Hofstede theory has been one of the most wide spread among culture research hypothesises. Consistent with Hoecklin (1996): “This framework is especially useful for understanding people’s conceptions of an organization, the mechanisms that are considered appropriate in controlling and coordinating the activities within it, and the roles and relations of its members.” Therefore five dimensions structure could be used directly with many everyday management encounters in terms of culture associated complexities. Although the Hofstede Model of Cultural Dimensions could aid significantly in analysis of country’s culture, there are a few limitations to be considered.
Firstly, Ess (2003) argues that: “Hofstede seems to assume that 'culture' is synonymous with national identities, thus ignoring internal ethnic, linguistic diversities and individuals. Such diversities increasingly shift and change, especially as the processes of immigration and globalization lead to new "third" identities that represent complex and shifting hybridizations of earlier cultural patterns.” Therefore, country culture changes over time, which is not represented in the theory of Hofstede. Moreover, the nation does not equivalent to individuals of that country. Although Hofstede does represent general tendencies, not all individuals or subcultures fit into the representation provided. Consequently, five dimensions should be considered as a guideline, not proved axiom. Secondly, Hofstede (1991) recognized that: “the scope of measures was restricted by the data available, which was originally collected for a different purpose.” Moreover, Ess (2003) states, that: “Work (Hofstede) relies on interviews with IBM employees in the 1960s and 1970s, thus raising serious questions about extending any of Hofstede's findings to national cultures.” Hence, the outcome of the survey could be not only limited, but relatively irrelevant. Additionally, in group-oriented cultures, individuals could answer questions of surveys on behalf of the group belonged. Finally, Taylor (2000: p 69) suggests that: “Having only five or six dimensions for the analysis of culture seems like attempting brain surgery with a bulldozer.” Thus the effort to reduce the complexities of culture and ease the understanding to five or six dimensions has risk of oversimplification and stereotyping.
Fons Trompenaars has also developed similar international culture approach to Hofstede’s along with Charles Hampden-Turner, in terms of different dimensions. Extra magnitudes, including Universalist versus Particularist and Specific versus Diffuse were introduced. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) referred Universalism to broad and general rules. Therefore in case of absence of rule to follow, the best rule upon existed is chosen. Particularism however concentrates on exceptions and evaluates the case by standards, rather than imposing an existing rule. Specific cultures are described by Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) as small area of privacy which is separated from public life. Diffuse cultures, in contrast are concerned with the image and involvement with other nations.
The evident strength of Trompenaars theory identified by Hofstede (2004) is described as: “Compared to the former researches, Trompenaars has benefited his cultural findings in connection with business strategies.” However, Hofstede (2004) adds that: “Trompenaars’ list of cultural dimensions has limitation. The arguments on how to take different cultural dimensions into consideration when forming business strategies are not perceived as sufficient.” Therefore Trompenaars’ questionnaire fails to cover properly other aspects of national cultures than Individual-Collectivism. Moreover, Trompenaars (1993, p. 161) warns that: “… results should be interpreted with caution” and Dahl (2007) adds that: “The samples were from executives from different organisations.” Therefore there could be a particular culture among the respondents which might influence outcomes.
Russia according to Bollinger, D. (1994: 49) is: “… post communist society; as a result that affects current national culture.” Therefore management concepts in the former Soviet Union reflected the country’s systems of values and goals. Moreover, being former atheist society and transforming towards Christianity has influenced the country in terms of power and delegation. UK however is Western society with, which is significantly important, constitutional monarchy and ideology, religion, and business strategies different to Russian. In order to understand the potential implications for English manager working with people of Russian national culture the analysis based of Hofstede 5 dimensions should be undertaken. Chart 1 from Hofstede web site () illustrates United Kingdom and Russia evaluations according to 5 aspects: Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Long-term versus Short-term orientation.
Chart 1:
[Accessed from ]
Power Distance is measured as extremely high 93 in Russian Federation. The value constitutes a permanent part of Russian mentality, which correlates with the strict hierarchical system. On the other hand, UK scored much lower with number 35. Therefore, higher rank members are recognised, the power is spread more even. As a result Russian employees might be less motivated in relatively equal working conditions and require more power enforcement compared to English. Secondly, Collectivism versus Individualism is measured at 39, thus Russian Federation falls into the groups of countries with a collective mentality. Hence, employees expect their organization to take care of them as if being a family. Moreover, there are strict rituals compulsory to follow, as a group mentality enforces consistency to social rules. The British society however is highly individualistic, measured at 84, with personal judgement to make decisions. Additionally, Geert Hofstede (2004) has demonstrated that: “There is a very strong correlation between the individualism factor and Gross National Product (GNP) per capita.” Individualist countries as, for example UK, have the highest GNP per capita and collectivists tend to have lower. Masculinity versus Femininity dimension is evaluated as 36 in Russia. The reason is that continuous and successive wars forced many widows to take their lives into their own hands and do most of the work usually associated with men. UK however is relatively masculine with measure of 66. Therefore the distribution of roles between genders is more balanced. Uncertainty Avoidance measure indicates that Russian executives display a high level of anxiety about the future with measure of 95 which manifests itself in a tendency to be nervous and emotional. The British employees in contrast have lower uncertainty avoidance, with figure 39, implying that they are more likely to take risks. Therefore are more opened towards new ideas and improvement of the existing strategies.
Based on the analysis above, the possible implication for British manager working in Russian industry could be listed and discussed. Firstly, due to low individualist measure and extremely high power distance figures, Russian employees are very concerned with obeying higher managers and following rules. However, political instability of post communist society has been followed by changing, or even avoiding laws. Therefore, for the UK manager, with the mentality of equality as well as acceptance of hierarchical structure and the unbreakable power of laws, the unstable environment of Russian organization might seem hard to follow, providing the same amount of freedom as if being in the United Kingdom, as workers would not be willing to discuss any thoughts and ideas concerning the operations undertaken. As a result managers should monitor the working process more strictly then doing so in native country. Moreover, D’Annunzlo (2002: 266) states that post Soviet society has: “Personnel problems, such as poor morale, access workers, poorly trained workers.” Hence, poor morale developed over the last decade would lead to low quality production, corruption and bribery. The manger should keep the issue in mind and attempt to motivate workers not as much financially but socially, as for example conduct award system. High collectivism also explains, as stated by D’Annunzlo (2002: 266): “Skepticism towards Western concept of development.” Hence no cooperation should be expected during the management process as Russian staff is overprotective towards the strategies and routine of working developed over the years. Therefore more conversations are needed to assure employees of respecting previous rules and explain the reasons for change. Uncertainty avoidance has indicated that Russian workforce is rather anxious regarding loosing the position or being rejected in plans of proposals, compared to rather low English figure. As D’Annunzlo (2002: 266) stresses that: “Different attitudes and behaviors (between Russian and British employees), concerning strategies implementation and propositions of the ideas lead to barriers with western HRM policies.” Thus post Soviet worker would most probably be reluctant to participate in any extra work other then ordered to do. Additionally, employees would not be willing to advise and discuss orders from the higher rank manager due to fear of loosing the position. The issue is as well connected to high power distance figures in the country. Thus the award system should be introduced for extra participation and successful ideas with no punishment of failure.
In conclusion, organizations are supervised and operated differently in Russian Federation and United Kingdom. To analyse cultural management differences and make assumptions Hofstede developed simplified concept of interdependence between management and national culture by set of cultural dimensions with some limitations. Trompenaars and Hamden Turner have expanded on the research with additional dimensions. Therefore when all elements of Hofstede theory were analysed the conclusions could be drawn concerning potential pitfalls for operating Russian organization by British manager. The areas of danger among Russian national culture include need of strict monitoring, danger of low quality production as well as corruption and bribery, lack of cooperation with Western authority, reluctance to participate in extra work and discuss fresh ideas. Therefore, members of multinational groups require the skill to recognize cultural differences between group members if they want to deal with intercultural misunderstandings and realize high quality and originality in work.
Bibliography:
Adair, W., Brett, J., Lempereur, A., Okumura, T., Shikhirev, P., Tinsley, C., Lytle, A. (2004) Culture and Negotiation Strategy. Negotiation Journal 22(1): 87-111
Bollinger, D. (1994) The Four Cornerstones and Three Pillars in the “House of Russia” Management System. Journal of Management Development 13(2): 49-54.
Brett, J., M., Adair, W., L., Lempereur, A., Okumura, T., Shikhirev, P., Tinsley, C., Lytle. A. (1998). Culture and joint gains in negotiation. Negotiation Journal 14(1): 61–86.
Dahl, S. (2007) Hofstede and Trompenaars and Hampben Turner Compared [Online] URL: [Accessed: 12th March 2007]
D’Annunzlo, N. (2002) An Examination of the Organizational and Cross-Cultural Challenges facing international managers in Russia. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 14(6): 266-273
Ess, C. (2003). Cultural Homogeneity Course Materials [Online] URL: [Accessed: 12 March 2007]
Geert Hofstede™ (2007) Cultural Dimensions: UK vs. Russia [Online] URL: [Accessed: 28th March 2007)
Hoecklin, L. (1996), Managing Cultural Differences: Strategies for Competitive Advantage, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham
Hofstede, G. & Bond, M. (1988). ‘The Confucius Connection: from Cultural Roots to Economic Growth’, Organizational Dynamics, 16(4): 4-21
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations. London: McGraw-Hill
Hofstede, G. (1993). ‘Cultural Constraints in Management Theories’, Academy of Management Executive, 7(1): 81-94
Hofstede, G., Lia.S., Hans, S., Jacques, T., Adrie, B. (eds) (2004) Hide or confide: the dilemma of transparency. Reed Business Information.
Mendenhall, M., Punnett, B., J., Ricks, D. (1995) Global Management Oxford: Blackwell
Taylor, S., J. (2005) How do Hofstede's Dimensions correlate with the World's Religions? [Online] URL: [Accessed 28th March 2007)
Trompenaars, F., C. Hampden-Turner (1998) Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Global Business, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill
Wardhaugh, R. (1993) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Second edition, Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers
