An ethnometrical analysis of Russians’ cultural traits implies analyzing quantitative assessments of the respondents’ commitment to certain values. In order to define Russians’ cultural specifics, G. Hofstede’s ethnographical method is utilized (VSM94). According to the results of an all-Russian survey conducted in March-April 2010, Western indexes such as “individualism” and “power distance” are typical to Russia, i.e. the very same indexes which polarize the world, dividing it into “East” and “West”. At the same time a high level of “uncertainty avoidance” is observed in Russia, something which is not even inherent to most Eastern countries, together with a low “masculinity” index, which places our country into a unique position not only when compared to Western nations, but also when compared to most Eastern states. Such significant misalignment of those indexes which characterize the basic foundation of national culture not only displays Russia’s specificity yet again, it also calls for a more comprehensive analysis of whatever stands behind this misalignment. While carrying out this analysis, the author examines the separate components of those indexes which are utilized in G. Hofstede’s method (each one of these indexes us based on testing four basic values). It is concluded that most Russians accept those norms which underlie Hofstede’s characteristics such as “power distance” and “individualism”, which indicates the firm “European roots” of Russian culture. The similarities between these indexes in Western countries and in Russia substantiate the claim that Western formal institutions (legal norms, organizational structures) would be positively received by Russia’s public consciousness. At the same time such characteristics as “masculinity” and “uncertainty avoidance” are heterogeneous, which indicates there being certain contradictions in the public consciousness when it comes to values. Formulated are hypothesis on the tendencies for shifts in Hofstede’s Russian culture characteristics: “power distance” will be stable, “individualism” and “masculinity” might increase, while the tendencies for shifts in “uncertainty avoidance” are not clear. The heterogenic characteristics of “masculinity” and “uncertainty avoidance” should apparently level out in keeping with the situation in Russia becoming more stable. However, the economic crisis, which arose in 2014, is unlikely to contribute to these two indexes becoming distinctly articulated any time soon.

etnometry, cultural specificity of the Russians, value homogeneity, value heterogeneity, modernization, Geert Hofstede.

Choi K., Lebedeva N. M., Tatarko A. N.. Vzaimosvyaz’ cennostej i social’no- ekonomicheskih predstavlenij u korejskih i rossijskih studentov [The Interaction between Values and Socio-Economic Attitudes among Korean and Russian Students]. Psihologiya: NRU HSE`s journal, 2016, Vol. 13, no 2, pp. 310–322.Danilova E., Tararuhina M. Rossiyskaya proizvodstvennaya kul’tura v parametrah G. Hofshteda [Russian Manufacturing Culture Measured by G. Hofstede Technique]. Monitoring obschestvennogo mneniya, 2003, no 3 (65), pp. 53–64.

Danilova E., Yadov V. Russian labour culture: how it looks in comparison.

International Review of Sociology, 2010, Vol. 20, no 1, pp. 143–160.

Fischer R., Schwartz S. Whence Differences in Value Priorities? Individual, Cultural, or Artifactual Sources. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2011, Vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 1127–1144.

Grachiov M. Menedzhment v «mezhdunarodnoy sisteme koordinat» [Management in «the International Coordinate System »]. Ekonomicheskie strategii, 1999, no 2, pp. 19–31.

Grachiov M. Russia, culture, and leadership: Cross-cultural comparisons of managerial values and practices. Problems of Post-Communism, 2009, Vol. 56, no 1, pp. 3–11.

Hofstede G. Culture`s Consequences: Intern Differences in Work-Related Values. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1980. 328 p.

Hofstede G. Culture`s Сonsequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Second ed. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications, 2001. 616 p.

Hofstede G. VSM94 (Values survey module). Values survey module 1994. Manual 2005. Geert Hofstede and Gert Jan Hofstede`s website. URL: http://geerthofstede.com/media/312/Manual%20VSM94.doc [date of visit: 20.07.2016].

Hofstede G., Hofstede G. J., Minkov M. Cultures and Organizations.

Software of the Mind. Third edition. McGraw-Hill, 2010. 576 p.

House R., et al. Cultural influences on Leadership and Organizations: Project GLOBE. Advances in Global Leadership. Stamford. CT, JAI Press, 1999, Vol. 1, pp. 171–233.

House R., Javidan M., Hanges P., Dorfman P. Understanding cultures and implicit on leadership theories across the globe: an introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 2002, Vol. 37, no 1, pp. 3–10.

Inglehart R. Kul’tura i demokratiya [Culture and Democracy]. Kul’tura imeet znachenie. Kakim obrazom cennosti sposobstvuyut obschestvennomu progressu. Moscow, MSPR, 2002, pp. 106–128.

Inglehart R., Baker W. Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values. American Sociological Review, 2000, Vol. 65, no 1, pp. 19–51.

Inglehart R., Welzel C. Modernizaciya, kul’turnye izmeneniya i demokratiya. Posledovatel’nost’ chelovecheskogo razvitiya [Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence]. Moscow, Novoe izdatel’stvo, 2011. 464 p.

Javidan M., House R. Cultural Acumen for the Global Manager: Lessons from Project GLOBE. Organizational Dynamics, 2001, Vol. 29, no 4, pp. 289–305.

