Cross-cultural Management


Institution Affiliation:

Cross-cultural management

Figure1: Data for Bhutan. (Source:, 2015a)

Figure2: Data for Venezuela, Japan and Russia. (Source:,2015b)

Power distance Russia, Venezuela, Japan and Bhutan

Power distance is a cultural dimension that “expresses the degreeto which the less powerful members of a society accept and expectthat power is distributed equally” (Johann, 2008). Bhutan scores94%, Russia’s scores 93%, followed by Venezuela at 81%, and lastlyJapan at 54%. The foremost motivation for this is that the highlyscoring countries are extremely centralized, with their capitalsbeing the center of powers. This is quite different from Japan, whosepower distance stands at 54%. Unlike Bhutan and Russia, Japans is notconsidered to be hierarchical. As compared to Russia, Japan’s notso high power distance is manifested by a society that is quitemeritocratic. The power distance difference between Japan and Russiaimplies that the former’s children have an equal chance ofdeveloping their future, just as the rich people’s children do.Venezuela power distance (93%) hints differences in the manner whichbusiness is conducted as compared to Japan.


According to Hofstede, individualism can be defined as a preferencefor a loosely-knit social framework where the biggest percentage ofindividuals are introverts, taking care of themselves and theirfamilies only (Johann, 2008). Of the four countries discussed in thepaper, Bhutan has the highest percentage of individualism (52%),followed by Japan (46%), in the third position Russia (39%) andfinally Venezuela (12%). Venezuela’s society is highlycollectivist, and this puts it in an in-group and aligning that one’sopinion is very important. Bhutan’s score puts it about the middleof the scale, meaning that it is not as extreme as Venezuela. Thedegree of independence of the Japanese people means that their peoplevalue self-image, which is defined in terms of “I” and “We”.

Masculinityand Femininity

Hofstede says that the masculinity dimension represents a preferencein society for achievement and material rewards for their success,while feminism is a less competitive preference which valuescooperation and team work (Johann, 2008). Japan has the highest scorefor this index, standing at 95%, followed by Venezuela at 73%, Bhutanand Russia are the least masculine, reading 32% and 36% respectively.The major difference for this is the economic policies of thesecountries. The figures are determined by socialism, communism andcapitalism, which influence the way in which the economies perform.


This element is a manifestation of the mark to which the members of acertain society feel comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity, andis determined by the manner in which the societies deal with theimpulsive environment of the future (Johann, 2008). Russia and Japanscore the highest in this index, reading 95% and 92% respectively.They are closely followed by Venezuela at 76%, while Bhutan has thelowest uncertainty level, reading a modest 25%. The main reason forthe differences is political and social stability within thesecountries. Russia scores so highly due to its turbulent politicalconditions, while Bhutan scores so lowly, given that its politiciansfocus on planning and improving the nation’s performance.


Temporal orientation is defined as a cognitive structure for handlinginformation in a comparative manner, to tell the relationship betweenevents and their time of occurrence (Johann, 2008). Under this index,Japan scores the highest (88%), followed by Russia (81%), and lastlyVenezuela (16%). Data for this measure for Bhutan was not available.The reason why Japan scores so highly is that its people’s culturetakes a more realistic approach and encourages educational efforts inthe society to prepare for the future. Venezuela’s low investmentin education explains their low performance in this index.


Johann, R. (2008). Cross-cultural management. New York, NY:GRIN Vertlag Publishers. (2015b). Venezuela, in comparison with Japanand Russia. Retrieved on 1 April 2015 from: (2015a). Bhutan. Retrieved on 1 April 2015from: