Content area
Full Text
INTRODUCTION
While Hofstede (1980, 2001) has for many years been regarded as the doyen of cultural research, his culture model has recently been updated and expanded by the GLOBE study (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Vipin, 2004). GLOBE and Hofstede use similar techniques, and in fact "The scales to measure the first three dimensions (in GLOBE) are designed to reflect the same constructs as Hofstede's (2001) dimensions labelled Uncertainty Avoidance, Power Distance and Individualism" (House & Javidan, 2004: 13). So similarities between the models are to be expected. What is also happening, as expected, is that the GLOBE scores are being increasingly used by researchers in ways similar to the ways the Hofstede scores have been used over many years (e.g., Fischer & Mansell, 2009). This application of culture dimensions to the analysis of other variables in management is naturally an important part of progress in understanding the effects of differences in national cultures. However, for these discovered relationships to be meaningful and useful for researchers and practitioners, it is critical that scholars have an unequivocal understanding of what specific culture dimensions mean, and how they are defined and measured across different culture models. For this reason, scholars have recently been looking closely at the Hofstede and GLOBE models with a view to highlighting and clarifying anomalies or contradictory relationships between the same national culture dimensions across the different models, as well as between the dimensions and other external variables of interest to researchers. For example, there was an exchange of views on the models in JIBS (Hofstede, 2006; Javidan, House, Dorfman, Hanges, & Sully de Luque, 2006). A recent paper by Maseland and van Hoorn (2009), a critique by Brewer and Venaik (2010) and commentary by Taras, Steel, and Kirkman (2010) discuss the several significant negative correlations between practices and values scores in the GLOBE study. Another paper clarifies an apparently anomalous relationship between Hofstede and GLOBE Uncertainty Avoidance scores (Venaik & Brewer, 2010).
We note that, like the anomalous Hofstede/GLOBE Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) relationships, there is a similar problem associated with Individualism-Collectivism (I-C), which both Hofstede and GLOBE include in their culture models as distinct dimensions. They do this at the national level, as opposed to the individual level, where another collectivism specialist,...