Abstract
This note provides an explanation for the presumably counterintuitive, negative correlations between values and practices reported by the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness project. We argue that such results are compatible with basic microeconomic insights concerning diminishing marginal utility. This explanation implies that values surveys, as they are, generally elicit marginal preferences rather than underlying values. Therefore they are a problematic instrument for the measurement of cultures, and need to be improved so as to discriminate between the importance attached to an objective in general and that attached to it given current levels of satiation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The Hofstede–GLOBE debate adds to a large literature scrutinizing the survey approach in measuring values. This literature focuses on measurement methods (Flanagan, 1982a, 1982b; Haller, 2002), the number of factor dimensions identified (Flanagan, 1982a, 1982b; MacIntosh, 1998), micro–macro distinctions and the focus on the national level (Davis & Davenport, 1999; Haller, 2002; McSweeney 2002a, 2002b; Silver & Dowley, 2000), or the distinction between salience and underlying values (Clarke, Kornberg, McIntyre, Bauer-Kaase, & Kaase, 1999). For a general overview of criticisms – and counterarguments – that have been leveled against the values surveys method see Søndergaard (1994) or Hofstede (2001: 73, 2002: 1356).
The dimensions showing a negative correlation are assertiveness (r=−0.26), institutional collectivism (−0.61), future orientation (−0.41), humane orientation (−0.32), performance orientation (−0.28), power distance (−0.43), and uncertainty avoidance (−0.62). All these correlations were significant at the 5% level. The only dimension showing a significantly positive correlation was gender egalitarianism (r=0.32) (House et al., 2004, Appendix Table A.3: 736). Finally, in-group collectivism shows a positive but insignificant correlation.
The questionnaires used in the GLOBE project are available from the project's website: http://www.thunderbird.edu/wwwfiles/ms/globe/instruments.asp.
Alfred Marshall explained the principle of diminishing marginal utility thus: “There is an endless variety of wants, but there is a limit to each separate want. This familiar and fundamental tendency of human nature may be stated in the law of satiable wants or of diminishing utility thus: The total utility of a thing to anyone (i.e., the total pleasure or other benefit it yields him) increases with every increase in his stock of it, but not as fast as his stock increases. If his stock of it increases at a uniform rate the benefit derived from it increases at a diminishing rate. In other words, the additional benefit which a person derives from a given increase of his stock of a thing diminishes with every increase in the stock that he already has.” (Marshall, 1920 [1890]: 78–79)
Strictly speaking, it is only the value attached to the further realization of an objective that falls. See the next section for an elaboration of this point.
Inglehart is unclear about whether diminishing marginal utility is a mechanism affecting values surveys in general, and seems to suggest its influence is limited to the materialism/postmaterialism dimension. Although it seems reasonable to invoke economic mechanisms to explain observed economic phenomena only, the GLOBE findings actually indicate that the principle of diminishing marginal utility has broader applicability. This in turn means that our reference to societal goals in terms of consumption goods is supported by the negative correlations between practices and values found by the GLOBE researchers.
To be exact, values surveys measure the average importance attached to somewhat more rule of law than presently experienced by individual members of society. In a strict sense, this is not exactly the same as the importance society attaches to somewhat more rule of law than members of society on average experience in the current situation, as we suggest here. However, the two are closely related and any difference is only quantitative, so that in practice the distinction appears insignificant enough to be ignored in survey research. We thank an anonymous referee for pointing out this distinction.
Thus, in the case of a positive correlation, values (weights) appear to dominate the item, whereas in the case of negative correlations, marginal preferences do so. If neither is dominant, no significant correlations will be found.
References
Clarke, H., Kornberg, A., McIntyre, C., Bauer-Kaase, P., & Kaase, M. 1999. The effect of economic priorities on the measurement of value change: New experimental evidence. American Political Science Review, 93 (3): 637–647.
Davis, D. W., & Davenport, C. 1999. Assessing the validity of the postmaterialism index. American Political Science Review, 93 (3): 649–664.
Earley, P. C. 2006. Leading cultural research in the future: A matter of paradigms and taste. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (6): 922–931.
Flanagan, S. 1982a. Changing values in advanced industrial societies: Inglehart's silent revolution from the perspective of Japanese findings. Comparative Political Studies, 14 (4): 403–444.
Flanagan, S. 1982b. Measuring value change in advanced industrial societies: A rejoinder to Inglehart. Comparative Political Studies, 15 (1): 99–128.
Haller, M. 2002. Theory and method in the comparative study of values: Critique and alternative to Inglehart. European Sociological Review, 18 (2): 139–158.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture's consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. 2002. Dimensions do not exist: A reply to Brendan McSweeney. Human Relations, 55 (11): 1355–1361.
Hofstede, G. 2006. What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers' minds versus respondents' minds. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (6): 882–896.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. 2004. Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Inglehart, R. 1990. Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R. 1997. Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Javidan, M., House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & Sully de Luque, M. 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.
Leung, K. 2006. Editor's introduction to the exchange between Hofstede and GLOBE. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (6): 881.
MacIntosh, R. 1998. Global attitude measurement: An assessment of the World Values Survey Postmaterialism Scale. American Sociological Review, 63 (3): 452–464.
Marshall, A. 1920 [1890]. Principles of economics: An introductory volume (8th ed.). London: The Macmillan Press.
McSweeney, B. 2002a. Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55 (1): 89–118.
McSweeney, B. 2002b. The essentials of scholarship: A reply to Geert Hofstede. Human Relations, 55 (11): 1363–1372.
Silver, B., & Dowley, K. M. 2000. Measuring political culture in multiethnic societies: Reaggregating the World Values Survey. Comparative Political Studies, 33 (4): 517–550.
Smith, P. B. 2006. When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled: The GLOBE and Hofstede projects. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (6): 915–921.
Søndergaard, M. 1994. Hofstede's consequences: A study of reviews, citations and replications. Organization Studies, 15 (3): 447–456.
Acknowledgements
Helpful comments by Sjoerd Beugelsdijk and Esther-Mirjam Sent are gratefully acknowledged. The paper has benefited from the comments of three anonymous referees. Needless to say, the views expressed in this paper are the authors' only.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Accepted by Alain Verbeke, Area Editor, 4 December 2007. This paper has been with the authors for one revision.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Maseland, R., van Hoorn, A. Explaining the negative correlation between values and practices: A note on the Hofstede–GLOBE debate. J Int Bus Stud 40, 527–532 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2008.68
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2008.68