Cross Cultural Research4

8/3/2019 Cross Cultural Research4

1/23

ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 17, 133-154 (2000)

Methodological issues in cross-culturalmanagement research:

Problems, solutions, and proposalsLRONG IM AND PETERFIRKOLA*

Department of Busine ss Administration, Kagawa University, 2-1 Saiwai, Takam atsu,Kagawa, Japan 760-8523

E-mail: Irong@ec. kagawa-u.ac.jp21nternational Student Center, Hokkaido University, North 8, West 8, Sapporo, Japan 060-0808E-mail: peter@isc. hokudai.ac.ip

The research field of cross-cultural management suf fers from an absence of theorycapable of explaining the role of culture in organizational behavior. Methodologicalissues that are at least partly responsible for the above shortcoming are exploredin this paper. The central argument is that, despite efforts to resolve these issues,many methodological problems continue to resist the remedies prescribed byresearchers. This paper seeks to evaluate the reasons for this, and based on theseevaluations, proposes some suggestions for future research.

1. INTRODUCTIONFrom the 1960s onwards, management researchers ave shown interest in the conceptof culture becauset was believed that culture has an influence on managerial behaviorand performance (Sekaran 1983: 67). At the same time, there have been manyproblems that obstruct the advancement of research n culture, making it difficultto reach a clear understanding of the relationship between culture and management.

The problems faced are accompanied by an increasing necessity to find culturalsolutions to organizational problems in a world that has begun to resemble a globalvillage (Doktor et al. 1991a: 259). The heightened pace of global integration, broughtabout by technological and economical forces, suggests hat managerswill increasinglyhave to deal with counterparts from cultures quite unlike their own. It is believedthat substantial competitive advantages will be derived by those managers who areable to tackle these cultural issuesappropriately.

Research to date, spanning several disciplines such as psychology, sociology,marketing, and management,hasattempted to provide insightful analyses nd solutionsfor these problems (Adler 1984; Ajiferuke and Boddewyn 1970; Barrett and Bass1970; Berry 1979; Cavusgil and Das 1997; Child 1981; Kraut 1975; Malhotra et al.1996; Nasif et al. 1991; Negandhi 1974; Peng et al. 1991; Schollhammer 1969;Sechrest et al. 1972; Sekaran 1983; Tayeb 1994). Yet, as we argue in this paper,

CCC 0217-45611001040133-220 2000 BY JOHN WILEY & SONS (ASIA) LTD


2/23

134 L. LIM AND P. FIRKOLAmany of these problems seem to have remained generally intractable or have simplybeen ignored.

We first illustrate that a general theory of culture does not exist in the fieldof cross-cultural management research. Then, causes of the inabil ity to arrive at ageneral theory are examined through the investigation of methodological problems.The structure of this investigation adapts, in part, that of Adler (1984: 45--48),Cavusgil and Das (1997: 72), and Nasif et al. (1991: 81). Specifical ly, a processapproach is used to discuss the problems and difficulties at each successive stage ofthe research process (Nasif et al. 199 1: 8 1). The stages are classified into the followingfive broad categories: definition, sampling, instrumentation and measurement, datacollection, and data analysis and interpretation.

At each successive stage, solutions to the problems proposed in prior researchare discussed. Their workability to tackle the problems is evaluated and suggestionsare made for future research. A summary of these issues, problems, and solutions islisted in Table 1. We believe our contribution to the existing body of literature liesin our evaluation of remedies and our proposals for future research. We also hope toincrease the awareness of the seriousness of these issues. Given the broad range of ourfocus, our research is lim ited in its comprehensiveness. The range covered in the

Table 1 Summary of issues, roblems, nd proposalsIssues Problems Our preferred optionsDefinition 1) lack of common definition 1) use widely referenced definitionSampling 1) number of cultures limited 1) accept two-culture samples as pilot

to two studies2) opportunistic sampling 2) be flexible and aim for efficiency in

of cultures access3) non-representativeness of 3) use matched samples for

samples standardization4) Galtons problem 4) pursuance is unfeasible and undesirable

Instrumentation 1) non-equivalence of variables 1) use localized etic constructsand 2) translation of words and 2) conduct forward and back-translationsmeasurement meanings3) non-equivalent scaling 3) use local norms as referentsData collection 1) non-equivalence of subject 1) use identical procedures to solic it

responses responses2) biases (courtesy, sucker, etc.) 2) pre-test and get advice from local3) cross-sectional versus researchers

longitudinal data 3) use longitudinal data whenever possibleData analysisandinterpretation

1) qualitative versus quantitative 1) use triangulation method for both datadata

2) bivariate versus multivar iateanalysis

3) ecologic al fallacy

types2) use multivariate analysis wheneverpossible

3) exercise cautio n for external validity


3/23

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN CROSS-CULTURAL MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 135study of organizations comes from so many disciplines that it is virtually impossibleto think simultaneously about the mult itude of problems and research strategies(Roberts 1997: 5).

Our research findings imply that despite several decades of development,meaningful cross-cultural management research continues to remain an extremelyslippery task. Theoretically, the field is not yet capable of objectively explainingcultural influences on organizational behavior. Methodologically, although some aspectsof the problems may be solvable, limitations such as cost, time, and accessibilityseem to continual ly inh ibi t researchers from paying attent ion to these problems.

Although we try to argue that methodological factors contribute to a lack oftheory in cross-cultural management research, we submit that this is not the wholestory. As Morgan and Smircich (1980: 491) suggested, al l approaches to socialscience are based on interrelated sets of assumptions regarding ontology, humannature, and epistemology. At the outset, assumptions about ontology and humannature (respectively, the objective versus the subjective, and the determinist versusthe volunteerist continuum (Smircich 1983: 340; Schein 1997: Ch. 6, 7)) define theresearchers view of the social world, and incline the researcher to see and interpretthe world from one perspective rather than from another (Morgan 1983: 21).

The researcher then attempts to generate meanings as guided by the chosenontological assumptions of social reality. This process is normally manifested througha preferred metaphor (Morgan 1980; Smircich 1983) that locks the researcher in aparticular epistemological stance, which in turn leads to certain kinds of insight,understanding, and propositions. Simi larly, whether methodology should primarilyadopt a qualitative or a quantitative approach depends on the fundamental ontologica lassumptions (Morgan and Smircich 1980: 497-499). Our premise is that, with agiven set of ontological assumptions and epistemological preferences as proposed forthe field of cross-cultural management research (Smircich 1983: 343-347),methodological issues do play a significant role in blocking researchers from reachinga theoretical consensus.

2. THE SITUATION: AN ABSENCE OF THEORYThe main interests of cross-cultural management researchers lie in the issue of culturalinfluences on organizational behavior and outcomes. Specifically, can it be proventhat cultural factors influence human behavior in organizations? Or, can it be positedthat organizational performances are a consequence of cultura l elements? In essence,is there an acceptable theory that can be used to explain relationships among culture,human behavior in organizations, and the outcomes of organizations? Unfortunately,the research to date suggests that there is no general theory (Bhagat and McQuaid1982: 675; Child 1981: 304). (Since i t is beyond the scope of our paper to closelyexamine the various attempts at theory building, the reader is encouraged to look


4/23

136 L. LIM AND P. FIRKOLA

up more comprehensive review papers that probe into this lack of theoreticalunderpinnings.)

Around 1960, cross-cultural management research emerged as a distinctiveresearch entity (Schollhammer 1969: 82). A decade later, the early cross-culturalresearch works were criticized. For example, Ajiferuke and Boddewyn (1970: 161)proclaimed that much of the claim about culture being the most significant variablein management comparisons rest more on speculation than on facts. Two decadeslater, Budde et al. (1982: 1) commented that researchers are still not in a positionto theorize about culture. This state of affairs has led Redding (1997: 1453) to passjudgment on the progress of cross-cultural research, stating that thirty years workhas made lit tle impression on the immensely complex problem of cultures andorganizational behavior. This is a discouraging comment for researchers in the sub-area of comparative management, which has four major models (Chen 1997; Nath1988; Schollhammer 1969) but the methodologica l problems remain unsolved. Thisabsence of theory is particularly damaging to the advancement of understandingcross-cultural behaviors. Budde et al. (1982: 1) reminded researchers that the declarationmade by Roberts in 1970 (1997: 8) remains as valid and as urgent as ever: withoutsome theoretical notions of explaining culture and predicting its effects on othervariables, we cannot make sense of cross-cultural comparisons.

Yet, many researchers, as mirrored by Lammers and Hickson (1979: 403), haveinsisted that culture has a potential impact on organizational forms and processes forat least three reasons: because outside agencies set cultural constraints for anorganization; because dominant elites in an organization design and redesignorganizational life in terms of culturally given models of organizing; because membersthemselves unof ficia lly tend to organize and to counter-organize in ways derivedfrom sub-cultures.

There is a large inventory of literature that describes how culture influences avariety of subjects. While not necessarily representative, some recent examples ofthis literature relate culture to a wide range of management issues: work values(Ralston et al. 1997), productivity of R&D units (Kedia et al. 1992), preference forinnovation roles (Shane 1995), perception of ethical problems (Armstrong 1996),

See Bhagat and McQuaid (1982) for a theoretical critique on the sub-themes of cognitive style,attitudes and values, work motivation, and job satisfaction; Redding (1997) for inter-culturalrelations, human resource management, leadership, and organization development and corporateculture; and Roberts (1997) for attitudes and values, leadership, motivation, and com.mun ication atthe individual employee level, and management styles, conflict and cooperation, group decisionmaking, deviance and conformity, efficiency, and comm unication at the organizational sub-unit level.2These four models may be more precisely viewed as approaches (Schollhammer 1969) to researchon cross-cultural management rather than theories: econom ic development model (Hatbison andMyers 1959); environmental model (Farmer and Richman 1965); behavioral model (Barrett and Bass1970; Davies 1971); and open systems model (Negandhi and Prasad 1971).


5/23

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN CROSS-CULTURAL MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 137ownership preferences (Erramilli 1996), economic performance (Franke et al. 1991),performance of brand image strategies (Roth 1995), human resources (Laurent 1986;Schneider 1988), constraints on technology transfer across nations (Kedia and Bhagat1988), and performance fit (Weber 1996).

Indeed, Barrett and Bass (1970: 208) charged that i t would seem naive tomaintain that culture is not an important variable in influencing managerial attitudesand behavior. This state of partial knowledge creates continuous tension in the workof researchers, who acknowledge that a variable called culture exerts some influenceon organizations, but (who) do not know exactly what culture is (Sekaran 1983: 67).Almost four decades after the emergence of this field, culture still remains theblack box that was often used to explain many unspecified influences (Ajiferuke andBoddewyn 1970: 161).

Hofstedes (1984) research, however, is frequently referred to as the beginningsof a foundation that could help scientific theory building in cross-cultural research(Sekaran 1983, p. 69). Well reviewed (Sondergaard 1994) and high ly praised (Bartlettand Ghoshal 1995: 118; Tayeb 1994: 434), h s research was indeed astounding inmany ways (Sorge 1983: 625). Among his many positive contributions was his wellthought-out analytic definition of culture, which flowed from sound theoreticalreasoning buttressed by such disciplines as psychology, sociology, and socialanthropology. The vast database was created from 116,000 questionnaires, whichencompassed longitudinal data collected over two time periods from 40 countries.His four national culture dimensions3 (a fifth was added later) have come to beacknowledged as a new framework in cross-cultural research (Hickson and Pugh1995; Prasad 1990).

Yet, despite being extolled as a showcase for subsequent research, Hofstedeswork has also been criticized for a variety of reasons (Roberts and Boyac igiller 1984;Hunt 1981; Triandis 1982), the least of which has been the representativeness of theresearch sample. A more prominent criticism has focused on his efforts to maketheoretical post hoc proposals on how organizational behavior theories which emanatefrom certain societies, are culturally influenced (Robinson 1983: 115; Sekaran 1983:69). He concluded that cultural elements have an overwhelming influence onorganizational behavior and economic performance (Franke et al. 1991; Hofstede andBond 1988). This was criticized by Tayeb (1994: 435) as being based on conceptualspeculations and after-event verifications through findings from other studies ratherthan from self-obtained hard evidence. Hofstedes study was, in fact, not plannedin advance as an investigation into effects of culture on organizations and theirmembers.

The five dimension s are individualism versus collectivism , large or sma ll power distance, strong orweak uncertainty avoidance, masculinity versus femininity, and long- versus short-term orientation(Hofstede and Bond 1988).


6/23

138 L. LIM AND P. FIRKOLAIn seeking the causes for this lack of theory, some researchers have pleaded the

infancy reason (Adler 1983: 231; Sekaran 1983: 69), which claims that the youthful stageof research is only able to place the discipline in its current pre-paradigm state of development(Black and Mendenhall 1990: 113; Nasif et al. 1991: 80; Roberts and Boyacigiller 1984:426). Other less forgiving researchers have countered that the discipline has long gonepast its infancy and adolescence and there can be no excuse for avoidable imperfections andamateurism (Tayeb 1994: 444). M eanwhile, Roberts (1997: 8) has proposed a morerelevant reason for the lack of theory: Culture is still a reality to be explained and as suchcannot yet explain other realities . . At least we should be able to define culture, forwithout this defini tion, a theory of culture is impossible to derive . . The problem is toexplain the effects of culture on behavior, not to make inferences about behavior in spiteof culture. The moot point here is, how can culture be used as an independent variableto explain a dependent variable when researchers do not even have a clear understandingof the independent variable itself?

3. THE SEARCH FOR THE ELUSIVE DEFINITIONMost early papers on cross-cultural management rarely defined culture (Ajiferukeand Boddewyn 1970: 155; Barrett and Bass 1970: 208). Yet for other papers thatdefined it, lit tle consensus existed among them (Kraut 1975: 544). Several articles(Adler 1984: 44; Child 1981: 323; L J aunie and Sambharya 1990: 213; Negandhi1983: 25) noted an anthropological source that provides up to 164 definitions ofculture.* Tayeb (1994: 439) argued that culture can include a gamut of norms,beliefs, values, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. She also pointed out that definit ionsof culture can be devoid of elements related to economics, politics, law, religion,language, education, technology, industry, the environment, society, or the market.Ajiferuke and Boddewyn (1970: 154) concurred: culture is one of those terms thatdefy a single all-purpose definition, and there are almost as many meanings ofculture as people using the term.

Thirty years later, the academic world of cross-cultural management researchstill suffers from the same problem as Redding (1997: 1453), who confessed that weare still without a widely accepted defini tion of culture. The penchant for chasingafter the elusive definition of culture may be understood through Chapman (1992:9, quoted in Tayeb 1994: 430), who poked fun at the academic circle: the literatureon management and culture is rich in assertions of the need to define culture. If itis not defined, how can it be operationalized? If it is not operational ized, how canit be measured? If it is not measured, how can it take its place in the scientificliterature, with its mul tiple regression, its patterns of causation, and its ambitionsof rigor?*See Kroeber and Kluckhorn (1963: 291)


7/23

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN CROSS-CULTURAL MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 139Adler et al. (1997: 63) proposed that five major debates face cross-cultural

researchers, of which three are relevant here. 5 The first looks at whether or notorganizational behavior varies across cultures in the world. The second queries whetheror not the variations, if there are any, can be attributed to cultural factors. And thethird asks if these worldwide variations are converging or diverging. It becomesquite obvious to the reader that the answers to the three debates depend on howculture is defined.

Referring to Tayebs view above, if culture is taken to include al l the normsrelated to human beings, then quite obviously, organizational behavior would varyacross cultures, variations would be attributed to cultural factors, and worldwidevariations would diverge (Adler 1997: 60; Joynt and Warner 1996: 4). But if cultureis perceived to exclude the essential elements of economics, politics, religion, language,education, technology and the market, then organizational behavior might not varyacross societies, as the variations would not be attributed to cultures. We would thenbe led to believe that these variations may even be converging. Roberts and Boyacigiller(1984: 428) have thus commented that the problem of defining culture is at theheart of al l cross-cultural studies.

Recall ing Chapmans (1992) series of ifs, we can see that researchers have notdone a good job at operationalizing the concept of culture LNegandhi 1983: 25). Anundesirable result of poor operationalization is that, although many researchers havemeant to use culture as an independent variable, it often ends up being a residualcatch-all variable (Child 198 1: 306; Kraut 1975 : 544), which does not really contributeto theory building. On a similar front, most cross-cultural studies treat culture assynonymous with nation (Child 1981: 304), which by default operationalizes theculture construct as nation (Adler 1984: 49). In the process, researchers habitual lyignore the possibility that a nation may in fact house multip le cultures and thatcultural heterogeneity can exist (Schollhammer 1969: 92).

Generally, researchers such as Budde et al. (1982: 4), and Bhagat and McQuaid(1982: 675) have argued that culture must be more refined in its definition in orderto be meaningfully studied. Tayeb (1994: 431), however, did not suppose that atighter definition of culture would solve problems. One response to the difficultsituation of handling culture (Child 1981: 307) suggested that culture be droppedfrom the research field (Kraut 1975: 544; Roberts and Boyac igiller 1984: 428). Asecond response proposed that culture be replaced with subjective culture, whichrefers to a groups particularistic way of perceiving its social environment, and thatthis would provide a more rigorous basis for the def init ion of culture (Bhagat andMcQuaid 1982: 655). Yet a third response urged researchers to borrow from a widelyreferenced definition (Adler 1997: 14-15).

The remaining wo debates,dealing ith in tercultural interaction and synergy from cultur al diversity, canonly come into play after the first three debates are addressed, (see Adler et al. 1997: 63).


8/23

140 L. LIM AND P. FIRKOLAWe assert that dropping the term from research is tantamount to running away

from the problem. Dropping the term would be to imply that culture has nothingto do with management, which does not reflect the true social reality. The optionof using subjective culture is attractive, as it allows the researcher to define culturein emit (culture-specific) terms and gives a more specific picture. But if everyresearcher were to rely on subjective culture, then the scenario does not differ muchfrom what it is now. We shall then have many different types of definition, subjectively.The third option of borrowing from a widely referenced definition is probably themost convenient and the most appealing for many researchers. Among the manychoices, Hofstedes defin ition is probably one of the most widely referenced incross-cultural management literature. This option has the advantage of creating aunif ied terminology among researchers, which would enable them to speak in thesame language and thus achieve some form of forced objectivity.

4. SAMPLINGRoberts (1997: 26) pointed out that one of the most blatant problems in cross-cultural research is sampling. Sampling issues include the number of cultures to beconsidered, the selection of cultures and subjects, the representativeness of samples,and the independence of samples (Nasif et al. 1991: 84).

Most studies, as Nath (1969: 217) revealed, incorporate only two cultures intheir samples. There is doubt as to whether a two-culture study can offer a sufficientlydeep understanding of the effects of culture on behavior (Sekaran 1983: 64). Thereason is that, for any one proposition of a two-sample comparison, many rivalhypotheses can be counter-proposed, thus introducing ambiguity in comparisons(Berry 1979: 419).

The counter measure to this problem is to increase the number of samples.Along this line, Kraut (1975: 540) has noted that more studies are incorporating alarger number of cultures of which Hofstedes (1984) work is a fine example. Otherstudies that cover four nations (Ralston et al. 1997), five nations (Pavett and Morris1995), eight nations (Yeung and Ready 1995), nine nations (Ng et al. 1982), tennations (Roth 1995), or 12 nations (Bigoness and Blakely 1997) seem to be morefeasible for the average researcher.

While agreeing with the suggestion to increase the number of cultures in thesample, it is important to note that researcherswork under many restrictions - costand time constraints remain formidable obstacles. Researchers may, in fact, beconducting two-culture studies not solely by choice. Consequently, we believe thattwo-culture studies should not be discouraged. Instead, we propose that two-cultureHofstede (1984: 21) defined culture as the collective programming of the mind which distinguish esthe members of one human group from another.


9/23

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN CROSS-CULTURAL MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 141studies should be treated as pilot studies (Adler 1984: 52) upon which findings canlater be systematically integrated (Sekaran 1983: 64).

The selections of cultures are main ly opportunistic (Bhagat and McQuaid 1982:676; Nath 1970: 145; Roberts 1997: 27) and are not based on their theoreticalstanding toward the variables in question. University students, executives attendingcourses, and organizations with good university relations have often been selected byvirtue of their convenience. Differences found are thus more of a happy accidentrather than an anticipated theoretical result (Bhagat and McQuaid 1982: 676). Theway to solve this problem is to select cultures and targets based on their theoreticalstanding toward the independent culture variable and the dependent variable (Roberts1997: 27).This recommendation is easier said than done. Opportunistic sampling is a fact oflife in cross-cultural studies (Bhagat and McQuaid 1982: 676). Scholars such as Sekaran(1983: 69), for example, have been honest to admit this undeniab le fact. Sekaran has evengone so far as to defend i t. The research community, she said, should be more flexibleabout opportunistic sampling, because it is surely easier for an Indian in the U.S. tocompare India and the U.S. rather than any third country. We support her view that itis probably more efficient to access a culture with which the researcher is already quitefamiliar . The famil iar ground could help to expedite the research process. To access aculture that is not so fami liar to the researcher may open up a different genre of difficu ltiesand biases (discussed below under data collection).

A third problem concerns the non-representativeness of samples. Representativesamples are supposed to reflect the key demographic variables of the total population(Adler 1984: 52). In social sciences, random selection of organizations and samplesis probably not possible (Barrett and Bass 1970: 206; Roberts 1997: 29). As asolution, Adler (1984: 52) and Sekaran (1983: 64) have recommended the option ofusing matched samples as found in the work of Ng et al. (1982). Another suggestionis to conduct randomization at some leve l of the sampling plan (Cavusgil and Das1997: SO).

