Discussion: View Thread

Expand all | Collapse all

Cultural distance - more confused than before

  • 1.  Cultural distance - more confused than before

    Posted 04-18-2008 18:59
    All,
    I recently asked a question about calculating cultural distance at the individual level – I received several conflicting suggestions. I am new to this field and, now, more confused than before.
    Can we or can we not use Hofstede’s dimensions at the individual level? If not, how do  we calculate 'cultural distance' at the individual level?
    Any help will be appreciated.
    Peter

    Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


  • 2.  Cultural distance - more confused than before

    Posted 04-19-2008 00:06
    Hi Peter: I am not an expert of cross-cultural studies. But my understanding re cultural distance analysis at individual level is that a) Hofstede's cultural dimensions are designed for cross-cultural studies. The guildlines of using these measures always state this intention. b) some studies apply one or serval (not all) demension/s of Hofstede to one national context. In this regard, it might be called as 'individual-level cultural value'.
     
    Cheers,
    Xiaobei

     
    On 4/19/08, Peter Paul <medowrun@yahoo.com> wrote:
    All,
    I recently asked a question about calculating cultural distance at the individual level – I received several conflicting suggestions. I am new to this field and, now, more confused than before.
     
    Can we or can we not use Hofstede's dimensions at the individual level? If not, how do  we calculate 'cultural distance' at the individual level?
    Any help will be appreciated.
    Peter

    Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.




    --
    Xiaobei LI

    PhD Candidate
    School of Organisation and Management
    Australian School of Business
    (Incorporating AGSM)
    The University of New South Wales (UNSW)
    Sydney  NSW 2052
    AUSTRALIA

    Email: xiaobei.li@gmail.com


  • 3.  Cultural distance - more confused than before

    Posted 04-19-2008 07:59
    Peter:

    I don't find it confusing so maybe I can help. What is culture? "Culture as the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another" (Hofstede, I think). This definition suggests that it is a group characteristic. Group 1 has a certain culture which may differ from that of group 2.

    Members of a group are likely to agree on what their culture is. If they do not have shared beliefs and norms, then one would question whether they are a group or not.

    Measuring culture at the group level would make sense because it is a group characteristic.

    If you were to measure it at the individual level, what would you really be measuring? You may be measuring the opinion of a group member in regard to the culture of the group he or she belongs to.

    You mention cultural distance. I wonder to what you would compare the individual. Distance between the individual and another individual or distance between an individual and a group?

    If you compare the individual to another individual, you are comparing two individuals' opinions of the culture of the groups they belong to. Is this meaningful? I wonder if other individual differences would be more meaningful, maybe personality differences. But I hope that you see that this answer cannot be answered in a vacuum. It depends! It depends on what your theory is, what your research questions are, etc.

    The other option was the distance between an individual and a group. Others have used cultural novelty because it seems more appropriate to consider the 'newness' of the culture in reference to the individual. Look at the expatriate literature for this. I think Shaffer et al. (1999) has it.

    What I like about measurement issues is that they rarely are measurement issues. They are usually conceptual issues.

    Enjoy,

    Laura Guerrero
    PhD Candidate
    Richard Ivey School of Business
    University of Western Ontario
    London, Ontario
    e-mail: lguerrero@ivey.uwo.ca
    Canada



    -----Original Message-----
    From: International Management Division Discussion on behalf of Peter Paul
    Sent: Fri 4/18/2008 6:58 PM
    To: IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
    Subject: Cultural distance - more confused than before

    All,
    I recently asked a question about calculating cultural distance at the individual level - I received several conflicting suggestions. I am new to this field and, now, more confused than before.

    Can we or can we not use Hofstede's dimensions at the individual level? If not, how do we calculate 'cultural distance' at the individual level?
    Any help will be appreciated.
    Peter


    ---------------------------------
    Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


  • 4.  Cultural distance - more confused than before

    Posted 04-19-2008 09:59
    About three years ago, I was planning to use Hofstede's dimensions
    at the individual level (in workshops), but I e-mailed him first
    to double-check this issue.

    He responded immediately and very clearly that the measures were
    not valid on an individual level, and that any attempt to use them
    in this way would yield inaccurate data.

    I wish I could be of more help to you and say that I used another
    cultural method for the workshop, but I was not able to find
    anything in time. I resorted to a discussion of the dimensions--a
    workable solution for a practical problem but not, unfortunately,
    for a research problem.

    Marcelline Babicz




    On Fri Apr 18 17:58:34 CDT 2008, Peter Paul <medowrun@YAHOO.COM>
    wrote:

    > All,
    > I recently asked a question about calculating cultural
    > distance at the individual level – I received several conflicting
    > suggestions. I am new to this field and, now, more confused than
    > before. Can we or can we not use Hofstede’s dimensions at the
    > individual level? If not, how do we calculate 'cultural
    > distance' at the individual level? Any help will be
    > appreciated. Peter
    > ---------------------------------
    > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo!
    > Mobile. Try it now.
    >
    >


  • 5.  Cultural distance - more confused than before

    Posted 04-19-2008 10:35
    Peter et al,

    Culture is a societal phenomenon. Period. At the individual level, it
    is only one of many things that influences a person's
    habits/tendencies/confort zones. Other major ones are the traits that
    one is born with, familial relations, life experiences and education.
    All of these buffer the societal messages and otherwise interact to form
    the personality. Therefore, the attributes of a societal culture do not
    manifest in exactly the same way in all individuals.

    You could measure the social distance that a particular person is
    comfortable with under different circumstances (e.g., formal and
    informal settings, with social superiors and peers, with known and
    unknown people, etc.). But you could not compare it to Hofstede's
    dimension of power distance because Hofstede included a large number of
    characteristics in his construct, each of which would need to be
    measured separately.

    On the other hand, you could create a behavioral measure of "social
    distance" (which is not Hofstede's construct) and see if/how it varies
    among people of different cultures. (My favorite is how people behave
    in an elevator--which is, in the U.S., to separate themselves as much as
    possible--once people start to get off; some people remain where they
    are and others immediately move to a position that is the new maximum
    distance from the others.)

    Ruth

    mixed up with personality attributes

    > On 4/19/08, Peter Paul <medowrun@yahoo.com <mailto:medowrun@yahoo.com>>
    > wrote:
    >
    > All,
    > I recently asked a question about calculating cultural distance at
    > the individual level – I received several conflicting suggestions. I
    > am new to this field and, now, more confused than before.
    >
    > Can we or can we not use Hofstede's dimensions at the individual
    > level? If not, how do we calculate 'cultural distance' at the
    > individual level?
    > Any help will be appreciated.
    > Peter

    --
    Ruth H. Axelrod
    (H/O) 301-593-4938


  • 6.  Cultural distance - more confused than before

    Posted 04-19-2008 11:45
    I agree with this analogy to a great extent. It is a group trait.
    However, measuring culture is indeed important at the individual level
    and has great value for coaching adaptation into "other" cultures
    (groups). At the individiual level it seems to me necessary to
    disaggregate dimensions of individual culture and associate each one
    separately to normality of one's own group culture and then the foreign
    culture and finally to an individual in that culture. Think about an
    individual for which you identify 4 dimensions of beliefs as a set of
    normal curves. The individual is normal on 2 dimensions but deviates
    from "normal" beliefs from his/her own culture on two dimension. Lets
    say that the two cultures overlap on the belief under investigation
    (right and left tail of two normal curves). If two individuals belonging
    to the different cultures score in the left and right tail of their
    respective normal curves - their cultural distance on that particular
    belief would be small, although both of these individuals could be
    deviants compared to norms in their own cultures. Comparing individual
    cultural distance, is therefore, inseparable from the group culture: i)
    several individual beliefs compare how with the group beliefs of own
    culture; ii) how do these compare to the beliefs of the other culture
    (degree of overlap); finally iii) how do the two individuals under
    observation compare on the two overlapping normal curves for that
    particular belief. Measurement approach is indeed important to capture
    these differences and overlaps.

    Sveinn Vidar Gudmundsson
    Professor
    Toulouse Business School
    France

    s.gudmundsson@wanadoo.fr




    Guerrero, Laura wrote:
    > Peter:
    >
    > I don't find it confusing so maybe I can help. What is culture? "Culture as the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another" (Hofstede, I think). This definition suggests that it is a group characteristic. Group 1 has a certain culture which may differ from that of group 2.
    >
    > Members of a group are likely to agree on what their culture is. If they do not have shared beliefs and norms, then one would question whether they are a group or not.
    >
    > Measuring culture at the group level would make sense because it is a group characteristic.
    >
    > If you were to measure it at the individual level, what would you really be measuring? You may be measuring the opinion of a group member in regard to the culture of the group he or she belongs to.
    >
    > You mention cultural distance. I wonder to what you would compare the individual. Distance between the individual and another individual or distance between an individual and a group?
    >
    > If you compare the individual to another individual, you are comparing two individuals' opinions of the culture of the groups they belong to. Is this meaningful? I wonder if other individual differences would be more meaningful, maybe personality differences. But I hope that you see that this answer cannot be answered in a vacuum. It depends! It depends on what your theory is, what your research questions are, etc.
    >
    > The other option was the distance between an individual and a group. Others have used cultural novelty because it seems more appropriate to consider the 'newness' of the culture in reference to the individual. Look at the expatriate literature for this. I think Shaffer et al. (1999) has it.
    >
    > What I like about measurement issues is that they rarely are measurement issues. They are usually conceptual issues.
    >
    > Enjoy,
    >
    > Laura Guerrero
    > PhD Candidate
    > Richard Ivey School of Business
    > University of Western Ontario
    > London, Ontario
    > e-mail: lguerrero@ivey.uwo.ca
    > Canada
    >
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: International Management Division Discussion on behalf of Peter Paul
    > Sent: Fri 4/18/2008 6:58 PM
    > To: IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
    > Subject: Cultural distance - more confused than before
    >
    > All,
    > I recently asked a question about calculating cultural distance at the individual level - I received several conflicting suggestions. I am new to this field and, now, more confused than before.
    >
    > Can we or can we not use Hofstede's dimensions at the individual level? If not, how do we calculate 'cultural distance' at the individual level?
    > Any help will be appreciated.
    > Peter
    >
    >
    > ---------------------------------
    > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
    >
    >
    >


  • 7.  Cultural distance - more confused than before

    Posted 04-20-2008 14:45
    Even in his own brief explanations he clearly is aiming with a macro view
    http://www.uigarden.net/english/national_culture_differences .

    Debra Black


    -----Original Message-----
    From: International Management Division Discussion
    [mailto:IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Marcy
    Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 6:59 AM
    Subject: Re: Cultural distance - more confused than before


    About three years ago, I was planning to use Hofstede's dimensions
    at the individual level (in workshops), but I e-mailed him first
    to double-check this issue.

    He responded immediately and very clearly that the measures were
    not valid on an individual level, and that any attempt to use them
    in this way would yield inaccurate data.

    I wish I could be of more help to you and say that I used another
    cultural method for the workshop, but I was not able to find
    anything in time. I resorted to a discussion of the dimensions--a
    workable solution for a practical problem but not, unfortunately,
    for a research problem.

    Marcelline Babicz




    On Fri Apr 18 17:58:34 CDT 2008, Peter Paul <medowrun@YAHOO.COM>
    wrote:

    > All,
    > I recently asked a question about calculating cultural
    > distance at the individual level - I received several conflicting
    > suggestions. I am new to this field and, now, more confused than
    > before. Can we or can we not use Hofstede's dimensions at the
    > individual level? If not, how do we calculate 'cultural
    > distance' at the individual level? Any help will be
    > appreciated. Peter
    > ---------------------------------
    > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo!
    > Mobile. Try it now.
    >
    >


  • 8.  Cultural distance - more confused than before

    Posted 04-20-2008 16:51

    Hello Peter,

     

    The cultural distance index is just a mathematical difference between two scores. So, essentially you are asking if Hofstede's instrument could be used to measure individual values.

     

    Yes, Hofstede has always been very explicit that his instrument was not intended for use at the individual level of analysis. People keep repeating this mantra, but few know why it is so. So let's get down to nuts and bolts of culture measurement.

     

    There are several things that determine if the instrument/model can be used at the individual/group/societal level.

     

    1.    Are the dimensions/factors derived using individual data or aggregated group/national means? That is, was it factor analysis first, data aggregation second, or vv. – data aggregation first, factor analysis second using national means for each item? Hofstede derived his four factors using national means (sample size of roughly 50), not individual responses (sample size of roughly 100,000). Later studies (e.g., Spector et al., 2001) showed that the four-factor structure does replicate with individual  data collected with Hofstede's VSM. Of note, the four-factor structure did not seem to replicate very cleanly with the national-level data either. Also of note, most other multi-dimensional models of culture stemming from large-scale cross-cultural comparison projects were also developed and validated using national level aggregated data (e.g., GLOBE). Maznevski et al (2002) is rather an exception – the factor structure of their model was developed using individual-level data. Factor structure of SVS (Schwartz's instrument) has been tested at both individual and national level and it seems that the factors were found to be different at each level.

    2.    Were psychometric properties of the instrument evaluated using national or individual data? If the psychometric properties of an instrument, such as internal and test-retest reliabilities, item functioning and others, are adequate when aggregated national-level data are used, it does not mean that the same will be true when individual level data are used, and vice versa. Although Hofstede has always been reluctant to report reliabilities for his instrument, it looks like they were assessed using national-level data.

    3.    Do survey questions refer to individual issues or national phenomena? Obviously, if the survey questions ask "In this society, people tend to ....?" they cannot be used to evaluated individual cultural values. It is not clear if the opposite is true. That is, if the question refer to personal beliefs and attitudes (Do you personally ....?) can the responses then be aggregated to represent national culture. Hofstede, whose instrument asks about individual beliefs and preferences, argues that is the way to go. However, the GLOBE team seems to disagree (see recent debate in JIBS, 2006 about it).

    4.    Finally, has the instrument/model been validated using national or individual level criteria? For example, Hofstede validated his model exclusively against national level criteria, such as GDP/capita and other wealth measures, economic growths, literacy, population density, climate, as well as against cultural indices from other cross-cultural comparison studies.

     

    So, if you ask about Hofstede's instrument, clearly it has been developed using national level data and thus can only be used for studying national cultures.

     

    Now, back to cultural distance. As has been pointed out, the important question is whether you are measuring distance between two people, two groups, a person and a country, a group and a country, or cultural diversity within a group?

     

    If it is not simply two countries, but two people, two groups, or a person/group vs. a country, it is important to remember that you would need to measure cultural values of your participants. Many scholars are prompt to generalize Hofstede's, or others', indices to their individual participants and say something like this "I had two samples, one from the US and one from Mexico. Based on Hofstede's (1980) study, because American culture has been shown to be highly individualistic (IND=91) and Mexican culture is highly collectivistic (IND=30), there must be a big cultural difference between my samples along IND dimension." Of course, this approach is flawed. Numerous studies have shown that individual characteristics, such as age, education, profession, marital status and more, have a profound effect on individual values. In addition, values, national and individual, do change. Just because a sample of IBM employees from the US was different from a sample of IBM employees from Mexico in 1967-73 (when Hofstede collected his data), it does not mean that the difference will be the same between say groups of US and Mexican entrepreneurs in 2008.

     

    So, if you are measuring cultural distance between people or small groups, you would need to find an instrument that has been developed for measuring individual cultural values, measure cultural values of your participants, and then calculate the cultural distance. You can find detailed descriptions on over a hundred culture measurement instruments here: http://ucalgary.ca/~taras/_private/Culture_Survey_Catalogue.pdf

     

    I hope that answers your question.

     

    Also, Take a look at literature on psychic distance. Psychic distance has often been used as an equivalent of cultural distance at the individual level.

     

     

    Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., & Sparks, K. (2001). An international study of the psychometric properties of the Hofstede Values Survey Module 1994: A comparison of individual and country/province level results. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(2), 269-281.

    Maznevski, M. L., DiStefano, J. J., Gomez, C., NIels, G. N., & Wu, P.-C. (2002). Cultural Dimensions at the Individual Level of Analysis: The cultural orientation framework. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 2(3), 275-295.

     

     

     

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vas Taras

    PhD Candidate (ABD), Instructor, Course Coordinator

    Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary

    SH441, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada

    (403) 220-6074

    taras@ucalgary.ca

    www.vtaras.com

     

     

    From: International Management Division Discussion [mailto:IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Paul
    Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 4:59 PM
    To: IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
    Subject: Cultural distance - more confused than before

     

    All,

    I recently asked a question about calculating cultural distance at the individual level – I received several conflicting suggestions. I am new to this field and, now, more confused than before.

    Can we or can we not use Hofstede's dimensions at the individual level? If not, how do  we calculate 'cultural distance' at the individual level?

    Any help will be appreciated.

    Peter

     

    Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.



  • 9.  Cultural distance - more confused than before

    Posted 04-20-2008 17:25
    You need to review level-of-analysis publications, a well discussed area in cross-cultural research. While I obviously have not read everything, everything I have read indicates that comparing individuals from different cultures using any cultural value dimensions from, e.g., Hofstede, GLOBE, Shalom Schwartz, etc. is not a valid comparison. I'm not sure what you are trying to discover, but Shalom Schwartz' Schwartz Values Survey (see Schwartz 1992) has a scoring key for individuals within a culture.

    Also see, for example, among dozens:

     Impact of Culture on Human Resource Management Practices: A 10-Country Comparison - AUT articlelinker - all 9 versions »
    Z Aycan, RN Kanungo, M Mendonca, K Yu, J Deller, G ... - Applied Psychology: An International Review, 2000 - blackwellpublishing.com

    Cultural Dimensions at the Individual Level of Analysis: The Cultural Orientations Framework - AUT articlelinker
    ML Maznevski, JJ Distefano, CB Gomez, NG ... - International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2002 - ccm.sagepub.com

    Cross-Cultural Differences: Individual-Level vs. Culture-Level Analysis - AUT articlelinker - all 3 versions »
    K Leung - International Journal of Psychology, 1989 - informaworld.com

    Understanding Research on Values in Business: A Level of Analysis Framework - AUT articlelinker - all 2 versions »
    BR Agle, CB Caldwell - Business & Society, 1999 - bas.sagepub.com

    Regards,
    Romie

    Romie F. Littrell, BA, MBA,PhD, FIAIR, An fánaí fiáin
    AUT Business School N.Z., romie.littrell@aut.ac.nz
    http://www.romielittrellpubs.homestead.com/
    http://www.crossculturalcentre.homestead.com/
    Facilitator, Leadership & Management in Sub-Sahara Africa Conferences
    Contents copyright Romie F. Littrell

    --- On Mon, 21/4/08, Debra Black <debbidoobie@ATT.NET> wrote:
    From: Debra Black <debbidoobie@ATT.NET>
    Subject: Re: Cultural distance - more confused than before
    To: IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
    Date: Monday, 21 April, 2008, 6:45 AM

    Even in his own brief explanations he clearly is aiming with a macro view
    http://www.uigarden.net/english/national_culture_differences .

    Debra Black


    -----Original Message-----
    From: International Management Division Discussion
    [mailto:IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Marcy
    Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 6:59 AM
    Subject: Re: Cultural distance - more confused than before


    About three years ago, I was planning to use Hofstede's dimensions
    at the individual level (in workshops), but I e-mailed him first
    to double-check this issue.

    He responded immediately and very clearly that the measures were
    not valid on an individual level, and that any attempt to use them
    in this way would yield inaccurate data.

    I wish I could be of more help to you and say that I used another
    cultural method for the workshop, but I was not able to find
    anything in time. I resorted to a discussion of the dimensions--a
    workable solution for a practical problem but not, unfortunately,
    for a research problem.

    Marcelline Babicz




    On Fri Apr 18 17:58:34 CDT 2008, Peter Paul <medowrun@YAHOO.COM>
    wrote:

    >   All,
    >     I recently asked a question about calculating cultural
    > distance at the individual level - I received several conflicting
    > suggestions. I am new to this field and, now, more confused than
    > before.     Can we or can we not use Hofstede's dimensions at the
    > individual level? If not, how do  we calculate 'cultural
    > distance' at the individual level?     Any help will be
    > appreciated.     Peter
    >          ---------------------------------
    > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo!
    > Mobile.   Try it now.
    >
    >

    Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
    A Smarter Email.


  • 10.  Cultural distance - more confused than before

    Posted 04-20-2008 22:20

    I have been reading this fascinating tread with keen interest and I am at the point that I cannot stay out of contributing to the discussion. Succinctly, I want to say that culture can be measured at the individual level otherwise we would have huge big conceptual problem. The first issue is that culture as concept faces many obstacles, and the primary one is definition. This is the reason why we often get into this debate. In my ongoing present study, I am exploring culture from three dimensions- organizational, country (as opposed to national), person (al). To answer Peter's question, Hofstede's dimension cannot be used to measure culture at the individual level for some of the reasons already given by other colleagues and, in short, it was not designed for that. You may want to use Rokeach's Value Survey instrument with any of this statistical techniques: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), Chi-Square, Regression Analysis, and T-test with p-value of <.05. What you are really out to capture is values, that is, "Basic mode of conduct or end-state of existence personally or socially preferable to opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence (Rokeach, 1973, p.5)." You may want to see among others the sources listed below.

     

    Chatman, J. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">Academy</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Management</st1:placename></st1:place>, 14: 333-349.

     

    Rokeach, M. (1983). Rokeach value survey: Form G. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists

                Press.

     

    Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values.  <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">New York</st1:place></st1:state>: Free Press. pp. 5-10.

     

    Rokeach, M. (1976). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">San Francisco</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">CA</st1:state></st1:place>: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Best regards,

     

    Emmanuel A. Abégunrin

     

    Emmanuel A. Abégunrin, ABD

    <st1:personname w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Capella</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype></st1:place></st1:personname>

    <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">School</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Business</st1:placename></st1:place>

     

    -----Original Message-----
    From: <st1:personname w:st="on">International Management Division Discussion</st1:personname> [mailto:IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf of Sveinn Gudmundsson
    Sent: April 19, 2008 11:45 AM
    To: IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
    Subject: Re: Cultural distance - more confused than before

     

    I agree with this analogy to a great extent. It is a group trait.

    However, measuring culture is indeed important at the individual level

    and has great value for coaching adaptation into "other" cultures

    (groups). At the individiual level it seems to me necessary to

    disaggregate dimensions of individual culture and associate each one

    separately to normality of one's own group culture and then the foreign

    culture and finally to an individual in that culture. Think about an

    individual for which you identify 4 dimensions of beliefs as a set of

    normal curves. The individual is normal on 2 dimensions but deviates

    from "normal" beliefs from his/her own culture on two dimension. Lets

    say that the two cultures overlap on the belief under investigation

    (right and left tail of two normal curves). If two individuals belonging

    to the different cultures score in the left and right tail of their

    respective normal curves - their cultural distance on that particular

    belief would be small, although both of these individuals could be

    deviants compared to norms in their own cultures. Comparing individual

    cultural distance, is therefore, inseparable from the group culture: i)

    several individual beliefs compare how with the group beliefs of own

    culture; ii) how do these compare to the beliefs of the other culture

    (degree of overlap); finally iii) how do the two individuals under

    observation compare on the two overlapping normal curves for that

    particular belief. Measurement approach is indeed important to capture

    these differences and overlaps.

     

    Sveinn Vidar Gudmundsson

    Professor

    <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Toulouse</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">Business</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">School</st1:placetype></st1:place>

    <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">France</st1:place></st1:country-region>

     

    s.gudmundsson@wanadoo.fr

     

     

     

     

    Guerrero, Laura wrote:

    > Peter:

    > 

    > I don't find it confusing so maybe I can help.  What is culture?  "Culture as the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another" (Hofstede, I think).  This definition suggests that it is a group characteristic.  Group 1 has a certain culture which may differ from that of group 2. 

    > 

    > Members of a group are likely to agree on what their culture is.  If they do not have shared beliefs and norms, then one would question whether they are a group or not.

    > 

    > Measuring culture at the group level would make sense because it is a group characteristic.

    > 

    > If you were to measure it at the individual level, what would you really be measuring?  You may be measuring the opinion of a group member in regard to the culture of the group he or she belongs to. 

    > 

    > You mention cultural distance.  I wonder to what you would compare the individual.  Distance between the individual and another individual or distance between an individual and a group? 

    > 

    > If you compare the individual to another individual, you are comparing two individuals' opinions of the culture of the groups they belong to.  Is this meaningful?  I wonder if other individual differences would be more meaningful, maybe personality differences.  But I hope that you see that this answer cannot be answered in a vacuum.  It depends!  It depends on what your theory is, what your research questions are, etc.

    > 

    > The other option was the distance between an individual and a group.  Others have used cultural novelty because it seems more appropriate to consider the 'newness' of the culture in reference to the individual.  Look at the expatriate literature for this.  I think Shaffer et al. (1999) has it.

    > 

    > What I like about measurement issues is that they rarely are measurement issues.  They are usually conceptual issues.

    > 

    > Enjoy,

    > 

    > Laura Guerrero

    > PhD Candidate

    > <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Richard</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">Ivey</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">School</st1:placetype></st1:place> of Business

    > <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">University of Western</st1:city> <st1:state w:st="on">Ontario</st1:state></st1:place>

    > <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">London</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">Ontario</st1:state></st1:place>

    > e-mail: lguerrero@ivey.uwo.ca

    > <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Canada</st1:place></st1:country-region>

    > 

    > 

    > 

    > -----Original Message-----

    > From: <st1:personname w:st="on">International Management Division Discussion</st1:personname> on behalf of Peter Paul

    > Sent: Fri 4/18/2008 6:58 PM

    > To: IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu

    > Subject: Cultural distance - more confused than before

    > 

    >   All,

    >     I recently asked a question about calculating cultural distance at the individual level - I received several conflicting suggestions. I am new to this field and, now, more confused than before.

    > 

    >     Can we or can we not use Hofstede's dimensions at the individual level? If not, how do  we calculate 'cultural distance' at the individual level?

    >     Any help will be appreciated.

    >     Peter

    >  

    >       

    > ---------------------------------

    > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

    > 

    > 

    >  



  • 11.  Cultural distance - more confused than before

    Posted 04-21-2008 01:27
    Hofstede's values were developed for the organisational level of analysis not the individual level (he used cultural profiles of IBM organisations in different countries and compared these to develop dimensions).  Applying them at the individual level creates a problem with stereotyping etc.  Suggest you consult Hofstede's book: "Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations" (2nd ed). Sage Publications. London. Thousand Oaks.  page 15 and following - where Hofstede discusses the 'ecological fallacy' and its reverse which is the issue here. 
    Also, suggest you read the attached paper by Bradley Agle & Craig Caldwell: "Understanding Research on Values in Business" (Bus. & Society: 38 (3) Sep. 1999), as it provides a very clear explanation of the level of analysis issue and discusses Hofstede's dimensions - "...lack of attention to levels issues causes four potential problems: misspecification, aggregation bias, cross-level fallacies, and contextual fallcies" (see p. 365ff). 
     
    Best wishes.
     
    Sheila Gowans
    Department of Management and Marketing
    University of Melbourne
    VICTORIA  3010  AUSTRALIA
    Tel:  +61 3 8344 0180  Mobile:  0419 192265
    http://www.managementmarketing.unimelb.edu.au/staff/staffPage.cfm?StaffId=76
    -----------------------------------------------------------

    "email-body" was scanned and certified Virus-Free.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    VirusScanned by Trend Micro InterScan VirusWall (http://www.antivirus.com).
    IT Support Unit, Department of Economics, The University of Melbourne.
    Disclaimer: http://www.economics.unimelb.edu.au/Email_Disclaimer.html
    -----------------------------------------------------------
     

    From: International Management Division Discussion [mailto:IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Paul
    Sent: Saturday, 19 April 2008 8:59 AM
    To: IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
    Subject: Cultural distance - more confused than before

    All,
    I recently asked a question about calculating cultural distance at the individual level – I received several conflicting suggestions. I am new to this field and, now, more confused than before.
    Can we or can we not use Hofstede's dimensions at the individual level? If not, how do  we calculate 'cultural distance' at the individual level?
    Any help will be appreciated.
    Peter

    Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


  • 12.  Cultural distance - more confused than before

    Posted 04-21-2008 19:42

    Hello Peter,

     

    The cultural distance index is just a mathematical difference between two scores. So, essentially you are asking if Hofstede's instrument could be used to measure individual values.

     

    Yes, Hofstede has always been very explicit that his instrument was not intended for use at the individual level of analysis. People keep repeating this mantra, but few know why it is so. So let's get down to nuts and bolts of culture measurement.

     

    There are several things that determine if the instrument/model can be used at the individual/group/societal level.

     

    1.    Are the dimensions/factors derived using individual data or aggregated group/national means? That is, was it factor analysis first, data aggregation second, or vv. – data aggregation first, factor analysis second using national means for each item? Hofstede derived his four factors using national means (sample size of roughly 50), not individual responses (sample size of roughly 100,000). Later studies (e.g., Spector et al., 2001) showed that the four-factor structure does replicate with individual  data collected with Hofstede's VSM. Of note, the four-factor structure did not seem to replicate very cleanly with the national-level data either. Also of note, most other multi-dimensional models of culture stemming from large-scale cross-cultural comparison projects were also developed and validated using national level aggregated data (e.g., GLOBE). Maznevski et al (2002) is rather an exception – the factor structure of their model was developed using individual-level data. Factor structure of SVS (Schwartz's instrument) has been tested at both individual and national level and it seems that the factors were found to be different at each level.

    2.    Were psychometric properties of the instrument evaluated using national or individual data? If the psychometric properties of an instrument, such as internal and test-retest reliabilities, item functioning and others, are adequate when aggregated national-level data are used, it does not mean that the same will be true when individual level data are used, and vice versa. Although Hofstede has always been reluctant to report reliabilities for his instrument, it looks like they were assessed using national-level data.

    3.    Do survey questions refer to individual issues or national phenomena? Obviously, if the survey questions ask "In this society, people tend to ....?" they cannot be used to evaluated individual cultural values. It is not clear if the opposite is true. That is, if the question refer to personal beliefs and attitudes (Do you personally ....?) can the responses then be aggregated to represent national culture. Hofstede, whose instrument asks about individual beliefs and preferences, argues that is the way to go. However, the GLOBE team seems to disagree (see recent debate in JIBS, 2006 about it).

    4.    Finally, has the instrument/model been validated using national or individual level criteria? For example, Hofstede validated his model exclusively against national level criteria, such as GDP/capita and other wealth measures, economic growths, literacy, population density, climate, as well as against cultural indices from other cross-cultural comparison studies.

     

    So, if you ask about Hofstede's instrument, clearly it has been developed using national level data and thus can only be used for studying national cultures.

     

    Now, back to cultural distance. As has been pointed out, the important question is whether you are measuring distance between two people, two groups, a person and a country, a group and a country, or cultural diversity within a group?

     

    If it is not simply two countries, but two people, two groups, or a person/group vs. a country, it is important to remember that you would need to measure cultural values of your participants. Many scholars are prompt to generalize Hofstede's, or others', indices to their individual participants and say something like this "I had two samples, one from the US and one from Mexico. Based on Hofstede's (1980) study, because American culture has been shown to be highly individualistic (IND=91) and Mexican culture is highly collectivistic (IND=30), there must be a big cultural difference between my samples along IND dimension." Of course, this approach is flawed. Numerous studies have shown that individual characteristics, such as age, education, profession, marital status and more, have a profound effect on individual values. In addition, values, national and individual, do change. Just because a sample of IBM employees from the US was different from a sample of IBM employees from Mexico in 1967-73 (when Hofstede collected his data), it does not mean that the difference will be the same between say groups of US and Mexican entrepreneurs in 2008.

     

    So, if you are measuring cultural distance between people or small groups, you would need to find an instrument that has been developed for measuring individual cultural values, measure cultural values of your participants, and then calculate the cultural distance. You can find detailed descriptions on over a hundred culture measurement instruments here: http://ucalgary.ca/~taras/_private/Culture_Survey_Catalogue.pdf

     

    I hope that answers your question.

     

    Also, Take a look at literature on psychic distance. Psychic distance has often been used as an equivalent of cultural distance at the individual level.

     

     

    Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., & Sparks, K. (2001). An international study of the psychometric properties of the Hofstede Values Survey Module 1994: A comparison of individual and country/province level results. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(2), 269-281.

    Maznevski, M. L., DiStefano, J. J., Gomez, C., NIels, G. N., & Wu, P.-C. (2002). Cultural Dimensions at the Individual Level of Analysis: The cultural orientation framework. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 2(3), 275-295.

     

     

     

     

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vas Taras

    PhD Candidate (ABD), Instructor, Course Coordinator

    Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary

    SH441, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada

    (403) 220-6074

    taras@ucalgary.ca

    www.vtaras.com

     

     

    From: International Management Division Discussion [mailto:IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Emmanuel
    Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 8:20 PM
    To: IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
    Subject: Re: Cultural distance - more confused than before

     

    I have been reading this fascinating tread with keen interest and I am at the point that I cannot stay out of contributing to the discussion. Succinctly, I want to say that culture can be measured at the individual level otherwise we would have huge big conceptual problem. The first issue is that culture as concept faces many obstacles, and the primary one is definition. This is the reason why we often get into this debate. In my ongoing present study, I am exploring culture from three dimensions- organizational, country (as opposed to national), person (al). To answer Peter's question, Hofstede's dimension cannot be used to measure culture at the individual level for some of the reasons already given by other colleagues and, in short, it was not designed for that. You may want to use Rokeach's Value Survey instrument with any of this statistical techniques: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), Chi-Square, Regression Analysis, and T-test with p-value of <.05. What you are really out to capture is values, that is, "Basic mode of conduct or end-state of existence personally or socially preferable to opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence (Rokeach, 1973, p.5)." You may want to see among others the sources listed below.

     

    Chatman, J. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management, 14: 333-349.

     

    Rokeach, M. (1983). Rokeach value survey: Form G. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists

                Press.

     

    Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values.  New York: Free Press. pp. 5-10.

     

    Rokeach, M. (1976). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Best regards,

     

    Emmanuel A. Abégunrin

     

    Emmanuel A. Abégunrin, ABD

    Capella University

    School of Business

     

    -----Original Message-----
    From: International Management Division Discussion [mailto:IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf of Sveinn Gudmundsson
    Sent: April 19, 2008 11:45 AM
    To: IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
    Subject: Re: Cultural distance - more confused than before

     

    I agree with this analogy to a great extent. It is a group trait.

    However, measuring culture is indeed important at the individual level

    and has great value for coaching adaptation into "other" cultures

    (groups). At the individiual level it seems to me necessary to

    disaggregate dimensions of individual culture and associate each one

    separately to normality of one's own group culture and then the foreign

    culture and finally to an individual in that culture. Think about an

    individual for which you identify 4 dimensions of beliefs as a set of

    normal curves. The individual is normal on 2 dimensions but deviates

    from "normal" beliefs from his/her own culture on two dimension. Lets

    say that the two cultures overlap on the belief under investigation

    (right and left tail of two normal curves). If two individuals belonging

    to the different cultures score in the left and right tail of their

    respective normal curves - their cultural distance on that particular

    belief would be small, although both of these individuals could be

    deviants compared to norms in their own cultures. Comparing individual

    cultural distance, is therefore, inseparable from the group culture: i)

    several individual beliefs compare how with the group beliefs of own

    culture; ii) how do these compare to the beliefs of the other culture

    (degree of overlap); finally iii) how do the two individuals under

    observation compare on the two overlapping normal curves for that

    particular belief. Measurement approach is indeed important to capture

    these differences and overlaps.

     

    Sveinn Vidar Gudmundsson

    Professor

    Toulouse Business School

    France

     

    s.gudmundsson@wanadoo.fr

     

     

     

     

    Guerrero, Laura wrote:

    > Peter:

    > 

    > I don't find it confusing so maybe I can help.  What is culture?  "Culture as the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another" (Hofstede, I think).  This definition suggests that it is a group characteristic.  Group 1 has a certain culture which may differ from that of group 2. 

    > 

    > Members of a group are likely to agree on what their culture is.  If they do not have shared beliefs and norms, then one would question whether they are a group or not.

    > 

    > Measuring culture at the group level would make sense because it is a group characteristic.

    > 

    > If you were to measure it at the individual level, what would you really be measuring?  You may be measuring the opinion of a group member in regard to the culture of the group he or she belongs to. 

    > 

    > You mention cultural distance.  I wonder to what you would compare the individual.  Distance between the individual and another individual or distance between an individual and a group? 

    > 

    > If you compare the individual to another individual, you are comparing two individuals' opinions of the culture of the groups they belong to.  Is this meaningful?  I wonder if other individual differences would be more meaningful, maybe personality differences.  But I hope that you see that this answer cannot be answered in a vacuum.  It depends!  It depends on what your theory is, what your research questions are, etc.

    > 

    > The other option was the distance between an individual and a group.  Others have used cultural novelty because it seems more appropriate to consider the 'newness' of the culture in reference to the individual.  Look at the expatriate literature for this.  I think Shaffer et al. (1999) has it.

    > 

    > What I like about measurement issues is that they rarely are measurement issues.  They are usually conceptual issues.

    > 

    > Enjoy,

    > 

    > Laura Guerrero

    > PhD Candidate

    > Richard Ivey School of Business

    > University of Western Ontario

    > London, Ontario

    > e-mail: lguerrero@ivey.uwo.ca

    > Canada

    > 

    > 

    > 

    > -----Original Message-----

    > From: International Management Division Discussion on behalf of Peter Paul

    > Sent: Fri 4/18/2008 6:58 PM

    > To: IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu

    > Subject: Cultural distance - more confused than before

    > 

    >   All,

    >     I recently asked a question about calculating cultural distance at the individual level - I received several conflicting suggestions. I am new to this field and, now, more confused than before.

    > 

    >     Can we or can we not use Hofstede's dimensions at the individual level? If not, how do  we calculate 'cultural distance' at the individual level?

    >     Any help will be appreciated.

    >     Peter

    >  

    >       

    > ---------------------------------

    > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

    > 

    > 

    >  



  • 13.  Cultural distance - more confused than before

    Posted 04-22-2008 07:17
    Vas et al.:

    I know the argument that we are interested in country-level
    differences, so therefore we should not look at individual-level scale
    statistics. I just don't buy the argument. People hold values not
    countries, and it is people not countries that complete scales. If you are
    taking the mean of people's scores, then the psychometric properties of
    the instrument is very relevant. If you can't measure something reliably,
    how can it make sense to aggregate it? Unless you are going to collect
    data in a manner other than having people complete scales (e.g., run focus
    groups and have panels of people discuss each item to consensus; do
    content analysis of television ads), what you are assessing is at the
    individual level. Reference to the multi-level literature is instructive
    here in deciding whether it makes sense to aggregate and generalize from
    the individual level to the higher level. Two issues concern the amount of
    within unit versus between unit agreement, and the focus of the item,
    i.e., on the self or on the larger unit as Vas mentioned.

    Paul

    Paul E. Spector
    Department of Psychology
    University of South Florida
    Tampa, FL 33620
    (813) 974-0357 Voice
    (813) 974-4617 Fax
    spector@shell.cas.usf.edu
    website http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~spector

    On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Vas Taras wrote:

    > Hello Peter,
    >
    >
    >
    > The cultural distance index is just a mathematical difference between two
    > scores. So, essentially you are asking if Hofstede?s instrument could be
    > used to measure individual values.
    >
    >
    >
    > Yes, Hofstede has always been very explicit that his instrument was not
    > intended for use at the individual level of analysis. People keep repeating
    > this mantra, but few know why it is so. So let?s get down to nuts and bolts
    > of culture measurement.
    >
    >
    >
    > There are several things that determine if the instrument/model can be used
    > at the individual/group/societal level.
    >
    >
    >
    > 1. Are the dimensions/factors derived using individual data or aggregated
    > group/national means? That is, was it factor analysis first, data
    > aggregation second, or vv. ? data aggregation first, factor analysis second
    > using national means for each item? Hofstede derived his four factors using
    > national means (sample size of roughly 50), not individual responses (sample
    > size of roughly 100,000). Later studies (e.g., Spector et al., 2001) showed
    > that the four-factor structure does replicate with individual data
    > collected with Hofstede?s VSM. Of note, the four-factor structure did not
    > seem to replicate very cleanly with the national-level data either. Also of
    > note, most other multi-dimensional models of culture stemming from
    > large-scale cross-cultural comparison projects were also developed and
    > validated using national level aggregated data (e.g., GLOBE). Maznevski et
    > al (2002) is rather an exception ? the factor structure of their model was
    > developed using individual-level data. Factor structure of SVS (Schwartz?s
    > instrument) has been tested at both individual and national level and it
    > seems that the factors were found to be different at each level.
    >
    > 2. Were psychometric properties of the instrument evaluated using
    > national or individual data? If the psychometric properties of an
    > instrument, such as internal and test-retest reliabilities, item functioning
    > and others, are adequate when aggregated national-level data are used, it
    > does not mean that the same will be true when individual level data are
    > used, and vice versa. Although Hofstede has always been reluctant to report
    > reliabilities for his instrument, it looks like they were assessed using
    > national-level data.
    >
    > 3. Do survey questions refer to individual issues or national phenomena?
    > Obviously, if the survey questions ask ?In this society, people tend to ?.??
    > they cannot be used to evaluated individual cultural values. It is not clear
    > if the opposite is true. That is, if the question refer to personal beliefs
    > and attitudes (Do you personally ?.?) can the responses then be aggregated
    > to represent national culture. Hofstede, whose instrument asks about
    > individual beliefs and preferences, argues that is the way to go. However,
    > the GLOBE team seems to disagree (see recent debate in JIBS, 2006 about it).
    >
    >
    > 4. Finally, has the instrument/model been validated using national or
    > individual level criteria? For example, Hofstede validated his model
    > exclusively against national level criteria, such as GDP/capita and other
    > wealth measures, economic growths, literacy, population density, climate, as
    > well as against cultural indices from other cross-cultural comparison
    > studies.
    >
    >
    >
    > So, if you ask about Hofstede?s instrument, clearly it has been developed
    > using national level data and thus can only be used for studying national
    > cultures.
    >
    >
    >
    > Now, back to cultural distance. As has been pointed out, the important
    > question is whether you are measuring distance between two people, two
    > groups, a person and a country, a group and a country, or cultural diversity
    > within a group?
    >
    >
    >
    > If it is not simply two countries, but two people, two groups, or a
    > person/group vs. a country, it is important to remember that you would need
    > to measure cultural values of your participants. Many scholars are prompt to
    > generalize Hofstede?s, or others?, indices to their individual participants
    > and say something like this ?I had two samples, one from the US and one from
    > Mexico. Based on Hofstede?s (1980) study, because American culture has been
    > shown to be highly individualistic (IND=91) and Mexican culture is highly
    > collectivistic (IND=30), there must be a big cultural difference between my
    > samples along IND dimension.? Of course, this approach is flawed. Numerous
    > studies have shown that individual characteristics, such as age, education,
    > profession, marital status and more, have a profound effect on individual
    > values. In addition, values, national and individual, do change. Just
    > because a sample of IBM employees from the US was different from a sample of
    > IBM employees from Mexico in 1967-73 (when Hofstede collected his data), it
    > does not mean that the difference will be the same between say groups of US
    > and Mexican entrepreneurs in 2008.
    >
    >
    >
    > So, if you are measuring cultural distance between people or small groups,
    > you would need to find an instrument that has been developed for measuring
    > individual cultural values, measure cultural values of your participants,
    > and then calculate the cultural distance. You can find detailed descriptions
    > on over a hundred culture measurement instruments here:
    > http://ucalgary.ca/~taras/_private/Culture_Survey_Catalogue.pdf
    >
    >
    >
    > I hope that answers your question.
    >
    >
    >
    > Also, Take a look at literature on psychic distance. Psychic distance has
    > often been used as an equivalent of cultural distance at the individual
    > level.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., & Sparks, K. (2001). An international study
    > of the psychometric properties of the Hofstede Values Survey Module 1994: A
    > comparison of individual and country/province level results. Applied
    > Psychology: An International Review, 50(2), 269-281.
    >
    > Maznevski, M. L., DiStefano, J. J., Gomez, C., NIels, G. N., & Wu, P.-C.
    > (2002). Cultural Dimensions at the Individual Level of Analysis: The
    > cultural orientation framework. International Journal of Cross-Cultural
    > Management, 2(3), 275-295.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > -------------------
    >
    > Vas Taras
    >
    > PhD Candidate (ABD), Instructor, Course Coordinator
    >
    > Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary
    >
    > SH441, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada
    >
    > (403) 220-6074
    >
    > <mailto:taras@ucalgary.ca> taras@ucalgary.ca
    >
    > <http://www.vtaras.com/> www.vtaras.com
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > From: International Management Division Discussion
    > [mailto:IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Emmanuel
    > Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 8:20 PM
    > To: IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
    > Subject: Re: Cultural distance - more confused than before
    >
    >
    >
    > I have been reading this fascinating tread with keen interest and I am at
    > the point that I cannot stay out of contributing to the discussion.
    > Succinctly, I want to say that culture can be measured at the individual
    > level otherwise we would have huge big conceptual problem. The first issue
    > is that culture as concept faces many obstacles, and the primary one is
    > definition. This is the reason why we often get into this debate. In my
    > ongoing present study, I am exploring culture from three dimensions-
    > organizational, country (as opposed to national), person (al). To answer
    > Peter?s question, Hofstede's dimension cannot be used to measure culture at
    > the individual level for some of the reasons already given by other
    > colleagues and, in short, it was not designed for that. You may want to use
    > Rokeach?s Value Survey instrument with any of this statistical techniques:
    > Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), Chi-Square,
    > Regression Analysis, and T-test with p-value of <.05. What you are really
    > out to capture is values, that is, ?Basic mode of conduct or end-state of
    > existence personally or socially preferable to opposite or converse mode of
    > conduct or end-state of existence (Rokeach, 1973, p.5).? You may want to see
    > among others the sources listed below.
    >
    >
    >
    > Chatman, J. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model
    > of person-organization fit. Academy of Management, 14: 333-349.
    >
    >
    >
    > Rokeach, M. (1983). Rokeach value survey: Form G. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
    > Psychologists
    >
    > Press.
    >
    >
    >
    > Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press. pp.
    > 5-10.
    >
    >
    >
    > Rokeach, M. (1976). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco, CA:
    > Jossey-Bass Publishers.
    >
    > Best regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Emmanuel A. Ab?gunrin
    >
    >
    >
    > Emmanuel A. Ab?gunrin, ABD
    >
    > Capella University
    >
    > School of Business
    >
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: International Management Division Discussion
    > [mailto:IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf of Sveinn Gudmundsson
    > Sent: April 19, 2008 11:45 AM
    > To: IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
    > Subject: Re: Cultural distance - more confused than before
    >
    >
    >
    > I agree with this analogy to a great extent. It is a group trait.
    >
    > However, measuring culture is indeed important at the individual level
    >
    > and has great value for coaching adaptation into "other" cultures
    >
    > (groups). At the individiual level it seems to me necessary to
    >
    > disaggregate dimensions of individual culture and associate each one
    >
    > separately to normality of one's own group culture and then the foreign
    >
    > culture and finally to an individual in that culture. Think about an
    >
    > individual for which you identify 4 dimensions of beliefs as a set of
    >
    > normal curves. The individual is normal on 2 dimensions but deviates
    >
    > from "normal" beliefs from his/her own culture on two dimension. Lets
    >
    > say that the two cultures overlap on the belief under investigation
    >
    > (right and left tail of two normal curves). If two individuals belonging
    >
    > to the different cultures score in the left and right tail of their
    >
    > respective normal curves - their cultural distance on that particular
    >
    > belief would be small, although both of these individuals could be
    >
    > deviants compared to norms in their own cultures. Comparing individual
    >
    > cultural distance, is therefore, inseparable from the group culture: i)
    >
    > several individual beliefs compare how with the group beliefs of own
    >
    > culture; ii) how do these compare to the beliefs of the other culture
    >
    > (degree of overlap); finally iii) how do the two individuals under
    >
    > observation compare on the two overlapping normal curves for that
    >
    > particular belief. Measurement approach is indeed important to capture
    >
    > these differences and overlaps.
    >
    >
    >
    > Sveinn Vidar Gudmundsson
    >
    > Professor
    >
    > Toulouse Business School
    >
    > France
    >
    >
    >
    > s.gudmundsson@wanadoo.fr
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Guerrero, Laura wrote:
    >
    >> Peter:
    >
    >>
    >
    >> I don't find it confusing so maybe I can help. What is culture? "Culture
    > as the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of
    > one human group from another" (Hofstede, I think). This definition suggests
    > that it is a group characteristic. Group 1 has a certain culture which may
    > differ from that of group 2.
    >
    >>
    >
    >> Members of a group are likely to agree on what their culture is. If they
    > do not have shared beliefs and norms, then one would question whether they
    > are a group or not.
    >
    >>
    >
    >> Measuring culture at the group level would make sense because it is a
    > group characteristic.
    >
    >>
    >
    >> If you were to measure it at the individual level, what would you really
    > be measuring? You may be measuring the opinion of a group member in regard
    > to the culture of the group he or she belongs to.
    >
    >>
    >
    >> You mention cultural distance. I wonder to what you would compare the
    > individual. Distance between the individual and another individual or
    > distance between an individual and a group?
    >
    >>
    >
    >> If you compare the individual to another individual, you are comparing two
    > individuals' opinions of the culture of the groups they belong to. Is this
    > meaningful? I wonder if other individual differences would be more
    > meaningful, maybe personality differences. But I hope that you see that
    > this answer cannot be answered in a vacuum. It depends! It depends on what
    > your theory is, what your research questions are, etc.
    >
    >>
    >
    >> The other option was the distance between an individual and a group.
    > Others have used cultural novelty because it seems more appropriate to
    > consider the 'newness' of the culture in reference to the individual. Look
    > at the expatriate literature for this. I think Shaffer et al. (1999) has
    > it.
    >
    >>
    >
    >> What I like about measurement issues is that they rarely are measurement
    > issues. They are usually conceptual issues.
    >
    >>
    >
    >> Enjoy,
    >
    >>
    >
    >> Laura Guerrero
    >
    >> PhD Candidate
    >
    >> Richard Ivey School of Business
    >
    >> University of Western Ontario
    >
    >> London, Ontario
    >
    >> e-mail: lguerrero@ivey.uwo.ca
    >
    >> Canada
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >> -----Original Message-----
    >
    >> From: International Management Division Discussion on behalf of Peter Paul
    >
    >> Sent: Fri 4/18/2008 6:58 PM
    >
    >> To: IMD-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
    >
    >> Subject: Cultural distance - more confused than before
    >
    >>
    >
    >> All,
    >
    >> I recently asked a question about calculating cultural distance at the
    > individual level - I received several conflicting suggestions. I am new to
    > this field and, now, more confused than before.
    >
    >>
    >
    >> Can we or can we not use Hofstede's dimensions at the individual
    > level? If not, how do we calculate 'cultural distance' at the individual
    > level?
    >
    >> Any help will be appreciated.
    >
    >> Peter
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >> ---------------------------------
    >
    >> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
    > now.
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >>
    >
    >