Search results

International construction joint ventures (ICJVs) have been widely used as a temporary arrangement in many projects all over the world, especially in megaprojects. Within ICJVs, the national culture difference between partners affects their cooperation significantly. However, prior research has provided contradictory empirical evidence regarding these impacts. To address this problem, the purpose of this paper is to introduce cultural intelligence that judges an individual’s capability to function and manage effectively in culturally diverse settings as a moderating variable.

Multiple regression analysis and moderated multiple regression were undertaken to test proposed hypotheses. A questionnaire survey was conducted with international construction practitioners who had experiences of managing or participating in ICJVs.

The result of multiple regression analysis revealed that difference in national culture has significant negative effects on information exchange, shared problem solving and flexibility when asking for changes, thus effecting cooperation within ICJVs. Meanwhile, cultural intelligence of members can weaken these negative influences.

First, given that national culture difference affects negatively on the cooperation within ICJVs, it needs to be regarded as one of vital resources of risk which should be prevented and managed when attending ICJVs; Second, managers should build a series of mutually agreeable regulations and rules to lessen the negative effect of national culture difference; Third, it is recommended that ICJV management teams contain as many work-experienced members as possible and members within ICJVs, especially new staff, receive cross-cultural training termly to facilitate the cooperation between partners.

This research reveals the moderating effects of cultural intelligence on the relationship between national culture difference and cooperation in ICJVs as well as provides practical implications for ICJV managers to deal with national culture difference and reduce its negative impact on cooperation within ICJVs.

The paper seeks to analyze the impact of differences between the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States (US GAAP) in the economic‐financial indicators of English companies.

The research is characterized as descriptive‐quantitative, using regression and correlation analysis. The study was developed on 37 English companies that negotiate American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Documental research consisted of accounting statements (AS) from 2005 sent to the London Stock Exchange (LSE) and to the NYSE.

The research shows percentage differences in the economic‐financial indicators of English companies, calculated based on AS sent to the LSE and the NYSE that suggest divergences between the IFRS and the US GAAP. However, analysis of regression and correlation indicate significant correlation between the differences of these indicators. Thus, it was concluded that the economic‐financial indicators are not affected in a significant way by the divergences in the accounting standards considered.

As limitations, the economic‐financial indicators chosen can be pointed out. Therefore, in the individual analysis of each indicator and of each company there are greater or lesser differences that are dependent on the existence of the elements that possess difference in the applicable norms and their sums.

The focus of this study is the information asymmetry that results from the differences between accounting standards that are applied. It is intended to advance research with a study of the impact provoked in the economic‐financial indicators from a sample of companies that release AS in IFRS and US GAAP.

The purpose of the study reported is to explore the approaches that multinational companies take in order to handle international differences in their management of quality. Qualitative methods for data collection have been used. The empirical data consist of in‐depth and/or focus group interviews at five multinational companies. The study shows that, although the magnitude of the problems raised by international differences is limited, some important implications exist. The differences that have most impact are those of culture, and especially the cultural dimension of power distance. The issue of centralisation versus decentralisation is discussed. The importance of the commitment of top management and having a common value base throughout the company is highlighted. A framework for handling international differences in a multinational company is proposed.

Over the last decade, international accounting harmonization and convergence with the increasing adoption of IFRS as national accounting standards have become dominant topics in international accounting research (Ashbaugh & Pincus, 2001; Chand & Patel, 2008; Christensen et al., 2007; Daske & Gebhardt, 2006; Daske et al., 2008; Ding et al., 2007; Hellmann et al., 2010; Lantto & Sahlström, 2008; Larson & Kenny, 2011; Peng & van der Laan Smith, 2010; Rezaee et al., 2010; Tyrrall et al., 2007). Given that the primary goal of international convergence is enhancing comparability of financial statements across countries, the influence of accountants’ professional judgment in the interpretation and application of accounting standards has increasingly been recognized as an important and controversial topic. Indeed, a growing number of studies have analyzed the influence of culture on standard setting (Bloom & Naciri, 1989; Ding et al., 2005; Schultz & Lopez, 2001), auditor independence (Agacer & Doupnik, 1991; Hwang et al., 2008; Patel & Psaros, 2000), and accountants’ values and judgments (Doupnik & Riccio, 2006; Doupnik & Richter, 2003, 2004; Patel, 2003). Although prior research has provided evidence that culture influences accountants’ exercise of professional judgments, these studies have largely focused on demonstrating differences between accountants from very distinct cultures or accounting systems. For example, Chand (2008) as well as Doupnik and Richter (2004) examined differences in the judgment of professional accountants with regard to the interpretation and application of uncertainty expressions by comparing Australian and Fijian and German and American accountants, respectively. Moreover, recent research on professional accountants’ judgments (Chand, 2008; Doupnik & Riccio, 2006; Doupnik & Richter, 2003) has largely focused on providing evidence that accountants from different accounting clusters significantly differ in their exercise of professional judgment. Indeed, researchers have often based their country selections on theoretical models of accounting clusters such as Gray's (1988) framework of accounting values or Nobes’ (1983) international accounting classification, predominantly to show differences between the Anglo-American accounting model and the Continental European accounting model.

What we know is that the concept of cultural distance is frequently used, hotly debated and for many intuitively appealing. Suffering from a series of illusionary properties, it is argued to have outlived its usefulness. What we need to know is how to conceptualize the complexity of culture as a multi-dimensional, multi-level concept, taking context into account to measure quality rather than quantity (or distance). It is our ambition to do justice to the idea that cultural diversity not only leads to friction or problem creation, but also to enrichment and to generation of solutions. We discuss cultural conceptualizations and suggest cultural profiling and cultural positioning as alternative ways of comparing and contrasting critical cultural differences.

The purpose of this study is to test the validity of national culture as an explanatory construct for international operations management decision‐making.

National culture is multi‐dimensional thereby allowing for much finer grained comparisons than are possible when examining differences based purely on geography or the level of industrialization. This proposition is examined from the theoretical standpoint then empirically investigated using an existing database.

This article finds that national culture significantly explains international operations management behaviors among similar manufacturing plants in the same industry located in different cultures.

This study represents a first attempt at using national culture to explain differences of operations decision‐making.

Our meta-analysis of 92 international samples, with a total sample size of 8,491, demonstrates that firms following internationalization strategies by means of external growth modes can realize a significant positive performance impact on firm performance (r=0.156). This performance effect is significantly stronger than for firms using external growth strategies in their home country (117 samples, with a total sample size of 29,998, r=0.077). Moderating effects are found for the type of international business combination (mergers and acquisitions versus alliance) and the internationalizing firm's region of origin, whereas the relatedness of the firms and the region entered show no moderating impact.

This paper examines the relationship between chief executive officer (CEO) international experience (IE) and firm performance. The authors also examine the symmetry of this relationship, whereby home and host countries would be interchangeable without any significant change in the impact of each cultural dimension on firm performance.

For a sample of CEOs from Fortune's list of Global 500 companies, firm performance was measured as average net margin for the first four years of CEO tenure. IE was the difference between home country culture and that where CEO experience was gained, based on the GLOBE cultural dimensions. Regression then tested the IE/firm performance relationship. For symmetry, distance direction was coded as either positive or negative, depending on whether home country score on a given dimension was higher or lower than that of the host. Moderator regression then tested for whether distance direction impacted the relationship between IE and firm performance.

Results show that overall distance between home and host cultures in aggregate does not have a significant effect on firm performance. However, for specific dimensions, greater distances between the CEO's countries of experience and that of the parent company on in-group collectiveness and performance orientation are associated with higher firm performance, and greater distances on power distance and assertiveness are associated with lower performance. The authors further find asymmetric patterns in the IE–performance relationship, attributable primarily to the fact that, when scores on performance orientation are greater for the home than host country, organizational performance is significantly enhanced.

This study's hypotheses are grounded in theory, combining the human capital perspective with cultural paradox theory. In addition, the authors offer a unique approach for measuring the dimensional distance of culture.