Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Power distance)
Jump to: navigation, search

Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory is a framework for cross-cultural communication, developed by Geert Hofstede. It describes the effects of a society's culture on the values of its members, and how these values relate to behavior, using a structure derived from factor analysis. The theory has been widely used in several fields as a paradigm for research, particularly in cross-cultural psychology, international management, and cross-cultural communication.

Overview[edit]

Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory is a framework for cross-cultural communication. Hofstede developed his original model as a result of using factor analysis to examine the results of a world-wide survey of employee values by IBM in the 1960s and 1970s. The theory was one of the first that could be quantified, and could be used to explain observed differences between cultures.

The original theory proposed four dimensions along which cultural values could be analyzed: individualism-collectivism; uncertainty avoidance; power distance (strength of social hierarchy) and masculinity-femininity (task orientation versus person-orientation). Independent research in Hong Kong led Hofstede to add a fifth dimension, long-term orientation, to cover aspects of values not discussed in the original paradigm. In the 2010 edition of Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind [1] Hofstede added a sixth dimension, indulgence versus self-restraint, as a result of co-author Michael Minkov's analysis of data from the World Values Survey. Further research has refined some of the original dimensions, and introduced the difference between country-level and individual-level data in analysis.

Hofstede's work established a major research tradition in cross-cultural psychology and has also been drawn upon by researchers and consultants in many fields relating to international business and communication. It continues to be a major resource in cross-cultural fields. It has inspired a number of other major cross-cultural studies of values, as well as research on other aspects of culture, such as social beliefs.

History[edit]

In 1965, Geert founded the personnel research department of IBM Europe (which he managed until 1971). Between 1967 and 1973, he executed a large survey study regarding national values differences across the worldwide subsidiaries of this multinational corporation: he compared the answers of 117,000 IBM matched employees samples on the same attitude survey in different countries. He first focused his research on the 40 largest countries, and then extended it to 50 countries and 3 regions, "at that time probably the largest matched-sample cross-national database available anywhere.".[2]

This initial analysis identified systematic differences in national cultures on four primary dimensions: power distance (PDI), individualism (IDV), uncertainty avoidance (UAI) and masculinity (MAS), which are described below. As Hofstede explains on his academic website,[3] these dimensions regard "four anthropological problem areas that different national societies handle differently: ways of coping with inequality, ways of coping with uncertainty, the relationship of the individual with her or his primary group, and the emotional implications of having been born as a girl or as a boy ". In 1980 he published Culture's Consequences,[4] a book which combines the statistical analysis from the survey research with his personal experiences.

In order to confirm the early results from the IBM study and to extend them to a variety of populations, six subsequent cross-national studies have successfully been conducted between 1990 and 2002. Covering between 14 to 28 countries, the samples included commercial airline pilots, students, civil service managers, 'up-market' consumers and 'elites'. The combined research established value scores on the four dimensions for a total of 76 countries and regions.

In 1991, Michael Harris Bond and colleagues conducted a study among students in 23 countries, using a survey instrument developed with Chinese employees and managers. The results from this study led Hofstede to add a new fifth dimension to his model: long term orientation (LTO) initially called Confucian dynamism. In 2010, the scores for this dimension have been extended to 93 countries thanks to the research of Micheal Minkov who used the recent World Values Survey.[5] Finally, Minkov's World Values Survey data analysis of 93 representative samples of national populations also led Geert Hofstede to identify a sixth last dimension: indulgence versus restraint.

Dimensions of national cultures[edit]

