An Application of Hofstede Value Survey, Call Dean, 2010

ABSTRACT
Measuring Organizational Subcultures: An Application of Hofstede’s Value Survey

Module Across a Major Joint Command
by
Dean A. Call
Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science Psychology
Walden University
April 2010
ABSTRACT
This thesis explores an application of Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture at the
organizational level. Previous research into organizational culture has been broad in
scope with no clear cross-cutting paradigm shift. Hofstede claimed to have created such a
shift by defining 4 and then 5 dimensions that can be applied across all nationalities.
Other researchers followed Hofstede, yet even though their work was based on
organizational studies, this research was not applied to organizational culture. The
proposed research design is an on-line administration of the Value Survey Module
(VSM) 08 at the U.S. Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) to determine if subcultures
within the command score are in line with the indexes established for the United States,
and whether differences exist across the directorates, indicating different cultures. The
VSM 08 is a 34-item self report questionnaire for comparing culturally influenced values.
Scores will be compared using the Mann–Whitney U test to assess whether the samples
are statistically different, first from the national scores provided by Hofstede, and second
from USJFCOM directorates. The study will contribute to social change by providing
USJFCOM leaders and managers the ability to better align the various organizational
cultures within the command. These findings could be potentially generalized to other
government and private sector organizations as well as military, allowing organizations to
recognize similarities in culture to foster assimilation. This would positively impact
social change by minimizing the impact on employees when organizations merge, are
acquired, or need to undergo change.

Measuring Organizational Subcultures: An Application of Hofstede’s Value Survey
Module Across a Major Joint Command
by
Dean A. Call
Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science Psychology
Walden University
April 2010
DEDICATION
No undertaking in life is a lone venture. There are always those who have pushed,
prodded, encouraged, and even berated you along the way, and then there are those who
simply have inspired without doing any of those. This work and, in many, ways my life,
is dedicated to them.
To my mother and my father, who both died within months of each other while I
was busily working away at yet another school. My Mother, who always told me, ―I don’t
know where you get your brains,‖ somehow managed to keep a family together, clothed,
and fed on $500 a month, all the while still instilling the discipline to keep on trying and
the curiosity to keep on asking questions. I say that yours was just a different type of
smarts. I may never be smart enough to pull what you did off, and I hope I never need to.
You inspire me still. To my father, who kept things inside, managed to say more to me
after his death with a shoebox full of memories than he said to me his entire life, who
while diagnosed with cancer, kept telling everyone, ―His son was going to be a doctor,‖ I
say that I’m sorry. I’m sorry that for years, I tried to be nothing like you, and in the end, I
am more like you than I ever imagined: stubborn, obstinate, and unwavering when I
know that I am right. I’m sorry for the years we never spoke, and I’m sorry for the missed
opportunities.
To my family, my lovely wife Kim, who found me and saved me by being
nothing I ever asked for, but somehow everything I’ve ever needed in my life. Thank you
for doing all those things you do without thinking you are doing anything, for letting me
sit at a computer while you slave away, for allowing and expecting me to carry a laptop
and textbooks with me on vacations and sadly, our honeymoon. Thank you for filling the
voids left by the losses. Thank you for ―our‖ two boys. Even though I have been a part of
their lives for a short time, I cherish them with all my heart.
To the boys, Greg and Alex, thank you for reminding me that it is OK to say,
―The hell with it,‖ and kick the soccer ball around a bit. To Sam, who by the luck of
being born into the tail end of this process, I hope that Daddy isn’t always attached to a
PC. To the countless friends who have waited while I ―just finish this post‖ or who have
endured lengthy, one-sided discussions about the current class, or who have lent me
bandwidth, I offer you my thanks.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ v
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Organization of the Chapter ................................................................................................ 2
Literature Search ................................................................................................................. 3
Definitions of Terms ........................................................................................................... 5
Culture................................................................................................................................. 7
Organizational Culture ........................................................................................................ 9
IBM Studies ...................................................................................................................... 10
Power Distance ........................................................................................................... 12
Uncertainty Avoidance ............................................................................................... 14
Individualism Versus Collectivism ............................................................................ 16
Masculinity Versus Femininity .................................................................................. 18
Long-Term Versus Short-Term Orientation .............................................................. 20
McSweeney’s Criticism of Hofstede ................................................................................ 21
Joint Command ................................................................................................................. 24
Background/Mission .................................................................................................. 25
J-Codes/Directorates .................................................................................................. 25
Summary .................................................................................................................... 29
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 30
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 30
Hypotheses ........................................................................................................................ 31
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 32
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHOD ............................................................................ 34

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 34
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 34
Research Design ......................................................................................................... 34
Participants ................................................................................................................. 35
Instrument................................................................................................................... 36
Procedures .................................................................................................................. 38
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 39
Nonscored Indexes ............................................................................................................ 40
Assumptions and Limitations of the Study ....................................................................... 42
Assumptions ............................................................................................................... 42
Limitations ................................................................................................................. 43
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................ 45

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 45
ii
Review of the Literature ................................................................................................... 45
Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................................................................ 47
Practice Implications ......................................................................................................... 48
Future Directions .............................................................................................................. 49
Social Implications............................................................................................................ 50
Integrative Summary......................................................................................................... 51
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 52
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 53
APPENDIX A: VALUES SURVEY MODULE 2008 ..................................................... 58

APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT ......................................................................... 67
CURRICULUM VITAE ................................................................................................... 69
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Power Distance Index: General Description ....................................................... 13

Table 2. Power Distance Index: Workplace Description .................................................. 14
Table 3. Uncertainty Avoidance: General Description ..................................................... 15
Table 4. Uncertainty Avoidance: Workplace Description ................................................ 16
Table 5. Individualism: General Description .................................................................... 17
Table 6. Individualism: Workplace Description ............................................................... 18
Table 7. Masculinity: General Description ....................................................................... 19
Table 8. Masculinity: Workplace Description .................................................................. 20
Table 9. Long-Term Orientation: General Description .................................................... 21
Table 10. Long-Term Orientation: Workplace Description ............................................. 21
Table 11. Original Cronbach’s Alphas of Hofstede’s Dimensions................................... 37
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. USJFCOM directorates. .................................................................................... 27

Figure 2. USJFCOM directorate cultures. ........................................................................ 29
v
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Pettigrew (1979) described culture as the publicly accepted meanings operating
for a specific group at a specific time. Although the etymology of culture makes it a
noun, it is impossible to point to culture as a coherent, holistic entity. Culture has been
used to describe entire societies; art and manners; the knowledge and values shared by
societal members; and the attitudes and behavior characteristic of a group at a given time.
Rather than a singular entity, cultural is conceptual, contextual, and temporally
constrained. Culture can be a part of anything. A quick Google search for culture yielded
757,000,000 returns. It seems that any group that can significantly segregate itself
provides the context for the development of a culture of some type. This segregation can
also be forced upon groups by socioeconomic factors such as poverty (Massey, 1990);
limited housing choices; clustering; and language barriers (Peach, Robinson, & Smith,
1981).
Perhaps the most dominant organization in this area is the work organization.
Prior to World War II, the workforce consisted of individuals who stayed with one
company for their entire career (Spiro, 2006); as such, they had little or no exposure to
other organizational cultures. This is no longer the case. In February of 1996, just over
9% of workers ages 20 to 64 had been with their employers for less than 1 year,
suggesting that about 24 million new employment relationships were created between
February 1996 and March 1997 (Farber, 1998), that is, 24 million workers being
immersed in a new organizational culture. According to the 2008 Bureau of Labor

2
Statistics American Time Use Survey (U.S. Department of Labor [USDOL], 2008),
employed Americans who worked an average of 7.6 hours per day spent an increasingly
amount of time in contact with others of various cultural backgrounds.
Although individual acculturation can be problematic, a larger concern is the
acculturation of entire organizations into another by way of mergers and acquisitions.
MacFadyen (2009) noted, ―More than a few failed mergers can be chalked up to culture
clash. AOL/Time Warner, Sprint/Nextel, Compaq/Digital Equipment are just some of the
bigger deals over the years fallen by internal strife‖ (p. 16). In fact, the most disruptive
workplace events are mergers or acquisitions (Pepper & Larson, 2006). Nearly one
quarter of U.S. workers were affected by mergers or acquisitions during the 1990s (Deetz
& Simpson, 2000), yet 50% to 85% of these mergers and acquisition have failed
(Slowinski, Raffi, Tao, & Gollob, 2002). According to Miller (2000), 85% of those
failures can be attributed to the failure to account for the practical challenges of cultural
integration.
Organization of the Chapter
This chapter begins with a description of the methods used to gather research and
literature pertaining to the study of culture and organizational culture. Once the strategies
used to yield the literary background have been explained sufficiently, specific
definitions are provided for the important terms used in this document. Once armed with
working definitions for the terminology, the historical research into the realm of culture
and organizational culture is reviewed. A more comprehensive review of Hofstede’s

3
(2001) five universal dimensions is provided as one of the basic tenants for the research
to follow.
Literature Search
To locate the literature, the Walden University Electronic Library was searched.
Specific databases utilized include Academic Search Premier, Business Source Premier,
PsycArticles, PsycInfo, and SocINDEX with Full Text databases. Additional resources
were found using the online library for Bellevue University. Through this library, the
ProQuest, ebrary Business and Economics Collection, ebrary Psychology and Social
Work Collection, eLibrary, and NetLibrary databases were utilized to augment the
resources found through Walden University. The complete online holdings of Sage
journals were searched, but only certain journals provided articles that seemed pertinent
to the given topic. The journals from which results were pulled included the following:
Group Analysis; The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science;
Theory, Culture and Society; Organization Studies; Human Relations; Cross-Cultural
Research; International Journal of Cross Cultural Management; and Culture &
Psychology. Membership in the Academy of Management gave the researcher online
access to their journal archives. Typically, these articles were utilized to provide
additional depth to specific topics and to locate additional sources referenced in articles
found in previous targeted searches.
Finally, because the basic model of this thesis belongs to Geert Hofstede, two of
his resources (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005) were utilized to provide
additional insight, definitions, and methodology. In addition, the Hofstede, Hofstede,

4
Minkov, and Vinken (2008) Value Survey Module 08 (VSM 08; see Appendix A)
provides the questions as well as the computations to determine scores for each
dimension. These three items provide the foundation for, and the process by which the
results will be measured.
All library and online journal searches began with the Boolean search ―Culture
and Organization.‖ From there, an additional search of ―Culture and Hofstede‖ was run
across all databases and sources to ensure that as many of Hofstede’s articles were
available as possible. This also provided articles listing Hofstede or referring to his work
in some manner. From the returned documents, pertinent peer-reviewed articles were
selected for review. Many of those articles led to the discovery of additional themes,
nomenclature, and other references that seemed germane and were investigated as found.
The approach of searching multiple online libraries providing different virtual
stacks, the use of online journals and original books by Hofstede, and the inclusion of
conflicting material shaped this thesis. While succeeding at the original goal of providing
for the directed creation of a wealth of peer-reviewed literature stemming from the
original articles, and from the books mentioned, the references, used and unused, guided
the writing of this thesis into corners and niches not originally expected. This thesis was
originally conceived as a study into the communications patterns within a joint military
command, which is comparable to a conglomerate company in the business world that
continues to struggle with internal collaboration even as it is tasked with and strives to
provide a single joint operating environment for the U.S. military, its partners, allies, and
other agencies within the U.S. government. Although communications remains an area of
5
interest and perhaps an avenue for future discussion, the Socratic method applied during
the formulation of a problem statement led from a study based on a symptom to a study
aimed at the root cause of the problem, namely, culture, specifically organizational
culture.
The repeated application of the question, ―But why?‖ eventually led to the
realization that the cultures varied throughout the organization based on the norms of the
particular organizational area, or subcomponent. As noted by Bloor and Dawson (1994),
individuals may communicate verbally and nonverbally in different ways. The tendency
is to use past stories, myths, and experiences that stem from the individuals’ cultural
knowledge. Because culture seemingly controls communication, cultural issues, not
communication issues, must be the crux of the problem. This awareness diverted the
study toward organizational culture and Hofstede’s universal dimensions and the question
of their applicability at the organizational level. Simply stated, can the universal
dimensions be found to vary if applied at the organizational level?
Definitions of Terms
Several terms lie at the heart of this research. Their definitions follow. The
foundation of this study is an application of Hofstede’s cultural dimension within a single
joint organization, so the definitions provided have been taken from various Hofstede
articles and books.
Central tendency: This is a number meant to convey the idea of ―centralness‖ for
the data set (Jaisingh, 2006, p. 31).

