The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5265.htm

Cultural
Cultural dimensions in business dimensions
life: Hofstede’s indices for Latvia in business life
and Lithuania
359
Maik Huettinger
Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland Received June 2007
Revised October 2007
Accepted January 2008
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the culture dimensions of young Latvians and
Lithuanians in accordance with Geert Hofstede’s indices. These culture characteristics are discussed
from the perspective of their similarity with Estonia and the Scandinavian countries.
Design/methodology/approach – The research is part of the Hofstede national culture studies.
The survey is based on more than 800 questionnaires, which were handed out to students in Latvia,
Lithuania and Sweden. The Swedish scores were used to calibrate the Lithuanian and Latvian values
to the existing Hofstede database.
Findings – The study shows that respondents of both countries score very similar for all five
dimensions of the Hofstede model: power distance moderate low, moderate for uncertainty avoidance,
very low for masculinity, individualism moderate-high, and very low in long-term orientation.
Research limitations/implications – The empirical research was limited to participants who
classified themselves as belonging to the dominating ethnic class. Ethnical minorities were excluded –
however they might have a considerable influence in daily business life. A second weakness might be
that the students sample represents the values of young Lithuanians and Latvians – the future society
of the countries. An examination of the majority of population who grew up with communist ideology
might have shown different results.
Practical implications – The results of the study have shown that the three Baltic countries score
pretty uniformly and much more similar to Scandinavia than Russia and/or Poland. International
business actors should therefore include the Baltics in their Nordic strategy – rather than adding them
to central and eastern Europe.
Originality/value – The main value of this study is that the Hofstede methodology was for the first
time applied for Latvia. The results for Latvia and Lithuania were meanwhile reviewed by
Prof. Hofstede and included into his database.
Keywords Latvia, Lithuania, National cultures, Baltic states
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Culture has a tremendous impact on many factors, including management style and
has developed within the international business field to become a focal issue
(Nasierowski and Mikula, 1998). In particular, the knowledge of American, western
European and Japanese influence on organizational management has become an
essential tool for global actors. Since the end of the cold war and the fall of the iron
curtain, increasing attention has finally been paid to cultural research in central and
eastern Europe. Baltic Journal of Management
Vol. 3 No. 3, 2008
However, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have been systematically ignored in the pp. 359-376
cultural research and are still being treated as a forecourt of Russia. Many publications q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1746-5265
consider them as a common block, due not only to their geographical proximity. DOI 10.1108/17465260810902414
BJM Only a very small number of scholars focus on cultural differences among former
3,3 Soviet-Union states and/or CIS countries (Vadi and Meri, 2005). In business, the “block”
classification has meanwhile become a fact and most corporations and multinational
companies pursue a standardized marketing strategy across the three markets. As part
of the former Soviet Union, the region had been heavily targeted by settlement
programs of the Stalin era. Nevertheless, these “three small tigers” have always been
360 able to keep their cultural values and their close ties, especially to Scandinavia
(Manning and Poljeva, 1999). Sometimes their inhabitants are described as “people
with a Slavonic heart and a Scandinavian head” (Huettinger, 2006a, b). Their citizens
behaved very similarly in their antipathy towards the Soviet style communism and
have always associated their identity with that of central Europeans (Alas and Rees,
2005). Baltic people are more attuned to the politics of self-determination than their
Slavic counterparts and they are more inclined to look westward than inward (Smith,
1990). Compared with other former Soviet Republics, the level of education is
remarkably high and notable stress is put on western skills (Martinsons, 1995).
Excellent language skills and a strong working ethos are helping to re-establish
historic economical relations with western Europe and revive the old Hanseatic trade
routes (Manning and Poljeva, 1999; Manrai et al., 2001). Furthermore, Lithuanians
share a cultural and political heritage with Poland and have strong historical links with
Germans. They are said to be emotional and grandiloquent (Lewis, 2000). Estonians are
not only closely linked linguistically to the Finish, their business culture is also said to
be very similar and reserved (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Latvia looks westwards to
Sweden and Germany, to continue its traditional ties (Manning and Poljeva, 1999).
Only one of the current most citied studies, which deal with the comparison of
national cultures, includes the Baltic states (World value survey (WVS), 1999). Several
cover at least one or two of the three, like the Hofstede model, which was extended to
Estonia. For that reasons, this article has two aims. The first aim of this paper is to,
therefore, fill with Latvia and Lithuania the gap in the Hofstede database. The second
aim is to test the hypothesis that Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians score similarly –
with a cultural proximity to Scandinavia. In the first chapter, national culture will be
defined and the Hofstede model will be presented. As the framework of this article is
Hofstede’s approach to culture, his observations will deserve the most attention
(Hofstede, 1986). Afterwards, the methodology of the empirical study will be evaluated.
The essential part will deal with the discussion regarding the findings and then a careful
interpretation of the values will be provided. The conclusion will focus on the
comparisons between the Estonian and the Scandinavian cultural dimensions of the
IBM-database.