  • Power distance index (PDI): "Power distance is the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally." Cultures that endorse low power distance expect and accept power relations that are more consultative or democratic.
  • Individualism (IDV) vs. collectivism: "The degree to which individuals are integrated into groups". In individualistic societies, the stress is put on personal achievements and individual rights. People are expected to stand up for themselves and their immediate family, and to choose their own affiliations. In contrast, in collectivist societies, individuals act predominantly as members of a lifelong and cohesive group or organization (note: "The word collectivism in this sense has no political meaning: it refers to the group, not to the state"). People have large extended families, which are used as a protection in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.
  • Uncertainty avoidance index (UAI): "a society's tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity". It reflects the extent to which members of a society attempt to cope with anxiety by minimizing uncertainty. People in cultures with high uncertainty avoidance tend to be more emotional. They try to minimize the occurrence of unknown and unusual circumstances and to proceed with careful changes step by step planning and by implementing rules, laws and regulations. In contrast, low uncertainty avoidance cultures accept and feel comfortable in unstructured situations or changeable environments and try to have as few rules as possible. People in these cultures tend to be more pragmatic, they are more tolerant of change.
  • Masculinity (MAS), vs. femininity: "The distribution of emotional roles between the genders". Masculine cultures' values are competitiveness, assertiveness, materialism, ambition and power, whereas feminine cultures place more value on relationships and quality of life. In masculine cultures, the differences between gender roles are more dramatic and less fluid than in feminine cultures where men and women have the same values emphasizing modesty and caring. As a result of the taboo on sexuality in many cultures, particularly masculine ones, and because of the obvious gender generalizations implied by Hofstede's terminology, this dimension is often renamed by users of Hofstede's work, e.g. to Quantity of Life vs. Quality of Life.
  • Long-term orientation (LTO), vs. short term orientation: First called "Confucian dynamism", it describes societies' time horizon. Long-term oriented societies attach more importance to the future. They foster pragmatic values oriented towards rewards, including persistence, saving and capacity for adaptation. In short term oriented societies, values promoted are related to the past and the present, including steadiness, respect for tradition, preservation of one's face, reciprocation and fulfilling social obligations.
  • Indulgence versus restraint (IVR): The extent to which members of a society try to control their desires and impulses. Whereas indulgent societies have a tendency to allow relatively free gratification of basic and natural human desires related to enjoying life and having fun, restrained societies have a conviction that such gratification needs to be curbed and regulated by strict norms.

Differences between cultures on the values dimensions[edit]

Putting together national scores (from 1 for the lowest to 120 for the highest), Hofstede's six-dimensions model allows international comparison between cultures, also called comparative research:[6]

  • Power distance index shows very high scores for Latin and Asian countries, African areas and the Arab world. On the other hand Anglo and Germanic countries have a lower power distance (only 11 for Austria and 18 for Denmark).
For example, the United States has a 40 on the cultural scale of Hofstede's analysis. Compared to Guatemala where the power distance is very high (95) and Israel where it is very low (13), the United States is in the middle.
In Europe, power distance tends to be lower in northern countries and higher in southern and eastern parts: for example, 68 in Poland and 57 for Spain vs. 31 for Sweden and 35 for the United Kingdom.
  • Regarding the individualism index, there is a clear gap between developed and Western countries on one hand, and less developed and eastern countries on the other. North America and Europe can be considered as individualistic with relatively high scores: for example, 80 for Canada and Hungary. In contrast, Asia, Africa and Latin America have strongly collectivist values: Colombia scores only 13 points on the IDV scale and Indonesia 14. The greatest contrast can be drawn comparing two extreme countries on this dimension: 6 points for Guatemala vs. 91 points for the United States. Japan and the Arab world have middle values on this dimension.
  • Uncertainty avoidance scores are the highest in Latin American countries, Southern and Eastern Europe countries including German speaking countries, and Japan. They are lower for Anglo, Nordic, and Chinese culture countries. However few countries have very low UAI. For example, Germany has a high UAI (65) and Belgium even more (94) compared to Sweden (29) or Denmark (23) despite their geographic proximity.
  • Masculinity is extremely low in Nordic countries: Norway scores 8 and Sweden only 5. In contrast, Masculinity is very high in Japan (95), and in European countries like Hungary, Austria and Switzerland influenced by German culture. In the Anglo world, masculinity scores are relatively high with 66 for the United Kingdom for example. Latin countries present contrasting scores: for example Venezuela has a 73 point score whereas Chile's is only 28.
  • High long term orientation scores are typically found in East Asia, with China having 118, Hong Kong 96 and Japan 88. They are moderate in Eastern and Western Europe, and low in the Anglo countries, the Muslim world, Africa and in Latin America. However there are less data about this dimension.
  • There are even less data about the sixth dimension. Indulgence scores are highest in Latin America, parts of Africa, the Anglo world and Nordic Europe; restraint is mostly found in East Asia, Eastern Europe and the Muslim world.

