance, Herbert Marcuse (who had been associated with an ambiguous term  – “oppressive tolerance”). Today, from the perspective of a warmed-up Cold War, we can ask some questions anew. Was blacklisting the Russian agents really a crime against cultural freedoms? Was granting cultural freedoms really repression in disguise, masking the ruthless power of market forces? Parallel studies of CIA and KGB during the Cold War are still ahead of us, although novelists have already tried to explore this theme – cf. Simon (1987), Mailer (1991), Ondaatje (2018), and Le Carre (2021). In Europe, the French leftists wanted to vote imagination into power when de Gaulle was forced to leave, but they did not succeed: the coming of Mitterrand in France and Thatcher in Britain were cases in point. Their sons (Mitterrand’s and Thatcher’s) tried to continue the elite business as usual. Thus, the son of a Vichy collaborator who became a socialist president, Mitterrand junior, “united” with the son of brave neo-conservative “iron lady” Margaret Thatcher, and both prospered selling arms to the African politicians, mercenaries, and insurgents. On the other hand, they did not do so unpunished: both faced the courts, when found out. So the counterculture of 1968 influenced, but did not change, the major design of the global political stage, not yet. The communistruled Russians could still intervene in Czechoslovakia mobilizing the Warsaw Pact countries to assist them or to send Cuban soldiers to fight in Angola’s civil war, while the US Americans could still intervene in Chile, relying on CIA resources. But in 1981, when Culture’s Consequences appeared in print, the Polish “Solidarity”, the world’s first successful anti-communist mass movement disguised as a trade union, had already started to dismantle the political scaffolding of a communist dictatorship. The appearance of “Solidarność” on the late Cold War scene changed the rules of the cultural game of socialization and political control. Meanwhile, in the preceding decade, the new media ushered in emergent countercultures, including “flower power”. The antiauthoritarian solutions in education and in health care became at least open to a critical discussion. Ken Kesey’s novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1962) and Milos Forman’s film based on it (1975) influenced a debate about mental health care (and about potentially beneficial uses of illegal drugs or social reintegration of the former patients of psychiatric wards). The attempts to look critically at the education industries, symbolized by Lindsay Anderson’s film “If” (1968), looked fresh and inspiring against the background of student protests, although today, in 2022, after numerous cases of

Cultural relativity  53 rebellious individuals opening fire on teachers and fellow students, a more cautious and restrained approach to the legacy of the protest counterculture in educational institutions and in inciting random terrorism of pathological individuals can be observed. “We Need to Talk About Kevin” (a film by Lynne Ramsay, 2011, dealing with random acts of terrorist violence caused by dissociative identity disorder and based on a novel by Lionel Shriver) was clearly conceived in a different ideological climate than One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. The Polish, Yugoslavian, Hungarian, Czech, Bulgarian, and Romanian sociologists followed Pareto (tracing the circulation of elites in communist-controlled societies) and Michels (investigating the co-optation of counter-elites by the established circles of power). They had noticed that media professionals and managerial cadres are fit to serve both capitalist corporations (“greedy exploiters” accumulating capital at the expense of the toiling masses) and communist political bureaus (“power gangs” operating secret service networks to keep citizens of a mono-party state under economic, political, and ideological control). Already at the height of the Cold War – in 1953, the Polish exiled poet, a former communist diplomat, and a future Nobel Prize winner, Czeslaw Milosz, had published “The Captive Mind”, a critical study of the Polish writers, critics, and philosophers who had agreed to serve the new communist masters after World War II, in spite of the overwhelming evidence of the brutality of an imposed communist dictatorship supported by the Russian Red Army troops (Milosz, 1953). The title of a study published in 1978 by Gyorgi Konrad and Ivan Szelenyi – “Intelligentsia on its Way to Class Power” (Konrad and Szelenyi, 1968)  – is representative of this self-reflexive and self-­ critical approach, a quarter of a century and a couple of suppressed rebellions later. The novelist (Konrad) and the sociologist (Szelenyi) thought that no matter what ideology popped up as an imaginary collective celebrity – ultimately every ideology, any ideology, leads to the victory of a reshuffled managerial class claiming the top power positions in a new institutional order reflecting a new political context. In other words, no matter where the upwardly mobile members of the professional classes (managers, experts) can be placed on research grids of cultural dimensions, they will side with the power elites and not with the underdogs. Hofstede was clearly aware of this ambiguity of his own position as a researcher torn between the requirements of the managerial elite (IBM questioned his rights to research data collected when on their payroll) and the interests of the locals and underdogs. Already as a young engineer soon to be employed in a large chemical factory in Delft, he had hired himself for a simple summer job in the department which he was supposed to lead later on. He managed to get a head start with this brilliant reconnaissance of his future subordinates, but he never forgot the uneasiness, even remorse, which he felt remembering their reactions when he appeared one day not as a pauper but as a prince, or an engineer in a managerial position, with the insider knowledge gained through a cloak and dagger trick, through the trust he was able to build when dealing with his future subordinates as if he were one of them. Hofstede thus remained on the establishment’s side but felt the profound ambiguities of his choice and could have imagined himself as a creative rebel (which prevented him from making a smooth career within the Dutch academic environment). The awareness of cultural relativity born of his research might have prompted his unfulfilled

54  Sławomir J. Magala desire to be more rebellious than he turned out to be. Meanwhile, he watched creative rebels breaking down the cultural trenches and censorships of the Cold Wars in order to facilitate the birth of “the cool”, to protect the unexpected, emergent, and indispensable incubators of reflections which enable individuals to detect, identify, access, and assess values (one of his sons became a sophisticated literary translator, and one of his granddaughters – a novelist): Literature is the one place in any society where, within the secrecy of our own heads, we can hear voices talking in every possible way. The reason for ensuring that that privileged arena is preserved is not that the writers want the absolute freedom to say and do whatever they please. It is that we, all of us, readers and writers and citizens and generals and good men, need that little, unimportant-looking room. We do not need to call it sacred, but we do need to remember that it is necessary. (Rushdie, 1990, 16) Relativity and relatively social media Relativity has already been introduced, be it reluctantly, across the social sciences of management and quality in parallel with the formulation of a special theory of relativity by Albert Einstein communicating with his reference group of physicists and mathematicians. The most important contribution to the parallel introduction of the concept of relativity into the philosophy of money and the sociology of interactions was made by Georg Simmel, a marginalized German sociologist, whose ideas were slowly picked up by contemporary researchers. Explaining the birth of value out of the dynamic of exchange, Arjun Appadurai writes: It is exchange that sets the parameters of utility and scarcity, rather than the other way round, an exchange that is the source of value: “The difficulty of acquisition, the sacrifice offered in exchange, is the unique constitutive element of value, of which scarcity is only an external manifestation, its objectification in the form of quantity.”" (Simmel, 1978 [1907], 100). In a word, exchange is not a byproduct of a mutual valuation of objects, but its source. (Appadurai, 2013, 10) Georg Simmel (and one of his very few friends in the German academic establishment, Max Weber) was aware that the increased frequency of educational interactions will make access to knowledge easier (Weber drew conclusions with respect to the consequences for a professional group of academic researchers and elected politicians). Both had predicted rapid future expansion of the educational industries servicing increasingly knowledge-based activities, while other sociologists (Pareto and Mosca in Italy, Michels in Germany, Veblen in the United States, and Znaniecki in Poland and in the United States) predicted the accelerated circulation of the professional elites. This acceleration did happen, although two world wars later – in science and politics and in health care and banking services.

Cultural relativity  55 Hofstede was still making use of printed questionnaires distributed to individuals and filled-in handwriting, but the research and education around him were increasingly rapidly and significantly co-shaped by emergent technologies (flight simulators were the early symptoms of virtual and enhanced realities). Robots, transistors, and integrated circuits accelerated the technological dissemination of knowledge, increasing the awareness of the latter’s relativity. The awareness of cultural relativity, which Hofstede had decided to study, acted as an unexpected revolutionary destroyer of traditional norms of social conduct prescribed for socialized individuals. Individuals socialized into gender relativization, for instance, could subsequently be mobilized for quasi-class struggles (say, of binary individuals or transgender persons). This technological destroyer of traditional class, status group, gender, or professional cultures came disguised as everyman’s (and everywoman’s) best friend – a mobile phone, which became as smart as large computers of former generations and as dangerous as the most fanatical demagogs. Pocketsized smartphones swallowed desktop personal computers and, linked by satellites, proceeded to change interpersonal communications and monetary transactions beyond the recognition of the TV-watching and cinema-going generations. When Hofstede died in 2020, most citizens of most societies have been already linked to virtual communities. My communications with him were mainly through e-mails, already going out of fashion in daily routine dealings. While we used to exchange e-mail messages, Hofstede and I, we never used a Twitter or a WhatsApp or an Instagram as a quicker and more concise platform for our communications. We started with posted letters in real envelopes, when he was a book review section editor of Organization Studies, and ended with e-mails, when he retired to Velp. Business as usual (online becoming the new usual) was picking up but not yet as much as during the pandemic lockdowns. Local wars by proxy were still being fought in Asia and in the Middle East, but a full-scale, world war resembling Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was still two years away in the early 2020, when Geert Hofstede died. He had left a comparative theory of cultural relativity, which prompted the search for cultural software and suggested the identification of clusters of hard cores of values shaping the space of our thoughts, feelings, and actions. Detectable differences between national, organizational, and community cultures were compared in order to explain less observable and presumably more fundamental differences between nation-states, professional organizations, business corporations, sexual majorities and minorities, and age cohorts. The generational element was very important: the one coming of age around 1968 was very large; hence, it has often been called “the baby boomer generation”. Having been born in 1950, I certainly remember that our high school classes were larger than about 20 years later, when our own children started their schools. Did Hofstede’s invention of the designed dimensions (disguised as a discovery of hidden regularities) signal the last serious attempt to salvage the etic approach to the study of cultures, the last attempt to defend a universal grid of values, to which each culture could be compared? Has the emic approach been on the rise due to the ease of immediate reporting of one’s first-hand experiences? Moreover, the rise of the emic approaches facilitated by digital recording devices, which enabled

56  Sławomir J. Magala researchers to pursue more participative observation of local cultures, was not the only challenge faced by the Hofstede’s school. One may also ask if his attempt to create a universal grid for studying really existing cultures of human communities can survive in the contemporary world, in which cultures and subcultures by design begin to include virtual realities on a par with material ones. Can his invention of four, then six cultural dimensions, survive the subsequent growth of virtual organizations, the institutionalization of remote teamwork, online marketing, and the competition of personal experiences with virtual, simulated, augmented, enhanced realities? Can his invention survive the backlash against the relativistic consequences of his cultural dimensions led by YouTube’s and Twitter’s immediate communications? Can our explanations and interpretations of differences between individual and organizational cultures and subcultures be still informed by a Hofstedian grid of universal dimensions? Symbolically, when Hofstede grew up, the Dutch literary rebel was Gerard Reve with the novel The Evenings, signaling the arrival of the youth rebellion and counterculture of the 1960s by an increasingly felt alienation from the rituals of social life. The US literary scene witnessed Jerome Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye (1951) and Joseph Heller’s Catch-22 (1961). When Hofstede passed away, the Dutch literary rebel was Marieke Lucas Rijneveld with the novel The Discomfort of Evening (winner of Booker International prize for 2020), signaling the new individualism, the falling apart of local and family communities and the individualization of a personal lifestyle (including gender ambiguities). David Foster Wallace’s Pale King (2011) and Thomas Pynchon’s Bleeding Edge (2013) could be selected as the US counterparts. Pale King with a prescription of boredom on the bureaucratic job as a cure for addictions and media noise and Bleeding Edge with the diagnosis of the threats of the dark net – could stand for the great American novels of the late individualist period. Has Hofstede’s diagnostic tool represented a scholarly and scientific response to the artistic recognition of the new realities of personal identity forming and the addition of increasingly powerful virtual components to our experience of daily lives? Probably not, but not necessarily because of insufficient methodological merits. Hofstede’s merits have not been properly acknowledged in the academic world. They have not been recognized primarily because of Hofstede’s failure to become embedded in the academic mainstream either in the Netherlands or elsewhere (by embedding I mean producing ambitious PhD students who make rapid careers promoting the theory of their master and thus shape the research agenda and PhD recruitment of large universities, labs or academic networks, and associations). The theory of cultural relativity formulated as the comparative theory of different locations on a set of scales offered by the model of cultural dimensions did not become entrenched in academic communities. It became a popular tool kit for consultants of the top management teams of large corporations and for the management gurus selling books in airports, but academic institutions kept a distance. When a popular consulting book author, Erin Meyer, linked to INSEAD in Fontainebleau (one of the top managerial training centers in Europe), writes about the “cultural maps” of the world, she uses both power distance as a Hofstedian dimension of

Cultural relativity  57 culture and the findings of the GLOBE project researchers about locally acceptable and effective leadership style originally led by Robert House. But from Hofstede’s inspiration, only one dimension – namely power distance – has survived in a book published in 2014. Nor did the comparative typology of national cultures reduced to four, five, or six dimensions survive as a handy tool kit for managerial cadres mentioned by other authors and trained in a growing number of business schools and managerial courses. And yet, Hofstede’s cultural barometers for measuring our readiness to uphold values (or to give up doing so) survive, refined or not, criticized or not, reduced or not, as a testimony to the creative power of a generalized matrix of concepts, which help us deal with randomness, unpredictability, and relativity. Management requires an ability to recognize context-bound problems and to choose a viable and sustainable solution for involved parties. Most authors would probably agree that Hofstede did much to demonstrate the research possibilities of differences between individuals in organizations, organizations in societies, and societies in global networks. He had pointed out the difficulties in predicting choices manifested by the managers and employees and citizens and inhabitants at large when observed. He might have been more forthcoming on self-critical scrutiny when analyzing the relativity of his own cultural bias – the relativity linked to the observer, the researcher, and the cognitive framer of explanations, interpretations, and predictions. But even a single concept of power distance merits appreciation and further honing because it offers a promising starting point for research on the influence of inequalities upon interactions shaping a stream of events. The power distance dimension is a very valuable conceptual invention. One way of justifying the acknowledgment of the fertility of this concept is to point out its uses in understanding one of the most intriguing string of events in the 20th-century politics  – namely the Moscow trials in which Stalin purged all his comrades belonging to the top Bolshevik elite. Power distance is a concept, which allows one to see more relations, links, and hidden passages among the investigated behaviors and artifacts than ever before. The concept of the dimension “power distance” should thus be applied as an instrument of self-scrutiny, which could facilitate the explanations of such intriguing paradoxes of the past century as the aforementioned Moscow trials (1930s) and similar events, for instance, the Stockholm syndrome (1970s). The Moscow trials were analyzed by the protagonists of Arthur Koestler’s novel Darkness at Noon (1940) in which the author tries to comprehend the readiness of a communist activist to confess every absurd crime possible, when forced to do so by his Stalinist torturers (whom he fears and hates, but to whom he grants the right to shape the history with the corpses of their victims). The Stockholm syndrome has been artistically employed in Liliana Cavani’s movie “The Night Porter” (1974), which tried to make the point that sado-masochistic behavior is much more widespread than admitted and should thus be considered a mainstream phenomenon. Both these events – the behavior of the victims of the Russian communist terror in Moscow and in Siberian Gulag extermination camps (and of the eastern Europeans enslaved by the Russian communists during and after World War II) and the behavior of the victims of German terror in concentration camps (repeated by the Swedish hostages in Stockholm in

58  Sławomir J. Magala 1973) – are among the least understood aspects of contemporary historical processes (cf. Biernacki, 2012; Bock-Côté, 2016). The dimension of power distance invented by Hofstede offers a chance of a closer and potentially theoretically and pragmatically rewarding insight into this totalitarian temptation. The comparisons of Hofstede to Darwin are thus not undeserved (both were interested in tracing the evolution of human behavior, with Hofstede observing organizations and cultures rather than genetic pools and animal populations). Hofstede, like Darwin before him, picked up some of the ideas which had been in the “cultural air” in the last quarter of the 20th century and had tried to provide a globally valid map of local cultural differences to be used by managers and researchers. Hofstede, like Darwin before him, inspired enthusiastic followers, some of whom made sweeping generalizations which became easy to refute, thus undermining Hofstede’s claims to the long-term stability of his research paradigm. One wonders what would have happened if Hofstede’s paradigm for comparing national and organizational cultures became sufficiently entrenched in academic institutions to allow for a free pursuit of the relativist temptation. Would the established critics of the established concept of cultural dimensions hit upon the idea of cultural DNA studies in explaining the survival or extinction of organizational populations? Would Hofstede become the first CEO of a more successful Cambridge Analytica with a moral twist? Do’s and don’ts of cross-cultural differences are not automatically relevant for cultural, let alone cross-cultural, competence in broader, more profound, significant, relevant, salient, meaningful interpretation of this clustered, dynamic set of knowledge, skills, and preferences. Europeans mourn in black, and Chinese do in white. So what? Cars can be driven on the left-hand side of a road or on the right. So what? Excesses in riding the waves of culture notwithstanding, Hofstede lives on due to the unpredictable ways of disseminating research-generated knowledge in social communications. He continues to be quoted even if his dimensions are reduced to two, perhaps three, or even rejected altogether in their present form (friendly arguments of Minkov and unfriendly of McSweeney are hard to refute). Or does he? The answer to this question depends on our understanding of the role of “formally”, openly and officially believed and declared values. But this answer depends also on the not-so-obvious and detectable influence of genuinely espoused and “felt” “experienced” values on the guidance of our actual behavior, which also influences our not always explicit and accessible management of meaning. The answer to this question about the role of culturally articulated values and the ways of cultural influencing depends on our trust in a theoretical grid of cultural dimensions as an instrument, which allows for a methodologically correct and empirically relevant identification of core values. The answer to this question also depends on our success in adding a temporal metaphor to the spatial one in viewing the dimensions of culture (the idea of an evolution or of a progress is unthinkable in a timeless space). In other words, time matters, and spatiotemporal contexts of our cognition and our behavior do matter more decisively than isolated spaces of short-lived interactions and random flows of events. But is the grid enough? Do values simply switch on or off in a brain or do they simply come and go with the flow of associations and the stream of consciousness in a mind? Does this duo of

Cultural relativity  59 material mind and a relatively immaterial brain jointly determine behavioral acts? Are we right in linking behavioral acts and mindful reflections to a cultural variable in the context of an event or a situation? Do values pattern cultures? [T]he norms of reason were not fixed in Greece, the evolution of morality consummated in England. Most important, we were the first to insist that we see the lives of others through lenses of our own grinding and that they look back at us through the ones of their own. (King, quoting Geertz in discussing Boas in a book on Mead and Benedict, cf. King, 2020, 343) The concept of culture, tacitly or explicitly assumed by researchers and nonprofessional citizens going about their businesses, is never neutral (in paradigmatic wars). The concept of culture is never innocent (in philosophical and moral debates). The most popular metaphors for culture, which usually open academic presentations, are also the ones which tend to be most heavily overburdened with undesirable associations, assumptions, and misleading instructions. These most popular metaphors are usually based on an association of “culture” with an iceberg or an onion. Assumed together with the iceberg metaphor is the vision of the most vital of cultural values as if they were hidden beneath the surface of observable phenomena. The obvious implication is that we cannot see these core values directly when we observe behavior presumably guided by these values “from below” − “from inside”. Another vital metaphor makes us compare a culture to an onion. If we assume that a culture resembles an onion, then we tacitly agree that under every layer of cultural artifacts there are deeper layers, which can also be peeled away, revealing peels all the way down. Peeling an onion of culture may be leading us to a disappearing, elusive, perhaps even nonexistent core (then values are more random and more emergent, perhaps?). The iceberg and the onion have one thing in common. They both suggest that most of the contents, of the “insides” of an iceberg or an onion, are not immediately visible, thus not directly accessible to a sensory – empirical – report. In view of such difficulties with access to values, a suggested way to go on studying culture thus leads to the splitting of cultural atoms until we find the elementary particles, whose movements and interactions can explain what culture does when it shapes individual and collective “software of the minds”. This is how a pattern of looking at culture influences what we do – when we decide to make use of our cultural resources. The analogy to a splitting of atoms by physicists studying elementary particles has sometimes been traded for a metaphorical journey to the world of cells and genes – when cultural “memes” are supposed to carry the same value-laden information to the building blocks of social life as DNA clusters and sequences of genes do in our biological world. There is, however, one serious problem with the metaphorical study trip of culture researchers into the subatomic and sub-genetic metaphors. Contrary to popular sentiment (we believe in values, but we also believe that they are a-changing) and

60  Sławomir J. Magala moral upbringing (if socialized successfully, individuals tend to be wired for more altruistic cooperation than ruthless struggle of all against all), we do not know what triggers an authoritarian personality and what turns normal Russians or Germans, Chinese or Cambodians into obedient murderers, faithful henchmen and henchwomen, and diligent executors of state-planned genocides (cf. Biernacki, 2012; Bock-Côté, 2016). It is hard to trace the determinants of our knowledge about cultural software of mankind without tackling the hardest philosophical problems (for instance, the origins and nature of consciousness; the phenomenological reduction of the flow of experience; the intuitive grasp of reality as a flow of co-experienced, co-compared, and co-evaluated events) and without acknowledging the role of time and the relative autonomy of “conscious” human “monads” in experiencing reality as a stream of events. Reality, which includes conscious observers, is influenced by what they make of it. It is hard to predict which ways of looking at the reality will dominate the world of the individual conscious “outlooks” of successive generations. Contrary to appearances, it is equally hard to reconstruct the past success or failure of researchers in influencing the growth of socially disseminated knowledge. For instance, the influence exerted on the general public’s awareness of the cultural determinants of behavior by a study of sexual activities of young boys and girls coming of age in Samoa (Margaret Mead, 1928) can overshadow the comparative study of the creative construction of the third culture by the Polish peasants, who left the first culture of their village communities in Europe, entered the second culture through Ellis Island, and then proceeded to develop the new, third culture of their own “bowling together” inside the larger American communities. Florian Znaniecki’s and William I. Thomas’ (1918–1920) understanding of the humanist coefficient guided their empirical analysis of the making of the third, new culture by immigrants who leave one cultural environment and adapt to a new one in their country of arrival (cf. Thomas and Znaniecki, 1927). However, a better research quality in our navigation of social world and a more relevant contribution to our understanding of how “the other halves live” are no guarantee of success in real existing academic communities, which follow patterns of interparadigmatic conflicts and wars or of political expediency (and not necessarily the most salient, relevant cognitive questions or politically urgent issues; cf. Sorokin, 1956). It should come as no surprise that Margaret Mead’s wishful thinking about relaxed sexual interactions disguised as an exploration of cross-cultural differences attracted more attention than Znaniecki’s and Thomas’ The Polish Peasant in Europe and America. The latter should have informed politicians and researchers much more than even the more extravagant reflections of Ruth Benedict in Patterns of Culture (1934). But it did not. Both political sociology and cultural anthropology suffered. Cultural history includes the history of extinctions and forgettings, rejections, and indifferences. Harvard’s sociologist, Pitrim Sorokin, warned in 1956 against the American Sex Revolution, but in 1972, Hugh Hefner’s Playboy had a circulation of 7 million. Freud trumped Marx in culture wars. Emotions, feelings, and sentiments flow more freely when an individual responds to the rhetoric of pornography than when the same individual is exposed to an academic or media discourse – rationally supported by statistical data.

Cultural relativity  61 Ruth Benedict introduced the concept of “cultural universals” – for example, family/marriage and gender roles, incest taboo, belief in the supernatural, appreciation of art – and almost automatically chartered the future cultural research in a way, which made it less relevant to politicians and managers than a set of cultural universals or core values could have been, had the academic communities and broader public responded to the Znaniecki/Thomas study and come equipped with the cultural universals of a class war, social inequalities, and the management of upward social mobility. Trying to restore the relevance of cultural determinants of behavior, Hofstede came up with modified dimensions of culture. For instance, power distance interpreted as a scale in social psychology allows us to make a typology of individuals and their nationality, age, or organizational clusters according to their readiness to accept inequality of organized individuals working together. Describing cultural environments, researchers demonstrate a way of deciphering patterns of culture in behaviors, artifacts, and communications. Are we, for instance, paying attention to salary levels and the influence of unequal remuneration upon individual decisions and collective behavior? The research conduct of any social scientist usually reveals selective attention paid to the proceedings of other researchers, whose achievements are celebrated with more approval and acknowledgment than the proceedings of other, less famous specialists in academic businesses (or are simply less relevant from a certain point of view). Take the strategy of physicists, who try to reconstruct the forces filling spatiotemporal events by evoking atoms and subatomic particles as the smallest discernible components of matter. Take the strategy of biologists, who try to reconstruct the organizing levels of living organisms by tracing the smallest components of the genetic “codes”. Both reductionist strategies are imitated by researchers of cultural matters. Researchers of culture, even of organizational cultures and of business subcultures, are also trying to get to the innermost “core” of organized cultures, usually suggesting that the core components of cultures are deeply felt and highly esteemed “values”. These values can be discovered after a careful and systematic tracing of the behaviors they shape and an analysis of the artifacts they are expressed in (sometimes the values are broken into chains of “memes”, cultural genes of sorts, whose clusters and combinations presumably determine larger cultural wholes, for instance, the values in question). Even the Jack Welches of this world advertise corporate values claiming in public that they believe in every single one of them. They do so claiming that one should not be evil and they – accordingly, predictably, reliably – are not, either (or so they claim and would like others to believe; cf. Mohr et al., 2020). Likewise, no sooner had Darwin and Marx invented explanations of biological and social change, these explanations gave rise to extremist movements  – eugenics-based racism and class-based totalitarian dictatorship. Our dealing with these cases of high-jacking evolutionary ideas has not finished yet. Moreover, meanwhile, after a century or so, single cause explanations gradually went out of fashion, and causal explanations became more complex and relative, less causal and more “emergent” and circumstantial. Academic, managerial, and consulting disc jockeys (in unexpected networks and incubators) helped us break down the successive versions of “Truman Shows”. Even the most augmented and enhanced virtual reality is forced to confess to a silver and a black lining. Our media and

62  Sławomir J. Magala social media guides coach us to decipher meaningful personal realities (even in the relatively cynical cyber-fable of “Squid Games”, meaningful life requires a personal reflection trumping, casting, and broadcasting). Experiments with enhanced, virtual digitally sustained “reality plus” persuade us to test possible forms of socialization beyond the Facebooks, the Instagrams, the Twitters, and the WhatsApps. What does it mean for our theory of values as a driving component of our mental software, our culture? And what does it mean for the status of the late Geert Hofstede as the author of a theory of cultural relativity, which had been influential between 1980 and 2020? Theories of cultural evolution Looking back on 20 years of consequences of Culture’s Consequences I feel like a sorcerer’s apprentice: after a slow start the book has become a classic and one of the most cited sources in the entire Social Science Citation Index. I  never expected this: I  wrote down findings that seemed obvious to me, but they proved to contain news value for others, practitioners and theoreticians alike, across almost any discipline that compares data from different countries. (Hofstede, 2001, xvii) The best we can do is to develop the rival alternative conceptions in each important domain as fully and carefully as possible, depending on our antecedent sympathies and see how they measure up. That is a more credible form of progress than decisive proof or refutation. (Nagel, 2012, 127) The attempt to offer a “more credible form of progress” in advancing knowledge and filling the gaps of ignorance than either a victorious but modest conjecture or a definite and bitter rejection based on a crucial experiment sounds very attractive to the ears and looks very attractive in the eyes of contemporary audial and visual audiences. Rival alternative conceptions of reality become attractive in a reality perceived within a definite context in which each point of view is questioned as if it were a witness in the court of law (Is this the outburst of a pandemic threat or just a hot wave of seasonal viral and bacterial peaking? Are we witnessing a potentially lethal climate change or simply registering many more symptoms of as yet unreconstructed processes?). Each witness – within this relativity-flavored context – can only count on the recognition that he or she is contributing his or her version of the events. The court of professional or public opinion acknowledges most testimonies but decides – temporarily, hesitantly – which versions are more or less relevant to the matter at hand. The sessions of the court of reason split into various professional, public, academic, and artistic sittings of more local and immediate, empirically concrete court cases in point. Some of them slowly become a matter of a new wave of public discussions. Some of the cases, the verdicts and the public discussions originating from these cases, are more significant than the others in

Cultural relativity  63 shaping forthcoming points of view, in influencing forthcoming verdicts, and in making difference in the evolution of our culture. Tarski’s definition of truth from 1931 to 1935 was subverted almost immediately by the Russian communist architects of a better future as they went on designing the Moscow trials of the 1936– 1938 period. These trials were not darkness at noon, because there was no noon to be darkened. Totalitarian darkness required a false light from the very beginning of the communist coup d’etat, and the successful monopolization of state power required an anarchistic and arbitrary exercise of power. The principle of Dadaist “anything goes” coupled with the uncontrolled exercise of terror had justly been singled out as fertile ground for breeding a captive mind (Milosz, 1953), a cynical reason (Sloterdijk, 1983), and a digital surveillance network (Zuboff, 2019). What was neglected was the contribution that a captive mind, a cynical reason, and a surveillance network made to the evolution of culture in general. Have the inexplicable, poorly understood totalitarian experiences of the 20th century invalidated some of the proposals submitted to the court of academic reason by Hofstede by testing the faking industries, thus making cultural values less relevant than brutal uses of pure power distance? The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, echoing joint German–Russian invasion of Poland in September 1939, provides a fertile ground for positive answers to this question. Power trumps culture, at least in a totalitarian/authoritarian context and setting. Culture strikes back however: the collective experience of the Polish “Solidarity” in August 1980 paid off in the collective decision in February 2022. It was in February 2022 and in the following year that millions of Ukrainian war refugees have been immediately, successfully, and sustainably received, aided, and accommodated (living quarters, financial support, jobs, schools). They were received, directed, helped, and assisted both by individual Poles and by the collective actions of the Polish state and the local authorities, acknowledged in a speech made by the president of the United States, Joe Biden, on 21 February 2023 in Warsaw, as the largest and most successful relief operation in Europe after World War II. Culture’s consequences? References Anderson, Lindsay, 1968, If, Film producers: Lindsay Anderson, Michael Medwin, Memorial Enterprises. Appadurai, Arjun, 2013, The Future as Cultural Fact: Essays on the Global Conditions, London & New York, Verso Books. Benedict, Ruth, 1934, Patterns of Culture, Boston, Houghton Mifflin. Biernacki, Richard, 2012, Reinventing Evidence in Social Inquiry: Decoding Facts and Variables, New York & Basingstoke, Palgrave MacMillan. Bock-Côté, Matthieu, 2016, Le multiculturalisme comme religion politique, Paris, Les ­Editions du Cerf. Cavani, Liliana, 1974, The Night Porter (Il Portiere de Notte), Film producers: Robert ­Gordon Edwards, & Esa di Simone. D’Andrade, Roy, 2001, The Development of Cognitive Anthropology, Cambridge, ­Cambridge University Press.

64  Sławomir J. Magala Forman, Milos, 1975, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Film producers: Michael Douglas, Martin Fink, Saul Zaentz. Graeber, David, 2012, Debt: The First 5000 Years, New York, Melville Press. Heller, Joseph, 1961, Catch-22, New York, Simon and Schuster. Hofstede, Geert, 2001, Culture’s Consequences. Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations, Thousand Oaks, London & New Delhi, Sage Publications (first editions, by Sage Publications, 1980, 1984). Kesey, Ken, 1962, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, New York, Viking Press/Signet Books. King, Charles, 2020, The Reinvention of Humanity: How a Circle of Renegade Anthropologists Remade Race, Sex and Gender, London & New York, Vintage, Penguin/Random House. Koestler, Arthur, 1940, Darkness at Noon, London, Macmillan. Konrad, Gyorgy, Szelenyi, Ivan, 1968, Intelligenz auf dem Weg zur Klassenmacht, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp. Le Carre, John, 2021, Silverview, London & New York, Penguin/Viking. Lemert, Charles, 2003, “Multiculturalism”, in: Ritzer, George, Smart, Barry, eds., Handbook of Social Theory, London & Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications. Mailer, Norman, 1991, Harlot’s Ghost, London, Michael Joseph. Mead, Margaret, 1928, Coming of Age in Samoa. A Psychological Study of Primitive Youth for Western Civilization, New York, Morrow & Co. Milosz, Czeslaw, 1953, The Captive Mind, New York, Knopf. Mohr, John, Bail, Christopher A., Frye, Margaret, Lena, Jennifer C., Lizardo, Omar, McDonnell, Terence E., Mische, Ann, Tavory, Iddo, Wherry, Frederic F., 2020, Measuring Culture, New York, Columbia University Press. Nagel, Thomas, 2012, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False, New York & Oxford, Oxford University Press. Noble, David F., 1984, Forces of Production: Social History of Industrial Automation, New York, Knopf. Ondaatje, Michael, 2018, Warlight, London, Jonathan Cape/Penguin. Picketty, Thomas, 2017, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge, MA & London, Harvard University Press. Pynchon, Thomas, 2013, Bleeding Edge, New York, The Penguin Press. Ramsay, Lynn, 2011, We Need to Talk About Kevin, Film producers: Jennifer Fox, Luc Roeg, Bob Salerno, Oscilloscope Laboratories, BBC Films, UK Film Council. Rushdie, Salman, 1990, Is Nothing Sacred? London, Granta. Salinger, Jerome David, 1951, The Catcher in the Rye, New York, Little, Brown. Shriver, Lionel, 2022, Abominations: Selected Essays from a Career of Courting SelfDestruction, New York, HarperCollins. Simmel, Georg, 1978, The Philosophy of Money, London & New York, Routledge. Simon, Claude, 1987, L’invitation, Paris, Les Editions de Minuit. Sloterdijk, Peter, 1983, Kritik der Zynischen Vernunft, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp. Sorokin, Pitrim, 1956, The American Sex Revolution, Boston, Porter Sargent Publisher. Thomas, William I., Znaniecki, Florian, 1927, The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, New York, Knopf (the first edition, 1918, published by G. Badger, in Boston, numerous later editions). Wallace, David Foster, 2009, This is Water: Some Thoughts, Delivered on a Significant Occasion, about Living a Compassionate Life, New York, Boston  & London, Little, Brown & Company (Hachette). Wallace, David Foster, 2011, Pale King, London & New York, Hamish Hamilton/Penguin.

Cultural relativity  65 Wierzbicka, Anna, 1972, Semantic Primitive, Frankfurt am Main, Atheneum. Wierzbicka, Anna, 1992, Semantics, Culture and Cognition: Universal Human Concepts in Culture-Specific Configurations, New York & Oxford, Oxford University Press. Wierzbicka, Anna, 2014, Imprisoned in English: The Hazards of English as a Default Language, New York & Oxford, Oxford University Press. Zuboff, Shoshana, 2019, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, London, Profile Books.

4 War refugees and their plans for the future Hofstede’s concept somewhere between Ukraine and Poland Jakub Isański and Marek Nowak Introduction The exceptional situation in Europe due to the Russian aggression against Ukraine provides the necessary background to verify the validity of one of the most popular and prolific theoretical approaches in the social sciences today, that of Geert Hofstede’s concept of understanding culture, cultural differences, and related challenges. This chapter uses Hofstede’s theoretical framework to describe the ­challenges facing Poland and Ukraine – the two neighbors engaged in cooperation over an external threat. The relations between the two societies under existential threat are here the trigger for cultural interaction, taking the form of peaceful confrontation not only at the level of cooperating states but also, and perhaps above all, at the level of communities, organizations, or at the level of the interaction of individual people. The most significant wave of refugees into Europe since 1945 has led to the current need to accept and include a large amount of newcomers in an array of host countries. While this process has indeed started in the short term, a more substantial challenge, however, maybe the long-term adaptation of Poles and Ukrainians to social coexistence under the conditions of a prolonged and devastating war on Ukrainian territory, including its social and economic consequences, and, above all, the cultural challenges faced by Poles and Ukrainians. It should be remembered that both the neighboring nations have several centuries of shared history, defined by joint statehood and a common experience of fighting against tsarist and later communist Russia. However, they also have a lot of differences, including mutual animosity dating back from the 15th century and to the years of World War II. All this means that this seemingly straight situation lacks obvious solutions and easy decisions. Even more interesting is the change of public opinion on issues related to the reception and integration of Ukrainian refugees, which took place in European countries in 2014 and deepened in 2022. As a result, thousands of Poles and Ukrainians now live side by side again; many of them share common interests and opinions on current issues. However, is this change significant and permanent enough to be discussed at the level of culture? Will the multigenerational resentments, distrust, and even hostility visible in Polish–Ukrainian relations give way to qualitatively new connections between these nations? DOI: 10.4324/9781003410348-7

War refugees and their plans for the future  67 Hofstede’s concept of culture The use of Hofstede’s concept should start with an understanding of culture. In the most basic sense, culture can be described as: “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others” (Hofstede 2011: 3). Accepting this operational framework, we can assume that the concept of “collective programming” is crucial to Hofstede’s position in two senses: first, as a process of early internalization by individuals of the range of values and symbols characteristic of a specific culture and, second, in the observation to some extent the openness of this processes of socialization and acculturation, which accompanies a person throughout their life. This understanding assumes treating culture as an element of the primordial distinction made by communities between their own and outsiders and for which the mentioned socialization process is crucial. This process is of equal importance in the context of primary socialization related to the primary group (family), educational institutions, etc., and in the context of secondary socialization at the stage of professional work (Hofstede et al. 2010). This makes understanding culture the reflection of a never-ending process rather than a relatively permanent resource or a closed catalog of attributes that can be compared. And it is this openness of the culture programing and reprograming of our minds which can be grasped with the aid of Hofstedian cultural dimensions and their shifts in individual minds’ software writing under the influence of unpredictable circumstances (e.g., war, pandemic). Interestingly, at the same time, as Hofstede notes, culture is “always a collective phenomenon, but it can be connected to different collectives. Within each collective, there is a variety of individuals” (Hofstede 2011: 3) and is therefore simultaneously a structure that is scalable and concentric on at least three levels: a territorial collectivity, identified with 1) the culture of the country or rather the culture of society (presumably under the influence of a continuing importance of nation-state for managing international relations); 2) the culture of an organization, which is relatively structured, and 3) the culture of a particular individual, which is characterized by relative autonomy, assuming immersion in the cultures of the other two circles or scales. Thus, cultures differ as they are simultaneously subject to modification (programing) at the level of organization and individual decisions and practices. If this were not the case, “programming”, defined by Hofstede in the above quote (2011: 3), would make no practical sense. Interestingly, the pattern of cultural differences is identifiable based on universalizing dimensions, including: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, long-/short-term orientation, and indulgence/restraint. However, as commented by Hofstede himself, referring to relativism: [D]imensions do not exist! Culture does not exist either. Dimensions, and culture in general, are constructs, products of our minds that help us simplify the overwhelming complexity of the real world to understand and predict it. They are useful as long as they do this and redundant when they don’t. And

68  Jakub Isański and Marek Nowak because the real world is so complex, there is not just one way to simplify it. Different authors’ minds produce different sets of dimensions. (Hofstede 2004, cited in Sent and Kroese 2022: 17) This position refers to the accusation that the criteria for adopting these dimensions are not entirely clear. Still, they have to confirm their usefulness at the practical level. Hofstede’s theorizing is, therefore, a derivative not so much of anthropological reflection or direct verification of a particular theory, but of theoretical inspiration and inductive reasoning prompted by pragmatic managerial problems requiring a meta-reflection on cultural individual backgrounds and software of participating social groups. This provides the basis for the practical classification of cultures and their comparison from the point of view of a configuration of functional dimensions in international management. It is no coincidence that the practical sense of this classification is mentioned here, which translates into organizational policy or the direction of a multicultural organization and, as a result, into the organization’s effectiveness. Therefore, its application is mainly justified by practice, suggesting limited universality, which means that Hofstede should be viewed not as a relic of past academic disputes about paradigms but a pioneer of pragmatic hands-on managerially useful approaches. It seems, however, that accepting a radical relativist position that rejects the broader usefulness of Hofstede’s concept is not justified. Perhaps the practical profile of Hofstede’s work should not block attempts to use his position more broadly, for example, in sociology or migration studies. This last observation and the contribution of Michael Minkov (Minkov and Kaasa 2021) provide grounds for applying Hofstede’s concept in analyzing the phenomenon of constructing a multicultural relationship. Within this framework, the “primary” features of specific organizational cultures have become a source of understanding social dynamics, indirectly giving rise to a qualitative verification of the usefulness of the Hofstede classification itself. In this context, it is worth taking a closer look at both the sources of thinking in the convention of comparing cultures, the critical arguments accompanying this concept, and the attempts at its development, determining the fields of contemporary readings of the concept and its applications. From the beginning, Hofstede’s concept met with both admiration and criticism, something that has accompanied the growing use of the concept over the years (Baskerville 2003: 10). The critical argument concerned, among others, simplifications resulting from generalization at the level of populations of countries, which may be of fundamental importance in the context of the societies analyzed later in the chapter. Minkov and Kaasa indicate in more detail the limitations of measures of subjective culture concerning the problem of standardizing the understanding of individual concepts due to, for example, differences in the education of respondents (Minkov and Kaasa 2021: 232). The authors also provided a review of arguments based on their relevance to the analyzed migration threads. It is worth recalling that the theoretical analysis of culture and diversity, both within the culture itself and between cultures, belongs to the broad canon of social thought. Its precursors include David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Alexis de Tocqueville,

War refugees and their plans for the future  69 and Max Weber (after Sent and Kroese 2022: 18). It is Hofstede, though, who should be credited for distinguishing the dimensions of culture used today in one of the essential social studies projects, the World Values Survey which, for example, demonstrated the statistical significance of the relationship between national cultures and several indicators, such as economic development, murder rated, and religiosity or educational achievements (after Sent and Kroese 2022: 20–21). Poland and Ukraine – e pluribus unum? Russian aggression against Ukraine  – carried out since 2014, and from February 2022 on a much larger scale, with the participation of both the regular army and mercenary units from the Wagner Group, and units from the improvised armed forces of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk republics – brought fundamental changes not only to public opinion but also to the international situation around the world. European attempts to stop Russian aggression through diplomacy failed. The imbalance of power between the two countries, even before the start of the Russian invasion, made European politicians aware of the need to support Ukraine – financially, politically, and militarily to prevent large parts of country from being quickly conquered by Russian troops. Another essential form of support was opening borders to Ukrainian war refugees. Already days before February 22, a mass exodus of Ukrainians began, comprising overwhelmingly women and children (Andrews et  al. 2023). However, when analyzing the scale of this phenomenon, it should still be remembered that the number of internally displaced persons in Ukraine greatly exceeds the number of those who have sought shelter in other countries including Poland. However, the change we attempt to address in this chapter is that of Polish– Ukrainian relations. It should be remembered that the centuries-old common history of these neighboring countries abounded in several events that significantly influenced contemporary ties between Poland and Ukraine. The political history of Poland and Kievan Ruthenia dates back to the second half of the 10th century. In contrast, the history of Ruthenia is at least two centuries older than the history of the beginnings of the Polish Kingdom in 1569 when the then reigning Jagiellonian dynasty united Poland and Lithuania. It took its name from the Lithuanian Grand Duke Jogaila (in Polish: Jagiełło), who almost two centuries earlier, in 1386, had taken the throne of Poland and began the centuries-old common history of this part of Europe, united into one state. This state also included most of the lands of today’s Ukraine. Later history, however, is one of numerous uprisings and rebellions of the people living in these areas (Ruthenians, Tatars, Cossacks), changing alliances and attempts to break the impasse in searching for peaceful coexistence. One of them was establishing the “The Republic of Three Nations”: Poles, Lithuanians, and Ruthenians in 1569. Another important date is 1648, which witnessed the largest Ukrainian uprising for independence from Poland. Bohdan Chmielnicki’s rule ended in 1654 in Pereyaslav, where Chmielnicki officially asked Russia for support. As a result, in 1667, Ukraine was divided into the eastern part, including

70  Jakub Isański and Marek Nowak Kyiv, under Russian protection, and the western one under Polish control. Internal conflicts, weakening countries, and stronger neighbors resulted in the partition of Poland by Prussia, Austria, and Russia a hundred years later in the late 1700s and halted this coexistence for over a century. Similar to Ukraine, Poland ceased to exist as an independent state in the 19th century, though both populations continued diplomatic and military attempts to gain independence for their countries. In Polish history, two critical armed uprisings occurred in 1830 and 1863, when Poles fought tsarist occupation again. Both of these happened in the present-day Ukrainian territory and involved a substantial number of Ukrainians allied with the Polish units. After World War I, Poland regained its independence, but in 1918– 1920, Poland, Ukraine, and Russia fought for the lands and borders. After repelling Soviet Russia’s attack in 1920, Josef Piłsudski and the Polish army did not provide sufficient support to the allied Ukrainian leader, Symon Petlura, and Ukrainians’ fighting for their independence from the Soviets. Portions of Ukraine’s present-day eastern territory became part of the USSR, while a western section was subsumed into Poland. In the 1930s, an estimated five million Ukrainians living in the USSR died of famine – known as Holodomor – caused by political decisions of the communist party to implement forced collectivization of farming lands and redistribute food to the cities. It should be added that between 1918 and 1939, almost 15% of the population of Poland was made up of ethnic Ukrainians living in the southeastern borderlands in a multiethnic mosaic of Poles, Jews, Belarusians, and Russians. Southeastern parts of the country had the most significant proportion of ethnic minorities, especially in rural areas, but the Polish state tried to colonize these areas with Polish farmers, which caused various ethnic tensions in the 1930s. The outbreak of World War II and another division of Polish lands between neighbors, this time Germany and the Soviet Union, caused yet more sociocultural upheaval and disaster. Its most tragic act was probably the events of 1943–1945, when in the territories occupied by Germany at that time, events referred to in Polish historiography as the “Volhynian Massacre” took place, a coordinated action by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, with the participation of the Ukrainian civilian population of the region against the Polish population (see Chodakiewicz 2016: 428; see also Instytut Zachodni 1946/2016). The peak of these events took place in the summer of 1943, during which over 60,000 Polish citizens, mainly women and children, are estimated to have died. With the participation of a few Polish partisan units in this region, part of the population undertook self-defense and retaliatory actions against the Ukrainian people, resulting in about 15,000 victims on the Ukrainian side. These bloody and tragic events increased hostility and resentment in Polish–Ukrainian relations for decades. Polish society was completely reorganized after the end of World War II, and the shifting of the country’s borders about 200 kilometers to the West happened (Korejwo 2016). The repression by the communist regime and thousands of victims further aggravated these changes, shifting the political center of gravity to the east for almost half a century. Over 1.5 million people were resettled to the territories of postwar Poland from the former lands of eastern Poland, captured and incorporated

War refugees and their plans for the future  71 by the Soviet Union. Add to this approximately 8–9 million Germans who initially escaped the approaching front line in 1944 and then either voluntarily moved or were forced to flee to Germany with its new, postwar borders. In addition, after the cessation of hostilities and demobilization, over two million people returned to postwar Poland from the Western Europe as former Prisoners of War, forced workers, or prisoners of concentration camps. All this gives a brief idea of the scale of migration and resettlement. Most people lost the remnants of their property, which left the great majority of them at the mercy of an authoritarian state and centrally managed economy. In turn, after the end of World War II, about 650,000 Ukrainians found themselves within the new borders of Poland, and between 1947 and 1950, over 500,000 were resettled by Polish Communist authorities to the Soviet Union, while the remainder were moved to northern and western Polish territories as part of the so-called “Vistula Action” in south-eastern Poland, an organized action of resettlement of Ukrainians and other smaller indigenous ethnic groups (Lemko, Wołos). The scale of oppression and control by the Polish communist secret services was so high that, as one of the resettled migrants stated: “we were afraid even to have yellow or blue flowers in front of our new house, not to be suspected for any nationalistic connotations” (IDI_2).1 Although carried out after the war, these resettlements, like the resettlement of Poles from the USSR to Poland after 1945, further perpetuated mutual Polish–Ukrainian animosities. Although after 1945, as part of the so-called communist bloc, Poles and Ukrainians remained “brotherly nations”, the failure to resolve and settle earlier conflicts was not conducive to understanding. It should also be mentioned that as a result of war losses and postwar resettlement and migration, Poland, like Ukraine, became a much more mono-ethnic and monocultural country than ever before. Nevertheless, Poland was the first to recognize Ukraine’s independence in 1991, ushering in a new era of Polish–Ukrainian international relations. Poles overwhelmingly supported the Ukrainian Orange Revolution movement in 2004 and 2005, and this period also saw the reversal of the migration trend – Poles do not go to Ukraine, but Ukrainians now live in Poland in the third decade of the 21st century. The increasing scale of migration in recent years has increasingly reshaped mutual relations. Ukrainians have become a common component of Poland’s cultural and social landscape. In this way, after a relatively short period of mono-­ culturalism (1945–1989), Poland has again become a multicultural country. However, it can be said that until the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014, Poland was treated by Ukrainian labor migrants mainly as a transit country on the way to the West, with possible seasonal work in the summertime. One of the authors described this situation in the book published in 2016 thus: The Polish-Ukrainian dialogues are only one of a few important planks necessary for Kyiv to come to grips with the past. Most importantly, internal reconciliation is also far off among Ukrainians themselves. The eastern parts of the country are more prone to cling to the Soviet national Bolshevik mythology and are reluctant to embrace the western nationalist lore increasingly promoted by the authorities in Kyiv, at least until 2010. The eastern parts of

72  Jakub Isański and Marek Nowak the country are also more inclined to identify with Russian culture heritage. Many citizens, in fact, list their nationality as Russian. (Chodakiewicz 2016: 429) Cultural ties with Russia are visible even at the linguistic level – the Russian language dominates, or at least used to dominate, in the eastern areas of Ukraine. In our study (Isanski et al., 2022), for which we translated the questionnaire in four languages (Ukrainian, Polish, English, and Russian), we ultimately received a majority (413) of questionnaires in Ukrainian, 77 in Russian, and 42 in English. It is also worth adding that during the in-depth interviews, the topic of the language used was mentioned, and the interviewees pointed out that the revival of interest in learning Ukrainian has taken place in Ukraine in recent years and is currently shared among the younger generation. Understanding, learning, and using the Ukrainian language are treated as a form of patriotic awakening, which gains strength along with the successive stages of the war drama. The above description provides examples of both mutual Polish–Ukrainian cooperation and violence and resentment. Although the 20th century in particular can be described as a time of conflict in mutual relations, the 21st century has brought, for the first time, a time of close cooperation and support. All the events described earlier also caused large-scale outmigration from both countries, especially at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. As a result, both nations have very large migrant diasporas scattered around the world. However, perhaps the most significant changes are visible in the economy, especially in GDP (Śliwiński 2022). While the Polish economy quickly found itself in the conditions of competitiveness, after more than 30 years from the sociopolitical changes in Central Europe, the Ukrainian economy still cannot exceed the GDP level of 1991. The level of this indicator in Poland increased from USD 2,105 to over USD 18,000 per capita in current prices, and in 2021 amounted to USD 674.1 billion for the entire economy; Ukraine recorded the level of USD 4882 in 2022, and USD 198.3 billion for the whole of the economy this year (after Śliwiński 2022). The economic development of Ukraine is effectively hampered not only by the internal problems of the economy but also by the long-term political consequences of close ties with Russia. The gap between Poland and Ukraine is widening  – rising income inequalities between Poland and Ukraine. The Ukrainian GDP per capita in 2017 has still not returned to its 1991 level. GDP per capita in Ukraine is currently at the level of Moldova, Georgia and Armenia and is three times lower than in Poland. The main brake on Ukraine’s GDP growth is established informal non-market institutions, which are not conducive to free competition (clan interest networks and corruption). (Wisła et al. 2018: 55) One of the authors puts forward the following hypothesis to explain this regularity: “The hypothesis, which is examined with the use of the econometric method,

War refugees and their plans for the future  73 assumes a greater external openness of the Polish economy that significantly contributed to the increasing economic divergence between the two countries” (Śliwiński 2022: 70). The author develops this idea further, pointing out that the initial situation of both economies, Polish and Ukrainian, was similar in 1989, with Ukraine predominating in natural resources. However, what influenced the pace of further development were, and are, differences resulting from organizational culture  – the Ukrainian economy was more closely linked to the Soviet model of central planning, and the consequences of this state of affairs turned out to be permanent and quite resistant to changes caused by the gradual opening up of international sales markets, economic cooperation, research and development, or other forms of social contacts. Poland emerged as the foremost beneficiary of the EU membership. It received £56 billion in development funds from 2007 to 2013. This financial influx facilitated the construction of extensive infrastructure, including highways and express roads, as well as the development of youth sports facilities, modern sewerage systems, and the establishment of kindergartens and pre-schools. Furthermore, substantial agricultural subsidies from Brussels, amounting to tens of billions of pounds, received by Polish farmers are not included in the aforementioned financial benefits (Adekoya, 2014). One of the clear effects of the deepening differences between countries is the directions of migration flows – from 2014, and after 2022, an even more visible influx of people from Ukraine to Poland. Hofstede’s dimensions updated in Polish and Ukrainian cases It seems reasonable to describe the specific similarities and cultural differences between the Polish and Ukrainian societies in terms of a longue durée. There is a relatively long period of frozen relations, probably around 80 years (from the turn of the 20th century to the end of 1980s), which has to do with the policy of the Soviet Union during its entire existence as an entity producing historical policy and shaping the educational system. This meant a de facto Sovietization or rather Russification of the territory of the present-day Ukrainian state. This makes the discourse on cultural similarities and differences between Poles and Ukrainians akin to something like a “cultural archaeology” of the core of Central-Eastern Europe. However, it can also be approached on the basis of a much longer shared past a few ages ago, where the Kievan Rus tradition reaches deeper into the past than that of the First Polish Republic and runs, to some extent, parallel to it. Based on the data available at www.Hofstede-insights.com, the differences between the Ukrainian and Polish organizational cultures are significant. They concern, among others, the level of power distance (68 for Poland against 92 in Ukraine) and the level of individualism (60 in the case of Ukraine, compared to 25 in Poland). Polish organizational culture is much more “masculine” (64 in Poland against 27 in Ukraine), while the biggest disparity concerns long-term orientation, where the difference is about 40% (86 for Ukraine against 36 for Poland). In fact, the only factor that does not clearly differentiate between the organizational cultures of the two societies is the Uncertainty Avoidance Index (93 for Poland compared to 95 for Ukraine). Much smaller differences can be observed when comparing the organizational

74  Jakub Isański and Marek Nowak cultures of Ukraine and Russia (interestingly, the Russian organizational culture is often located on a continuum between Polish organizational culture and Ukrainian organizational culture), suggesting either methodological problems derived from the estimation of results for Ukraine (as reported on the website) or a deeper phenomenon of organizational culture divergence. Similar reflections can be found in recent scientific articles, but they have a contributory character and formulate hypotheses rather than verify them (Dyndar 2017; Prokopenko and Kryvoruchko 2017). A question thus still remains with regard to what extent this is a research artifact or a consequence of “cultural programming”. The problem is partly methodological and partly empirical. This suggests the importance of looking at the phenomenon of cultural proximity of Central and Eastern European societies somewhat more systematically, as the situational circumstances justify. 2022  and after – do cultural differences matter? It should be remembered that the eastern EU border countries have been migration hubs for out-migrants from Belarus, Ukraine, or Russia for at least 20 years. Poland introduced “The Pole’s Card” program to stimulate this process for its former citizens and their descendants. As Brunarska et al. (2016: 121) write: Many potential asylum seekers choose alternative ways to legalize their stay in Poland, for example, using the simplified employment scheme or applying for the Pole’s Card (Karta Polaka). The Pole’s Card is a document confirming that the holder belongs to the Polish nation, which among other rights provides access to work without having to apply for a work permit, the right to study in Poland, and a shorter route to a permanent residence permit or Polish citizenship. The attractiveness of this program for immigrants resulted not only from the possibility of coming to Poland and taking up legal employment but also from the free movement around the Schengen area that it additionally granted. It created another opportunity for half-legal arrivals. Harney (2011: 9) claims that: [B]efore Poland became a member of the EU it could cost upwards of 3000 Euro a person, now it is much easier, just about 300 per person. All you need to do is get across the Polish border. You learn all this through rumour. ­Everyone who comes now has connections. For Ukrainians, the migratory movement was similarly connected with “the socio-economic changes that occurred in Ukrainian society after 1991, such as restructuring of the post-Soviet economy and labor markets, the significant rise in unemployment, long delays in payments of salaries, and currency and wage inflation”. (Fedyuk and Kindler 2016: 2–3, see also Górny and Kindler 2016). Thus, inward migration to ​​Central and Eastern European EU states at the turn of February and March 2022 had an entirely new face to previous migration. On the

War refugees and their plans for the future  75 one hand, it is the most significant population movement in this area since the end of World War II. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that, for over nine million Ukrainians who left their homeland in 2022, a similar number were forced to change their place of residence within the borders of Ukraine. Thus, the total number of international and internal migrants probably exceeds 12 million people. This is more than one-fourth of the country’s population. Adding to this the estimated number of over three million people who left after the outbreak of the Donbas conflict and the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 would account for one-third of the country’s population. In historical terms, this resembles the previously mentioned situation in Poland in 1945, when a similar proportion of citizens were on the move. For Ukraine, the country’s center of gravity is shifting to the West, with substantial support being sought and found in guest countries (cf. Harney 2011: 8). Its social effects are not yet apparent, and its scale and scope are difficult to estimate. Humanitarian, financial, and, in particular, military aid (e.g., supplies of the most modern weapons from NATO countries to Ukraine) will probably permanently link this country with the widely understood Western countries. Symbolic accession to the preparatory procedure for accession to the European Union took place on 8 April 2022, while a vote on Ukraine’s accession to the EU Kyiv was brought by Ursula von der Leyen, and on 26 June 2022, Ukraine was granted candidate country status. Thus, as of mid-2023, Ukraine is a country fighting for its independence against the aggression of its stronger neighbor while also making a historic turn to the West. This shift began earlier, from when it regained independence after the collapse of the USSR, through to the Orange Revolution in 2004 and later, the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, to today, and what seems today to be a final symbolic severing of ties with Russia. These cultural and political changes in Ukraine will probably be hastened by the millions of refugees and migrants who have found refuge in the West. Their expected return, or even monetary transfers, will determine the direction of cultural and economic flows. Refugees from Ukraine, who from the end of February 2022 cross the borders of the countries neighboring Ukraine, are the subject of many ad hoc research projects (see Chmielewska-Kalińska et al. 2023; Isański et al. 2022; Staniszewski 2022; Wojdat, Cywiński 2022). The early days of the war triggered a spontaneous outpouring of support by locals in EU neighbor states, who offered refugees free shelter in their homes, accessible transport, and other forms of assistance on the border. Gradually, these activities involved other NGO institutions, associations, and state agencies. From the beginning of April 2022, Ukrainians in Poland could register for a PESEL number, which entitled them to receive free charity aid in Poland and medical assistance and seek legal employment. From March to June that year, Ukrainians were able to travel free of charge by public rail transport and in cities, and they received several other forms of support. General opinion polls carried out at that time in Poland illustrated a radical change of opinion on accepting refugees, which had hitherto been almost completely negative and focused on asylum seekers and refugees from the Middle East and South Asia and Africa. Public opinion in Poland expressed not only the high

76  Jakub Isański and Marek Nowak level of altruism toward Ukrainian war refugees but also certain fears and concerns about the ongoing conflict in the neighboring country: More than two-thirds of the surveyed Poles (68%) declare that they help Ukrainians in some way, for example, materially or financially. . . . The belief that our country should receive them is expressed by more than nine out of ten respondents (94%), including almost three-fifths (57%) saying “very likely”. Only three out of a hundred respondents (3%) have the opposite opinion. . . . On the other hand, the level of fear related to the war in Ukraine is very high. The vast majority of Poles (85%) believe it poses a threat to the security of our country, and nearly half (47%) expressly express this opinion. (Feliksiak and Roguska 2022) By contrast, just a year before, in 2021, during the migration crisis on the Polish–Belarusian border, the majority of Poles (52%) were against accepting arrivals of refugees from the Middle East and Africa, while 33% declared their support for hosting them in Poland and granting them asylum. Additionally, 77% of Poles supported strengthening control on the Polish–Belarusian border (Feliksiak 2021). This was due to common concerns about the threat of ISIS and terrorist attacks and Russia’s hybrid warfare. It should also be added that this situation caused very unfavorable opinions toward Poland and Poles worldwide. Likewise, as per earlier social research carried out in Poland after the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 and the wave of outgoing migration from Ukraine, Polish public opinion was generally for accepting refugees from Ukraine (Feliksiak 2021; Feliksiak and Roguska 2022) but was much less favorable to refugees from other countries affected by hostilities (like refugees from Syria). Concluding remarks The Russian aggression in Ukraine dramatically changed the broader context of migrations in the entire CEE region. Research carried out in early 2022 (Isański et al. 2022; Andrews et al. 2023) deals with refugees’ needs, concerns, and plans. Most refugees not only declare the necessity of meeting their immediate material needs but also seek stabilization: a flat for rent, a school or kindergarten for their children, work, or legal support in formalities related to extending their stay and working in the country. It is also symptomatic that among their fears, the most prevalent concern was the fate of their relatives (husbands, sons, brothers, or fathers) who remained in Ukraine to fight in defense of the country. During the interviews carried out for that project, one of the women expressed the following opinion: “I have no plans. This is the most difficult question for us Ukrainians. We don’t know what will happen tomorrow; nothing depends on us” (IDI_16, female, 35). This situation’s uniqueness is due to the Russian aggression against Ukraine that started in February 2022, which lends itself to an analysis of the successive waves of Ukrainian war refugees, which date back to the beginning of World War II. The subject of the proposed reflection is the relationship between societies and the

War refugees and their plans for the future  77 perception of cultural contact, which seems to be essential in the social dynamics accompanying war. An extensive diaspora of Ukrainian refugees who have found themselves in Poland in recent months not only provides an opportunity to look at strategies for dealing with the unique and traumatic situation of refugees and staying in a new country but is also a chance for them to engage with different symbols, cultural patterns, and values, etc. We argue that the enforced coincidence of cultures can be interpreted using the proven theory of organizational cultures developed with the use of Geert Hofstede’s classic research in the field of organization management. With millions of people crossing the border, there has been a sudden need to manage the anchoring and integration process, which is a challenge for any organization. What is worth emphasizing is that the latest and most numerous wave of forced migration is quite obviously different from the earlier migration waves that came, for example, to Poland, from the areas of Ukraine, which was already attacked in 2014. The differences include different proportions of sex and age, with the presence of a large group of children and adolescents this time around. This community, due to its structure, leads to specific demands for various forms of support and assistance  – from the material, through to needs related to ongoing adaptation to the situation in the place of their temporary settlement, and to creating the possibility of longer and more independent functioning through access to the labor market, as well as opportunities to use public services such as health care or universal education for children. The enormous, multifaceted influence of Ukrainian war refugees in the first half of 2022 will probably have an impact not only on the future shape of Ukraine but also on the entire continent. The change in the balance of power in the world and the increasing political and economic isolation of Russia, along with the changing international importance of CEE countries, force us to ask questions about the consequences of all these events and processes. These include questions about social changes and their connection with economic processes. Distinguishing “regular” migrants from refugees has become even more difficult and has even lost meaning. The collective category of war refugees must now accommodate not only those who left their homes fearing for their lives but also those who take advantage of these opportunities to improve their living conditions, ensure a safer future, or other reasons. Importantly, many of them have escapes only after traumatic experiences and declare the need to receive various forms of help and support, including medicine, rehabilitation, therapy, or special diagnostic requirements for multiple diseases. Thus, internal motivations, ad hoc strategies of survival, settling in, anchoring, or integration come in different guises not because of the massive number of refugees alone. However, they do have one common denominator: the external cause that forced them to leave their homes. This reason is difficult to imagine “in the 21st century, in Europe”, as one of my interlocutors put it, “I did not know what would be better: run away from home as far as possible or wait with the children in the bathroom until the sounds of explosions end” (IDI_19, female 39). Another interviewee, in turn, described the anxiety of her child, who saw her peers in the Polish school dressed in shoes of the famous company “New Balance” – the company’s

78  Jakub Isański and Marek Nowak logo, in the shape of the letter “N” on the shoes, might be also associated with the letter “Z”, which is one of the symbols of the occupation of Russian troops. What should the reflection on culture and cultural differences look like in this situation? There is no doubt that we are currently witnesses, and perhaps also participants, of a historic change taking place in Central Europe. The observation of this change, which is currently only a contributing one, should be continued in 2023 and subsequent years, as the situation offers a unique opportunity to describe the changing cultural dynamics. The depth and scope of the current sociocultural changes will probably leave a permanent mark on the region’s societies. The historical turning point that permanently changed the Polish society was 1945 – in addition to the end of World War II, it was also the moment of changing the country’s borders, mass migration movements, and the beginning of a totalitarian regime. In the modern history of Ukraine, the year 2022 will undoubtedly mark the beginning of a new era. However, a second, no less important question remains: are we able to influence this change in a planned way? Fascinating as it is, such a response goes beyond the scope of this study, but it nonetheless allows us to demarcate areas for future empirical research. One can also ask: so does culture matter? Historical, economic, or cultural differences between Poles and Ukrainians have not prevented the mass social mobilization that has taken place in Poland since the first days of the influx of migrants. Impressions of Ukrainian refugees are one of the main topics of public debate. One of the reports reads: “Poland’s assistance to Ukraine and Poles’ solidarity with Ukrainians, widely reported by the Ukrainian media, coupled with Ukrainians’ impressions of their stay in Poland, shared with family members or friends, could not have stayed without resonance” (Mieroszewski Centre 2022: 9). The coming years will show the consequences and durability of these changes, perhaps bringing a new perspective to Hofstede’s theory. Note 1 The research project we used in this text consisted of quantitative stage (CAPI, CAWI, n = 523) conducted in March–April 2022 and qualitative stage (IDI, n = 21) realized in May–June 2022. The research was organized with the financial support of Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland; the research team consisted of Polish and Ukrainian academics; details available at: DOI: 10.13140/ RG.2.2.28450.91845.

References Adekoya, R. (2014). How the EU transformed Poland. The Guardian. https://www. theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/01/eu-poland-10-years-economic. Andrews J., Isański J., Nowak M., Sereda V., Vacroux A., Vakhitova H. (2023, July–August). Feminized Forced Migration: Ukrainian War Refugees. In: Special Issue Women’s Studies International Forum. Women and the 2022 War in Ukraine: Combat, Care, Resistance and Resilience Women’s Studies International Forum (Vol. 99, p.  102756). https://doi. org/10.1016/j.wsif.2023.102756. Baskerville R. F. (2003). Hofstede Never Studied Culture. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28, 1–14.

War refugees and their plans for the future  79 Brunarska Z., Kindler M., Szulecka M., Toruńczyk-Ruiz S. (2016). Ukrainian Migration to Poland: A “Local” Mobility? In: Fedyuk Olena, Kindler Marta (eds.), Ukrainian Migration to the European Union: Lessons from Migration Studies. IMISCOE Research Series. Warsaw. Chmielewska-Kalińska I., Dudek B., Strzelecki P. (eds.). (2023). Sytuacja życiowa i ekonomiczna migrantów z Ukrainy w Polsce – wpływ pandemii i wojny na charakter migracji w Polsce. Raport z badania ankietowego. Warszawa: Narodowy Bank Polski. Chodakiewicz M. J. (2016). Intermarium. The Land between the Black and Baltic Seas. New Brunswick (USA) and London (UK): Transaction Publishers. Dyndar A. (2017). The Influence of the Ukrainian and Polish Population’s Cultural Activity on Their Economic Development. Nierówności Społeczne a Wzrost Gospodarczy 52 (4). DOI: 10.15584/nsawg.2017.4.22. Fedyuk Olena, Kindler Marta (eds.). (2016). Ukrainian Migration to the European Union: Lessons from Migration Studies. IMISCOE Research Series. Warsaw. Feliksiak M. (2021). Opinia publiczna wobec uchodźców i sytuacji migrantów na granicy z Białorusią [Public opinion about refugees and the situation of migrants on the Belarussian border]. cbos.pl 111/2021. Feliksiak M., Roguska B. (2022). Polacy wobec rosyjskiej inwazji na Ukrainę [Poles and Russian Invasion in Ukraine]. cbos.pl 38/2022. Górny A., Kindler M. (2016). The Temporary Nature of Ukrainian Migration: Definitions, Determinants and Consequences. In: Fedyuk Olena, Kindler Marta (eds.), Ukrainian Migration to the European Union: Lessons from Migration Studies. IMISCOE Research Series. Warsaw. Harney N. D. (2011/2012). Migrant Strategies, Informal Economies and Ontological Security: Ukrainians in Naples, Italy. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 32 (1–2). DOI: 10.1108/01443331211201725. Hofstede G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture. http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Professional. Instytut Zachodni. (1946/2016). Zbrodnia niemiecka w Warszawie [German crime in Warsaw]. SerwaIski E. i Trawińska I. (eds.). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Zachodniego. Isański J., Nowak M., Michalski M. A., Sereda V., Vakhitova H. (2022). Odbiór społeczny i integracja uchodźców z Ukrainy. Raport badawczy UKREF 1. [Social reception and inclusion of Ukrainian war refugees] DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28450.91845. Korejwo M. (ed.). (2016). “Druga repatriacja” ludności polskiej z ZSRS na Warmii i Mazurach. Wybór dokumentów z zasobu Archiwum Państwowego w Olsztynie z lat 1955–1962 [“Second Repatriation” of the Polish Population from the USSR in Warmia and Mazury. A Selection of Documents from the Resources of the State Archives in Olsztyn from the Years 1955–1962]. Olsztyn: Archiwum Państwowe w Olsztynie. Mieroszewski Centre. (2022). Poland and Poles as Seen by Ukrainians. Findings from a Public Opinion Poll Conducted in Ukraine. Warsaw: Mieroszewski Centre. Minkov M., Kaasa A. (2021). Test of the Revised Minkov-Hofstede Model of Culture: Mirror Images of Subjective and Objective Culture Across Nations and the 50 US States. Cross-Cultural Research 55 (2–3), 230–281. DOI: 10.1177/10693971211014468. Prokopenko O., Kryvoruchko L. (2017). Similarities and Cultural Differences as a Basis for the Development of Mutually Beneficial Relations Between Poland and Ukraine. Perspektywy Kultury/Perspectives on Culture 17 (2).