6
Collectivism: Collectivism is the preference for a tight social framework where
individuals expect their relatives or other in the group to look after them in exchange for
unquestioning loyalty, as contrasted with individualism (Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, &
Sanders, 1990).
Culture: Culture is the training or collective programming of the mind that
distinguishes the members of one group or category from another (Hofstede & Hofstede,
2005).
Femininity: Femininity is the tendency to place more value on caring for others
and the quality of life, which is in contrast to masculinity (Hofstede et al., 1990).
Individualism: the preference for a loose social framework where individuals take
care of themselves and their immediate families only, contrasted with collectivism
(Hofstede et al., 1990).
Long-term orientation: This is a society that exhibits a pragmatic, future-oriented
perspective rather than a short-term orientation (Hofstede & Bond, 1988).
Masculinity: Masculinity, in contrast to femininity, is the tendency to place more
value on achievement and success (Hofstede et al., 1990).
Organizational culture: In an organizational culture, the shared perceptions of
daily practices are holistic, historically determined, socially constructed, and difficult to
change (Hofstede et al., 1990).
Power distance: Power distance is the extent to which the members of a society
accept the unequal distribution of power (Hofstede et al., 1990).

7
Short-term orientation: This is a characteristic of a society that exhibits a
conventional historic or short-term point of view (Hofstede & Bond, 1988).
Subculture: Subculture is the culture of a well-defined segment of society that is
assumed to reflect the dominant cultural patterns of society through special different
values, norms and customs (Reber & Reber, 2001).
Uncertainty avoidance: This is the degree of comfort or discomfort felt by
members of a society when dealing with uncertainty and ambiguity (Hofstede et al.,
1990).
Culture
As far back as Hippocrates, culture has been recognized as playing a vital role in
the behavior of human beings (Dona, 1991). Hippocrates’s theory of humors, although
biological by tradition, implies an analysis of behavior that involves the concept of traits
of personality (Kimble & Schlesinger, 1985). Hippocrates surmised that differences in
the character of various cultures are the result of the different climates or institutions in
the various cultures (as cited in Adler & Gielen, 2001). Although the theory of
imbalances in the four humors has been proven incorrect, the impact of culture had been
recognized.
Moving from the early roots of ancient Greece to one of the founding fathers of
psychology, the importance of culture was not lost. Wundt’s classic work,
Volkerpsychologie, argued that higher mental processes should be examined in the
context of culture and language (as cited in Sheehy, 2004). His analysis and
interpretations of language, art, mythology, and religion spanned five full volumes and
8
dealt with organizations that ranged from families to group affiliations, tribes, local and
national communities, and humankind as a whole (as cited in Kusch, 1999) and added
support to the anthropological view of culture as the complex whole, encompassing all of
the capabilities and habits acquired by individuals as members of society (Tylor, 1871).
Although these early forays into cultural study were comparative in nature, they
were undertaken typically to delineate and explain the superiority of one’s own culture.
Europeans and European researchers derided the lack of culture of those inhabitants of
the European colonies in Africa, India, and even the Americas. Later work revealed that
everyone belongs to a culture (Hutnyk, 2006), albeit different from the home culture of
the researcher. Culture has proven to be an omnipresent concept that remains unique,
even though common elements are shared across cultures. Naroll (1956) likened cultures
to skin, noting that there is no singular skin; rather, there are almost imperceptible
degrees of differences. With no clear and distinguishable difference to bind a culture,
researchers have struggled to find a common universal dimension that could be applied to
every culture.
Although Lowie (1936) defined culture at the macro level of a single culture for
all of humanity, he admitted that small differences can have great effects. His large-scale
definition may have encompassed all of the variations in a culture, but it did present some
problems in the area of research. Proper research into the areas of culture requires a
smaller focus, reducing from Lowie’s all-inclusive approach requires that researchers
find ways to group people with like cultures.

9
One way to group anything is by the noted differences, and culture is no different.
Weinberg (2003) commented, ―It is reasonable to assume these differences will be
reflected in the groups from those cultures‖ (p. 259). These variances can be thought of
as the outcomes from inputs based upon the culture’s distinctive content; social systems;
and methods of transmitting cultural norms, practices, values, and traditions, as explained
by Chick (2001). Perhaps the one group that the majority of people find themselves in
and which comes complete with Chick’s multiple official and unofficial channels of
transmission is the organization.
Organizational Culture
Organizations have been defined as ―social relations deliberately created, with the
explicit intention of continuously accomplishing some specific goals or purposes‖
(Stinchcombe, 1965, p. 142). These social relationships help to define the culture of the
organization and provide the organization with a culture of its own. Although other
researchers have alluded to organization culture, or the culture of an organization
(Morrill, 2008), the term organizational culture was first defined by Pettigrew (1979) as
the system of such publicly and collectively accepted meanings operating for a given
group at a given time. The system consists of the publicly and collectively accepted
terms, form, categories, and images used by individuals to interpret a given situation to
themselves. Organization culture is the sum total of the interactions between the
individual and the organization (Witte & Van Muijen, 1999), including the shared
perceptions and shared practices (Hofstede et al., 1990); the shared individual cultures of
10
the members (Hallett, 2003); and the process of individual influence, contained by the
agreed upon cultural contexts (Geertz, 1973) within the organization.
Even though many researchers have studied organizational culture from angles such as
conceptual imperialism (DeRoche, 2001); anthropological views (Altman & Baruch,
1998); the context of knowledge management practices (Alavi, Kayworth, & Leidner,
2006); organizational performance (Wilkins & Ouchi, 1983); organizational effectiveness
(Denison & Mishra, 1995); and others, the economist Hofstede has by far proven to be
the most influential researcher in the field of organizational culture. With more than
3,000 citations between 1999 and 2003, his five universal dimensions of culture have
arguably become the standard for studies in organizational culture.
IBM Studies
Hofstede (1983a, 1983b) utilized extensive data collected by IBM to develop four
universal dimensions of national cultures. A fifth dimension was added later. Starting in
1963 and continuing through 1973, two surveys from 72 countries consisting of 116,000
surveys translated into 20 languages were conducted. At this time, IBM had subsidiaries
in all countries around the world that admitted such subsidiaries and employed almost
exclusively nationals of the host country, with few exceptions. These surveys focused on
national differences in employees’ values.
IBM’s first survey, which was conducted in 1967, consisted of 189 standardized
items and was administered to randomly selected personnel in six product development
laboratories (Hofstede, 2001). This survey was closely followed by a survey of 183
standardized items using four language versions that was administered to all IBM
11
personnel in 26 Asian, Latin America, and Pacific countries. Over the next 2 years (1968-
1969), all European and Middle Eastern marketing and administrative operations were
surveyed. IBM manufacturing plants were surveyed in 1970. By the end of 1970, most of
the organization had been surveyed, providing approximately 60,000 respondents from
53 countries and in 18 different languages.
It should be noted that U.S. facilities were not included in these surveys; rather,
they were surveyed later to provide for comparisons. Based on the success of these initial
surveys, 60 core questions were selected to become mandatory for all future surveys; an
additional 66 questions were included as optional. With these questions, a second round
of surveys was administered to an additional 60,000 respondents (30,000 were
participants in the initial surveys, 20,000 were new employees, and the remainder were
from countries not covered in the initial round of surveys). Yugoslavia was added in
1971. This brought the total languages used to 20 and included 72 countries (Hofstede,
2001).
In his analysis of the data gleaned from these studies, Hofstede (1983) identified
four dimensions related to the fundamental problems that face society for which different
societies have found different answers. These dimensions explained the differences in
organizational structure, member motivation, and issues faced by people and
organizations. These four dimensions were identified as a large or a small power distance
index (PDI); a strong or weak uncertainty avoidance index (UAI); individualism vs.
collectivism (IDV), and masculinity vs. feminism (MAS; Hofstede, 1983b, 1998); long-
term versus short-term orientation was added later (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).
12
Power Distance
The first dimension found by Hofstede’s analysis of the IBM survey data involves
human inequality in areas such as prestige wealth and power. These inequalities exist in
even the simplest society or organization. Invariably, some people are bigger, stronger,
smarter, or wealthier, or they are held in higher status than others, which gives them the
ability to influence and determine the behaviors of others (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).
Power distance speaks to how close subordinates feel to their superiors personally, not
physically. Simply put, it represents an endorsement of the inequality by the followers as
much as by the leaders (Hofstede & McCrae, 2009).
Power distance, inspired by the work of Mulder (1976), deals with society’s way
of dealing with power relations and is a measure of the perceived decision-making
process (i.e., autocratic or paternalistic) of an individual’s boss; the perceived level of
fear of disagreeing with the boss; and the percentage of employees who prefer not to have
a boss who makes decisions by consulting with his employees, but rather prefer a boss
who makes decisions autocratically, paternalistically, or democratically (Hofstede,
1983b). Originally, the PDI was derived from the mean score of three questions from the
IBM surveys dealing with subordinates’ fear of disagreeing with their superiors, the
decision making style of the superiors, and the subordinates’ preferred style of decision
making (Hofstede, 2001).
Countries exhibiting a high power distance have superiors who exert power and
keep the gap between superiors and subordinates open. Inequality is not only accepted
but also expected. In this culture, subordinates are reluctant to question or disagree with
13
their superiors, and they prefer to work for superiors’ managers who take an autocratic
approach by telling subordinates what to do. Conversely, low power distance countries
exhibit a coequal relationship between superiors and subordinates. Superiors and
subordinates are considered colleagues, thereby minimizing inequalities. Subordinates are
seldom afraid to disagree and expect a more democratic decision-making approach
(Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). The differences between low and high PDI organization
are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1
Power Distance Index: General Description
Small Large
Minimized social or class inequalities. Inequalities in the social order are expected and
desired.
Reduced hierarchical organizational structures.
Each person has a rightful and protected place in
Power used for legitimate purposes. society.
The less powerful should be dependent on the more

powerful.
The legitimacy of the purposes desired by the power

holder is irrelevant.
Note. Adapted from Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (2nd ed.), by G. Hofstede & G. J.
Hofstede, 2005, New York: McGraw-Hill. Copyright by McGraw-Hill.
14
Table 2
Power Distance Index: Workplace Description
Small Large
Decentralization is popular. Centralization is popular.
Narrower salary range between bottom and top. Wide salary range between top and bottom.
The ideal boss is a resourceful democrat. Ideal boss is benevolent autocrat or good father.
Privileges and status symbols tend to be more Managers expect and receive privileges and status
frowned on. symbols.
Uncertainty Avoidance
Hofstede identified a strong correlation between power distance and uncertainty
avoidance (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999). Uncertainty avoidance originated within the work
of Cyert and March (1963), although theirs was a purely American usage of the term, that
is, all humans must face the fact that they do not know what will happen tomorrow. This
uncertainty creates anxiety that is handled differently by different cultures through the
use of technology, laws, and religion in their broadest sense (Hofstede & Hofstede,
2005).
When combined with power distance, uncertainty avoidance permits the
segregation of societies into four distinct types: (a) Those with large power distance and
small uncertainty avoidance project a culture with a strong family model of
organizations; (b) large power distance and high uncertainty avoidance reflect a pyramid
type of organization; (c) low power distance and weak uncertainty avoidance represent
cultures with market-type organizations; and (d) low power distance, combined with high
uncertainty avoidance reflect a machine type organization (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999).
15
The UAI deals with society’s acceptance of ambiguity (Hofstede & McCrae,
2009), or how society deals with temporal issues (Hofstede, 2001). Societies can either
accept the unknown future or attempt to beat it. The essence of uncertainty is subjective
and is judged by the members’ feelings about breaking the rules of the organization and
their willingness to leave the organization (Hofstede, 1983). Each question from the IBM
survey related to the level of anxiety faced by recognizing an uncertain future,
specifically with the three distinct components of uncertainty avoidance: rule orientation,
employment stability, and stress (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). The differences between
low and high uncertainty avoidance are shown in Tables 3 and 4.
Table 3
Uncertainty Avoidance: General Description
Low High
Uncertainty is a normal ad accepted feature of life. Uncertainty is a continuous threat and must be
fought.
Low stress and anxiety.
High stress and anxiety.
Emotions should not be shown.
Emotions (at proper times) may be vented.
Lenient rules.
Firm rules.
Similar modes of address for different others.
Different modes of address for others.
What is different is curious.
What is different is dangerous.
Note. Adapted from Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (2nd ed.) by G. Hofstede & G. J.
16
Table 4
Uncertainty Avoidance: Workplace Description
Low High
More changes of employer. Fewer changes of employer.
Hardworking only when needed. An emotional need to be busy and an inner urge to work
hard.
Time is a framework for orientation.
Time is money.
Tolerance for ambiguity and chaos.
There is a need for precision and formalization.
Belief in generalists and common sense.
Belief in experts and technical solutions.
Top managers are concerned with strategy.
Top managers are concerned with daily operations.
Motivation by achievement and esteem and
belonging. Motivation by security and esteem or belonging.
Note, Adapted from Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (2nd ed.) by G. Hofstede & G. J.
Individualism Versus Collectivism
Unlike uncertainty avoidance, which is on a low to high continuum, the next
universal dimension can be viewed as contrasting two separate qualities. This dimension,
referenced as IDV by Hofstede, contrasts the levels of individualism, as the term implies,
with the level of collectivism exhibited in a culture. Individualism is an assessment of the
emotional independence and autonomy of a person. The dimension was originally based
upon questions from the IBM surveys pertaining to personal time, job freedom and
challenge, training, the physical work environment, and the use of the individual’s skills
(Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).
In an individualist culture, people tend to think of themselves as individuals
distinctive from other people, that is, the ties between individuals are loosely based, and
everyone looks after himself or herself and his or her immediate family only (Hofstede &
Hofstede, 2005). Individualistic cultures exhibit more self-centered tendencies and place
17
an emphasis on individual goals. Individualistic cultures emphasize job success and
achievement or wealth and career advancement. The individualist places high importance
on the aspects of personal time and job-related challenges (Hofstede, 2001).
In contrast, collectivistic cultures are those in which people are integrated into
strong, cohesive in-groups from birth, and these groups, in return for unquestioned
loyalty, continue to protect the individuals throughout their lifetime (Hofstede &
Hofstede, 2005; Hofstede & McCrae, 2009). Collectivistic cultures place a greater
emphasis on groups and think more in terms of ―we.‖ In collectivistic cultures, harmony
and loyalty are considered very important, and direct confrontation always are avoided
(Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). The differences between individualism and collectivism
are shown in Tables 5 and 6.
Table 5
Individualism: General Description
Collectivist Individualist
Individuals are born into extended families or other Everyone looks after him/herself.
in-groups that provide protection in return for
loyalty.
Children think in terms of ―we.‖ Children think in terms of ―I.‖
Harmony is maintained, and confrontation is Speaking one’s mind is considered characteristic of

avoided. an honest person.
Not. Adapted from Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (2nd ed.), by G. Hofstede & G. J.
18
Table 6
Individualism: Workplace Description
Collectivist Individualist
Low occupational mobility. Higher occupational mobility.
Individuals are members of in-groups and pursue in- Individuals pursue group interests if they are
group interests. aligned with their own.
Hiring and promotion decisions account for in- Hiring and promotion decisions are based on skills
group status, and rules.
Management is management of groups Management is management of individuals
Relationship prevails over task, Tasks prevail over relationships.

Masculinity Versus Femininity
Often confused for individualism, and the last of the original four dimensions
defined by Hofstede, masculinity indicates the extent to which dominant values in a
society tend to be assertive, Masculine societies are more interested in things rather than
people and their quality of life, and they stress achievement rather than nurturing
tendencies. Masculinity is seen as the trait that emphasizes ambition, acquisition of
wealth, and differentiated gender roles. Femininity is seen as the trait that stresses caring
and nurturing behaviors, sexuality equality, environmental awareness, and more fluidity.
This dimension relates to the importance of earnings, recognition, advancement,
challenge, cooperation, and employment security (Hofstede, 1983b).
Masculine societies stress the importance of assertiveness and competition (i.e.,
earnings, recognition, advancement, and workplace challenges). Masculinity societies
reflect social gender roles that are clearly distinct: Men are supposed to be assertive,
tough, and focused on material success; women are supposed to be more modest, tender,
19
and concerned with the quality of life (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). This live-to-work
mindset requires a focus on reward. Members of these cultures have a tendency to
polarize, and they consider big and fast beautiful. Societies scoring lower in masculinity
are considered more feminine. These cultures tend to stress modest and caring values
(Hofstede & McCrae, 2009). In a feministic culture, gender roles overlap, that is, men
and women are expected to exhibit modesty and tenderness, and they are to be concerned
with quality-of-life issues (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). These cultures consider quality
of life and the helping of others to be important. Working is seen as a method to earn the
money required for living, and people strive for consensus and develop sympathy for
those in need. Small and slow are considered beautiful. The differences between
masculinity and femininity are shown in Tables 7 and 8.
Table 7
Masculinity: General Description
Masculinity Femininity
Ego oriented. Relationship oriented.
Money and things are important. Quality of life and people are important.
Live to work. Work to live.

20
Table 8
Masculinity: Workplace Description
Masculinity Femininity
Larger gender wage gap. Smaller gender wage gap.
Fewer women in management. More women in management.
Preference for higher pay. Preference for fewer working hours.

Note. Adapted from Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (2nd ed.) by G. Hofstede & G. J.
Long-Term Versus Short-Term Orientation
The final dimension was not originally in the IBM data. The Chinese Value
Survey, developed by Bond (as cited in Hofstede & Bond, 1988), discovered a dimension
not reflected in the work of Hofstede. This dimension was originally Confucian
dynamism, after the teachings of Confucius, but was later renamed long-term versus
short-term orientation after Hofstede integrated it as one of the universal dimensions.
This dimension describes the importance that a culture attaches to the future versus the
past and present. The values on the first pole are orientated toward the future and are
more dynamic, whereas the values on the second pole are orientated toward the past and
present and are more static. Note that one way is not good and the other way is not bad;
rather, they simply are orientations toward life.
Societies exhibiting long-term orientation value perseverance and thrift, order
relationships by status, and have a sense of shame value learning. They find leisure time
unimportant, share the same aspirations between supervisors and subordinates, and value
equality in the distribution of economic and social favors (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).
Short-term societies are oriented by normative statements; personal steadiness and

21
stability; need to save face; respect for tradition; and reciprocation of greetings, favors,
and gifts (Hofstede, 2001). They also value freedom, rights, thinking for oneself, the
separation of supervisors and subordinates, and an investment in lifelong personal
networks (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). The differences between long-term and short-
term dimensions are shown in Tables 9 and 10.
Table 9
Long-Term Orientation: General Description
Long-term orientation Short-term orientation

Persistence (perseverance). Personal steadiness and stability.
Ordering relationships by status. Saving face.
Thrift. Respect for tradition.
Having a sense of shame. Reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts.

