Search results

The purpose of this paper is to critically examine, theoretically and empirically, the two time orientation dimensions – long‐term orientation (LTO) and future orientation (FO) – in the national culture models of Hofstede and GLOBE, respectively.

Following Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck's past‐present‐future theoretical lens, the Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO measures are analysed to understand the conceptual domain covered by these two dimensions. Next, the authors empirically examine the relationship of Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO with secondary data from Hofstede, GLOBE, and the World Values Survey.

This paper shows that Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO dimensions capture different aspects of time orientation of societies. In particular, Hofstede LTO focuses on past (tradition) versus future (thrift) aspect of societies, GLOBE FO practices capture the present versus future (planning) practices of societies, and GLOBE FO values reflect societal aspirations and preferences for planning.

A specific implication of these findings is that the three dimensions of time orientation are not interchangeable since they represent different characteristics of societies. A wider implication for researchers is to ensure high level of precision in and congruence among construct labels, definitions and measures to avoid confusion and misapplication of cross‐cultural concepts.

In an increasingly globalized world, a clear understanding of societal time orientation will help managers deal more effectively with their counterparts in other countries.

The key contribution of this paper is in identifying and clarifying, both theoretically and empirically, the anomalies in the labels, definitions and measurement of Hofstede long‐term orientation and GLOBE future orientation national culture dimensions. It also shows a useful way forward for researchers on how to use these national culture dimensions to explain other phenomena of interest to cross‐cultural scholars.

Hofstede’s model of national culture has enjoyed enormous popularity but rests partly on faith. It has never been fully replicated and its predictive properties have been challenged. The purpose of this paper is to provide a test of the model’s coherence and utility.

Analyses of secondary data, including the World Values Survey, and a new survey across 56 countries represented by nearly 53,000 probabilistically selected respondents.

Improved operationalizations of individualism-collectivism (IDV-COLL) suggest it is a robust dimension of national culture. A modern IDV-COLL index supersedes Hofstede’s 50 year-old original one. Power distance (PD) seems to be a logical facet of IDV-COLL, rather than an independent dimension. Uncertainty avoidance (UA) lacks internal reliability. Approval of restrictive societal rules and laws is a facet of COLL and is not associated with national anxiety or neuroticism. UA is not a predictor of any of its presumed main correlates: importance of job security, preference for a safe job, trust, racism and xenophobia, subjective well-being, innovation, and economic freedom. The dimension of masculinity-femininity (MAS-FEM) lacks coherence. MAS and FEM job goals and broader values are correlated positively, not negatively, and are not related to the MAS-FEM index. MAS-FEM is not a predictor of any of its presumed main correlates: achievement and competition orientation, help and compassion, preference for a workplace with likeable people, work orientation, religiousness, gender egalitarianism, foreign aid. After a radical reconceptualization and a new operationalization, the so-called “fifth dimension” (CWD or long-term orientation) becomes more coherent and useful. The new version, called flexibility-monumentalism (FLX-MON), explains the cultural differences between East Asian Confucian societies at one extreme and Latin America plus Africa at the other, and is the best predictor of national differences in educational achievement.

Differences between subsidiaries of a multinational company, such as IBM around 1970, are not necessarily a good source of knowledge about broad cultural differences. A model of national culture must be validated across a large number of countries from all continents and its predictions should withstand various plausible controls. Much of Hofstede’s model (UA, MAS-FEM) fails this test while the remaining part (IDV-COLL, PD, LTO) needs a serious revision.

Consultancies and business schools still teach Hofstede’s model uncritically. They need to be aware of its deficiencies.

As UA and MAS-FEM are apparently misleading artifacts of Hofstede’s IBM data set, a thorough revision of Hofstede’s model is proposed, reducing it to two dimensions: IDV-COLL and FLX-MON.

Contaminated food is a major source of illnesses around the world. This research seeks to learn how people assign responsibility for two food contamination risks and how they allocate costs to reduce these risks to four members of the food supply chain. The aims are to identify differences between countries and test options to control for cultural differences.

A random sample of online panellists from six countries (N = 6,090) was surveyed on how they assigned responsibility for controlling natural and accidental food contamination (traditional food safety) and for controlling intentional contamination (food defense) to farmers, transporters/distributors, retailer grocery stores/restaurants and consumers. They were also asked how they would allocate food safety and defense costs to the four groups. Differences between countries were tested with dummy variables and cultural measures.

In nearly every country, respondents assigned the least responsibility and allocated the smallest cost shares to consumers. In multivariate models, responsibility and cost-share results differed, suggesting that preferences varied by country and that respondents did not allocate costs the same way they assessed responsibility. The food safety and defense models also differed, implying that the respondents believed the two sources of contamination represented different risks.

This is the first study to examine how adults allocate the responsibility and costs for food safety and defense to farmers, transporters/distributors, retailer grocery stores/restaurants and consumers. Other research did not differentiate between these two food risks. This study also compared Hofstede's cultural measures with the recently developed Minkov's cultural measures.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify critical issues underlying the national culture dimensions of Hofstede and GLOBE, demonstrating their irrelevance to international marketing decision‐making.

In‐depth discussion of the theoretical and empirical logic underlying the national culture dimension scales and scores.

Hofstede and GLOBE national culture scores are averages of items that are unrelated and which do not form a valid and reliable scale for the culture dimensions at the level of individuals or organizations. Hence these scores cannot be used to characterize individuals or sub‐groups within countries. The national culture dimension scores are therefore of doubtful use for marketing management that is concerned with individual‐and segment‐level consumer behavior.

Researchers should be cautious in using the Hofstede and GLOBE national culture dimension scores for analysis at the level of individuals and organizations.

Hofstede and GLOBE dimension scores should not be used to infer individual/managerial and group/organizational level behavior and preferences.

The paper follows a recent paper in IMR which was the first to discuss the common misunderstanding of the Hofstede and GLOBE national culture scales and scores, and their misapplication at the level of individuals and organizations by scholars and practitioners. Here we further expand and clarify the issues.

Recent studies exposed serious issues with Hofstede's popular model of culture, especially his uncertainty avoidance (UA) and masculinity-femininity (MAS–FEM) dimensions. However those studies did not focus on work-related issues as in Hofstede’s research.

We followed Hofstede’s approach to his dimensions more closely than anyone before in a large cross-cultural study. We used data from the nationally representative International Social Survey Program (over 50,000 respondents from 47 countries), measuring work goals and work-related stress in a way similar to Hofstede's.

UA and MAS–FEM, as measured and described by Hofstede, did not replicate. They lack internal consistency and the items that target them are not associated with Hofstede's UA and MAS–FEM indices. Instead, some of those items follow a very different and sound logic, invalidating Hofstede's UA and MAS–FEM theories. Our study provides additional evidence that UA and MAS–FEM are misleading artifacts of Hofstede's IBM database, with no analogues outside IBM. An improved, recently reported version of individualism-collectivism (IDV-COLL) replicated nearly perfectly, solidifying the validity of that dimension of national culture. A revised version of long-term orientation, called flexibility–monumentalism (FLX–MON) also replicated well.

We discuss lessons for the cross-cultural field, including cross-cultural management, as well as policy-making by national governments, to be drawn from the controversial story of Hofstede's model. We advise a stronger focus on empirical confirmation and replication rather than excessive faith in fascinating, yet unproven theory.

To avoid further confusion, we advise researchers, consultants and managers to reconsider the use of Hofstede's UA and MAS–FEM and focus on the valid dimensions in the revised Minkov-Hofstede model.

A number of national governments recently launched large-scale studies of their national cultures, based on Hofstede's model. The goal of those studies was to involve culture in the design of social and economic development policies. Studies of this kind should be founded on empirically sound models or else they can result in the formulation of flawed policies.

This is the first study of large samples from many nations showing that even when Hofstede's method is followed closely by focusing on work-related issues, UA and MAS–FEM do not emerge from the data, and this is not because of data deficiencies but because the logic of UA and MAS–FEM is demonstrably flawed. Our study also demonstrates new methods for the replication of IDV-COLL and FLX–MON, though without claiming that they are superior to existing ones.

As more companies choose to disclose corporate social responsibility (CSR) information, it is important to gain an understanding of the quality of disclosures and factors that influence quality. The purpose of this study is to examine the role of culture as a determinant of the quality of voluntary carbon emission disclosures.

This study uses regression analysis to test the influence of culture on the quality of carbon disclosures. The sample of this study comes from companies who voluntarily report to the carbon disclosure project. The authors operationalize the quality of disclosure using the Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index. The authors operationalize cultural values using both Hofstede’s metrics (Hofstede, 1980) and Project GLOBE (House et al., 2004).

This study predicts and finds a negative relationship between quality of disclosure and high individualism scores. This study also finds that the quality of disclosure is lower for companies located in countries with high power distance scores. The authors find that the quality of disclosure is higher for companies located in countries with gender/assertiveness scores that indicate a higher value on the environment than on the importance of economic growth. While quality is marginally related to uncertainty avoidance using Hofstede's measure, quality is not related to uncertainty avoidance using the Project GLOBE metric. The authors did not find a hypothesized negative significant relationship between quality and long-term orientation.

Quality is a measure of importance to users and regulators of disclosures.

National culture is an important determinant of CSR disclosure quality.

This study extends the previous research by using a metric for quality based on an independent evaluation of disclosures and by the role of culture in a multi-country study.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an updated and authoritative measure of individualism vs collectivism (IDV-COLL) as a dimension of national culture.

Rather than focus solely on Hofstede’s classic work, the authors review the main nation-level studies of IDV-COLL and related constructs to identify the salient cultural differences between rich societies and developing nations. The authors conceptualize and operationalize IDV-COLL on the basis of those differences and propose a new national IDV-COLL index, using new data from large probabilistic samples: 52,974 respondents from 56 countries, adequately representing the national cultures of all inhabited continents.

The proposed index is a new, valid measure of IDV-COLL as it is strongly correlated with previous measures of closely associated constructs. As a predictor of important cultural differences that can be expected to be associated with IDV-COLL, it performs better (yields higher correlations) than any known measure of IDV-COLL or a related construct.

An important facet of IDV-COLL – in-group favoritism vs out-group neglect or exclusionism – does not transpire convincingly from the authors’ operationalization of IDV-COLL. The study relies on self-construals. Respondents are unlikely to construe their selves in terms of such concepts.

The new IDV-COLL measure can be used as a reliable, up-to-date national index in studies that compare the cultures of rich and developing nations. The new IDV-COLL scale, consisting of only seven items, can be easily used in future studies.

This is the first IDV-COLL measure based on the communalities of previous studies in this domain and derived from large probabilistic samples that approach national representativeness. The superior predictive properties of the authors’ new measure with respect to extraneous variables are another important strength and contribution.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the reliability and validity of Hofstede's cultural framework when applied at the individual consumer level.

MBA students and faculty in the behavioral sciences were asked to review Hofstede's cultural instrument and to indicate which dimension (power distance, individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity) each particular item was intended to reflect. Subjects were also asked to respond to each item, thus indicating their underlying values. The reliability of each dimension was computed, and the data were factor analyzed to determine whether the various items loaded in a manner that is consistent with Hofstede's framework, thus providing evidence as to discriminant and convergent validity.

This study presents evidence that Hofstede's cultural instrument lacks sufficient construct validity when applied at an individual level of analysis. Overall, a majority of the items were lacking in face validity, the reliabilities of the four dimensions were low, and the factor analyses did not result in a coherent structure.

It is hoped that these findings will eventually lead to a reliable and valid measure that captures the richness of the various cultural dimensions and can be deployed at the individual and sub‐group levels of analysis. Such a measure would be valuable for market segmentation, and for understanding why consumers from diverse regions and cultures react differently to various marketing tactics.

Given the diversity of the world marketplace, it is essential that marketers have a robust measure of culture so that our understanding of consumer behavior can keep pace with a rapidly changing environment.

The purpose of this paper is to examine and compare the validity of different operationalizations of cultural and institutional distance.

First, a review of the theoretical background for Hofstede's, Schwartz's, Trompenaars's, and Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness' (GLOBE) cultural frameworks is provided, as well as the institutional environment. Then, the validity of each framework is assessed by evaluating how well each framework groups countries into appropriate clusters, and finally comparisons between the different frameworks are drawn.

It was found that the cultural distance (CD) constructs based on Hofstede and Trompenaars have strong convergent validity. CD constructs based on Schwartz and GLOBE are found to have the weakest validity. The institutional distance (ID) constructs are conceptualized to be broader than the traditional CD constructs. However, high correlations indicate a strong overlap between ID and CD. Additionally, the ID constructs are highly correlated with factors related to economic development, potentially limiting their usefulness.

Both researchers and practitioners can choose from a variety of CD/ID frameworks to fill their needs; however, variance in the performance between frameworks may lead to faulty conclusions. In response to this need to accurately capture cross‐cultural differences, the validity of nine different operationalizations of CD/ID have been examined. Contrary to popular belief, the traditional CD construct based on Hofstede is shown to compare favorably with other frameworks and calls for the abandonment of this index may be premature.

This study aims to uncover the extent to which cultural traits may explain the puzzling international divergence in COVID-19 outcomes, and how those traits interact with state action to produce compliance with pandemic health policy.

A theoretical framework illustrates the surprising possibility that culture and state action may not reinforce each other but rather act as substitutes in eliciting anti-pandemic behavior. This possibility is tested empirically in two specifications: a cross-sectional regression that includes several novel COVID-related measures, and a panel model that controls for contemporaneous disease burden. Across these models, we use the measures of national culture developed by Hofstede (1984) and a newer metric developed by Schwartz (1990).

Individualism and egalitarianism have a positive effect on disease prevalence, while cultural heterogeneity was associated with a more robust public health response. Consistent with our model, we find that culture and state action served as substitutes in motivating compliance with COVID-19 policy.

The results of this study imply that culture and state interact in determining the effectiveness of public health measures aimed at combating COVID-19; these results recommend culturally aware state intervention when combating pandemics.

This study offers several new contributions. First, it proposes a model to help contextualize the empirical analysis. Second, it examines a wider range of traits than previous studies, including cultural homogeneity and the Schwartz variables. Third, it employs a richer econometric specification that explores the interaction between state and culture in a panel context.