We concur that completely representative data are not likely to be obtained.The use of matched samples constitutes a form of standardized, objective interventionthat is aimed at achieving equivalent features of the target samples. We consider theuse of matched samples to be more workable and log ical than partial randomization,which may cause the additional problem of having to decide the level from whichto start randomizing. In any case, representativeness of data is sacrificed.

The fourth issue concerns the non-independence of samples, which is alsoreferred to as Galtons problem (Ross and Homer 1976). This problem happenswhen values, behaviors, and practices become transfused among cultures to a degreethat differentiating the idiographic (emit), which describes phenomena unique to aculture, from the nomothetic (etic), which describes universal cultural aspects, becomesdifficult (Sekaran 1983: 65). In other words, different cultures develop and adopt


10/23

142 L. LIM AND P. FIRKOLAsimilar behaviors and practices due to cultural diffus ion (Nasif et al. 1991: 85).Samplings taken from these cultures violate the independence requirement for soundstatistical analyses and can lead to biased results.

The essence of any solution to Galtons problem is to minimize the effect s ofdiffus ion among the units in the sample (Ross and Homer 1976: 4). One suchsolution is to utilize the cultunit as a unit of analysis. The cultunit is defined asindividuals who speak a common distinct language and who belong either to thesame territorial state or the same social contact group (Malhotra et al. 1996: 25).

Although we find that using the cultunit is a feasible idea, we have doubtsabout its ability to truly solve Galtons problem. At best, the cultunit can onlyminimize the problem. When the problem first surfaced in 1889, geographicalproximity was primarily used to measure the diffus ion of cultural traits (Ross andHomer 1976: 26). Improvements in physical as well as virtual transportation systemshave since punctured this criteria as inter-border crossings escalate. Language helpsto ensure independence to a certain degree, although to what degree remains uncertain.In other words, we hold that Galtons problem does not seem likely to go away(Barry 1969: 31) d ue to the increasing interrelatedness of the world population aspeople migrate into one anothers country. We agree with Adler (1984: 53) that thepursuance of independent samples appears unfeasible or even undesirable, thus leavingresearchers with the other option of being aware of possible adulteration of data,in which case, care must be exercised during interpretation.

5. INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENTThe process of instrumentation involves the use of culturally equivalent variables,translation into a second language, and scaling. The problem of equivalent variablesarises when variables designed in, by, and for one culture are applied to a secondculture without modifications. For example, there are many replication studies ofU.S. theories in other countries, although variables developed in the U.S. may notbe applicable to those countries (Doktor et al. 1991b: 363; Peng et al. 1991: 98;Sekaran 1981: 409). Researchers committing this offense overlook the possibilitythat the same variables can actually hold different meanings in different cultures. Intackling this problem, researchers have highlighted the need to make sure thatvariables used in cross-cultural research are conceptually equivalent among the targetcultures (Peng et al. 1991: 98).

We similarly find that variables developed for use in one culture should not beapplied directly to another culture without revision. At the same time, we believe thatfor cross-cultural comparisons to take place, there must be a high enough level ofabstraction on which a common dimension exists across cultures. We suggest thatvariables should first be developed in as universal terms as possible. Having done so,the next step would be to localize the variables to suit a certain culture. Techniques


11/23

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN CROSS-CULTURAL MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 143to do so include conducting factor analyses and unstructured interviews on each culture(Chew and Putti 1995: 1167; Triandis 1982: 89). 0 ur view is consistent with that ofHui and Triandis (1985: 143), who also called for the use of a combination of etic andemit approaches, resulting in what they called an emically defined etic construct.

The pursuance of equivalence in meaning puts a heavy burden on the processof translation (Peng et al. 1991: 98). Hofstede (1984: 27) commented that languageis not a neutral vehicle, as according to the Whorfian hypothesis, people perceivethe world differently because of their language differences. The main equivalenciesthat need to be considered are the use of vocabulary, idioms, grammar and syntax(Sechrest et al. 1972: 44-46). The task of cross-cultural researchers in translatinginstruments into another language is to achieve equivalence in meaning rather thanin literal form.

To ensure equiva lence, many researchers recommended back-translation to theorigina l language after its direct translation to the second language is completed(Brislin 1970; Sechrest et al. 1972: 5 1). The services of several bilingual and multi lingualtranslators should also be sought whenever possible (Brislin 1970: 214). Sekaran(1983: 62) was confident that translation problems are not insurmountable, providedthat cooperation of researchers from the loca l culture is obtained. Kraut (1975: 541)expressed more confidence in saying that the problem of translation has been overcome.

We do not, however, agree that translation problems can be solved so easily.We share the opinions of researchers such as Bhagat and McQuaid (1982: 677), whopronounced that translation remains a problem area, at least the translation of taskinstructions and subject responses. Peng et al. (1991: 98) also observed that backtranslations may only be useful to prevent major foul-ups, but are not able to ensureprecise equivalence. Meanwhile, Roberts (1997: 29) pla inly stated that back-translationis a minimum requirement. Voss et al. (1996: 56) similarly concluded that whileobvious translation problems are easily reconciled, subtle differences resist detection.They also revealed that there was no logical basis to assume that similar meaningsand interpretations occurred in their study of adjectives across languages.

In addi tion, some words in the English language, probably the major vehicleof cross-cultural studies, have no counterparts in other languages. Thus translationproblems, although not insurmountable, are not easily solved. The best researcherscan do, perhaps, is to hire expert bilingual or mul til ingual translators who arefamiliar with the research to translate and back-translate the mater ial over severaliterations. Besides that, researchers have lit tle other choice but to accept workingunder the condition that a precisely equivalent translation covering the subtlest ofnuances is quite beyond their reach.

Scaling is another important issue in the development of measurementinstrumentation (Green and Rao 1970). As Sekaran (1983: 62) pointed out, a potentialproblem exists in the difference in perception of point-scales. Different cultures mayexhibit different sensitivities, for example, to an 11-point, a 7-point, a 5-point, or


12/23

144 L. LIM AND P. FIRKOLAa 4-point scale (Barry 1969: 28; Sekaran 1983: 63; Yu et dl. 1993: 50). Any remedythus needs to focus on equivalence of scaling across cultures. Two approaches arerecommended by researchers in the designing of equivalent scales (Malhotra et al.1996: 21). One approach is to construct scales that are pan-cultural, or free ofcultural biases. Two such commonly used scales are the semantic differential scaleand the Likert-type scale (Menezes and Elbert 1979: 80). A second approach is todevelop scales that use self-defined cultural norms as base referents.

Upon evaluating the two alternatives, we do not presume that pan-culturalscales can really be culture free. This has been pointed out by some researchers, suchas Yu et al. (1993: 61) who revealed that both the semantic differential scale and theLikert-type scale are culture-specific even in countries like Japan, South Korea, andChina, which are supposed to share some similar cultura l traits. Voss et al. (1996:56) also showed that the simple translation of adjectives to another language did notproduce equivalent meanings nor approximately interval-scaled data. In addition,while using pan-cultural scales, researchers are recommended to test the significanceand appropriateness of the anchors prior to the actual project. By this act itself,researchers are adding an element of emit-ness into the pan-cultural etic scales.Hence, we believe that the de facto approach in the development of scales resemblesmore of the second alternative. In this approach, respondents may be asked toindicate their own preferred anchor point in relat ion to a culture-specific norm, forexample, attitude toward marita l roles (Malhotra et al. 1996: 21).

