Tung y Stahl 2018

Journal of International Business Studies (2018) 49, 1167–1189
ª 2018 Academy of International Business All rights reserved 0047-2506/18

www.jibs.net
POINT
The tortuous evolution of the role of culture

in IB research: What we know, what we
don’t know, and where we are headed
Rosalie L Tung1 and Abstract

This paper takes stock of the literature on culture in International Business by
Günter K Stahl2 looking back in terms of evaluating what we know and what we do not know;
1
and looking forward by identifying emerging trends and outlining avenues for
Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser
future research. Unresolved issues, gaps and limitations include: (1) narrow
University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby,
BC V5A 1S6, Canada; 2 Institute for International
conceptualization of culture and fragmented approach to the study of culture;
Business, Vienna University of Economics and (2) failure to adopt a multilevel approach and insufficient attention to level of
Business (WU Vienna), Welthandelsplatz 1, analysis; (3) insufficient attention to context and process; (4) failure to adopt a
1020 Vienna, Austria more dynamic view of culture; (5) tendency to equate country with culture and
failure to explore other national differentiators; and (6) Western-centric
Correspondence: approach to the study of culture. Suggestions on redressing the unresolved
RL Tung, Beedie School of Business, Simon issues include: (1) broadening the definition of culture and transcending the
Fraser University, 8888 University Drive,
values-based approach to include schemas, norms, and ‘‘memes’’; (2) paying
Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada.
Tel: 1-604-778-782-3083;
more attention to process/context by exploring the situation-dependent and
Fax: 1-604-778-782-4920; dynamic nature of culture; and (3) entertaining alternative research designs/
e-mail: [email protected] methods, such as emic approaches, qualitative methods, experimental designs,
neuroscience-based methods, and replication studies. While these may
represent a major departure from methodologies popular in our field, their
use can hopefully help us overcome the fragmented, discipline-based approach
which has contributed to the persistent problems that have plagued the study
of culture in IB in the past.
Journal of International Business Studies (2018) 49, 1167–1189.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-018-0184-2
Keywords: culture; cultural distance; international business; grand challenges; context;

process; multi-level approach; memes; experimental designs; neuroscience-based meth-
ods; replication studies
Reviewers of the International Business (IB) and Cross-Cultural

Management (CCM) literatures have generally concluded that little
progress has been made in theory and research on culture in IB
since the introduction of Hofstede’s (1980) dimensional approach.
For example, Kirkman, Lowe and Gibson (2017: 25–26) concluded
that ‘‘the field has a long way to go in fully understanding the
Received: 10 March 2017 complex construct that is culture’’ as we continue to struggle with
Revised: 30 August 2018 ‘‘theoretical, conceptual, and methodological challenges’’. This
Accepted: 24 September 2018
Online publication date: 12 October 2018
Tortuous evolution of the role of culture Rosalie L Tung and Günter K Stahl
1168
lamentation echoes that of Brannen and Doz differences and to understand more fully how
(2010), Devinney and Hohberger (2017), and Tsui, cultural distance can drive positive societal changes
Nifadkar and Ou (2007), among others. (Stahl & Tung, 2015), and is consistent with
Although the ‘‘conventional culture paradigm’’ Buckley, Doh and Benischke’s (2017) call for a
that Kirkman et al. (2017) alluded to, particularly redirection of IB research towards ‘‘big questions’’
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and its related cul- and ‘‘grand challenges’’ in global business.
tural distance (CD) index, have come under The purpose of this article is to take stock of the
scrutiny (see, e.g., Shenkar, 2001; Tung & Verbeke, literature on culture in IB by evaluating what we
2010; Zaheer, Schomaker, & Nachum, 2012), Hof- know and what we don’t know, identifying emerg-
stede deserves credit for bringing culture into ing trends and outlining avenues for future
mainstream IB research. While research on culture research. Since the influence of culture on IB
has a long history in the fields of anthropology, phenomena does not occur in a vacuum, identify-
psychology and sociology (see, e.g., Hall, 1969; ing future research trends and directions will
Kluckholn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Inkeles & Levinson, require us to go beyond a narrow definition of the
1969), its use in IB studies and the broader field of field and consider developments in the macro-
management is a more recent phenomenon. Hof- environment, such as globalization dynamics and
stede’s (1980) classic work was rejected by at least changes in the international political landscape
17 publishers before Sage’s woman President had (e.g., Inglehart & Norris, 2016), and reflect on how
the foresight to proceed with its publication (Hof- these developments will have to be addressed in
stede, 2015). Subsequent developments, such as the future work on culture in IB. The title of this paper
growing diversity of the workforce within many is inspired by Perlmutter’s (1969) classic piece, ‘‘The
countries brought about by the increasing mobility tortuous evolution of the multinational corpora-
of people across borders through immigration/ tion’’, that described the challenges associated with
emigration, brain circulation (Saxenian, 2002), the very definition of a MNC and what it means to
boundaryless careers (Stahl, Miller, & Tung, 2002), be multinational in the early days of IB research.
war for talent (Chambers, Foulon, Handfield-Jones, While the study of culture in the IB/IM literature
Hankin, & Michaels, 1998), the changing nature of represents a field of inquiry, the evolution of
global work (Shaffer, Kraimer, Chen, & Bolino, literature on the subject has coincided more or less
2012) and the increase in numbers of people who with that of MNCs that cross international
are biculturals/multiculturals (see Tung, boundaries.
2016a, 2016b for a more detailed analysis), have
all contributed to the need to understand, and
hence leverage, the positive outcomes associated WHAT WE KNOW: OVERVIEW
with such differences. OF APPROACHES TO THE USE OF CULTURE
Seismic changes that have occurred recently in IN IB RESEARCH AND REFLECTIONS
the international political landscape portend the ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE FIELD
rise of anti-globalization sentiments and highlight Given the recent history of business/management
the urgent need to understand culture and cultural as a distinct field of scholarly inquiry, it is not
differences to avert mistakes and, possibly, cata- surprising that the pioneers of IB research brought
clysmic consequences that cultural misunderstand- their respective discipline’s perspectives to the
ing and discordance may bring. Developments in investigation of differences in management styles
the political landscape, coincidentally, have and practices across countries. Roberts (1970)
occurred with growing economic, social and envi- ascribed the inconsistent findings in the cross-
ronmental problems faced around the world. cultural literature until then to researchers’ ten-
‘‘Grand Challenges’’ (George, Howard-Grenville, dency to adopt a piecemeal, as opposed to a
Joshi, & Tihanyi, 2016), such as the ones posed by holistic, approach to understanding differences in
poverty, rising income inequality and economic management practices. She likened cross-cultural
insecurity, the inflow of migrants and refugees, research to the six blind men’s futile efforts to
human rights violations, and global terrorism, all describe an elephant depending upon the body part
have a distinctly cultural component (Lyons- they came into contact with, thus yielding almost
Padilla, Gelfand, Mirahmadi, Farooq, & van completely unrecognizable interpretations of an
Egmond, 2015). This, again, points to the urgent elephant from the standpoints of the blind vis-à-vis
need to mitigate the downside of cultural
Journal of International Business Studies

1169
those with sight who can see an elephant in its approach by incorporating other aspects of the
entirety. external environment (educational, legal, political
To a large extent, this trend toward the use of a and sociological) in addition to economic develop-
singular perspective still persists today and can ment. The Farmer and Richman model can be
account, in part at least, for the piecemeal regarded as a forerunner to the present-day institu-
approaches to the study of culture in IB research. tional approach where attention is focused on the
The most salient approaches to the use of culture in impact of the institutional environment on a
IB/IM research can be broadly categorized into two variety of IB activities, including choice of foreign
primary camps: (1) the ‘‘distance’’ approach; and (2) market entry mode, partner selection in coopera-
the dimensional approach to explain for differences tive agreements, and outcome/performance of such
in management policies/practices and organiza- ventures, among other things (Dunning, 1988;
tional outcomes across countries. Kostova & Zaheer, 1999; Berry, Guillén, & Zhou,
2010).
Distance Approach
While the widespread use of culture or cultural Psychic distance
differences in IB/IM research only began with the Even though Beckerman (1956) first introduced the
introduction of Hofstede’s (1980) dimensions and ‘‘distance’’ construct in the context of international
Kogut–Singh’s (1988) CD index, the focus on trade, psychic distance only gained traction in the
differences in the broad societal environment pre- IB literature with the work of Johanson and Vahlne
dated the adoption of distance measures. These (1977). Psychic distance is a broader construct than
include Harbison and Myers’ (1959) socio-eco- cultural distance and is ‘‘defined as the sum of
nomic approach, Farmer and Richman’s (1964) factors preventing the flow of information from/to
environmental approach, and Johanson and the market … (that) include differences in lan-
Vahlne’s psychic distance (1977) construct. Each guage, education, business practices, culture, and
of these approaches is discussed very briefly below industrial development’’ (Johanson & Vahlne,
(for a more detailed analysis of the first two 1977: 24).
approaches, see Tung, 2016b). Their model has been updated in their 2009 JIBS
paper where they acknowledged that new knowl-
Socio-economic approach edge often occurs in the context of relationships
Harbison and Myers wrote Management in the and networks; hence their assertion that ‘‘(o)ut-
Industrial World (1959) in which they compared sidership, in relation to the relevant network, more
managerial practices across 23 nations and attrib- than psychic distance, is the root of uncertainty’’
uted observed differences to the varying stages and (Johanson & Vahlne, 2009: 1411). In other words,
rates of economic development of these countries. sole attention to psychic distance fails to ade-
They contend that, as countries develop econom- quately consider firm specific advantages (Rugman
ically and embark on the path of industrialization, & Verbeke, 2004).
managerial beliefs and hence practices around the
world will converge. Cultural distance
While there is some validity to this approach, in Following the logic behind Johanson & Vahlne’s
their ‘‘postscript’’ to their monumental work, Kerr, (1977) notions of incrementalism and psychic
Dunlop, Harbison and Myers (1971: 520) acknowl- distance, Kogut and Singh (1988) developed a
edged that, even though different countries (in- mathematical formula for calculating the cultural
cluding within countries) pursue varying paths to distance between two countries using national
industrialization, they asserted that ‘‘the forces of scores contained in Hofstede’s (1980) four original
industrialization have appeared in many countries cultural dimensions. While Kogut and Singh (1988:
to be stronger, and cultural factors somewhat less of 422) did acknowledge the limitations associated
a force, than we thought in 1960’’. with the use of Hofstede’s indices and scores
(internal validity as well as methodological issues
Environmental approach in scale construction), their index (K–S index, in
Farmer and Richman (1964) are often credited with short) has come under intense scrutiny and re-
developing the first comparative management evaluation (see, e.g., Shenkar, 2001, 2012; Tung &
model that sought to overcome the limitations Verbeke, 2010; Zaheer et al., 2012).
associated with the Harbison and Myers (1959)

1170
Institutional distance these motives were satisfied. They found that

The study of institutional distance, a more encom- differences in managerial thinking could account
passing construct with cultural differences as one of for roughly 30 percent of observed variations across
the variables, has gained much prominence in the countries, thus raising ‘‘a question about its
IB/IM literature. These elaborations/variations1 potency’’ (Argyris, 1967: 176–177).
include Kostova and Zaheer’s (1999) work that
identified the legitimacy-related multifaceted com- Hofstede’s dimensional paradigm
plexities that confront MNEs in the international Based on a worldwide survey of IBM employees
context. between 1967 and 1973, Hofstede (1980) identified
four national values dimensions to differentiate
Other distance concepts societal behavior across countries. These are: (1)
Ghemawat (2001) posited a four-dimensional individualism versus collectivism that gauges the
approach to measure distance, culture being one extent to which people integrate with others and
of them. More recent additions to this approach the strength of these bonds; (2) power distance that
include the work of Berry et al. (2010: 1461) that assesses the degree to which inequality and rigid
identified nine different sources of distance and hierarchies exist in society; (3) uncertainty avoid-
demonstrated the advantages of using multi-di- ance that measures a society’s tolerance for risk and
mensional measures on a wide array of research uncertainty; and (4) masculinity versus femininity
questions pertaining to decisions at the individual that indicates the separation of gender roles and
and firm levels. Also, Rugman, Verbeke and Nguyen the prevalence of assertiveness in society. Two
(2011: 776) introduced the construct of ‘‘com- other dimensions were subsequently added. These
pounded distance’’ to highlight their assertion that are: long- versus short-term orientation, originally
due attention should be paid to the ‘‘multiplicative labeled Confucian Dynamism, that gauges the
effects arising from these distance dimensions’’ extent to which society embraces thrift, persistence
rather than their simple summation. and savings for long-term development/growth;
The conceptual status of the distance construct and indulgence versus restraint that measures the
varies in research on culture in IB. In their content degree to which people in society gratify their
analysis of 24 years of JIBS publications, Stahl and needs/wants and display emotions.
Tung (2015) found that cultural distance has been Several observations about Hofstede’s dimen-
used as an independent variable, a dependent sions merit attention. First, while there are other
variable (usually capturing perceptions of distance) multi-country studies that predated Hofstede’s
and, increasingly, as a moderator or control vari- (1980), culture was essentially treated as ‘‘a single
able in empirical research on culture in IB. Regard- variable’’ in the pre-Hofstede era. Hofstede’s work
ing the latter, a growing number of scholars (Zaheer represented the first systematic approach to unbun-
et al., 2012; Berry et al., 2010; Tung & Verbeke, dle culture into ‘‘independent dimensions’’.
2010) have begun to raise concerns about the Second, Hofstede’s (1980) work focused on the
frequent, and sometimes inappropriate, use of consequences of cultural differences by examining
these measures in IB research. cross-national differences in work-related values at
IBM.2 Despite the presence of a strong corporate
Dimensional Approach culture in IBM that has a homogenizing effect on
The dimensional approach has its roots in anthro- cross-national culture (Tung, 1995), he still found
pology and psychology. significant variations in culturally-based work-re-
lated values across the sprawling IBM subsidiaries
Managerial motives worldwide.
In 1966, Haire, Ghiselli and Porter, a group of Third, as a result of his collaboration with Bond
organizational psychologists, published a book who has collected data from 23 countries based on
entitled, Managerial thinking: An international study. his Chinese Value Surveys, a fifth cultural dimen-
Based on a sample of 3,641 managers from 14 sion, ‘‘Confucian Dynamism’’ and later relabeled
countries in North America, Europe, Latin America ‘‘Short- versus Long-term Orientation’’, was added
and Asia, their study sought to examine differences (Hofstede & Bond, 1988). Subsequently, Minkov
across countries on the basis of behavioral vari- and Hofstede (2011) analyzed the World Value
ables, such as the leadership roles played by man- Survey (WVS) data, to arrive at a sixth dimension,
agers; managerial motives; and the extent to which

1171
‘‘Indulgence versus Restraint’’, that gauges the is’’ (actual cultural practices that are gauged by
extent to which people gratify or control their survey items that ask ‘‘what are’’ observable behav-
basic human desires in their pursuit of fun and life. iors) vis-à-vis ‘‘should be’’ (aspirational values that
Fourth, a criticism that has often been lodged are sought through items that seek judgments on
against Hofstede’s 1980 work is that the data ‘‘what should be’’) (Javidan, House, Dorfman,
collected by IBM in the late 1960s to the early Hanges, & Sully de Luque, 2006).
1970s are outdated and hence have lost their
predictive power (Taras, Steel, & Kirkman, 2012). Triandis’ refinement
In fairness, besides Hofstede’s collaboration with Triandis, a Greek cross-cultural psychologist, has
Bond and Minkov alluded to earlier in the deriva- made many contributions to cross-cultural
tion of his fifth and sixth cultural dimensions, research. He was among the first to acknowledge
Hofstede has collected new data in conjunction that ‘‘(a)lmost all theories and data of contempo-
with others that are reflected in his subsequent rary psychology come from Western populations’’
publications (see Minkov & Hofstede, 2011 for a that cover only 30 percent of the world’s popula-
more detailed presentation of the evolution of his tion (Triandis, 1996: 407), an observation repeated
research). Recently, in a 56-country study, Minkov by Bond (2002).
et al. (2017) applied a new way to measure and Triandis also introduced the concept of cultural
calculate the Individualism versus Collectivism tightness or looseness that characterizes societies in
(IDV-COLL) index, and concluded that their mea- terms of prevalence of norms and tolerance of
sure has ‘‘better face validity, relies on probabilistic deviations from such norms. Tight cultures, such as
samples, is much more recent, and has better Korea and Japan, are characterized by the existence
predictive properties’’ (p. 399) than similar mea- of many societal norms and low tolerance for
sures by GLOBE, discussed subsequently by deviations from them. In contrast, in loose cultures
Schwartz and Inglehart. such as the US, there are fewer societal norms, and
Fifth, Bond (2002) reminded us that Hofstede’s deviations from them are less frowned upon.
dimensions pertain to national differences and Triandis (1996: 408), noted, however, that ‘‘(t)ight-
were not intended for use at the individual level. ness is highly situational’’ – whether ecological or
Ignoring this fact could result in ecological fallacy historical – such as the US as being ‘‘loose in marital
where extrapolations are made from findings at the arrangements but tight in banking regulations’’ (see
nation state to an individual level of analysis. also Gelfand et al., 2011).
Given the huge popularity of Hofstede’s dimen-
sions in the cross-cultural literature, subsequent Schwartz Value Survey
elaborations and/or conceptual/methodological Schwartz focused on ‘‘basic values’’ or beliefs shared
variations of Hofstede’s paradigm are inevitable, by people from around the world. Inspired by
principal of which are the GLOBE project, and the Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory, Schwartz
works of Triandis and Schwartz.3 argued that the attractiveness (‘‘valence’’ in
Vroom’s model) of desired outcomes, determined
GLOBE by one’s hierarchy of values, can motivate people to
Perhaps the best-known extension of Hofstede’s expend effort to attain the desired goal (Schwartz,
dimensional paradigm is the Global Leadership and 2012). He developed the Schwartz Value Survey
Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research (SVS) where respondents were asked to assess the
Program (GLOBE, in short; see House, Hanges, importance of each value ‘‘as a guiding principle in
Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004) that began in MY life’’ and, based on a large database, deduced
the early 1990s. Given House’s interest in leader- ten basic values: achievement, benevolence, con-
ship, aside from identifying nine cultural compe- formity, hedonism, power, security, self-direction,
tency dimensions, the project also focused on the stimulation, tradition, and universalism. Schwartz
universality of culturally-based ‘‘leader attributes hypothesized that there is a ‘‘structure of dynamic
and behavior’’ (House et al., 2004: 14). GLOBE’s relations’’ such that the pursuit of some values may
first six cultural dimensions were inspired by, and either conflict or be congruent with that of others.
were intended to redress, the limitations associated In attempting to relate cultural values as sources
with Hofstede’s paradigm (Minkov & Hofstede, of guidance for managerial behavior, based on a
2011: 14). A distinguishing feature of the GLOBE 47-country study, Smith, Peterson, & Schwartz
cultural dimensions is the use of parallel items: ‘‘as (2002) found that, while values have predictive

1172
powers as sources of guidance as far as vertical Having laid out the foundations of the field of
relationships within organizations are concerned, culture in IB, we will now turn to the unresolved
they are less so in the context of horizontal issues and research gaps in the field.
relationships (such as peer-to-peer), thus highlight-
ing the need to pay attention to context.
WHAT WE DON’T KNOW: UNRESOLVED
World Values Survey (WVS) ISSUES, RESEARCH GAPS AND OPEN
The WVS is the brainchild of Inglehart, a political QUESTIONS
scientist at the University of Michigan (http:// Despite the growing popularity of research on
www.worldvaluessurvey.org/). The WVS dimen- culture in the IB literature, there are still many
sions ‘‘are amalgamations of values, beliefs, atti- unresolved issues, both conceptual and method-
tudes, feelings, and behavioral self-reports’’ ological. There appears to be widespread consensus
(Minkov et al., 2017: 400). The WVS began in 1981 among scholars (e.g., Beugelsdijk, Kostova, & Roth,
and has been updated every five years since then, 2017; Caprar, Devinney, Kirkman and Caligiuri,
with the seventh round of data collection begin- 2015; Kirkman et al., 2017; Steel & Taras, 2010) that
ning in 2017. The survey covers nearly 100 coun- progress in the field has been slow and continues to
tries at different stages of economic development be hampered by overly simplistic and incomplete
and encompasses all major cultural clusters in the accounts of culture, inadequate conceptualizations
world. and operationalizations, an overreliance on dis-
The WVS-7 questionnaire revolves around 14 tance concepts and dimensional models of culture,
themes. Using data from the WVS, Inglehart and and other theoretical, conceptual, and method-
Norris (2016) advanced two hypotheses, income ological limitations. To move forward, while we
inequality and ‘‘cultural backlash’’, to account for agree with Devinney and Hohberger (2017: 48) that
the rising tide of economic nationalism and pop- ‘‘the field has become stuck in a … rut and more
ulist movements in the Western world as evidenced radical thinking is necessary’’, both in terms of
by Brexit and Trump’s election. Their study high- theory and methods, unlike Devinney and Hoh-
lights several important contributions of the WVS berger, we believe that we can learn from the large
to cross-cultural research: First, they found that the body of knowledge that has been accumulated in
cultural backlash hypothesis trumped ‘‘income the field over the past decades, some of which are
inequality’’ to account for the rise of populist worth preserving and building upon.
sentiments in some Western countries. As such, it While there are many studies on culture, after a
highlights the pervasive role that culture and comprehensive search of the literature on culture
cultural change can have on all aspects of societal in IB, we will focus primarily on nine papers that
functioning, including political and social issues. have been published after 2000 where our goal is to
Second, the longitudinal nature of their data provide a ‘‘meta-review’’ of existing reviews of this
reveals that cultures do change, such as the US literature. These include both qualitative and quan-
which traditionally (or at least in the past few titative (i.e., meta-analyses) reviews as well as
decades) has embraced liberalized trade and open perspective pieces, as long as they provided a
doors vis-a-vis Trump’s current policy of anti- comprehensive review of the literature (e.g., Tung
immigration and economic nationalism. Third, & Verbeke, 2010; Kirkman et al., 2017). Since we are
the study highlights that there can be significant interested in work on culture in IB, we excluded
differences within a given country – the 2016 reviews that focused on work in sociology (e.g.,
Presidential election has resulted in a deeply Giorgi, Lockwood, & Glynn, 2015) or psychology
divided nation, thus highlighting the error in (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007). We further decided
assuming that all Americans share the same values to only include journal articles and excluded book
and beliefs. Fourth, the study sheds light on the chapters (e.g., Gibson, Maznevski, & Kirkman,
importance of context, i.e., the important role that 2009) and other non-refereed work.
demographic factors can play in influencing voters’ Table 2 provides an overview of unresolved
attitude toward monoculturalism vis-à-vis problems, open questions, and future research
multiculturalism. directions identified in qualitative reviews of the
Table 1 summarizes the developments under the literature (Tsui et al., 2007; Leung, Bhagat, Buchan,
two major approaches to the use of culture in IB/IM Erez, & Gibson, 2005), meta-analyses (Taras, Kirk-
research. man, & Steel, 2010; Taras et al., 2012), a content-

1173
Table 1 Developments under the two major approaches to the use of culture in IB/IM research
Distance approach Dimensional approach
Socio-economic approach (Harbison & Myers, 1959) Managerial motives (Haire, Ghiselli, & Porter, 1966)
Asserts that economic development/industrialization has a Multi-country study of behavioral differences across countries,
homogenizing effect on cross-cultural differences albeit there such as leadership roles and managerial motives
are varying paths to industrialization, i.e., culture’s influence is Hofstede’s dimensions (1980)
subordinate to that of industrialization Unbundle cultural traits into ‘‘independent dimensions’’
Environmental approach (Farmer & Richman, 1964) Identification of 4 national values dimensions, accompanied by
Asserts that the institutional environment (educational, legal, country scores along each of these dimensions, based on a
political, sociological, economic development) accounts for multi-country study of IBM employees around the world. The 4
cross-country differences original dimensions are: Individualism–collectivism, power
Psychic distance distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity–femininity.
Barriers to the conduct of international trade (Beckerman, 1956) Two other dimensions were added based on Hofstede’s
Barriers, culture being one of many, to the flow of information subsequent collaborative research with others: Long- vs. short-
to/from target market (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977) term orientation; indulgence vs. restraint
Cultural distance GLOBE project (2004 and subsequent years)
Kogut and Singh’s (1988) mathematical formula for calculating Focus on the universality of culturally-based ‘‘leader attributes
cultural distance between two countries using national scores in and behavior’’
Hofstede’s dimensions Use of parallel items: ‘‘as is’’ (actual cultural practices) vis-à-vis
Institutional distance ‘‘should be’’ (aspirational values’’)
Kostova and Zaheer (1999) focuses on legitimacy-related multi- Triandis’ refinement (1996)
faceted complexities that confront MNEs, cultural adaptation Introduce construct of cultural tightness vs. looseness to
being one of them characterize the extent to which deviations from societal norms
Ghemawat (2001) identifies 4 types of distance that affect a are tolerated
firm’s overseas expansion: cultural distance, administrative and Schwartz value survey (2006)
political distance, geographic distance, and economic distance Based on worldwide survey of people’s ‘‘basic values’’/beliefs,
Berry et al. (2010) identify a 9-dimensional measure of distance Schwartz identifies 10 basic values: achievement, benevolence,
(administrative, cultural, demographic, economic, financial, conformity, hedonism, power, security, self-direction,
geographic, global connectedness, knowledge, political) as an stimulation, tradition, and universalism
‘‘improvement’’ over the Kogut-Singh’s CD index World Values Survey (1981, updated once every 5 years)
Rugman et al. (2011) propose the use of ‘‘compounded Inglehart and associates’ surveys of 100 countries worldwide that
distance’’ to highlight the need to examine the ‘‘multiplicative encompasses major cultural clusters and at different stages of
effects’’ of cultural dimensions rather than their mere economic development on 14 themes: corruption;
summation demography; economic values; ethical values/norms;
migration; political culture and regimes; political interest and
participation; post-materialism; religious values; science and
technology; security; social capital, trust and organizational
membership; social values/attitudes and stereotypes; and
societal wellbeing
analysis of published articles (Stahl & Tung, 2015), after 2000) theoretical and empirical papers that
as well as editorials (Caprar et al., 2015), commen- represent important advances in the field of culture
taries (Zaheer et al., 2012), perspectives (Kirkman, in IB, e.g., Venaik and Midgley (2015) and Leung
Lowe, & Gibson, 2006; Tung & Verbeke, 2010) and and Morris (2015), as well as work in other fields
retrospectives (Kirkman et al., 2017). Our intention (organization theory, cognitive social neuroscience,
is not to provide a comprehensive overview of the etc.) that may have been overlooked, such as Weeks
limitations, gaps and open questions in this liter- and Galunic (2003), even though they are highly
ature; rather, we will focus on those issues that have relevant, or work that sheds light on important
consistently been identified as hindering the pro- methodological advances in other fields that could
gress of the field and synthesize what we know and be beneficial for research on culture in IB, e.g.,
do not know. emerging methodologies such as neuroscience-
While nine papers are presented in Table 2, to based assessment (Waldman, Wang, & Fenters,
adequately address the issues of what we know and 2016).
do not know, we included recent (i.e., published

1174
Table 2 Contributions and future research directions identified in recent reviews
Articles Contributions Future directions

Leung et al. Challenge ‘‘assumption of cultural stability’’ (p. 361) Re-examine cultural constructs and cultural dimensions
(2005), JIBS Highlight ‘‘culture as a multi-level, multi-layer construct’’ (p. 362) Understand when culture matters: increase the precision of
cultural models (p. 367)
Utilize ‘‘experimental approaches to the study of culture’’ (p. 370)
Investigate the moderating influence of individual, group, and
situational characteristics (p. 371)
Broadening our understanding of culture (p. 373)
Kirkman et al. Synthesis of 180 empirical studies published between 1980 and Examine ‘‘similarities and differences in relationships across levels’’
(2006), JIBS 2002 using Hofstede’s dimensions (p. 285) that revealed (p. 308)
fewer and more recent studies were done at organizational than ‘‘Explore findings (within and) across countries’’ (p. 309)
individual level (p. 298) ‘‘Include theoretically relevant contextual’’ moderators (p. 309)
findings generally ‘‘reinforce Hofstede’s assertion that values are ‘‘Explore new territory in terms of predictor and criterion variables’’
related to aggregate management practices and beliefs’’ (p. (p. 310)
302) ‘‘Examine theoretically relevant cultural value interaction effects’’
‘‘conflicting findings regarding cultural distance’’ and FME entries (p. 310)
highlight the need to test ‘‘moderating effects of cultural values’’ Use primary, rather than secondary, data when assessing cultural
(p. 303) values (p. 311)
Test ‘‘for cultural values as mediators’’ (p. 312)
‘‘Focus more attention on construct, measure, and sample
equivalence’’ (p. 312)
Pay special attention to ‘‘effect sizes’’ (p. 313)
Tsui et al. Review of 93 empirical studies published between 1995 and 2005 ‘‘Consider the group property of the culture concept’’ (p. 460)
(2007), JOM in organizational behavior that used culture as the major ‘‘Consolidate cultural values – toward a configuration approach’’
explanatory variable that highlights: (p. 461)
‘‘fragmented approach without a clear paradigm or a dominant ‘‘Include national differences beyond culture – toward a
theoretical framework’’ (p. 454) polycontextual approach’’ (p. 462)
Since ‘‘few studies considered noncultural variables’’, it is difficult ‘‘Recognize the nature of the beast – toward cross-level models’’
to conclude that ‘‘observed similarities or differences in OB are (p. 465)
because of culture’’ (p. 454) ‘‘Ensure construct validity – beyond back translation and
measurement equivalence’’ (p. 466)
‘‘Go native – toward country-specific research’’ (p. 467)
‘‘Engage in long-term cross-national collaborations’’ (p. 468)
Taras et al. Meta-analysis of 598 studies using Hofstede’s original 4 Identify and use of ‘‘theoretically relevant mediators may help to
(2010), JAP dimensions and various organizational outcomes that revealed: improve the predictive power of cultural values on more distal
‘‘predictive power of cultural values was significantly lower than outcomes (i.e., use process models)’’ (p. 432)
personality traits and demographics for job performance, Move beyond cultural values as ‘‘Hofstede’s multidimensional
absenteeism and turnover but higher for organizational model may not adequately capture the complete phenomenon
commitment, identification, citizenship behavior …’’ (p. 405) of culture (as it) … ignores other aspects of culture’’ (p. 432)
‘‘cultural values most strongly related to emotions’’ (p. 405) Researchers interested in individual level of analysis should
‘‘cultural values more strongly related to outcomes for managers consider other ‘‘valid and reliable measures … (that) may be
(than students) and for older, male and more educated superior to Hofstede’s’’ (p. 433)
respondents’’ (p. 405) ‘‘Explore different facets of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions
‘‘findings were stronger for primary, rather than secondary, data’’ (e.g., Jackson et al.’s 2006 collectivism measure contains five
(p. 405) subdimensions)’’ (p. 435)
Support for ‘‘societal tightness–looseness’’ construct ‘‘Moratorium on using Hofstede’s dimensions from data collected
in the late 1960s and early 1970s’’ (p. 435)
Adopt ‘‘a multisource research design, rather than rely exclusively
on self-report, survey-based designs’’ (p. 435)
Since culture is ‘‘inherently a multilevel construct’’ (p. 430), future
research should ‘‘incorporate multilevel theories and data
analysis techniques’’ (p. 435)
Tung and Drawing upon prior published research, this editorial identifies 10 Since ‘‘weaknesses requiring reconceptualization’’ (4 masks of
Verbeke fallacious assumptions on cultural distance dimensions/measures cross-cultural studies) pose greater challenge, future research
(2010), JIBS that can be categorized under: should pay due attention to:
‘‘generic limitations (symmetry in distance scores between 2 ‘‘Intra-national differences’’ (p. 1266)
countries; stability of distance scores over time) (p. 1262) Positive impact of cultural differences
‘‘remediable weaknesses (linear relationship between distance Firm specific advantages (p. 1269)
scores and dependent variables; unambiguous causal linkage ‘‘Unbundling of cultural (or psychic) distance dimensions’’ (p.
between distance and managerial choice and performance 1269)
outcomes; equivalence of cultural distance with psychic
distance’’ (p. 1263)
‘‘weaknesses requiring reconceptualization (homogenous impact
irrespective of intra-country spatial variation; focus on negative
impact; homogenous impact irrespective of firm characteristics;
and appropriateness of aggregating individual distance
dimensions)’’ (p. 1262)

1175
Table 2 (Continued)
Articles Contributions Future directions

Zaheer et al. Commentary that argues that while most distance constructs are ‘‘Avoid oversimplification of complex relationships’’ (p. 22)
(2012), JIBS ‘‘flawed’’, ‘‘the idea of distance.. has intrinsic value’’ and offers ‘‘Test assumption of symmetry’’ (p. 22)
suggestions for rectifying these problems (p. 18). ‘‘Allow for evolution and subjectivity of distance’’ (p. 23)
‘‘Draw on mechanisms and constructs from a variety of
disciplines’’ (p. 24)
Caprar et al. Editorial that provides an ‘‘overview of past and current Researchers should avoid the following pitfalls: (p. 1015)
(2015), JIBS approaches’’ to the measurement of culture in IB/IM studies and ‘‘Use country as a proxy for culture’’
highlights the need to sufficiently acknowledge the ‘‘link between ‘‘Insufficiently articulate and/or account for different levels of
the theoretical conceptualization of culture and its measurement’’ analysis’’
(p. 1011) ‘‘Pay limited attention to ensuring equivalence of cross-cultural
samples’’
‘‘Overly emphasize an etic, vs emic, approach (i.e., assuming
universal validity of cultural dimensions while not accounting for
specific features of certain cultures)’’
‘‘Assume, rather than validate, a specific form for the dimensions
and construction of culture (e.g., formative vs reflective)’’
‘‘Omit much attention to capturing heterogeneity at the
individual level’’
Researchers should entertain multiple approaches to measuring
culture beyond surveys (p. 1017) and ‘‘calls for more innovative
cross-domain methodologies’’ (p. 1018)
Stahl and Based on a content analysis of 1,141 articles on culture in IB Proposes the use of a Positive Organizational Scholarship lens
Tung (2015), published in JIBS between 1989 and 2012, it revealed a ‘‘17:1 ratio (popular in the OB discipline) for understanding the ‘‘double-
JIBS of papers with negative assumptions vis-à-vis those with positive edged sword nature of cultural differences’’ (p. 402) to include:
ones’’, although the research findings did not support this bias (p. ‘‘understanding the effects of cultural differences within the
394). exploration–exploitation framework of organizational learning’’
‘‘Almost half of the (empirical) studies found cultural differences to (p. 403)
be either positively related to outcome variables or found mixed ‘‘a more nuanced understanding of the role of culture in IB
or inconclusive results’’ (p. 398) research’’ by ‘‘rethinking the concepts of diversity, differences
Explores reasons for focus on negatives of cultural differences, and distance and ways to measure them’’ (p. 406);
including its use as a ‘‘control rather than as the main study building ‘‘new theory and more complex models’’ (p. 407);
variable’’ (p. 400) paying greater ‘‘attention to context and process’’ (p. 407);
undertaking qualitative research (p. 409); and
learning ‘‘from practice’’ (p. 409)
Kirkman et al. Retrospective on their 2006 piece (referenced above) on research ‘‘Broaden the conceptualization of culture’’ (p. 19)
(2017), JIBS using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions by summarizing progress or ‘‘Explore other containers of culture besides country’’ (p. 21)
lack thereof, including: ‘‘Consider and incorporate multiculturalism’’ (p. 22)
‘‘Little progress in examining cultural effects across levels’’ (p. 14) ‘‘Investigate cultural change’’ (p. 22)
‘‘Very little progress in … (understanding) why cultural values ‘‘Move beyond self-report, survey-based assessments of culture
have different effects in various contexts’’, ‘‘methodological and isolating only one or two values’’ (p. 23)
sophistication of the approaches used to incorporate culture’’ (p. ‘‘Expand the focus on cultural value effects at the group/
14) organization level’’ (p. 24)
Modest to much progress in (1) ‘‘examining demographics’’,
‘‘cultural values as predictors’’; (2) avoiding the use of ‘‘country
scores on individuals’’; and (3) acknowledging that ‘‘country
cannot be used alone to assess effects of culture’’ (p. 14)
Narrow Conceptualization of Culture ‘‘trait approach’’ (i.e., treating cultural values as

and Fragmented Approach to the Study of Culture independent dimensions) has hindered the
While the concepts, tools and lens adopted by advancement of the field and call for a ‘‘configura-
researchers are undoubtedly influenced by their tion approach’’ that acknowledges that culture is
disciplinary background, unfortunately, these have not a set of independent dimensions but rather is
also limited their ability to adopt a holistic per- ‘‘the integrated, complex set of interrelated and
spective to analyze and understand culture in its potentially interactive patterns characteristic of a
entirety. An overarching theme that emerged from group of people’’ (Lytle, Brett, Barsness, Tinsley, &
the reviews and studies included in Table 2 is the Janssens, 1995: 170). The ‘‘configuration approach’’
need to broaden the conceptualization of the parallels the ‘‘compounded distance’’ construct
complex construct of culture, avoid overly simplis- proposed by Rugman et al. (2011: 758, 770) that
tic assumptions about culture, and overcome the provides a ‘‘more nuanced understanding’’ on how
fragmented approach to the study of culture. Tsui to ‘‘manage various distance dimensions simulta-
et al. (2007: 461) argue that an overreliance on the neously’’ rather than ‘‘simply add or otherwise

1176
aggregate various types of distance’’, since various (2005: 1128), building on developments in chaos
types of distances (cultural, economic, geographic and complexity theories, present a ‘‘cultural
and institutional) ‘‘are not independent of each mosaic’’ that has demographic, geographic, and
other’’. Other authors (Beugelsdijk et al., 2017; associative elements, to yield a more complex
Gibson & McDaniel, 2010; Taras et al., 2010) have picture of the cultural influences on a person.
also cautioned that, whereas most studies using Whether these ‘‘more radical’’ approaches to con-
dimensional frameworks (Hofstede, GLOBE, ceptualizing and measuring culture can contribute
Schwartz, Trompenaars, etc.) focus on a single significantly to the advancement of the field
dimension or a set of dimensions that are consid- remains to be seen; what is clear is that culture is
ered to be independent of each other, in reality, a construct that reflects the complex interaction of
multiple interdependencies and interactions exist values, cognitions, norms and institutions.
(see also Earley & Erez, 1997). To date, few attempts
have been made to examine empirically these Failure to Adopt a Multilevel Approach
theoretically meaningful and practically relevant and Insufficient Attention to Level of Analysis
interaction effects. The fragmented and over-simplistic treatment of
While the examination of interaction effects is culture in IB literature has contributed, in part at
closer to an understanding of culture as a set of least, to insufficient attention being paid to the
interrelated dimensions, it represents only a first level of analysis evident in a lot of our research,
step toward the ‘‘configuration approach’’ proposed thereby resulting in the commission of ecological
by Tsui et al. (2007), which requires analysis of the fallacy (i.e., extrapolating Hofstede’s dimensions
complex set of interrelationships between cultural intended for use at the national level to individual
dimensions and identification of patterns that are level; Bond, 2002) or atomistic fallacy where find-
characteristic of a particular cultural group. Venaik ings from the individual level are extrapolated to
and Midgley’s (2015: 1054) cultural archetypes that of the nation-state (Caprar et al., 2015). To
approach represents one such attempt. They draw avoid the commission of either ecological or
on insights from topology and matrix algebra to atomistic fallacies, multi-level approaches to the
identify cultural archetypes – ‘‘perfect examples of study of culture in IB have increasingly been
the configurations of values shared by groups of advocated (Brannen & Doz, 2010; Caprar et al.,
individuals’’ – at both the intra-national and trans- 2015; Gibson et al., 2009; Leung et al., 2005; Tsui
national levels, thereby capturing the dual emic– et al., 2007). A multilevel approach represents the
etic (insider–outsider) nature of culture. Another state-of-the-art of management research (Aguinis,
promising approach, discussed later, is Leung and Boyd, Pierce, & Short, 2011), since most phenom-
Morris’ (2015) ‘‘situated dynamics framework’’ that ena in the social sciences are inherently multi-level
integrates the values-based approach with an in nature, yet most research on culture in IB has
expanded focus on norms and schemas as addi- focused on causal relationships at a single level of
tional components of culture and explicates under analysis.
what conditions values, norms and schemas play a According to Aguinis, Gottfredson and Culpep-
more important role in determining behavior and per (2013), multilevel research can include three
other outcomes. types of relationships: (1) lower-level direct effects
Venaik and Midgley’s (2015) and Leung and (such as a hypothesized relationship between team
Morris’ (2015) approaches are both rooted in the cultural diversity and team performance); (2) cross-
traditional, values-based approach to understand- level direct effects (such as a hypothesized relation-
ing culture but transcend it – the former by looking ship between aspects of the organizational diversity
at the complex configuration of values shared by climate and team performance); and (3) cross-level
the members of a group and the latter by advocat- interaction effects (such as a hypothesized moder-
ing the use of schemas and norms in addition to ating effect of a firm’s diversity climate on the
values. Other authors see a need for a more radical relationship between team leaders’ ethnic back-
break from the dimensional and values-based ground and team performance).
approach. Devinney and Hohberger (2017: 55–59) The above examples illustrate how incomplete
attempt to conceptualize culture ‘‘outside the our understanding of the factors influencing the
boundaries of traditional theoretical and empirical dynamics and performance of culturally diverse
approaches’’ as a probabilistic behavioral manifes- teams would be if we isolated a single level of
tation with contextual elements. Chao and Moon analysis (e.g., the group level) and examined only

1177
direct effects at that particular level. To gain a Insufficient Attention to Context and Process
better understanding of how team performance is If culture-related processes and effects cross levels
affected by cultural diversity and is contingent on as they unfold and are contingent on situational
contextual factors, we need to examine factors at factors, as IB scholars have consistently demon-
the individual (e.g., team leader attributes), group strated (Erez & Gati, 2004; Gibson et al., 2009;
(e.g., how the team manages key processes, such as Kirkman et al., 2017), then what follows is the need
decision-making and communication), and organi- to duly focus on the role of context and process to
zational (e.g., the extent to which the organiza- bridge different levels of analysis. What is ‘‘context’’
tional culture supports diversity) levels and how and what is subject, and how subject and context
these factors, individually and in concert, may influence each other in cross-cultural exchanges,
promote or hinder the effectiveness of a diverse however, depend on what is the focal unit of
team (Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt, & Jonsen, 2010). analysis in a given study. If the focus is on the
Moreover, to garner insights into ‘‘cultural trans- organization (e.g., the foreign subsidiary), ‘‘con-
mission mechanisms’’ (Devinney & Hohberger, text’’ may include the cultural and institutional
2017: 54), and to build much-needed ‘‘micro-pro- environment of the country in which the sub-
cess bridges’’ (Brannen & Doz, 2010: 236), we need sidiary operates, country proximity or distance
to develop and test more complex moderated between the home and the host country, and even
mediation models that will often cross different supranational factors such as global governance
levels. Understanding the dynamics of culturally regulations that may affect subsidiary operations. If
diverse teams, and how their performance is con- we move to a lower level of analysis and look at
tingent on contextual factors, thus requires inves- individuals as ‘‘carriers of culture’’ (Caprar et al.,
tigating all three types of relationships identified by 2015: 1017), ‘‘context’’ may include variables at the
Aguinis et al. (2013), yet most research on team group, organizational, national, and global levels.
diversity has focused on causal relationships at a This requires us to think of international managers
single level of analysis. – or other individuals involved in international
Multilevel approaches to understanding and business – as embedded within groups and organi-
examining the role of culture in IB are no panacea, zations, as well as organizations embedded within
however. Although the use of multilevel models is the broader societal context and the global
appealing, as it can help bridge the much-lamented environment.
micro–macro divide in IB research (Brannen & Doz, Perhaps the most obvious reason why greater
2010), just having multiple levels does not, in itself, attention to context is needed in research on
solve the general problem of what levels of analysis culture in IB stems from the observation that,
are appropriate and how culture should be concep- across different sub-domains of IB studies (e.g.,
tualized and measured at each level. In fact, mul- market entry, international joint ventures, cross-
tilevel approaches can exacerbate the problem border knowledge transfer, etc.), the strength of the
because of their potential for inappropriate cross- relationship between cultural differences and IB
level inferences, such as the (mal)practice of simply outcomes tends to be relatively weak in practical
assigning country-level scores down to individuals terms (e.g., Leung et al., 2005; Tihanyi, Griffith, &
(Kirkman et al., 2017). The application of national- Russell, 2005). Also, cultural differences may be
level constructs to lower levels (e.g., to infer positively or negatively associated with the same
differences in organizational culture or individual outcome, contingent on contextual factors (Stahl &
values) is still common in research on the impact of Tung, 2015). This led Leung et al. (2005: 368) to
culture and cultural distance on some aspects of IB, conclude that, instead of addressing whether or not
such as cross-border knowledge transfer, the success national culture makes a difference in IB, it is more
of international alliances, or cross-cultural adjust- useful to address the situational factors of how and
ment of expatriates (see the results of Devinney & when it makes a difference (see also Tung and
Hohberger’s, 2017 bibliographic network analysis Verbeke, 2010).
of research on culture in IB). Multilevel research Unfortunately, few studies on culture in IB have
questions require adequate concepts and theoreti- systematically examined contextual moderators
cal rationales for each level of analysis, as well as (Taras et al., 2010). A notable exception is Gibson
auxiliary theories that explain connections et al. (2009) who identified a set of conditions that
between levels. operate across three different categories (individual,

1178
group, and situational characteristics) that can et al. (2017) provided additional evidence on the
moderate the impact of national culture on indi- relationship between cultural looseness–tightness
vidual perceptions, beliefs, and behavior. Under- and value consensus. Collectively, these studies
standing the extent to which the moderating show that there are certain national contexts in
factors are present in any given situation can help which culture matters more and others where it
unravel whether culture (and, if so, how) matters in matters less. Since culture-related processes and
those circumstances. effects in IB are likely influenced by a variety of
Zellmer-Bruhn and Gibson (2013) introduced the contextual factors at different levels, and modera-
concept of ‘‘intercultural interaction space’’ (IIS), tors work in concert rather than in isolation, future
which consists of physical, cognitive and affective research should examine the most critical combi-
aspects, to highlight the reality that the same nations of moderators, including those at the
external stimuli may not always elicit the same national level (e.g., cultural tightness–looseness),
pattern of behavior. Using the example of an the organizational level (e.g., strong vs. weak orga-
expatriate’s acculturation mode in a foreign envi- nizational cultures), and the individual level (e.g.,
ronment, Tung (1998) found that, in assignments psychological features of the context that will affect
to industrialized countries, North American expa- how individuals will interpret and internalize the
triates resort more to an assimilation (i.e., adapting influence of culture). The latter is important
to the majority culture) or integration (i.e., choos- because individual difference variables, such as
ing the best of both majority and minority cultures) power, status, minority group membership, and so
mode, whereas in assignments to emerging mar- on, might interact with culture-related processes at
kets, they favor a separation mode (i.e., retaining the organizational and national levels.
their minority culture). The espousal of different
acculturation modes in different contexts draws Failure to Adopt a More Dynamic View of Culture
attention to the process involved in contending A perennial question in cross-cultural management
with, rather than the mere recognition of, distance. research and work on culture in IB concerns the
The process of acculturation entails choice and the temporal stability of cultural values and cultural
adoption of commensurate actions when faced distance measures over time (see Leung et al., 2005;
with the reality of living and working in a foreign Tung & Verbeke, 2010; Zaheer et al., 2012). Inher-
land which poses the physical, cognitive and ent in most dimensional models of national culture
affective components present in IIS. are the assumptions that cultural values are
A possible reason why cultural variables some- stable constructs that endure for extended periods
times have very different effects in one context and of time and that cultural change occurs at a glacial
not in others may stem from ‘‘strong’’ vis-a-vis pace (Hofstede, 2001). This assumption has increas-
‘‘weak’’ situations. Mischel (1973) suggested that ingly been called into question. Recent geopolitical
the behavioral expression of personality disposi- and societal upheavals alluded to earlier in the
tions is likely to be suppressed by highly constrain- paper (Buckley et al., 2017; Inglehart & Norris,
ing ‘‘strong’’ situations, but that these dispositions 2016) have further accelerated the pace and scope
will be enacted in ‘‘weak’’ situations. Strong situa- of cultural change.
tions exist where there are deeply entrenched Given this reality, any measure of cultural values
behavioral norms, strong incentives for specific in IB research will be of limited durability. There is
types of behaviors, and clear expectations about ample empirical evidence to suggest that country
what behaviors are rewarded and punished (Gibson scores and cultural distance indices may lose pre-
et al., 2009). By contrast, in the absence of rules, dictive validity over time. Heuer, Cummings, and
people have more opportunity to express their Hutabarat (1999), for example, found a narrowing
dispositions, thus allowing for a wider range of over time of the differences between Indonesian
behaviors, i.e., individual differences. and American managers on individualism–collec-
Consistent with this logic, Taras et al. (2010) tivism and power distance scores, thus suggesting
proposed, and found, that relationships between cultural cross-vergence (Ralston, 2008). On a global
cultural values and outcomes would be stronger in scale, the WVS found evidence of a ‘‘massive
culturally tighter, as opposed to looser, countries cultural change’’ even within the relatively brief
because people would experience more social pres- time period covered by the data (Inglehart & Baker,
sure to act in ways that are consistent with societal 2000: 19). More recently, Taras et al. (2012), in a
values (Gelfand, Nishii, & Raver, 2006). Beugelsdijk longitudinal meta-analysis of Hofstede’s

1179
dimensions, uncovered dramatic shifts in cultural considerably among the countries. The biggest
values when compared with the original data shifts have been observed for those countries that
reported in Culture’s Consequences. To give one experienced changes in their political and eco-
example, they found that South Korea’s score on nomic systems, such as China, the nations that
individualism has risen considerably, from 18 in comprised the former Soviet Union, and emerging
1960 to 61 in 2000. markets of Latin America. At the same time,
Kirkman et al. (2017: 23) have hypothesized changes are slower for most ‘‘older democracies’’
various reasons for these shifts, such as South such as the US and Western Europe. Second, as
Korea’s modernization which has been accompa- Beugelsdijk et al. (2017) noted, relatively stable cul-
nied by a decreased emphasis on Confucian prin- tural differences do not necessarily imply that the
ciples, resulting in changes in other dimensions, effect of cultural distance on IB phenomena remains
such as a major decrease in uncertainty avoidance unchanged.
(i.e., from 85 to 37) and an increase in masculinity Furthermore, while the relative ranking and
(i.e., from 39 to 62). Importantly, Taras et al.’s cultural distance scores for many countries may
(2012) meta-analysis revealed that Hofstede’s scores have remained stable as a result of countries
always had the strongest correlations with mea- moving in the same direction, the underlying
sures of societal progress (e.g., indicators of human drivers of change may vary across countries. For
development, political freedom, GDP/capita, gen- example, China, Sweden, the Czech Republic and
der equality, and innovation) obtained in the 1980s most countries in South America have all become
and the weakest correlations with measures repre- more individualistic but likely for different reasons
senting the 2000s. If this trend were to continue, (Taras et al., 2012). Uncovering why and how these
‘‘none of Hofstede’s scores will have a recognizable shifts are occurring, and linking them to changes in
connection to the world’s culture by 2050’’ (Taras the political, social and institutional environment,
et al., 2012: 337). represents a promising avenue for future research.
While there is overwhelming evidence that the
cultures of the world are changing, the pattern and Equating Country with Culture and Failure
direction of change remain uncertain. Through a to Explore Other ‘‘Containers’’ of Culture
longitudinal study examining Hofstede’s country IB and cross-cultural management scholars (Caprar
scores on two birth cohorts using WVS data, et al., 2015; Tsui et al., 2007) have increasingly
Beugelsdijk, Maseland and Hoorn (2015) found criticized the common, but questionable, practice
that, while cultural values did change, national of equating country with culture – a practice that
cultural distance scores remained relatively Taras, Steel, & Kirkman (2016) termed ‘‘passport’’
stable over time. Their results suggest that, in approach – for two reasons. One, this approach fails
general, societies have become more individualis- to take into account possible within-country vari-
tic, less hierarchical, and more indulgent, but, since ation and between-country similarities (Tung &
the majority of the countries have moved in the Verbeke, 2010). Two, it neglects other factors
same direction, the relative country ranking and beyond national culture that may account for
the cultural distance remained fairly stable over differences across national boundaries, such as
time. different institutional settings. For example, Witt
In interpreting these findings, it is important to and Stahl (2016) proposed that, because corpora-
note several caveats. First, although the relative tions and their leaders are embedded in different
ranking of countries on Hofstede’s dimensions and institutional and cultural environments, they will
other cultural difference measures may have experience different degrees of pressure to engage
remained relatively stable, some countries (e.g., in socially responsible practices and embrace dif-
South Korea) have apparently escaped the general ferent societal values related to corporate responsi-
trend so that they have, in fact, changed relative bility. Their findings suggest that the coordinated
positions in the global distribution of cultural market economies of Germany, Japan, and Korea,
values. Taras et al.’s (2012) meta-analysis suggests despite significant cultural differences between the
that, while overall there was a gradual increase in three countries, have more in common in terms of
individualism and a decrease in power distance, corporate responsibility, stakeholder orientation,
masculinity and uncertainty avoidance, the pace and civic engagement than the liberal market
and, in some cases, the direction of the change vary economies of the US and Hong Kong.

1180
Different sets of institutional arrangements may Western-Centric

thus suppress or even wipe out the influence of Finally, another limitation of existing work on
national culture on individual orientations and culture in IB is that cultural concepts and para-
organizational practices, suggesting the need to digms that are widely used in our field today are
include non-cultural factors to isolate the influence Western-centric. Both Triandis and Bond pointed
of culture (Tsui et al., 2007). Taras et al. (2016) to the limitations of such an approach. This
identified a range of other superior clustering recognition may have stemmed from the fact that
dimensions relative to country, and asserted that both men have lived and worked extensively in
demographic, social, economic or institutional other societies.
characteristics may be better ‘‘containers’’ for cul- Even though the number of non-Western
ture than nationality alone. Similarly, Peterson, researchers in IB and cross-cultural management
Søndergaard and Kara (2017) offered a range of has recently increased, most of them are still
ecological, institutional, and critical events expla- trained in the Western tradition. There is an
nations for cultural characteristics and boundaries, emerging trend among Western-trained non-Wes-
suggesting that while countries overlap with cul- tern scholars to advocate the need to entertain
tural groups to a considerable degree, boundaries perspectives that have emanated from non-Western
apart from countries shape IB phenomena. traditions. For example, Chen’s (2016: 510) recon-
The foregoing arguments call for a ‘‘polycontex- ceptualization of ‘‘competitive dynamics’’, which
tual approach’’ to cross-cultural studies and pose refers to ‘‘cooperative and relational modes of
important questions about the relationship interfirm engagement’’ with stakeholders, illus-
between culture and other national differentiators, trates one way in which non-Western paradigms
including aspects of the political, economic, social, can help reframe and spark new research ideas and
and institutional environment. For example, insti- insights in our field. Similarly, Li (2016) suggested
tutional arrangements such as the education sys- how ‘‘yin-yang balancing’’, a Chinese philosophical
tem, employment relationships and the role of the tradition, can be fruitfully applied to paradox
state shape organizational practices and routines management where international firms have to
and can explain their diffusion and spread within contend with seemingly paradoxical strategies,
and across countries, and they also influence such as ‘‘glocalization’’ and ‘‘coopetition’’.
individual preferences, attitudes and values (Aguil- The need to consider non-Western centric tradi-
era & Jackson, 2010). Institutional similarity tions and paradigms may take on extra urgency in
between countries can thus lead to value similarity light of recent developments on the geopolitical
between them due to ‘‘institutional transmission’’ landscape. As noted at the beginning of the paper,
(Peterson and Barreto, 2015: 26). many have been concerned about the rising trend
Aside from the above arguments, another reason toward deglobalization. Tselichtchev (2017) argues
why country should not be equated with culture is that globalization is not dead; rather, globalization
the need to take into account possible within- has a new champion and a new power base,
country variation. A meta-analysis of studies using namely, China and Asia, respectively. The China-
Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture found led ‘‘Belt Road’’ initiative that extends from China
that, depending on the dimension, as much as westward through Central Asia, the Middle and
70%–90% of variance in cultural values resides Near East to Europe has gained ascendancy (Tung,
within countries, with only 10%–30% of variance 2016c). These Asian-led initiatives will, undoubt-
residing between countries (Steel & Taras, 2010). edly, take on characteristics that are different from
Even more dramatic are the results of Gerhart and ones originating from the West; hence, the need to
Fang (2005), who, based on a reanalysis of Hofst- adopt non-Western-centric lenses to understand
ede’s data, showed that country of residence these developments.
accounted for only 4% of the variance in survey
responses. These studies support earlier research on
intra-cultural diversity (e.g., Au & Cheung, 2004). WHERE WE ARE HEADED: IMPORTANT
This reality has led to Peterson et al.’s (2017: 1) TRENDS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE
suggestion to study ‘‘subcultural groups’’ to unravel RESEARCH
the ‘‘complex mix of correspondence and disconti- To address the unresolved issues that continue to
nuity between country and cultural group plague the use of culture in IB research raised in the
boundaries’’. previous section, changes need to be made along

1181
several fronts: theoretical, conceptual, method- laboratory experiments and neuroscience methods,
ological, and empirical. In our final section, we discussed later.
focus on two areas where significant advances are Despite their recognition that different psycho-
needed: one pertains to broadening the way that logical mechanisms may be triggered by the situa-
we have defined culture thus far, thereby affecting tional context, Leung and Morris’ (2015) paradigm
the way that it is measured. The other relates to is more suitable for use at the individual level of
expanding the range of research methods beyond analysis. This is understandable given their back-
what is currently popular to gain greater insights ground as cross-cultural psychologists. In light of
into the way that culture affects outcomes at the macro-focus of many topics under investigation
different levels of analysis. in the IB literature, the addition of schemas and
norms to understanding culture may have a more
Broadening the Definition of Culture limited application. Thus, alternative approaches to
Leung and Morris (2015: 1029–1031) advocated the viewing culture at the macro-level are still needed.
use of schemas and norms in addition to values. Another conceptualization of cross-national cul-
Schemas serve as ‘‘cognitive lenses … that guide … ture that has not yet been introduced into the IB
interpretations, expectancies, and responses’’ but literature, but which holds promise, is ‘‘memes’’.
differ from values, in that they come into play The term was coined by Dawkins, a biologist, that
‘‘only at moments when they are activated’’. Norms, has already garnered research attention in the fields
on the other hand, gain ascendancy when ‘‘people of anthropology, law, philosophy, psychology and
assimilate … to the group norm … to avoid social psychology. While controversial, Dawkins
negative judgments by others’’ (Leung & Morris, suggested the extension of ‘‘phenotype’’ studies to
2015: 1033). In their opinion, these three ideas, a cornerstone of culture (Gleick, 2011).
approaches are complementary and, collectively, Weeks and Galunic (2003: 1317, 1324) used memes
they can yield a more comprehensive picture of as an ‘‘umbrella term’’ to describe ‘‘cultural modes
cultural differences. They presented a ‘‘situated of thought: values, beliefs, assumptions, know-
dynamics framework’’ to identify the conditions how, and so on’’ and have applied memes to the
in which each of the three psychological mecha- study of organizational culture. According to them,
nisms becomes more salient: values ‘‘prevail … (in) ‘‘(c)ulture results from the expression of memes,
the absence of social adaptation signals’’; schemas their enactment in patterns of behavior and lan-
gain ascendancy in the face of ‘‘situational cues’’ (as guage and so forth’’. Expression/enactment of
found in priming experiments); and norms gain memes involves selection, variation, and replication
prominence in situations that involve ‘‘social eval- (Weeks & Galunic, 2003). Blackmore (2000: 53)
uation’’ (Leung & Morris, 2015: 1028, 1037). likened memes to genes, insofar as ‘‘the copying of
The contributions of Leung and Morris’ frame- memes from one person to another is imperfect,
work are primarily four-fold: first, while recogniz- just as the copying of genes from parent to child is
ing the contribution of Hofstede’s dimensions, they sometimes inaccurate’’, thus allowing for variations
urge the field to move beyond the narrower defi- or intra-national diversity within countries.
nition of culture as values. Second, it addresses the Since memes is a new construct, there can be
unresolved issues of situationality by highlighting many challenges associated with its use in the IB
the role of context. In this way, it acknowledges the and cross-cultural management literature, concep-
reality of intra-national diversity as well as intra- tual- and methodological-wise.4 However, the con-
individual differences (see Tung, 2016b). Third, struct merits attention because the attributes
their framework draws heavily upon both authors’ associated with memes – replication, variation,
research that involves Asian (particularly, Chinese) and selection – can address some of the unresolved
samples and, as such, may address, to some extent, issues associated with the definition and measure-
the criticism that cultural paradigms used widely in ment of culture identified in the preceding sec-
the IB literature are primarily Western-centric. tion. Replication addresses the issue of
Finally, many of the assumptions inherent in the continuation/dominance of certain norms and
‘‘situated dynamics framework’’ lend themselves to values among members of a given society, the
rigorous empirical testing through alternative cornerstone of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions.
methodological approaches that have only been Variation allows for intra-national differences as
sporadically used in cross-cultural research, such as well as intra-individual differences. Some possible
sources of variation identified by Weeks and

1182
Galunic (2003: 1332) – ‘‘gender, race, age, nation- immigration/emigration, the external stimuli could
ality, and socio-economic background’’ – happen to be the presence/enactment of policies or legisla-
be the ones that Inglehart and Norris (2016) found tions deemed (un)favorable and/or (un)accept-
to be most significant in explaining the divide in able by the employee/immigrant or emigrant,
the 2016 US presidential election. respectively.
Another source of variation that Weeks and In short, while Blackmore (2000: 53) was speak-
Galunic (2003: 1334) identified is ‘‘meme recombi- ing of the potentials of memes in the scientific
nation’’, or the ‘‘way in which new phenotypic context, we share her optimism that memes may
effects are created from existing memes’’. In the ‘‘prove immensely useful to explaining our unique
context of the IB literature, this recombination can attributes and the rise of our elaborate cultures and
occur in a multitude of situations: One, in multi- societies’’. Memes to societies and organizations are
cultural teams where people from different back- what ‘‘genetic codes’’ are to living organisms. In
grounds have to work together, team members may phenotypes, our genetic code guides growth, devel-
modify/fine tune their thinking/behavior to opment and functioning. In the societal/organiza-
accommodate differences within the group to work tional/individual context, cultural memes become
as a concerted whole. Two, in the context of cross- the true ‘‘software of the mind’’, to use Hofstede’s
national acculturation, there are four possible terms, to guide actions. Unlike the Leung and
modes: assimilation, integration, isolation and Morris’ (2015) framework that is appropriate for use
marginalization (Berry, 1997). Integration, the at the individual level of analysis, ‘‘memes’’ can be
most functional mode of acculturation, occurs applied at different levels of analysis – national,
where a member of a minority group, e.g., a organizational and individual – and are yet consis-
migrant or an expatriate who is sent to work in a tent and complementary with values, schemas and
foreign country, thrives by selecting and keeping norms. This attribute makes ‘‘memes’’ useful to the
the best elements from both his/her own culture as study of culture as a multi-level construct.
well as that of the host country (for details, see Furthermore, through attention to processes, i.e.,
Berry, 1997; Tung, 1998). Three, in the case of the selection, variation, and replication aspects of
biculturals/multiculturals, Benet-Martinez and Har- memes, their use can possibly redress a limitation
itatos (2005) have shown that they vary along the associated with existing behavioral paradigms dis-
bi-cultural identity index (BII). People high in BII cussed earlier, as they help ‘‘capture the extent to
tend to draw upon the best of both cultures and, in which the individual interprets and internalizes’’
the process, experience less conflict between the external stimuli (Caprar et al., 2015: 1014–1015).
opposing values and norms associated with the two The attention to process associated with memes is
cultural backgrounds of which they are a part, consistent with research in cognitive psychology
whereas, those low in BII are more susceptible to which shows that the ‘‘human mind … is engaged
the tensions of two opposing systems. in active, dynamic interaction with the environ-
The third attribute of memes, selection, is evident ment’’ (Leung et al., 2005: 366–367).
in the following. First, in the four modes of Given the complexity and broad conceptualiza-
acculturation discussed earlier when a person has tion of culture, the ‘‘situated dynamics framework’’
to interact with culturally dissimilar people, the and memes should not be viewed as mutually
individual has to choose whether to separate, exclusive; rather, they can be combined to further
integrate, assimilate, or be marginalized. Second, advance the study of culture in IB and cross-
employees decide to join or leave organizations cultural management. Since both approaches call
they are attracted to or disillusioned with; similarly, attention to a process that highlights the interac-
people choose to immigrate/emigrate to/from tion between components that make up a system,
countries that exhibit societal–cultural values they represent a more holistic perspective.
which they cherish/disagree with. And third, a
subject’s response is triggered by the external Research Methods
stimuli used in priming experiments discussed The majority of studies on culture in IB/IM are
later. In the case of acculturation, the external characterized by an over-reliance on self-report
stimuli would be the presence of a majority culture; measures, particularly large-scale surveys. Given
in the case of organizational turnover/ the complexity of the research questions addressed,

1183
and the need for greater attention to process and assets are ‘‘people-dependent’’, they are more sus-
context, we need to adopt a multi-method ceptible to ‘‘misconstrued meanings’’ as they are
approach that draws on an array of research design more ingrained in the ‘‘sociocultural context of the
options and methods, including qualitative meth- recipient culture’’ (Brannen, 2004: 597). Using the
ods. While there have been periodic calls for more native categories of ‘‘gender’’ and ‘‘work’’ in the case
widespread use of qualitative methods in the of the Cowley Works where women comprise only
conduct of IB research (see, e.g., Birkinshaw, Bran- 7–10 percent of the labor force, Moore (2014:
nen, & Tung, 2011), to date, publications that 227–228) showed that the British ‘‘native cate-
adopt this approach are greatly outnumbered by gories’’ of gender and work accounted for the
those that are quantitative in nature. To determine reluctance of women to seek employment in an
whether the new approaches to conceptualizing automotive manufacturing plant as they ‘‘feel that
culture presented in the preceding section can they were (not) an accepted and valued part of the
advance the state of cross-cultural research, it is workforce’’.
imperative that we adopt research methods that In Brannen’s (2004: 593, 595) view, semiotics
have thus far been underutilized in our field. These plays a key role in ‘‘recontextualization’’. Semiotics
include the wider use of: (1) emic approaches, refers to ‘‘the study of how language produces
including ethnographic studies, to deepen under- meaning in situated contexts’’ and language can
standing of the causes and consequences of culture serve ‘‘as a conduit for gaining deep contextual
and cultural differences; (2) experimental designs knowledge … to explore the dynamic, interactive,
that are popular in the experimental economics intertextual’’ nature of interactions of people from
and psychological literature but less so in IB and different backgrounds.
cross-cultural management; (3) emerging method- In the preceding discussion on unresolved issues
ologies such as neuroscience-based assessment that in IB research, we identified the need for a deeper
could provide enhanced ecological validity in understanding of the interplay between culture and
measurement that is not feasible with traditional context. As Brannen and Doz (2010: 244) noted,
approaches; and (4) replication studies. ‘‘this in turn would provide us with the much
needed intermediate level-of-analysis that would
Etic and emic explicate individuals in collaborating across con-
The etic approach (outsider perspective) is favored texts that so far has largely eluded … the research-
in comparative management, such as that of Hof- ers steeped in cross-cultural studies.’’ To accomplish
stede’s dimensional paradigm. The emic approach this, we may have to be more receptive to method-
(insider perspective) is used by ethnographers who ologies less utilized in our field.
seek to explore a specific group/societal culture
(Morris, Leung, Ames, & Lickel, 1999). To date, the Experimental designs
preponderance of publications in our top journals While randomized experiments are popular in the
has adopted the etic approach. Of the 136 empirical experimental economics and psychological litera-
papers on culture published in JIBS publications tures where student samples are frequently used,
over 24 years that met the criteria for content they are rare in the management literature (Col-
analysis by Stahl & Tung (2015), only 2 (both quitt, 2008) and, perhaps, even more so in the IB
qualitative in nature) adopted the emic approach. and cross-cultural management literatures (Reeb,
Moore (2014) provided an example of how her Sakakibara and Mahmood, 2012). This practice may
ethnographic study at BMW’s mini plant, Cowley be changing, however. In a recent JIBS editorial,
Works, in the UK has helped shed light on the Meyer, van Witteloostuijn and Beugelsdijk (2017)
contributions of ‘‘native categories’’ (in this case, argued for the use of experimental designs where
gender and work) and ‘‘recontextualization’’ (Bri- variables can be controlled and manipulated in a
tish workers vis-à-vis German expatriate managers) systematic manner. Experimental designs are better
to cross-cultural management and diversity able to show causality between and among vari-
research. Native categories are ‘‘self-generated and ables of interest, which is conducive to model
valid in any local context’’ (Buckley & Chapman, building and refinement and, ultimately, prescrip-
1997: 283). ‘‘Recontextualization’’ refers to the tions for best practices.
reality that, because the ‘‘softer’’ aspects of a firm’s

1184
While some concerns associated with the use of Although the emerging field of cultural neuro-
student (particularly, undergraduate) samples and science is still in its infancy, studies (e.g., Freeman,
laboratory experimental designs are valid, to better Rule, Adams, & Ambady, 2009) demonstrate a clear
understand the causal relationships between vari- linkage between individual cultural orientations,
ables and to enhance internal validity, their use is brain activation patterns, and behavior. Recent
justified where the objective is to trigger the work in the field of organizational cognitive neu-
salience of certain conditions/situations, such as roscience pertaining to managerial decision-mak-
testing the ‘‘situated dynamics framework’’ ing, leadership, and team-based processes seems
advanced by Leung and Morris (2015). Priming or highly relevant to IB/cross-cultural management
the utilization of experimental stimuli – such as an research, particularly at the microfoundation’s
American flag and a Chinese dragon – have been level. For example, Waldman et al. (2013), using a
used extensively and successfully to determine business case involving child labor issues facing a
which identity becomes more salient in Chinese– MNC operating in a developing country (Levi
American biculturals who possess two or more Strauss in Bangladesh), employed wireless qEEG
identities (Benet-Martinez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, technology to examine ethical decision-making
2002; Hong, Benet-Martinez, Chiu, & Morris, within a culturally diverse team. These examples
2003). This supports Buckley, Devinney and Lou- serve to illustrate that the use of neuroscience-
viere’s (2007: 1087–1088) assertion that the IB field based methods could enhance our understanding
can benefit by borrowing research designs popular of a range of IB/cross-cultural management
in cognitive psychology and the rising field of phenomena.
experimental economics to study ‘‘the role of the
individual decision-makers’’. Replication studies
In general, most top journals in IB/IM do not
Neuroscience-based methods publish replication studies because of their pur-
Although traditional methods such as interviews, ported lack of original contribution. However,
surveys, and laboratory experiments can be useful given the inconsistent findings in our field, such
for studying individual-level processes in cross- as whether cultural distance or team diversity has a
cultural settings, emerging methodologies such as positive or negative effect on performance (see
neuroscience-based assessment (Waldman et al., Stahl & Tung, 2015), replication studies can facil-
2016) could provide enhanced ecological validity itate the attainment of ‘‘high levels of scientific
in measurement that is not feasible with these credibility’’ (Ioannidis, 2012: 646). While techni-
conventional approaches. In the growing field of cally not a replication study, Minkov et al.’s (2017)
social/organizational cognitive neuroscience, the use of a modified questionnaire of Hofstede’s
use of neurosensing methods is rapidly gaining individualism–collectivism dimension on a differ-
recognition as a tool for studying the neural ent sample helped refine a widely-used cultural
patterns of human interactions and ascertain neu- dimension that has been criticized as outdated and
rologically-based reactions, such as empathy, social as having weak internal validity.
awareness, positive/negative effects and moral rea-
soning (Dulebohn et al., 2016; Hannah, Balthazard,
Waldman, Jennings, & Thatcher, 2013). In the field CONCLUSION
of cross-cultural management, the use of light- Culture is as ancient as civilization. In fact, culture
weight, wireless qEEG5 devices would make it coexists with civilization as culture cannot exist in
possible to study how individual-level processes the absence of a societal group. At the same time, a
that are not directly observable or cannot be validly civilization cannot persist without some ‘‘software’’
assessed through psychometric testing (e.g., cul- that guides all aspects of the societal group’s
tural empathy) may influence individual-, group- functioning. Despite culture’s significance in IB/
and organizational-level processes, such as accul- cross-cultural management, we are still confronted
turation in expatriates, the dynamics of culturally with unresolved issues in cross-cultural research
diverse teams, and the level of conflict in cross- after several decades of research on culture. It is
border mergers, to name a few. little wonder that the frustration of researchers who

1185
seek to understand the impact of culture on IB entertain these new perspectives. Otherwise, we
phenomena is both genuine and palpable. This risk perpetuating our inability to capture phenom-
frustration has resulted in one of two possible ena as they really are. This willingness to grapple
responses: one, to ignore/downplay the role of with unfamiliar (and challenging) concepts and
culture; or, two, reduce culture to its simplest methodologies explains why we have characterized
components for ease of incorporation in our our study of culture in IB research as a ‘‘tortuous
research. evolution’’.
This paper has argued for a need to venture While change can be ‘‘tortuous’’, it can also bring
beyond our own disciplinary background/training opportunities. In the field of IB, we have borrowed
and adopt a more holistic approach to broadening heavily from theories, constructs and paradigms
the definition of culture, and to use methodologies from other disciplines, such as economics, psychol-
that are less preferred in our field. In addition, since ogy, sociology and anthropology. Broadening the
cultural studies are, by definition, global in nature, conceptualization of culture through memes,
we have to move beyond Western-centric con- Leung and Morris’ (2015: 205) ‘‘situated dynamics
structs, theories and paradigms and search for framework’’, and other new approaches discussed
inspirations from non-Western traditions that in this article, and embracing a diversity of research
may offer alternative and complementary insights. methodologies to study culture, can represent a
The I Ching (Book of Change), a Chinese philosoph- step in the right direction to render a more bilateral
ical text that has received worldwide attention, flow of knowledge between IB and the root disci-
advocates a holistic perspective that highlights the plines that many of our researchers hail from.
interaction among components that make up a
system. Holistic thinking is not the forte of Western
researchers and, hence, by and large, sidelined in
our literature (Lee, 2017). A holistic perspective NOTES
holds the potential for allowing us to adequately 1
and accurately capture a phenomenon as it is and, Given space limitations and the primary objec-
perhaps more importantly, in its entirety, thereby tive of this paper, not all works on institutional
addressing head on the reality that culture is a distance are covered here. Instead, only some of the
multi-level construct. most salient studies are identified.
2
Buckley et al. (2017) stressed the need for IB There are multiple types of cultures: corporate/
research to embrace interdisciplinary research organizational culture, cross-national culture, and
methods and multi-level approaches to study phe- professional culture, to name a few. Corporate/
nomena-based and -driven research, such as the rise organizational culture refers to the ‘‘shared beliefs
of economic nationalism and income equality (in top managers in a company have about how they
short, grand challenges) that we have alluded to in should manage themselves and other employees,
this paper. In their opinion, this can help bring and how they should conduct their business(es)’’
about a ‘‘renaissance in international business (Lorsch, 1986: 95).
3
research’’ to attain a bilateral or multilateral As in the case of distance dimensions, given
exchange of theories and research methodologies space limitations and the primary objective of this
with other disciplines. The perspectives presented paper, the works on value dimensions covered here
in this paper on the reframing of studies of culture is not intended to be comprehensive. Instead, only
can facilitate this multilateral exchange of the most salient studies are presented here.
4
knowledge. Many of these issues are unresolved and will not
Throughout this paper, we have alluded to how be addressed here. The objective here is to present
the fragmented, discipline-based approach to the this as a viable alternative to the study of culture as
study of culture to date continues to resemble the a multi-level construct.
5
futile exercise by the six blind men to describe an According to David Waldman, one of the
elephant. While most researchers are uncomfort- pioneers in the emerging field of organizational
able with change, to genuinely advance the field, neuroscience, as long as informed consent and
we have to bite the bullet, and be willing to HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and

1186
Accountability Act) procedures are followed, there assessment, no discomfort, and no health risk
are no ethical issues related to the use of qEEG (Waldman, personal communication, October 21,
assessment. There is no ‘‘invasiveness’’ with a qEEG 2017).
REFERENCES
Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. 2010. Comparative and interna- making. Journal of International Business Studies, 38:
tional corporate governance. Academy of Management Annals, 1069–1094.
4(1): 485–556. Buckley, P. J., Doh, J. P., & Benischke, M. H. 2017. Towards a
Aguinis, H., Boyd, B. K., Pierce, C. A., & Short, J. C. 2011. renaissance in international business research? Big questions,
Walking new avenues in management research methods and grand challenges, and the future of IB scholarship. Journal of
theories: Bridging micro and macro domains. Journal of International Business Studies, 48: 1045–1064.
Management, 37(2): 395–403. Caprar, D. V., Devinney, T. M., Kirkman, B. L., & Caligiuri,
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Culpepper, S. A. 2013. Best- P. 2015. Conceptualizing and measuring culture in interna-
practice recommendations for estimating cross-level interac- tional business and management: From challenges to poten-
tion effects using multilevel modeling. Journal of Management, tial solutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(9):
39(6): 1490–1528. 1011–1027.
Argyris, C. 1967. Review of Haire, M., Ghiselli, E. E., & Porter, L. Chambers, E. G., Foulon, M., Handfield-Jones, H., Hankin, S. M.,
W. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1): 176–179. & Michaels, E. G. 1998. The war for talent. McKinsey Quarterly,
Au, K., & Cheung, M. W. 2004. Intra-cultural variation and job 3: 44–57.
autonomy in 42 countries. Organization Studies, 25(8): Chao, G. T., & Moon, H. 2005. The cultural mosaic: A
1339–1362. metatheory for understanding the complexity of culture.
Beckerman, W. 1956. Distance and the pattern of intra- Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6): 1128.
European trade. The Review of Economics and Statistics, Chen, M. J. 2016. Competitive dynamics: Eastern roots, Western
38(1): 31–40. growth. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 23(4):
Benet-Martinez, V., & Haritatos, J. 2005. Bicultural identity 510–530.
integration (BII): Components and psychological antecedents. Colquitt, J. A. 2008. From the editors: Publishing laboratory
Journal of Personality, 73: 1015–1050. research in AMJ – A question of when, not if. Academy of
Benet-Martinez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. W. 2002. Management Journal, 51: 616–620.
Negotiating biculturalism: Cultural frame switching in bicul- Devinney, T. M., & Hohberger, J. 2017. The past is prologue:
turals with oppositional versus compatible identities. Journal of Moving on from culture’s consequences. Journal of Interna-
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5): 492–516. tional Business Studies, 48(1): 48–62.
Berry, J. W. 1997. Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Dulebohn, J. H., Davison, R. B., Lee, S. A., Conlon, D. E.,
Applied Psychology, 46(1): 5–34. McNamara, G., & Sarinopoulos, I. C. 2016. Gender differ-
Berry, H., Guillén, M. F., & Zhou, N. 2010. An institutional ences in justice evaluations: Evidence from fMRI. Journal of
approach to cross-national distance. Journal of International Applied Psychology, 101(2): 151.
Business Studies, 41: 1460–1480. Dunning, J. H. 1988. The eclectic paradigm of international
Beugelsdijk, S., Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2017. An overview of production: A restatement of some possible extensions.
Hofstede-inspired country-level culture research in interna- Journal of International Business Studies, 19(1): 1–31.
tional business since 2006. Journal of International Business Earley, P. C., & Erez, M. 1997. The transplanted executive.
Studies, 48(1): 30–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beugelsdijk, S., Maseland, R., & Hoorn, A. 2015. Are scores on Erez, M., & Gati, E. 2004. A dynamic, multi-level model of
Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture stable over time? A culture: From the micro level of the individual to the macro
cohort analysis. Global Strategy Journal, 5(3): 223–240. level of a global culture. Applied Psychology: An International
Birkinshaw, J., Brannen, M. Y., & Tung, R. L. 2011. From a Review, 53(4): 583–598.
distance and generalizable to up close and grounded: Farmer, R. N., & Richman, B. M. 1964. A model for research in
Reclaiming a place for qualitative methods in international comparative management. California Management Review,
business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 7(2): 55–68.
42(5): 573–581. Freeman, J. B., Rule, N. O., Adams, R. B., Jr., & Ambady, N.
Blackmore, S. 2000. The power of memes. Scientific American, 2009. Culture shapes a mesolimbic response to signals of
283(4): 52–61. dominance and subordination that associates with behavior.
Bond, M. H. 2002. Reclaiming the individual from Hofstede’s Neuroimage, 47(1): 353–359.
ecological analysis – a 20-year odyssey: Comment on Oyser- Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. 2007. Cross-cultural
man et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128(1): 73–77. organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58:
Brannen, M. Y. 2004. When Mickey loses face: Recontextualiza- 479–514.
tion, semantic fit, and the semiotics of foreignness. Academy of Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., & Raver, J. L. 2006. On the nature
Management Review, 29(4): 593–616. and importance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of
Brannen, M. Y., & Doz, Y. L. 2010. From a distance and Applied Psychology, 91(6): 1225–1244.
detached to up close and personal: Bridging strategic and Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B.
cross-cultural perspectives in international management C., et al. 2011. Differences between tight and loose cultures: A
research and practice. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033): 1100–1104.
26(3): 236–247. George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. 2016.
Buckley, P. J., & Chapman, M. 1997. The use of native Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through
categories in management research. British Journal of Man- management research. Academy of Management Journal,
agement, 8(4): 283–299. 59(6): 1880.
Buckley, P. J., Devinney, T. M., & Louviere, J. J. 2007. Do Gerhart, B., & Fang, M. 2005. National culture and human
managers behave the way theory suggests? A choice-theoretic resource management: Assumptions and evidence.
examination of foreign direct investment location decision-

1187
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(6): Hofstede’s approaches. Journal of International Business Stud-
971–986. ies, 37(6): 897–914.
Ghemawat, P. 2001. Distance still matters: The hard reality of Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. 1977. The internationalization process
global expansion. Harvard Business Review, 79(8): 137–147. of the firm – A model of knowledge development and
Gibson, C. B., Maznevski, M. L., & Kirkman, B. L. 2009. When increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of Interna-
does culture matter? In R. S. Bhagat & R. M. Steers (Eds), tional Business Studies, 8(1): 23–32.
Handbook of Culture, Organizations, and Work: 46–68. Cam- Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. 2009. The Uppsala internationalization
bridge: Cambridge University Press. process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability
Gibson, C. B., & McDaniel, D. M. 2010. Moving beyond of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9):
conventional wisdom: Advancements in cross-cultural theories 1411–1431.
of leadership, conflict, and teams. Perspectives on Psychological Kerr, C., Dunlop, J. T., Harbison, F. H., & Myers, C. A. 1971.
Science, 5(4): 450–462. Postscript to ‘‘individualism and industrial man’’. International
Giorgi, S., Lockwood, C., & Glynn, M. A. 2015. The many faces Labor Review, 103(6): 519–540.
of culture: Making sense of 30 years of research on culture in Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. 2006. A quarter
organization studies. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1): century of culture’s consequences: A review of empirical
1–54. research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework.
Gleick, J. 2011. What defines a meme? Smithsonian Magazine. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3): 285–320.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/what-defines- Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. 2017. A retrospec-
a-meme-1904778/. Accessed June 27, 2012. tive on culture’s consequences: The 35-year journey. Journal of
Haire, M., Ghiselli, E. E., & Porter, L. W. 1966. Managerial International Business Studies, 48(1): 12–29.
thinking: An international study. New York: Wiley. Kluckholn, C., & Strodtbeck, F. 1961. Variations in value
Hall, E. T. 1969. The hidden dimension (Vol. 1990). New York: orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Anchor. Kogut, B., & Singh, H. 1988. The effect of national culture on
Hannah, S. T., Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., Jennings, P. L., the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business
& Thatcher, R. W. 2013. The psychological and neurological Studies, 19(3): 411–432.
bases of leader self-complexity and effects on adaptive Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. 1999. Organizational legitimacy under
decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(3): 393. conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational
Harbison, F., & Myers, C. A. 1959. Management in the industrial enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1): 64–81.
world: An international analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lee, H. J. 2017. Thinking style across cultures: An interview with
Heuer, M., Cummings, J. L., & Hutabarat, W. 1999. Cultural Richard Nisbett. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 24(1):
stability or change among managers in Indonesia? Journal of 99–104.
International Business Studies, 30(3): 599–610. Leung, K., Bhagat, R. S., Buchan, N. R., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. B.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differ- 2005. Culture and international business: Recent advances
ences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage, CA. and their implications for future research. Journal of Interna-
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s recent consequences: Using tional Business Studies, 36: 357–378.
dimension scores in theory and research. International Journal Leung, K., & Morris, M. W. 2015. Values, schemas, and norms in
of cross cultural management, 1(1): 11–17. the culture–behavior nexus: A situated dynamics framework.
Hofstede, G. J. 2015. Culture’s causes: The next challenge. Cross Journal of International Business Studies, 46(9): 1028–1050.
Cultural & Strategic Management, 22(4): 545–569. Li, P. P. 2016. Global implications of the indigenous epistemo-
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. 1988. The Confucius connection: logical system from the east: How to apply yin-yang balancing
From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational to paradox management. Cross Cultural & Strategic Manage-
Dynamics, 16(4): 5–21. ment, 23(1): 42–77.
Hong, Y. Y., Benet-Martinez, V., Chiu, C., & Morris, M. W. 2003. Lorsch, J. 1986. Managing culture: The invisible barrier to
Boundaries of cultural influence: Construct activation as a strategic change. California Management Review, 28(2):
mechanism for cultural differences in social perception. Journal 95–109.
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34: 453–464. Lyons-Padilla, S., Gelfand, M. J., Mirahmadi, H., Farooq, M., &
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, van Egmond, M. 2015. Belonging nowhere: Marginalization
V. (Eds) 2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The and radicalization risk among Muslim immigrants. Behavioral
GLOBE study of 62 societies. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Science & Policy, 1(2): 1–12.
Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. 2000. Modernization, cultural Lytle, A. L., Brett, J. M., Barsness, Z. I., Tinsley, C. H., & Janssens,
change, and the persistence of traditional values. American M. 1995. A paradigm for confirmatory cross-cultural research
Sociological Review, 65: 19–51. in organizational-behavior. Research in Organizational Behav-
Inglehart, R. F., & Norris, P. 2016. Trump, Brexit, and the rise of ior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, 17:
populism: Economic have-nots and cultural backlash. Cam- 167–214.
bridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School Faculty Research Work- Meyer, K. E., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Beugelsdijk, S. 2017.
ing Paper Series. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. What’s in a p? Reassessing best practices for conducting and
cfm?abstract_id=2818659. Accessed December 15, 2016. reporting hypothesis-testing research. Journal of International
Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. J. 1969. National character: The study Business Studies, 48(5): 535–551.
of modal personality and sociocultural systems. The Handbook Minkov, M., Dutt, P., Schachner, M., Morales, O., Sanchez, C.,
of Social Psychology, 4: 418–506. Jandosova, J., et al. 2017. A revision of Hofstede’s individual-
Ioannidis, J. P. 2012. Why science is not necessarily self- ism-collectivism dimension: A new national index from a
correcting. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6): 56-country study. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management,
645–654. 24(3): 386–404.
Jackson, C. L., Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. 2011. The evolution of Hofstede’s
P. 2006. Psychological collectivism: A measurement validation doctrine. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 18(1):
and linkage to group member performance. Journal of Applied 10–20.
Psychology, 91(4): 884–899. Mischel, W. 1973. Toward a cognitive social learning reconcep-
Javidan, M., House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & De tualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80(4):
Luque, M. S. 2006. Conceptualizing and measuring cultures 252–283.
and their consequences: A comparative review of GLOBE’s and Moore, F. 2014. An unsuitable job for a woman: A ‘native
category’ approach to gender, diversity and cross cultural

1188
management. International Journal of Human Resource Man- Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. 2010. Examining the impact
agement, 26(2): 216–230. of culture’s consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-
Morris, M. W., Leung, K., Ames, D., & Lickel, B. 1999. Views analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. Journal
from inside and outside: Integrating emic and etic insights of Applied Psychology, 95(3): 405–439.
about culture and justice judgment. Academy of Management Taras, V., Steel, S., & Kirkman, B. L. 2012. Improving national
Review, 24(4): 781–796. cultural indices using a longitudinal meta-analysis of Hofst-
Perlmutter, H. V. 1969. The tortuous evolution of multinational ede’s dimensions. Journal of World Business, 47(3): 329–341.
enterprises. Columbia Journal of World Business, 4: 9–18. Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. L. 2016. Does country equate
Peterson, M. F., & Barreto, T. S. 2015. Descriptive norms and with culture? Beyond geography in the search for cultural
norm innovations: Implications for theorizing level of analysis. boundaries. Management International Review, 56(4): 455–487.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(10): 1332–1335. Tihanyi, L., Griffith, D. A., & Russell, C. J. 2005. The effect of
Peterson, M. F., Søndergaard, M., & Kara, A. 2017. Traversing cultural distance on entry mode choice, international diversi-
cultural boundaries in IB: The complex relationships between fication, and MNE performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of
explicit country and implicit cultural group boundaries at International Business Studies, 36(3): 270–283.
multiple levels. Journal of International Business Studies. https:// Triandis, H. C. 1996. The psychological measurement of cultural
doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0082-z. syndromes. American Psychologist, 51(4): 407–415.
Ralston, D. A. 2008. The crossvergence perspective: Reflections Tselichtchev, I. 2017, March 4. Globalization’s not dead, it just
and projections. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(1): has a new powerhouse – Asia. South China Morning Post.
27–40. http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/2075503/
Reeb, D., Sakakibara, M., & Mahmood, I. P. 2012. From the globalisations-not-dead-it-just-has-new-powerhouse-asia.
Editors: Endogeneity in international business research. Journal Accessed March 4, 2017.
of International Business Studies, 43: 211–218. Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A. Y. 2007. Cross-national,
Roberts, K. H. 1970. On looking at an elephant: An evaluation of cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances,
cross-cultural research related to organizations. Psychological gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33(3):
Bulletin, 74(5): 327–350. 426–478.
Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2004. A perspective on regional Tung, R. L. 1995. International organizational behavior. In F.
and global strategies of multinational enterprises. Journal of Luthans (Ed), Virtual O.B.: 487–518. New York: McGraw-Hill.
International Business Studies, 35(1): 3–18. Tung, R. L. 1998. American expatriates abroad: From neophytes
Rugman, A. M., Verbeke, A., & Nguyen, P. C. Q. T. 2011. Fifty to cosmopolitans. Journal of World Business, 33(2): 125–144.
years of international business theory and beyond. Manage- Tung, R. L. 2016a. New perspectives on human resource
ment International Review, 51(6): 755–786. management in a global context. Journal of World Business,
Saxenian, A. 2002. Brain circulation: How high-skill immigration 51(1): 142–152.
makes everyone better off. The Brookings Review, 20(1): 28–31. Tung, R. L. 2016b. Reframing research on cross-cultural man-
Schwartz, S. H. 2006. A theory of cultural value orientations: agement’’. In A. Y. Lewin, M. Kenney, & J. P. Murman (Eds),
Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5(2): China’s innovation: Challenge: Overcoming the middle income
137–182. trap: 394–417. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schwartz, S. H. 2012. An overview of the Schwartz theory of Tung, R. L. 2016c. Opportunities and challenges ahead of
basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture. http:// China’s ‘new normal’. Long Range Planning, 49: 632–640.
dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-091. Accessed on January 3, 2013. Tung, R. L., & Verbeke, A. 2010. Beyond Hofstede and GLOBE:
Shaffer, M. A., Kraimer, M. L., Chen, Y. P., & Bolino, M. C. 2012. Improving the quality of cross-cultural research. Journal of
Choices, challenges, and career consequences of global work International Business Studies, 41(8): 1259–1274.
experiences: A review and future agenda. Journal of Manage- Venaik, S., & Midgley, D. F. 2015. Mindscapes across land-
ment, 38(4): 1282–1327. scapes: Archetypes of transnational and subnational culture.
Shenkar, O. 2001. Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more Journal of International Business Studies, 46(9): 1051–1079.
rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and motivation. Hoboken: Wiley.
differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3): Waldman, D. A., Wang, D., Berka, C., Stikic, M., Balthazard, P.
519–535. A., Richardson, T., Pless, N., & Maak, T. 2013. Emergent
Shenkar, O. 2012. Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more leadership and team engagement: An application of neuro-
rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural science technology and methods. In Best paper proceedings of
differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(1): the academy of management conference, Orlando, 2013.
1–11. Waldman, D. A., Wang, D., & Fenters, V. 2016. The added value
Smith, P. B., Peterson, M. F., & Schwartz, S. H. 2002. Cultural of neuroscience methods in organizational research. Organi-
values, sources of guidance, and their relevance to managerial zational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/
behavior: A 47-nation study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol- 1094428116642013.
ogy, 33(2): 188–208. Weeks, J., & Galunic, C. 2003. A theory of the cultural evolution
Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. 2010. of the firm: The intra-organizational ecology of memes.
Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta- Organization Studies, 24(9): 1309–1352.
analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of Witt, M. A., & Stahl, G. K. 2016. Foundations of responsible
International Business Studies, 41(4): 690–709. leadership: Asian versus Western executive responsibility
Stahl, G. K., Miller, E. L., & Tung, R. L. 2002. Toward the orientations toward key stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics,
boundaryless career: A closer look at the expatriate career 136(3): 623–638.
concept and the perceived implications of an international Zaheer, S., Schomaker, M. S., & Nachum, L. 2012. Distance
assignment. Journal of World Business, 37(3): 1–12. without direction: Restoring credibility to a much-loved
Stahl, G. K., & Tung, R. L. 2015. Towards a more balanced construct. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(1):
treatment of culture in international business studies: The 18–27.
need for positive cross-cultural scholarship. Journal of Interna- Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E., & Gibson, C. B. 2013. How does culture
tional Business Studies, 46(4): 391–414. matter? A contextual view of intercultural interaction in
Steel, P., & Taras, V. 2010. Culture as a consequence: A multi- groups. In M. Yuki & M. Brewer (Eds), Frontiers of culture
level multivariate meta-analysis of the effects of individual and and psychology series: Culture and group processes: 166–194.
country characteristics on work-related cultural values. Journal Oxford: Oxford University Press.
of International Management, 16(3): 211–233.

1189
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Günter K Stahl is Professor of International Man-

Rosalie L Tung is a chaired Professor of Interna- agement and Director of the Centre for Sustain-
tional Business at Simon Fraser University. She is a ability and Social Responsibility at WU Vienna. His
past President of the Academy of Management and current research interests include the drivers of
the Academy of International Business, and an corporate responsibility, migration, and the
elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, the changing nature of global work. He has held
Academy of Management, and the Academy of responsible positions within various academic
International Business. She has published exten- associations and is a Senior Editor of the Journal of
sively on the subject of international management. World Business.
Accepted by Alain Verbeke, Editor-in-Chief, 24 September 2018. This article has been with the authors for three revisions.

Tung y Stahl 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tung y Stahl 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tung y Stahl 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of International Business Studies (2018) 49, 1167–1189

ª 2018 Academy of International Business All rights reserved 0047-2506/18

The tortuous evolution of the role of culture

Rosalie L Tung1 and Abstract

Keywords: culture; cultural distance; international business; grand challenges; context;

Reviewers of the International Business (IB) and Cross-Cultural

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Institutional distance these motives were satisfied. They found that

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Distance approach Dimensional approach

Journal of International Business Studies

Table 2 Contributions and future research directions identified in recent reviews

Articles Contributions Future directions

Journal of International Business Studies

Articles Contributions Future directions

Narrow Conceptualization of Culture ‘‘trait approach’’ (i.e., treating cultural values as

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Different sets of institutional arrangements may Western-Centric

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Günter K Stahl is Professor of International Man-

Journal of International Business Studies

You might also like