Jennifer L. Matic
Instructor, the American College of Management and Technology, Don Frana Bulica 6, 20000 Dubrovnik, Croatia
Tel: +385 20 433 000, Fax: +385 20 433 001
eMail: Jennifer@acmt.hr
Abstract
25 years ago, Culture’s Consequences was published. This text, the result of analyzing over 116,000 surveys collected from within IBM, identified 4 cultural dimensions which would go on to become recognized as one of the most important set of cultural dimensions, and which would be replicated and expanded upon on a broad scale (Bass, 1990; Adler, 1997). Culture’s Consequences contained information from Yugoslavia, information that was later broken down according to the area in which it was collected, resulting in cultural scores for Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia (Hofstede, 1996, 2001). Since this original research was conducted in 1971, no further testing of Hofstede’s original findings has been carried out in Croatia. The research presented in this paper focused on one of Hofstede’s four dimensions in particular: uncertainty avoidance. Research was carried out which tested the degree of this dimension demonstrated by Croatian and American undergraduate students. In contrast to Hofstede’s original research, the American sample was found to be higher in uncertainty avoidance than the Croatian sample.
Keywords: uncertainty avoidance, cultural dimensions, Croatia, United States
Introduction
Although defined in many ways, we can basically say that culture is the learned programming of the mind, which, when studied at the group level, differentiates one group from another (Hofstede, 2001). Because culture is largely tacit in nature, culture is identified by observing the external manifestations of culture, namely, the values, perceptions, behaviors, and attitudes of the individuals who make up that group (Spradley, 1980). Thus people from different cultures may have different values, perceive the same situations differently, may act differently in the same situation, and approach life in different ways.
Although many different cultural dimensions have been identified over the years (Bass, 1990; Adler, 1997), one of the most significant and arguably the most replicated are Hofstede’s four dimensions. As a result of analyzing over 116,000 surveys collected from IBM, Hofstede identified four cultural dimensions: power distance - the degree that a society accepts inequality in the distribution of power within that society (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Hoppe 1990); uncertainty avoidance - the degree to which a culture feels comfortable in unstructured or ambiguous situations (Hofstede, 1980; Hoppe, 1990); individualism/collectivism - the degree to which individuals in a culture define themselves as individuals or according to their place in groups (Hofstede, 1993); and masculinity/feminism - the degree to which a culture demonstrates certain characteristics considered to be masculine (for example, valuing achievement) or feminine (such as valuing relationships (Hofstede, 1980, 1993).
Uncertainty avoidance, the second of Hofstede’s dimensions, refers to the degree that people feel uncomfortable or threatened by uncertain situations. A fact of life is that we are moving forward in time, and that we are not able to predict what will happen to ourselves in the future. Societies have developed technology, law, and religion as mechanisms to help themselves deal with uncertainty. These concepts are broadly defined. As Hofstede says (2001, p.146), “Technology includes all human artifacts; law, all formal and informal rules that guide social behavior; religion, all revealed knowledge of the unknown.”
When comparing one society to another, is can be said that cultures which are high in uncertainty avoidance (find uncertainty to be uncomfortable) cling more closely to laws and procedures; they value a more ‘black-and-white’ and simplistic view of the world; and often feel that events which affect them are outside of their control (Hofstede, 2001). Conversely, societies which are low in uncertainty avoidance (do not find uncertainty to be that uncomfortable) are more flexible and pragmatic; see complexity and ‘shades of gray’ in their view of the world around them; and feel a sense of control over their own destinies (Hofstede, 2001; Hoppe, 1990).
Hofstede’s research established an uncertainty avoidance (hereafter referred to as UA) score of 88 for Yugoslavia and 46 for the United States (out of a mean of 53). This describes Yugoslavia (ranked 8th out of 53 countries/regions) as being a society with high UA; conversely the United States (ranked 43rd) had relatively low UA.
The original research conducted by Hofstede included surveys handed out by IBM to its employees in 1967 and 1971-1973; the one exception to this was in Yugoslavia, where surveys were handed out to an independent company which worked closely with IBM (Hofstede, 2001; Hoppe 1990). This company was based in Ljubljana (Slovenia), with branch offices in Zagreb (Croatia) and Belgrade (Serbia). The overall sample for Yugoslavia, collected in 1971 from these three administrative centers, consisted of 248 individuals.
After the dissolution of Yugoslavia in 1991, Hofstede revisited the original Yugoslav samples in order obtain cultural dimension scores for three former Yugoslav republics: Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia. The basis for dividing the original sample of 248 was the location of the company branch where the surveys were administered. When the isolated Zagreb sample was examined, Croatia was identified as having a UA score of 80. Both the book chapter that first published the results of this re-analysis (Hostede, 1996) as well as the second edition of Culture’s Consequences, which includes it as well, do not state how the original Yugoslav sample of 248 was divided between the three administrative centers; in other words, the size of the Croatian sample is not indicated.
Since the publication of Culture’s Consequences, many studies have sought to test or expand upon Hofstede’s original findings. Unfortunately, while many reports included the United States in their sample, few studies included Croatia, which makes both validation of Hofstede’s power distance score as well as the tracking of shifts in power distance over time, difficult. This researcher was able to locate only two other cross-cultural studies which included Croatia: Sikavica (1996) and Tavakoli, et al. (2003). However, neither re-tested Hofstede’s cultural dimension scores.
Conversely, many studies have sought to replicate or expand upon Hofstede’s results for the American sample. The most extensive study (Hofstede, 2001) was that undertaken by Hoppe (1990) in which Hofstede’s four dimensions were retested on a sample of 1500 alumni of the Salzburg Seminar in Salzburg, Austria. This sample, which represented the elite of 19 countries, resulted in a UA score of 16 for the United States.
Methodology
According to Hofstede (2001), the original IBM surveys contained 3 questions which, when taken together, clearly indicate the level of uncertainty avoidance present in a culture. The first question asks if it is acceptable for employees to break the rules if it is in the best interests of the organization. The logic here is that, in high uncertainty avoidance cultures, individuals will NOT believe that the rules should ever be broken; conversely, in low uncertainty avoidance cultures, individuals will believe that, given the right situation, it is acceptable for employees to break the rules.
The second question asks the respondent to indicate how long, once hired, he or she plans to stay with his or her next employer, with a range of answers ranking from “0-2 years” to “until I retire”. Again, we see that high uncertainty avoidance cultures will value the stability of the job, and will tend to avoid the uncertainty involved in changing jobs. Conversely, in low uncertainty avoidance cultures, the individual is more open to change and is more likely to change jobs more often.
The third question that indicates the level of uncertainty avoidance present in a culture asks how often the respondent is stressed at school or work. Stress is a relative state, meaning that two individuals in the same situation may experience different levels of stress. Thus societies that experience more stress than others can be said to experience more uncertainty avoidance, as the body’s normal reaction to high levels of stress is to eliminate or minimize the source of that stress.
The formula for determining the degree of uncertainty avoidance present in a culture is:
UA=300-30(mean “rules”)- % “less than five years”- 40(mean “stress”)
Administration of the Survey
In order to obtain samples of Croatians and Americans, a survey consisting of 33 questions, including the three UA questions mentioned above, was administered to undergraduate students in Croatia and the United States. All distributed surveys were in the English language, as the Croatian sample consisted of students who were studying at an English-language university and thus were qualified as being fluent in the English language.
After elimination of invalid surveys, the resulting Croatian sample consisted of 60 individuals, 29 men and 31 women. The American sample consisted of 48 individuals, 25 men and 23 women.
Results
Tables 1, 2, and 3 provide the responses for the samples, including subgroups, to the relative questions. Table 4 provides UA scores for each sample, including subgroups. According to this, we can see that, as a whole, the Croatian and American samples show themselves to be low in uncertainty avoidance, with a UA score of 13.28 for the Croatians and 28.26 for the Americans. However, the American sample was found to experience more uncertainty avoidance than the Croatian sample. The subgroup with the highest UA score was the American women, with a score of 31.16 (compared to 5.78 for the American men); conversely, Croatian women seem to experience the least uncertainty avoidance, with a score of –2.08 (compared to 21.90 for the Croatian men).
Discussion
The data collected in this study indicates that all groups experience relatively low uncertainty avoidance. The Croatian sample shows significantly lower uncertainty avoidance than the sample from 1971 (13.28 now compared to 80 in 1971). However, while the American sample is lower overall (28.26 now compared to 46 in the late 1960s/early 1970s), it is also in line with Hoppe’s (1990) research which established as UA score of 16 for the United States.
According to the data collected in this study, any connection between gender and uncertainty avoidance appears unlikely. This is because the Croatian women were the subgroup with the lowest uncertainty avoidance (-2.08) while the American women were the subgroup with the highest uncertainty avoidance (31.16)
Americans seem to experience more uncertainty avoidance than Croatians. This is in contrast to Hofstede’s (2001) original findings, which established a score of 80 for Croatia and 46 for the United States. As history is a direct shaper of culture (Hofstede, 2001), it is possible that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent “war on terror” have increased the level of uncertainty avoidance in the American sample.
In comparing the data gathered in this study with the original data gathered by Hofstede, one significant area of difference was found, an area that resulted in the overall low UA scores for both samples. This difference has to do with the responses to Question 15, which asks how long the respondent intends to stay in with his/her next employer once hired. In determining UA scores for any sample, the percentage that answered “0-2 years” and “2-5 years” are added to each other, and the total percentage is calculated in the formula for determining an UA score. Both the Croatian and American samples included in this research (see Table 2) had a very high percentage that answered either “0-2 years” or “2-5 years”. It is possible that this has less to do with the degree of uncertainty avoidance that they experience, and is perhaps more a reflection of the respondents’ age and the fact that they are not likely to stay in their first position after graduation for more than 5 years. This may be due to either general instability in the job market or simply the wish to build long-term career success by obtaining diverse experience early in their careers.
References
Adler, N. J. (1997). International dimensions of organizational behavior (3rd ed.). Cincinnati: South-Western College.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organizations: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9 (1), 42-63.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints on management theories. The Executive, 7(1), 81-95.
Hofstede, G. (1996). Images of Europe: Past, present and future. In P. Joynt and M. Warner (Eds.), Managing across cultures: Issues and perspectives (pp. 147-165), London: Thomson.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hoppe, M. H. (1990). A comparative study of country elites: International differences in work-related values and learning and their implications for management training and development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Sikavica, P. (1996) Management approaches—similarities and differences between American and Croatian managers. Tourism Hospitality Management, 2(1), 157-177.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Tavakoli, A. A., Keenan, J. P., Crnjak-Karanovic, B. (2003). Culture and whistleblowing an empirical study of Croatian and United States managers utilizing Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics. 43 (1/2), 49.