Culture and Hofstede (1980) in international business studies: a bibliometric study in top management journals/Cultura e hofstede (1980) na investigacao em negocios internacionais: um estudo bibliometrico em periodicos internacionais de administracao /Cultura y hofstede (1980) en la investigacion de ...
Ferreira, Manuel Portugal ; Serra, Fernando Antonio Ribeiro ; Pinto, Claudia Sofia Frias 等
1. INTRODUCTION
Competition and firms' operations are increasingly
international in nature, and, being aware of the opportunities and
threats emerging in foreign countries, managers can hardly fail. Indeed,
many executives monitor what their foreign competitors are doing, how
the industry is evolving and how the economy in foreign countries is
progressing as they do in their own country. Therefore, be it launching
a new product, setting a new subsidiary, engaging in an additional
cross-border acquisition or broadening their business network taking one
more partner, executives are required to understand the challenges of
operating in foreign locations. We often refer to this growing
interdependence as globalization, but despite the terminology used,
these changes have also spurred International Business (IB) research to
delve into new domains, or simply dig deeper into reasonably known
phenomena. National culture and how countries differ in their cultural
traits, norms, values, beliefs, behaviors and ways of doing things
(KOGUT; SINGH, 1988; MOROSINI; SHANE; SINGH, 1998; BROUTHERS, K.;
BROUTHERS, L., 2001; SHENKAR, 2001), has thus captured substantial
research attention.
The influence of culture in international business (IB) studies is
well established. Culture and cultural differences seem to permeate a
wide array of IB decisions. Over the past three decades, culture has
been an important facet when researching such IB decisions as the
selection of entry modes (KOGUT; SINGH, 1988; BARKEMA; VERMEULEN, 1997,
1998; MOROSINI et al., 1998) and location (ERRAMILLI; AGARWAL; KIM,
1997). However, its influence also extends to research on such phenomena
as expatriation and human resource management (AYCAN et al., 2000),
management and performance of multinationals (GOMEZ-MEJIA; PALICH,
1997), to point only a few.
Perhaps the most notable contribution to the current state of
development of our understanding on how much does culture actually
matter was that of the Dutch scholar Geert Hofstede's work and more
notably his 1980 book on Culture's consequences. In several of his
following publications, Hofstede refined and extended his original
contribution. Hofstede (1980) created a cultural taxonomy for the study
of how cultures differ. Specifically, he advanced four cultural
dimensions of national culture (albeit later expanded to five and
updated). Arguably, one of the hallmarks of Hofstede's work was to
make quantifiable cultural attributes that were previously taken as an
undefined broad understanding of how people in different countries
behaved, their attitudes and cultural traits. Ferreira and colleagues
(2009) noted that a majority of the extant IB research had included
cultural dimensions or considerations either as the dependent variable,
the independent or as a controlling one.
Our primary purpose in this paper is not to fully review
Hofstede's cultural dimensions, as such reviews may be found in
other papers (EARLEY; GIBSON, 2002; TARAS; KIRKMAN; STEEL, 2010). For
instance, Hofstede (2001) himself examined how has culture been included
in empirical studies and Boyacigiller and Adler (1991) claimed the need
to overcome the parochialism in IB research concerning how we deal and
treat culture. We specifically aim at understanding what has truly been
the impact of Hofstede's work (which we use as a proxy for culture)
and what can we learn from it. Methodologically we conduct a
bibliometric study of the articles quoting Hofstede's (1980) work
that were published in eight top ranked business/management journals
that are either IB specific or that are known for publishing IB
research: Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review,
Administrative Science Quarterly, International Business Review, Journal
of International Business Studies, Organization Science, Strategic
Management Journal and Journal of World Business. We identified 665
articles quoting Hofstede (1980) over the thirty-one years from 1980 to
2010, published in these journals that comprise our sample. This
selection allows us to identify IB specific articles but also
international strategy and international management.
This study has thus the value of contributing to our understanding
of how has culture been included on IB research over the past three
decades, and contributes beyond existing literature reviews (LEUNG et
al., 2005; KIRKMAN; LOWE; GIBSON, 2006; MINKOV; HOFSTEDE, 2011) by not
only the methodology employed but also as it provides an overall
perspective on the field. This perspective is captured by not
restricting the analysis to a single journal, using a large dataset, and
three procedures of analysis. The co-citation analyses permitted a
better understanding of the intellectual ties among scholars. The
longitudinal analysis of how the research themes in the articles
published evolved using Hofstede further allowed to detect research
shifts.
This paper is organized as follows. Firstly, we very briefly review
Hofstede's contribution and more broadly how culture matters in a
variety of organizational contexts in international business studies.
Secondly, we describe the method employed and the samples. The results,
in the third section, are followed by a broad discussion, pointing out
limitations and avenues for future inquiry.
2. CULTURE AND HOFSTEDE
The influence of Hofstede's work on culture and how it is
being compared across countries is recognized beyond the academy. A
ranking of the Wall Street Journal, published in May 2008, on the most
influential business thinkers, identified Hofstede as the sixteenth most
influential scholar, following others such as Hamel, Thomas Friedman,
Kotler, Mintzberg, Michael Porter, and ahead of many well reputed
scholars, including Clayton Christensen, Jack Welch and Tom Peters.
Moreover, citation analyses on the top business/management journals
showed that Hofstede's work, especially his 1980 book Culture
consequences: International differences in work related values, is among
the most cited by scholars.
Traditionally, prior to Hofstede's work, research on
cross-cultural issues, but also research on other IB-related subjects,
tended to treat culture both as a single variable and as something that
was out there, highly complex, multidimensional, largely unquantifiable
and that had a somewhat unmeasurable impact on an array of decisions and
practices. Put differently, culture was an omnipresent black box that
often "explained" why some otherwise unaccounted differences
would exist between two countries, their people and firms.
Hofstede's work came to advance research in several ways. It
showed that culture could be quantified and actually compared across
nations. It showed that researchers could fragment culture into smaller,
perhaps more manageable and identifiable pieces. For this purpose, he
advanced four cultural dimensions. This disaggregation is important as
it allows a better comprehension of the specific cultural traits that
may influence a given phenomenon or action. In addition, it contributed
substantially to other theoretical advancements that followed. For
instance, both Schwartz's (1994) work on values, and project
GLOBE's (HOUSE et al., 2004) cultural attributes and measurements
have benefitted from Hofstede's work.
Hofstede's studies on culture sought to identify and
characterize individual traits that were used as national profiles of a
society, to better understand how societies differ. In fact, Hofstede
(1991:21) conceptualized culture as "the collective programming of
the mind which distinguishes the members of one group from another"
and much of the research has then emphasized these groups as national
identities. Described briefly, Hofstede's dimensions were: power
distance (related to the social inequality and how people deal with
authority being unequally distributed), individualism-collectivism (and
the prevalence of the individual and the group as guiding individuals
' behaviors), masculinity-femininity (and the drive towards
achievement versus the concern with others) and uncertainty avoidance
(pertaining to how individuals in different countries deal with
uncertainty). In later works, Hofstede and Bond (1988) added a fifth
dimension--confucian dynamism (also termed as long term orientation)--,
and in the 2010 edition of the book Cultures and Organizations: Software
of the Mind, a sixth dimension--indulgence vs. self-restraint.
3. METHOD
In this article, we conducted a set of bibliometric analyses based
on citation and cocitation data, extending to the examination of the
more prolific authors and institutions and the research themes delved
into that have used Hofstede's 1980 work on culture's
consequences. It is worth noting, however, that albeit we use
Hofstede's (1980) as a key marker--his contribution is arguably
disputed--we aim at the broader understanding of how culture truly
matters on IB research.
3.1. Bibliometric study
In this paper we conducted a bibliometric analysis of the articles
published in eight top journals for IB research that cited
Hofstede's (1980) work on culture. Bibliometric studies are not
novel in business/management research as scholars occasionally have the
need to systematize existing knowledge by reviewing the state of the art
of the extant research. Therefore, bibliometric studies are conducted to
observe trends (WHITE; MCCAIN, 1998), themes examined (SCHILDT; ZAHRA;
SILLANPAA, 2006; FURRER; THOMAS; GOUSSEV SKAIA, 2008), GOUSSEUSKAIA
publication record of the scholars in a certain field (CORNELIUS;
LANDSTRON; PERSSON, 2006), or the impact of a single scholar (FERREIRA,
2011), the research record of authors and institutions (SHANE, 1997),
which articles are most cited (RATNATUNGA; ROMANO, 1997), and the
intellectual structure of discipline (RAMOS-RODRIGUEZ; RUIZNAVARRO,
2004).
Bibliometric studies rely on the examination of data collected from
a variety of documental sources. More often they rely on articles
published in refereed journals, since these works have already been
validated by the usual doubleblind reviewing process by peers, but they
may resort to other sources such as books, monographs, reports, theses
and dissertations, working papers, and so forth. In this paper, we use
only the articles published in top management/business journals.
3.2. Procedures of analysis
This study involved three core procedures: examining citations,
co-citations and identifying the research themes. Citation analysis
consists of examining the frequency with which a certain paper has been
used, or cited, by others. Scholars cite other works when writing their
own papers for a variety of reasons. In some instances, to build upon an
argument; in other cases, to establish a gap, set opposing rationales,
or simply to criticize. Regardless of the motivation, citing others is a
crucial element in any research. White and McCain (1998) noted that a
work that is more cited has a larger impact in the discipline and that
by examining citations over time we capture trends in the contribution
of a specific work, author or theory.
The second procedure consisted on building co-citations networks.
Co-citations analyses are based on identifying and observing how pairs
of articles are cited together in the extant research. The co-citation
analysis allow us identify ties among articles and is based on the
assumption that a pair of articles jointly cited has some proximity
(WHITE; GRIFFITH, 1981). Ramos-Rodriguez and Ruiz-Navarro (2004) use
cocitation data to infer the intellectual structure in the domain of
strategic management. Papers that are more often co-cited are those more
relevant in a given matter (RAMOS-RODRIGUEZ; RUIZ-NAVARRO, 2004).
The third procedure entailed identifying and classifying the themes
of the articles citing Hofstede (1980). To identify what the papers are
about would ideally entail an extensive content analysis of each
article. Given our sample of 655 articles that endeavor was neither
feasible nor the analysis would return substantial meaning, beyond a
mere casuistic description. An alternative is to capture the research
theme of each article based on the author-supplied keywords and then
develop a procedure to examine them empirically. Using the
author-supplied keywords to infer the themes of the articles is
reasonable since the authors chose keywords that better reflect the
actual content of their manuscripts both for indexing purposes but also
to potential readers.
The procedure used for identifying the theme followed Furrer,
Thomas and Goussevskaia (2008). In essence, using ISI Web of Knowledge
and the software Bibexcel, we were able to draw all the author-supplied
keywords of the articles in the sample. Then, two coders independently
examined all the keywords and classified each into one of the 23 major
themes previously defined (see Appendix), based on Furrer et al. (2008)
and adapted to reflect IB research and culture. Any inconsistencies were
resolved among the coders and with the main researcher. The 655 articles
comprised a total of 1,167 keywords but it is worth noting that the
database does not contain the author-supplied keywords of articles
published from 1980 to 1990, for that reason we cannot include this
period in the analyses. Despite the obvious drawbacks vis-a-vis an
in-depth content analysis, we are confident that this procedure yields a
reasonable proxy for the content of each paper.
3.3. Data and sample
The data collection procedure evolved in several steps. First, we
searched the entire track record of ISI web of knowledge to identify the
citations to the works of Hofstede (Table 1). The search for all
articles citing Hofstede in the entire database of ISI identified
Hofstede's (1980) work with the greatest number of citations:
7,997. Thus, we selected this work as the core of our analysis in the
following sections. It is worth noting that the two most cited works
were books rather than journal articles.
Then, to build our sample, we searched ISI web of knowledge,
delimiting the search using four criteria: first, we searched only in
journals of management, economics and business, and second, to delimited
the search to the period from 1980 to 2010. We further considered only
"articles " and "reviews " thus leaving out
editorial notes, book reviews and other materials. Using these
procedures we identified 6,592 articles citing Hofstede (1980). Fourth,
we selected only the journals in table 2. These are top
management/business journals that have been classified among the top
ranked for publishing IB-related research (see Harzing's journal
quality list--available at www.harzing.com/jql.htm). The final sample
comprises 655 works for additional analyses.
Albeit all journals published IB and culture-related research, it
is not surprising that articles citing Hofstede's (1980) work were
more prevalent in specialized IB-related journals: Journal of
International Business Studies (16%) and International Business Review
(20.1%). However, we also identified a substantial number of articles
published in other journals quoting Hofstede, which denotes that IB
studies are relevant in these journals, and that cultural issues are a
research concern beyond the immediate IB domain and find applications in
other management disciplines from marketing to strategy, human
resources, and so forth.
4. RESULTS
4.1. The impact of Hofstede (1980): citation frequency
The number of articles citing Hofstede's (1980) work has
steadily increased over the past thirty years (1980 to 2010) (Figure 1).
In the decade 1980-1990, 43 articles cited Hofstede, from 1991 to 2000,
221 articles cited Hofstede, and in the third decade, 2001 to 2010, the
number of articles citing Hofstede jumped to 391. This longitudinal
analysis allows us to assess Hofstede's (1980) impact on the
scientific community over time, and its remarkable increase. It is also
prima facie evidence that culture, and national culture or cultural
differences between countries specifically, has been gaining researchers
' interest.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The articles are increasingly published in co-authorship (Figure
1). Examining the articles that cited Hofstede (1980) we assessed
authoring patterns. Perhaps the increasing difficulties of academic
publishing, with stricter norms and reviewing requests, has led scholars
to joining efforts towards making their research into top ranked
journals. The citation analysis is clear in showing that Hofstede's
work has been increasingly used in IB-related research. This growth
occurs in spite of other cultural models that were and continue to be
developed and in spite of the critiques that are recurrently debated and
well known. Ferreira et al. (2009) had already noted the pervasiveness
of culture-related emphasis in IB studies.
4.2. Co-citation analyses and mapping
The 655 articles identified as citing Hofstede (1980) used a
combined total of 43,760 bibliographic references. The references used
are the core component of co-citation analysis. In addition to the
analysis of the entire period (Figure 2), we conducted a longitudinal
analysis (Figures 3 to 5). For a better understanding of possible
patterns, we split the time frame into three periods: 1980-1990,
1991-2000 and 2001-2010. An initial observation showed that in the
period from 1980 to 1990, an eleven years period, the articles used
1,863 references, in the second period, from 1991 to 2000, 13,769
references and the articles published during 2001 to 2010, used 28,128
references. This is a remarkable increase in the number of references
used, that surpasses the simple increase in the number of papers
published. On average, each paper used 43 references in the first
period, 62 in the second and 72 references in the third period (the last
decade).
The co-citation networks are drawn with software Ucinet which
permits identifying and grouping pairs of references. The software
positions the dots in such a manner that the farther away from the
center, the weaker the tie. That is, the less often the pair of works is
co-cited by others, the further away from the center it will appear in
the figure. The stronger ties highlight higher co-citation frequencies.
It is worth noting that the network depicts only the 30 most salient
co-citations by the 655 articles in our sample. Including more works
would render undistinguishable ties in the networks.
The co-citation network in figure 2 refers to the entire period
under examination: 1980 to 2010, a thirty one year period. At the core,
or center, there is a stronger tie, or co-citation, between Hofstede
(1980) and Kogut and Singh (1988) work on cultural distance. This tie is
built of 217 co-citations--that is, 217 articles have jointly cited
these two works. Second, the tie to Hofstede (1991), with 108
co-citations and to Johanson and Vahlne (1977), with 94 co-citations.
These are followed by other strong ties, such as to Ronen and Shenkar
(1985), Shenkar (2001), Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989), Hofstede and Bond
(1988), Schwartz (1994), House et al. (2004) and Trompennars (1993).
Although it is evident the strong ties to other cultural studies and
classifications, we also observe ties to a variety of phenomena such as
internationalization (JOHANSON; VAHLNE, 1977; KOSTOVA, 1999), entry
modes (GATIGNON; ANDERSON, 1988; BARKEMA; VERMEULEN, 1998),
institutional theory (DIMAGGIO; POWELL, 1983), resource dependence
theory (PFEFFER; SALANCIK, 1978) and methodological issues (NUNNALLY,
1978).
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
To examine shifts over time, we split the sample into three periods
(Figures 3 to 5). Figure 3 depicts the co-citation network in the first
period, 1980 to 1990. The ties are particularly stronger to Haire,
Ghiselli and Porter (1966), Pfeffer and Salancik (1978), Hofstede and
Bond (1988), Adler (1983), Hofer and Schendel (1978) and Triandis
(1971). These ties reflect both work on culture and its
conceptualization, and studies dealing with managerial thinking. At the
periphery a large variety of works that have come to be well known in
both the strategic management and international business literature.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Figure 4 shows the co-citation network for the period 1991 to 2000.
The ties are especially strong to Kogut and Singh (1988), Hofstede
(1991), Hofstede and Bond (1988), Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989), Ronen and
Shenkar (1985), Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) and Johanson and Vahlne
(1977). This network is remarkably different from the previous.
Examining the entire network, we identify works that we may group in the
transaction costs theory, theory of the multinational firm,
internationalization as an evolutionary process, and several related to
defining, conceptualizing and measuring culture in international
business studies.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
Figure 5 shows the co-citation network for the third period: 2001
to 2010. The more salient ties connect Hofstede (1980) to Kogut and
Singh (1988), Shenkar (2001), Hofstede (1991), Johanson and Vahlne
(1977), House et al. (2004), Kostova (1999), Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989)
and Trompenaars (1993). In this network, we are also able to identify
works on transaction costs and on culture but in contrast to the prior
period, we observe many works we identify with a resource-, knowledge-,
capabilities-based view of the firm.
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
It is especially interesting to see the remarkable changes that
occurred over time. Even more notable is to observe that the concept of
cultural distance (KOGUT; SINGH, 1988) gained rapid acceptance by
academia. The third period denotes a substantial shift to the
resource-based view, learning, knowledge and internal aspects of the
firm, in contrast to a more transaction cost based view of the second
period. However, it may seem surprising how Johanson and Vahlne 's
(1977) work has moved to the center of the figure in the third period,
from a rather peripheral position in the decade 1991-2000.
4.3. The themes delved into
The third analysis comprised examining the themes researched. To
some extent, we may observe the themes delved into with the previous
co-citation analysis, but a more fine-grained approach may be made.
Figures 6 to 8 reveal the themes' networks in the three periods.
These figures entail a procedure that relies on the cross correlations
of the themes.
An examination of the following figures denotes substantial
differences across periods. In Figure 6, including all data from 1991 to
2010, we observe stronger linkages to Environment, geography, clusters,
Internationalization, entry modes and strategic advantage--IEMSA and Top
management teams, human resource management.
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
A longitudinal analysis, separating the data in two periods allows
us detect that the web of ties has noteworthy shifts over time--which is
evidence of a shift in research emphasis. Specifically, in the first
period 1991--2000, shown in Figure 7, the tie is stronger linking
Culture to Methodologies, theories and research issues, and moderate to
Internationalization, entry modes and strategic advantage--IEMSA,
Performance and Top management team.
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
The second period, 2001 to 2010, shown in Figure 8, includes a
larger diversity of research themes, namely with a greater emphasis on
Environmental, geography, cluster, Top management team, human resources
management and Methodologies, theories and research issues.
We may also observe an increase of importance on firm-specific
factors and a resource-capabilities-based view that has been noted to
permeate a broad variety of IB-related phenomena and studies (see PENG,
2001).
[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
5. DISCUSSION
In this article, we sought to understand the importance of culture
in international business research. Specifically we examined the extent
to which has one of the most notable works Hofstede's (1980)--has,
and continues to, impacted extant research. Albeit there are a number of
taxonomies and classifications of culture, such as those of Schwartz,
Trompenaars and more recently the Globe project, Hofstede has been
recognized as one of the leading management scholars for its influence
on an array of disciplines and fields of research. His 1980 work is one
of the most cited works in all management/business literature. Moreover,
we conduct an in-depth bibliometric analysis of articles published
across eight highly ranked journals to actually disentangle how has
Hofstede's work been used.
The seminal work of Hofstede (1980) has changed much of the IB
research and how it is carried. His quantifiable taxonomy allowed
researchers to truly incorporate culture in empirical studies. Other
scholars have followed either advancing competing taxonomies or
extending and testing on Hofstede. For instance, Schwartz (1994) work
identified seven cultural values: Affective autonomy, Conservatism,
Egalitarian commitment, Harmony, Hierarchy, Intellectual autonomy and
Mastery. Another taxonomy was put forth by House and colleagues'
(HOUSE et al., 2004) GLOBE project, comprising nine cultural dimensions:
Assertiveness orientation, Family collectivism, Future orientation,
Gender egalitarianism, Humane orientation, Institutional collectivism,
Performance orientation, Power distance and Uncertainty avoidance. It is
worth noting that the GLOBE project benefited from prior work, namely
that of Hofstede, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck and McClelland, among others.
The usefulness of a more refined typology of the Hofstede's
dimensions remains to be demonstrated. More recently, Leung and Bond
sought to enlarge the cultural traits identified. The fact is that these
and other works have provided convergent results to Hofstede and have
thus supported the validity of Hofstede's (1980) cultural
dimensions. Nonetheless, there is still much research that may be done
using these other taxonomies as they have been less employed.
Concerning our results, a number of remarks are warranted. The
co-citation networks are interesting not only to observe intellectual
ties but also how the conversations evolved. The longitudinal analysis
of the co-citation networks shows three distinct periods. In the first
period, from 1980 to 1990, the network has at its core mostly other
culture related works such as Triandis (1972), Haire and colleagues
(1966), Ronen and Shenkar (1985), Ronen (1986) and then a variety of
different perspectives on business, international business and strategy.
Culture was fermenting and gaining its foothold in the field.
A substantially different co-citation network emerges in the second
period--1991 to 2000 (see Figure 5). In addition to some of the
mainstream theories, more notably the transaction costs theory
(WILLIAMSON, 1975, 1985), the institutional theory (DIMAGGIO; POWELL,
1983; GATIGNON; ANDERSON, 1988) and theories of the firm specifically in
the context of international business, we see the emergence of the
multinational firm and the concern with how subsidiaries and
headquarters should organize (PRAHALAD; DOZ, 1987; BARTLETT; GHOSHAL,
1989). Nonetheless, the large number of ties to other works on culture
is remarkable (EARLEY, 1989; ADLER, 1991; EREZ; EARLEY, 1993;
TROMPENAARS, 1993). Clearly this period is of consolidation with
multiple other models emerging and questioning of what culture entails,
its importance and how to construct it.
The third period (Figure 6), from 2001 to 2010, saw an enormous
growth of studies based on the resource-, knowledge-, capabilities-based
perspective (BARNEY, 1991). This also entails a different manner to
incorporate culture into research. National cultures and cultural
differences pose threats that firms need to overcome to succeed in their
foreign operations (ZAHEER, 1995; KOGUT; SINGH, 1988; KOSTOVA; ZAHEER,
1999). However, different countries also present opportunities to be
explored and from which firms may draw knowledge and resources to
increase a competitive advantage. The impact of culture on foreign entry
modes (BARKEMA; VERMEULEN, 1997, 1998) has an influence on how much
learning occurs and the knowledge firms absorb (COHEN; LEVINTHAL, 1990;
KOGUT; ZANDER, 1993). Notwithstanding, there are substantial traces that
the academia is not pacified and culture-based studies still abound.
Nonetheless, there is clearly more variety--that comes to characterize
the discipline itself.
Examining the research themes delved into noteworthy differences
also appear. Albeit our data is more limited in this regard, the first
period (see Figure 7), 1991 to 2000, shows especially strong ties
linking culture to methodologies and research issues, to performance,
internationalization and entry modes and to competitive advantage. At
least to some extent, this is the reflection of earlier concerns on the
reasons why firms go abroad and how should they go about it. Many issues
are much less attended to, such as the institutional theory, industry
analysis, organizational structures for internationalization, and so
forth. The focus shifted markedly in the following period (see Figure
8), from 2001 to 2010. During this period, environment, geography and
clusters came to the forefront of research, probably much tied to
learning and knowledge matters. In addition, broadly, this period is
marked by a focus on internal aspects of the multinational. That meant
observing capabilities, knowledge and the RBV, entry modes to either
exploit competences held or increase the pool of resources to better
compete in the future, networks and partnerships, more research on the
institutional pressures, and so forth. The emphasis of research has
changed and culture gained a role in helping to explain and
contextualize why firms made the choices they did and how operations
ought to be managed.
5.1. Limitations and future research
This paper has some limitations worth considering. First, and
perhaps the simplest to overcome in future research, was the narrow
scope of included journals. Extending from our eight journals to
include, for example, disciplinary journals in the cross-cultural field
or social psychology, business ethics, strategic management or
international strategy, organizational behavior and so forth, may
provide additional insights by probing into different disciplinary
emphasis and research purposes. Indeed, constructs and theories are used
in different disciplines in an also different manner and for distinct
purposes.
Other limitations concern the method used. Citation and co-citation
analyses have some drawbacks. However, we should point that citation
frequency is a reasonable proxy to assess a paper's impact but
future research may seek to observe the context in which citations are
made. In addition, our analysis of the research themes did not entail a
content analysis per se, but rather the use of the author-supplied
keywords to infer the themes of their articles (FURRER et al., 2008).
Although this approach is prima facie reasonable, as we explained, it
does not fully capture or explain the context in which Hofstede 's
work is quoted. In some instances, the cultural dimensions may be used
as the dependent variable, in other as independent or control variables
and even in other papers scholars may cite Hofstede to criticize his
cultural taxonomy while supporting the use of another. Future research
may overcome this limitation with a content analysis and other
statistical techniques.
Finally, we examined Hofstede and not other models. It is a fact
that Hofstede's cultural dimensions hold highest notoriety and are
the most cited. Moreover, alternative cultural taxonomies have resorted
to Hofstede's taxonomy and several studies have noted high
correlation among cultural dimensions. Therefore, we are reasonably
confident that we have a sample that is also representative of the work
on culture and international business.
The practitioner implications of this study are scarce and not
beyond the obvious importance that culture bears on multiple aspects of
running a firm. For scholars, we need to take a step back on occasion to
examine how the contribution of some authors does imprint both the
discipline and the research agenda. More importantly, observe how a
certain area of knowledge has been evolving. In this questioning, we may
thus comprehend how some contributions reshape how research is done and
allows us cross the current boundaries setting the pace and scope of
future research endeavors. We believe that Hofstede's work is such
a case, where by unpacking the black box that culture presented and by
proposing a manner to measure cultural dimensions, it carried a huge
impact on the field.
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
It is undeniable the importance of culture in management studies.
Cultural issues are the raison d 'etre of disciplines such as
cross-cultural management but they are also a highly recurrent focus of
international business research (FERREIRA; LI; GUISINGER; SERRA, 2009).
While practitioners search for similarities across countries and
cultures and researchers delve into their idiosyncrasies, if cultures
were converging and cultural norms, beliefs and behaviors were becoming
universal, then firms could also adopt similar practices and
organizational forms regardless of the location. That is not the reality
of business, and international business is not culture-free. Culture
will continue to change and business practices and research will need to
shift to accompany the novel needs and requirements for a better
understanding.
DOI: 10.5700/rege536
Recebido em: 9/12/2012
Aprovado em: 5/5/2014
Manuel Portugal Ferreira
Professor de Estrategia do PPGA da Universidade Nove de Julho
(Uninove) Sao Paulo-SP, Brasil
Professor Coordenador do STG--Instituto Politecnico de Leiria,
Portugal
Doutor em Administracao pela Universidade de Utah, EUA
E-mail: manuel.portugal.ferreira@gmail.com
Fernando Antonio Ribeiro Serra
Professor de Estrategia no PPGA da Universidade Nove de Julho
(Uninove)--Sao Paulo-SP, Brasil
Doutor em Engenharia pela PUC-Rio
E-mail: fernandorserra@gmail.com
Claudia Sofia Frias Pinto
Doutoranda em Administracao na FGV-EAESP--Sao Paulo-SP, Brasil
Mestranda em Gestao de Projetos na Universidade Nove de Julho
(Uninove). Mestre em Negocios Internacionais pela ESTG--Instituto
Politecnico de Leiria, Portugal
E-mail: claudia.frias.pinto@gmail.com
7. REFERENCES
A complete list of references is available from the authors upon
request
ADLER, N. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. 2nd
ed. Boston, MA: PWS-KENT Publishing Company, 1991. p. 63-91.
ADLER, N. A typology of management studies involving culture.
Journal of International Business Studies, v. 14, n. 3, p. 29-47, Fall
1983.
AYCAN, Z.; KANUNGO, R.; MENDONCA, M.; YU, K.; DELLER, J.; STAHL,
G.; KURSHID, A. Impact of culture on human resource management
practices: A 10-country comparison. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, v. 49, n. 1, p. 192-221, 2000. <http://dx.doi.org/10.11n/
1464-0597.00010>.
BARKEMA, H.; BELL, J.; PENNINGS, J. Foreign entry, cultural
barriers, and learning. Strategic Management Journal, v. 17, n. 2, p.
151-166, 1996. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1002 /(SICI)
1097-0266(199602)17:2<151: :AID-SMJ 799>3.0.CO;2-Z>.
BARKEMA, H.; VERMEULEN, F. International expansion through startup
or through acquisition: An organizational learning perspective. Academy
of Management Journal, v. 41, n. 1, p. 7-26, 1998.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256894>.
BARKEMA, H.; VERMEULEN, F. What differences in the cultural
backgrounds of partners are detrimental for international joint
ventures? Journal of International Business Studies, v. 28, n. 4, p.
845-864, 1997. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ palgrave.jibs.8490122>.
BARNEY, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.
Journal of Management, v. 17, n. 1, p. 99-120, 1991.
<http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/014920639101700108>.
BARTLETT, C.; GHOSHAL, S. Managing across borders: The
transnational solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1989.
BOYACIGILLER, N.; ADLER, N. The parochial dinosaur: Organizational
science in a global context. Academy of Management Review, v. 16, n. 2,
p. 262-290, 1991.
BROUTHERS, K.; BROUTHERS, L. Explaining the national cultural
distance paradox. Journal of International Business Studies, v. 32, n.
1, p. 177-189, 2001. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/
palgrave.jibs.8490944>.
COHEN, W.; LEVINTHAL, D. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on
learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, v. 35, n. 1,
p. 128-152, 1990. <http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393553>.
CORNELIUS, B.; LANDSTRON, H.; PERSSON, O. Entrepreneurial studies:
The dynamic research front of a developing social science.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, v. 30, n. 3, p. 375-397, 2006.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1111 /j.1540-6520.2006.00125.x>.
DIMAGGIO, P.; POWELL, W. The iron cage revisited: Institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields.
American Sociological Review, v. 48, p. 147-160, 1983.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095101>.
EARLEY, P. Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the
United States and the People's Republic of China. Administrative
Science Quarterly, v. 34, n. 4, p. 565-581, 1989.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393567>.
EARLEY, P.; GIBSON, C. Multinational teams: A new perspective.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum and Associates, 2002.
EREZ, M.; EARLEY, P. Culture, self-identity, and work. NY: Oxford
University Press, 1993.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprofoso/9780195075809.001.0001>.
ERRAMILLI, M.; AGARWAL, S.; KIM, S. Are firm-specific advantages
location-specific too? Journal of International Business Studies, v. 28,
n. 4, p. 735-757, 1997.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgravejibs.8490117>.
FERREIRA, M. P. A bibliometric study on Ghoshal's managing
across borders. Multinational Business Review, v. 19, n. 4, p. 357-375,
2011. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/15253831111190180>.
FERREIRA, M. P.; LI, D.; GUISINGER, S.; SERRA, F. Is the
international business environment the actual context for international
business research? Revista de Administracao Empresas, v. 49, n. 3, p.
282-294, 2009. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-75902009000
300004>.
FURRER, O.; THOMAS, H.; GOUSSEVSKAIA, A. The structure and
evolution of the strategic management field: A content analysis of 26
years of strategic management research. International Journal of
Management Reviews, v. 10, n. 1, p. 123, Mar. 2008.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14682370.2007.00217.x>.
GATIGNON, H.; ANDERSON, E. The multinational corporation's
degree of control over foreign subsidiaries: An empirical test of a
transaction cost explanation. Journal of Law, Economics and
Organization, v. 4, n. 2, p. 305-336, 1988.
GOMEZ-MEJIA, L.; PALICH, L. Cultural diversity and the performance
of multinational firms. Journal of International Business Studies, v.
28, n. 2, p. 309-335, 1997. <http://dx.doi.org
/10.1057/palgravejibs.8490103>.
HAIRE, M.; GHISELLI, E.; PORTER, L. Managerial thinking: An
international study. New York: Wiley, 1966.
HOFER, C.; SCHENDEL, D. Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts.
St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1978.
HOFSTEDE, G. Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy
of Management Perspectives, v. 7, n. 1, p. 81-94, 1993.
HOFSTEDE, G. The cultural relativity of organizational practices
and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, v. 14, n. 2, p.
75-89, 1983. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490867>.
HOFSTEDE, G. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.
London: McGraw-Hill, 1991.
HOFSTEDE, G. Culture's consequences: International differences
in work-related values. Beverly Hills; London: Sage Publications, 1980.
HOFSTEDE, G. Culture s consequence. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, 2001.
HOFSTEDE, G.; BOND, M. The Confucius connection: From cultural
roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, v. 16, n. 4, p. 5-21,
1988. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0090 2616(88)90009-5>.
HOFSTEDE, G.; BOND, M. Hofstede's culture dimensions: An
independent validation using Rokeach's Value Survey. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, v. 15, n. 4, p. 417-433, 1984.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022002184015004003>.
HOFSTEDE, G.; NEUIJEN, B. OHAYV, D.; GEERT, S. Measuring
organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across
twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, v. 35, n. 2, p. 286-316,
1990. <http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ 2393392>.
HOUSE, R. et al. (Ed.) Culture, leadership, and organizations: The
GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004.
JOHANSON, J.; VAHLNE, J. The internationalization process of the
firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market
commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, v. 8, n. 1, p.
23-31, 1977. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490676>.
KIRKMAN, B.; LOWE, K.; GIBSON, C. A quarter century of
culture's consequences: A review of empirical research
incorporating Hofstede's cultural value framework. Journal of
International Business Studies, v. 37, n. 1, p. 285-320, 2006.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400202>.
KLUCKHOHN, F.; STRODTBECK, F. Variations in value orientations.
Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson and company, 1961.
KOGUT, B.; SINGH, H. The effect of national culture on the choice
of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, v. 19, n. 3,
p. 411-432, 1988. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490394>.
KOGUT, B.; ZANDER, U. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary
theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International
Business Studies, v. 24, n. 4, p. 625-645, 1993.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490248>.
KOSTOVA, T. Transnational transfer of strategic organizational
practices: A contextual perspective. Academy of Management Review, v.
24, n. 2, p. 308-324, 1999.
KOSTOVA, T.; ZAHEER, S. Organizational legitimacy under conditions
of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of
Management Review, v. 24, n. 2, p. 64-81, 1999.
LEUNG, K.; BHAGAT, R.; BUCHAN, N.; EREZ, M.; GIBSON, C. Culture and
international business: recent advances and their implications for
future research. Journal of International Business Studies, v. 36, n. 4,
p. 357-378, 2005. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400150>.
MINKOV, M.; HOFSTEDE, G. The evolution of Hofstede's doctrine.
Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, v. 18, n. 1, p.
10-20, 2011. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/135276011 11104269>.
MOROSINI, P.; SHANE, S.; SINGH, H. National cultural distance and
cross-border acquisition performance. Journal of International Business
Studies, v. 29, n. 1, p. 137-158, 1998.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgravejibs.8490029>.
NUNNALLY, J. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
PENG, M. The resource-based view and international business.
Journal of Management, v. 27, n. 6, p. 803-829, 2001.
<http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/014920630102700611>.
PFEFFER, J.; SALANCIK, G. The external control of organizations: A
resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.
PRAHALAD, C.; DOZ, Y. The multinational mission: Balancing global
integration with local responsiveness. New York: Free Press, 1987.
RAMOS-RODRIGUEZ, A.; RUIZ-NAVARRO, J. Changes in the intellectual
structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the
Strategic Management Journal, 1980-2000. Strategic Management Journal,
v. 25, n. 10, p. 981-1105, 2004.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.397>.
RATNATUNGA, J.; ROMANO, C. A "citation classics" analysis
of articles in contemporary small enterprise research. Journal of
Business Venturing, v. 12, n. 3, p. 197-212, 1997.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026C96j000626>.
RONEN, S. Comparative and multinational management. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, 1986.
RONEN, S.; SHENKAR, O. Clustering countries on attitudinal
dimensions: A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, v. 10,
n. 3, p. 435-454, 1985.
SCHILDT, H.; ZAHRA, S.; SILLANPAA, A. Scholarly communities in
entrepreneurship research: A co-citation analysis. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, v. 30, n. 3, p. 399-416, 2006.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540 6520.2006.00126.x>.
SCHWARTZ, S. Beyond individualism/ collectivism: New cultural
dimensions of values. In: KIM, U.; TRIANDIS, H.; KAGITCIBASI, C.; CHOI,
S-C.; YOON, G. (Ed.) Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method and
Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994. p. 85-99.
SHANE, S. Who is publishing the entrepreneurship research? Journal
of Management, v. 23, n. 1, p. 83-95, 1997. <http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300105>.
SHENKAR, O. Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous
conceptualization and measurement of cultural difference. Journal of
International Business Studies, v. 32, n. 3, p. 519-535, 2001.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490982>.
TARAS, V.; KIRKMAN, B.; STEEL, P. Examining the impact of
culture's consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic
review of Hofstede's cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied
Psychology, v. 95, n. 3, p. 405-39, 2010.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018938>.
TRIANDIS, H. The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley,
1972.
TRIANDIS, H. Attitude and attitude change. California: John Wiley
& Sons, 1971.
TRIANDIS, H. Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press, 1995.
TROMPENAARS, F. Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural
diversity in business. London: Nicholas Brealey, 1993.
WHITE, H.; GRIFFITH, B. Author co-citation: a literature measure of
intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science, v. 32, n. 3, p. 163-171, 1981.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630320302>.
WHITE, H.; MCCAIN, K. Visualizing a discipline: An author
co-citation analysis of information science, 1972-1995. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, v. 49, n. 4, p. 327-355, 1998.
WILLIAMSON, O. The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms,
markets, relational contracting. New York: Free Press, 1985.
WILLIAMSON, O. Markets and hierarchies, analysis and antitrust
implications: A study in the economics of internal organization. New
York: Free Press, 1975.
ZAHEER, S. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of
Management Journal, v. 38, n. 2, p. 341-363, 1995.
<http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2307/256683>.
Appendix--Author-supplied keywords grouped in major themes
Complete list available from the authors
Culture Ambiguity; Attitudes; Beliefs; Chinese culture;
(n= 218) Convergence and divergence of cultures;
Cosmopolitans and locals; Cross cultural; Cross
cultural leadership; Cross cultural management;
Cross-country comparison; Cross-country
differences; Cross-cultural adjustment; Cross-
cultural distributive justice values; Cross-
cultural ethics; Cross-cultural experiments;
Cross-cultural research/measurement issues;
Cross-cultural values; Cross-national diversity;
Cross-national research; Cultural context;
Cultural differences; Cultural dimensions;
Cultural distance; Cultural distance and psychic
distance; Cultural effectiveness; Cultural
framework(s); Cultural intelligence; Cultural
research paradigms and Globe; Cultural syndrome;
Cultural theory; Cultural values; Culture and
institutions; Culture and international
business; Culture change(s); Dialogue; Dimensions
of national culture and Globe Project;
Egalitarian; Ethic; Ethical ideologies; Ethnicity;
Global culture; Global management; Global mindset;
Global perspectives; GLOBE; GLOBE practices;
Hofstede; Individual attitudes; Individual
differences; Individualism; Individualism/
Collectivism; Intercultural management; Inter-
organizational culture; Language; Language
barriers Language design; Language diversity;
Long term orientation; Masculinity; Materialism;
Moral philosophy; Multiculturalism; National and
cultural influences; National cultural difference;
National culture; National values; Paternalism;
Perceived Culture novelty; Politeness; Power;
Power distance; Pride; Professional culture;
Psychic distance; Psychic distance paradox;
Psychological safety; Religiosity; Revisiting
cultural distance paradox; Social culture;
Socio-cultural and business ideology factors;
Subordinate ethics; Temporal rhythms; Traditional
Chinese workers; Uncertainty avoidance; Unethical
negotiation tactics; Universalist perspective;
Values; Values and benefits
Internatio- Acquisition(s); Alliance joint ventures; Alliance
nalization, performance; Alliance relationships; Born global;
entry modes Cross-Border; Cross-Border Investments;
and strategic Cross-Border Merger(s) and Acquisition(s); Early
advantage Internationalization; Eclectic Paradigm; Entry
(n=143) Location; Entry Mode(s); Entry mode choice; Entry
strategies; Entry timing; Establishment mode
choice; Export intermediary; Export market
performance; Exporting; Foreign; Foreign acquirer;
Foreign acquisitions; Foreign entry; Foreign
equity ownership; Foreign firms; Foreign market
knowledge; Foreign Subsidiary Ownership Structure;
Global projects; Globalisation; Globalization;
Hyper competition; IJV; Internalization theories
and foreign market entry; Internalization;
Internalization theory; International;
International acquisitions; International equity
joint ventures; International joint venture(s);
International management; International merger(s)
and acquisition(s); Internationalization equity
joint ventures; Joint venture(s); Joint venture
termination; Learning from experience; Licensing;
Market entry; Market orientation; Market
selection; Merger(s); Merger(s) and
acquisition(s); Modes of entry; Motivation; Post
merger integration; S-curve; Semi globalization;
Sequential investment; Wholly foreign owned
enterprise.
Environmental, Complete list available from the authors
geography,
clusters and
regional
(n= 109)
Top management Absenteeism; Career success; CEO compensation;
team, human CEO succession; CEO's; Cognitive diversity;
resource Computer-mediated communication; Corporate
management culture; Corporate management; Decision-making;
(n=101) Emotion; Employee development; Employee diversity;
Employee retention; Escalation of commitment;
Executive cognition; Executive compensation;
Executive demography; Executive values; Expatriate
adjustment; Expatriates; Gender role attitudes;
Global leaders; Global teams; Group development;
Human Resource Management; International
mentoring; Job characteristics; Job satisfaction;
Labour market mobility; Leadership; Managerial
cognition; Managerial decision making; Managerial
discretion; Managerial perceptions; Multicultural
teams; Multiple mentoring; Organization
commitment; Organizational citizenship behaviour;
Organizational power; Personality characteristics;
Strategic choice under uncertainly; Strategic
commitment; Strategic Human Resource Management;
Strategic leadership; Talent management;
Target/destination country; Teamwork; Top
Management Team(s); Transfer Of HR practices;
Transnational teams; Turnover; Upper Echelons;
Virtual teams; Work group.
Methodologies, Complete list available from the authors
theories and
research
issues (n= 74)
Capabilities, Absorptive capacity; Adverse selection;
knowledge, Allocation; Asymmetrical culture distance;
resource-based Boundary-spanning; Capabilities; Capabilities and
view (n=57) capability development; Capabilities transfer;
Co-evolution; Competitive disadvantage;
Cross-cultural competence; Dynamic capabilities;
Experience; Experiential knowledge; Exploitation
and exploration; Firm factors; Firm-specific
advantages; Interdependence; International
experience; Knowledge; Knowledge acquisition;
Knowledge asset seeking; Knowledge flow; Knowledge
management; Knowledge sharing; Knowledge
spill-over; Knowledge-based perspective;
Knowledge-based view; Learning; Local market
competence; Neo-institutional theory;
Organizational capabilities; Organizational
learning; Organizational support; Organizational
values; Political capabilities; Portfolio;
Replication; Resources; Resource dependence
theory; Retention; Skill; Synergy.
Networks, Alliance; Alliance performance; Alliance
alliances and relationships; Buyer-supplier strategy; Buyer-
cooperative supplier relations; Collaboration; Cooperation;
arrangements Cooperativeness; Inter-firm exchange; Inter-firm
(n= 52) relationship; International alliances;
International exchange; International
partnerships; Interpersonal networks; Multiparty
cooperation; Network; Network externalities;
Number of partners; Partner cooperation;
Partnership; Path; Personal relations; Political
relationships; Relational norms; Relational risk;
Relationship(s); Reputation spill over; Self-
efficacy; Social beliefs; Social capital; Social
networks; Social responsibility; Social trust;
Strategic alliance between competitors; Strategic
alliances; Trust; Trust fullness;
Subsidiaries, Complete list available from the authors.
multinational
enterprises
(n= 43)
Performance Complete list available from the authors.
(n= 41)
Institutional Homophily; Institution(s); Institualism;
theory (n= 39) Institutional context; Institution-based view of
foreign affiliate; Institutional knowledge;
Institutional economics; Institutional exceptions;
Institutional environment; Institutional theory;
Legitimacy; Legitimacy and competition; Normative
control; Embeddedness; Imitation; National
institutions; Neo-Institutional theory; Social
institutions.
Strategy and Best practices; Changing international strategy;
competitive Commitment; Competitive advantage; Competitive
advantage dynamics; Hybrid production; Hybridization;
(n= 33) Influence strategies; Liability of foreignness;
Market orientation; Political hazards; Response
strategies; Strategic change(s); Strategic
decision making; Strategic issues; Strategy
Formation; Strategy formation; Strategy
implementation; Temporary advantage; Threat
Foreign direct Direction of investment; FDI location and timing;
investment Foreign Direct Investment; Foreign expansion;
(n= 32) Greenfield; Host country; International
investments; Manufacturer-foreign distributor
relationship; Opportunism; Risk and return in
foreign direct investment; Wholly foreign owned
enterprise.
Emerging Bribery/corruption/fraud; Corruption; Developing
economies countries; Emerging market(s); Emerging country;
(n= 26) Emerging economies; Emerging market and Brazil;
Entrepreneurship in transition economies;
Management in transition economies; Property
rights; Russian privatization; Transition
economies; Transition economy; Transitional
economies.
International Advertising in China; Advertising intensity;
marketing Brand novelty; Comparative advertising; Consumer
(n= 24) ethics; International marketing Strategy; Internet
shopping rate; Market novelty; Market segments;
Marketing; Marketing strategy; Media choice;
Middle East consumers; Online advertising;
Performance in distribution channels; Press
releases; Small firm marketing; Sponsorship;
Television Viewing; Women in advertising.
Industrial Automobile; Automotive industry; Banks;
analysis Biotechnology; Comparative financial; Electronic
(n=23) communication; Financial institutions; Financial
markets; Financial services; Financial systems;
Hotel firms; Industry cultures; Industry position;
Insurance; Insurance consumption; Retail sector;
Retailer; Telecom industry; Telecommunications;
Internet; Universal banks.
R&D, Breakthrough innovations; Diffusion; Digital-based
technology economy; Innovation; Innovativeness; Innovation
and influence; International R&D units; New
innovation technologies; Patents; R&D; R&D management;
(n= 22) Technical standards; Technological adoption;
Technological change; Technological space;
Technological systems; Technology; Technology
transfers.
Organization Authority; Control; Control theory; Coordination;
structure Delegation; External locus of control; Firm
(n= 20) configuration; Integration; Integration
management; Keiretsu; Management control; MNC
decentralization; Monitoring; Organization change;
Organization restructuring; Organizations;
Ownership concentration; Ownership level; Virtual
organization.
Entrepre- Corporative entrepreneurship; Entrepreneurial
neurship efficacy; Entrepreneurial managers;
(n= 18) Entrepreneurial proclivity; Entrepreneurship;
International entrepreneurship; International new
ventures; Kazakhstan entrepreneurs; Kyrgyzstan
entrepreneurs; Technology-based entrepreneurship.
Global, Global competition; Global strategy; International
international, business; International business strategy;
multinational International expansion; International strategy;
strategies Oligopolistic reaction; Political behaviour;
(n= 17) Political risk; Risk; Strategy.
Financial Disclosure; Information asymmetry; Integration
theory process; Investor protection; Real options;
(n= 10) Shareholder; Shareholder value; Shareholder value
creation; Voluntary disclosure.
Functional Accounting; Contract completeness; Global supply
strategies chain; IGV contract; Manufacturing; OEM; Project
(n=9) management; Services; Value chain
Transaction Distributor opportunism; Firm boundaries;
cost theory Transaction Cost Economics; Transaction Cost
(n=6) Theory; Transactional characteristics.
Others (n=50) Complete list available from the authors
Total 1167
Table 1--Hofstede's most cited works: 1980 to 2010
Author (s) Reference Number of
citations
in ISI
Hofstede, G. Culture's consequences: International 7,997
(1980) differences in work related values,
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. Cultures and organizations: Software 3,081
(1991) of the mind, London: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. The Confucius connection: From 507
& Bond, M. cultural roots to economic growth,
(1988) Organizational Dynamics, 16(4): 4-18.
Hofstede, G., Measuring organizational cultures: A 440
Neuijen, B., qualitative and quantitative study
Ohayv, D. & across twenty cases, Administrative
Geert, S. Science Quarterly, 35(2): 286-316.
(1990)
Hofstede, G. Cultural constraints in management 387
(1993) theories, Academy of Management
Executive; 7(1): 81-94.
Hofstede, G. The cultural relativity of 352
(1983) organizational practices and
theories, Journal of International
Business Studies, 14(2): 75-89.
Hofstede, G. Motivation, leadership, and 280
(1980) organization. Do American theories
apply abroad, Organizational
Dynamics, 9(1): 42-63. 188
Hofstede, G. National cultures in four dimensions:
(1983) A research-based theory of cultural
differences among nations,
International Studies of Management
& Organization; 13(1-2): 46-74.
Hofstede, G. Hofstede's cultural dimensions: An 180
& Bond, M. independent validation using
(1984) Rokeach's Value Survey, Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology; 15(4):
417-433.
The citation data comprises all Journals available in ISI.
Source: citation data retrieved from ISI
Web Knowledge (27.06.2011).
Table 2--Journals selected and citations to Hofstede (1980)
Journal title Years available Number of
in ISI web of articles
knowledge (1) published
(1980-2010)
(2)
Academy of Management Journal 1958 - 2011 1,935
Academy of Management Review 1983 - 2011 1,998
Administrative Science Quarterly 1956 - 2011 1,876
International Business Review 2005 - 2011 288
Journal of International Business 1976 - 2011 1,649
Studies
Organization Science 1997 - 2011 432
Strategic Management Journal 1992 - 2011 941
Journal of World Business 1980 - 2011 1,828
Total 10,947
Journal title Number Total C
articles citations
citing (3)
Hofstede
(1980)
Academy of Management Journal 74 17,239 3.8
Academy of Management Review 79 15,782 4.0
Administrative Science Quarterly 28 11,539 1.5
International Business Review 58 1,129 20.1
Journal of International Business 264 6,307 16.0
Studies
Organization Science 81 9,120 18.8
Strategic Management Journal 32 15,626 3.4
Journal of World Business 39 1,035 2.1
Total 655 77,777 6.0
Notes: (1) not all journals had their entire track record available
in ISI. (2) number of articles published and available for
additional analysis. (3) number of citations to all articles
published in the journal. (4) Percentage of the articles published
in the journal that cited Hofstede (1980).
Source: data retrieved from ISI Web Knowledge. Computations by
the authors.