National culture and the Hofstede model

The most widely recognized, but also criticized, study about identification and
measurement of the dimensions of culture has been provided by the Dutch researcher
Geert Hofstede (Dickson et al., 2003). His approach to break down culture into its
components (or dimensions) is one of the most cited sources in cross-cultural
management. Other concepts have been provided by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961),
Schwartz (1999), Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997a) and those developed
within the framework of the GLOBE project (House et al., 1997, 1999). Since it is the aim
of this paper to extend Hofstede’s research, it will not deal with the comparison of his Cultural
methodology to other studies. dimensions
Any two or three people who create a relationship over a length of time will develop
their own unique culture (Tayeb, 2001). Hofstede defines that each individual is mainly in business life
targeted by three exclusively non-interacting and durable cultures: the national, the
corporate and the occupational culture. He assumed in his initial IBM research that
every IBM IT-programmer has the same “IT-programmer culture” and is a bearer of 361
the single monopolistic IBM organizational culture – no matter where his workplace is.
“The only thing that can account for systematic and consistent differences between
national groups within such a homogenous multinational population is nationality
itself” (Hofstede, 1991). National culture has been defined in different ways, but all
definitions state that some kind of meaning or behaviour is shared among all members
of a group (Johanson, 2003; Smith et al., 2002). Hofstede notes that national culture is
the dominant mental program, which predominates in a country (Romm and Hsu,
2003). Several comparative studies have proved that nations are culturally significant
institutions (Smith and Peterson, 2005). Hofstede furthermore defines culture as, “the
collective programming of the mind which distinguishes one group or category of
people from another” (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Individuals are exposed to
different traditions, heritages, rituals, customs and religions which are deeply
entrenched and highly reluctant to change or changes (Tan and Chee, 2005).
From Hofstede’s dimensions there were originally posited four criteria, which are
largely independent from each other and are broadly characterizing national culture in
terms of its average pattern of beliefs and values (Hofstede, 2001; Fang, 2003): power
distance (PDI), uncertainty avoidance (UAI), individualism (IND) and masculinity
(MAS). His findings are based on responses of 72,000 IBM employees who worked
between 1967 and 1973 in 66 different national subsidiaries. For reasons of data stability,
the study was subsequently limited to 40 countries (Pritchard and Skinner, 2002).
Hofstede defines “power distance” as “the extent to which less powerful members of
institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is
distributed unequally” (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Ones family, school and the
community are the basic elements of society (institutions) and organizations are the
places where people work. Power distance stands for human inequality and is reflected
in areas such as prestige, wealth, power and law. Societies of high-power distance show
tolerance in accepting power hierarchy, tight control, vertical top-down communication
and even discrimination by gender, family background, education level, race and
occupation. Furthermore, they heavily rely on authority, centralization and show great
tolerance for the lack of autonomy which fosters inequalities in power and wealth.
“Uncertainty avoidance” is defined as “the extent to which members of a culture feel
threatened by uncertain or unknown situations” (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). It is
expressed and communicated through anxiety, nervous stress and a need for
predictability, e.g. a need for clear structured rules on specific situations (Hofstede,
2001). People of low uncertainty avoidance do not define explicit rules such as job
descriptions and accept uncertainty without much discomfort. As they take risks much
easier, they do not feel a strong need to control the environment or situations.
“Individualism” “pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are
loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself, and his or her immediate
family”. “Collectivism” (the opposite pole), “pertains to societies in which people from
BJM birth onward are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s
3,3 lifetimes continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty” (Hofstede
and Hofstede, 2005; Javidan and House, 2001). In individualistic societies, people prefer
to act as individualists, rather than in groups. People develop a sense of autonomy and
favour personal achievement. They therefore favour job specialization, a competitive
entrepreneurial climate, individual performance orientated towards rewards, along
362 with individual and nuclear family independence. This cultural dimension is probably
the most used and tested dimension in the field of cross-cultural management (Yan and
Hunt, 2005).
“Masculinity and femininity” represents “the dominant sex role pattern in the vast
majority of both traditional and modern societies” (Hofstede, 2001). Masculine societies
have clearly distinct gender roles, where men are supposed to be assertive, tough and
focused on material success. Women are in this society supposed to be modest, tender
and concerned with the quality of life. In feminine societies, men take over the
emotional gender role of women. Performance orientation is seen by many researchers
as equal to high masculinity (Matveev and Nelson, 2004).
In his later works, Hofstede proposed a fifth dimension, that of long-term orientation
(LTO) – sometimes also called “Confucian dynamics” (Hofstede and Bond, 1988;
Søndergaard, 2001; Fang, 2003). It stands for “the fostering of virtues oriented toward
future rewards – in particular, perseverance and thrift”. Short-term orientation, as the
opposite pole, stands for the fostering of virtues related to the past and present – in
particular, respect for tradition, preservation of “face” and fulfilling “social obligations”
(Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). It can be understood as eastern vs western, static vs
dynamic and virtue vs truth. Eastern (Asian) cultures have been influenced by the
Confucian ethics of hard work and thrift which have been a key driver for the economic
success of the “Asian tigers” (Huat, 1989). The usefulness of this fifth dimensions has
been doubted by various scientists and was only partly adapted as a research
instrument (Fang, 2003; Yan and Hunt, 2005).
Hofstede backs up his findings with strong correlations of his findings to the results
of other empirical studies. Furthermore, there are significant associations of the GNP,
the geographical latitude of a nation and the size of a country to his findings (Hofstede
and Hofstede, 2005). However, his work has received substantial criticism, especially
for the internal validity of the dimensions, interpretation and the methodology used to
develop the scales. Another criterion is that his work deals with the typical member, or
mean respondent of a culture. Nevertheless, it happens very often that the mean value
of two groups is the same but the variances of both are very different (Au, 2000).
Especially societies, which are multiracial, large in size, multi-religious or
multi-ethnical likely, display large diversity. For culturally divided countries like
Italy or Germany, the mean value might therefore not be useful at all (Blau, 1977).
Furthermore, most international surveys suffer from a Western bias (Noorderhaven
and Tidjani, 2001). Also Hofstede acknowledged this problem for the IBM studies
(Hofstede, 1991). Probably unique dimensions would have to be developed, to be able to
give a proper analysis for ex-communist countries. On the other hand, it would make a
cross-cultural comparison impossible (Mockaitis, 2002). For a deeper understanding
and an overview of critics (Roberts and Boyacigiller, 1984; Smith, 2002; Sivakumar and
Nakata, 2001; Kirkman et al., 2003; Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1997b;
McSweeney, 2002; Schwartz, 1994; Smith and Bond, 1999; Tayeb, 1994).
Methodology Cultural
One of the requirements set by Hofstede, when extending his research to new countries, dimensions
is that the study “should always include one or more of the countries in the IBM set, so
that the new data can be anchored to the existing framework” (Hofstede, 2001). This in business life
ensures that the effects caused by the change of the sample are minimized, and the
scores for the new country can be corrected by this effect. Sweden was chosen as an
anchoring country, since both countries have common historical roots, but a very 363
different more recent history (Manning and Poljeva, 1999). The findings in Sweden will
be used to calibrate the scores of the Latvian sample. Lithuania was included in order
to show the differences between the countries with the only two living Baltic
languages. Furthermore, it should complement and verify the Mockaitis (2002) study,
which is based on a small sample and respondent group. This research is not planned
to be a comparative study against Mockaitis’ scores, as it is not logical to compare data
sets collected from two different time periods (Lim, 2001).
The “values survey module (VSM) 1994 questionnaire” was chosen as the
instrument of the study. It is a revision of an earlier questionnaire, based on the
question of Hofstede’s original IBM research and was developed especially for
replications (Hofstede, 2001, 2002). The VSM 94 is a 26-item questionnaire of which
6 questions are of a demographic nature. As all Swedish participants spoke excellent
English, the original English version of the VSM94 was used. There is some evidence
that the results could slightly differ by using a “Swedish version” (Harzing, 2005).
However, as all participants study in English, these effects are negligible. In Lithuania,
the native language version provided by Mockaitis was distributed. The double
translation approach was chosen when preparing the Latvian version of the
questionnaire, to ensure that the problems concerning measurement scales are avoided.
This process is said to be the most effective and described as the most adequate
translation process (Marin and Marin, 1991; McGorry, 2000). Both translations were
done separately by professional translators. As the Lithuanian and Latvian languages
belong to the same language group, the Lithuanian version was used as the template.
Furthermore, it enables us to obtain a better comparison between the two countries.
The back translated version was verified by two investigators (native Lithuanians) for
consistency.
Following Hofstede’s suggestions, it is necessary to match the samples carefully
(Hofstede, 2001). He illustrated the effects of gender, age or work experience on his five
dimensions. The author used Schaffer’s and Riordan’s “best practice checklist” to
verify the validity and the methodological approach (Schaffer and Riordan, 2003). The
author decided to run the study exclusively with graduate students of business
administration with partial or limited job experience. Schwartz argues that students
are one of the best available groups (Schwartz, 1994). In central-eastern Europe and in
other transition countries, it is wise to limit the use of research preformed on youth.
Youth reflect the direction of how culture might change, as they are less influenced by
the former values of the Soviet time (Mockaitis, 2002). Unfortunately, their liberal
approach towards gender issues makes them less comparable with IBM database
(Pritchard and Skinner, 2002). It is therefore probable that the studies do not perfectly
mirror the current situation, but the results are more likely to stay intact (Mikulowski,
2002; Oishi et al., 1999; Harzing, 2005). All students are enrolled in the capital of each
country and are in their 4th, 5th or 6th year. In Sweden, the respondents were students
BJM of the Stockholm University and the Stockholm School of Economics. Lithuanian
3,3 respondents were enrolled at Vilnius University and Latvians at the University of
Latvia. International students were generally excluded. All questionnaires were
personally distributed by the author in classrooms and every participant received
the same instructions. A test run has proved that instructions are necessary, as some
students initially thought it is beneficial for their country to obtain a favourable
364 outcome.
The survey for all three countries was conducted in October/November 2005. The
sample for this study included 301 responses from Latvia, 289 from Lithuania and 233
from Sweden. Only completed questionnaires were taken in consideration. In order to
minimize the effects of age, level of education and gender, the samples were carefully
matched after all statistical criteria (Hofstede, 2001). Additionally, the author included
one new criterion, to find out how long students have already lived abroad. Individuals
may be less representative for their nationality if they have had substantial
international experience (Hambrick et al., 1998). Especially young central Europeans
work often for several months in western Europe, which has lasting effects on their
attitudes. Living in another country for a longer period changes ones perception of
one’s own culture and working habits. To minimize these influences, only students
who lived less than 12 months abroad have been selected.
Latvia has furthermore always been a country with a large minority population. In
the last 70 years, there has been a considerable population group shift from German,
Jewish and Polish moving towards Russian (Balabkins, 1999). The independent
Latvian state has inherited from the Soviet Union a complicated and unstable ethnic
structure with more than 100 ethnic groups nationwide (Vebers, 1996). Currently,
Russians make up approximately 29 per cent of the overall population and outnumber
Latvians in the bigger cities. Riga is the only EU capital where the ethnic minority of
the country is in majority (LSSR, 2006). For an easier comparison with the Mockaitis
(2002) study, only respondents who classified themselves as nationals of nationality[1]
(by birth) were included (e.g. Question Nr: 25 “What is your nationality?” and Question
Nr: 26 “What was your nationality at birth (if different)?” had to be both indicated with
“Latvian”). Respondents with nationalities other than Latvian, Lithuanian or Swedish
were excluded. Therefore, the terms “ethnic Latvian” (or “ethnic Lithuanians”) and
“ethnic Russians” will be used in order to avoid assumptions that “non-Latvian”
(or “non – Lithuanian”) ethnic groups are foreign nationals or count less (Dobson and
Jones, 1998).
The VSM94 questionnaire recorded the students exclusively by age groups
(e.g. under 20, 20-24, 25-29 years), which makes the mean age as a tool for comparison
meaningless. As Swedish students are traditionally slightly older than
their counterparts in the Baltics, it is highly possible that a larger group of
Latvian/ Lithuanian graduate students are almost 25, whereby their Swedish
colleagues are already 25. This might lead to a statistical mistaken mean value. One
might have had the option to modify the questionnaire, but in order to maintain
Hofstede’s requirements the original version was used. The sample was therefore
matched with all students who belong to one of the both mentioned groups. Contrary,
a strong focus was put on matching the students after the mean years of formal school
education, where a detailed classification was possible. In further comparison, the
participants were divided after gender in comparable work-experience groups.
To precisely match work experience is important, as students with some years of job Cultural
experience may change or develop many of their perceptions about organizational dimensions
values. A close matching reduced the sample for each country to 54 male and 50 female
students. Cases from which there were a larger number of participants of a certain in business life
gender were randomly discarded to achieve a balanced distribution (Bond, 2004). The
crucial criteria requested by Hofstede (2001) are therefore satisfied.
Table I illustrates the sample characteristics. As predicted, there are significantly 365
more Swedish respondents in the “25-29” age group than Latvians or Lithuanians. The
comparable mean values for “years of school education” shows that that sample was
extremely carefully matched. Most respondents have some limited job experience,
nevertheless around one third of the respondents in each group has not participated in
the labour market at all. More of the Swedish population has lived abroad; this can be
explained by an earlier participation of Sweden in the EU single market.

Results and discussion

Several preliminary analyses were conducted to test the reliability of the sample.
Table II provides an overview of the descriptive statistics of the variables. It contains
essential data, with which items of every single dimension were calculated. The
standard deviation and probability of skew were calculated to prove that the data is
normally distributed.
Table III illustrates that most of the items are uncorrelated and do not show
statistical significance. Only three correlations show a weak positive value with
statistically significant results. Table IV shows Phi-association values conducted on
factors such as gender, age, level of education and job experience. A slightly higher
association between the questions and the level of job experience is noted. Job
experience therefore associates most closely with the items.

Latvia (n ¼ 104) Lithuania (n ¼ 104) Sweden (n ¼ 104)

Gender Male 54 (51.9) 54 (51.9) 54 (51.9)

Female 50 (48.1) 50 (48.1) 50 (48.1)
Age (years) 20-24 96 (92.3) 100 (96.2) 53 (51.0)
25-29 8 (7.7) 4 (3.8) 51 (49.0)
Education (years) 15 42 (40.4) 42 (40.4) 45 (43.3)
16 47 (45.2) 43 (41.3) 39 (37.5)
17 7 (6.7) 15 (14.4) 13 (12.5)
18 or more 8 (7.7) 4 (3.8) 7 (6.7)
Mean value 16,45 16,45 16,46
Standard dev 0,87 0,82 0,83
Occupation No job/unskilled 30 (28.8) 30 (28.8) 39 (34.5)
Trained worker 65 (62.5) 65 (62.5) 65 (57.5)
Managing position 9 (8.7) 9 (8.7) 9 (8.0)
Months lived abroad No 83 (79.8) 56 (53.8) 46 (44.2)
Up to 6 14 (13.5) 41 (39.4) 29 (27.9)
Up to 12 7 (6.7) 7 (6.7) 29 (27.9)
Mean value 1,05 1,86 3,48
Table I.
Note: Percentage values are given in parenthesis Sample characteristics
BJM
Latvia Lithuania Sweden
3,3 Questions Mean SD SKEW Mean SD SKEW Mean SD SKEW

Power distance items

3 1,93 0,67 0,86 1,86 0,74 0,53 2,02 0,88 0,88
6 2,47 0,81 0,82 2,45 0,86 0,01 2,63 0,90 0,90
366 14 3,48 0,82 2 0,47 3,42 1,05 20,56 3,17 0,98 0,98
17 2,67 1,07 0,10 2,81 1,26 0,05 3,12 0,19 0,19
Individualism items
1 1,71 0,70 0,58 1,98 0,81 0,81 2,01 0,95 0,95
2 1,87 0,68 0,55 1,73 0,75 1,05 2,15 0,87 0,87
4 2,04 0,74 0,98 1,93 0,83 0,76 2,52 0,81 0,81
8 1,77 0,74 0,55 1,48 0,64 0,99 1,95 0,89 0,89
Masculinity items
5 1,93 0,80 0,81 1,64 0,65 0,73 2,11 0,92 0,92
7 1,73 0,78 1,23 1,50 0,67 1,37 1,73 0,91 0,91
15 3,53 0,88 2 0,65 3,62 0,85 20,80 2,80 0,94 0,94
20 3,28 1,01 2 0,36 2,99 1,17 0,02 3,28 1,00 1,00
Uncertainty avoidance items
13 2,84 0,70 0,26 3,02 0,70 20,20 2,67 0,61 0,61
16 3,32 1,05 2 0,15 3,30 1,14 20,21 2,41 0,90 0,90
18 2,99 1,05 2 0,29 3,01 1,14 20,02 3,18 0,93 0,93
19 3,37 1,03 2 0,68 3,44 1,10 20,82 3,52 0,82 0,82
Long-term orientation items
Table II. 10 3,04 0,79 0,05 2,81 0,87 0,03 2,83 0,90 2 0,06
Descriptive statistics 12 2,97 0,90 0,22 2,99 0,94 0,16 3,18 0,85 0,03

PDI 3 6 14 17 MAS 5 7 15 20
3 1 0,278 * * * 0,079 0,009 5 1,00 0,284 * * * 20,105 2 0,044
6 1 2 0,016 0,016 7 1,00 20,038 0,063
14 1 20,073 15 1,00 0,054
17 1 20 1,00
IDV 1 2 4 8 UAI 13 16 18 19
1 1,00 0,193 0,048 0,065 13 1,00 20,011 20,144 0,055
2 1,00 0,336 * * * 0,161 16 1,00 0,049 2 0,091
4 1,00 0,147 18 1,00 2 0,094
Table III. 8 1,00 19 1,00
Pearson correlation
among items (Pearson) Note: Significant values at *p , 0,05; * *p , 0,01; * * *p , 0,001

Several researchers, who have extended Hofstede’s database, selected samples of his
key indicators to put in more simplified words as an explanation to why one country
scores low, medium or high for a particular dimension. Hofstede provides various
tables of key indicators for different fields such as “behaviour at the workplace”, “in the
family” or “consumer behaviour”. Furthermore, the literature offers a high quantity of
publications for interpreting Hofstede based studies. It is therefore relatively
comfortable to pick, out of several dozens of indicators, a few to give explanations for
whatever the results may be. The author will not follow this procedure, as the VSM
 Cultural
Questions Gender Age Education Job exp
dimensions
3 0,229 0,118 0,218 0,346 in business life
6 0,176 0,037 0,166 0,283
14 0,235 0,098 0,223 0,366
17 0,091 0,070 0,149 0,308
5 0,141 0,209 0,247 0,342 367
7 0,178 0,089 0,266 0,322
15 0,188 0,241 0,217 0,248
20 0,112 0,089 0,201 0,420
1 0,090 0,011 0,194 0,277
2 0,137 0,205 0,242 0,355
4 0,157 0,294 0,168 0,376
8 0,112 0,096 0,163 0,300
13 0,181 0,079 0,209 0,237
16 0,162 0,262 0,261 0,395
18 0,070 0,219 0,299 0,294 Table IV.
19 0,169 0,112 0,240 0,294 Phi test

94 does not provide enough data to obtain a deeper understanding about dimensional
values. This basic limitation is made due to the following pitfalls:
(1) The newest literature about Latvia and Lithuania (which has been published in
English) is of manageable quantity. Furthermore, one of the heritages of
communism is an undeveloped social science (Mikulowski-Pomorski, N.N.).
Especially research related to national identity of former Soviet Union
members, was based mainly on stories, stereotypes and individual experience.
Superficial literature paints a picture of traditional Eastern European societies
with high masculinity, low uncertainty avoidance, and strong collectivistic
power structures. Academic literature with a focus on the role of communism
confirms the high power distance and collectivism features, but argues that the
past decades have promoted a certain form of femininity. Randomly selecting a
few opinions or perceptions might therefore lead to a wrong understanding of
cultural features. Some statements will nevertheless be summed up, but should
be solely seen as a possible explanation. They should not be understood as a
verification of the empirical data. Mostly the author will refer to other empirical
data, obtained by international studies.
(2) Latvia and Lithuania are both transitioning countries. Both countries have
experienced the soviet communism and its aftermaths. Therefore, the study is
faced with a society, which is formed out of three different generations. The
elderly ones who have were born before the Inter-War Period or the Second
World War, the generation, which has grown up in Soviet times and the
younger ones who never experienced communism. It can be assumed that the
generations do not necessarily share the same values, norms or beliefs.
(3) All questions are more or less related to values and behaviour at the workplace.
It should not be assumed that a society has to be of individualist or collectivistic
members in every field. Triandis states that “both contrasting positions can
coexist and are simply emphasised more or less. . . depending on the situation”
(Triandis, 1994). Therefore, it is possible that a society is very individualistic
BJM when it comes to business values but very collectivistic in personal matters.
3,3 The United States for example is a country which is overwhelmed with
individualist attitudes. However, Americans made words like “collaboration”
and “teamwork” fashionable in the corporate world as well as in the art world.
(Triandis, 1995)
The results of the study and a comparison of the values are shown in Table V. The
368 scores for the Baltic countries were recalculated by adding/ subtracting the difference
between the scores obtained for Sweden and those of the IBM study. We can see that
the differences between the three countries for the dimensions of power distance,
individualism, masculinity and LTO are rather small and reflect the strong historical
ties between Scandinavia, Latvia and Lithuania (Roffe, 1995). Solely the uncertainty
avoidance scores of Latvia and Lithuania differ very much from the Swedish ones.
Generally it can be seen that the two Baltic republics score very similar. In order to
illustrate the scores in an international comparison, the maximum and minimum
values of the Hofstede data base were added.
Power distance
(Swedes 31, Latvia 44, Lithuania 42) Latvian and Lithuanian respondents, who
responded to this study, scored low-moderate in power distance. Both countries scored
relatively similar to Sweden. Also the results obtained by Mockaitis (45 for Lithuania)
confirmed a similar score to that of the Scandinavian countries (Denmark 18, Sweden
and Norway 31), Bajoriene also sees Lithuania as moderately low (Roffe, 1995;
Bajoriene, 1996). Estonia, the third Baltic country is listed with a score of 40 (Hofstede
and Hofstede, 2005). All three Baltic countries therefore show very similar results.
Latvia (and Lithuania) ranks on the country list of now 76 countries, in place 59 (60).
Table II provides an overview of the responses that the respondents in the sample
have indicated to Question 17 (An organization structure in which certain subordinates
have two bosses should be avoided at all costs) found more support in the Baltics than in
Sweden. This could be a sign for the spreading belief in hierarchy and centralism. The
higher mean score in Question 14 (How frequently, in your experience, are subordinates
afraid to express disagreement with their superiors?) could be an indicator of the
Latvian/Lithuanian circumspectness and indirectness of speech (Mole, 2003).

Country PDI UAI IDV MAS LTO

Current results Sweden 19 23 96 18 47

Latvia 32 57 95 22 39
Lithuania 30 59 85 32 44
Hofstede adjusted Sweden 31 29 71 5 33
Low low high low low
Latvia 44 63 70 9 25
Moderate moderate high low low
Lithuania 42 65 60 19 30
Moderate moderate high-moderate low low
Table V. Hofstede database Max Value 104 112 91 110 118
Results of work related Slovakia Greece USA Slovakia China
values of Lithuunians, Min Value 11 8 6 5 0
Latvians and Swedes Austria Singapoore Guatemala Sweden Pakistan
Uncertainty avoidance Cultural
(Swedes 29, Latvia 63, Lithuania 65) Both Baltic republics score moderately for dimensions
uncertainty avoidance. Similar results for Lithuania were obtained by Mockaitis (2002; 67)
and Bajoriene (1996; moderately high). Latvia scores therefore on Hofstedes country list in in business life
the midrange area on place 46. Lithuania scores very similar and shares its place with
Germany (Place 43-44).
The most striking gap is found in Question 16 (One can be a good manager without 369
having precise answers to most questions that subordinates may raise about their
work). Eastern Europeans share the belief that the manager is a manager, because he
knows everything and is able to lead. Senior persons have to dominate meetings and it
is not the task of the employees to contribute (Mole, 2003). Swedes are more open
towards empowerment (Question 18) and more averse towards rules. (Question 19)
Mole furthermore notes that Lithuanians and Latvians do not perceive their superior as
one of their team, but it is his task to lead and give directions (Mole, 2003).

Individualism
(Swedes 71, Latvia 70, Lithuania 60) Latvia scores a little bit more individualistic than
Lithuania. The difference could be explained in the residence place of the respondents.
Riga is in many ways more of a big city than Vilnius and by far more international and
therefore individualistic. On other hand, Lewis compared Latvia and Lithuania and
perceives Latvians to be more individualistic and entrepreneurial (Lewis, 2000). In
contrast to Russia, the Baltics have most probably remained more individualistic
during the soviet occupation (Vadi and Buono, 1995). Other researchers have seen that,
e.g. Lithuania shortly after the transformation to be collectivistic (Bajoriene, 1996).
Triandis (1994) provides a rating for 42 nations on a scale ranging from 1 (most
collectivistic) to 10 (most individualistic). The correlation among the 26 nations
overlapping with Hofstedes values is 0.78. Triandis calculated 4.0 for Latvia and
Lithuania – substantially lower than Sweden (7.55). However, it is possible that this
dimension has changed in the last 10 years. Hofstede (2001) notes that an increase in
national wealth (as represented by six sub indicators of less traditional agriculture,
more modern technology, more urban living, more social mobility, better educational
system, and a larger middle class) is positively related to an increase in individualism.
The Latvian Institute (LI) states that Latvians behave nowadays more individualistic
than their Russian counterparts (LI, http://www.li.lv/en/, 5 January 2006). On the
76 countries list both countries rank therefore at the top. Latvia shares place 15-16 with
Ireland and Lithuania places 23-26 together with Poland, Luxembourg and Estonia.
Table II: As expected, Swedish respondents score higher ( ¼ perceive it as less
important) in Question 2 (Have good physical working conditions) and Question 4
(Security of employment). These individualistic values go in line with the experience of
the worldwide famous Swedish social welfare state. Social security is the bedrock
guarantee that allowed Swedes to become more risk-friendly and let them score higher
Question 8 (Have an element of variety and adventure in the job). It may be possible
that the factor of experiencing transition and change has affected the results of the
Baltic respondents. As long as economic success is based in Latvia and Lithuania on
grasping opportunities, rather than being rewarded for continuity and stability, this
value might hardly change.
BJM Masculinity
3,3 (Swedes 5, Latvia 21, Lithuania 9) Lithuania and Latvia score together very low in
Masculinity. The two republics score therefore very similar to Estonia, all
Scandinavian countries and Russia. In Hofstede’s country list, both countries place
at the last place in ranking. Lithuania shares rank 70-71 with Slovenia and Latvia
ranks 74.
370 This dimension is also the only one which scores for Lithuania are very different to
the earlier study of Mockaitis. She concluded that the three Baltic countries are not as
similar as the existing literature assumes (Mockaitis, 2002). However, other studies see
Lithuania as feminine[2]. Straight saw in her comparative (not Hofstede calibrated)
study between American, Russian and Lithuanian Students at the Lithuanian
Leadership Colleague in Klaipeda, the Lithuanian group to appear feminine – even
compared with the Russian students (Straight, 2004). Bajoriene identified in her 1996
“one country study”, Lithuanian managers to appear moderately feminine (Bajoriene,
1996). Knudsen even sees pure Latvian circles as very feminine (Knudsen, 1994).
For less well-versed readers of the Hofstede model, it might sound strange that
Lithuania, Latvia or more particularly Russia scores feminine. This dimension is
undoubtedly the one that has provoked most criticism and caused misunderstandings
(Smith, 2002). First of all it has to be noted that this dimension is entirely unrelated to
national wealth (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). In the public opinion, femininity still
goes in line with the development of a nation into a western orientated and rich welfare
state. Gender role changes have been strongly influenced by soviet cultural and
political ideology (Alas and Rees, 2005). To evaluate the meaning of this dimension, it
is necessary to have a close look on how the questions were formulated, which
calculates the masculinity index. All four questions (5, 7, 15, 20) deal with values and
perceptions at the workplace and in job –life. It is therefore doubtful, if differences in
the framework of “Gender and Sex”, “Family Norms” or “consumer behaviour” can be
explained with perceptions at the workplace. It could definitely be possible that Baltic
people score extremely masculine when it comes to gender equality or sexual
harassment, but very feminine when it comes to work-life. This combination is a part
of the Soviet heritage.
Table II: The most remarkable item might be Question 15 (Most people can be
trusted). It reflects the distrust of individuals towards the society in transition
countries. Ingleharts’ study contains the same question and shows for Lithuania,
Latvia and Sweden similar values (WVS, 1999). However, for the calculation of
Hofstedes’ formula, this item is only of little importance. The reason for the high
femininity in Latvia and Lithuania are due to Question 5 (Work with people who
cooperate well with each other) and Question 20 (When people have failed in life it is
often their own fault). As business in eastern Europe is often based on networking and
relationships, a good working cooperation is seen as essential. Swedes may score high,
as they associate with “good working relations” a higher comfort and social benefits.
The raison d’être why all three countries score relatively high in Question 20, might as
a result again be based upon two opposite motivations. Swedes demand fairness in
business life and belief in the superiority of the social welfare net. To be unemployed in
Sweden is therefore not solely seen as a personal matter – it is seen as a task and duty
for the whole society. Contrary, Latvia and Lithuania might score high as their citizens
know very well about unjustified and unexpected hardships of economic transition
(Mole, 2003). In many cases, incompetent managers led new companies into failure and Cultural
employees into unemployment. dimensions
Long-term orientation in business life
(Swedes 33, Latvia 25, Lithuania 30) All three countries score very similar and at the
lower end of the country list. As the LTO was not calculated for all countries contained
in the Hofstede IBM database, the list contains only 42 countries. Lithuania shares rank 371
29-32 with Portugal, Canada (Quebec) and New Zealand. Latvia ranks 34-36 with
Great Britain and Zimbabwe.
Table II: LTO is the single dimension, which was calculated only out of two
questions. Furthermore, these are the only used items, which contain aspects of values
outside the workplace. Originally the formula contained four items; however a large
consumer survey has shown that only two of the four questions are correlated with
LTO. Latvia and Lithuania score internally (and also compared with each other) very
similar on Question 10 and 12 (“Thrift” and “Respect for tradition”). As both mean
scores have to be multiplied with factor 20 (one negatively) the effects are almost
neutralized. The data for “LTO” will furthermore not be discussed, as the target group
of this extension consisted only of young people. Smith doubted for this dimension the
usefulness of value data derived from students (Smith, 2002). However, they were
calculated to enable further researchers a possibility to compare their results.

Conclusion
It is remarkable that among all dimensions, the three Baltic Republic score very
similar. Inglehart came to the same conclusion with his WVS (WVS, 1999), containing
similar results. The hypothesis that the Baltic republics are at least, in business values,
more similar than many newer researchers have predicted, is therefore satisfied.
Contrary, it is not misleading or politically incorrect to state that the Republics are
cultural very similar (Mole, 2003). The dimensions also show very similar values for
the United States and the UK, nevertheless nobody would thus doubt their political
independence (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005).
Table VI provides an overview how Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia score compared
to the Scandinavian countries (plus Finland). The additional data are exclusively
taken from the official Hofstede database, which has been continually extended.

Country PDI UAI IDV MAS LTO

Northern group 28 40 69 14 41
Sweden 31 29 71 5 33
Denmark 18 23 74 16 46
Finland 33 59 63 26 41
Norway 31 50 69 8 44
Baltic group 42 63 63 19
Estonia 40 60 60 30
Latvia 44 63 70 9 25
Lithuania 42 65 60 19 30 Table VI.
Russia 93 95 39 37 Results of work related
Poland 68 93 60 64 32 values of Lithuunians,
Germany 35 65 67 66 31 Latvians and Swedes
BJM Russia, Poland and Germany have been added, as all three countries have had a strong
3,3 historical impact on the Baltic Sea Region. All Scandinavian and Baltic nations scored
very similar in individuality and power distance (besides Denmark). The scores for
masculinity are also very similar. However, Sweden and Denmark score substantially
lower in uncertainty avoidance. Compared to Russia and Poland, the Baltic republics
score very differently among almost all dimensions. The supposition that Russian
372 business culture during Soviet times was not successfully transferred to other Soviet
republics is confirmed. German business culture seems closely similar to that of the
Baltics. Hofstede’s assumption that Germans are similar to Scandinavians (besides the
Masculinity dimension) is therefore also transferable to the Baltics (Hofstede, 2001).
The two dimensions, which in particular affect the thinking concerning
organizations, are demonstrating that Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia with a “power
distance” of 40-44 and an “uncertainty avoidance” of 60-65 score very similar to the
Germanic cluster. The two other dimensions, “individualism” and “masculinity” show
how people behave in organizations (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Again the three
Baltic republics score very similar, but in this case they are located in the Scandinavian
cluster. Also Baumane argues in her recent comparison of Latvian and German
business cultures that the cultures are only partly comparable (Baumane and Sumilo,
2005).
Remarkable is how closely related the Latvian/Lithuanian values are to the
Estonians ones, which were examined several years before. The result confirms that
the dimensional approach is a valuable instrument of research. However, several
alternative methods of matching the data have resulted in partly significant and
varying results. The methodology turned out to be a crucial issue and to match the
sample as closely as possible, as an indispensable condition. Deviating results of
replications may therefore be based on inadequate matching procedures.
For corporations and multinational companies it makes therefore sense to treat the
three Baltic States as one market – particularly when it comes to human resources or
management structures. However, one should keep in mind that differences may occur
when it comes to consumer behaviour or advertising (Siraliova and Angelis, 2006).
Furthermore, the influence of the minorities on daily work life has to be taken into
consideration. The Russians who dominate Latvian business life differ to a
considerable extent in their cultural values (Huettinger, 2006a, b). The perception of
business travellers, tourists and expats may therefore be slightly different to the
results of this study.

Notes
1. In the former Soviet Union, citizenship and nationality were not synonyms. It was possible to
have the nationality “Latvian” (even mentioned in passport) and the citizenship of the USSR.
2. The main problem of Mockaitis study might lie in the very small sample size. Denmark was
chosen as anchoring country, and only 60 students in the medium sized city of Aalborg
should represent the Danish values. Mockaitis got a masculinity value of minus 21,25 – very
different to Hofstede original findings (plus 16). The Lithuanian values were calibrated and
recalculated with difference of “37,25”. Therefore, her own findings for Lithuania 27,48 (very
similar to the comparable results of this study: 32) turned from feminine into masculine
(64,72). See Table V.
References Cultural
Alas, R. and Rees, C. (2005), “Estonia in transition: exploring the impact of change in women dimensions
managers”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 446-60.
Au, K.Y. (2000), “Intra-cultural variation as another construct of international management:
in business life
a study based on secondary data of 42 countries”, Journal of International Management,
Vol. 6, pp. 217-38.
Bajoriene, J. (1996), “Lietuvos organizaciju vadovu vertybes” (“Values of Lithuanian 373
organizational managers”), Psichologija, Vol. 15, pp. 102-3.
Balabkins, N.W. (1999), “Old Lessons not learned: the clash of political and economic nationalism
in Latvia”, Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 26 Nos 4/5, pp. 427-37.
Baumane, I. and Sumilo, E. (2005), “Concepts of cross-cultural orientation: comparison between
Latvian and German business cultures” (unpublished).
Blau, P.M. (1977), Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure, Free
Press, Florence, MA.
Bond, M.H. (2004), “Culture-level dimensions of social axioms and their correlates across 41
cultures”, Journal of Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 548-70.
Dickson, M.W. et al. (2003), “Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context: making progress,
and raising new questions”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 729-68.
Dobson, J. and Jones, G. (1998), “Ethnic discrimination: public policy and the Latvian labour
market”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 19 Nos 1/2, pp. 31-47.
Fang, T. (2003), “A critique of Hofstede’s fifth national culture dimension”, International Journal
of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 347-68.
Hambrick, D.C. et al. (1998), “ When groups consist of multiple nationalities: towards a new
understanding of the implications”, Organization Studies, Vol. 19, pp. 181-205.
Harzing, A.W. (2005), “Does the use of English-language questionnaires in cross-national
research obscure national differences”, International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 213-24.
Hofstede, G. (1986), “Cultural differences in teaching and learning”, International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 301-20.
Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations – Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions, and
Organizations Across Nations, Sage, London.
Hofstede, G. (2002), “Culture’s recent consequences: using dimension scores in theory and
research”, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 11-30.
Hofstede, G. and Bond, M.H. (1988), “The Confucius connection: from cultural roots to economic
growth”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 4-21.
Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G.J. (2005), Cultures and Organizations – Software of the Mind,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
House, R.J. et al. (1997), “GLOBE: the global leadership and organizational behaviour
effectiveness research program”, Polish Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 215-54.
House, R.J. et al. (1999), “Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: project GLOBE”,
in Mobley, W.H. (Ed.), Advances in global leadership, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Stamford, CT,
pp. 171-233.
Huat, T.C. (1989), “Confucianism and nation building in Singapore”, International Journal of
Social Economics, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 5-16.
BJM Huettinger, M. (2006), “Air baltic and SAS – a case study in the European airline industry”, Baltic
Journal of Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 227-44.
3,3 Huettinger, M. (2006), “Differences in national culture and their implications on management
behavior: Latvians and the Latvian-Russian minority”, in Stashevsky, S. (Ed.), Work
Values and Behavior, International Society for the Study of Work & Organizational
Values, Shreveport, LA, pp. 229-39.
374 Javidan, M. and House, R.J. (2001), “Cultural Acumen for the global manager – lessons from
project GLOBE”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 289-305.
Johanson, C. (2003), “Can guidelines for intellectual capital management and reporting be
considered without addressing cultural differences?”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 4
No. 4, pp. 528-42.
Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B. and Gibson, C.B. (2003), “Two decades of culture’s consequences:
a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework”,
unpublished manuscript.
Kluckhohn, F.R. and Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961), Variations in Value Orientations, Row, Peterson,
Evanston, IL.
Knudsen, J. (1994), “Cultural differences between Danes, Latvians and Ethnic Russians in
Danish-Latvian companies” (unpublished).
Lewis, R.D. (2000), When Cultures Collide – Managing Successfully Across Cultures, Nicholas
Brealey Publishing, London.
Lim, L. (2001), “Work-related value of Malays and Chinese Malaysians”, International Journal of
Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 1, pp. 209-26.
LSSR (The Central Statistical Office of the LSSR), Iedzivotaju Nacionala Sastaba Izmainu
Tendences, available at: www.csb.lv/lteksts.cfm?tem_kods ¼ dem&datums ¼
%7Bts%20%272005%2D06%2D29%2013%3A00%3A00%27%7D, 4.01.2006
McGorry, S.Y. (2000), “Measurement in a cross-cultural environment: survey translation issues”,
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 74-81.
McSweeney, B. (2002), “Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences:
a triumph of faith – a failure of analysis”, Human Relations, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 89-118.
Manning, P. and Poljeva, T. (1999), “The challenge of management development in the Baltic
states in the twenty-first century”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 32-45.
Manrai, L. et al. (2001), “A cross cultural comparison of style in eastern Europe emerging
markets”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 270-85.
Marin, G. and Marin, B.V.O. (1991), “Research with Hispanic populations”, Applied Social
Research Series, p. 23.
Martinsons, M. (1995), “The Baltic republics: post-Soviet bell-wethers and bridges”, International
Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 38-49.
Matveev, A.v. and Nelson, P.E. (2004), “Cross cultural communication competence and
multicultural team performance”, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,
Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 253-70.
Mikulowski Pomorski, J. “Poles and Hofstede’s dimensions of culture: directions of change”,
unpublished, available at: www.ae.krakow.pl/ , ekse/htm/change.htm, accessed on 2
January 2006.
Mockaitis, A. (2002), “The influence of national cultural values on management attitudes:
a comparative study across three countries”, doctoral dissertation, Vilnius University,
Vilnius.
Mole, J. (2003), Mind your Manners: Business Cultures in Europe – Managing Business Cultures, Cultural
Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London.
Nasierowski, W. and Mikula, B. (1998), “Culture dimensions of Polish managers: Hofstede’s
dimensions
indices”, Organization Studies, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 495-509. in business life
Noorderhaven, N.G. and Tidjani, B. (2001), “Culture, governance and economic performance:
an explorative study with a special focus on Africa”, International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 31-52. 375
Oishi, S. et al. (1999), “Cross-cultural variations in predictors of life satisfaction: perspectives
from needs and values”, Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 8,
pp. 980-90.
Pritchard, R.M.O. and Skinner, B. (2002), “Cross-cultural partnerships between home and
international students”, Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 323-54.
Roberts, K. and Boyacigiller, N. (1984), “Cross-national organizational research: the grasp of the
blind man”, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational
Behaviour, Vol. 6, JAI Press, Stamford, CT, pp. 423-75.
Roffe, I. (1995), “Transitional training for Lithuanian advisers and consultants”, Journal of
European Industrial Training, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 28-33.
Romm, N.R.A. and Hsu, C.Y. (2003), “Reconsidering the exploration of power distance: an active
case study approach”, The International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 30,
pp. 403-14.
Schaffer, B.S. and Riordan, C.M. (2003), “A review of cross-cultural methodologies for
organizational research: a best practices approach”, Organizational Research Methods,
Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 169-215.
Schwartz, S.H. (1999), “A theory of cultural values and some implications for work”, Applied
Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 48, pp. 23-47.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994), “Cultural dimensions of values: towards an understanding of national
differences”, in Kim, U. et al. (Eds), Individualism and Collectivism: Theoretical and
Methodological Issues, Vol. 1, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 85-119.
Siraliova, Jelena and Angelis, Jannis J. (2006), “Marketing strategy in the Baltics: standardize or
adapt”, Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 169-87.
Sivakumar, K. and Nakata, C. (2001), “The stampede toward Hofstede’s framework: avoiding the
sample design pit in cross-cultural research”, Journal of International Business Studies,
Vol. 32, pp. 555-74.
Smith, H. (1990), The New Russians, Random Century, London.
Smith, P.B. (2002) “Culture’s consequences: something old and something new”, Human
Relations, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 119-35.
Smith, P.B. et al. (2002), “Cultural values, sources of guidance, and their relevance to managerial
behaviour”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 188-208.
Smith, P. and Peterson, M. (2005), “Demographic effects on the use of vertical sources of guidance
by managers in widely differing cultural contexts”, Intercultural Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 5-26.
Smith, P.B. and Bond, M.H. (1999), Social Psychology Across Cultures: Analysis and Perspectives,
Harvester Wheatheaf, London.
Søndergaard, M. (2001), “Book review: Geert Hofstede, culture’s consequences: comparing
values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations”, International Journal of
Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 243-6.
BJM Straight, B.J. (2004), “A case study of the development of organization trust in a multicultural
university”, doctoral dissertation, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.
3,3 Tan, H.H. and Chee, D. (2005), “Understanding interpersonal trust in a Confucian-influenced
society – an exploratory study”, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 197-212.
Tayeb, M.H. (1994), “National culture and organizations: methodology considered”, Organization
376 Studies, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 429-46.
Tayeb, M.H. (2001), “Conducting research across cultures: overcoming drawbacks and
obstacles”, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 91-108.
Triandis, HarryC. (1994), “Theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of
collectivism and individualism”, in Kim, U. et al. (Eds), Individualism and Collectivism:
Theory, Methods and Applications, Sage, London, pp. 41-51.
Triandis, HarryC. (1995), Individulism and Collectivism, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1997), “Response to Geert Hofstede”, International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 149-59.
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1997), Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding
Cultural Diversity in Business, 2nd ed., Nicholas Brealey, London.
Vadi, M. and Buono, A.F. (1995), “Collectivism and individualism in Estonia: an exploratory
study and societal change and organizational orientation”, paper presented on Transition
in the Baltics Conference, Stockholm School of Economics in Riga, Lativa.
Vadi, M. and Meri, R. (2005), “Estonian culture in the framework of Hofstede’s Model”, Trames,
Vol. 9(59/54) No. 3, pp. 268-84.
Vebers, E. (1996), “Ethnic minorities in Latvia in the 1990s – the ethno-demographic condition
and citizenship”, Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 12, pp. 4-28.
WVS (World Value Survey by Ronald Inglehart) (1999), available at: http://www.
worldvaluessurvey.org/ (accessed 10 January 2006).
Yan, J. and Hunt, J.G. (2005), “A cross cultural perspective on perceived leadership effectiveness”,
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 49-66.

About the author

Maik Huettinger is a doctoral candidate in European Studies at the Jagiellonian University in
Krakow/Poland. He currently gives lectures in various management and marketing related fields
at the University of Management and Economics (ISM) and the Vilnius University in Lithuania.
His research interests focuses on the Nordic and Baltic Airline Industry and the interactions of
national and corporate culture. Maik Huettinger can be contacted at: maik.huettinger@v4ce.net

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints