Hofstede’s model of national culture

A revision of Hofstede’s modelof national culture: old evidenceand new data from 56 countriesMichael MinkovSofia Local Center, Varna University of Management, Sofia, BulgariaAbstractPurpose – Hofstede’s model of national culture has enjoyed enormous popularity but rests partly on faith.It has never been fully replicated and its predictive properties have been challenged. The purpose of thispaper is to provide a test of the model’s coherence and utility.Design/methodology/approach – Analyses of secondary data, including the World Values Survey, and anew survey across 56 countries represented by nearly 53,000 probabilistically selected respondents.Findings – Improved operationalizations of individualism-collectivism (IDV-COLL) suggest it is a robustdimension of national culture. A modern IDV-COLL index supersedes Hofstede’s 50 year-old original one.Power distance (PD) seems to be a logical facet of IDV-COLL, rather than an independent dimension.Uncertainty avoidance (UA) lacks internal reliability. Approval of restrictive societal rules and laws is a facet ofCOLL and is not associated with national anxiety or neuroticism. UA is not a predictor of any of its presumedmain correlates: importance of job security, preference for a safe job, trust, racism and xenophobia, subjectivewell-being, innovation, and economic freedom. The dimension of masculinity-femininity (MAS-FEM) lackscoherence. MAS and FEM job goals and broader values are correlated positively, not negatively, and are notrelated to the MAS-FEM index. MAS-FEM is not a predictor of any of its presumed main correlates:achievement and competition orientation, help and compassion, preference for a workplace with likeable people,work orientation, religiousness, gender egalitarianism, foreign aid. After a radical reconceptualization and a newoperationalization, the so-called “fifth dimension” (CWD or long-term orientation) becomes more coherent anduseful. The new version, called flexibility-monumentalism (FLX-MON), explains the cultural differencesbetween East Asian Confucian societies at one extreme and Latin America plus Africa at the other, and is thebest predictor of national differences in educational achievement.Research limitations/implications – Differences between subsidiaries of a multinational company, suchas IBM around 1970, are not necessarily a good source of knowledge about broad cultural differences.A model of national culture must be validated across a large number of countries from all continents and itspredictions should withstand various plausible controls. Much of Hofstede’s model (UA, MAS-FEM) fails thistest while the remaining part (IDV-COLL, PD, LTO) needs a serious revision.Practical implications – Consultancies and business schools still teach Hofstede’s model uncritically.They need to be aware of its deficiencies.Originality/value – As UA and MAS-FEM are apparently misleading artifacts of Hofstede’s IBM data set, athorough revision of Hofstede’s model is proposed, reducing it to two dimensions: IDV-COLL and FLX-MON.Keywords Masculinity, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, Confucianism, Long-term orientation,Individualism and collectivism, Uncertainty avoidancePaper type Viewpoint1. IntroductionGeert Hofstede is the author of one of the most influential treatises on national culture(Kirkman et al., 2006), originally published in a short form (Hofstede, 1980), followed by anexpanded version (Hofstede, 2001). According to Bond (2002), cross-cultural psychologistswere “held in thrall” (p. 73) by Hofstede’s intellectual achievement, whereas Peterson (2003)pointed out that Hofstede’s first book shaped the basic themes, structures, and controversiesCross Cultural & StrategicManagementVol. 25 No. 2, 2018pp. 231-256© Emerald Publishing Limited2059-5794DOI 10.1108/CCSM-03-2017-0033Received 13 March 2017Revised 3 July 201714 July 2017Accepted 1 August 2017The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:www.emeraldinsight.com/2059-5794.htmThe collection of primary data for this study was organized by MediaCom Ltd and the Hofstede Centerat Itim International, a Dutch-Finnish cross-cultural consultancy. Financial support was provided byMediaCom. Neither of the two organizations has influenced the study design, the data analysis, thedecision to write and submit this paper, or any opinion expressed in it, in any way. All main findings inthis study were shared with Geert Hofstede on several occasions by February 2017.231A revision ofHofstede’smodelof the cross-cultural field for over 20 years. Hofstede popularized the nomothetic approachto the study of culture, subsequently employed by other leading researchers ( for instanceInglehart and Baker, 2000; House et al., 2004; Schwartz, 1994, 2008, etc.). Their studies haveproven the utility of this approach. But how accurate is the product that it yielded inHofstede’s research? The answer to this question is long overdue. As the issue is complexand requires a lengthy analysis, a single paper cannot provide all answers. Yet, it can outlinesome general conclusions.This study starts with an analysis of secondary (published) data. Then, it analyzesprimary data from a survey of nearly 53,000 respondents selected probabilistically in56 countries. The survey was partly designed to check the structure and replicability ofHofstede’s dimensions.I remind the readers that Hofstede designed his model at the national level of analysis,not at the individual. This means that Hofstede’s model explains patterns that areobservable when the agents are whole nations, not individuals. Attempts to transposeHofstede’s model to the individual level would be what Hofstede (2001) and others call anecological fallacy. Unfortunately, Brewer and Venaik (2014) and Winzar (2015) found thatmany authors of articles in leading journals continue to project cultural patterns ontoindividuals or organizations. Such attempts amount to expecting the laws of classicalmechanics to apply at the sub-atomic level, where very different quantum physics laws arein force. Still, if the laws are different at different levels, the logic of the discrepancy needs tobe explained. In one instance, discussed further in this paper, this seems to be a problem forHofstede’s model.Another caveat is also important. Baumann and Winzar (2017) point out that the extentto which values drive behavior is a function of the circumstances in which individuals findthemselves as well as the relative importance of competing values in particularcircumstances. Minkov’s (2017) work shows that this may be especially true in the EastAsian societies (all those with a Confucian heritage except Vietnam). Nevertheless, thisrecently highlighted challenge in the cross-cultural field will be ignored in this study andHofstede’s model will be analyzed on the basis of the prevalent conceptualization of cultureat the time of its creation, assuming that culture can be studied through snapshots of staticsituations rather than motion pictures.2. Analysis of secondary dataThe analysis of secondary data should shed some light on four basic questions thatentail validity tests for any model in social science or psychology and are therefore relevantin this study:RQ1. Did Hofstede’s database, consisting solely of the employees of the IBM Corporationaround 1970, adequately reflect the national cultures of the respondents?RQ2. Do Hofstede’s dimensions replicate?RQ3. Do Hofstede’s dimensions have internal reliability? Are their facets reallycorrelated as the Hofstede model postulates?RQ4. Do Hofstede’s dimensions have convincing predictive properties? Are theyassociated with relevant external variables in accordance with Hofstede’stheoretical expectations?2.1 Reliability of Hofstede’s IBM database as a source of knowledge about national cultureIn an analysis of data from the World Values Survey (WVS) (www.worldvaluessurvey.org),Minkov et al. (2015) split all the national samples into several occupational categories.They found that national samples of respondents from a single category (e.g. only experts)232CCSM25,2do not necessarily yield the same dimensions of national culture as samples from anothercategory (e.g. only skilled manual workers) although the items in the analysis are the same.Smith et al. (2002) explain why some seemingly matched samples may not be equivalentand, consequently, may not yield the same results: government employment is appreciatedin Japan, but not in western countries. Consequently, Japanese and western governmentemployees would probably not provide equivalent samples for comparisons of nationalcultures because they do not have the same status in their home countries. Likewise, whileteachers enjoy respect in China, their profession is considered low status in some EastEuropean countries, and there are even derogatory words for “teacher” and “school” in thosesocieties. Thus, it is possible that employment at IBM around 1970 did not carry the samesocial status across the world. As a result, the national subsidiaries of IBM may haveattracted dissimilar types of job applicants. National culture also may have affected actualrecruitment procedures, despite IBM’s efforts to enforce universal global standards.The IBM database has yielded dimensions of national culture called individualism vscollectivism (IDV-COLL) and power distance (PD) that are strongly correlated with nationalwealth (Hofstede, 2001). This external validation means that at least some of the measureddifferences between the IBM subsidiaries reflect actual societal differences and are not pureartifacts of IBM’s organizational cultures, employee selection, or other local factors. But didthe IBM database correctly reflect national culture in every respect? Critics, such asMcSweeney (2002), were not convinced.One of the pillars of Hofstede’s masculinity-femininity (MAS-FEM) dimension isHofstede’s (2001) finding that distances between the values of men and women are greatestin MAS nations, whereas FEM ones have smaller distances. In other words, men and womenin FEM countries, such as the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries, have the mostsimilar scores on values, whereas men and women in MAS countries, such as Japan, havethe most dissimilar scores. By 2007, it was well established that this was demonstrablywrong. Guimond et al. (2007) summarize the literature on that subject, including Schwartz(2005) and Costa et al. (2001). The summary shows that national differences in distancesbetween the values and personality traits of men and women are not a function ofMAS-FEM but of gender emancipation, underpinned by national wealth. In other words,these gender differences are strongly associated with IDV-COLL since gender emancipationis greatest in the most IDV countries. There are diverse explanations of the larger genderdifferences in values and personality in the IDV societies, one of which could be that peoplein such societies have greater freedom to express their individuality, whereas in COLLcountries there is strong pressure for men and women to be the same in terms of values andpersonality. Whatever the right explanation is, far from having the smallest distancesbetween the values of men and women, as the MAS-FEM theory claims on the basis of theIBM findings, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries have the largest distances.The values sections in the WVS confirm this. It is noteworthy that MAS-FEM is orthogonal(unrelated) to IDV-COLL and national wealth (Hofstede, 2001). This means that, in terms ofnational distances between men’s and women’s values, the IBM database could hardly havebeen more misleading than it was, as it showed a 90-degree deviation from reality. It ishighly unlikely that the structure of male-female distances across the globe has changed sodrastically since 1970 that the IBM revealed a true societal pattern back then, which did notreflect any geo-economic logic, whereas today we see a 90-degree shift to something thatrests on the solid logic of economic differences between nations and their societalconsequences. Much more plausibly, the societal pattern was the same in 1970, yet the IBMdatabase was contaminated with IBM-specific peculiarities that made it an unreliable sourceof information for extrapolations to the societal level.Further, the IBM data set has yielded an IDV-COLL index that assigns theEnglish-speaking countries, and particularly the USA, to the top of the ranking.233A revision ofHofstede’smodelMinkov, Dutt, Varma, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al. (in press) reviewed all large studiesof national IDV-COLL or closely related constructs, and found that the English-speakingcountries do not have top scores on anything related to IDV-COLL. Of note, some of thesestudies are based on the nationally representative WVS or probabilistic data sets that areclose in structure to the national census of each country (Minkov, Dutt, Varma, Schachner,Morales, Sanchez et al., in press). The leading position of the USA on Hofstede’s IDV-COLLis doubtlessly an artifact of the IBM database, reflecting its national unrepresentativeness.2.2 Replicability of Hofstede’s dimensionsOnly one peer-reviewed publication in an indexed journal so far (Merritt, 2000) describes anattempt to replicate all of Hofstede’s IBM dimensions in a single study. While IDV-COLLand PD replicated reasonably well, UA and MAS-FEM did not. Following this failure,Merritt (2000) tried constructing an UA dimension and a MAS-FEM dimension with itemsthat were statistically correlated with those two dimensions, even though they had no facevalidity. The outcome was confusing. Merritt (2000) did obtain measures that were highlycorrelated with IBM’s UA and MAS-FEM, yet MAS-FEM was composed of classic UAitems, such as a feeling of nervousness and agreement that rules should not be broken, and aPD item (employees afraid to disagree with superior). Besides, instead of being unrelated toIDV-COLL, as in the IBM study, this new MAS-FEM, just like UA, was strongly correlatedwith it. In short, Merritt’s (2000) work showed that UA and MAS-FEM could not bereplicated, suggesting that they are problematic dimensions.Single-dimension studies have replicated IDV-COLL successfully (Gelfand et al., 2004;Minkov, Bond, Dutt, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al., in press). This implies that if PD isseen as a facet of IDV-COLL (Minkov, Dutt, Varma, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al.,in press), it also replicates. Schwartz’s (1994, 2008) work demonstrates that nationalaggregates of values in the domain of what he calls “hierarchy” are conceptually andstatistically similar to PD. Thus, Schwartz’s work indirectly confirms the replicability of PD,yet without necessarily indicating that it is independent from IDV-COLL.There are no studies in peer-reviewed journals focusing on the replicability of MAS-FEM.Hofstede (2001) reported that MAS-FEM is highly correlated with Schwartz’s (1994)measure of “mastery vs harmony.” Yet, Schwartz (2011) stated that he sometimes regrettedhis 1994 publication as researchers continued to cite it despite the existence of much morerefined variants of his measures. Schwartz’s latest, unpublished mastery and harmonymeasures (personally provided by Schwartz in 2016), recommended by him for validationpurposes, are unrelated to MAS-FEM.Project GLOBE (Sully de Luque and Javidan, 2004) attempted to replicateHofstede’s UA. Yet, GLOBE conceptualized and operationalized UA very differently,not as a combination of anxiety and a conviction that rules and laws must be followedstrictly. GLOBE’s UA is reminiscent of Hall’s (1959) high-vs-low-context concept asit measures the degree to which people perceive their societies as having clearly explainedrules or wish to have such rules. The first of these two GLOBE measures (UA practices) isa variant of IDV-COLL as it creates a more or less clear contrast between economicallyadvanced countries (more explicit rule communication) and developing countries (moreimplicit rule communication), which conforms to Hall’s theory. GLOBE’s UA practicesmeasure is correlated with Hofstede’s UA at -0.66 ( po0.001, n ¼ 47), suggesting thatpeople in countries that Hofstede defines as strongly avoiding uncertainty and ambiguityactually describe their societies as having ambiguous rule communication. This confusingresult can hardly be taken as a replication of Hofstede’s UA. GLOBE’s alternative UAmeasure – the degree to which people wish to have clear rule communication – correlatesweakly with Hofstede’s UA at 0.32 ( p ¼ 0.03, n ¼ 47). Again this cannot be seen as areplication of Hofstede’s UA by any standard.234CCSM25,2Taras et al. (2012) reported that their meta-analysis of studies devoted to Hofstede’sdimensions, most of them done in a small number of countries at a time, yielded nationalindices that are reasonably well correlated with all of Hofstede’s IBM measures. The authorsalso report that the original IBM indices for IDV-COLL and PD remain highly correlatedwith the corresponding meta-analytical scores from the 1980s to the 2000s, However,measures of MAS-FEM and UA from the 2000s correlate with the Hofstede’s originals atonly 0.56 and 0.46, respectively, suggesting that MAS-FEM and UA are unstabledimensions whose modern variants have little to do with their counterparts decades ago.Taras et al. (2012) conceded that they relied on studies that had used not only Hofstede’sValues Survey Module but also a variety of other tools designed by various authors tomeasure Hofstede’s dimensions. Without detailed information about those unknown anduntested tools, it is impossible to pronounce on what they really measure and, consequently,how valid the conclusions of Taras et al. (2012) are. Of note, the Values Survey Module hasnever been properly tested either. There is not a single study in a peer-reviewed journalshowing how it works across at least 30 countries from all continents.2.3 Internal reliability of Hofstede’s dimensionsThe issue of internal reliability is important as Hofstede’s theories are built on some keyassumptions, such as the positive relationship between societal anxiety and societalrestrictiveness with respect to rules and laws, underpinning the UA dimension, as well as anegative relationship between so-called MAS and FEM values, underpinning the MAS-FEMdimension. If these relationships were not confirmed, Hofstede’s model would be seriouslychallenged even if it were correct in other respects.2.3.1 Internal reliability of IDV-COLL and PD. The question of whether IDV-COLL andPD, as operationalized by Hofstede, are internally reliable is probably irrelevant. Hofstede’soperationalization of IDV-COLL has not been accepted as a paradigm for major replicationsof that dimension simply because many of his items have been seen as lacking face validityand some have even been viewed as a mystery (Bond, 2002). Replications of IDV-COLL withentirely different items (Gelfand et al., 2004; Minkov, Dutt, Varma, Schachner, Morales,Sanchez et al., in press) are characterized by good internal reliability and face validity. Thereis no doubt that, measured in this way, IDV-COLL is a robust and important dimension ofnational culture.Surprisingly, major replications of PD are simply missing in the literature. Therefore, it isimpossible to pronounce on that dimension’s internal reliability. The relationship betweenIDV-COLL and PD has not been elucidated satisfactorily either. Hofstede’s measures ofthese two constructs are closely correlated statistically. Minkov, Dutt, Varma, Schachner,Morales, Sanchez et al. (in press) argue that they are also related conceptually. If IDV-COLLreflects differences in treatment of people – as individuals or as members of particulargroups – then PD is a logical facet of IDV-COLL, as it reflects differential treatment on thebasis of one’s position in society. Thus, as PD is merely a conceptual facet of IDV-COLL, andnot an independent dimension, the question of its internal reliability becomes irrelevant.2.3.2 Internal reliability of uncertainty avoidance (UA). According to UA theory, peoplein societies with high levels of anxiety (a facet of neuroticism in the Big Five personalitymodel) value job security (Hofstede, 2001; Minkov and Hofstede, 2014). Minkov andHofstede (2014) found support for this theory albeit across European countries only. Yet,Table I demonstrates that “good job security” as an important job characteristic,measured by the WVS in 2000-2004 (Item v88, subsequently discontinued) across theworld, is not associated with any reported measure of national neuroticism or anxiety,including the most recent estimates of national scores on the anxiety facet of neuroticismby Allik et al. (2017).235A revision ofHofstede’smodelThe UA theory also postulates that societies characterized by high anxiety attempt toreduce that feeling by believing in, and in fact imposing, strict and unbendable rules andlaws, so as to make life less uncertain (Hofstede, 2001; Minkov and Hofstede, 2014).However, this theory is not very convincing in view of the fact that anxiety and arule-orientation ideology are not correlated at the individual level, which we knowfrom Hofstede’s (2001) own findings. In other words, the anxious people and thebureaucratic-minded individuals are not necessarily the same. But if the bureaucrats do notnecessarily have high anxiety levels, what makes them create and insist on unbendablerules? Are they doing it out of concern for the neurotics who need such rules? If the latter doneed such rules, why do they not, too, believe in them?Minkov and Hofstede (2014) found that, at the national level, a measure of anxiety isindeed highly correlated with a measure of the ideology that all laws must be followedstrictly. Yet, this was a study across European countries only. It does not reveal whetherthese two facets of UA are correlated highly and positively across a wider set of countries.There are no secondary data that provide an answer to this question. Yet, the analysis ofprimary data below does provide an answer.Minkov et al. (2013) extracted a dimension of national culture from WVS itemsmeasuring the strength of societal norms in the domain of creation and termination of life,such as divorce, homosexuality, prostitution, abortion, suicide, and euthanasia. They foundthat these items form a strong single factor, called “personal-sexual,” creating a contrastbetween economically advanced countries (greater permissiveness) and developingcountries (greater restrictiveness). This factor is closely associated with IDV-COLL(Minkov, Dutt, Varma, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al., in press), but is not related to anypublished national index of neuroticism or anxiety. In fact, according to Hofstede (2001) it isMAS-FEM, rather than UA, that explains societal restrictiveness as measured by “personalsexual” items in the WVS. Although the logic of this association is not apparent, it will betested in the section devoted to the predictive properties of MAS-FEM.2.3.3 Internal reliability of MAS-FEM. MAS-FEM has two main facets: MAS values(achievement, challenge, recognition, earnings, competition) and FEM values (good humanrelationships, including compassion). These two facets should be correlated negatively(Hofstede, 2001).The 1995-1999 wave of the WVS allows a test of this theory. Item V73 presents therespondents with four job characteristics – “good income,” “safe job, no risk,” “working withpeople I like,” and “important job, feeling of accomplishment” – and asks the respondents tochoose the most important one. The first item and the last two items should reflectMAS-FEM goals as they correspond to some of the items that loaded highly on MAS-FEMin Hofstede’s (2001) factor analyses of IBM items (pp. 256-257, p. 284). “Good income”corresponds to “earnings,” “working with people I like” corresponds to “friendlyNational neuroticism (N) or anxiety (A) measure r with v88 n (countries)N: McCrae (2002) 0.19 16N: McCrae and Terracciano (2005) 0.34 20N: Schmitt et al. (2007) -0.07 20N: Gebauer et al. (2015) -0.05 31A: Allik et al. (2017) 0.03 17Notes: Allik et al. (2017) provide several scores for some countries based on different studies. In those cases, Iused the median score. None of the correlations are significant at 0.05Source: World Values Survey (2000-2004, Item v88)Table I.Correlations betweennational neuroticism (N)or anxiety (A) andimportance of “goodjob security”236CCSM25,2atmosphere,” whereas “important job, feeling of accomplishment” is a measure of the socialimportance of prestige and success, and corresponds to “recognition,” “challenge,” and“advancement to a higher position” in Hofstede’s analysis. This WVS item format measuresrelative importance and avoids response style, approximating the effect of ipsatization (alsoknown as standardization within subject or by subject) used by Hofstede (2001) in hisanalysis of work values from which he extracted MAS-FEM.Table II demonstrates that the three items are not correlated quite as the MAS-FEMtheory predicts. While “good income” and “working with people I like” are indeed opposites,“important job” yields correlations that contradict the MAS-FEM theory.Figure 1 demonstrates that if the items measuring the importance of “feeling ofaccomplishment” and “working with people I like” were merged into a single dimension,1 2 3(1) Good income 1.00 -0.69** -0.43**(2) Important job, feeling of accomplishment 1.00 0.31*(3) Working with people I like 1.00Notes: All correlations are across 51 countries. *,**Correlations are significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels,respectivelySource: World Values Survey (1995-1999, Item v73)Table II.Correlations betweenthree masculinityfemininity work goalsDominican RepublicAustraliaNorwayFinlandSwedenChinaPuerto RicoSwitzerlandSloveniaTaiwanJapanGermanyTurkeyHungary


India


South Africa


Chile


Montenegro


Colombia


Romania


Lithuania MoldovaUruguayBosniaRussiaSerbiaKoreaPhilippinesSlovakiaSalvadorArgentinaSpainEstoniaVenezuelaGeorgiaMexicoArmeniaUkraineAzerbaijanLatviaAlbaniaCroatiaPeruBangladeshNigeriaNew Zealand50.0040.0030.0020.0010.000.000.00 5.00First choice: Working with people I likeFirst choice: Important job, feeling of accomplishment10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00USACzech RepublicRepublic of MoniaFigure 1.Visualization of therelationship betweenpercentages ofrespondents choosing“feeling ofaccomplishment” and“working with peoplei like” as mostimportant jobcharacteristics, ItemV73, World ValuesSurvey (1995-1999)237A revision ofHofstede’smodelit would highlight a contrast between economically developed countries, in the upper rightcorner, and developing countries, in the lower left corner. Therefore, the observednational differences in job priorities are a function of differences in national wealth, notMAS-FEM, which is unrelated to it. Subsequent waves of the WVS confirm this finding,although the MAS item in question was fielded without the “feeling of accomplishment”component. Likewise, across the WVS waves in which these items were fielded,“good income” and “working with people I like” are negatively correlated and clearly mergeinto a single dimension that creates a contrast between economically developed countries(high priority of people, low priority of income) and developing countries (high priority ofincome, low priority of people). Evidently, these contrasts are not a function of MAS-FEMbut are an outcome of differences in economic development, which is unrelated toMAS-FEM according to Hofstede (2001).The WVS has fielded some of Schwartz’s items, including importance of success(V85) and importance of helping (V84) in the 2005-2009 WVS wave, which provides thelargest set of countries that have been scored on both of these items (n ¼ 51). The two itemscertainly address societal MAS-FEM values. “Success” is part of Schwartz’s “mastery”domain, which according to Hofstede (2001, p. 298) contains MAS values. Helping is a majorprerequisite for the maintenance of good relationships. Also, it is found across from“success” on Schwartz’s (2008) circumplex, suggesting that the two values are opposites,just as the MAS-FEM theory postulates. A reviewer of this paper helpfully provided theresults of a Monte Carlo simulation analysis of these items, indicating the probability that arandomly selected male in a specific country will score higher or lower than a randomlyselected female. The results are consistent with the MAS-FEM theory. For example, in 43 ofthe 52 countries in the WVS, men are less likely than women to value helping others andthese differences are often substantial, reaching 23 percent (greater probability for males) vs43 percent (greater probability for females). There is no doubt then that importance ofhelping is a FEM value, whereas importance of success is a MAS value.Across 51 countries, importance of helping and importance of success are correlatedsignificantly and positively: r ¼ 0.40 ( p ¼ 0.004). Ipsatization at the national level reversesthis correlation and makes it negative, in accordance with the MAS-FEM theory, just like inSchwartz (2008) where the two items are in opposite sections of the value circumplex,suggesting a negative correlation. This raises the question of which method is preferable:comparing raw scores or ipsatized scores? This is a complex issue beyond the topic of thisstudy. The section on the primary data analysis explains the outcome of fielding MAS andFEM items as categorical choices without Likert scales, which makes ipsatization irrelevant.2.3.4 Internal reliability of Confucian work dynamism or long-term orientation (LTO).Originally called “Confucian work dynamism,” Hofstede’s fifth dimension is also knownas LTO. It is an extremely important dimension as it seems to explain some of the culturaldifferences between the Confucian societies of East Asia at one extreme and Africa, theMiddle East, and Latin America at the other. Minkov and Hofstede (2012) successfullyreplicated LTO with data from the WVS and confirmed its internal reliability. Still, theyadmitted that the dimension lacked theoretical coherence. Minkov, Bond, Dutt, Schachner,Morales, Sanchez et al. (in press) have provided a radical reconceptualization of thisdimension based on Minkov’s (2011, 2013) work, called “flexibility vs monumentalism”(FLX-MON). It is partly based on Steven Heine’s self-enhancement and self-stabilitytheory, and reflects national differences in high vs low self-regard and self-confidence,being always the same person vs being flexible and adaptable, and liking to help people vsbeing reluctant to do that. Minkov, Bond, Dutt, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al.(in press) do not include the concepts of persistence and thrift in FLX-MON, arguing thatthese facets of LTO are controversial.238CCSM25,22.4 Predictive properties of Hofstede’s dimensionsThe predictive properties of Hofstede’s dimensions are a central topic in Culture’sConsequences, Hofstede’s (2001) main monograph. The numerous examples in that bookcreate the impression that all the dimensions in Hofstede’s model are statistically associatedwith, and thus seem to predict or explain, variance in many external variables. However,given a database of diverse variables measured at the national level, it is easy to select some,or even many, that are associated at least weakly and at least across some countries. For aparticular dimension of national culture to be credible and of practical utility, it shouldsatisfy two more stringent requirements. First, it should have strong predictive properties,yielding high correlations with variables of interest across a large sample of countries fromall, or most, continents, adequately representing the cultural variation across the world’smodern nations. Second, it should be a strong predictor, withstanding plausible controls.Appendix 6 at the end of Culture’s Consequences (Hofstede, 2001) shows that the greatmajority of Hofstede’s validity tests were performed across fewer than 30 countries, oftenfrom the economically developed part of the world, because Hofstede did not have data fromother countries. This makes most of the reported associations unconvincing.Taras et al. (2012) studied the predictive properties of Hofstede’s original indices andfound reasonably high correlations, at least with respect to a small number of externalvariables, in the past decades. Yet, the strength of these predictive properties has beendeclining so much since then that, according to Taras et al. (2012), in another decade or soHofstede’s indices may not explain adequately anything anymore. In view of the smallnumber of dependent variables in the analysis of those authors, the lack of control variables,and the lack of information on the number and geographic location of the countries acrosswhich each correlation was calculated, their conclusions should be viewed with greatcaution. A more detailed dimension-by-dimension check would be beyond the scope of anyarticle, including this one. Yet, it is noteworthy that Taras et al. (2012) found thatIDV-COLL and PD yielded higher correlations with relevant external variables than didMAS-FEM and UA. This resonates with the finding of the same authors that MAS-FEM andUA are more temporarily unstable than IDV and PD, and with Merritt’s (2000) unsuccessfulattempt to replicate MAS-FEM and UA, strengthening the impression that these areproblematic dimensions.2.4.1 Predictive properties of IDV-COLL and PD. Minkov, Dutt, Varma, Schachner,Morales, Sanchez et al. (in press) show that IBM’s IDV-COLL index is still a reasonably goodpredictor of key variables such as rule of law, human inequality, and accident proneness.However, Minkov, Dutt, Varma, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al.’s (in press) IDV-COLLindex is a considerably better predictor of those key variables, suggesting that the IBMmeasure needs updating. Also, Minkov, Dutt, Varma, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al.(in press) show that the Anglo countries, and especially the USA, do not score particularlyhigh on IDV-COLL or any measure related to it. With the exception of Japan, the Confuciancountries of East Asia score low on IDV-COLL in the work of Hofstede (2001). Yet, dueto their phenomenal economic development in the past decades, they have all climbed higheron the IDV-COLL ladder, surpassing many developing countries, and currently occupymid-range positions.Table III compares the correlations that Hofstede’s PD and IDV-COLL yield with relevantexternal variables that can be expected to be associated with PD. Hofstede’s PD is the betterpredictor of only a few of them and in those cases the significant relationship is lowered andreduced to insignificance after controlling for a still better predictor. This seriously calls intoquestion the utility of the PD index.2.4.2 Predictive properties of UA. Exhibit 6 in Hofstede (2001) contains only onesignificant correlation between UA and a dependent variable that exceeds ±0.50 across atleast 30 countries: UA predicts a country’s nurse-doctor ratio.239A revision ofHofstede’smodelHofstede and McCrae (2004) reported that UA was associated with McCrae’s nationalneuroticism index. Table IV shows correlations between UA and the four large studiesreporting national neuroticism scores based on the NEO-PI-R or BFI questionnaires. As UAis related to some measures of neuroticism but not to others, the evidence remainsinconclusive. The correlations between the available measures of neuroticism are notimpressive, suggesting that some of the four studies have not measured it convincingly.Identifying those studies is beyond the scope of this paper.Table V provides more correlations between UA and relevant societal indicators that UAcould be expected to correlate with. With the exception of the “personal-sexual” factor,all selected indicators conform to Hofstede’s (2001) expectations concerning the predictiveproperties of UA. Namely, it should predict importance of job security, trust, subjectivewell-being, a focus on order, racism, corruption, slow acceptance of innovation, and a lack ofeconomic freedom. Some correlations were calculated twice: across all available countriesand then across countries in the “very high” category on the UNDP’s (2015)Human Development Index, since Hofstede (2001) reports that some of UA’s predictiveproperties are valid only or primarily across economically advanced countries.The expectation that UA should be positively associated with importance of job securityand negatively with interpersonal trust (Hofstede, 2001) is not confirmed by the WVS data.Both variables are closely associated with GLOBE’s UA practices. This suggests high trustand relatively low importance of job security characterize societies with detailed andproperly enforced formal rules that create predictability. This has nothing to do withnational anxiety.Variabler withPDr withIDV-COLL n (countries)


GLOBE’s power distance “practices” (Carl et al., 2004)GLOBE’s power distance “values” (Carl et al., 2004)Schwartz’s hierarchy (personally provided scores, 2016)Schwartz’s egalitarianism (personally provided scores, 2016)Schwartz’s intellectual autonomy (personally provided scores, 2016)Schwartz’s affective autonomy (personally provided scores, 2016)Schwartz’s embeddedness (personally provided scores, 2016)Corruption perception index 2015 (Transparency International, 2017)Same item after controlling for GDP per person in 2014 (World Bank,2016) and Welzel’s (2014) emancipative values index


0.54**0.070.32*-0.48**0.52**-0.65**0.67**-0.64**


-0.09


-0.46** 50-0.68** 68


UNDP’s coefficient of human inequality 2015 (Jahan and Jespersen, 2015)Same item after controlling for GDP per person in 2014 (World Bank,2016) and Welzel’s (2014) emancipative values index


0.55**


-0.17


Project GLOBE’s “participative” leadership dimension (Dorfman et al., 2004) -0.49**Same item after controlling for Welzel’s (2014) emancipative values index -0.01


Use of superiors as a source of guidance for managerial decision making(Smith et al., 2002)Use of subordinates as a source of guidance for managerial decisionmaking (Smith et al., 2002)


-0.25


-0.37*


Same item after controlling for Welzel’s (2014) emancipative values index -0.13


Obedience as a desirable trait for children, WVS 2005-2009, item v21Same item, after controlling for individualism-collectivism (Minkov, Dutt,Varma, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al., in press)Obedience as a desirable trait for children, WVS 2011-2014, item v21Same item, after controlling for individualism-collectivism (Minkov, Dutt,Varma, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al., in press)


0.53**


0.120.44**


-0.01


-0.08 51-0.38* 38-0.35* 35-0.29 24Notes: *,**Correlations are significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectivelyTable III.Correlation patterns ofHofstede’s powerdistance (PD)compared with thoseof Hofstede’sindividualismcollectivism(IDV-COLL)240CCSM25,2Although Hofstede (2001) indicated that UA is not associated with risk avoidance,Table V shows that UA is a positive predictor of preference for a “safe job with no risk” asmeasured by the WVS. Yet, controlling for GLOBE’s UA practices reduces this correlationto statistical insignificance. The strongest preference for job safety is found in societieswithout detailed and strictly enforced formal rules (thus scoring low on GLOBE’s UApractices), which apparently depresses job safety while generating a high desire for it.One of the most important practical implications of Hofstede’s UA is its presumednegative association with innovation (Hofstede, 2001). The largest study that supportsthis view was conducted across 68 countries more than 20 years ago (Shane, 1995).It concluded literally that uncertainty-accepting societies may be more innovative thanuncertainty-avoiding societies, based on employees’ preferences for different roles withintheir organizations. Intrigued by these findings, Rinne et al. (2012) assessed the predictiveproperties of all of Hofstede’s dimensions, using data from the complex Global InnovationIndex as dependent variables. They found that while IDV-COLL and PD were related tonational innovation scores, UA was not related to them. The results in Table V show thatUA is not related to adoption of innovative technologies.Idiographic analyses further highlight some of the issues that plague the UA dimensionand its index. According to Hofstede (2001), the South East Asian countries tend to scorelow on UA. This suggests that their societies should be quite liberal and allow theirmembers to bend or ignore rules. The observed reality in those countries is precisely theopposite. They are well known for their harsh punishments, such as flogging for alcoholconsumption during Ramadan in Malaysia, flogging for homosexual intercourse inIndonesia, prison sentences for graffiti writing in Singapore, and death penalty forpossession of small amounts of light drugs in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore.Singaporeans do not even have the right to chew gum and jokingly call their home place“a fine country:” a nice country where one can easily get fined.2.4.3 Predictive properties of MAS-FEM. Appendix 6 in Hofstede (2001) does not list anysignificant correlations between MAS-FEM and a dependent variable that exceeds ±0.50over at least 30 countries. Nevertheless, some of the presumed key predictive properties ofthat dimension are worth examining. Table VI provides correlations between key variablesthat MAS-FEM should be associated with according to Hofstede (2001). Some of thecalculations were calculated also across economically developed countries as Hofstede(2001) indicates that some of the predictive properties of MAS-FEM are valid only acrosswealthy countries. Also, some calculations were calculated twice: using raw items and thenipsatized items, as advocated by Hofstede (2001).Only two of the variables in Table VI – women’s share of seats in parliament and officialdevelopment assistance as share of a nation’s gross domestic product – are associated, albeit1 2 3 4 5(1) Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance 1.00 0.57** 0.18 0.32 43**n ¼ 28 n ¼ 37 n ¼ 37 n ¼ 60(2) Neuroticism (McRae, 2002) 1.00 40* 0.49** 0.37n ¼ 27 n ¼ 28 n ¼ 34(3) Neuroticism (McCrae and Terracciano, 2005) 1.00 0.32* 0.20n ¼ 38 n ¼ 45(4) Neuroticism (Schmitt et al., 2007) 1.00 0.23n ¼ 51(5) Neuroticism (Gebauer et al., 2015) 1.00Notes: *,**Significant at 0.05 and 0.01 level, respectivelyTable IV.Correlations betweenHofstede’s uncertaintyavoidance andmeasures of nationalneuroticism241A revision ofHofstede’smodelVariable r with UA n (countries)Importance of job security, WVS (2000-2004, Item v88) (not fielded in thesame form after 2004) -0.11 21Interpersonal trust, WVS (2005-2009, Item v23) -0.48** 39Same item after controlling for GLOBE’s UA practices (Sully de Luque andJavidan, 2004) -0.11 28Interpersonal trust, WVS (2011-2014, Item v24) 0.41* 36Same item after controlling for GLOBE’s UA practices (Sully de Luque andJavidan, 2004) 0.13 24Personal-sexual factor (Minkov et al., 2013), reflecting restrictive societalnorms with respect to the creation and termination of life -0.11 32Preference for a “safe job with no risk,” WVS (2000-2004 and 2005-2009,average of Items v84 and v48) (not fielded after 2009) 0.47* 42Same item after controlling for GLOBE’s UA practices (Sully de Luque andJavidan, 2004) 0.23 29Average life satisfaction, WVS (2005-2009, Item v22) 0.01 35Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015) -0.64** 13Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015), after controlling for Welzel’s (2014) emancipative values index -0.37 13Average life satisfaction, WVS (2011-2014, Item v23) 0.12 35Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015) -0.25 12Subjective perception of one’s own state of health, WVS (2011-2014, Item v11) 0.33 30Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015) 0.42 ( p ¼ 0.20) 11Average happiness, WVS (2011-2014, Item v10) 0.20 28Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015) 0.51 ( p ¼ 0.11) 11“Maintaining order in the nation” most important of four national goals,WVS 2005-2009 (not fielded after 2009), Item v71 0.04 38Percentage respondents choosing “people of a different race” as unwantedas neighbors, WVS (2005-2009, Item v35) 0.00 48Percentage respondents choosing “immigrants, foreign workers” asunwanted as neighbors, WVS (2005-2009, Item v35) -0.04 45Corruption perception index 2015 (Transparency International, 2017) -0.23 68Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015) -0.64** 27Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015), after controlling for GLOBE’s UA practices (Sully de Luqueand Javidan, 2004) -0.32 ( p ¼ 0.15) 23Availability of latest technology according to the Global CompetitivenessReport (2014-2015, Item 9.01) (Schwab et al., 2014) -0.20 64Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015) -0.39* 27Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015), after controlling for GLOBE’s UA practices (Sully de Luqueand Javidan, 2004) -0.04 23Percentage internet users in 2013 according to the Global CompetitivenessReport (2014-2015, Item 9.01) (Schwab et al., 2014) -0.06 64Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015) -0.50** 27Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015), after controlling for GLOBE’s UA practices (Sully de Luqueand Javidan, 2004) -0.22 23(continued)Table V.Correlations betweenuncertainty avoidance(UA) and relevantexternal variables242CCSM25,2weakly, with MAS-FEM, yet even these correlations become insignificant after controllingfor relevant external variables, such as Welzel’s (2014) emancipative values index andGLOBE’s assertiveness, proposed by Hartog (2004) as a radical reconceptualization of, andimprovement on, Hofstede’s MAS-FEM. This failure of MAS-FEM to predict femaleemancipation should not come as a surprise since it is well known by now that emancipationis strongly associated with variants of IDV-COLL and national wealth, and is completelyunrelated to MAS-FEM. An example of such an IDV-COLL variant is Welzel’s (2014)emancipative values index. Welzel’s extensive work in the field of emancipation is fullyconvincing and conclusive.Dimensions of national culture that replicate in one form or another, and have goodpredictive properties, produce clear geo-economic spatial configurations as shown by Dobsonand Gelade (2012). This is accepted by Hofstede (Minkov et al., 2013). Yet, MAS-FEM does notyield a recognizable geo-economic configuration and neighboring countries whose populationshave common ethnic and civilizational origins, such as Mexico and Guatemala, and Japan andKorea, sometimes have dramatically different scores on MAS-FEM. Naturally, an index thatlacks a geo-economic structure cannot explain variables that have such a structure, such asmost important national statistics and most WVS measures.2.4.4 Predictive properties of Hofstede’s fifth dimension. Minkov and Hofstede (2012)showed that their LTO measure predicted national differences in educational achievement.However, Minkov, Bond, Dutt, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al. (in press) demonstratedthat FLX-MON, a radical reconceptualization of LTO, is the best-known predictor ofnational differences on TIMSS and PISA tests, considerably outperforming LTO measures.3. Analysis of primary dataThe analysis of primary data focuses on the internal reliability of the two problematicdimensions: UA and MAS-FEM. It uses data from a new study of national culture andpersonality across nearly 53,000 respondents selected probabilistically from all main geographicregions and economic sectors of 56 countries, reflecting the ethnic, linguistic, and age structureof most countries quite adequately. In economically developed countries, the samples are alsoclose to the national census in terms of educational-level differences, whereas the samples indeveloping countries consist predominantly of respondents with higher education. Nevertheless,in nearly each country in the second group there are at least 100 probabilistically selectedrespondents without higher education, thus allowing separate cross-national analyses ofsamples with and without higher education. This study excluded the Dominican Republic andVariable r with UA n (countries)Mobile phone subscriptions per 100 population in 2013 according to theGlobal Competitiveness Report 2014-2015, Item 2.08 (Schwab et al., 2014) 0.08 64Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015) -0.01 27Index of Economic Freedom 2016 (Heritage Foundation, 2016) -0.33* 63Same item, after controlling for GLOBE’s UA practices (Sully de Luque andJavidan, 2004) -0.07 45Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015) -0.74** 27Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015), after controlling for GLOBE’s future orientation practices(Ashkanasy et al., 2004) and neuroticism (McCrae and Terracciano, 2005) -0.50 ( p ¼ 0.07) 16Notes: *,**Significant at 0.05 and 0.01 level, respectively Table V.243A revision ofHofstede’smodelVariable r with MAS-FEM n (countries)Percentage choosing “Working with people I like” as most important jobcharacteristic, Item v73, WVS (1995-1999) 0.11 28Percentage choosing “Working with people I like” as most important jobcharacteristic, Item v48, WVS (2005-2009) (not fielded after 2009) -0.11 36Percentage choosing “Important job, feeling of accomplishment” as mostimportant job characteristic, Item v73, WVS (1995-1999) (not fielded in thisform after 1999) -0.34 28Percentage mentioning “a job in which you feel you can achieve something,”WVS (2000-2004) (not fielded after 2004) -0.05 23Importance of helping as a personal value, WVS (2005-2009, Item v84) 0.29 32Same item, after ipsatization at the national level, across all 10 Schwartz items 0.18 32Importance of success as a personal value, WVS 2005-2009, item v85 -0.06 32Same item, after ipsatization at the national level, across all 10 Schwartz items -0.26 32“Religious faith” mentioned as an important trait for children, Item v19,WVS (2005-2009) 0.12 38Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015) 0.28 15“Religious faith” mentioned as an important trait for children, Item v19,WVS (2011-2014) 0.20 30Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015) 0.07 11Importance of family, item v4, WVS 2005-2009 -0.07 37Same item after ipsatization by nation across five value items in that sectionof the WVS -0.09 37Same item after ipsatization, only countries with a “very high” HumanDevelopment Index (UNDP, 2015) -0.29 19Importance of work, Item v8, WVS (2005-2009) 0.05 37Same item after ipsatization by nation across five value items in that sectionof the WVS 0.05 37Same item after ipsatization, only countries with a “very high” HumanDevelopment Index (UNDP, 2015) 0.08 19Importance of religion, Item v9, WVS (2005-2009) -0.05 37Same item after ipsatization by nation across the five value items in thatsection of the WVS -0.07 37Same item after ipsatization, only countries with a “very high” HumanDevelopment Index (UNDP, 2015) -0.12 19Average life satisfaction, WVS (2005-2009, Item v23) 0.01 35Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015) -0.16 12Average life satisfaction, WVS 2011-2014, item v23 0.03 35Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015) -0.19 12Subjective perception of one’s own state of health, WVS (2011-2014,Item v11) 0.09 30Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015) 0.21 11Gender Inequality Index (UNDP, 2015) 0.08 62Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015) 0.20 27Schwartz’s mastery (personally provided scores, 2016) 0.08 50Societal restrictiveness vs permissiveness as measured by the WVS2005-2009: “personal-sexual” factor (Minkov et al., 2013) -0.13 32Same item after controlling for Hofstede’s IDV-COLL -0.30 ( p ¼ 0.10) 32(continued)Table VI.Correlations betweenmasculinity-femininity(MAS-FEM) andrelevant externalvariables244CCSM25,2Puerto Rico, where the data were collected by phone, unlike all other countries. Details about thesamples are freely available from Itim International (info@itim.org), an international crosscultural management consultancy, licensed by Geert Hofstede.The questionnaire included 108 items, plus demographic questions, grouped in severalsections. The largest section (52 items) consists of personality items and self-construals,targeting the Big Five measures of personality and Hofstede’s dimensions. Two smallersections measure consumer behavior preferences and sources of guidance in makingpurchasing decisions. Analyses of these sections may have interesting implications forinternational business.Comparisons of data from samples with and without higher education did not reveal anysubstantial differences in terms of country positions. Below, only results from comparisonsof samples without higher education are reported.In order to avoid response style associated with Likert scales, all items in this study elicitcategorical responses, plus an intermediate option. Examples are provided below.3.1 UATwo items target the two main facets of UA. The first is about anxiety:1. I worry a lot and often feel nervous. 2. I am somewhere here, in between these two.3. I am usually relaxed and do not worry much.The second item is about the conviction that all societal rules and laws must be followedstrictly, which is the societal extrapolation of the conviction that all company rules must befollowed strictly (Minkov and Hofstede, 2014):1. If I could, I would make all people in our society follow all our laws and rules verystrictly. 2. I am somewhere here, in between these two. 3. If I could, I would allow people tobreak useless or meaningless laws and rules.Scored on a scale from 1 to 3 and aggregated to the national level, the two items correlatepositively at 0.45 ( p ¼ 0.022) across the 26 European countries in the sample, supportingMinkov and Hofstede’s (2014) findings, and validating the representativeness of thedatabase used for this analysis, as it produces the same pattern as the nationallyrepresentative European Social Survey used by Minkov and Hofstede (2014). But across53 countries from all continents, this correlation is -0.23 ( p ¼ 0.094). Figure 2 visualizes therelationship between the two variables.Figure 2 suggests that, with the exception of Vietnam[1], it is mostly the economicallyadvanced IDV societies that have the strongest tendency to give people the discretion toVariable r with MAS-FEM n (countries)Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015) -0.44 ( p ¼ 0.11) 14Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015), after controlling for Hofstede’s IDV-COLL -0.49 ( p ¼ 0.09) 14


Women’s share of seats in parliament (UNDP, 2015)Same item, after controlling for Welzel’s (2014) emancipative values indexSame item, only countries with a very high Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015)Same item, only countries with a “very high” Human Development Index(UNDP, 2015), after controlling for Welzel’s (2014) emancipative value indexOfficial development assistance in 2015 (OECD, 2015)Same item, after controlling for Welzel’s (2014) emancipative values indexand GLOBE’s assertiveness “as should be” (Hartog, 2004)Notes: *,**Significant at 0.05 and 0.01 level, respectively


-0.26*-0.16


-0.45*


-0.38-0.47**


-0.36 ( p ¼ 0.14)


Table VI.245A revision ofHofstede’smodeldecide which laws and rules are not worth following. With the exception of Italy, all societiesat the opposite extreme are developing countries. This supports Minkov, Dutt, Varma,Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al.’s (in press) assertion that this item measures IDV-COLLdifferences. In IDV countries, people have greater freedom and individual discretion todecide whether societal rules are meaningful or not. In COLL societies, people have to followthe rules that are imposed on them as their fellow countrymen and women do not believethat giving people discretion is a good idea. This highly meaningful and logical patternsuggests that the country scores on this item capture logical cultural differences and cannotbe dismissed as a study artifact.Table VII shows that, unlike Hofstede’s UA, the anxiety item in this study is significantlycorrelated with all national measures of neuroticism and anxiety obtained in large-scalestudies. Besides, some of the correlations are quite high. This validates the anxiety item as areliable measure of national anxiety. In fact, it may be the best available national measure ofanxiety and neuroticism as it is the only one available that yields such (relatively) highcorrelations with each of the remaining measures in the other large-scale studies. In sum,Japan2.102.00Would make people follow all laws and rules strictly-Would let peoplebreak useless laws and rules1.901.801.701.601.501.401.70 1.80 1.90 2.00Worry-Relaxed2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40Portugal


Vietnam


Hungary


Greece


Belgium


SerbiaFinland ChileCanadaUKDenmarkIrelandSwitzerlandNorwayThe NetherlandsNew ZealandTurkeyRomaniaSwedenIsraelMalaysiaChinaThailandColombiaPeruVenezuelaSouth AfricaKenyaNigeriaIndonesiaPhilippinesKazakhstanIndiaAustraliaFranceEgyptGermanyKoreaSingaporeTaiwan SpainBrazilPolandMexicoHong KongUkraineArgentinaRussiaItalyCzech RepublicUSAFigure 2.Visualization of therelationship betweenanxiety andpreference for strictlaws and rules(this study)Variable r n (countries)Neuroticism in McCrae (2002) -0.62 31Neuroticism in McCrae and Terracciano (2005) -0.47 35Neuroticism in Schmitt et al. (2007) -0.67 37Neuroticism in Gebauer et al. (2015) -0.42 54Anxiety in Allik et al. (2017) -0.67 37Note: All correlations are significant at 0.01Table VII.Correlations betweenthe reversely scoredanxiety item used inthis study andmeasures of nationalneuroticismand anxiety246CCSM25,2we have solid evidence that this study has measured anxiety and societal restrictivenessin a very meaningful and reliable way, and that the two measures are not correlated asUA theory predicts.3.2 MAS-FEMBaumann and Winzar (2017) correctly point out that value prioritizations are complexprocesses whose outcome may depend on the values themselves and circumstances. Fromthis perspective, asking people how much they value achievement may not be informativeenough. Everybody values achievement of some sort, yet some people may valueachievement of good human relationships (a FEM value or goal) more than achievement ofrecognition (a MAS value or goal) or vice-versa. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, thetext of the achievement item was quite specific:1. I would like to achieve fame and glory. 2. I am somewhere here, in between these two.3. I see fame and glory as useless to me.This conceptualization of achievement is entirely in accordance with Hofstede (2001) whoindicates explicitly that high MAS stands for “achievement in terms of ego boosting, wealth,and recognition” (p. 298).The other MAS item addresses one’s willingness to compete, based on Hofstede’s (2001)indication that MAS cultures have a “concern” for “performance and competition” (p. 313),and that “The family in masculine societies socializes especially male children towardassertiveness, ambition, and competition” (pp. 314-315):1. I like to compete with people. 2. I am somewhere here, in between these two. 3. I hate tocompete with people.The following items capture the concept of FEM:1. I like to help people, even if I have to do something difficult. 2. I am somewhere here, inbetween these two. 3. I rarely agree to do something difficult to help people.1. I am a compassionate person. When others have problems, I feel very sorry for them.2. I am somewhere here, in between these two. 3. If other people have problems, I am usuallyindifferent.Just like helping, compassion is consistent with MAS-FEM theory since Hofstede (2001)indicates that “The mas/fem dimension affects priorities in the following areas: (1) solidaritywith the weak in one’s society versus reward for the strong” (p. 317), and that “In masculinesocieties more people believe that the fate of the poor is the poor’s own fault” (p. 319).Our data show that, worldwide, we have the same situation as with the “help” and“success” items in the WVS: men are more likely to adopt the supposedly MASself-descriptions (desire for fame, competitiveness) whereas women are more likely to adoptthe supposedly FEM self-descriptions (desire to help and compassion). Thus, there is nodoubt that these items conform to Hofstede’s MAS-FEM theory.Table VIII shows correlations between these items, scored on a scale from 1 to 3 andaggregated to the national level, and Hofstede’s MAS-FEM index.Table VIII demonstrates that all MAS and FEM items are correlated positively. The useof conceptual opposites within each item instead of a Likert scale means that this patterncannot be due to the well-known preference of some societies to agree with most statementsor rate most items as important, since the respondents are not asked to agree with anythingto any specific degree or rate the importance of anything. They have described themselvesin terms of clear statements that they identify with.Figure 3 visualizes the relationship between liking to compete and liking to help. The twoitems create a clear geographic map, with East Asia in the upper right corner, European andEnglish-speaking countries in the middle, and Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia, as wellas the Balkans and the Middle East (Turkey, Serbia, Romania and Egypt), in the lower leftcorner. These two items obviously measure something very real; otherwise there would not247A revision ofHofstede’smodelbe such a clear geographic pattern. It is evident that the East Asian Confucian cultures areleast likely to socialize their members for a desire to compete and help, whereas the rest ofAsia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East exhibit the opposite pattern. This patternis indicative of FLX-MON differences, explained in the work of Minkov, Bond, Dutt,Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al. (in press).This finding does not imply that East Asians do not engage in competitions. In fact, it iswell known that they tend to be fiercely competitive in education. The results of this fiercecompetitiveness are also known. Children of Confucian heritage surpass those from anyother societies in educational achievement, especially in mathematics. Yet, the nationallyrepresentative study TIMSS reveals that East Asian children are also those who have themost negative attitudes toward the study of mathematics (Minkov, 2011), and possiblytoward the educational competitions that they have to engage in, under societal pressure.2.602.402.20Switzerland GermanyIsraelAustria GreeceNorwayPolandIndiaMalaysiaItalyUkraineNew ZealandSouth AfricaTurkeyMyanmarChile PortugalIrelandBrazilKazakhstanPhilippinesColombiaVietnamNigeriaKenyaSerbiaVenezuelaEgyptIndonesiaMexicoRomaniaPeruThe NetherlandsFranceHong KongJapanKoreaChinaTaiwanSingaporeFinlandCanadaSwedenRussiaDenmarkCzech RepublicSpain ThailandBelgiumUKUSA2.00I like to compete-I hate to compete1.801.601.20 1.40I Like to help-I rarely agree to help1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20Figure 3.Visualization of therelationship betweenliking to compete andliking to help people(this study)1 2 3 4 5(1) Desire to achieve fame 1.00 0.55** 0.32* 0.47** -0.20n ¼ 54 n ¼ 54 n ¼ 54 n ¼ 42(2) Desire to compete 1.00 0.61** 0.59** 0.01n ¼ 0.54 n ¼ 54 n ¼ 42(3) Desire to help 1.00 0.77** -0.03n ¼ 54 n ¼ 42(4) Compassion 1.00 0.12n ¼ 42(5) Hofstede’s masculinity-femininity 1.00Notes: *,**Correlations are significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectivelyTable VIII.Correlations betweenmasculinity-femininityitems (self-construals)in this studyand Hofstede’smasculinity-femininityindex248CCSM25,2Again, we have evidence of Confucian duality and ability to adapt one’s behavior to therequirements of the situation even if this means a clash with one’s values and dispositions.Item v10 in WVS 1999-2004 (subsequently discontinued) measured the importanceof “service to others” as a personal value. The percentages of respondents who havechosen the “very important” option are highly correlated with the national scores onthe reversely-scored liking-to-help item in this study: r ¼ -0.71 ( po0.001, n ¼ 21).Considering the 15-year time difference between the two studies, this is a remarkably highcorrelation, strongly validating both studies: the WVS and ours. Figure 4 visualizes therelationship between the two items.In sum, the MAS and FEM measures in this study are highly reliable and valid asmeasures of national culture and the positive correlations between them, refuting theMAS-FEM theory, are not due to improper measurement.4. DiscussionReplication and validation studies can have three possible outcomes. First, the originalmodel may be confirmed and validated. In that case, all is just well. Second, the replicationand validation attempt may produce nonsensical findings. This would not necessarilyinvalidate the original model. It may be the case that the original is valid whereas thereplication attempt is plagued by various methodological errors. This study is an example ofthe third possible outcome. The original model is not replicated and is not validated but thenew findings are not nonsensical at all. They are underpinned by a very solid logic, whichhowever differs from Hofstede’s. This new logic is based on nationally representativestudies, mostly the WVS and a survey of 53,000 people chosen probabilistically, reflectingthe structure of the national census more or less closely in each of 56 nations, adequatelyrepresenting the world’s national cultures from all continents. Which of the two logics isstronger – the old or the new – is a question that is not hard to answer.EgyptNigeria70.0060.0050.0040.00WVS 1994-2004 V10 “service to others” percentage “very important”30.0020.0010.000.001.20 1.40 1.80 2.00 2.20I like to help-I rarely agree to helpVenezuelaMexicoPhilippinesChilePeruSerbiaIndonesiaIndiaCanadaSwedenSpainVietnam1.60Singapore ChinaKoreaJapanUSAArgentinaSouth AfricaFigure 4.Visualization of therelationship betweenliking to help people(this study) andimportance of “serviceto others,” v 10 inWorld Values Survey(1999-2004)249A revision ofHofstede’smodelThis study documents the need for a thorough revision of Hofstede’s model of nationalculture. Of the four original IBM dimensions, only IDV-COLL is supported as a coherent andempirically useful dimension of national culture. Yet, the original IBM operationalizationand the index that it has produced need a substantial correction. First, IBM’s IDV-COLLdoes not have good face validity. Second, after Hofstede’s IBM study, the USA and the otherEnglish-speaking countries have never been shown to lead the country rankings onany major dimension of national culture or any national statistics related to IDV-COLL.A much-needed correction of the IDV-COLL index is provided by Minkov, Dutt,Varma, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al. (in press).The internal reliability of PD and its independence from IDV-COLL could not beestablished with the data available for this study. It is however clear that IDV-COLL is abetter predictor of the main variables that PD can be expected to predict, making PDempirically redundant. And since one of the main facets of IDV-COLL is differentialtreatment of people based on their group affiliation, PD is logically a sub-facet of IDV-COLLthat need not be seen as independent from IDV-COLL.The main pillar of UA – the assumption that societal anxiety accounts for societalpreference for strict rules and laws – collapses upon scrutiny. These two presumed UAfacets are correlated highly and positively only across European countries. An analysisacross countries from all continents reveals quite clearly that societal preference for strictrules and laws is an aspect of COLL, and is not related to national measures of anxiety orneuroticism as UA theory predicts. This explains why, despite their low UA scores, theSouth and Southeast Asian countries have extremely strict rules in domains that their COLLcultures have traditionally considered important. The fact that westerners observe somelack of order in South Asia from their own perspective, such as chaotic driving, simplymeans that Western driving regulations are still a foreign import in South Asia that has nottaken root in the local culture as it clashes with older cultural rules.Apart from its lack of internal consistency, UA does not have any of the main predictiveproperties that it has been credited with. Whenever UA produces a significant zero-ordercorrelation with a relevant external variable, that correlation is reduced to insignificanceafter controlling for various aspects or facets of IDV-COLL or closely related constructs,such as GLOBE’s UA or future orientation practices, or Welzel’s emancipative values index.MAS and FEM values are correlated positively, not negatively, and are not related to theIBM MAS-FEM index. This finding, as well as the failure of the IBM’s MAS-FEM index todemonstrate the predictive properties that it is supposed to have, plus the fact that distancesbetween the values and personality traits of men and women are not a function ofMAS-FEM, discredits the MAS-FEM dimension and suggests that it is an artifact of theIBM data set without a societal equivalent.Figure 5 is a cultural map of the world, using Hofstede’s UA and MAS-FEM as axes. It ispuzzling to see the Confucian countries scattered throughout the map. It is also impossibleto explain the close proximity of pairs of culturally distant countries, such as the USA andthe Philippines, Canada and Indonesia, Taiwan and Brazil, Korea and Peru, Germany andEcuador, Austria and Venezuela, and Finland and Thailand, to name just a few pairs. Whilethe Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands have the lowest scores on MAS-FEM, theother economically advanced countries are at the other extreme on that dimension.The Latin American countries are also dispersed along the MAS-FEM axis, without anyapparent logic. Some of the Confucian countries score very low on UA whereas others scorevery high. Taiwan is in the middle. These patterns do not have close analogues in anynational statistics or other indicators.Figures 6 and 7 present a new cultural map of the world, using the latest measures ofIDV-COLL (Minkov, Dutt, Varma, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al., in press) andFLX-MON (Minkov, Bond, Dutt, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al., in press).250CCSM25,2This new map of the world is very much like the real one, drawn from a traditional Europeanperspective, without the world’s oceans. There is one logical exception: the English-speakingcountries are not scattered across the world but form a fairly compact cluster right above thecenter of the map. Indonesia’s proximity to the Arab world and the African countries should notJapanAustria VenezuelaSouth AfricaAustraliaSwitzerlandGermanyItalyEcuadorPakistanColombiaMexicoArgentina GreeceBelgiumTurkeyPanamaSerbiaUruguayGuatemalaSalvadorPeruPortugalKoreaThailand ChileFinlandCosta RicaSloveniaThe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenNorwayIsraelBrazilFranceIran CroatiaEast AfricaIrelandUKUSAPhilippines100.0080.0060.0040.0020.000.000.00 20.00 40.00 60.00Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidanceHofstede’s masculinity80.00 100.00 120.00Hong KongJamaicaSingaporeMalaysiaIndiaIndonesiaCanadaNew ZealandArabTaiwanFigure 5.A cultural map of theworld produced byHofstede’s uncertaintyavoidance andmasculinity-femininityThe NetherlandsBelgiumFranceFinlandKoreaHong KongSingapore ChinaKazakhstanThailandTaiwanJapanNew ZealandAustraliaUKNorwayDenmarkSwedenSwitzerland GermanyCzech RepublicSpainHungaryPortugalItalyArgentinaChileMexicoPeruColombiaVenezuelaSouth AfricaRomaniaMyanmarBrazil Vietnam MalaysiaPuerto RicoIndiaIndonesiaEgyptKenyaNigeriaPhilippinesUSAGreeceIrelandIsraelPoland RussiaUkraineTurkeyCanada200.00100.000.00–100.00–100.00–200.00–200.00–300.00–300.00 0.00 200.00 300.00 100.00Monumentalism-FlexibilityCollectivism-IndividualismFigure 6.A cultural map of theworld produced by thenew measures ofcollectivismindividualism andmonumentalismflexibility251A revision ofHofstede’smodelseem surprising. It is supported by proximity on important national indicators, such asmeasures of rule of law, transparency vs corruption, accident proneness, and gender inequality(all associated with IDV-COLL), as well as educational achievement (associated with FLX-MON).The new cultural map is also the only one available that highlights the culturaldistinctiveness of the Confucian countries of East Asia. They occupy an intermediateposition on IDV-COLL, yet they are leaders in terms of FLX-MON. This explains the leadingposition of the Confucian countries in educational achievement, followed by Finland, theNetherlands, Russia, and Kazakhstan.This study exposes two perils in cross-cultural research. The first one is over-reliance onseemingly matched samples whose comparability is not guaranteed. The second isinsufficient testing of the validity of a model of national culture. This includes use of smalland globally unrepresentative samples of nations and reliance on modest zero-ordercorrelations that have not been tested extensively by controlling for potentially betterpredictors. Authors who use Hofstede’s dimensions rarely test the effects of otherpredictors, such as Inglehart’s, Schwartz’s, and GLOBE’s measures, alongside Hofstede’s.This explains why, not only in Hofstede’s work, but also in the studies of many otherauthors, UA has been found to be a significant predictor of diverse variables, includingsome of those tested in this study. Even MAS-FEM has been reported to produce effects insome analyses, although it is obviously a fictitious dimension. Most recently, De Mooij(2017) reported several high zero-order correlations between MAS-FEM and variousvariables measured across European countries only. One of these, “agree with universityeducation is more for boys” (p. 451) is reported to correlate with MAS-FEM at 0.68, withoutthe number of countries across which the correlation was calculated (p. 451). The samevariable is measured by item v52 in WVS 2011-2014 across the world. Across 30overlapping countries, it correlates with MAS-FEM at -0.31 ( p ¼ 0.09).At the time when Hofstede developed his model, and even in 2001, when his mainmonograph was published, the scarcity of the available data did not allow adequateNorth EuropeAngloSouth EuropeLatin AmericaArabAfricaRussiaSouth AsiaEast Asia2.001.000.00–1.00–2.00 –1.00–3.00–3.00–2.000.00Monumentalism-Flexibility1.00 2.00 3.00Collectivism-IndividualismFigure 7.A cultural map of theworld produced by thenew measures ofcollectivismindividualism andmonumentalismflexibility, showingthe world’s maincultural regions252CCSM25,2large-scale tests. Hofstede’s analysis caused the admiration of many scholars, including theauthor of this paper. Yet the world has changed enormously since then and the amount ofinformation about cross-cultural differences worldwide has increased manifold. This wealthof information today reveals a picture that is very different from what Hofstede extractedfrom his IBM data set and, apart from the fact that the Confucian societies are nowsomewhat more IDV-oriented, the difference does not seem to be a result of seismic culturalrestructuring across the world. It comes from the nature of Hofstede’s IBM samples: theywere not good representations of the cultures from which they were drawn, whereas thesamples available today are far more representative.Might the new model, proposed here, consisting of the new measures of IDV-COLL andFLX-MON, also be refuted upon closer scrutiny? It may certainly be modified, updated, andimproved, but it cannot be completely dismantled in the near future, before very significantcultural shifts have occurred across the world. IDV-COLL is a dimension that transpires inone variant or another from any large study of culture, and each variant is closely associatedwith differences in national wealth and a host of other national indicators. The long historyof FLX-MON and its predecessors from diverse studies, including the WVS, is described byMinkov, Bond, Dutt, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al. (in press). The validity of thatdimension is confirmed by its strikingly close and persistent association with differences innational educational achievement, and measures of self-consistency and self-esteem from avariety of reliable studies, covering many countries across the globe, includingself-confidence or self-esteem measures by PISA OECD, which relies on the largestnationally representative samples in the history of cross-cultural studies. Other nationalindicators, such as homicide rates and adolescent fertility seem to follow the samegeographic distribution, rising from Confucian East Asia toward Latin America and Africa,whereas suicide rates and tobacco consumption seem to rise in the opposite direction.These, and many other research topics, are awaiting further exploration.Note1. Vietnam exhibits an unusual pattern on this item. That country scores relatively high in terms ofpercentages of people who would enforce strict laws, like in a typical collectivist country.The percentage of Vietnamese who would allow others to break useless laws is small in absoluteterms, yet high relative to other countries.ReferencesAllik, A., Church, T., Ortiz, T., Rossier, J., Hrebickova, M., de Fruyt, F. et al. (2017), “Mean profiles of theNEO personality inventory”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 402-420.Ashkanasy, N.M., Gupta, V., Mayfield, M.S. and Trevor-Roberts, E. (2004), “Future orientation”,in House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (Eds), Culture, Leadership,and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 282-342.Baumann, C. and Winzar, H. (2017), “Confucianism and work ethic – introducing the ReVAMB model”,in Oh, I. and Park, G.S. (Eds), The Political Economy of Business Ethics in East Asia: A Historicaland Comparative Perspective, Elsevier-Chandos, Amsterdam, pp. 33-60.Bond, M.H. (2002), “Reclaiming the individual from Hofstede’s ecological analysis. A 20-year Odyssey:comment on Oyserman et al. (2002)”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 73-77.Brewer, P. and Venaik, S. (2014), “The ecological fallacy in national culture research”, OrganizationalStudies, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 1063-1086.Carl, D., Gupta., V. and Javidan, M. (2004), “Power distance”, in House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Mansour, J.,Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta., V. (Eds), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations. The GLOBE Studyof 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 513-563.253A revision ofHofstede’smodelCosta, P.T., Terracciano, A. and McCrae, R.R. (2001), “Gender differences in personality traits acrosscultures: robust and surprising findings”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81No. 2, pp. 322-331.De Mooij, M. (2017), “Comparing dimensions of national culture for secondary analysis of consumerbehavior data of different countries”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 444-456.Dorfman, P.W., Hanges, P.J. and Brodbeck, F.C. (2004), “Leadership and cultural variation:The identification of culturally endorsed leadership profiles”, in House, R.J., Hanges, P.J.,Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (Eds), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations:The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 669-720.Gebauer, J.E., Sedikides, C., Wagner, J., Bleidorn, W., Rentfrow, P.J., Potter, J. and Gosling, S.D. (2015),“Cultural norm fulfillment, interpersonal belonging, or getting ahead? A large-scale crosscultural test of three perspectives on the function of self-esteem”, Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, Vol. 109, pp. 526-548.Gelfand, M., Bhawuk, D., Nishii, L.H. and Bechtold, D. (2004), “Individualism and collectivism”, inHouse, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (Eds), Culture, Leadership,and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 437-512.Guimond, S., Branscombe, N., Brunot, S., Buunk, A.P., Chatard, A., Desert, M., Garcia, D.M., Haque, S.,Martinot, D. and Yzerbyt, V. (2007), “Culture, gender, and the self: variation and impact of socialcomparison processes”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 6, pp. 1118-1134.Hall, E.T. (1959), The Silent Language, Anchor Books, New York, NY.Hartog, D. (2004), “Assertiveness”, in House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V.(Eds), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 395-436.Heritage Foundation (2016), “Index of Economic Freedom”, available at: www.heritage.org/index/ranking (accessed February 15, 2017).Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Sage,Beverly Hills, CA.Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions andOrganizations Across Nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Hofstede, G. and McCrae, R.R. (2004), “Personality and culture revisited: linking traits and dimensionsof culture”, Cross-Cultural Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 52-88.House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (Eds) (2004), Culture, Leadership,and Organizations. The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Inglehart, R. and Baker, W.E. (2000), “Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditionalvalues”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 19-51.Jahan, S. and Jespersen, E. (2015), “Human Development Report”, United Nations DevelopmentProgram, New York, NY.Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B. and Gibson, C.B. (2006), “A quarter century of Culture’s Consequences:a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework”, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, Vol. 37 No. 37, pp. 285-320.McCrae, R.R. (2002), “NEO-PI-R data from 36 cultures: Further intercultural comparisons”, in McCrae,R.R. and Allik, J. (Eds), The Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Cultures, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NY, pp. 105-126.McCrae, R.R. and Terracciano, A. (2005), “Personality profiles of cultures: aggregate personality traits”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 407-425.McSweeney, B. (2002), “Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences:a triumph of faith – a failure of analysis”, Human Relations, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 89-118.Merritt, A. (2000), “Culture in the cockpit: do Hofstede’s dimensions replicate?”, Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 283-301.Minkov, M. (2011), Cultural Differences in a Globalizing World, Emerald, Bingley.254CCSM25,2Minkov, M. (2013), Cross-Cultural Analysis: The Science And Art Of Comparing The World’s ModernSocieties and Their Cultures, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Minkov, M. (2017), “Middle responding: an unobtrusive measure of national cognitive ability andpersonality”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 113, pp. 187-192.Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G. (2012), “Hofstede’s fifth dimension: new evidence from the World ValuesSurvey”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 3-14.Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G. (2014), “A replication of Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance dimensionacross nationally representative samples from Europe”, International Journal of Cross-CulturalManagement, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 161-171.Minkov, M., Blagoev, V. and Hofstede, G. (2013), “The boundaries of culture; do questions aboutsocietal norms reveal cultural differences?”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 7,pp. 1094-1106.Minkov, M., Bond, M.H. and Blagoev, V. (2015), “Do different national samples yield similar dimensionsof national culture?”, Cross-Cultural Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 259-277.Minkov, M., Bond, M.H., Dutt, P., Schachner, M., Morales, O., Sanchez, C.J. et al. (in press),“A reconsideration of Hofstede’s fifth dimension: new flexibility versus monumentalism datafrom 54 countries”, Cross-Cultural Research.Minkov, M., Dutt, P., Varma, T., Schachner, M., Morales, O., Sanchez, C.J. et al. (in press), “A revision ofHofstede’s individualism-collectivism dimension: a new national index from a 56-country study”,Cross-Cultural and Strategic Management.OECD (2015), “Net ODA”, available at: https://data.oecd.org/oda/net-oda.htm (accessed February 15, 2017).Peterson, M.F. (2003), “Review of the book Culture’s Consequences, second edition by G. Hofstede”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 127-131.Rinne, T., Steel, D.G. and Fairweather, J. (2012), “Hofstede and Shane revisited”, Cross-CulturalResearch, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 91-108.Schmitt, D.P., Allik, J., McCrae, R.R. and Benet-Martinez, V. (2007), “The geographic distribution of BigFive personality traits: patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations”,Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 173-212.Schwab, K., Sala-i-Martin, X., Eide, E.B. and Blanke, J. (2014), “Global Competitiveness Report2014-2015”, World Economic Forum, Geneva.Schwartz, S.H. (1994), “Beyond individualism/collectivism: new cultural dimensions of values”,in Kim, U., Kagitcibasi, C., Triandis, H.C., Choi, S.C. and Yoon, G. (Eds), Individualism andCollectivism: Theory, Method, and Application, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 85-119.Schwartz, S.H. (2005), “Sex differences in value priorities: cross-cultural and multimethod studies”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 6, pp. 1010-1028.Schwartz, S.H. (2008), Cultural Value Orientations: Nature and Implications of National Differences,State University – Higher School of Economics Press, Moscow.Schwartz, S.H. (2011), “Studying values: personal adventure, future directions”, Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 307-319.Shane, S. (1995), “Uncertainty avoidance and the preference for innovation championing roles”, Journalof International Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 47-68.Smith, P.B., Peterson, M. and Schwartz, S.H. (2002), “Cultural values, sources of guidance, and theirrelevance to managerial behavior: a 47-nation study”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 188-208.Sully de Luque, M. and Javidan, M. (2004), “Uncertainty avoidance”, in House, R.J., Hanges, P.J.,Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (Eds), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations:The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 602-653.Taras, V., Steel, P. and Kirkman, B.L. (2012), “Improving national cultural indices using a longitudinalmeta-analysis of Hofstede’s dimensions”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 329-341.255A revision ofHofstede’smodelTransparency International (2017), “Corruption Perception Index”, available at: www.transparency.org/cpi2015/ (accessed February 15, 2017).UNDP (2015), “Human development report 2015”, UNDP, New York, NY.Welzel, C. (2014), Freedom Rising; Human Empowerment and the Quest for Emancipation, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, online appendix, available at: www.researchgate.net/profile/Christian_Welzel2/publication/269992832 (accessed February 15, 2017).Winzar, H. (2015), “The ecological fallacy: how to spot one and tips on how to use one to youradvantage”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 86-92.World Bank (2016), “GDP per capita (current USD)”, Cambridge, available at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD (accessed February 15, 2017).Corresponding authorMichael Minkov can be contacted at: michaelminkov@yahoo.comFor instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com256CCSM25,2