(PDF) Looking into the future: Hofstede long term orientation versus GLOBE future orientationHomeNational CultureArticlePDF AvailableLooking into the future: Hofstede long term orientation versus GLOBE future orientationJuly 2013Cross Cultural Management An International Journal 20(3):361-385DOI:10.1108/CCM-02-2012-0014Authors: Sunil VenaikThe University of Queensland Yunxia ZhuThe University of Queensland Paul BrewerPaul BrewerThis person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn t claimed this research yet. Download full-text PDFRead full-textDownload full-text PDFRead full-textDownload citation Copy link Link copied Read full-text Download citation Copy link Link copiedCitations (40)References (54)AbstractPurpose - The purpose of this paper is to critically examine, theoretically and empirically, the two time orientation dimensions - long-term orientation (LTO) and future orientation (FO) - in the national culture models of Hofstede and GLOBE, respectively. Design/methodology/approach - Following Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck s past-present-future theoretical lens, the Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO measures are analysed to understand the conceptual domain covered by these two dimensions. Next, the authors empirically examine the relationship of Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO with secondary data from Hofstede, GLOBE, and the World Values Survey. Findings - This paper shows that Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO dimensions capture different aspects of time orientation of societies. In particular, Hofstede LTO focuses on past (tradition) versus future (thrift) aspect of societies, GLOBE FO practices capture the present versus future (planning) practices of societies, and GLOBE FO values reflect societal aspirations and preferences for planning. Research limitations/implications - A specific implication of these findings is that the three dimensions of time orientation are not interchangeable since they represent different characteristics of societies. A wider implication for researchers is to ensure high level of precision in and congruence among construct labels, definitions and measures to avoid confusion and misapplication of cross-cultural concepts. Practical implications - In an increasingly globalized world, a clear understanding of societal time orientation will help managers deal more effectively with their counterparts in other countries. Originality/value - The key contribution of this paper is in identifying and clarifying, both theoretically and empirically, the anomalies in the labels, definitions and measurement of Hofstede long-term orientation and GLOBE future orientation national culture dimensions. It also shows a useful way forward for researchers on how to use these national culture dimensions to explain other phenomena of interest to cross-cultural scholars. Discover the world s research20+ million members135+ million publications700k+ research projectsJoin for freePublic Full-text 1Content uploaded by Sunil VenaikAuthor contentAll content in this area was uploaded by Sunil Venaik on Nov 05, 2019 Content may be subject to copyright. Looking into the future: Hofstedelong term orientation versusGLOBE future orientationSunil Venaik, Yunxia Zhu and Paul BrewerUQ Business School, University of Queensland, Brisbane, AustraliaAbstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to critically examine, theoretically and empirically, the twotime orientation dimensions – long-term orientation (LTO) and future orientation (FO) – in thenational culture models of Hofstede and GLOBE, respectively.Design/methodology/approach – Following Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s past-present-futuretheoretical lens, the Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO measures are analysed to understand theconceptual domain covered by these two dimensions. Next, the authors empirically examine therelationship of HofstedeLTO and GLOBE FO with secondary data from Hofstede, GLOBE,and the WorldValues Survey.Findings – This paper shows that Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO dimensions capture differentaspects of time orientation of societies. In particular, Hofstede LTO focuses on past (tradition) versusfuture (thrift) aspect of societies, GLOBE FO practices capture the present versus future (planning)practices of societies, and GLOBE FO values reflect societal aspirations and preferences for planning.Research limitations/implications – A specific implication of these findings is that the threedimensions of time orientation are not interchangeable since they represent different characteristics ofsocieties. A wider implication for researchers is to ensure high level of precision in and congruenceamong construct labels, definitions and measures to avoid confusion and misapplication of cross-culturalconcepts.Practical implications – In an increasingly globalized world, a clear understanding of societal timeorientation will help managers deal more effectively with their counterparts in other countries.Originality/value – The key contribution of this paper is in identifying and clarifying, boththeoretically and empirically, the anomalies in the labels, definitions and measurement of Hofstedelong-term orientation and GLOBE future orientation national culture dimensions. It also shows a usefulway forward for researchers on how to use these national culture dimensions to explain otherphenomena of interest to cross-cultural scholars.Keywords National cultures, Cross-cultural management, Time-based management, Society,Employees behaviour, Hofstede, GLOBE, Long-term orientation, Future orientationPaper type Research paperIntroductionA wide range of research into the effects of national culture on other phenomena andbehaviour has been published over recent decades. Much of this culture research hasbeen based on the core concepts of culture developed by the seminal work of Hofstede(1980, 2001) which remains the standard in national culture studies (Smith, 2006). TheHofstede model has recently been joined by another national culture study, conductedby the GLOBE group which has also received considerable acclaim (Smith, 2006).The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7606.htmThe authors would like to thank Professor Cindy Gallois for her valuable comments on an earlierversion of the paper.Cross Cultural ManagementVol. 20 No. 3, 2013pp. 361-385qEmerald Group Publishing Limited1352-7606DOI 10.1108/CCM-02-2012-0014Hofstede LTOversusGLOBE FO361 The primary importance of both studies is that they present a group of dimensions ofnational culture with corresponding scores, which not only highlight culturaldifferences between societies, but also provide the means for the application of thosedifferences in culture related research.The publication of the GLOBE studyhas revived examination by scholars of the natureof national culture dimensions, in particular those developed by Hofstede and GLOBE(Brewer and Venaik, 2010; Maseland and Van Hoorn, 2010; Taras et al., 2010). Importantly,scholars now have the opportunity to compare and contrast elements of both models toprovide support or otherwise to our understanding of national culture. Such comparisonsare already evident in the literature, for example, there have recently been published aseries of papers by GLOBE and Hofstede themselves comparing their two models(Hofstede, 2006; Javidan et al., 2006), plus an analysis of the important uncertaintyavoidance dimension in the two models (Venaik and Brewer, 2010). Advocating furtherwork along these lines, Tung and Verbeke (2010) discuss a range of important issues inimproving the quality of cross-cultural research. In their extensive review of cross-culturalorganizational behaviour research, Tsuiet al. (2007, p. 462) conclude that there is \"a criticalneed for a consolidation of different cultural frameworks and their measurement”. In theirview, \"the fundamental concept of culture has not been systematically examined, nor hasthe proliferation of cultural frameworks with overlapping dimensions and inconsistentmeasurement” (Tsui et al., 2007, p. 460). In response to these and other calls to clarify theconstruct validity of culture dimensions, this paper offers a comparison and clarification ofthe Hofstede and GLOBE time dimensions, specifically the long-term orientation (LTO)dimension of Hofstede and the future orientation (FO) dimension of GLOBE.LTO and FO may seem to be the same given their origin and labels: both are relatedto the time orientation of societies and both infer a tendency to emphasise the futurerather than the present or past in values and attitudes. But, in fact, there is considerableconfusion surrounding the equivalence of the two dimensions, reflected in the opinionsof their respective authors. Hofstede claims they are the same (Hofstede, 2006), whereasGLOBE claims they are different (Ashkanasy et al., 2004). There is a need to ensure theresearch community understands what similarities and differences exist between LTOand FO, whether those differences are important and whether those differences shouldbe taken into account in future research. Thus, the key research question addressed inthis paper is: what are the similarities and differences in the origins, definitions,measures and relationships with other constructs between the LTO and FO dimensionsin the Hofstede and GLOBE national culture models, respectively.To achieve this aim, we critically examine theoretically and empirically the twodimensions of time orientation in Hofstede and GLOBE. Specifically, the paper beginswith a short discussion of the concept of time orientation in national cultures. We thendescribe the development of the LTO and FO dimensions in the Hofstede and GLOBEnational culture models, present propositions, and review the literature on these twodimensions. Next, we provide a critical theoretical analysis of the measures of LTO andFO, identify the similarities and differences between LTO and FO, and explain whythey occur. This is followed by an empirical examination of LTO and FO relationshipswith external variables as reported in Hofstede and GLOBE, and based on our ownanalysis using the World Values Survey (WVS) data. Finally, we suggest a wayforward for the applicability of LTO and FO in examining the effects of societal timeorientation on external variables.CCM20,3362 Time orientationTime orientation is a commonly cited aspect of national cultures (Legohe´rel et al., 2009)and has a long history in the philosophy and psychology literature Ashkanasy et al.(2004) for a useful synopsis). In fact, time orientation can be thought of in severaldifferent ways: commonly, as delineating the past, present and future (Kluckhohn andStrodtbeck, 1961) or it could be about punctuality (Rayback, 1992) or it could be about amonochronic time system versus a polychronic time system (Hall, 1983; Trompenaarsand Hampden-Turner, 1993). As the interest in societal time orientation incross-cultural management is largely in terms of past, present and future, the focusof our paper is on the Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO dimensions that refer to time interms of past, present and future (which we call a PPF orientation). This classificationwas identified in the landmark study by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), whoidentify five areas that define human value orientations. One of these is represented bythe question \"What is the temporal focus of human life? (i.e. time orientation)”(Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961, p. 11). The answer to this question in a humansociety falls into the range of past, present and future. While all societies need to copewith all three time phases, it is the differences in ordering of this focus on time thatdifferentiates one culture from another (in respect of time orientation). In other words,each culture has \"a preferred temporal perspective” (Mayfield et al., 1997, p. 79).Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) consider the temporal rank order emphasis of humansocieties to be past, present and future. Past orientation \"places primary emphasisupon the maintenance, or the restoration, of the traditions of the past”; FO stresses\"planning for the future and hoping future is better than either the present or the past”;and present orientation gives most attention to what is happening now and is\"timeless, traditionless, future-ignoring” (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961, p. 14).Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO: overview and propositions[1]Hofstede’s (2001) LTO dimension was first discovered in the Chinese Culture Connection(1987) study which was carried out in response to the concern that culturalquestionnaires are usually prepared by Western academics and therefore may be boundby a Western cultural outlook. As a consequence a survey was prepared specifically toidentify and measure Chinese cultural values (and consequent dimensions) acrosscountries around the world. Three of the resulting dimensions were found to correspondwith those in the original Hofstede survey. But one dimension, labelled Confucian WorkDynamism, did not have an equivalent in the Hofstede taxonomy and hence was addedto that model as a new dimension. For a range of reasons, Hofstede decided to change thename of this dimension within his culture model to LTO. According to Hofstede (2001,p. 354), \"in practical terms (LTO) refers to a long-term versus a short-term orientation inlife” and the dimension is defined as follows:[...] long-term orientation stands for the fostering of virtues oriented towards future rewards,in particular, perseverance and thrift. Its opposite pole, Short-Term Orientation, stands forthe fostering of virtues related to the past and the present, in particular, respect for tradition,preservation of face and fulfilling social obligations (Hofstede, 2001, p. 359) (our italics).The GLOBE FO dimension is one of seven dimensions that have their origins in thedimensions identified by Hofstede. GLOBE FO is defined as: \"the degree to whichindividuals in organizations or societies engage in future-orientated behaviours suchHofstede LTOversusGLOBE FO363 as planning, investing in the future, and delaying individual or collective gratification”(House and Javidan, 2004, p. 12) and \"has been identified as a dimension of the moregeneral construct, time orientation” (Ashkanasy et al., 2004, p. 282). The GLOBE studyrepresents all their dimensions in two ways, societal practices \"as is” and societalvalues \"should be”. Thus, there are two FO scores for each society: FO practices scoresand FO values scores.In a theoretical sense there is reason to think of Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO asthe same construct. For example, Ashkanasy et al. (2004, p. 285) describe FO as(all quotation italics are ours):[...] the extent to which members of a society or an organisation believe that their currentactions will influence their future [...] and look far into the future for assessing the effects oftheir current actions.In a similar vein, Hofstede (2001, p. 361) states, \"Businesses in long-term-orientedcultures are accustomed to working toward building up strong positions in theirmarkets; they do not expect immediate results”. Note that Hofstede’s definition of LTOcited above also contains the word \"future”. These two \"looking towards the future”preferences in Hofstede and GLOBE seem to be isomorphic. Thus, LTO and FO havecommon origins in Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s (1961) PPF framework, and GLOBEseemingly supports a conceptual connection between the two by describing HofstedeLTO as one of the \"four major studies on future orientation” (Ashkanasy