Looking beyond national differences: Cultural consensus between Confucian and Anglo societies

Abstract

National cultural research in management primarily examines cultural differences between countries. Theory and practice recommendations relating to the conduct of international business are then commonly derived from these cultural differences. We propose that attention should also be paid to the ways in which nations are culturally similar. Applying data from the GLOBE national culture model, we reveal cultural similarities across two cultural groups that are usually considered to be representative of important cultural differences. We show six Confucian societies are remarkably similar to seven Anglo societies in respect to their GLOBE culture dimensions scores. We offer support for a so far largely ignored “universal culture” approach in international management that recognizes cultural similarities and balances it with the predominant cultural differences perspective. Implications for management theory and practice are drawn.

JEL Classification: M14, M16

Keywords

Confucian and Anglo societies GLOBE study national culture

1. Introduction

National cultural differences have long been studied in management and identified as explanations for management decisions, including modes of entry (Puck et al., 2016), consumption choices (Chui and Kwok, 2008), employee compensation (Greckhamer, 2011), business ethics (Liu and Stening, 2016), and much else. Of particular interest within this context of cross-cultural study are the differences between Asian and Western civilizations (Ronen and Shenkar, 1985). Asia–West differences have been the most discussed dichotomy of all, fascinating scholars in diverse fields for many years (Nisbett et al., 2001). Such differences are still widely discussed today (Kitayama et al., 2009) and are likely to become even more pronounced as the Asian region challenges the West’s global domination economically, politically, and militarily (Zhang, 2012).

However, while cultural differences are unquestionably important, researchers and practitioners in management seem largely uninterested in exploring the alternative phenomenon of cultural similarities that might exist across groups, including the Asia–West divide. The need to examine all aspects, including both similarities and differences, is commonplace in science, and we believe there is a need for greater recognition in culture studies of cultural similarities as well as differences. Over 60 years ago, seminal anthropologists Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) pointed out, “Both perspectives (commonalities and differences) are true and important, and no false either-or antinomy must be posed between them” (p. 179) But, in management, the two most applied studies measuring national culture, that of Hofstede (2001) and GLOBE (House et al., 2004), both report almost exclusively on cultural differences across societies (which of course was the prime purpose of the studies) and are thus applied almost exclusively in differences-based research.

Nonetheless, there is some evidence, albeit scattered, of cultural similarities in the scientific and other literature. For example, as Gaertner et al. (2012) show, the desire for self-enhancing and self-improving feedback is a pan-cultural value. In psychology, culture is thought by many to be external variation to Bastion’s core psychic unity of humanity, whereby all humans share the same basic mental framework. According to Bastion (cited in Stocking, 1985),

What a tremendous and exciting advance could be made if we could assemble an index, or statistic, of ideas which showed that the same number of psychological elements (like cells of a plant) is circulating in regular and uniform rotation in the heads of all people, and that this is so for all times and places! (p. 338)

References to universal human values (Inglehart and Welzel, 2005) and a convergence and crossvergence of cultural values over time (Ralston, 2008) appear in the cross-cultural literature, together with studies on regional similarities (Ronen and Shenkar, 2013). But these are exceptions to the vast majority of national cross-culture-related studies, which are founded on the premise of national cultural differences and its impact on managerial decision-making (Kirca and Hult, 2009; Lin and Miller, 2003; Magnusson et al., 2014).

Given the likely significance of both national cultural similarities and differences, we think it is important to balance the discourse on national culture that is currently heavily grounded in differences. We question the axiomatic assumption about pervasive differences between Asian and Western cultures. We propose that there are much higher levels of national cultural similarity across the Asia–West dichotomy than generally recognized. The objective of our research, therefore, is to address this low sensitivity to cultural similarities in the management literature and to draw out its implications for international management theory and practice. To achieve our objective, we reexamine the national cultural scores reported in the GLOBE national culture model and assess the extent to which there is consensus or dissensus in average values across Asian and Western societies (we explain later why Hofstede (2001) scores are unsuitable for this purpose). Consensus reflects a broad agreement among people across nations regarding the desirability, undesirability, and importance of certain cultural values and norms. In contrast, dissensus reflects differences among nations on how they perceive certain cultural values and norms.

Our article makes several important contributions to the management literature. One, it enhances cross-cultural management theory. By empirically examining and discussing an important but neglected aspect of national culture, that of national cultural consensus, we extend the large body of extant literature that focuses on national cultural differences. Two, to the extent societies have significant similarities across some common cultural dimensions, the conclusions drawn from a focus on differences may be only part of the story. That is, if cross-country values are similar, contained within a narrow band of scores, then the commonly expressed relationships between assumed high/low cultural values and other variables might be somewhat misleading. Recognizing and leveraging similarities can help firms to deeply understand customer needs and enhance the overall effectiveness of their strategies. Finally, clearer understanding of national cultural similarities would improve classroom teaching and training in cross-cultural management, and complement and balance the current focus on cultural differences. Overall, our article has important implications for culture-related theory, practice, and pedagogy.

The article is organized as follows. In the next section, we present the theoretical rationale for proposing a meaningful consensus in national cultural values. Next, we discuss the method we use to test our thesis on culture similarities across nations. Finally, we present the results of our analysis and discuss our findings, including limitations of our research and implications for management theory, practice, and pedagogy.

2. Conceptual background

Evolutionary processes provide a basis for commonalities among humans, such as kinship, reciprocity, and gender differences in sexuality, aggressiveness, and dominance (Brown, 1991). Since the functions of culture are the same across different groups, it is not surprising that broad similarities in the needs of different societies drive them toward some commonality. That is, the common biological heritage of people is likely to result in some broad cultural values consensus across those groups. This consensus, across some common human values, arises because of complex interactions between human nature, biology, and psychology. Whereas culture in the past was considered to be simply an outcome of adjustment to the physical and psychological demands of being human (Murdock, 1940), recent research argues that human biology and culture co-evolve through complex interaction in which culture is determined by biological imperatives, while biology is simultaneously determined by genetic evolution (Lumsden and Wilson, 2005).

The conceptualization of a universal humanity also has a long history in the philosophy of biology, beginning with Darwin (Ruse and Wilson, 1985). In anthropology, Wissler (1923) emphasized the fundamental biological basis for culture. The famous anthropologists Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) also argue that the similarities in human biology are more important than the differences across the world. In psychology, Tooby and Cosmides (1992) consider the meta-culture of panhuman mental contents and organization to have evolved as a result of interaction between human biology and external physical and social environments. These considerations have encouraged common cultural and behavioral patterns among different groups of people who seek to deal with the same problems associated with living. Murdock (1940) states that

Culture always, and necessarily, satisfies basic biological needs and secondary needs derived therefrom. Its elements are tested habitual techniques for gratifying human impulses in man’s interaction with the external world of nature and fellow man. This assumption is an inescapable conclusion from modern stimulus-response psychology. (p. 366)

In addition to human biology, there is reason to argue that the “nature” of human beings is such that commonalities of culture are likely to emerge. For example, Haslam (2006: 257) identifies shared traits that direct our beliefs and preferences, including cognitive flexibility, emotionality, vital agency, and warmth. He argues these characteristics link humans to the natural world. Anthropologists Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) identify several cultural characteristics in societies that are universally condemned, such as lying, stealing, or violence within the in-group. Similarly, members of all societies admire and value qualities such as loyalty, kindness, and looking after the weak and the infirm, and ceremonialize the fact of death. It has also been pointed out that these common beliefs exist despite a range of influences that might encourage cultural variation (Kroeber and Kluckhohn, 1952). For these reasons, universal human values are recognized within the United Nations’ Universal Declaration which all member countries are expected to follow irrespective of the culture (The Economist, 2017).

Murdock (1940) argues that even though there is some diversity between societies, the theoretical foundation of cultural commonality is built on seven key premises. One, culture is learned and the principles of learning are the same for humankind. The mechanism for learning is a cultural uniformity across societies. Two, culture is inculcated, and all cultures show certain patterns of regularity of the inculcation process. For example, language is a predominant medium of inculcation across all societies. Three, culture is social, and every culture should demonstrate similarities because they have all contributed to the groups’ survival. Examples of commonality in the social aspects of culture include group cohesion, mechanisms for social control, defence against hostile others, and the perpetuation of the population. Four, culture is ideational, that is, conceptualized as being optimal norms and traits, and these ideals are present in all societies. Five, culture is gratifying, which results in consistency across societies since most human impulses demand very similar types of satisfaction. Thus, the desire to satisfy hunger, thirst, power, and ego is uniformly manifested in all societies. Six, culture is adaptive, and cultural changes are functional, that is, they are directed toward improvement in a similar way as biological evolution. Since all societies are adjusting to similar conditions of living, there are close parallels and commonalities in cultural adjustments across societies. Seven, culture is integrative, that is, the elements of a culture constitute a consistent and integrated whole. Consequently, the presence of similar traits in different societies results in similar patterns of relationships among the different elements of cultures across societies, for example, similarities in the hierarchical order of values across all nations (Schwartz and Bardi, 2001).

Recent research in cross-cultural psychology has also found evidence of commonality across nations in emotions, honesty, mother–child relationships, and gender stereotypes in personality traits. For example, in their biocultural model of emotions, Matsumoto and Hwang (2012) state that priming reactions are hard-wired, impermeable to modification through experience, and unchanging over a lifespan—in other words, shared. There is strong evidence for the cross-cultural recognition and expression of various emotions, including contempt, shame, and embarrassment (Matsumoto and Hwang, 2012). Mann et al. (2016) find that levels of dishonesty among individuals are consistent across countries and do not depend on national variables. Similarly, Rooyackers et al. (2014) observe the same types of mother–child relationships among several disparate groups they studied and conclude that emotional closeness is a consistent dimension of family relations in humans. Lockenhoff et al. (2014) show that gender stereotypes have remarkable cross-national consistency not only in type but also across age groups.

In sum, notwithstanding the diversity in the environments in which people live, the biological and psychological evolution of human beings predisposes them toward certain aspects of cultural conformity. Baumeister (2005) argues, “cultures and societies are broadly similar in many respects, and these similarities indicate crucial aspects of human nature” (p. 7). We therefore conclude that while cultural differences have been identified across nations and regions, there will also be similarities or consensus across many cultural characteristics, and this should be evident, if looked for, in data collected for development of cultural models. Our central proposition is that, in addition to differences, there are substantial similarities across Asian and Western nations on the most commonly recognized national cultural dimensions. If this is correct, our contribution is to show and raise awareness of these similarities in management research, a domain that is dominated by ideas of cross-cultural differences. The basis for our proposition is our preceding discussion of the wide range of scientific theories offering support for the idea of common cultural values.

3. Method

3.1. Data

Although the boundaries for cultural groups can be set at different levels depending on the research question (Kroeber and Kluckhohn, 1952), in accordance with common practice in cross-cultural research, we use societies located within recognized national or provincial borders as our unit of analysis.¹ Since the Asian–Western dichotomy is probably the most discussed and applied in management theory, if our cultural consensus proposition is valid, there should also be evidence of cultural consistency across these two groups. To test our Asia–West culture consensus perspective, we examine secondary data relating to culture scores for two groups, Confucian and Anglo societies, these being the quintessential representatives of Asian and Western cultures. In extracting relevant data, we look to the most applied culture models in contemporary management research.

The seminal culture model of Hofstede (2001) identifies three levels of mental programming—universal, collective, and individual, wherein the “universal level … is shared by all, or almost all, humankind” (p. 3). Nevertheless, he focuses on the differences in scores among nations on each of his five culture dimensions (Giana, 2002). The model thus claims large differences in cultural values across nations, from a low of 0 (which indicates that the society does not have the value at all), to a high of 100 (which indicates that the society is steeped in the value dimension). Unfortunately, in developing our analysis of cultural similarities, the Hofstede national cultural scores cannot be used. Hofstede transformed, through complex formulae, his original survey data to create national cultural scores roughly on a 0–100 index scale, thus potentially magnifying national cultural differences and obscuring national cultural similarities in the original data.² A second popular culture model is that of the GLOBE group (House et al., 2004). Although House et al. (2004) acknowledge that “when cultures come into contact, they may converge in some aspects”; they nonetheless hold the view that “their idiosyncrasies will likely amplify”; and “the GLOBE research program can be used as a guide when individuals from different cultures interact with each other” (p. 1). We rely on GLOBE (House et al., 2004) data as they provide unmodified culture scores for each nation in their study and thus can be used to determine absolute differences/similarities across countries.

The GLOBE scores are calculated using a two-step averaging process (Hanges and Dickson, 2006). First, the average score for each questionnaire item is computed for each nation. Next, the average scores of the subset of items used to measure a dimension are themselves averaged for each nation to obtain the respective national cultural dimension scores. These resulting dimension scores can be thought of as culture index measures which represent the cultural characteristics of people living in the relevant societies and which provide a valid basis for comparing people’s cultures across groups. Comparing and contrasting these scores indicate the position of each society on the culture continuum, both in absolute terms and in relation to other societies. Notably, House et al. (2004) measure societal culture with two types of questions—actual practices, “as is,” and values, what “should be.” Although we discuss in detail the results based on the GLOBE values scores as these reflect core cultures of societies, for completeness we also include the results based on the GLOBE practices scores. Overall, the richness of the data in House et al. (2004) in terms of (1) the number of Asian and Western societies covered and (2) the broad spectrum of culture themes captured provides appropriate, diverse, and robust data for our study.

3.2. Analytical method

The GLOBE study encompassed 61 societies. Of these, six are described as Confucian, that is, societies in which institutions, norms, and behaviors have been shaped historically by the philosophy of Confucius. These are China mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, and Singapore. Another seven societies are described as Anglo, that is, societies which were established and have developed under British traditions, laws, and language. These are England, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, United States, and White South Africa. We extract the GLOBE practices and values scores for these societies from House et al. (2004).

For each national cultural dimension in GLOBE, we test the degree of consensus across nations by applying the $r_{W G}$ statistic to the national scores (James et al., 1984; LeBreton et al., 2005). James et al. (1984) recommend the $r_{W G}$ statistic to test the extent to which there is agreement among a number of raters assessing an entity on an attribute using an interval scale. They define $r_{W G}$ as follows: $r_{W G} = 1 - ((s_{x}^{2}) / (s_{E U}^{2})),$ where $s_{x}^{2}$ is the variance of the attribute x, and $s_{E U}^{2}$ is the expected variance (E) of the uniform distribution (U). The $r_{W G}$ statistic falls within the range 0–1. LeBreton and Senter (2008) partition this range into five levels, from “lack of agreement” to “very strong agreement,” which we also use in our analysis. For a robust test of the consensus thesis, following LeBreton and Senter (2008: 832), we compute the $r_{W G}$ statistics based on the expected error variances for six types of null distributions, namely, slight skew, moderate skew, heavy skew, triangular, normal, and uniform. We also present box plots for a better visual representation of consensus in GLOBE values and practices within and between the Anglo and Confucian Asian regions. Where the patterns show a consensus across the two groups regarding a dimension, then this can be interpreted as a consistent preference or aversion toward that characteristic.

4. Results and discussion

We present the Confucian and Anglo societies’ scores for both GLOBE values and practices, in Table 1. We first compute the $r_{W G}$ test statistic for consensus across the 13 Anglo and Confucian Asian nations. With the 18 GLOBE dimensions (nine values and nine practices) and six types of possible null distribution for each dimension, we computed 108 $r_{W G}$ values (see Table 2(a)). Across the 108 $r_{W G}$ test results shown in Table 2(a), 80 (74%) show very strong agreement (i.e. with $r_{W G}$ value in the >0.90 to ⩽1 range), 24 (22%) indicate strong agreement (i.e. with $r_{W G}$ value in the >0.70 to ⩽0.90 range), 4 (4%) reflect moderate agreement (i.e. with $r_{W G}$ value in the >0.50 to ⩽0.70 range), and none indicate weak agreement or lack of agreement. These results strongly support our proposition that there is a high level of consensus in cultural values and practices scores among the Anglo and Confucian nations on the GLOBE culture dimensions. For completeness, we also computed the $r_{W G}$ $r_{W G}$ values within each of the Anglo and Confucian Asia regions (Table 2(b) and (c)). Consistent with our consensus thesis, the $r_{W G}$ results for the two groups combined are similar to that for each group separately.

Table 1.

GLOBE values and practices: Anglo and Confucian Asia regions.

Region	Country	GLOBE values									GLOBE practices
		PD	AST	UA	GE	InC	FO	HO	IgC	PO	PD	AST	UA	GE	InC	FO	HO	IgC	PO
Anglo	Australia	2.78	3.81	3.98	5.02	4.40	5.15	5.58	5.75	5.89	4.74	4.28	4.39	3.40	4.29	4.09	4.28	4.17	4.36
Anglo	Canada (E)^a	2.70	4.15	3.75	5.11	4.17	5.35	5.64	5.97	6.15	4.82	4.05	4.58	3.70	4.38	4.44	4.49	4.26	4.49
Anglo	England	2.80	3.70	4.11	5.17	4.31	5.06	5.43	5.55	5.90	5.15	4.15	4.65	3.67	4.27	4.28	3.72	4.08	4.08
Anglo	Ireland	2.71	3.99	4.02	5.14	4.59	5.22	5.47	5.74	5.98	5.15	3.92	4.30	3.21	4.63	3.98	4.96	5.14	4.36
Anglo	New Zealand	3.53	3.54	4.10	4.23	4.20	5.54	4.49	6.21	5.90	4.89	3.42	4.75	3.22	4.81	3.47	4.32	3.67	4.72
Anglo	South Africa (W)	2.64	3.69	4.67	4.60	4.38	5.66	5.65	5.91	6.23	5.16	4.60	4.09	3.27	4.62	4.13	3.49	4.50	4.11
Anglo	USA	2.85	4.32	4.00	5.06	4.17	5.31	5.53	5.77	6.14	4.88	4.55	4.15	3.34	4.20	4.15	4.17	4.25	4.49
Confucian	China	3.10	5.44	5.28	3.68	4.56	4.73	5.32	5.09	5.67	5.04	3.76	4.94	3.05	4.77	3.75	4.36	5.80	4.45
Confucian	Hong Kong	3.24	4.81	4.63	4.35	4.43	5.50	5.32	5.11	5.64	4.96	4.67	4.32	3.47	4.13	4.03	3.90	5.32	4.80
Confucian	Japan	2.86	5.56	4.33	4.33	3.99	5.25	5.41	5.26	5.17	5.11	3.59	4.07	3.19	5.19	4.29	4.30	4.63	4.22
Confucian	Singapore	3.04	4.41	4.22	4.51	4.55	5.51	5.79	5.50	5.72	4.99	4.17	5.31	3.70	4.90	5.07	3.49	5.64	4.90
Confucian	South Korea	2.55	3.75	4.67	4.22	3.90	5.69	5.60	5.41	5.25	5.61	4.40	3.55	2.50	5.20	3.97	3.81	5.54	4.55
Confucian	Taiwan	3.09	3.28	5.31	4.06	5.15	5.20	5.26	5.45	5.74	5.18	3.92	4.34	3.18	4.59	3.96	4.11	5.59	4.56
Anglo	Minimum	2.64	3.54	3.75	4.23	4.17	5.06	4.49	5.55	5.89	4.74	3.42	4.09	3.21	4.20	3.47	3.49	3.67	4.08
	Maximum	3.53	4.32	4.67	5.17	4.59	5.66	5.65	6.21	6.23	5.16	4.60	4.75	3.70	4.81	4.44	4.96	5.14	4.72
	Mean	2.86	3.89	4.09	4.90	4.32	5.33	5.40	5.84	6.03	4.97	4.14	4.42	3.40	4.46	4.08	4.20	4.30	4.37
	SD	0.30	0.28	0.28	0.35	0.15	0.21	0.41	0.21	0.14	0.18	0.40	0.25	0.20	0.23	0.31	0.49	0.45	0.22
Confucian	Minimum	2.55	3.28	4.22	3.68	3.90	4.73	5.26	5.09	5.17	4.96	3.59	3.55	2.50	4.13	3.75	3.49	4.63	4.22
	Maximum	3.24	5.56	5.31	4.51	5.15	5.69	5.79	5.50	5.74	5.61	4.67	5.31	3.70	5.20	5.07	4.36	5.80	4.90
	Mean	2.98	4.54	4.74	4.19	4.43	5.31	5.45	5.30	5.53	5.15	4.09	4.42	3.18	4.80	4.18	4.00	5.42	4.58
	SD	0.24	0.91	0.46	0.29	0.45	0.34	0.20	0.18	0.25	0.24	0.41	0.63	0.41	0.40	0.47	0.33	0.42	0.24
Both	Minimum	2.55	3.28	3.75	3.68	3.90	4.73	4.49	5.09	5.17	4.74	3.42	3.55	2.50	4.13	3.47	3.49	3.67	4.08
	Maximum	3.53	5.56	5.31	5.17	5.15	5.69	5.79	6.21	6.23	5.61	4.67	5.31	3.70	5.20	5.07	4.96	5.80	4.90
	Mean	2.91	4.19	4.39	4.58	4.37	5.32	5.42	5.59	5.80	5.05	4.11	4.42	3.30	4.61	4.12	4.11	4.81	4.47
	SD	0.27	0.71	0.49	0.48	0.32	0.27	0.32	0.34	0.32	0.22	0.39	0.44	0.32	0.35	0.38	0.42	0.72	0.25

PD: Power Distance; AST: Assertiveness; UA: Uncertainty Avoidance; GE: Gender Egalitarianism; InC: Institutional Collectivism; FO: Future Orientation; HO: Humane Orientation; IgC: In-Group Collectivism; PO: Performance Orientation; SD: standard deviation.

Canada (E): English; South Africa (W): White.

Table 2.

$r_{W G}$ statistics for GLOBE values and practices across the Anglo and Confucian Asia regions.

Distribution	GLOBE values									GLOBE practices
	PD	AST	UA	GE	InC	FO	HO	IgC	PO	PD	AST	UA	GE	InC	FO	HO	IgC	PO
(a) Across the 13 countries in the Anglo and Confucian Asia regions
Slight skew	0.97^a	0.83	0.92	0.92	0.97	0.98	0.96	0.96	0.96	0.98	0.95	0.93	0.96	0.96	0.95	0.94	0.82	0.98
Moderate skew	0.96	0.77	0.89	0.89	0.95	0.97	0.95	0.95	0.95	0.98	0.93	0.91	0.95	0.94	0.93	0.92	0.76	0.97
Heavy skew	0.95	0.64	0.83	0.83	0.93	0.95	0.93	0.92	0.93	0.97	0.89	0.86	0.93	0.91	0.90	0.87	0.63	0.96
Triangular	0.96	0.76	0.88	0.89	0.95	0.97	0.95	0.95	0.95	0.98	0.93	0.91	0.95	0.94	0.93	0.92	0.76	0.97
Normal	0.95	0.64	0.83	0.83	0.93	0.95	0.93	0.92	0.93	0.97	0.89	0.86	0.93	0.91	0.90	0.88	0.63	0.96
Uniform	0.98	0.87	0.94	0.94	0.97	0.98	0.97	0.97	0.97	0.99	0.96	0.95	0.97	0.97	0.96	0.96	0.87	0.98
Average	0.96	0.75	0.88	0.88	0.95	0.97	0.95	0.94	0.95	0.98	0.93	0.90	0.95	0.94	0.93	0.91	0.75	0.97
(b) Across the 7 countries in the Anglo region
Slight skew	0.97	0.97	0.97	0.96	0.99	0.98	0.94	0.98	0.99	0.99	0.94	0.98	0.99	0.98	0.97	0.92	0.93	0.98
Moderate skew	0.96	0.96	0.96	0.94	0.99	0.98	0.92	0.98	0.99	0.99	0.92	0.97	0.98	0.98	0.96	0.89	0.91	0.98
Heavy skew	0.93	0.94	0.94	0.91	0.98	0.97	0.88	0.97	0.99	0.98	0.88	0.95	0.97	0.96	0.93	0.83	0.85	0.96
Triangular	0.96	0.96	0.96	0.94	0.99	0.98	0.92	0.98	0.99	0.98	0.92	0.97	0.98	0.97	0.96	0.89	0.90	0.98
Normal	0.93	0.94	0.94	0.91	0.98	0.97	0.88	0.97	0.99	0.98	0.88	0.95	0.97	0.96	0.93	0.83	0.86	0.96
Uniform	0.98	0.98	0.98	0.97	0.99	0.99	0.96	0.99	0.99	0.99	0.96	0.98	0.99	0.99	0.98	0.94	0.95	0.99
Average	0.95	0.96	0.96	0.94	0.99	0.98	0.92	0.98	0.99	0.98	0.92	0.97	0.98	0.97	0.95	0.88	0.90	0.97
(c) Across the 6 countries in the Confucian Asia region
Slight skew	0.98	0.71	0.93	0.97	0.93	0.96	0.99	0.99	0.98	0.98	0.94	0.86	0.94	0.94	0.92	0.96	0.94	0.98
Moderate skew	0.97	0.61	0.90	0.96	0.90	0.95	0.98	0.99	0.97	0.97	0.92	0.82	0.92	0.92	0.90	0.95	0.92	0.97
Heavy skew	0.96	0.40	0.85	0.94	0.85	0.92	0.97	0.98	0.95	0.96	0.88	0.72	0.88	0.88	0.84	0.92	0.87	0.96
Triangular	0.97	0.60	0.90	0.96	0.90	0.95	0.98	0.99	0.97	0.97	0.92	0.81	0.92	0.92	0.89	0.95	0.92	0.97
Normal	0.96	0.41	0.85	0.94	0.85	0.92	0.97	0.98	0.95	0.96	0.88	0.72	0.88	0.88	0.84	0.92	0.88	0.96
Uniform	0.99	0.79	0.95	0.98	0.95	0.97	0.99	0.99	0.98	0.99	0.96	0.90	0.96	0.96	0.94	0.97	0.96	0.99
Average	0.97	0.59	0.89	0.96	0.90	0.94	0.98	0.98	0.97	0.97	0.92	0.81	0.92	0.92	0.89	0.95	0.91	0.97

⩾0 to ⩽0.30 = lack of agreement; >0.30 to ⩽0.50 = weak agreement; >0.50 to ⩽0.70 = moderate agreement; >0.70 to ⩽0.90 = strong agreement; >0.90 to ⩽1: very strong agreement. (LeBreton and Senter, 2008).

4.1. GLOBE national cultural values

As already mentioned, we emphasize the relevance of GLOBE values scores when assessing national culture and consequent similarities and differences. The questionnaire items for the GLOBE values broadly ask respondents the extent to which a culture dimension (e.g. Power Distance (PD)) “should” or “should not” be present in their society. In other words, the questions seek the respondents’ views on whether the characteristic is desirable or not. Values are the core elements of a person’s cultural preferences and lie at the center of Hofstede’s culture onion, wherein values shape other more visible aspects of culture (Hofstede, 2001: 11). Practices, however, are more likely to reflect a range of pressures in addition to cultural values. For example, in dictatorships we would expect that PD practices would be relatively high, irrespective of the values held on average by people within those societies, because dictatorships are held together by the application of unequal power through force and deference to those controlling that force. Also, in countries with poorly functioning institutions, we would expect that there would be low levels of Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) practices as such practices are assessed according to the existence, applicability, and reliability of rules and orderly systems in a society. However, this would not necessarily also reflect low UA values, as it is likely people in such countries aspire to high (or at least higher) levels of orderliness.

We therefore focus our discussion mainly on examining the distribution of values rather than practices to identify the pattern of Asia–West consensus in the GLOBE data. However, for completeness, we also briefly compare the GLOBE practices in the Confucian and Anglo societies later in this section. Figure 1 presents simple box plots showing the distribution of the nine cultural values in GLOBE on the 1–7 scale for the Anglo and Confucian Asia groups (where 1 means strongly agree and hence highly desirable and 7 means strongly disagree and hence highly undesirable). The values in Figure 1 are arranged in ascending order of their desirability as reflected in their national scores in the GLOBE study. Based on the measurement scale used in GLOBE, scores of 1 to <4 represent undesirable values, whereas scores above 4 and up to 7 represent desirable values, and 4 is the mid-point representing neutrality in respect to the value. We can see a remarkable degree of commonality or consensus in the average GLOBE values among the Anglo and Confucian Asia nations across all the nine GLOBE dimensions.

First, we look at the national cultural value of PD that is scored low and considered “undesirable” in both our groups, Anglo and Confucian Asia (box plot V1 in Figure 1). Interestingly, all countries prefer low PD, with scores ranging from 2.55 to 3.53 (average 2.91), and all are below the mid-point of 4 on the 7-point scale, meaning there is very strong agreement among the GLOBE societies on the undesirability of PD. A strong consensus is also indicated by a high average $r_{W G}$ index value of 0.96 for PD values across the 13 societies in the Anglo and Confucian groups (see Table 2(a)). The items underlying the PD value in GLOBE suggest that all countries prefer power sharing, value merit rather than authority as a source of influence, like to question rather than defer to their leaders, and prefer low social distance.

At first glance, this seems surprising, since the dominant theme in the literature is that of notable differences in PD values across countries and their effect on managerial behavior, especially strong PD differences being inferred for Asian and Western societies. For example, Terpstra-Tong and Ralston (2002) note that “Asian cultures are grouped as a single Far East cluster … that is characterized by high power distance and low individualism” (p. 387). And “… compared with the low power distance, individualist Americans, how do the high power distance, collectivistic Asian subjects differ, or not, in their choice of upward influence methods?” However, as our analysis shows, no Asian or Western society on average has strong belief in PD, and all our societies, on average, desire low PD.

The next set of lowest scores worldwide is for the Assertiveness value, with scores ranging from 3.28 to 5.56 (average 4.19) on a 7-point scale (see box plot V2 in Figure 1). These values have the largest range of 2.28, the highest variance, and hence the lowest average $r_{W G}$ of 0.75 among the nine values (Table 2(a)). Nonetheless, there is broad consensus among the Anglo and Confucian countries, and most countries in both the Confucian and Anglo groups prefer a moderate level of Assertiveness (i.e. within the 3–5 range on the 7-point scale used to measure this value). Being aggressive, dominant, or tough is generally not considered a desirable characteristic except perhaps in China and Japan, with Assertiveness values of 5.44 and 5.56, respectively, the highest among the 13 countries in both the groups.

Next, we look at the remaining seven cultural values, all of which are mostly scored at or above 4 and thus considered “desirable” in nearly all societies in our two groups. UA reflects a strong consensus across the two groups (average $r_{W G} = 0.88,$ Table 2(a)) and is regarded as a desirable characteristic in all of the countries in the sample, except Australia and Canada (with a score of 3.98 and 3.75, respectively, on the 7-point scale used to measure this value) (see Table 1 and box plot V3 in Figure 1). It is not surprising that a large majority of societies respond positively to the UA items that relate to orderliness and the rule of law. Similarly, Gender Egalitarianism and Institutional Collectivism values both show strong agreement (average $r_{W G} = 0.88$ ) and very strong agreement (average $r_{W G} = 0.95$ ), respectively, across the Anglo and Confucian societies in GLOBE. General approval of Gender Egalitarianism is found in all the countries in the two samples except China (with a score of 3.68), and similarly for Institutional Collectivism, except for Japan and South Korea (with a score of 3.99 and 3.90, respectively) (see box plots V4 and V5 in Figure 1). Again, this is surprising given that the literature highlights societal differences across these dimensions (House and Javidan, 2004), especially for Collectivism, which traditionally is strongly associated with Asian cultures (Wang et al., 2013).

Of particular note is the similarity in scores for Asia and the Anglo group in respect to the Future Orientation dimension (see box plot V6 in Figure 1). GLOBE’s Future Orientation is based on Hofstede’s (2001) Confucian Dynamism dimension (also known as Long-Term Orientation), which is usually portrayed as applying in particular to Asian societies (Hofstede and Minkov, 2010). However, GLOBE scores indicate that Future Orientation is an equally desired and shared value across Asia and the West (and the average $r_{W G}$ value of 0.97 indicates very strong agreement and the highest level of agreement among all the GLOBE values). Finally, all societies in both the Confucian and Anglo samples approve of Humane Orientation, In-Group Collectivism, and Performance Orientation with a very high level of consensus (with average $r_{W G}$ values of 0.95, 0.94, and 0.95, respectively; see box plots V7–V9 in Figure 1). The items used to measure these cultural values include concern for others (Humane Orientation), taking pride in family and society (In-Group Collectivism), and encouraging and rewarding innovation and performance (Performance Orientation). It is unsurprising that these values would have a common appeal and considered “desirable” in all societies. Not only do these cultural values attract a high score in all our sample societies irrespective of their group, Confucian or Anglo (with a minimum score of 4.49 for Humane Orientation and a maximum score of 6.23 for Performance Orientation), they also vary within a narrow range, indicating a high level of congruence. In this respect, we note also that the In-Group Collectivism values scores for the Anglo group are consistently higher than for the Confucian group, contrary to expectations.

To sum up, all Confucian and Anglo societies regard PD as undesirable and Future Orientation, Humane Orientation, In-Group Collectivism, and Performance Orientation as desirable values. These five cultural values together also have the smallest variance and the highest $r_{W G}$ statistic, further suggesting a cultural values consensus. In addition, a large majority of our societies finds Institutional Collectivism desirable, and the mean score for this value is very similar for the two groups (4.32 for the Anglo group and 4.43 for the Confucian group). Assertiveness values are the only scores that are spread widely, reflecting a divergence of preferences, especially in the Confucian group. UA and Gender Egalitarianism are both viewed positively by all societies in the two groups, with a few exceptions across both the groups as discussed earlier. Overall, our findings of broad consensus in cultural values in the Confucian and Anglo groups across the GLOBE dimensions provide a counterweight to most cross-cultural studies that emphasize strong dissensus in cultural values between these two groups.

4.2. GLOBE national cultural practices

As stated earlier, for completeness, we also briefly examine the GLOBE practices scores across the Confucian and Anglo countries in GLOBE. In the case of GLOBE practices, as with values, there is strong to very strong agreement among the Anglo and Confucian countries across all the GLOBE culture practices dimensions (with the average $r_{W G}$ ranging from 0.75 to 0.98; see Table 2(a) and the practices box plots in Figure 2). The average $r_{W G}$ value of 0.75 for In-Group Collectivism practices is the lowest among the nine practices dimensions, albeit it still represents strong agreement. An examination of the questionnaire items for In-Group Collectivism reveals that two items out of the four relate to parents and adult children living together, which is as likely to occur because of economic circumstances in developing countries as for cultural reasons (Brewer and Venaik, 2011). Thus, overall, as with values, there is an interesting consensus in cultural practices across all the GLOBE dimensions in the Anglo and Confucian groups. Another noteworthy consensus is the high level of PD practices as well as low level of PD values in both the Confucian and Anglo societies. In other words, both sets of societies prefer low PD but practice high PD, a seeming contradiction that was identified in the GLOBE study for several of their dimensions and discussed by Brewer and Venaik (2010) and others.

5. Implications for management theory, practice, and pedagogy

Our study has several important implications for management theory, managerial practice, and culture pedagogy. We discuss each of these in turn below.

5.1. Implications for management theory

The implications of our study for management theory are both in terms of interpretation of past studies and future theory development. Most cross-cultural research is founded on the logic of “evoked culture” (Tooby and Cosmides, 1992), whereby it is recognized that differences in groups’ environments result in differences in behavior. This logic is then extended into the realm of cultural values and practices, resulting in the prevalent focus on notable differences in cultural values across societies (Tayeb, 1994) and consequent shaping of management strategies (Steenkamp, 2001). But many of these cultural differences are measured using the Hofstede (2001) national culture measures (Imm Ng et al., 2007) which, as we have pointed out, are derived using complex formulae that stretch and exaggerate and hence do not correctly reflect actual differences and similarities in raw national culture scores.

Our analysis using more recent and reliable data from the House et al. (2004) study shows high levels of homogeneity in national culture scores across Confucian and Anglo societies. The societal average scores are mostly clustered together within a narrow range on the scales on which the respective cultural values and practices are measured. Overall, we find that while there are some differences, there is also notable support for a broad consensus in culture, and this has important implications for how we interpret extant studies in national culture. For example, Carl et al. (2004) state,

Within the high power distance cultures of the East, the stable distribution of power is expected to bring order to the society and to allow unambiguous allocation of roles and rigid structure of relationships.” And “In contrast, within the low power distance cultures of the West, the flexible distribution of power is expected to facilitate entrepreneurial innovation … (p. 559; italics added)

However, as we have shown, both Confucian and Anglo societies have low PD values and none has low PD practices. This type of misinterpretation of data via assumed wide disparities in cultural values can lead to poor theory development.

We see two types of common misinterpretation of cultural differences evident in the literature. First, “higher” culture index scores are often incorrectly referred to as “high” cultural values and “lower” scores as “low” cultural values. In fact, the societal PD values scores on the 1–7 scale in GLOBE are 3.53 for New Zealand and 3.04 for Singapore, suggesting low PD values in both countries, and in fact sometimes lower in Asia (Singapore) than the West (New Zealand). Thus, the common assumption that societies are distributed across the entire spectrum of the PD values is questionable in light of the GLOBE model scores. In fact, both New Zealand and Singapore have a negative valence for GLOBE PD values. More broadly, as our analysis of the PD scores in GLOBE demonstrates, all countries in our Confucian and Anglo groups, not surprisingly, regard PD as undesirable.

Another misinterpretation often arises in discussing the relationships between culture and other variables. For example, Carl et al. (2004) “found that higher GLOBE PD societal values predict greater corruption (r = .36, p < .01) and lower civil liberties (r = .38, p < .01) (p.558).” Based on this finding, they state, “We interpret these findings to mean that under conditions in which Power Distance is highly valued, corrupt behavior is legitimated as a privilege of position.” The interpretation cannot be correct, since, as our analysis shows, GLOBE PD is not highly valued in any society. Specifically, “higher” or “lower” scores on a culture dimension do not necessarily mean “high” or “low” level of desirability or importance of the values underlying the dimension, unless the absolute score on the scale used to measure the value is also high or low, respectively.

Our study is also important in the development of global market segmentation theory. Deciding market segments has long been recognized as a difficult but key ingredient of success for global consumer product firms and many internationalized services firms (Hassan and Katsanis, 1994). There are of course many ways in which markets can be segmented, but there continues to be a strong focus on segmentation by country boundaries because of the supposed importance of cultural differences (Fatehi et al., 2015). But we have shown a remarkable similarity in average societal culture scores across GLOBE’s Confucian and Anglo countries and which has not been recognized previously. Thus, from a cultural viewpoint at least, there seems to be doubt about the usefulness of national culture as a segmentation strategy, a practice previously questioned by Brewer and Sherriff (2007). In addition to this point, we note that it is argued by some that there are high levels of cultural heterogeneity within countries (Fatehi et al., 2015; Kwon, 2012; Venaik and Midgley, 2015) and that ethnicity, closely related to culture (Daniel, 1996), also plays a role in consumer attitudes to markets (Dou et al., 2003). Since there exist, at the same time, cultural similarities across societies, within-country cultural heterogeneity, and within-country ethnic differences in many countries, segmentation of markets across regions or globally by individual characteristics rather than by country-level culture boundaries may be more appropriate (Aurifeille et al., 2002).

It is also notable that the pattern of average cultural values (“should be”) scores shows agreement among all or most Confucian and Anglo societies on the relative desirability and undesirability of specific types of values, that is, the scores for all or most culture dimensions fall on the same side of the agree/disagree divide. For example, all societies in our groups find PD undesirable and Performance Orientation highly desirable, that is, societies generally have a negative valence for hierarchy and a positive valence for goal setting, innovativeness, and performance-based rewards. This of course is not intuitively surprising, but it does highlight a rarely discussed phenomenon in the literature. Our finding of broad consensus in culture across Confucian and Anglo societies, both in terms of homogeneity and valence (positive/desirable or negative/undesirable) of specific values, challenges the conclusion in House et al. (2004) that “in general, it is unclear as to whether a high or low level of any dimension is necessarily desirable” (p. 729). On the contrary, in accordance with much research in fields other than management, the broad similarities in the nature of humans with regard to the values considered to be universally desirable or undesirable are evident in our analysis.

5.2. Implications for managerial practice

Another implication of our study relates to managerial practice. The cross-cultural management literature offers a wide range of normative guidelines for managers on how they should conduct business across national boundaries. For example, to be successful, a key recommendation is that one must be sensitive and adapt one’s behavior to differences in cultural values, especially across the Asia–West divide (Lee et al., 2015; Murphy, 1999). However, as our analysis shows, most countries in our Confucian and Anglo societies are largely similar in their GLOBE cultural values and practices, with, for example, planning and future orientation considered desirable, and hierarchy and PD as undesirable. Similarly, consensus in In-Group Collectivism values in GLOBE shows that team work and group cohesion are valued in all societies, which is at odds with the Asia–West Collectivism–Individualism divide often portrayed in the literature (e.g., Westwood and Posner, 1997). In fact, the GLOBE values scores show US society prefers slightly more collectivism in both the In-Group and Institutional forms than Japan, contrary to conventional wisdom (e.g. BBC, 2017). This is not to argue that there is no need to adapt corporate practices across societies due to differences in, for example, wages, regulations, education, and cost of living. Rather, our results show that uniform desirability or undesirability of some cultural values and norms across different regions of the world offers opportunities for more consistent management principles and policies than often recommended.

5.3. Implications for culture pedagogy

Finally, in management training and education, the frequently applied assumption in cross-cultural research of large differences in cultural values across countries has sometimes undermined understanding of people from other countries. For example, in a popular international business text book by Daniels et al. (2015), the statement that “With high power distance people prefer little consultation between the two tiers … With low power distance they prefer ‘consultative’ styles” (p. 64) is made. (The citations for this statement are Hofstede and GLOBE.) But according to GLOBE, there are no societies which “prefer” high PD and which therefore prefer little consultation. All our societies have low GLOBE PD values scores; they all prefer low PD and therefore presumably prefer substantial consultations. In fact, contrary to the prevailing view that PD is higher in Asia than the West (Lam et al., 2012), the highest PD values score across our Confucian and Anglo groups is New Zealand (3.53) in the Anglo group and the lowest is South Korea (2.55) in the Confucian group. Currently, many students in business schools are completing culture teaching modules with a mistaken belief that there are large differences in cultural values such as PD across regions. Teaching and training of students and managers need to be updated with research, data and analysis that comprehensively and correctly capture the high level of consensus as well as differences that may exist in cultural values and norms across different countries.

6. Limitations, future research, and concluding remarks

We accept that we have based our analysis on a single survey data set established by GLOBE in its eponymous culture project. This is the only reliable data set both available to us and suitable for our purpose as it encompasses a wide range of dimensions coinciding with the conceptual and geographic domain covered by the popular Hofstede culture model. There is other evidence, of course, which supports the cultural differences in school, in particular, differences between Asia and the West. We neither dispute that evidence nor the cultural/behavioral differences argument. Rather, we use GLOBE, which is an important culture model, to highlight the need to be nuanced about cultural differences in management and to point to the misleading conclusions that can be drawn if there is a myopic focus on differences. The argument among researchers as to the degree to which groups are the same or different will never be precisely decided. But a recognition of Janus-like features of societal culture is warranted so that future research could be more open to seeking and finding evidence for both similarities and differences rather than being narrowly focused on differences alone, as has been the practice to date in cross-cultural studies in management.

Furthermore, to enhance the generalizability of our findings of cultural consensus among the Anglo and Confucian nations, culture scholars could reanalyze other culture-related data and re-examine the potential similarities between societies in absolute terms. Such cross-validation with multiple sources of data will also ensure that the results presented here are robust to measures with varying levels of metric equivalence across countries, an issue that affects all empirical research with data from multiple countries.

House et al. (2004) found significant negative correlations between societal cultural values and practices scores for their sample for seven of their nine dimensions. This remains an unresolved anomaly (Brewer and Venaik, 2010). The explanation for the differences may partly depend on factors other than culture, in particular practices may be influenced by a society’s environmental factors such as democracy, freedom, economic poverty/prosperity, resource scarcity/abundance, population size, climate, and health that inhibit or encourage societies to act out their values, although this alone would not explain a significant negative correlation between the two. To reconcile the seeming contradiction between cultural values and practices in future research, scholars need to first tease out the theoretical differences between cultural values and practices and identify the factors that mediate or moderate the translation of culture values into practices. We speculate that as the external conditions and institutions become more consistent with people’s core values, the practices that are manifested in different countries are also likely to become more aligned with common innate human values, for example, of low PD, and high humane orientation. An example of this transformation of practices toward common values can be found in the attractiveness of democracy across countries as they develop economically (Helliwell, 1994), which will become even more relevant in Asia as the region’s economic expansion continues.

To conclude, most culture-related research in management assumes international differences in cultural values and how these differences influence managerial decisions, consumer preferences, firm performance, and public policy more broadly. Our study shows that this assumption may be invalid, at least in relation to the GLOBE values and practices across a number of countries. Contrary to expectation, there is striking consensus in values and practices between the Confucian and Anglo societies in GLOBE. It is therefore critical that researchers, practitioners, and people at large look beyond the popular stereotypical national differences approach underlying most cross-culture-related management research. Our study is a small, simple, albeit significant step in that direction.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the editors and the anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Final transcript accepted 25 March 2019 by Jane Baxter (Editor in Chief).

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

ORCID iD

Sunil Venaik

References

Aurifeille

Quester

Lockshin

et al . (2002) Global vs international involvement-based segmentation: A cross-national exploratory study. International Marketing Review 19: 369–386.

Baumeister

(2005) The Cultural Animal: Human Nature, Meaning, and Social Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

BBC (2017) How East and West Think in Profoundly Different Ways. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170118-how-east-and-west-think-in-profoundly-different-ways (accessed 23 January).

Brewer

Sherriff

(2007) Is there a cultural divide in Australian international trade? Australian Journal of Management 32: 113–134.

Brewer

Venaik

(2010) GLOBE practices and values—A case of diminishing marginal utility? Journal of International Business Studies 41: 1316–1324.

Brewer

Venaik

(2011) Individualism–collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE. Journal of International Business Studies 42: 436–445.

Brewer

Venaik

(2014) The ecological fallacy in national culture research. Organization Studies 35: 1063–1086.

Brown

(1991) Human Universals. Philadelphia, PA: McGraw-Hill.

Carl

Gupta

Javidan

(2004) Power distance. In: House

Hanges

Javidan

et al (eds) Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 513–563.

10.

Chui

Kwok

(2008) National culture and life insurance consumption. Journal of International Business Studies 39: 88–101.

11.

Daniel

(1996) Ethnicity, language and nationalism: Some conceptual issues. In: Agrawal

(ed.) Ethnicity, Culture and Nationalism in North East India. New Delhi, India: Indus Publishing Company, pp. 49–58.

12.

Daniels

Radebaugh

Sullivan

(2015) International Business: Environments and Operations. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

13.

Dou

Yoo

Liangyu

(2003) Consumer patronage of ethnic portals. International Marketing Review 20: 661–677.

14.

Fatehi

Kedia

Priestley

(2015) Mindscapes and individual heterogeneity within and between cultures. Journal of Business Research 68: 291–298.

15.

Gaertner

Sedikides

Cai

(2012) Wanting to be great and better but not average: On the pancultural desire for self-enhancing and self-improving feedback. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 43: 521–526.

16.

Giana

(2002) Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organisations across nations. Australian Journal of Management 27: 89–94.

17.

Greckhamer

(2011) Cross-cultural differences in compensation level and inequality across occupations: A set-theoretic analysis. Organization Studies 32: 85–115.

18.

Hanges

Dickson

(2006) Agitation over aggregation: Clarifying the development of and the nature of the GLOBE scales. The Leadership Quarterly 17: 522–536.

19.

Haslam

(2006) Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review 10: 252–264.

20.

Hassan

Katsanis

(1994) Global market segmentation strategies and trends. In: Kaynak

Hassan

(eds) Globalization of Consumer Markets: Structures and Strategies. London: Routledge, pp. 47–63.

21.

Helliwell

(1994) Empirical linkages between democracy and economic growth. British Journal of Political Science 24: 225–248.

22.

Hofstede

(2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

23.

Hofstede

Minkov

(2010) Long- versus short-term orientation: New perspectives. Asia Pacific Business Review 16: 493–504.

24.

Hofstede

Minkov

(2013) Values Survey Module VSM 2013 Manual. Available at: http://geerthofstede.com/research-and-vsm/vsm-2013 (accessed 23 September 2016).

25.

House

Javidan

(2004) Overview of GLOBE. In: House

Hanges

Javidan

et al (eds) Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 9–28.

26.

House

Hanges

Javidan

et al . (2004) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

27.

Imm Ng

Anne Lee

Soutar

(2007) Are Hofstede’s and Schwartz’s value frameworks congruent? International Marketing Review 24: 164–180.

28.

Inglehart

Welzel

(2005) Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy. New York: Cambridg University Press.

29.

James

Demaree

Wolf

(1984) Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology 69: 85–98.

30.

Kirca

Hult

GTM

(2009) Intra-organizational factors and market orientation: Effects of national culture. International Marketing Review 26: 633–650.

31.

Kitayama

Park

Sevincer

et al . (2009) A cultural task analysis of implicit independence: Comparing North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97: 236–255.

32.

Kroeber

Kluckhohn

(1952) Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Cambridge, MA: The Peabody Museum.

33.

Kwon

J-W

(2012) Does China have more than one culture? Asia Pacific Journal of Management 29: 79–102.

34.

Lam

Huang

Lau

(2012) Leadership research in Asia: Taking the road less traveled? Asia Pacific Journal of Management 29: 195–204.

35.

LeBreton

James

Lindell

(2005) Recent issues regarding rWG, rWG, rWG (J), and rWG (J). Organizational Research Methods 8: 128–138.

36.

LeBreton

Senter

(2008) Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods 11: 815–852.

37.

Lee

Kim

Park

(2015) Culture clashes in cross-border mergers and acquisitions: A case study of Sweden’s Volvo and South Korea’s Samsung. International Business Review 24: 580–593.

38.

Lin

Miller

(2003) Negotiation approaches: Direct and indirect effect of national culture. International Marketing Review 20: 286–303.

39.

Liu

Stening

(2016) The contextualization and de-contextualization of Confucian morality: Making Confucianism relevant to China’s contemporary challenges in business ethics. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 33: 821–841.

40.

Lockenhoff

Chan

McRae

et al . (2014) Gender stereotypes of personality: Universal and accurate? Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 45: 675–694.

41.

Lumsden

Wilson

(2005) Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

42.

Magnusson

Peterson

Westjohn

(2014) The influence of national cultural values on the use of rewards alignment to improve sales collaboration. International Marketing Review 31: 30–50.

43.

Mann

Garcia-Radal

Hornuf

et al . (2016) Cut from the same cloth: Similarly dishonest individuals across countries. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 47: 858–874.

44.

Matsumoto

Hwang

(2012) Culture and emotion: The integration of biological and cultural contributions. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 43: 91–118.

45.

Murdock

(1940) The cross-cultural survey. American Sociological Review 5: 361–370.

46.

Murphy

(1999) Hofstede’s national culture as a guide for sales practices across countries: The case of an MNC’s sales practices in Australia and New Zealand. Australian Journal of Management 24: 37–58.

47.

Nisbett

Peng

Choi

et al . (2001) Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review 108: 291–310.

48.

Puck

Hödl

Filatotchev

et al . (2016) Ownership mode, cultural distance, and the extent of parent firms’ strategic control over subsidiaries in the PRC. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 33: 1075–1105.

49.

Ralston

(2008) The crossvergence perspective: Reflections and projections. Journal of International Business Studies 39: 27–40.

50.

Ronen

Shenkar

(1985) Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions—A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review 10: 435–454.

51.

Ronen

Shenkar

(2013) Mapping world cultures: Cluster formation, sources and implications. Journal of International Business Studies 44: 867–897.

52.

Rooyackers

de Valk

HAG

Merz

(2014) Mother-child relations in adulthood: Immigrant and nonimmigrant families in the Netherlands. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 45: 569–586.

53.

Ruse

Wilson

(1985) The evolution of ethics. New Scientist 102: 1478: 50–52.

54.

Schwartz

Bardi

(2001) Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 32: 268–290.

55.

Steenkamp

(2001) The role of national culture in international marketing research. International Marketing Review 18: 30–44.

56.

Stocking

(1985) Adolf Bastian and the psychic unity of mankind. The foundations of anthropology in nineteenth-century Germany. Medical History 29: 338–339.

57.

Tayeb

(1994) Organizations and national culture: Methodology considered. Organization Studies 15: 429–446.

58.

Terpstra-Tong

Ralston

(2002) Moving toward a global understanding of upward influence strategies: An Asian perspective with directions for cross-cultural research. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 19: 373–404.

59.

The Economist (2017) China’s conscience. The Economist, 13 July, p. 15.

60.

Tooby

Cosmides

(1992) The psychological foundations of culture. In: Barkow

Cosmides

Tooby

(eds) The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford University, pp. 19–136.

61.

Venaik

Brewer

(2010) Avoiding uncertainty in Hofstede and GLOBE. Journal of International Business Studies 41: 1294–1315.

62.

Venaik

Midgley

(2015) Mindscapes across landscapes: Archetypes of transnational and subnational culture. Journal of International Business Studies 46: 1051–1079.

63.

Wang

Hinrichs

Prieto

et al . (2013) Five dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior: Comparing antecedents and levels of engagement in China and the US. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 30: 115–147.

64.

Westwood

Posner

(1997) Managerial values across cultures: Australia, Hong Kong and the United States. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 14: 31–66.

65.

Wissler

(1923) Man and Culture. New York: Thomas Crowell.

66.

Zhang

(2012) How China ends West’s domination. The Diplomat, 16 January. Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2012/01/how-china-ends-wests-domination/