Overview of Hofstede-Inspired Research Over the Past 40 Years: The Network Diversity Perspective

Abstract

Hofstede’s cultural value framework has inspired many empirical studies in various fields. Scholars have advanced our understanding of how the Hofstede value model is used. However, there remain a number of underexplored areas regarding the ways in which Hofstede’s framework has been used over the last decade. Drawing on the co-authorship network and cultural diversity literature, we attempt to make a contribution that goes beyond the existing research by addressing underexplored areas, namely, the network diversity of institutions, authors, and countries engaged in Hofstede-inspired research. As a result, the cultural diversity and diversity of specialization of the networks of institutions, authors, and countries engaged in research incorporating the Hofstede framework are still too Western-based and psychology-oriented to acquire new research directions and increase innovation opportunities in new fields. We summarize the possible limitations of this study and provide some future research directions, including how to expand networks, the influence of author identity on networks, the appropriate number of authors and the diversity level of participants in a network, and the main motivations of author co-authorship networks.

Better, Faster, Stronger: The Evolution of Co-authorship in International Management Research Between 1990 and 2016

“…The other four universities are based in non-anglophone countries, with Copenhagen Business School (Denmark) ranked first, Chinese University of Hong Kong (China) ranked third, WU Wien (Austria) ranked fifth, and Erasmus University Rotterdam (Netherlands) ranked sixth. Except for China, these universities are located in developed countries, marking the dominance of western institutions over institutions in developing countries despite the fact that international management is seen as a transnational endeavor (Buckley & Lessard, 2005; Cantwell & Brannen, 2016; Liesch et al, 2011; Zhou & Kwon, 2020).…”

“…Furthermore, we uncover that peripheral countries become more visible in our analysis. However, since these countries are mainly G20 states and located either in Europe or in developed regions in Asia, there appears to be a sort of geographical and cultural clustering, as suggested by Zhou and Kwon (2020) and Pohl (2020). Based on our findings and in line with our assumptions, we would expect Arab countries as well as African and South American nations appear in the community collaborating first if all with either Anglophone countries or Chinese universities before building their own clusters of research similar to the Asian countries.…”

“…As international management research is considered a multidisciplinary field of research, this might either entail an increasing clustering of the discipline around a number of centers aligned to schools of thought, which ultimately may compete to steer the development of the field, as indicated on smaller scales by the findings of Liesch et al (2011), López-Duarte et al (2016, 2019) and Zhou and Kwon (2020) in the case of international management research, and scholars focusing on other disciplines (Bellotti et al, 2016; Coccia, 2018, 2020; Sun et al, 2013). These hubs and their collaborators produce a prestige hierarchy in the field of international management, which becomes a point of reference for scholars entering the field.…”

“…It covers all areas of cross-border business activities and is concerned with understanding strategies, structures, systems, and cultures both within and between multinational companies. As part of international business studies, international management research addresses business practices in different countries, internationalization processes of corporations and problems arising in the international context for which it seeks explanations and solutions (Brannen & Doz, 2010; Buckley & Lessard, 2005; Cantwell & Brannen, 2016; Kothari & Lahiri, 2012; Liesch et al, 2011; López-Duarte et al, 2016, 2019; Zhou & Kwon, 2020).…”

International Strategic Management: A Conceptual Model with Top Managers’ Emotional Intelligence, Cultural Intelligence, and Networking

“…The competencies for a global leadership are often not clearly distinguished [19]. As another valuable line of research, we suggest the consideration of Gundling et al's [19] referred model of behaviors within our conceptual framework as well as the Hofstede model of six dimensions of national cultures [51], as one of the most influential frameworks of cultural values [147], to assess cultural differences. Regarding the six dimensions, Hofstede developed power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, long term versus short term orientation, and indulgence versus restraint [51].…”