mongolian cultural and behavioral study 2022
sbrnyak
1,033 views
23 slides
Apr 11, 2022
Slide 1 of 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
About This Presentation
In order to develop better understanding of Mongolia and its culture, SICA LLC with the support of Hofstede Insights endeavored to score Mongolia according to Hofstede’s Six Dimensions of national cultures. Building on SICA’s prior study of Mongolian Generational Values conducted in 2020, The 20...
Slide Content
BEHAVIORAL STUDY
Mongolian Cultural and
2022
Mongolian Cultural and
2022
3Mongolian?#ultural?and?BehaVioral?StudY?2022
Contents
List of Figures 4
List of Tables 4
Research team 5
Acknowledgements 6
Sica LLC 6
Hofstede Insights 6
Summary 7
Project Overview 7
Mongolian Generation Study - 2020 8
Key Findings 8
Mongolian Cultural Generation Study 9
Survey method 9
Data Collection Methodology 10
CATI Survey Process 10
CAPI Survey Process 10
Sampling Distribution 10
Data Collection 11
Generational Culture Study Summary 11
Hofstede’s Six Dimensions of Culture 11
Dimensions of Mongolian National Culture 13
Mongolian Power Distance Index (PDI)-93 15
Mongolian Individualism vs Collectivism (IDV) 16
Masculinity vs Femininity (MAS) 17
Mongolian Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) 18
Mongolian long term vs Short term orientation (LTO) 19
Mongolian indulgence vs Restraint (IVR) 20
Accuracy of Findings and Validation 21
Future Analysis and Publication 21
References 22
Contents
List of Figures 4
List of Tables 4
Research team 5
Acknowledgements 6
Sica LLC 6
Hofstede Insights 6
Summary 7
Project Overview 7
Mongolian Generation Study - 2020 8
Key Findings 8
Mongolian Cultural Generation Study 9
Survey method 9
Data Collection Methodology 10
CATI Survey Process 10
CAPI Survey Process 10
Sampling Distribution 10
Data Collection 11
Generational Culture Study Summary 11
Hofstede’s Six Dimensions of Culture 11
Dimensions of Mongolian National Culture 13
Mongolian Power Distance Index (PDI)-93 15
Mongolian Individualism vs Collectivism (IDV) 16
Masculinity vs Femininity (MAS) 17
Mongolian Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) 18
Mongolian long term vs Short term orientation (LTO) 19
Mongolian indulgence vs Restraint (IVR) 20
Accuracy of Findings and Validation 21
Future Analysis and Publication 21
References 22
4Mongolian?#ultural?and?BehaVioral?StudY?2022
Figure 1. Survey areas 9
Figure 2. Research type 9
Figure 3. Mongolia’s Cultural Dimension Scores 13
Figure 4. Mongolia, Denmark, Finland & Philippines scores 14
Figure 5. Five partners PDI scores 15
Figure 6. Five partners IDV scores 16
Figure 7. Five partners MAS scores 17
Figure 8. Five partners UAI scores 18
Figure 9. Five partners LTO scores 19
Figure 10. Five partners IVR scores 20
Table 1. Sampling distribution, by generation and gender 10
Table 2. Five strategic partner scores 13
Table 3. Countries with similar scores to Mongolia 14
Table 4. Countries with similar PDI scores 15
Table 5. Countries with similar IDV scores 16
Table 6. Countries with similar MAS scores 17
Table 7. Countries with similar UAI scores 18
Table 8. Countries with similar LTO scores 19
Table 9. Countries with similar IVR scores 20
List of Figures
List of Tables
Figure 1. Survey areas 9
Figure 2. Research type 9
Figure 3. Mongolia’s Cultural Dimension Scores 13
Figure 4. Mongolia, Denmark, Finland & Philippines scores 14
Figure 5. Five partners PDI scores 15
Figure 6. Five partners IDV scores 16
Figure 7. Five partners MAS scores 17
Figure 8. Five partners UAI scores 18
Figure 9. Five partners LTO scores 19
Figure 10. Five partners IVR scores 20
Table 1. Sampling distribution, by generation and gender 10
Table 2. Five strategic partner scores 13
Table 3. Countries with similar scores to Mongolia 14
Table 4. Countries with similar PDI scores 15
Table 5. Countries with similar IDV scores 16
Table 6. Countries with similar MAS scores 17
Table 7. Countries with similar UAI scores 18
Table 8. Countries with similar LTO scores 19
Table 9. Countries with similar IVR scores 20
List of Figures
List of Tables
5Mongolian?#ultural?and?BehaVioral?StudY?2022
Research team
Team lead
MARC Tasse Senior Advisor, SICA LLC
ERDENEBILEG Jamballuu CEO, SICA LLC
Consultant
MICHAEL Schachner Head of research, Hofstede Insight
DR. MICHAEL Minkov Professor, Varna University of Management
ERDENE Ganpurev Deputy CEO, SICA LLC
Researcher
GERELTUYA Zorigtbaatar Director of International Project Department,
SICA LLC
Data collection team
DOLGORMAA Khayankhyarvaa Director of Data Collection and Processing
Department, SICA LLC
NYAMDAVAA Erdenebayar Senior Manager of Data Collection and
Processing Department, SICA LLC
Research team
Team lead
MARC Tasse Senior Advisor, SICA LLC
ERDENEBILEG Jamballuu CEO, SICA LLC
Consultant
MICHAEL Schachner Head of research, Hofstede Insight
DR. MICHAEL Minkov Professor, Varna University of Management
ERDENE Ganpurev Deputy CEO, SICA LLC
Researcher
GERELTUYA Zorigtbaatar Director of International Project Department,
SICA LLC
Data collection team
DOLGORMAA Khayankhyarvaa Director of Data Collection and Processing
Department, SICA LLC
NYAMDAVAA Erdenebayar Senior Manager of Data Collection and
Processing Department, SICA LLC
6Mongolian?#ultural?and?BehaVioral?StudY?2022
Sica LLC
SICA LLC, Statistical Institute for Consulting and Analysis,
was established in 2010 with a commitment to contribute to
Mongolian social and business development through improved
data research, statistical analysis, and professional consulting
services. The aim is to provide the valuable and reliable services
with innovative and out of box ideas for current global changes.
With our vast network of in-house and of field experts, our areas
of expertise fall into a full range of studies including economic,
social, political, and business sectors. Furthermore, SICA
provides the corresponding and sequential analysis, evaluation,
and systematic reporting throughout the project cycle. In addition,
we are expanding expertise in the field of project management,
monitoring & evaluation as well as training & consulting services
with a commitment to sustainable discovery.
Hofstede Insights
Anchored in rigorous academic theory, we can reflect on over
30 years in business and the thousands of companies we have
helped to become truly global. Our data-driven analysis pinpoints
the role and scope of culture in your organization’s success. Our
global network of expert Associate Partners blend this knowledge
with a deep human insight. This unique combination delivers
unrivalled results, time and again—powerful interventions that
unleash transformative change.
About us
• A background in Consulting, Software technology
and Academia
• A core team of data technicians and
communication professionals
• Expert facilitators in sixty countries
• Proprietary software, answer pattern analysis,
enabling predictive cultural analytics
• Nine country offices
Acknowledgements
Sica LLC
SICA LLC, Statistical Institute for Consulting and Analysis,
was established in 2010 with a commitment to contribute to
Mongolian social and business development through improved
data research, statistical analysis, and professional consulting
services. The aim is to provide the valuable and reliable services
with innovative and out of box ideas for current global changes.
With our vast network of in-house and of field experts, our areas
of expertise fall into a full range of studies including economic,
social, political, and business sectors. Furthermore, SICA
provides the corresponding and sequential analysis, evaluation,
and systematic reporting throughout the project cycle. In addition,
we are expanding expertise in the field of project management,
monitoring & evaluation as well as training & consulting services
with a commitment to sustainable discovery.
Hofstede Insights
Anchored in rigorous academic theory, we can reflect on over
30 years in business and the thousands of companies we have
helped to become truly global. Our data-driven analysis pinpoints
the role and scope of culture in your organization’s success. Our
global network of expert Associate Partners blend this knowledge
with a deep human insight. This unique combination delivers
unrivalled results, time and again—powerful interventions that
unleash transformative change.
About us
• A background in Consulting, Software technology
and Academia
• A core team of data technicians and
communication professionals
• Expert facilitators in sixty countries
• Proprietary software, answer pattern analysis,
enabling predictive cultural analytics
• Nine country offices
Acknowledgements
7Mongolian?#ultural?and?BehaVioral?StudY?2022
Summary
In order to develop better understanding of
Mongolia and its culture, SICA LLC with the
support of Hofstede Insights endeavored to
score Mongolia according to Hofstede’s Six
Dimensions of national cultures. Building on
SICA’s prior study of Mongolian Generational
Values conducted in 2020, The 2021 Cultural
Generations study surveyed 1,500 Mongolians
segmented according to sex, age, geography,
and residential conditions.
Based on the calculations conducted by
Hofstede Insights, Mongolia was assessed
according to Hofstede’s five original dimensions
and thanks to Dr. Michael Minkov, the sixth-
dimension score was also determined. Due to
the high quality of data collected, Dr. Minkov
was also able to calculate Mongolia’s Five
Personality Traits, to be released in academic
publications and through a future SICA report.
The scores are as follows
Power Distance Index 93
Masculinity vs Femininity29
Long-Term vs Short-Term
Orientation
42
Individualism vs Collectivism65
Uncertainty Avoidance Index39
Indulgence vs Restraint 42
Based on the results, Mongolians would be
expected to be obedient to authority and expect
strong, decisive government leaders. They are
strongly family and “clan” oriented, feeling a
keen sense of responsibility and commitment
to group members, suppressing their needs
for those of the group. This also makes them
more socially caring with overlapping gender
roles. They tend to be more comfortable with
ambiguity and less interested in developing
procedures or enforcement. Mongolians tend
to be more image focused, traditional and want
to be seen as fulfilling their social obligations.
There is a tendency to be more conservative
with the use of resources but will indulge when it
is perceived there is an advantage to be gained.
Project Overview
As globalization continues to make the world a
smaller place, understanding culture has become
one of the keys for developing international
business and political cooperation. According
to Dr. Geert Hofstede, “Culture is the collective
programming of the mind that distinguishes the
members of one group or category of people
from others” (Hofstede G. , 2011). It is essential
for businesses, development agencies and
governments to understand how their national
cultures behave and how to better address
the challenges in dealing with other nations.
In the last 50 years, nearly every national
culture was mapped in some from or other
(Hofstede G. , 2022). Mongolia has been
one of the national exceptions, leaving it at a
disadvantage when dealing with international
partners. This lack of cultural data has made
it difficult to compare Mongolian culture and
values with that of other countries, or to
understand their motivation in relation to policies
and development decisions (Taras, 2010).
A study of fifty Mongolian university students
conducted in 2014 by Dr. Rarick (Charles
Rarick, 2014) provided some initial insights
into five of Hofstede’s. In 2016, the Project
Management Institute Mongolia conducted
a study of two hundred Mongolian project
managers based on Hofstede’s IBM survey
resulting in a different scoring (Tasse, 2016). To
clearly identify Mongolian cultural values and
develop a benchmark for comparison, SICA LLC
conducted a study attempting to bridge this gap
and improve understanding of how Mongolians
compare to their neighbors.
Summary
In order to develop better understanding of
Mongolia and its culture, SICA LLC with the
support of Hofstede Insights endeavored to
score Mongolia according to Hofstede’s Six
Dimensions of national cultures. Building on
SICA’s prior study of Mongolian Generational
Values conducted in 2020, The 2021 Cultural
Generations study surveyed 1,500 Mongolians
segmented according to sex, age, geography,
and residential conditions.
Based on the calculations conducted by
Hofstede Insights, Mongolia was assessed
according to Hofstede’s five original dimensions
and thanks to Dr. Michael Minkov, the sixth-
dimension score was also determined. Due to
the high quality of data collected, Dr. Minkov
was also able to calculate Mongolia’s Five
Personality Traits, to be released in academic
publications and through a future SICA report.
The scores are as follows
Power Distance Index 93
Masculinity vs Femininity29
Long-Term vs Short-Term
Orientation
42
Individualism vs Collectivism65
Uncertainty Avoidance Index39
Indulgence vs Restraint 42
Based on the results, Mongolians would be
expected to be obedient to authority and expect
strong, decisive government leaders. They are
strongly family and “clan” oriented, feeling a
keen sense of responsibility and commitment
to group members, suppressing their needs
for those of the group. This also makes them
more socially caring with overlapping gender
roles. They tend to be more comfortable with
ambiguity and less interested in developing
procedures or enforcement. Mongolians tend
to be more image focused, traditional and want
to be seen as fulfilling their social obligations.
There is a tendency to be more conservative
with the use of resources but will indulge when it
is perceived there is an advantage to be gained.
Project Overview
As globalization continues to make the world a
smaller place, understanding culture has become
one of the keys for developing international
business and political cooperation. According
to Dr. Geert Hofstede, “Culture is the collective
programming of the mind that distinguishes the
members of one group or category of people
from others” (Hofstede G. , 2011). It is essential
for businesses, development agencies and
governments to understand how their national
cultures behave and how to better address
the challenges in dealing with other nations.
In the last 50 years, nearly every national
culture was mapped in some from or other
(Hofstede G. , 2022). Mongolia has been
one of the national exceptions, leaving it at a
disadvantage when dealing with international
partners. This lack of cultural data has made
it difficult to compare Mongolian culture and
values with that of other countries, or to
understand their motivation in relation to policies
and development decisions (Taras, 2010).
A study of fifty Mongolian university students
conducted in 2014 by Dr. Rarick (Charles
Rarick, 2014) provided some initial insights
into five of Hofstede’s. In 2016, the Project
Management Institute Mongolia conducted
a study of two hundred Mongolian project
managers based on Hofstede’s IBM survey
resulting in a different scoring (Tasse, 2016). To
clearly identify Mongolian cultural values and
develop a benchmark for comparison, SICA LLC
conducted a study attempting to bridge this gap
and improve understanding of how Mongolians
compare to their neighbors.
8Mongolian?#ultural?and?BehaVioral?StudY?2022
Mongolian Generation
Study - 2020
In the spring of 2020, SICA LLC and the
Mongolian Financial Markets Association
conducted a “Survey to define Mongolian Social
Generations”. This research is the first study
to scientifically define the Mongolian social
generations and identify Mongolian values. This
study was based on a paper published by Dr.
Zorigt from the National University of Mongolia,
who hypothesized that Mongolian generations
are defined by different geopolitical events
and do not align with the standard western
generational definitions.
Mongolian social generations were analyzed
based on (1) the international categorization of
generations, (2) categorization of generations
in Mongolia, (3) SICA LLC’s previous research
databases, and (4) Dr. Zorigt’s research
assumptions. One thousand random participants
were assessed on the following: (1) social and
economic value, (2) beliefs and ideologies, (3)
political views, (4) moral orientation, and (5)
differences in consumption. Based on these
factors, Mongolian generational divisions were
determined to be different than those defined
in the west and broken down based on their
birth year as follows. The milestone event
that shaped the generational cultures was the
collapse of the Soviet Union and subsequent
independence of Mongolia in 1990.
The 2020 generation study concluded that
Mongolian generations were impacted by
different national and international events and
did not conform with the accepted generational
categories. This realization indicated a need
to conduct further assessment of Mongolian
culture to better understand these influences.
Mongolian Generations
Socialist
generation
(until 1964)
Intermediate
generation
(between
1965-1982)
Transitional
generation
(between
1983-1994)
The new
generation
(after 1995)
Key Findings
• Mongolian social generations map differently
from the western countries’ standard of
Traditionalist, Baby boomers, Gen X, and
Gen Z. The analysis of the differences
between the attitudes of Westerners and
Mongolians towards global issues such
as same sex marriage and marijuana use,
shows quite different values. While these
issues are accepted by most of the Western
generations, they are not yet acceptable for
most Mongolians. What it did indicate is an
increasing acceptance as the generational
groups get younger. This could be due to
their increased exposure to and use of social
and digital media, giving them a more global
perspective than older generations.
• The transitional and the new generations
tend to believe that social morality and
justice have improved since 1990, while the
older socialist and intermediate generations
believe that it has deteriorated. This could
be because they entered democracy and the
free market in 1990 with grand expectations,
but circumstances such as distribution of
wealth was seen as unfair. They also believe
corruption is rampant, and the awarding of
government positions, tenders, land deals,
and mining licenses were decided based on
relationships, family and political affiliation
adversely affecting their opinions.
Mongolian Generation
Study - 2020
In the spring of 2020, SICA LLC and the
Mongolian Financial Markets Association
conducted a “Survey to define Mongolian Social
Generations”. This research is the first study
to scientifically define the Mongolian social
generations and identify Mongolian values. This
study was based on a paper published by Dr.
Zorigt from the National University of Mongolia,
who hypothesized that Mongolian generations
are defined by different geopolitical events
and do not align with the standard western
generational definitions.
Mongolian social generations were analyzed
based on (1) the international categorization of
generations, (2) categorization of generations
in Mongolia, (3) SICA LLC’s previous research
databases, and (4) Dr. Zorigt’s research
assumptions. One thousand random participants
were assessed on the following: (1) social and
economic value, (2) beliefs and ideologies, (3)
political views, (4) moral orientation, and (5)
differences in consumption. Based on these
factors, Mongolian generational divisions were
determined to be different than those defined
in the west and broken down based on their
birth year as follows. The milestone event
that shaped the generational cultures was the
collapse of the Soviet Union and subsequent
independence of Mongolia in 1990.
The 2020 generation study concluded that
Mongolian generations were impacted by
different national and international events and
did not conform with the accepted generational
categories. This realization indicated a need
to conduct further assessment of Mongolian
culture to better understand these influences.
Mongolian Generations
Socialist
generation
(until 1964)
Intermediate
generation
(between
1965-1982)
Transitional
generation
(between
1983-1994)
The new
generation
(after 1995)
Key Findings
• Mongolian social generations map differently
from the western countries’ standard of
Traditionalist, Baby boomers, Gen X, and
Gen Z. The analysis of the differences
between the attitudes of Westerners and
Mongolians towards global issues such
as same sex marriage and marijuana use,
shows quite different values. While these
issues are accepted by most of the Western
generations, they are not yet acceptable for
most Mongolians. What it did indicate is an
increasing acceptance as the generational
groups get younger. This could be due to
their increased exposure to and use of social
and digital media, giving them a more global
perspective than older generations.
• The transitional and the new generations
tend to believe that social morality and
justice have improved since 1990, while the
older socialist and intermediate generations
believe that it has deteriorated. This could
be because they entered democracy and the
free market in 1990 with grand expectations,
but circumstances such as distribution of
wealth was seen as unfair. They also believe
corruption is rampant, and the awarding of
government positions, tenders, land deals,
and mining licenses were decided based on
relationships, family and political affiliation
adversely affecting their opinions.
9Mongolian?#ultural?and?BehaVioral?StudY?2022
Mongolian Cultural
Generation Study
In 2021, SICA expanded on the success of its
generation study to focus on the understanding
the national values of Mongolia. With the support
of Hofstede Insights, they undertook Mongolia’s
first large scale attempt at classifying its national
cultural values according to Hofstede’s six
dimensions. It also attempted to expand on the
Mongolian generational paradigm by comparing
the values of the prior determined Mongolian
generational groups.
The studies’ primary goal was to determine
Mongolia’s national scores on Geert Hofstede’s
6 cultural dimensions. To ensure data validity,
SICA approached Hofstede Insights, one of the
world’s leading cultural research organizations,
to assist in the study. The Mongolia study was
adapted from Hofstede Insights 2015/16 fifty-
four country survey and administered to 1,500
Mongolians from five geographical regions
with a representative mix of urban, rural,
gender and age group participants. Based on
the recommendation of Dr. Michael Minkov,
particular attention was placed on identifying
two of Hofstede’s most important cultural
dimensions: Individualism vs. Collectivism and
Long-term vs. Short term Orientation. These
dimensions are most important due to their
predictive properties for things such as national
educational achievement or violent crime rates.
The geographical regions were selected based
on their representative components. Uvs
province holds a high percentage of Kazakh
Mongols and is a high mountain livelihood zone.
Bayankhongor is representative of the desert
steppe livelihood zone dominated by monadic
herders. Khentii is a traditional steppe livelihood
zone with mix of herding and secondary income
generation. Selenge region is Mongolia’s bread
belt with a high agriculture and intensive farming.
Uvs is a peri-urban region heavily influenced
by economic activity of Ulaanbaatar with mixed
livelihood profile. The five districts of Ulaanbaatar
are representative of the city’s economic
development. This includes upper class, middle
class, and lower-class districts with two regions
representing the Ger districts, unorganized
neighborhoods dominated by rural migrants
moving to the city for better opportunities.
Survey method
Primary and secondary data were used in
the study. Quantitative survey methods were
used to collect primary data, supported by a
desk review of relevant publications and other
cultural databases for comparison. The survey
questionnaire was piloted to verify the question
comprehension and functionality. Surveys were
conducted over a 6-week period from mid-August
to the end of September 2021.
Research
type
Secondary study Primary study
Quantitative
research
Questionnaire
Desk review
Figure 2. Research type
Figure 1. Survey areas
Mongolian Cultural
Generation Study
In 2021, SICA expanded on the success of its
generation study to focus on the understanding
the national values of Mongolia. With the support
of Hofstede Insights, they undertook Mongolia’s
first large scale attempt at classifying its national
cultural values according to Hofstede’s six
dimensions. It also attempted to expand on the
Mongolian generational paradigm by comparing
the values of the prior determined Mongolian
generational groups.
