The conceptual difference really matters: Hofstede vs GLOBE’s uncertainty avoidance and the risk-taking behavior of firms

Name: The conceptual difference really matters: Hofstede vs GLOBE’s uncertainty avoidance and the risk-taking behavior of firms
Author: Alipour, Ali

İsim	The conceptual difference really matters: Hofstede vs GLOBE’s uncertainty avoidance and the risk-taking behavior of firms
Yazar	Alipour, Ali
Basım Tarihi:	2019-12-05
Basım Yeri	- Emerald Publishing Limited
Konu	GLOBE, Hofstede, Risk, Uncertainty avoidance, National culture, Acquisitions, Risk-taking behaviour, Long-term investments
Tür	Süreli Yayın
Dil	İngilizce
Dijital	Evet
Yazma	Hayır
Kütüphane:	Özyeğin Üniversitesi
Demirbaş Numarası	2059-5794
Kayıt Numarası	050c7b9f-08eb-4332-918c-3e79b56aa6e8
Lokasyon	Business Administration
Tarih	2019-12-05
Örnek Metin	Purpose In spite of the common label, uncertainty avoidance (UA) across Hofstede and GLOBE models has been found to be negatively correlated and capture distinct concepts. Nevertheless, the empirical research focusing on the impact of UA on a variety of constructs has strongly neglected this conceptual difference, assuming them equivalent constructs and using one as an alternative for the other, or merely applying one for reasons other than conceptual relevance. Challenging this taken-for-granted assumption, the purpose of this paper is to show that their conceptual difference matters by showing that their causal impact on a given construct is not consistent given their conceptual difference. Design/methodology/approach Hypotheses are tested using hierarchical linear modeling analyses on firms from Compustat Global Database across 44 countries within the time span of 1990-2017. Findings The findings show that the causal effects of Hofstede UA index (UAI) and GLOBE UA society practices on the risk-taking behavior of firms are not consistent. Unlike Hofstede UAI, GLOBE UA (society practices) does not reduce the risk-taking behavior of firms. Originality/value This study is valuable in that it raises awareness on the conceptual differences between UA dimensions across Hofstede vs GLOBE and challenges one of the taken-for-granted assumptions in the empirical literature that the two are equivalent by empirically showing that their impacts on a given construct (i.e. the risk-taking behavior of firms) are not consistent.
DOI	10.1108/CCSM-04-2019-0084
Cilt	26

Kaynağa git Özyeğin Üniversitesi

Aramaya Dön

Özyeğin Üniversitesi

Kaynağa git

The conceptual difference really matters: Hofstede vs GLOBE’s uncertainty avoidance and the risk-taking behavior of firms

Yazar Alipour, Ali

Basım Tarihi 2019-12-05

Basım Yeri - Emerald Publishing Limited

Konu GLOBE, Hofstede, Risk, Uncertainty avoidance, National culture, Acquisitions, Risk-taking behaviour, Long-term investments

Tür Süreli Yayın

Dil İngilizce

Dijital Evet

Yazma Hayır

Kütüphane Özyeğin Üniversitesi

Demirbaş Numarası 2059-5794

Kayıt Numarası 050c7b9f-08eb-4332-918c-3e79b56aa6e8

Lokasyon Business Administration

Tarih 2019-12-05

Örnek Metin Purpose In spite of the common label, uncertainty avoidance (UA) across Hofstede and GLOBE models has been found to be negatively correlated and capture distinct concepts. Nevertheless, the empirical research focusing on the impact of UA on a variety of constructs has strongly neglected this conceptual difference, assuming them equivalent constructs and using one as an alternative for the other, or merely applying one for reasons other than conceptual relevance. Challenging this taken-for-granted assumption, the purpose of this paper is to show that their conceptual difference matters by showing that their causal impact on a given construct is not consistent given their conceptual difference. Design/methodology/approach Hypotheses are tested using hierarchical linear modeling analyses on firms from Compustat Global Database across 44 countries within the time span of 1990-2017. Findings The findings show that the causal effects of Hofstede UA index (UAI) and GLOBE UA society practices on the risk-taking behavior of firms are not consistent. Unlike Hofstede UAI, GLOBE UA (society practices) does not reduce the risk-taking behavior of firms. Originality/value This study is valuable in that it raises awareness on the conceptual differences between UA dimensions across Hofstede vs GLOBE and challenges one of the taken-for-granted assumptions in the empirical literature that the two are equivalent by empirically showing that their impacts on a given construct (i.e. the risk-taking behavior of firms) are not consistent.

DOI 10.1108/CCSM-04-2019-0084

Cilt 26