Negative practice–value correlations in the GLOBE data: Unexpected findings, questionnaire limitations and research directions

Abstract

Abstract:The study of culture and cultural values continues to be hotly debated among cross-cultural researchers worldwide. Starting with the seminal work of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, and Hofstede, and continuing with more recent efforts, researchers have continued to develop and empirically examine cultural value frameworks in an attempt to understand how cultural differences affect work-related behaviors and attitudes. The purpose of this commentary is to briefly describe the interesting -and counterintuitive -findings from the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project, summarize the different interpretations of these findings offered by Maseland and van Hoorn, and by Brewer and Venaik, provide a critique of their arguments, and finally offer a list of possible alternative interpretations and explanations for the conflicting findings in the GLOBE study.GLOBE | Hofstede | cross-cultural research/measurement issues | cultural values | Keywords: cultural value frameworks | work attitudes | business management | international business Article:The study of culture and cultural values continues to be hotly debated among cross-cultural researchers worldwide. Starting with the seminal work of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) and Hofstede (1980), researchers have continued to develop and empirically examine cultural value frameworks in an attempt to understand how cultural differences affect work-related behaviors and attitudes. One of the most recent attempts to create a comprehensive framework to understand cultural values and their effects has been the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) study (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). Recently, Maseland and van Hoorn (2009), in their research note published in this journal and revisited in this issue (Maseland & van Hoorn, 2010), and Brewer and Venaik (2010) offered competing explanations for some of the more intriguing findings in the GLOBE study. The purpose of this commentary is to briefly describe the interesting -and counterintuitive -findings from the GLOBE project, summarize the different interpretations of these findings offered by Maseland and van Hoorn (2010) and Brewer and Venaik (2010), and consider possible alternative interpretations and explanations for the conflicting findings in the GLOBE study. The GLOBE StudyAmong the many attempts to measure the cultures of the world (e.g., Hofstede, 1980;Schwartz, 1992;Smith, Dugan, & Trompenaars, 1996), the GLOBE study (House et al., 2004) is one of the most recent, ambitious, and comprehensive efforts. Methodologically, the GLOBE study is very similar to other cultural comparison studies, in that all of them measure culture using a series of self-report survey questions with Likert-type response scales. Nevertheless, the GLOBE study is unique in one important way, in that it measures cultural values and cultural practices separately, and thus provides two different sets of cultural indices.

The past is prologue: Moving on from Culture’s Consequences

“…In some regards, we can look on the work in Cluster C as being much more 'macro' and the research in Cluster D as much more 'micro' in its international business orientation. Examples of the influential papers in this group include Steel and Taras (2010), Taras, Kirkman and Steel (2010) and Leung and Morris (2014). The final set (Cluster B) represents 60 papers and is mostly representative of research in human resources and organizational behavior in a cross-cultural context.…”

Conceptualizing and measuring culture in international business and management: From challenges to potential solutions

“…The first is similar to discussions in economics and psychology about revealed vs stated preferences; in economics, the distinction between what people say they would purchase as opposed to what they actually purchase (see, e.g., Ben-Akiva et al, 2002;Train, 1986Train, , 2009. Most of what we see in IB/IM today is stated culture and not revealed culture, with stated culture being used as a best-guess proxy for latent culture (Taras et al, 2010b). However, stated culture is not latent culture but culture that is being revealed not by true behavior but via survey responses; in other words, GLOBE and Hofstede do not represent anything other than culture as revealed by a survey (or culture as contextualized in a survey instrument).…”

“…Critiques and refinements of the Hofstede and GLOBE models continued, prompting a special issue of JIBS on improving the quality of cross-cultural research beyond Hofstede and GLOBE (Hofstede, 2010). Even though the articles in that special issue raised important questions and proposed useful improvements in the measurement of culture (e.g., Franke & Richey, 2010;Maseland & van Hoorn, 2010;Taras, Steel, & Kirkman, 2010b;and later Brewer & Venaik, 2014), there is still a lack of consensus as to the best ways to assess culture (especially beyond Hofstede and GLOBE models).…”

Work-related acculturation: change in individual work-related cultural values following immigration

“…The GLOBE study (House et al 2004), which reported negative correlations between cultural values and practices, casts some doubt on the commonly assumed consistency between different facets of culture. The finding seemed to surprise even the authors of the study who expected to see positive correlations, though a number of plausible explanations for the surprising findings have been offered by other researchers (for discussion see Maseland and van Hoorn 2008;Taras, Steel and Kirkman 2010b). It must be noted, however, that what was labeled 'cultural practices' in the GLOBE study was only a remote proxy for cultural artifacts, such as cultural traditions and customs, and even less so for clothing style, music or cuisine.…”