Skip to main content

Are societal-level values still relevant measures in the twenty-first century businessworld? A 39-society analysis

Asia Pacific Journal of Management (2022)Cite this article

A Correction to this article was published on 16 June 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

Since the days of Hofstede (1980), cross-cultural comparisons of countries based on societal-level work values have been a norm. This approach has been represented more recently in Ronen and Shenkar’s (2013) 11 clusters of country cultures. However, more contemporary research found within-country heterogeneity of values/behaviors is substantial and growing exponentially across today’s twenty-first century businessworld. We investigated, across a sample of 39 societies, whether work values variance within societies was greater than work values variance across societies, and whether individual work values differences contributed more to predictions of behavioral performance criteria than the society in which the individuals lived. Both sets of analyses addressed how work values conceived at societal-levels are relevant in understanding the twenty-first century businessworld. Our findings revealed first that there was substantial within-society values heterogeneity, which resulted in the failure to replicate Ronen and Shanker’s (2013) societal cluster aggregations. Second, we found individual-level values contributed significantly to the prediction of employees’ behaviors, while societal-level values contributed substantially less. These findings strongly suggest that cross-cultural studies of work values predictive power are most relevant when conducted at the individual-level. Finally, we also make available for future investigators a 51-society database containing 11,780 individual-level records.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Change history

References

  • Caprar, D. V., Devinney, T. M., Kirkman, B. L., & Caligiuri, P. (2015). Conceptualizing and measuring culture in international business and management: From challenges to potential solutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 46, 1011–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. (1982). Editorial: Some remarks from the outgoing editor. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 691–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J., Lawler, E. E., Dunnette, M. D., & Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial behavior performance, and effectiveness. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerar, J., Nell, P. C., & Reiche, B. S. (2021). The declining share of primary data and the neglect of the individual level in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-021-00451-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, S., von Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the Editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 178–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinese Culture Connection. (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colakoglu, S., & Caligiuri, P. (2008). Cultural distance, expatriate staffing and subsidiary performance: The case of US subsidiaries of multinational corporations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 223–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, D. (2000). The quest to improve the human condition: The first 1500 articles published in Journal of Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 26, 1–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, C., & Douglas, Susan. (2006). Beyond national culture: Implications of cultural dynamics for consumer research. International Marketing Review, 23, 322–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egri, C. P., & Ralston, D. A. (2004). Generation cohorts and personal values: A comparison of China and the U.S. Organization Science, 15, 210–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontaine, J. R. J., Poortinga, Y. H., Delbeke, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Structural equivalence of the values domain across cultures: Distinguishing sampling fluctuations from meaningful variation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 345–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goertzen, A., Pedersen, T., Veglio, V., Elter, F. & Gooderham, P. (2018). Global cities: A new perspective on cultural differences at the sub-national and supra-national levels. Presented at the Academy of International Business Meeting.

  • Google Scholar. (September 24, 2020). Retrieved from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=ronen+and+shenkar+2013&oq=shen

  • Haslberger, A., & Brewster, C. (2009). Capital gains: Expatriate adjustment and the psychological contract in international careers. Human Resources Management, 48, 379–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hummels, D. (2007). Transportation costs and international trade in the second era of globalization. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(3), 131–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 19–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, T. (2000). Making ethical judgements: A cross-cultural management study. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 17(3), 443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karam, C. M., & Ralston, D. A. (2016). A failure before analysis: The soup to nuts of preparing for multicountry analyses. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 23, 590–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karam, C. M., Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., Butt, A., Srinivasan, N., Fu, P. P., Lee, C. H., Moon, Y.-l, Li, Y., Ansari, M., Kuo, M.-H., Thanh, H. V., Pekerti, A., Hallinger, P., Fang, Y., & Chia, H. B. (2013). The use of favors to get ahead at work in Asia: An 11-society assessment. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management, 30, 373–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaasa, A., & Minkov, M. (2020). Are the world’s national cultures becoming more similar? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022120933677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2017). A retrospective on Culture’s Consequences: The 35-year journey. Journal of International Business Studies, 48, 12–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluckhohn, F., & Strodtbeck, F. (1961). Variations in value orientation. Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (1989). On the empirical identification of dimensions of cross-cultural differences. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 133–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malecki, E. J., & Ewers, M. C. (2007). Labor migration to world cities: With a research agenda for the Arab Gulf. Progress in Human Geography, 31, 467–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midgley, D. F., Venaik, S. & Christopoulos, D. (2020). Is there a national culture? Nations as diverse mixtures of global values archetypes. Academy of International Business Annual Meeting Proceedings.

  • Milligan, G. W., & Cooper, M. C. (1985). An examination of procedures for determining number of clusters in a data set. Psychometrika, 50, 159–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, F. (2020). Multiple interpretations of “national culture” and the implications for international business: The case of Taiwan. Journal of World Business, 55(5), 101128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2020.101128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan, Y., & Sparks, J. R. (2012). Predictors, consequence, and measurement of ethical judgments: Review and meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 65, 84–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrinjaquet, A., Furrer, O., Usunier, J. C., Cestre, G., & Valette-Florence, P. (2007). A test of the quasi-circumplex structure of human values. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(4), 820–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M. F. (2004). Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 641–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D. A., Gustafson, D. J., Terpstra, R. H., Holt, D. H., Cheung, F., & Ribbens, B. A. (1993). The impact of managerial values on decision-making behaviour: A comparison of the United States and Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 10(1), 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D. A., Cunniff, M. K., & Gustafson, D. A. (1995). Cultural accommodation: The effect of language on the responses of bilingual Hong Kong Chinese managers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 714–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., de la Garza-Carranza, M. T., Ramburuth, P., Terpstra-Tong, J., Pekerti, A., Grison, I., Herrig, H., Dabic, M., Tang, M., Wan, P., Hallinger, P., Palmer, I., Elenkov, D., Furrer, O., Potocan, V. V., Wangenheim, F., Maignan, I., Perrewé, P., … Wallace, A. (2009). Ethical preferences for influencing superiors: A 41-society study. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1022–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., Furrer, O., Kuo, M.-H., Li, J., Wangenheim, F., Dabic, M., Naoumova, I., Shimizu, K., de la Garza Carranza, M. T., Fu, P. P., Potocan, V., Pekerti, A., Lenartowicz, T., Srinivasan, N., Casado, T., Rossi, A. M., Szabo, E., Butt, A., … Weber, M. (2014). Societal-level versus individual-level predictions of ethical behavior: A 48-society study of collectivism and individualism. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 283–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., Karam, C. M., Li, Y., & Fu, P. P. (2018a). Changes in work values across the Regions of China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35, 145–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D. A., Russell, C. J., & Egri, C. P. (2018b). Business values dimensions: A cross-culturally developed measure of workforce values. International Business Review, 27, 1189–1199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., Reynaud, E., Srinivasan, N., Furrer, O., Brock, D., Alas, R., Wangenheim, R., Darder, F. L., Kuo, M. H., Potocan, V., Mockaitis, A. I., Szabo, E., Gutiérrez, J. R., Pekerti, A., Butt, A., Palmer, I., Naoumova, I., Lenartowicz, T., … Wallace, A. (2011). A 21st century assessment of values across the global workforce. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D. A., & Pearson, A. (2010). The cross-cultural evolution of the subordinate influence ethics measure. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 149–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D. A., Russell, C. J., Terpstra-Tong, J., Richards, M. Casado, T., de la Garza Carranza, M. T., Naoumova, I., Li, Y., Srinivasan, N., Lenartowicz, T., Furrer, O., Pekerti, A., Dabic, M., Palmer, I., Kangasniemi, M. Szabo, E., Gutiérrez, J. R., Reynaud, E., Darder, F. L., Rossi, A. M., von Wangenheim, F., Molteni, M., Starkus, A., Mockaitis, A., Butt, A., Castro, F., Girson, I., Dharmasiri, A. S., Kuo, M-H., Dalgic, T., Thanh, H. V., Ramburuth, P., Moon, Y-l., Hallinger, P., Potocan, V. V., Nicholson, J., Milton L., Lee, C-H., Ansari, M., Pla-Barber, J., Jesuino, J.C., Alas, R., Danis W., Chia, H-B., Fang, Y., Elenkov, Y. & Brock, D. M. (2020). Societal-Level vis-à-vis Individual-Level Work Values in the 21st Century Businessworld: An Empirical Analysis of 51 Countries. Academy of International Business Meeting, online.