80  Jakub Isański and Marek Nowak Śliwiński P. (2022). Economic Divergence between Poland and Ukraine from the Perspective of Their Balances of Payments. Social Inequalities and Economic Growth 72 (4). DOI: 10.15584/nsawg.2022.4.4. Sent, E.-M., Kroese A. L. J. (2020). Commemorating Geert Hofstede, a Pioneer in the Study of Culture and Institutions. Journal of Institutional Economics 2020, 1–13. DOI: 10.1017/ S174413742000051X. Staniszewski R. M. (2022, June). Społeczna percepcja uchodźców z Ukrainy, migrantów oraz działań podejmowanych przez rząd Mateusza Morawieckiego  – raport z badania opinii publicznej [Social Perception of Refugees from Ukraine, Migrants and Actions Taken by Mateusz Morawiecki’s Government – Report from a Public Opinion Poll]. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17930.34243. Wisła R., Chugaievska S., Nowosad A., Turanli U. (2018). Structural Changes in the Polish and Ukrainian Economies Against the Background of Other Central and Eastern European Countries. In: Wisła E., Nowosad A. (eds.), Economic Transformation in Poland and Ukraine, National and Regional Perspectives (pp. 42–56). London and New York: Routledge. https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/item/248109/wisla_chugaievska_ nowosad_turanli_structural_changes_in_the_polish_and_ukrainian_economies_2020. pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Wojdat M., Cywiński P. 2022. Miejska gościnność: wielki wzrost, wyzwania i szanse. Raport o uchodźcach z Ukrainy w największych polskich miastach [Urban Hospitality: Great Growth, Challenges and Opportunities. Report on Refugees from Ukraine in the Largest Polish Cities]. Warszawa: Centrum Analiz i Badań Unii Metropolii Polskich.

5 Two teachers’ life with Hofstede Roger Matthew Bell and Marie-Therese Claes

Roger My awareness of Hofstede started in the early 1990s when I was teaching undergraduate courses in ESADE business school. The original aims of the course were language oriented and directed at non-native English speakers, but the content focus on culture and cross-cultural communication in business soon gave the course a non-linguistic status. Much of the inspiration for the course coincided with our belated discovery of the first edition of Culture’s Consequences, which rapidly became, as it were, the cultural Bible and maintained that status for a number of years. I did not then realize how revolutionary the book had been when it appeared, though significantly there was not at that time a course in the school dealing explicitly with doing business across cultures, as I christened the new course. I presented Hofstede’s four dimensions and the infrastructure of statistical analysis on which it was based as the value dimensional manifestation of underlying value orientations in turn stemming from external factors and societal and historic factors. This meant presenting Hofstede’s dimensions as a development in the world of work and organizations of the Kluckhohn value orientations derived from anthropological studies in the south-west of the United States. I was especially impressed by the breadth and depth of Hofstede’s knowledge and huge capacity for work. He had encyclopaedic knowledge of and had done detailed analyses of all the major writers one could think of – McClelland, Inkeles, Parsons, Shils, McGregor and countless others, with, if not iconoclastic, always down-to-earth no-nonsense comments on these established figures. I was duly convinced by his idea of “mental programmes” and the simple assertion that values were “a broad tendency to prefer certain states of affairs over others” (Hofstede 1984, p. 18). Ah: so that’s what it’s all about . . . ! We studied, though not in the detail they deserved, the data used to support the four original value dimensions, fruit of gargantuan labour and exhaustive analysis of corporate data made available to him, and were duly impressed by the warnings against the positivist fallacy, one of the many intellectual pitfalls that Hofstede saved us from, or his clever table distinguishing between the desired and the desirable – though admittedly I may not have made much of this in my teaching.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003410348-8

82  Roger Matthew Bell and Marie-Therese Claes The life changer for the neophyte was his cryptic definition of culture, with apologies to Kluckhohn, as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguished one human group from another” (Hofstede 1984, p. 21). So neat and to the point: a guiding light for us all! And we were very proud too to be able to distinguish between culture and Culture with our first undergraduate student groups. All rather simplistic, but it hadn’t been taught much in those days. The constant which made Hofstede’s reputation as a serious scholar was his methodology, reflecting encyclopaedic knowledge and painstaking justification of the value dimensions which made his name, and more controversially their implications and predictions. Anthropological in-depth studies of members of non-­literate societies were made relevant to the business school student in the modern social and organizational context, crucially, and dangerously as it turned out, at national level, which would later lead to his fall from favour in a world of interpretivist, post-modern and critical approaches to cultural issues, but this was not yet evident in the world of the mysterious Hermes corporation. The first edition of the book was largely a statistical tract that analysed Hofstede’s data in exhaustive detail. Of course, for many of our students (to our shame), this section was skimmed when not skipped, and attention directed to the chapters summarizing the dimensions and country scores. The statistical sections are not only the (obvious) strength of the book, obvious but also, over time, controversial. I recall wondering at the time whether statements about culture should, or indeed could, be derived and expressed in such a numerical way: culture then was counting things rather than experiencing and belonging. Of course, as is widely recognized, it was the numbers that were the main appeal for young business students: they seemed to state simple-to-grasp truths. This is at the root of the emic/etic dichotomy and the dichotomy between statistics and anthropology. Yet f values of ANOVA and factor analyses told us something that was interpreted as cultural phenomena or, as it was insistently made clear to us, differences. So many statements about culture were based on differences, and the business world built on the importance of these differences, creating a huge literature on how to deal with them; anthropologists made no such claims. At least one business writer, Max Boisot, described the manager as an anthropologist, but he was a lone figure who saw the world in visual images not numbers. All this was largely fuelled by the questions raised through the industry and determination of Hofstede; we would never have created courses round the subject had it not been for him – at least that is my case. So far, I had never met the man behind the book and would not do so until the turn of the century, by which time he had gained a reputation as being a somewhat argumentative and grumpy person in his seventies. I learned a huge amount by reading the background to the four dimensions as described in the first edition of Culture’s Consequences. The treatment of the first dimension dealt with PDI and exposed a number of paradoxes, for example that the concept is not about the existence of steep hierarchies and differences in power but the degree of acceptance of these differences on the part of the less powerful: as Hofstede observed, leadership can only exist as a complement to “subordinateship”,

Two teachers’ life with Hofstede  83 and he goes on to base this on psychological arguments about how the young learn: while dependence and need for security are universal in the young, independence and power “are only developed later in our lives, if they are developed at all” (Hofstede 1984, p.  70). There is undoubtedly a richness of material here which teachers, and I  include myself, never sufficiently examined at levels other than national, for example PDI by categories of occupation or occupation broken down by gender (Hofstede 1984). Had we made more use of this type of breakdown, it would have reduced the danger of our students’ (and perhaps ourselves’) thinking of national values as monolithic. Hofstede was above all a statistician and reached conclusions on multiple levels, and yet, in spite of this, it was the national level that he emphasized most and that stuck in readers’ minds. There are in fact pages and pages of careful consideration of dozens of other studies carried out in the field – Hofstede was nothing if not thorough – and most of us found it far too much work – and teaching time – to incorporate a lot of this into our classes. One set of data that did attract interest, and rather dangerously so, were the predictors of PDI (Hofstede 1984) – for example latitude; dangerous because it encourages deterministic predictions that explained too much too easily and sometimes dangerous because the direction of causality is not obvious (e.g. wealth, as Hofstede himself observes). Arguably the most interesting of the four original dimensions was UAI, a concept with which we were not familiar and easily over-simplified to risk-taking propensity. The idea of uncertainty avoidance is fascinating: living with uncertainty engenders anxiety  – how do we deal with it and how much of it can we tolerate? As Hofstede observes, we need mechanisms that “allow us to sleep in peace” (Hofstede 1984, p. 111). This introduced us to the problem of collinearity between the dimensions since at first sight, it would seem that high PDI cultures would also be high on UAI since unquestioning respect for authority is a way of dealing with uncertainty. Hofstede argues that this is not the case; the principle that “a rule is a rule” indicates high UAI, whereas the acceptance of arbitrary decision-making in superiors indicates high PDI. Students found this helpful but realized that there could be a generalized problem of attribution of behaviours to “scores” on dimensions. The use of etic dimensions implies an intelligent approach to attribution. We took the three items that constitute the UAI – rule orientation, employment stability and stress at work – as given, but it was intuitively obvious that they could be open to question; there may be many other explanations of stress at work and indeed reluctance to change jobs, so it did seem that there was a considerable superstructure built on a narrow and fragile basis. There are another 25 pages in the book explaining the relationship between UAI and other well-known research works such as the Lynn studies on anxiety and McClelland’s motivation data based on children’s books, which provided a useful background reading for student projects. In the case of individualism, most students felt they were dealing with a familiar idea, but it turned out to be more complex than they expected. The index was based on questionnaire items dealing with work goals such as challenging work, freedom to adapt and good working relationships  – work goals meaning in effect “how important is it for you . . . ?”. This seemed to limit IDV (and other dimensions) to a work context from which one cannot necessarily extrapolate to other social values,

84  Roger Matthew Bell and Marie-Therese Claes but it is argued that this is not the case since the scores are based on a comparison of closely similar profiles of respondents across cultures, so, ceteris paribus, controlling for other variables. Cluster maps combining two dimensions such as IDV and PDI (Hofstede 1984, p. 159) made perfect PPT slides for our classes to the delight of the young teachers and (at least in some cases) his/her students. We also find nuggets of statistical information that students relished playing with such as the inverse relationship between IDV score and traffic deaths: individualistic countries are “safer” we discovered, and there is a direct relationship between national wealth and individualism (Hofstede 1984) as well as a positive relationship between IDV and political stability, which, if true, is an important  – and potentially (and falsely) flattering discovery for Western countries. For this dimension, as for the others, Hofstede was interested in consequences in organizations, and this would lead later to the emergence of his system of six “dimensions of practice” or organizational culture dimensions, based on different sets of data; students would not be aware of these until the appearance of the 2001, second edition of Culture’s Consequences. Nonetheless, the foundation of the whole book is organizational (data from IBM and later managers in IMEDE business school) despite its conceptual extrapolation to social contexts. This extrapolation was easily forgotten in the classroom, and the dimensions soon became everyday descriptions of societies at large with no reference to organizations at all. Masculinity inevitably now seems the riskiest area in which to attempt to categorize nations, and not surprisingly it was referred to as the “taboo dimension” by the author himself in a 1998 publication (Hofstede & Associates 1998). It deals with a controversial area and involves concepts and terminology that some readers, including our students, could find provocative. A lot of the discussion on this dimension refers to a “social-ego” measure which parallels the feminine/masculine dichotomy but which does not always overcome the suspicion in many students’ and commentators’ minds that this was an attempt to camouflage sexist assumptions about gender roles. Considerably, more of the respondents to Hofstede’s questionnaires were men than women, and he went to pains to take this into account and show that the results were not significantly different (Hofstede 1984); the real issue was always the “masculinity” or “femininity” of respondents regardless of their gender in making comparisons at national (and by extension other) levels. This was long before the development of feminism as it is thought of today. The items on which the measure was based, such as living in desirable area, importance of cooperation at work, security at work at the feminine end and challenge, advancement and recognition and high earning as values at the masculine end, should not be seen as gender stereotyped since they apply to both women and men. The only question is whether they should be so named; one cannot help feeling “social/ego” would have been a less troublesome name for the dimension. One must remember that the study was limited to the 40 countries where “Hermes”, that is, IBM, were present, so another controversy arises as to whether the same questionnaire items should be applied across other countries in which this

Two teachers’ life with Hofstede  85 organization was not present. As Hofstede points out, this should not be seen as a problem since the variable isolated is nation; nonetheless, it is often seen as a methodological weakness. To deal with Hofstede’s dimensions correctly, the teacher needs to be a statistician, but obviously this was far from being the general case; consequently, we tended to take the numbers as gospel, at least in the early days, till better statisticians than us brought them increasingly into question. More controversially, I and, I suspect, other teachers and students somehow felt that in “our kind of culture”, IDV and MAS were high and UAI and PDI were low, which was not surprising, given my Anglo-Saxon roots. Those of us who are from northern Europe but live in Mediterranean countries felt the cultural differences could often be summed up by reversing the sign on all of these, so in a broad sense, the cultures were diametrically opposite. This obviously is a huge oversimplification but very tempting; it is also a dangerous invitation to xenophobic attitudes and national superiority. We worked with students on the cluster diagrams that Hofstede developed and really felt we had a comprehensive understanding of the cultures of the world – though in reality, this was far from being the case and often became an invitation to stereotyping. In fact, Hofstede created my culture classes. The influences on culture and its origins in geography, economic, demographic, historical, or technological influences as seen in “the stabilizing of Culture Patterns” diagram (Hofstede 1984, p. 22) became a basic PPT slide to make sense, indeed to “explain” cultures, and were a key building block in the courses I taught at that time. We felt that the etic/ nomothetic nature of Hofstede’s framework, in contrast with an emic/idiographic approach to cultures, was the explanatory keystone: it made cultural studies somehow more respectable and scientific and gained it a place in many course programmes that would never have been oriented solely to anthropologically based emic discussion. Nonetheless, we presented the emic/etic distinction, which later would develop into contrasting positivist/interpretivist approaches and would contribute in large measure to Hofstede’s loss of infallibility in academic circles  – though not so much among students and consultants. In the classes, it was easy and attractive to do exercises that involved emic details about cultures: what they drink, historical dates, language spoken, religious affiliation and so on without any appeal to Hofstede’s books, or indeed any etic comparisons. This type of emic information was commercially mixed up with scores on etic dimensions by Trompenaars for example, who is still very popular though scoffed at by other academics. He has been very successful, and his applications for mobiles have become big business, while the categorization of nations using Hofstede’s dimensions has been widely corrupted to a quick press-the-button and get-the-answer to “understand” national  – and by extension business  – cultures along with a handful of emic specifics about “Latin”, “Germanic” or “Arab” cultures, which are in fact frequently facile stereotypes. A discussion that frequently emerged in class was whether there is a tendency to convergence over time as globalization becomes more generalized, but not much light is shed on this in the first edition of Culture’s Consequences, largely because

86  Roger Matthew Bell and Marie-Therese Claes the studies are not longitudinal and only contrast two dates when questionnaires were administered and analysed, separated by 5 years. However, Hofstede clearly believed that there is a tendency for international difference between positions on his value dimensions to tend to be perpetuated over time (Hofstede, 1984 among others). I worked mainly with fourth-year business students in not only optional courses for including visiting groups from other universities, both European and north, south and central American as well as CEMS-intensive block seminars but also courses for working managers such as full time and executive MBA programmes or visiting executive groups. Almost all courses were conducted in English with a small number of sessions delivered in French or Spanish. The background and the profile of students were fairly constant: business minds dealing with what for some was the irritating or even trifling issue of culture and cross-cultural communication in business; culture has always been a thorny issue in business discussions, which perhaps explains why formulaic simplifications of Hofstede’s dimensions are so tempting outside academia. So, we lived with the four dimensions, which were respected with near religious faith, and it did not occur to many of us in those early days to question them. As Hofstede observed, the idea of national cultures had become “what Kuhn calls ‘normal science’ ” (Hofstede 2001, p.  73), and the dimensions in question were Hofstede’s for most of us. My approach was inductive, and Hofstede’s dimensions emerged as attractive explanations of intercultural issues and culture-specific behaviours, presented using a case methodology, drawing conclusions and then summing up the theoretical framework that fitted, perhaps too conveniently, the value dimensions created by Hofstede. This seemed important as a way of showing the relevance of the work and was widely used, if not standard, in business schools. Some teachers, and almost all consultants, would prefer a deductive approach in which the model is presented as a framework and used to “explain” behaviour, thus, by definition, reinforcing the theoretical framework. I recall few references to any abductive quest for new hypotheses or questions that may have suggested alternatives to the four dimensions, at least not for some years, though this may have varied with teachers and institutions. It was in large measure the addition of the fifth dimension, long-term orientation, and even more the sixth, inspired by Mishal Minkov, which led to scepticism about the dimensions we had thought of as absolute truths; if you can add more then who knows how incomplete the system was. Hofstede stated clearly that there was no reason why his dimensions should be considered exhaustive (Hofstede 2001); even so for us, it was almost as if some sacred truth had been betrayed. It is of course rather difficult to find information about student reactions 20 or 25  years later, but it was clear that students were much more comfortable with Hofstede’s value dimensions than other models, for example Schwartz’s basic personal values and circular cultural level construct or the World Value Survey (though this huge undertaking is ongoing and now planning the eighth wave of data collection and has certainly outlived the impact of Hofstede). The students were not particularly impressed by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck largely because of the

Two teachers’ life with Hofstede  87 anthropological roots and the absence of statistical findings. And, of course, this reassured teachers that they were teaching the right material. A mental buffeting was necessary for this inertia to be upset. My copy of the first edition of Culture’s Consequences is in a deplorable state with most of the pages loose, not because this may have been a cheap version so much as because of constant thumbing and quests for insights over a period of several years. It was only much later superseded as a source of inspiration by the undeniably more complete and polished second edition that appeared in 2001. By then, my teaching had changed further and the approach in the international academic community even more so. Articles were appearing questioning Hofstede’s methodology by Brendan McSweeney and others (e.g. McSweeney 2002), while my own approach became even more eclectic; Hofstede had long lost his hegemony in class programmes. I devoted more time and energy with my students and preparation to presentations, discussions and case analyses drawing on not only Kluckhohn, Inglehart and Schwartz but also communication conventions researchers like Scollon and Scollon (1995). In a typical three-hour class of 25–30 PPT slides, only 2 or 3 would be devoted to Hofstede. I believed then and still do today that Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s value orientations are of a higher order than the Hofstede dimensions in the sense that they propose universal dilemmas (perception of nature, human nature, time, social relationships, human activity) through an anthropological study of various societies, whereas Hofstede’s are derived statistically from organizational HR questionnaires. A similar idea is presented by Schein (Schein 1985) in which Hofstede’s dimensions are but one set among many (Schein, Trompenaars, Hall, Adler). Schein’s purpose, of course, was to present his Organizational Culture Model and not apply it at the societal level. Classes would contain general comment and activities dealing with dimensions and thus epitomizing the etic approach, but not specifically Hofstede’s at this stage, and were presented through communication conventions, largely drawing on Scollon and Scollon (1995) op. cit. These concepts show how discourse strategies reflect vertical and horizontal social relationships, deference and distance, which in turn can be interpreted in terms of value dimensions such as in/formality, restraint/ indulgence or power distance, of which only PDI corresponded to Hofstede’s original four. These communication conventions were also inspired by Hall (1965, 1976) and are implicit in patterns of behaviour predicted by his (non-numerical) dimensions: time from sequential to synchronous, context from high to low, proxemics from close to distant, language rhetorical to factual, or expressiveness from high to low. Hofstede only dealt with these when interpreting etic dimensions and supposedly predictable effects on behaviour. All communities use strategies to maintain cultural norms relating to hierarchies and horizontal interpersonal distance through verbal discourse and non-verbals in the form of kinetics and eye contact among other signals. This behaviour occurs both intra- and inter-culturally and can reflect power distance through independence strategies on the part of the deferential party and involvement strategies from the social superior. There is no reference to discourse in the first editions of

88  Roger Matthew Bell and Marie-Therese Claes Culture’s Consequences; in the second edition, the issue arises in the section on masculinity, where Hofstede quotes Deborah Tannen (Hofstede 2001), and later with reference to the difficulties of non-native language speakers in intercultural encounters. Scollon and Scollon do not appear in the name index of the second edition and were writing too late to be cited in earlier editions. What interested groups of students and also executive classes was the way behaviour could be explained in terms of culture and hence the importance of the interpretive frameworks used, only one of which was Hofstede’s. We made observations, possibly simplistic but appealing to groups with practical experience. Thus, “behaviour I might expect”: directness and informality, steady eye contact, answerability for team work, status by achievement, taking individual initiatives on the one hand in contrast with what “they” might expect: concern for kinship, personalism gets thing done, inability to say “no” directly, transactions can be simultaneous, references to divine will are normal, a signed deal may not be a final deal, refusal of a favour is likely to end a business relationship and so on. Obviously, these behaviours reflect relationships, social rules, collectivistic values and what David Pinto referred to as fine-meshed and coarse-meshed cultures (Pinto 2001). These simple explanations are not so easily drawn from Hofstede’s dimensions, or at least they require harder work on the part of the student and teacher. Thus, Hofstede became less central at the same time as his work was being criticized for its categorization by nationality, unjustifiable conclusions from limited data items, projection to nations of single company data or tendency to give excessively homogeneous descriptions of nations, even though it must be said that Hofstede was aware of these and other possible criticisms as we see in the 2001 edition of Culture’s Consequences, where he addresses criticism on five points: surveys are not suitable for his purposes, nations are not the best units, one company does not give valid results, data are old, four or five dimensions are not enough (Hofstede 2001, p. 73). In spite of all the controversy and in some cases denigration of which Hofstede has been a victim, I had, and still have today, enormous respect for his thoroughness, capacity for work and major contribution to broadening the awareness of culture. It is no mean feat to become one of the most cited social scientists in Europe along with Freud and Kant, and certainly no accident. Marie-Thérèse Like many of my interculturalist colleagues, I started as a language teacher. Teaching language meant talking about culture too. In the 1980s, we had conferences not only about “Language and Culture” but also about the importance of non-verbal communication. Edward T. Hall (“Beyond Culture”, e.g., high and low contexts) was an important source, as he developed not only the concepts of context in communication but also the importance of time and space. Through all my courses in the following years, I would introduce the importance of language in business settings, more particularly with partners with another native language, or the bond created between non-native speakers of English. Only recently had the topic of the importance of language in business come to the fore.

Two teachers’ life with Hofstede  89 I still consider Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) the basis for intercultural studies, with their focus on how we relate to nature, human nature, time and human activity. I found that all later models can be reduced to their dimensions, with more or less stress on the aspects that they developed. The interest in Hofstede’s work originated in a course I was giving for CEMS students, before the course became compulsory. The students I was teaching were business students, so I needed to prepare them not only to function in another language but also to function in another culture: Intercultural Communication (ICC). Two books had been very important in inspiring me in developing material for this course: Hofstede’s and Philippe d’Iribarnes’s La Logique de l’Honneur (1989), which was only recently translated into English (d’Iribarne 2012). I remember telling d’Iribarne at a conference that it was important that his book should be translated into English, though he was not in a hurry to have it done! D’iribarne’s book is a totally different approach to cultural studies, an emic lens on three different cultures in the same organization: French, German and American. As soon as I got to know of Hofstede’s research, I combined ICC with Intercultural Management (ICM). Only later was intercultural changed to cross-cultural, under the American influence. Hofstede’s dimensions were so beautifully simple and handy: you could see the “cultural distance” between two countries: you are here on that dimension continuum, and that country is there on a line, how big is the difference? The concept of culture as mental programming made sense: we are all socialized to behave, talk and think in a certain way because of our environment, our family, the traditions or even the laws and regulations. Students loved it; businesspeople loved it. Business was becoming more and more international, travelling to other countries for exchanges or for work. Not only did students get the concepts (the dimensions) but the numbers as well! This made it all digestible, understandable, visible and applicable and, crucially, simple – but, of course, simplified. The groups I was working with were not always so simple themselves, with many people of mixed nationalities or of different origins. Listening to them and to the businesspeople I was training, I soon realized that I was oversimplifying, putting nationalities in boxes and that reality was not as simple as this. One of the issues with the dimensions was that we were always trying to squeeze a certain reaction or behaviour into one of the dimensions: where shall I put this, under power distance or under masculinity? The exercise was often frustrating because so much could go into different boxes at the same time. So much always depended on the context! It did not always work in practice: we often tried to squeeze behaviours into one of the dimensions, because the dimensions were supposed to explain everything. Of course, one can say that Hofstede did not invent anything: he found the dimensions in social sciences, and IBM gave him access to the personnel. Still, taking it on himself to walk away with the data and start working on them shows great insight and a formidable mind. With management students, the “implicit models of organizations”, where Hofstede divided organizational cultures into pyramids, machines, markets and families (Hofstede 1991), used such a neat, visual and logical way of presenting the culture of an organization that it never failed to create great insights. This system of

90  Roger Matthew Bell and Marie-Therese Claes attribution is presented as a quadrant based on the dimensions UAI and PDI, creating a link between culture and organizational structure. It meant we could apply the dimensions to the structure of an organization and its impact on motivation for example. This analysis preceded his identification of different organizational cultures in the second edition of Culture’s Consequences (Hofstede 2001) With time, we became more critical, adding first “tend to” instead of “is” or “are” when talking about cultural dimensions. In order to avoid the essentializing impact of Hofstede’s dimensions, I soon had to add that the dimensions should be seen as “working hypotheses”. These concepts or dimensions are cultural trends you might expect to see in X culture or country, but do not take them for granted. The people or the organizations you will work with might be totally different from what the “national” dimension predicts. Do not generalize, because then you are guilty of “sophisticated stereotyping”. I  realized that I  had been unconsciously “priming” my students and trainees, making them think in stereotypes and creating attributional errors, in which we ascribe certain behaviours to cultural dimensions rather than to the environment or the context. We always had problems using Hofstede’s dimensions and questionnaires for research, as the results often contradicted his findings. Several research papers at IACCM (International Association of Cross-Cultural Competence and Management) conferences raised this issue, and we found more and more flaws in the research methods and were interested to find instances where Hofstede’s framework did not work. When a sixth dimension was added to the famous five, the confusion started. In the meantime, Trompenaars came out with his nine dimensions, and it seemed to me that there was a kind of inflation of dimensions. On top of that, different editions of Trompenaars’ book gave different results, and we did not know what to believe any more. Then there was a seventh dimension in Hofstede’s model, and I gave up. Of course, the GLOBE research project split some of Hofstede’s dimensions, and we realized that you could add on endlessly, because of the great diversity in cultures! It all depends on what you want to see. So I moved on and went back to the etic–emic approach, trying to avoid continuously interpreting behaviour according to the pre-established dimensions and also seeing what interpretations were given by the “locals”, in a way going back to the language – the meaning. Indeed, etic comes from phonetic (what you hear), and emic comes from phonemic (the meaning). I do believe that national cultures exist, because of the impact of the institutions such as education, justice and political system have on our socialization. Hofstede’s research was a fantastic advance in intercultural studies. After him, so much research happened in the field and contributed to a better understanding of cultures and their influence on society. Are cultures converging? This is a frequent question. In order to answer it, I use the iceberg model, with the observable, mostly exteriorized aspects of culture, such as language, behaviour and traditions. There might indeed be convergence on that level: we tend to wear the same clothes, use the same language and share many artifacts such as music. Under the surface though, where we find the values, assumptions and expectations, I don’t see much convergence happening.

Two teachers’ life with Hofstede  91 I first met Geert Hofstede in 1992, at a conference of the IACCP (International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology) in Liège, Belgium. At the time, I was working on my doctoral thesis and using word association as a research tool. The thesis covered linguistic, social, cultural and psychological research approaches, and I had read Culture’s Consequences in the 1980s. I had an interesting conversation with Hofstede about the translation of his book into his mother tongue, Dutch, which he did himself. He told me it was actually “writing another book”. I was very much impressed by his kindness and friendliness. He was a gentle listener, and a smiling speaker. I met Hofstede several times after that first meeting, mostly at conferences, such as SIETAR (Munich 1996 was epic, because of the conflict between Hofstede and Trompenaars) or IACCM. I never dropped Hofstede, because his research was a must-know, the concepts interesting and his study was seminal; it led to so many other studies and stimulated interest in cross-cultural communication and cross-cultural management in the business world. At the same time, I needed to talk about cultural differences between organizations, and I used E. Schein’s model for this purpose. It took me time and international experience to realize that the knowledge of a culture does not equate with competence in that culture. I met so many international managers, expatriates, who had had “cultural training” before or during their moves but had no idea what these concepts and dimensions meant in real life and working environments. Although they had the knowledge, they did not have the competence. The more I moved on, the more I realized that the dimensions are restrictive, putting people in categories, in boxes. Critical approaches became necessary and popular (Romani & Claes 2010). With critical and experienced CEMS students pushing us to examine our own assumptions and simplifications, we decided we needed a textbook going beyond the positivist approaches and offering more diverse theories (Gehrke  & Claes 2014). We are in the process of writing a revised edition as we realize that the international business environment has changed and become even more complex in the last ten years. Finally, I think we should not “throw out the baby with the bathwater” but recognize the value and the impact of Hofstede’s work. Thanks to his work, culture became recognized in research, in teaching and in business. It was and is something to start with: it is simple, recognizable and easy. Doing that kind of research in the sixties or seventies, with a pen-and-paper questionnaire in so many different countries and taking the time to compute and analyse without the software that we have at our disposal nowadays, was a huge feat. Teaching cross-cultural management, I  had to talk about other differences, apart from language and culture, such as gender, age and religion. I realized that national culture is only one aspect of the diversities among people. Not differences any more but diversities. Moving on, I  came to find that diversity is of course what we find everywhere – but what do we do with it? The answer is inclusion. If we want to make people feel comfortable where they live and work, we have to make sure that they feel included – part of the in-group. And how do we do that?

92  Roger Matthew Bell and Marie-Therese Claes What competences do we need at the individual and organizational level to create inclusion? Do we know and accept our stereotypes and biases as individuals and as organizations? Are we aware of them, and do we know when they create discrimination? So that is where I am now. Each step in my evolution has been important in building knowledge and experience and influencing my thinking. Hofstede was a very important player in this evolution. Without that influence, would I be where I am? Experience compared and contrasted There is a broad range of agreement between the two teachers though Roger’s approach is to use more descriptions of content of the first edition of Culture’s Consequences, which formed the backbone of his courses in the 1990s; his emphasis is thus more on syllabus and how it developed and less on the personal knowledge and development of the relationship described by Marie-Thérèse, who knew Hofstede much better than Roger, since she met him personally more than ten years earlier. Perhaps for this reason, Marie-Thérèse feels she owed more to Hofstede than did Roger, who tended to see him as being only one of several sources to draw on. Nonetheless, they both recognize that Hofstede’s invention – or discovery – of the four initial dimensions and a lot of the work that went into them were a major influence that made it possible to create a course on culture and values in business and by extension to project this on to social phenomena. For both teachers, Hofstede meant a revolutionary shift from culture’s being seen as a fuzzy and remote area inspired by anthropologists to its being incorporated into business thinking that could be compared, measured and applied in cases and situations sufficiently clearly and simply to be accepted by the quantitative minds of business students – and very soon business consultants. This was a huge contribution to our perception of culture. In thinking about the contrast between emic and etic approaches to culture, MarieThérèse describes the importance that d’Iribarne had for her whereas Roger is more modest in contrasting the specifics of cultures through their communication patterns, language, history, customs and stories elicited from the experience of his students and their observations. What both these approaches reveal is that the emic and etic approaches are, if not incompatible, at least complementary. There is no logic in attempting to extrapolate etic – and thus comparative – statements from emic – and thus specific and unique – observations; at best, it is a hazardous exercise. Roger talks of loss of intellectual respectability and Marie-Thérèse of a perception of oversimplification and over-neat categorizing into boxes and silos, both thus reflecting the doubts that progressively clouded the blue sky of admiration for the revolutionary Hofstede of the 1980s. Both see the addition of new dimensions as the beginning of the end, and as time went by and more dimensions appeared, some vital quality that made the Hofstede dimensions seem almost infallible for a while ceased to command so much respect and finally led to a loss of conviction and faith in his model. In this, they were part of a general shift in attitude in the academic world.

Two teachers’ life with Hofstede  93 Nonetheless, they both make a point of emphasizing that they admire Hofstede’s work and are still aware of its key role in their teaching. For all the weaknesses that have been attacked over the years, they both, as Marie-Thérèse observes, decline to throw out “the baby with the bathwater”. Another area of agreement is the perception that Hofstede’s model, and other dimensional models too, were inspired by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Values Orientation Theory, and that this conceptually preceded the derivation of dimensions for use in organizations and business, but without Hofstede’s contribution, the leap from anthropology to management studies would never have happened when it did. The context in which they have both always worked is the business school, dealing with business students and practitioners, a collective that likes a quantifiable, hard-nosed approach rather than unquantifiable anthropological descriptions that cannot be compared numerically, even if they can be described as higher or lower on various concepts in frameworks. And this is related to some lingering doubts many teachers have had as to whether the dimensional quantities and numbers are really what cultural studies should be about, but they were so convenient and useful at the time. Academic preferences have shifted over the years away from dependence on these numerical etic approaches, and in parallel Hofstede’s reputation has declined – along with that of many far less important researchers. The fact that both the teachers came into the field through language teaching, thence to language for special purposes and thence to a broader and deeper range of communication skills is significant. They were both fascinated by the relationship between language and culture and the key role of communication conventions and discourse strategies in intercultural as well as intra-cultural encounters. Hofstede’s origins in business organizations and management and the teachers’ roots in language and communication produce a serendipitous amalgam that fitted perfectly into the CEMS alliance of business schools, initially European but now world-wide, with its programmes, courses and block seminars and close ties to business corporations and partners, Roger essentially as teacher and member of the faculty group, while Marie-Thérèse still plays a major role in teaching in and managing the alliance. The story of Geert Hofstede is that of the rise and fall of an idol, who inspired new ways of thinking about culture and “put it on the map” for teaching institutions before being dismissed as no longer relevant in the changing world of crosscultural communication and management. A cruel fate, perhaps, but the academic world moves on, and it sometimes seemed that Hofstede resisted those changes.1 Note 1 Barcelona and Vienna, October 2022[0].

