When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled: the GLOBE and Hofstede projects

Transcription

1 (2006) 37, & 2006 Academy of International Business All rights reserved $ COMMENTARY When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled: the GLOBE and Hofstede projects Department of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK Correspondence: Professor PB Smith, Department of Psychology, University of Sussex, JMS Building 5d20, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QG, UK. Tel: þ or þ ; Fax: þ ; Abstract Four aspects of the debate between Hofstede and Javidan et al. are highlighted. First, it is shown that characterizing cultures either on the basis of aggregated self-perceptions or on the basis of aggregated perceptions of others in one s society are not equivalent procedures. Each has inherent errors, and neither can be considered as providing the one best way to denote national cultures. Furthermore, the number of dimensions of national culture that can be usefully studied must be proportional to the limited number of nations available for comparative analyses. Third, although Hofstede and Javidan et al. appear to differ on optimal ways of aggregating individual-level data to the nation level, both appear to have done so in a way that does not prevent detection of differing relations between items at different levels of analysis. Finally, we need greater clarity as to the ways in which national wealth relates to other aspects of culture. It is a major component of contemporary national cultures, and must be retained as an element within nation-level analyses. (2006) 37, doi: /palgrave.jibs Keywords: levels of analysis; dimensions of national culture and GLOBE project Received: 5 June 2006 Revised: 5 June 2006 Accepted: 5 June 2006 Online publication date: 21 September 2006 Introduction The exchange of opinions in this journal between Hofstede (2006) and Javidan et al. (2006) marks a new stage in the development of cross-cultural investigations. The pioneering work of Hofstede (1980) has served as a marker post for subsequent investigators for more than two decades. The Hofstede model of cultural differences has certainly not been endorsed by all those working in the field, but prior published debates have had a different flavour from the present one. Critics such as MacSweeney (2002) and many of the commentators upon the influential review by Oyserman et al. (2002) (Kitayama, 2002; Miller, 2002) have doubted the value of characterizing the variability of nations in terms of dimensions, and have argued for greater use of more qualitative analyses of culture. In contrast, the protagonists in the present debate are agreed as to the central importance of dimensional analyses of national and organizational culture, even while they do both see a subsidiary role for qualitative studies in developing measures and testing hypotheses. The debate thus becomes focused on the actual substance of dimensions, rather than on preferred methodology. As the African proverb that provides the title to this piece implies, when major figures disagree, it is important to ensure that there is not too much collateral damage to the field: we need to find ways in which this debate can yield synergy. In the present instance, the

2 916 The GLOBE and Hofstede projects field in which the grass can get trampled comprises the ongoing dialogue between researchers and journal reviewers over the coming decade. Either one of the contributions to this debate could in the future be used by a reviewer as a basis for recommending rejection of a paper based on the cultural dimensions identified by the other party. In neither case would that advance the field. In these comments, I shall focus upon what I see as four of the most basic issues that underlie this debate: preferred ways of conceptualizing and measuring culture; the question of how many culture dimensions we can usefully study; the problem of levels of analysis; and the role of wealth. These issues are to some extent interwoven with one another. The basis of Hofstede s early achievement was his realization that, by aggregating individuals survey responses to the level of nations, he could obtain a representation of those values and opinions that were widely shared within his samples from each nation that had been surveyed. As Javidan et al. note, we would nowadays ask that, before making such aggregations, a set of data must be examined to determine whether cross-national variation does actually exceed intranational variability to a sufficient extent. Nonetheless, the legacy of Hofstede s work has been that almost all subsequent contributors to the field accept that national culture may be operationalized by aggregating the self-descriptive responses obtained from individuals drawn from a series of different national samples. The predominant emphasis has been upon characterizing cultures in terms of shared values (Schwartz, 1994, 2004; Smith et al., 1996; Inglehart, 1997), with attention more recently given also to shared beliefs (Bond et al., 2004) and to shared sources of guidance (Smith et al., 2002). Self-reports or perceptions of others in my society? The GLOBE researchers have doubted that it is adequate to conceptualize culture