  • Richardson, H., Simmering, M., & Sturman, M. (2009). A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 762–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. (1967). Values survey. Halgren Tests.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10, 435–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (2013). Mapping world cultures: Cluster formation, sources and implications. Journal of International Business Studies, 44, 867–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, C. J. (2009). Establishing the usefulness of strategic management research: On inverted Lewinians and naked strategy scholars. In D. Ketchen & D. Bergh (eds.), Research Methodology in Strategy and Management (Vol. 5, pp. 55–74). JAI Press.

  • Schaller, T. K., Patil, A., & Malhotra, N. (2015). Alternative techniques for assessing common method variance: An analysis of the theory of planned behavior research. Organizational Research Methods, 18, 177–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharping, T. (2003). Birth control in China 1949–2000: Population policy and demographic development. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumann, J. H., Wünderlich, N. V., & von Wangenheim, F. (2012). Technology mediation in service delivery: A new typology and an agenda for managers and academics. Technovation, 32(2), 133–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheth, J. N. (1983). Cross-cultural influences on the buyer-seller interaction/negotiation process. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1(1), 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National culture and the values of organizational employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 231–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srite, M. & Karahanna, E. (2006). The role of espoused national cultural values in technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 679–704.

  • Strychalska-Rudzewicz, A. (2016). The impact of national culture on the level of innovation. Journal of Intercultural Management, 8(1), 121–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. (2016). Does country equate with culture? Beyond geography in the search for cultural boundaries. Management International Review, 56, 455–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L. J., Egri, C. P., Ralston, D. A., Naoumova, I., Furrer, O., Li, Y., Darder, F. L., & de la Garza Carranza, M. T. (2021). A multi-country, multi-sector replication challenge to the validity of the cultural tightness-looseness measure. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 38(2), 735–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H., Chen, C. X. P., & Darius, K. (1998). Scenarios for the measurement of collectivism and individualism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 275–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tung, R. (2008). The cross-cultural research imperative: The need to balance cross-national and intra-national diversity. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 41–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tung, R. L., & Verbeke, A. (2010). Beyond Hofstede and GLOBE: Improving the quality of cross-cultural research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 1259–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2017). International Migration Report 2017: Highlights: Department of Economics and Social Affairs, Population Division. https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/international-migration-report-2017.html

  • van Hoorn, A. (2015). Differences in work values: Understanding the role of intra-versus inter-country variation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(7), 1002–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venaik, S., & Brewer, P. (2016). National culture dimensions: The perpetuation of cultural ignorance. Management Learning, 47, 563–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vora, D., Martin, L., Fitzsimmons, S. R., Pekerti, A., Lakshman, C., & Raheem, S. (2019). Multiculturalism within individuals: A review, critique, and agenda for future research. Journal of International Business Studies, 50, 499–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt, T. A. (1988). Quality of working Life: Cross-cultural considerations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 6(1), 129–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Carolyn Egri for her assistance in developing the database for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Fellows International Research Consortium, Fort Myers, FL, USA

    David A. Ralston

  2. University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

    Craig J. Russell

  3. Monash University, Selangor, Malaysia

    Jane Terpstra-Tong

  4. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Fl, USA

    Len J. Trevino & Tomasz Lenartowicz

  5. University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    Prem Ramburuth

  6. Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA

    Malika Richards

  7. University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Tania Casado

  8. Instituto Tecnológico de Celaya, Celaya, Mexico

    María Teresa de la Garza Carranza

  9. University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT, USA

    Irina Naoumova

  10. Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

    Yongjuan Li

  11. University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

    Narasimhan Srinivasan

  12. Université de Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

    Olivier Furrer

  13. University of Nottingham, Ningbo, China

    Ping Ping Fu

  14. University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia

    Andre Pekerti

  15. University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Marina Dabic

  16. Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia

    Ian Palmer

  17. University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland

    Maria Kangasniemi

  18. Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria

    Erna Szabo

  19. Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia

    Jaime Ruiz Gutiérrez

  20. IAE d’Aix-en-Provence, Aix-en-Provence, France

    Emmanuelle Reynaud

  21. University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Fidel León Darder & Jose Pla-Barber

  22. Clinica De Stress E Biofeedback, Porto Alegre, Brazil

    Ana Maria Rossi

  23. Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Munich, Germany

    Florian von Wangenheim

  24. Catholic University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Mario Molteni

  25. CIBER-Vilnius, Vilnius, Lithuania

    Arunas Starkus

  26. Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland

    Audra Mockaitis

  27. Lahore University of Management Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan

    Arif Butt

  28. University of Westminster, London, UK

    Ilya Girson

  29. University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka

    Ajantha S. Dharmasiri

  30. National Central University, Taoyuan, Taiwan

    Min-Hsun Kuo

  31. University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA

    Tevfik Dalgic

  32. National Economics University, Hanoi, Vietnam

    Hung Vu Thanh

  33. Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea

    Yong-lin Moon

  34. Anabas Learning Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand

    Philip Hallinger

  35. University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia

    Vojko V. Potocan

  36. San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Joel Nicholson

  37. University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada

    Laurie Milton

  38. Argosy University-Twin Cities, Eagan, MN, USA

    Mark Weber

  39. Keppel Offshore & Marine, Singapore, Singapore

    Chay Hoon Lee

  40. University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB, Canada

    Mahfooz Ansari

  41. Instituto Superior de Ciencias Do Trabalho E da Empresa, Lisbon, Portugal

    Jorge C. Jesuino

  42. Estonia Business School, Tallinn, Estonia

    Ruth Alas

  43. University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada

    Wade Danis

  44. National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Ho-Beng Chia

  45. University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia

    Yongqing Fang

  46. Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY, USA

    Detelin Elenkov

  47. Ben-Gurion University, Be’er Sheva, Israel

    David M. Brock

Authors
  1. David A. Ralston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Craig J. Russell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jane Terpstra-Tong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Len J. Trevino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Prem Ramburuth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Malika Richards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tania Casado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. María Teresa de la Garza Carranza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Irina Naoumova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Yongjuan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Narasimhan Srinivasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Tomasz Lenartowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Olivier Furrer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Ping Ping Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Andre Pekerti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Marina Dabic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Ian Palmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Maria Kangasniemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Erna Szabo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Jaime Ruiz Gutiérrez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Emmanuelle Reynaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Fidel León Darder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Ana Maria Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Florian von Wangenheim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Mario Molteni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Arunas Starkus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  27. Audra Mockaitis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  28. Arif Butt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  29. Ilya Girson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  30. Ajantha S. Dharmasiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  31. Min-Hsun Kuo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  32. Tevfik Dalgic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  33. Hung Vu Thanh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  34. Yong-lin Moon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  35. Philip Hallinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  36. Vojko V. Potocan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  37. Joel Nicholson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  38. Laurie Milton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  39. Mark Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  40. Chay Hoon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  41. Mahfooz Ansari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  42. Jose Pla-Barber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  43. Jorge C. Jesuino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  44. Ruth Alas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  45. Wade Danis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  46. Ho-Beng Chia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  47. Yongqing Fang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  48. Detelin Elenkov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  49. David M. Brock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Ralston.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised due to corrections in Tables 1 and 2, Appendix B and D, and supplementary information.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file 1

Excel Database File of BVD and SIE Dimensions (XLS 4.49 MB)

Appendices

Appendix A. Cronbach’s Alphas for the BVD Measures

Society Sample size* (N) Ethical achievement Power Other-oriented Globally responsible innovation Universal order
Algeria 100 0.628 0.516 0.611 0.605 0.579
Argentina 96 0.853 0.760 0.819 0.772 0.672
Australia 198 0.763 0.780 0.837 0.765 0.739
Austria 105 0.673 0.774 0.704 0.509 0.634
Brazil 399 0.749 0.701 0.751 0.740 0.711
Bulgaria 88 0.618 0.674 0.648 0.588 0.756
Canada 265 0.730 0.765 0.798 0.734 0.668
Chile 72 0.819 0.663 0.625 0.817 0.780
China 552 0.818 0.722 0.797 0.768 0.788
Colombia 183 0.784 0.697 0.811 0.628 0.747
Costa Rica 68 0.731 0.755 0.789 0.759 0.722
Croatia 268 0.655 0.656 0.718 0.711 0.669
Cuba 564 0.719 0.669 0.706 0.684 0.640
Czech Rep 295 0.626 0.685 0.682 0.610 0.670
Dubai 99 0.520 0.451 0.662 0.512 0.454
Egypt 125 0.347 0.407 0.680 0.483 0.277
Estonia 150 0.727 0.723 0.722 0.613 0.648
Finland 131 0.714 0.752 0.738 0.572 0.562
France 200 0.666 0.609 0.688 0.661 0.658
Germany 199 0.729 0.764 0.770 0.729 0.586
Hong Kong 153 0.848 0.818 0.766 0.790 0.695
Hungary 122 0.625 0.630 0.678 0.622 0.680
India 268 0.833 0.610 0.795 0.735 0.780
Indonesia 131 0.835 0.772 0.793 0.801 0.829
Israel 129 0.783 0.765 0.692 0.704 0.646
Italy 288 0.673 0.710 0.746 0.574 0.642
Japan 135 0.545 0.734 0.704 0.620 0.581
Lebanon 97 0.719 0.688 0.808 0.701 0.698
Lithuania 311 0.733 0.728 0.747 0.678 0.749
Malaysia 325 0.638 0.595 0.746 0.648 0.637
Mexico 298 0.799 0.720 0.739 0.714 0.630
Netherlands 205 0.766 0.716 0.787 0.765 0.643
New Zealand 122 0.653 0.744 0.737 0.696 0.639
Pakistan 338 0.799 0.693 0.717 0.707 0.714
Peru 375 0.789 0.772 0.775 0.735 0.708
Portugal 547 0.704 0.701 0.765 0.709 0.690
Russia 214 0.695 0.661 0.679 0.652 0.705
Singapore 465 0.798 0.789 0.808 0.774 0.772
Slovenia 299 0.693 0.703 0.683 0.636 0.726
S. Africa 201 0.737 0.760 0.839 0.683 0.763
S. Korea 275 0.736 0.689 0.697 0.664 0.668
Spain 82 0.780 0.766 0.666 0.628 0.581
Sri Lanka 114 0.812 0.709 0.813 0.785 0.773
Switzerland 368 0.664 0.735 0.673 0.650 0.597
Taiwan 277 0.868 0.759 0.835 0.780 0.847
Thailand 279 0.571 0.655 0.664 0.608 0.600
Turkey 123 0.788 0.708 0.794 0.740 0.636
UK 254 0.740 0.715 0.791 0.753 0.715
USA 209 0.697 0.725 0.802 0.666 0.672
Venezuela 134 0.850 0.781 0.755 0.741 0.708
Vietnam 190 0.756 0.710 0.777 0.706 0.723
All Societies 11,505 0.771 0.718 0.774 0.706 0.711
  1. * sample size on which coefficient alpha was computed across the scale

Appendix B. Dimensions of the BVD and items in questionnaire format

The five business values dimensions

The five BVD dimensions, which are comprised of 34 items, measure latent individual work values, which have been shown to exhibit a common measurement model across cultures (Ralston et al., 2018a, b). The BVD dimensions include (Ralston et al., 2018a, b, pp.1196–97):

  • Ethical achievement. This 7-item dimension captures “the desire to take the honorable and efficient path to prosper and flourish. Effective integrity and responsible behavior towards one’s self and others through personal competency is the emphasis of this values set.”

  • Power. This 6-item dimension captures “a self-centered need for the approval of others, domineering control of the situation and personal supremacy. A Machiavellian-like influence over other people, without reference to ethical standards, is the emphasis of this values set.”

  • Other-oriented. This 10-item dimension captures “other-oriented, deferential demeanor with self-effacing-predisposition to follow social rules aimed at harmony and minimizing conflict. Consideration for others with the purpose of serving these others with humility, which is tantamount to a collectivistic-orientation, is the emphasis of this values set.”

  • Globally responsible innovation. This 6-item dimension captures “embracing innovation in ways that respect the environment. The adventure of imaginative exploration of the unknown in a responsible manner is the emphasis of this values set.”

  • Universal order. This 5-item dimension captures “a need for a dependable, peaceful social environment. These items describe the value as being applied at all social levels (i.e., world, society, interpersonal).”

BVD items presented in questionnaire format

Instructions: We are interested in your views. There are no “correct” answers.

Below is a list of 34 phrases, each expressing a different (unique) individual value. After reading each phrase, please indicate how important each is to you in leading your life.

In the space before each, write the number (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) that indicates your view of that phrase. Try to distinguish as much as possible between the phrases by using all the numbers. You will, of course, need to use numbers more than once.

figure a

(Ralston et al., 2018)

Appendix C. Cronbach’s alphas for the SIE measures

Society Sample size* (N) Pro-organizational Malicious intended
Algeria 99 0.667 0.689
Argentina 87 0.785 0.740
Australia 195 0.794 0.697
Austria 105 0.738 0.748
Brazil 400 0.682 0.773
Bulgaria 88 0.087 0.757
Canada 258 0.758 0.746
China 552 0.734 0.742
Colombia 178 0.679 0.805
Costa Rica 67 0.738 0.610
Croatia 272 0.661 0.697
Czech Rep 294 0.662 0.702
Dubai 99 0.470 0.623
Egypt 125 0.531 0.527
Estonia 255 0.778 0.730
Finland 131 0.706 0.766
France 200 0.849 0.731
Germany 197 0.796 0.817
Hong Kong 92 0.757 0.723
Hungary 126 0.698 0.695
India 256 0.783 0.809
Indonesia 129 0.614 0.670
Israel 132 0.751 0.657
Italy 288 0.704 0.775
Japan 135 0.672 0.723
Lebanon 94 0.701 0.762
Lithuania 311 0.532 0.646
Malaysia 328 0.704 0.659
Mexico 306 0.756 0.863
Netherlands 205 0.595 0.662
New Zealand 123 0.761 0.812
Pakistan 336 0.694 0.694
Peru 376 0.649 0.729
Portugal 550 0.676 0.785
Russia 213 0.677 0.726
Singapore 463 0.753 0.815
Slovenia 299 0.551 0.703
S. Africa 196 0.779 0.753
S. Korea 275 0.778 0.732
Spain 79 0.789 0.751
Sri Lanka 121 0.759 0.746
Switzerland 361 0.590 0.769
Taiwan 281 0.663 0.720
Thailand 278 0.574 0.624
Turkey 124 0.510 0.693
UK 259 0.671 0.777
USA 209 0.650 0.694
Venezuela 131 0.754 0.720
Vietnam 199 0.621 0.604
All Societies 10,389 0.752 0.748
  1. * sample size on which coefficient alpha was computed across the scale

Appendix D. Dimensions of the SIE and items in questionnaire format

The four subordinate influence ethics behaviors

The four SIE dimensions measure subordinate perceptions of behaviors they engage in attempting to influence superiors (Ralston & Pearson, 2010). Items consist of short scenarios describing actual behaviors reported by businesspeople of their coworkers’ behavior in business organizations. Ralston and Pearson (2010) described the iterative item development and construct validity evidence supporting the cross-cultural validity of these dimensions. SIE dimensions include (Karam et al., 2013, pp. 401–402):

  • Pro-organizational ethics behavior. This 6-item dimension “may be defined as the ‘organizational person’ approach to gain influence in that these behaviors reflect those that are typically prescribed and/or sanctioned by organizations for their subordinates. These may be viewed as behaviors that tend to be directly beneficial to the organization” (Karam et al., 2013, p.401).

  • Image management ethics behavior. This 5-item dimension “may be defined as subtle actions that an individual may use to influence his/her superiors with the objective being personal gain (Karam et al., 2013, p.402). They capture the ‘get others to like me’ approach to gain influence as they are non-confrontational (e.g., ingratiatory), while still having a self-orientation. Image management behaviors are less aggressive than those found in the Self-Serving dimension.

  • Self-serving ethics behavior. This 6-item dimension “may be defined as the ‘it’s me first’ approach to gain influence in that these behaviors show self-interest being of paramount importance, and thus being above the interests of others and the organization. Whether these behaviors help or harm the organization is subject to interpretation and may be determined by the situation” (Karam et al., 2013, p.402).

  • Maliciously intended ethics behavior. This 5-item dimension “may be defined as the ‘burn, pillage, and plunder’ approach to gain influence in that they are intended to directly hurt others and/or the organization, to facilitate personal gain. These behaviors are the extreme of self-serving behaviors, and in many industrialized societies these behaviors would also be considered illegal” (Karam et al., 2013, p.401).

SIE items presented in questionnaire format

Instructions: We are interested in your views. There are no “correct” answers. Below is a list of 24 strategies that individuals might use to try to get ahead at work. After reading each strategy, please indicate how ethically acceptable you think that your co-workers would consider each strategy as a means of influencing superiors.

In the space before each item, write the number (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) that indicates how ethically acceptable you believe that your co-workers would consider each strategy. Try to distinguish as much as possible between the items by using all the numbers, if possible. You will, of course, need to use numbers more than once.

figure b

(Ralston & Pearson, 2010).

Appendix E. Within-subject standardization of scale scores

  1. 1.

    Individual respondent raw score averages were calculated for each dimension.

  2. 2.

    Individual overall means and standard deviations for all BVD and SIE items were calculated based upon the following equation:

    $${\text{SS}}_{i} = [{\text{S}}_{(i)} - \mu ]/\sigma$$

Where

SSi:

the respondent’s standard score for dimension i,

Si:

respondent’s raw score for dimension i,

μ:

overall mean of the BVD or SIE item scores, and.

σ:

overall standard deviation of all BVD or SIE items.

Appendix F. Variables of the excel database table

Variable name Variable description Values of the variable
SOCIETY Society of data collection See Appendix G (Society Codes)
YEAR Year of data collection  
AGE Age Numerical age of participant
GENDER Gender 1 = Male
2 = Female
EDUCATION Highest level of education attained 1 = 4 or fewer years completed
2 = 5 to 8 years completed
3 = 9 to 12 years completed
4 = 13 to 16 years completed [Bachelor’s degree]
5 = Master’s degree
6 = Doctorate degree
POSITION Position level in organization 1 = Non-supervisory staff
2 = First level manager
3 = Middle level manager
4 = Upper level manager
YRSWKD Number of years of full-time employment (all jobs) Numerical number of years
COSIZE Company size 1 = Less than 100 employees
2 = 100 to 1000 employees
3 = More than 1000 employees
INDUSTRY Industry in which respondent worked 1 = Agriculture, mining, forestry, fishing
2 = Construction
3 = Manufacturing
4 = Transportation, communication, utilities
5 = Wholesale and retail trade
6 = Finance, insurance, real estate
7 = Services (example: hotel, restaurant)
8 = Public administration
9 = Healthcare
10 = Other
NATIONALITY Society nationality of respondent See Appendix G (Society Codes)
BIRTH Society of birth of respondent See Appendix G (Society Codes)
LIVED_15 Society in which respondent lived the longest (5 years or more) before the age of 15 See Appendix G (Society Codes)
BVD_EA Raw data score for the BVD Ethical Achievement dimension Numerical score
BVD_P Raw data score for the BVD Power dimension Numerical score
BVD_OO Raw data score for the BVD Other-Oriented dimension Numerical score
BVD_GR Raw data score for the BVD Globally Responsible dimension Numerical score
BVD_UO Raw data score for the BVD Universal Order dimension Numerical score
BVD_EA_STD Standardized by individual score for the BVD Ethical Achievement dimension Numerical score
BVD_P_STD Standardized by individual score for the BVD Power dimension Numerical score
BVD_OO_STD Standardized by individual score for the BVD Other-Oriented dimension Numerical score
BVD_GR_STD Standardized by individual score for the BVD Globally Responsible dimension Numerical score
BVD_UO_STD Standardized by individual score for the BVD Universal Order dimension Numerical score
SIE_PRO_O Raw data score for the SIE Pro Organizational Ethics dimension Numerical score
SIE_IMAGE Raw data score for the SIE Image Management Ethics dimension Numerical score
SIE_SS Raw data score for the SIE Self-Serving Ethics dimension Numerical score
SIE_MAL_I Raw data score for the SIE Maliciously Intended Ethics dimension Numerical score
SIE_PRO_O _STD Standardized by individual score for the SIE Pro Organizational Ethics dimension Numerical score
SIE_IMAGE_STD Standardized by individual score for the SIE Image Management Ethics dimension Numerical score
SIE_SS_STD Standardized by individual score for the SIE Self-Serving Ethics dimension Numerical score
SIE_ MAL_I_STD Standardized by individual score for the SIE Maliciously Intended Ethics dimension Numerical score

Appendix G. Numeric codes for the societies in numerical order

1 USA 47 Bolivia 93 Belgium
2 Hong Kong 48 Lebanon 94 Norway
3 China 49 Turkey 95 Ireland
4 Russia 50 Peru 96 Luxembourg
5 Japan 51 Hungary 97 Lichtenstein
6 India 52 Bangladesh 98 Ghana
7 Germany 53 New Zealand 99 Senegal
8 Canada 54 Cuba 100 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
9 Mexico 55 Colombia 101 Cyprus
10 Vietnam 56 Philippines 102 Ivory Coast
11 Greece 57 Pakistan 103 Afghanistan
12 Macau 58 Dominican Republic 104 Sri Lanka
13 Portugal 59 Egypt 105 Armenia
14 Chile 60 Czech Republic 106 Madagascar
15 Fiji 61 South Korea 107 Cameroon
16 UK 62 Kuwait 108 Burkina Faso
17 Brazil 63 Libya 109 Rwanda
18 Israel 64 Saudi Arabia 110 ‘Asian’
19 Ecuador 65 Bahrain 111 Kazakhstan
20 France 66 Oman 112 Tanzania
21 Netherlands 67 U.A.E 113 Uzbekistan
22 Bulgaria 68 Nigeria 114 Kyrgyzstan
23 Slovakia 69 Iran 115 Moldavia
24 Indonesia 70 Nepal 116 Latvia
25 Switzerland 71 Dubai 117 Belarus
26 Slovenia 72 Qatar 118 Scotland
27 Romania 73 Abu Dhabi 119 -—-
28 Yugoslavia 74 Lithuania 120 Ethiopia
29 Montenegro 75 Barbados 121 Zaire
30 Ukraine 76 Algeria 122 Trinidad
31 Poland 77 Costa Rica 123 Mauritius
32 Croatia 78 Iraq 124 Papua New Guinea
33 Argentina 79 Estonia 125 Macedonia
34 Australia 80 Jordan 126 Albania
35 Thailand 81 Morocco 127 Kenya
36 Singapore 82 Syria 128 Jamaica
37 Malaysia 83 Tunisia 129 Myanmar
38 Finland 84 Sudan 130 Tatar
39 Italy 85 Palestine 131 Zambia
40 Taiwan 86 Denmark 132 Zimbabwe
41 -—- 87 Sweden 133 Swaziland
42 Azerbaijan 88 Angola 134 Namibia
43 South Africa 89 Mozambique 135 -—-
44 Bosnia 90 Venezuela 136 -—-
45 Serbia 91 Puerto Rico 137 Cape Verde
46 Spain 92 Austria 138 Iceland

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ralston, D.A., Russell, C.J., Terpstra-Tong, J. et al. Are societal-level values still relevant measures in the twenty-first century businessworld? A 39-society analysis. Asia Pac J Manag (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-022-09822-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-022-09822-z

Keywords

  • Individual-level analysis
  • Societal-level analysis
  • Business values dimensions (BVD)
  • Subordinate influence ethics (SIE) behaviors
  • Cluster analysis
  • Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM)