V s m 94 values survey module 1994




Yüklə 45.66 Kb.
tarix14.04.2016
ölçüsü45.66 Kb.



V S M 94



VALUES SURVEY MODULE 1994

MANUAL


by Geert Hofstede

MAY BE FREELY USED FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES




FOR REPRODUCTION IN COMMERCIAL PUBLICATIONS,

PERMISSION IS NEEDED

Copyright  Geert Hofstede BV



hofstede@bart.nl


Contents


  1. How to use and not to use the VSM 94 3


  2. Formulas for index calculation 4
  3. History of the VSM 94 7


  4. Comparison of the VSM 94 with the VSM 82 8

  5. A note on translations 10

  6. Literature 10



1. How to use and not to use the VSM 94

The Values Survey Module 1994 (VSM 94) is a 26-item questionnaire developed for comparing culturally determined values of people from two or more countries or regions.


It allows scores to be computed on five dimensions of national or regional culture, on the basis of four questions per dimension: for this, it needs 5 x 4 = 20 questions. The remaining six questions are demographic; they ask for the respondent’s gender, age, education level, kind of job, present nationality, and nationality at birth.
Experience has shown that the answers to the 20 content questions vary substantially between nationalities. This is not to say that every respondent of one nationality gives one answer and everyone of another nationality gives another answer, but on average, a sample of respondents of nationality A will (nearly) always score higher, or always score lower, than a comparable sample of people of nationality B (in statistical terms, an analysis of variance shows a significant country effect).
However, answers to the 20 content questions will also be influenced by other characteristics of the respondents, such as gender, age, level of education, occupation, kind of work, and year that the survey was held. Therefore, comparisons of countries or regions should in as far as possible be based on samples of respondents who are matched on all criteria other than nationality or region. They should be matched on any criterion (other than nationality) that can be expected to affect the answers.
The 5 x 4 content questions were selected because, when matched samples from different countries are compared, the mean scores for the countries on the four questions belonging to the same dimension usually vary together (if one is high, the other is high, or low if it is a negatively formulated question; if one is low, the other is low, etc.). In statistical terms, the country mean scores are strongly correlated. The mean scores for the countries on questions belonging to different dimensions usually do not vary together (are uncorrelated). Therefore, the 20 questions form 5 clusters of 4 questions each. The five clusters stand for the five dimensions of national culture identified in research by Hofstede and Bond.
When samples of respondents of the same nationality but with different occupations or different employers were compared (matched on criteria other than occupation or employer), the same dimensions were not found. Nor were they found when the answers of individual respondents were compared. The answers to most of the questions do vary somewhat from one occupation to another and sometimes from one employer to another, and the answers to all of the questions vary from one individual to another. However, the mean scores on the questions for different occupations or for different employers will not form the same five clusters. Nor will scores from individual respondents (instead of mean scores for groups of respondents of the same nationality) form the same clusters.
If the questionnaire is used to compare responses from individuals, from respondents with different occupations or employers, or from respondents belonging to any category other than nations or regions, the answers should be examined question by question and not combined into these five dimensions. There is no reason to assume that the present questionnaire is the most suitable instrument! The questions and dimensions in this questionnaire have been chosen for comparing countries, and the questionnaire is meant for use at country level. It should also be suitable for the comparison of geographical regions other than countries (within one nation or across nations).
The minimum number of respondents per country or region to be used in comparisons is 20. Below that number, the influence of single individuals becomes too strong. The ideal number is 50. Even better is to use more than one respondent sample per country, such as men and women; or people of higher, middle, and lower education. In this case, of course, the numbers 20 and 50 apply to each separate sample.