Table 10
Long-Term Orientation: Workplace Description
Long-term orientation Short-term orientation

Main work values include freedom, rights, Main work values include learning, honesty,
achievement, and thinking for oneself. adaptiveness, accountability, and self-discipline.
Leisure time is unimportant. Leisure time is important.
Managers and workers are psychologically in two Owner-managers and workers share the same
camps. aspirations.
McSweeney’s Criticism of Hofstede
Combined, these dimensions have been applied to 53 countries and regions
spanning the world, yet they have not been without criticism. Perhaps Hofstede’s most
vocal critic was McSweeney (2002), who questioned Hofstede from a methodological
22
perspective. McSweeney argued that Hofstede’s assertions were nothing more than
fallacious assumptions leading to empirical descriptions and that Hofstede’s claim to
have uncovered the software of the mind was excessive, unbalanced, and restrictive.
McSweeney argued that Hofstede’s ―conflation and uni-level analysis precludes
consideration of interplay between macroscopic and microscopic cultural levels and
between the cultural and non-cultural (whatever we chose to call it)‖ (p. 28).
Although Hofstede (2001; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005) made great mention of the
enormity of the IBM study, citing 117,000 surveys, McSweeney (2002) pointed out the
limited number of surveys that were actually used. Of the 66 countries covered by the
surveys, only 40 were used in the final analysis. Of those 40, only 6 had sample sizes of
more than 1,000, and 15 had samples of less than 200. Hofstede argued that a sample of
50 is adequate to determine reliability if the sample is adequately homogeneous;
however, McSweeney resisted the application of a national label based on a sample that
was constrained to not only a single area but also a single organization in a single area.
Hofstede (2001; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005) also ignored the impact of other
cultures upon the responses in the surveys. He assumed that a singular IBM
organizational culture encompassed all employees, regardless of occupation, location, or
employment duration. He also assumed that occupational cultures remained constant
across national borders. Hofstede’s model ignored the possibility that individuals are
affected by the consequences of their social institutions and the rules applied within them.
In the Hofstede model, accountants in the United States would be culturally unaffected by
GAAP, U.S. market trends, or legislation such as Sarbanes-Oxley, and they would exhibit
23
the same cultural tendencies as their German or Russian counterparts (McSweeney,
2002).
Hofstede’s (2001; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005) use of central tendency as the
measure by which dimensional scores are calculated glossed over and disregarded the
radical differences within each country’s responses, converting them into a single
national response to be compared with other averaged values to determine a difference in
national cultures. The assumption was that this average would hold consistent, regardless
of the other organizations measured. McSweeney (2002) argued that the selective hiring
practices (i.e., middle class only); frequent international training; advanced technological
environment; the unusual characteristics of IBM’s products; and the personal contact
between sites and the international headquarters made the respondents more atypical than
typical of the national average.
McSweeney (2002) also contended that Hofstede’s belief that variances in the
responses were the result of national differences ignored other factors, including the
influence of opinion and the possible manipulation of answers to improve the individuals
and their divisional positions. It should be noted that the original intent of the IBM
surveys was for management purposes, with expected corrective action as an outcome.
Hofstede (2001) assumed that there is no social gaming involved in the respondents’
answers. The assumption means that the respondents are essentially ―cultural dopes‖
(McSweeney, 2002, p. 17) and merely relay national culture values without filtering or
considering the ramifications of their answers.

24
The addition of the fifth cultural dimension invalidated, but did not remove, one
of the four original universal dimensions, yet Hofstede (Hofstede & Bond, 1988) retained
it. The Chinese Values Survey added the long-term versus short-term orientation
dimension but invalidated the uncertainty avoidance dimension in the Chinese culture. If
this survey is held to be valid, then the addition of long-term versus short-term
orientation should include the removal of uncertainty avoidance; however, if the study is
held to be invalid and uncertainty avoidance remains, then long-term versus short-term
orientation should not be added. Hofstede added long-term versus short-term orientation,
yet he also kept uncertainty avoidance as a universal dimension, even as the latter was
shown not to be universal (McSweeney, 2002).
Finally, McSweeney (2002) argued that the situationally restricted data indicated
that culture is nonspecific. The IBM surveys targeted only certain categories of worker
(typically, only white-collar workers), thereby excluding blue-collar workers,
unemployed citizens, retired citizens, students, self-employed individuals, stay-at-home
parents, and other citizens of the nations in question. The surveys also posed mainly
work-related questions and were administered only in the workplace environment.
Extending the measure from a workplace to that of a national measure is a leap that some
researchers are not prepared to take (Ailon, 2008; McSweeney, 2002).
Joint Command
To test Hofstede’s (2001) dimensions, it is important to find a singular
organization that is diverse enough to possibly represent numerous other cultural
influences. Perhaps no single organization offers the multitude of cultures exhibited by

25
the U.S. Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM). The combination of military members
(officer and enlisted, active and reserve); government civilians; and contractors from
many different companies and business units within those companies offers a unique
environment in which to test Hofstede’s dimensions at an organizational level.
Background/Mission
Unlike any other country’s military, the United States divides the globe into five
geographically based military commands. These combatant commands cover the east,
west, and south compass points from the continental United States, the continent of North
America for homeland defense and civil support purposes, and the energy resource-rich
Southwest Asia region (Fielding, 2008). Recognizing the new era of war fighting and the
need for tighter joint operations between not only U.S. forces but also those of allied and
coalition forced the Department of Defense to establish the USJFCOM, which comprises
active and reserve personnel from each branch of the armed forces, civil servants, and
contract employees in four major mission areas: joint concept development and
experimentation (development of new concepts and testing of them through
experimentation); joint training (preparation of commanders and staff to execute their
missions in a joint environment); joint capabilities development (integration of solutions
to joint war fighter interoperability challenges); and joint force provider (primary
conventional force provider; Fielding, 2008).
J-Codes/Directorates
Directorates are the functional units of the USJFCOM, and each is charged with
supporting or managing an aspect of the command’s mission. In some regards, this

26
structure mirrors that of a large company. Within the USJFCOM, the J1 Personnel
Operations Directorate provides coordination and personnel support to the joint
community to maximize total force readiness and operational capability. The J2
Intelligence Directorate provides the intelligence resources and responses to the threats of
the 21st-century battlefields. The J3/4 Operations, Planning, Logistics and Engineering
Directorate provides advice to the commander on all operational matters that affect
USJFCOM, including command and control of assigned U.S. military forces worldwide.
The J5 Strategy and Policy Directorate develops, coordinates, and executes national and
command strategy and policy. The J6 Command, Control, Communications, and
Computer (C4) Systems directorate is perhaps the most inward facing one because it
allows the command to accomplish its mission. The J7 Joint Warfighting Center/Joint
Training Directorate coordinates the U.S. military’s overall joint training efforts by
working with a broad range of partners to support joint war fighter development. The J8
Joint Capability Development directorate identifies near-and far-term joint, multinational,
and interagency capability gaps, and works to fill those shortfalls with integrated
capabilities. Finally, the J9 Joint Concept Development and Experimentation directorate
leads the development of emerging joint concepts by conducting and enabling joint
experimentation to support the current and future joint force commander in meeting
security challenges (Hirrel, 2008; see Figure 1).

27
Figure 1. USJFCOM directorates.

Note. Adapted from United States Joint Forces Command: Historical Report October 2002-November
2005, by L. P. Hirrel. Copyright by USJFCOM.
As can be imagined, to accompany each directorate’s specific and specialized
function, a unique organizational culture has been developed. Adding complexity is the
intermingling of the civilian, military, and contractors within each directorate. This
combination provides numerous avenues of exploration for the testing of Hofstede’s
(2001) dimensions of organizational culture. The different and specific missions for each
28
of the various directorates allow each to be viewed as an individual and unique
organization. The addition of various military cultures and a plethora of contractor
cultures offer numerous ways to ―slice and dice‖ the information to view the dimensions
across the different cultures (see Figure 2).

29
Figure 2. USJFCOM directorate cultures.

Note. Adapted from United States Joint Forces Command: Historical Report October 2002-November
2005, by L. P. Hirrel. Copyright by USJFCOM.
Summary
Although many researchers have investigated culture (Hutnyk, 2006; Kusch,
1999; Tylor, 1871) and organizational culture (Morrill, 2008; Pettigrew, 1979;
Stinchcombe, 1965), only Hofstede (1983a, 1983b, 1998, 2001) claimed to definitively
30
and empirically measured universal aspects of culture. This claim, while popular and
often cited, has had its critics, most notably McSweeney (2002). Hofstede’s (1983a,
1983b) five dimensions of culture stemmed from an extensive analysis of the surveys
conducted by IBM, in which Hofstede noticed that cultural norms for societies varied
along four, and then a fifth, primary indexes or dimensions.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative study is to investigate the use of the cultural
dimensions identified by Hofstede (1983b, 1998, 2001; Hofstede et al., 1990) for the
comparison of organizational cultures within the USJFCOM. To accomplish this
investigation, Hofstede’s (1983a, 1983b) dimensions must be proven valid measures that
are reliable at the organizational or directorate level.
Statement of the Problem
When an organization such as the USJFCOM or any other company that attempts
to assimilate other organizations into a comprehensive culture through mergers and
acquisitions, the need to better understand the existing cultures is a critical to factor to the
success of this effort. Recent history has shown that some mergers, such as AOL/Time
Warner, Sprint/Nextel, and Compaq/Digital Equipment, have failed because of clashes of
corporate cultures (MacFadyen, 2009). Hofstede (2001) identified five universal
dimensions of national culture (Hofstede & Bond, 1988; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005) that
have been widely accepted, but the literature has ignored the bidirectional influences of
culture. It is unclear whether Hofstede’s universal dimensions are reliable measures
across disparate organizational groups, such as those found within the USJFCOM.
31
Second, Hofstede’s dimensions are supposedly present across all parts of a nation, but
only when they are utilized at the level of a contained entity. Hofstede (1998) defined this
as an area determined to be homogeneous enough. The applicability of Hofstede’s
dimensions to measure the cultural norms of other homogeneous enough subunits is
unknown. Therefore, the problem being addressed is whether the universal dimensions
of culture are suitable for use at any level or are they only applicable at the national level.
Hypotheses
The successful application of Hofstede’s (2001; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005)
model within the USJFCOM involves validating each dimension and comparing the
scores obtained to those of the predominant national culture. If it is found that the
dimensions and the overall scores vary across the USJFCOM’s dimensions while still
holding to be reliable, this would support McSweeney’s (2002) argument that Hofstede’s
dimensions are truly measures of organizational cultures that can be used as measures at
the organizational level. If the dimensions are found to be reliable, and if the scores
match the national scores, regardless of the directorate, it would appear that Hofstede did
establish five dimensions of national culture.
In addition, by analyzing the culture of the USJFCOM, it may be possible to
better determine the dimensions to establish a joint operating environment within the
command, thereby providing a model that can be extended into other joint arenas. To
accomplish this goal, Hofstede’s (1983a, 1983b) model must be proven reliable as a
measure for the USJFCOM in its entirety before it can be broken down by directorate
while still maintaining its reliability.

32
To this end, two hypotheses will be examined:
H01: USJFCOM scores are not statistically different from the national scores found
by Hofstede.
Ha1: USJFCOM scores are statistically different from the national scores found by
Hofstede.
H02: USJFCOM directorate scores are not statistically different from the scores
obtained by other USJFCOM directorates.
Ha2: USJFCOM directorate scores are statistically different from the scores by
other USJFCOM directorates.
Significance of the Study
As stated by Nelson and Gopalan (2003), there is ample reason to expect some
kind of relationship between national and organizational cultures. They sought to extend
the work of Hofstede. Although there are numerous practical and theoretical reasons to
study the relationship between national and organizational cultures, this study intends to
focus on the variations in organizational cultures within a single organization by
understanding how the universal dimensions of culture transcend national boundaries into
the intraorganizational boundaries and by noting that the different cultures within an
organization will assist the USJFCOM in achieving a joint operating environment.
Moving beyond the realm of a military command, other organizations are working
to recognize ways in which changes in wider social and cultural processes are impacted,
merged, and changed. To date, a standard measure eludes researchers seeking to quantify
these changes. The primary objective of this study is to determine whether national
33
dimensions can be used to measure smaller organizations. Establishing a standard
measure for a culture of any size will facilitate a better understanding of the differences
and similarities among cultures.
Summary
As more organizations merge, and as the U.S. government strives to establish a
joint operating environment for its military forces, the accounting for of the various
corporate cultures and the development of methods to measure them becomes a critical
factor for determining success. To avoid the problems of culture clash and the pitfalls of
AOL/Time Warner, Sprint/Nextel, Compaq/Digital Equipment (MacFadyen, 2009), and
to avoid being included in Miller’s (2000) 85% of mergers that fail, it is vital to address
culture in every undertaking. Once determined in the richly heterogeneous USJFCOM,
these dimensions can be applied to other companies to help them to create a singular
presence and culture across many countries and many business units. The next chapter
describes the methodological approach and statistical methods in the proposed study.
CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHOD
Introduction
This chapter details the requirements for the implementation of this study.
Because the goal of this study is to test the applicability of Hofstede’s (2001; Hofstede &
Hofstede, 2005) five dimensions of culture at the organizational level, the methodology
will closely follow that of the VSM 08 (Hofstede et al., 2008), with the noted exception
of the level of application. Admittedly, the application of the VSM 08 to measure the
differences between organizational components is in direct violation of the stated goal of
the VSM. The manual states, ―The VSM 08 is not for comparing organizations‖
(Hofstede et al., 2008, p. 4). Because of this unorthodox application, changes in the
methodology will require substituting matched cultures at the national level with matched
samples at the organizational level. The chapter outlines the design of the study,
discusses the participant selection, and explains how the study will be conducted. The
chapter concludes with a discussion of the study’s assumptions and limitations.
Methodology
Research Design
The proposed design is a self-report survey to better understand the dimensions of
culture, specifically the measures of power distance, uncertainty avoidance,
individualism, masculinity, and long-term orientation within and across the directorates at
the USJFCOM. This design will allow the respondents to answer questions pertaining to
private life and ideal situations that may, or may not, be similar to their current
environment without fear of embarrassment, identification, or retribution. In this

35
application, the VSM 08 will be utilized at the organizational level to compare the
culturally influenced values and sentiments of similar respondents from two or more
directorates within the USJFCOM. Two divisions of the scores from a single application
of the survey are proposed. First, the VSM 08 scores will be calculated for each
dimension, and those scores compared against the national dimensions found in Hofstede,
2001). The second measure will consist of the same survey collated by directorate to
facilitate comparison of the directorates using the five dimensions.
Participants
The USJFCOM has a population of approximately 4,900 individuals, but to limit
the scope of the study, the sample will be drawn from only the three largest directorates
within the USJFCOM: J6, J7, and J9. The J7 Joint Warfare Fighting Center and the J9
Joint Futures Lab were selected because they represent formerly standalone commands
that have been absorbed by the USJFCOM and have strong individual cultures that are
separate from USJFCOM as a whole. The J6 was selected because it is the largest pure
USJFCOM directorate. The total possible population for this survey includes 2,337
individuals. The J6 has approximately 330 employees (57 government civilians, 181
contractors, and all others as military members). The J7 has approximately 1,517
employees (192 government civilians, 1,031 contractors, and areal others as military
members). The J9 has approximately 490 employees (89 government civilians, 326
contractors, and all others as military members). Military members include active-duty
and reservist individuals, officers, and enlisted personnel from the Army, Air Force,
Marines, Navy, and Coast Guard. The contractors are employed through several contracts
36
with Capstone, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Old Dominion University, Rolands
& Associates, and Northrop Grumman. Because of the method of delivery and the type of
instrument chosen, the sample will comprise the total number of participants from the
chosen directorates who respond to the survey.
The inclusion criterion includes any person assigned to the USJFCOM in the J6,
J7, or J9 directorate. The key piece of demographic information is the directorate. The
exclusion criteria include anyone not assigned to one of the aforementioned directorates
and those serving as liaisons from other organizations (e.g., Defense Information Systems
Agency. Members of other directorates and other organizations are excluded to limit the
introduction of other cultural influences that may confound the results.
Instrument
This research focuses upon Hofstede’s (1983a, 1983b) five dimensions of culture;
as such, it will rely upon his VSM 08, a 34-item questionnaire designed to compare
culturally influenced values and sentiments of matched respondents from two or more
countries or regions within countries. The scores are computed based on four questions
per dimension. The VSM 08 measures seven dimensions, but this thesis will focus on
only five of them. The extra two dimensions were added to the survey based on the work
of Minkov (2007) and are included in the VSM 08 for experimentation. The remaining
five dimensions measured by the VSM 08 were described extensively by Hofstede (2001;
Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005) and are considered accepted cultural dimensions.
The survey will follow the structure of the VSM 08. It will be broken down into
five parts. The first part will present Question 1 to 10, all of which pertain to the
37
participants’ ideal job and utilize the 5-point Likert scale of 1 (of utmost importance), 2
(very important), 3 (of moderate importance), 4 (of little importance), and 5 (of very little
or no importance). Part 2 will present Questions 11 to 15, which pertain to the
participants’ private lives. They will utilize the same Likert scale as Questions 1 to 10.
Part 3 will present Questions 15 to 23, each with its own 5-point Likert scale specific to
the question. Part 4 will present Questions 24 to 28, which ask for the level of agreement
or disagreement with particular statements and use the 5-point Likert scale of 1 (strongly
agree), 2 (agree), 3 (undecided), 4 (disagree), and 5 (strongly disagree). The final
portion will present the questions pertaining to demographics.
Because the VSM 08 is a new version of the VSM, no reliability data exist.
However, the original study (Hofstede, 2001) produced Cronbach’s alphas for the first
four dimensions (see Table 11). Hofstede noted that a value greater than .700 was
considered reliable.
Table 11
Original Cronbach’s Alphas of Hofstede’s Dimensions
Dimension Alpha
Power distance .842
Individualism .770
Masculinity .760
Uncertainty avoidance .715
38
Procedures
As with the original application of the VSM 08, this application will be based
upon matched samples. The deviation will be that these matched samples will not be
drawn from across countries, but rather from across three USJFCOM directorates,
thereby providing a sound anchor within the existing framework of the IBM dataset. The
VSM 08 will be administered, including questions relating to the Minkov dimensions;
however, these dimensions will not be scored. Only the accepted dimensions will be
scored. Additional demographic questions will be added to capture the specific
directorate; personnel type (military, civilian, or contractor); military branch and rank, if
appropriate; and contractor company and business unit, if appropriate.
The web-based application of this survey will be preceded by an All-Hands
communication by the senior leadership of USJFCOM stating their agreement with and
encouragement for participation with this research project. They also will inform the
participants that their involvement in the study is anonymous and voluntary. Although a
letter from a senior military leader may be perceived as coercion by some, without this
level of authority encouraging, but not mandating, participation, the sample would be
greatly reduced. This communication will contain a complete high-level description of
the study and its potential impact for the USJFCOM and its mission.
The complete description of the survey and a statement of confidentiality and
informed consent (see Appendix B)will be presented as the participants begin the online
survey. The users will be given the option of consenting to the survey or exiting the
survey at this time. The survey will be an online version of the VSM 08, and all questions
39
with additional demographic questions will be included to better represent the
USJFCOM’s cultural dynamics. Once the participants complete the survey, they will see
a page thanking them for their participation and directions on how to request notification
when the results are posted on the USJFCOM portal.
Data Analysis
Results at the USJFCOM will be statistically compared to Hofstede’s (2001)
established scores for the United States using the Mann-Whiteny U-Test and a critical
value of .05. The Mann-Whitney U-Test is designed to use the data from two samples to
evaluate the differences between two samples (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2004). The Mann-
Whitney U is a nonparametric test used to compare two sample means that come from the
same population. The Mann-Whitney U-Test also is used to test whether two sample
means are equal. The Mann-Whitney U-Test can be reduced to the formula:
Where U = Mann-Whitney U, n1 = sample size one; n2 = Sample size two; and Ri =
Rank of the sample size. For the initial values provided by Hofstede (2001), the United
States scored 40 on the PDI, 46 on the UAI, 91 on IDV, 62 on the MAS, and 29 on the
Long-Term Short-Term Orientation Index.
In keeping with the manual for the VSM 08 (Hofstede et al., 2008), the content
questions will allow dimensional index scores to be calculated on the five dimensions.
These content questions will be scored using a 5-point Likert scale. The dimension
indexes will be calculated in accordance with the manual.

40
Nonscored Indexes
Questions 11, 12, 17, and 19, as well as Questions 13, 14, 21, and 22 relate to the
experimental Minkov (2007) indexes of Indulgence vs. Restraint and Monumentalism,
respectively, and will not be scored.
As mentioned, the successful application of Hofstede’s model of culture within
the USJFCOM involves a two-part process of validating the model and, by extension,
each dimension against the established scores for national culture. The combined scores
across the three directorates should roughly equate to the established national scores.
Each dimension can be examined singularly to ensure that the entire model holds true.
The process will then be repeated to test Hofstede’s five dimensions at the directorate
level. To accomplish this goal, the scores for each of the five dimensions will be
calculated for the selected directorates individually and then compared to each other. The
null and alternative hypotheses, and the proper computations for obtaining the
dimensions are outlined below:
by Hofstede.
Hofstede.
Analysis: Dimensional scores are obtained using the individual formulas listed
below. For Null Hypothesis 1 not to be rejected, the scores for each dimension should be
statistically consistent with those obtained by Hofstede and listed previously.

41
Analysis: Dimensional scores are obtained using the individual formulas listed
below. For Null Hypothesis 2 not to be rejected, the scores for each dimension should be
statistically consistent with those obtained from calculating the other directorate scores.
The PDI will utilize scores from Questions 2, 7, 23, and 26, and will be calculated
using the formula
PDI = 35(m07 – m02) + 25(m23 – m26) + C(pd),
in which m07 is the mean score for Question 7, m02 is the mean score for
Question 2, m23 is the mean score for Question 23, and m26 is the mean score for
Question 26.
The UAI uses Questions 20, 16, 24, and 27, and will be calculated using the
formula
UAI = 40(m20 - m16) + 25(m24 – m27) + C(ua),
where m20 is the mean score for Question 20, m016 is the mean score for
Question 16, m24 is the mean score for Question 24, and m27 is the mean score for
Question 27.
The IDV utilizes scores from Questions 1, 4, 6, and 9, and will be calculated
using the formula
IDV = 35(m04 – m01) + 35(m09 – m06) + C(ic),

42
where m04 is the mean score for Question 4, m01 is the mean score for Question
1, m09 is the mean score for Question 9, and m06 is the mean score for Question 6.
The MAS uses Questions 3, 5, 8, and 10, and will be calculated using the formula
MAS = 35(m05 – m03) + 35(m08 – m10) + C(mf),
The Long-Term Orientation Index uses the scores from Question 15, 18, 25, and
28, and will be calculated using the formula
LTO = 40(m18 – m15) + 25(m28 – m25) + C(ls),
Assumptions and Limitations of the Study
Assumptions
Given the lack of a clear definition of culture, it is necessary to pick a priori that
represents a meaningful unit (Hofstede, 1998). It is possible to define and study culture at
the level of entire corporations (Hypothesis 1), a national subsidiary, a functional
department, or a directorate (Hypothesis 2); at a hierarchical level (officers vs. enlisted);
or across organizational units such as profession (army, navy, air force, marines, civilian,
contractor). The choice of priori is subjective, but it is made at a level that assumes
enough homogeneity with regard to characteristics for the statements about the culture to
be justified (Sinclair, 1993).

43
This study assumes that the directorates within the USJFCOM will exhibit
adequate homogeneity within themselves to warrant a study of culture separate and
distinct from the culture of the organization as a whole. This study also assumes that the
employees (military members, civilians, & contractors) within each directorate are
adequately matched with those in another directorate, that is, an Air force colonel
working in the J6 is considered a match for a Navy lieutenant working in the J7.
Likewise, a contractor from Lockheed Martin in the J6 is considered a match for a Booz
Allen Hamilton contractor in the J9, and a civilian employee is considered a match for
another civilian. In addition, because the instrument used for this research is the self-
report survey VSM 08, it is assumed that participants will provide honest answers.
Limitations
Hofstede posited that he was able to compute national cultures using sample sizes
as small as 50, and even though the sample for this study will be drawn from a population
of more than 2,000 potential participants, it is possible that an inadequate number of
responses will be received. Another potential limitation may be the matching of the
participants because there may be possible variances in the cultures of the different
organizations, as well as the transference of those cultures into the culture of the
USJFCOM as a whole and into the respective directorate cultures. The education level of
the various respondents also poses a possible limitation; the U.S. military offers
numerous programs for the education of its personnel, so it may be possible that some
enlisted members have higher education levels than some officers. Likewise, the various
contract vehicles in place to support the USJFCOM have different educational

44
requirements. Some have minimal educational requirements, others require advanced
degrees, and still others require technical certifications.
Another limitation of this research is the method of sampling. With the inclusion
of other military commands and other civilian organizations, the population, the sample,
and the possible definitions of culture among the respondents increases exponentially.
However, a larger pool of respondents will allow the researcher to match the respondents
with a greater degree of accuracy and provide greater reliability of the measures obtained.
The final limitation is the instrument itself. Because this study is based upon and
utilizes the VSM 08, it is open to all of the criticisms of the original work (McSweeney,
2002), including the small sample sizes; the lack of acknowledgment of the impact of
other cultures upon responses, as mentioned in the discussion concerning matching; the
impact of the consequences of their social institutions and the rules applied within them;
the use of central tendency; and the possible manipulation of the survey instrument
toward expected answers rather than truthful answers.

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
This chapter provides a review of the theories and concepts introduced earlier.
The problem statement, research questions and hypotheses, assumptions, and limitations
are repeated. Broader implications that could arise from the findings of this study are
highlighted, followed by a summary statement.
Review of the Literature
Although conceived as a study into the problems associated with interdivisional
and interdirectorate communications within the USJFCOM, the process of refining the
research questions led to what is believed to be a root cause rather than a symptom.
Culture underlies all issues and helps to frame them, so without this context, any study
lacks a vital perspective that would help to shape the research and frame any conclusions.
In the realm of organizational psychology, the impacy of culture is not lost. As noted,
between 50% and 85% of all mergers fail because of cultural conflicts (MacFadyen,
2009). This large number of failures brings the development of a measure to determine
the impact of cultural differences to the forefront.
Perhaps Hippocrates was the first thinker to identify culture as a force in
determining the behavior of human beings. He theorized that the differences among
cultures are based upon such factors as prevailing norms or institutions established in the
area (Adler & Gielen, 2001). Later, psychology echoed philosophies interest in the
differences of culture. Wundt emphasized that an examination of higher mental processes
such as goal setting and decision making must be done in the context of the individuals’
46
culture (Sheehy, 2004), including language, art, mythology, and religion within cultural
organizations ranging from families, group affiliations, tribes, local and national
communities, and humankind as a whole (Kusch, 1999). Wundt identified culture as all
of the capabilities and habits acquired by individuals (as cited in Tylor, 1871). Each
organization listed by Wundt provided a distinctive set of characteristics based upon
cultural content, social systems, cultural norms, practices, values, and traditions (as cited
in Chick, 2001).
Pettigrew (1979) defined these organizational cultures as a system of publicly and
collectively accepted terms, form, categories, and images used by individuals to interpret
situations to themselves at specific times. Organizational culture comprises the
interactions between individuals and organizations (Witte & van Muijen, 1999).
Although researchers have studied organizational culture (Alavi et al., 2006; Altman &
Baruch, 1998; Denison & Mishra, 1995; deRoche, 2001; Wilkins & Ouchi, 1983),
Hofstede has been recognized as the most influential researcher in the field of
organizational culture. With more than 3,000 citations to his credit between 1999 and
2003, his five universal dimensions of culture have become the standard for studies in
organizational culture.
Hofstede (1983, 1998, 2001) described five dimensions of national culture that he
claims as universal. These dimensions, which were based upon the results of 100,000
surveys spread across 20 languages and 72 countries, explained the differences in
organizational structure, member motivation, and issues faced by people and
organizations (Hirrel, 2008). Combined, these dimensions have been applied to 53

47
countries and regions around the world, providing a means to compare cultures at the
national level.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The literature review revealed that although Hofstede’s (1983a, 1983b)
dimensions of culture were accepted measures at the national level, their applicability at
the level of an organization is unclear at best. These universal dimensions could
potentially be utilized to better understand the inherent cultures of organizations who are
integrating cultures that are the result of mergers and acquisitions. As the most widely
accepted measures of culture, Hofstede’s five dimensions could be used to compare and
contrast organizational cultures. The purpose is to first replicate and then extend
Hofstede’s research while measuring the cultural dimensions and their statistical
differences using Mann-Whitney U tests.
To accomplish this goal, a primary and secondary hypothesis will be tested. The
primary hypothesis (and its alternative) will determine whether the scores generated by
the USJFCOM are matched to the scores published by Hofstede (2005).
by Hofstede.
Hofstede.
The secondary hypothesis will test the usability of Hofstede’s (2005) dimensions
for the comparison of the individual directorates within USJFCOM.

48
Practice Implications
Although Hofstede insisted that his dimensions are valid only at the national
level, if all cultures are based upon the same principles, one might conclude that any
measure of cultural dimensions should be applicable to all cultures. If this assumption is
true, this study has the potential to provide measures of culture at the organizational level.
Based on the sheer number of possible definitions of unique cultures, this proposed study
may provide support to the plethora of researchers who wish to study and measure
culture, and the organizational leaders who wish to reduce and understand cultural
differences. This study may provide a singular measure for cultural studies at all levels.
The number of possible cultural divisions and subcategories provides this
proposed study with the potential to provide a standardized measure that can be utilized,
regardless of how the culture is defined, provided that a large enough sample can be
obtained to provide adequate reliability. The U.S. military is looking to break down walls
between military branches and organizations in an effort to establish a joint operating
environment to remove tactical and technological barriers. This study may provide a new
level of understanding regarding the different cultures in place across the various
subgroups. To capitalize on this new understanding, the USJFCOM could expand and
modify current cultural programs.

49
In addition, if the hypotheses are supported, the next step will involve
implementing programs within the military community for the development of common
cultural norms, followed by an expansion of the study to cover all of the USJFCOM and
possibly the individual military branches to note their scores in contrast with those
obtained from the USJFCOM. The focus would then turn to efforts to establish a joint
operating environment that could decrease the differences between the cultural
dimensions and move toward the establishment of a more homogeneous culture.
Future Directions
To ensure that Hofstede’s (1983b) measures, or any other measures, are valid
indicators of cultural preferences, regardless of the level of culture (national,
organizational, or other), it is important to include as large a sample as possible and to
divide that culture along lines other than nationality. Similar to the original participants
who completed the IBM surveys, the members of the USJFCOM share a common
mission, with each directorate fulfilling a specific role in that mission by employing
active duty and reservist individuals, civilians, and contractors, all of whom are from
different regions, states, and cities in the United States. Each of these minor differences
can provide its own influence on the culture represented by the individual (Lowie, 1936).
The cumulative influences can impact the culture of an organization.
Even if the data from this research are reliable at the national, organizational, and
directorate levels, additional research will be needed to overcome criticism of Hofstede
(McSweeney, 2002). It is possible that most demographic information used to define
other cultural subsets will serve only to confound the results. In the analysis of the overall
50
demographic data, it is reasonable to expect that that new subcultures will present
themselves for analysis; however, care must be taken to avoid the infinite division of the
population into smaller cultural groups.
Social Implications
Culture and its understanding or misunderstanding have long-lasting social
implications, and human history is replete with tales of wars between cultural groups
(Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005), with many based on the desire to eradicate distinct but
different cultures. Culture is important to leaders at national and organizational levels.
Organizations looking to ensure relative harmony in mergers and acquisitions need to
address differences and the similarities in organizational cultures if they want to become
one functional and effective organization. An organization such as the USJFCOM also
must address the different cultures within itself to develop a joint operating environment.
Levinson (2006) referred to organizations as a whole comprised of interrelated
subsystems that are a component of a larger system that is affected by and affects other
systems. These systems are more than the sum of their components; they are unique
entities that have the capacity to act on their environment. These organizational
subsystems can exhibit problems in their efforts to adapt and may not function well
together. These subsystems have developed their own autonomy and an internal sharing
of beliefs, goals, and values, otherwise known as culture. When these cultures begin to
work counter to the goals of the larger organization, the organization must adapt or falter.
This is true at the individual, organizational, state, nation, or species level. By providing a
method to understand the differences in culture, corrective steps can be undertaken either
51
to establish a single overarching culture or to minimize the differences. A better
understanding of cultural differences is beneficial at every level.
Hofstede et al. (2008) stated that the VSM 08 measures culture at the national
level, but as a system of systems, national culture comprises decreasing populations of
cultural influences, of which an organization is just one component. The development of
a single set of measures that will work across the levels will provide future researchers
with a common framework and a common lexicon when researching culture.
Integrative Summary
As the world continues to shrink through the use electronic communications; as
smaller companies, formerly bound to commerce in a single nation, utilize these
technologies to expand outward and to work with global partners; or as companies
consume or are themselves consumed by other companies, the successful interactions
between cultures has become the focus of modern research. The most prominent
dimensions used to compare cultures at the national level were put forth by Hofstede
(2001; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005) and have been added to by Hofstede’s proponents,
providing an expanding database of national cultures that have been scored. Although
some researchers remain dubious of any measure claiming to capture the culture of an
entire nation with a small, localized sample, the successful measurement and comparison
of cultures at all levels can reduce conflicts and ease cultural clashes within the
workplace and other communal areas.
The purpose of this proposed study is to replicate and extend research originally
completed by Hofstede (1983) at IBM and subsequently updated. The data from the
52
responses garnered from a sample of participants from three of the USJFCOM’s largest
directorates will provide sufficient statistical power to both the results and the Mann-
Whitney U-Test to determine statistical difference. The scores generated by the VSM 08
will facilitate a comparison for USJFCOM scores against national scores, as well as the
directorates against themselves.
Conclusion
This study aims to extend the current toolkit of those wishing to study culture. By
using the VSM 08 in this study, the intention is to create new data on the usability at
levels other than national. The findings may provide benefits by allowing an accepted
measure to be used on culture at any level. Even if the results indicate that Hofstede’s
dimensions fail to reliably measure the culture at USJFCOM, research into cultural
measures will be taking a step forward by proving that Hofstede’s (1983a, 1983b)
measure do no hold at a highly heterogeneous organization and do not identify any
distinction among the units. Regardless of the outcomes, important data will be gathered
about the cultures at the USJFCOM and the combination of these cultures into working
units. The hope is to facilitate the development of a joint operating environment that
properly represents all cultures.