Correlations of values with other country differences[edit]

Researchers have grouped some countries together by comparing countries' value scores with other country difference such as geographical proximity, shared language, related historical background, similar religious beliefs and practices, common philosophical influences, identical political systems, in other words everything which is implied by the definition of a nation's culture. For example, low power distance is associated with consultative political practices and income equity, whereas high power distance is correlated with unequal income distribution, as well as bribery and corruption in domestic politics. Individualism is positively correlated with mobility and national wealth. As a country becomes richer, its culture becomes more individualistic.

Another example of correlation was drawn by the Sigma Two Group[7] in 2003. They have studied the correlation between countries' cultural dimensions and their predominant religion[8] based on the World Factbook 2002. On average, predominantly Catholic countries show very high uncertainty avoidance, relatively high power distance, moderate masculinity and relatively low individualism, whereas predominantly atheist countries have low uncertainty avoidance, very high power distance, moderate masculinity, and very low individualism. Coelho (2011) found inverse correlations between rates of specific kinds of innovation in manufacturing companies and the percentage of large companies per country as well as the employment of a specific kind of manufacturing strategy. The national culture measure of power distance is positively correlated with the ratio of companies with process innovation only over the companies with any of the three types of innovation considered in the country (determinant of correlation: 28%). Hence in countries with higher power distance, innovative manufacturing companies are somewhat more bound to resort to process innovations.

Applications of the model[edit]

Why is it important to be aware of cultural differences?[edit]

"Culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy. Cultural differences are a nuisance at best and often a disaster."[9]

Despite the evidence that groups are different from each other, we tend to believe that deep inside all people are the same. In fact, as we are generally not aware of other countries' cultures, we tend to minimize cultural differences. This leads to misunderstandings and misinterpretations between people from different countries.

Instead of the convergence phenomena we expected with information technologies availability (the "global village culture"), cultural differences are still significant today and diversity tends to increase. So, in order to be able to have respectful cross-cultural relations, we have to be aware of these cultural differences.

With this model, Geert Hofstede shed light on these differences. The tool can be used to give a general overview and an approximate understanding of other cultures, what to expect from them and how to behave towards groups from other countries.

What are the practical applications of the theory?[edit]

Geert Hofstede is perhaps the best known sociologist of culture and anthropologist in the context of applications for understanding international business. Many articles and research papers refer to his publications, with over 20,000 citations to his 2003 book Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations[10] (which is an updated version of his first publication[4]). The five dimensions model is widely used in many domains of human social life, and particularly in the field of business. Practical applications were developed almost immediately. In fact, when it comes to business, promoting cultural sensitivity will help people work more effectively when interacting with people from other countries, and will participate to make sure transactions are successful.

International communication[edit]

In business, it is commonly agreed that communication is one of the primary concerns. So, for professionals who work internationally; people who interact daily with other people from different countries within their company or with other companies abroad; Hofstede's model gives insights into other cultures. In fact, cross-cultural communication requires being aware of cultural differences because what may be considered perfectly acceptable and natural in one country, can be confusing or even offensive in another. All the levels in communication are affected by cultural dimensions: verbals (words and language itself), non verbals (body language, gestures) and etiquette do's and don'ts (clothing, gift-giving, dining, customs and protocol). And this is also valid for written communication as explained in William Wardrobe's essay "Beyond Hofstede: Cultural applications for communication with Latin American Businesses".[11]

International negotiation[edit]

In international negotiations, communication style, expectation, issue ranking and goals will change according to the negotiators' countries of origin. If applied properly, the understanding of cultural dimensions should increase success in negotiations and reduce frustration and conflicts.[12] For example, in a negotiation between Chinese and Canadian, Canadian negotiators may want to reach an agreement and sign a contract, whereas Chinese negotiators may want to spend more time for non business activities, small talks and hospitality with preferences for protocol and form in order to first establish the relationship.

"When negotiating in Western countries, the objective is to work toward a target of mutual understanding and agreement and 'shake-hands' when that agreement is reached – a cultural signal of the end of negotiations and the start of 'working together'. In Middle Eastern countries much negotiation takes place leading into the 'agreement', signified by shaking hands. However, the deal is not complete in the Middle Eastern culture. In fact, it is a cultural sign that 'serious' negotiations are just beginning."[9]

International management[edit]

These considerations are also true in international management and cross-cultural leadership. Decisions taken have to be based on the country's customs and values.[13] When working in international companies, managers may provide training to their employees in order to make them sensitive to cultural differences, develop nuanced business practices, with protocols across countries. Hofstede's dimensions offer guidelines for defining culturally acceptable approaches to corporate organizations.

As a part of the public domain, Geert Hofstede's work is used by numerous consultancies worldwide.[14] But only 3 of them are regarded as partners and have Hofstede's full support with regular contacts.

International marketing[edit]

As in communication, negotiation and management, the five dimensions model is very useful in international marketing too because it defines national values not only in business context but in general. Marieke de Mooij has studied the application of Hofstede's findings in the field of global branding, advertising strategy and consumer behavior. As companies try to adapt their products and services to local habits and preferences they have to understand the specificity of their market.[16]

For example, if you want to market cars in a country where the uncertainty avoidance is high, you should emphasize on their safety, whereas in other countries you may base your advertisement on the social image they give you. Cell phone marketing is another interesting example of the application of Hofstede's model for cultural differences: if you want to advertise cell phones in China, you may show a collective experience whereas in the United States you may show how an individual uses it to save time and money. The variety of application of Hofstede's abstract theory is so wide that it has even been translated in the field of web designing in which you have to adapt to national preferences according to cultures' values.[17]

Limitations of Hofstede's model[edit]

Even though Hofstede's model is generally accepted as the most comprehensive framework of national cultures values by those studying business culture, its validity and its limitations have been extensively criticized. To give only one example, in a recent article in the Academy of Management's flagship journal, The Academy of Management Review, Galit Ailon deconstructs Hofstede's book Culture's Consequences by mirroring it against its own assumptions and logic.[18] Ailon finds inconsistencies at the level of both theory and methodology and cautions against an uncritical reading of Hofstede's cultural dimensions. The most cited critique is McSweeney, B. (2002) Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their consequences: a triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(11): 89-117. Hofstede replied to that critique: Hofstede, G. 2002. Dimensions do not exist – a reply to Brendan McSweeney. Human Relations, 55(11): 1355-61 and McSweeney responded: McSweeney, B. 2002b. The essentials of scholarship: A reply to Hofstede' Human Relations, 55.11: 1363-1372.

Questionable choice of national level[edit]

Aside from Hofstede's 5 cultural dimensions, there are other factors on which culture can be analyzed. There are other levels for assessing culture. These levels are overlooked often because of the nature of the construction of these levels. There is sampling discrepancy that disqualifies the survey from being authoritative on organizations, or societies, or nations as the interviews involved sales and engineering personnel with few, if any, women and undoubtedly fewer social minorities participating (Moussetes, 2007). Even if country indices were used to control for wealth, latitude, population size, density and growth, privileged males working as engineers or sales personnel in one of the elite organizations of the world, pioneering one of the first multinational projects in history, can not be claimed to represent their nations. [19]

Individual level: cultural dimensions versus individual personalities[edit]

Hofstede acknowledges that the cultural dimensions he identified, as culture and values, are theoretical constructions. They are tools meant to be used in practical applications. Generalizations about one country's culture are helpful but they have to be regarded as such, i.e. as guidelines for a better understanding. They are group-level dimensions which describe national averages which apply to the population in its entirety. Hofstede's cultural dimensions enable users to distinguish countries but are not about differences between members of societies. They don't necessarily define individuals' personalities. National scores should never be interpreted as deterministic for individuals. For example, a Japanese person can be very comfortable in changing situations whereas on average, Japanese people have high uncertainty avoidance. There are still exceptions to the rule. Hofstede's theory can be contrasted with its equivalence at individual level: the trait theory about human personality.