et al.,2004,p. 286, our italics). This apparent congruence between LTO and FO is supported byHofstede, who views LTO and FO as essentially the same, \"GLOBE not only adopted thedimensions paradigm, they also started from my choice of five [...] long-term orientationbecame future orientation” (Hofstede, 2006, p. 883). Based on these theoretical reasons,we present the following proposition:P1. As the Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO dimensions are conceptually similar,they would be significantly positively related and have similar relationships(in strength and direction) with other constructs.But there are also reasons to think of LTO and FO as different. The definitions of LTOand FO provided above are dissimilar. LTO emphasises perseverance and thrift versusthe past/present, whereas FO is primarily about planning for the future versusfocusing on the present. In this sense the two seem to be quite different constructs. Wealso note that GLOBE does not use the same scales as Hofstede to measure the FOconstruct (see Appendices 1 and 2 for the items used to measure Hofstede LTO andGLOBE FO). And Ashkanasy et al. (2004, p. 313), \"suggest a need for caution ininterpreting the Confucian Dynamism scale as a proxy for long-term orientation”.Based on these arguments, we present the following alternative proposition:P2. As the Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO dimensions are conceptually dissimilar,they would be unrelated and have dissimilar relationships (in strength anddirection) with other constructs.As mentioned, in the GLOBE study, societal FO is measured in two ways: FO practicesand FO values. The GLOBE study measured national culture practices and valuesto capture both the tangible (\"e.g. current policies and practices”) and intangibleCCM20,3364 (\"e.g. cultural norms and values”) aspects of culture (Hanges and Dickson, 2004, p. 125).It is widely accepted in the literature that values shape behavior. According to GLOBE:[...] practices are acts or \"the way things are done in this culture,” and values are artifactsbecause they are human made and, in this specific case, are judgments about \"the waysthings should be done” (Triandis, 2004, p. xv).Parsons and Shils (1951, pp. 59-60) consider culture to be driven by values, because, \"[...]whenever he is forced to make any decision whatever – his value-orientations may commithim to certain normsthat will guide him in his choices [...]”. Hofstede (2001, p. 10) believes,\"values are invisible until they become evident in behaviour”. Soit is reasonable toexpectthat values aremanifested in practices,and that there is a positive relationship between theGLOBE FO practices-values scores. Thus, our third and last proposition is as follows:P3. As the GLOBE FO practices and values dimensions are conceptually similar,they would be significantly positively related and have similar relationships(in strength and direction) with other constructs.In sum, although Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO have similarities in their origins anddescriptions, they also differ in some aspects of definition. And in practice there isconsiderable evidence of a view in the academic community that LTO and FO areinterchangeable, one acts as a proxy for the other andtherefore they can be interchanged inexamining the effects of societal time orientation on national, organizational andindividualattitudes and behaviours. Asexamples we drawfrom four recentpapers whichreflect a convergence, at least in the authors’ minds, between LTO and FO. Naor et al.(2010, p. 196) state that it is generally agreed that \"a future oriented culture encouragesemployees to utilise new innovative technologies., which can enhance long-termperformance”. Seleim and Bontis (2009, p. 169) claim, \"high future orientation cultures [...]place a higher priority on long-term success [...]”. Fu et al. (2004, p. 289) state, \"futureorientation refers to the valuation of long-term results over short-term gratification”, andFang (2003, p. 351) in his critique examining Hofstede LTO cites literature that shows\"British and Americans are long term future-oriented,[...]” (all italics are ours). Therepeated association ofthe phrase \"long-term” with \"future orientation” is symptomatic ofperceived isomorphism between Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO. Two studies by Ryu andCook (2005) and Bearden et al. (2006), as noted in our literature review below, also implycommonality between LTO and FO. Hence, there is a need to carefully examine thetheoretical content of the items used to measure LTO and FO, and the empiricalrelationships of LTO and FO dimensions with each other and with other extraneousconstructs. We carry out these analyses after the literature review discussed next.Review of empirical literature on Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FOTo gauge the significance of LTO and FO in cross-cultural research, we examined the useof this construct in the business and management literature. Following Oyserman et al.(2002) and Griffith et al. (2008), we searched for the terms \"long-term orientation” and\"future orientation” inthe citation and abstract of key journals that publish cross-culturalstudies, such as Academy of Management Journal,Academy of Management Review,Cross Cultural Management – An International Journal,International Business Review,International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,International Marketing Review,Journal of International Business Studies,Journal of International Marketing,Journal ofHofstede LTOversusGLOBE FO365 Management, and Journal of World Business. Since we found less than ten papers on thesedimensions in these journals, we expanded our search to seek papers irrespective of thejournal, resulting in 19 papers overall that use these dimensions in their study. Table Ipresents a summary of the review. The studies can be classified into four broad categories.In the first group, three studies critique or re-examine the conceptual and measurementfoundations of Hofstede LTO. The second group includes eight studies that use LTO toexplain external constructs of interest to researchers. A third group of three studiesexamines therelationship betweenGLOBE FO and other variables. Finally,a fourth groupof five studies adapt the LTO/FO items of Hofstede and/or GLOBE to measure timeorientation at the firm or individual level. A brief review of the literature in each of thesefour categories follows. These papers cover a range of specific research questionsimpacting on behaviour such as ethics and corruption, international business strategy,human resource management, and firm performance.One of the first critiques of Hofstede LTO is provided by Yeh and Lawrence (1995)who show that Hofstede LTO is strongly positively related with collectivism andtherefore lacks discriminant validity (when the outlying data for Pakistan andPhilippines are excluded from analysis). Fang (2003) identifies a number of flaws in theLTO measures used by Hofstede, including their lack of face validity and otherconceptual and methodological issues, and calls into question the usefulness ofHofstede LTO dimension for cross-cultural research. In contrast, Spector et al. (2001)study the psychometric properties of Hofstede’s (1996) Values Survey Module in23 countries and find that all scales except LTO have poor reliability.The second group of studies examines the relationship between Hofstede LTO andother variables. For example, Van Everdingen and Waarts (2003) find a positiverelationship between LTO and innovation adoption, Buck et al. (2010) show that highLTO cultures tend to adopt long-term HRM strategies in international joint ventures,and Merkin (2004) argues that LTO culture members are more likely to use harmoniousand cooperative face-work strategies than their short-term orientated counterparts. Instudying the effect of LTO distance on joint venture formation, Kaufmann and O’Neill(2007) find LTO distance to have a positive effect on selecting a joint venture with amarketing/supplier focus and a negative effect on selecting a joint venture with aninnovation focus. Erumban and de Jong (2006) test the effect of LTO on ICT adoption,but find no significant relationship. There are also a few contradictory findings.Whereas Sanyal and Guvenli (2009) and Tsui and Windsor (2001) find that LTOshort-term orientation (STO) is associated with more (less) bribe giving and low (high)ethical reasoning, respectively, Bearden et al. (2006) and Nevins et al. (2007), using theirown LTO scales, show that high LTO on both tradition and planning dimensions hassignificant positive relationship with work ethic and personal ethical values.With the availability of GLOBE FO dimension scores, the third group of studiesuses this dimension instead of Hofstede LTO to explain their construct of interest. Forexample, Fu et al. (2004) find that high FO values strengthen the positive relationshipbetween belief in fate control and perceived effectiveness of assertive strategies, andSeleim and Bontis (2009) show that high FO values have a strong positive relationshipwith high corruption. Naor et al. (2010) use both organizational and national culturevariables in their model and find that organisational culture of high FO practices hasa significant effect on manufacturing performance, whereas national culture of high FOvalues makes an insignificant additional contribution to explain performance.CCM20,3366 Group Author(s) Year JournalaLTOmeasuresbKey results1 Fang (2003) 2003 IJCCM 1 Conceptual and methodological critique of Hofstede LTO dimension, identifies fatal flaws in LTO measures, and callsinto question the usefulness of Hofstede LTO for cross-cultural research1 Spector et al. (2001) 2001 AP 1 Test psychometric properties of Hofstede measures using VSM94 (not the original LTO measures in the Chinese ValuesSurvey) in 23 countries. Except LTO, all scales have poor reliability1 Yeh and Lawrence (1995) 1995 JIBS 1 Argues how Hofstede LTO and collectivism dimensions are strongly related and therefore tap into the same underlyingconstruct2 Bearden et al. (2006) andNevins et al. (2007)2007 JBE 3a High LTO on both tradition and planning dimensions has significant positive relationship with work ethic and personalethical values2 Buck et al. (2010) 2010 IBR 1 Chinese cultures (with high LTO) tend to adopt long-term HRM strategies in international joint ventures2 Erumban and de Jong 2006 JWB 1 Countries with a low LTO score should have a higher rate of ICT adoption (hypothesis not supported)2 Kaufmann and O’Neill 2007 JWB 1 LTO distance has a positive effect on selecting a joint venture with a marketing/supplier focus and a negative effect onselecting a joint venture with an innovation focus2 Merkin (2004) 2004 AJC 1 LTO culture members are more likely to use harmonious and cooperative facework strategies than their short-termorientated counterparts2 Sanyal and Guvenli (2009) 2009 CCM 1 LTO (STO) is associated with more (less) bribe giving2 Tsui and Windsor (2001) 2001 JBE 1 LTO (STO) is consistent with low (high) ethical reasoning2 Van Everdingen andWaarts (2003)2003 ML 1 The higher the score on LTO, the higher the innovation adoption rate (ERP adoption rate) (n¼10 European countries)3Fuet al. (2004) 2004 JIBS 2v High FO values strengthen the positive relationship between belief in fate control and perceived effectiveness of assertivestrategies3 Naor et al. (2010) 2010 JOM 2v (3bp forfirmculture)Controlling for organizational culture, national culture of high FO values has no effect on manufacturing performance.However, organizational culture of high FO practices has a significant positive effect on manufacturing performance3 Seleim and Bontis (2009) 2009 JIC 2p, 2v High scores on FO values (practices) are associated with high (low) corruption4 Barkema and Vermeulen(1997)1997 JIBS 3a Differences in LTO between home and host countries (1) have a negative impact on international joint venture survival,and (2) reduce a firm’s propensity to set up an international joint venture rather than a wholly-owned subsidiary4 Bearden et al. (2006) 2006 JAMS 3a 8-item scale for two dimensions of LTO - tradition and planning4 Hofstede and Minkov (2010) 2010 APBR 3c Develop a new LTO-WVS index using WVS variables/data4 Petersonet al. (2002) 2002 JWB 3c Western European MNCs place equally high priority on both long- and short-term performance measures compared toJapanese and US MNCs; Japanese and US MNCs are not statistically different in their long- or short-term performancemeasures4 Ryu and Cook (2005) 2005 JABR 3a,3bp Firms in high LTO culture prefer soft contracts with supply chain membersNotes: The list is sortedby group followed by author’sname;aAJC –Atlantic Journal of Communication,AP –Applied Psychology: An International Review,APBR –AsiaPacific Business Review,CCM–Cross Cultural Management,IBR –International Business Review,IJCCM –International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,JABR –Journal of Applied Business Research,JAMS –Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science,JBE –Journal of Business Ethics,JBR –Journal of BusinessResearch,JIBS –Journal of International Business Studies,JIC –Journalof Intellectual Capital,JOM –Journalof Operations Management,JWB –Journal of World Business,ML –Marketing Letters;bLTO measures: 1 – Hofstede LTO scores/scales; 2p,2v – GLOBE FO scores/scales ( p-practices, v-values); 3a –author’s scales adapted from Hofstede LTO; 3bp, 3bv – author’s scales adapted from GLOBE FO ( p-practices, v-values); 3c – author’s scalesTable I.Literature review onHofstede LTO andGLOBE FOHofstede LTOversusGLOBE FO367 Finally, the fourth category of research includes studies that develop their own scales tomeasure LTO or FO at the sub-national level of individuals or firms. For example,Barkema and Vermeulen (1997) measure LTO with a single item, namely, country’smarginal propensity to save, incorporating just the thrift aspect of Hofstede LTO.Peterson et al. (2002) measure short- and long-term firm performance with two itemseach – return on investments and return on assets for short-term performance, and R Dand market share for long-term performance. Recently, Hofstede and Minkov (2010)developed a new LTO-WVS index for a large group of 93 countries drawing upon theitems and scores from the WVS database. A similar approach using the same databasebut with only 38 countries was also later adopted by Minkov and Hofstede (2012).Two other studies in this group are of particular interest since they use a mixture ofHofstede LTO and GLOBE FO to measure time orientation. Ryu and Cook (2005) adapt theitems used by Hofstede (2010) and measure LTO with the following four items (numbers inbrackets are factor loadings): working toward future goal (0.58), working for future life(0.81), saving money for future (0.45), and being frugal (0.53). In operationalizing HofstedeLTO, the term \"future” is used in three of the four items, which indicates that these authorscapture a mixture of Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO conceptual domains. Similarly,Bearden et al. (2006, p. 457) adapt Hofstede (2010) LTO and state that \"individuals scoringhigh in LTO value planning, tradition, hard work for future benefit, and perseverance.”They propose two facets of LTO – tradition and planning – measured with four itemseach. The first tradition facet of LTO is measured with the following fouritems (numbersin brackets are factor loadings): respect for tradition is important to me (0.67), familyheritage is important to me (0.67), I value a strong link to the past (0.61), and traditionalvalues are important to me (0.71). The second planning facet of LTO is measured with thefollowing four items: I plan for the long-term (0.53), I work hard for success in the future(0.58), I do not mind giving up today’s fun for success in the future (0.59), and persistence isimportant tome (0.36). Thus, Bearden et al.’s (2006) conceptualisation of LTO incorporatesboth the tradition and perseverance aspects of Hofstede LTO as well as the planning andfuture aspects of GLOBE FO. More interestingly, their planning facet that correspondsclosely with GLOBE FO incorporates terms such as \"persistence” and \"long-term” whichare part of Hofstede’s measures of LTO. This \"mixture” reflects a view of equivalencebetween Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO.Thus, there is evidence that, following the publication of the GLOBE FO scores,scholars often consider LTO and FO as substitutes or use a mixture of both withoutadequate explanation or justification. In the next section, we seek to clarify thisequivalence question by presenting a detailed theoretical analysis of the items used tooperationalize the two dimensions.Theoretical analysis of Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO measuresSince the LTO and FO dimensions are founded on the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s(1961) PPF time orientation framework (Ashkanasy et al., 2004; Hofstede, 2001), we usethe PPF theoretical lens to assess and compare Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO.Analysis of Hofstede LTO measures[2]As noted earlier, Hofstede LTO national culture dimension is derived from an earlierstudy (Chinese Culture Connection, 1987) based on Confucian philosophy. Thedimension has two poles – LTO and STO – each measured with four itemsCCM20,3368 (See Appendix 1). The LTO pole is measured with the following four items: thrift,ordering relationships by status and observing this order, persistence/perseverance,and having a sense of shame. The STO pole is measured with the following four items:personal steadiness and stability, protecting your face, respect for tradition, andreciprocation of greetings, favours and gifts. We carry out a semantic analysis ofHofstede LTO items to identify what has actually been measured and to help assessequivalence or otherwise between LTO and FO.First, we note that a pair of LTO scale items (4 and 6 in Appendix 1) is equivalent inmeaning, namely \"face” and \"shame” (Fang, 2003). As \"face” is a term derived fromConfucian philosophy, we referred to the modern Chinese dictionary published by theLinguistic Centre of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (LCCASS) for a definitivemeaning of the word. According to LCCASS (1981), \"protecting one’s face” is about one’spublic image and reputation, and \"having a s sense of shame” is the feeling of guilttowards something bad or inadequate (or not losing face).These items have factorloadings of 0.61 and 20.72 (Hofstede, 2001, p. 354) and represent the long- andshort-term poles, respectively, of his LTO dimension. Since the items are similar innature and have factor loadings that are similar in size but opposite in sign, the LTOfactor score (which is simply the sum of country-level LTO item scores weighted by theirrespective positive or negative factor loadings) effectively cancels the effects of boththese items in the construction of the Hofstede LTO index (see Appendix 1, column twofor factor loading in CVS87 and the corresponding formula used by Hofstede to computethe LTO index in the original CVS study). The net result is that the theoretical meaningand substance of these two items are not really captured in the LTO index.A second pair of items (2 and 8 in Appendix 1) that is equivalent in meaning is\"ordering of relationships by status” and \"reciprocation of greetings, favours, andgifts”. According to Fang (2003), \"ordering of relationships by status” is based onconfucius’ five relations between: ruler and subject, father and son, husband and wife,elder brother and younger brother, and friend and friend. Among these fiverelationships, the first four are hierarchical and the last one is horizontal betweenequals (Zhu, 2009). These relationships embrace all kinds of human relationships insociety, and determine the social roles, obligations and status of each person in thesocial networking system. These relationships also form the basis of social connections(Fei, 1985) and influence the practice of exchanging greetings, favours and gifts. Thus,ordering relationships and exchanging gifts are both viewed as part of the social rolesor obligations of each person within the same networking system. Although specificrole allocation may differ across cultures, the basic hierarchical and horizontalrelationships and relevant social roles would apply to all societies. Given that the twoitems – ordering relationships and exchanging gifts – emanate from the sameunderlying phenomena of social hierarchy, roles and obligations, and have factorloadings that are similar in size but opposite in sign (0.64 and 20.58, respectively), theLTO factor score (which is the sum of country level item scores weighted by theirrespective positive or negative factor loadings) effectively cancels the theoreticalcontribution of both these items to the overall country LTO index (see Appendix 1,Hofstede’s formula for LTO index calculation in CVS87).Next, we examine the remaining four items used to measure Hofstede LTO, namely,persistence and thrift representing the LTO pole, and respect for tradition andsteadiness/stability representing the STO pole. Persistence means virtue to stand andHofstede LTOversusGLOBE FO369 endure (situations, conditions, etc.) or strong will to persist. This scale has a clear futuretime implication with a stress on enduring into the future. Thriftiness is defined as\"saving”, \"practicing economy in eating and other consumer behaviour’, and \"notwasting”. Thrift leads to savings, and one saves for the future. Thus, both persistenceand thrift have face validity as measures of \"future” time orientation. The two remainingitems used to measure Hofstede STO (or societal past and present orientation) are:tradition and steadiness/stability. Respect for tradition has only one simple meaning,namely, passing on social customs and heritage from generation to generation. Thisdefinition is in alignment with Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s (1961, p. 326)conceptualisation of past time which views history \"as sources of knowledge to keepthe present stable and the future predictable”. Respect for tradition therefore representsthe past aspect of PPF time orientation. Personal steadiness and stability is a somewhatdifficult concept to assess since it has no clear denotative meaning related to time.However, it has connotative meanings suggesting the past aspect of PPF timeorientation. According to LCCASS (1981), personal steadiness is defined as:.\"steadiness, calmness or constancy”; and.\"indicating a degree of well-adjusted balance or prudence when speaking oracting”.The first meaning relating to constancy may suggest a pattern of being steady orcontinuing from the past. Second, the characteristic of well-adjusted balance suggests apre-measured calculation of the situation one deals with based on past experiences orexisting conventions of behaviour, hence suggesting a focus on the past.To sum up, we find that four out of the eight original measures of Hofstede LTOcancel each other out in computing the LTO factor since similar items have oppositesigns in Hofstede’s ecological factor analysis. Of the remaining four items, two –perseverance and thrift – are better conceptualised as representing the future aspect ofPPF time orientation, and the other two – tradition and steadiness/stability – asrepresenting the past aspect of PPF time orientation. Our analysis and conclusion is alsosupported by Hofstede’s revised VSM94 and the latest VSM08 questionnaires(see Appendix 1). In Hofstede’s revised questionnaires, the four counter-balancedmeasures of LTO (that we show above to cancel each other out) have been removed, andonly the other four items (that we show above as theoretically valid) have been retainedas measures of his LTO dimension. Our contribution lies in providing a theoreticalrationale for Hofstede’s revised LTO scales. We address how to manage theseconclusions in our way forward section.Analysis of GLOBE FO measuresAs mentioned, the GLOBE study represents societal time orientation through the FOdimension which is measured in two ways, practices \"as is” with five items and values\"should be” with four items (see Appendix 2 for details). Content analysis of the itemsused to measure GLOBE FO practices and values confirms that the two groups ofGLOBE FO items represent the practices and the values/preferences of societies forfuture vis-a`-vis the present. The items used to measure GLOBE FO practices contrastplanning versus living life in the present. Similarly, the GLOBE FO values measuresask whether people should plan or should live for the present. Thus, following the PPFtime orientation framework, the GLOBE FO dimensions focus on the future aspect ofCCM20,3370 time vis-a`-vis the present. Unlike the original Hofstede LTO scale that containsconflicting items (as explained earlier), the questions in the GLOBE FO scale areconceptually consistent and unidimensional and do not present any problems.In sum, theoretical analysis of the LTO and FO scales suggest that the dimensions aresimilar in one respect at least: all include the future aspect of time. But there are alsodifferences since GLOBE compares future with present whereas Hofstede comparesfuture with past. These similarities and differences between the dimensions are easilyoverlooked when researchers simply focus on the label and/or the definition of thedimensions and ignore the actual items used by Hofstede and GLOBE to measure theirtime orientation dimensions.Empirical analysis of Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FOFollowing our theoretical analysis of the similarities and differences between HofstedeLTO and GLOBE FO, we next test our three propositions by examining the empiricalrelationships between:.LTO and FO practices and values; and.LTO, FO practices and values and other variables of potential interest.For the latter, we look at two sets of relationships, the empirical relationships reportedin the Hofstede and GLOBE studies and our own analysis relating LTO and FO withvariables in the WVS database.Empirical relationship between Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FOFor the 30 countries that are common to both Hofstede and GLOBE, we examine thecorrelations between LTO, and FO practices and values scores (Table II). As shown inthe table, the relationship of LTO with FO practices and values is not significant(the correlation between LTO and FO practices and values is r¼20.02 andr¼20.16, respectively, see Table II). This result rejects P1 (that Hofstede LTO andGLOBE FO are similar constructs), but provides empirical support for P2(that Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO are dissimilar constructs). Given the differencesin the items used to measure LTO and FO, it is not surprising that the two are notempirically related even though they fall under the same PPF time orientation rubric.CorrelationsMin. Max. Mean Median SDHofstede LTOindexGLOBE FOpracticesGLOBE FOvaluesHofstede LTOindex 16 118 45.0 36.5 24.9 1GLOBE FOpractices 3.11 5.07 3.99 4.06 0.47 20.02 1GLOBE FOvalues 4.73 6.20 5.38 5.33 0.39 20.16 20.40 *1Notes: Correlation significant at: *0.01 level (two-tailed); n¼30; for the 61 countries within GLOBE,the correlation between FO practices and values is similarly strongly negative, r¼20.41, p,0.01Table II.Descriptive statisticsfor Hofstede LTOand GLOBE FOHofstede LTOversusGLOBE FO371 Empirical relationship between GLOBE FO practices and valuesAs seen in Table II and Figure 1, GLOBE FO practices and values have a significantnegative relationship (r¼20.40, p,0.01). This result rejects P3 (that GLOBE practicesand values are similar constructs). Prima facie, this negative relationship seems anomalous,since it is often believed that peoples’ practices are driven by their values. However, oncloser examination of the FO practices-values gap in Figure 1 and the specific questionsasked in the GLOBE survey, it is possible to understand this apparent anomaly[3].First, national economic prosperity has a strong positive relationship with GLOBEFO practices (r¼0.54, p,0.01) but a strong negative relationship with GLOBE FOvalues (r¼20.62, p,0.01) (Ashkanasy et al., 2004, p. 315). Thus, countries that \"planahead”, \"plan for the future” and \"plan well in advance” (see Appendix 2 for items)have a higher level of prosperity than those that do not have these practices. Second, asseen in Figure 1, in almost all countries, the level of FO values is higher than their practices.In other words, all societies aspire for a higher level of planning, which is understandablesince countries with high planning practices are found to be economically well off andall countries aspire for high levels of prosperity. The negative relationship between FOpractices and values stems from the fact that the countries with low FO practices aspire fora higher level of planning than do the countries with high FO practices. That is, whereasrich countries (with high FO practices) aspire for a littlemore planning than they currentlyhave, poor countries (with low FO practices) that seek to become rich not only aspire formore planningthan their current practices, but their planning values are even higherthanthat of the rich countries. Given these differences in the GLOBE FO practices and valuesscores, it is critical that they be recognized as different dimensions and the use of one or theother of them by researchers should not be arbitrary but supported with appropriatetheoretical justification. In our view, GLOBE FO practices scores should be used toexamine relationships between societal planning practices and their current achievementsas a result of planning. GLOBE FO values scores should be used to examine relationshipsbetween societal planning aspirations and future goals and aspirations of societies.Figure 1.GLOBE FO practicesversus valuesy = 0.0256x + 3.0517y = –0.0098x + 5.78812.002.503.003.504.004.505.005.506.006.500 10203040506070Future OrientationCountryFuture Orientation: Practices versus ValuesFOPFOVNotes: Countries arranged in ascending order of FO practices; FOP – future orientationpractices, FOV – future orientation values, r = –0.40, p 0.01CCM20,3372 Empirical relationships of LTO and FO with other variablesWe now examine the consistency or otherwise in the relationships of LTO and FO withother variables. Both Hofstede (2001) and House et al. (2004) report a range ofrelationships between their time orientation dimensions and other variables(Tables III-V). Table III summarises the empirical relationships reported in Hofstede(2001), whereas Tables IV and V summarise the empirical relationships included inHouse et al. (2004). Scanning across the three tables shows that five variables arecommon across the Hofstede and GLOBE studies: GNP or economic prosperity (item 1 inTables III and V), well-being versus survival (item 9 in Table III and item 26 in Table IV),affective autonomy (item 20 in Table III and item 24 in Table IV), health (item 21 inTable III and item 5 in Table V) and savings (item 24 in Table III and item 22 in Table V).Examining the LTO and FO relationships with other variables, we find that one variable,economic prosperity, is not related with LTO but significantly related with both FOHofstede LTO valuesEconomic health1 GNP 1980 20.22 (n¼23)2 Economic growth (past) (1965-1985) 0.64 ** (n¼23)3 Economic growth (future) (1985-1995) 0.70 ** (n¼23)4 Population density 0.39 *(n¼23)Hastings and Hastings (1981) human values5 Factor: intellectual life 0.56 *(n¼13)6 Daily human relations 0.83 ** (n¼11)7 Correct injustice 0.64 ** (n¼11)8 Want more equality 0.69 ** (n¼11)Inglehart (1997), dimensions9 Well-being versus survival (Inglehart, 1997) 20.53 *(n¼11)Inglehart et al. (1998), WVS10 Importance of leisure time 20.51 *(n¼13)11 Important for marriage: living away from in-laws 20.60 *(n¼12)12 Important for marriage: interests in common 20.51 *(n¼12)13 Child will suffer if mother works 0.52 *(n¼12)14 Children should learn at home: tolerance and respect for others 20.62 *(n¼12)15 Children should learn at home: thrift 0.70 ** (n¼12)De Mooij (2001), consumers16 Invest in mutual funds 20.66 ** (n¼15)17 Invest in real estate 0.43 (n¼15)18 Daily use of credit card 0.54 *(n¼15)Schwarz (1994), teachers19 Hierarchy 0.56 *(n¼14)20 Affective autonomy 20.53 *(n¼14)Humana (1992)21 Health (% of budget) wealthy countries only 20.58 *(n¼10)22 Education (% of budget) wealthy countries only 20.61 *(n¼10)23 Military (% of budget) wealthy countries only 0.53 *(n¼10)Read (1993)24 Marginal propensity to save 0.58 ** (n¼23)Note: Significant at: *p,0.05, **p,0.01 and ***p,0.001Sources: 1-4: Hofstede (2001, p. 367); 5-24: Hofstede (2001, pp. 504-515)Table III.Correlations betweenHofstede LTO andextraneous variablesHofstede LTOversusGLOBE FO373 practices (positively) and FO values (negatively). Three variables (well-being versussurvival, affective autonomy, and health), are significantly negatively related with LTOand FO values, and one variable, marginal propensity to save, is significantly positivelyrelated with LTO and FO practices. Overall, there is limited evidence of overlap betweenLTO and FO values which provides partial support for P1 (similarity between LTO andFO values) and P2 (dissimilarity between LTO and FO practices).Next, examining the FO practices and values relationships with other variables inTables IV and V, we again find a lack of consistency between the relationships of FOpractices and FO values with other variables. Of the 49 relationships in Tables IV and V,only one is significant and in the same direction for both FO practices and values (item 2in Table V, government support for prosperity). Nine are not significant for both FOpractices and values, 20 are significant for one but not the other of the two FOdimensions, and 19 are significant for both but in the opposite direction. Overall, since 39of the 49 relationships are inconsistent, we can reject P3. In sum, the empirical results inboth the Hofstede and GLOBE studies show that Hofstede LTO, GLOBE FO practicesGLOBE FO practices GLOBE FO valuesGLOBE national culture dimensions (n ¼61)1 Uncertainty avoidance practices 0.76 ** 20.57 **2 Uncertainty avoidance values 20.53 ** 0.67 **3 Power distance practices 20.52 ** 0.60 **4 Power distance values – –5 Institutional collectivism practices 0.46 ** 20.25 *6 Institutional collectivism values 20.30 *0.48 **7 In-group collectivism practices 20.44** 0.62 **8 In-group collectivism values 20.42 ** 0.51 **9 Performance orientation practices 0.63 ** –10 Performance orientation values – 0.41 **11 Gender egalitarianism practices – –12 Gender egalitarianism values – 20.36 **13 Assertiveness practices – –14 Assertiveness values – –15 Humane orientation practices – 0.26 *16 Humane orientation values – –Other measures of FOa17 Hofstede (2001) LTO 0.03 (n¼27) 20.06 (n¼27)18 Spector et al. (2001) 0.28 (n¼14) 0.25 (n¼14)19 Matthews and Ornauer (1976) 0.55 (n¼8) 20.29 (n¼8)20 Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1993) 0.07 (n¼30) 20.47 ** (n¼30)Schwartz (1999) (n ¼48)21 Autonomy-embedded 0.07 20.50 **22 Embeddedness 20.08 0.50 **23 Intellectual autonomy 20.03 20.46 **24 Affective autonomy 0.13 20.43 **Inglehart and Baker (2000)25 Traditional: secular authority 0.28 (n¼36) 20.70 ** (n¼36)26 Survival: self-expression values 0.61 ** (n¼37) 20.69 ** (n¼37)Notes: Significant at: *p,0.05 and **p,0.01;aSpearman rank correlationSource: House et al. (2004, pp. 309-312)Table IV.Correlations betweenGLOBE FO and otherculture variablesCCM20,3374 and GLOBE FO values are three distinct dimensions, although LTO has somecommonality with FO values.Empirical relationships of LTO and FO with WVS variables[4]In this section, we examine the relationships between country LTO and FO scores andthe measures in the WVS that are potentially related to time orientation of societies. Thedata collection methodology employed for the WVS is available at: www.wvsevsdb.com/wvs/WVSAnalizeStudy.jsp. The WVS Association (2012) offers a rich source of data ona range of variables related to national culture. These are available in two depositories: afour-wave aggregate of the values based on studies conducted during 1981-2002, and afifth wave of data collected over the period 2005-2008. We examined these surveys,looking for items that correspond with the items used to measure Hofstede LTO andGLOBE FO. We short listed 14 items: seven each from four-wave and fifth wavedatasets. The items are listed in Table VI along with their relationships with LTO andGLOBE FO practices GLOBE FO valuesEconomic health1 Economic prosperity 0.54 ** (n¼57) 20.62 ** (n¼57)2 Government support for prosperity 0.63 ** (n¼40) 0.57 ** (n¼40)3 Societal support for competitiveness 0.48 ** (n¼40) 20.16 (n¼40)4 World competitiveness index 0.62 ** (n¼41) 20.41 ** (n¼41)Human condition5 Societal health 0.70 ** (n¼40) 20.54 *(n¼40)6 Human health 0.14 (n¼56) 20.14 (n¼56)7 Life expectancy 0.20 ** (n¼56) 20.49 ** (n¼56)8 General satisfaction 0.56 ** (n¼38) 20.45 ** (n¼38)9 Human development index 0.20 (n¼56) 20.50 ** (n¼56)Science and technology10 Success in basic science 0.54 ** (n¼40) 20.62 ** (n¼40)Family and friends11 Strength of family ties 20.19 (n¼38) 0.49 ** (n¼38)12 Respect for family and friends 20.48 *(n¼38) 0.61 ** (n¼38)Political ideology13 Disdain for democracy 20.53 ** (n¼26) 0.22 (n¼26)14 Passiveness 20.38 *(n¼37) 0.53 ** (n¼37)15 Lack of voice 20.42 ** (n¼38) 0.43 ** (n¼38)16 Dislike for democracy 20.39 *(n¼27) 0.28 (n¼27)17 Role of government 20.52 *(n¼38) 0.53 ** (n¼38)18 Stability 20.33 *(n¼38) 0.22 (n¼38)Spiritual attitudes19 Religious devotion 20.13 (n¼38) 0.64 ** (n¼38)20 Religious dogma 20.01 (n¼37) 0.56 ** (n¼37)Gender equality21 Gender equality 0.40 *(n¼38) 20.44 ** (n¼38)National savings rate (as %GDP)22 Gross domestic savings 0.39 ** (n¼55) 20.16 (n¼55)23 Genuine domestic savings 0.42 ** (n¼55) 20.23 (n¼55)Note: Significant at: *p,0.05 and **p,0.01Source: House et al. (2004, pp. 315-320)Table V.Relationship betweenGLOBE FO practices andvalues and extraneousvariablesHofstede LTOversusGLOBE FO375 FO practices and values scores. First we look at the pattern of relationships of WVSvariables with LTO and FO, followed by detailed examination of the relationships ofspecific WVS variables with these two time dimensions.If we scan Table VI columns 3-5, we find that the pattern of relationships of theWVS variables with LTO and FO is not consistent. For example, of the six significantrelationships between LTO and WVS variables, only one (family savings during pastyear) is significantly related with all three time dimensions: negatively with LTO andFO values, and positively with FO practices. This result rejects P1, and supports P2that LTO and FO are different constructs. When we examine the significantrelationships for FO practices and values, we find that five pairs of relationships thatare significant for both are in the opposite direction, one is significant for FO practicesbut not for FO values, and two are significant for FO values but not for FO practices.This result rejects P3 that GLOBE FO practices and values are similar constructs, andsuggests that they are different and often have opposite effects on other variables.Next, looking at the relationships of LTO with WVS variables (column 3), we find thatLTO has a significant positive relationship with \"important child qualities: thrift savingmoney and things” in both four-wave (r¼0.38, p,0.05) and fifth wave (r¼0.46,p,0.05) datasets. However, the relationships with the measures of perseverance andtradition in both datasets, and with the measure of \"family savings last year” in thefour-wave data are not significant. But surprisingly, in the fifth wave data, LTO has asignificant negative relationship with \"family saving last year” (r¼20.51, p,0.05).WVS variableWVSwaveaHofstedeLTOGLOBE FOpracticesGLOBEFO valuesImportant child qualities: thrift savingmoney and things 1-4 0.38 *20.05 20.13Important child qualities: thrift savingmoney and things 5 0.46 *20.08 20.05Important child qualities: determinationperseverance 1-4 0.20 0.23 20.31 *Important child qualities: determinationperseverance 5 20.21 0.36 *20.44 **Tradition vs high economic growth 1-4 20.25 20.14 0.05Schwartz: it is important to this persontradition 5 20.10 20.46 ** 0.57 **Family savings during past year 1-4 0.08 0.64 ** 20.60 **Family savings during past year 5 20.51 *0.59 ** 20.41 *How important is God in your life 1-4 20.44 ** 20.20 0.75 **Important in life: leisure time 5 20.56 ** 0.24 20.24Humanity has a bright or bleak future 1-4 0.36 0.41 *20.07Satisfaction with your life 1-4 0.00 0.39 ** 20.44 **Would give part of my income for theenvironment 5 0.40 *0.00 0.16Increase in taxes if used to preventenvironmental pollution 5 0.28 0.15 0.03Notes: Correlation is significant at: *0.05 and **0.01 levels (two-tailed);aWVS – World ValuesSurvey, 1-4 refers to data from waves 1-4, and 5 refers to data from wave 5; WVS data available at:www.wvsevsdb.com/wvs/WVSAnalizeStudy.jspTable VI.Correlations of HofstedeLTO and GLOBE FOwith WVS measuresCCM20,3376 This suggests that the societal value of savings may not necessarily translate intopractice, which partly supports the significant negative practices-values relationship inthe GLOBE study, that is, practices and values can be distinctly different.Finally, we examine the empirical relationships between GLOBE FO practices andvalues and the WVS variables. It is important to note here that although the WVS seemsto measure \"values”, it is not necessarily in the same sense as \"values” in the GLOBE study,which refer to what societies \"should be”. For example, the measure of \"family savingsduring past year” in WVS is more like \"practices” in GLOBE. Hence, we need to look at therelevant relationships between the WVS variables and the GLOBE practices or values.The WVS variable \"important child qualities of determination and perseverance”, which islike values, has a significant negative relationship with GLOBE FO values in bothfour-wave (r¼20.31, p,0.05)and fifth wave (r¼20.44, p,0.01) datasets. In contrast,the value of tradition is positively related to GLOBE FO values (r¼0.57, p,0.01 inwave 5) as is the importance of God in life (r¼0.75, p,0.01 in waves 1-4). The foursignificant values relationships between GLOBE and WVS are opposite to what one wouldexpect were one to assume GLOBE FO to be similar to and interchangeable with HofstedeLTO. The WVS variable \"family savings during last year”, which is a practice, has asignificant positive relationship with GLOBE FO practices (r¼0.64, p,0.01 in waves 1-4,and r¼0.59, p,0.01 in wave 5), suggesting that the planning orientation aspect ofGLOBE FO has a significant positive relationship with societal saving behavior.In summary, the empirical relationships of Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO practicesand values with WVS variables provides some support for our interpretation of HofstedeLTO pole as representing savings values. And the GLOBE FO practices dimension,which represents planning, is related to family savings in WVS. More interestingly, therelationships between the 14 WVS variables and the three dimensions of societal timeorientation, namely, LTO, FO practices and FO values are not consistent.Comparative summary: Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FOBased on our analysis of the Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO dimensions, we findseveral similarities and differences in the two models (Table VII). Whereas bothHofstede LTO and the GLOBE FOs focus on time orientation of societies, adopting thePPF schema, there are several critical differences that researchers need to be aware ofwhen using these dimensions for their own research. The first key difference is that theHofstede LTO focuses on societal values (see Appendix 1 questionnaire preamble),whereas GLOBE FO provides scores for both practices and values. Hence, which one ormore of the scores are used will depend on whether researchers intend to explainphenomena that represent societal current practices, or future values and preferences.This is a critical difference but which many researchers seem to ignore in their research(Brewer and Venaik, 2010; Venaik and Brewer, 2010).The second key difference is that although the upper end of all Hofstede andGLOBE time dimensions focus on society’s long term or FO, Hofstede LTO capturesthe perseverance and thrift aspects of FO, whereas GLOBE FO represents the planningaspect of FO, in practice and aspirational forms. These three aspects of future timeorientation should be regarded as different. Importantly, the other end of the LTO andFO scales are even more dissimilar. Whereas Hofstede’s future pole is relative to thepast, in the case of GLOBE, the future pole is relative to the present. Since PPF timeorientation is three-dimensional, consisting of three distinct time phases, past, presentHofstede LTOversusGLOBE FO377 and future, it is important that the bipolar time orientation dimensions in Hofstede andGLOBE are interpreted correctly to accurately reflect the items used to measure them.Third, the LTO scale items are conceptually multidimensional and focus on multipleaspects of time orientation; perseverance and thrift for the future pole, and traditionand steadiness/stability for the past pole. In contrast, GLOBE FO items are morecongruent and unidimensional, focussing largely on a single planning attribute for thefuture, in practices or values, versus living for the present.Way forwardIn light of the important issues discussed above, we recommend a reinterpretation ofboth the Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO dimensions. It is well-recognized in themeasurement literature that the foremost basis for the interpretation of a construct iscontent validity (Churchill, 1979; Rossiter, 2002), \"there is only one type of validity that isessential: content validity” (Rossiter, 2002, p. 308). Once content validity is established,one can look at factor loadings and other measures to assess the reliability of the itemsused to measure a construct. Our theoretical and empirical analysis shows that thedomain captured within each of these time orientation culture dimensions is significantlydifferent, and a precise understanding of each is required for their application inassociated research. LTO and FO are not interchangeable. We suggest that HofstedeLTO should be understood as Past-tradition versus Future-saving orientation, in place ofshort-term versus LTO; because the Past-tradition pole is measured with items largelyreflecting societies’ regard for tradition, and the future-saving pole is measured withitems essentially reflecting societies’ thrift values. In addition, since both past orientationand FO reflect a LTO, the existing short-term versus long-term distinction between thetwo poles is not optimal. Similarly, based on the items used to measure GLOBE FO, wesuggest it should be interpreted as present versus future-planning orientation instead ofsimply FO. The revised understanding of the GLOBE dimension helps emphasise that,unlike the Hofstede dimension, where the future is compared with the past, in GLOBE,Hofstede LTO GLOBE FOSimilarities1. Focus on timeorientation ofsocieties UU2. Based on PPFrubric UUDifferences1. Practices/values Values Practices and values2. Past-present-futuredimensionsPast versus future Present versus future3. Item measures Conceptually multidimensional, focuson multiple attributes such asperseverance and thrift for the futurepole, and tradition and steadiness/stability for the past poleConceptually one-dimensional, focuson a single planning attribute for thefuture pole versus the present4. Dimension Bipolar (LTO versus STO) Unipolar (FO, high versus low)5. Countries Originally 23 (now 35) 61Table VII.Comparing Hofstede LTOand GLOBE FOCCM20,3378 the future is compared with the present. In addition, GLOBE FO practices, representingwhat societies do, and GLOBE FO values, reflecting societal preferences or aspirationsgiven their present conditions, are also different constructs and not interchangeable.Our refined understanding of Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO dimensions will helpresearchers in deciding which model (measures and/or scores) may be moreappropriate to explain their phenomena of interest. Specifically, when investigatingrelationships between Hofstede LTO and other variables, researchers should recognisethey are in fact dealing with relationships between thrift values and other variables ofinterest. Seen in this light, the analysis may not be relevant to their research question.In that case we recommend that the researchers develop their own specific itemsto evaluate relationships of interest. Similarly, research using the GLOBE FO scores isactually incorporating a future planning variable (either practices or values), whichis quite specific in its meaning. For example, in the study conducted by Seleim andBontis (2009) cited in Table II, they in fact show that high planning (FO practices) insocieties is associated with low levels of corruption. For non-planning related future timeorientation characteristics, it may not be appropriate to use GLOBE FO scores as a proxyand study-specific items may be required. In addition, we propose that researchers useGLOBE future-planning orientation practices scores to examine the impact of society’spresent planning practices on other practical outcomes, and use societal future-planningorientation values scores to test the relationship between planning aspirations and othervariables that represent values and aspirations of societies. Finally, if researchers aim todevelop their own scales to measure time orientation at the sub-national level such asfirms, groups or individuals, they could select items from both the Hofstede and GLOBEstudies to tap specifically the phenomena of their interest, for example, thrift andtradition items from Hofstede and planning items from GLOBE.ConclusionHofstede’s LTO is used by researchers to explain how differences in time orientationacross countries, as reflected in their culture, can influence behaviour in thosecountries. In like manner, researchers use the GLOBE FO national culture scores tounderstand cross-cultural differences in future versus present orientation and itsimpact on behaviour. There is, however, considerable confusion in the literature, assome scholars consider LTO and FO to be the same or at least interchangeable(Hofstede, 2006), yet others consider them to be different (House et al., 2004), and stillothers use a mixture of the two (Bearden et al., 2006). In this paper, we carry outtheoretical and empirical analysis of Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO measures toexamine the domain of time orientation captured by these two culture models.Following Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s (1961) PPF theoretical lens, we show how anin-depth examination of the content of the items used to measure the national culturedimensions of LTO and FO can help unravel the real substance of the construct in anempirical setting. Our conclusion about Hofstede’s LTO representing four rather thaneight facets of time orientation is also supported by his revised VSM08 questionnaire.Our analysis clarifying the intrinsic meaning of the Hofstede and GLOBE nationalculture time dimensions have implications for practitioners. Managers should be awarethat the usefulness of understanding foreign cultures through the widely acknowledgedHofstede and GLOBE dimensions needs to be guided by the underlying rationale of eachdimension. In the case of Hofstede LTO, the societal score represents a tendency for thriftHofstede LTOversusGLOBE FO379 and saving. Thus, managers can target high LTO countries as potential markets forfinancial services and as sources of funds for other national markets. In contrast, GLOBEFO represents societal tendency for planning and managers can expect relatively greaterscrutiny of their ideas and some delays before their ideas can be put into practice in thosetypes of countries. This helps to develop a more accurate and constructive appreciationof how the national cultural characteristics may impact specific business practices. Inaddition, this rationale can also help to explain some of the contradictory findings. Forexample, different views about the relationship between LTO and bribery result fromdifferent meanings embedded in the respective LTO instruments and measurements(see our earlier critique on Sanyal and Guvenli (2009) and Tsui and Windsor (2001)versus Bearden et al. (2006) and Nevins et al. (2007)).Our paper is not without limitations. As discussed earlier, societal time orientationcan be examined using diverse lenses such as past-present-FO, or punctuality, ormonochromic versus polychromic time system. We use Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s(1961) PPF orientation framework to analyse the Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FOdimensions since this is the most common time aspect of society studied in cross-culturalresearch. There is an opportunity for scholars in future to critically examine the researchbased on the other time orientation frameworks, including Hall’s and Trompenaarsmonochromic-polychronic time systems. The second limitation is that our research isbased on secondary data from Hofstede, GLOBE, and WVS. These different sources ofdata introduce additional noise that may attenuate the relationships among similarvariables across studies. We believe future research with primary data from individualsin multiple countries, and using the Hofstede, GLOBE and WVS time orientationmeasures on the same subjects, will further help resolve the debate about the similaritiesand differences between LTO and FO and its relationship with WVS variables.To conclude, our paper makes three key contributions to the literature. One, throughcritical theoretical examination of the items used to measure Hofstede LTO andGLOBE FO, the paper identifies the key similarities and differences between the twotime orientation dimensions of national culture. Two, our analysis of empiricalrelationships between Hofstede LTO, GLOBE FO and other variables including WVSdata provides some support for our proposed view of Hofstede LTO as a past-traditionversus future-saving dimension, and GLOBE FO as a present versus future-planningdimension. Three, our paper offers a way forward for researchers on how to use theHofstede LTO and GLOBE FO dimensions, scales and scores for their own research.Each dimension is useful, albeit differently, in future research relating time orientationwith other variables of interest to scholars. We believe our clarification and suggestedinterpretation of these two important dimensions will help researchers to moreaccurately theorize how these dimensions explain their phenomena of interest.Notes1. Although Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1993) also refer to past, present and futuretime, they measure time horizon as an average time horizon for past, present and future.Specifically, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1993, p. 120) use time horizon of aparticular country to infer the relationship between how people think of time in the countryand its consequences as sequential (\"a series of passing events”) or synchronic (\"with past,present and future all related”). The sequential versus synchronic time is similar to Hall’smonochromic/polychromic time (Ashkanasy et al., 2004). Based on this, Trompenaars andTurner’s concept of time horizon should not be confused with GLOBE FO (Ashkanasy et al.,CCM20,3380 2004, p. 289) or with Hofstede’s LTO, hence the exclusion of Trompenaars and Turner’s timehorizon from our paper. There is also a methodological reason for this exclusion. UnlikeHofstede and GLOBE, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1993) do not provide nationaltime orientation scores for each country (Hofstede, 1996).2. Minkov and Hofstede’s (2011) view on measurement face validity is significantly differentfrom the approach proposed in the measurement theory literature (Churchill, 1979; Rossiter,2002) and used in our paper.3. A general discussion of the reasons for the negative correlations between practices andvalues in GLOBE scores has been provided by Maseland and van Hoorn (2009) and Brewerand Venaik (2010).4. Our WVS analysis differs from that of Minkov and Hofstede (2012) in two ways. One, werelate WVS items with both Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO items. Two, we focus on a limitednumber of WVS items that are conceptually related to time orientation, rather than simplylook at significant correlations irrespective of the content validity of the WVS items inrelation to time orientation.ReferencesAshkanasy,N., Gupta, V., Mayfield, M. and Trevor-Roberts,E. (2004), \"Futureorientation”, in House,R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (Eds), Culture, Leadership andOrganizations: The Globe Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 723-732.Barkema, H.G. and Vermeulen, F. (1997), \"What differences in the cultural backgrounds ofpartners are detrimental for international joint ventures?”, Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 845-864.Bearden, W., Money, R.B. and Nevins, J. (2006), \"A measure of long-term orientation: developmentand validation”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 3, p. 456.Brewer, P. and Venaik, S. (2010), \"GLOBE practices and values – a case of diminishing marginalutility?”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 1316-1324.Buck, T., Liu, X. and Ott, U. (2010), \"Long-term orientation and international joint venturestrategies in modern China”, International Business Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 223-234.Chinese Culture Connection (1987), \"Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions ofculture”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 143-164.Churchill, G.A. (1979), \"A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.Erumban, A.A. and de Jong, S.B. (2006), \"Cross-country differences in ICT adoption: aconsequence of culture?”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 302-314.Fang, T. (2003), \"A critique of Hofstede’s fifth national culture dimension”, International Journalof Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 347-368.Fei, X. (1985), Shihui diaocha zibai (On Social Investigations), Zhishi Chubanshe, Shanghai.Fu, P., Kennedy, J., Tata, J., Yukl, G., Bond, M.H., Tai-Kuang, P. and Cheosakul, A. (2004),\"The impact of societal cultural values and individual social beliefs on the perceivedeffectiveness of managerial influence strategies: a meso approach”, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 284-305.Griffith, D.A., Cavusgil, S.T. and Xu, S. (2008), \"Emerging themes in international businessresearch”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 1220-1235.Hall, E. (1983), \"Monocronic and polychronic time”, in Samovar, L.A. and Porter, R.E. (Eds),Intercultural Communication: A Reader, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, pp. 246-270.Hofstede LTOversusGLOBE FO381 Hanges, P.J. and Dickson, M.W. (2004), \"The development and validation of the GLOBE cultureand leadership scales”, in House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. andGupta, V. (Eds), Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies,Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 122-151.Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,Sage, Beverley Hills, CA.Hofstede, G. (1996), \"Riding the waves of commerce: a test of Trompenaars’ ‘model’ of nationalcultural differences”,International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 20No. 2, pp. 189-198.Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions andOrganizations Across Nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Hofstede, G. (2006), \"What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus respondents’minds”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 882-896.Hofstede, G. (2010), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, London.Hofstede, G. and Minkov, M. (2010), \"Long- versus short-term orientation: new perspectives”,Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 493-504.House, R.J. and Javidan, M. (2004), \"Overview of GLOBE”, in House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M.,Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (Eds), Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBEStudy of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 9-28.House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Vipin, G. (2004), Culture, Leadership,and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Javidan, M., House, R.J., Dorfman, P.W., Hanges, P.J. and Sully de Luque, M. (2006),\"Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: a comparative reviewof GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s approaches”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37No. 6, pp. 897-914.Kaufmann, J.B. and O’Neill, H.M. (2007), \"Do culturally distant partners choose different types ofjoint ventures?”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 435-448.Kluckhohn, F.R. and Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961), Variations in Value Orientations, Harper Collins,New York, NY.LCCASS (1981), The Linguistic Centre of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Modern ChineseDictionary, Shangwu Chubanshe, Beijing.Legohe´rel, P., Dauce´, B., Hsu, C. and Ranchold, A. (2009), \"Culture, time orientation and exploratorybuying behavior”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 93-107.Maseland, R. and van Hoorn, A. (2009), \"Explaining the negative correlation between values andpractices: a note on the Hofstede-GLOBE debate”, Journal of International BusinessStudies, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 527-532.Maseland, R. and Van Hoorn, A. (2010), \"Values and marginal preferences in internationalbusiness”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 1325-1329.Mayfield, M., Mayfield, J., Martin, D. and Herbig, P. (1997), \"Time perspectives of thecross-cultural negotiations rocess”, American Business Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, p. 78.Merkin, R.S. (2004), \"Cultural long-term orientation and facework strategies”, Atlantic Journal ofCommunication, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 163-176.Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G. (2011), \"The evolution of Hofstede’s doctrine”, Cross CulturalManagement: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 10-20.Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G. (2012), \"Hofstede’s fifth dimension: new evidence from the WorldValues Survey”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, No. 1, pp. 3-14.CCM20,3382 Naor, M., Linderman, K. and Schroeder, R. (2010), \"The globalization of operations in Eastern andWestern countries: unpacking the relationship between national and organizationalculture and its impact on manufacturing performance”, Journal of OperationsManagement, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 194-205.Nevins, J., Bearden, W. and Money, B. (2007), \"Ethical values and long-term orientation”, Journalof Business Ethics, Vol. 71 No. 3, p. 261.Oyserman, D., Coon, H.M. and Kemmelmeier, M. (2002), \"Rethinking individualism andcollectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses”, PsychologicalBulletin, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 3-72.Parsons, T. and Shils, E. (1951), Toward a General Theory of Action, Harvard University Press,Cambridge, MA.Peterson, R.M., Clay Dibrell, C. and Pett, T.L. (2002), \"Long- vs short-term performanceperspectives of Western European, Japanese, and US countries: where do they lie?”,Journal of World Business, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 245-255.Rayback, D. (1992), \"The coconut-shell clock: time and cultural identity”, Time and Society, Vol. 1No. 3, pp. 323-340.Rossiter, J.R. (2002), \"The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing”,International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 1-31.Ryu, S. and Cook, M. (2005), \"The effect of LTO culture on international supply chain contracts”,Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 95-105.Sanyal, R. and Guvenli, T. (2009), \"The propensity to bribe in international business: therelevance of cultural variables”, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal,Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 287-300.Seleim, A. and Bontis, N. (2009), \"The relationship between culture and corruption: a crossnational study”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 165-184.Smith, P. (2006), \"When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled: the GLOBE and Hofstedeprojects”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 915-921.Spector, P.E., Cooper, C.L. and Sparks, K. (2001), \"An international study of the psychometricproperties of the Hofstede Values Survey Module 1994: a comparison of individual andcountry/province level results”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 269-281.Taras, V., Steel, P. and Kirkman, B. (2010), \"Negative practice-value correlations in the GLOBEdata: unexpected findings, questionnaire limitations and research directions”, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 1330-1338.Triandis, H.C. (2004), \"Preface”, in House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. andGupta, V. (Eds), Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies,Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. xv-xix.Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1993), Riding the Waves of Culture: UnderstandingCultural Diversity in Business, Nicholas Brealey, London.Tsui, A.S., Nifadkar, S.S. and Ou, A.Y. (2007), \"Cross-national, cross-cultural organizationalbehavior research: advances, gaps, and recommendations”, Journal of Management,Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 426-478.Tsui, J. and Windsor, C. (2001), \"Some cross-cultural evidence on ethical reasoning”, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 143-150.Tung, R.L. and Verbeke, A. (2010), \"Beyond Hofstede and GLOBE: improving the quality ofcross-cultural research”, Journalof International Business Studies, Vol. 41 No. 8,pp. 1259-1274.Van Everdingen, Y.M. and Waarts, E. (2003), \"The effect of national culture on the adoptionof innovations”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 217-232.Hofstede LTOversusGLOBE FO383 Venaik, S. and Brewer, P. (2010), \"Avoiding uncertainty in Hofstede and GLOBE”, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 1294-1315.WVS Association (2012), World Values Survey, World Values Survey Association, available at:www.worldvaluessurvey.org/ (accessed 20 January 2012).Yeh, R.-S. and Lawrence, J.J. (1995), \"Individualism and confucian dynamism: a note onHofstede’s cultural root to economic growth”, Journal of International Business Studies,Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 655-669.Zhu, Y. (2009), \"Managing business relationships in New Zealand and China: a semanticperspective”, Management International Review, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 225-248.Appendix 1Factorloading inCVS87aCVS87bVSM94cVSM94dVSM08eIn your private life, how important is each of the following to you? (1. Of utmost importance [...]5.Ofvery little or no importance)1. Persistence (perseverance) 0.76 24 11 – (25)2. Ordering relationships by status and observingthis order 0.64 14 · · ·3. Thrift 0.63 23 10 10 (15)4. Having a sense of shame 0.61 31 · · ·5. Personal steadiness and stability 20.76 18 9 · (18)6. Protecting your \"face” 20.72 35 · · ·7. Respect for tradition 20.62 39 12 12 (28)8. Reciprocation of greetings, favours, and gifts 20.58 8 · · ·(1) Persistent efforts are the surest way to results(1. Strongly agree [...] 5. Strongly disagree) · · · · 25(3) If there is something expensive you really want tobuy but you do not have enough money, what do youdo? (1.Always save before buying [...] 5. Always buynow, pay off later.) · · · · 15(5) Are you the same person at work (or at school ifyou are a student) and at home? (1. Quite the same[...] 5. Quite different) · · · · 18(7) We should honour our heroes from the past(1. Strongly agree [...] 5. Strongly disagree) · · · · 28Notes:aThe Chinese Culture Connection (1987, p. 150);bThe Chinese Culture Connection (1987,pp. 147-148) (nine-point scale with similar scale end points);cHofstede (2001, p. 495), http://stuwww.uvt.nl/ ,csmeets/manual.html;dRevised Version 1999 (Hofstede, 2001, p. 497);ehttp://stuwww.uvt.nl/,csmeets/ManualVSM08.doc; Hofstede uses the following formulae to compute country-level LTOscores in each survey: (a) CVS87: LTO ¼50 £Fþ50, where F is the factor score across the eightitems in CVS87; (b) VSM94: LTO ¼220m(10) þ20m(12) þ40; (old version:LTO ¼45m(9) 230m(10) 235m(11) þ15m(12) þ67) (Hofstede, 2001, p. 497); (c) VSM08:LTO ¼240m(15) þ40m(18) 225m(25) þ25m(28) þC(ls); where, m(x) is the country meanscore for survey question (x), C(ls) is any constant that converts the LTO index score to 0 to 100 rangeSources: Hofstede (2001, pp. 354, 370); Hofstede (2001, p. 497), http://stuwww.uvt.nl/,csmeets/manual.html, http://stuwww.uvt.nl/,csmeets/ManualVSM08.doc)Table AI.Hofstede surveyquestions for LTOCCM20,3384 Appendix 2. GLOBE survey questions for FO[1]Practices1-3. The way to be successful in this society is to: (reverse code).Plan ahead – take life events as they occur.1-4. In this society, the accepted norm is to: (reverse code).Plan for the future – accept the status quo.1-8. In this society, social gatherings are: (reverse code).Planned well in advance (two or more weeks in advance) – spontaneous (planned lessthan an hour in advance).1-30. In this society, more people.Live for the present than live for the future – live for the future than live for the present.1-31. In this society, people place more emphasis on.Solving current problems – planning for the future.Values3-3. I believe that people who are successful should: (reverse code).Plan ahead – take life events as they occur.3-4. I believe that the accepted norm in this society should be to: (reverse code).Plan for the future – accept the status quo.3-8. I believe that social gatherings should be: (reverse code).Planned well in advance (two or more weeks in advance) – spontaneous (planned lessthan an hour in advance).3-30. I believe that people should.Live for the present – live for the future.Note1. GLOBE instruments are available at: www.thunderbird.edu/sites/globe/globe_instruments/index.htm. All items are measured using seven-point Likert-type scales. Themean country score across respondents for each item and then across items for eachcountry is the FO score for respective country.About the authorsSunil Venaik is a Senior Lecturer at the UQ Business School in the University of Queensland,Brisbane, Australia. He obtained his PhD in International Business/Marketing Strategy from theAustralian Graduate School of Management in the University of New South Wales, Sydney. Hisresearch interests include national culture, MNC strategy and management, and the impact ofFDI in emerging markets. Born in India, he is a citizen of Australia and India. Sunil Venaik is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: svenaik@business.uq.edu.auYunxia Zhu is a Senior Lecturer at UQ Business School, University of Queensland. Sheobtained her PhD in the Australian National University. Her research interests center oncross-cultural communication and international management using emic and etic perspectives.Born in China, she is New Zealand citizen.Paul Brewer is a Senior Lecturer at UQ Business School, University of Queensland. Heobtained his PhD in Management at the University of Queensland. His research interests includeinternationalization of the firm, psychic and cultural distance and the globalization of business.He was born in Australia and is an Australian citizen.Hofstede LTOversusGLOBE FO385To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprintsCitations (40)References (54)... Research has provided ample evidence that the success of advertising or promotional campaigns can be forecasted by considering cultural context in advertising campaigns [11,38,56]. For instance, several cultural attributes, future orientation [61], performance orientation [30], and gender egalitarianism [13] have been identified in predicting advertising effectiveness. These cultural attributes defined in the cultural dimensions such as GLOBE were substantiated to be theoretically valuable in quantifying advertising effectiveness. ...... In this regard, a stream of literature has called for more researches assessing nations cultural norms influence to delineate the advertising effectiveness. For advertising, it is desired to understand the features of the cultures because they influence the behavior of individuals [13,61]. ...... This paper contributes to the on-going discussion about the influence of cultural norms in advertising literature by using the two dimensions of the GLOBE framework to operationalize certain cultural norms [7,13,39,52]. A careful examination of the recent literature raises some inspiring new queries and issues in measuring cultural influences [13,39,41,43,61]. First, investigations supporting such cultural influences most often have adopted a conventional ecological approach by only measuring the individual s preferences and therefore was not strong enough in generalizing for other factors [14,52]. ...An Experimental Evidence on Eco-Friendly Advertisement Appeals and Intention to Use Bio-Nanomaterial Plastics: Institutional Collectivism and Performance Orientation as ModeratorsArticleFull-text availableJan 2021Int J Environ Res Publ Health Syed Hassan Raza Umer Zaman Moneeba Iftikhar Owais ShafiquePlastic waste management has become a serious environmental and health concern owing to large amounts of plastic deposits globally. Recently, innovative and sustainable solutions have been introduced (e.g., bio-nanomaterial plastics) to overcome the growing environmental threats. Hence, green marketers need to develop effective advertising campaigns to enhance the usage of bio-nanomaterial plastics. Past literature has suggested that cultural value-laden advertising appeals can give sustainable behavioral cues to consumers. Hence, this research unfolds the underlying cultural dimensions between the value-laden eco-friendly advertising appeals and intention to use bio-nanomaterial plastics (henceforth IBP). The present study proposes a moderating model in which two dimensions presented in the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (henceforth GLOBE) framework interact with the individuals perception of eco-friendly advertising appeals (henceforth IPEA) to drive bio-nanomaterial plastics usage. The model was tested by conducting an experimental study on a sample of 364 Pakistani consumers. Findings of structural equation modeling show a significant difference in the relationship between IPEA and IBP, which is moderated by the performance orientation (henceforth PO) and institutional collectivism (hence-forth IC) dimensions with diverse intensity. These findings validate the effectiveness of PO and IC (as cultural dimensions) and eco-friendly advertisements that can potentially promote the consumption of bio-nanomaterials plastic.ViewShow abstract... For instance, the Globe study (House et al., 2004) shows a significantly negative correlation between Hofstede s uncertainty avoidance index and Globe s uncertainty avoidance society practices (r 5 À0.62, p 0.01) and no significant correlation between the FO society practices and LTO (r 5 À0.62). One of the reasons for Hofstede and globe conception of the future these inconsistencies is that these corresponding dimensions are conceptually distinct since they are constructed with conceptually distinct items Brewer, 2010, 2016;Venaik et al., 2013). Considering uncertainty avoidance, for instance, the items that Hofstede used to measure this construct reflect stress and anxiety with regard to uncertainty, whereas those of Globe reflect a society s rule orientation (Venaik and Brewer, 2010). ...... These anomalies have spurred curiosity and research efforts aiming to understand the construct validity of these corresponding dimensions, compare and contrast them and determine the extent to which they could be used to support each other, and consolidate these different cultural frameworks (e.g. Hofstede, 2006;Javidan et al., 2006;Smith, 2006;Tsui et al., 2007;Tung and Verbeke, 2010;Venaik and Brewer, 2010;Venaik and Brewer, 2016;Venaik et al., 2013). Globe s FO society practices and Hofstede s LTO are two corresponding dimensions that fall into the category of those dimensions that are disputable in terms of their equivalence. ...... Although Hofstede (2006) posits that the FO society practices reflects his LTO, House et al. (2004) criticize LTO in terms of its face validity and argue that FO society practices holds little in common with LTO. Considering this confusion, Venaik et al. (2013) investigated their similarities and differences, concluding that the two dimensions are dissimilar conceptually. Their research indicates that, although these two dimensions drive a society s attention toward the future rather than the past or present, they represent distinct aspects of attention to the future since the items used to measure these two constructs are conceptually different. ...What matters for the future? Comparing Globe s future orientation with Hofstede s long-term orientationArticleFull-text availableJul 2021 Ali AlipourPurposeThis paper aims to compare the future orientation (FO) society practices dimension of the Globe model with Hofstede s long-term orientation (LTO) by testing their causal effects on three firm-level variables: cash holdings, long-term investments and acquisitions. In doing so, this research challenges the already taken-for-granted assumption in the empirical research that the two dimensions are equivalent.Design/methodology/approachHierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used to test the hypotheses on 7,065 firms across 49 countries between 2000 and 2017.FindingsThe findings show that the causal impacts of FO society practices and LTO on a given construct are not consistent. Although LTO increases cash holdings, the impact of FO society practices on this variable is insignificant. Additionally, unlike FO society practices, which significantly increases long-term investments and acquisitions, LTO does not influence long-term investments and decreases acquisitions.Originality/valueThis study is valuable since it addresses the confusion surrounding the similarities and differences between FO society practices and LTO. Despite the dissimilarity also emphasized by Globe, Hofstede claims that they are equivalent, and the great majority of the empirical literature has assumed them to be equivalent in their analyses. Addressing this confusion, this research provides further empirical evidence that these two dimensions are dissimilar. The additional important contribution of the study is theorizing and examining the impact of FO society practices and LTO on the firm-level outcomes that reflect their temporal orientation (i.e. long-term investments and acquisitions), which is surprisingly neglected in the literature.ViewShow abstract... This finding converges with previous studies (Zhang and Zhou 2014;Afsar and Masood 2018): The finding is interesting because it means that it depends on people s interpretation and enactment of culture, whether cultural facets will manifest into innovative activities or not . Additionally, these and other previous studies which have used Hofstede s database have used the Long Term Orientation (LTO) trait in lieu of House s Future Orientation (Venaik, Zhu, and Brewer 2013) marker and have found it to precede innovation activities, in line with our findings. It may be noted that there is less criticism as well as less ambiguity over the GLOBE project s cultural traits model, as compared to Hofstede s conceptualisation (Dickson, Aditya, and Chhokar 2000); consequently, this study contributes towards both the validity and reliability of the insights. ...Cultural determinants of national innovativeness: a 56 country Bayesian analysisArticleJun 2021TECHNOL ANAL STRATEG Roshni DasNational Innovation Systems are found to be impacted by different cultural facets of the referent ecosystem; yet the findings are conflicting. This study undertakes a cross-country comparison to delineate the antecedents of innovativeness at the societal level of analysis. Bayesian modelling is adopted to draw robust references from the sample data for 56 countries. The Global Innovation Index rankings report is used to capture national innovativeness. Arguments are drawn from micro-level psychological and macro-level cultural differences discourses. Subsequently, theory is proposed linking Uncertainty Avoidance, Performance Orientation and Future Orientation of a society as predictors of innovativeness. We find strong evidence that only Uncertainty Avoidance is the most likely and proximal predictor to national innovativeness. The effects of both Performance Orientation and Future Orientation on national innovation are mediated by Uncertainty Avoidance. The results have implications for managing multi-country innovation projects and in policy-making to spur national innovation.ViewShow abstract... For the cultural dimension future orientation, we again collected cultural values data from the GLOBE study . The data were collected by the GLOBE team through the same methodology that we previously described for the uncertainty avoidance dimension and have also been widely used in extant research (Venaik, Zhu, Brewer, 2013). Countries that value future orientation show the propensity to save and invest for the future and perceive material success and spiritual fulfillment as an integrated whole; by contrast, countries that score low on the future orientation dimension tend to spend now, rather than save/invest for the future and tend to view material success and spiritual fulfillment as separate elements, whose achievements require a tradeoff . ...The Influence of Nation-Level Institutions on Acquisition Premiums: A Cross-Country Comparative StudyArticleFull-text availableMay 2021J MANAGEChengguang LiJerayr (John) HaleblianWe build on neo-institutional theory to examine the manner in which nation-level institutions systematically affect domestic acquisitions—that is, acquisitions involving acquirers and targets from the same country. Specifically, we study in what way premiums are influenced through a set of cognitive, normative, and regulatory forces. In terms of cognitive pressures, we theorize that prior premium decisions of industry peers in the same country influence focal acquisition premiums, since prior premium decisions serve as reference frames for firms. In addition, we posit that normative forces in the form of the national cultural values of uncertainty avoidance, future orientation, and in-group collectivism affect bid premiums, as these factors influence the manner in which firms deal with the uncertainty, payoff time, and merger of groups inherent to acquisitions. Furthermore, we propose that a country’s regulatory pressures through its disclosure requirements influence premiums, since they reduce information asymmetries and affect a firm’s confidence in assessing its potential gains from acquisitions. Using a sample of domestic acquisitions, we find support for several of the hypotheses. Our work offers a cross-country comparative study of how nation-level institutions affect domestic bid premiums and makes theoretical contributions to acquisition premium research and institutional theory.ViewShow abstract... Similar analogies would be drawn for his other dimensions including embeddedness versus autonomy and mastery versus harmony. Such efforts focusing on different national culture dimensions could also contribute to the literature on the construct validity of these national culture dimensions (Venaik Brewer, 2010;Venaik et al., 2013). This literature has strongly questioned the similarity of corresponding national culture dimensions with the same or similar labels. ...The Interactive Impact of Organizational and National Cultures on the Impression Management Strategies of EmployeesArticleFull-text availableApr 2019 Ali AlipourThis theoretical article aims to contribute to the literature on the culturalantecedents of employees’ impression management (IM) strategies in theworkplace. Studies investigating the impact of cultural values on the IM strategiesof employees have mainly examined the role of the institutional environment,namely national culture dimensions. However, studies focusing on how theimmediate cultural environment of organizations may influence the IM strategiesare scarce. Using the person-situation theory and descriptive and injunctive normapproach to the study of culture, this article provides several propositions on howthe organizational cultural values in conjunction and interaction with broadernational cultural values may cause variance in the IM strategies of employees.I specifically propose that job-focused and supervisor-focused IM strategiesshould vary by the degree of performance orientation in organizations, andthis causal impact should vary across cultures based on their varying degrees ofcollectivism and power distance.ViewShow abstractNow is the time: The effects of linguistic time reference and national time orientation on innovative new venturesArticleSep 2021J BUS VENTURING Jintong Tang Jun YangWenping YeShaji A. KhanTwo perspectives stand out in examining international variations in innovative new venture creation: institutions and national culture. However, systematic insights into the interconnections between institutional and cultural perspectives and their effects on entrepreneurship are severely lacking. In order to fill this gap, the current research integrates two prominent yet under-explored institutional and cultural factors: linguistic future-time reference (FTR) as an institutional factor and long-term orientation as a cultural factor, and considers how they are linked through the time perspective reflected in risk and uncertainty perception. Drawing upon linguistic relativity theory and cultural theory, we propose that institutions with strong FTR languages and cultures with short-term orientation are more likely to foster innovative new venture creation. We utilized merged, multi-level, and multi-source data of 34,673 entrepreneurs from 42 countries to test our hypotheses. We also conducted a series of scenario-based, intra-group experiments with bilingual entrepreneurs to further confirm that strong-FTR has a positive relationship with innovative new venture creation. Results offer compelling support for our hypotheses.ViewShow abstractImpact of Societal Culture on Covid-19 Morbidity and Mortality across CountriesArticleJun 2021J CROSS CULT PSYCHOL Rajiv KumarResearchers have begun exploring the impact of societal culture on Covid-19 outcomes (morbidity and mortality). However, emerging findings need integration with prior literature on societal culture and infectious diseases. Moreover, accumulation of knowledge warrants an update while overcoming certain limitations of samples as well as construct validity concerns. Accordingly, hypotheses are derived based on extant evidence proposing the impact of certain cultural practices on Covid-19 outcomes across countries. These hypotheses are tested using the cultural practice scores from GLOBE studies after controlling for certain covariates identified in literature. Multiple regression results reveal that societal culture significantly explains Covid-19 outcomes beyond the explanation due to control variables. Specifically, power distance and institutional collectivism show negative association with both Covid-19 morbidity and mortality. Additionally, performance orientation shows negative association with Covid-19 morbidity. It appears that power distance may ensure conformity to prescribed behaviors and features of performance orientation may facilitate swift and effective containment of Covid-19 cases. The significance of institutional collectivism—but not in-group collectivism—emerging as the form of collectivism showing negative association with Covid-19 outcomes is also discussed.ViewShow abstractLong-term orientation of South Asian leadership and organizational competitiveness and survival of Sasken Technologies LimitedArticleApr 2021 Ramya Venkateswaran Selvaraj VadiveluSwaminathan KrishnanPurposeThe objective of this paper is to understand the perspectives of the chief executive officer (CEO), chairman and managing director of Sasken Technologies Limited, Shri. Rajiv C. Mody who co-founded this high-technology firm, which has survived three decades of turbulence in technology and the market. This is an interview-based study focused on South Asian CEOs, with the goal of better understanding the cultural elements of strategic leadership and organizational values and its influence on organizational competitiveness and survival.Design/methodology/approachThe paper uses primary data from one in-depth interview and supplements the analyses with secondary sources of data. The literature on the cultural dimension of long-term orientation (LTO) is discussed for understanding its possible linkage with strategic leadership, organizational values and thereby organizational competitiveness and survival.FindingsThis study found that the national cultural dimension of LTO of the South Asian leadership, as embedded, nurtured and practiced in the organization s values by the strategic leadership, plays an important role in explaining the organizational competitiveness and survival of South Asian firms while facing challenges and opportunities in a turbulent global business context.Originality/valueThis paper offers the perspective of a chairman and CEO of a high-technology firm with global experience and with a South Asian base of operations. His experiences in managing the organization add value to the discussion on managing business in South Asia.ViewShow abstractThe Antecedent Roles of Personal Constructs and Culture in the Construing of Psychological Contracts by Staff in a Czech Financial Services CompanyThesisFull-text availableSep 2017 Ron BoddyThe modern conceptualisation of the psychological contract recognises a tacit mental representation or schema, spanning all aspects of an employee s perception of work. Reciprocity is a normative force in contract functioning. For over 500 years, the Czech Republic was subject to the rule of other nations. The failed totalitarianism of the most recent Soviet hegemony precipitated the Velvet Revolution and Czech adoption of the market economy in 1989. Some commentators have argued that unproductive work attitudes remain as a legacy of the command system. Following the phenomenological paradigm and constructivist epistemology, the research uses concepts from Personal Construct Psychology to compare the work constructs of Czech and non-Czech staff within the Czech and UK subsidiaries of the same company, examining antecedent effects of culture and individual experiences on psychological contract formation and development. The findings show that the two nationalities construe work along broadly similar lines, prioritizing its social qualities. Czech constructs seem to be simpler than those of non-Czechs, apparently lacking the value placed on personal ambition and achievement by the comparator group. Czechs do, however, appear to value independence much more than non-Czechs, with young Czechs also seemingly expecting social justice and the right to self-determination. The findings make a strong case for suggesting that these values have their origins in Czech culture and history, implying that both influence the work dispositions of Czechs and may plausibly be psychological contract antecedents. The conclusions call for a wider conceptualisation of the psychological contract, specifically in its anticipatory (pre-work) form, and suggest that existing theory might benefit from giving greater consideration and prominence to the social properties of work. Suggestions for further research and business applications are included. ii Stones taught me to fly, Love taught me to lie, Life taught me to die…. Damien Rice, Cannonball iiiViewShow abstractLONG-TERM ORIENTATION OF THE PERSON: THE STATE AND PROSPECTS OF RESEARCHArticleOct 2020 Tim NestikПредставлен анализ долгосрочной ориентации как социально-психологического феномена. Рассматриваются различные подходы к ее изучению в кросс-культурной психологии, нейронауках, экономической и организационной психологии. Долгосрочную ориентацию предлагается рассматривать как многомерный феномен, включающий ценностно-мотивационные (ориентацию на отложенное вознаграждение и выраженность дисконтирования будущего, ценность преемственности, устойчивых к времени достижений и следа в истории, ценность непрерывного саморазвития, ценность прогнозирования будущего, ценность долгосрочного целеполагания и планирования, ценность долгосрочных отношений, ответственность перед будущими поколениями), когнитивные (протяженность временной перспективы, горизонт планирования, убеждение в возможности влиять на отдаленное будущее и прогнозировать его, убеждение в том, что затраченные усилия будут вознаграждены в будущем), аффективные (удовольствие от фантазирования в отношении долгосрочного будущего, интерес к долгосрочным прогнозам, оптимизм в отношении долгосрочного будущего) и поведенческие компоненты (постановку долгосрочных целей, ориентацию на учет долгосрочных последствий, поиск информации о долгосрочном будущем, готовность обсуждать его с друзьями и коллегами, ориентацию на приобретение товаров длительного пользования). Анализируются социальные и психологические предпосылки долгосрочной ориентации и ее психологические функции, а также ее возможные социально-психологические типы. Намечены перспективы дальнейших исследований в данной области.The article presents an analysis of long-term orientation as a socio-psychological phenomenon. Various approaches to the study of long-term orientation in cross-cultural psychology, neurosciences, economic and organizational psychology are considered. Long-term orientation is proposed to be considered as a multidimensional phenomenon, including different components: motivational (orientation to delayed gratification, future discounting, the value of continuity, time-stable achievements and a trace in history, the value of continuous self-development, the value of predicting the future, the value of long-term goal-setting and planning, the value of long-term relations, responsibility to future generations), cognitive (time perspective extension, planning horizon, belief in the ability to influence the distant future and to predict it, belief that the efforts expended will be rewarded in the future), affective (pleasure from fantasizing about the long-term future , interest in long-term forecasts, optimism about the long-term future) and behavioral components (setting long-term goals, focusing on taking into account long-term consequences, searching for information about the long-term future, readiness to discuss it with friends and colleagues, focus on purchasing durable goods). The social and psychological prerequisites for long-term orientation and its psychological functions, as well as its possible socio-psychological types are analyzed. Prospects for further research in this area are outlined.ViewShow abstractShow moreRethinking individualism and collectivism: Rethinking individualism and collectivismArticleFull-text availableJan 2002 Daphna OysermanHeather M. Coon Markus KemmelmeierAre Americans more individualistic and less collectivistic than members of other groups? The authors summarize plausible psychological implications of individualism–collectivism (IND-COL), metaanalyzecross-national and within-United States IND-COL differences, and review evidence for effectsof IND-COL on self-concept, well-being, cognition, and relationality. European Americans were found to be both more individualistic—valuing personal independence more—and less collectivistic—feeling duty to in-groups less—than others. However, European Americans were not more individualistic than African Americans, or Latinos, and not less collectivistic than Japanese or Koreans. Among Asians, only Chinese showed large effects, being both less individualistic and more collectivistic. Moderate IND-COL effects were found on self-concept and relationality, and large effects were found on attribution and cognitive style.ViewShow abstractCultural Long Term Orientation and Facework StrategiesArticleFull-text availableSep 2004Atl J Comm Rebecca MerkinThis study added to extant research by investigating the relation between cultural long-term orientation (LTO) or Confucian Dynamism and harmony and cooperation facework strategies. Studying intercultural communication is particularly vital at this time given the increasing global nature of today s communication interactions.Respondents from two cultures-Hong Kong and the United States-completed questionnaires. Multivariate analysis of variance results showed that LTO culture members were more likely to use harmonious and cooperative facework strategies than their short-term orientated counterparts. An inadvertent finding from this study was that Hong Kong, originally thought to be high on the LTO dimension, actually scored moderate. This finding brings into question the assumption that culture can be classified by country and advocates use of Hofstede s Value Survey Measure for determining culture change.ViewShow abstractVariations in Value Orientations.ArticleDec 1961AM SOCIOL REVMorris RosenbergFlorence Rockwood KluckhohnFred L. StrodtbeckHarry A. ScarrViewA Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing ConstructsArticleFeb 1979J MARKETING RESGilbert A. ChurchillA critical element in the evolution of a fundamental body of knowledge in marketing, as well as for improved marketing practice, is the development of better measures of the variables with which marketers work. In this article an approach is outlined by which this goal can be achieved and portions of the approach are illustrated in terms of a job satisfaction measure.ViewShow abstractThe Effect Of LTO Culture On International Supply Chain ContractsArticleSep 2005Sungmin RyuMartha CookEffective management of international supply chain relationships is critical in determining the success of the ever-growing cadré of international businesses where small cost differentials separate profitable enterprises from failed ones. Because inter-organizational contractual arrangements define expectations and standards for supply chain transactions, they may play a role in determining relationship efficiencies (and thus costs.) Although the effect of culture on the functioning of interfirm relationships in the supply chain has been an active area of scholarly investigation in the past decade, most studies have focused on organizations in Western societies, particularly in the US and Europe. Increasingly, global supply chains include at least one Asian partner so that cultural patterns predominant in the East must also be considered. This study examines the cultural factor of time orientation and seeks to understand how the long-term orientation (LTO) characterizing many Eastern cultures may affect supply chain contracts. Specifically, it investigates the influence of cultural time-orientation on the formation of soft (implicit, general) and hard (written, detailed) contracts. The results underscore the importance of culture in managing effective interfirm relationships in the supply chain: Long-term orientation culture tends to rely upon and function successfully with soft contracts, but does not depends on hard contracts.ViewShow abstractTime perspectives of the cross-cultural negotiations processArticleJan 1997Lat Am Bus RevMilton MayfieldJ. Mayfield Drew MartinPaul HerbigViewCross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendationsArticleJan 2007J MANAGE Anne S Tsui Sushil NifadkarViewChinese Values and the Search for Culture-Free Dimensions of CultureArticleJun 1987J CROSS CULT PSYCHOLChinese Culture ConnectionA survey of Chinese values was constructed and administered to university students in 22 countries around the world. An ecological factor analysis was run on the culture means for the 40 scale items and revealed four dimensions of cultural valuing. In a search for validities, country scores on these four factors were correlated with those derived from a Western survey of work-related values by Hofstede (1980). Three of the factors from the Chinese Value Survey (CVS) correlated at high levels with three of Hofstede s four, strongly suggesting the robust value dimensions of collectivism and compassion. The second CVS factor, Confucian work dynamism, was unrelated to any of Hofstede s, but correlated .70 with economic growth from 1965 to 1984. This validational evidence confirms the potential of instruments developed outside a Western cultural tradition for opening up new theoretical vistas to the attention of behavioral scientists.ViewShow abstractToward a General Theory of ActionArticleOct 1952Am Cathol Socio RevE. K. FrancisTalcott ParsonsEdward A. ShilsSamuel A. StoufferViewHofstede’s Fifth Dimension New Evidence From the World Values SurveyArticleJan 2012J CROSS CULT PSYCHOL Michael MinkovGeert HofstedeBased on research with Bond’s Chinese Values Survey (CVS) across 23 countries, Hofstede added a fifth dimension, Long- versus Short-Term Orientation (LTO), to his earlier four IBM-based dimensions of national cultures. The authors attempted to replicate this dimension by analyzing World Values Survey (WVS) items that seemed to capture the concept of LTO. Their factor analysis of 10 such items across 38 countries resulted in two factors. One was strongly correlated with the original LTO, whereas the other resembled Hofstede’s individualism dimension. The first factor’s nomological network was identical to that of the CVS-based LTO: It predicted national economic growth and national school success in mathematics. These findings show that a dimension very similar to the original LTO can be derived from the WVS and that Chinese and Western research instruments can produce similar dimensions of culture.ViewShow abstractShow moreAdvertisementRecommendationsDiscover more about: National CultureProjectarchetypal analysis of world value survey data David F. Midgley Sunil Venaik Demetris ChristopoulosDevelop a parsimonious description of heterogeneity in global values through a small number of archetypes, conceptualise nations as mixtures of these archetypes and relate these mixtures to other n ational indices. ... [more]View projectProjectThe Role of Humour in Driving Customer Engagement Jing Ge-Stadnyk Ulrike Gretzel Yunxia ZhuView projectProjectknowledge management Jin Chen Hao Jiao Yunxia ZhuView projectProjectPhD project Siti Nor Amalina Ahmad Tajuddin Natalie Collie Yunxia ZhuView projectArticleFull-text availableThe positive wellbeing aspects of workaholism in cross cultural perspective: The Chocoholism metapho...October 2011 · Career Development International Yehuda BaruchPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to offer a counter-intuitive conceptual framework to the study and the management of workaholism. The paper proposes that the phenomenon can be constructive, generating welcoming outcomes for individuals, organizations and societies. Design/methodology/approach – A set of propositions about workaholism and its management under various contexts is presented ... [Show full abstract] and discussed. Findings – Workaholics should not be labeled as problematic addicts. Workaholism should not be automatically taken as negative and be suppressed. If the culture is positive towards workaholism, offer alternatives. Research limitations/implications – The framework has a number of practical implications such as reconsidering the negative stigmatization of workaholic employees. Practical implications – The framework should be useful for managers in dealing with workaholics at work. Originality/value – The paper develops a framework that enables \"out of the box” thinking of workaholism.View full-textArticleFull-text availableCollectivism in the GLOBE culture studyPaul Brewer Sunil VenaikThis paper continues work published in several recent articles examining the cultural dimensions in the Hofstede and GLOBE models. Specifically we look at the dimension of Collectivism. We examine the relationships between Hofstede Individualism and the GLOBE Institutional Collectivism (IC) and GLOBE In-Group Collectivism (IGC) dimensions. We explain the correlations between these dimension ... [Show full abstract] scores. We also recommend that IC be relabelled simply Collectivism and IGC be labelled Familial Empathy reflecting the content of the GLOBE questionnaire items for these dimensions. We demonstrate that IC practices and values are negatively correlated as a result of both the effects of wealth in different societies and also the effects of deprivation/abundance . Finally, we recommend that IC practices be used in future research on firm/manager practices and IV values for research involving firm/manager aspirations.View full-textArticleFull-text availableIndividualism–Collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBEApril 2011 · Journal of International Business StudiesPaul Brewer Sunil VenaikThis paper examines the Individualism–Collectivism (I-C) dimension of national culture in the Hofstede and GLOBE models. We identify major contradictions between the two culture models, which result in contradictory relationships with external variables such as economic prosperity. We critically evaluate the content validity of the items used to measure this construct in both models. Based on our ... [Show full abstract] analysis, we suggest that Hofstede s Individualism–Collectivism index be relabelled as Self-orientation vs Work-orientation and GLOBE s In-group collectivism as Family Collectivism. We demonstrate how the proposed alternative conceptualizations of the Individualism–Collectivism dimensions in both the Hofstede and GLOBE models can help reconcile the anomalous relationships between these two models of national culture, and between their dimension scores and other external variables of interest to researchers. We recommend a way forward for future research incorporating the collectivism dimensions that identifies which of the Hofstede/GLOBE scores is appropriate for differing purposes. This will help to make future research findings clearer, and to reduce contradictions and anomalies. Implications drawn from such research should also be clearer as a result.View full-textArticleFull-text availableGLOBE practices and values: A case of diminishing marginal utility?October 2010 · Journal of International Business StudiesPaul Brewer Sunil VenaikThe GLOBE study of national cultures identified nine dimensions of culture. These nine dimensions were measured in the form of societal practices (as things are) and societal values (as things should be). The correlations between practices and values for societies, surprisingly, were found to be significantly negative for seven dimensions. Apparently, people s values are contrary to their ... [Show full abstract] practices. A note, which appeared in a recent issue of this journal, proposes that these anomalous correlations result from diminishing marginal utility. The note argues that marginal utility theory applies to cultural dimensions, and that the GLOBE values measure societies’ marginal preferences for most of the dimensions, rather than total preference weights. Through close analysis of the questionnaire items used by the GLOBE team, we show that this is not the case. We demonstrate that the GLOBE questions, as asked, do not elicit marginal preferences. In fact they elicit values, as claimed by GLOBE, but recognizing that values may well be shaped, in part, by existing practices. We call for further study into the GLOBE scores, as it is likely that different explanations apply to practices/values relationships across different dimensions.View full-textArticleFull-text availableContradictions in national culture: Hofstede vs GLOBE Sunil VenaikPaul BrewerThe concept of national culture has been a core topic of international business research for many years, based in large part on the seminal model developed by Geert Hofstede. A recent research project, the GLOBE study, presents an additional, expanded model of cultural measures. This paper takes the opportunity to compare cultural dimensions across these two important studies looking for ... [Show full abstract] consistencies and support in both data and analysis. Rather than mutual support, we found major inconsistencies and anomalies across the studies, in particular in respect of the key dimension of Uncertainty Avoidance. The most worrying of these is the highly significant negative correlation between GLOBE uncertainty avoidance practices measures and Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance index for specific cultures. If left unresolved these inconsistencies will erode the confidence researchers have in the foundations of much cross-cultural research.View full-textInterested in research on National Culture?Join ResearchGate to discover and stay up-to-date with the latest research from leading experts in National Culture and many other scientific topics.Join for free ResearchGate iOS AppGet it from the App Store now.InstallKeep up with your stats and moreAccess scientific knowledge from anywhere orDiscover by subject areaRecruit researchersJoin for freeLoginEmail Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate loginPasswordForgot password? Keep me logged inLog inorContinue with GoogleWelcome back! Please log in.Email · HintTip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate loginPasswordForgot password? Keep me logged inLog inorContinue with GoogleNo account? Sign upCompanyAbout usNewsCareersSupportHelp CenterBusiness solutionsAdvertisingRecruiting© 2008-2021 ResearchGate GmbH. All rights reserved.TermsPrivacyCopyrightImprint