action. He argues that this mental programming is at the source of differences
in management practices across countries.
Hofstede presents possible sources for each of the dimensions and
expresses his belief that ‘there must be mechanisms in societies that permit the
maintenance of stability in culture patterns across many generations’. He sug-
gests the following mechanisms. First, value systems have been influenced by
physical and social factors (e.g. climate, demography). These value systems are
then expressed as societal norms that help develop and maintain institutions
(e.g. family, social groups, religion). ‘The institutions, once established, rein-
force the societal norms and the conditions that led to their establishment. In
a relatively closed society, such a system will hardly change at all.’
Values, norms and behaviorsCultural differences can be encountered at different levels: values, norms and
behavior. Behavior is relatively explicit, but the norm(s) or the value(s) on
which it rests are implicit.
Valuesare beliefs about what is desirable. These beliefs influence indi-
viduals’ decisions and behaviors. For example, a person values cooperation.
She has a belief that cooperation is a preferable alternative to competition.
Her belief might influence her behavior. She may try and create a collabora-
tive atmosphere at work or she may be involved in team work.
Normsexpress what is usually considered to be appropriate in a society.
They indicate to individuals what they must or should do. Norms link indivi-
duals to behavior and are implicitly justified by a value. For example, a norm
can be ‘children should be polite to their parents’. The norm expresses the
expected behavior (the set of politeness rules) of a group of persons (children)
to another group (their parents). The norm rests on the implicit value that
respect (displayed by politeness) to older generations is appropriate (adapted
from Triandis, 1972: 15).
Behavioris any form of human action. Values and behaviors are related.
However, the relationship between them is far more complex than causality.
If a person presents equality as an important value in her life, this does not
mean that all her actions will follow this value. One can expect nevertheless
a certain degree of consistency between individuals’ values and desired
actions.Hofstede’s 1980 work has been abundantly reviewed and has received a
good deal of scrutiny. The critiques of Søndergaard (1994), and Boyacigiller
et al. (2002) encapsulate the most frequently raised criticisms. First, con-
cerns have been raised regarding Hofstede’s methodology (the use of a
survey questionnaire, the original IBM sample and a mismatch that can be
perceived between some dimensions and their measurement). A second
theme is the choice of nation to study culture (not respecting multicultural
Culture in Management 149