In the quest for equivalence, researchers are warned about the paradox ofequivalence (Sechrest et al. 1972: 44-49). A ccording to this paradox, it is high lypossible that important cultural differences will be obscured by inadvertent over-equivalence as a result of over-enthusiastic efforts to achieve equivalence at almostevery stage of the research process.

6. DATA COLLECTIONThere are at least three issues to be considered in data collection: non-equivalenceof responses, status and psychologically related biases, and cross-sectional versuslongitudinal data.Non-equivalence of responses with regard to motivation and response attitudeson the part of respondents arises when variances can be traced to differences in datacollection procedures. To achieve equivalence of responses, Sekaran (1983: 63) suggestedthe adoption of uniform data collection procedures in all the target cultures. Specifically,identical procedures of introduction to the research project, the team of researchers,task instructions, and closing remarks are expected to provide equiva lence of responseson the part of respondents. We agree that this is the most objective strategy that canbe used to solicit response equivalence. But, as discussed in the next point, weremain a lit tle skeptical on whether a true response equivalence can be achieved.


13/23

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN CROSS-CULTURAL MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 145There are several types of biases that may sabotage these efforts at uniformity

and cause inaccuracies in responses. Inaccuracies may be caused by culturally sensitivetopics (Sekaran 1983: 63), courtesy or hospitality biases, and sucker biases (Mitchell1969: 248). Culturally sensitive topics may include relig ion, as in the case of Pakistanwhere respondents may wish to avoid involvement due to religious reasons. Courtesyor hospitality biases have a higher occurrence in Asia, where respondents try to giveanswers presumed to be pleasing to the researcher. Some cultures like the Japanesetend to underrate their achievement, while some Middle Eastern cultures tend toexaggerate their achievements. Sucker biases refer to situations in which loca lrespondents treat foreign researchers as fair game for decept ion. Some respondentsmay also accommodate fears that their countries may be portrayed unfavorably if theresearchers are foreigners or are residing in a foreign country, thus leading them toadulterate their responses.

Sekaran (1983: 63) recommended that researchers can minimize such biasesthrough pre-testing or through undertaking a pilot study of their instrument beforelaunching the ful l research project. As an add-on feature to improve the effect ofthese two methods, we suggest that local researchers be recruited. Advice from localresearchers is likely to prove valuable in minimizing biases. With experience, researchersmay be able to take precautions to avoid the same biases from the same culturesamples in their future projects.

Viewed from another angle, the research process can also be affected by thecultural biases of the researcher. The researcher as a human being is a manifestationof his/her own culture, accompanied by its own idiosyncrasies that hinders seeing thedistinct features of other cultures. Thus, the manner in which the research is carriedout is influenced by this onto logical manifestation. To counter this culture-blindness,researchers are encouraged to form multicultural teams as suggested above (Penget al. 1991: 99). Doktor et al. (1991 b: 364), however, lamented that the logic ofmult icultural research teams thus far had been the necessity to recruit loca l researchersto aid in data collection from far-reaching locations. We agree with the recommendationof the above writers that, in order to fully maximize the advantage of having loca lresearchers in the team, they should be welcomed to partake in the research planningprocess from the very start. This way, every member of the mult icultural team is ableto contribute to the process of theory development.

An equally serious problem involves the question of collection of cross-sectionalor longitudinal data. Cross-sectional data can only offer a static view of organizationsat a certain point of time and have limitations in painting a realistic picture oforganizational behavior. This, unfortunately, is the approach taken by most cross-cultural studies (Peng et al, 1991: 96). The cure for this problem is to collectlongitudinal data from the same targets (Sekaran 1983: 64). Longitudinal data havethe advantage of being able to provide a more dynamic and realistic picture oforganizations. Hofstedes research, which collected data at the two time periods of


14/23

146 L. LIM AND P. FIRKOLA1968 and 1972, is one rare example of research encompassing longitudinal datacollection.

Although there are repeated calls by researchers to follow this method, we area lit tle skeptical about the prospects of widespread collection of longitudinal data.Researchers at large appear to put a blind eye to this problem, possibly due to theburden of cost and time required to conduct another round of data collection. Inaddition, we agree with Peng et al. (1991: 105) in that the time interval betweendata collection periods in longitudinal studies, including Hofstedes (Roberts andBoyacigiller 1984: 449), is not appropriately estimated based on circumstances affectingthe variables. It is still beyond the abi lity of current research to predict the time lagthat warrants when a second round of data collect ion should be made. Hence, researchersface what may be called time equivalence, because even if such a time lag is knownin one culture, it may differ in another culture.

7. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONProblems in data analysis of cross-cultural research center on the use of qualitat iveverses quantitative data, and bivariate verses multivariate data.

Many cross-cultural studies are based on qualitat ive information collected fromsurveys of subjective opinions. This may be the direct consequence of methodologicaldifficulties in conducting quantitative empirical research, which leads to a proliferationof qualitative articles (Nasif et al. 1991: 87). These qualitative data do not lendthemselves to higher leve l, more powerful statistical analyses. A way around this isto collect more objective data that could be amenable to parametric statistical analyses.The upcoming trend seems to be shifting toward increasing collection of quantitativedata (Sekaran 1983: 66). The other option is to utilize both qualitative and quantitativedata (Morey and Luthans 1984) through a process called triangulation (Jick 1979;Patton 1990: 187). Triangulation refers to the combining of both the qualitative andquantitative research methods.

A problem in the past was that in most cross-cultural studies, bivariate analyseswere predominantly used. This was especially the case when computer facilities werelacking. Kraut (1975: 541), however, related that research using multivariate statisticalanalyses, such as analysis of variance, cluster analysis, factor analysis, and mul tipleregression, are becoming more routine. In their review of cross-cultural literaturefrom 1981 to 1987, Peng et al. (1991: 97) f ound that the three major analyticalmethods used are correlation, mul tiple regression, and analysis of variance. Advancesin methodolog ical rigor and refinement is one area that has gained unquestionablerecognition in the field of cross-cultural research.

Our outlook is that, while not disagreeing with the trends mentioned above,an emphasis toward a quantitative statistical approach should not come about at theexpense of qualitat ive research. Qualitat ive papers, remarked Warner (1997: xxi), are


15/23

METHO!X lLOGICAL ISSUES IN CROSS-CULTURAL MANA GEME NT RESEARCH 147always of use together with the more statistically oriented research. Kyi (1988: 219)went further to posit that qualitat ive rather than quantitative research may contributemore significantly to the understanding of management. This was shown by theevidence that most of the excel lent articles in international business were integrative,conceptual, and theory build ing (Ricks 1985: 4), rather than purely quantitativeempirical articles. Considering that statistical analyses may not necessarily be thesavior of al l methodological problems in cross-cultural research, we prefer to take themiddle position, similar to Warners, which encourages the production of qual itativepapers along with quantitative papers.

In interpretation, researchers often treat and categorize cultures as if they wereindiv iduals (Adler 1984: 58). This was identif ied by Hofstede (1984: 24) as ecologicalfallacy whereby researchers interpret ecological (cultural) correlations as if they applyto individuals. Since cultures are not individuals, they cannot be understood in thesame terms used for understanding the behavior of indiv iduals (Adler 1984: 58). Thereverse ecological fallacy, on the other hand, is commit ted when cultures are comparedon indices created for the individual level. As Roberts (1997: 5) found, researchers havea tendency to aggregate indiv idual measures to obtain organizational measures. Weagree, and suggest that care should be taken to avoid fal ling into these interpretationtraps. Researchers should be careful not to mix up the two levels - level of analysison the one hand and level of interpretation on the other hand. In addition, we recommendthat researchers be cautious in the application of external validity of the findings,which could be lim ited by data sampling procedures that were less than desired.

8. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONSWe conclude with a tinge of pessimism on the progress of cross-cultural managementresearch. After nearly four decades of cross-cultural management research, there hasyet to be an acceptable theory capable of explaining cultural influences on organizations.Despite this drawback, researchers hold on to the bel ief that culture does have animpact on organizations, but are not able to hypothesize exactly how and whenculture is an influence. The inability to arrive at a theory to explain the culturalimpact may be found in the shortcomings of methodology. There is little doubt thatover the decades, methodology has made significant progress. For example, samplessurveyed in many studies now include more than two; researchers are becomingmore attentive to equivalence issues; research teams are admi tting more cultura llydiverse members; and data analyses are becoming more sophisticated.

Yet, many persistent problems prevai l. Cultures continue to be sampled basedon convenience, leading to doubts about data authenticity with regard torepresentativeness and independence. Non-equivalences of variables and scaling continueto intimidate researchers, while translation problems remain a challenge as subtlenuances escape detection. Cultural biases of both respondents and researchers continue


16/23

148 L. LIM AND P. FIRKOLAto prevent them from recogniz ing one anothers important facets, resulting in faultydata collection. But the core of these problems is the lack of consensus amongresearchers on the term culture. The inabi lity of researchers to see eye-to-eye on thiskey term has led, to a large extent, to the inabi lity to develop a theory capable ofexplaining cultural influences on organizations.

Researchers sometimes have been quick to admit that methodological problemsare not easily rectified. Such is the case of sampling, in which representative orindependent data cannot be obtained easily, if at all. When solutions are not at hand,the most log ical escape route researchers take is to describe, for example, thecharacteristics of samples in deta il, especially those that have potential influence onthe data analysis, interpretation, and external validity. However, this is not exactlya solution to problems in the real sense. At best, this alternative resembles anadmission of defeat and an inabi lity to solve the methodolog ical problem.

Sti ll, there is lit tle doubt that cross-cultural management research shall go on.What does the future hold for cross-cultural management research?

Roberts (1997: 30) suggested that researchers may retrench from cross-culturalresearch and try first to understand ones own cultural behavior before trying tounderstand the behavior of others. Adler (1984: 63) recommended that researchersshould neither limit themselves to narrow concepts nor rigid methodology becausemany conceptual and methodological issues are still unresolved. Sekaran (1983: 69)preached more tolerance toward opportunistic sampling and two-culture studies. Sheadded that researchers ought to be willing to settle for less because of the time andresource-consuming nature of cross-cultural research. Bhagat and McQuaid (1982:679-681), meantime, urged researchers to examine the rationale for doing cross-cultural research, to commit themselves to theory while adopting a rigorous concernfor methodologies, and to form multicultural teams to achieve these ends.

Our suggestions hinge on striking a trade-off between the idealistic and thepragmatic, and the less-attainable and the more-attainable; al l within the constraintof cost, accessibility, staff, and time factors. Above all , we urge researchers to promptlyreach a consensus on the term culture. There is certainly an urgency to speak in thesame tongue if we are to establish any coordinated academic progress. In samplingdecisions, we propose the acceptance of two-culture comparisons as much as multiple-culture comparisons. Results from these comparisons will provide fodder for subsequentstudies to corroborate or contradict general patterns. Whenever possible, studiesencompassing larger samples of culture should be attempted.

Opportunistic sampling should not be viewed as merely being unscientific. Itdoes bring with it data collection efficiency and reduction of biases of sorts. Intackling the issues of sample representativeness and independence, we remind researchersthat absolute representativeness and independence is unlikely to be attained. Werecommend the use of matched samples as a reasonable trade-off between pragmaticworkability and idealistic desirability of sample representativeness and independence.


17/23

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN CROSS-CULTURAL MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 149Instrumentation and measurement, we submit, should first be developed etically

and then emically fine-tuned to match local cultures. This is especially so for equivalenceof variables and scaling. In translation of languages, the use of language experts isobligatory while bearing in mind the impossibility of absolute equivalence in thesubtleties of various languages.

For data collection, care should be taken to avoid the bias pitfalls while uniformprocedures are followed. One way to avoid the bias pitfalls is to pre-test the instrumentprior to the research proper while another is to secure the services of a loca l researcher. Asmost cross-cultural research are based on cross-sectional data, whenever possible, long itud inaldata should be obtained for more concrete evidence. We suggest researchers pursue amixture of both qualitative and quantitative methods while analyzing data. Cautionshould be exercised so as not to confuse the level of analysis with that of interpretation.

Our proposals apparently bear much of what Hofstede practiced, although wedo not wish to appear too Hofstedized in our account. Nevertheless, his analyticdef init ion makes theoretica l sense and has quite a following among cross-culturalmanagement scholars. His vast, matched sample of cross-sectional data were obtainedlongitudinally , although the opportunistic element relegated the data to be lessrepresentative or independent as presumably desired. The instrument used was translatedinto multip le languages, which probably had some inherent leaks in equivalentmeanings across cultures. His qualitat ive persuasion intertwined with quantitativemultivariate analysis capped an overall approach as a good option to adopt.

We would like to add to this the vital role of the multicu ltural team as a wayto interject a variety of intellec tual input into cross-cultural management research.One of these could be the joint theoretical development of constructs to measureculture in non-Western societies. As it is, constructs and tools are mostly developedin the West, particularly the U.S., and are thus silently assumed to have the mostuniversal applications to date.

An exception may be the theoret ical construct Confucian work dynamism,which was later renamed long-term orientation (Chinese Culture Connection 1987:158). This construct, supposedly found only in Confucian societies, determines whethera society has a dynamic, long-term, future-oriented menta lity, or a static, tradition-bounded short-term mentality. Multicultural teams may be able to unearth similaremit dimensions in other non-Western societies, thus enhancing the understandingof cultura l impacts on organizations.

In addition, Western scholars (who have been prominent in this academic area)may have unknowingly been biased toward their own culture while researchingsocieties that are unfamiliar to them (Easterby-Smith and Mal ina 1999: 79-83).Important aspects of the culture may have evaded scrutiny. Joining forces with non-Western scholars could certainly help to alleviate this problem. The non-Westernscholar, meanwhile, can reap the benefit of working with other researchers who maybe more experienced and more familiar with the culture in question.


18/23

150 L. LIM AND P. FIRKOLAHowever, for mult icultural teams to work, al l members must be treated as

equally as possible and their opinions and contributions must be equally solicited(Hofstede 1997: 161). As noted before, if non-Western members were recruitedsimply for the sake of translating languages, minimizing bias traps, or improvingdata collection efficiency, then the aims of the project may very well fall short. Allmembers should be involved in all stages of the research, right from the stage ofconstructing theoret ical foundations to the interpretation of results (Easterby-Smithand Mal ina 1999). In this aspect, multicultural research teams led by Bond (ChineseCulture Connection 1987), Ng et al. (l982), Teagarden et al. (1995), and Triandiset al. (i986), appear to be moving in the right direction. (The number of researchersin the above teams is, respectively, 23, 8, 13, and 14.)Some scholars have likened the inability of researchers o study culture, whichis a social system, to a bunch of blind men in front of an elephant. No one scholarby him/herself is able to visualize the whole picture of the social reality, just as oneblind man alone cannot imagine the whole shape of the elephant. Each picture issubjective to each individuals perspective. The reality of this inability appears toperpetuate itself, becausescholars, albeit from different disciplines, are not exactlyin agreement with one another over the same terminology. The study of socialphenomenon is thus inherently limited by the subjective cultural background of theresearcher. Each presents his/her own perspective that is different from the other.Through joint efforts, all the different subjective perspectives can be combined toform a larger and more focused view.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSAn earlier version of this paper was published in 1998 under the first authors namein Kagawa University Economic Review, 70 (4): 83-l 15. We thank APJM AssociateEditor Ghee-Soon Lim and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

REFERENCESAdler, N.J. 1983. Cross-cultural management research: the ostrich and the trend. Academyof Management Review, g(2): 226-232.Adler, N.J. 1984. Understanding the ways of understanding: cross-cultural management

methodology reviewed. In R.N. Farmer (ed) Advances in International ComparativeManagement: A Research Manzldl, 1: 31-68. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.Adler, N.J. 1997. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, Third edition.Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing.

see Hofstede (1984: I>), Roberts (1997: 3), and Roberts and Boyacigiller (1984: 425).


19/23

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN CROSS-CULTURAL MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 151Adler, N.J., Doktor, R. and Redding, S.G. 1997. From the Atlantic to the Pacifi c century:

cross-cultural management reviewed. In H.J. Davis and W.D. Schulte Jr. (eds) NationalCtlltzlre and International Management in East Asia. pp. 61-87. London: InternationalThomson Business Press.

Ajiferuke, M. and Boddewyn, J. 1970. Culture and other explanatory variables incomparative management studies. Academy of Management Journal, 13(2): 153-163.

Armstrong, R.W. 1996. The relationship between culture and perception of ethicalproblems in international marketing. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(11): 1199-1208.

Barrett, G.V. and Bass, B.M. 1970. Comparative surveys of managerial attitudes andbehavior. In J. Boddewyn (ed) Comparative Management: Teaching, Research, and Training.pp. 179-217. New York: New York University Graduate School of Busine ssAdministration.

Barry, H. 1969. Cross-cultural research with matched pairs of societies. Journal of SocialPsychology, 79: 25-33.

Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. 1995. Transnational Management: Text, Cases, and Readings inCross-Border Management. Second edition. Chicago: Irwin.Berry, J.W. 1979. Research in multicultural societies : im plications of cross-cultural

methods. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, lO(4): 415434.Bhagat, R.S. and McQuaid, S.J. 1982. Role of subjective culture in organizations: a review

and directions for future research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(5): 653-685.Bigoness, W.J. and Blakely, G.L. 1997. A cross-national study of managerial values. Journal

of International Business Studies, 27(4): 7 39-752.Black, J.S. and Mendenhall, M. 1990. Cross-cultural training effectiveness: a review and a

theor etical framework for future research. Academy of Management Review, 15(l): 113-l 36.Brislin, R.W. 1970. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, l(3): 185-216.Budde, A., Child, J., Francis, A. and Kieser, A. 1982. Corporate goals, managerial

objectives, and organizational structures in British and West German companies.Organization Studies, 3(l): l-32.

Cavusgil, S.T. and Das, A. 1997. Methodological issues in empirical cross-cultural research:a survey of the manag ement literature and a framework. Management International Review,37: 71-96.

Chapman, M. 1992. Defining culture: a socia l anthropological perspective. Paper presentedto the 1992 Annual Conference of the Academy of International Business (UK), BrightonPolytechnic Busine ss School, 26-27 March.

Chen, M. 1997. Major compara tive manage ment mod els. In M. Warner (ed) ComparativeManagement: Critical Perspectiveson Business and Management, vol. 1, pp. 128-140. London:Routledge.

Chew, I.K.H. and Putti, J. 1995. Relationship on work-related values of Singaporean andJapanese managers in Singapore. Human Relations, 48(10): 1149-l 170.

Child, J. 1981. Culture, contingency, and capitalism in the cross-national study oforganizations. In L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior,vol. 3, pp. 303-356. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.

Chinese Culture Connection. 1987. Chinese values and the search for culture-freedimension s of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, lS(2): 143-164.

Davies, S.M. 197 1. Comparative Management: Organizational and Cultural Perspectives.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Doktor, R., Tung, R.L. and Von Glinow, M.A. 1991a. Incorporating internationaldimension s in management theory building. Academy of Management Review, 16(2):259-261.

Doktor, R., Tung, R.L. and Von Glinow, M.A. I99lb. Future directions for managementtheory development. Academy of Management Review, 16(2): 362-365.


20/23

152 L. LIM AND P. FIRKOLAEasterby-Smith, M. and Malina, D. 1999. Cross-cultural collaborative research: toward

reflexivity. Academy of Management Journal, 42(l): 76-86.Erramilli, M.K. 1996. Nationality and subsidiary ownership patterns in multinational

corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(2): 225-249.Farmer, R.N. and Richman, B.M. 1965. Comparative Management and Economic Progress.

Homewood, Illinois: R ichard D. Irwin.Franke, R.H., Hofstede, G. and Bond, M.H. 1991. Cultural roots of econom ic performance:

a research note. Strategic Management Journal, 12: 165-173.Green, P.E. and Rao, V.R. 1970. Rating scales and information recovery: how many sca les

and response categories to use? Journal of Marketing, 34(3): 33-39.Harbiso n, F. and Myers, C.A. 1959. Managem ent in the Industrial World. New York: McGraw-Hill.Hickson, D.J. and Pugh, D.S. 1995. Management Worldwide: The Impact of Societal Culture onOrganizations Around the Globe. London: Penguin Books.Hofstede, G. 1984. Cultwe's Consequences: International Di ff erences in Work Related Vabes.

Abridged edition. Newbuty Park, California: Sage Publication s.Hofstede, G. 1997. Cdtures and Organizations: Software o f the Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.Hofstede, G. and Bond, M.H. 1988. The Confucius connection: from cultural roots to

economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4): 5-2 1.Hui, C.H. and Triandis, H.C. 1985. Measurement in cross-cultural psychology: A review

and comparison of strategies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16(2): 13 l-l 5 2.Hunt, J.W. 1981. Applying American behavioral science: some cross-cultural problems.

Organizational Dynamics, 10(l): 55-62.Jick, T.D. 1979. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4): 602-6 11.Joynt, P. and Warner, M. 1996. Managing Across- Cultures: Issues and Perspectives. London:

International Thomson Busine ss Press.Kedia, B.L. and Bhagat, R.S. 1988. Cultural constraints on transfer of technology acrossnations: implica tions for research in international and comparative management. Academy

of Management Review, 13(4): 559-571.Kedia, B.L., Keller, R.T. and Julian, SD. 1992. Dimensions of national culture and the

productivity of R&D units. The Jozlrnal of High Technology Management Research, 3(l):1-18.

Kraut, A.I. 1975. Some recent advances in cross-national management research. Academy ofManagement Journal, 18(3): 538-549.

Kroeber, A.L. and Kluckhorn, C. 1963. Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions.New York: Vintage Books.

Kyi, K.M. 1988. APJM and comparative management in Asia. Asia Pact;fic Journal ofManagement, 5(3): 207-224.

LaJaunie, L. Jr. and Sambharya, R. 1990. Mediatory myth: an approach to managingorganizational culture in MNCs. In S.B. Prasad (ed) Ad uances in International ComparativeManagement, 5: 21 l-225. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.

Lammers, C.J. and Hickson, D.J. 1979. Are organizations culture-bound? In C.J. Lammersand D.J. Hickson (eds) Organizations Alike and Unlike. pp. 402-419. London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.

Laurent, A. 1986. The cross-cultural puzzle of international human resource management.Human Resource Management, 25(l): 91-102.

Malhotra, N.K., Agarwal, J. and Peterson, M. 1996. Methodological issues in cross-culturalmarketing research : a state-of-the-art review. International Marketing Review, 13(5): 7-43.

Menezes, D. and Elbert, N.F. 1979. Alternative semantic scaling formats for measuring storeimage: an evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(l): 80-87.

Mitchell, R.E. 1969. Survey materials collected in the developing countries: Sampling,measurement, and interviewing obstacles to intra- and inter-national comparisons. In


21/23

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN CROSS-CULTURAL MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 153J. Boddewyn (ed) Comparative Management and Marketing: Text and Readings. pp. 232-252.Glenvile, Illinois: Scott, Foresman & Co.

Morey, N.C. and Luthans, F. 1984. An emit perspective and ethnoscience methods fororganizational research. Academy of Management Review, 9(l): 27-36.

Morgan, G. 1980. Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory.Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(4): 605-622.

Morgan, G. 1983. Resea rch strate gies: mode s of engagem ent. In G. Morgan (ed) BeyondMethod. pp. 19-42. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Morgan, G. and Smircich, L. 1980. The case for qualitative research. Academy of ManagementReview, 5(4): 491-500.

Nasif, E.G., Al-Daeaj, H., Ebrahimi, B. and Thibodeadx, MS. 1991. Methodologicalproblems in cross-cultural research: an updated review. Management International Review,31: 79-91.

Nath, R. 1969. A methodological review of cross-cultural management research. In J.Boddewyn (ed) Comparative Management and Marketing: Text and Readings. pp. 195-223.Glenvile, Illinois: Scott, Foresman & Co.

Nath, R. 1970. Proposition building and other methodological issues in comparativemanagement. In J. Boddewyn (ed) Comparative Management: Teaching, Research, andTraining. pp. 137-159. New York: New York University Graduate School of Busine ssAdministration.

Nath, R. 1988. Comparative Management: A Regional View. Cambridge, Massachusetts:Ballinger Publishing Company.

Negandhi, A.R. 1974. Cross-cultural management studies: too many conclusio ns, notenough conceptualization. Management International Review, 14(6): 59-67.

Negandhi, A.R. 1983. Cross-cultural management research: Trend and future directions.Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2): 17-28.

Negandhi, A.R. and Prasad, S.B. 1971. Comparative Management. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Ng, S.H. et al. 1982. Human values in nine countries. In R. Rath et al. (eds) Diversity andUnity in Cross-Cultural Psychology. pp. 19-205. Lisse NL.: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Second edition. NewburyPark, California: Sage.

Pavett, C. and Morris, T. 1995. Management styles within a multinational corporation: afive country com parative study. Human Relations, 48( 10): 117 l-l 191.

Peng, T.K., Peterson, M.F. and Shyi, Y.P. 1991. Quantitative methods in cross-nationalmanagement research: trends and equivalence issues . Journal o f Organizational Behavior,12: 87-107.

Prasad, S.B. 1990. Advances in International Comparative Management: A Research Annual, vol.5. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.

Ralston, D.A., Holt, D.H., Terpstra, R.H. and Yu, K. 1997. The impact of national cultureand economic ideology on managerial work values: a study of the United States, Russia,Japan, and China. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(l): 177-207.

Redding, G. 1997. Comparative management theory: jungle, zoo or fossil bed? In M.Warner (ed) Comparative Management: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management, 4:1445-1479. London: Routledge.

Ricks, D.A. 1985. International business research: past, present, and future. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 16(2): l-4.

Roberts, K.H. 1997. On looking at an elephant: An evaluation of cross-cultural researchrelated to organiza tions. In M. Warner (ed) Comparative Management: Critical Perspectiveson Business and Management, 1: 327-350. London: Routledge.

Roberts, K.H. and Boyacigiller, N.A. 1984. Cross national organizational research: the graspof the blind men. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6: 423-475.


22/23

154 L. LIM AND P. FIRKOLARobinson, R.V. 1983. Book review: Geert Hofstede, Cultures Consequences. Work and

Occupations, 10: 110-l 15.Ross, M.H. and Homer, E. 1976. Galtons problem in cross national research. World Politics,

29(l): l-28.Roth, MS. 1995. The effects of culture and socioeconomics on the performance of globalbrand image strategies. Journal of Marketing Research, 32: 163-175.Schein, E.H. 1997. Organizational Culture and Leadership. Second edition. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers.Schneider, S. 1988. National and corporate culture: Implications for human resource

management. Human Resource Management, 27(2): 23 l-246.Schollhammer, H. 1969. The comparative management theory jungle. Academy of

Management Journal, 12( 1): 8 1-97.Sechrest, L., Fay, T.L. and Zaidi, S.M.H. 1972. Problems of translation in cross-cultural

research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 3( 1): 4 l-56.Sekaran, LJ. 1981. Are U.S. organizational concepts and measures transferable to anotherculture? An empirical investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 24(2): 409-417.Sekaran, U. 1983. Methodological and theoretical issues and advancements in cross-cultural

research. Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2): 61-73.Shane, S. 1995. Uncertainty avoidance and the preference for innovation championing roles.

Journal of International Business Studies, 26(l): 47-68.Smircich, L. 1983. Concepts o f culture and organizational analysis. Administrative ScienceQzlarterly, 28(3): 339-358.

Sondergaard, M. 1994. Hofstedes consequences: a study of reviews, citations, andreplications. Organization Studies, 15(3): 447-456.Sorge, A. 1983. Review on Cultures Consequences. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(4):

625-629.Tayeb, M. 1994. Organizations and national culture: methodology considered. OrganizationStudies, 15(3): 4299446.Teagarden, M.B. et al. 1995. Toward a theory of comparative management research: an

idiographic case study of the best international human resources management project.Academy of Management Journal, 38(5): 1261-1287.

Triandis, H.C. 1982. Review of cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Human Organization, 41(l): 86-90.

Triandis, H.C. et al. 1986. The measurement of the etic aspects of individualism andcollectivism across cultures. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38(3): 257-267.Voss, K.E., Stem, D.E., Johnson, L.W. and Arce, C. 1996. An exploration of the

comparability of semantic adjectives in three languages: a magnitude estimationapproach. International Marketing Review, 13(5): 44-58.

Warner, M. 1997. Comparative Management: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management,Volumes l-4. London: Routledge.

Weber, Y. 1996. Corporate culture fi t and performance in mergers and acquisitions. HumanRelations, 49(9): 1181-1202.Yeung, A.K. and Ready, D.A. 1995. Developing leadership capabilities of global

corporations: a comparative study of eight nations. Haman Resource Management, 34(4):529-547.

Yu, J.H. , Keown, C.F. and Jacobs, L.W. 1993. Attitude scale methodology: cross-culturalimplications. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 6(2): 45-64.


23/23

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	prajesh-muthiyal
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Cross Cultural Research4

Documents