REFERENCES
Adler, L. L., & Gielen, U. P. (2001). Cross-cultural topics in psychology (2nd ed.).
London: Greenwood.
Ailon, G. (2008). Mirror, mirror on the wall: Culture’s consequences in a value test of its
own design. Academy of Management Review, 33, 885-904.
Alavi, M., Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E. (2006). An empirical examination of the
influence of organizational culture on knowledge management practices. Journal
of Management Information Systems, 22(3), 191-224.
Altman, Y., & Baruch, Y. (1998). Cultural theory and organizations: Analytical method
and cases. Organization Studies, 19(5), 769-785.
Bloor, G., & Dawson, P. (1994). Understanding professional culture in organizational

context. Organizational Studies, 15(2), 275-295.
Chick, G. (2001). Culture-bearing units and units of culture: An introduction. Cross-

Cultural Research, 35(2), 91-108.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
DeRoche, C. (2001). Organizational culture: Management and conceptual imperialism.

Studies in Cultures, Organizations, and Societies, 1998(1), 35-70.
Deetz, S. A., & Simpson, J. L. (2000). Communication and cultural change. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and
effectiveness. Organization Science, 6(2), 204-223.
Dona, G. (1991). Cross-cultural psychology as presaged by Hippocrates. Cross-cultural

Psychology Bulletin, 25, 2.
Farber, H. S. (1998, June). Mobility and stability: The dynamics of job change in labor
markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, Industrial Relations Section.
Fielding, M. (2008). The United States unified command plan. Retrieved April 5, 2009,
from http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no3/fielding-eng.asp
Geertz, C. (1973). Interpretations of culture. New York: Bantam Books.

54
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2004). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (7th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
Hallett, T. (2003). Symbolic power and organizational culture. Sociological Theory,

21(2), 128-149.
Haslett, B. B., & Ruebush, J. (1999). What differences do individual differences in

groups make? In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of
group communication theory and research (pp. 115-138). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Hirrel, L. P. (2008). United States Joint Forces Command: Historical report October
2002 to November 2005. Norfolk, VA: U.S. Joint Forces Command.
Hofstede, G. (1983a). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories.

Journal of International Business Studies, xx, 75-89.
Hofstede, G. (1983b). National cultures in four dimensions: a research-based theory of

cultural differences among nations. International Studies of Management and
Organization, 1983(1-2), 46-73.
Hofstede, G. (1998). Attitudes, values and organizational culture: Disentangling the

concepts. Organization Studies, 19(3), 477-492.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions,

and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to
economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 5-21.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the
mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2009). Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits
and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(52), 52-88.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., Minkov, M., & Vinken, H. (2008). Value Survey Module
2008 manual [Computer manual]. Retrieved from http://stuwww.uvt.nl/~csmeets
/VSMChoice.html
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational
cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35, 286-316.
55
Hutnyk, J. (2006). Culture. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(2-3), 351- 375.
Jaisingh, L. R. (2006). Statistics for the utterly confused (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Kimble, G. A., & Schlesinger, K. (1985). Topics in the history of psychology: Vol. 2.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kusch, M. (1999). Psychological knowledge ( ed.). New York: Routledge.
Levinson, H. (2006). Organizational assessment: A step-by-step guide to effective

consulting. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lowie, R. (1936). Cultural Anthropology: A science. American Journal of Sociology, 42,

301-320.
MacFadyen, K. (2009). Cultural studies. Mergers & Acquisitions: The Dealmaker’s

Journal, 44(1), 16-17.
Massey, D. S. (1990). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass.
American Journal of Sociology, 96(2), 329-357.
McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their

consequences: A triumph of faith - A failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1),
89-118.
Miller, R. (2000). How culture affects mergers and acquisitions. Industrial Management,
42(5), 22-26.
Minkov, M. (2007). What makes us different and similar: A new interpretation of the
World Values Survey and other cross-cultural data. Sofia, Bulgaria: Klasika Stil.
Morrill, C. (2008). Culture and organizational theory. The ANNALS of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 619(1), 15-40.
Mulder, M. (1976). Reduction of power differences in practice: The power-distance

reduction theory and its applications. In G. Hofstede & M. S. Kassem (Eds.),
European contributions to organization theory (pp. 79-94). Assen, Netherlands:
Van Gorcum.
Naroll, R. (1956). The culture-bearing unit in cross-cultural research. In R. Naroll & R.

Cohen (Eds.), A handbook of method in cultural anthropology (pp. 721-765).
Garden City, NY: Natural History Press.
56
Nelson, R. E., & Gopalan, S. (2003). Do organizational cultures replicate national
cultures? Isomrophisms, rejection, and reciprocal opposition in the culture values
of three countries. Organization Studies, 24(7), 1115-1151.
Peach, C., Robinson, V., & Smith, S. (1981). Ethnic segregation in cities. London:
Taylor & Francis.
Pepper, G. L., & Larson, G. S. (2006). Cultural identity tensions in a post-acquisition

organization. Journal of Applied Communications Research, 34(1), 49-71.
Pettigrew, A. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 24(4), 570-581.
Reber, A. S., & Reber, E. S. (Eds.). (2001). Dictionary of psychology (3rd ed.). London:
Penguin.
Sinclair, A. (1993). Culture traits, strength, and organizational performance: Moving

beyond ―strong‖ culture. Academy of Management Review, 13, 546-558.
Sheehy, N. (2004). Fifty key thinkers in psychology. New York: Routledge.
Slowinski, G., Raffi, Z. E., Tao, J. C., & Gollob, L. (2002). After the acquisition:
Managing paranoid people in schizophrenic organizations. Research Technology
Management, 45(3), 21-33.
Spiro, C. (2006, November-December). Generation Y in the workplace. Defense AT&L,

xx, 16-19.
Stinchcombe, A. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. March (Ed.), Handbook

of organizations (pp. 142-169). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Tylor, E. B. (1871). The origins of primitive culture. New York: Gordon Press.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2008, June 25). American Time Use Survey summary
(Bureau of Labor Statistics). Washington, DC: Author.
Weinberg, H. (2003). The culture of the group and groups from different cultures. Group
Analysis, 36(2), 253-268.
Wilkins, A. L., & Ouchi, W. G. (1983). Efficient cultures: Exploring the relationship
between culture and organizational performance. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 28, 468-481.
57
Witte, K. D., & Van Muijen, J. J. (1999). Organizational culture: Critical questions for
researchers and practitioners. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 8(4), 583-595.
APPENDIX A: VALUES SURVEY MODULE 2008
The Values Survey Module 2008 (VSM 08) is a survey consisting of 34-items
which are used to compare culturally influenced values and sentiments of respondents.
These scores are used to compute the seven dimensions of national culture defined by
Hofstede (2001), Each dimension is represented by four questions, accounting for 28
content questions. Two of these dimensions are experimental and will not be used in this
application. The other questions ask for demographic information for the respondents
including their gender, age, and education level, as well as the kind of job they currently
have, their present nationality and nationality at birth, the directorate they are currently
working in, and personnel type. These questions represent issues known through the field
of social anthropology and cross-cultural research.
The content questions were selected based on the comparison of matched
samples from ten or more countries. Mean scores from questions pertaining to the same
dimension were found to vary together. Statistically, the mean scores for a country are
significantly correlated. However the mean scores from different dimensions are
uncorrelated.
59
V S M 08
VALUES SURVEY MODULE 2008

QUESTIONNAIRE
English language version
MAY BE FREELY USED FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES
FOR REPRODUCTION IN COMMERCIAL PUBLICATIONS,
PERMISSION IS NEEDED
Release 08-01, January 2008

Copyright @ Geert Hofstede BV
hofstede@bart.nl; www.geerthofstede.nl
60
Please think of an ideal job, disregarding your present job, if you have one. In
choosing an ideal job, how important would it be to you to ... (please circle one answer in
each line across):
1 = of utmost importance
2 = very important
3 = of moderate importance
4 = of little importance
5 = of very little or no importance
01. have sufficient time for your personal or home life
1 2 3 4 5
02. have a boss (direct superior) you can respect
1 2 3 4 5
03. get recognition for good performance
1 2 3 4 5
04. have security of employment
1 2 3 4 5
05. have pleasant people to work with
1 2 3 4 5
06. do work that is interesting
1 2 3 4 5
07. be consulted by your boss in decisions involving your work
1 2 3 4 5
61
08. live in a desirable area
1 2 3 4 5
09. have a job respected by your family and friends
1 2 3 4 5
10. have chances for promotion
1 2 3 4 5
In your private life, how important is each of the following to you: (please circle one
answer in each line across):
11. keeping time free for fun
1 2 3 4 5
12. moderation: having few desires
1 2 3 4 5
13. being generous to other people
1 2 3 4 5
14. modesty: looking small, not big
1 2 3 4 5
15. If there is something expensive you really want to buy but you do not have
enough money, what do you do?
a. always save before buying
b. usually save first
c. sometimes save, sometimes borrow to buy
d. usually borrow and pay off later

62
e. always buy now, pay off later
16. How often do you feel nervous or tense?
a. always
b. usually
c. sometimes
d. seldom
e. never
17. Are you a happy person?
a. always
b. usually
c. sometimes
d. seldom
e. never
18. Are you the same person at work (or at school if you’re a student) and at home?
a. quite the same
b. mostly the same
c. don’t know
d. mostly different
e. quite different
19. Do other people or circumstances ever prevent you from doing what you really
want to?
a. yes, always
63
b. yes, usually
c. sometimes
d. no, seldom
e. no, never
20. All in all, how would you describe your state of health these days?
a. very good
b. good
c. fair
d. poor
e. very poor
21. How important is religion in your life?
a. of utmost importance
b. very important
c. of moderate importance
d. of little importance
e. of no importance
22. How proud are you to be a citizen of your country?
a. not proud at all
b. not very proud
c. somewhat proud
d. fairly proud
e. very proud
64
23. How often, in your experience, are subordinates afraid to contradict their boss (or
students their teacher?)
a. never
b. seldom
c. sometimes
d. usually
e. always
To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? (Please
circle one answer in each line across):
1 = strongly agree
2 = agree
3 = undecided
4 = disagree
5 = strongly disagree
24. One can be a good manager without having a precise answer to every question
that a subordinate may raise about his or her work
1 2 3 4 5
25. Persistent efforts are the surest way to results
1 2 3 4 5
26. An organization structure in which certain subordinates have two bosses should
be avoided at all cost
1 2 3 4 5
65
27. A company's or organization's rules should not be broken - not even when the
employee thinks breaking the rule would be in the organization's best interest
1 2 3 4 5
28. We should honor our heroes from the past
1 2 3 4 5
Some information about yourself (for statistical purposes):
29. Are you:
a. male
b. female
30. How old are you?
a. Under 20
b. 20-24
c. 25-29
d. 30-34
e. 35-39
f. 40-49
g. 50-59
h. 60 or over
31. How many years of formal school education (or their equivalent) did you
complete (starting with primary school)?
a. 10 years or less
b. 11 years
66
c. 12 years
d. 13 years
e. 14 years
f. 15 years
g. 16 years
h. 17 years
i. 18 years or over
32. If you have or have had a paid job, what kind of job is it / was it?
a. No paid job (includes full-time students)
b. Unskilled or semi-skilled manual worker
c. Generally trained office worker or secretary
d. Vocationally trained craftsperson, technician, IT-specialist, nurse, artist or
equivalent
e. Academically trained professional or equivalent (but not a manager of people)
f. Manager of one or more subordinates (non-managers)
g. Manager of one or more managers
33. What is your nationality?
34. What was your nationality at birth (if different)?
Thank you very much for your cooperation!

APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT
Title of Research: Value Survey Model 08
Investigator: Dean Call
Before agreeing to participate in this research study, please read the following
explanation which describes the purpose, procedures, benefits, risks, discomforts, and
precautions associated with the study. Also described is your right to withdraw from the
study at any time. No guarantees or assurances can be made as to the results of the study.
Explanation of Procedures
You are being asked to participate in a research project to investigate the measure
of organizational culture. The approach of the research is through the use of the Value
Survey Model 08. You will complete the survey that contains 28 questions today; this
should take no more than 30 minutes. The surveys will be completed via a web based
form, and no identifying information will collected.
Risks and Discomforts
You will not be at physical or psychological risk and should experience no
discomfort resulting from answering the survey.
Benefits
There are no direct benefits by participating in this project. However, this research
is expected to yield knowledge about the nature of organizational cultures within
USJCOM.
Confidentiality
68
The information gathered from the study will remain confidential. Only the
researchers and the Walden University Institutional Review Board will have access to the
research materials. All data will be kept in a locked drawer. Your identity as a participant
will not be disclosed to any unauthorized persons. Any references that may compromise
your anonymity will be removed or otherwise disguised prior to the preparation of the
research reports and publications.
Withdrawal Without Prejudice
Participation in this study is voluntary; refusal to participate will involve no
penalty. You are free to withdraw consent and discontinue participation in this project at
any time without prejudice from any party.
Costs and/or Payments to Subject for Participation in Research
There will be no costs for participating in nor will you be paid to participate in
this research project.
Alternative Procedures
If a person chooses not to participate, an alternative procedure is not necessary.
Questions
Any questions concerning the research project, participants can call Dean Call at
757-836-3778. Questions regarding rights as a person in this research project should be
directed to name the Walden Institutional Review Board chairman.
Agreement
Continuing to the survey indicates that read this informed consent. Please print a
copy for you records, if desired.

CURRICULUM VITAE
Dean A. Call PMP
EXPERIENCE
Engineer, BPR 5, USJFCOM Office of the Chief Information Officer, Northrop
Grumman Command and Control Systems Division, Virginia Beach VA, Mar 2003 -
present
Direct multiple projects and project teams that provide direct client support in the areas of
business process reengineering, facilitation, knowledge and information management
Manage day-to-day operations of Project Management Department
Hire, supervise, coach and mentor project team members and department staff
Determine staffing needs, define organizational roles and create job descriptions
Oversee and provide support to over 500 project managers and over 250 active projects
Provide direct support to executive management to assure integration and alignment of
projects with organizational programs and portfolios
Direct and manage projects from inception and planning through resource management
and communication to final approval of project deliverables and successful
implementation
Have successfully completed the following key projects to date:
Served as Project Manager for all facets of a $1.34 Million Primavera ProSight IT
Portfolio Management implementation project
Served as Project Manager for all facets of a $1.2 Million MS Office SharePoint Server
implementation project
Planned and implemented $1.25 Million Enterprise Project Management System
involving multiple servers and allowing access by users external to the organization
Developed Enterprise Project Management system based on MS Project Server consisting
of two distinct implementations—Virtual Private Network connections and Web Access
Developed and maintained Project Server Enterprise Templates for organization-wide use
Developed and maintained security configuration and templates
Assisted with development of a successful proposal to provide support for TRADOC
Senior Programmer, CACI, Chesapeake, VA, May 2001 – Feb 2003

Implemented Lotus Domino SameTime Servers and enabled all servers in test fleet to
utilize Lotus SameTime
Installed Domino R6 server, planned and upgraded test servers to Domino 5.0.7, and
taught classes on Domino administration
Created and produced agents to generate an XML file and display contents to the web in
XML
Designed web interface and updated a comprehensive software applications database
Implemented MS Project plan to track all uCaS applications development
Troubleshot Winbatch and VB Scripts for an advanced testing facility
Updated select servers from Windows NT 4 to Windows 2000 server for testing
70
President/Consultant, Call Consulting Corporation, Chesapeake, VA, Apr 1998 –
May 2001
Directed a growing IT consulting firm employing up to five IT professionals and support
staff
Managed all financial operations, including accounts receivable/payable, payroll. etc.
Acquired new business and expanded existing business through effective consultations
with senior/executive officers and IS/IT managers
Successfully completed the following key projects for clients:
Coordinated the maintenance of Netware 3.11 and Netware 4.11 Servers
Implemented Lotus Domino in multiple locations and upgraded Lotus Domino servers
Designed and Installed Windows NT networks, also maintained Windows NT Servers
Directed installation of over 100 new PCs and provided user support for over 200 PCs
Implemented a phased migration from Novell to Windows NT network
Executed WAN-wide Y2K systems upgrades
Developed over 30 local Lotus Notes applications
Trained users and supported a wide variety of PC and software applications
Supported AS/400 connectivity issues and system tasks
Implemented Remote Access Server to support traveling executives
Planned and Implemented QS9000 package in Lotus Notes
Implemented Future 3 Autoscan using RF handheld scanners
PC Analyst - Programmer / Technician - Applications Developer, Southland

Technologies, Chesapeake, VA, Nov 1995 – Apr 1998
Developed enterprise-wide Lotus Notes applications
Installed and configured Lotus Notes and Windows NT servers, also enrolled and trained
users
Developed 100 Mb Ethernet network for Southland engineers
Installed over 100 new PCs, trained and provided technical support to users
Configured all PCs to connect to the network using TCP/IP, IPX, and NetBIOS Protocols
Configured hardware and software to connect out-state offices to the WAN via fractal T
lines
Established connections from Pensacola facility’s Novell 3.11 LAN to corporate NT
WAN
PC Support Technician, Computer Systems International, Chesapeake, Va, Aug –

Nov 1995
Interior Communications Electrician, United States Navy, June 1988 – June 1994
EDUCATION
Diploma and New York State Regents Diploma, Royalton-Hartland Central High
School, Middleport, New York, June 1987
71
AAS in Computer Programming/Networks, ECPI College of Technology, Norfolk,
VA, May 2002
BS in Business Information Systems, Bellevue University, Bellevue, NE, Jan 2004
MBA with Concentration in MIS, Bellevue University, Bellevue, NE, Jan 2007
PhD in Organizational Psychology, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN, in progress
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Project Management Professional (PMP), Project Management Institute

CompTia Project+
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
American Psychological Association

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Academy of Management
National Communication Association
Project Management Institute
PUBLICATIONS
Call, D. (2005). Knowledge management, not rocket science. Journal of Knowledge

Management, 9(2), p. 19

An Application of Hofstede Value Survey, Call Dean, 2010

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

An Application of Hofstede Value Survey, Call Dean, 2010

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ABSTRACT

Measuring Organizational Subcultures: An Application of Hofstede’s Value Survey

Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of

This thesis explores an application of Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture at the

proposed research design is an on-line administration of the Value Survey Module

(VSM) 08 at the U.S. Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) to determine if subcultures

government and private sector organizations as well as military, allowing organizations to

recognize similarities in culture to foster assimilation. This would positively impact

acquired, or need to undergo change.

Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of

To my family, my lovely wife Kim, who found me and saved me by being

bandwidth, I offer you my thanks.

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. iv

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 1

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHOD ............................................................................ 34

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................ 45

APPENDIX A: VALUES SURVEY MODULE 2008 ..................................................... 58

CURRICULUM VITAE ................................................................................................... 69

Table 1. Power Distance Index: General Description ....................................................... 13

Figure 1. USJFCOM directorates. .................................................................................... 27

Pettigrew (1979) described culture as the publicly accepted meanings operating

Rather than a singular entity, cultural is conceptual, contextual, and temporally

immersed in a new organizational culture. According to the 2008 Bureau of Labor

amount of time in contact with others of various cultural backgrounds.

Although individual acculturation can be problematic, a larger concern is the

acculturation of entire organizations into another by way of mergers and acquisitions.

Organization of the Chapter

and organizational culture is reviewed. A more comprehensive review of Hofstede’s

Theory, Culture and Society; Organization Studies; Human Relations; Cross-Cultural

Research; International Journal of Cross Cultural Management; and Culture &

Psychology. Membership in the Academy of Management gave the researcher online

found in previous targeted searches.

additional insight, definitions, and methodology. In addition, the Hofstede, Hofstede,

results will be measured.

The approach of searching multiple online libraries providing different virtual

command, which is comparable to a conglomerate company in the business world that

particular organizational area, or subcomponent. As noted by Bloor and Dawson (1994),

knowledge. Because culture seemingly controls communication, cultural issues, not

dimensions be found to vary if applied at the organizational level?

foundation of this study is an application of Hofstede’s cultural dimension within a single

articles and books.

the data set (Jaisingh, 2006, p. 31).

unquestioning loyalty, as contrasted with individualism (Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, &

Culture: Culture is the training or collective programming of the mind that

(Hofstede et al., 1990).

Long-term orientation: This is a society that exhibits a pragmatic, future-oriented

perspective rather than a short-term orientation (Hofstede & Bond, 1988).

Masculinity: Masculinity, in contrast to femininity, is the tendency to place more

value on achievement and success (Hofstede et al., 1990).

Organizational culture: In an organizational culture, the shared perceptions of

change (Hofstede et al., 1990).

accept the unequal distribution of power (Hofstede et al., 1990).

conventional historic or short-term point of view (Hofstede & Bond, 1988).

Subculture: Subculture is the culture of a well-defined segment of society that is

values, norms and customs (Reber & Reber, 2001).

Uncertainty avoidance: This is the degree of comfort or discomfort felt by

of personality (Kimble & Schlesinger, 1985). Hippocrates surmised that differences in

Volkerpsychologie, argued that higher mental processes should be examined in the

degrees of differences. With no clear and distinguishable difference to bind a culture,

find ways to group people with like cultures.

Weinberg (2003) commented, ―It is reasonable to assume these differences will be

transmission is the organization.

explicit intention of continuously accomplishing some specific goals or purposes‖

researchers have alluded to organization culture, or the culture of an organization