References D’Iribarne P (1989). La Logique de l’Honneur: Gestion des Entreprises et traditions nationales. Paris, Seuil. D’Iribarne P (2012). Managing Corporate Values in Diverse National Cultures, the Challenge of Differences. New York, Routledge.

94  Roger Matthew Bell and Marie-Therese Claes Gehrke B & Claes M-T eds (2014). Global Leadership Practices: A Cross-Cultural Management Perspective. Basingstoke, Hants, UK, Palgrave Macmillan. Hall E T (1965). The Silent Language. Greenwich, CT, Fawcett. Hall E T (1976). Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY, Anchor. Hofstede G  & Associates (1998). Masculinity and Femininity: The Taboo Dimension of National Culture. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications. Hofstede G H (1984). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Abridged Version. Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications. Hofstede G H (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London, McGraw-Hill. Hofstede G H (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications. Kluckhohn, C. & Strodtbeck, F., 1961, Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, IL, Row, Peterson. McSweeney B (2002). Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and Their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith – A Failure of Analysis. Human Relations, 55, 89–118. Pinto D (2001). Intercultural Communication. Garant Uitgevers. Somersstraat 1315, 2018 Antwerpen. Romani L & Claes M-T (2010). Why Critical Intercultural Communication Studies are to be Taken Seriously in Cross-Cultural Management Research? In T K Nakayama and R Tamiko Halualani (eds), The Handbook of Critical Intercultural Communication. Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell. Schein E H (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed. San Francisco, Jossey Bass. Scollon R & Scollon S W (1995). Intercultural Communication. Cambridge, MA, Blackwell Publishers. SIETAR (1996). SIETAR Conference. Munich.

6 Hofstede’s Six The career of a concept and the importance of context Wolfgang Mayrhofer

Introduction In the late 1970s, Geert Hofstede presents his views on national culture to a wider audience. Based on his seminal study at IBM about national value differences, he identifies four primary dimensions of national culture, that is, power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance and masculinity (Hofstede, 1980). Subsequent studies, in particular by Michael Harris Bond (Hofstede & Bond, 1988) and Michael Minkov (Minkov, 2007), allow Hofstede to add two other dimensions to his concept, that is, long-term orientation and indulgence (Hofstede, 1991; Hofstede et al., 2010). Today, Hofstede’s Six constitute an established touchstone for both academics and practitioners interested in the role of national culture in the lives of individuals, groups, and (networks of ) organizations. From the beginning on, the concept has a huge impact on academic studies (e.g., Kirkman et al., 2006) as well as the world of practitioners (e.g., Bing, 2004). For a number of years, it serves as the “gold standard” in culture comparative research. Over the years, other concepts, in particular the GLOBE study (House et al., 2004) and, to a lesser extent, Schwartz’ cultural value orientations (Schwartz, 1992, 1999) provide alternative and frequently used conceptualizations. At the same time, criticism about Hofstede’s concept mounts (e.g., Baskerville, 2003). This raises, among others, the question about the contingencies that influenced the career of the concept (for a debate about who/what can have a career, see Gunz & Mayrhofer, 2018: 29 ff.), in particular its objective outcomes as indicated by dissemination and use as conceptual pillar. In essence, this chapter argues that the emergence and popularity of a concept are subject to its fit with contextual contingencies. More precisely, it suggests that specific characteristics of the societal, economic, and academic system influence the emergence, rise, and ongoing popularity and critique of Hofstede’s Six as well as its prevailing in the contested market of culture conceptualizations used in academic debate and daily practice of practitioners. This chapter identifies the most influential of these characteristics that provide the contextual canvas and illustrate how they contribute to the career of Hofstede’s Six. Before doing so, I will briefly outline the use of the concept in academic research.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003410348-9

96  Wolfgang Mayrhofer

Figure 6.1 On the left: Articles building on Hofstede’s work 1980–2018 without book chapters, etc. (Zhou & Kwon, 2020: 5); on the right: number of references for Hofstede’s major works (Gerlach & Eriksson, 2021: 2)

Dissemination – some facts and figures A number of analyses clearly show that Hofstede’s concept is academically taken up in the second half of the 1980s, and respective publications start to appear in the early 1990s (Figure 6.1). To be sure, the Hofstede concept not only was frequently addressed in a broad array of academic debates but also gained a foothold in high-quality journals. Looking at a selection of the top journals in management studies, Ferreira et al. demonstrate this and also show that, which is hardly surprising, the resonance of the concept was much larger in journals that have an explicit international focus (Figure 6.2). Of course, all these calculations have their limits and weaknesses, for example, only partially factoring in the increasing overall number of publications and not giving a comprehensive view of the concept’s use due to the focus on available bibliographic data, disregarding other outlets and sources such as the increasingly sophisticated website of Hofstede (www.Hofstede-insights.com/). Still, the overall picture is pretty clear: after a short period of latency after seeing the daylight in 1980, the concept increasingly got attention in the academic debate but seems to have reached its peak in the second half of the 2010s. Against the backdrop of the basic argument in this chapter – the importance of contextual settings for the career of a concept, that is, its emergence, blooming, and decline – this points to the respective contextual canvas. To this I turn next. Contextual canvas Theoretical frameworks in management studies and, related or not, influential ­practice-oriented conceptualizations and tools do not appear out of the blue.

Hofstede’s Six  97 Table 2 – Journals selected and citations of Hofstede (1980)

Journal title

Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management Review Administrative Science Quarterly International Business Review Journal of International Business Studies Organization Science Strategic Management Journal Journal of World, Business Total

Number Years of articles available in published ISI web of (1980–2010) knowledge(1) (2)

Number of articles citing Total Hofstede citations (3) (1980)

C

1958–2011

1,935

74

17,239

3.8

1983–2011

1,998

79

15,782

4.0

1956–2011

1,876

28

11,539

1.5

2005–2011

288

58

1,129

20.1

1976–2011

1,649

264

6,307

16.0

1997–2011

432

81

9,120

18.8

1992–2011

941

32

15,626

3.4

1980–2011

1,828

39

1,035

2.1

10,947

655

77,777

6.0

Notes: (1) not all journals had their entire track record available in ISI. (2) The number of articles published and available for additional analysis. (3) The number of citations to all articles published in the journal. (4) Percentage of the articles published in the journal that cited Hofstede (1980). Source: data retrieved from ISI Web Knowledge. Computations by the authors.

Figure 6.2 Percentage of Hofstede-citing articles in top journals (Ferreira et al., 2014: 385)

Rather, a number of conditions exist that favor or hinder their appearance and diffusion. While there is a multitude of influencing factors, two major ones are general fit to the zeitgeist and providing new answers that existing approaches cannot satisfactorily answer or answer any more. My core argument, then, is that the birth and popularity of the concept as well as its ups and downs over the rest of its life cycle is heavily influenced by external contingencies in the societal, economic, and academic setting. Accordingly, this section describes major aspects in these areas (for a partially more detailed account of some time spans, see Gunz & Mayrhofer, 2018), which constitute the canvas on which the concept’s career unfolds. The age of organization

The 1960s and 1970s are a period of societal and economic turbulence in the Western industrialized world, which hold a dominant position in shaping global developments. The aftermath of World War II persists in the 1960s, but new advancements

98  Wolfgang Mayrhofer begin to emerge during this time. One significant development is the societal movement of 1968, characterized by self-realization, emphasis on the individual’s role in society, the sexual revolution, and skepticism of established institutions. Additionally, the civil rights movement gains momentum, sparked in the United States by Rosa Parks’ act of defiance in 1955 when blatantly disregarding seemingly iron-clad segregation practices in her bus to work in Montgomery, Alabama, by not giving up her seat to a white male. The Cold War between the Soviet Union and the Western democratic world, as well as the Vietnam War, further exemplify the ideological divide and tensions of the era. From an economic standpoint, the 1960s and 1970s see multinational corporations like Unilever, IBM, General Motors, and British Petroleum exerting global influence. There is optimism about economic growth following the war, but doubts emerge with the publication of the influential Club of Rome’s report on growth limitations (Meadows et al., 1972) and the 1973 oil crisis. These events challenge the prevailing sentiment and pave the way for the advancement of neoliberal economic theory in later decades. Notably, reports of major deficiencies in the United States’ educational system such as the Carnegie Foundation’s Report on ­university-college programs in business administration (Pierson & others, 1959) and the Gordon and Howell Report (Gordon & Howell, 1959) on higher education for business suggest a need for organization studies to be grounded in social science and mathematics. These recommendations, while not necessarily causal, influence subsequent theoretical advancements in management studies. Two themes derived from these macro-level developments are relevant for the academic discourse: organizations, particularly large ones, continue to be emblematic of a promising future beyond national borders; and context has to be factored in when trying to even better understand what happens in organizations as key actors in the societal fabric. The period from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s witnesses significant contributions to organizational studies. This era sees the emergence of groundbreaking theoretical works on organizations, individuals, and their dynamics, which continue to influence research today. They introduce new perspectives on conceptualizing organizations, the role of individuals within them, and individual behavior, building upon earlier seminal works (in particular Barnard, 1971 [Orig. 1938]; Simon, 1957 [Orig. 1947]). While space limitations prevent a comprehensive overview, a few illustrations about emerging conceptualizations of organizations, individuals, and their behavior may suffice. March and Simon (1958) expand on the traditional notion of hierarchy, emphasizing its role in information processing and introducing the concept of bounded rationality. Several publications during this era explore mechanistic versus organic organizations (Burns  & Stalker, 1961), charisma, power, and compliance (Etzioni, 1961); conflicts between hierarchy and competence (Thompson, 1961); organizational decision-making that is leaning toward uncertainty avoidance and organizational learning (Cyert  & March, 1963); the limits of classical management principles in the Taylorian tradition (Woodward, 1965); evolutionary processes of organizing (Weick, 1969); organizational learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978); and the role of power and the external environment for understanding organizations (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978).

Hofstede’s Six  99 These classic works constitute the foundation for much of current scholarly inquiry in organization studies and also provide important points of reference for regional debates. For example, in the German language area, one can see a paradigmatic change in the left-behind classic theoretical perspectives such as production factors (Gutenberg, 1958) and a techno-economic view (Kosiol, 1972). Instead, emphasis is put on decision-making in organizations (Heinen, 1978), a systems view (Ulrich, 1970), behavioral perspectives of organizations (Schanz, 1977), and the importance of social aspects in management (Staehle, 1980). In summary, major works in management science reject a reductionist, mechanistic paradigm and emphasize the social element. They challenge the notion of objective truth and highlight the construction of reality through individual and social filters. The classic view of rational, machine-like organization and economic man is at least partially replaced by a unique blend of behavioral based views that include uncertainties, personal motives, bounded rationality, dynamic relationships, and power issues. The globalized world

The onset of the 1980s is marked by a sense of ambiguity and unpredictability. The Soviet Union becomes entangled in Afghanistan in a manner reminiscent of the United States’ entanglement in Vietnam, which occurred approximately a decade prior. The ongoing Iran–Iraq conflict persists without a definitive resolution, yet at a staggering expense in terms of human casualties. The reputation of President Carter of the United States is diminishing due to an unsuccessful endeavor to liberate hostages from the American embassy located in Tehran. The aftermath of Mao’s reign in China persists through the legal proceedings against the “Gang of Four”, a group that made efforts to assume power after Mao’s passing. During the late 1970s, a worldwide economic downturn occurs, commonly referred to as a global recession. The political instability and social unrest of the 1970s result in significant governmental transformations across several nations, with a considerable shift toward conservative ideologies during the 1980s. The ascent of Margaret Thatcher’s administration to power in the United Kingdom occurs toward the end of the decade, following a sequence of detrimental public sector strikes and concerning levels of stagflation. The election of Ronald Reagan as President of the United States marks a significant shift in the nation’s Cold War rhetoric toward the Soviet Union, with a notable decrease in temperature. The worldwide economic downturn is showing signs of improvement, with the United States leading the way. This is being viewed as a triumph for supply-side economics. Simultaneously, Mikhail Gorbachev assumes membership in the USSR Politburo, while Lech Walesa, the head of the Solidarity Movement in Poland, commences securing gains for the labor force he advocates for. Ethnic and religious insurgents are responsible for the assassinations of Indira Gandhi and Anwar Sadat. After a succession of brief tenures by various leaders, Gorbachev assumes the role of General Secretary of the Communist Party of the USSR. He endeavors to improve relations with Western nations while simultaneously implementing policies of increased transparency

100  Wolfgang Mayrhofer (“glasnost”) and governmental restructuring (“perestroika”) within his own country. During the 1990s, Eastern European nations experience significant economic and political transformations. The decade culminates in the dissolution of the Soviet bloc as a unified economic, political, and military entity, accompanied by remarkable political developments throughout Europe. Globalization (Gopinath, 2023) takes a prominent role in economy, business, and private lives. Comparing the situation in the first decade of the current millennium with the mid-1980s, Di Giovanni et al. (2008: 2) show the following: • “The value of trade (goods and services) as a percentage of world GDP increased from 42.1 percent in 1980 to 62.1 percent in 2007. • Foreign direct investment increased from 6.5 percent of world GDP in 1980 to 31.8 percent in 2006. • The stock of international claims (primarily bank loans), as a percentage of world GDP, increased from roughly 10 percent in 1980 to 48 percent in 2006. • The number of minutes spent on cross-border telephone calls, on a per-capita basis, increased from 7.3 in 1991 to 28.8 in 2006. • The number of foreign workers has increased from 78 million people (2.4 percent of the world population) in 1965 to 191 million people (3.0 percent of the world population) in 2005”. While multinational companies (MNCs) play an important role, conglomerates – firms-as-portfolio with business from sectors far apart – are on the downturn since stock market valuations show that the whole is often worth less and not more than its parts, that is, the various businesses (Davis et al., 1994). In practical terms, growing cost pressures and technological advancements give rise to business process reengineering (Johansson, 1994) as a major point of reference for management practice. In terms of the academic debate about organizations and their behavior, the renewed interest in transaction cost economics (Williamson, 1975) is related to the rise of neoliberal views prominent in society. Somewhat related, population ecology with its focus on organizational collectivities (Hannan & Freeman, 1977, 1989) and neo-institutional theory with the explicit interest in organizations’ context (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) emerge as influential theoretical concepts that affect the next decades in organization studies. A changing perspective on boundaries

In the wake of the heightened pace of globalization, the 1990s see some major rearrangements at various levels. Economically, Western industrialized countries experience both prosperity and challenges. A period of sustained economic growth and globalization emerges, fueled by advancements in technology, trade liberalization, and deregulation. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) comes into effect, fostering closer economic integration among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The European Union continues to expand in depth and scope,

Hofstede’s Six  101 with the Maastricht Treaty establishing the foundation for the Eurozone and Austria, Finland, and Sweden joining the EU in 1995. However, these times are not without economic crises. The early 1990s see a recession in many Western countries, including the United States and several European nations. The Asian financial crisis in 1997 has a global impact, leading to currency devaluations and economic downturns in countries like Thailand, South Korea, and Indonesia. These events highlight the interconnectedness of the global economy and the vulnerabilities it could face, arguably an early herald of what the world would experience in the global financial crisis in 2008 and the vulnerabilities becoming obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic. Underneath these global interdependencies lies, among others, also the new role that China wants to play on the world stage, following its long game and grand strategy to rearrange the current world order dominated by the United States (Doshi, 2021). Politically, the end of the Cold War in 1991 marks the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. This event reshapes the global political order, with Western democracies emerging as the dominant political system and some speaking  – prematurely, as we know with hindsight  – of the end of history (Fukuyama, 1992). In Western industrialized countries, political developments during this period include significant elections and political shifts. The United Kingdom sees the rise of New Labour, with Tony Blair becoming Prime Minister in 1997, marking a period of centrist policies and modernization. In the United States, the 1990s witness the presidency of Bill Clinton, known for his focus on the economy and his efforts to address social issues. The 1990s also see the ratification of the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, bringing an end to years of conflict. Slowly, but surely, environmental issues and sustainability emerge as major topics in the political arena. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is established in 1992, paving the way for global efforts to address climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, sets binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions reduction, although its effectiveness remained a topic of debate. In business and management, existing concepts are questioned in the light of these rapid and fundamental developments that affected the role of boundaries and borders. When, for example, the European Union and its common market with the four freedoms related to goods, people, services, and capital replace the mental, social, and physical arrangements of the Iron Curtain and tightly controlled national borders, it is hardly surprising that the role of boundaries is also discussed in business and management. For example Hirschhorn and Gilmore (1992: 105) point out that: [N]ew technologies, fast-changing markets, and global competition are revolutionizing business relationships. As companies blur their traditional boundaries to respond to this more fluid business environment, the roles that people play at work and the tasks they perform become correspondingly blurred and ambiguous.

102  Wolfgang Mayrhofer New circumstances also require new ways of reaching one’s business goals, as Davis et al. (1994: 563) observe: “Business schools and management consultants preach a unanimous gospel: make it lean, mean and centred on a core business” (Economist, 1989: 75). Under such circumstances, producing complete products often entails forming temporary alliances with several other specialists and results in a network, or “virtual corporation,” composed of formally separate entities rather than a single bounded organization. (Davis et al., 1994: 563) Hardly surprising, then, is a vision of organizations that transcend boundaries and are embedded in and constitute networks without seemingly outdated structures and hierarchies. It goes far beyond the material plane, heavily depending on the virtual world that increasingly becomes an everyday experience through the Internet. Boundarylessness is a label that seems to catch the gist of these ideas. Today’s joint ventures and strategic alliances may be an early glimpse of the business organization of the future: The Virtual Corporation. It’s a temporary network of companies that come together to exploit fast-changing opportunities. . . . It will have neither central office nor organization chart. It will have no hierarchy, no vertical integration. (Byrne, 1993: 98 f.) Our dream for the 1990s is a boundaryless company . . . where we knock down the walls that separate us from each other on the inside and from our key constituencies on the outside. (Jack Welch in GE’s 1990 Annual Report, cited in Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1992: 104) (Nearly) anything goes

From 2000 on, one of the most prominent developments is the rise of digital technology and its pervasive impact on daily life. The widespread adoption of the Internet, social media platforms, and smartphones transforms the way people communicate, access information, and conduct business. This digital revolution brings about unparalleled connectivity, enabling individuals to connect across borders and cultures like never before. Economically, Western industrialized countries face significant challenges during this period. The global financial crisis of 2008, sparked by the collapse of Lehman Brothers, sends shockwaves throughout the world economy. Many Western countries experience a severe recession, marked by high unemployment rates, declining GDP growth, and increased government debt. Governments respond with stimulus packages and financial sector reforms to stabilize their economies and prevent further crises. The COVID-19 pandemic clearly shows the multiple interrelations

Hofstede’s Six  103 between world regions in terms of supply chains and the various dependencies that became salient, for example, with China hosting the production of vital products in pharmacy. The period also witnesses an increased focus on environmental sustainability and climate change. Many countries across the globe, in particular WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) countries (­Henrich et al., 2010), begin to recognize the urgency of addressing environmental issues and adopt policies to reduce carbon emissions, promote renewable energy sources, and protect natural resources. The landmark Paris Agreement in 2015 represents a global commitment to combat climate change and limit global warming. In the political arena, Western countries witness a series of significant events that reshape the geopolitical landscape. The September 11 attacks in 2001 prompt a global fight against terrorism, leading to increased security measures and military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq by the United States and some of their allies. These actions spark debates about civil liberties, surveillance, and the balance between security and personal freedoms. From 2010 onward, the Arab Spring emerges as a wave of popular uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa. Protests and demonstrations erupt in several countries, demanding political and social reforms, often fueled by frustration with authoritarian regimes, corruption, and economic inequality. The consequences of the Arab Spring continue to shape regional dynamics, with both positive and negative outcomes. Societally, immigration emerges as a contentious issue in many countries, especially the United States and in Europe. The increasing flow of migrants from conflict zones and developing countries fuels debates about cultural identity, national security, and economic integration. These discussions prompt policy debates, with some countries such as Denmark or Poland implementing stricter immigration policies, while others take on more than their share of migrants, for example, Austria and Germany. This period also sees a rise of populist movements and nationalism. Examples include the Front National in France, the remodeling of Hungary under Victor Orbán and his FIDESZ party, and the January 6 Capitol attack in Washington, D.C. in 2021 by more than 2,000 rioters, among them being far-right anti-government militia such as the Three Percenters and the Proud Boys in the wake of Joe Biden’s victory over Donald Trump. Furthermore, societal debates around equality and civil rights gain momentum. Western countries see significant changes in areas such as LGBTQIA2S+1 rights, gender equality, and racial justice. Same-sex marriage is legalized in several countries, and the push for gender equality gained visibility with movements like #MeToo, focusing on combating sexual harassment and assault. However, challenges remain in achieving full equality and addressing systemic discrimination. Looking at business and management, the Internet and the widespread adoption of mobile devices profoundly shape and change communication, collaboration, and customer engagement. Companies increasingly embrace e-commerce, enabling them to potentially reach global markets and offer products and services online. The rise of social media platforms provides new channels for marketing and customer interaction, allowing businesses to connect with consumers on a more personal level. At the same time, businesses are recognizing the importance of environmental stewardship and social impact. They adopt sustainable practices, make efforts to

104  Wolfgang Mayrhofer reduce carbon footprints, and address social issues to meet the expectations of their stakeholders, all this either in reality or as part of their window-dressing activities not to lose legitimacy. Remote work and flexible work arrangements gain popularity, enabled by advancements in communication technology. The COVID-19 pandemic further accelerates this trend, forcing companies to adapt quickly to remote work set-ups. Moreover, the emergence of data analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) starts to affect decision-making processes and operational efficiency. Companies utilize data-driven insights to gain a competitive edge, improve customer experiences, and optimize business operations. AI-powered technologies are being employed in areas such as customer service, supply chain management, and human resource management practices such as recruitment and selection. Additionally, equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) become critical focus areas in business and management. Organizations recognize the value of diverse perspectives and inclusive work cultures. Efforts are being made to promote diversity at all levels of the workforce and eliminate biases in hiring and promotions. Inclusive leadership and diverse teams are seen as drivers of innovation and better decision-making (Bell et al., 2011; Stahl et al., 2010). In academy, the past decades have seen the rise of an enormous variety of different approaches rooted in very different and basically incompatible views on how one can make sense of the world in general and how scientific knowledge is to be gained. Being a far cry from traditional bifurcations such as the opposing views of the rational-deductive paradigm proposed by, for example, Popper (1972, 1963) versus interpretative approaches put forward by, for example, Strauss (1987), Soeffner (1989), Schütz (1981), or Lamnek (1988, 1989), we see all kinds of different theoretical and empirical approaches that cover both the sober-analytic angle of detached analyses to the engaged commitment to emancipation that sees the removal of obstacles to individual and societal development and injustices as integral part of the scientific endeavor (Sayer, 2011). Labels and respective efforts such as post-structuralist, post-modernist, post-colonialist, intersectional, and transdisciplinary attempt to address and express the fractured nature of the world. Rather than following engineer-like a set of standard operating procedures, gaining knowledge and practical action is done by an act of bricolage (Duymedjian & Rüling, 2010; Lévi-Strauss, 1966), where [m]ythical meaning-making bricoleurs combine their imagination with whatever knowledge tools they have at-hand in their repertoire (e.g., ritual, observation, social practices) and with whatever artifacts are available in their given context (i.e., discourses, institutions, and dominant knowledges) to meet diverse knowledge-production tasks. (Rogers, 2015: 3) Impact on the concept’s career In this section, I will discuss the contextual influence on the use and popularity of Hofstede’s concept by identifying three core career episodes (for more details on career episodes, see Mayrhofer & Gunz, 2023) that characterize the concept’s

Hofstede’s Six  105 career: emergence, blooming, and spotlight and critique. For each of these episodes, I  will draw on major aspects from the contextual canvas outlined in the previous section, which have an important effect, either by themselves or in combination with other factors. Of course, this is by no means a full explanation of what happened and why things developed as they did. But, comparable to increase the explained variance in conventional regression analysis, I am confident that the following account adds significant explanatory elements that expand our understanding of the phenomenon at hand. Emergence

The emergence of the concept is no coincidence. Although Hofstede himself somewhat flippantly remarks that in “the 1970s this author [Hofstede] – more or less by accident – got access to a large survey database about values and related sentiments of people in over 50 countries around the world” (Hofstede, 2011: 6), it is not purely by chance that such a database gains enormous credibility. The 1960s and 1970s are an age of organizations where the latter drive major developments. In particular, the large companies, most often operating across national borders and cultural boundaries, have a substantial impact on societal, economic, and political developments. Of course, this is by no means unique if you think of examples in 19th and 20th centuries such as the large railroad (e.g., Union Pacific founded in 1862; www.up.com/heritage/index.htm) and oil companies (e.g., Standard Oil Company founded in 1870 and later turning into Esso/Exxon; https://guides.loc.gov/oil-andgas-industry/history) in the United States or major steel companies such as Krupp (founded in 1811) and Thyssen (founded in 1891; today as Thyssen Krupp AG under one roof; www.thyssenkrupp.com/de/unternehmen/historie/). However, the large companies operating in this time not only face the familiar problem of how to operate across national and cultural boundaries but also are confronted and contribute to a crumbling trust in traditional management concepts. Operating across boundaries raises a number of issues that constitute the core of the cross-cultural management debate (for an overview, see, e.g., Szkudlarek et al., 2020; Thomas & Peterson, 2018; for the importance for leadership, see, e.g., Gehrke & Claes, 2017) and do not need any repetition in detail here. In terms of crumbling trust in established management concepts, the size and degree of differentiation of the organizations show the limits of managerial thinking that, in essence, relies on Taylorian and humanistic views (Thompson, 2003). Although organizational culture as a prominent management concept was established a little bit later (Schein, 1985), Hofstede’s concept both paved the way for and was indication of the need of a search for alternatives – here culture – to the prevalent coordinating and managing mechanisms. This is yet another example of what seems to be a frequent regularity: management concepts only take a significant and somewhat long-lasting foothold in management theory and practice when they meet the broader contextual zeitgeist and, equally important, contain the promise to overcome assumed or demonstrated weaknesses of the dominating managerial concepts.

106  Wolfgang Mayrhofer Therefore, Hofstede’s culture concept has to be seen in the light of the broader search of management theory and practice for dealing with the problems that existing approaches could not handle sufficiently well. A Taylorian view of management was pretty much in line with the overall approach in the early 20th century that, among others, was characterized by the successes of mechanization, assembly lines, and hierarchical command structures that people were familiar with by living in or knowing of the dominating empires of their time with kings and emperors. Humanistic management made its appearance when the drawbacks of this kind of thinking became obvious in both the societal and economic domains. The strong focus on the one great man at the top of a strict hierarchy with a stringent command-and-control logic was, at the least, severely discredited by the fascist national-socialist regime in Germany as erected by Austrian-born Adolf Hitler and his associates with the compliant support of much of the German and Austrian population. Chance results of empirical studies (Mayo, 1949; Roethlisberger  & Dickson, 1939) showed that a focus on the human side of enterprise (McGregor, 1960) promises better results both economically and in terms of employee satisfaction. Inevitably, shortcomings emerged due to the overly focus on the human side and on individuals and groups that, to a certain degree, leaves aside or downplays the overall organization and its processes and structures. In addition, the production processes that increasingly were influenced by newly emerging information and communication technologies as well as more team-oriented ways of working were calling for concepts that allowed a more comprehensive approach not (only) focused on leading individuals and teams via face-to-face communications. Rather, striving for an organizational culture with shared positions regarding basic assumptions about core aspects of reality such as human beings, nature, cooperation, and time as well as organizational norms and values would enable organizational members to orient themselves toward these shared aspects. In this way, both the “what” and the “how” would be internalized and make coordination and cooperation much easier due to a common point of reference. In such an environment, the Hofstede concept is a good fit. It addresses both the external and internal environments and offers a new way forward in understanding and managing individual and organizational behavior by pointing toward relevant dimensions of national and, related to that, organizational culture. Blooming

Without sharp demarcation, but gradually developing, these two contextual forces  – the importance of large organizations operating across national borders and the decreasing trust in dominant management concepts – are joined by a third and, likewise, forceful factor: globalization (Gopinath, 2023). The 1980s constitute a period when business transactions across national and cultural borders gain momentum. Among others, this also means that cross-cultural issues related to the management of organizations, groups, and individuals, become very salient. As every so often in the history of management studies, successful concepts and tools have a big advantage when they have a demonstrable anchoring in

Hofstede’s Six  107 organizational practice, provide some prima facie validity, are readily accessible in terms of comprehension, and are comparatively easy to communicate to others and to apply. Hofstede’s Six tick all the boxes in this regard. The database is, at least at first glance, quite impressive; the data comes from a company that is one of the iconographic figures in business, already bathing in the light of the IT revolution that is visible at the horizon; the concept is straightforward in terms of clarity; and from the concept, one can draw conclusions that confine the possible space for managerial action by providing a certain degree of orientation while, at the same time, it does not bind management too much and allow paths into the future, which are sensitive to respective circumstances, for example concerning technical and power-related micro-political issues. Having a practical appeal is also important for academic use in management studies. Given that management studies have been an applied science from their onset (Heinen, 1985), but, as some critics might argue, at least partially losing this constituting element somewhat over the past decades (Feldman, 2005; Mintzberg, 2004), practical relevance is crucial for gaining a foothold in academic research. Another major factor is the ease of applicability and comparative advantage when it comes to using a concept in empirical research. With regard to the former, the Hofstede concept scores high. Through large parts of its history, the values for the various dimensions for the countries included were publicly available. Since the values can, with some slight hesitation, be regarded as somewhere in the interval/ratio data level bracket, all kinds of statistical operations including more sophisticated ones are permissible. This makes it a good candidate for quantitative empirical research that is favored (or at least very frequent) in many (top) journals in management studies. In addition, at least in the early stages of its careers, the concept had a clear comparative advantage as it not only offered a readily available tool but also had few competitors in terms of empirical usability. With regard to theory and usability in teaching, the concept has also considerable appeal. While the basic notion of viewing culture as dimensional construct drew considerable theoretical critique from the beginning (as did its empirical foundation in one company only), it was and is defendable enough to use it for research purposes. The dissemination outlined in Section 2 ‘Dissemination – some facts and figures’ testifies to that. With regard to teaching, the concept gained a huge popularity pretty similar to its appeal for practice. Four (and later six) dimensions, easy to understand at the basic level although the finer differentiations sometimes get lost, and the ability to provide some orientation in otherwise complex circumstances made it an integral part of cross-cultural teaching. The inclusion of the Hofstede concept in major textbooks on the cross-cultural management debate (e.g. Thomas & Peterson, 2018) is but one testimony of this. Center stage and focus of critique

When having arrived at center stage of academia and practice, a number of contextual developments heavily influence the further development and reception of the concept. The widespread use in academia and practice provide some face value

108  Wolfgang Mayrhofer and social validation to the use of Hofstede’s Six for research purposes and practical action. However, there are also some countervailing forces to the use and dissemination of the concept (for more insight into force field analysis and resulting equilibria, see Lewin, 1951). The following stand out in particular, which weaken the credibility of a concept that heavily relies on facts and figures sampled in the 1970s, building on the then concept of nation-state and its situation at that time (for a scathing critique, see McSweeney, 2002). First, there is a significant shift in terms of the meaning, conceptualization, and relevance of boundaries and borders. The rhetoric of boundarylessness with regard to organizations’ internal and external boundaries (Hirsch & Shanley, 1996), the importance of networks of organizations (Brass et al., 2004), and the blurring of national boundaries at least in those regions of the world where transnational units – the European Union being a specifically prominent example – have a strong influence provide a fertile ground for increasingly raising questions about a concept that assumes and empirically demonstrates sharp differences between units of analysis, which are, here, nation-states. Take the example of Austria and Germany and their power distance values of 11 and 35, respectively. It shows the importance of where and how to draw a boundary, where the border is between otherwise very proximal nation-states. Second, and closely related to the above, with the fall of the USSR and the end of the Cold War as well as the rise of the European Union and its effects on national, political, and economic systems through regulations covering all areas of public and private life, the significance of the concept of nation-states and existing boundaries, respectively, become somewhat questionable, with some even heralding the end of history (Fukuyama, 1992). In the case of the USSR, one former nation-state suddenly becomes “1 + 14”, that is, Russia and those of the former provinces that turn into at least formally independent nation-states; with regard to the EU, this newly emerging transnational unit strongly influences what happens in its member states. In addition, in the process of new members joining the EU in seven steps from 1973, 1981, 1986, 1995, 2004, 2007 to 2023 that increases the number of participating countries from the 6 founding members to 28, a lot of dynamics come into play that potentially not only modify surface level phenomena but also alter deeper layers of the national fabric. Again, assuming the validity of evidence based in the 1970s becomes somewhat more difficult. Third, globalization joining hands with digitalization and virtualization as well as the global presence of Internet-linked media such as Twitter, TikTok, LinkedIn, Facebook, Netflix, and Co. strengthens those voices who for some time now are wondering about the emergence of a world society (Krücken  & Drori, 2009; Meyer, 2010). Assuming converging trends on a number of levels, one of the basic assumptions of such a line of thinking is that the access of people across the globe to similar content contributes to the emergence of at least partially similar tastes, preferences, and conceptions of important areas of people’s and business’s lives. Examples for this include music taste, love and relationships, family, and career. The remarkably similar relative importance that the seven globally used dimensions of career success show across more than 30 countries (Briscoe et al., 2012;

Hofstede’s Six  109 Mayrhofer et al., 2016; see also www.5C.careers) is but one indicator of this. Such kind of convergence (Mayrhofer et  al., 2020) and homogenization leave one to wonder about the degrees of difference in national cultures in the world of today. Fourth, in many parts of the WEIRD countries, significant societal changes are underway. In stark contrast to a quite traditional and comparatively homogeneous societal make-up in the aftermath of World War II, the last two decades evidence strong signs of a highly differentiated society based on diverse guiding values. Examples such as EDI (equality, diversity, and inclusion), voices of the groups under labels such as LGBTQIA2S+2, population aging in some countries such as, for example, Japan, and other changes in the demographic composition of a country, often due to massive migration movements in the wake of crisis-related developments, for example, in the Middle East or the Ukraine, raise substantial questions about the validity and usefulness of data collected half a century before. Fifth, new technological developments have led, among others, to a strong virtualization of various aspects of daily lives at both the personal and professional levels. Examples abound, and two may suffice. Personally, especially the younger generations spend a substantial amount of their time awake in the virtual world. The range is wide and includes, for example, various forms of new social media with specific phenomena such as the emergence of influencers and global shitstorms as well as the broad area of e-sports that covers controversial ego-shooter games as well as “classic” sports such as ice hockey and football (soccer). In the professional world, at the latest, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought a partially dramatic shift in the way we work, in particular related to the mixture of face-to-face and virtual contact. When one adds culturally diverse teams and English as a lingua franca to the mix, it is largely unclear to what extent “traditional” national cultural values still play a role and are being influenced by these phenomena. Norms about clothing at work and addressing superiors/colleagues are just one example out of many that indicate a wind of change across many countries. Sixth, very much like political campaigns, many, if not all, of successful theoretical concepts require or at least heavily profit from the existence of a prominent figurehead or a small group of persons who function as its proponents. Examples for this range from Frederick W. Taylor via Abraham H. Maslow and Edgar H. Schein to Jay Barney and Jeffrey Pfeffer. The Hofstede concept is no exception. Until close to his death in 2020 at the age of 92, Hofstede was the go-to person for the concept, which is hardly surprising after four decades of tirelessly establishing, defending, promoting, and further developing the concept. Yes, of course, there were and are prominent persons who played and play a major role in the career of the concept such as his son, Gert Jan Hofstede and collaborators such as Bond and Minkov. Nevertheless, the absence of the founder does not make it easier for the further development of the concept. Seventh, despite its ongoing use, the concept has gotten a serious competitor. Although the GLOBE project sets out with a strong focus on global leadership ideals and leadership styles across the world, it also is heavily used as an alternative to Hofstede’s concept when it comes to measuring national culture. With its first round of data collection in 62 countries in the 1990s, it provides researchers with

110  Wolfgang Mayrhofer the opportunity to draw on nine cultural dimensions, that is, performance orientation, assertiveness, future orientation, humane orientation, institutional collectivism, in-group collectivism, gender egalitarianism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance. Unlike in the case of Hofstede, there is an ongoing effort of the GLOBE project to update their database. As of June 2023, the most recent GLOBE 2020 study covers 143 countries reporting more than 60,000 responses with some additional countries still collecting data. Overall, this arguably will lead to substantial shift toward using the data and concept of GLOBE. While being prone to similar criticism in terms of using a dimensional approach to national culture, it provides a more current database that has at least the chance of covering recent developments in each country. Concluding remarks The culture concept developed by Geert Hofstede has had a significant impact on cross-cultural understanding and communication in business and society. Hofstede’s research identified six dimensions of culture that distinguish between national cultures and have provided a foundation for cross-cultural training, communication, and understanding. This has helped businesses and individuals navigate cultural differences when doing business internationally and be aware of the culture dimensions when organizing. As I have argued in this chapter, the concept’s career and impact on academia and practice have been substantially influenced by contextual contingencies. In terms of future development, lately a number of factors have cast some doubt over a bright future career of the concept. One of the key factors is the rise of globalization and technological advancements. As the world becomes more connected, cultural blending and hybridization have become more common, making it more difficult to categorize cultures into distinct dimensions. The cultural values and behaviors of individuals are increasingly influenced by a variety of factors, including education, economic status, and exposure to different cultures. This has led to the emergence of new cultural norms and practices across national boundaries that may not fit neatly into Hofstede’s dimensions. For example, social media platforms tend to support the emergence of a globalized culture where people can interact with each other, share information and ideas, and influence each other’s beliefs and values. As a result, cultural differences might become less distinct or at least prone to change. Moreover, the rise of social movements and activism also tends to challenge the validity of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Movements for gender and racial equality question traditional gender roles and norms of masculinity, which are central to Hofstede’s dimension of masculinity versus femininity. The #MeToo movement brings additional attention to issues of power and gender dynamics in the workplace, which are also central to Hofstede’s dimension of power distance. These social movements highlight the importance of considering cultural values and practices within specific contexts, rather than relying on broad cultural dimensions.

Hofstede’s Six  111 The evolution of societal values and behaviors over the past decades also challenges traditional cultural values that emphasize collectivism and group harmony. Hofstede’s dimension of individualism versus collectivism is based on the assumption that some cultures emphasize individual achievement and autonomy, while others value group harmony and cooperation. However, this assumption may no longer hold true in parts of contemporary society. Many individuals in collectivist cultures value autonomy and individual achievement, and many individuals in individualistic cultures value group harmony and cooperation. As a result, the distinction between individualism and collectivism has become less clear, and new cultural dimensions may be needed to understand contemporary cultural values. Overall, as usual, such a prognosis about future developments is fraught with uncertainty. This is hardly surprising since the adage knows: predictions are hazardous, especially about the future.3 Notes 1 Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, two-spirit; for “an attempt to document the movement to express and identify the complexity of gender while acknowledging its history and intersections”, see https://translanguageprimer.com. 2 Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, two-spirit; for “an attempt to document the movement to express and identify the complexity of gender while acknowledging its history and intersections”, see https://translanguageprimer.com. 3 This well-known dictum often attributed to people like Yogi Berra, Niels Bohr, Winston Churchill, Sam Goldwyn, Mark Twain, and Karl Valentin is most likely based on a proverb first documented in a Danish parliamentary debate in 1937–1938.

References Argyris, C., & Schön, D. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Barnard, C. I. 1971. The Functions of the Executive (30th anniversary). Cambridge, MA, London: Harvard University Press. Baskerville, R. F. 2003. Hofstede Never Studied Culture. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(1): 1–14. Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L., & Briggs, A. L. 2011. Getting Specific about Demographic Diversity Variable and Team Performance Relationships: A  MetaAnalysis. Journal of Management, 37(3): 709–743. Bing, J. W. 2004. Hofstede’s Consequences: The Impact of His Work on Consulting and Business Practices. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1): 80–87. Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., & Greve, H. R. 2004. Taking Stock of Networds and Organizations: A Multilevel Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6): 795–817. Briscoe, J. P., Hall, D. T., & Mayrhofer, W. 2012. Careers Around the world. Individual and Contextual perspectives. New York, London: Routledge. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. 1961. The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock. Byrne, J. A. 1993, February 8. The Virtual Corporation. Business Week, 98–102. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

112  Wolfgang Mayrhofer Davis, G. F., Diekmann, K. A., & Tinsley, C. H. 1994. The Decline and Fall of the Conglomerate Firm in the 1980s: The Deinstitutionalization of an Organizational Form. American Sociological Review, 59(4): 547. Di Giovanni, J., Gottselig, G., Jaumotte, F., Ricci, L. A., & Tokarick, S. 2008. Globalization: A Brief Overview (no. 2): 1–8. International Monetary Fund. Available at: https://www. imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2008/053008.htm DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147–160. Doshi, R. 2021. The Long Game: China’s Grand Strategy to Displace American Order. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Duymedjian, R., & Rüling, C.-C. 2010. Towards a Foundation of Bricolage in Organization and Management Theory. Organization Studies, 31(2): 133–151. Etzioni, A. 1961. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: Free Press. Feldman, D. C. 2005. The Food’s No Good and They Don’t Give Us Enough: Reflections on Mintzberg’s Critique of MBA Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2): 217–220. Ferreira, M. P., Serra, F. A. R., & Pinto, C. S. F. 2014. Cultura e Hofstede (1980) na investigação em negócios internacionais: Um estudo bibliométrico em periódicos internacionais de administração. Revista de Gestão, 21(3): 379–400. Fukuyama, F. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press. Gehrke, B., & Claes, M.-T. 2017. Leadership and Global Understanding. In J. Marques, & S. Dhiman (Eds.), Leadership Today: 371–385. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Gerlach, P., & Eriksson, K. 2021. Measuring Cultural Dimensions: External Validity and Internal Consistency of Hofstede’s VSM 2013 Scales. Frontiers in Psychology, 12: 1–9. Gopinath, C. 2023. Globalization: A Multi-Dimensional System (4th ed.). Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. Gordon, R. A., & Howell, J. E. 1959. Higher Education for Business. New York: Columbia University Press. Gunz, H.,  & Mayrhofer, W. 2018. Rethinking Career Studies. Facilitating Conversation Across Boundaries with the Social Chronology Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gutenberg, E. 1958. Einführung in die Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Wiesbaden: Gabler. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1977. The Population Ecology of Organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5): 929–964. Hannan, M. T.,  & Freeman, J. 1989. Organizational Ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Heinen, E. 1978. Industriebetriebslehre als Entscheidungslehre. In E. Heinen (Ed.), Industriebetriebslehre. Entscheidungen im Industriebetrieb (6th ed.): 25–82. Wiesbaden: Gabler. Heinen, E. 1985. Die Betriebswirtschaftslehre als angewandte Wissenschaft. In E. Heinen (Ed.), Einführung in die Betriebswirtschaftslehre: 13–34. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. 2010. Most People are Not WEIRD. Nature, 466(7302): 29–29. Hirsch, P. M., & Shanley, M. 1996. The Rhetorics of Boundaryless – Or, How the Newly Empowered Managerial Class Bought into Its Own Marginalization. In M. B. Arthur, & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The Boundaryless Career: 218–234. New York: Oxford University Press. Hirschhorn, L., & Gilmore, T. 1992. The New Boundaries of the “Boundaryless” Company. Harvard Business Review, 70(3): 104–115.

Hofstede’s Six  113 Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences. International Differences in Work-Related Values (vol. 5). Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and Organizations  – Software of the Mind. London et al.: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. 2011. Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1): 1–26. Hofstede, G.,  & Bond, M. H. 1988. The Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots to Economic Growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16: 4–21. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (3rd ed.). New York et al.: McGraw Hill. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. 2004. Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Johansson, H. J. 1994. Business Process Reengineering: Breakpoint Strategies for Market Dominance (reprint): XIV, 241 S. Chichester et al.: Wiley. Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. 2006. A Quarter Century of Culture’s Consequences: A  Review of Empirical Research Incorporation Hofstede’s Cultural Values Framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37: 285–320. Kosiol, E. 1972. Die Unternehmung als wirtschaftliches Aktionszentrum. Reinbek: Rowohlt. Krücken, G., & Drori, G. S. 2009. World Society: The Writings of John W. Meyer. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lamnek, S. 1988. Qualitative Sozialforschung. Band 1: Methodologie. München: Psychologie Verlags Union. Lamnek, S. 1989. Qualitative Sozialforschung. Band 2 Methoden und Techniken. München: Psychologie Verlags Union. Lévi-Strauss, C. 1966. The Savage Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lewin, K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers. New York et al.: Harper & Brothers. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York: John Wiley. Mayo, E. 1949. The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilisation. Andover: Andover Press. Mayrhofer, W., Brewster, C.,  & Pernkopf, K. 2020. Convergence in Human Resource Management. In E. Parry, C. Brewster,  & M. Morley (Eds.), Handbook of Contextual Approaches to Human Resource Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mayrhofer, W., Briscoe, J. P., Hall, D. T., Dickmann, M., Dries, N., et al. 2016. Career Success Across the Globe – Insights from the 5C Project. Organizational Dynamics, 45(2): 197–205. Mayrhofer, W., & Gunz, H. 2023. From Wallflower to Life and Soul of the Party: Acknowledging Time’s Role at Center Stage in the Study of Careers. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(3): 562–604. McGregor, D. M. 1960. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. McSweeney, B. 2002. Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and Their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith – A Failure of Analysis. Human Relations, 55(1): 89–118. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. 1972. The Limits to Growth. New York: Signet Books. Meyer, J. W. 2010. World Society, Institutional Theories, and the Actor. Annual Review of Sociology, 36: 1–20. Minkov, M. 2007. What Makes Us Different and Similar: A New Interpretation of the World Values Survey and Other Cross-Cultural Data. Sofia, Bulgaria: Klasika i Stil Publishing House.

114  Wolfgang Mayrhofer Mintzberg, H. 2004. Managers Not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Managing and Management Development. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The External Control of Organizations – A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row. Pierson, F. C.,  & others. 1959. The Education of American Businessmen: A  Study of ­University-College Programs in Business Administration. New York: McGraw-Hill. Popper, K. 1972. Objective Knowledge. An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Popper, K. R. 1963. Science as Falsification. Conjectures and Refutations, 1: 33–39. Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. 1939. Management and the Worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rogers, M. 2015. Contextualizing Theories and Practices of Bricolage Research. The Qualitative Report, 17: 1–17. Sayer, A. 2011. Why Things Matter to People: Social Science, Values and Ethical Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pess. Schanz, G. 1977. Grundlagen der verhaltenstheoretischen Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Tübingen: Mohr. Schein, E. H. 1985. Organizational Culture and Leadership. A Dynamic View. San Francisco et al.: Jossey-Bass. Schütz, A. 1981. Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt. Eine Einleitung in die verstehende Soziologie (2nd ed.). Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Schwartz, S. H. 1992. Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25: 1–65. Schwartz, S. H. 1999. A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for Work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1): 23–47. Simon, H. A. 1957. Administrative Behavior: A  Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization (2nd ed.). New York, NY et al.: Free Press. Soeffner, H.-G. 1989. Auslegung des Alltags  – Der Alltag der Auslegung. Zur wissenssoziologischen Konzeption einer sozialwissenschaftlichen Hermeneutik. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Staehle, W. H. 1980. Management: Eine verhaltenswissenschaftliche Einführung. München: Vahlen. Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A.,  & Jonsen, K. 2010. Unraveling the Effects of Cultural Diversity in Teams: A Meta-Analysis of Research on Multicultural Work Groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4): 690–709. Strauss, A. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Szkudlarek, B., Romani, L., Caprar, D. V., & Osland, J. S. 2020. The SAGE Handbook of Contemporary Cross-Cultural Management. London et al.: Sage Publications. Thomas, D. C., & Peterson, M. F. 2018. Cross-Cultural Management: Essential Concepts. (4th ed.) Los Angeles et al.: Sage Publications. Thompson, K. (Ed.). 2003. The Early Sociology of Management and Organizations. ­London: Routledge. Thompson, V. A. 1961. Modern Organization. New York: Knopf. Ulrich, H. 1970. Die Unternehmung als produktives soziales System (2nd ed.). Bern, ­Stuttgart: Haupt. Weick, K. E. 1969. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Hofstede’s Six  115 Williamson, O. E. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: Free Press. Woodward, J. 1965. Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice. London: Oxford University Press. Zhou, Y.,  & Kwon, J.-W. 2020. Overview of Hofstede-Inspired Research Over the Past 40 Years: The Network Diversity Perspective. SAGE Open, 10(3): 215824402094742.

Part 3

Collaborators and critics

7 Evolution of the Minkov–Hofstede model Parallels between objective and subjective culture Michael Minkov Introduction In 1980, Dutch social scientist Geert Hofstede published a book, which created a revolution in the field of cross-cultural research. Before Culture’s Consequences (Hofstede, 1980, 2001), cross-cultural psychologists and management scholars did not have a sound method for comparing modern nations and explaining the obvious cultural differences between them. Much of the cross-cultural research was limited to comparisons of Americans and Japanese or Chinese. If any differences were discovered between them that could not be explained in terms of demographics, job positions, or other variables that researchers knew how to operate with, the only explanation that they could offer was that the difference was due to the fact that Americans have American culture, whereas the Japanese have Japanese culture. But what exactly was behind these two different labels? Hofstede’s work showed how that question could be approached. In the late 1960s, he worked at the IBM company and was given access to data from a study across all of the organization’s subsidiaries in some 40 countries. Subsequently that number grew, although some country samples were so minuscule that Hofstede had to merge them with those of neighboring countries. At the end, he had responses from some 110,000 individuals and over 50 cultural units. According to his own accounts, at first he attempted to find structures characterizing individuals but did not discover anything meaningful. Then, an analyst whom he worked with suggested that first of all they aggregate the data and thus calculate average scores for each research item and for each country. After that, leaving aside the individuals, they analyzed the country scores. The result of that analysis made Hofstede the most famous and revered scholar in the cross-cultural field. Michael Bond, one of the world’s best-known researchers in cross-cultural psychology, wrote that his colleagues had long been “held in thrall” by Hofstede’s intellectual achievement (Bond, 2002, p.  73). According to Mark Peterson, associate editor of the Journal of International Business Studies, the flagship journal of international business, the impact of Hofstede’s work was incomparable: “Perhaps, the first edition of Culture’s Consequences did not create the field of comparative cross-cultural studies but it certainly has shaped the field’s basic themes, structure and controversies for over 20 years” (Peterson, 2003, p. 128). DOI: 10.4324/9781003410348-11

120  Michael Minkov Hofstede’s impact was not limited to the academic world. A 2008 Wall Street Journal ranking of the most influential business thinkers of the 20th century ranked Hofstede 16th, ahead of Jack Welch and Tom Peters. According to Hofstede’s public statements, by about 2010, his popular book Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind had sold half a million copies. By now, that number seems to have doubled as the book has been translated into some 25 languages, and new editions keep appearing all over the world. At the end of 2021, Hofstede had 215,000 citations in Google Scholar, almost twice as many as the next most famous names in the cross-cultural field. What is Hofstede’s popularity due to? He was the first one to “unpackage culture”, a term used by many cross-cultural psychologists (Kurman & Dan, 2007; Singelis et  al., 1999, etc.). Before Hofstede, culture was approached as a single compact object that could not be analyzed in a meaningful way. Hofstede proposed breaking it down, or “unpackaging it”, into components called “dimensions of culture”. In the cross-cultural field, this is comparable in significance to the finding that atoms are not indivisible but contain elementary particles, that light is not monochromous but consists of several colors, or that any information can be coded and transmitted through a series of pluses and minuses, or 0 and 1. In fact, great discoveries are never the achievement of a single person, and Hofstede cites other authors who had tried to decompose culture before him. But their analyses had not produced anything interesting or convincing. Although he did not invent the dimensional approach to the study of culture, he was certainly the man who popularized it and is now credited with it, just as Darwin was neither the first nor the only scholar who came up with the idea of evolution of the species but was the one who explained it most convincingly. Dimensions of culture can be conceptualized as geometric or geographic axes: North-South or East-West. If one knows a country’s position on those dimensions, it can be placed on a cultural map in order to compare its position to those of other countries. Each dimension reflects a group of related characteristics. Originally, Hofstede (1980) proposed four dimensions: 1. Individualism-collectivism: the degree to which people are detached from, or connected to, their closest group, such as family and friends, or tribe and clan if such units exist in a given society. 2. Power distance: the degree to which a society maintains social hierarchies in which those at the top have much more power than those at a lower level. 3. Uncertainty avoidance: the degree to which a society is characterized by anxiety and fear of the unknown future and tries to make it more predictable by imposing strict rules and laws. 4. Masculinity-femininity: the balance between values that appeal more to men (competition and success) and those that appeal more to women (good relationships). Later, Hofstede added a fifth dimension from the work of Canadian psychologist Michael Bond (Chinese Culture Connection, 1987), originally called “Confucian

Evolution of the Minkov–Hofstede model  121 work dynamism”. Hofstede did not like that obscure term and changed the dimension’s name to “long-term orientation”. The dimension highlights the importance of investing in the future by means of frugality and effort in modern education versus prioritizing the present and the past by emphasizing tradition and avoiding personal and social change. Finally, Hofstede adopted a sixth dimension indulgence versus restraint from one of my books. Indulgent cultures supposedly allow their members to live their lives as they wish, including a focus on leisure activities, whereas restrictive ones create various societal constraints. As a result of that, people in restrictive societies are less happy. Despite the admiration that Hofstede produced in the academic world, as well as among international business consultants and company managers, he had a few critics as well. McSweeney (2002) is the best known of them, followed by Baskerville (2003). Unfortunately, those authors, and a few others, criticized Hofstede without providing any empirical arguments. However, McSweeney did ask an important question. How valid is Hofstede’s claim that comparing the national branches of a multinational company is the same as comparing whole nations? In other words, if we find a difference between the values and beliefs of the employees of Coca Cola in Japan and Coca Cola in Brazil, would we find the same difference if we surveyed the whole Japanese and Brazilian nations? Hofstede’s doctrine was based on the risky bet that the answer to this question is positive. McSweeney bet on the opposite. Most of the academic world tended to side with Hofstede. Today, we see the academic world losing its bet. Hofstede’s dimensions were used for decades in all sorts of academic fields, including accounting, consumer behavior, economics, education, epidemiology, finance, hospitality, human factors, informatics, marketing, and public administration, to name just a few areas where his model logically can be applied, as well as less expected ones, such as construction management, leisure and wine and beverage studies. Nevertheless, very few scholars took the trouble to repeat his study and find out if the results would replicate. For decades, Merritt (2000) was the only one who devoted a peer-reviewed study to that topic, even though she relied on small and very unrepresentative country samples, consisting of airline pilots, from a relatively small number of countries. She did find an individualism-collectivism dimension in her database but discovered no evidence of anything like uncertainty avoidance and masculinity–femininity, whereas power distance was controversial. Taras et  al. (2012) confirmed Merritt’s findings: uncertainty avoidance and ­masculinity-femininity did not replicate well and could not be used to explain what they were supposed to. As for power distance, consensus has been building that it is not an independent dimension but a component of individualism-collectivism (Gelfand et al., 2004; Minkov et al., 2017; van de Vliert, 2020, etc.). Although all these studies were published in highly respectable journals, initially they had virtually no effect on the popularity of the Hofstede model. It was only in recent years that scholars started seriously questioning its validity. Meanwhile, other authors (House et  al., 2004; Inglehart  & Baker, 2000; Schwartz, 1994, 2008) started proposing alternative models of culture using Hofstede’s method. It seemed that the method was fine, but Hofstede’s application

122  Michael Minkov of his own instrument to his data, and most importantly the conclusions that he had drawn from that analysis, were largely inappropriate because uncertainty avoidance and masculinity-femininity were not discovered in any database, whereas power distance should not be separated from individualism-collectivism. The MediaCom and Hofstede Insights Study Background

In 2015, the UK multinational media company MediaCom realized the importance of culture in communication and consumer behavior and teamed up with Hofstede Insights, a Dutch-Finnish consulting company specializing in cross-cultural management, operating under a license from Hofstede. The goal of that partnership was to verify Hofstede’s model with new data. As Hofstede’s closest academic partner at that time, I  was given the task of designing a questionnaire, selecting countries and samples, and analyzing the data collected by Lightspeed (now Kantar) from nationally representative consumer panels in some 50 countries. Other agencies collected data in another six countries. The questionnaire contained several different sections. Three of them have been analyzed in articles in peer-reviewed journals: 1. Questions about the advice that parents give to their children. For instance, do they prefer to tell them to share their money with others or keep it to themselves? To hide their bad feelings or express them? To feel ashamed when they have done a bad job or “Take it easy. It is not the end of the world?” (Minkov et al., 2018b). 2. Questions about what people would do with their money if they were rich. Would they save a lot of it, invest a lot in business, or spend a lot of it? And what would they spend it on (Minkov et al., 2019)? 3. Questions about personal characteristics. The respondents were asked if they like to help other people, if they are religious, if they avoid conflicts or not, if they would like to have power, to become famous, and many more (Minkov et al., 2017, 2018b). Many of the questions were designed to target Hofstede’s dimensions. Others were borrowed from the work of Schwartz (2008) or other authors. The goal of the study was to capture as many significant and interesting cross-cultural differences across modern nations as possible. The flawed dimensions

The MediaCom study showed clearly that the uncertainty avoidance dimension is plagued by irreparable flaws. Minkov’s (2018) analysis suggested that these findings cannot be explained through poor data quality or cultural change since Hofstede’s study. If the dimension’s failure were due to bad data, the result would

Evolution of the Minkov–Hofstede model  123 have been something without any logic. Instead, the analysis revealed a very sound logic; yet, it was not Hofstede’s. It was also unlikely to be a new logic, due to global cultural change after the 1970s, when Hofstede collected his data. According to Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance theory, societies with a lot of anxiety try to reduce that unpleasant feeling by wishing for strict rules and regulations, not necessarily for themselves but rather for the other members of society. However, anxiety and a desire to impose strict rules in a company or society at large are unrelated. The MediaCom measure of national anxiety was closely associated with all previous measures of that concept in peer-reviewed journals and therefore seems to be the most valid of all. The measure of desire for rules also showed a plausible pattern: in rich, individualist countries, especially in Northwestern Europe, that desire was weak. It was strong in the developing world, especially in Africa and South Asia, where collectivist societies prevail. One of the main features of individualism is the belief that people in principle have good intentions, and if they are given freedom, they will not abuse it. In the collectivist world, the opposite view is more common: unless people’s freedom is curbed, the result will be chaos. This cultural philosophy is brilliantly summarized by Russian classic writer Chekhov in a statement by one of his personages, retired sergeant Prishibeyev: “Where does the law say that people should be given freedom?” This philosophy is much older than 1885, when Sergeant Prishibeyev was published. One can think of all the restrictions that traditional societies impose on sex, food and alcohol consumption, dress rules, and more. It is certainly not something that occurred after 1970, when Hofstede collected his data. And it has nothing to do with anxiety. So, Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance consists of two pieces from different puzzles. Anxiety and strict rules do not fit together. And they never did. The masculinity-femininity dimension did not fare better in the MediaCom study. No matter how the data were treated, nothing related to it emerged. Again, this could not be due to bad data. The items produced very clear geographic patterns, some of which were confirmed by the research of other authors, such as Schwartz (2008). But they were not Hofstede’s patterns. Some defenders of Hofstede’s original model claimed that his dimensions should not be measured with general statements (“I  usually worry a lot”), but with work-related statements (“I feel stressed during work”), like in his original research. For that reason, Minkov and Kaasa (2021a) analyzed data from another source: the numerous nationally representative databases of the International Social Survey Programme, headquartered at the Swiss Centre of Expertise in the Social Sciences. Some of those databases contain work-related questions very similar to Hofstede’s. The analysis yielded the same results as the MediaCom study: no trace of ­masculinity-femininity and uncertainty avoidance. The World Values Survey also contains items similar to Hofstede’s work goals. They do not yield what Hofstede found at IBM (Minkov, 2018). Beugelsdijk and Welzel (2018) scrutinized the whole World Values Survey, hoping to find items that could be used to recreate all of Hofstede’s dimensions. Yet, they found nothing that supported the existence of an uncertainty avoidance and a masculinity-femininity dimension as conceptualized, described, and measured by Hofstede.

124  Michael Minkov

Figure 7.1 A Minkov–Hofstede cultural map of the world

The revised Minkov–Hofstede model of culture

The collapse of two of Hofstede’s dimensions and the fact that another two should be merged do not mean that there are no elements of the model that can be salvaged. Although the Hofstede edifice crumbled, the ground on which it was built can be reused to construct something new. The new model can be a powerful instrument that can explain, at least to some extent, nearly all important cultural differences across modern nations as well as some differences within some large countries with great cultural diversity, such as the United States. After analyzing all well-known models of culture, Fog (2021) showed that all valid dimensions in them (those that can be reproduced and can explain societal differences convincingly) are variants of just two dimensions, practically the same as those in the revised Minkov–Hofstede model. Besides, those two valid dimensions are closely related, at least statistically, to those on the famous Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world, available on the World Values Survey website. The Minkov–Hofstede map is very similar to it, except that it is rotated and flipped. This is noteworthy since Inglehart never sought to confirm or disconfirm Hofstede’s model and designed his research without using anything from Hofstede’s theories. This suggests that both approaches reveal a single reality. They produce a true picture of the most salient cultural differences across the globe. Figure 7.1 shows an idealized version of the Minkov–Hofstede cultural map of the world, based on Minkov (2018) and Minkov and Kaasa (2021b). It was produced after an analysis of over 50,000 self-descriptions from 56 countries: people’s statements of what kind of persons they are. Very similar maps were published by Minkov et al. (2018b, 2019) from different data.

Evolution of the Minkov–Hofstede model  125

Figure 7.2 Main elements of individualism-collectivism and flexibility-monumentalism

It is clear at a glance that the map in Figure 7.1 is very similar to the geographic map of the world, except that there are no oceans on it, and the English-speaking countries are not scattered all over the globe but are all situated within the European cluster as they have apparently retained much of their original English culture. Figure 7.2 summarizes the main self-descriptions behind this map. Rectangles of the same color contain opposites. For example, collectivist cultures are characterized by nepotism or exclusionism (brown color): the view that one’s relatives and friends deserve privileges in social life whereas other people may be excluded from the circle of the privileged. Individualist cultures are characterized by the opposite: a belief in universal rights (also brown). Table  7.1 explains the vertical dimension  – individualism-collectivism  – in more detail, whereas Table 7.2 explains the horizontal dimension – flexibility versus monumentalism. Dimensions very similar to individualism-collectivism have been extracted from multiple sources, the best known of which are Schwartz’s (2008) “embeddedness versus autonomy” and Welzel’s (2013) “emancipative values”. The cultural contrasts that they highlight largely concur with the contents of Table 7.1. What accounts for the coexistence of conformism, need for status, and nepotism is poverty. When a society is poor, resources are usurped by community leaders who manage to impose submission and obedience in exchange for protection. Society resembles a family in which the parents make all decisions whereas the children obey and expect to be taken care of. However, the children realize, first, that the care they receive is not quite adequate and, second, that those who achieve high status get privileges that ordinary people can only dream of, hence the importance of wealth, power, and fame. As resources are scarce, and there is not enough

126  Michael Minkov Table 7.1  Main features of collectivism versus individualism Collectivism (Africa, Arab world, South Asia, tropical South America)

Individualism (Northwestern Europe, English-speaking countries)

Conformism: individuals are expected to conform to the time-honored rules of their societies, to be obedient, and to avoid conflicts with superiors. The individual must not differ from the group.

Autonomy: individuals have partial freedom to decide for themselves if a particular rule makes sense or has become pointless. An individual can be different from the group (for instance homosexuality is acceptable) as long as that does not harm anybody. If necessary, individuals will stand up for their rights even if they have to confront people in power. Status insignificant: social status does not give great privileges as everybody’s rights are protected under a system known as “rule of law”; therefore, status is desired but not as strongly as in collectivist countries. Universal rights: the tendency to treat people on the basis of their group membership is weak or nonexistent. Everybody enjoys more or less equal rights and opportunities.

Need for status: rich, famous, and ­powerful people are often above the law and have freedoms that others do not have; wealth, fame, and power are strongly desired. Nepotism (exclusionism): one’s friends, relatives or tribe, as well as men (vs. women) and powerful individuals receive privileged treatment in social life, business, and politics.

Table 7.2  Main features of monumentalism versus flexibility Monumentalism (Latin America, Africa, Arab world)

Flexibility (East Asia)

High self-esteem: individuals have a high opinion of themselves and may not see an imperative need for self-improvement.

Low self-esteem: individuals are often reminded that they are imperfect but have an opportunity to improve, mostly through education and hard work. Variable self: behavior does not depend much on values but rather on the situation. One is supposed to imitate those who are better in some important domains such as knowledge. This requires strong self-control and suppression of immediate desire gratification. Self-reliance: it is important to be able to take care of oneself without relying on help.

Invariant self: people have strong and unchangeable values that guide their behavior. One is supposed always to be the same person: genuine and true to one’s nature. Mutual help: people like to help other members of the community and share what they have with them.

for everybody, friends and relatives get preferential treatment called “nepotism”. As societies get richer, all these traits fade away. Autonomy increases, status still plays a role but is not as crucial as before, and dealing with people on the basis of the group that they belong to is seen as immoral.

Evolution of the Minkov–Hofstede model  127 The horizontal dimension in Figure 7.1 was first discovered by a group of scholars calling themselves the Chinese Culture Connection (1987). It was replicated by Minkov and Hofstede (2012) with nationally representative data from the World Values Survey, and then an analogue followed from the MediaCom study (Minkov et al., 2018a). After being called “Confucian dynamism”, “long-term orientation”, or simply “Hofstede’s fifth dimension”, Minkov and Bond renamed it “flexibility versus monumentalism”. The first of these terms refers to the flexibility and adaptability of East Asian societies, whereas the second metaphorically describes a self like a proud and durable monument made of the same substance on the surface and inside. Details are provided in Table 7.2. Monumentalism seems to be prevalent in societies characterized by political and economic simplicity in the past, before their colonization by Europeans. Typically, those societies did not have states, or large segments of the population (such as the North African and Middle Eastern bedouins) lived virtually outside the state, and the prevalent economy was nomadic pastoralism or shifting cultivation. In such conditions, personal development and, particularly, education do not provide substantial benefits. Self-reliance is impossible, and the focus is on creating networks in which people exchange help and favors. Those who actively participate in such exchanges receive praise and admiration, which boost their self-esteem. Societies that formed states in antiquity and had complex economies, such as rice cultivation, evolved in the opposite direction. Growing rice is the most labor-consuming type of traditional economy, requiring strong self-control: suppression of one’s natural desire for leisure and pleasurable activities. One also needs to work closely with other community members and be flexible and adaptable in order to maintain social harmony. At the same time, the existence of a complex state provides opportunities to those who acquire an education. The East Asian societies (Japan, Korea, Chinese-speaking countries), which relied mostly on rice cultivation and partly on other types of intensive agriculture, are classic examples of this type of culture. The Southeast Asian societies, from Myanmar to Indonesia, which combined rice cultivation and shifting agriculture, are today more or less in the middle on the flexibilitymonumentalism continuum. Further light on these two main dimensions of culture is shed by analyses of how parents bring up their children. Figure 7.3 summarizes the analysis of Minkov et al. (2018b). It suggests that children in collectivist countries are taught to follow all traditional rules (but not necessarily recent imports, such as driving regulations), to be humble and conflict-avoidant, and to be concerned for the uncertain future. At the individualist pole, children are more likely to hear the opposite advice. In flexible cultures (East Asia), children are taught to be capable of duality: to hide their bad feelings and suppress their desires, suggesting high importance of self-control. Changeability, duality, and adaptability are clearly emphasized through advice to imitate those who know more and advice to renege on one’s commitments if they prove too hard. A sense of shame is typical in case of failure. In monumentalist societies, the opposite advice is more likely to be given, suggesting invariance, a lack of duality, and consistency.

128  Michael Minkov

Figure 7.3 Contrasting types of advice for children across the world associated with cultural differences

There are a few types of advice that are associated with both collectivism and monumentalism and are therefore placed at more or less equal distances between the respective poles: to help people altruistically (although in reality one may expect that the favor will be returned), to share one’s money, to be forgiving, and to treat everybody in the same way. This last item suggests an abstract focus on consistency and may not be really informative in terms of how exactly people will be treated. As in Figure 7.2, contrasting pairs of advice are presented in the same color. For instance, while parents in monumentalist societies prefer to tell their children to “be only themselves” (red), parents in flexible societies prefer to instruct them to “be like those who know more” (also red). Yet another analysis of MediaCom data (Minkov et al., 2019) reveals more differences along the two main dimensions of culture. It shows how people express their core values through the choices that they would make if they felt very rich. The size of the rectangles in Figure 7.4 visualizes approximately how people would prioritize various parts of their budgets. In individualist societies, the focus would be on traveling for fun and donations for the protection of nature, whereas religious organizations would receive very little. Collectivist societies prioritize the opposite. People in flexible societies would focus on demonstrations of their wealth (buying expensive things, throwing expensive parties) and on a pursuit of power, probably because they need to boost their weak self-esteem. Donating money for welfare is not a priority as those societies promote self-reliance. Investment is shunned, perhaps because it is deemed risky. Monumentalist societies make the opposite prioritizations.

Evolution of the Minkov–Hofstede model  129

Figure 7.4  Budget prioritizations revealing cultural values across the world

Mirror images of subjective and objective culture Minkov and Kaasa (2021b) showed that the revised Minkov–Hofstede model of subjective culture (based on what people say about themselves) has a close equivalent in objective culture (based on measures of real behaviors and abilities). They measured objective culture mainly through national statistics indicating differences in, first, gender equality, rule of law, industrial and transport safety, and, second, educational achievement on standardized TIMSS and PISA math tests, adolescent fertility, paternal absenteeism (percentage of children growing up in families without fathers), and homicide rates. These two groups of measures yielded two dimensions of culture, strongly correlated with individualism-collectivism and flexibility-monumentalism. The first, called “emancipation” by the authors in honor of Welzel’s (2013) work, was explained as differences in concern for individual rights and individual welfare, which is in fact an indication of individualism. Collectivist societies have a lower concern in that respect, which explains their sexism, stronger corruption, and lax enforcement of laws and rules that could prevent accidental fatalities. The second dimension was called “long-term orientation”, echoing Hofstede (2001). Although it is closely associated with flexibilitymonumentalism, it was interpreted in terms of life-history (LH) strategy theory, which is best summarized by Csatho and Birkas (2018): Slow LH strategies can be characterized by future-oriented attitudes, a relatively long-term focus in behavioral strategies; for example, an ability to delay gratification. These strategies also involve higher parental investment (i.e., investment of time and effort in caring for offspring) in a relatively small number of offspring. In contrast, fast LH strategies are characterized

130  Michael Minkov by a relatively short-term focus and present-oriented attitude of taking risks or being aggressive in order to maximize immediate rewards and prioritize mating efforts. (p. 2) Environments in which life is short and unpredictable, such as sub-Saharan Africa and the tropical parts of Latin America, tend to promote a fast LH strategy. Birthgiving often starts in adolescence. It cannot be postponed much as that would reduce the number of surviving children, and society may not reproduce itself. Some parents, especially fathers, may not invest greatly in caring for offspring because the investment may not pay off: the children can die young. Instead, the effort may be on having as many children as possible (sometimes with different women: a phenomenon known as “polygyny”), hoping that some of them will survive without special care. For the same reason, great efforts in modern education may seem futile under such conditions: it may bring benefits only in the distant and uncertain future. Also, some individuals feel tempted to take shortcuts to success by engaging in criminal practices. More stable environments, such as East Asia and the Scandinavian countries, promote the opposite, slow strategies. Parents have children at a more advanced age and invest strongly in their upbringing and education. Violent crime is relatively rare. Flexibility-monumentalism and life-history strategy have a common thread. They both reflect prioritizations of long- versus short-term rewards and benefits: acting in accordance with one’s natural impulses and being one’s true self versus investing in one’s future, and those of one’s children, by suppressing current desires and attempting to improve oneself and one’s children so as to reap future profits. The differences between high and low emancipation and short- and long-term orientation are summarized in Figure 7.5.

Figure 7.5  Main differences in objective culture

Evolution of the Minkov–Hofstede model  131 If we drew a cultural map of the world based on emancipation and long-term orientation, it would be very similar to that in Figure  7.1. One simply needs to replace the names of the axes: collectivism-individualism becomes low versus high emancipation, and monumentalism-flexibility becomes short- versus longterm orientation. The only significant difference on the map of objective culture is that the Arab countries are right below Europe. In other words, they are somewhat longer-term oriented than Africa and Latin America. Particularly, paternal absenteeism and violent crime are rare in the Arab world. Minkov and Kaasa (2021b) found that the same two dimensions of objective culture emerge when one analyzes similar social indicators across the 50 US states. States where people are more religious and attend church more often, have less gender egalitarianism, are less likely to approve of immigration, and have higher road death tolls. This dimension is associated with wealth differences across the US states, just as it is across the world’s countries, and is therefore an equivalent of individualism-collectivism and emancipation. Also, states with lower school achievement on standardized tests have the hallmarks of a faster life-history strategy: proportionately more children born to single mothers, more teenage pregnancies, and more homicides. Figure 7.6 is a cultural map of the main regions of the United States reflecting these differences. The two axes stand for practically the same dimensions as those in Figure 7.5 The factors behind these cultural differences are of significant interest. For now, the only consensus in the literature is that wealth differences are the major factor behind differences in individualism-collectivism as wealth has a liberating and emancipating effect (Hofstede, 2001; Welzel, 2013). Better economic opportunities make one freer from one’s group and its traditional norms. There is also speculation

Figure 7.6  A cultural map of the main regions of the United States

132  Michael Minkov that climatic conditions in the past may have played a role (Welzel, 2013). Minkov and Kaasa (2021b) launched another idea: the type of economy that prevailed at the start of the 20th century and earlier, impacted culture. Individualism is prevalent in countries where, according to Whittlesey’s (1936) authoritative world map of agricultural practices, dairy farming had been the main agriculture: those of Northwestern Europe, Switzerland, and parts of the English-speaking world. According to anthropological evidence, dairy farming was mostly a female activity, giving women some independence and status, and hence resulting in relative gender egalitarianism, a main feature of individualism. Also, dairy farming does not require reliance on community work. It can be practiced in nuclear families, which is another specificity of individualism. Finally, it is a sedentary activity, allowing individual land ownership. In the most collectivist countries, the main economy often was nomadic herding or shifting agriculture, which was a semi-sedentary activity. Both precluded permanent individual land ownership and generated some constant competition for new land (as well as frequent livestock robbery among herders), often resulting in violence. This created a need for group protection and resulted in the formation of clans or tribes to which an individual was permanently attached and had to submit to the authority of the leader and the norms of the group. Less is known about the origins of the differences in flexibility-monumentalism, but it was speculated earlier in this chapter that they, too, may be an outcome of old differences in the economic environment (rice cultivation vs. nomadic pastoralism or shifting cultivation), as well as the political formations in which people lived for thousands of years. More complex and technologically advanced societies in the past stimulated flexibility and adaptability to diverse social roles interactions, whereas simple societies produced today’s monumentalist cultures. The cross-­ cultural field is awaiting new research on this topic. In view of the failure of the classic Hofstede model, one may wonder if my revision of it will fare any better. As the two dimensions in the revised model have been replicated in multiple ways and have analogues in objective culture, for now we have sufficient evidence for their robustness and reliability. But culture is not static. Its structure is characterized by significant stability as well as slow dynamism. In a few decades, it may be necessary to propose yet another revision or even a substantially different model. References Baskerville, R.F. (2003). Hofstede never studied culture. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 28(1), 1–14. Beugelsdijk, S.,  & Welzel, C. (2018). Dimensions and dynamics of national culture: Synthesizing Hofstede with Inglehart. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(10), 1469–1505. Bond, M.H. (2002). Reclaiming the individual from Hofstede’s ecological analysis  – a 20-year odyssey: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 73–77. Chinese Culture Connection. (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18(2), 143–164.

Evolution of the Minkov–Hofstede model  133 Csatho, A., & Birkas, B. (2018). Early-life stressors, personality development and fast life strategies: An evolutionary perspective on malevolent personality features. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, article 305, 1–6. Fog, A. (2021). A test of the reproducibility of the clustering of cultural variables. CrossCultural Research, 55(1), 29–57. Gelfand, M., Bhawuk, D., Nishii, L.H., & Bechtold, D. (2004). Individualism and collectivism. In House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W.,  & Gupta, V. (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 437–512). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Inglehart, R., & Baker, W.E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 19–51. Kurman, J., & Dan, O. (2007). Unpackaging cross-cultural differences in initiation between Israeli subgroups: Tradition and control orientations as mediating factors. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(5), 581–594. McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89–118. Merritt, A. (2000). Culture in the cockpit: Do Hofstede’s dimensions replicate? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, (31), 283–301. Minkov, M., Bond, M.H., Dutt, P., Schachner, M., Morales, O., Sanchez, C., Jandosova, J., Khassenbekov, Y., & Mudd, B. (2018a). A reconsideration of Hofstede’s fifth dimension: New flexibility versus monumentalism data from 54 countries. Cross-Cultural Research, 52(3), 309–333. Minkov, M., Dutt, P., Schachner, M., Jandosova, J., Khassenbekov, Y., Morales, O., & Blagoev, B. (2019). What would people do with their money if they were rich? A  search for Hofstede dimensions across 52 countries. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 26(1), 93–116. Minkov, M., Dutt, P., Schachner, M., Jandosova, J., Khassenbekov, Y., Morales, O., Sanchez, C.J., & Mudd, B. (2018b). What values and traits do parents teach their children? New data from 54 countries. Comparative Sociology, 17(2), 221–252. Minkov, M., Dutt, P., Varma, T., Schachner, M., Morales, O., Sanchez, C.J., Jandosova, J., Khassenbekov, Y.,  & Mudd, B. (2017). A  revision of Hofstede’s individualism-­ collectivism dimension: A new national index from a 56-country study. Cross-Cultural and Strategic Management, 24(3), 386–404. Minkov, M.,  & Hofstede, G. (2012). Hofstede’s fifth dimension; new evidence from the world values survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(1), 3–14. Minkov, M., & Kaasa, A. (2021a). A test of Hofstede’s model of culture following his own approach. Cross-Cultural and Strategic Management, 28(2), 384–406. Minkov, M., & Kaasa, A. (2021b). A test of the revised Minkov-Hofstede model of culture: Mirror images of subjective and objective culture across nations and the 50 US states. Cross-Cultural Research, 55(2–3), 230–281. Peterson, M.F. (2003). Review of the book culture’s consequences, second edition by G. Hofstede. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 127–131.

134  Michael Minkov Schwartz, S.H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In Kim, U., Kagitcibasi, C., Triandis, H.C., Choi, S.C., & Yoon, G. (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and application (pp. 85–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Schwartz, S.H. (2008). Cultural value orientations: Nature and implications of national differences. Moscow: Higher School of Economics Press. Singelis, T.M., Bond, M.H. Sharkey, W.F.,  & Lai, C.S.W. (1999). Unpackaging culture’s influence on self-esteem and embarrassability: The role of self-construals. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(30), 315–341. Taras, V., Steel, P.,  & Kirkman, B.L. (2012). Improving national cultural indices using a longitudinal meta-analysis of Hofstede’s dimensions. Journal of World Business, 47(3), 329–341. Van de Vliert, E. (2020). The global ecology of differentiation between us and them. Nature Human Behavior, 4(3), 270–278. Welzel, C. (2013). Freedom rising: Human empowerment and the quest for emancipation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whittlesey, D. (1936). Major agricultural regions of the earth. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 26(4), 199–240.

8 Hofstede’s imagined cultures Brendan McSweeney

New paradigm? Hofstede was not the first to assert that every country has a unique monolithic culture. Primordialist nationalism  – the view that humanity is naturally divided into ancient and wholly autonomous countries whose current populations share an enduring and common culture with their ancestors, a continuity and collectivity which non-members lack – is a centuries-old belief. As Joep Leerssen observes, “[i]n the course of the late sixteenth century and the seventeenth century, a systematization took place in European attitudes towards nationality, whereby character traits and psychological dispositions were distributed in a fixed division among various ‘nations’ ” (2000: 272). The early 18th-century “Völkertafel” or Tableau of Nationalities is a classic representation (visual and textual) of the purported social and moral characteristics of the people of “ten leading European” countries (O’Sullivan, 2012). Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803) declared that the people of each nation had their own ontologically autonomous, singular, enduring, and determinative Volksgeist – a notion echoed in an enormous body of literature across Europe and more widely and by countless other proponents of “primordialist nationalism”. That notion of nationalism was one of the key ideological cornerstones of the Romantic Movement and of the 19th-century Völkerpsychologie (psychology of peoples). Nineteenth- and 20th-century nationalist movements had a common view that while each nation/country had a unique and enduring “national culture” – the people’s culture was unacknowledged and suppressed by an inauthentic elite (native and/or colonisers) – a claim used to mobilise and nurture support for independence. Subsequently, especially in some post-colonial countries, governmental definition of authentic “national culture” was triumphantly used to legitimate the suppression of minority and oppositional views. Joseph Stalin (1879–1953) routinely employed national stereotypes based on cultural–psychological essentialism. He defined a “nation” as having a “stable . . . psychological makeup, manifesting itself in common specific features of national culture” (1929: 3). An exclusive and excluding “national culture” had a central role in fascist identity and propaganda (in Italy, Germany, and in Spain) in which homage was “continuously paid to the idea of a unified and unifying national culture” (Stone, 1993: 229). DOI: 10.4324/9781003410348-12

136  Brendan McSweeney During and after World War I, a host of writers sought to offer insights into the “national culture” of allies and enemies. Throughout World War II, such analysis became an official part of the US war effort. Gregory Bateson, Ruth Benedict, Geoffrey Gorer, Margaret Mead, and other “configurationalists”, that is anthropologists committed to the notion of monolithic cultures, attempted to describe the purported monolithic “national cultures” of Axis (especially those of Germany and Japan) and Allied countries – and later, during the early Cold War, the “national culture” of the Soviet Union – most specifically Russia. Each was assumed to be a single sovereign coherent whole.1 The notion of “national culture” and the characteristics attributed to such culture by these theorists were, in effect, the same as those which Hofstede would later use. Hofstede’s descriptions of “culture” as “collective programming of the mind” (2001: 1), as “mental software” (2001: 9), may use more modern language, but the notion of nationally monolithic cultures is long standing. Given the long history of depicting “national culture” with characteristics which Hofstede subsequently attributed to such culture and the prior attempts to describe and identify such characteristics dimensionally, including by the use of mean scores, Hofstede’s oft-repeated boast, echoed by many academic fans (“­aca-fans”), that his magnum opus Culture’s Consequences (1980) – and subsequent editions – represented a “new paradigm in social science research” is patently incorrect. In business and management studies, Hofstede’s declarations have been field-­ defining – popularising the notion of identifiable monolithic “national culture” – but influence and originality are not the same. Popularity Although Hofstede argues that “national culture” shapes just about every aspect of social life, his work has attained a large research and teaching following within one academic “discipline” only – that of business and management studies.2 There is no evidence, contrary to the assertion by many of his aca-fans, that his work is widely used in business practice, that is, in the actual running of private or public sector organisations. Anecdotally, I was for many years, a member of the Advisory Board of the Europe, Middle East, and African Division of a large globally located company. Managing across borders presented many challenges: different types of employee protection, different corporate tax rules, regional differences, distances between production and consumption, consumer variations, and so forth. Faced with this complexity and uncertainty, the board and management would have used anything which could enhance our knowledge of the different regional, national, and local contexts. But Hofstede’s “gross generalizations”, which disregard diversity within countries, provided “neither theoretical or [sic] practical help” (Cooper, 1982: 2003). Discarded notion in academia Not only is the Hofstedeian notion of a monolithic “national culture” centuries old, but well before the publication in 1980 of the first edition of Culture’s

Hofstede’s imagined cultures  137 Consequences, that conception of culture had also not weathered well in disciplines which had long studied “culture”, such as cultural geography and anthropology. By the late 1960s, in anthropology in the United States where it had previously been prominent, but not hegemonic, it had largely become of historical interest not analytical value. Marshall Sahlins, professor of anthropology and social sciences at the University of Chicago, criticised past exponents for their “vulgar cultural determinism” (1999: 409). Philip Bock, formerly President of the Society for Psychological Anthropology, states that by the 1960s, in anthropology, the conception was “pretty well discredited” (1999: 104). Within anthropology in Britain, and in many other European countries,3 while there had been individual researchers committed to the notion of monolithic cultures, it was always very much a minority view. There, especially in Britain and France, “social anthropology” rather than “cultural anthropology” dominated. The former focused on social structure as a set of social institutions, their roles, and interrelationships and disregarded culture or saw it as an effect, while the latter focused on “culture” as the dominant or determining social force. Alfred RadcliffeBrown, professor of social anthropology at the University of Oxford, dismissed “culture” as a “vague abstraction” (1952 [1940]: 190). In sum, Hofstede’s model is “old hat”, an archaic paradigm, not a new one and as a result falls into many “old traps”. Outside of academia, the notion of a monolithic “national culture” (but not Hofstede’s work itself) continues to enjoy support in parts of the contemporary political arena. It is often espoused by radical exclusivists, including by many nativist nationalists and absolute sovereigntists. It fuels exceptionalist claims specifying and lauding absolute and hierarchical national cultural boundaries. As authoritarian populist Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, states: “we do not want our own colour, traditions and national culture to be mixed with those of others” (2018) (emphasis added). Self-nominated “Historians for Britain” argue that membership of the European Union was undermining ancient, enduring, and distinct “British values” (www.historyworkshop.org.uk/nationalism-citizenship/ taking-exception/). The right to exclude or deport migrants is often legitimised by the protection of the “national culture” and/or the assertion of the impossibility of integration because of the incompatibility of “national cultures”. The U.K.’s Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, claims that people coming illegally to the UK possess values which are at odds with British values (www.gbnews. com/news/migrant-crisis-suella-braverman-drug-dealing-prostitution). On the left, the notion of a monolithic “national culture” has been both supported and opposed. Support, however, has declined somewhat, in part because the idea is seen as incompatible with “multiculturalism”. Among multiculturalists and postcolonialists, monolithic culture is largely said to characterise sub-national and transnational “ethnic” groups. However, it is also sometimes employed as an argument against the corrosive effects of “globalist” neoliberalism on nation-states.

138  Brendan McSweeney Hofstede’s evidence For many of Hofstede’s aca-fans, he seems to provide evidence-based support for his descriptions of monolithic “national cultures” and their consequences. Are his claims warranted? He had access to an unusually large empirical base. Two surveys in 66 countries4 provided over 116,000 completed questionnaires. The first self-report survey was conducted around 1968 and a smaller one around 1972. For many, the large size of the database is held to confer an unquestionable validity on his claims – a halo effect. But the conferred legitimacy relies on the fallacy of bigness – the bigger the better. The pertinent determinant of quality is the representativeness of respondents, not the number of respondents. More than 116,000 questionnaires overstate the size of Hofstede’s database in two respects. First, it is the total of two surveys in the same company. Second, only 72,215 questionnaires out of the 116,000+ questionnaires were used to produce “national cultural” depictions. These were of 39 countries out of the 66 surveyed – together with the inconsistent addition of Yugoslavia, a multi-nation state, using data from a company which was not an IBM subsidiary.5 The surveys were completed by members of the “middle-class rather than the working class” (Hofstede, 1980: 56),6 who were mainly male employees in marketing and service divisions only of the multi-country-located subsidiaries of IBM – a US-owned company. Employees in manufacturing and product development were not surveyed. The questionnaires, administered by IBM, were not designed to survey “national culture” but rather to explore morale, which top management believed had declined, and to enhance “organization development” (Hofstede, 1995). Most, if not all, respondents were aware of the purpose of the survey. That knowledge would undoubtedly have encouraged gaming and influenced their responses as they were not anonymous. However, Hofstede believed, or at least claims, that statistical analysis of their answers revealed individual countries’ “national values” – which, in effect, he defined as their “national culture”. Although, Hofstede, and many of his followers, trumpet the insights obtained from the questionnaire responses, I argue that none of the characteristics he ascribes to “national cultures” were derived from, or verified by, that data. He presupposes them and imposes them. They are assumed givens – dropped in, not drawn-out. Furthermore, remarkably, many of the purported “consequences” of “national culture”, described in Hofstede’s “illustrations” in Culture’s Consequences, are clearly inaccurate. As they are easily falsifiable by readily available information, they cannot have been derived from, or checked by him against, relevant data. To explore this view of Hofstede’s notion, and specific descriptions of “national cultures”, the remainder of the chapter is structured as follows. In relation to each characteristic he attributes to “national culture”, namely, identifiable, distinct, enduring, shared, and causal, I first summarise Hofstede’s description of the purported characteristic; I then consider whether his analysis of the IBM data verifies the characteristic measurements and rankings he attributed to the “national cultures” of individual countries; and finally I discuss whether the characterisation is

Hofstede’s imagined cultures  139 plausible. My critique of the notion of monolithic “national culture”, and specifically of Hofstede’s attributions and descriptions, does not imply a dismissal of the significance of culture in people’s lives, in the construction of human subjectivity, and in the history and development of countries. It simply seeks to challenge Hofstede’s notion of cultural determinism. Characteristic 1: identifiable Hofstede’s claim: self-report answers to work-related questions in a survey in a single company enabled him to empirically measure, rank, and compare the societywide “national cultures” of multiple countries. Verified?

Evidence of “glaring limitations” of Hofstede’s work have “been mounting” (Taras et al., 2023). Venaik, Brewer, and Midgley state that Hofstede’s model is “so flawed that [it] cannot be used for a deeper understanding of culture and its effects” (2023). As Michael Minkov, one-time collaborator and co-author with Hofstede, puts it, “A large part of the original Hofstede model is fiction”.7 In addition to the dependence of Hofstede’s work/model on the widely dismissed notion of monolithic culture, its other inadequacies and flaws include: “problems of face validity” – an incongruence between what is measured and what is said to have been measured (Venaik  & Brewer, 2016: 564); lack of appropriate control variables; “inadequate internal consistencies” and “suspect” construct validity of scales (Spector et al., 2001); “poor psychometric properties, the use of confusing constants and items weights in scoring” as well as “problems with its factor structure and measurement invariance” (Taras et  al., 2023); as the survey was designed for another purpose, the survey questions covered a narrow range of issues, thus potentially significant matters and other dimensions were not covered; espoused views were fallaciously conflated with motivating values; “culture” was restricted to values – thus overlooking non-value aspects of culture; the questionnaire responses (items) did not measure basic values but values that refer to specific situations or domains; the male middle-class respondents from a single privatesector company were not nationally representative – women and non-middle-class men/women were excluded (Moulettes, 2007); the company IBM was especially atypical so that the survey was “contaminated with IBM-specific peculiarities making it an unreliable source of information for extrapolations to the societal level” (Minkov, 2018: 233); the analytical assumption that the differences between national male sub-cultures/sub-populations were also the same as the differences between national female sub-cultures/populations is demonstrably incorrect – as is the treatment of matched samples as necessarily equivalent samples (Smith et al. (2002); IBM was assumed to have a single global organisational culture, rather than cultures, and each category of employees (such as “managers”, “administrators”) were unjustifiably supposed to have a single, worldwide occupational culture (McSweeney, 2002a); the survey answers were not confidential, incentivizing respondents to game their answers.

140  Brendan McSweeney A single unchanging score for each “dimension” only was assigned to a country. This supposed “national cultural” homogeneity and ignored heterogeneity and change. As Taras and Steel point out, “Such is Hofstede’s emphasis on averages that his result tables did not offer any information about score dispersion within groups” (2009: 51). This created a false perception of cultural homogeneity. Referring to earlier, pre-Hofstede claims about monolithic “national cultures”, geographer Philip Wagner said, “Aggregating mightily, one can speak of national cultures. The chief attribute of such a broad concept is its uselessness” (1975: 11). The IBM responses, upon which his analysis is primarily based, are not only over half a century old, but, furthermore, they were undertaken in atypical circumstances – less than 30 years after the end of World War II when in many countries, social attitudes, for example towards authority and hierarchy, would have been coloured by the traumas experienced by many of the respondents during and after that war. A necessary, but very far from sufficient, condition for valid inference is that the specific responses (items) analysed may reasonably be held to be linked with, to provide evidence for, the characteristic purportedly identified. However, the link between many of the IBM questions and what Hofstede claimed their answers revealed is unconvincing. For example the feminine pole of his Masculinity Index is derived from responses to just two questions (items): “how important is it to you to: work with people who cooperate well with one another?” (A8); and to, “have the security that you will be able to work for your company as long as you want to?” (A14). Hofstede’s claim that the degree to which a country is “modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life” (2001: 297) could be, and was, determined by him from responses to these two questions is preposterous. Both the questions and many other questions from which dimensions are identified and scored by Hofstede lack, as Venaik and Brewer (2016) discuss in detail, face validity. The IBM questions/responses and dimensions Hofstede claims they reveal are not credibly linked (see also Blodgett et al., 2008). Contrary to the eulogistic claims that his descriptions of monolithic “national cultures” are based on “hard data” (Romani, 2004: 148, for instance) and thus enabling him to “find”, “discover”, “reveal”, and “identify” the characteristics of “national cultures”, the data he analysed was, as discussed before, soft, partial, motivated, biased, incentivised, subjective, and context-dependent. His apparently dispassionate statistical analysis of this data is infused with preconceptions, forced interpretation, and speculation, with, as Hofstede acknowledges, “intuition” (2001: 79), that is, just “guesses” (Orr & Hauser, 2008: 5), the rationale for which is, as Michael Harris Bond says, “a mystery to many” (2002: 74). His analysis is, at best, contrived. Hofstede presupposed the very characteristics he purports to have revealed. Prior belief in the “findings” preceded and moulded the analysis of the evidence rather than being drawn from, or validated by, the evidence. In short, Culture’s Consequences is a fictional construct. To further illustrate his predetermination, I consider next two of his assumptions about “values”: 1. imputation – the notion that each national population has Common values; and 2. transcendence – the notion that values are absolute: unvarying, singular, context/situation-free – that is they transcend specific circumstances.

Hofstede’s imagined cultures  141 Imputation: Hofstede supposes that each country has a single and homogeneous “national culture”. He relies on categorical imputation, an a priori claim of group homogeneity. Categorical imputators claim to know, without direct investigation, that specific groups or categories of people, for example a particular social class, adolescents, a generation, a team, a country, or other is epistemologically or normatively monolithic  – that, within the category, there is a uniformity/consensus of values, ideas, beliefs, or whatever. The notion has long been criticised in the sociology of knowledge literature (for an overview, see Hammersley, 2020). There is substantial empirical evidence which refutes or rebuts the imputation of monolithic values within countries. However, rather than acknowledging within-country diversity or engaging with the debates, Hofstede declares that each national population has its distinct and common values, and thus that the values he purports to have “identified” in IBM subsidiaries are nationally representative. The Philippines, for instance, has a population of about 110 million. There are considerable disparities in income, wealth, and influence. It is composed of around 7,000 islands, and 182 living languages are used. The country is divided into 17 regions and 81 provinces within which there is substantial ethnic diversity and groupings including the Moro, the Kapampangan, the Pangasinense, the Ibang, the Ivatan, the Igorot, the Lumad, the Mangyan, the Bajau, and the Palawan – many of these groups are themselves composed of multiple subgroups. But on the basis of more than a half-a-century-old questionnaire with self-report responses from 158 IBM middle-class employees in the first survey, and 161 in the second survey (2001: 477), all based in just one location (near Manila, the capital city), Hofstede, through imputation, generalises from his tiny non-random sample and purports to have identified the uniform, collective, causal, and enduring “mental programming” of all Filipinos and the multiple consequences which purportedly flow from that “programming”. The existence of monolithic “national cultures” is a conclusion that he brought to his analysis, not one he drew from it. It is not a warranted belief based on either primary evidence from the IBM surveys or from an open and objective review of the research literature. And yet, “national cultural” homogeneity  – that the residents or citizens of a country have been collectively “programmed” with the same monolithic culture – is the keystone of his work. Although it is a highly contested view, he declares it to be an established fact. Rather than treating it as a hypothesis, to be proved or disproved, he supposed and imposed it. Although there is considerable evidence of value diversity within countries, Hofstede inappropriately assigns the label “national” to pooled data from unrepresentative respondents from an atypical company. Transcendence: Hofstede assumes that the values he purportedly identified consistently apply everywhere within a country: in work settings, homes, sporting clubs, gambling dens, convents, brothels. An alternative view to Hofstede’s claim of within-country value consistency regardless of context is that the choice and weight given to values by someone depend on context – whether one is in the home, in the neighbourhood, or the workplace. The most talkative child at the breakfast table is not necessarily the most talkative in the classroom. Someone who abstains from drinking alcohol during the working week may indulge on weekends. By day

142  Brendan McSweeney Rudolf Höss, the Commander of Auschwitz concentration camp, ordered the deaths of thousands of people – overseeing the extermination of at least 1.2 million people and the depraved enslavement of at least that number. And yet, he was obsessively kind to animals and his five children (Höss et al., 1996). The poet Ezra Pound is said to have been as much concerned with the encouragement and improvement of the work of many unknown writers as with his own creative work – helping them in multiple ways – even supplying the “more needy with clothes out of his own meagre suppy” (T. S. Eliot cited in Hollis, 2022). And yet, he was an anti-semite, a supporter of eugenics for “race cleansing” purposes, described Hitler as “a saint” and made multiple pro-fascist broadcasts from Italy during World War II. Both problematic assumptions (imputation and transcendence) are, however, essential for Hofstede to justify his generalisations from a single location to all locations and circumstance within the same country, that is to conclude that the answers to work-related questions from employees of a single company, as analysed by him, reveal society-wide “national culture” with “unusual clarity” (1991: 252). But both his assumptions remain mere suppositions – and strongly contested ones – for which supportive empirical evidence was not, and could not have been, obtained from the IBM questionnaires. Plausible?

Can “culture” be “measured”? Answers fundamentally depend on the ontological status attributed to “culture”. Don Mitchell answers bluntly, “there’s no such (ontological) thing as culture” (1995: 103). Gerd Bauman, summarizing what he says is one essential point of consensus among ethnographers, states that “culture is not a real thing, but an abstract and purely analytical notion” and therefore cannot be measured (1997: 211). Hofstede defines “culture” as “mental programming” (2001: 2), as “mental software” (2001: 2). But with what are human minds supposed to be “programmed”? What “culture” is and what it does have been defined and described in multiple ways. As early as the 1950s, Alfred Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn (1952) estimated – in a survey of English language sources only – that there were already more than 160 definitions of the “fluid and elusive concept” of “culture” (and its near-synonym “civilization”). More recently, Faulkner et al. (2006) identified the use of more than 300 definitions. Martyn Hammersley distinguishes between “four, very different, [categories of] meanings” (2020). In short, there is no consensus within, or between, anthropology, psychology, historiography, sociology, or political science in defining “culture”. Hofstede acknowledges that “culture has been defined in many ways” (1980: 25), but he insists on a single definition – usually parroted by his aca-fans – as if it were uncontested. Other than superficially, he does not engage with the extensive debates on the matter nor with challenges to his chosen definition. Self-reports: As an extensive literature demonstrates, self-reports (which the IBM survey was based on) are prone to many kinds of response bias and distortions. Here, just one – the effect of “organisation politics” – is considered.

Hofstede’s imagined cultures  143 Even when privacy is guaranteed, self-report bias is likely to colour respondents’ answers “because employees often believe that there is at least a remote possibility that their employer could gain access to their answers” (Donaldson & GrantVallone, 2002: 247). For the IBM survey, the possibility was not remote – privacy was not guaranteed; was openly contravened in some instances; and respondents know the possible negative or positive policy and action consequences of their answers. The administration of the survey and the ownership of its results were IBM’s; some of the questionnaires were completed within groups and not individually; and the respondents had foreknowledge that “managers were expected to develop strategies for corrective actions which the survey showed to be necessary” (Hofstede, 1980: 64) (emphasis added). The IBM respondents were aware that their answers could have consequences at multiple levels: on overall IBM policies and practices; at individual subsidiaries and within them on departments/divisions; and for them individually, as the privacy of their answers was not guaranteed and sometimes openly breached. The impact of respondents’ awareness of the possible consequences of their answers on how they answered the questions must have been very high – an impact that could affect their own employment. Built-in bias: the respondents had incentives to game their answers. An example: Question A52 is “How often would you say your immediate manager is concerned about helping you get ahead?” Five choices range from “always” to “never” (1980: 405). As the questionnaire responses were not confidential, would an unhappy or calculating employee’s answer be unaffected by his relationship with his8 manager – especially as the superior might be able to match specific answers to particular respondents? Another example is Question B25: “Suppose you quit this company. Do you think that you would be able to get another job in your line of work at about the same income?” One of four choices ranging from “Yes, definitely” to “No, definitely not” was possible (1980: 407). As many employees’ knowledge and skills were company-specific, and at the time the survey was undertaken there would have been very few, if any, similar companies in the same country, the truthful answer for most employees would be “No, definitely not”, or “No, probably not”. But to answer truthfully would reveal and acknowledge a position of weakness or of dependence on the company. With the exception of a few purely descriptive questions – marital status, for instance – respondents had incentives, because of possible repercussions, to game their non-confidential answers to every other question  – questions about their ambitions, status, satisfactions, complaints, promotion prospects, relationship with their manager(s), evaluation of their manager(s), commitment to the company, satisfaction with the company, retirement plans, pay and fringe benefits, and so forth. Characteristic 2: distinct Hofstede’s claim: Each country has an enduringly distinct (exclusive and clearly demarcated) monolithic “national culture” which shapes the thinking, evaluations, and acting of all, or most, of its inhabitants. A consequence is that both truth and judgement are nationally relative.

144  Brendan McSweeney Verified?

Nationally aggregated questionnaire answers inevitably produced nationally categorised differences. Hofstede’s analytical leap was to assert that these differences identified “national cultural” differences. But there is no evidential link between the former  – answers nationally segregated  – and the latter. The purported link between the former and the latter is a supposition, a guess, an imposition – not a warranted belief. Plausible?

The logical implication of Hofstede’s claim that each country has a distinct “national culture”, aka national values, is cultural relativism. Each culture is regarded as an independent and indefeasible epistemological and moral authority. Hofstede makes a dual claim – anti-relativist and relativist – that there is cultural monism within countries – but incommensurable (fundamentally different/no common standards) cultural pluralism between countries (1980: 374, for instance). He embraces both epistemological and moral relativism, but largely focuses on the former, arguing that as a result of distinct “national cultures”, different societies live in different and incommensurable knowledge worlds. “Truth” is culturally relative. Every statement is true or false relative to one of a myriad of incommensurable, but equally rational, “national cultures”.9 Thus, he lauds Blaise Pascal’s statement, “Vérité au-deçà des Pyrénées, erreur au-delà”, which he translates to English as, “There are truths on this side of the Pyrenees which are falsehoods [sic] on the other” (1980: 373) (emphasis added). Hofstede represents “falsehoods” as “untrue” – not as “a lie”. He interprets the quotation to mean that because national values are different, so too is truth – that truth has a nationality. But Pascal’s statement was not meant to be a relativist one. In reputable dictionaries, “erreur” is translated into English as “error” rather than “falsehood”. Based on the known context of Pascal’s employment of the quotation from Montaigne, it is clear that he meant “error”. In the manuscript (Pensées) (1670) from which Hofstede quotes, he was commenting on differences between systems of law, not truth. He explicitly refers to “justice” – in France and Spain/Catalonia – and on the arbitrariness of the demarcation of the Pyrenees in the Treaty of the Pyrenees (1659) which brought an end to 23 years of Franco-Spanish war. Hofstede’s mistake is not only misunderstanding, or misrepresenting, Pascal as a relativist. He also incorrectly supposes – as he does about every country – that France and Spain were internally bounded and homogeneous before, during, and after in Pascal’s time. However, as Eugen Weber’s Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870–1914 describes in great detail, the “reality”, even in the late 19th century, was “diversity” (1976: 9). He quotes a French economist who in 1837 writing about the French side of the Pyrenees remarked that “[e]very valley . . . is still a little world that differs from the neighboring world as Mercury does from Uranus” (1976: 47). Even today, four centuries after Pascal’s statement, Spain is a “sub-continent pretending to be a country” (Black, 2019: vii),

Hofstede’s imagined cultures  145 and France “remains (Republican mythology notwithstanding) the most diverse in Western Europe” (Nairn, 2002: 131). Methodological nationalism

Hofstede’s depiction of “national cultures” is “nationalist” in the sense that such cultures are seen as wholly single-country indigenous creations hermetically sealed – an impregnable closed system, fundamentally beyond the reaches of time and the non-national. In a wider literature, that “pernicious postulate” (Tilly, 1984) is critically labelled “methodological nationalism”. In many ways, the world is divided into formally equivalent “nation-states” – or rather countries. This categorisation is normalised as natural, as self-evident, through country-specific passports, stamps, flags, anthems, holidays, weather forecasts, civil services, police forces, taxes, residency rights, maps, elections, broadcasting media, linguistic standardisation, examinations, aggregate statistics, in routines of international comparisons, in international sporting events, in notions such as “national competitiveness”, “national debt”, and so forth. But a united state is not the same as a uniform nation. An exclusionary sense of shared distinctiveness  – national identity  – which an imagined common “national culture” may enhance, is not evidence of uniform and unchanging national behaviour or “national culture”. Socially real features of countries, as well as “invented” purportedly ancient country-wide traditions and ceremonies, strengthen national identity through belief in a national essence and uniqueness. For instance all, or virtually all, of the “­oldest” English traditions were invented in the last quarter of the 19th century. The famous dictum, variously attributed, that “We have made Italy; now we must make the Italians” (Stephanie, 2013; Hom, 2013) aptly illustrates the heterogeneity within national borders and why states ongoingly take actions to reinforce the myth of essentialist unity notwithstanding the reality of often considerable internal, regional and other, differences within countries. In 1861, the date of the establishment of Italy as a state, it has been estimated that the Italian language was known by and used by just 2.5% of the newly united Italian citizenry. In 1900, effective speakers of the Italian language were calculated to be only 20% of the population (Saltarelli, 2014). While in the United States, the national average annual gun death rate per 100,000 in 2020 was 13.6 – in the state of Mississippi, it was more than twice that (28.6); but in Massachusetts, the rate, at 3.7, was just over a quarter of the national rate (Gramlich, 2022). There are many other variations between and within these and other US states – as well as within every other country. Characteristic 3: enduring Hofstede’s claim: A “national culture” is age-old and essentially invariant. Each is stable “over long periods of history” (1980: 373).10 His claim implies, for instance, the “national culture” of Britain (or the United Kingdom or just England or ­England and Wales? – Hofstede is unclear) is supposed to the same in the current time of King Charles III as it was in the time of King Charles I (1600–1649) and that of

146  Brendan McSweeney China being the same today as it was during the reign of Emperor Wu (r. 141 to 87 bc). Hofstede rules out endogenous (within country) change to a “national culture”. Change generated from beyond a country’s boundaries, while possible, is said by him to be extremely rare. And if such a change were ever to happen, the worldwide “relative position or ranking” of “national cultures” – as calculated by him – would, Hofstede claims, be unaffected (2001: 36). Verified?

Hofstede’s position is not teleological presentism, the past inevitably progressing to the present, but substantive presentism, the ontological claim that the present is omnipresent such that fundamental elements of a past, present, and future “national culture” are substantially alike. Whatever one believes Hofstede measured by his analysis of the IBM data, that data acquired at just two moments in time (just once for some countries), does not justify his claim of unchanging “national culture”. Hofstede attributed longevity to “national culture”, he did not demonstrate it. At a minimum, many years of comparable data would be required to undertake even a preliminary consideration of whether or not change had occurred. Hofstede did not have such data. As early as 1920, Franz Boas, the “father” of American anthropology, observed that ahistorical analysis is likely to give a false impression of “absolute stability” while historical analysis reveals culture “in a constant state of flux and subject to fundamental modifications” (1928: 315). Regardless of whether one agrees with Hofstede, or with Boas, or neither, Hofstede’s “extremely aggressive position” (Taras & Steel, 2009) is not evidence-based. He did not have sufficient longitudinal data on which to base his assertion of unchanging “national culture”. Furthermore, and also on the basis of mere speculation, he makes the bizarre claim that in the very rare circumstances that a “national culture” changes, there is no change in the ranking position of any country in his indices. This, like his other claims, is an evidence-devoid conjecture. However, that does not stop many of his followers from treating his claims like holy writ (Minkov & Kaasa, 2021). Plausible?

To be stable, “national cultures” would have to be coherent, that is homogeneous, internal contradiction and variety free, integrated, seamless, and unambiguous totalities and thus intolerant of diversity – in short, a holistic code. Echoing Ruth Benedict and the other “configurationalist” anthropologists of bygone years, Hofstede states that cultures are “wholes” (2001: 17). Analytically speaking, if a culture is a coherent, harmonious whole, there is no mechanism within it to ever change. Agency  – improvisation, innovation, oscillation, opportunism, localised practices, contextualisation, fluidity, and adaptations are effectively excluded. “The net effect of this insistence on cultural compactness [is to preclude] any theory of cultural development springing from internal dynamics” (Archer, 1988: 6).11 Bronislaw Malinowski states that “human cultural reality is not a consistent or logical scheme, but rather a seething mixture of conflicting principles” (1926: 121).

Hofstede’s imagined cultures  147 Paul di Maggio says that “Cognitive research confirms views of culture as fragmented” (1997: 263); “a grab-bag of odds and ends: a pastiche of mediated representations, a repertoire of techniques, or a toolkit of strategies” (1997: 267) – it is heterogeneous in both content and function. Clifford Geertz, in harmony with what had become the accepted view in anthropology, well before Culture’s Consequences was published, dismissed the coherence view which he ridiculed as a: “seamless superorganic unit within whose collective embrace the individual simply disappears into a cloud of mystic harmony” (1965: 145). Such a notion of culture, he said, “leads to a drowning of living detail in dead stereotypes and ultimately obscures more than it reveals” (1970: 62–63). Extensive descriptive empirical work has routinely shown considerable, including worldwide cultural change. The enormous expansion in female participation in public life is but one of a myriad of examples. But Hofstede ignores that research work and the scholarly literature which contradicts his continuity claim. Characteristic 4: shared Hofstede’s claim: The population of a country share a distinct monolithic “national culture”. Verified?

Long before the publication of Culture’s Consequences, Alex Inkeles had dismissed similar homogeneity claims. The basic difficulty with this approach  .  .  . is its failure to take adequate account of the differentiation within large national populations. It emphasizes the central tendency, the existence it presumes but does not prove, and neglects the range of variations within and around the typical. (1953: 577) (emphasis added) When multinational Yugoslavia existed as a single state, Hofstede “measured” its supposed singular consequences-creating “national culture”. His description was based on just one survey in the early 1970s in a single (non-IBM) import–export company largely based just one of the many nations (Slovenia) which constituted the state of Yugoslavia (1980: 61). After its violent break-up into seven separate states, Hofstede purportedly “measured” the “national cultures” of three of these new states (namely, Croatia, Serbia, and Slovenia). If “national cultures” exist, and if the “national culture” of the initial state (Yugoslavia) had been accurately identified by Hofstede, then the “national cultures” of the seven countries into which it fragmented would be very similar: (1) to each other and (2) to that of the initial state. But Hofstede’s measurements of the “national” cultures of three of those states show the opposite – dissimilarity (Hofstede 2001: 87; 151; 215; 286). By the same Hofstedian logic, both the Ottoman Empire (encompassing about 43 presentday countries) and the Austro-Hungarian Empire (encompassing 13 countries  – wholly or partially) each had a single common culture.

148  Brendan McSweeney Pre-adolescence: Hofstede’s justifies his monolithic culture supposition by asserting (without evidence) that all, or at least most, of those in a country are collectively “programmed” from generation to generation with a single and unchanging set of core national values, largely before the age of ten: “By the time a child is 10 years old”, he states, “most of its basic values have been programmed into its mind” (1980: 182). That is not only before adulthood but even before the experiences of adolescence and those of “emergent adulthood” and later. What evidence does Hofstede provide in support of his pre-adolescence cultural determination claim? As all of the IBM respondents were adults  – no children or adolescents were surveyed – his claim is based on zero evidence from the IBM data. As ever, Hofstede pronounces rather than proves. But is his assertion plausible? Plausible?

Hofstede’s claim of uniform and enduring cultural programming of children rests on a range of questionable assumptions. I comment on three. First, totalising continuity – the assumption that early-life socialisation culturally “programmes” every child uniformly and immutably. Hofstede asserts that a child – defined by him as a person up to the age of ten years – is “programmed”, as is every other child in the same country, with immutable and uniform core values, aka a “national culture”. The “programming” is essentially completed when the child is ten. At this point, these values are said to be frozen across a person’s lifespan and are reproduced essentially intact from generation to generation, chronically reinforced by social processes and relationships and by institutions, all of which are themselves held to be fundamentally created and coloured by monolithic “national culture”. While it would be widely accepted that the context(s) of childhood are likely to be a major influence on the cognition, physical vitality and personality of the future adult, Hofstede’s absolute and deterministic claims that unchanging values are wholly and only acquired in childhood and are replicated, without change, in successive generations are not warranted (for an overview see, Bock  & Leavitt, 2018). Value priorities may undergo change or become more ambivalent across a person’s lifespan (as child, adolescent, emerging adult, adult, mature adult, elderly – discontinuities between which are not always clear) especially through adaptation to significant experiences and changing circumstances. Not only is socialisation not unchanging after the age of ten, but also prior to that age, (1) childhood experiences will not be nationally uniform, and (2) the effect even of identical experiences will not be unvarying. On the contrary, considerable contradictory effects to identical childhood experiences have been identified (O’Grady & Metz, 1987, for instance).12 In short, a child’s past will influence its future – but not determine or predict it. If a person’s values were, as Hofstede claims, fixed by the age of ten, there is no justification for prohibiting children, once they reach the age of 10, from purchasing cigarette and lottery tickets, consuming alcohol, engaging in sexual intercourse, driving motor vehicles, and so on. From that age, children could also be held criminally responsible for their actions. Fortunately, “[no] civilised society

Hofstede’s imagined cultures  149 regards children as accountable for their actions to the same extent as adults” (Howard, 1982: 343). Adolescence (early, middle, and late), especially, but not exclusively, has long been widely regarded as a phase of life characterised by significant biological, social, and psychological changes. Formative experiences, curiosity, and impulsiveness may, on average, vary with age, but they do not cease by the age of ten. Hofstede was just 11 years old when the Nazis occupied the Netherlands. The occupation of Haarlem, where he lived, did not end until May 1945. He was then 16 years -old. That occupation was characterised by repression, economic extraction, forced labour, torture, assassination, deportations, blitz, famine, resistance, and collaboration. If Hofstede’s claims that an individual’s enculturation during early childhood is decisive, then, unrealistically in my opinion, it must be concluded that the consequences of the Nazi occupation – including its direct effect on his father’s behaviour (https://exhibition.geertHofstede.com/portfolio/1-1-thatlittle-boy/) – had no effect on his priorities and outlook. Although the weight of evidence in the research literature clearly shows that there are age-related shifts in values and value priorities at all ages, thus contradicting Hofstede’s assertion that values are overwhelmingly unchanging after the age of ten, he dogmatically proclaims his view as an uncontested given. The second assumption Hofstede makes about value acquisition is undifferentiated socialisation. That is that the national cultural “programming” of children in the “family and in the neighborhood, and later at school” (2001: 394) is uniform. But all childhood (as well as adolescent and adult) influences, including families, neighbourhoods, and schools within a country, are not the same. Are, for instance, the values of deference and obedience promulgated in many British state schools the same as those of privilege and entitlement inculcated in the British elite private (ironically called “public”) schools? Is the cultural socialisation of the children of the French elite – many who live (except when on multiple vacations) in the “sacred [Parisian] triangle between Bièvre River, the Parc Monceau, and Neuilly” (Vuillard, 2023: 154)  – conceivably the same, as Hofstede implies, as for instance those who live and scavenge in a slum in Paris or Marseille, or other French city, or even those who have been reared in any moderately prosperous part of France? Hofstede disregards the potential effects, in infancy, in childhood, in adolescence, and in adulthood, of differential socialiation because of differences in gender, social class, resources, parental relationships, power, opportunity, security, income, ethnicity, location, and occupation. The third assumption Hofstede makes is that the population of a country is wholly, or at least overwhelmingly, “native born” and thus share the same childhood cultural socialisation. But immigration/migration, voluntary or involuntary cross-border movements of people, is an age-old phenomenon. In the 20th century alone, two world wars, civil wars, and extensive national boundary changes led to the expulsion, relocation, or flight of vast numbers of people. Destination countries with the highest shares of immigrants/migrants (expressed as a percentage of the total population) are: Australia (29.1%), Austria (19.3%), Belgium (17.2%), Ireland (17.8%), Israel

150  Brendan McSweeney (21.2%), Luxembourg (47.3%), New Zealand (15.6%), Sweden (19.5%), Switzerland (29.7%), and the UK (14%) (OECD, 2020). Around 37% of people living in London were born outside the UK (Sturge, 2021). Nearly 40% of residents of New York are foreign-born (MOIA, 2018). More than 88% of the populations of Qatar and of the United Arab Emirates and almost 70% of Kuwait’s population are immigrants (CIA, 2022). Ecological fallacy: Although Hofstede’s definition of “national culture” as “collective programming of the mind”, that is the minds of individuals, implies that a “national culture” is, as it were, a “giant photocopying machine that keeps turning out identical copies” (Bauman, 1999: 25), he also, but inconsistently, states that his descriptions of “national cultures” are not valid descriptions, or predictions, of levels other than the national. He explicitly criticises the “ecological fallacy” – the fallacious inference that the characteristics (concepts and/or metrics) of an aggregate (historically called “ecological”) level also describe those at a lower hierarchical levels such as the organisational and the individual. As Minkov and Hofstede state: Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture are constructed at the national level. They were underpinned by variables that correlated across nations, not across individuals or organizations. In fact, his dimensions are meaningless as descriptors of individuals or as predictors of individual differences because the variables that define them do not correlate meaningfully across individuals. (2011: 12, emphasis added) Many of Hofstede’s followers ignore his acknowledgement that his dimensional measurements are “meaningless” as descriptions or predictions at sub-national levels and blindly treat his national dimensional depictions as correct descriptions of whatever sub-national level  – most commonly the organisational or the individual – they are focused on. Despite his disclaimer, Hofstede also does what he rightly criticises others for doing. Christopher Earley points to Hofstede’s “entangle[ment]” of levels (2006: 923). Paul Brewer and Sunil Venaik state that the “confounding of the levels of analysis permeates through Hofstede[‘s] . . . books and publications on national culture dimensions . . . both in the definitions of [his] dimensions and the discussion of [his] findings” (2012: 678) (for a critique of Brewer and Venaik’s view, see de Mooij, 2013 and Venaik and Brewer’s reply, 2013). Hofstede’s  – and many of his followers’  – methodological error goes even deeper. They suppose top-down determinism – asserting that the cultural characteristics of higher level (the national) are not merely the same as that at other levels, but that the national determines the lower levels (McSweeney, 2013). That determinism is the inevitable consequence of supposing that every member of a national population is “programmed” by a powerful and uniform “national culture”. Had Hofstede consistently confined his definition of “national culture” to the national level, his work would be far less popular, as it would not be seen as useful by those who want to describe, explain, or predict events at sub-national levels.

Hofstede’s imagined cultures  151 Hofstede repeatedly gives anecdotal “examples” of the purported influence on individuals of “national culture”. For instance, Hofstede states that Sigmund Freud was indelibly and exclusively “programmed” with Austrian “national culture” to the extent that his psychoanalytic theories were a product of that “culture” (1980, 2001) (see also, McSweeney, 2002b).13 Commenting on a movie depiction of arguments between members of a jury, Hofstede states that a juror in a court behaved in a particular way on a jury because he was an Austrian – he “cannot behave otherwise. . . . He carries within himself an indelible pattern of behaviour” (1991: 3). Hofstede et  al. attribute the refusal of Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa between 1999 and 2008, to recognise the link between HIV contagion and AIDS which resulted in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths, on the values of “southern African countries” (2010: 273). This example of Hofstede’s ecological fallacy fails rudimentary falsification (as do many of his other “examples”): HIV/ AIDS deniers are not exclusively from Southern Africa, and many from Southern Africa, including Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu, rejected Mbeki’s views. Hofstede condemns stereotyping, yet he practises it. What Hofstede means by “shared” is somewhat of a will o’ the wisp as his views are neither precise, equivalent, consistent, or evidence-based. Is a “national culture”, in Hofstede’s view, carried by every individual; or is it something collective, beyond/above individuals? Does every member of a country’s population “have” the same culture, or is “the national culture”: an average; what is held by the majority; or is it a central tendency? Are his measurements accurate measurements or surrogates? With chameleonic vagueness, poorly specified conceptions slide unclearly and inconsistently between each other. Characteristic 5: causal – with predictable consequences Hofstede’s claim: “National cultures” have consequences that are predictable. As Giana Eckhardt critically observes, It would appear that Hofstede subscribes to the view that all historical, political, economic, social (or any other) events that have ever happened throughout history, in the present, or in the future are related to and can be explained by his national culture dimensions. (2003: 152/3) Verified?

Three ways in which Hofstede’s claims of national cultural causality are unwarranted are considered here. 1. IBM Data: Even if one holds the view that “national cultures”, or dimensions of such cultures, are supremely causal and/or enable accurate predictions, there is nothing in the IBM data to support – or indeed reject – that view. The issue was not addressed in the questionnaires. Neither causality nor predictability is “revealed” by the IBM data.

152  Brendan McSweeney 2. Correlation or Causality? Recognition that correlation is not proof of causality is elementary – and yet an extraordinarily high proportion of the Hofstede follower literature makes the spurious inference of the causal power of “national culture” based merely on temporal coincidence or, more formally, on the calculation of a significant correlation coefficient. 3. Confirmation Bias: Giana Eckhardt observes in her review of the second edition of Culture’s Consequences that Hofstede “includes only the studies that confirm his original framework. Results that challenge his framework are ignored” (2003: 152). That bias is not limited to causality claims. His one-sidedness colours his work even more widely. He references literature from a very wide range of disciplines. Superficially, that suggests deep interdisciplinary knowledge and openness. But closer examination reveals unbridled confirmation bias. Overwhelmingly, supportive literature only is cited. That is hucksterism, not responsible scholarship. Predictions

Hofstede claims to demonstrate both the descriptive accuracy and the predictive power of his indices with hundreds of illustrative examples of Culture’s Consequences. How accurate and trustworthy are these “illustrations”? Hofstede provides potentially supportive evidence for only a handful of them. But more damningly, many of the “illustrations” are demonstrably incorrect when compared with readily available data. It is clear that many, possibly all of them, were neither derived from country-specific data nor were they tested against such data. The defect this reveals in Hofstede’s methodology is not that some of his predictions are wrong – few theories do not generate predictive failures. And indeed, fallacious theories may enable some correct predictions. Causal power and predictive capability are distinct qualities. But instead of being evidence-based (empirically proven prediction results), it seems that most or all of his “illustrations” were deduced from the general concepts underlying each of his indices and were not empirically tested. In short, Hofstede’s illustrative “consequences” are largely, or wholly, made up, imagined by him. In preparing this chapter, I compared a host of Hofstede’s purported illustrations of the causal and predictable power of his national cultural depictions. These predictions about homosexuality, road accidents, accounting regulation, share ownership, and many other matters were compared with readily available data. All were found to be inconsistent with the data. Space does not permit a detailed discussion of all of these failed speculative “illustrations”. Just two examples of Hofstede’s flawed research process are described. While verifiability is not the only criterion of valid knowledge, it is the basic criterion for work which claims to have shown necessary cause-and-effect relationships as Hofstede’s illustrations do. Industrial conflict: In his “Consequences of National Masculinity Index Differences” (1980: Figure 6.8), Hofstede maintains that there is “more industrial conflict” in countries high in his Masculinity Index (1980: 279) and, conversely, “less industrial conflict” in countries low in the Index – what he also calls “feminine”

Hofstede’s imagined cultures  153 countries.14 The Index, like all Hofstede’s indices, is an axis, the higher a country’s rank in the Index the more “masculine” it is said to be. Conversely, the lower a country’s rank, the more “feminine” it is said to be. Hofstede’s industrial relations claim is repeated in the second and third editions of Culture’s Consequences and elsewhere. Hofstede provides no IBM-based, or other, evidence for this assertion. However, it might seem to some to be a reasonable deduction. If a country is “masculine”, then surely its industrial relations will be aggressive? But the empirical evidence – which Hofstede clearly did not look at or ignored – tells a very different story. As McSweeney et al. (2016), for instance, show on the basis of a review of ten years’ data (1996–2005), there is not even a weak association between the supposed independent variable (national gender as ranked in Hofstede’s Masculinity Index) and the dependent variable/outcome (industrial conflict). Thus, for instance highly “masculine” Japan had dramatically fewer instances of industrial conflict than highly “feminine” Denmark, which is the opposite of Hofstede’s prediction. Heart attacks: Heart attacks are the leading cause of deaths worldwide. Hofstede claims that there are “fewer heart attacks” in “strong uncertainty avoidance countries” and “more heart attacks” in “weak uncertainty avoidance” countries (2010: 208). “Uncertainty avoidance” is defined as, “the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations” (2010: 191). No supportive evidence is provided – the supposed relationship is just declared. Within countries, rates of heart diseases are not the same for all national subgroups. But, in any event, are his aggregate national descriptions/predictions correct? Readily available data falsifies Hofstede’s claim. For instance Russia is ranked one of the strongest uncertainty avoidance countries by Hofstede (rank 7 out of 76 countries) and therefore predicted by him to have a very few heart attacks. The actual record is the opposite – Russia has one of the highest rates of cardiovascular mortality in the world – 226 deaths annually per 100,000 of the population. Conversely, Denmark is a country with one of weakest positions in the Uncertainty Avoidance Index (rank 74) (2001)  – and therefore would have, if the Index had descriptive/predictive power, one of the highest levels of heart attacks. It has one of the lowest. The rate of cardiovascular mortality is currently 36 deaths annually per 100,000, that is 16% of the Russian rate. Ireland and Great Britain/the United Kingdom have identical ranking in the Index (rank 68–69) and so would, if Hofstede’s claim were correct, have identical, or at least similar, heart attack rates. However, the actual rates differ considerably. In a ranking of cardiovascular mortality rates in high-income countries (n = 46), Great Britain/the United Kingdom was high in the top half, in fourth place; Ireland was in the bottom half in 28th place (Finegold et al., 2013). Reckless speculation: The analysis above is not a comprehensive evaluation of the predictive capability of Hofstede’s dimensional indices. Thus, it does not review the literature which supports or that which rejects such power. Rather, it considers some of Hofstede’s own predictions so as to further uncover his flawed mode of research. Michael Minkov, summarising his analysis of Hofstede’s Masculinity and Uncertainty Avoidance indices describes them both as “incoherent,

154  Brendan McSweeney internally unreliable” and neither is “a significant predictor of any of the main things it is supposed to predict”.15 As the examples discussed earlier demonstrate, Hofstede’s “illustrations” are not actually illustrations: his lists and his other descriptions of purported consequences are largely, perhaps wholly, speculations – created through presuppositions about the existence of, and the singular power of, “national cultures” or the “dimensions” of such cultures. They are imaginary  – not illustrative. As Joep Leerssen states, “Hofstede’s correlations of ethnicity and cultural behaviour, for all that they claim to be empirically founded, owe more in fact to stereotyped preassumptions than to factual observation” (2006: 46). His research approach has not only produced many incorrect claims, it is also an irresponsible research practice. Hofstede has said that Karl Popper’s theory of “falsification” was a major influence on his work (Hoppe, 2004). Ironically, Hofstede’s work is characterised by an egregious failure to apply even minimal falsification. Plausible?

As Charles Ragin observes, “rarely does an outcome of interest to social scientists have a single cause . . . social causation [involves] different combinations of causal conditions [and] specific causes may have opposite effects depending on context” (2014: 27). Social phenomena are complex not merely because they are almost always the outcome of multiple factors, but also because those factors can combine in a variety of ways, at different times, and at different levels or strata in society. The combinatorial, often complexly so, nature of social causation makes the identification of causation or prediction highly challenging and far beyond the capability of single force – “national values”, or whatever else. In short, reductive singular explanations of social action “can’t cut the mustard”. That is not to argue that values or culture cannot be influential but instead to reject the attribution of determinate power to an imagined monolithic culture. Conclusion Hofstede’s characterisations of “national cultures” are neither derived from, nor verified by, the IBM survey responses or other data. Nor, it was argued, are his characterisations plausible. Others have also made similar criticisms. For instance Immanuel Wallerstein was scathing about Hofstede’s analysis of the IBM data stating, “The methods Hofstede used violate every premise of opinion analysis I  learned at the feet of Lazerfeld and Hyman”.16 Follower belief that Hofstede determined the existence of, and described, multiple national cultures requires both a disregard of a host of methodological flaws in his research (above) and an a priori belief in monolithic national cultures. Hofstede does not justify his characterisation of “national culture” by a fair review of the research literature. He largely ignores, or occasionally snubs, research that contradicts or does not corroborate his own claims. He overstates the

Hofstede’s imagined cultures  155 originality of his views and methods. Perhaps most egregious of all is his failure, as behoves a scholar, to honestly engage with critique. Missing from bibliographies of all three editions of his magnum opus are the key critiques (many with 2,000+ citations) of his work from within business and management studies – and from a wider arena, the extensive and intensive critiques of the notion of monolithic “national culture” – which he fails to cite or engage with. Like a preacher, he pronounces – devoid of self-doubt. Often, the boast of Hofstede and his followers is that his work has been “verified”. But that claim is merely a one-sided recognition that there is some supportive work for some of his claims – but silence about failed verifications, falsifications, counter-findings, and the like. Hofstede’s confirmation bias is mirrored in many of the commentaries of his followers, too many of whom treat his work as if it were the unquestionable utterances of an infallible oracle, instead of bringing to it the academic rigour of openness to and engagement with counterviews and contrary evidence. Hofstede lists hundreds of purported national cultural “consequences”, but, overwhelmingly, he provides no supportive evidence for his assertions, and many are plainly incorrect as they are refutable by readily available data. That being so, it is clear that he imagined most of them. They are not empirically derived or tested. Instead, they are deduced from national stereotypes or from his whims about what he imagines are the consequences of national cultural dimensions. The “paradigm” Hofstede relies on had already – even before the publication of the first edition of Culture’s Consequences – long been rejected or ignored in anthropology and elsewhere. From the perspective of the wider social sciences, Hofstede’s claims rather than being an advance – a “new paradigm” – are a step backwards to earlier and more primitive assertions about culture. That reversion to the ideas of “defunct” (Keynes, 1936) cultural theorists is, I suggest, a major reason why, despite being eulogised largely within business and management studies for more than 40  years, his work is effectively ignored in anthropology, geography, sociology, international relations, and literary studies – all disciplines with an interest in culture and in cross-national comparisons. The claim that each country has a monolithic culture that produces insurmountable and incompatible differences can legitimate the same policies of exclusion and segregation as biological racism – the belief that groups of humans possess different, fixed, determinative, homogeneous, comparable, and rankable characteristics corresponding to inherited attributes. The only distinction between Hofstede’s cultural determinism and racial determinism is that the source of differences between groups is attributed in the former to “culture” – but to biological (genes, or whatever) in the latter. The variance is thin. Werner Eiselen, for instance, the architect of apartheid in South Africa, stated that culture, not race, was the “true basis of difference” (in Kuper, 1999: xiii). As Alana Lentin states, “merely replacing ‘race’ with ‘culture’ fails to expunge the ranking of humanity implied by theories of ‘race’ ” (2005: 379). One form of essentialized segregation merely substitutes for the other. They are functionally equivalent.

156  Brendan McSweeney Acknowledgements I thank Chris Nobes for his expert comments on an earlier version and Sheila Duncan for her encouragement, insights, suggestions, and editing of this, and earlier, versions. Notes 1 There was also a parallel literature which emphasised plurality within countries and/ or cultural universality. That literature is not discussed here. But the configurationalist perspective dominated anthropology in the United States at that time. 2 Within the business and management discipline(s), there is also considerable criticism – both mild and severe. Thus, contrary to Hofstede’s claim, even there his work is not “normal science”. His work is also employed  – largely, it seems, uncritically (Štefl, 2023) – in the “intercultural communicative competence” training arena, and there is some limited interest in subsets of psychology and education. 3 A European exception was the imposition of the notion of “national culture” as collective disposition, as separate and internally uniform entities, on cultural anthropology in Germany by the National Socialist regime (Westphal‐Hellbusch, 1959). 4 Not all “countries” were surveyed twice. 5 Later – using additional data sources – increased to 76 countries. 6 In passing, Hofstede briefly acknowledges that the “national culture” of a country might be “differentiated by social class” (1980: 373). On that assumption, as the IBM respondents were largely “middle class” (1980: 56), they could not have been nationally representative. Hofstede fails to draw this conclusion. But furthermore, social stratification is so varied and complex that it is not meaningful to speak of the middle class or the working class as cultural unities. Value orientations may vary even under the same socioeconomic conditions and also for people with a similar education and occupational/ professional position. 7 Personal communication by email. 8 The “respondents were mainly men” (Hofstede, 2001: 285). 9 This is different from non-relativist “methodological contextualism”  – the view that insight into any custom, belief, or action requires appraiser awareness of/sensitivity to the local context(s) and self-awareness. “Indigenous knowledge” and “indigenous epistemology” are distinct concepts. 10 Were this claim true, Hofstede’s national culture descriptions would have considerable analytical value for historians – but his work has no currency in the discipline of history. 11 There are group, not just individual, agents within countries – judicial branches of government, regulatory agencies, corporations, political parties, trade unions, professional associations, the medical profession, and so forth which can act and be interacted with (List & Pettit, 2011). That is not true of a “country”. As a shorthand, we all refer to a country as if it were a social force: “Argentina beat France in the World Cup Final”, but that is true only on a metaphorical, not a literal, sense. 12 See research on twins, for instance. An autobiographical note: the author of this chapter is a twin although reared and schooled together; he and his brother have very different personalities, lead very different lives, and have very different ways of being Irish. 13 In addition to being an example of the “ecological fallacy”, Hofstede’s claim also incorrectly supposes that Freud was solely socialised in a culturally uniform Austria. Freud spent almost five of the initial years of his childhood in Moravia, in present-day Czechoslovakia. He and his family then moved to Leopoldstadt, the Jewish district in Vienna (capital of the multi-country Austro-Hungarian Empire). That district was overwhelmingly populated by immigrants.

Hofstede’s imagined cultures  157 14 Hofstede defines masculinity and femininity as: A society is called masculine when emotional gender roles are clearly distinct: men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success, whereas women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. A society is called feminine when emotional gender roles overlap both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. (2010: 140) 15 Personal communication by email. 16 Personal communication by email.

References Archer, M. (1988) Culture and agency: The place of culture in social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauman, G. (1997) Dominant and demotic discourses of culture: Their relevance to multiethnic alliances’. In P. Werbner & T. Modood (eds.), Debating cultural hybridity: Multicultural identities and the politics of anti-racism. London: Zed Books, pp. 209–225. Bauman, G. (1999) The multicultural riddle: Rethinking national, ethnic, and religious identities. New York: Routledge. Black, J. (2019) A brief history of Spain. London: Hachette. Blodgett, J.G., Bakir, A. & Rose, G.M. (2008) A test of the validity of Hofstede’s cultural framework. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(6): 339–349. Boas, F. (1928) Anthropology and modern life. New York: Norton. Bock, P.K. (1999) Rethinking psychological anthropology (2nd ed.). Prospects Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Bock, P.K. & Leavitt, S.C. (2018) Rethinking psychological anthropology: A critical history. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Bond, M.H. (2002) Reclaiming the individual from Hofstede’s ecological analysis  – a 20-year odyssey: Comment on Oyserman et al. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1): 73–77. Brewer, P. & Venaik, S. (2012) On the misuse of national culture dimensions. International Marketing Review, 29(6): 673–683. CIA. (2022) The world factbook. Available at: www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/. Cooper, C. (1982) Review of G. Hofstede: Culture’s consequences. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 3(2): 202–204. De Mooij, M. (2013) On the misuse and misinterpretation of dimensions of national culture. International Marketing Review, 30(3): 253–261. DiMaggio, P. (1997) Culture and Cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1): 263–287. Donaldson, S.I. & Grant-Vallone, E.J. (2002) Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research. Journal of business and Psychology, 17(2): 245–260. Earley, P.C. (2006) Leading cultural research in the future: A matter of paradigms and taste. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6): 922–931. Eckhardt, G. (2003) Book review: Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations, 2nd ed. Journal of Marketing, 67(2): 151–153. Faulkner, S.L., Baldwin, J.R., Lindsley, S.L.  & Hecht, M.L. (2006) Layers of meaning: An analysis of definitions of culture. In J.R. Baldwin, S.L. Faulkner, M.L. Hecht & S.L. Lindsley (eds.), Redefining culture: Perspectives across the disciplines. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 27–51.

158  Brendan McSweeney Finegold, J.A., Asaria, P. & Francis, D.P. (2013) Mortality from ischaemic heart disease by country, region, and age: Statistics from World Health Organization and United Nations. International Journal of Cardiology, 168(2): 934–945. Geertz, C. (1965) The social history of an Indonesian Town. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Geertz, C. (1970) The impact of the concept of culture on the concept of man. In E. A. Hammel and W. S. Simmons (eds.), Man Makes Sense. Boston: LittleBrown, pp. 46–65. Gramlich, J. (2022) What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S. Pew Research ­Centre. Available at: www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-saysabout-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/. Hammersley, M. (2020) Troubling sociological concepts: An interrogation. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. (1995) Insurance as a product of national values. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice, 20(4): 423–429. Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. (2011) Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1): 2307–0919. Available at: http://scholarworks. gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8 14 January 2023. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. & Minkov, M. (2010) Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (revised and expanded 3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Hollis, M. (2022) The Wasteland – A Biography of a Poem. London: Faber & Faber. Hom, S.M. (2013) On the origins of making Italy: Massimo D’Azeglio and ‘fatta l’Italia, bisogna fare gli italiani’. Italian Culture, 31(1): 1–16. Hoppe, M.H. (2004) An interview with Geert Hofstede. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1): 75–79. Höss, R., Paskuly, S. & Pollinger, A. (1996) Death dealer: The memoirs of the SS Kommandant at Auschwitz. New York: Da Capo Press. Howard, C. (1982) Criminal law. Melbourne: Law Book Co. Inkeles, A. (1953) Some sociological observations on culture and personality studies. In C. Kluckhohn, H. A. Murray, and D. M. Schneider (eds.), Personality in nature, society, and culture (2nd ed.). New York: Knopf. Keynes, J.M. (1936) The general theory of employment, interest and money. In The collected writings of John Maynard Keynes, Vol. VII. London: St. Martin Press. Kroeber, A.L. & Kluckhohn, C. (1952) Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Chapters of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, 47(1). Kuper, A. (1999) Culture: The anthropologists’ account. London: Harvard University Press. Leerssen, J. (2000) The rhetoric of national character: A  programmatic survey, Poetics Today, 21(2): 267–292. Leerssen, J. (2006) The downward pull of cultural essentialism. In M. Wintle (ed.), Image into Identity. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 31–50. Lentin, A. (2005) Replacing ‘race,’ historicizing ‘culture’ in multiculturalism. Patterns of Prejudice, 39(4): 379–396. List, C. & Pettit, P. (2011) Group agency: The possibility, design, and status of corporate agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Malinowski, B. (1926) Crime and custom in savage society. New York: Harcourt Brace. McSweeney, B. (2002a) Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith-a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1): 89–118.

Hofstede’s imagined cultures  159 McSweeney, B. (2002b) The essentials of scholarship: A reply to Geert Hofstede. Human Relations, 55(11): 1363–1372. McSweeney, B. (2013) Fashion founded on a flaw: The ecological mono‐deterministic fallacy of Hofstede, GLOBE, and followers. International Marketing Review, 30(5): 483–504. McSweeney, B., Brown, D. & Iliopoulou, S. (2016) Claiming too much, delivering too little: Testing some of Hofstede’s generalisations. The Irish Journal of Management, 35(1): 34–57. Minkov, M. (2018) A revision of Hofstede’s model of national culture: Old evidence and new data from 56 countries. Cross-Cultural and Strategic Management, 25(2): 231–256. Minkov, M. & Kaasa, A. (2021) A test of Hofstede’s model of culture following his own approach. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 28(2): 384–406. Mitchell, D. (1995) There’s no such thing as culture: Towards a reconceptualization of the idea of culture in geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 20: 102–116. MOIA. (2018) The State of Our Immigrant City – Annual Report of the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, March  2018. Available at: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/immigrants/ downloads/pdf/moia_annual_report_2018_final.pdf. Moulettes, A. (2007) The absence of women’s voices in Hofstede’s cultural consequences: A postcolonial reading. Women in Management Review, 22(6): 443–456. Nairn, T. (2002) Pariah – Misfortunes of the British Kingdom. London: Verso. OECD. (2020) Perspectives des migrations internationales 2020. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/6b4c9dfc-fr. O’Grady, D. & Metz, J.R. (1987) Resilience in children at high risk for psychological disorder. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 12(1): 3–23. Orbán, V. (2018) Speech at the Annual General Meeting of the Association of Cities with County Rights. Available at: https://miniszterelnok.hu/prime-minister-viktor-orbansspeech-at-the-annual-general-meeting-of-the-association-of-cities-with-county-rights/. Orr, L. M. & Hauser, W. J. (2008) A re-inquiry of Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions. Marketing Management Journal, 18(1): 1–19. O’Sullivan, E. (2012) Imagology revisited. Anglia-Zeitschrift für Englische Philologie, 130(3): 459–463. Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. (1952 [1940]) On social structure. In A.R. Radcliffe-Brown (ed.), Structure and function in primitive society. London: Cohen and West. Ragin, C.C. (2014) The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press. Romani, L. (2004) Culture in management: The measurement of differences. In A. Harzing & J. van Ruysseveldt (eds.), International human resource management. London: Sage Publications, pp. 141–166. Sahlins, M. (1999). Two or three things that I  know about culture. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 5(3): 399–421. Saltarelli, M. (2014) On language unity and disunity. Forum Italicum, 48(2): 188–201. Smith, P.B., Peterson, M.  & Schwartz, S.H. (2002) Cultural values, sources of guidance, and their relevance to managerial behavior: A 47-nation study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(2): 188–208. Spector, P.E., Cooper, C.L. & Sparks, K. (2001) An international study of the psychometric properties of the Hofstede Values Survey Module 1994: A comparison of individual and country/province level results. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(2): 269–281. Stalin, J. (1929) The national question and Leninism. New York: International Publishers.

160  Brendan McSweeney Štefl, M. (2023) Challenging intercultural communicative competence: Culture as an emergent phenomenon. Litteraria Pragensia, 32(64): 37–53. Stephanie, M.H. (2013) On the origins of making Italy: Massimo D’Azeglio and ‘Fatta l’Italia, bisogna fare gli Italiani. Italian Culture, 31(1): 1–16. Stone, M. (1993) Staging fascism: The exhibition of the fascist revolution. Journal of ­Contemporary History, 28(2): 215–243. Sturge, G. (2021) Migration statistics, House of Commons Library, Briefing Paper, CBP06077, 27. Taras, V. & Steel, P. (2009) Beyond Hofstede: Challenging the ten commandments of crosscultural research. In C. Nakata (ed.), Beyond Hofstede: Culture frameworks for global marketing and management. Chicago, IL: Macmillan/Palgrave, pp. 40–61. Taras, V., Steel, P. & Stackhouse, M. (2023) A comparative evaluation of seven instruments for measuring values comprising Hofstede’s model of culture. Journal of World Business, 58(1). Tilly, C. (1984) Big structures, large processes, huge comparisons. New York: Russell Sage Publications. Venaik, S. & Brewer, P. (2013) Critical issues in the Hofstede and GLOBE national culture models. International Marketing Review, 30(5): 469–482. Venaik, S. & Brewer, P. (2016) National culture dimensions: The perpetuation of cultural ignorance. Management Learning, 47(5): 563–589. Venaik, S., Brewer, P. & Midgley, D. (2023). Management research, international business, and national culture: Evaluating Hofstede and GLOBE. New York: Routledge. Vuillard, É. (2023) An Honourable exit (trans. M. Polizzotti). London: Picador. Wagner, P.L. (1975) The themes of cultural geography rethought. Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, 37(1): 7–14. Weber, E. (1976) Peasants into Frenchmen: The modernization of rural France, 1870–1914. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Westphal‐Hellbusch, S. (1959) Trends in anthropology: The present situation of ethnological research in Germany. American Anthropologist, 61(5): 848–865.

9 Hofstede’s consequences Criticizing his oeuvre and honoring the pioneer in the history of social sciences Paweł Boski When an admired scholar achieves seniority status, his or her former students and colleagues offer a secret gift called Festschrift. It recapitulates the celebrated author’s main achievements and demonstrates the flourishing of her or his original ideas in the works of successors. The appearance of the volume Comparing cultures (Vinken, Soeters, Ester, eds., 2004) can be regarded as such an event in Hofstede’s career. It was published three years after a special symposium at the University of Tilburg had been organized to commemorate the second edition of Culture’s Consequences (Hofstede, 2001). Top researchers studying dimensions of culture delivered their invited lectures, which later appeared as chapters in that special volume. When a book is devoted to the work of a late scholar, the goal of a posthumous collection presumes that his or her contributions have had a lasting impact, surpassing that person’s lifespan and deserving some systematizing overview. Since Professor Geert Hofstede passed away in 2020, we are in that position today. Whether it is a Festschrift or a delayed collection, the contributors are individuals who have had both professional and personal contacts with the author whose work they comment on. This is also my case. I attended that Tilburg 2001 event and met Professor Geert Hofstede many times at international conferences1; we took part in joint symposia and conducted long face-to-face discussions. I respected him as a well-established and renowned scholar. Yet, with years passing by, marked by detailed readings of Hofstede’s work and comparing his findings with the results of other researchers (including myself), my account of Culture’s Consequences has grown increasingly critical. This critical appraisal found its expression in my lectures and was systematized in handbook chapters devoted to Hofstede in two editions of Social Behavior in Cultural Context (Boski, 2022/2009). Since the ultimate goal of any scientific endeavor is progress in the discipline it represents, personal respect for any author needs to be separated from, and should not interfere with, a critical analysis of his/her contributions. Culture’s Consequences: the legendary research and the bestseller book Geert Hofstede (1928–2020) was a relative latecomer to social sciences. Culture’s Consequences was published by Sage in 1980. The second edition (2001) opened DOI: 10.4324/9781003410348-13

162  Paweł Boski with the following preface: “After a slow start the book has become a classic and one of the most cited in the entire Social Sciences Citation Index”. During the Tilburg symposium held to celebrate its second edition, of which I was an eyewitness, Culture’s Consequences was compared to the book of the largest circulation in the world, which is the Bible (with 7 billion copies). The analogy went further by illustrating the style of typical references: “Hofstede said . . .. ” or “According to Hofstede . . .”, without paying attention to the requirements of precise citation. What were the reasons for this spectacular success? First, with the globalization in late 20th century, there was a pragmatic need for new devices facilitating international business operations in a way comparable to geographical coordinates of latitude (parallels) and longitude (meridians), guiding sea vessels and airplanes to their destinations. Hofstede’s study of IBM (Hermes) employees appealed to that type of audience. Its quantitative approach was novel and attractive when contrasted with qualitative–descriptive interpretations in traditional humanities and social sciences. It gave the country scores the flavor of objective scientific data, comparable to macroeconomic indices. Second, the scope of the project, run between 1967 and 1973, was impressive and unprecedented. Hofstede commented on his accomplishment in these words: With 70 countries (71, including the United States) and 88  000 different respondents on about 117 000 questionnaires, the IBM database represented probably the largest body of survey data ever collected with one instrument up to that time2. (Hofstede, 2001, p. 48) That world record was long unbeaten and must have activated a heuristic: “a study of such quantitative size ensures its quality.” Third, there was a skillful adaptation of Culture’s Consequences [CC’s] as the scholarly book to its popular version Cultures and Organizations [CaO], which became an international bestseller. Here, managers, teachers, and the general public obtained a guidebook explaining the world and its cultural differences in a nontechnical way. As we learned from CC’s second edition that the “user-friendly” reader, which appeared in 1991, was translated into 16 languages. The two later versions of CaO were also translated into ten languages each. Finally, in the era of growing specialization, Hofstede did not belong to a single academic domain. He impacted cross-cultural psychology, but his work attracted particular attention in schools of management. His web of cultural dimensions became very popular in cross-cultural management training in multinational corporations. Hofstede became an iconic author of the idea of cross-cultural dimensions explained in books under different titles. Culture’s Consequences had three editions [1980, 1984-abridged, 2001-expanded); Cultures and Organizations also appeared three times (1991, 2005, 2010). Another book, Masculinity and Femininity (1998), is an extension of the main opus3. An interesting contrast can be observed if we compare Geert Hofstede to Shalom Schwartz, the author of another pancultural

Hofstede’s consequences  163 program for studying human values. Schwartz never wrote a single book summarizing his theory but coauthored a large number of empirical papers in leading research journals. Empirical secrets behind Culture’s Consequences Hofstede’s work belongs to the macro-level social sciences: here, countries, rather than individuals, become the objects of analysis. This macro-level approach is best demonstrated in economics or demography. Measures such as GDP/capita, economic growth, inflation, unemployment rates, and many others have a daily news spread comparable to weather forecasts. Similarly popular are the indexes of longevity, the incidence of illnesses, causes of mortality, migrations, education, etc. These measures are usually established on a year-to-year basis. Such repeatability allows us to monitor annual changes and longer periodic cycles and to predict the future. Studies on the World Values Survey (WVS), European Social Survey (ESS), or World Happiness Report follow suit by measuring these variables annually or in waves. But these are very recent developments in running big research projects, which were impossible to implement when Hofstede started his IBM-Hermes study. So, we should ask what happened with his initial database since 1967–1973, and which country scores appeared in consecutive publications during the 30-year interval starting from the first edition of CC’s in 1980 and the third edition of CaO in 2010? The answers to this simple question are astonishing. First, the indexes of four initial dimensions, namely, PDI (power distance), IDV (individualism), UAI (uncertainty avoidance), and MAS (masculinity), presented for 40 countries in 1980, reappeared on each successive occasion. For example, the scores of Austria or the Philippines (and other 38 countries) in which a potential user may be interested in 2024 have been the same throughout over 50 years, covering the interval between the first batch of data collection (1967–1973) and the last 2010 publication. The initial sample of 40 countries grew to 53 in CaO (1991) and in CC’s (2001): What was added to the list of countries in 1982 were 10 countries and 3 regions. Bringing the total count to 50 countries plus three regions representing another 14 countries. Eight countries . . . with a very small number of respondents stayed out of the analysis. (p. 52) The reason for this enlargement is explained by loosening up the sample size criteria so that the initial n = 132 was reduced to n = 56 as an acceptable minimum. Also, in the Appendix to CC’s (2001), we find dimensional scores for a new sample of 16 countries, 9 of them postcommunist. These results were not included in the main body of the text. Little was said about the circumstances of data collection, which took place in the 1990s; if anything, those were ad hoc, incidental

164  Paweł Boski convenience samples outside of the IBM corporation, with little credence for their representativeness4. This haphazard data collection was continued until the last CaO edition (2010), when scores of 76 national cultures were presented, including the former 16 from the CC’s (2001, Exhibit A5.3) and a few other (e.g., Peru, Latvia, or Serbia). This meticulous fact-finding leads us to conclude that the interested readerresearcher will find in Hofstede’s publications a hodgepodge of 53 country scores based on data collected in the five years of 1967–1973, supplemented most recently in CaO (2010, 3rd edition) by 23 country scores dated in the last decade of 20th century. A gap of 25–30 years separates those samples. Respondents in the later waves were non-IBM employees, sometime students of management. The majority of data are 50 years old now and unfit for any contemporary comparative purposes. Hofstede never commented on mixing old and new data in his consecutive publications. Such concerns may have escaped the reader’s attention, whose interest in readymade country indicators could lead to a taken-for-granted approach to the details questioning methodological accuracy. Other than being motivated to keep those cumbersome secrets behind the curtain, Hofstede might have assumed that cultures remained stable (fixed) over such a “short period” as half a century. If that was indeed his belief, its premise would have been impossible to defend. The last 50 years have been a period of unprecedented technological progress, changing the conditions of work in all countries and multinational corporations. Suffice it to say that the IBM-Hermes project was initiated in a precomputer, pre-Internet era. Those technological innovations revolutionized the style of work and corporate culture in the last decades. Also, 92.5% of Hofstede’s respondents across the world were men, which was typical for many countries in the era before the feminist or gender equality revolution but has become completely outdated today. Finally, 16 countries in the initial sample of 40 were having dictatorships (including European military regimes5 in Greece, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, and Yugoslavia); colonies (Hong Kong, Singapore); or apartheid (RSA). In our times, 50 years is a period of radical cultural changes in religion, family structure, sexuality, and communication patterns. These changes have been particularly profound in business, the domain where Hofstede’s work has always belonged. Selling that map of the old world as if it were a valid guideline serving international business overall raises serious ethical concerns. Using that outdated map for research or applied purposes makes one doomed to miss the target. The logic of discovery: where do the culture’s dimensions come from? – their origin and conceptual meaning There are two basic ways responsible for the progress in science. The first one starts with the formulation of a theoretical model, operationalization of its constructs, and empirical testing aimed at confirmation of research hypotheses. This strategy has been adopted in Schwartz (2004, 2006) and GLOBE (House et  al., 2004) projects on cultural values. The other paradigm is exploratory, driven by

Hofstede’s consequences  165 observation and inductive data collection; it may contain an element of unexpected discovery6. Hofstede’s work belongs to the latter. At its initial stage, it was not propelled by any a priori theoretical assumptions but served the applied managerial purposes of IBM: “The international attitude surveys were sold to IBM not as a research project but as a management tool for organizational development” (2001, p. 45); and “A concern of managers for employee morale was a characteristic feature of the IBM corporate culture” (p. 43). Thus, the survey questionnaire was prepared entirely to measure individual employees’ work values and attitudes. It required a post hoc turnover in research priorities before ending up with a world map spread on cultural dimensions. By the time Hofstede started collecting data in his IBM-Hermes project, the idea of comparing cultures on measurable dimensions was conceptually recognized but not implemented in a practical sense. Cultural anthropologists (e.g., Kluckhohn, 1962/1967) postulated that all cultures must respond to a universal set of functional requirements (e.g., gender, age, power, individual–group relations); yet, the answers differ between them greatly, creating dimensions with ranges of low to high scores. The a posteriori idea of country-level aggregation and cross-country comparisons was hatched in this context. This is how Hofstede reported on that process: A methodological breakthrough occurred when a friendly statistician offered his help in analyzing the work-goals data. He suggested that we try analyzing at two levels. We both learned from this exercise that within-group factors were different from between-group (ecological) factors. (2001, p. 58) Essential in this post hoc analysis was the interpretation of emerging factors, that is, providing them with theoretically meaningful conceptual labels. I will document the problems of conceptual bridging of theoretical and operational levels next. Power distance. The PDI is based on highly correlated responses to three items: 1) Subordinates are afraid of expressing opinions different from the boss (general opinion); 2) Subordinates believe that their superiors make autocratic decisions; and 3) Subordinates prefer their superior to be non-consultative (i.e., either autocratic or democratic7). Behavioral asymmetry in [superior → subordinate] relationships and the latter’s fear of expressing disagreement indicate inequalities between individuals, which sustain power distance. Power distance did not come out as a separate empirical scale. The first dimension that emerged from the initial factor analysis performed on country-level work goals comprised a set of items with opposite loadings on what was later split into PDI and IDV (2001, p.  59). Eventually, those two dimensions showed a strong negative correlation r(53) = −.68, p < .001 [2001, p. 216; also r(76) = −.55, p < .001, 2011, p.  143]. Since both PDI and IDV correlate strongly with the GDP (rs ≈ .70) but in opposite directions, and also with a host of other sociodemographic indices (e.g., the level of education), it made sense to treat them as parts of two cultural syndromes. First consists of economically backward regions embedded in

166  Paweł Boski traditional vertical collectivism (Triandis and Gelfand, 1998). The other syndrome is often called Western civilization – where technological–economic advancement matches up with relatively democratic work relations and individual autonomy. Individualism and masculinity. The problems with measures’ overlap which appeared at the PDI and IDV junction became even more pronounced with individualism (IDV) and masculinity (MAS), where empirical confusions were magnified by the lack of conceptual clarity. A factor analysis of 14 work goals led to a two-factorial solution, accounting for 46% of common variance. Its structure is presented in Table 9.1 (based on Hofstede, 2001, p. 2558). Four items with cross-loadings demonstrate that the two dimensions are not conceptually distinct; for example, challenge at work characterizes both of them positively, while cooperation loads negatively. Even more controversial are the arbitrary labels attached to both scales. Why should the items such as skills and abilities or training opportunities indicate low individualism? Why do advancement and job recognition belong to MAS, rather than to IDV, together with the challenge? These questions remain unanswered. Personal time, which was traditionally considered an individualist indicator, separating work and home life, has a historically limited range of applicability. In the new technological era marked by online work (e.g., during the COVID pandemic and afterward), such separation is no longer valid. The main argument denying of any connection between the empirical indices and the theoretical construct that it supposedly covers can be appreciated when we consider this definition: Individualism stands for a society in which the ties between individuals are loose; everyone is expected to look after him/herself and her/his family only. Collectivism stands for a society in which people from birth onwards are Table 9.1  The IDV and MAS joint factorial structure9 Individualism [IDV]

Work goal item

.86 .49 .46 .35 −.82

Personal time (out of work) Freedom (to adopt own approach to work) Challenge (at work for accomplishment) Desirable area (for home to live) Training opportunities (to improve job skills) Physical conditions (comfortable to work) Skills and abilities (fully used at work) Cooperation (with people at work) Manager (good working relations with) Employment security (long work horizon) Advancement (promotion to higher positions) Recognition (for work well done) Earnings (high opportunity)

−.69 −.63 −.37

Masculinity [MAS]

.54 −.59

.40 −.69 −.69 −.48 .56 .59 .70

Hofstede’s consequences  167 integrated into strong, cohesive ingroups, which throughout people’s lifetimes continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. (p. 225) None of the empirical items (with the possible exception of low negative loading for cooperation) refer to loose ties or to integration with strong cohesive in-groups. Thus, the scale lacks a conceptual validity. Still, the IDV has become a popular measure of individualism-collectivism, and the chief dimension in cross-cultural comparisons. Its appeal was based on extrinsic reasons such as top-ranking positions scored by the United States and other countries of AngloSaxon descent. By the time economic growth and prosperity were considered predominantly Western phenomena, high correlations between GDP and IDV reflected the sociopsychological mechanism of economic prosperity: individualism being the engine of economic growth10. Still, the gap between the item composition of the scale and its conceptual sense should not escape our attention. The MAS scale creates even more serious interpretative problems. At first, it was found that the four items in the right column in Table  9.1 (now with negative factor loadings) were more endorsed by women than by men; the opposite tendency was noticeable with the remaining items (positive loadings) where men scored higher. This led to scale labeling as Social/Ego. But, since male participants were dominant in the IBM-Hermes study, amounting to 92.5% in the whole sample, and no women participants in some countries, such imbalance suggested flipping the poles of the scale. The emerging dimension was renamed masculinity. Still, the interpretation of the scale where cultural masculinity is conceived as a growing gap between a steeper slope of MAS scores for men and a flat slope among women (2001, p.  288; Figure  9.3b for illustration) is confounded by the drastic discrepancy in gender participation. Conceptually, the definition of this dimension depends on two criteria: one is the role overlap and the other is a tender versus tough distinction: Masculinity stands for a society in which gender roles are distinct: Men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success; women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. Femininity stands for a society, in which social gender roles overlap: Both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. (2001, p. 297) Again, with over 90% of Hermes participants being males, there was no evidence for gender roles’ overlap in the IBM project, and the whole idea of a feminine alternative to masculinity hung in a vacuum. Dramatic changes in the labor market and changes in the style of work have been even more pronounced in gender than in the individualism domain, during the past 50 years. Equal opportunities for women have become the law in most countries. Offering outdated country scores

168  Paweł Boski of dubious validity spreads a biased picture of social reality and misleads other researchers or practitioners. Hofstede must have been aware that his attempts to separate IDV and MAS were questionable. He used persuasive arguments claiming that the two dimensions helped to contrast between Dutch and American cultures: both individualist, but Dutch being feminist while American highly masculine. More important than such an impressionistic view was this conceptual contrast: The difference between them is that individualism /collectivism is about “I” vs. “we”, independence from- versus dependence on- ingroups. Relationships in collectivist cultures are predetermined by group ties: groupiness is collectivist, not feminine. Masculinity/femininity is about ego enhancement vs. relationship enhancement, regardless of group ties”. [emphasis by the author – Paweł Boski] (2001, 293) The author did not show any evidence supportive of those claims. On the contrary, the empirical findings which came shortly after his CC’s (2001) publication were devastating for Hofstede’s beliefs. Let us first examine Japan, which ranked first on MAS among 53 countries (2001) and last in self-esteem, also on a sample of 53 countries (Schmitt and Allik, 2005). The correlation of these two variables based on their overlapping samples is r(40) = −.366, p < .05: high MAS cultures inculcated lower self-esteem in their members. More generally, the contrast between low selfesteem in Japan and high in North America was often used in comparative studies (Heine et  al., 1999; Heine, 2016; Boski, 2022, ch. 7), as prototypical for crosscultural differences between the East versus West. Individualist cultures create an independent self, as opposed to an interdependent self in the East-Asian cultural context (Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Vignoles et al., 2016). Self-esteem has been instilled as the driving mechanism of that structure in the West. Face protection, self-criticism, or self-effacement have been proposed as antagonist self-­motivations but have never been associated with femininity. Sedikides in his numerous works (e.g., Sedikides et al., 2015; Gebauer et al., 2017) finds ­self-enhancement also in religiosity and social norm conformity, but again this broadened view has never been associated with cultural femininity. Thus, the attempt to disentangle the empirical measures of IDV and MAS on theoretical grounds was proven ultimately unsuccessful. Uncertainty avoidance (UAI) is the last of the four original dimensions proposed by Hofstede. According to his definition, it is “the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations” (2001, p. 161). This concise formulation covers two different aspects of the construct. One is the degree of uncertainty that accompanies the regulation of any future events in individual and societal life; the other aspect consists of precautions undertaken to reduce uncertainty and anticipatory feelings of failure at these attempts. While full predictability is impossible, it is equally impossible to live individually or collectively under conditions escaping any cognitive and practical control. As the author

Hofstede’s consequences  169 of Culture’s Consequences rightly points out, there are three sources of unpredictability, and the attempts to control it occur in three domains of collective life: • Technology – technical progress forces greater precision and enables predictability in planned actions; • Law which regulates what is forbidden and sanctioned, and what is left to the free choice of individuals and organizations; • Religions/ideologies that offer belief systems regarding personal and community future, both earthly and transcendent (2001, p. 146). The three systems probably differ in the ways they control our lives and how effectively they do it. The objective technological progress over time narrows the margin of unpredictability. Hofstede illustrated the idea of technological punctuality and precision with examples of German trains and Zugbegleiter (i.e., a schedule of stops with arrival and departure times) which passengers find on their seats. A very similar account of Dutch Treinen is provided by van der Horst (2006, p. 117); also, Swiss watches serve as popular symbols of time precision. The Rule of Law defines the rights and boundaries of freedom for individual citizens and state actions; their outcomes and consequences become predictable. Altogether, technological advancement, as well as the system of legal regulations, reduce uncertainty and, presumably, threat levels associated with chaos and unpredictability. Religious and ideological beliefs are the third way of keeping uncertainty under control. Here, however, tight and restrictive measures are imposed to punish unorthodoxy (heretics, dissidents, anybody deviating from the sanctified beliefs and practices). Threat becomes associated with arbitrary penalization executed by authorities while conformity is the (imperfect) solution to keep one’s life in check. By curbing individual freedom, this third criterion of uncertainty avoidance runs contradictory to the first two delineated before. For reasons unexplained, Hofstede’s analysis of cultural uncertainty avoidance is reduced to the psychological consequences of this last facet. Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) typifies cultures with a long history of authoritarian regimes, where certainty is equivalent to doctrinal orthodoxy. With the abandonment of technological advancement and the rule of law as the positive pillars of uncertainty avoidance and the exclusive concentration on oppressive threats, the UAI was operationalized in the IBM-Hermes project with three indices: • Principle orientation: Even if an employee believes it would be in their best interests, company policies should not be violated. 1  =  definitely yes,  .  .  .  .  , 5 = definitely no. Index = Average level on the rating scale for a given national sample; • The permanence of employment: How long are you going to work in this company? [a) up to 2 years, b) 2–5 years, c) more than 5 years, d) until retirement]. Index = Percentage of (a + b) responses;

170  Paweł Boski • Stress at work: How often do you feel nervous or tense at work? 1 = always, . . . , 5 = never. Index = Mean level on the frequency scale for a national sample11. The discrepancy between theoretical elucidations on uncertainty avoidance and the above UAI measures is striking again. Even if we accept the narrow UA definition as unpredictable threatening events, the three indices appear arbitrary, and their conceptual validity is dubious. They do not converge to portray any cultural profile. Why should the positive principle orientation be related to stress? Why should people who intend to work for a long time at their current company should feel higher job-related stress? Why should conformity with the rules, rather than breaking them, be associated with high stress? Stress at work is a multilayer phenomenon, and a single word of “nervousness” does not cover this complexity. Furthermore, if we consider the passage of time, the job permanency ideal may have characterized the world of business in the 20th century but not 50 years later. Not less questionable is Hofstede’s “evidence” showing two South European countries: Greece and Portugal as leaders in UAI scores for the last half-century (Hofstede, 2001, p. 151; Hofstede et al., 2010/2011, p. 201). To repeat, these scores were taken in 1968 and have not been modified ever since. During the IBM-Hermes data collection, Portugal was still in a lethargic state of Salazar’s regime and stood as a colonial power. Now, it is one of the leaders of multicultural policies (MIPEX; Solano and Huddleston, 2020). Similarly, Greece, where a military junta was in power at the time of data collection, has become a democratic EU country state. This type of anachronism cannot be tolerated in scientific literature. Other results contradict the common cross-cultural experience as well as the research findings. Along with other postcommunist countries, Poland has been ascribed one of the top rankings on UAI (Hofstede et al., 2010/2011, p. 201). Here, data collection period corresponds with the transformation from communism to a market economy and political democracy. It was a period of uncertainty and stress unrelated to the earlier authoritarian regime. On the contrary, the uncertainty of that time was associated with normative chaos called anomia or loose culture (Gelfand et al., 2011; see also Reykowski, 2020). Germany is in the middle of the scale. This does not fit German standards of order and accuracy (Befehl ist Befehl; Ordnung muẞ sein) nor the cultural standards elaborated for that country (Thomas, 1993, 2002). Four plus two: long-term orientation and indulgence versus restraint. All other dimensional models of culture have been developed systematically with comprehensive inventories and joint analytical procedures. This was not the case with Hofstede’s four indexes discussed so far, where each of them was derived from a separate data set and was computed according to a different formula. The story of the last two dimensions, which will be briefly mentioned, is even more surprising. They were borrowed later on from other projects. Long-term orientation (LTO) originated from Bond’s Chinese Cultural Connection (CCC, 1987) which was a study conducted on a set of 40 Confucian values, unrelated to the business environment. One of the CCC’s dimensions, originally called Confucian work dynamism, was relabeled as LTO. It loaded on eight items

Hofstede’s consequences  171 which will be presented in the next section. East-Asian countries occupied top positions on the scale, which is good for its validity. Yet not a single item was related to future planning and forecasting. A question of theoretical validity reappears here with the same intensity as with other dimensions: Why is a construct called longterm orientation when its items include persistence, relationships ordered by status, or thrift? Indulgence versus restraint (IVR) was the latest addition, adopted from Inglehart’s WVS (Hofstede et  al., 2010). The pole of indulgence is characterized by self-assessment of happiness, freedom of choice and control, and the importance of leisure. These personal states are akin to Inglehart’s self-expression as opposed to survival values (Inglehart and Oyserman, 2004). The top position of Venezuela (among other Latin American countries) and Nigeria must cast serious doubts on the validity of this measure. Both countries, Venezuela and Nigeria, have been for last decades in disastrous economic and sociopolitical conditions, resulting in mass out-of-country migrations. Poverty, forced migration, terrorism, and lack of elementary stability are the shocking living conditions characterizing these countries – opposite to happiness, leisure, and control of destiny! The above arguments focus on broad conceptual and methodological criticisms concerning Hofstede’s dimensions. The next section will present a more detailed analysis of empirical evidence external to Culture’s Consequences, testing and contesting their validity. Testing the external validity of Hofstede’s culture dimensions The GLOBE project (House et al., 2004) has been, to a large extent, a critical continuation of Hofstede’s work12. Conceptually, most of the proposed dimensions were named with the same or very similar labels. Also, the study was conducted in the business sector, with managers as research participants. In contrast to its predecessor, two important GLOBE characteristics need to be mentioned at the onset: 1) Attention to conceptual validity, that is, closeness in meaning between theoretical constructs and the corresponding items used to measure them [e.g., the item In this society, leaders encourage group loyalty even if individual goals suffer – corresponds semantically with the construct of institutional collectivism]; 2) distinction between cultural practices and values which were merged in Hofstede’s and other projects13 [e.g., The item I believe that, in general, leaders should encourage group loyalty even if individual goals suffer belongs to the normative scale of the dimension, while the earlier one represents its practices]. Table  9.2 presents the comparison between conceptually similar dimensions from both projects (the sample of overlapping countries is N = 43; House et al., 2004, p. 140). Data from Table 9.2 lead to the following conclusions: 1. The wording of the GLOBE items corresponds to the constructs they are supposed to measure, while the semantic distance is large in case of Hofstede’s dimensions;

Table 9.2  Correlations between Hofstede and GLOBE scales: toward converging validity14

Power distance (PDI) [employees afraid to disagree with their bosses]

Correlations Practices (are|do) vs. Values (should) [GLOBE item sample In this society . . . .61**

. . . followers are expected to obey their leader without question

−.03

. . . followers should obey their leader without question

Uncertainty avoidance (UAI) [How often do you feel nervous at work?]

−.61**

. . . orderliness and consistency are stressed even at the expense of experimentation and innovation

Long-term orientation [thrift] (LTO_CCC)

−.11

.32*

–.20 .15

Individualism (IDV) [personal time, challenge at work]

Masculinity (MAS) [Advancement, Earnings]

GLOBE’s Nine

Power distance

Uncertainty avoidance

. . . orderliness and consistency should be stressed even at the expense of experimentation and innovation . . . people place more emphasis on planning for the future [than on solving current problems] . . . people should place more emphasis on planning for the future [than on solving current problems]

Future orientation

. . . leaders encourage group loyalty even if individual goals suffer

Institutional collectivism

−.55** −.82***

. . . leaders should encourage group loyalty even if individual goals suffer . . . parents (children) take pride in the accomplishments of their children (parents)

−.20 .09 -.10

. . . parents (children) should take pride in the accomplishments of their children (parents) . . . students are encouraged to strive for continuously improved performance . . . should be encouraged to strive for continuously improved performance

−.16 .11 .42** −.12 −.06 .06

. . . who is more likely to serve in a position of high office (F|M|equal)? . . . opportunities for leadership should be more available for (F|M|equal) . . . people are generally tender vs. tough . . . people should be encouraged to be tender vs. tough . . . people are generally very concerned about others . . . people should be encouraged to be very concerned about others

Notes: * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = p < .001 [correlations significant at p