Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
Korean Academic Society of Business Administration
[ Article ]
korean management review - Vol. 46, No. 2, pp.429-454
ISSN: 1226-1874 (Print)
Print publication date 30 Apr 2017
Received 22 Aug 2016 Revised 12 Dec 2016 Accepted 23 Jan 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17287/kmr.2017.46.2.429

Tang and Koveos(2008) 문화척도 측정방식의 한계와 대안

민유주아나* ; 양오석**
*(주저자) 강원대학교 국제무역학과 박사과정 yjmin@kangwon.ac.kr
**(교신저자) 강원대학교 경영회계학부 교수 osyang30@kangwon.ac.kr
Limitations and Alternative Methodologies in Measuring Cultural Indices by Tang and Koveos(2008)
Yujuana Min* ; Oh-Suk Yang**
*Department of International Trade and Business, Kangwon National University, First Author
**Department of Business Administration, Kangwon National University, Corresponding Author

초록

오늘날 기업은 영업활동 확장 및 제조 거점 확보를 목적으로 다국적화를 진행하면서 지식이전, 정보공유 및 인적관리 등에서 발생할 수 있는 잠재적 문제 상황에 직면하고 있다. 홉스테드(Hofstede) 문화척도는 기업이 직면하는 문제에 대한 해결방안 모색을 위한 분석틀을 제공하여 지난 30년간 국제경영분야에서 광범위하게 활용되어 왔다. 그러나 홉스테드 문화척도의 유용성에도 불구하고 해당 문화지표가 시대흐름에 따른 환경 변화를 적절히 반영하는 지에 대한 의문도 동시에 제기되어 왔다. 이에 Tang and Koveos(2008)는 경제적 번영과 홉스테드 문화척도 사이에 강한 횡단면 관계를 바탕으로 해당 문화척도를 갱신하는 방법을 제시하였다. 하지만 횡단면 민감성만을 고려하고 시계열 민감성을 배제한 Tang and Koveos(2008)의 방식은 동시대와 같은 이질적 경제성장 환경에서는 지표 갱신방법으로서의 유용성이 상실될 수 있음을 본 연구는 실증분석을 통해 밝혔다. 이와 더불어 경제발전 단계에 따른 시계열 민감성을 통제한 문화척도는 Tang and Koveos(2008)의 분석 방식보다 GLOBE 지표와 높은 상관관계를 보여 본 연구의 분석방식(MY 모형)이 우월함을 입증하였다. 또한 본 연구의 분석방식(MY 모형)을 해외직접투자 결정요인으로서의 문화거리에 대한연구에 적용한 결과, 불확실성회피 차원을 기준으로 한 국가 간 문화적 거리와 해외직접투자의 유·출입 규모 간 음(-)의 관계가 새롭게 발견하였다. 본 연구방식으로 갱신된 문화척도는 기존 학계에서 제기된 홉스테드 문화척도와 GLOBE 지수와의 모순을 해결하는 동시에, Brewer and Venaik(2011)의 경제적 번영수준에 따른 문화척도의 변화 이론을 지지하였다.

Abstract

Cultural indices developed by Hofstede have utilized during the past 30 years in the international management by providing solutions facing the internalization such as knowledge transfer, information sharing, personnel management. In addition to these benefits, a question whether the indicators adequately reflect the environmental changes also has raised. Typically Tang and Koveos(2008) tried to update Hofstede’s cultural indices for 90s based on the findings that Hofstede’s cultural indices are highly correlated to economic prosperity.

However we found that Tang and Koveos(2008)’s methodology only considers the cross-sectional sensitivity which does not include time-series sensitivity in the framework between cultural indices and economic developments. Thus, it leads that global economic changes have not counted in the model, so that it can not appropriately updated the cultural indices. Our updated indices that control times-series sensitivity not only solved a problem that Tang and Koveos(2008)’s indices exceed the original scale, but also show higher correlation with GLOBE than Tang and Koveos(2008)’s indices. Furthermore Hofstede indices updated by our methodology offsets a dilemma between Hofstede and GLOBE, then it supports Brewer and Venaik(2011)’s hypothesis of cultural changes corresponding to economic prosperities. At the same time, it confirms to renewal Hofstede indices rather than comparing indices measured under heterogeneous circumstances.

Academic contributions of this paper are as follows. First, while Tang and Koveos(2008) limits to single factor changing cultural dimension, this study identify that the effect of economic development could be divided into two elements : cross-sectional sensitivity and time-series sensitivity. Secondly, as applying methodology presented by this study, global costs that remeasure cultural indices could drastically be reduced and yearly tendency of the indices can be measured.

Keywords:

Cultural Indices, Hofstede, Time Series Sensitivity, GLOBE, Tang and Koveos(2008)

키워드:

문화척도, 홉스테드, 시계열민감성, GLOBE, Tang and Koveos(2008)

References

  • Aizenman, J., and Marion, N.(2004), “The Merits of Horizontal Versus Vertical FDI in the Presence of Uncertainty,” Journal of International Economics, 62(1), 125-148. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2003.08.003]
  • Brewer, P., and Venaik, S.(2011), “Individualism–collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(3), 436-445. [https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.62]
  • Brewer, P., and Venaik, S.(2012), “On the Misuse of National Culture Dimensions,” International Marketing Review, 29(6), 673-683. [https://doi.org/10.1108/02651331211277991]
  • Grove, C. N.(2005), “Introduction to the GLOBE Research Project on Leadership Worldwide”. Grovewell LLC.
  • Hofstede, G(1980), “Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values,” Beverly Hills:Sage.
  • Hofstede, G(2006), “What did GLOBE Really Measure? Researchers’ Minds Versus Respondents’ Minds,” Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 882-896. [https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400233]
  • Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., and Minkov, M.(1991), “Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (Vol. 2),” London: McGraw-Hill.
  • Hofstede, G., and Minkov, M.(2013), “Values Survey Module 2013 Manual,” Accessed May, 25, 2014.
  • House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., and Gupta, V.(1999), “Cultural Influences on Leadership and Organizations: Project GLOBE,” Advances in Global Leadership, 1(2), 171-233.
  • Javidan, M., House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., and De Luque, M. S.(2006), “Conceptualizing and Measuring Cultures and their Consequences: A Comparative Review of GLOBE's and Hofstede's Approaches,” Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 897-914. [https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400234]
  • Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., and Gibson, C. B. (2006), “A Quarter Century of Culture's Consequences: A Review of Empirical Research Incorporating Hofstede's Cultural Values Framework,” Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 285-320. [https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400202]
  • Maseland, R., and Van Hoorn, A.(2009), “Explaining the Negative Correlation between Values and Practices: A Note on the Hofstede–GLOBE Debate,” Journal of International Business Studies, 40(3), 527-532. [https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2008.68]
  • McSweeney, B.(2002), “Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith-a Failure of Analysis,” Human Relations, 55(1), 89-118. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726702551004]
  • Pan, Y., and Jackson, R. T.(2008), “Ethnic Difference in the Relationship between Acute Inflammation and Serum Ferritin in US Adult Males,” Epidemiology and Infection, 136(03), 421-431. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S095026880700831X]
  • Petter, S., Straub, D., and Rai, A.(2007), “Specifying Formative Constructs in Information Systems Research,” Mis Quarterly, 31(4), 623-656. [https://doi.org/10.2307/25148814]
  • Ratner, B.(2009), “The Correlation Coefficient: Its Values Range between +1/−1, or do they,” Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 17(2), 139-142. [https://doi.org/10.1057/jt.2009.5]
  • Rogerson, P. A.(2001), “Statistical Methods for Geography,” London: Sage. [https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209953]
  • Schwartz, S. H.(1992), “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25(1), 1-65. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6]
  • Schwartz, S. H. (1994), “Beyond Individualism Collectivism: New Cultural Dimensions of Values,” Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Schwartz, S. H., and Bilsky, W.(1990), “Toward a Theory of the Universal Content and Structure of Values: Extensions and Cross-cultural Replications,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 878. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.878]
  • Shi, X., and Wang, J.(2011), “Interpreting Hofstede Model and Globe Model: Which Way to go for Cross-cultural Research?,” International Journal of Business and Management, 6(5), 93. [https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v6n5p93]
  • Siegel, J. I., Licht, A. N., and Schwartz, S. H. (2013), “Egalitarianism, Cultural Distance, and Foreign Direct Investment: A New Approach,” Organization Science, 24(4), 1174-1194. [https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0776]
  • Smith, P. B., Peterson, M. F., and Schwartz, S. H. (2002), “Cultural Values, Sources of Guidance, and their Relevance to Managerial Behavior a 47-nation Study,” Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 33(2), 188-208. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033002005]
  • Tang, L.(2012), “The Direction of Cultural Distance on FDI: Attractiveness or Incongruity?,” Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 19(2), 233-256. [https://doi.org/10.1108/13527601211219919]
  • Tang, L., and Koveos, P. E.(2008), “A Framework to Update Hofstede’s Cultural Valueindices: Economic Dynamics and Institutional Stability,” Journal of International Business Studies, 39:1045-1063 [https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400399]
  • Taras, V., Steel, P., and Kirkman, B. L.(2010), “Negative Practice–value Correlations in the GLOBE Data: Unexpected Findings, Questionnaire Limitations and Research Directions,” Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8), 1330-1338. [https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.30]
  • Taras, V., Steel, P., and Kirkman, B. L. (2012), “Improving National Cultural Indices Using a Longitudinal Meta-analysis of Hofstede's Dimensions,” Journal of World Business, 47(3), 329-341. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2011.05.001]
  • van den Bergh, J., and Antal, M.(2014), “Evaluating Alternatives to GDP as Measures of Social Welfare/progress,” WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 56.
  • Venaik, S., and Brewer, P.(2013), “Critical Issues in the Hofstede and GLOBE National Culture Models,” International Marketing Review, 30(5), 469-482. [https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-03-2013-0058]
  • Wu, M.(2006), “Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions 30 Years Later: A Study of Taiwan and the United States,” Intercultural Communication Studies, 15(1), 33.

• 저자 민유주아나는 강원대학교 국제무역학과에서 박사 과정 중에 있으며 산업통상자원부(2015), 통계청(2016) 및 대외경제정책연구원)(2015)에서 주최하는 논문 공모전에서 우수 논문상을 수상하였다. 강원대학교에서 공학사(정보통신공학), KDI국제정책대학원에서 공공정책학 석사(공공재정)를 취득하였다. 탄자니아 탕가(Tanga) 농업대학교에서 컴퓨터교육 강사로 재직하였으며, 한국교육개발원(KEDI)에서 OECD 교육통계 보고(교육재정) 및 국제교육비교 연구를 수행하였다. 주요 연구분야는 환노출, 환율가격전가, 결제통화, 중소기업 재무, 환율 불확실성, 경기 동조화 등이다.

• 저자 양오석은 서울대학교에서 경영학 박사(국제경영, 전략경영, 국제재무 전공을 마쳤으며, 삼성경제연구소 수석연구원을 거쳐 현재 강원대학교 경영대학 경영회계학부에 재직 중이다. 관심분야는 국제경영, 전략경영, 중소기업 연구, 국제금융, 유럽경제 및 금융정책분야, 해외직접투자, 은행의 국제화, 유럽 지역연구 등이다.