Societal Culture in Slavic Nations: Effects of Historical Events

Introduction

Throughout late 20^th and early 21^st centuries, Slavic nations have been gaining global prominence, engaging in political and economic integrations with the global West, with European Union and NATO (North Atlantic Tactical Organization) memberships as the most significant steps therein. Despite these integrations, however, those economic in particular, cross-cultural management and leadership literature has not devoted almost any attention to the specifics of societal culture(s) of the Slavs. Research on societal cultural values is important as it contributes to the better understanding of the inter and intra-national differences and similarities, bearing important implications for domestic and international businesses, as in indicating the appropriate, accepted or preferred modalities of conducting business in and between countries (Hofstede, 2001; Minkov et al., 2024).

In this study, we compare societal cultural values in and across seven Slavic nations belonging to three Slavic tribes. These include (see Kamussella et al., 2016; for an in-depth insight in the anthropology of the Slavic culture areas, nations and tribal clusters); Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, North Macedonia, Serbia (Southern Slavs); Czech Republic, Poland (Western Slavs) and Russia (Eastern Slavs). In doing so, we employ Geert Hofstede´s (2008) model of culture and focus on tribal, national and regional (intra-national) differences and similarities across his seven societal cultural value dimensions. Unravelling the “black box” of these differences and similarities in Slavic nations, we aim to increase our understanding of the societal cultural values in these societies, uniquely positioned between, thus, connecting the Western and Eastern World, absorbing both, but also developing their own cultural identities. Consequently, we aim to provide a platform for future multilevel and multidisciplinary research on the societal culture and business, hence, to facilitate sustainability and successes of domestic and international professionals and businesses in these astonishing societies. To do so, we first present the findings of our review of literature on Slavic cultural values. We then proceed to develop and test our hypotheses, present and discuss our findings and limitations, and outline fruitful avenues for future research.

Literature Review

Research examined societal culture values in Slavic countries; however, most of this research was of historical, linguistic and anthropological character. For instance, this research examined the Byzantine influence (Byzantine Empire, 5^th – 16^th century, ruled over South Slavic, that is, Balkan states; Browning, 1992) to the collective Slavic cultural identity, indicating the adoption of Byzantine cultural and spiritual values in South and Western Slavic nations (Hetényi & Ivanič, 2021). Hodel et al. (2017) highlighted the presence of egalitarian values in Slavic countries, those relating to gender in particular, reflecting the more recent influence of the values developed in the global West. However, this research also showed Slavic nations are less gender-egalitarian relative to non-Slavic countries, indicating the heterogeneity of the “Western” and traditional Slavophile, equality-derogating hierarchy; authoritarianism and Power Distance values (Naumov, 1996).

Research conducted in Western Slavic countries supported the Slavic cultural heterogeneity arguments. For instance, Kolman et al. (2003) and Lacko et al. (2021) found Czech and Slovak societal cultures to exhibit a high degree of, both, similarities and differences, with some related to the Western-originated values of Individualism and egalitarianism. Opposing the evidence on heterogeneity, Movsesian (2013) argued for the existence of shared Slavic cultural values in geographical Eastern Europe. Using European Values Study and the World Values Survey, Akaliyski and Reeskens (2023) compared Ukrainian, Russian and European values. They found small intra-national (regional) cultural variations within Ukraine, and relative to Russia; however, large variations relative to European cultures, supporting the notions of the Slavic cultural homogeneity.

Cross-cultural management and leadership literature did not devote significant attention to Slavic societal cultural values. Hofstede (1980) included Yugoslavia (consisting of seven South Slavic nations), along with some Western and Eastern Slavic countries in his research. He found high Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance and Collectivism values across the participating Slavic countries, that South Slavic in particular. These values reflected authoritarian political culture, dominance and security of state-owned enterprises, as well as dominant socialist ideology at the time. Hofstede´s model continued dominating the scarce management literature which, however, focused on selected (e.g. Power Distance, Individualism) value dimensions in a single or but a few, seemingly randomly selected Slavic, in combination with other, non-Slavic countries. Dabić et al. (2015) found that that South Slavs (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia) exhibit traditional Slavophile values, manifested in high Masculinity. However, they also found high Individualism values and an intensifying trend of egalitarianism in these societies, supporting the notions of Slavic and Western-Slavophile, cultural heterogeneity. In support, research showed that Croatia and North Macedonia are, both, high and low on Power Distance, Collectivism and Uncertainty Avoidance (Anić et al., 2016).

The contemporary literature on societal cultural values in the Slavic nations is, thus, scarce and the findings are conflicting and inconclusive. Bias towards some cultural value dimensions and an occasional inclusion of Slavic countries in research rendered dedicated, systematic and, particularly, comparative studies on societal culture in these areas almost non-existent. In consequence, we do not have a clear understanding on the cultural similarities and differences in and between Slavic nations.

Development of Hypotheses

Despite the significant shortcomings in the literature, the extant evidence provides a basis for a discussion on the contemporary societal cultural values in Slavic societies. This discussion is two-fold, relating to volume and distribution, and structure and magnitude of the differences and similarities in and between Slavic nations. In terms of the former, though all Slavs share the same origins and heritage, similarities and differences vary across Slavic nations and tribes. Similar Slavic nations share higher volume of similarities in linguistic, ethno-cultural, religious, kinship and socio-political structures and are commonly geographically closer to one another, forming a tribe. Slavic nations clustered in different tribes, thus, possess larger volume of differences across these aspects and are usually geographically more distant. Therefore, Slavic nations in the same tribe should be more culturally similar to one another and vice versa. Hence, our first hypothesis:

H1

Scores for societal cultural values will differ significantly between Slavic tribes, countries and their culture areas (regions), such that differences between countries and their regions that belong to different tribes will be greater relative to the differences between countries and their regions that belong to the same tribe.

In terms of the structure and magnitude of these similarities and differences, consistent with notions that cultural values are not static but dynamic and susceptible to change due to events of a large magnitude and social impact (Hofstede, 2011; Inglehart, 2005), the effects of historical factors are important. Historical factors of large magnitude and social impact are, both, “particularly important” and “particular” for Slavic nations. For instance, Ottoman (i.e. Turkish; 14^th-19^th centuries) and Habsburgian (Germanic; Austrian; 15^th - 20^th century) influences shaped the heterogeneity of the cultural, religious, and political landscape of the South and Western Slavs, while Pan-Slavism, an intellectual movement promoting the cultural and political unity of Slavic peoples, facilitated Slavic cultural identity and unity in the 19^th (Kamussella et al., 2016). More recent World and Balkan wars, European Union and NATO expansion to Slavic Nations in Europe, affected the Slavic societal culture and work attitudes (Applebaum, 2012). Poor industrial production, road and railway infrastructure, and high level of illiterate and rural population across the Slavic nations represented the aftermath of the Second World War. The^, traditional patriarchal value system induced variations in the post-War integration of the Western-originated liberalization and modernization into Slavic, particularly Southern and Eastern, societies. Politically more oriented towards Western Europe and more economically developed, Western and some Southern (Slovenia, Croatia) Slavic countries avoided the consequences of late modernization and social backwardness, unlike Eastern and the majority of Southern Slavic nations (Chirot, 1989). Social values in less developed Slavic countries were more similar to values existing in traditional Slavophile societies: emphasis on collective interests, hierarchy, social autarchy and patriarchalism, egalitarianism in the distribution of social goods, focus on consumption but not on accumulation, and anti-entrepreneurship (Calic, 2019). Hofstede (1980) supported such notions, arguing that high Power Distance in such countries stems out of the authoritarian political culture integrated into societal segments. Strong Collectivism and Femininity reflected the dominant socialist ideology, expressed by the slogan “brotherhood and unity”, and the importance of reputation and social relationships over work achievement and material gains.

However, the transition from a socialist command-planned economy to a market-oriented economy, democratization of society, and global changes related to the workplace, might have stirred changes in Slavic societal cultural values (Inglehart, 2005). The integration of many Slavic nations (primarily Western Slavs and some Southern Slavic nations, e.g. Slovenia, Croatia, Bulgaria, North Macedonia) into Western institutions (European Union and NATO) in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, induced significant shifts in political and cultural values (Bugajski, 2002). Consistent with notions of cultural dynamism and change (Hofstede, 2011; Inglehart, 2005), this implies that the effects of historical factors and events resulted in post-socialist transformation and restoration of capitalism, and may have encouraged the adoption of societal cultural values similar to those in developed Western societies. These changes may be greater in countries that have been more successful in European and Western integrations such as EU and/or NATO member countries; Czech Republic, Poland (Western Slavs); Croatia, North Macedonia (Southern Slavs), relative to Slavic countries less successful therein (e.g. Eastern Slavs; Southern Slavs - Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina). We, therefore, hypothesize:

H2

Slavic nations and their culture areas more exposed to Western socio-cultural and geo-political integrations (Western Slavs – Czech Republic, Poland; South Slavs – Croatia, North Macedonia) will exhibit scores for societal culture values more similar to those developed in the Western societies (lower scores for Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance, greater scores for Individualism, Masculinity and Long-term Orientation, moderate scores for Indulgence and Monumentalism) then Slavic nations and their culture areas less exposed to such integrations.

Method and Results

Results

In this section, we present the results of our analyses in terms of the distribution and the volume of the significant (at the p≤ .05 level for all computed differences) differences and similarities (lack thereof) between the polygons. In the following section, we discuss the structure and magnitude, that is, the variations in mean scores, and the reasons we believe are behind these variations.

As may be seen in Table S5 and Figure S1, our results indicate statistically significant distinctions across all behavioural dimensions among the Slavic tribes. Despite a large volume of significant differences, Western and Southern Slavs display a similar profile of societal culture relative to Eastern Slavs who exhibit lower scores for the majority of value dimensions with the exception of Uncertainty Avoidance. Scores for Power Distance and Masculinity are similar between Western and Southern Slavs. Western Slavs differ from Southern and Eastern Slavs in Long Term Orientation and Southern Slavs differ from Western and Eastern Slavs in Monumentalism. Three tribes differ from one another in terms of Individualism, Uncertainty Avoidance and Indulgence.

In terms of individual countries and culture areas, our results (see Table S6 through S8 and Figure S2) indicate statistically significant distinctions in all cultural values dimensions among the Slavic nations and their cultural areas. Some of the differences between nations and regions affiliated with the same tribe were of larger volume than between different tribes. Most of these distinctions are randomly distributed; however, several patterns do emerge. As displayed in Figure S2, countries affiliated with Southern and Western tribes exhibit similar cultural value score pattern relative to one another and different from Eastern Slavic countries that exhibit significantly lower scores in Masculinity, Indulgence and Monumentalism and higher in Uncertainty Avoidance. Table S8 indicates the largest volume of similarities across the participating countries and their culture areas in Power Distance and Long-Term Orientation, and the largest volume of differences in Monumentalism. Samples displaying the largest volume of similarities are North Macedonia, which exhibited no significant differences with any other samples in terms of Power Distance and Long Term Orientation, as did European Russia in terms of Long-term Orientation. Poland and Russia with its two regions, Siberian and European (Western), exhibit the largest volume of differences relative to other samples in Masculinity and Uncertainty Avoidance. The two Russian regions do so in terms of Uncertainty Avoidance, Indulgence and Monumentalism. These findings partially support our first hypothesis.

Discussion

In this study, we examine and compare the societal culture value dimensions in and between Slavic tribes, countries and culture areas. In doing so, we contribute to the culturally contingent theory of leadership, cross-cultural management and leadership literature, as well as Hofstede´s model of culture, by providing the first devoted, systematic comparisons of societal culture value dimensions in and across Slavic nations and tribes. The volume of the differences between these polygons is greater than that of similarities, including between countries and their regions that belong to the same tribe. The distribution of these differences, however, is mostly inconsistent with several patterns as discussed above. Next, we discuss the variations in the magnitude and structure of cultural differences and similarities in the participating samples and the drivers thereof, augmenting our contributions.

As may be seen in Figure S2 and Table S8, the results of our analyses provide partial support for the H2. Some of the participating polygons more exposed to Western influences do display societal culture value dimensions similar to those in the global West, however, some do not, while polygons less exposed to Western influences do. Hence, surprisingly, we found that Power Distance is larger in more “Western-like” Western and some (Croatia, North Macedonia) Southern Slavs then in less “Westernized” Eastern Slavs (Russia). This, however, may be due to very low Power Distance index in the Siberian Russia (index for Euro Russia is second largest), rendering tribal index relatively low to other clustered and individual polygons. Low Power Distance index in Siberian Russia is consistent with notions of Western influence in this Russian region (for details see Russia single-country study by Littrell & Ljubica, in this Special Issue). These results, however, counter our second hypothesis.

Higher indexes for Individualism, Masculinity and Long Term Orientation in, especially Western, but also Southern, relative to Eastern Slavs, on the other hand, support our hypothesis, reflecting Western influences. Indeed, capitalist Western societies emphasize individual achievement and self-expression (Inglehart & Baker, 2000). Assertiveness and directedness, masculine traits, foster self-expression, actualization and accomplishments (Hofstede, 2011). New technologies, such as the internet and social media, a staple of capitalistic societies, have made it easier for people to, both, present, brand and commercialize themselves as individuals and also connect with others from all over the world and to learn about different cultures. This shift in economic systems, accentuation of the individual and exposure to different cultures may have led to the adoption of masculine values and modalities of self-expression, as well as open and tolerant attitude towards different ways of life. This, in turn, may have contributed to more masculine and individualistic cultures in these countries.

With the exception of Poland, Uncertainty Avoidance is low in Western and Southern Slavic countries, especially those more exposed to Western influences (Croatia, North Macedonia). These influences connote increased level of Western-designed education, manifested in various student and academic and educational staff exchanges programs (e.g. Erasmus) and joint curriculum development (e.g. a myriad of the EU programs). Consequently, education levels have increased significantly in Slavic-heritage countries gravitating towards the West in recent decades. People that are more educated are more likely to be receptive towards new ideas and experiences, which can make them more comfortable with ambiguity and change. Hence, this may be a contributing factor to the decrease in Uncertainty Avoidance in these countries.

Similarly, the economic growth in Western and some Southern Slavic countries, stemming largely from Western investments and EU integrations and funds, led to an increase in disposable income. This may have led people to spend more money on leisure activities and non-essential items, which could have led to higher Indulgence. This supports our hypothesis, however, more research will be required to delve deeper in these influences, as shown in Long-term Orientation indexes partially supporting such arguments (high scores in Indulgence are commonly related to low scores on Long-Term Orientation and vice versa; Hofstede, 1980; 2011). Long-Term Orientation is a value dimension with the largest volume of similarities between polygons, with indexes ranging from four to +31. Interestingly, Siberian Russia has the lowest score on Long-Term Orientation and is least Indulgent. European Russia is more consistent with “Westernization” arguments, scoring higher then Siberian Russia and Croatia, but lower than North Macedonia and Western Slavic countries.

Monumentalism is a value dimension with the largest volume of difference between the polygons. Southern Slavic countries display the highest scores on this dimension. Southern Slavs have been involved in numerous, and still ongoing military, political and social-cultural conflicts and tensions. This spurred an increased importance and a tendency of admiration to the (mostly political and/or military, but also managerial) leaders in everyday life. Hence, Southern Slavic nations, those less exposed to Western integrations in particular, place higher importance, and even glorify their leaders. Slavic countries more exposed to Western influences tend to be more self and less leader-reliant, assigning lesser meaning to leaders, thus, exhibiting lower indexes for Monumentalism.

Limitations, Future Directions and Conclusions

As in pioneering, our study has limitations that will be necessary to address in future research to delve into the complexities of the societal culture of the Slavic tribes, nations and their culture areas. Firstly, in addition to enlarging sample sizes, future studies should include Slavic nations we did not. In expectance of the Global Leadership and Organizational Behaviour Effectiveness (GLOBE) 2020 findings, utilizing other functionalist cultural models (e.g. Schwartz, 1999) is also desirable. GLOBE and Schwartz´s (1999) models are more comprehensive than Hofstede’s as in sensitive to interaction of factors and inclusive of core and peripheral values. Therefore, researchers should examine the effects of factors on other levels, including environmental (e.g. institutional), organizational and individual, and their inter-dynamics. Given it is difficult to isolate the effects of cultural values on work-related cognitions and behaviours, this will be critical to provide more nuanced insights into these astonishing societies. Indeed, even though our findings exclude the existence of a homogenous Slavic culture, it will be interesting to investigate if this notion “holds” in future research with more robust data. Comparisons of such data with that from non-Slavic countries would also bring immense value for clearer understanding of the Slavic societies. This is especially so given we used relative, comparative approach when making conclusions regarding the differences and similarities between and across Slavic countries. In absolute terms, however, most of the indexes are relatively low, rendering comparisons of these societies with other non-Slavic needed.

Supplemental Material