Uncertainty Avoidance: Research Based on Hofstede and GLOBE Cultural Dimensions

Transcription

1 Proceedings of the International Conference on Transnational Corporations and Development in China: Challenges and Opportunities (Chengdu, China, November 2015) Uncertainty Avoidance: Research Based on Hofstede and GLOBE Cultural Dimensions Xiumei Shi Abstract: This paper covers the studies of the Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) index in Hofstede and GLOBE cultural dimensions for 40 countries. The main objective of this study is to explore the UA dimension in Hofstede and GLOBE Model in cross-culture research and provide a mature reflection upon the work of Hofstede and GLOBE in UA dimension. The paper begins with a brief description of the cultural dimensions. Next, the UA dimension, which is the focus of this paper, is discussed in detail. Conclusions in research using 40 countries extracted from Hofstede s UA index and GLOBE UA practices index are extensively described and discussed. The paper argues that UA continues to be a contradictory issue, which deserves to carefully dealt with in the subsequent cross-cultural research. Finally, a way forward is suggested for future UA research and research realms of other dimensions. It also includes some issues for further research into this area for international business and management. Keywords: Cultural dimensions, Hofstede, GLOBE, uncertainty avoidance (UA) 1. Introduction Given the increasing globalization of industrial organizations and the growing interdependencies among nations, the need for a better understanding of cultural influences and cross-cultural management has become even greater. Since Uncertainty is one of the key determinants of market transactions between firms (Williamson, 1985), and it plays a critical role in business and, in particular, international business decisions, and management (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). Both Hofstede Model and GLOBE Model are highly valuable research studies in international business and management. They provide useful dimensions to compare and better understand the differences between countries. But there is much debate on the appropriateness and validity of Hofstede s and the GLOBE project s cultural value dimensions (Xiumei S. and Jinying W., 2011). Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) is expected to affect international cooperation because of the tendency for high-ua societies to avoid the ambiguity and uncertainty that exist more in international business transactions than in domestic transactions (Hofstede, 2001; Shenkar, 2001; Venaik S. and Brewer P., 2010). Contrary conclusions are yielded about UAI cultural distance between China and US according to a previous research which falls into the result that in GLOBE Model, China has a higher score than US while in Hofstede Model, US ranks higher than China (Xiumei S. and Jinying W., 2011). According to Hofstede (2011), in the IBM research, Britain and Germany score exactly alike on the two dimensions of power distance (both 35) and masculinity (both 66). On individualism, though, the British score considerably higher (89 versus 67). The largest difference between the two countries, however, is on a fourth dimension, labeled uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 2011). As a result, the UA dimension has been chosen in this paper to look at across the two cultural models, first, because of its perceived importance in the conduct 34

2 Xiumei Shi of international business and, second, because it dramatically highlights the anomalies across the Hofstede and GLOBE culture models (Venaik S. and Brewer P., 2010), thus deserves our full attention. 2. Uncertainty Avoidance Index 2.1. Uncertainty Avoidance in Hofstede Based on a research from around 1970 in IBM, Dutch Social Psychologist and Organizational Anthropologist Geert Hofstede created a new paradigm for the study of cultural differences: a four-dimensional model of national culture, which later expanded and updated on the basis of an analysis of a wide range of other cross-cultural data to five-dimensional, (Hofstede, 2001). Then, Intrigued by Inglehart's analysis of the WVS, a sixth dimension, IVR, has been added into the cultural dimension model (Hofstede and Minkov, 2011). Among the six cultural dimensions, the term uncertainty avoidance has been borrowed from American organization sociology, in particular from the work of James G. March. March and his colleagues recognized it in American organizations (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede, 2011). Uncertainty avoidance is defined as intolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity (Hofstede and Peterson, 2000; Hofstede, 1991) or the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations (Minkov and Hofstede, 2011; Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede, 1997). It refers to the way in which people will deal with the future, whether they have inherent control, or whether events are beyond their control (fatalism). This feeling is, among other manifestations, expressed through nervous stress and in a need for predictability: a need for written and unwritten rules (Hofstede, 2011). The fundamental issue is how a society deals with the fact that the future can never be known: should we try to control the future or just let it happen? According to Hofstede (1980), Strong uncertainty avoidance cultures are characterized by formalized management and the constraint of innovation by rules (Hofstede, 2001) and this culture tends to encourage dependence on the government; whereas cultures with weak uncertainty avoidance encourage employees empowerment and people tend to be more innovative and entrepreneurial (Mooij and Hofstede, 2010). Table 1 presents the key differences between cultures from strong and weak Uncertainty Avoidance index in Work, Organization, and Motivation. Table 1. Key differences between weak and strong uncertainty avoidance Weak uncertainty avoidance Strong uncertainty avoidance More changes of employer, shorter Fewer changes of employer, longer service service, more difficult work-life balance There should be no more rules than strictly There is an emotional need for rules, even if they necessary. will not work. Work hard only when needed. There is an emotional need to be busy and an inner Time is a framework for orientation. urge to work hard. Tolerance for ambiguity and chaos Time is money. Belief in generalists and common sense Need for precision and formalization Top managers are concerned with strategy. Belief in experts and technical solutions More new trademarks Top managers are concerned with daily operations. Focus on decision process Fewer new trademarks Entrepreneurs are relatively free from rules. Focus on decision content There are fewer self-employed people. Entrepreneurs are constrained by existing rules. Better at invention, worse at implementation There are more self-employed people. Motivation by achievement and esteem or Worse at invention, better at implementation belonging Motivation by security and esteem or belonging 35

3 Uncertainty Avoidance: Research Based on Hofstede and GLOBE Cultural Dimensions Notes: This is adopted from Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind, Intercultural Cooperation, and Its Importance for Survival, Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan Hofstede, and Michael Minkov, 2011, pp Uncertainty Avoidance in GLOBE The 10-year research project GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) is a long-term programmatic research effort designed to explore the fascinating and complex effects of culture on leadership, organizational effectiveness, economic competitiveness of societies, and the human condition of members of the societies studied (House R.J. and Hanges P.J., Javidan M., Dorfman P.W., Gupta V., 2004). The GLOBE study was conducted in the mid 1990s and the GLOBE team of cross-cultural researchers collected and analyzed data from approximately 17,000 managers from 951 organizations in 62 societies throughout the world. The GLOBE study was designed to replicate and expand on Hofstede s (2001) work, and to test various hypotheses that had been developed, in particular, on leadership topics. GLOBE produced a set of nine dimensions, each measured twice, isometrically as practices and respective values. GLOBE study develops nine cultural dimensions encompassing both actual society practices ( As Is ) and values ( Should Be ) in the different cultural settings. With respect to the former, practices were measured through middle managers responding to questions regarding what is or what are common behaviours or actions within a culture. With respect to values, the researchers attempted to measure respondents values regarding their reported ideal behaviour. Questionnaire items reflecting values concerned judgements of what should be common behaviours or actions within a given culture (House, Robert J., 2010). The nine cultural dimensions they identified as independent variables are Uncertainty Avoidance, Power Distance, Institutional, In-Group Collectivism, Gender Egalitarianism, Assertiveness, Future Orientation, Performance Orientation, and Humane Orientation. There were two forms of questions for each dimension: One measured managerial reports of actual practices in their organization and managerial reports of what should be (values) in their organization; the other measured managerial reports of practices and values in their societies. Thus 18 scales to measure the practices and values with respect to the core GLOBE dimensions of culture (House R.J. and Hanges P.J., Javidan M., Dorfman P.W., Gupta V., 2004; Xiumei, S. and Jingying W, 2011). According to House et al. (2004) Uncertainty Avoidance refers to the extent to which members of an organization or a society strive to avoid uncertainty of future events by relying on established social norms, rituals, and bureaucratic practices. People in high uncertainty avoidance cultures actively seek to decrease the probability of unpredictable future events that could adversely affect the operation of an organization or society and remedy the success of such adverse effects. The uncertainty avoidance value construct focuses on the extent to which people seek orderliness, consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to deal with naturally occurring uncertainties as well as important events in their daily lives. It is linked to the use of procedures; such as standardized decision rules that can minimize the need to predict uncertain events in the future (House et al. 2004). For illustrative purposes, GLOBE analyses revealed that countries reported high scores on uncertainty avoidance, tending to establish detailed processes, procedures, and strategies. In contrast, countries reported scores low on uncertainty avoidance tend to prefer simple processes and broad strategies, leaving room for flexibility and risk taking (Javidan et al. 2006). 36

4 Xiumei Shi 3. Comparison of uncertainty avoidance index Since the two research studies choose different countries (and regions). To examine the differences between the contradictory studies, we take 40 countries as the research sample because of, first, all the countries (and regions) chosen share a same or similar origin, and thus those which do not have a score in both dimensions are eliminated; second, some of the countries (or regions) do not speak the same languages, and the two projects did not measure the same group of interviewees. For example, Australia is not included in this research because in Hofstede s cultural program, it gives the score of both the Aborigines and the total, while in GLOBE program, not the total and not the Aborigines were given. Another case is Canada, since in Hofstede s dimension, the score reflects the dimension of French-speakers and while in GLOBE, only English speakers were given the scores of UAI. Table 2 shows a new grouping of countries (and regions)taken from the two dimensions and will be discussed in this paper and table 3 presents the Dimension scores of the chosen 40 sample countries across the two research programs. Asia (24) Europe (26) Table 2. List of countries (and regions) extracted from Hofstede and GLOBE Model Hofstede Model (79) GLOBE Model (62) This Study (40) Arab World (Egypt, China, Georgia, Iraq, Kuwait, Hong Kong, India, Lebanon, Libya, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Japan, United Arab Kazakhstan, Emirates) Kuwait, Malaysia, Bangladesh, China, Asia (18) Philippines, Qatar, Asia Hong Kong, India, Singapore, Korea, (13) Indonesia, Iran, Taiwan, Thailand, Israel, Japan, Turkey Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Vietnam Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom East Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia), Europe (22) Albania, Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, England, Finland, France, Greece, Germany- East (former GDR), Germany-West (former FRG), Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Switzerland-FR Egypt, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, South Africa (Black Europe (16) China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Switzerland-FR Morocco 37

5 Uncertainty Avoidance: Research Based on Hofstede and GLOBE Cultural Dimensions Africa (9) North America (3) South American (15) Australia (2) Morocco, South Africa, West Africa (Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone) Canada, Mexico, United States Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Panama, Peru, Surinam Trinidad, Uruguay Venezuela Australia, New Zealand Africa (8) North America (3) South American (9) Australia (2) Sample), South Africa (White Sample), Zambia, Zimbabwe Canada (English speaking), USA Mexico Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador El Salvador, Guatemala, Venezuela Australia, New Zealand Africa (1) North American (2) South American (7) Australia (1) USA Mexico Argentina, Brazil, Colombia,Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Venezuela New Zealand Notes: 1. Arab World =Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates East Africa =Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, West Africa = Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone 2.The countries and regions in Arab World, East Africa and West Africa share the same scores in Hofstede Model. 3. Materials derived from House R.J. and Hanges P.J., Javidan M., Dorfman P.W., Gupta. Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: the GLOBE Study of 62 Societies (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004). Hofstede G., Culture s Consesequences: Comapring Vaklues, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (Second edition: Sage publication, 2004). 4. Some of the countries are eliminatedd since no relatively-corresponding scores were given by the two dimensions. The data taken here are consistent in the two dimensions. Table 3. Dimension scores of the chosen 40 sample countries across the two programs Countries or Hofstede GLOBE UAI No. regions UAI scores (Practice) scores (Value) scores 1 Argentina Austria Brazil China Colombia Costa Rica Denmark Ecuador Finland France Greece Guatemala Hong Kong Hungary India Indonesia Ireland Israel

6 Xiumei Shi 19 Italy Japan Korea (South) Malaysia Mexico Morocco Netherlands New Zealand Philippines Poland Portugal Russia Singapore Spain Sweden Switzerland (total) Switzerland (French speakers) 36 Taiwan Thailand Turkey United States Venezuela Comparison of UA in Hofstede and GLOBE model Description Highest Lowest Table 4. Countries (and regions) ranking highest and lowest on the Hofstede and GLOBE cultural dimensions Hofstede model GLOBE model A society s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity; it ultimately refers to man s search for Truth. It indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. France Japan Poland Russia Guatemala Portugal Greece Spain Costa Rica Argentina Turkey Korea (South) Hungary Brazil Italy Venezuela Mexico Israel Colombia Switzerland Sweden Singapore Denmark Hong Kong China Ireland Malaysia India Philippines United States Indonesia 3.2. Comparison of UAI across Hofstede and GLOBE Model Defined as the extent to which members of an organization or society strive to avoid uncertainty by reliance on social norms, rituals, and bureaucratic practices to alleviate the unpredictability of future events. Ireland China Netherlands Denmark Sweden Singapore Switzerland Finland Austria New Zealand Malaysia France Hong Kong United States India Taiwan Mexico Japan Russia Hungary Guatemala Greece Korea (South) Venezuela Colombia Argentina Ecuador Turkey Philippines Poland Brazil Thailand Table 5 presents the consistency or non-consistency status of UAI dimension in Hofstede and GLOBE cultural model, among which China is the reference country. C means the consistency status of China to another country or region in UAI dimension, N means the non-consistency 39

7 Uncertainty Avoidance: Research Based on Hofstede and GLOBE Cultural Dimensions status of China to another country or region in UAI dimension. From the table, it is clearly stated that Hong Kong is the only region that has the consistency relationship with China both in GLOBE practice score and value score. In Asia, Singapore, Thailand, and Turkey are the only three countries that have the consistency relationship between Hofstede and GLOBE Value score. All the other countries or regions have the non-consistency relationship between Hofstede and both the practice and value score in GLOBE. In Europe, Austria, Finland and Switzerland have the consistency relationship in GLOBE Practice score, and Sweden has the consistency relationship in GLOBE Value score, and all the other countries or regions have the non-consistency relationship. In Africa, Morocco has the consistency relationship in GLOBE Value score. In North America, South American, and Australia, no country has the consistency relationship between Hofstede and GLOBE score, no matter in practice or value score. Among the 40 countries and regions being studied, 28 have non consistency relationship between Hofstede and GLOBE score, which lead to the strong argumentation and debate as to the two cultural dimensions. Table 5. Comparison of the 40countries in UAI across Hofstede and GLOBE Model, with China as the reference country Continent Countries and regions Hofstede GLOBE Consistency/ P V Non-consistency China to China Asia (13) Europe (16) China to Hong Kong C/C China to India N/N China to Indonesia N/N China to Israel N/N China to Japan N/N China to Malaysia N/N China to Philippines N/N China to Singapore N/C China to Korea N/N China to Taiwan N/N China to Thailand N/C China to Turkey N/C China to Austria C/N China to Denmark N/C China to Finland C/N China to France N/N China to Greece N/N China to Hungary N/N China to Ireland N/N China to Italy N/N China to Netherlands N/N China to Poland N/N China to Portugal N/N China to Russia N/N China to Spain N/N China to Sweden N/C China to Switzerland C/N China to Switzerland-FR C/N 40

8 Xiumei Shi Africa (1) China to Morocco N/C North China to USA N/N America (2) China to Mexico N/N China to Argentina N/N China to Brazil N/N South China to Colombia N/N American China to Costa Rica N/N (7) China to Ecuador N/N China to Guatemala N/N China to Venezuela N/N Australia (1) China to New Zealand N/N Notes: 1. P=Practice score, V=Value score in GLOBE cultural model 2. + means the score of the UA dimension of the certain country or region is higher than that of China, - means the score of the UA dimension of the certain country or region is lower than that of China Relationship between UA in Hofstede and GLOBE Table 6. Descriptive statistics for Hofstede and GLOBE Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) scores (practice and value scores) N Min Max Mean Median s.d. Hofstede UA index Correlations GLOBE UA practices index GLOBE UA Values index Hofstede UA index GLOBE UA - practices * 1 index * GLOBE UA Values index * ** 1 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). Table 6 contains relevant descriptive statistics and correlations for Hofstede s UA Index, GLOBE UA practices and GLOBE UA values. As shown in table 6, Hofstede s UA index has a significant negative correlation with GLOBE UA practices, but a significant positive correlation with GLOBE UA values. However, the absolute value of the correlation with GLOBE UA values is less than half that with GLOBE UA practices (0.62 vs 0.33). Furthermore, as shown in table 6, there is a significant negative relationship between GLOBE UA practices and values. And also noted in table 6, there is a significant positive relationship between the Hofstede UA index and GLOBE UA values. Since GLOBE UA values are essentially UA-rule orientation values, and one of the components of the Hofstede UA index is rule orientation values, the significant, albeit small, positive relationship between Hofstede UA index and GLOBE UA values is not unexpected. Since GLOBE UA practices essentially represent rule of law, the significant negative relationship between Hofstede UA and GLOBE UA practices is to be expected. These results provide further support for our view that Hofstede and GLOBE capture different, and opposite, components of the UA construct. 4. Conclusion and recommendations for further research Both Hofstede Model and GLOBE Model are highly valuable research studies in international business and management. They provide useful dimensions to compare and better understand 41

9 Uncertainty Avoidance: Research Based on Hofstede and GLOBE Cultural Dimensions the differences between countries. But there is much debate on the appropriateness and validity of Hofstede s and the GLOBE project s cultural value dimensions, especially the Uncertainty Avoidance dimension, which is quite a dilemma right now. Given the increasing globalization of industrial organizations and the growing interdependencies among nations, the need for a better understanding of cultural influences on leadership and organizational practices has never been greater (House R.J. and Hanges P.J., Javidan M., Dorfman P.W., Gupta V., 2004). Uncertainty Avoidance is a complex, multifaceted construct, and that the Hofstede and GLOBE studies measure specific, distinct and sometimes contradictory aspects of UA, it is imperative that the interpretation of UA in Hofstede and GLOBE be circumscribed by the respective components measured in each. (Venaik S. and Brewer P., 2010) This study yields to three research results: In both GLOBE Model and Hofstede Model, (i) UAI has always been an arguable issue and they have different measuring criteria; (ii) UAI in Hofstede cultural model varies greatly from that in GLOBE Model, both in Value and practice score; and (iii) Very few countries and regions have the consistency relationship in UAI across the two dimensions and nearly 82% of the countries and nations studied in this research have the non-consistency relationship which may yield the non-consistency results for the research with UAI dimension in Cross-cultural study. As to the future research, just as Christopher Earley argued nearly a decade ago, scholars should refocus their attention away from any more of these values surveys and toward developing theories and frameworks for understanding the linkages among culture, perceptions, actions, organizations, structures, etc (Earley P.C. and Gibson C.B., 1998). He thought that this form of large-scale, multi-country survey be set aside for the development of alternative mid-range theories having a more direct application and explanation for organizational phenomena in a cultural and national context (Earley P.C., 2006). So we recommend that future research be directed towards developing theories and also focus on the application of the two Models in different research fields across different cultures, by using a quantitative method to see which culture dimensions are key factors in cross-cultural relationship and the reasons why UAI has different outcomes from the two models should be explored from data collection and research methods, etc. References Earley P.C. and Gibson C.B. (1998). Taking stock in our progress of individualism and collectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community. Journal of Management, 24: Earley P.C. (2006). Leading cultural research in the future: a matter of paradigms and taste. Journal of International Business Studies, 37: Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). Hofstede, G. and Peterson, M.F. (2000). National values and organizational practices. In N.M. Ashkanasy, C.P.M. Wilderom and M.F. Peterson (Eds), Handbook of organizational culture and climate. London: Sage, 2000,

10 Xiumei Shi House R.J. and Hanges P.J., Javidan M., Dorfman P.W., Gupta V. (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations. The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage House R.J., Narda R. Quigley and Mary Sully de Luque (2010). Insights from Project GLOBE, Extending global advertising research through a contemporary framework, International Journal of Advertising, 29(1): Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., Sully de Luque, M.F. and House, R.J. (2006) In the eye of the beholder: cross-cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, February, pp Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G. (2011). The evolution of Hofstede's doctrine, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(1): Mooij M. and Hofstede G. (2010). The Hofstede model Applications to global branding and advertising strategy and research. International Journal of Advertising, 29: Robert J. House, Narda R. Quigley and Mary Sully de Luque (2010). Insights from Project GLOBE, Extending global advertising research through a contemporary framework, International Journal of Advertising, 29(1): Shenkar, O. (2001). Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(3): Xiumei, S. and Jinying, W. (2011). Cultural Distance between China and US across GLOBE Model and Hofstede Model, International Business and Management, 2(1): Xiumei, S. and Jinying, W. (2011). Interpreting Hofstede Model and GLOBE Model: Which way to go for Cross-Cultural Research? International Journal of Business and Management, 6(5): Venaik, S. and Brewer, P. (2010). Avoiding uncertainty in Hofstede and GLOBE, Journal of International Business Studies, 41: Williamson, A. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press. Acknowledgments Gratitude is expressed to the experts for finding the time for the interviews that made this research possible. Sincere thanks also go to professors from Business School in CUFE for their support. Hua Luan deserves special mention as he inspired and encouraged the whole research project. The valuable feedback of the anonymous reviewers is greatly appreciated as it helped improving the paper. The author is responsible for all remaining errors. About the Author Xiumei Shi was born in Dalian Liaoning China in 1974 and she received her B.S. degree in literature from Liaoning Normal University (Dalian), M.S. in Economics from Dongbei University of Finance and Economics (Dalian) and the Ph.D. degree in Management from Central University of Finance and Economics (Beijing) in 1996, 2007, 2012 respectively. From November 2009 to November 2011, she was a Visiting Scholar in University of California, Irvine. She is currently an associate professor in Dalian University of Foreign Languages and doing her research in the Post-Doctoral Research Center in Central University of Finance and Economics. Her current research interests include cross-cultural management, especially in Uncertainty Avoidance and Multinational Corporations Management. Contact Information Xiumei Shi, Associate professor, Dalian University of Foreign Languages. Tel: sxmlcljj@163.com. 43