2. Formulas for index calculation
The 20 content questions allow index scores to be calculated on five dimensions of national value systems as components of national cultures: Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Long-term Orientation.
All content questions are scored on five-point scales (1-2-3-4-5). Index scores are derived from the mean scores on the questions for national or regional samples of respondents.
Any standard statistical computer program will calculate mean scores on five-point scales, but the calculation can also be done simply by hand.
For example, suppose a group of 57 respondents from Country C produces the following scores on question 04 (security of employment):
10 x answer 1

24 x answer 2

14 x answer 3

5 x answer 4

1 x answer 5

3 x invalid answer


57 in total
The calculation now goes as follows:
10 x 1 = 10

24 x 2 = 48

14 x 3 = 42

5 x 4 = 20

1 x 5 = 5
Total 54 cases = 125
Mean score: 125 / 54 = 2.31
 Invalid answers are blanks (no answer) or multiples (more than one answer). Invalid answers are excluded from the calculation (treated as missing).
 Mean scores on five-point scales should preferably be calculated in two decimals. More decimals are unrealistic because survey data are imprecise measures.

Using fewer decimals loses valid information.


Power Distance Index (PDI)
Power Distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a society expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.
The index formula is

PDI = –35m(03) +35m(06) +25m(14) –20m(17) –20

in which m(03) is the mean score for question 03, etc.


The index normally has a value between 0 (small Power Distance) and 100 (large Power Distance), but values below 0 and above 100 are technically possible.

Individualism Index (IDV)
Individualism is the opposite of Collectivism. Individualism stands for a society in which the ties between individuals are loose: a person is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family only. Collectivism stands for a society in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which continue to protect them throughout their lifetime in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.
The index formula is

IDV = –50m(01) +30m(02) +20m(04) –25m(08) +130

in which m(01) is the mean score for question 01, etc.


The index normally has a value between 0 (strongly collectivist) and 100 (strongly individualist), but values below 0 and above 100 are technically possible.

Masculinity Index (MAS)
Masculinity is the opposite of Femininity. Masculinity stands for a society in which emotional gender roles are clearly distinct: men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success; women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. Femininity stands for a society in which emotional gender roles overlap: both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life.
The index formula is

MAS = +60m(05) –20m(07) +20m(15) –70m(20) +100

in which m(05) is the mean score for question 05, etc.


The index normally has a value between 0 (strongly feminine) and 100 (strongly masculine), but values below 0 and above 100 are technically possible.
Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)
Uncertainty Avoidance is defined as the extent to which the members of institutions and organizations within a society feel threatened by uncertain, unknown, ambiguous, or unstructured situations.
The index formula is

UAI = +25m(13) +20m(16) –50m(18) –15m(19) +120

in which m(13) is the mean score for question 13, etc.


The index normally has a value between 0 (weak Uncertainty Avoidance) and 100 (strong Uncertainty Avoidance), but values below 0 and above 100 are technically possible.

Long-term Orientation Index (LTO)
Long-term Orientation is the opposite of Short-term Orientation. Long-term Orientation stands for a society that fosters virtues oriented towards future rewards, in particular perseverance and thrift. Short-term orientation stands for a society that fosters virtues related to the past and present, in particular respect for tradition, preservation of “face”, and fulfilling social obligations.
The index formula is

LTO = -20m(10) +20m(12) +40


(revised version 1999)
in which m(10 is the mean score for question 10, etc.
The index normally has a value between 0 (very short-term oriented) and 100 (very long-term oriented), but values below 0 and above 100 are technically possible.
The formula was originally: LTO = +45m(09) – 30m(10) – 35m(11) + 15m(12) + 67. Experience with the first larger-scale application of the LTO questions, across 15 European countries in the context of a large-scale consumer survey, has shown that only questions 10 and 12 produced country scores correlated with other LTO measures.
The questions 9 and 11 should be replaced by new questions which are still being developed. For the time being the questions 9 and 11 were maintained for research purposes.

3. History of the VSM 94
Appendix 1 of Geert Hofstede’s book “Culture’s Consequences” (both the 1980 and the 2001 editions) lists the original questions from the 1966-1973 IBM attitude survey questionnaires referred to in his international comparisons of work-related values. Appendix 4 of the 1980 edition presented the first “Values Survey Module” for future cross-cultural studies. It contained 27 content questions and 6 demographic questions. This “VSM 80” was a selection from the IBM questionnaires, with a few questions added from other sources about issues missing in the IBM list and judged by the author to be of potential importance.
A weakness of the VSM 80 was its dependence on the more or less accidental set of questions used in IBM. The IBM survey questionnaire had not really been composed for the purpose of reflecting international differences in value patterns. However, the IBM questions could not meaningfully be replaced by other questions until these had been validated across countries; and to be validated, they had to be used in a large number of countries first. Therefore, in 1981, IRIC (the Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation that distributed the questionnaires between 1980 and 2004) issued an experimental extended version of the VSM (VSM 81). On the basis of an analysis of its first results, a new version was issued in 1982, the VSM 82.
The VSM 82 contained 47 content questions plus the 6 demographic questions. Only 13 of the questions were needed to compute scores on the four dimensions identified by Hofstede. The other items were included for experimental use, and IRIC maintained a file on the answers collected by different users in different countries.
An initial analysis of replications using the VSM 81 and VSM 82 was produced by Nico Bosland in a Master’s thesis. He analysed (1) what happens if the VSM is used as a test of individual personality (showing that the dimensions do not apply in this case); (2) the results of the replications, including tables to correct for the effect of education level differences on the dimension scores; and (3) the stability of the dimension scores when applied to a new set of country samples (which was less than perfect – a good reason to continue looking for an improved instrument). Bosland’s tables to correct for education level have been reproduced in the 2001 edition of Geert Hofstede’s “Culture’s Consequences”, Appendix 4.
An additional reason after 1982 to look for an improved version was that two questions in the VSMs were not applicable to respondents not employed in an organization, like entrepreneurs, students, and housewives (that is, a question about the behavior of the boss, and a question about how long one wanted to stay with this employer).
The number of replications using the VSM 82 in IRIC’s file increased, but, unfortunately, it turned out that the samples from different researchers were insufficiently matched for producing a reliable new VSM. This changed when Michael Hoppe published his Ph.D. thesis on a survey study of elites (Salzburg Seminar Alumni) from 19 countries, using among other instruments the VSM 82 (Hoppe, 1990). Eighteen of these countries were part of the IBM set (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the USA). One problem in the validation of the questions was the high level of education of Hoppe’s population; his scores had to be corrected using the Bosland tables (see above). A second problem was a restriction of range within Hoppe’s set of countries on the dimension of Individualism (very collectivist countries were missing in the set). A third problem was the strong correlation in his set of countries between Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance (no countries for the large PD, weak UA quadrant in the PD x UA plot). The latter two problems were resolved by adding data from other surveys for China, Costa Rica, Malaysia, Nigeria, Taiwan, and Tanzania, although these were, of course, not perfectly matched with the Hoppe data.
In the meantime, the research of Professor Michael Harris Bond from Hong Kong, using the Chinese Value Survey (The Chinese Culture Connection, 1987), had led to the identification of a fifth dimension: Long-term versus Short-term Orientation. In the VSM 94, this dimension appears for the first time together with the other four. The formula for LTO in this manual is based on Bond’s CVS survey among students in 23 countries (Hofstede and Bond, 1988; Hofstede, 1991, Chapter 7).

