Transcript
Conceptualizing and Measuring Cultures and Their Consequences: A Comparative Review ofGLOBE's and Hofstede's ApproachesAuthor(s): Mansour Javidan, Robert J. House, Peter W. Dorfman, Paul J. Hanges and MarySully de LuqueReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37, No. 6, Three Lenses on theMultinational Enterprise: Politics, Corruption and Corporate Social Responsibility (Nov., 2006),pp. 897-914Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4540392 . Accessed: 30/12/2012 14:35 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected]. . Palgrave Macmillan Journals is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of International Business Studies. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded on Sun, 30 Dec 2012 14:35:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions journal f International usiness tudies 2006) 7, 897-914 © 2006 Academy f International usiness All rights eserved 0047-2506 www.jibs.net onceptualizing nd measuring cultures nd th ir consequences comparative vi w o GLOBE s nd Hofstede s approaches Mansour Javidan , Robert J House2, Peter W Dorfman3, Paul J Hanges4 and Mary Sully de Luquel 1 he Garvin Center or Cultures nd Languages of International Management, Thunderbird, he Garvin chool of International Management, Glendale, USA; Wharton chool of Management, University f Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, SA; College f Business Administration nd Economics, ew Mexico State University, as Cruces, USA; Department of Psychology, University f Maryland, College Park, USA Abstract This paper explains why GLOBE sed a set of cultural values and practices o measure national cultures. We show why there is no theoretical or empirical basis or Hofstede s riticism hat GLOBE easures of values are too abstract or for his contention that national and organizational ultures are phenomena of different order. We also show why Hofstede has a limited understanding f the relationship between national wealth and culture. Furthermore, we explain why Hofstede s reanalysis of the GLOBE ata is inappropriate nd produces incomprehensible esults. We also show the validity of managerial amples in studying leadership. Finally, we explain why Hofstede s claim that GLOBE instruments eflect researchers sycho-logic reveals gnorance of psychometric methodologies designed to ensure scale reliability nd construct validity. Journal f International usiness tudies 2006) 37, 897-914. doi: 0. I 057/palgrave.jibs.8400234 Keywords: GLOBE; ross ultural management; ational ulture; ross ultural eader- ship; nternational anagement Introduction In his critique of GLOBE n this issue, Geert Hofstede makes several important points that need further explanation and clarification (Hofstede, 2006). We are thankful to JIBS and Kwok Leung for the opportunity to respond to Hofstede s criticisms. We are grateful to Geert Hofstede for his review of the GLOBE book. As a result of space limitations, it is impossible for this paper to address every issue raised in Hofstede s critique. Instead, we respond to his main claims and concerns. GLOBE s a large-scale program involving over 160 researchers from many parts of the world and a support staff of three administrators. Its objectives have been described in detail in the recently published book (House et al., 2004), which received the 2005 M. Scott Myers Award for Applied Research n the Workplace conferred by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Our hope is that Hofstede s critique and this rejoinder will be helpful to those with a scholarly interest in the complex issues in cross-cultural research. Is Hofstede s work action research based? Hofstede conducted a consulting project for IBM and later decided to reinterpret his findings in terms of how IBM employees in Correspondence: Mansour javidan, Professor and Director, The Garvin Center for Cultures and Languages of International Management, Thunderbird, The Garvin School of International Management, 15249 N. 59th Avenue, Glendale, AZ, USA. Tel: + 1 602 978 7013; Fax: +1 602 843 6143; E-mail:
[email protected] Received: 4 November 2004 Revised: 7 March 2006 Accepted: 29 July 2006 This content downloaded on Sun, 30 Dec 2012 14:35:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences Mansour avidan t al 898 different countries responded to the survey ques- tions. Contrary to his assertion, his work is not action research because action research involves a spiral of steps including fact finding, planning, action steps, evaluation, amended plans, and further action until planned change is achieved (Lewin, 1948). Hofstede s work lacked most of these steps. Since the publication of his book in 1980, Hofstede has provided advice on how to conduct rigorous cross-cultural research. For example: To achieve good construct validity, therefore, we need both good measurements and good theory (Hofstede, 2001: 4). GLOBE heeded such advice, developing strong theory and rigorous measure- ments. Early in the research project, GLOBE proposed an integrated theory (House et al., 2004: 17) developed from the central proposition that attributes defining a specified culture are predictive of leadership styles and organizational practices in that culture. Further, the theory predicted that selected aspects of cultural practices will account for the economic competitiveness of nations as well as the physical and psychological well-being of their members. As our research was theory driven, we first specified the general nature of the constructs we wanted to measure before writing items or devel- oping GLOBE cales. This critical step determines how the items should be written as well as the kinds of statistical analysis that need to be performed to assess the adequacy of the scales (Kozlowski and Klein, 2000). All major GLOBE constructs (societal culture, organizational culture, and culturally endorsed implicit leadership theory) are what multilevel researchers call convergent- emergent constructs (Kozlowski and Klein, 2000). These constructs are convergent because the responses from people within organizations or societies are believed to center about a single value usually represented by scale means. They are called emergent because, even though the srcins of these constructs are a function of the cognition, affect, and personality of the survey respondents, the properties of these constructs are actually manifested at an aggregated level of analysis (i.e., the aggregated level for GLOBE was either the organizational or societal level). The GLOBE book (House et al., 2004) provides strong evidence of the scales psychometric properties. GLOBE instruments can be downloaded through its website, http://www.thunderbird.edu/wwwfiles/ ms/globe. Is Hofstede s research decentered, and is GLOBE US centered? In his critique, Hofstede (2006) suggests that his work is decentered, and contends that GLOBE s US centered. We disagree. His work is based on a consulting project that he and his European colleagues conducted for IBM in the 1960s. It is likely that, as a client, IBM - the dominant US- based corporation at the time - had very specific interests in hiring the consultants. The survey questionnaire was designed very much based on IBM s needs and interests, which can hardly be labeled as non-US centered in the 1960s. Thus, the information collected was centered on IBM needs. Hofstede suggests that a major decentering step in his research was the inclusion of a fifth dimension called Long- versus Short-Term Orienta- tion based on Bond and colleagues work with the Chinese culture (Bond and Chi, 1997; Chinese Culture Connection, 1987). Although we agree that adding this new dimension is a step towards decentering, we also see this as a reflection of the shortcoming of Hofstede s pure empiricism. The IBM survey did not include any items related to this dimension because presumably IBM had no interest in it. Therefore, using the IBM data as the basis for discovery, Hofstede s work did not include this dimension. Such an incremental approach of adding to the list of dimensions is due to the limitations of his srcinal design and begs the question: what other dimensions are missing because IBM was not interested in them? The claim that GLOBE eflects a US hegemonic research effort is baseless. GLOBE consists of over 160 scholars from 62 cultures, referred o as country co-investigators (CCIs). The CCIs took a direct role in designing every aspect of the program. In August 1993, they met at the University of Calgary in Canada. Among the many topics of discussion, they discussed and agreed on the definition of leadership that would drive the GLOBE project. They also established the next steps in the research project. Within their respective countries, CCIs conducted focus groups and individual interviews with managers to discuss their views on outstand- ing leadership. They sent reports to Robert House on their findings. Professor House spent 6 months in the Netherlands working with a group of Dutch researchers writing items for culture and leadership. After the items were written, they were sent to all the CCIs for their feedback. CCIs reported on face validity, understandability, and relevance of the culture and leadership items in their cultures. Journal f International usiness Studies This content downloaded on Sun, 30 Dec 2012 14:35:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences Mansour Javidan t al 899 They also reported on all concerns they had about using any particular item in their culture. Many items were reworded and some were deleted as a result of this process. Following the completion of this stage, the normal process of psychometric assessment was performed. The results of this phase were again sent to CCIs for translation and back- translation, as well as for their feedback on the usability of GLOBE items in their culture. Two rounds of pilot tests were conducted in several countries to empirically verify the instruments. To summarize, GLOBE decided that it is time to move beyond Hofstede s approach and to design constructs and scales that are more comprehensive, cross-culturally developed, theoretically sound, and empirically verifiable. Why did GLOBE istinguish between cultural values and practices? Definitions of culture vary from the very inclusive (e.g., culture is the human-made part of the environment ; Herskovitz, 1955) to highly focused ( culture is a shared meaning system ; Shweder and LeVine, 1984: 110). GLOBE distinguished between cultural values and practices because of its view that national culture can be broadly defined as values, beliefs, norms, and behavioral patterns of a national group (Leung et al., 2005). The conventional wisdom on culture seems to reflect Hofstede s notion of cultural onion (Hof- stede, 1980a, 2001). Hofstede (2001: 9) defines culture as the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another . He views values as the invisible part of culture manifested through cultural practices, consisting of symbols, heroes, and rituals (2001: 10). He visualizes the relationship between culture, values, and practices as the Onion Diagram (2001: 11), arguing that cultural values drive practices. Researchers have shown that different values and value hierarchies are related to a variety of behaviors such as choice of medical specialty, choice of a university major, consumer purchases, cooperation and competition, and managerial behavior, among many others (Bianchi and Rosova, 1992; Schwartz, 1996; Bond and Chi, 1997; Barnea and Schwartz, 1998; Schwartz and Bardi, 2001; Smith et al., 2002). There is general acceptance that the value-based framework for measuring cultures has been help- ful in deciphering cultures (Leung et al., 2002; Smith et al., 2002; Leung et al., 2005). We concurred with this view, and incorporated the value-based approach in the GLOBE esearch program, but with a caveat. An in-depth review of the existing literature on culture and its relationship with behavior/practice shows that almost all recent researchers measure national or societal culture through a set of values reflecting what is important or desirable in any culture. This approach to studying culture and its influ- ence on behavior reveals two important but untested assumptions. First, it assumes that mea- suring actors values is a robust way of measuring cultures. The conventional wisdom is that calculat- ing the respondents individual values is a sufficient measure of the collective s culture. We call this the ecological values assumption, meaning that knowing the values of members of a culture is a sufficient way of knowing the culture. Second, it assumes that the linkage between values and specific behaviors of actors can be generalized to the relationship between values and general behaviors of all members of the culture. As there is evidence that values are related to such practices as voting behavior or managerial beha- vior, when people in a society report that they value future orientation, then these people must also be practicing future orientation in their day-to-day activities. In other words, it is assumed that knowing values in a culture tells us about what actually happens in that culture. We call this the onion assumption, n reference to Hofstede s Onion Diagram. Both these assumptions are critical drivers of the existing literature. All major recent research, influenced mostly by Hofstede (1980a), accepts these assumptions without proper theoretical or empirical scrutiny. Rather than accepting these two assumptions as given, GLOBE ecided not to accept the first assumption (ecological values assumption) and to verify the second (the onion assumption). We approached the ecological values assumption from a different perspective. If learning about a collective s values is a sufficient way of knowing its culture, then why do we use the word culture ? Isn t there more to culture than just a set of values (Schein, 1992)? We took a holistic view of culture as more than just a set of values, consisting rather of both values and actual ways in which members of a culture go about dealing with their collective challenges. We were sympathetic to a broader definition of culture proposed by Herskovitz (1948), who defined it as the man-made part of the environment. Such an approach entails actual journal of International usiness tudies This content downloaded on Sun, 30 Dec 2012 14:35:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences Mansour avidan t al 900 behavior as well as interpretations of behavior (Smith et al., 2002). In differentiating values and practices, we followed Hofstede et al. s guidance: Values tems describe what the respondent feels should be, practices items what she or he feels is . The distinction between the two is present not only in the conception of the researchers but also in the minds of the respondents. (1990: 94) Other researchers are also taking a broader view of culture. Leung, Bond, and their colleagues (2002; 2006) have recently introduced the notion of social axioms, which they define as general beliefs. Many of their items are comparable to GLOBE s measures of general behavior in a society. Examples are: Powerful people tend to exploit others and The various social institutions are biased toward the rich (Leung and Bond, 2006). The conventional approach to measuring cultures is through asking individual respondents about what is important to them as an individual and then aggregating the results at the culture level. Leung and Bond (2006) summarized the underlying premise for this approach: For most people, life is not an aimless, mindless drift; their actions and activities are conscious or unconscious mani- festations of their responses to two fundamental questions: What do they want to pursue n life and how do they pursue those goals? The what question has been extensively researched under the rubric of values, the study of which seeks to identify general goals that people regard as important (e.g., Rokeach, 1973: 2). GLOBE took a different approach. We followed Schein s (1992) view of culture as a product of a collective s attempts to address two sets of group issues: external adaptation and internal integra- tion. Culture evolves as a collective adapts to ongoing challenges surviving in the face of external threats and opportunities and managing relations among its members. Instead of asking the respondents what is desir- able to them as individuals, we asked them to express their views on what is desirable in their societies. Our premise, unexplored until now, is that societal cultural dynamics go beyond mathe- matical averages of what is desirable to individual actors. Hofstede (2001: 17) describes it as follows: Cultures are not king size individuals. They are wholes, and their internal logic cannot be understood in the terms used for the personality dynamics of individuals. Eco-logic differs from individual psycho-logic. Although we agree with Hofstede, we operationa- lized eco-logic as more than mathematical averages of individuals responses. We used respondents as informants to report on the gestalt of their cultures, consisting of values and other elements. Further- more, we were sympathetic to Hofstede s caution against using self-reports of individuals: On top of this, we are all better observers of others than of ourselves; but, as the experience with the LPC questionnaire shows, in observing others we reveal something about ourselves, too. Therefore, paper-and-pencil measures of values through perceptions of third persons can be expected to have greater behavioral validity than those based on self- descriptions - this is what Fiedler proves extensively in the case of LPC. (Hofstede, 2001: 9) GLOBE ested the widespread onion assumption by constructing measures that ask respondents to report on how things are done in their societies. Societal cultural practices were operationalized in terms of isomorphic items to cultural values. In this way we were able to empirically assess the wide- spread but never tested assumption that cultural values drive cultural practices. Below is an example of a cultural value and a cultural practice question related to Power Distance. Practices In this society, power is: (reverse-coded) Concentrated at the top Shared throughout the society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Values In this society, power should be: (reverse-coded) Concentrated at the top Shared throughout the society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In his critique of GLOBE, Hofstede (2006) states: Asking as is questions basically assumed that these people were in a position to compare their society with other societies. This assumption, I believe, is naive - it takes international experience plus an unusually open mind to produce anything like a credible comparison between one s own society and others. (p. 886) We find this assertion perplexing. At no time did GLOBE ask the respondents to compare their societies with others. We simply asked the respon- dents to describe their societies as they are and as they should be. There was no reference to any other cultures. To sum up, GLOBE elt that it was time to take a more rigorous approach to understanding and measuring national cultures by separating values and practices. Journal f International usiness tudies This content downloaded on Sun, 30 Dec 2012 14:35:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
