ABSTRACT Measuring Organizational Subcultures: An Application of Hofstedes Value Survey Module Across a Major Joint Command

by

Dean A. Call

Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Psychology

Walden University April 2010

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

Measuring Organizational Subcultures: An Application of Hofstedes Value Survey Module Across a Major Joint Command

by

Dean A. Call

Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Psychology

Walden University April 2010

DEDICATION No undertaking in life is a lone venture. There are always those who have pushed, prodded, encouraged, and even berated you along the way, and then there are those who simply have inspired without doing any of those. This work and, in many, ways my life, is dedicated to them. To my mother and my father, who both died within months of each other while I was busily working away at yet another school. My Mother, who always told me, I dont know where you get your brains, somehow managed to keep a family together, clothed, and fed on $500 a month, all the while still instilling the discipline to keep on trying and the curiosity to keep on asking questions. I say that yours was just a different type of smarts. I may never be smart enough to pull what you did off, and I hope I never need to. You inspire me still. To my father, who kept things inside, managed to say more to me after his death with a shoebox full of memories than he said to me his entire life, who while diagnosed with cancer, kept telling everyone, His son was going to be a doctor, I say that Im sorry. Im sorry that for years, I tried to be nothing like you, and in the end, I am more like you than I ever imagined: stubborn, obstinate, and unwavering when I know that I am right. Im sorry for the years we never spoke, and Im sorry for the missed opportunities. To my family, my lovely wife Kim, who found me and saved me by being nothing I ever asked for, but somehow everything Ive ever needed in my life. Thank you for doing all those things you do without thinking you are doing anything, for letting me sit at a computer while you slave away, for allowing and expecting me to carry a laptop

and textbooks with me on vacations and sadly, our honeymoon. Thank you for filling the voids left by the losses. Thank you for our two boys. Even though I have been a part of their lives for a short time, I cherish them with all my heart. To the boys, Greg and Alex, thank you for reminding me that it is OK to say, The hell with it, and kick the soccer ball around a bit. To Sam, who by the luck of being born into the tail end of this process, I hope that Daddy isnt always attached to a PC. To the countless friends who have waited while I just finish this post or who have endured lengthy, one-sided discussions about the current class, or who have lent me bandwidth, I offer you my thanks.

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. iv LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ v CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Organization of the Chapter ................................................................................................ 2 Literature Search ................................................................................................................. 3 Definitions of Terms ........................................................................................................... 5 Culture................................................................................................................................. 7 Organizational Culture ........................................................................................................ 9 IBM Studies ...................................................................................................................... 10 Power Distance ........................................................................................................... 12 Uncertainty Avoidance ............................................................................................... 14 Individualism Versus Collectivism ............................................................................ 16 Masculinity Versus Femininity .................................................................................. 18 Long-Term Versus Short-Term Orientation .............................................................. 20 McSweeneys Criticism of Hofstede ................................................................................ 21 Joint Command ................................................................................................................. 24 Background/Mission .................................................................................................. 25 J-Codes/Directorates .................................................................................................. 25 Summary .................................................................................................................... 29 Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 30 Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 30 Hypotheses ........................................................................................................................ 31 Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 32 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 33 CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHOD ............................................................................ 34 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 34 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 34 Research Design ......................................................................................................... 34 Participants ................................................................................................................. 35 Instrument................................................................................................................... 36 Procedures .................................................................................................................. 38 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 39 Nonscored Indexes ............................................................................................................ 40 Assumptions and Limitations of the Study ....................................................................... 42 Assumptions ............................................................................................................... 42 Limitations ................................................................................................................. 43 CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................ 45 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 45 ii

Review of the Literature ................................................................................................... 45 Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................................................................ 47 Practice Implications ......................................................................................................... 48 Future Directions .............................................................................................................. 49 Social Implications............................................................................................................ 50 Integrative Summary......................................................................................................... 51 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 52 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 53 APPENDIX A: VALUES SURVEY MODULE 2008 ..................................................... 58 APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT ......................................................................... 67 CURRICULUM VITAE ................................................................................................... 69

iii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Power Distance Index: General Description ....................................................... 13 Table 2. Power Distance Index: Workplace Description .................................................. 14 Table 3. Uncertainty Avoidance: General Description ..................................................... 15 Table 4. Uncertainty Avoidance: Workplace Description ................................................ 16 Table 5. Individualism: General Description .................................................................... 17 Table 6. Individualism: Workplace Description ............................................................... 18 Table 7. Masculinity: General Description ....................................................................... 19 Table 8. Masculinity: Workplace Description .................................................................. 20 Table 9. Long-Term Orientation: General Description .................................................... 21 Table 10. Long-Term Orientation: Workplace Description ............................................. 21 Table 11. Original Cronbachs Alphas of Hofstedes Dimensions................................... 37

iv

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. USJFCOM directorates. .................................................................................... 27 Figure 2. USJFCOM directorate cultures. ........................................................................ 29

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

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

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

4 Minkov, and Vinken (2008) Value Survey Module 08 (VSM 08; see Appendix A) provides the questions as well as the computations to determine scores for each dimension. These three items provide the foundation for, and the process by which the results will be measured. All library and online journal searches began with the Boolean search Culture and Organization. From there, an additional search of Culture and Hofstede was run across all databases and sources to ensure that as many of Hofstedes articles were available as possible. This also provided articles listing Hofstede or referring to his work in some manner. From the returned documents, pertinent peer-reviewed articles were selected for review. Many of those articles led to the discovery of additional themes, nomenclature, and other references that seemed germane and were investigated as found. The approach of searching multiple online libraries providing different virtual stacks, the use of online journals and original books by Hofstede, and the inclusion of conflicting material shaped this thesis. While succeeding at the original goal of providing for the directed creation of a wealth of peer-reviewed literature stemming from the original articles, and from the books mentioned, the references, used and unused, guided the writing of this thesis into corners and niches not originally expected. This thesis was originally conceived as a study into the communications patterns within a joint military command, which is comparable to a conglomerate company in the business world that continues to struggle with internal collaboration even as it is tasked with and strives to provide a single joint operating environment for the U.S. military, its partners, allies, and other agencies within the U.S. government. Although communications remains an area of

5 interest and perhaps an avenue for future discussion, the Socratic method applied during the formulation of a problem statement led from a study based on a symptom to a study aimed at the root cause of the problem, namely, culture, specifically organizational culture. The repeated application of the question, But why? eventually led to the realization that the cultures varied throughout the organization based on the norms of the particular organizational area, or subcomponent. As noted by Bloor and Dawson (1994), individuals may communicate verbally and nonverbally in different ways. The tendency is to use past stories, myths, and experiences that stem from the individuals cultural knowledge. Because culture seemingly controls communication, cultural issues, not communication issues, must be the crux of the problem. This awareness diverted the study toward organizational culture and Hofstedes universal dimensions and the question of their applicability at the organizational level. Simply stated, can the universal dimensions be found to vary if applied at the organizational level? Definitions of Terms Several terms lie at the heart of this research. Their definitions follow. The foundation of this study is an application of Hofstedes cultural dimension within a single joint organization, so the definitions provided have been taken from various Hofstede articles and books. Central tendency: This is a number meant to convey the idea of centralness for the data set (Jaisingh, 2006, p. 31).

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

7 Short-term orientation: This is a characteristic of a society that exhibits a conventional historic or short-term point of view (Hofstede & Bond, 1988). Subculture: Subculture is the culture of a well-defined segment of society that is assumed to reflect the dominant cultural patterns of society through special different values, norms and customs (Reber & Reber, 2001). Uncertainty avoidance: This is the degree of comfort or discomfort felt by members of a society when dealing with uncertainty and ambiguity (Hofstede et al., 1990). Culture As far back as Hippocrates, culture has been recognized as playing a vital role in the behavior of human beings (Dona, 1991). Hippocratess theory of humors, although biological by tradition, implies an analysis of behavior that involves the concept of traits of personality (Kimble & Schlesinger, 1985). Hippocrates surmised that differences in the character of various cultures are the result of the different climates or institutions in the various cultures (as cited in Adler & Gielen, 2001). Although the theory of imbalances in the four humors has been proven incorrect, the impact of culture had been recognized. Moving from the early roots of ancient Greece to one of the founding fathers of psychology, the importance of culture was not lost. Wundts classic work, Volkerpsychologie, argued that higher mental processes should be examined in the context of culture and language (as cited in Sheehy, 2004). His analysis and interpretations of language, art, mythology, and religion spanned five full volumes and

8 dealt with organizations that ranged from families to group affiliations, tribes, local and national communities, and humankind as a whole (as cited in Kusch, 1999) and added support to the anthropological view of culture as the complex whole, encompassing all of the capabilities and habits acquired by individuals as members of society (Tylor, 1871). Although these early forays into cultural study were comparative in nature, they were undertaken typically to delineate and explain the superiority of ones own culture. Europeans and European researchers derided the lack of culture of those inhabitants of the European colonies in Africa, India, and even the Americas. Later work revealed that everyone belongs to a culture (Hutnyk, 2006), albeit different from the home culture of the researcher. Culture has proven to be an omnipresent concept that remains unique, even though common elements are shared across cultures. Naroll (1956) likened cultures to skin, noting that there is no singular skin; rather, there are almost imperceptible degrees of differences. With no clear and distinguishable difference to bind a culture, researchers have struggled to find a common universal dimension that could be applied to every culture. Although Lowie (1936) defined culture at the macro level of a single culture for all of humanity, he admitted that small differences can have great effects. His large-scale definition may have encompassed all of the variations in a culture, but it did present some problems in the area of research. Proper research into the areas of culture requires a smaller focus, reducing from Lowies all-inclusive approach requires that researchers find ways to group people with like cultures.

9 One way to group anything is by the noted differences, and culture is no different. Weinberg (2003) commented, It is reasonable to assume these differences will be reflected in the groups from those cultures (p. 259). These variances can be thought of as the outcomes from inputs based upon the cultures distinctive content; social systems; and methods of transmitting cultural norms, practices, values, and traditions, as explained by Chick (2001). Perhaps the one group that the majority of people find themselves in and which comes complete with Chicks multiple official and unofficial channels of transmission is the organization. Organizational Culture Organizations have been defined as social relations deliberately created, with the explicit intention of continuously accomplishing some specific goals or purposes (Stinchcombe, 1965, p. 142). These social relationships help to define the culture of the organization and provide the organization with a culture of its own. Although other researchers have alluded to organization culture, or the culture of an organization (Morrill, 2008), the term organizational culture was first defined by Pettigrew (1979) as the system of such publicly and collectively accepted meanings operating for a given group at a given time. The system consists of the publicly and collectively accepted terms, form, categories, and images used by individuals to interpret a given situation to themselves. Organization culture is the sum total of the interactions between the individual and the organization (Witte & Van Muijen, 1999), including the shared perceptions and shared practices (Hofstede et al., 1990); the shared individual cultures of

10 the members (Hallett, 2003); and the process of individual influence, contained by the agreed upon cultural contexts (Geertz, 1973) within the organization. Even though many researchers have studied organizational culture from angles such as conceptual imperialism (DeRoche, 2001); anthropological views (Altman & Baruch, 1998); the context of knowledge management practices (Alavi, Kayworth, & Leidner, 2006); organizational performance (Wilkins & Ouchi, 1983); organizational effectiveness (Denison & Mishra, 1995); and others, the economist Hofstede has by far proven to be the most influential researcher in the field of organizational culture. With more than 3,000 citations between 1999 and 2003, his five universal dimensions of culture have arguably become the standard for studies in organizational culture. IBM Studies Hofstede (1983a, 1983b) utilized extensive data collected by IBM to develop four universal dimensions of national cultures. A fifth dimension was added later. Starting in 1963 and continuing through 1973, two surveys from 72 countries consisting of 116,000 surveys translated into 20 languages were conducted. At this time, IBM had subsidiaries in all countries around the world that admitted such subsidiaries and employed almost exclusively nationals of the host country, with few exceptions. These surveys focused on national differences in employees values. IBMs first survey, which was conducted in 1967, consisted of 189 standardized items and was administered to randomly selected personnel in six product development laboratories (Hofstede, 2001). This survey was closely followed by a survey of 183 standardized items using four language versions that was administered to all IBM

11 personnel in 26 Asian, Latin America, and Pacific countries. Over the next 2 years (19681969), all European and Middle Eastern marketing and administrative operations were surveyed. IBM manufacturing plants were surveyed in 1970. By the end of 1970, most of the organization had been surveyed, providing approximately 60,000 respondents from 53 countries and in 18 different languages. It should be noted that U.S. facilities were not included in these surveys; rather, they were surveyed later to provide for comparisons. Based on the success of these initial surveys, 60 core questions were selected to become mandatory for all future surveys; an additional 66 questions were included as optional. With these questions, a second round of surveys was administered to an additional 60,000 respondents (30,000 were participants in the initial surveys, 20,000 were new employees, and the remainder were from countries not covered in the initial round of surveys). Yugoslavia was added in 1971. This brought the total languages used to 20 and included 72 countries (Hofstede, 2001). In his analysis of the data gleaned from these studies, Hofstede (1983) identified four dimensions related to the fundamental problems that face society for which different societies have found different answers. These dimensions explained the differences in organizational structure, member motivation, and issues faced by people and organizations. These four dimensions were identified as a large or a small power distance index (PDI); a strong or weak uncertainty avoidance index (UAI); individualism vs. collectivism (IDV), and masculinity vs. feminism (MAS; Hofstede, 1983b, 1998); longterm versus short-term orientation was added later (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).

12 Power Distance The first dimension found by Hofstedes analysis of the IBM survey data involves human inequality in areas such as prestige wealth and power. These inequalities exist in even the simplest society or organization. Invariably, some people are bigger, stronger, smarter, or wealthier, or they are held in higher status than others, which gives them the ability to influence and determine the behaviors of others (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Power distance speaks to how close subordinates feel to their superiors personally, not physically. Simply put, it represents an endorsement of the inequality by the followers as much as by the leaders (Hofstede & McCrae, 2009). Power distance, inspired by the work of Mulder (1976), deals with societys way of dealing with power relations and is a measure of the perceived decision-making process (i.e., autocratic or paternalistic) of an individuals boss; the perceived level of fear of disagreeing with the boss; and the percentage of employees who prefer not to have a boss who makes decisions by consulting with his employees, but rather prefer a boss who makes decisions autocratically, paternalistically, or democratically (Hofstede, 1983b). Originally, the PDI was derived from the mean score of three questions from the IBM surveys dealing with subordinates fear of disagreeing with their superiors, the decision making style of the superiors, and the subordinates preferred style of decision making (Hofstede, 2001). Countries exhibiting a high power distance have superiors who exert power and keep the gap between superiors and subordinates open. Inequality is not only accepted but also expected. In this culture, subordinates are reluctant to question or disagree with

13 their superiors, and they prefer to work for superiors managers who take an autocratic approach by telling subordinates what to do. Conversely, low power distance countries exhibit a coequal relationship between superiors and subordinates. Superiors and subordinates are considered colleagues, thereby minimizing inequalities. Subordinates are seldom afraid to disagree and expect a more democratic decision-making approach (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). The differences between low and high PDI organization are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 Power Distance Index: General Description
Small Minimized social or class inequalities. Reduced hierarchical organizational structures. Power used for legitimate purposes. Each person has a rightful and protected place in society. The less powerful should be dependent on the more powerful. The legitimacy of the purposes desired by the power holder is irrelevant. Note. Adapted from Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (2nd ed.), by G. Hofstede & G. J. Hofstede, 2005, New York: McGraw-Hill. Copyright by McGraw-Hill. Large Inequalities in the social order are expected and desired.

14 Table 2 Power Distance Index: Workplace Description

Small Decentralization is popular. Narrower salary range between bottom and top. The ideal boss is a resourceful democrat. Large Centralization is popular. Wide salary range between top and bottom. Ideal boss is benevolent autocrat or good father.

Privileges and status symbols tend to be more Managers expect and receive privileges and status frowned on. symbols. Note. Adapted from Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (2nd ed.), by G. Hofstede & G. J. Hofstede, 2005, New York: McGraw-Hill. Copyright by McGraw-Hill.

Uncertainty Avoidance Hofstede identified a strong correlation between power distance and uncertainty avoidance (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999). Uncertainty avoidance originated within the work of Cyert and March (1963), although theirs was a purely American usage of the term, that is, all humans must face the fact that they do not know what will happen tomorrow. This uncertainty creates anxiety that is handled differently by different cultures through the use of technology, laws, and religion in their broadest sense (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). When combined with power distance, uncertainty avoidance permits the segregation of societies into four distinct types: (a) Those with large power distance and small uncertainty avoidance project a culture with a strong family model of organizations; (b) large power distance and high uncertainty avoidance reflect a pyramid type of organization; (c) low power distance and weak uncertainty avoidance represent cultures with market-type organizations; and (d) low power distance, combined with high uncertainty avoidance reflect a machine type organization (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999).

