Franco-Russian Cross-Cultural Research:

Theoretical and Methodological Foundation

Natalia GusevaBaikal State University of Economics and Law

11 Lenina Street,Irkutsk 664015

Russiaemail: Natalia_fed@hotmail.com

Abstract

The present paper is concerned with the problem of theoretical and methodological approaches to cross-cultural research. It deals with the major, most famous and significant concepts accepted in the world. Some findings by French and Russian scholars in the field are analyzed in the paper. The author’s interest is focused on the logic of conducting Franco-Russian cross-cultural research and the key factors and stages of its development.

1. Introduction

Under conditions of economic globalization the number of contracts between different cultures is growing continuously. These contracts comprise wide spheres of public life – from everyday contracts necessitated by the development of information technologies and tourism to professional co-operation. Most western companies are potentially interested in expanding contacts with Russian partners. Yet, there exist certain stereotypes of cooperation with Russian businessmen. How can it be accounted for? It is inevitably connected with a specific “cultural profile” of the Russian entrepreneur, businessman, manager, banker, whose activity reflects the specific national character and peculiarities of corporate and professional cultures.

Analyzing the problems of “cultural profile” formation requires consideration of three groups of factors. Firstly, it is the influence of national culture, say, French, Japanese, American or Russian. Secondly, it is the influence of the specific corporate culture such as the peculiar environment of the companies “Total” or “Yukos” or any other. Thirdly, it is the influence of professional culture peculiar to each profession such as manager, accountant, lawyer, etc.

Our theoretical research is concerned with the analysis of the impact of national culture on a manager’s “cultural profile”, management processes and interactions with businessmen from different cultures. Our major interest is focused on the concepts of cross-cultural research which are rapidly developing and are at present regarded as an independent direction of scientific research that emerged at the dawn of the new millennium. The above concepts consider and define culture from the

point of view of its value systems and personal self-estimation. The most interesting of the new concepts are: the paradigm of value orientations of labour by G. Hofstede [Hofstede, 1980]; the conceptual model “individualism-collectivism” by G. Triandis [Triandis, 1995]; the paradigm of major personal value orientations by Schwartz [Schwartz, 1994]; the paradigm of gender characteristics by Best & Williams [Best and Williams, 1998]; the model “Seven modern dilemmas” by F. Trompenaars and Ch. Hampden-Turner [Trompenaars, 1994], [Hampden – Turner and Trompenaars, 2000]; cultural definitions of “I-concepts” by Markus & Kitayama [Kitayama et al, 1997];

An analysis of the essence of their cross-cultural research forms the theoretical and methodological foundation of this Franco - Russian cross-cultural research.

2. Cross-cultural psychology as a method of scientific research

It can hardly be doubted that the abstract concept of “culture” has acquired a new understanding, a new meaning determined by context variables which are the reasons for intercultural differences. Van de Vijver considers that “present day cross-cultural research is focused on reaching concrete context parameters that are the reasons for cultural differences” [Van de Vijver and Poortinga, 1997].

Of special significance is the method of cross-cultural psychology which should be regarded as a modern method of research reflecting a certain stage of science development of the new century. A group of authors Berry, Poortinga, Segall and Daseu define cross-cultural psychology as “studying similarities and differences in a personality functioning in different cultural and ethic groups, the characteristics between psychological and biological variables as well as studying these variables changes” [Berry et al, 1992] .

Cross-cultural psychology presupposes a consistent and reliable methodological approach to studying culture and a person’s behaviour. Cultural psychology, in its turn, compensates the limitations of cultural descriptions typical of other approaches. The combination of these two approaches allows us to use the strong sides of each approach in the context of their ontological preconditions and the methodological orientations connected with them. It is regarded as a methodological approach for conducting French-Russian cross-cultural research, which makes it possible to compare the behaviour and way of thinking of two different cultures – Russian and French and propose optimal ways of interaction between the two cultures.

The present research offers the analysis of the problems related to functional, conceptual equivalences and to the different levels of analysis of two cultures - of Russian and French societies, personality and behaviour characteristics. In the given context cross-cultural psychology is regarded as the logic our research is based on.

The practice of cross-cultural research reveals some problems that arise when switching from theoretical models to certain criteria and then to empirical observation. These problems are usually related to different values of concepts and criteria in different cultures.

Segall and his co-authors put forward emic- and etic-approaches to cross-cultural research [Segall et al, 1999]. The etic-approach is aimed at seeking universals and general psychological laws. The emic-approach is aimed at studying psychological characteristics of behaviour in a certain culture. More valid etic-generalizations are achieved by conducting parallel emic-research within national cultures to obtain a further comparison of results. The results converge, etic-tendencies for certain cultures can be formulated.

Any approach has its strengths and weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages. In the last few years, cross-cultural research experts have been using more frequently the psychological characteristics of cultures to explain the intercultural differences that influence the management process. This has meant working out the parameters of cultural change, such as Hofstede’s parameters, Triandis’s constructs and other methods for describing the factors which influence the processes of social interaction.

3. G. Hofstede Pioneer Research

G. Hofstede in the 1970-s was working on the problem of employees’ values orientations. He conducted large scale research in the IBM multinational corporation and its subsidiaries in 40 countries (later, in 50 countries) [Hofstede, 1980]. He analyzed 117, 000 reports that comprised a wide rage of professions and reflected the demographic peculiarities of respondents. Aided by the company’s its narrow specialization, his research made it possible to see the differences in the system of national values. He analyzed the value orientations of IBM employees who had similar problems in different countries and nevertheless gave different answers to the same questions. The statistical analysis of the answers enabled him to formulate a four-factor model of national cultural differences. As a result, he proposed 4 dimensions: individualism-collectivism; power distance; masculinity-femininity; uncertainty avoidance.

Individualism-collectivism – regulations in relation to a personality or a group. 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 as its opposite pertains to societies in which “people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty” [Hofstede, 1991]. The results of empirical research obtained in the last 20 years testify that the level of individualism-collectivism influences the approaches to conflicts settlement, behaviour patterns, the system of employees motivation and some other essential processes of social behaviour.

Power distance - willingness to admit differences connected with power and rights. On the basis of this approach, a power distance index was calculated for each country, it varied from 0 for countries with small power distance to 100 - for

countries with large power distance. PDI scores inform us about dependence relationships in a country. In small power distance counties there is limited dependence of subordinates on bosses, and preference is given for consultation, that is, interdependence between boss and subordinate. In large power distance countries there is considerable dependence of subordinates on bosses, employees in similar jobs are more likely to prefer autocratic or paternalistic bosses.

Masculinity-femininity – shows the degree to which men’s and women’s self-perceptions include the characteristics regarded as typical of men or women of this or that culture. This dimension, worked out by Hofstede on the basis of factor-analysis, shows the degree to which values connected to self-assertion, money and property prevail in a society over the values connected with upbringing children, quality of life and personal qualities. This construct could be called “materialism”, but Hofstede called it masculinity (MAS), since men-employees generally preferred the former group of values, while women regarded the latter as more essential. Having calculated the MAS indexes for 40 countries, G. Hofstede discovered a lot of interesting interdependence. Thus, in countries with a high MAS level, independent decision-making prevails over group decision-making. Also, these countries are characterized by a stronger motivation for goal achievement, work involves more pressure and is an essential part of people’s lives [Hofstede, 1991].

Uncertainty avoidance – readiness to accept uncertainty. The uncertainty avoidance index is associated with the choice of strategy for employees’ participation in organizational changes. The higher the index, the greater are the chances for the choosing a democratic strategy for organizational changes and involving employees in organizational processes.

Later, the Canadian scholar Michele Bond conducting research in the Far East added a fifth construct: long-term and short-term orientation in life [Bond, 1988]. Unlike G. Hofstede with his “western” type of thinking, M. Bond represents the “eastern” Chinese type of thinking. Michele Bond analyzed value orientations of students from 21 countries. The results of his research are similar to those by G. Hofstede, which confirms the latter’s research.

Thus, G. Hofstede’s pioneering work “Culture’s consequences”, where he offered the parameters characterizing national cultures, gave an impetus to cross-cultural research and contributed to its popularity. The individualism-collectivism dimension is well studied and widely used, which can be accounted for by the significance of the individualism concept for the social sciences as a whole.

4. The Dimension Individualism–Collectivism by Harry Triandis

Attracted by G. Hofstede’s research, Harry Triandis, a Greek-American social psychologist, began a thorough study of cross – cultural research problems, namely,

the problem of “individualism-collectivism”. Individualism is often associated with rivalry, self-confidence, emotional distance, and estrangement from the group. Collectivism is associated with family integrity, short distance in relation to the group, high level of companionship and interdependence. Later it was revealed that self-confidence is rather high among some collectivists, too, but it is of a different value. So, an individualist, for example, perceives self-confidence as his/her “ability to do what he/she needs”, and a collectivist understands self-confidence as “a possibility not to be a burden for his group” [Triandis, 1995]. But some researches testify to the fact that both individualistic and collectivistic perceptions are characteristic of a person. What is important and interesting to analyze here are the possibilities and favorable conditions for these components to be displayed.

In his research, G. Triandis introduced the concept of horizontal and vertical characteristics of individualism and collectivism. Such combinations make it possible to distinguish four types of national culture: horizontal individualism (HI), vertical individualism (VI), horizontal collectivism (HC) and vertical collectivism (VC) [Triandis, 1995]. Sweden, for instance is characterized by horizontal individualistic culture, France – by vertical individualistic culture of behaviour, Israel kibbutz culture is that of horizontal collectivism, and Russia’s culture is vertically collectivist.

Horizontal and vertical characteristics of individualism and collectivism put forward by Triandis are essentially connected with Hofstede’s dimensions. The vertical aspect is conceptually related to Hofstede’s “power distance”. But unlike Hofstede Triandis emphasized that individualism and collectivism are not opposites. Another problem considered by Triandis regarding regulated and free societies is conceptually related to Hofstede’s idea of “uncertainty avoidance”.

G. Triandis analyzed the major differences between individualist and collectivist cultures and attitudes to the group. He pointed out that a collectivist normally belongs to one or two groups and has a profound emotional relationship with them. An individualist belongs to a great number of groups, but his relations with them are superficial and are maintained as long as they are “justified”. As soon as he finds another group more “beneficial” for him, he leaves the former. In the context of our research this tendency is of interest from the point of view of analyzing the process of employees’ loyalty to the company. In individualistic France this tendency reveals itself in a strong preference for “a better proposal” even it is comes from a competing company. The research conducted in Russia showed ambiguous results. They varied depending on the respondents’ age and their length of service in the company. Most employees over 40, who had been working for the company ten years or more, remained loyal even in case of a more profitable financial offer.

In his latest works G. Triandis introduced a new concept of “cultural syndrome” and distinguished its 3 types [Triandis, 1996]. Cultural syndrome is a generally accepted system of beliefs, purposes, self-definitions, standards, roles and values combined into a certain theme. The first syndrome is that of “complexity – simplicity”, where information societies are opposed to elementary and primitive

“mushrooms and berries pickers” societies. The second syndrome is “rigid regulation – uncertainty”, i.e. a strictly regulated society with a lot of norms as to public behaviour and the mechanism to observe these regulations is opposed to free society with a relatively small number of norms and their deviations. The third cultural syndrome is “individualism – collectivism”. G. Triandis put forward a theory of individualism and collectivism determinants [Triandis, 1996]. It asserts that there is maximum collectivism in rigidly regulated and simple cultures and maximum individualism in complex and free cultures.

These two bodies of research are of great theoretical value. G. Hofstede proposed several dimensions of national culture. H. Triandis considered the individualism- collectivism distinction and its influence on social interaction.

5 “Seven Modern Dilemmas” by F.Trompenaars and Ch.Hampden–Turner

Another modern concept of cross-cultural research is the theory of “Seven modern dilemmas” put forward by F. Trompenaars and Ch. Hampden – Turner. Their research reflect the practical aspect of cultural differences on a manager’s activities in the globalising world of transnational companies.

The principles of cross-cultural relations are understood as specific solutions to and characteristic of a certain group or nation, which people choose in decision-making. In their research F. Trompenaars and Ch. Hampden – Turner point out that there is no “one best way” of company management that could be applied in all countries [Hampden–Turner and Trompenaars, 2000]. They suggest considering cross-cultural differences under three headings: relations with people; attitudes towards time; attitudes towards the environment.

The most important part of the research refers to the group of differences “relations with people” which includes 5 dimensions reflecting people’s relationships [Trompenaars, 1994]: universalism – particularism; individualism - collectivism; neutral – emotional; specific – diffuse; achievement – ascription.

Understanding the above dilemmas makes it possible to take into account and adapt cross-cultural differences to a company’s presentation, translation, contracting, preparation and organization visits of foreign delegations, to determining the company’s head office role, assessment of its efficiency, negotiating and other important aspects of the company’s activities in a new cultural environment.

The group of differences in “attitudes towards time” gives an idea of the significance of time periods – the present, the future and the past - in each culture. There are two types of relations to time, two standpoints for the society in regard to time. In some societies prospects for the future are regarded as most essential, in others, on the contrary, past merits and achievements are of greater significance than present ones [Trompenaars, 1994]. The two approaches to time have a strong effect on the processes of in-company planning, working out the company’s strategy, investment policy and personnel development aimed at either development of personal abilities or their “acquisition” and building the “system of acquaintance and connections” in combination with professional growth.

When considering the group of differences “attitudes towards the environment”, it should be noted that in some societies the major factor that influences a person’s life and the nature of his merits and demerits reveals itself in the way he displays his inner world. In this case his motivation and values come from inside. The expression “not to be worried or disturbed by other people” can be characterized as their basic approach to life. Other cultures, on the contrary, evaluate the world and the environment as something more influential than an individual. In this case people perceive the environment as something unexpected and competing with them [Trompenaars, 1994]. So, the Japanese approach to life is “to be in harmony with nature”.

This conceptual model is of interest both from the point of view of its practical approach and the author’s recommendations on considering cross-cultural differences with the aim of effective and mutually beneficial intercultural French-Russian relations.

Further on we’ll discuss two “national approaches” in conducting cross-cultural research: the French one and the Russian one. National approaches to research are of special interest since conducting Franco-Russian research requires considering both theoretical and methodological approaches to the research and the accumulated knowledge in this field.

6 French cross-cultural researchSpecialists in social sciences were engaged in studying this problem and

working out models and dimensions some hundred years ago. In the late 19-th century the French sociologist Durkheim made a distinction between a mechanical community (something similar to collectivism) and organic community (something

similar to individualism). The former presupposes the relations based on common ties and commitments, while the latter presupposes the relations based on consensus [Durkheim, 1984].

Yet, it should be noted that most researches in organization and management problems were largely Americanised both in their concepts and their execution. European researches studied general organizational problems from the point of view of theoretical perspective in this or that context.

Michel Crozier, a French sociologist, researched in his country’s culture, business organization, and production as its component. In the period of his research he found no materials that consider an organization and its socio-cultural environment as a single whole. In his paper “Bureaucracy phenomenon”, 1964, he pointed out “face – to – face dependence relationship are …perceived as difficult to bear in the French cultural setting. Yet the prevailing view of authority is still that of absolutism… The two attitudes are contradictory. However, they can be reconciled within a bureaucratic system since impersonal rules and centralization make it possible to reconcile an absolutist conception of authority and the elimination of most direct dependence relationships” [Crozier, 1964]. M. Crozier research was later used by G. Hofstede and F. Trompenaarse in analyzing the impact of culture on employees’ value orientation, on studying the management systems and hierarchy of relations.

Philippe d’Irriban, who headed one of the public centres on international management, studied the problems of management, organization, power hierarchy, relations between managers and subordinates. His research team interviewed a lot of people conducting cross-cultural research in France, the USA, and Holland and comparing these countries’ manufacturers that belonged to the same transnational company. The results obtained in the research showed a considerable power polarization in France, which is characteristic of countries with large power distance. Ph. d’Irriban notes, that “The often strongly emotional character of hierarchical relationship in France is intriguing. There is an extreme diversity of feelings towards superiors: they may be either adored or despised with equal intensity” [Irriban, 1989]. Visible signs of status in large power distance countries contribute to the authority of bosses. The results of cross-cultural research into the problems of organization in France, the USA and Holland enabled Ph. d’Irriban to describe the French approach as “the logic of honour”11 that has been known since pre-Napoleon times. It means that “everyone has his/her own position”, i.e., according to G. Hofstede, corresponds to large power distance, but “the implications of belonging to one’s rank are less imposed by the group than determined by tradition. It is not so much what one owes to others as what one owes to oneself“ [Irriban, 1989]. It corresponds of a stratified form of individualism.

Nowadays interest has grown in conducting cross-cultural research and cross-cultural management as one of the directions of scientific research. This is large-scale empirical research organized by the Centres of scientific Research –EU-ASEAN

management centre, community of European management schools, leading French business schools, European financial marketing association, etc.

Another project that deserves attention is a large-scale European project on decision – making – EMDM, 1994-2000 aimed at studying cultural differences in interrelations between clients, shareholders and company employees with the view of contributing to the process of European companies integration as well as integration of European economy as a whole. About 300 managers from 25 financial institutions of France, England, Germany, Italy and Spain participated in the research. The purpose of the project was to single out managers and organizations that were more that others protected from global competition and try to find the essence of European values of organization. The results of the research showed that in the future more attention should be paid to studying the cultural component to successfully avoid conflicts, create employees’ single system of values, determine the logic of decision-making, and, on the whole to efficiently manage cross-cultural relations [Segalla, 2001].

Nowadays in France, cross-cultural research into relations with Eastern Europe and Asian countries is characterized by a new stage of development, which testifies to the growing interest in integration of France with the East, including Russia.

7. Problems of Cross-Cultural Research in Russia

N. Berdyaev’s work “Self-knowledge” can be regarded as one of the first cross-cultural researches of the early 20-th century in Russia. In the part “Russia and Western world” the Russian thinker, writer and philosopher offers a comparative analysis of Russian and French mentality and national character. Quite interesting are research and treatment of individualism and group formation – “communotarism”, power distance, masculinity and femininity problems and the question of uncertainty [Berdyaev, 1991]. The problems raised can be seen as the beginning of modern cross-cultural research.

N. Berdyaev pointed out that “the word individualism, ambiguous in its essence, is mostly applicable to the French”. “Russians are no good at acquiring western rules… I wouldn’t say that Russians are particularly inclined to individual friendship. Rather, Russians are communotarian people. It’s amazing that whatever part of the world they get to, Russians unite into groups, join into Russian organisations, hold meetings” [Berdyaev, 1991].

In his research of those times he also gives description and comparative analysis of behaviour and relations between the Russian and the French. N. Berdyaev, a Russian philosopher who emigrated to the West and lived in Paris more than 20 years, pointed out that “the problem of communication is the problem of overcoming loneliness” and “the difficulty of communicating with Russians is of different nature than the difficulty of communicating with French”. Analysing masculinity and femininity problems, he pointed out that “even when a man and a woman speaking

the same language pronounce the same words, they mean different things” [Berdyaev, 1991].

N. Berdyaev’s researches can be regarded as the first stage of cross-cultural studies when scholars collected and described materials on differences inherent in two cultures, but nevertheless this is a most interesting heritage for present-day research.

Modern cross-cultural researches in Russia began in the 90s. A. Naumov applied G. Hofstede’s concept to evaluate the system of company management and company business communications. In his research he makes one of the first attempts to calculate Hofstede’s constructs with regard to Russian peculiarities: individualism-collectivism; uncertainty’ avoidance; power distance; masculinity – femininity [Naumov, 1996]. The results of the research are given in table 1.

Table 1Influence of National Factors on the Management System in Russia

Factors Large power distance

Strong uncertainty avoidance Collectivism Femininity

Self-identification in the organisation

Subordinates are obliged to identify themselves for the authorities by means of formal symbols.

Awareness of oneself as « the ».

Relations with colleagues

More fear and less trust in each other, envy of other people’s success.

Suspiciousness, divergence of opinions enhance distrust.

Perceived in moral terms similar to those of a family.

Emphasis is put on relations, equality, solidarity and interdependence.

Problems settlement and decision making

Priority for political solutions. It’s not easy to find a person responsible for the solution.

Trust in expert and « special » knowledge, belief in only one correct answer.Only structured problems are valued.Decisions are made by consensus: those who disagree are dangerous and intolerable.

Belief in the efficiency of group decisions.

Trust in efficiency of consensus decisions;Consideration for other people’s opinions.

Conflict(attitude to conflict)

Hidden conflict between power levels.

Causes aggression and must be avoided or settled by force.

Regarded as rather a destructive force ;The way of settlement is consensus.

Settled through compromise and negotiations.

Power relations The basis of power are authority and charisma.The one who has power is always right. Personal basis of power.

The subordinates are for an executive. When subordinates disagree with the authorities solution, they keep silence.

Mainly status sources of power.

Emphasis on personal sources of power.

Attitude to leadership

The leader demonstrates maximum power.

A strict manager is preferable; subordinates are dependent on executives;Leaders are either liked or hated.

Relations are more important than results when managing a group of individuals.

Relations are more important than results;Maintenance of hierarchy within the

organization. Career (principles for promotion in the organisation)

The education degree does not influence the power level.

Procedures may change.The group’s opinion are taken into account to a large degree.

Stable horizontal ;Widely specialised.

Character of communications

High significance of contract.A high level of secrecy.A strong non-verbal aspect.

High significance of a context.

Non-verbal aspect is important ;Care, discretion.

The system of staff motivation

A considerable difference in payment. Differentiation in payment in the form of bonuses and perks.

Moral incentives, sympathy for the weak and unhappy.

T. Shamsytdinova in her philosophical – sociological research based on various theoretical works characterises the Russian society as “ the society with high power distance and uncertainty avoidance, which is expressed by the index of collectivist orientation and femininity in the Russian public consciousness” [Shamsytdinova, 2000]. These specific features of Russian national mentality, according to T. Shamsytdinova, determine the culture of Russian organisations.

Modern researches by Russian scholars are mostly of empirical character, they approve and adapt different western theoretical approaches to Russian reality and give insufficient attention to theoretical and methodological questions of conducting cross-cultural research.

8. ConclusionThe above considered theoretical and methodological approaches for conducting cross—cultural research serve as a basis for empirical Franco-Russian research into the processes of social influence, studying the problems of international project management and achieving efficient joint activity.Thorough studies of a wide variety of sources on cultural differences testify that the dimension “individualism-collectivism” is one of the key points to analyse efficient interaction with representatives of other cultures. Present-day cross-cultural research gives special attention to this construct, since Russia is a striking example of collectivist culture, while France is a striking example of individualistic culture.

All the constructs characterising basic cross-cultural differences at the national level have a great impact on the processes of social interaction which are regarded as the basis for management system.

The above conceptual models have become widely popular in the last 20 years, they are regarded as key factors for clear understanding of how cultures influence the core processes of social interaction: group value orientation, the style of making agreements and negotiating style, employees motivation, the concept of leadership, payment and rewarding policy, communication system and company management as whole

9. References[Berdyaev, 1991] Бердяев Н.А. Самопознание. М.: Книга, 1991. – 448с.[Berry et al, 1992] Berry, J., Poortinga, Y., Segall, M., Dasen, P. Cross – cultural

psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

[Best and Williams, 1998] Best, D., Williams, J. Masculinity/femininity in the self and ideal self descriptions of university students in fourteen countries, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998.

[Bond, 1988] Bond, M. Cross – cultural challenge to social psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988.

[Crozier, 1988] Crozier, M., The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1964.

[Durkheim, 1984] Durkheim, E. The division of labor in society (W.D. Halls. Trans.). London: Macmillan, 1984. (Original work published 1893).

[Hampden – Turner and Trompenaars, 2000] Hampden –Turner, C., Trompenaars, F. Building cross – cultural Competence: How to Create wealth from conflicting values, Yale University Press, 2000.

[Hofstede, 1980] Hofstede, G.. Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1980.

[Hofstede, 1991] Hofstede, G. Organizations and cultures: Software of the mind. New-York: Mc Graw-Hill, 1991.

[Irriban, 1989] Irriban (d’) P. La Logique de l’Honneur, Gestion des Entreprises et Traditions Nationales. Le Seuil, Paris, 1989.

[Kitayama et al, 1997] Kitayama, S., Markus, H., Matsumoto, H., Narasakkunkit. V. Individual and collective processes in the construction of the self: Self – enhancement in the U.S. and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1997, N 72, 1245-1267.

[Naumov, 1996] Наумов А. Хофстидово измерение России (влияние национальной культуры на управление бизнесом)// Менеджмент, 1996, №3.

[Segall et al, 1999] Segall, M., Dasen, P. Berry, J., Poortinga, Y. Human behavior in global perspective: An introduction to cross-cultural psychology (2nd ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1999.

[Segalla, 2001] Segalla, M. Overview: Understanding Values and Expectations of foreign employees creates a better company. European Management Journal 19(1), 27-31, 2001.

[Shamsytdinova, 2000] Шамсутдинова Т.С. Система управления персоналом: социо - культурный аспект. Дисс. на соискание уч. степени д. фил. н. М ., 2000.

[Schwartz, 1994] Schwartz, S.H. Beyond individualism and collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1994.

[Triandis, 1995] Triandis, H. Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995.

[Triandis, 1996] Triandis, H. The psychological measurement cultural syndromes. American Psychologist, 51, 407-415, 1996.

[Trompenaars, 1994] Trompenaars, F. Riding the waves of culture: understanding cultural diversity in business. Irwin Professional Publishing, Chicago & London & Singapore, 1994.

[Van de Vijver and Poortinga, 1997] Van de Vijver, F. and Poortinga, Y. Towards an integrated analysis of bias in cross – cultural assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13, 29-37, 1997.