process of a specific form and with a specific content contributes to the formation
of an individual identity that is typified by the way the individual mind works. This
approach is found in exemplary fashion in the work of Hofstede (1980; 2001),
which will be covered in greater detail in the next chapter.
This approach is called culturalist because culture is taken to represent a
specific programming of the mind. According to Hofstede, the effect of culture
extends from the level of the individual mind to characteristics of organization
systems and other structures. Individual mental programming has an influence
on the selection of system characteristics; it makes the individual choose
between alternative system characteristics, in conformity with his/her own
values and preferences. Such system characteristics will, in turn, stabilize or
reinforce a specific programming of the individual mind. A universal manage-
ment principle, for instance Management by Objectives, will be adapted to
existing mental programs and related system characteristics, thereby acquiring
a specific application – or even non-application – within the actor-and-systems
constellation of the society in which it resides.
Further examples can be mentioned and have been demonstrated by
Hofstede. Whether it be in the case of delegation or centralization of authority,
individual versus group work, number of levels in the hierarchy of authority,
the strength of the position of superiors, methods of motivation to work, com-
munication patterns or other organizational practices, in each situation a plau-
sible link between mental programs and system characteristics can be
demonstrated by cross-national comparisons. But note that mental programs
are definitely open to change. Hofstede has documented instances of what he
called value changes in great detail. The evolution of mental programs appears
to escape rational control by whichever actor. But this does not mean that
actors behave without rational reflection. They are shown to confront obsta-
cles, restrictions and opportunities; in so doing, they adapt the selection of
system characteristics to match mental programs. The social theorist Max
Weber called this value rationality: consciously weighing and selecting courses
of action according to compatibility with values.
Now Hofstede would be the last to claim that mental programs defy adapta-
tion to other influences as these change. Yet the conceptual focus is on the actor,
the preferred research method is one of value surveys targeting individuals, and
this has slanted the approach somewhat towards methodological individualism.
It is continuously on the look-out for individual mental programs to match
system characteristics, explaining systemic characteristics by social values.
The empirical justification of the
opposite: institutionalismThe opposite point of view would be that the mental program does not always
matter, but system characteristics do, and when they are reasonably stable and
Cross-national Differences in Human Resources 121