• Mioara ( CULEA) ȘERBAN General Staff of Land Forces



organizational culture;, Hofstede cultural dimensions;, distance from power;, ; individualism;, feminity;


The success or failure of a culture is strongly influenced by a set of cultural traits, the values and principles it creates, rather than by physical or other conditions in the external environment. In the specific literature in the field, there are several models that define the main factors that determine and lead to the construction of a culture, thus determining the differences that distinguish them in the world. One of the most widespread models is that of Geert Hofstede, who based one of the most extensive studies of cultural morphology on the cultural differences that characterize a country or a group of people. The article seeks to highlight the main components of the organizational culture of a national military college. The analysis of the educational environment in the military college from the perspective of Geert Hofstede’s four dimensions is a test of awareness of the profile produced by an organization providing education with a specific vocational profile, military, in the field of under-graduate education

Author Biography

Mioara ( CULEA) ȘERBAN , General Staff of Land Forces

Born on 21.01.1978, Tulcea, Mioara ȘERBAN is a graduate of Hyperion University, Faculty of Philology, class of 2004.
She completed her academic training by graduating several courses (project evaluator, trainer, project manager), Master in Organizational Management and Institutional Communication, training periods in Lithuania, Portugal and Reunion.

As a teacher, he worked as a Latin/Romanian language teacher at "Dimitrie Cantemir" High School / "Mircea cel Bătrân" Secondary School, Babadag (10 years) and later as an expert IA in the External Quality Assessment Department at the Romanian Agency for Quality Assurance in Pre-University Education, Bucharest (10 years).
He is currently a military officer, working as Head of the Higher Education Department in the Education Service of the Land Forces General Staff.

She has an extensive scientific activity (researches conducted, courses taught), being (co)author of the Manual of External Quality Assessment, published in 2013 and of several articles and scientific communications ("Barometer of the quality of education in Romania" no. 1 and 2, Quality Newsletter - "Notes for Quality") published in the framework of strategic projects of the Sectoral Operational Programme for Human Resources Development (2007-2013), in publications in the country Tribuna Invatamantului.


Cerghit, Ioan. 2008. Alternative and complementary training systems. Bucharest: Polirom.

Gardner, Howard. 2011. Disciplined mind. Bucharest: Sigma, 3rd edition.

Harari, Yuval Noah. 2018a. 21 lessons for the 21st century. Bucharest: Polirom.

—. 2018b. Homo deus. A brief history of the future. Bucharest: Polirom.

Hofstede, Geert, and Darko Milosevic. 2018. ”Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context.” Online readings in psychology and culture 1.

Hofstede, Geert, Gert Jan. Hofstede, and Michael Minkov. 2010. Cultures and organizations: Software of The Mind, Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. McGraw Hill.

Hohan, Ion, Maria Cucu, and Andrei Hohan. 2007. Process management and process management of organizations. Bucharest: Fiatest.

Iosifescu, Serban. 2008. Quality of education: concept, principles, methodologies. Bucharest: Education 2000+.

Milosevic, Darko, and Sun Shili. 2020. ”Organizational Culture and Its Themes.” International Journal of Business and Management 137-141.

Peterson, Marvin W., and Melinda G. Spencer. 1990. ”Understanding Academic Culture and Climate.” New Directions for Institutional Research (68): 9.

Prisacaru, Dan. 2021. In the forefront of the struggle for survival. Bucharest: Military Publishing House.

Schein, Edgar H., and Peter Schein. 2017. Organizational culture and Leadership. New Jersey: John

Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken New Jersey.

Tafaeli, Anat, and Iris Vilnai-Yavetz. 2004. ”Emotion as a Connection of Physical Artifacts and

Organizations.” Organization Science 15 (6): 671