Share a link:
https://casecent.re/p/126609
Write a review
|
No reviews for this item
This product has not been used yet
Abstract
Hofstede's four cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1980), individualism/collectivism, power distance, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance have been widely studied and linked to a number of outcomes of interest to manager employed by cross-national companies. Based on a study of East Asian cultural dimensions, Hofstede and Bond (1988) have added a fifth cultural dimension, Confucian Dynamism, determined to have wide applicability outside of East Asia. Most of these studies measured culture at the societal level by aggregating respondent scores within cultures so that each culture represented one observation in further analysis. Hofstede and others have conceded that is likely to be a great deal of intra-culture variation in cultural orientations which is not addressed through such methodology. Recently, some researchers have attempted to measure the four original Hofstede dimensions (Dorfman & Howell, 1988) and the fifth Hofstede and Bond dimension (Robertson & Hoffman, 1999) at the individual level. This offers a number of advantages, chief among them the ability to link the strength of a given cultural orientation among individuals to individual level organisational outcomes such as job satisfaction, leadership variables, commitment, organisational citizenship behaviour, turnover, and others. Unfortunately, this line of inquiry has been hampered by lack of evidence regarding properties of the scales used to measure these individual-level cultural constructs, particularly regarding convergent and discriminant validity. This study uses principal components analysis to assess all five scales as to whether they are unidimensional as theorised and employs confirmatory factor analysis to test the convergent and discriminant validity of the scales. Results support the unidimensionality, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the four Dorfman and Howell measures. Results did not support the unidimensionality of the Confucian Dynamism scale, but rather suggested at least two dimensions. Suggestions for utilising and improving the Confucian Dynamism scale are offered.
About
Abstract
Hofstede's four cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1980), individualism/collectivism, power distance, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance have been widely studied and linked to a number of outcomes of interest to manager employed by cross-national companies. Based on a study of East Asian cultural dimensions, Hofstede and Bond (1988) have added a fifth cultural dimension, Confucian Dynamism, determined to have wide applicability outside of East Asia. Most of these studies measured culture at the societal level by aggregating respondent scores within cultures so that each culture represented one observation in further analysis. Hofstede and others have conceded that is likely to be a great deal of intra-culture variation in cultural orientations which is not addressed through such methodology. Recently, some researchers have attempted to measure the four original Hofstede dimensions (Dorfman & Howell, 1988) and the fifth Hofstede and Bond dimension (Robertson & Hoffman, 1999) at the individual level. This offers a number of advantages, chief among them the ability to link the strength of a given cultural orientation among individuals to individual level organisational outcomes such as job satisfaction, leadership variables, commitment, organisational citizenship behaviour, turnover, and others. Unfortunately, this line of inquiry has been hampered by lack of evidence regarding properties of the scales used to measure these individual-level cultural constructs, particularly regarding convergent and discriminant validity. This study uses principal components analysis to assess all five scales as to whether they are unidimensional as theorised and employs confirmatory factor analysis to test the convergent and discriminant validity of the scales. Results support the unidimensionality, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the four Dorfman and Howell measures. Results did not support the unidimensionality of the Confucian Dynamism scale, but rather suggested at least two dimensions. Suggestions for utilising and improving the Confucian Dynamism scale are offered.