11.2 Cultural aspects of independence

Culture is defined as the ‘collective programming of the mind’ (Hofstede 1984b: 13). It distinguishes members of one group or society or citizens of one country from those in another (Hofstede 1984a: 82). The term collective programming is a part of the total programming of a person’s mind. The total programming consists of three levels: (1) a universal level that is shared by all mankind; (2) a collective level that is shared with people of the same group or category; and (3) an individual level that is truly unique for everybody (Hofstede 1984b: 14-16). Licht et al. define culture in a more subjective way: ‘Culture refers to the complex of meanings, symbols, and assumptions about what is good or bad, legitimate or illegitimate that underlie the prevailing practices and norms in a society’ (2005: 233).

Hofstede (1981; 1983; 1984a; b) made an important contribution to the literature about culture by identifying ‘four main dimensions […] which affect human thinking, organizations, and institutions in predictable ways’ (Hofstede 1984b: 11). These four main dimensions are power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism and masculinity. Schwartz has provided a bipolar set of cultural values as well: autonomy versus conservatism, hierarchy versus egalitarianism, and mastery versus harmony (1999: 26-30). Autonomy versus conservatism defines the relationship between individuals and the group. The autonomy pole of this cultural dimension focuses on the uniqueness of the individual. Societies at the conservatism pole are characterised by a cultural emphasis on social order, traditions, family security and wisdom. Hierarchy versus egalitarianism is about the distribution of power, resources and roles. Whereas a society that is characterised by hierarchy relies on unequal distribution of powers, resources and roles, people in a society with egalitarianism characteristics are not selfish, but inclined to help increase the welfare of others. The third bipolar set of cultural values focuses on the relationship between mankind and the world. Mastery societies emphasise ambition, success and competence, whereas harmony societies focus on nature and the environment.

Following Haxhi and Van Ees, this study focuses on Hofstede’s model. This choice for Hofstede has been made as it is the most widely-used method to categorise national culture and has made a classification of the relatively largest number of countries. Furthermore, its classification is work-related and therefore fits best in research on corporate governance (Haxhi and Van Ees 2010: 712). Although Hofstede’s framework has been heavily criticised on both empirical and theoretical grounds, it has been validated (e.g. Séndergaard 1994) and gives a good representation of national cultures (Li and Harrison 2008b: 377). The next subsection elaborates on Hofstede’s model and its relationship with independence. Thereafter, the cultural scores of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Sweden are given. Finally, a conclusion is given.