Kryshtanovsky A. O. Analiz sociologicheskih dannyh s pomoshch’yu paketa SPSS [Analysis of Sociological Data Using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)]. Moscow, SU HSE publ., 2007. 281 p.

Latova N. V. Vliyanie krizisa na udovletvorionnost’ rossiyan svoey zhizn’yu i ih social’no-psihologicheskoe samochuvstvie [The Impact of the Crisis on the Russians’ Life Satisfaction and Their Social and Psychological Well-being]. Rossiyskoe obschestvo i vyzovy vremeni. Ed. by M. K. Gorshkov,

R. Krumm, N. E. Tikhonova. Moscow, Ves’ mir, 2016, Vol. 3, pp. 41–65.

Latova N. V., Latov Y. V. Rossiyskaya ekonomicheskaya mental’nost’ na mirovom fone [The Russian Economic Mentality in the World Background]. Obschestvennye nauki i sovremennost’, 2001, no 4, pp. 31–43.

Latova N. V., Tihonova N. E. Modernizaciya i harakteristiki rossiyskoy nacional’noy mental’nosti [Modernization and Characteristics of Russian National Mentality]. Gotovo li rossiyskoe obschestvo k modernizacii? Ed. by M. K. Gorshkov, R. Krumm, N. E. Tikhonova. Moscow, Ves’ mir, 2010, pp. 273–297.

Lebedeva N. M., Tatarko A. N. Cennosti kul’tury i razvitie obschestva [Cultural Values and the Development of the Society]. Moscow, SU HSE publ., 2007. 528 p.

Lebedeva N., Tatarko A. Values of Russians: the Dynamics and Relations towards Economic Attitudes. Preprinty Programmy fundamental’nykh issledovaniy NIU VSHE: Sociology, 2012, no 3, pp. 1–26.

Magun V. S., Rudnev M. G. Bazovye cennosti rossiyan i drugih evropeycev (po materialam oprosov 2008 goda) [Basic Values of Russians and Other Europeans (based on the surveys 2008)]. Voprosy ekonomiki, 2010, no 12, pp. 107–130.

Magun V. S., Rudnev M. G., Schmidt P. Evropeyskaya cennostnaya tipologiya i bazovye cennosti rossiyan [European Values Typology and Basic Values of Russians]. Vestnik obschestvennogo mneniya. Dannye. Analiz. Diskussii, 2015, Vol. 121, no 3–4, pp. 74–93.

Magun V., Rudnev M., Schmidt P. Within-and Between-Country Value Diversity in Europe: A Typological Approach. European Sociological Review, 2016, Vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 189–202.

Mareeva S. V. Cennostnaya palitra sovremennogo rossiyskogo obschestva [Values of Modern Russian Society]. Monitoring obschestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskie i social’nye peremeny, 2015, no 4, pp. 50–65.

Na E.-Y., Duckitt J. Value consensus and diversity between generations and genders. Social Indicators Research, 2003, Vol. 62/63, pp. 411–435.

Rudnev M., Magun V. Cennostny konsensus i faktory cennostnoy differenciacii naseleniya Rossii i drugih evropeyskih stran [Value Consensus and Determinants of Value Differentiation in Russia and Other European Countries]. Vestnik obschestvennogo mneniya: Dannye. Analiz. Diskussii, 2011, no 4, pp. 81–96.

Schwartz S. H., Ros M. Values in the West: A theoretical and empirical challenge to the Individualism–Collectivism cultural dimension. World Psychology, 1995. Vol. 1, pp. 99–122.

Schwartz S. H. A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for Work. Applied Psychology, 1999, Vol. 48, no 1, pp. 23–47.

Schwartz S. H. Beyond Individualism/Collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1994. Vol. 18, pp. 85–119.

Schwartz S. H. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in experimental social psychology, 1992, Vol. 25, pp. 1–65.

Schwartz S. H., Bardi A. Influences of adaptation to communist rule on value priorities in Eastern Europe. Political Psychology, 1997, Vol. 18, no 2, pp. 385–410.

Schwartz S. H., Sagie G.. Value Consensus and Importance: A Cross- National Study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2000, Vol. 31, no 4, pp. 465–497.

Sedova N. N. Kakie zhiznennye celi i cennosti yavliayutsia segodnya dlia rossiyan naibolee vazhnymi? [What are the Most Important Vital Purposes and Values for Russians nowadays]. Rossiyskoe obschestvo i vyzovy vremeni. Ed. by M. K. Gorshkov, R. Krumm, N. E. Tikhonova. Moscow, Ves’ mir, 2016, Vol. 3, pp. 223–246.

Shackleton V. J., Ali A. H. Work-related values of managers: a test of the Hofstede model. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1990, Vol. 21, no 1, pp. 109–118.

Sondergaard M. Research Note: Hofstede’s Consequences: A Study of Reviews, Citations and Replications. Organization Studies, 1994, Vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 447–456.

Steel P., Taras V. Culture as a consequence: a multilevel multivariate meta-analysis of the effects of individual and country characteristics on work-related cultural values. Journal of International Management, 2010, Vol. 16, no 3, pp. 211–233.