The studies’ primary goal was to determine
Mongolia’s national scores on Geert Hofstede’s
6 cultural dimensions. To ensure data validity,
SICA approached Hofstede Insights, one of the
world’s leading cultural research organizations,
to assist in the study. The Mongolia study was
adapted from Hofstede Insights 2015/16 fifty-
four country survey and administered to 1,500
Mongolians from five geographical regions
with a representative mix of urban, rural,
gender and age group participants. Based on
the recommendation of Dr. Michael Minkov,
particular attention was placed on identifying
two of Hofstede’s most important cultural
dimensions: Individualism vs. Collectivism and
Long-term vs. Short term Orientation. These
dimensions are most important due to their
predictive properties for things such as national
educational achievement or violent crime rates.
The geographical regions were selected based
on their representative components. Uvs
province holds a high percentage of Kazakh
Mongols and is a high mountain livelihood zone.
Bayankhongor is representative of the desert
steppe livelihood zone dominated by monadic
herders. Khentii is a traditional steppe livelihood
zone with mix of herding and secondary income
generation. Selenge region is Mongolia’s bread
belt with a high agriculture and intensive farming.
Uvs is a peri-urban region heavily influenced
by economic activity of Ulaanbaatar with mixed
livelihood profile. The five districts of Ulaanbaatar
are representative of the city’s economic
development. This includes upper class, middle
class, and lower-class districts with two regions
representing the Ger districts, unorganized
neighborhoods dominated by rural migrants
moving to the city for better opportunities.
Survey method
Primary and secondary data were used in
the study. Quantitative survey methods were
used to collect primary data, supported by a
desk review of relevant publications and other
cultural databases for comparison. The survey
questionnaire was piloted to verify the question
comprehension and functionality. Surveys were
conducted over a 6-week period from mid-August
to the end of September 2021.
Research
type
Secondary study Primary study
Quantitative
research
Questionnaire
Desk review
Figure 2. Research type
Figure 1. Survey areas
10Mongolian?#ultural?and?BehaVioral?StudY?2022
Data Collection Methodology
The survey used a combination of computer
assisted telephone interview (CATI) and
computer assisted personal interview (CAPI)
methods for data collection. A core sample
of 1500 individuals were targeted based on
geography and segmentation for the survey.
Participants under the age of eighteen were
not permitted to take part in the survey and
incomplete surveys were not included in the
results but have been archived for partial
interpretation later.
CATI Survey Process
• Telephone participants were contacted
based on SICA’s primary contact list
generated from prior survey participants
from the last five years
• The primary list was sorted based on four
key indicators: sex, age, urban/rural, and
region.
• CATI CENTER operators contacted
selected participants for the survey and
verified the respondents met required
segmentation prior to initiating the survey
• Survey results were recorded in CSPro for
analysis using SPSS
CAPI Survey Process
• Random sampling (every 3rd door) was
used for in-person interviews.
• The researcher visited the target location,
approached the selected household,
identified a household member over the
age of eighteen, and conducted the survey
if they meet the requirements.
• If more than one eligible member is available
at the time of the interview, multiple
participants were included in the session,
with each completing their own survey.
• To select the next participant households,
the researcher knocks on the third door
beyond the surveyed household.
Sampling Distribution
To better analyze the value differences between
Mongolian population groups, a segmentation
strategy was developed. In discussions with
Hofstede Insights, it was determined that a
№ Region
The new
generation
(18-26)
Transitional
generation
(27-38)
Intermediate
generation
(39-56)
Socialist
generation
(up 57)
Total
sample
MaleFemaleMaleFemaleMaleFemaleMaleFemale
1Urban
Bayangol 13 13 14 13 13 14 13 14 107
Bayanzurkh 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 13 107
Sukhbaatar 14 14 13 14 13 13 13 13 107
Songino khairkhan14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 107
Chingeltei 13 13 13 13 14 13 14 14 107
Khan-Uul 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 107
Baganuur 14 13 14 14 14 13 13 13 108
2Rural
Bayankhongor 23 24 24 23 23 23 24 23 187
Selege 24 23 23 24 24 23 23 23 187
Uvs 24 23 23 24 24 23 23 24 188
Khentii 23 24 23 24 23 24 23 24 188
Total 188 187 187 188 188 187 187 188 1500
Table 1. Sampling distribution, by generation and gender
Data Collection Methodology
The survey used a combination of computer
assisted telephone interview (CATI) and
computer assisted personal interview (CAPI)
methods for data collection. A core sample
of 1500 individuals were targeted based on
geography and segmentation for the survey.
Participants under the age of eighteen were
not permitted to take part in the survey and
incomplete surveys were not included in the
results but have been archived for partial
interpretation later.
CATI Survey Process
• Telephone participants were contacted
based on SICA’s primary contact list
generated from prior survey participants
from the last five years
• The primary list was sorted based on four
key indicators: sex, age, urban/rural, and
region.
• CATI CENTER operators contacted
selected participants for the survey and
verified the respondents met required
segmentation prior to initiating the survey
• Survey results were recorded in CSPro for
analysis using SPSS
CAPI Survey Process
• Random sampling (every 3rd door) was
used for in-person interviews.
• The researcher visited the target location,
approached the selected household,
identified a household member over the
age of eighteen, and conducted the survey
if they meet the requirements.
• If more than one eligible member is available
at the time of the interview, multiple
participants were included in the session,
with each completing their own survey.
• To select the next participant households,
the researcher knocks on the third door
beyond the surveyed household.
Sampling Distribution
To better analyze the value differences between
Mongolian population groups, a segmentation
strategy was developed. In discussions with
Hofstede Insights, it was determined that a
№ Region
The new
generation
(18-26)
Transitional
generation
(27-38)
Intermediate
generation
(39-56)
Socialist
generation
(up 57)
Total
sample
MaleFemaleMaleFemaleMaleFemaleMaleFemale
1Urban
Bayangol 13 13 14 13 13 14 13 14 107
Bayanzurkh 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 13 107
Sukhbaatar 14 14 13 14 13 13 13 13 107
Songino khairkhan14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 107
Chingeltei 13 13 13 13 14 13 14 14 107
Khan-Uul 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 107
Baganuur 14 13 14 14 14 13 13 13 108
2Rural
Bayankhongor 23 24 24 23 23 23 24 23 187
Selege 24 23 23 24 24 23 23 23 187
Uvs 24 23 23 24 24 23 23 24 188
Khentii 23 24 23 24 23 24 23 24 188
Total 188 187 187 188 188 187 187 188 1500
Table 1. Sampling distribution, by generation and gender
11Mongolian?#ultural?and?BehaVioral?StudY?2022
minimum of one hundred participants per
segment group needed to be surveyed to be
indicative. Therefore, the following demographic
indicators were flagged for analysis: gender,
age, and geographical region. Based on this
segmentation, sixty-four demographic groups
were created and aggregated into nineteen
categories that met the minimum analytical
requirements.
Data Collection
Research preparation took place in July-August
2021, and the data collection took place from
August 24 to September 25. The survey results
were processed and analyzed in October-
November. Of the 1500 surveys completed,
57% percent of the total data was collected
by personal interviews (CAPI) and 43% via
telephone data collection (CATI). Data collection
was conducted by fourteen enumerators, five
working from SICA’s CATI CENTER, and nine
conducting field surveys using digital tablets to
improve efficiency.
It should be noted that some challenges were
encountered during data collection. Due to
the intensification of the Covid-19 pandemic in
Ulaanbaatar and local provinces during the data
collection period, a higher-than-normal number
of households refused to participate in the field
survey. This was exacerbated by the seasonal
herder migrations in the rural areas each fall,
making it difficult to locate rural participants and
getting their agreement to participate.
Generational Culture Study Summary
• Adaptation of the 54-country cross-cultural
study to determine Six cultural dimensions
• Incorporate targeted generational values
assessment into the study
• Conduct the survey I of 1,500 households
in five regions of Mongolia with targeted
segmentation
• Analyze results with Hofstede Insights to
create a Mongolian Cultural profile
• Further analyze data to generate a
Mongolian generational profile
Hofstede’s Six
Dimensions of Culture
In 1980 Dr. Geert Hofstede presented the first
model that endeavored to quantify national
cultures, since that time the science of cross-
cultural psychology has been incorporated
into all aspects of life. He defined culture
as “the collective programming of the mind
distinguishing the members of one group or
category of people from others” (Hofstede,
Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). He conducted one
of the most comprehensive studies of how
values are influenced by culture. He analyzed
a global database of employee value scores
collected within IBM between 1967 and 1973.
The data covered more than seventy countries,
from which Hofstede first used the forty
countries with the largest groups of respondents
and afterwards extended the analysis to fifty
countries and three regions.
Subsequent studies validating the earlier results
include such respondent groups as commercial
airline pilots and students in twenty-three
countries, civil service managers in fourteen
countries, ‘up-market’ consumers in fifteen
countries, and ‘elites’ in nineteen countries.
In the 2010 edition of Hofstede and Minkov’s
book, “Cultures and Organizations: Software
of the Mind”, scores on the dimensions are
listed for seventy-six countries, partly based
on replications and extensions of the IBM
study on different international populations and
by different scholars. The six dimensions of
national culture are based on extensive research
done by Professor Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan
Hofstede, Michael Minkov, and their research
teams. The application of this research is used
worldwide in both academic and professional
management settings.
minimum of one hundred participants per
segment group needed to be surveyed to be
indicative. Therefore, the following demographic
indicators were flagged for analysis: gender,
age, and geographical region. Based on this
segmentation, sixty-four demographic groups
were created and aggregated into nineteen
categories that met the minimum analytical
requirements.
Data Collection
Research preparation took place in July-August
2021, and the data collection took place from
August 24 to September 25. The survey results
were processed and analyzed in October-
November. Of the 1500 surveys completed,
57% percent of the total data was collected
by personal interviews (CAPI) and 43% via
telephone data collection (CATI). Data collection
was conducted by fourteen enumerators, five
working from SICA’s CATI CENTER, and nine
conducting field surveys using digital tablets to
improve efficiency.
It should be noted that some challenges were
encountered during data collection. Due to
the intensification of the Covid-19 pandemic in
Ulaanbaatar and local provinces during the data
collection period, a higher-than-normal number
of households refused to participate in the field
survey. This was exacerbated by the seasonal
herder migrations in the rural areas each fall,
making it difficult to locate rural participants and
getting their agreement to participate.
Generational Culture Study Summary
• Adaptation of the 54-country cross-cultural
study to determine Six cultural dimensions
• Incorporate targeted generational values
assessment into the study
• Conduct the survey I of 1,500 households
in five regions of Mongolia with targeted
segmentation
• Analyze results with Hofstede Insights to
create a Mongolian Cultural profile
• Further analyze data to generate a
Mongolian generational profile
Hofstede’s Six
Dimensions of Culture
In 1980 Dr. Geert Hofstede presented the first
model that endeavored to quantify national
cultures, since that time the science of cross-
cultural psychology has been incorporated
into all aspects of life. He defined culture
as “the collective programming of the mind
distinguishing the members of one group or
category of people from others” (Hofstede,
Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). He conducted one
of the most comprehensive studies of how
values are influenced by culture. He analyzed
a global database of employee value scores
collected within IBM between 1967 and 1973.
The data covered more than seventy countries,
from which Hofstede first used the forty
countries with the largest groups of respondents
and afterwards extended the analysis to fifty
countries and three regions.
Subsequent studies validating the earlier results
include such respondent groups as commercial
airline pilots and students in twenty-three
countries, civil service managers in fourteen
countries, ‘up-market’ consumers in fifteen
countries, and ‘elites’ in nineteen countries.
In the 2010 edition of Hofstede and Minkov’s
book, “Cultures and Organizations: Software
of the Mind”, scores on the dimensions are
listed for seventy-six countries, partly based
on replications and extensions of the IBM
study on different international populations and
by different scholars. The six dimensions of
national culture are based on extensive research
done by Professor Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan
Hofstede, Michael Minkov, and their research
teams. The application of this research is used
worldwide in both academic and professional
management settings.
12Mongolian?#ultural?and?BehaVioral?StudY?2022
The Hofstede model of national culture consists
of six dimensions. The cultural dimensions
represent independent preferences for one
situation over another that distinguish countries
(rather than individuals) from each other. The
country scores on the dimensions are relative,
in that we are all human and simultaneously we
are all unique. In other words, culture can only
be used meaningfully by comparison.
POWER DISTANCE INDEX (PDI)
This represents the degree to which the less
powerful members of a society accept and
expect power to be distributed unequally.
The fundamental issue here is how a society
handles inequalities among people.
INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS COLLECTIVISM
(IDV)
Individualist societies prefer a loosely knit social
framework in which individuals are expected
to take care of only themselves and their
immediate families. The collectivist societies
prioritize the needs of the greater society over
the individual and their families.
MASCULINITY VERSUS FEMININITY (MAS)
The Masculinity side of this dimension represents
a more competitive society preference
for achievement, heroism, assertiveness.
Femininity stands for a preference for
cooperation, modesty, and is more consensus
oriented.
UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE INDEX (UAI)
This dimension expresses the degree to which
a society feels uncomfortable with uncertainty
and ambiguity. It reflects how a society deals
with the unknown of the future and whether they
try to control it or just let it happen?
LONG TERM ORIENTATION (LTO)
Every society must maintain some links with
its past while dealing with the challenges of
the present and the future. Low scores view
societal change with suspicion. High take a
more pragmatic approach
INDULGENCE VERSUS RESTRAINT (IVR)
Indulgence stands for a society that allows
relatively free gratification of basic and natural
human drives related to enjoying life and
having fun. Restraint stands for a society that
suppresses gratification of needs and regulates
it by means of strict social norms.
“
National Culture cannot be
changed, but you should
understand and respect it.
Geert Hofstede
The Hofstede model of national culture consists
of six dimensions. The cultural dimensions
represent independent preferences for one
situation over another that distinguish countries
(rather than individuals) from each other. The
country scores on the dimensions are relative,
in that we are all human and simultaneously we
are all unique. In other words, culture can only
be used meaningfully by comparison.
POWER DISTANCE INDEX (PDI)
This represents the degree to which the less
powerful members of a society accept and
expect power to be distributed unequally.
The fundamental issue here is how a society
handles inequalities among people.
INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS COLLECTIVISM
(IDV)
Individualist societies prefer a loosely knit social
framework in which individuals are expected
to take care of only themselves and their
immediate families. The collectivist societies
prioritize the needs of the greater society over
the individual and their families.
MASCULINITY VERSUS FEMININITY (MAS)
The Masculinity side of this dimension represents
a more competitive society preference
for achievement, heroism, assertiveness.
Femininity stands for a preference for
cooperation, modesty, and is more consensus
oriented.
UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE INDEX (UAI)
This dimension expresses the degree to which
a society feels uncomfortable with uncertainty
and ambiguity. It reflects how a society deals
with the unknown of the future and whether they
try to control it or just let it happen?
LONG TERM ORIENTATION (LTO)
Every society must maintain some links with
its past while dealing with the challenges of
the present and the future. Low scores view
societal change with suspicion. High take a
more pragmatic approach
INDULGENCE VERSUS RESTRAINT (IVR)
Indulgence stands for a society that allows
relatively free gratification of basic and natural
human drives related to enjoying life and
having fun. Restraint stands for a society that
suppresses gratification of needs and regulates
it by means of strict social norms.
“
National Culture cannot be
changed, but you should
understand and respect it.
Geert Hofstede
13Mongolian?#ultural?and?BehaVioral?StudY?2022
Dimensions of Mongolian
National Culture
Using the adapted fifty-six country survey
created by Dr. Minkov et all, SICA and Hofstede
Institute were able to calculate a comparative
score for all of Hofstede’s six cultural
dimensions. Although the data does not exactly
mirror Hofstede’s IBM results, relative scores
were extrapolated using a variety of statistical
methods. Initial review by Hofstede Institute
and other cultural experts have validated the
results for comparative use against Hofstede’s
74 country rankings.
Based on the scores, Mongolians are respectful
of authority figures and government with a
desire to be led by strong leaders. They tend
to have a strong family and clan/community
orientation, feeling a sense of responsibility for
those like them and see others as outsiders.
There is a desire to be seen as assertive,
heroic, and successful. They tend not to work
well cooperatively or seek or accept external
advice well. Instead, they are comfortable with
just jumping in and trying or figuring things out
on the fly rather than being strategic or logical
in their actions. Planning for the long term is
not seeing as effective since future is unknown
and conditions may change that will require
additional effort. With resources, Mongolians
tend to be more constrained with a preference
for accumulating tangible assets like land and
animals if there isn’t an immediate benefit to
the self or the group (Hofstede, Hofstede, &
Minkov, 2010).
As indicated in the chart above, Mongolians have
scored remarkably high on power distance and
extremely low on Individualism/Collectivism.
Combined with the low masculinity score, this
could be a result from an extended period of
colonial influence from the former Soviet Union
(Schwartz, 1997). This could also explain the
propensity for glorifying national heroes like
Genghis Khan and Sukhbaatar, the number of
wrestlers and “strong men” in positions of power
and their push for national ownership. When
viewing the Uncertainty Avoidance, Long Term
Orientation and Indulgence scores could be
reflective of the impact of the harsh landscape
and terrain, where conserving resources for
the future is important and violent weather can
have significant impact on survival, prosperity,
and planning.
When compared to its five key strategic partners,
Mongolia does not show as strong an alignment,
particularly with Russia and China, as would
have been expected given its history. There
are three points of similarity with China: Power
Distance, Collectivism, and weak alignment
in Indulgence. Russia indicates commonality
with High Power Distance and Masculinity,
and a weak alignment on Indulgence. This
could be a result of Mongolia being a Soviet
satellite state for over 75 years and the current
Figure 3. Mongolia’s Cultural Dimension Scores
Table 2. Five strategic partner scores
Country PDIIDVMASUAILTOIVR
China 802066 308724
Japan 544695 928842
Korea south601839 8510029
Mongolia 936529 394242
Russia 933936 958120
U.S.A 409162 462668
Dimensions of Mongolian
National Culture
Using the adapted fifty-six country survey
created by Dr. Minkov et all, SICA and Hofstede
Institute were able to calculate a comparative
score for all of Hofstede’s six cultural
dimensions. Although the data does not exactly
mirror Hofstede’s IBM results, relative scores
were extrapolated using a variety of statistical
methods. Initial review by Hofstede Institute
and other cultural experts have validated the
results for comparative use against Hofstede’s
74 country rankings.
Based on the scores, Mongolians are respectful
of authority figures and government with a
desire to be led by strong leaders. They tend
to have a strong family and clan/community
orientation, feeling a sense of responsibility for
those like them and see others as outsiders.
There is a desire to be seen as assertive,
heroic, and successful. They tend not to work
well cooperatively or seek or accept external
advice well. Instead, they are comfortable with
just jumping in and trying or figuring things out
on the fly rather than being strategic or logical
in their actions. Planning for the long term is
not seeing as effective since future is unknown
and conditions may change that will require
additional effort. With resources, Mongolians
tend to be more constrained with a preference
for accumulating tangible assets like land and
animals if there isn’t an immediate benefit to
the self or the group (Hofstede, Hofstede, &
Minkov, 2010).
As indicated in the chart above, Mongolians have
scored remarkably high on power distance and
extremely low on Individualism/Collectivism.
Combined with the low masculinity score, this
could be a result from an extended period of
colonial influence from the former Soviet Union
(Schwartz, 1997). This could also explain the
propensity for glorifying national heroes like
Genghis Khan and Sukhbaatar, the number of
wrestlers and “strong men” in positions of power
and their push for national ownership. When
viewing the Uncertainty Avoidance, Long Term
Orientation and Indulgence scores could be
reflective of the impact of the harsh landscape
and terrain, where conserving resources for
the future is important and violent weather can
have significant impact on survival, prosperity,
and planning.
When compared to its five key strategic partners,
Mongolia does not show as strong an alignment,
particularly with Russia and China, as would
have been expected given its history. There
are three points of similarity with China: Power
Distance, Collectivism, and weak alignment
in Indulgence. Russia indicates commonality
with High Power Distance and Masculinity,
and a weak alignment on Indulgence. This
could be a result of Mongolia being a Soviet
satellite state for over 75 years and the current
Figure 3. Mongolia’s Cultural Dimension Scores
Table 2. Five strategic partner scores
Country PDIIDVMASUAILTOIVR
China 802066 308724
Japan 544695 928842
Korea south601839 8510029
Mongolia 936529 394242
Russia 933936 958120
U.S.A 409162 462668
14Mongolian?#ultural?and?BehaVioral?StudY?2022
soviet style of government. When compared
to its three primary “3rd Neighbor” partners
(Japan, South Korea, and USA), there is even
less alignment that could explain some of the
political and economic challenges that have
been encountered.
Interestingly, Mongolia scores more closely
to northern European states, particularly
Finland and Denmark. with four relatively
matching scores each. This could be due to
climatic adaptations and a history of isolated
communities that is shared by the cultures.
Another close aligned country is Philippines.
Although there are drastic differences in
geography, climate and population, there are
similarities that could account for this alignment.
One commonality is that all are made up of
small, isolated, family-based communities that
are distant from each other and needed to be
self-sufficient. Also, meteorologically, they are
subject to regular extreme weather events
that can be life threatening and impactful to
livelihoods. Finally, in all countries the national
economies are driven by resource economics,
while at the rural level, various forms of
subsistence farming/animal husbandry are
essential for survival.
Figure 4. Mongolia, Denmark, Finland & Philippines scores
Country PDIIDVMASUAILTOIVR
Mongolia 936529 394242
Malaysia 1042650 364157
Finland 336326 583857
Denmark 187416 233570
Philippines943264 442842
Table 3. Countries with similar scores to Mongolia
soviet style of government. When compared
to its three primary “3rd Neighbor” partners
(Japan, South Korea, and USA), there is even
less alignment that could explain some of the
political and economic challenges that have
been encountered.
Interestingly, Mongolia scores more closely
to northern European states, particularly
Finland and Denmark. with four relatively
matching scores each. This could be due to
climatic adaptations and a history of isolated
communities that is shared by the cultures.
Another close aligned country is Philippines.
Although there are drastic differences in
geography, climate and population, there are
similarities that could account for this alignment.
One commonality is that all are made up of
small, isolated, family-based communities that
are distant from each other and needed to be
self-sufficient. Also, meteorologically, they are
subject to regular extreme weather events
that can be life threatening and impactful to
livelihoods. Finally, in all countries the national
economies are driven by resource economics,
while at the rural level, various forms of
subsistence farming/animal husbandry are
essential for survival.
Figure 4. Mongolia, Denmark, Finland & Philippines scores
Country PDIIDVMASUAILTOIVR
Mongolia 936529 394242
Malaysia 1042650 364157
Finland 336326 583857
Denmark 187416 233570
Philippines943264 442842
Table 3. Countries with similar scores to Mongolia
15Mongolian?#ultural?and?BehaVioral?StudY?2022
Similar Scoring Countries High Power Distance Behavioral
Mexico 81• Inequalities among people are expected and accepted
• Less powerful should be dependent
• Respect for parents and senior relatives is a lifelong virtue
• Teachers are the leaders of the class and are to be respected
• Hierarchy in the organization reflects that of society
• Managers rely on superiors and formal rules for decisions
• Workers expect to be told what to do
• Whoever has the power has the right to use it
• Skills, wealth, power, and status go together
• Power is based on family, tradition, charisma, andthe ability to use force
• A weak political spectrum
• Autocratic or oligarchic governments based on co-optation
Serbia 86
Romania 90
Mongolia 93
Russia 93
Philippines 94
Malaysia 104
• Summarized from: (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, Cultures and Organizations:Software of the Mind, 2010)
Mongolian Power
Distance Index (PDI)-93
This dimension represents how the less
powerful members of a society expect and
are willing to accept that power is distributed
unequally. At its core, this is a representation
of how a society manages inequalities among
people. High Power Distance societies accept
a hierarchical order in which everybody has
a place in a structure that does not need
justification. Its citizens expect a strong
government and leaders to be authoritative
and decisive. Countries exhibiting the highest
PDI are Philippines (94), Malaysia (104), and
Slovakia (104). By comparison, in Low Power
Distance societies people strive to balance the
distribution of power and demand justification
for inequalities as seen in Austria (11), Denmark
(18), and New Zealand (22).
Mongolia scored remarkably high on the power
distance scale and would be expected to exhibit
some of the behavioral traits listed in the table
below.
When compared to their strategic partners,
Mongolians are closer to Russia and China.
This could be in part a legacy of Mongolia
being a former Soviet satellite state and their
historically close interaction with China. It could
be interpreted that in any interaction, there
would be a need to establish the power position
of the participants and the decision hierarchy.
The weaker participants would be seen as
being subordinate and expected to accept their
position. This was demonstrated during the
2016 trilateral meeting in Toshkent between
the leaders of Russia, China, and Mongolia (
(Kremlin News, 2016).
In dealing with the USA, Japan and South Korea,
Mongolians could perceive efforts towards
collaboration and compromise as a weakness to
exploit to their advantage. Attempts to balance
power might be taken as an effort to reduce or
undermine their authority.
Table 4. Countries with similar PDI scores
Figure 5. Five partners PDI scores
Similar Scoring Countries High Power Distance Behavioral
Mexico 81• Inequalities among people are expected and accepted
• Less powerful should be dependent
• Respect for parents and senior relatives is a lifelong virtue
• Teachers are the leaders of the class and are to be respected
• Hierarchy in the organization reflects that of society
• Managers rely on superiors and formal rules for decisions
• Workers expect to be told what to do
• Whoever has the power has the right to use it
• Skills, wealth, power, and status go together
• Power is based on family, tradition, charisma, andthe ability to use force
• A weak political spectrum
• Autocratic or oligarchic governments based on co-optation
Serbia 86
Romania 90
Mongolia 93
Russia 93
Philippines 94
Malaysia 104
• Summarized from: (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, Cultures and Organizations:Software of the Mind, 2010)
Mongolian Power
Distance Index (PDI)-93
This dimension represents how the less
powerful members of a society expect and
are willing to accept that power is distributed
unequally. At its core, this is a representation
of how a society manages inequalities among
people. High Power Distance societies accept
a hierarchical order in which everybody has
a place in a structure that does not need
justification. Its citizens expect a strong
government and leaders to be authoritative
and decisive. Countries exhibiting the highest
PDI are Philippines (94), Malaysia (104), and
Slovakia (104). By comparison, in Low Power
Distance societies people strive to balance the
distribution of power and demand justification
for inequalities as seen in Austria (11), Denmark
(18), and New Zealand (22).
Mongolia scored remarkably high on the power
distance scale and would be expected to exhibit
some of the behavioral traits listed in the table
below.
When compared to their strategic partners,
Mongolians are closer to Russia and China.
This could be in part a legacy of Mongolia
being a former Soviet satellite state and their
historically close interaction with China. It could
be interpreted that in any interaction, there
would be a need to establish the power position
of the participants and the decision hierarchy.
The weaker participants would be seen as
being subordinate and expected to accept their
position. This was demonstrated during the
2016 trilateral meeting in Toshkent between
the leaders of Russia, China, and Mongolia (
(Kremlin News, 2016).
In dealing with the USA, Japan and South Korea,
Mongolians could perceive efforts towards
collaboration and compromise as a weakness to
exploit to their advantage. Attempts to balance
power might be taken as an effort to reduce or
undermine their authority.
Table 4. Countries with similar PDI scores
Figure 5. Five partners PDI scores
16Mongolian?#ultural?and?BehaVioral?StudY?2022
Similar Scoring Countries Individualism behavior
Luxembourg 60• Universal value standards for everyone
• Speaking one’s mind indicates an honest character
• Home is the castle, for immediate family
• Independent and open to showing happiness
• Diplomas increase respect and economic worth
• Employees follow economic opportunities over employer
• High use of digital technologies for communication
• Everyone expected to have own opinion and express it
• Individuals interested in stock ownership and investment
• Equal regard for laws
• Individual freedom is preferred over equality
Poland 60
Finland 63
Mongolia 65
Germany 67
Switzerland 68
Norway 69
• Summarized from: (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, Cultures and Organizations:Software of the Mind, 2010)
Mongolian Individualism
vs Collectivism (IDV)
In this dimension, low scores relate to collectivistic
and high scores indicate individualistic societies,
reflecting in whether people’s self-image is
defined in terms of “I” or “we.” Individualism
in the national context relates to “I” societies
where the connections and commitments
between individuals are “loose” and individuals
are expected to take care of themselves and
their immediate family. These societies prioritize
personal time and freedom, with a preference
for challenging work providing a sense of
accomplishment. These would be represented
by such countries as Great Britain (89), Australia
(90), and the United States (91). Its opposite,
Collectivism, represents tightly knit societies
where members are integrated from birth into
“in-groups” who look after them in exchange
for unquestioning loyalty. They prioritize skill
development, good working conditions the
opportunity fully use skills on the job. These would
be represented by Venezuela (12), Columbia
(13), and Indonesia (14).
Mongolia scores as a soft individualist society,
where there is a tradition of caring for immediate
social groups over the wellbeing of society as a
whole. Mongolians do express a strong family
and regional orientation, which views outsiders
with mistrust. They have adopted certain social
practices as part of a nomadic lifestyle where
cooperation is essential for survival.
Four of Mongolia’s neighbors rank as more
collectivistic in their behavior. This can lead to
challenges in cooperation and development
where Mongolia would be expected to
concede or adapt to the will of the “majority”
bigger neighbor rather than doing things
the Mongolian way. Mongolians, on the
other hand, would want to show their ability
manage their own way and take credit for their
accomplishments. This could also explain the
predominance of small business owners, even
for those working in salaried positions, as it
aligns with their desire to be self- sufficient.
The United States could be seen as the sample
society for Mongolia. The rapid development of
the Mongolian stock market, cryptocurrencies
and digital technologies as supporting all
reflect this need to promote self-sufficiency.
Table 5. Countries with similar IDV scores
Figure 6. Five partners IDV scores
Similar Scoring Countries Individualism behavior
Luxembourg 60• Universal value standards for everyone
• Speaking one’s mind indicates an honest character
• Home is the castle, for immediate family
• Independent and open to showing happiness
• Diplomas increase respect and economic worth
• Employees follow economic opportunities over employer
• High use of digital technologies for communication
• Everyone expected to have own opinion and express it
• Individuals interested in stock ownership and investment
• Equal regard for laws
• Individual freedom is preferred over equality
Poland 60
Finland 63
Mongolia 65
Germany 67
Switzerland 68
Norway 69
• Summarized from: (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, Cultures and Organizations:Software of the Mind, 2010)
Mongolian Individualism
vs Collectivism (IDV)
In this dimension, low scores relate to collectivistic
and high scores indicate individualistic societies,
reflecting in whether people’s self-image is
defined in terms of “I” or “we.” Individualism
in the national context relates to “I” societies
where the connections and commitments
between individuals are “loose” and individuals
are expected to take care of themselves and
their immediate family. These societies prioritize
personal time and freedom, with a preference
for challenging work providing a sense of
accomplishment. These would be represented
by such countries as Great Britain (89), Australia
(90), and the United States (91). Its opposite,
Collectivism, represents tightly knit societies
where members are integrated from birth into
“in-groups” who look after them in exchange
for unquestioning loyalty. They prioritize skill
development, good working conditions the
opportunity fully use skills on the job. These would
be represented by Venezuela (12), Columbia
(13), and Indonesia (14).
Mongolia scores as a soft individualist society,
where there is a tradition of caring for immediate
social groups over the wellbeing of society as a
whole. Mongolians do express a strong family
and regional orientation, which views outsiders
with mistrust. They have adopted certain social
practices as part of a nomadic lifestyle where
cooperation is essential for survival.
Four of Mongolia’s neighbors rank as more
collectivistic in their behavior. This can lead to
challenges in cooperation and development
where Mongolia would be expected to
concede or adapt to the will of the “majority”
bigger neighbor rather than doing things
the Mongolian way. Mongolians, on the
other hand, would want to show their ability
manage their own way and take credit for their
accomplishments. This could also explain the
predominance of small business owners, even
for those working in salaried positions, as it
aligns with their desire to be self- sufficient.
The United States could be seen as the sample
society for Mongolia. The rapid development of
the Mongolian stock market, cryptocurrencies
and digital technologies as supporting all
reflect this need to promote self-sufficiency.
Table 5. Countries with similar IDV scores
Figure 6. Five partners IDV scores
17Mongolian?#ultural?and?BehaVioral?StudY?2022
Masculinity vs
Femininity (MAS)
This dimension measures the Assertiveness
(Masculinity) and Modesty (Femininity) of the
culture and is not meant as a measure of gender
roles. In a business context this dimension
is sometimes referred to as “tough versus
tender” cultures.The Masculinity side of this
dimension represents a society at large that is
more competitive with preferences for personal
achievement, success, and material rewards.
Gender roles are more distinctly segregate,
with cultures prioritizing achievement, getting
higher earnings, recognition at work, social and
corporate advancement as seen in Hungary
(88), Japan (95), and Slovakia (110).
Its opposite, Femininity stands for a preference
towards cooperation, modesty, caring for the
weak and quality of life. Society at large is more
consensus oriented and gender roles overlap
and modesty is valued. Mongolia scores more
modest in this dimension as a mid-femininity
country and is like many European countries in
this dimension. Extreme low scoring countries
would be Latvia (9), Norway (8), and Sweden
(5).
Mongolia is similar Russia and South Korea
in this dimension. This could be a result of the
high level of education amongst citizens, with
a literacy rate of 97%, and 68% of women
with post-secondary education, 46% for men
(UNESCO, 2022). This mirrors the priority on
education placed on both the partner countries.
It may also reflect decades of Soviet egalitarian
philosophy (Zhuralvlev, 2018) pushing a more
harmonized and cooperative attitude.
Compared to China, USA and Japan,
Mongolia’s low scoring could be contributing
factor to their insistence on national ownership
and social contributions from development
projects. As conditions change, there is an
expectation that wealth and benefits will be
shared and prior agreements adapted, making
contracts fluid and potentially less binding than
in high masculinity countries.
Similar Scoring Countries Femininity Behavior
Lithuania 19• Relationships and quality of life are important
• Modesty is expected from all
• Boys and girls have similar play behavior
• Failing in school is minor incident
• Students underate own performance
• Internet used for rapport building
• Job choice based on intrinsic interests
• People work to live
• Higher share of working women in professional jobs
• Competitive agricultural and service industries
• More leisure time preferred over more money
• Welfare society ideal: government to help the needy
• Politics based on coalitions
• Environment should be preserved
Finland 26
Chile 28
Mongolia 29
Estonia 30
Portugal 31
Thailand 34
• Summarized from: (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, Cultures and Organizations:Software of the Mind, 2010)
Table 6. Countries with similar MAS scores
Figure 7. Five partners MAS scores
Masculinity vs
Femininity (MAS)
This dimension measures the Assertiveness
(Masculinity) and Modesty (Femininity) of the
culture and is not meant as a measure of gender
roles. In a business context this dimension
is sometimes referred to as “tough versus
tender” cultures.The Masculinity side of this
dimension represents a society at large that is
more competitive with preferences for personal
achievement, success, and material rewards.
Gender roles are more distinctly segregate,
with cultures prioritizing achievement, getting
higher earnings, recognition at work, social and
corporate advancement as seen in Hungary
(88), Japan (95), and Slovakia (110).
Its opposite, Femininity stands for a preference
towards cooperation, modesty, caring for the
weak and quality of life. Society at large is more
consensus oriented and gender roles overlap
and modesty is valued. Mongolia scores more
modest in this dimension as a mid-femininity
country and is like many European countries in
this dimension. Extreme low scoring countries
would be Latvia (9), Norway (8), and Sweden
(5).
Mongolia is similar Russia and South Korea
in this dimension. This could be a result of the
high level of education amongst citizens, with
a literacy rate of 97%, and 68% of women
with post-secondary education, 46% for men
(UNESCO, 2022). This mirrors the priority on
education placed on both the partner countries.
It may also reflect decades of Soviet egalitarian
philosophy (Zhuralvlev, 2018) pushing a more
harmonized and cooperative attitude.
Compared to China, USA and Japan,
Mongolia’s low scoring could be contributing
factor to their insistence on national ownership
and social contributions from development
projects. As conditions change, there is an
expectation that wealth and benefits will be
shared and prior agreements adapted, making
contracts fluid and potentially less binding than
in high masculinity countries.
Similar Scoring Countries Femininity Behavior
Lithuania 19• Relationships and quality of life are important
• Modesty is expected from all
• Boys and girls have similar play behavior
• Failing in school is minor incident
• Students underate own performance
• Internet used for rapport building
• Job choice based on intrinsic interests
• People work to live
• Higher share of working women in professional jobs
• Competitive agricultural and service industries
• More leisure time preferred over more money
• Welfare society ideal: government to help the needy
• Politics based on coalitions
• Environment should be preserved
Finland 26
Chile 28
Mongolia 29
Estonia 30
Portugal 31
Thailand 34
• Summarized from: (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, Cultures and Organizations:Software of the Mind, 2010)
Table 6. Countries with similar MAS scores
Figure 7. Five partners MAS scores
18Mongolian?#ultural?and?BehaVioral?StudY?2022
Mongolian Uncertainty
Avoidance Index (UAI)
The Uncertainty Avoidance dimension
expresses the degree to which the members
of a society feel stressed with uncertainty and
ambiguity. The issue here is how a society
deals with the fact that the future is unknown
and whether they should we try to control the
future or just let it happen?
Countries exhibiting high UAI maintain rigid
codes of beliefs, are intolerant of unorthodox
behavior and resistant to new ideas. They
tend to be more vocal and anxious when rules
a disobeyed, tend to follow policy and commit
long term to work environments as seen in
Guatemala (101), Portugal (104), and Greece
(112). Low UAI societies maintain a more relaxed
attitude in which practice is more important than
principles. They tend to be more short term in
their work commitments and believe things will
work themselves out as seen in Singapore 8,
Jamaica (13), and Denmark 24.
Mongolia scores as a slightly low UAI
country. Although it has strong laws in place,
there are challenges in the development
and implementation of relate policies and
procedures. The workforce tends to be transient
and readily willing to leave their positions for
future opportunities, taking extended sabbaticals
between jobs. They are procrastinators and
accept that things get done in their own time.
Their scores align with China and the USA
in this dimension. Mongolians will wait for
opportunities to develop, seeing if a better
one will come and the right time to act. When
possible, they will circumvent bureaucratic
obstacles to get an advantage. There is a belief
that if an opportunity is lost, a better one will
eventually come.
Russia, Japan, and South Korea are high
UAI countries and will want structure in their
relationships. In this there is a tendency to want
to take leadership and control of initiatives to
ensure compliance and enforce agreements.
The result could be projects in Mongolia that
are in the sponsoring countries interest and be
less focused on addressing Mongolia’s needs
or build their internal capacity.
Similar Scoring Countries Low Uncertainty Avoidance Behavior
China 30• Uncertainty is a normal feature of life
• Comfortable in ambiguous and unfamiliar risks
• Lenient with children, family life is relaxed
• Used cars – self repairs
• Fast acceptance of new features such as phones, email, internet
• Changing employers, shorter service, work when needed
• Time is framework for orientation
• Better at invention, worse at implementation
• Motivated by esteem and achievement
• Citizen protest accepted
• Citizens trust political system and legal system
• Positive or neutral towards foreigners
• Defensive nationalism
Ireland 35
Malaysia 36
Mongolia 39
India 40
Philippines 44
Usa 46
• Summarized from: (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, Cultures and Organizations:Software of the Mind, 2010)
Table 7. Countries with similar UAI scores
Figure 8. Five partners UAI scores
Mongolian Uncertainty
Avoidance Index (UAI)
The Uncertainty Avoidance dimension
expresses the degree to which the members
of a society feel stressed with uncertainty and
ambiguity. The issue here is how a society
deals with the fact that the future is unknown
and whether they should we try to control the
future or just let it happen?
Countries exhibiting high UAI maintain rigid
codes of beliefs, are intolerant of unorthodox
behavior and resistant to new ideas. They
tend to be more vocal and anxious when rules
a disobeyed, tend to follow policy and commit
long term to work environments as seen in
Guatemala (101), Portugal (104), and Greece
(112). Low UAI societies maintain a more relaxed
attitude in which practice is more important than
principles. They tend to be more short term in
their work commitments and believe things will
work themselves out as seen in Singapore 8,
Jamaica (13), and Denmark 24.
Mongolia scores as a slightly low UAI
country. Although it has strong laws in place,
there are challenges in the development
and implementation of relate policies and
procedures. The workforce tends to be transient
and readily willing to leave their positions for
future opportunities, taking extended sabbaticals
between jobs. They are procrastinators and
accept that things get done in their own time.
Their scores align with China and the USA
in this dimension. Mongolians will wait for
opportunities to develop, seeing if a better
one will come and the right time to act. When
possible, they will circumvent bureaucratic
obstacles to get an advantage. There is a belief
that if an opportunity is lost, a better one will
eventually come.
Russia, Japan, and South Korea are high
UAI countries and will want structure in their
relationships. In this there is a tendency to want
to take leadership and control of initiatives to
ensure compliance and enforce agreements.
The result could be projects in Mongolia that
are in the sponsoring countries interest and be
less focused on addressing Mongolia’s needs
or build their internal capacity.
Similar Scoring Countries Low Uncertainty Avoidance Behavior
China 30• Uncertainty is a normal feature of life
• Comfortable in ambiguous and unfamiliar risks
• Lenient with children, family life is relaxed
• Used cars – self repairs
• Fast acceptance of new features such as phones, email, internet
• Changing employers, shorter service, work when needed
• Time is framework for orientation
• Better at invention, worse at implementation
• Motivated by esteem and achievement
• Citizen protest accepted
• Citizens trust political system and legal system
• Positive or neutral towards foreigners
• Defensive nationalism
Ireland 35
Malaysia 36
Mongolia 39
India 40
Philippines 44
Usa 46
• Summarized from: (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, Cultures and Organizations:Software of the Mind, 2010)
Table 7. Countries with similar UAI scores
Figure 8. Five partners UAI scores
19Mongolian?#ultural?and?BehaVioral?StudY?2022
Similar Scoring Countries Short Term Orientation Behavior
Poland 38• Social pressure towards spending
• Effort should produce quick results
• Concern with “face”
• Respect for traditions
• Marriage is a moral arrangement
• Old age is unhappy and starts late
• Leisure time is important
• Focus on bottom line
• Personal loyalties vary with business needs
• Universal guidelines on good and evil
• Proud of country and family
• Small savings or investment, Slow economic growth
• Appeal of folk wisdom and shamanism
Finland 38
Malaysia 41
Mongolia 42
Brazil 44
Greece 45
Turkey 46
• Summarized from: (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, Cultures and Organizations:Software of the Mind, 2010)
Mongolian long term vs
Short term orientation
(LTO)
Societies need to balance two existential
goals, maintaining their links to the past while
addressing current and future challenges.
This dimension is referred to as short-term
(normative) versus long-term (pragmatic)
orientation. Resent academic research have
redefined this as Monumentalism versus
Flexhumility (Michael Minkov G. H., 2012).
Societies who score low (short-term) on this
dimension prefer to maintain time-honored
traditions and norms, focused on saving “face”
and fulfilling social obligations while viewing
societal change with suspicion (Hofstede,
Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). This can be seen
in places like Western Africa (9), Trinidad &
Tobago (13), and Columbia 13.
Those with a culture which scores high, take
a more pragmatic approach encouraging thrift,
perseverance, are future oriented and see
modern education as a way to prepare for the
future as seen in Japan (88), Taiwan (93) and
South Korea (100).
In this dimension Mongolia is like the USA.
Business and government are focused on
short term cycles and quick returns. There
is a growing level of personal debt and use
resources now as they might not be available
in the future. They tend to prefer in tangible
assets and things that make them appear
successful. They may also overlook details in
business arrangements in their haste to get to
the benefits.
Its other partners China, Japan, Russia, and
South Korea aver all very much focused on
the long term and may result in challenges
due to Mongolia’s short sightedness. The four-
year delay in commissioning the Japanese
sponsored new international airport was in part
due to Mongolia’s lack of planning regarding
the access road construction.
Table 8. Countries with similar LTO scores
Figure 9. Five partners LTO scores
Similar Scoring Countries Short Term Orientation Behavior
Poland 38• Social pressure towards spending
• Effort should produce quick results
• Concern with “face”
• Respect for traditions
• Marriage is a moral arrangement
• Old age is unhappy and starts late
• Leisure time is important
• Focus on bottom line
• Personal loyalties vary with business needs
• Universal guidelines on good and evil
• Proud of country and family
• Small savings or investment, Slow economic growth
• Appeal of folk wisdom and shamanism
Finland 38
Malaysia 41
Mongolia 42
Brazil 44
Greece 45
Turkey 46
• Summarized from: (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, Cultures and Organizations:Software of the Mind, 2010)
Mongolian long term vs
Short term orientation
(LTO)
Societies need to balance two existential
goals, maintaining their links to the past while
addressing current and future challenges.
This dimension is referred to as short-term
(normative) versus long-term (pragmatic)
orientation. Resent academic research have
redefined this as Monumentalism versus
Flexhumility (Michael Minkov G. H., 2012).
Societies who score low (short-term) on this
dimension prefer to maintain time-honored
traditions and norms, focused on saving “face”
and fulfilling social obligations while viewing
societal change with suspicion (Hofstede,
Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). This can be seen
in places like Western Africa (9), Trinidad &
Tobago (13), and Columbia 13.
Those with a culture which scores high, take
a more pragmatic approach encouraging thrift,
perseverance, are future oriented and see
modern education as a way to prepare for the
future as seen in Japan (88), Taiwan (93) and
South Korea (100).
In this dimension Mongolia is like the USA.
Business and government are focused on
short term cycles and quick returns. There
is a growing level of personal debt and use
resources now as they might not be available
in the future. They tend to prefer in tangible
assets and things that make them appear
successful. They may also overlook details in
business arrangements in their haste to get to
the benefits.
Its other partners China, Japan, Russia, and
South Korea aver all very much focused on
the long term and may result in challenges
due to Mongolia’s short sightedness. The four-
year delay in commissioning the Japanese
sponsored new international airport was in part
due to Mongolia’s lack of planning regarding
the access road construction.
Table 8. Countries with similar LTO scores
Figure 9. Five partners LTO scores
20Mongolian?#ultural?and?BehaVioral?StudY?2022
Similar Scoring Countries Indulgence Behavior
Germany 42• Perception of personal life control
• Importance of leisure
• Importance of friends
• Loose society
• Less moral discipline
• Well-educated population with higher birthrates
• Higher approval of foreign music and films
• Satisfying family life
• Actively involved in sports
• Consumption of soft drinks and beer / alcohol
• Looser gender roles
• Less strict sexual norms
• Maintaining national order not a priority
• Freedom of speech is important
• Use email and internet for private contacts and with foreigners
Japan 42
Philippines 42
Mongolia 42
Spain 44
Thailand 45
Singapore 46
• Summarized from: (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, Cultures and Organizations:Software of the Mind, 2010)
Mongolian indulgence vs
Restraint (IVR)
A recent addition. Dr. Minkov developed
this dimension to incorporate happiness, life
control and leisure influences on society. It
also indicates the level societal negativity and
cynicism.
Indulgence stands for a society that allows
relatively free gratification, enjoying life and
having fun. These cultures tend to be optimistic
and positive, have flexible social morals, and
are more expressive. This is readily apparent
in Latin American cultures such as El Salvador
(89), Mexico (97), and Venezuela (100).
Restraint societies encourages the suppression
of personal desires, have strict social norms,
take a strong disciplinary stance, and tend to a
more cynical and negative social perspective.
Examples would be Pakistan (0), Latvia (13),
and Bulgaria 16.
Mongolia scores as a minor Restraint country.
This could be due to its nomadic history, where
families and communities needed conserve
resources and be cautious in social interactions
to ensure survival in a harsh environment.
They also tend to make efforts and enjoy what
they have when permitted, as demonstrated by
the lavish family preparations done during the
Nadaam and Tsagaan Sar holidays.
Mongolia tends to be similar to its Asian partners
in this dimension. There is a conservatism
in committing resources and finding ways to
reduce costs. But there is also pressure to
not appear “cheap,” with formal dinners and
entertainment being key opportunities for
demonstrating affluence and building solidarity.
In comparison, interactions with Americans
present the Mongolians with an opportunity to
take advantage of their indulgence and liberal
attitude. They will openly accept the “free”
money and services often provided, seeing
many westerners as resources to be exploited.
Table 9. Countries with similar IVR scores
Figure 10. Five partners IVR scores
Similar Scoring Countries Indulgence Behavior
Germany 42• Perception of personal life control
• Importance of leisure
• Importance of friends
• Loose society
• Less moral discipline
• Well-educated population with higher birthrates
• Higher approval of foreign music and films
• Satisfying family life
• Actively involved in sports
• Consumption of soft drinks and beer / alcohol
• Looser gender roles
• Less strict sexual norms
• Maintaining national order not a priority
• Freedom of speech is important
• Use email and internet for private contacts and with foreigners
Japan 42
Philippines 42
Mongolia 42
Spain 44
Thailand 45
Singapore 46
• Summarized from: (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, Cultures and Organizations:Software of the Mind, 2010)
Mongolian indulgence vs
Restraint (IVR)
A recent addition. Dr. Minkov developed
this dimension to incorporate happiness, life
control and leisure influences on society. It
also indicates the level societal negativity and
cynicism.
Indulgence stands for a society that allows
relatively free gratification, enjoying life and
having fun. These cultures tend to be optimistic
and positive, have flexible social morals, and
are more expressive. This is readily apparent
in Latin American cultures such as El Salvador
(89), Mexico (97), and Venezuela (100).
Restraint societies encourages the suppression
of personal desires, have strict social norms,
take a strong disciplinary stance, and tend to a
more cynical and negative social perspective.
Examples would be Pakistan (0), Latvia (13),
and Bulgaria 16.
Mongolia scores as a minor Restraint country.
This could be due to its nomadic history, where
families and communities needed conserve
resources and be cautious in social interactions
to ensure survival in a harsh environment.
They also tend to make efforts and enjoy what
they have when permitted, as demonstrated by
the lavish family preparations done during the
Nadaam and Tsagaan Sar holidays.
Mongolia tends to be similar to its Asian partners
in this dimension. There is a conservatism
in committing resources and finding ways to
reduce costs. But there is also pressure to
not appear “cheap,” with formal dinners and
entertainment being key opportunities for
demonstrating affluence and building solidarity.
In comparison, interactions with Americans
present the Mongolians with an opportunity to
take advantage of their indulgence and liberal
attitude. They will openly accept the “free”
money and services often provided, seeing
many westerners as resources to be exploited.
Table 9. Countries with similar IVR scores
Figure 10. Five partners IVR scores
21Mongolian?#ultural?and?BehaVioral?StudY?2022
Accuracy of Findings
and Validation
it is impossible to exactly replicate the
dimensions as originally created by Hofstede
due to issues of equivalence, bias, scale, and
linguistic adaptation impacting the research
data (Byrne, 2016). Global conditions have
also evolved and changed, impacting national
cultures. Therefore, a variety of analytical tests
were made to validate the results. When items
were analyzed simultaneously, and across
all participants, the six targeted dimensions
materialized clearly. After excluding the
herders and selecting only the three highest
loading items from the previous solutions a
clear solution of each dimension was obtained.
Six components with eigenvalues over 1.00,
explaining 50.05 percent of variance were used
as the basis for the validation. When the herders
were included in this analysis, with three items
per factor, the result was seven factors with
eigenvalues over one, yet the seventh one
had an eigenvalue of 1.004, barely passing
the conventional threshold. These calculations
were reviewed by several external experts and
validated for further analysis.
Future Analysis and
Publication
This preliminary report serves as an introduction
to the findings and an outline of upcoming
analysis. To further clarify understanding of
Mongolia, SICA will be releasing a series
of publications over the next year. Upon
completion the articles will be re-analyzed and
compiled into an anthology.
№ Titles of upcoming related publications
1 Big Five Personality scoring for Mongolia
2 Generational breakdown of Cultural dimensions in Mongolia
3 Rural Vs. Urban Dimensions in Mongolia
4 Gender Dimension differences in Mongolia
5 Income and cultural dimensions in Mongolia
6 Power Distance Index from Mongolian context
7 Collectivism Index from the Mongolian context
8 Masculinity index from the Mongolian context
9 Uncertainty avoidance from the Mongolian context
10Time orientation from the Mongolian Context
11Indulgence from the Mongolian Context
12Mongolian Cultural Dimensions
Accuracy of Findings
and Validation
it is impossible to exactly replicate the
dimensions as originally created by Hofstede
due to issues of equivalence, bias, scale, and
linguistic adaptation impacting the research
data (Byrne, 2016). Global conditions have
also evolved and changed, impacting national
cultures. Therefore, a variety of analytical tests
were made to validate the results. When items
were analyzed simultaneously, and across
all participants, the six targeted dimensions
materialized clearly. After excluding the
herders and selecting only the three highest
loading items from the previous solutions a
clear solution of each dimension was obtained.
Six components with eigenvalues over 1.00,
explaining 50.05 percent of variance were used
as the basis for the validation. When the herders
were included in this analysis, with three items
per factor, the result was seven factors with
eigenvalues over one, yet the seventh one
had an eigenvalue of 1.004, barely passing
the conventional threshold. These calculations
were reviewed by several external experts and
validated for further analysis.
Future Analysis and
Publication
This preliminary report serves as an introduction
to the findings and an outline of upcoming
analysis. To further clarify understanding of
Mongolia, SICA will be releasing a series
of publications over the next year. Upon
completion the articles will be re-analyzed and
compiled into an anthology.
№ Titles of upcoming related publications
1 Big Five Personality scoring for Mongolia
2 Generational breakdown of Cultural dimensions in Mongolia
3 Rural Vs. Urban Dimensions in Mongolia
4 Gender Dimension differences in Mongolia
5 Income and cultural dimensions in Mongolia
6 Power Distance Index from Mongolian context
7 Collectivism Index from the Mongolian context
8 Masculinity index from the Mongolian context
9 Uncertainty avoidance from the Mongolian context
10Time orientation from the Mongolian Context
11Indulgence from the Mongolian Context
12Mongolian Cultural Dimensions
22Mongolian?#ultural?and?BehaVioral?StudY?2022
References
Byrne, B. M. (2016). Adaptation of Assessment Scales in Cross-National Research: Issues,
Guidelines, and Caveats. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation,
Vol. 5, No. 1, 51–65.
Central Intelligence Agency . (2022, 01 06). Philippines. Retrieved from CIA.gov: https://www.cia.
gov/the-world-factbook/countries/philippines/
Central Intelligence Agency. (2021, 12 21). Indonesia. Retrieved from www.cia.gov: https://www.cia.
gov/the-world-factbook/countries/indonesia/
Charles Rarick, G. W. (2014). Mongolia: a Cultural protrait using the Hofstede 5-D Model. Global
Journal of Management and Business Research, 14(9), 1-9.
Enkh-Amgalan, R. (2016). The Indulgence and Restraint Cultural Dimension: A Cross-Cultural
Study of Mongolia and theUnited States. Johnson City: East Tennessee State University.
Fischer, R. (2009). Where is Culture in Cross Cultural Research? An outline of a multilevel research
process of measuring culture as a shared meaning system. Cross Cultural Management , 25-49.
Geert Jan Hofstede, P. B. (2002). Exploring Culture: Exercises, Stories and Synthetic Cultures.
London: Intercultural Press Inc.
Hofstede Insights. (2021, December 10). National Culture. Retrieved from Hofstede Insights: https://
www.hofstede-insights.com/models/national-culture/
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings
in Psychology and Culture, sub-unit 1. Retrieved from Online Readings in Psychology and Culture:
https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Hofstede, G. (2021, 12 12). dimension data matrix. Retrieved from geerthofstede.com: https://
geerthofstede.com/research-and-vsm/dimension-data-matrix/
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations:Software of the
Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kremlin News. (2016, 06 23). Meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping and President of
Mongolia Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj. Retrieved from en.kremlin.ru: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/
news/52211
Legge, J. D. (2022, 01 10). Indonesia. Retrieved from Encyclopedia Britannica: https://www.
britannica.com/place/Indonesia
Livermore, D. (1967). Leading with Cultural Intelligence. new York: AMACOM.
Messner, W. (2015). Measuring existent intercultural. International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 107 - 132.
References
Byrne, B. M. (2016). Adaptation of Assessment Scales in Cross-National Research: Issues,
Guidelines, and Caveats. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation,
Vol. 5, No. 1, 51–65.
Central Intelligence Agency . (2022, 01 06). Philippines. Retrieved from CIA.gov: https://www.cia.
gov/the-world-factbook/countries/philippines/
Central Intelligence Agency. (2021, 12 21). Indonesia. Retrieved from www.cia.gov: https://www.cia.
gov/the-world-factbook/countries/indonesia/
Charles Rarick, G. W. (2014). Mongolia: a Cultural protrait using the Hofstede 5-D Model. Global
Journal of Management and Business Research, 14(9), 1-9.
Enkh-Amgalan, R. (2016). The Indulgence and Restraint Cultural Dimension: A Cross-Cultural
Study of Mongolia and theUnited States. Johnson City: East Tennessee State University.
Fischer, R. (2009). Where is Culture in Cross Cultural Research? An outline of a multilevel research
process of measuring culture as a shared meaning system. Cross Cultural Management , 25-49.
Geert Jan Hofstede, P. B. (2002). Exploring Culture: Exercises, Stories and Synthetic Cultures.
London: Intercultural Press Inc.
Hofstede Insights. (2021, December 10). National Culture. Retrieved from Hofstede Insights: https://
www.hofstede-insights.com/models/national-culture/
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings
in Psychology and Culture, sub-unit 1. Retrieved from Online Readings in Psychology and Culture:
https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Hofstede, G. (2021, 12 12). dimension data matrix. Retrieved from geerthofstede.com: https://
geerthofstede.com/research-and-vsm/dimension-data-matrix/
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations:Software of the
Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kremlin News. (2016, 06 23). Meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping and President of
Mongolia Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj. Retrieved from en.kremlin.ru: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/
news/52211
Legge, J. D. (2022, 01 10). Indonesia. Retrieved from Encyclopedia Britannica: https://www.
britannica.com/place/Indonesia
Livermore, D. (1967). Leading with Cultural Intelligence. new York: AMACOM.
Messner, W. (2015). Measuring existent intercultural. International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 107 - 132.
23Mongolian?#ultural?and?BehaVioral?StudY?2022
Michael H. Hoppe, R. E. (2014). Leader Effectiveness and Culture: The GLOBE Study. Greensboro:
Center for Creative Leadership.
Michael Minkov, A. K. (2021). A Test of the Revised Minkov-Hofstede Model of Culture: Mirror
Images of Subjective and Objective Culture across Nations and the 50 US States. Cross-Cultural
Research(55 (2-3)), 230–281. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971211014468
Michael Minkov, G. H. (2011). Is National Culture a Meaningful Concept? Cultural Values Delineate
Homogeneous National Clusters of In-Country Regions. Cross-Cultural Research, 133-159.
Michael Minkov, G. H. (2012). Hofstede’s Fifth Dimension : New Evidence From the World Values
Survey. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 3-14.
Minkov, M. (1987). Chinese Values and the Search for Culture-Free Dimensions of Culture. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 143-164.
Plamen Akaliyski, C. W. (2021). A community of shared values? Dimensions and dynamics of
cultural integration in the European Union. Journal of European Integration. doi:10.1080/07036337
.2021.1956915
Robert Guida, D. T. (2015). Managing Challenges Across Cultures. Milan: McGraw-Hill Education.
Schwartz, S. H. (1997). Influences of Adaptation to Communist Rule on Value Priorities in Eastern
Europe. Political Psychology,. Political Psychology, 18(2), , 385–410. . Retrieved from http://www.
jstor.org/stable/3791774
SICA LLC. (2020). Mongolian Generation Study. Ulaanbaatar: SICA. Retrieved from https://www.
datamon.mn/content/detail/30/
Sunduijav, T. (2008). Cross Cultural Aspects of Advertising - cultural analyis of Mongolian and
Chinese websites. Zlin: Tomas Bata University .
Tasse, M. (2016). EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF CROSS-CULTURAL TEAMS. PMI Mongolia
2016 Annual Conference. Ulaanbaatar: PMI Mongolia.
Terrence Edwards, B. B. (2016, 10 22). Mongolia says Dalai Lama won’t be invited again. Retrieved
from Thomson Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mongolia-china-idUSKBN14B0N5
UNESCO. (2022, 01 15). Mongolia. Retrieved from UNESCO Institute for Statistics: http://uis.
unesco.org/en/country/mn
Zhuralvlev, S. (2018). Egalitarian Concept and Practices of Labour Motivation in the Soviet Industry
in the 1920-1980s. The Journal of Caparitive Economic Studies, 103-128.
Х.Ариунаа. (2018, 03 01). АЙГУУЛЛАГЫН СОЁЛЫГ ХЭМЖИХ НЬ: МОНГОЛ УЛСЫН ХҮРЭЭНД
ХИЙСЭН ХОФСТЕДИЙН САНАЛ АСУУЛГЫН ЭМПИРИК ҮНЭЛГЭЭ. Proceedings of the
Mongolian Academy of Science, pp. 140-158.
Michael H. Hoppe, R. E. (2014). Leader Effectiveness and Culture: The GLOBE Study. Greensboro:
Center for Creative Leadership.
Michael Minkov, A. K. (2021). A Test of the Revised Minkov-Hofstede Model of Culture: Mirror
Images of Subjective and Objective Culture across Nations and the 50 US States. Cross-Cultural
Research(55 (2-3)), 230–281. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971211014468
Michael Minkov, G. H. (2011). Is National Culture a Meaningful Concept? Cultural Values Delineate
Homogeneous National Clusters of In-Country Regions. Cross-Cultural Research, 133-159.
Michael Minkov, G. H. (2012). Hofstede’s Fifth Dimension : New Evidence From the World Values
Survey. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 3-14.
Minkov, M. (1987). Chinese Values and the Search for Culture-Free Dimensions of Culture. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 143-164.
Plamen Akaliyski, C. W. (2021). A community of shared values? Dimensions and dynamics of
cultural integration in the European Union. Journal of European Integration. doi:10.1080/07036337
.2021.1956915
Robert Guida, D. T. (2015). Managing Challenges Across Cultures. Milan: McGraw-Hill Education.
Schwartz, S. H. (1997). Influences of Adaptation to Communist Rule on Value Priorities in Eastern
Europe. Political Psychology,. Political Psychology, 18(2), , 385–410. . Retrieved from http://www.
jstor.org/stable/3791774
SICA LLC. (2020). Mongolian Generation Study. Ulaanbaatar: SICA. Retrieved from https://www.
datamon.mn/content/detail/30/
Sunduijav, T. (2008). Cross Cultural Aspects of Advertising - cultural analyis of Mongolian and
Chinese websites. Zlin: Tomas Bata University .
Tasse, M. (2016). EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF CROSS-CULTURAL TEAMS. PMI Mongolia
2016 Annual Conference. Ulaanbaatar: PMI Mongolia.
Terrence Edwards, B. B. (2016, 10 22). Mongolia says Dalai Lama won’t be invited again. Retrieved
from Thomson Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mongolia-china-idUSKBN14B0N5
UNESCO. (2022, 01 15). Mongolia. Retrieved from UNESCO Institute for Statistics: http://uis.
unesco.org/en/country/mn
Zhuralvlev, S. (2018). Egalitarian Concept and Practices of Labour Motivation in the Soviet Industry
in the 1920-1980s. The Journal of Caparitive Economic Studies, 103-128.
Х.Ариунаа. (2018, 03 01). АЙГУУЛЛАГЫН СОЁЛЫГ ХЭМЖИХ НЬ: МОНГОЛ УЛСЫН ХҮРЭЭНД
ХИЙСЭН ХОФСТЕДИЙН САНАЛ АСУУЛГЫН ЭМПИРИК ҮНЭЛГЭЭ. Proceedings of the
Mongolian Academy of Science, pp. 140-158.
Address:
Floor 7th, BlueMon office, Baga Toiruu,
J.Sambuu’s street, Khoroo 8th, Sukhbaatar
district, Ulaanbaatar 14241, Mongolia
Floor 7th, BlueMon office, Baga Toiruu,
J.Sambuu’s street, Khoroo 8th, Sukhbaatar
district, Ulaanbaatar 14241, Mongolia
Categories
EducationDownload
Download Slideshow Get the original presentation fileQuick Actions
Statistics
- Views 1,033
- Slides 23
- Age 1333 days
Related Slideshows
11
TLE-9-Prepare-Salad-and-Dressing.pptxkkk
MaAngelicaCanceran
32 views
12
LESSON 1 ABOUT MEDIA AND INFORMATION.pptx
JojitGueta
27 views
60
GRADE-8-AQUACULTURE-WEEKQ1.pdfdfawgwyrsewru
MaAngelicaCanceran
43 views
26
Feelings PP Game FOR CHILDREN IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.pptx
KaistaGlow
42 views
![Jeopardy_Figures_of_Speech_Template.pptx [Autosaved].pptx](https://slidepub.com/thumb/5828/284015828.jpg)
54
Jeopardy_Figures_of_Speech_Template.pptx [Autosaved].pptx
acecamero20
27 views
7
Jeopardy_Figures_of_Speech.pptxvdsvdsvsdvsd
acecamero20
27 views