Total views : 194

Values and Hardiness: Entrepreneurs of Former Soviet Countries


  • Saint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg, Russia


Objectives: The purpose of this research is to broaden views on connection between culture, individual cultural values and individual peculiarities (Hardiness) of entrepreneurs, who have chosen entrepreneurship as a strategy of achievement of their life goals. Methods: We have performed cross-cultural research of entrepreneurs (N=163), representatives of medium- and small-sized business, in several countries: Russia, Italy, Central Asia (Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan). Individual values (S. Schwartz) and Hardiness (S. Maddi) have been measured. Findings: In both developing countries with transition economy (Russia and Central Asia) and in countries with higher level of economic development (Italy) the factor of involvement into entrepreneurial activity is a ratio of individual values (Self-enhancement and Openness to change) and level of Hardiness. According to the discriminant analysis, such values as Self-Direction, Hedonism and Power have a key role in differentiation of entrepreneurs of European countries (Russia and Italy) and countries of Central Asia. Discriminant analysis shows that entrepreneurs of Italy and Russia belong to opposite poles: harmony versus power. The entrepreneurs of Central Asia take intermediate position. The Italian entrepreneurs are closer to the pole, which combines social commitment to harmony (Universalism) with individualistic Self-Direction and Hedonism, and entrepreneurs from Russia are closer to the strictly individualistic pole, which combines Self-Direction and Hedonism with tendency for Power. Novelty/Improvements: The obtained data demonstrate that selection of entrepreneurship as a behavioral strategy for achievement of life goals depends on combination of characteristics of cultural context, as cultural resource, and Hardiness, as personality resource.


Culture, Cultural Values, Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurial Activity, Hardiness, Job Demands–Resources Theory.

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 143)


  • McClelland DC. The Achieving Society. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand. 1961; 532 pp.
  • Schwartz SH, Sagie G. Value Consensus and Importance: A Cross-National Study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.2000; 31(4):465–97.
  • Schwartz S. Cultural value commitments: nature and consequences of national differences. Psychology. The Journal of Higher School of Economics. 2008; 5(2):37–67.
  • Rudnev MG, Magun VS, Schmidt P. European value typology and basic values of Russian people. Bulletin of Public Opinion Data Analysis Discussions. 2015; 121(3-4):74–93.
  • Avey JB, Luthans F, Jensen SM. Psychological capital: a positive resource for combating employee stress and turnover.Human Resource Management. 2009 Sep–Oct; 48(5):677– 93.
  • Hardiness test. Available from: Date Accessed:07/12/2016.
  • Maddi SR. Hardiness Training at Illinois Bell Telephone Health promotion evaluation. In: Opatz JP editor. Stevens Point (WI): National Wellness Institute. 1987; 101–15.
  • Maddi S, Harvey R. Hardiness Considered Across Cultures.In: Wong PTP, Wong LCJ editors. Handbook of Multicultural Perspectives on Stress and Coping. New York: Springer.2006; 409–26.
  • Stanley N, Nguyen K, Wilson H, Stanley L, Rank A, Wang Y. Storytelling, Values and Perceived Resilience among Chinese, Vietnamese, American and German Prospective Teachers. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 2015; 3(8):520–9.
  • Hayton JC, George G, Zahra SA. National culture and entrepreneurship: a review of behavioral research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2002; 26(4):33–52.
  • McCrae RR, Terracciano A. Personality Profiles of Cultures: Aggregate personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005; 89(3):407–25.
  • Terracciano A, Abel-Khalek AM, Adam N, Adamovova L, Ahn HN, Alansari BM et al. National character does not reflect mean personality trait levels in 49 cultures. Science.2005; 310(5745):96–100.
  • Stewart WH, Watson WE, Carland JC, Carland JW. A proclivity for entrepreneurship: a comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and corporate managers. Journal of Business Venturing. 1998; 14(2):189–214.
  • Mueller SL, Thomas AS. Culture and entrepreneurial potential: a nine country study of locus of control and innovativeness.Journal of Business Venturing. 2001; 16(1):51–75.
  • Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology.2007; 22(3):309–28.
  • Hmieleski KM, Carr JC. The Relationship between Entrepreneur Psychological Capital and Well-Being. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. 2007; 27(5):1–15.
  • Lebedeva NM, Tatarko AN. Values and social capital as a basis for social and economic development. The Journal of Institutional Studies. 2010; 2(1):17–35.
  • Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20countries.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 1992; 25:1–65.
  • Karandashev VN. Schwartz methodology for studying values of personality: concept and procedure guideline. St. Petersburg: Rech. 2004.
  • Schwartz SH, Verkasalo M, Antonovsky A, Sagiv L. Value Priorities and Social Desirability: Much Substance, Some Style. British Journal of Social Psychology. 1997; 36(1):3– 18.
  • Hofstede G, Noorderhaven NG, Thurik AR, Uhlaner LM, Alexander RM, Wennekers LM, Wildeman RE. Culture’s role in entrepreneurship: self-employment out of dissatisfaction.Innovation, entrepreneurship and culture: the interaction between Technology, Progress and Economic.2004; 162–203.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.