Variations on the typologies of collectivism and individualism have been proposed (Triandis, 1995; Gouveia and Ros, 2000). Self-expression and individualism increase with economic growth (Inglehart, 1997), independent of any culture, and they are vital in small populations faced with outside competition for resources. Entitled individuals in positions of power embrace autonomy even if they live in a “collective” culture. Like the power index, the individualism and collectivism surveys scatter countries according to predictable economic and demographic patterns (Triandis, 2004), so they might not really inform us at all about any particular organizational dynamic, nor do they inform about the organizational and individual variations within similar socio-economic circumstances. Individual aggregate need careful separation from nation aggregate (Smith et al., 2008). Whereas individuals are the basic subject of psychological analysis (Smith, 2004), the socialization of individuals and their interaction with society is a matter to be studied at the level of families, peers, neighborhoods, schools, cities, and nations each with its own statistical imprint of culture (Smith, 2004). S. Schwartz controlled his value data with GNP and a social index, leading to his proposal of differentiated individual and nation indices of itemized values (Schwartz, 1992; 1994) for cross-cultural comparison. The assumed “isomorphism of constructs” has been central to deciding how to use and understand culture in the managerial sciences (Van de Vijver et al. 2008; Fischer, 2009). As no individual can create his/her discourse and sense-making process in isolation to the rest of society, individuals are poor candidates for cultural sense-making. Postmodern criticism rejects the possibility of any self-determining individual because the unitary, personal self is an illusion of contemporary society evidenced by the necessary reproductions and simulations in language and behavior that individuals engage in to sustain membership in any society (Baudrillard, 1983; Alvesson & Deetz, 2006). [20]

Organizational level[edit]

Within and across countries, individuals are also parts of organizations such as companies. Hofstede acknowledges that "the […] dimensions of national cultures are not relevant for comparing organizations within the same country".[3] In contrast with national cultures, embedded in values, organizational cultures are embedded in practices. From 1985 to 1987, Geert's institute IRIC (Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation)[21] has conducted a separate research project in order to study organizational culture. Including 20 organizational units in two countries (Denmark and the Netherlands), six different dimensions of practices, or communities of practice have been identified:

  • Process-Oriented vs. Results-Oriented
  • Employee-Oriented vs. Job-Oriented
  • Parochial vs. Professional
  • Open System vs. Closed System
  • Loose Control vs. Tight Control
  • Pragmatic vs. Normative

Managing international organizations involves understanding both national and organizational cultures. Communities of practice across borders are significant for multinationals in order to hold the company together.

Occupational level[edit]

Within the occupational level, there is a certain degree of values and convictions that people hold with respect to the national and organizational cultures they are part of. The culture of management as an occupation has components from national and organizational cultures. This is an important distinction from the organizational level.

Gender level[edit]

When describing culture, gender differences are largely not taken into consideration. However, there are certain factors that are useful to analyze in the discussion of cross-cultural communication. Within each society, men's culture differs greatly from women's culture. Although men and women can often perform the same duties from a technical standpoint, there are often symbols to which each gender has a different response. In situations where one gender responds in an alternative manner to their prescribed roles, the other sex may not even accept their deviant gender role. The level of reactions experienced by people exposed to foreign cultures can be compared similarly to the reactions of gender behaviors of the opposite sex. The degree of gender differentiation in a country depends primarily on the culture within that nation and its history. The bipolar model follows typical distinctions made between liberal or socialist political philosophy. While liberal economies value assertiveness, autonomy, materialism, aggression, money, competition and rationalism, welfare socialism seeks protection and provision for the weak, greater involvement with the environment, an emphasis on nature and well being, and a strong respect for quality of life and collective responsibilities. Masculine societies happen to include the most successful economically during the period of Hofstede’s study (USA, Japan, Germany) with the successful feminine societies having either smaller populations, less economic scale and/or strong collective and welfare philosophies (Scandinavia, Costa Rica, France, Thailand). The masculine-feminine dichotomy divides organizations into those exhibiting either compassion, solidarity, collectivism and universalism, or competition, autonomy, merit, results and responsibility. [22]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Hofstede, Geert, Gert Jan Hofstede and Michael Minkov.Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2010.
  2. ^ Whatsonmymind, September 2010, Geert Hofstede
  3. ^ a b Geert Hofstede’s academic website
  4. ^ a b Hofstede, Geert (1984). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills CA: SAGE Publications. ISBN 0-8039-1444-X. 
  5. ^ Minkov, Michael (2007). What makes us different and similar: A new interpretation of the World Values Survey and other cross-cultural data. Sofia, Bulgaria: Klasika y Stil Publishing House. ISBN 978-954-327-023-1.  [1]
  6. ^ Hofstede's cultural dimensions (with world maps of dimensional values)
  7. ^ Geert Hofstede Dimensions by Predominant Religion
  8. ^ Predominant is here defined as over 50% of the country's population identifying as a member of that religion
  9. ^ a b What are the practical applications for Geert Hofstede's research on cultural differences?
  10. ^ Hofstede, Geert (2001). Culture's Consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-0-8039-7323-7. OCLC 45093960. 
  11. ^ Beyond Hofstede: Cultural applications for communication with Latin American, William Wardrobe, 2005, Association for Business Communication Annual Convention
  12. ^ negotiation styles, Michelle LeBaron, July 2003
  13. ^ The influence of national culture on strategic decision making: a case study of the Philippines, Richard P.M.Builtjens and Niels G. Noorderhaven, Tilburg University and Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation
  14. ^ Hofstede's consequences: The impact of his work on consulting and business practices, An Executive Commentary by John W. Bing, Academy of Management Executive, February 2004, Vol. 18, No. 1
  15. ^ Culture in the Workplace Questionnaire™
  16. ^ The Hofstede model – Applications to global branding and advertising strategy and research, Marieke de Mooij and Geert Hofstede, International Journal of Advertising, 29(1), pp. 85–110, 2010 Advertising Association, [www.warc.com Warc]
  17. ^ Cultural Dimensions and Global Web Design: What? So What? Now What?, Aaron Marcus and Associates, Inc.
  18. ^ Ailon, G. (2008). Mirror, mirror on the wall: Culture's Consequences in a value test of its own design. The Academy of Management Review, 33(4):885–904
  19. ^ Witte, A. Making the Case for a (Post) Cultural Analysis of Organizations, Journal of Management Inquiry, April 2012, Vol. 21:2, pp. 141-159). doi:10.1177/1056492611415279
  20. ^ Witte, A. Making the Case for a (Post) Cultural Analysis of Organizations, Journal of Management Inquiry, April 2012, Vol. 21:2, pp. 141-159). doi:10.1177/1056492611415279
  21. ^ Tilburg University
  22. ^ Witte, A. Making the Case for a (Post) Cultural Analysis of Organizations, Journal of Management Inquiry, April 2012, Vol. 21:2, pp. 141-159). doi:10.1177/1056492611415279

Further reading[edit]

Culture, leadership, and organizations: the GLOBE study of 62 societies (1st ed.). SAGE Publications. 29 April 2004. ISBN 978-0-7619-2401-2. , Read it

Alvesson, M. & Deetz, S. (2006). Critical Theory and Postmodernism Approaches to Organizational Studies. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. Lawrence, W. Nord (Eds.). The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies (2nd ed). London: Sage, 255-283.

Coelho, D. A. (2011). A study on the relation between manufacturing strategy, company size, country culture and product and process innovation in Europe. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 7(2), 152-165.

Fischer, R. (2009). Where is Culture in Cross-Cultural Research?: An Outline of a Multilevel Research Process for Measuring Culture as a Shared Meaning System. International Journal. of Cross Cultural Management, 9: 25-48.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Inglehart, Ronald (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Inglehart, Ronald & Miguel Basanez, Jaime Diez-Medrano, Loek Halman and Ruud Luijkx (2004) (eds.) Human Beliefs and Values: A Cross-Cultural Sourcebook based on the 1999-2002 values surveys. Mexico, Siglo Beintiuno editors.

Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M.Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, New York: Academic Press, 25, 1-65.

Schwartz S.H. (1994). Beyond Individualism and Collectivism: New Cultural Dimensions of Values. In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S., Choi,C. & Yoon, G. (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method and application. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage, 85-119.

Schwartz, S.H. (2007). Value Orientations: Measurement, Antecedents and Consequences across Nations. In J. Jowell, C. Roberts, R. Fitzgerald, G. Eva (Eds.), Measuring Attitudes Cross-Nationally: Lessons from the European Social Survey. London: Sage.

Smith, P.B. (2004). Nations, Cultures and Individuals : New Perspectives on Old Dilemmas. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 6-12.

Smith, P. (2008). Indigenous Aspects of Management. In P. Smith, Peterson, M., Thomas, D. (Eds.), The Handbook of Cross-Cultural Management Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks CA: Sage, 319-332.

Smith, P., Peterson, M., Thomas, D. (Eds.). (2008). The Handbook of Cross-Cultural Management Research. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage,.

Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder CO: Westview Press.

Van de Vijver, F.J.R., van Hemert, D.A., Poortinga, Y.H. (Eds.). (2008). Individuals and Cultures in Multilevel Analysis. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

External links[edit]