15 The UAI deals with societys acceptance of ambiguity (Hofstede & McCrae, 2009), or how society deals with temporal issues (Hofstede, 2001). Societies can either accept the unknown future or attempt to beat it. The essence of uncertainty is subjective and is judged by the members feelings about breaking the rules of the organization and their willingness to leave the organization (Hofstede, 1983). Each question from the IBM survey related to the level of anxiety faced by recognizing an uncertain future, specifically with the three distinct components of uncertainty avoidance: rule orientation, employment stability, and stress (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). The differences between low and high uncertainty avoidance are shown in Tables 3 and 4. Table 3 Uncertainty Avoidance: General Description
Low Uncertainty is a normal ad accepted feature of life. Low stress and anxiety. High stress and anxiety. Emotions should not be shown. Emotions (at proper times) may be vented. Lenient rules. Firm rules. Similar modes of address for different others. Different modes of address for others. What is different is curious. What is different is dangerous. Note. Adapted from Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (2nd ed.) by G. Hofstede & G. J. Hofstede, 2005, New York: McGraw-Hill. Copyright by McGraw-Hill. High Uncertainty is a continuous threat and must be fought.

16 Table 4 Uncertainty Avoidance: Workplace Description

Low More changes of employer. Hardworking only when needed. Time is a framework for orientation. Time is money. Tolerance for ambiguity and chaos. There is a need for precision and formalization. Belief in generalists and common sense. Belief in experts and technical solutions. Top managers are concerned with strategy. Top managers are concerned with daily operations. Motivation by achievement and esteem and belonging. Motivation by security and esteem or belonging. Note, Adapted from Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (2nd ed.) by G. Hofstede & G. J. Hofstede, 2005, New York: McGraw-Hill. Copyright by McGraw-Hill. High Fewer changes of employer. An emotional need to be busy and an inner urge to work hard.

Individualism Versus Collectivism Unlike uncertainty avoidance, which is on a low to high continuum, the next universal dimension can be viewed as contrasting two separate qualities. This dimension, referenced as IDV by Hofstede, contrasts the levels of individualism, as the term implies, with the level of collectivism exhibited in a culture. Individualism is an assessment of the emotional independence and autonomy of a person. The dimension was originally based upon questions from the IBM surveys pertaining to personal time, job freedom and challenge, training, the physical work environment, and the use of the individuals skills (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). In an individualist culture, people tend to think of themselves as individuals distinctive from other people, that is, the ties between individuals are loosely based, and everyone looks after himself or herself and his or her immediate family only (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Individualistic cultures exhibit more self-centered tendencies and place

17 an emphasis on individual goals. Individualistic cultures emphasize job success and achievement or wealth and career advancement. The individualist places high importance on the aspects of personal time and job-related challenges (Hofstede, 2001). In contrast, collectivistic cultures are those in which people are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups from birth, and these groups, in return for unquestioned loyalty, continue to protect the individuals throughout their lifetime (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005; Hofstede & McCrae, 2009). Collectivistic cultures place a greater emphasis on groups and think more in terms of we. In collectivistic cultures, harmony and loyalty are considered very important, and direct confrontation always are avoided (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). The differences between individualism and collectivism are shown in Tables 5 and 6. Table 5 Individualism: General Description
Collectivist Individuals are born into extended families or other in-groups that provide protection in return for loyalty. Children think in terms of we. Harmony is maintained, and confrontation is avoided. Individualist Everyone looks after him/herself.

Children think in terms of I. Speaking ones mind is considered characteristic of an honest person.

Not. Adapted from Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (2nd ed.), by G. Hofstede & G. J. Hofstede, 2005, New York: McGraw-Hill. Copyright by McGraw-Hill.

18 Table 6 Individualism: Workplace Description

Collectivist Low occupational mobility. Individuals are members of in-groups and pursue ingroup interests. Hiring and promotion decisions account for ingroup status, Management is management of groups Individualist Higher occupational mobility. Individuals pursue group interests if they are aligned with their own. Hiring and promotion decisions are based on skills and rules. Management is management of individuals

Relationship prevails over task, Tasks prevail over relationships. Note. Adapted from Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (2nd ed.), by G. Hofstede & G. J. Hofstede, 2005, New York: McGraw-Hill. Copyright by McGraw-Hill.

Masculinity Versus Femininity Often confused for individualism, and the last of the original four dimensions defined by Hofstede, masculinity indicates the extent to which dominant values in a society tend to be assertive, Masculine societies are more interested in things rather than people and their quality of life, and they stress achievement rather than nurturing tendencies. Masculinity is seen as the trait that emphasizes ambition, acquisition of wealth, and differentiated gender roles. Femininity is seen as the trait that stresses caring and nurturing behaviors, sexuality equality, environmental awareness, and more fluidity. This dimension relates to the importance of earnings, recognition, advancement, challenge, cooperation, and employment security (Hofstede, 1983b). Masculine societies stress the importance of assertiveness and competition (i.e., earnings, recognition, advancement, and workplace challenges). Masculinity societies reflect social gender roles that are clearly distinct: Men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success; women are supposed to be more modest, tender,

19 and concerned with the quality of life (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). This live-to-work mindset requires a focus on reward. Members of these cultures have a tendency to polarize, and they consider big and fast beautiful. Societies scoring lower in masculinity are considered more feminine. These cultures tend to stress modest and caring values (Hofstede & McCrae, 2009). In a feministic culture, gender roles overlap, that is, men and women are expected to exhibit modesty and tenderness, and they are to be concerned with quality-of-life issues (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). These cultures consider quality of life and the helping of others to be important. Working is seen as a method to earn the money required for living, and people strive for consensus and develop sympathy for those in need. Small and slow are considered beautiful. The differences between masculinity and femininity are shown in Tables 7 and 8. Table 7 Masculinity: General Description
Masculinity Ego oriented. Money and things are important. Femininity Relationship oriented. Quality of life and people are important.

Live to work. Work to live. Note. Adapted from Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (2nd ed.), by G. Hofstede & G. J. Hofstede, 2005, New York: McGraw-Hill. Copyright by McGraw-Hill.

20 Table 8 Masculinity: Workplace Description

Masculinity Larger gender wage gap. Fewer women in management. Femininity Smaller gender wage gap. More women in management.

Preference for higher pay. Preference for fewer working hours. Note. Adapted from Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (2nd ed.) by G. Hofstede & G. J. Hofstede, 2005, New York: McGraw-Hill. Copyright by McGraw-Hill.

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

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

Having a sense of shame. Reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts. Note. Adapted from Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (2nd ed.), by G. Hofstede & G. J. Hofstede, 2005, New York: McGraw-Hill. Copyright by McGraw-Hill.

Table 10 Long-Term Orientation: Workplace Description

Long-term orientation Main work values include freedom, rights, achievement, and thinking for oneself. Leisure time is unimportant. Short-term orientation Main work values include learning, honesty, adaptiveness, accountability, and self-discipline. Leisure time is important.

Managers and workers are psychologically in two Owner-managers and workers share the same camps. aspirations. Note. Adapted from Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (2nd ed.), by G. Hofstede & G. J. Hofstede, 2005, New York: McGraw-Hill. Copyright by McGraw-Hill.

McSweeneys Criticism of Hofstede Combined, these dimensions have been applied to 53 countries and regions spanning the world, yet they have not been without criticism. Perhaps Hofstedes most vocal critic was McSweeney (2002), who questioned Hofstede from a methodological

22 perspective. McSweeney argued that Hofstedes assertions were nothing more than fallacious assumptions leading to empirical descriptions and that Hofstedes claim to have uncovered the software of the mind was excessive, unbalanced, and restrictive. McSweeney argued that Hofstedes conflation and uni-level analysis precludes consideration of interplay between macroscopic and microscopic cultural levels and between the cultural and non-cultural (whatever we chose to call it) (p. 28). Although Hofstede (2001; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005) made great mention of the enormity of the IBM study, citing 117,000 surveys, McSweeney (2002) pointed out the limited number of surveys that were actually used. Of the 66 countries covered by the surveys, only 40 were used in the final analysis. Of those 40, only 6 had sample sizes of more than 1,000, and 15 had samples of less than 200. Hofstede argued that a sample of 50 is adequate to determine reliability if the sample is adequately homogeneous; however, McSweeney resisted the application of a national label based on a sample that was constrained to not only a single area but also a single organization in a single area. Hofstede (2001; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005) also ignored the impact of other cultures upon the responses in the surveys. He assumed that a singular IBM organizational culture encompassed all employees, regardless of occupation, location, or employment duration. He also assumed that occupational cultures remained constant across national borders. Hofstedes model ignored the possibility that individuals are affected by the consequences of their social institutions and the rules applied within them. In the Hofstede model, accountants in the United States would be culturally unaffected by GAAP, U.S. market trends, or legislation such as Sarbanes-Oxley, and they would exhibit

23 the same cultural tendencies as their German or Russian counterparts (McSweeney, 2002). Hofstedes (2001; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005) use of central tendency as the measure by which dimensional scores are calculated glossed over and disregarded the radical differences within each countrys responses, converting them into a single national response to be compared with other averaged values to determine a difference in national cultures. The assumption was that this average would hold consistent, regardless of the other organizations measured. McSweeney (2002) argued that the selective hiring practices (i.e., middle class only); frequent international training; advanced technological environment; the unusual characteristics of IBMs products; and the personal contact between sites and the international headquarters made the respondents more atypical than typical of the national average. McSweeney (2002) also contended that Hofstedes belief that variances in the responses were the result of national differences ignored other factors, including the influence of opinion and the possible manipulation of answers to improve the individuals and their divisional positions. It should be noted that the original intent of the IBM surveys was for management purposes, with expected corrective action as an outcome. Hofstede (2001) assumed that there is no social gaming involved in the respondents answers. The assumption means that the respondents are essentially cultural dopes (McSweeney, 2002, p. 17) and merely relay national culture values without filtering or considering the ramifications of their answers.

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

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

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

27

Figure 1. USJFCOM directorates.

Note. Adapted from United States Joint Forces Command: Historical Report October 2002-November 2005, by L. P. Hirrel. Copyright by USJFCOM.

As can be imagined, to accompany each directorates specific and specialized function, a unique organizational culture has been developed. Adding complexity is the intermingling of the civilian, military, and contractors within each directorate. This combination provides numerous avenues of exploration for the testing of Hofstedes (2001) dimensions of organizational culture. The different and specific missions for each

28 of the various directorates allow each to be viewed as an individual and unique organization. The addition of various military cultures and a plethora of contractor cultures offer numerous ways to slice and dice the information to view the dimensions across the different cultures (see Figure 2).

29

Figure 2. USJFCOM directorate cultures.

Note. Adapted from United States Joint Forces Command: Historical Report October 2002-November 2005, by L. P. Hirrel. Copyright by USJFCOM.

Summary Although many researchers have investigated culture (Hutnyk, 2006; Kusch, 1999; Tylor, 1871) and organizational culture (Morrill, 2008; Pettigrew, 1979; Stinchcombe, 1965), only Hofstede (1983a, 1983b, 1998, 2001) claimed to definitively

30 and empirically measured universal aspects of culture. This claim, while popular and often cited, has had its critics, most notably McSweeney (2002). Hofstedes (1983a, 1983b) five dimensions of culture stemmed from an extensive analysis of the surveys conducted by IBM, in which Hofstede noticed that cultural norms for societies varied along four, and then a fifth, primary indexes or dimensions. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this quantitative study is to investigate the use of the cultural dimensions identified by Hofstede (1983b, 1998, 2001; Hofstede et al., 1990) for the comparison of organizational cultures within the USJFCOM. To accomplish this investigation, Hofstedes (1983a, 1983b) dimensions must be proven valid measures that are reliable at the organizational or directorate level. Statement of the Problem When an organization such as the USJFCOM or any other company that attempts to assimilate other organizations into a comprehensive culture through mergers and acquisitions, the need to better understand the existing cultures is a critical to factor to the success of this effort. Recent history has shown that some mergers, such as AOL/Time Warner, Sprint/Nextel, and Compaq/Digital Equipment, have failed because of clashes of corporate cultures (MacFadyen, 2009). Hofstede (2001) identified five universal dimensions of national culture (Hofstede & Bond, 1988; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005) that have been widely accepted, but the literature has ignored the bidirectional influences of culture. It is unclear whether Hofstedes universal dimensions are reliable measures across disparate organizational groups, such as those found within the USJFCOM.

31 Second, Hofstedes dimensions are supposedly present across all parts of a nation, but only when they are utilized at the level of a contained entity. Hofstede (1998) defined this as an area determined to be homogeneous enough. The applicability of Hofstedes dimensions to measure the cultural norms of other homogeneous enough subunits is unknown. Therefore, the problem being addressed is whether the universal dimensions of culture are suitable for use at any level or are they only applicable at the national level. Hypotheses The successful application of Hofstedes (2001; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005) model within the USJFCOM involves validating each dimension and comparing the scores obtained to those of the predominant national culture. If it is found that the dimensions and the overall scores vary across the USJFCOMs dimensions while still holding to be reliable, this would support McSweeneys (2002) argument that Hofstedes dimensions are truly measures of organizational cultures that can be used as measures at the organizational level. If the dimensions are found to be reliable, and if the scores match the national scores, regardless of the directorate, it would appear that Hofstede did establish five dimensions of national culture. In addition, by analyzing the culture of the USJFCOM, it may be possible to better determine the dimensions to establish a joint operating environment within the command, thereby providing a model that can be extended into other joint arenas. To accomplish this goal, Hofstedes (1983a, 1983b) model must be proven reliable as a measure for the USJFCOM in its entirety before it can be broken down by directorate while still maintaining its reliability.

32 To this end, two hypotheses will be examined: H01: USJFCOM scores are not statistically different from the national scores found by Hofstede. Ha1: USJFCOM scores are statistically different from the national scores found by Hofstede. H02: USJFCOM directorate scores are not statistically different from the scores obtained by other USJFCOM directorates. Ha2: USJFCOM directorate scores are statistically different from the scores by other USJFCOM directorates. Significance of the Study As stated by Nelson and Gopalan (2003), there is ample reason to expect some kind of relationship between national and organizational cultures. They sought to extend the work of Hofstede. Although there are numerous practical and theoretical reasons to study the relationship between national and organizational cultures, this study intends to focus on the variations in organizational cultures within a single organization by understanding how the universal dimensions of culture transcend national boundaries into the intraorganizational boundaries and by noting that the different cultures within an organization will assist the USJFCOM in achieving a joint operating environment. Moving beyond the realm of a military command, other organizations are working to recognize ways in which changes in wider social and cultural processes are impacted, merged, and changed. To date, a standard measure eludes researchers seeking to quantify these changes. The primary objective of this study is to determine whether national

33 dimensions can be used to measure smaller organizations. Establishing a standard measure for a culture of any size will facilitate a better understanding of the differences and similarities among cultures. Summary As more organizations merge, and as the U.S. government strives to establish a joint operating environment for its military forces, the accounting for of the various corporate cultures and the development of methods to measure them becomes a critical factor for determining success. To avoid the problems of culture clash and the pitfalls of AOL/Time Warner, Sprint/Nextel, Compaq/Digital Equipment (MacFadyen, 2009), and to avoid being included in Millers (2000) 85% of mergers that fail, it is vital to address culture in every undertaking. Once determined in the richly heterogeneous USJFCOM, these dimensions can be applied to other companies to help them to create a singular presence and culture across many countries and many business units. The next chapter describes the methodological approach and statistical methods in the proposed study.

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHOD Introduction This chapter details the requirements for the implementation of this study. Because the goal of this study is to test the applicability of Hofstedes (2001; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005) five dimensions of culture at the organizational level, the methodology will closely follow that of the VSM 08 (Hofstede et al., 2008), with the noted exception of the level of application. Admittedly, the application of the VSM 08 to measure the differences between organizational components is in direct violation of the stated goal of the VSM. The manual states, The VSM 08 is not for comparing organizations (Hofstede et al., 2008, p. 4). Because of this unorthodox application, changes in the methodology will require substituting matched cultures at the national level with matched samples at the organizational level. The chapter outlines the design of the study, discusses the participant selection, and explains how the study will be conducted. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the studys assumptions and limitations. Methodology Research Design The proposed design is a self-report survey to better understand the dimensions of culture, specifically the measures of power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, masculinity, and long-term orientation within and across the directorates at the USJFCOM. This design will allow the respondents to answer questions pertaining to private life and ideal situations that may, or may not, be similar to their current environment without fear of embarrassment, identification, or retribution. In this

35 application, the VSM 08 will be utilized at the organizational level to compare the culturally influenced values and sentiments of similar respondents from two or more directorates within the USJFCOM. Two divisions of the scores from a single application of the survey are proposed. First, the VSM 08 scores will be calculated for each dimension, and those scores compared against the national dimensions found in Hofstede, 2001). The second measure will consist of the same survey collated by directorate to facilitate comparison of the directorates using the five dimensions. Participants The USJFCOM has a population of approximately 4,900 individuals, but to limit the scope of the study, the sample will be drawn from only the three largest directorates within the USJFCOM: J6, J7, and J9. The J7 Joint Warfare Fighting Center and the J9 Joint Futures Lab were selected because they represent formerly standalone commands that have been absorbed by the USJFCOM and have strong individual cultures that are separate from USJFCOM as a whole. The J6 was selected because it is the largest pure USJFCOM directorate. The total possible population for this survey includes 2,337 individuals. The J6 has approximately 330 employees (57 government civilians, 181 contractors, and all others as military members). The J7 has approximately 1,517 employees (192 government civilians, 1,031 contractors, and areal others as military members). The J9 has approximately 490 employees (89 government civilians, 326 contractors, and all others as military members). Military members include active-duty and reservist individuals, officers, and enlisted personnel from the Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy, and Coast Guard. The contractors are employed through several contracts

36 with Capstone, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Old Dominion University, Rolands & Associates, and Northrop Grumman. Because of the method of delivery and the type of instrument chosen, the sample will comprise the total number of participants from the chosen directorates who respond to the survey. The inclusion criterion includes any person assigned to the USJFCOM in the J6, J7, or J9 directorate. The key piece of demographic information is the directorate. The exclusion criteria include anyone not assigned to one of the aforementioned directorates and those serving as liaisons from other organizations (e.g., Defense Information Systems Agency. Members of other directorates and other organizations are excluded to limit the introduction of other cultural influences that may confound the results. Instrument This research focuses upon Hofstedes (1983a, 1983b) five dimensions of culture; as such, it will rely upon his VSM 08, a 34-item questionnaire designed to compare culturally influenced values and sentiments of matched respondents from two or more countries or regions within countries. The scores are computed based on four questions per dimension. The VSM 08 measures seven dimensions, but this thesis will focus on only five of them. The extra two dimensions were added to the survey based on the work of Minkov (2007) and are included in the VSM 08 for experimentation. The remaining five dimensions measured by the VSM 08 were described extensively by Hofstede (2001; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005) and are considered accepted cultural dimensions. The survey will follow the structure of the VSM 08. It will be broken down into five parts. The first part will present Question 1 to 10, all of which pertain to the

37 participants ideal job and utilize the 5-point Likert scale of 1 (of utmost importance), 2 (very important), 3 (of moderate importance), 4 (of little importance), and 5 (of very little or no importance). Part 2 will present Questions 11 to 15, which pertain to the participants private lives. They will utilize the same Likert scale as Questions 1 to 10. Part 3 will present Questions 15 to 23, each with its own 5-point Likert scale specific to the question. Part 4 will present Questions 24 to 28, which ask for the level of agreement or disagreement with particular statements and use the 5-point Likert scale of 1 (strongly agree), 2 (agree), 3 (undecided), 4 (disagree), and 5 (strongly disagree). The final portion will present the questions pertaining to demographics. Because the VSM 08 is a new version of the VSM, no reliability data exist. However, the original study (Hofstede, 2001) produced Cronbachs alphas for the first four dimensions (see Table 11). Hofstede noted that a value greater than .700 was considered reliable. Table 11 Original Cronbachs Alphas of Hofstedes Dimensions
Dimension Alpha Power distance .842 Individualism .770 Masculinity .760 Uncertainty avoidance .715 Note. Adapted from Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (2nd ed.), by G. Hofstede & G. J. Hofstede, 2005, New York: McGraw-Hill. Copyright by McGraw-Hill.

38 Procedures As with the original application of the VSM 08, this application will be based upon matched samples. The deviation will be that these matched samples will not be drawn from across countries, but rather from across three USJFCOM directorates, thereby providing a sound anchor within the existing framework of the IBM dataset. The VSM 08 will be administered, including questions relating to the Minkov dimensions; however, these dimensions will not be scored. Only the accepted dimensions will be scored. Additional demographic questions will be added to capture the specific directorate; personnel type (military, civilian, or contractor); military branch and rank, if appropriate; and contractor company and business unit, if appropriate. The web-based application of this survey will be preceded by an All-Hands communication by the senior leadership of USJFCOM stating their agreement with and encouragement for participation with this research project. They also will inform the participants that their involvement in the study is anonymous and voluntary. Although a letter from a senior military leader may be perceived as coercion by some, without this level of authority encouraging, but not mandating, participation, the sample would be greatly reduced. This communication will contain a complete high-level description of the study and its potential impact for the USJFCOM and its mission. The complete description of the survey and a statement of confidentiality and informed consent (see Appendix B)will be presented as the participants begin the online survey. The users will be given the option of consenting to the survey or exiting the survey at this time. The survey will be an online version of the VSM 08, and all questions

39 with additional demographic questions will be included to better represent the USJFCOMs cultural dynamics. Once the participants complete the survey, they will see a page thanking them for their participation and directions on how to request notification when the results are posted on the USJFCOM portal. Data Analysis Results at the USJFCOM will be statistically compared to Hofstedes (2001) established scores for the United States using the Mann-Whiteny U-Test and a critical value of .05. The Mann-Whitney U-Test is designed to use the data from two samples to evaluate the differences between two samples (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2004). The MannWhitney U is a nonparametric test used to compare two sample means that come from the same population. The Mann-Whitney U-Test also is used to test whether two sample means are equal. The Mann-Whitney U-Test can be reduced to the formula:

Where U = Mann-Whitney U, n1 = sample size one; n2 = Sample size two; and Ri = Rank of the sample size. For the initial values provided by Hofstede (2001), the United States scored 40 on the PDI, 46 on the UAI, 91 on IDV, 62 on the MAS, and 29 on the Long-Term Short-Term Orientation Index. In keeping with the manual for the VSM 08 (Hofstede et al., 2008), the content questions will allow dimensional index scores to be calculated on the five dimensions. These content questions will be scored using a 5-point Likert scale. The dimension indexes will be calculated in accordance with the manual.

40 Nonscored Indexes Questions 11, 12, 17, and 19, as well as Questions 13, 14, 21, and 22 relate to the experimental Minkov (2007) indexes of Indulgence vs. Restraint and Monumentalism, respectively, and will not be scored. As mentioned, the successful application of Hofstedes model of culture within the USJFCOM involves a two-part process of validating the model and, by extension, each dimension against the established scores for national culture. The combined scores across the three directorates should roughly equate to the established national scores. Each dimension can be examined singularly to ensure that the entire model holds true. The process will then be repeated to test Hofstedes five dimensions at the directorate level. To accomplish this goal, the scores for each of the five dimensions will be calculated for the selected directorates individually and then compared to each other. The null and alternative hypotheses, and the proper computations for obtaining the dimensions are outlined below: H01: USJFCOM scores are not statistically different from the national scores found by Hofstede. Ha1: USJFCOM scores are statistically different from the national scores found by Hofstede. Analysis: Dimensional scores are obtained using the individual formulas listed below. For Null Hypothesis 1 not to be rejected, the scores for each dimension should be statistically consistent with those obtained by Hofstede and listed previously.

41 H02: USJFCOM directorate scores are not statistically different from the scores obtained by other USJFCOM directorates. Ha2: USJFCOM directorate scores are statistically different from the scores by other USJFCOM directorates. Analysis: Dimensional scores are obtained using the individual formulas listed below. For Null Hypothesis 2 not to be rejected, the scores for each dimension should be statistically consistent with those obtained from calculating the other directorate scores. The PDI will utilize scores from Questions 2, 7, 23, and 26, and will be calculated using the formula PDI = 35(m07 m02) + 25(m23 m26) + C(pd), in which m07 is the mean score for Question 7, m02 is the mean score for Question 2, m23 is the mean score for Question 23, and m26 is the mean score for Question 26. The UAI uses Questions 20, 16, 24, and 27, and will be calculated using the formula UAI = 40(m20 - m16) + 25(m24 m27) + C(ua), where m20 is the mean score for Question 20, m016 is the mean score for Question 16, m24 is the mean score for Question 24, and m27 is the mean score for Question 27. The IDV utilizes scores from Questions 1, 4, 6, and 9, and will be calculated using the formula IDV = 35(m04 m01) + 35(m09 m06) + C(ic),

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

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

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

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Introduction This chapter provides a review of the theories and concepts introduced earlier. The problem statement, research questions and hypotheses, assumptions, and limitations are repeated. Broader implications that could arise from the findings of this study are highlighted, followed by a summary statement. Review of the Literature Although conceived as a study into the problems associated with interdivisional and interdirectorate communications within the USJFCOM, the process of refining the research questions led to what is believed to be a root cause rather than a symptom. Culture underlies all issues and helps to frame them, so without this context, any study lacks a vital perspective that would help to shape the research and frame any conclusions. In the realm of organizational psychology, the impacy of culture is not lost. As noted, between 50% and 85% of all mergers fail because of cultural conflicts (MacFadyen, 2009). This large number of failures brings the development of a measure to determine the impact of cultural differences to the forefront. Perhaps Hippocrates was the first thinker to identify culture as a force in determining the behavior of human beings. He theorized that the differences among cultures are based upon such factors as prevailing norms or institutions established in the area (Adler & Gielen, 2001). Later, psychology echoed philosophies interest in the differences of culture. Wundt emphasized that an examination of higher mental processes such as goal setting and decision making must be done in the context of the individuals

46 culture (Sheehy, 2004), including language, art, mythology, and religion within cultural organizations ranging from families, group affiliations, tribes, local and national communities, and humankind as a whole (Kusch, 1999). Wundt identified culture as all of the capabilities and habits acquired by individuals (as cited in Tylor, 1871). Each organization listed by Wundt provided a distinctive set of characteristics based upon cultural content, social systems, cultural norms, practices, values, and traditions (as cited in Chick, 2001). Pettigrew (1979) defined these organizational cultures as a system of publicly and collectively accepted terms, form, categories, and images used by individuals to interpret situations to themselves at specific times. Organizational culture comprises the interactions between individuals and organizations (Witte & van Muijen, 1999). Although researchers have studied organizational culture (Alavi et al., 2006; Altman & Baruch, 1998; Denison & Mishra, 1995; deRoche, 2001; Wilkins & Ouchi, 1983), Hofstede has been recognized as the most influential researcher in the field of organizational culture. With more than 3,000 citations to his credit between 1999 and 2003, his five universal dimensions of culture have become the standard for studies in organizational culture. Hofstede (1983, 1998, 2001) described five dimensions of national culture that he claims as universal. These dimensions, which were based upon the results of 100,000 surveys spread across 20 languages and 72 countries, explained the differences in organizational structure, member motivation, and issues faced by people and organizations (Hirrel, 2008). Combined, these dimensions have been applied to 53

47 countries and regions around the world, providing a means to compare cultures at the national level. Research Questions and Hypotheses The literature review revealed that although Hofstedes (1983a, 1983b) dimensions of culture were accepted measures at the national level, their applicability at the level of an organization is unclear at best. These universal dimensions could potentially be utilized to better understand the inherent cultures of organizations who are integrating cultures that are the result of mergers and acquisitions. As the most widely accepted measures of culture, Hofstedes five dimensions could be used to compare and contrast organizational cultures. The purpose is to first replicate and then extend Hofstedes research while measuring the cultural dimensions and their statistical differences using Mann-Whitney U tests. To accomplish this goal, a primary and secondary hypothesis will be tested. The primary hypothesis (and its alternative) will determine whether the scores generated by the USJFCOM are matched to the scores published by Hofstede (2005). H01: USJFCOM scores are not statistically different from the national scores found by Hofstede. Ha1: USJFCOM scores are statistically different from the national scores found by Hofstede. The secondary hypothesis will test the usability of Hofstedes (2005) dimensions for the comparison of the individual directorates within USJFCOM.

48 H02: USJFCOM directorate scores are not statistically different from the scores obtained by other USJFCOM directorates. Ha2: USJFCOM directorate scores are statistically different from the scores by other USJFCOM directorates. Practice Implications Although Hofstede insisted that his dimensions are valid only at the national level, if all cultures are based upon the same principles, one might conclude that any measure of cultural dimensions should be applicable to all cultures. If this assumption is true, this study has the potential to provide measures of culture at the organizational level. Based on the sheer number of possible definitions of unique cultures, this proposed study may provide support to the plethora of researchers who wish to study and measure culture, and the organizational leaders who wish to reduce and understand cultural differences. This study may provide a singular measure for cultural studies at all levels. The number of possible cultural divisions and subcategories provides this proposed study with the potential to provide a standardized measure that can be utilized, regardless of how the culture is defined, provided that a large enough sample can be obtained to provide adequate reliability. The U.S. military is looking to break down walls between military branches and organizations in an effort to establish a joint operating environment to remove tactical and technological barriers. This study may provide a new level of understanding regarding the different cultures in place across the various subgroups. To capitalize on this new understanding, the USJFCOM could expand and modify current cultural programs.

49 In addition, if the hypotheses are supported, the next step will involve implementing programs within the military community for the development of common cultural norms, followed by an expansion of the study to cover all of the USJFCOM and possibly the individual military branches to note their scores in contrast with those obtained from the USJFCOM. The focus would then turn to efforts to establish a joint operating environment that could decrease the differences between the cultural dimensions and move toward the establishment of a more homogeneous culture. Future Directions To ensure that Hofstedes (1983b) measures, or any other measures, are valid indicators of cultural preferences, regardless of the level of culture (national, organizational, or other), it is important to include as large a sample as possible and to divide that culture along lines other than nationality. Similar to the original participants who completed the IBM surveys, the members of the USJFCOM share a common mission, with each directorate fulfilling a specific role in that mission by employing active duty and reservist individuals, civilians, and contractors, all of whom are from different regions, states, and cities in the United States. Each of these minor differences can provide its own influence on the culture represented by the individual (Lowie, 1936). The cumulative influences can impact the culture of an organization. Even if the data from this research are reliable at the national, organizational, and directorate levels, additional research will be needed to overcome criticism of Hofstede (McSweeney, 2002). It is possible that most demographic information used to define other cultural subsets will serve only to confound the results. In the analysis of the overall

50 demographic data, it is reasonable to expect that that new subcultures will present themselves for analysis; however, care must be taken to avoid the infinite division of the population into smaller cultural groups. Social Implications Culture and its understanding or misunderstanding have long-lasting social implications, and human history is replete with tales of wars between cultural groups (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005), with many based on the desire to eradicate distinct but different cultures. Culture is important to leaders at national and organizational levels. Organizations looking to ensure relative harmony in mergers and acquisitions need to address differences and the similarities in organizational cultures if they want to become one functional and effective organization. An organization such as the USJFCOM also must address the different cultures within itself to develop a joint operating environment. Levinson (2006) referred to organizations as a whole comprised of interrelated subsystems that are a component of a larger system that is affected by and affects other systems. These systems are more than the sum of their components; they are unique entities that have the capacity to act on their environment. These organizational subsystems can exhibit problems in their efforts to adapt and may not function well together. These subsystems have developed their own autonomy and an internal sharing of beliefs, goals, and values, otherwise known as culture. When these cultures begin to work counter to the goals of the larger organization, the organization must adapt or falter. This is true at the individual, organizational, state, nation, or species level. By providing a method to understand the differences in culture, corrective steps can be undertaken either

51 to establish a single overarching culture or to minimize the differences. A better understanding of cultural differences is beneficial at every level. Hofstede et al. (2008) stated that the VSM 08 measures culture at the national level, but as a system of systems, national culture comprises decreasing populations of cultural influences, of which an organization is just one component. The development of a single set of measures that will work across the levels will provide future researchers with a common framework and a common lexicon when researching culture. Integrative Summary As the world continues to shrink through the use electronic communications; as smaller companies, formerly bound to commerce in a single nation, utilize these technologies to expand outward and to work with global partners; or as companies consume or are themselves consumed by other companies, the successful interactions between cultures has become the focus of modern research. The most prominent dimensions used to compare cultures at the national level were put forth by Hofstede (2001; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005) and have been added to by Hofstedes proponents, providing an expanding database of national cultures that have been scored. Although some researchers remain dubious of any measure claiming to capture the culture of an entire nation with a small, localized sample, the successful measurement and comparison of cultures at all levels can reduce conflicts and ease cultural clashes within the workplace and other communal areas. The purpose of this proposed study is to replicate and extend research originally completed by Hofstede (1983) at IBM and subsequently updated. The data from the

52 responses garnered from a sample of participants from three of the USJFCOMs largest directorates will provide sufficient statistical power to both the results and the MannWhitney U-Test to determine statistical difference. The scores generated by the VSM 08 will facilitate a comparison for USJFCOM scores against national scores, as well as the directorates against themselves. Conclusion This study aims to extend the current toolkit of those wishing to study culture. By using the VSM 08 in this study, the intention is to create new data on the usability at levels other than national. The findings may provide benefits by allowing an accepted measure to be used on culture at any level. Even if the results indicate that Hofstedes dimensions fail to reliably measure the culture at USJFCOM, research into cultural measures will be taking a step forward by proving that Hofstedes (1983a, 1983b) measure do no hold at a highly heterogeneous organization and do not identify any distinction among the units. Regardless of the outcomes, important data will be gathered about the cultures at the USJFCOM and the combination of these cultures into working units. The hope is to facilitate the development of a joint operating environment that properly represents all cultures.

REFERENCES Adler, L. L., & Gielen, U. P. (2001). Cross-cultural topics in psychology (2nd ed.). London: Greenwood. Ailon, G. (2008). Mirror, mirror on the wall: Cultures consequences in a value test of its own design. Academy of Management Review, 33, 885-904. Alavi, M., Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E. (2006). An empirical examination of the influence of organizational culture on knowledge management practices. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(3), 191-224. Altman, Y., & Baruch, Y. (1998). Cultural theory and organizations: Analytical method and cases. Organization Studies, 19(5), 769-785. Bloor, G., & Dawson, P. (1994). Understanding professional culture in organizational context. Organizational Studies, 15(2), 275-295. Chick, G. (2001). Culture-bearing units and units of culture: An introduction. CrossCultural Research, 35(2), 91-108. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. DeRoche, C. (2001). Organizational culture: Management and conceptual imperialism. Studies in Cultures, Organizations, and Societies, 1998(1), 35-70. Deetz, S. A., & Simpson, J. L. (2000). Communication and cultural change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6(2), 204-223. Dona, G. (1991). Cross-cultural psychology as presaged by Hippocrates. Cross-cultural Psychology Bulletin, 25, 2. Farber, H. S. (1998, June). Mobility and stability: The dynamics of job change in labor markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, Industrial Relations Section. Fielding, M. (2008). The United States unified command plan. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no3/fielding-eng.asp Geertz, C. (1973). Interpretations of culture. New York: Bantam Books.

54 Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2004). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education. Hallett, T. (2003). Symbolic power and organizational culture. Sociological Theory, 21(2), 128-149. Haslett, B. B., & Ruebush, J. (1999). What differences do individual differences in groups make? In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 115-138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hirrel, L. P. (2008). United States Joint Forces Command: Historical report October 2002 to November 2005. Norfolk, VA: U.S. Joint Forces Command. Hofstede, G. (1983a). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, xx, 75-89. Hofstede, G. (1983b). National cultures in four dimensions: a research-based theory of cultural differences among nations. International Studies of Management and Organization, 1983(1-2), 46-73. Hofstede, G. (1998). Attitudes, values and organizational culture: Disentangling the concepts. Organization Studies, 19(3), 477-492. Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 5-21. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2009). Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(52), 52-88. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., Minkov, M., & Vinken, H. (2008). Value Survey Module 2008 manual [Computer manual]. Retrieved from http://stuwww.uvt.nl/~csmeets /VSMChoice.html Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 286-316.

55 Hutnyk, J. (2006). Culture. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(2-3), 351- 375. Jaisingh, L. R. (2006). Statistics for the utterly confused (2nd ed.). New York: McGrawHill. Kimble, G. A., & Schlesinger, K. (1985). Topics in the history of psychology: Vol. 2. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kusch, M. (1999). Psychological knowledge ( ed.). New York: Routledge. Levinson, H. (2006). Organizational assessment: A step-by-step guide to effective consulting. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lowie, R. (1936). Cultural Anthropology: A science. American Journal of Sociology, 42, 301-320. MacFadyen, K. (2009). Cultural studies. Mergers & Acquisitions: The Dealmakers Journal, 44(1), 16-17. Massey, D. S. (1990). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. American Journal of Sociology, 96(2), 329-357. McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstedes model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith - A failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89-118. Miller, R. (2000). How culture affects mergers and acquisitions. Industrial Management, 42(5), 22-26. Minkov, M. (2007). What makes us different and similar: A new interpretation of the World Values Survey and other cross-cultural data. Sofia, Bulgaria: Klasika Stil. Morrill, C. (2008). Culture and organizational theory. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 619(1), 15-40. Mulder, M. (1976). Reduction of power differences in practice: The power-distance reduction theory and its applications. In G. Hofstede & M. S. Kassem (Eds.), European contributions to organization theory (pp. 79-94). Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum. Naroll, R. (1956). The culture-bearing unit in cross-cultural research. In R. Naroll & R. Cohen (Eds.), A handbook of method in cultural anthropology (pp. 721-765). Garden City, NY: Natural History Press.

56 Nelson, R. E., & Gopalan, S. (2003). Do organizational cultures replicate national cultures? Isomrophisms, rejection, and reciprocal opposition in the culture values of three countries. Organization Studies, 24(7), 1115-1151. Peach, C., Robinson, V., & Smith, S. (1981). Ethnic segregation in cities. London: Taylor & Francis. Pepper, G. L., & Larson, G. S. (2006). Cultural identity tensions in a post-acquisition organization. Journal of Applied Communications Research, 34(1), 49-71. Pettigrew, A. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 570-581. Reber, A. S., & Reber, E. S. (Eds.). (2001). Dictionary of psychology (3rd ed.). London: Penguin. Sinclair, A. (1993). Culture traits, strength, and organizational performance: Moving beyond strong culture. Academy of Management Review, 13, 546-558. Sheehy, N. (2004). Fifty key thinkers in psychology. New York: Routledge. Slowinski, G., Raffi, Z. E., Tao, J. C., & Gollob, L. (2002). After the acquisition: Managing paranoid people in schizophrenic organizations. Research Technology Management, 45(3), 21-33. Spiro, C. (2006, November-December). Generation Y in the workplace. Defense AT&L, xx, 16-19. Stinchcombe, A. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142-169). Chicago: Rand McNally. Tylor, E. B. (1871). The origins of primitive culture. New York: Gordon Press. U.S. Department of Labor. (2008, June 25). American Time Use Survey summary (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Washington, DC: Author. Weinberg, H. (2003). The culture of the group and groups from different cultures. Group Analysis, 36(2), 253-268. Wilkins, A. L., & Ouchi, W. G. (1983). Efficient cultures: Exploring the relationship between culture and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 468-481.

57 Witte, K. D., & Van Muijen, J. J. (1999). Organizational culture: Critical questions for researchers and practitioners. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(4), 583-595.

APPENDIX A: VALUES SURVEY MODULE 2008 The Values Survey Module 2008 (VSM 08) is a survey consisting of 34-items which are used to compare culturally influenced values and sentiments of respondents. These scores are used to compute the seven dimensions of national culture defined by Hofstede (2001), Each dimension is represented by four questions, accounting for 28 content questions. Two of these dimensions are experimental and will not be used in this application. The other questions ask for demographic information for the respondents including their gender, age, and education level, as well as the kind of job they currently have, their present nationality and nationality at birth, the directorate they are currently working in, and personnel type. These questions represent issues known through the field of social anthropology and cross-cultural research. The content questions were selected based on the comparison of matched samples from ten or more countries. Mean scores from questions pertaining to the same dimension were found to vary together. Statistically, the mean scores for a country are significantly correlated. However the mean scores from different dimensions are uncorrelated.

59 V S M 08

VALUES SURVEY MODULE 2008 QUESTIONNAIRE English language version

MAY BE FREELY USED FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES FOR REPRODUCTION IN COMMERCIAL PUBLICATIONS, PERMISSION IS NEEDED

Release 08-01, January 2008 Copyright @ Geert Hofstede BV hofstede@bart.nl; www.geerthofstede.nl

60 Please think of an ideal job, disregarding your present job, if you have one. In choosing an ideal job, how important would it be to you to ... (please circle one answer in each line across): 1 = of utmost importance 2 = very important 3 = of moderate importance 4 = of little importance 5 = of very little or no importance 01. have sufficient time for your personal or home life 1 02. 2 3 4 5

have a boss (direct superior) you can respect 1 2 3 4 5

03.

get recognition for good performance 1 2 3 4 5

04.

have security of employment 1 2 3 4 5

05.

have pleasant people to work with 1 2 3 4 5

06.

do work that is interesting 1 2 3 4 5

07. 1

be consulted by your boss in decisions involving your work 2 3 4 5

61 08. live in a desirable area 1 09. 2 3 4 5

have a job respected by your family and friends 1 2 3 4 5

10.

have chances for promotion 1 2 3 4 5

In your private life, how important is each of the following to you: (please circle one answer in each line across): 11. keeping time free for fun 1 12. 2 3 4 5

moderation: having few desires 1 2 3 4 5

13.

being generous to other people 1 2 3 4 5

14.

modesty: looking small, not big 1 2 3 4 5

15.

If there is something expensive you really want to buy but you do not have

enough money, what do you do? a. b. c. d. always save before buying usually save first sometimes save, sometimes borrow to buy usually borrow and pay off later

62 e. 16. a. b. c. d. e. 17. a. b. c. d. e. 18. a. b. c. d. e. 19. always buy now, pay off later How often do you feel nervous or tense? always usually sometimes seldom never Are you a happy person? always usually sometimes seldom never Are you the same person at work (or at school if youre a student) and at home? quite the same mostly the same dont know mostly different quite different Do other people or circumstances ever prevent you from doing what you really

want to? a. yes, always

63 b. c. d. e. 20. a. b. c. d. e. 21. a. b. c. d. e. 22. a. b. c. d. e. yes, usually sometimes no, seldom no, never All in all, how would you describe your state of health these days? very good good fair poor very poor How important is religion in your life? of utmost importance very important of moderate importance of little importance of no importance How proud are you to be a citizen of your country? not proud at all not very proud somewhat proud fairly proud very proud

64 23. How often, in your experience, are subordinates afraid to contradict their boss (or

students their teacher?) a. b. c. d. e. never seldom sometimes usually always

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? (Please circle one answer in each line across): 1 = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = undecided 4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree 24. One can be a good manager without having a precise answer to every question

that a subordinate may raise about his or her work 1 25. 2 3 4 5

Persistent efforts are the surest way to results 1 2 3 4 5

26.

An organization structure in which certain subordinates have two bosses should

be avoided at all cost 1 2 3 4 5

65 27. A company's or organization's rules should not be broken - not even when the

employee thinks breaking the rule would be in the organization's best interest 1 28. 2 3 4 5

We should honor our heroes from the past 1 2 3 4 5

Some information about yourself (for statistical purposes): 29. a. b. 30. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. 31. Are you: male female How old are you? Under 20 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-49 50-59 60 or over How many years of formal school education (or their equivalent) did you

complete (starting with primary school)? a. b. 10 years or less 11 years

66 c. d. e. f. g. h. i. 32. a. b. c. d. equivalent e. f. g. 33. 34. Academically trained professional or equivalent (but not a manager of people) Manager of one or more subordinates (non-managers) Manager of one or more managers What is your nationality? What was your nationality at birth (if different)? 12 years 13 years 14 years 15 years 16 years 17 years 18 years or over If you have or have had a paid job, what kind of job is it / was it? No paid job (includes full-time students) Unskilled or semi-skilled manual worker Generally trained office worker or secretary Vocationally trained craftsperson, technician, IT-specialist, nurse, artist or

Thank you very much for your cooperation!

APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT Title of Research: Value Survey Model 08 Investigator: Dean Call Before agreeing to participate in this research study, please read the following explanation which describes the purpose, procedures, benefits, risks, discomforts, and precautions associated with the study. Also described is your right to withdraw from the study at any time. No guarantees or assurances can be made as to the results of the study. Explanation of Procedures You are being asked to participate in a research project to investigate the measure of organizational culture. The approach of the research is through the use of the Value Survey Model 08. You will complete the survey that contains 28 questions today; this should take no more than 30 minutes. The surveys will be completed via a web based form, and no identifying information will collected. Risks and Discomforts You will not be at physical or psychological risk and should experience no discomfort resulting from answering the survey. Benefits There are no direct benefits by participating in this project. However, this research is expected to yield knowledge about the nature of organizational cultures within USJCOM. Confidentiality

68 The information gathered from the study will remain confidential. Only the researchers and the Walden University Institutional Review Board will have access to the research materials. All data will be kept in a locked drawer. Your identity as a participant will not be disclosed to any unauthorized persons. Any references that may compromise your anonymity will be removed or otherwise disguised prior to the preparation of the research reports and publications. Withdrawal Without Prejudice Participation in this study is voluntary; refusal to participate will involve no penalty. You are free to withdraw consent and discontinue participation in this project at any time without prejudice from any party. Costs and/or Payments to Subject for Participation in Research There will be no costs for participating in nor will you be paid to participate in this research project. Alternative Procedures If a person chooses not to participate, an alternative procedure is not necessary. Questions Any questions concerning the research project, participants can call Dean Call at 757-836-3778. Questions regarding rights as a person in this research project should be directed to name the Walden Institutional Review Board chairman. Agreement Continuing to the survey indicates that read this informed consent. Please print a copy for you records, if desired.

CURRICULUM VITAE Dean A. Call PMP EXPERIENCE Engineer, BPR 5, USJFCOM Office of the Chief Information Officer, Northrop Grumman Command and Control Systems Division, Virginia Beach VA, Mar 2003 present Direct multiple projects and project teams that provide direct client support in the areas of business process reengineering, facilitation, knowledge and information management Manage day-to-day operations of Project Management Department Hire, supervise, coach and mentor project team members and department staff Determine staffing needs, define organizational roles and create job descriptions Oversee and provide support to over 500 project managers and over 250 active projects Provide direct support to executive management to assure integration and alignment of projects with organizational programs and portfolios Direct and manage projects from inception and planning through resource management and communication to final approval of project deliverables and successful implementation Have successfully completed the following key projects to date: Served as Project Manager for all facets of a $1.34 Million Primavera ProSight IT Portfolio Management implementation project Served as Project Manager for all facets of a $1.2 Million MS Office SharePoint Server implementation project Planned and implemented $1.25 Million Enterprise Project Management System involving multiple servers and allowing access by users external to the organization Developed Enterprise Project Management system based on MS Project Server consisting of two distinct implementationsVirtual Private Network connections and Web Access Developed and maintained Project Server Enterprise Templates for organization-wide use Developed and maintained security configuration and templates Assisted with development of a successful proposal to provide support for TRADOC Senior Programmer, CACI, Chesapeake, VA, May 2001 Feb 2003 Implemented Lotus Domino SameTime Servers and enabled all servers in test fleet to utilize Lotus SameTime Installed Domino R6 server, planned and upgraded test servers to Domino 5.0.7, and taught classes on Domino administration Created and produced agents to generate an XML file and display contents to the web in XML Designed web interface and updated a comprehensive software applications database Implemented MS Project plan to track all uCaS applications development Troubleshot Winbatch and VB Scripts for an advanced testing facility Updated select servers from Windows NT 4 to Windows 2000 server for testing

70 President/Consultant, Call Consulting Corporation, Chesapeake, VA, Apr 1998 May 2001 Directed a growing IT consulting firm employing up to five IT professionals and support staff Managed all financial operations, including accounts receivable/payable, payroll. etc. Acquired new business and expanded existing business through effective consultations with senior/executive officers and IS/IT managers Successfully completed the following key projects for clients: Coordinated the maintenance of Netware 3.11 and Netware 4.11 Servers Implemented Lotus Domino in multiple locations and upgraded Lotus Domino servers Designed and Installed Windows NT networks, also maintained Windows NT Servers Directed installation of over 100 new PCs and provided user support for over 200 PCs Implemented a phased migration from Novell to Windows NT network Executed WAN-wide Y2K systems upgrades Developed over 30 local Lotus Notes applications Trained users and supported a wide variety of PC and software applications Supported AS/400 connectivity issues and system tasks Implemented Remote Access Server to support traveling executives Planned and Implemented QS9000 package in Lotus Notes Implemented Future 3 Autoscan using RF handheld scanners PC Analyst - Programmer / Technician - Applications Developer, Southland Technologies, Chesapeake, VA, Nov 1995 Apr 1998 Developed enterprise-wide Lotus Notes applications Installed and configured Lotus Notes and Windows NT servers, also enrolled and trained users Developed 100 Mb Ethernet network for Southland engineers Installed over 100 new PCs, trained and provided technical support to users Configured all PCs to connect to the network using TCP/IP, IPX, and NetBIOS Protocols Configured hardware and software to connect out-state offices to the WAN via fractal T lines Established connections from Pensacola facilitys Novell 3.11 LAN to corporate NT WAN PC Support Technician, Computer Systems International, Chesapeake, Va, Aug Nov 1995 Interior Communications Electrician, United States Navy, June 1988 June 1994 EDUCATION Diploma and New York State Regents Diploma, Royalton-Hartland Central High School, Middleport, New York, June 1987

71 AAS in Computer Programming/Networks, ECPI College of Technology, Norfolk, VA, May 2002 BS in Business Information Systems, Bellevue University, Bellevue, NE, Jan 2004 MBA with Concentration in MIS, Bellevue University, Bellevue, NE, Jan 2007 PhD in Organizational Psychology, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN, in progress PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS Project Management Professional (PMP), Project Management Institute CompTia Project+ PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Psychological Association Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Academy of Management National Communication Association Project Management Institute PUBLICATIONS Call, D. (2005). Knowledge management, not rocket science. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(2), p. 19