simply as the average of individuals self-reported values or other attributes. This led them to formulate their measures in terms of respondents perceptions of their organizational and national contexts, distinguishing what they call values and practices. They share with Hofstede the assumption that it is useful to aggregate these data, but we need to examine closely how best to characterize and evaluate these new types of measure. For the sake of simplicity, I shall discuss this issue only in relation to the nation level of analysis. Hofstede is sceptical that respondents are able to characterize their nations validly (Hofstede, 2006). However, there is little doubt that persons do feel that they are able to characterize both their own and others nations. Such perceptions have typically been studied by social psychologists in terms of stereotypes, and we are here concerned primarily with national auto-stereotypes, rather than with hetero-stereotypes. The GLOBE practices measures are those that come closest to the manner in which stereotyping has normally been studied, in that they mostly comprise statements of behaviours or practices that respondents perceive to be widespread or to be emphasized in their own organization or society. How can a respondent make a valid judgement as to what is or is not widespread in his or her society? Faced with a series of Likert rating scales, a respondent needs to employ some frame of reference in order to judge what is high and what is low (Heine et al., 2002). Implicitly or explicitly, an individual s ratings will be mapped onto their prior experiences of the world, which may be more or less limited, and which will necessarily reflect the perspectives of those that are most salient to them. This anchoring has sometimes been referred to as the frogpond effect. It is already a problem when respondents are asked to characterize themselves, but characterizing one s nation is substantially more problematic, because suitable comparators against which to make judgements are going to be either less well known or less relevant. Russians, for instance, rate themselves as generous, rash and impractical, whereas others rate them as serious, hardworking and persistent (Peabody and Shmelyov, 1996). In a recent landmark study, McCrae et al. (2005) have shown that across 46 nations there is no significant relationship between respondents national auto-stereotypes based on ratings of personality and the actual frequency of Big Five personality types in the sampled nations. Some of the descriptive statements constituting the GLOBE practices measures may be less vulnerable to error than were these personality ratings, because they involve within-nation comparators (e.g., In this society, boys are encouraged more than girls to attain a higher education ). However, most items do involve an implicit comparison with other nations (e.g., In this society, orderliness and consistency are stressed, even at the expense of experimentation and innovation ). Hofstede s caution as to the validity of ratings of one s nation as a whole is well advised. The best test of the magnitude of this

3 The GLOBE and Hofstede projects 917 problem is provided by comparing correlations between the practices scores and independently available nation-level criteria with the extensive range of correlations with the Hofstede value dimensions already provided by Hofstede (2001). The GLOBE researchers were able to provide some evidence of this kind (House et al., 2004), but it is more compelling for some dimensions than for others. The GLOBE measures of values also depart substantially from the ways in which values have most typically been measured by cross-cultural researchers. Hofstede discusses this in terms of the distinction that he likes to make between what is desired and what is desirable. Javidan et al. correctly observe that other researchers have not taken heed of this distinction and use the two terms in ways that do not accord with Hofstede s distinction. However, there is a simpler and more basic distinction to be made: most researchers study values in terms of the individual respondent s own preferred end states, but GLOBE operationalized values in terms of preferences about the behaviour of others in one s society. As Hofstede (2001, 2006) argues, there is no logical reason why these two sets of values need to coincide. If I want to be powerful, it does not follow that I shall want others to be powerful. If I want to take risks, it does not follow that I shall want others to do likewise. Thus, the GLOBE values measures have no necessary logical linkage with the prior measures of values used, for instance, by Schwartz (2004) or by Inglehart (1997). A first estimate of the magnitude of the differences between these two procedures for measuring values is provided by Fischer (in press). In contrast to the usual procedure, in which respondents rate their own values, Fischer asked students from 10 nations to rate the importance of each of the 57 values in the Schwartz Value Survey for people in my country. These ratings were first averaged across the clusters of values that Schwartz has identified as value types and then aggregated to the nation level. Rank order correlations were next computed between these means and Schwartz s previously published nation-level means for his seven value types, which are derived from respondents ratings of their own values. Correlations for the seven nation-level Schwartz value types ranged from 0.88 to 0.33, averaging As Fischer had predicted, the correlations were strongly positive for the value types of embeddedness (0.71) and affective autonomy (0.88), which refer to those most basic aspects of group membership and of emotional expression that are socialized very early in life. Fischer predicted that correlations for the remaining value types would be weak or absent. Correlations for these value types averaged Thus, whether measures of my values and measures of the values in my society are correlated will depend upon which values are sampled. Fischer s measure was not identical with that used by GLOBE: Fischer asked respondents about the values of others in their society, whereas GLOBE asked respondents how others in their society should behave. However, Fischer concluded that, at least in the case of the Schwartz survey, these two different ways of characterizing a nation s values can share an average of no more than 8% of variance. As with the practices measures, we must therefore determine the contribution of GLOBE s new measures of values to the field as additional potential predictors of cultural effects, rather than as alternative replacements for the value measures that were provided by earlier researchers. Indeed, it is notable that when House et al. (2004) report correlations between their nation-level scores and Hofstede s scores it was the GLOBE measures for ingroup collectivism and power distance practices rather than those for values that correlated strongly with the relevant prior Hofstede measures. It may also be useful to examine the variable correlations between the GLOBE values and practices measures in terms of Fischer s (in press) results. If, as he found, respondents perceive that most values in one s society are actually different from one s own values, it is less surprising to find that GLOBE respondents felt that others in their society should change their present practices. If Fischer s results prove replicable, they can guide our choices as to how best to survey cultural variation. If our focus is upon the most basic and normative aspects of culture, then the Hofstede and GLOBE procedures are equally appropriate. However, if our focus is upon those aspects of culture where the GLOBE and Hofstede measures of values diverge, a choice is required. The Hofstede measures may prove more useful in predicting behavioural frequencies. The GLOBE value dimensions could prove more useful in studying aspects of intergroup and international relations. How many dimensions do we need? A further aspect of the conceptualization of national cultures has to do with the number of dimensions that may be optimal for progressing cross-cultural research. Both protagonists to this

4 918 The GLOBE and Hofstede projects debate assert that their chosen number is defensible. However, it is noticeable that, even in response to Hofstede s earlier choice of five dimensions, the field as a whole has tended to ignore three of these dimensions and concentrate upon the two correlated dimensions of individualism and power distance. The complexity demanded of analyses built upon nine dimensions of culture will defeat many research designs. Moreover, there is an empirical issue associated with the choice of number of dimensions. In order to test nation-level hypotheses based upon several dimensions of culture, one needs to sample substantial numbers of nations. Very few studies have yet sampled more than 60 nations, and with sample sizes this small there is a substantial risk of multicollinearity between multiple dimensions. In the Hofstede data, individualism and power distance were not empirically separable. In the case of the GLOBE nationlevel data, there are substantial correlations between future orientation, uncertainty avoidance, performance orientation and low power distance among the practices measures. On the values measures, future orientation and uncertainty avoidance are particularly strongly linked, and there are also strong associations between some of the values measures and some of the practices measures (House et al., 2004 pp: ). The non-independence of these dimensions is made plain when their ability to predict effective leadership is tested competitively (House et al., 2004 pp: ). When tested one at a time, there is an average of 3.3 significant societal value predictors per leadership dimension, but when tested competitively this reduces to 1.4 significant predictors. Multicollinearity is a problem not just in relation to predictors, but also in relation to the dependent variables often used in nation-level analyses. Many aspects of nations prove to be correlated with one another across the range of nations typically available. Georgas et al. (2004) obtained a secondorder first factor identified as wealth that explained 77% of variance from 23 indices of ecology, economy, education, use of media and population that were sampled across 174 nations. Multicollinearity both of predictors and of dependent measures is problematic even in surveys that range as broadly as did the Hofstede and GLOBE projects. In the increasing number of published studies that sample no more than 15 or 20 countries, this problem becomes even more acute. The question to be resolved here is not one of how many different dimensions of cultural variation can be defined and measured. It must be possible to conceptualize and measure several dozen. In choosing which to study, we should first determine the extent to which dimensions are independent of one another. The next criterion should be focused not just on factor structures, but on how many will yield hypotheses that can be validly and differentially tested among the range of nation-level samples that are typically available. Levels of analysis The third major issue dividing the protagonists in this debate concerns the process whereby data are to be aggregated to higher levels of analysis. The procedure espoused by Hofstede is clearly described and has been followed by almost all subsequent nation-level researchers. The score for each individual survey item is aggregated to the nation level before the interrelations between items are explored. At no point within the 818 pages of the most detailed report on their project (House et al., 2004) did the GLOBE researchers make plain whether they did this or not (Peterson and Castro, in press). However, Hanges and Dickson (2006) have now provided detail of the rather more complex sequence of confirmatory factor analyses that were employed. Although, during pilot testing of the GLOBE data, individual-level pan-cultural factor analyses were made, when the full data set was available, higher-level analyses were actually conducted. These did show that the four items intended to constitute each of the GLOBE dimensions showed adequate organization- and nationlevel scale properties, and that they did not factor together at the individual level. Thus, the GLOBE measures are appropriate to what Hofstede describes as ecological level analyses. It is less clear to me that nation-level measures are optimal for the study of leadership. Nation-level averages for desirable leadership qualities are likely to conceal considerable intra-cultural variability. House et al. (2004) did conduct HLM analyses for predictors of effective leadership, which would have enabled them to estimate this individual-level variability, but in the chapter where they present the relevant results, they state that the individual level of analysis is not of direct concern for the present chapter (p 698). Furthermore, their choice to focus on the perceived values of others in their society precluded them from developing any individual-level values predictor. Including one would have enabled a closer and more comprehensive scrutiny of the relationship between values and

5 The GLOBE and Hofstede projects 919 perceptions of effective leadership. The strength of studies such as those of Schwartz (1994, 2004) is that they yield values measures at both the individual and the nation level, enabling hypotheses to be tested at whichever level is most appropriate to a particular set of data. The new information provided by Hanges and Dickson (2006) also suggests that what is often stated to be a weakness in the Hofstede project is also present within the GLOBE project. In both projects, the authors had some initial expectations as to the dimensions that would emerge. Consequently, items expected to define these dimensions were factored together, and the expected structure was obtained. It appears that in neither case were a broader range of items factored together, to determine whether a smaller number of dimensions could be extracted that would adequately summarize the variations between samples. One could of course argue that that this weakness is actually a strength, in that the formulation of the GLOBE dimensions was theory driven and indeed derived in no small measure from Hofstede s earlier work. Despite this, some consolidation of dimensions remains desirable, if the GLOBE dimensions are to become widely adopted. It would nonetheless be prudent to retain the separation between the values items and the practices items, given the substantial difference in their focus that I have discussed above. National wealth Hofstede s approach to national wealth has been to conceptualize it as something that is separate from national culture, and which may indeed be a major causal agent for cultural change. He, therefore, partials it out of his analyses of nation-level cultural effects. The GLOBE researchers do not control for it in this way, and consequently find it associated with many of their dimensional measures. The time-series evidence linking economic growth with change in national values is impressive (Inglehart and Baker, 2000), but, as Javidan et al. note, such evidence does not preclude the reciprocal contribution of other aspects of culture to economic growth. These differing approaches to the conceptualization of wealth serve to underline the continuing ambiguity of many definitions of nation-level culture. Hofstede s definition of culture as the collective programming of the mind appeals to many, but it does not tell us whether to include or exclude wealth from our understanding of culture. All industrial nations currently entail a process of programming the mind that leads their constituent members to treat currency as a tangible entity that provides the basis for the regulation of many aspects of that nation s functioning. Consequently it is difficult to sustain the view that we best understand culture by simply partialling out wealth as did Hofstede, as well as the authors of the recent 41-nation survey of beliefs (Bond et al., 2004). The difficulty here is in finding an appropriate portrayal of the manner in which a nation s wealth is interwoven with the multitude of other factors that contribute both to cultural stability and to cultural change. For the present it would aid comparability if researchers were to report their findings both with wealth partialled out and with it not partialled out. Models that assert that national wealth and cultural values have simple main effect relationships upon one another are likely to have a limited lifespan. More sophisticated models of the ways in which each interacts with the other will be required. A provocative instance is provided by the recent work of van de Vliert, who has tested predictions concerning leadership and organizational behaviour that are derived from interactions between national wealth and the climatic circumstances faced by different nations (van de Vliert, 2003; van de Vliert and Smith, 2004), sometimes using GLOBE scores as his dependent measures (van de Vliert, 2006). His model asserts that, over time, prevailing climatic factors have posed greater or lesser challenges to particular nations, depending upon their location. These challenges can be more readily addressed where greater wealth prevails, but the actual more recent creation of wealth has often derived from factors unrelated to climate. Thus, the creation of national cultures must entail reference to historical factors, and must acknowledge wealth as being both a cause and an effect of other elements in a nation s adaptation to its context (Smith, 2004). Conclusions Hofstede s (1980) pioneering study provided the impetus for our endeavours in understanding psychological aspects of national cultures. The methodological problems that he faced remain salient to all cross-cultural researchers. There are no simple solutions. The methods employed by the GLOBE researchers address these problems in somewhat different ways and draw upon the greater power of recently developed procedures for statistical analysis. Nonetheless, the methods employed

6 920 The GLOBE and Hofstede projects by the GLOBE researchers also entail contingent risks and ambiguities. We should continue to survey cultural differences by using a broad range of methodologies, and can hope to achieve confidence in the results obtained when findings are found to converge, as they quite often do, rather than to prove dependent upon a particular set of research methods. How can the field take benefit from this interchange, now that the elephants in our field have had their say? First, the viability of nation-level analyses is reinforced. There is value in individuallevel analyses of cultural effects, but if we only do individual-level analyses, we fail to grasp the key contribution of context toward cultural maintenance and cultural change within organizations and more generally. We need adequately researched nation-level dimensions of culture if we are to understand and try to manage the contemporary maelstrom that we refer to as globalization. Second, we can consider how best to set up future surveys by seeking middle ground between Hofstede s herculean single-authored study and the close to 200 contributors to the GLOBE project. We know more than we did about differences in national culture, and this implies that we should start to select data collection sites on the basis of theory rather than on the basis of convenience sampling. We may learn more from sampling 15 or 20 carefully selected sites than we do by taking on the practical complexity of maximizing the numbers of nations sampled. Third, we should applaud and hold on to some of the key design features of the GLOBE project, which enabled it to augment and develop Hofstede s pioneering achievement. In particular, I refer to the use of HLM analysis, to the use of split samples from within each nation to avoid common method bias, and to the deliberate theory-driven design of measurement scales. The last of these is of particular importance, given the increasing current temptations for researchers to download data from existing databanks within which the items have often been designed on the basis of company needs. Not every study needs new measures, but inclusion of a modest number of conceptually based measures rather than reliance on existing Hofstede or GLOBE nation scores is a prerequisite for any study sampling individuals from a range of nations. Finally, the value of reasoned debate is endorsed. This interchange has provoked contributors into providing information not previously published, and has provoked this commentator into exploring issues not previously thought through. The grass may be trampled, but there are signs of new growth. References Bond, M.H. et al. (2004) Culture-level dimensions of social axioms and their correlates across 41 cultures, Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology 35(5): Fischer, R. (in press) Congruence and functions of personal and cultural values: do my values reflect my culture s values? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Georgas, J., van de Vijver, F. and Berry, J. (2004) The ecocultural framework, ecosocial indices and psychological variable in cross-cultural research, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 35(1): Hanges, P.J. and Dickson, M.W. (2006) Agitation over aggregation: clarifying the development of and the nature of the GLOBE scales, Leadership Quarterly, doi: /j.leaqua Heine, S.J., Lehman, D.R., Peng, K.P. and Greenholtz, J. (2002) What s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective likert scales? The Reference Group Effect, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82(6): Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Sage: Beverly Hills, CA. Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. Hofstede, G. (2006) What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers Minds vs Respondents Minds, Journal of International Business Studies 37(6), doi: /palgrave.jibs House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., Gupta, V. and GLOBE associates (2004) Leadership, Culture and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Nations, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. Inglehart, R. (1997) Modernization and Post-Modernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Nations, Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ. Inglehart, R. and Baker, W.E. (2000) Modernization, cultural change and the persistence of traditional values, American Sociological Review 65(1): Javidan, M., House, R.J., Dorfman, P., Hanges, P. and Sully de Luque, M. (2006) Conceptualizing cultures and their consequences: a comparative review of GLOBE s and hofstede s approaches, 37(6), doi: /palgrave.jibs Kitayama, S. (2002) Culture and basic psychological processes toward a system view of culture: comment on Oyserman et al. (2002), Psychological Bulletin 128(1): MacSweeney, B. (2002) Hofstede s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: a triumph of faith; a failure of analysis, Human Relations 55(1): McCrae, R.R. et al. (2005) Universal features of personality traits from the observer s perspective: data from 50 cultures, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88(3): Miller, J.G. (2002) Bringing culture to basic psychological theory beyond individualism and collectivism: comment on Oyserman et al. (2002), Psychological Bulletin 128(1):

7 The GLOBE and Hofstede projects 921 Oyserman, D., Coon, H.M. and Kemmelmeier, M. (2002) Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses, Psychological Bulletin 128(1): Peabody, D. and Shmelyov, A.G. (1996) Psychological characteristics of Russians, European Journal of Social Psychology 26(3): Peterson, M.F. and Castro, S.L. (in press) Measurement metrics at aggregate levels of analysis: implications for the GLOBE project and organization culture research, Leadership Quarterly. Schwartz, S.H. (1994) Beyond individualism/collectivism: new dimensions of values, in U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitçibasi, S.C. Choi, S.C. and G. Yoon (eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Application and Methods, Sage: Newbury Park, CA, pp: Schwartz, S.H. (2004) Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around the world, in H. Vinken, J. Soeters and P. Ester (eds.), Comparing Cultures: Dimensions of Culture in a Comparative Perspective, Brill: Leiden, NL, pp: Smith, P.B. (2004) Nations, cultures and individuals: new dilemmas and old perspectives, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 35(1): Smith, P.B., Dugan, S. and Trompenaars, F. (1996) National culture and managerial values: a dimensional analysis across 43 nations, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(2): Smith, P.B. et al. (2002) Cultural values, sources of guidance and their relevance to managerial behavior, Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology 33(2): Van de Vliert, E. (2003) Thermoclimate, culture, and poverty as country-level roots of workers wages, Journal of International Business Studies 34(1): Van de Vliert, E. (2006) Autocratic leadership around the globe: do climate and wealth drive leadership culture? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 37(1): Van de Vliert, E. and Smith, P.B. (2004) Leader reliance on subordinates across nations that differ in development and climate, Leadership Quarterly 15(3): About the author Peter B. Smith is Emeritus Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Sussex, UK. He has published seven books and more than 140 articles and chapters, many of them concerning cross-cultural aspects of social and organizational behaviour. He is former editor of the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology and past president of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology. His most recent book, Understanding Social Psychology across Cultures: Living and Working in a Changing World, was published by Sage in Accepted by Kwok Leung, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, 5 June This paper has been with the author for two revisions.