ESTONIAN CULTURE IN THE FRAMEWORK OF HOFSTEDE’S MODEL (CASE OF HOTEL INDUSTRY)

Abstract

1. Introduction Cultural differences imply a question: how universal are the regularities of human behavior, in other words, to what extent is it possible to apply one culture's behavior patterns in another. The impact of culture-based differences and similarities on economic activities and other social spheres is increasingly taken into consideration. Until 1980 the concept of culture was applied mainly in anthropology, and afterwards cultural differences became topical in economic sciences as well. The reason for this was the internalization of US organizations in the 1950s-1960s and the success of Japanese organizations in the USA, caused by effective management of cultural differences. Many researches have proven that organizational operations depend on values of the host culture, but the level of this impact varies. Hence, there is no doubt that national culture influences organization; the question is rather how and to what extent (Aycan 2000)? Hofstede's theory of cultural dimensions is one of the most known approaches that give answers to these questions. The present article analyzes how cultural dimensions are manifested in Estonia. 2. Hofstede's cultural dimensions Speaking about the history of his widely known research, Hofstede emphasizes that initially he looked for the values that are common for all people (Hofstede 2003). He relied on the research done in the 1950s and conducted his study knowing that every society has to create an understanding of the relation to power, conflict, and attitudes toward an individual (rooted in the relations between the individual and the society, as well as in gender roles). Hofstede launched an extensive survey, in which work-related values were studied in 50 countries and three regions. These three regions were Eastern Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia), Western Africa (Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra Leone), and the Arab countries (Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates). The survey was a part of the development process at IBM, whose headquarters were located in the U.S. Its purpose was to present to managers on different levels what employees think of their work, company and superiors. Later this survey became known as HERMES research program. Hofstede based his approach on the assumption that since all respondents work in the same company and represent common organizational culture, the differences in their estimations should stem mainly from national culture. There were over 60 work-related values presented in the questionnaire. The statistic analysis revealed four synthetic components (cultural dimensions). Culture is characterized by four dimensions (Hofstede 2003). Power distance reveals to what extent power and hierarchical relations are considered essential in the given culture. It discloses the scope to which it is accepted that power in organizations and institutions is unequally allocated, or to what degree hierarchy engenders psychological detachment. Such tendencies are found in Austria, Israel, Denmark and New Zealand, and high power distance found in Malaysia, Guatemala, Panama and the Philippines. Uncertainty avoidance explains whether tense and vague situations are tolerated or avoided and to what extent. This dimension is related to the acceptance of strenuous and uncomfortable situations and regarded by Hofstede in the chapter What is different, is dangerous. In societies with low uncertainty avoidance, organizational rules can be violated for pragmatic reasons, conflicts are considered as a natural part of life, and ambiguous situations are regarded as natural and interesting. In case of high uncertainty avoidance, these tendencies are opposite. Such societies are rigorous, people depend on authorities and protests of citizens are not tolerated. In working relations the rules play an important role and are carefully followed. Specialization is considered to be essential both in organization and occupation. …