4. Comparison of the VSM 94 with the VSM 82
The table below lists the question numbers in the VSM 82 that correspond to questions in the VSM 94. Please note that the sequence of the answers for questions 13 and 14 (previously I-21 and I-22) has been reversed, so that answer 5 has become 1, 4 has become 2, 2 has become 4, and 1 has become 5.
Indexes calculated using the old and new formulas are not necessarily the same! However, the old and new formulas should produce approximately the same score differences between countries.
Comparison of old and new Values Survey Module:
VSM 94 VSM 82

  1. I-1

  2. I-4

  3. I-5

  4. I-6

  5. I-8

  6. I-9

  7. I-14

  8. I-15

  9. new

  10. new

  11. new

  12. new

  13. I-21

  14. I-22

  15. II-1

  16. II-7

  17. II-11

  18. II-12

  19. II-19

  20. II-20

 Scores were reversed

Questions I-11, I-13, I-19, I-20, and I-23 of the VSM 82, which were part of the formulas for calculating the first four dimensions, were not included in the VSM 94. Whoever wants to compute the scores using both the old and the new formulas for the sake of longitudinal comparison, should add these five questions to the VSM 94.
The five questions are:
I-11 (format of VSM 94, 01 through 08): have an opportunity for high earnings.

I-13 (same format): live in an area desirable to you and your family.

I-19 and I-20: the descriptions below apply to four different types of managers. Please read through these descriptions first.
Manager 1: Usually makes his/her decisions promptly and communicates them to his/her subordinates clearly and firmly. He/she expects them to carry out the decisions loyally and without raising difficulties.

Manager 2: Usually makes his/her decisions promptly, but, before going ahead, tries to explain them fully to his/her subordinates. He/she gives them the reasons for the decisions and answers whatever questions they may have.

Manager 3: Usually consults with his/her subordinates before he/she reaches his/her decisions. He/she listens to their advice, considers it, and then announces his/her decision. He/she then expects all to work loyally to implement it whether or not it is in accordance with the advice they gave.

Manager 4: Usually calls a meeting of his/her subordinates when there is an important decision to be made. He/she puts the problem before the group and invites discussion. He/she accepts the majority viewpoint as the decision.


I-19. Now, of the above types of managers, please mark the one which you would prefer to work under (circle one answer only):

  1. Manager 1

  2. Manager 2

  3. Manager 3

  4. Manager 4

I-20. And, to which one of the above four types of managers would you say your own superior most closely corresponds?



  1. Manager 1

  2. Manager 2

  3. Manager 3

  4. Manager 4

  5. He/she does not correspond closely to any of them

I-23. How long do you think you will continue working for the organization or company you work for now?



  1. Two years at the most

  2. From two to five years

  3. More than five years (but I will probably leave before I retire)

  4. Until I retire.

The formulas used for index calculation of the VSM 82 were (question numbers refer to the VSM 94 except for the five questions listed above):


PDI = (% mgr 1 or 2 in I-20) – (% mgr 3 in I-19) + 25 m(14) – 15
IDV = - 43 m(01) + 76 m(02) + 30 m(05) – 27 m(I-13) – 29
MAS = 30 m(04) + 60 m(05) – 39 m(07) – 66 m(I-11) + 76
UAI = 60 + 40 m(13) – 30 m(19) – (% answers 1 or 2 in I-23)
Note that m(05) occurs both in the IDV and in the MAS formula. For m(13) and m(14), the formulas are based on the reversed numbering of the answers in the VSM 94.

5. A note on translations
The base version of the VSM94 is in English. The Dutch, French and German versions are authorized, that is, approved by the author of the VSM. For the other versions, the quality of the translations cannot be guaranteed by the author; they were the responsibility of the users who made them. For various languages, translations may have to be adapted to the country of use, such as Spanish for Spain and for different parts of Latin America, and Portuguese for Portugal and for Brazil.

6. Literature
Hofstede, Geert (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, Geert (2001). Culture's Consequences (second edition): Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, Geert (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill U.K.
Hofstede, Geert and Michael Harris Bond (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16,4: 4-21.
Hofstede, Geert and Gert Jan Hofstede (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Revised and expanded second edition. New York NY: McGraw-Hill U.S.A..
Hoppe, Michael H. (1990). A Comparative Study of Country Elites: International Differences in Work-related Values and Learning and their Implications for Management Training and Development. Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The Chinese Culture Connection (a team of 24 researchers) (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18,2: 143-164.


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©azrefs.org 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə