“Cultural Compass” of International Sociological Ratings on the “Organizational Culture” of the Arctic States

DOI:

H, ORCID:

, ORCID:

, ORCID:

, ORCID:

Panoptic, or encyclopedic, analysis (and it is the breadth of the scientific view that comes to mind when we talk about the vast expanse of the Arctic and the number of geopolitical parties interested in its development) necessarily implies that new knowledge is found precisely at the crossroads of interdisciplinary methodologies and the intersections of the boundaries of different fields of knowledge and models. A systemic vision always makes sure that big data is not hidden from it by the dry statistics that constantly floats over the “ocean of Arctic information”. A comparative-analytical approach should certainly penetrate to a depth of facts and extract relevant knowledge from the darkness for all stakeholders interested in studying and developing the Arctic. It is no secret that not only those countries that border the Arctic, but also those that do not have a direct geographical connection to it, are now interested in exploring the Arctic. Therefore, at the present stage, this interest should be viewed through the prism of significant transformations, the most important of which is the so-called transition from “the Empty World to the Full World”. The metaphor of the “Empty World”, outlined in the Club of Rome report (2018), reflects the millen-nia-long history of humankind, when it steadily expanded the boundaries of the world through pioneering movements and outward frontier shifts, but due to the weakness of production systems was not able to make any significant impact on vast natural landscapes for a sufficiently long period of time.

The circles of cultural and economic expansion, emanating from different centers of human civilization, diverging and collectively synchronizing across the planet in a form that can be conventionally associated with spiral autowaves, permanently overlapped, reinforced, or absorbed each other, forming an invisible pattern of potential influence and quite visible contour of state and economic borders, determined both by the specific efforts of individual states and by purely geographical and climatic factors. The well-known “immensity of the world” absorbed the impacts of Man for a time. With the advent of the era of “Full World”, humanity not only mastered and occupied everything that could be mastered and occupied, but also reached boundaries that were previously considered undevelopable, in particular, the borders of the Arctic. A distinctive feature of the “Full World” was that the influence of the “economy” began to encroach on the ecosystem, and the growth of the economy was supposed to “bump” into the known limits of the Earth, following the law of conservation of matter and energy (the First Law of Thermodynamics), forcing humanity to seek ways of intensive development. Under such conditions, nature and the ecosystem began to be viewed not as a “workshop” or a bottomless “storeroom” of humanity, but as a stakeholder, i.e. a “living” subject of planetary synergetic and cybernetic relations, which has and “pursues” its “interests”. In this case, the relationship between nature and society is increasingly acquiring a noospheric character.

It is noteworthy that society itself is fundamentally changing. K. Popper’s famous metaphor of the “clocks and clouds”, i.e. an open and closed society, can no longer remain the only guideline and criterion, thanks to which the “open” is always opposed to the “closed”, and the “free” to the “unfree”. In the conditions of transition from an empty world to a full one, an open society also loses its ideological meaning, since almost everything is already open, in this case it becomes clear that the further development of an open society is a conditionally cyclical transition to its opposite.

Returning to the metaphor of the “ocean of Arctic information”, it should be noted that this ocean will be developed precisely in the light of the struggle of the conditional “cloud” and “clock”, i.e. mixed strategies of open and closed types of society. This synthesis will give rise to well-known and new cultural dilemmas both in relations between different countries and within them. Isolationism in Arctic development will compete with international co-operation, open data in the development of the Arctic will alternate with closed data of national security and strategic tasks. Common use of the Arctic will determine the so-called “tragedy of the commons” in international “Arctic affairs”, when individual users, having open access to the common good of all users and not having exclusive rights to it, will lead to the depletion of the common resource by their uncoordinated actions. The solution to this dilemma lies in the balance between the needs of users and the degree of resource depletion. Consequently, the Arctic becomes a center of attraction for many players, stakeholders. It is clear that modelling such a balance of strategies of Arctic players is complex. The general direction of uncoordinated actions continues to remain within the framework of the so-called “zero-sum game”, where a win for one side necessarily funds a complete loss for the other side.

The search for an Arctic “Nash equilibrium”, i.e. a set of strategies in a game for two or more players, in which no participant can increase their winnings by changing their strategy if the other participants do not change their strategies, seems to be the most important task of forming “multi-stakeholder governance”, the purpose of which is to ensure the best quality in decisionmaking.

The latter is impossible without the transition from the so-called smart mobs to smart stakeholders.

Interoperability of stakeholders, i.e. their functional compatibility in education, science, production, innovation and, of course, culture, should become a condition for realization of this transition. Soft skills and hard skills should be combined with the functional literacy of all participants in the process.

We should not forget about other problems, such as the “tragedy of anti-commons”, when the owners of exclusive rights to breakthrough Arctic technologies or some good maximize only their own profits. For example, patent payments to the author of an invention used in the production of goods can lead to unprofitability of the product if there are too many patents. Moreover,

NORTHERN AND ARCTIC SOCIETIES

Elena V. Kudryashova, Artem V. Makulin, Mikhail Yu. Openkov, Sun Yanan, Yan Ke … everyone suffers: authors of patents (underpayments), producers (forced to raise prices and sell less), consumers (buy at triple the price).

Another factor determining the modern development of the Arctic is the so-called disruptive technologies and innovations, which are the essence of “creative destruction” (alternative: German Schöpferische Zerstörung). The term was popularized by the economist Joseph Schumpeter in the 1940s. In other words, the challenges posed by the so-called Industry 4.0 create a problem that can be conventionally designated as Arctic 4.0. It is no longer steam and steel, electricity and nuclear energy, computers, i.e. everything that was the driving force of the past three industrial revolutions, that will determine the sustainable development of the world, but the emergence of intelligent machines, the Internet of Things, big data will set the vectors of economic, social and even cultural development of mankind.

It will be possible to gain the necessary advantages in the undoubtedly competitive Arctic environment only by working with big data, i.e. by extracting elements of not only breakthrough technical information, but also arrays of information about the soft power of geopolitical players, about the organizational culture of countries, their cultural code, their ability to resist “linguistic imperialism”, their ability to preserve cultural sovereignty in the era of artificial intelligence and big linguistic models.

In this regard, let us attention to a number of existing methodologies that, through broad longitudinal sociological studies, reveal a number of questions that, on the one hand, relate to the description of how countries act on the basis of the most general cultural and value orientations inherent specifically to these countries, and on the other hand, how these countries can interact, for example, in the context of developing the Arctic, how compatible their organizational cultures are, and how existing models and ratings, built on the basis of broad sociological surveys, reflect this organizational and cultural compatibility/incompatibility.

Methodology of research on the “cultural compass” of the subarctic countries

Among the variety of [1, Ashurbekov R.Kh.] sociological methods, one can highlight the World Values Survey (WVS) and the so-called Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the World (R.F. In-glehart). It is also impossible to ignore the methods of G. Hofstede (Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory), S. Schwartz (Theory of Basic Values) [2, Kuznetsov A.E.], F. Trompenaars (Trompenaars’s model of national culture differences, F. Trompenaars, C. Hampden-Turner) 1. It is noteworthy that there is already an array of accumulated data over several decades of research. The most famous method is the Hofstede model, which has been the subject of many works [3, Veriga V.L.; 4, Gorbunova O.A.; 5, Minkov M.; 6, Myasoedov S.P.]. Recently, works devoted to the application of models to specific countries, such as the PRC, have been published [7, Mikhelson S.V.; 8, Skalnaya O.A.; 9, He Ya.; 10, Kikot I.N.]

Thus, impressive data has been accumulated, which are expressed in laconic models, for some of which there are dynamic visualizations showing the transformation of a country’s position over a certain period of time (for example, the Inglehart–Welzel Cultural Map) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Inglehart–Welzel “Cultural Map of the World” (1996–2011)

Y-axis: traditional values, secular-rational values; x-axis: survival values, self-expression values 2.

For 2023, the value correlations according to the Inglehart–Welzel Cultural Map are as follows

(Fig. 2):

The Inglehart-Welzel World Cultural Map 2023

Survival vs. Self-Expression Values

Fig. 2. Inglehart–Welzel “Cultural Map of the World” (2023)

Y-axis: traditional values vs. secular-rational values; x-axis: survival values vs. self-expression values 3.

For other models, online resources have been created that allow entering country names into search engines and seeing their profile, i.e. their structured description using various premeasured indicators.

• ²    Inglehart–Welzel Cultural Map. URL: https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp?CMSID=findings (accessed 02 March 2024).

• ³    Inglehart–Welzel Cultural Map. URL: https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/images/Map2023NEW.png (accessed 02 March 2024).

The resource allows comparing the indicators of any two countries.

Fig. 3. Trompenaars’s model of national cultural differences (Russia / Sweden) 5.

Using this resource, we obtained the result we were interested in, in particular, the indicators of the Arctic Council countries and China, which are presented in Table 1 and Fig. 4.

Table 1

Indicators of the Arctic Council countries and China (F. Trompenaars’s model)

		.5	<	го го с го о	с ф ф 5 СУ)	го" 5 о г	го с	го о	го Е ф Q
1	Universalism/ Particularism	26	92	90	65	82	57	87	86	25
2	Individualism/ Communitarianism	92	91	67	83	95	90	94	76	23
3	Specific/ Diffuse	86	90	76	89	94	92	91	79	21
4	Neutral/ Affective	6	65	67	86	94	91	95	83	90
5	Achievement/ Ascription	16	91	82	86	89	88	95	83	22
6	Past, Present, Future	46	14	5	11	17	10	33	13	28
7	Sequential/	32	68	59	94	92	90	95	89	37

⁴ Trompenaars Hampden-Turner Connecting Viewpoints. URL: factory/culture-explore/compare-countries/ (accessed 02 March 2024).

5 Ibid.

	Synchronic
8	Internal/External	51	94	88	34	40	36	77	65	17

• ■    1. Universalism/Particularism

• ■    2. Individualism/Communitarianism

• ■    3. Specific/Diffuse

• ■    4. Neutral/Affective

• ■    5. Achievement/Ascription

• ■    6. Past, Present, Future

■ 7. Sequential/Synchronic

■ 8. Internal/External

Fig. 4. Comparative indicators of the Arctic Council countries and China (Trompenaars’s model).

Besides, the electronic resource “Trompenaars Hampden-Turner Connecting Viewpoints” makes it possible to obtain a decoding of the obtained results. Let us consider what the extreme and average values express on a specific example (Russian Federation — Sweden). The obtained data are presented in Table 2.

Table 2

Decoding of indicators for the Russian Federation and Sweden (F. Trompenaars’s model)

1	Universalism/ Particularism	26 — Russians are relationship-oriented.	65 — Swedes tend to value rules in relationships.
2	Individualism/ Communitarianism	92 — Russians have a strong personality orientation.	83 — Swedes tend to rate individuality highly on this dimension.
3	Specific (special culture)/ Diffuse	86 — Russians have a very low level of personal involvement in business.	89 — Swedes tend to rate personal involvement in business very low on this dimension.
4	Neutral/ Affective	6 — Russians have a very high tendency to show emotions.	86 — Swedes tend to hide emotions.
5	Achievement/ Ascription	16 — Russians tend to use their given status.	86 — Swedes tend to value achievement (in what they do) very highly.
6	Past, Present, Future	46 — Russians’ orientation in this regard is balanced between extremes.	11 — Swedes tend to be very future-oriented.
7	Sequential/ Synchronic	32 — Russians are more inclined to multitask than to perform a single task.	94 — Swedes tend to be more task-oriented.
8	Internal/External	51 — Russians’ orientation is balanced between extremes.	34 — Swedes tend to “go with the flow” rather than to take control.

It is also necessary to consider the data for other countries.

Attention should be paid to China and the USA.

• 1.    The Chinese, as a rule, highly value relationships in this aspect.

• 2.    — / —, as a rule, highly value groups in this aspect.

• 3.    — / —, as a rule, highly value personal participation in business.

• 4.    — / —, as a rule, tend to hide their emotions.

• 5.    — / —, as a rule, tend to use their status.

• 6.    — / — tend to have a high future orientation.

• 7.    — / — tend to be more inclined to multi -task than single-task.

• 8.    — / — tend to “go with the flow”.

USA:

• 1.    Americans tend to value rules very highly in this dimension.

• 2.    — / — tend to value individuals very highly in this dimension.

• 3.    — / — tend to have a very low level of personal involvement in business in this dimension.

• 4.    — / — tend to hide rather than show emotions.

• 5.    — / — tend to value achievements (what they do) very highly.

• 6.    — / — tend to value the future very highly.

• 7.    — / — tend to be more inclined to single-task than multi-task.

• 8.    — / —, as a rule, are very inclined to take everything under control.

Using such data, assuming that they are correct, it is possible to build predictive models of interaction in business, taking into account the strategies of the parties. For example, in this regard, in our opinion, convenient tools would be: the game-theoretic model “Prisoner’s Dilemma”, “SWOT analysis”, etc.

The second resource for analyzing the world of values of different countries is the Geert Hofstede model — not the model itself, but the data obtained on its basis and published by “The culture factor group” — the current brand of Hofstede Insights Ltd.6 — a Finnish consulting company on cultural analytics and strategy. The company’s website states that this organization has offices in 10 countries and strategic alliances covering more than 60 countries.

The concept of the Dutch social anthropologist Geert Hofstede 7, similar in its purpose to the model of F. Trompenaars, also represents a universal model for determining the characteristics of the culture of countries. In its modern form, it is represented by the following indicators: Power distance index; Individualism vs. Collectivism; Motivation towards Achievement and Success (in Russian scientific literature this parameter is called “femininity/masculinity” — editor’s note); Uncertainty avoidance index; Long-term orientation vs short-term orientation; Indulgence vs restraint. In sociological and socio-philosophical discourses, Geert Hofstede’s model [11, Bataeva B.S.] is also known as the “culture compass”. This metaphor expresses a certain research inten- tion to search for “cultural barriers” that hinder understanding between people belonging to different cultures and, accordingly, being carriers of different cultural attitudes, values, algorithms and patterns of cultural behavior.

It is also striking that the metaphor of the “compass of values” was expressed quite accurately by W. Heisenberg in his work “Physics and Philosophy. Part and Whole”. He wrote: “The question of values is, after all, a question of what we do, what we strive for, how we should behave. Therefore, it is a question about man and for man; it is a question about the compass, which we should be guided by when finding our way in life. This compass has received different names in different religions and worldviews: happiness, God’s will, meaning and many others. The difference in names speaks of very deep differences in the structure of consciousness of human groups that have called their compasses by such names. I in no way wish to belittle these differences.

However, I have the impression that all formulations refer to the attitude of people to the central world order” [12, Heisenberg W.].

On the Hofstede-insights website 8, in the tabs “Our Models” — “Country comparison tool”, one can select a country and see its indicators according to the above criteria (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5. Russia’s indicators in “Hofstede’s Dimensions of Culture” 9.

By analogy with the model of F. Trompenaars’s, we can build a data table based on G. Hof-stede’s model (Table 3, Fig. 5).

Table 3

Indicators of the Arctic Council countries and China (G. Hofstede’s model)

	5	< о	го го с го о	с ф ф 5 СУ)	го" 5 о г	"с го с	"с го о	го Е с ф Q
Power distance index (PDI)	93	40	39	31	31	33	30	18	80
Individualism vs. collectivism (IDV)	46	60	72	87	81	75	83	89	43
Motivation towards Achievement and Success	36	62	52	5	8	26	10	16	66
Uncertainty avoidance index (UAI)	95	46	48	29	50	59	50	23	30
Long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation (LTO)	58	50	54	52	55	63	57	59	77
Indulgence vs. restraint (IND)	20	68	68	78	55	57	67	70	24

Russia

Denmark

Iceland

Finland

Norway

Sweden

Canada

USA

PRC

О        50       100       150      200       250       300       350      400

■ 1. Power distance index (PDI)

■ 2. Individualism vs. collectivism (IDV)

■ 3. Motivation towards Achievement and Success (MAS)

■ 4. Uncertainty avoidance index (UAI)

■ 5. Long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation (LTO)

■ 6. Indulgence vs. restraint (IND)

Fig. 5. Comparative indicators of the Arctic Council countries and China (Hofstede’s model).

Comparative analysis of organizational culture in Arctic countries and China

Now we can compare the results obtained by two companies based on the Trompenaars and Hofstede models. The comparison provides an interesting picture of the variation in indicators in these models.

The next step is to understand the difference between the indicators of different countries. This can be done by identifying the difference between the indicators of the compared countries. In general, if we take 9 countries, then combinatorial search will give us a finite set of combinations (Table 4).

Table 4

Paired comparison of countries based on sociological data (Trompenaars model (TM) and Hofstede model (HM))

RF	1 RF — USA	2 RF — Canada	3 RF — Sweden	4 RF — Norway	5 RF — Finland	6 RF — Iceland	7 RF — Denmark	8 RF — PRC
TM	316	331	315	328	305	338	331	282
HM	198	195	264	208	177	219	261	134
USA		9 USA — Canada	10 USA — Sweden	11 USA — Norway	12 USA — Finland	13 USA — Iceland	14 USA — Denmark	15 USA — PRC
TM		75	151	130	151	106	109	420
HM		29	122	106	95	97	131	148
Canada			16 Canada — Sweden	17 Canada — Norway	18 Canada — Finland	19 Canada — Iceland	20 Canada — Denmark	21 Canada — PRC
TM			172	181	190	161	94	363
HM			101	77	66	68	106	169
Sweden				22 Sweden — Norway	23 Sweden — Finland	24 Sweden — Iceland	25 Sweden — Denmark	26 Sweden — PRC
TM				59	32	119	82	327
HM				56	97	47	47	234
Norway					27 Norway — Finland	28 Norway — Iceland	29 Norway — Denmark	30 Norway — PRC
TM					49	72	87	362
HM					45	19	75	218
Finland						31 Finland — Iceland	32 Finland — Denmark	33 Finland — PRC
TM						115	102	327
HM						52	92	195
Iceland							34 Iceland — Denmark	35 Iceland — PRC
TM							93	404
HM							56	229
Denmark								36 Denmark — PRC
TM								355
HM								229

Formal analysis of the obtained data allows ranking the countries by the degree of similari-ty/difference in the two models (Table 5).

Table 5

Comparative table of ranking countries by the degree of differences (in ascending order) in the Trompenaars

(TM) and Hofstede (HM) models

Rating	Country	TM	Country	HM
High level
1.	23 Sweden — Finland	32	28 Norway — Iceland	19
2.	27 Norway — Finland	49	9 USA — Canada	29
3.	22 Sweden — Norway	59	27 Norway — Finland	45
4.	28 Norway — Iceland	72	24 Sweden — Iceland	47
5.	9 USA — Canada	75	25 Sweden — Denmark	47
6.	25 Sweden — Denmark	82	31 Finland — Iceland	52
7.	29 Norway — Denmark	87	22 Sweden — Norway	56
8.	34 Iceland — Denmark	93	34 Iceland — Denmark	56

9.	20 Canada — Denmark	94	18 Canada — Finland	66
10.	32 Finland — Denmark	102	19 Canada — Iceland	68
11.	13 USA — Iceland	106	29 Norway — Denmark	75
12.	14 USA — Denmark	109	17 Canada — Norway	77
Medium level
13.	31Finland — Iceland	115	32 Finland — Denmark	92
14.	24 Sweden — Iceland	119	12 USA — Finland	95
15.	11 USA — Norway	130	13 USA — Iceland	97
16.	10 USA — Sweden	151	23 Sweden — Finland	97
17.	12 USA — Finland	151	16 Canada — Sweden	101
18.	19 Canada — Iceland	161	11 USA — Norway	106
19.	16 Canada — Sweden	172	20 Canada — Denmark	106
20.	17 Canada — Norway	181	10 USA — Sweden	122
21.	18 Canada — Finland	190	14 USA — Denmark	131
22.	8 RF — PRC	282	8 RF — PRC	134
23.	5 RF — Finland	305	15 USA — PRC	148
24.	3 RF — Sweden	315	21 Canada — PRC	169
Low level
25.	1 RF — USA	316	5 RF — Finland	177
26.	26 Sweden — PRC	327	2 RF — Canada	195
27.	33 Finland — PRC	327	33 Finland — PRC	195
28.	4 RF — Norway	328	1 RF — USA	198
29.	2 RF — Canada	331	4 RF — Norway	208
30.	7 RF — Denmark	331	30 Norway — PRC	218
31.	6 RF — Iceland	338	6 RF — Iceland	219
32.	36 Denmark — PRC	355	35 Iceland — PRC	229
33.	30 Norway — PRC	362	36 Denmark — PRC	229
34.	21 Canada — PRC	363	26 Sweden — PRC	234
35.	35 Iceland — PRC	404	7 RF — Denmark	261
36.	15 USA — PRC	420	3 RF — Sweden	264

Analysis of the positions of countries at three levels (high, medium, low) gives the following results. According to both models, a high level of similarity of the “cultural compass” can be found only among Western countries, and the level of similarity is quite high among the northern countries. The leaders of the rating are Sweden — Finland (TM) and Norway — Iceland (HM). A high level can also be noted for the pair USA — Canada. At the medium level, Russia is added to the list of countries with common features. It is also noteworthy that in both models, Russia — China share 22nd position out of 36 possible. A low level of compatibility of indicators, according to both models, is noted in those pairs where Russia and China appear. The pair USA — China is the most different according to TM, and Russia — Sweden — according to HM.

One should also note a significant difference of indicators between the models: thus, TM evaluates the level of common values of the pair Russia — Sweden as the lower limit of the medium level, while HM places this pair on the last step of its rating.

In general, it can be noted that both ratings place Russia and China at the lowest level of formation of common cultural positions in relations with Western countries. Both models give very different results for a number of countries. For example, TM evaluates the similarity of the

USA — China as the most negative (36th position), on the other hand, HM puts the same pair on the lower limit of the medium level (23rd position). Other data also look contradictory, for example, the Russian Federation is similar to Finland, just as the USA is similar to China (23rd position), the Russian Federation is similar to Sweden, just as Canada is similar to China (24th position).

The main factors that formed the difference in organizational culture were the following parameters:

• •    Within the TM: a significant difference between Russia and other Arctic Council countries was revealed for a number of indicators at once (1. Universalism / particularism; 4. Neutral / affective; 5. Achievement / ascription (belonging); 6. Past, present, future; 7. Sequential/ Synchronic). A significant contribution to the difference in the organizational culture of the USA and Canada from such countries as Sweden, Norway, Finland was made by parameter 8. Internal / external.

• •    Within the HM: “power distance index” in relations between Russia and other countries, with the exception of China; “motivation towards achievement and success” in relations between the USA and Canada on the one hand and the Arctic Council countries, excluding Russia and China, on the other.

Thus, both ratings regarding organizational culture on the example of Arctic countries seem to be relatively coinciding. However, despite the partial coincidence of the ratings’ findings, it can be noted that there are also serious contradictions.

Conclusion

Several conclusions can be drawn from the analyses conducted:

• 1.    The development of models of national and organizational culture, as well as their verification through mass sociological research, is an important area of social epistemology, sociology and cultural studies, making it possible to look at the world community as a dynamic, heterogeneous system consisting of many ways of cultural development and intercultural communication.

• 2.    The comparative analysis of foreign sociological studies (the Dutch Internet resource “Trompenaars Hampden-Turner Connecting Viewpoints”, the Finnish Internet resource “The culture factor group” Hofstede Insights Ltd), created on the basis of national culture models (F. Trompenaars, G. Hofstede), shows that the results obtained in these surveys in relation to the Arctic countries are generally correlated with each other, but there are also exceptions when the same pair occupies completely different positions in the ratings.

• 3.    The presence of a clear correlation for some countries and the absence of such for others indicate either errors in the use of primary data, or the use of incorrect data.