Advertisement

Distance in International Business Research: A Commentary

Chapter
Part of the JIBS Special Collections book series (JIBSSC)

Abstract

We find that the recommendations that Beugelsdijk, Ambos and Nell (Journal of International Business Studies 49 (9): 1113–1137, 2018) make about Mahalanobis distance correction are useful not only in the analysis of multiple pairs of home and host countries as in their paper, but also when measuring distance against a single country. By testing different culture dimensions, we further support their idea that the selection of the culture framework has important consequences, and even more so in studies with a single reference home or host country.

References

  1. Beugelsdijk, S., B. Ambos, and P.C. Nell. 2018. Conceptualizing and measuring distance in international business research: Recurring questions and best practice guidelines. Journal of International Business Studies 49 (9): 1113–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Harzing, A.W., and M. Pudelko. 2016. Do we need to distance ourselves from the distance concept? Why home and host country context might matter more than (cultural) distance. Management International Review 56 (1): 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hofstede, G., G.J. Hofstede, and M. Minkov. 2010. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  4. House, R.J., P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman, and V. Gupta, eds. 2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Kogut, B., and H. Singh. 1988. The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies 19 (3): 411–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Peterson, M.F. 2003. Book review of “Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations, 2d ed.” by Geert Hofstede. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001. Administrative Science Quarterly 48 (1): 127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Peterson, M.F., T.S. Barreto, and P.B. Smith. 2016. Revised sources of guidance measures: Six events and demographic controls. In Unity, diversity and culture, ed. C. Roland-Lévy, P. Denoux, B. Voyer, P. Boski, and W.K. Gabrenya Jr., 213–217. Melbourne: International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology. www.iaccp.org. Accessed 4 Feb 2019.Google Scholar
  8. Ralston, D.A., C. Egri, et al. 2011. A 21st century assessment of values across the global workplace. Journal of Business Ethics 104 (1): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Schwartz, S.H. 2006. A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology 5 (2): 137–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ———. 2008. The 7 Schwartz cultural value orientation scores for 80 countries. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304715744_The_7_Schwartz_cultural_value_orientation_scores_for_80_countries
  11. Smith, P.B., M.F. Peterson, and S. Schwartz. 2002. Cultural values, sources of guidance and their relevance to managerial behavior: A 47 nation study. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology 33 (1): 188–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Smith, P.B., M.F. Peterson, and Z.M. Wang. 1996. The manager as mediator of alternative meanings: A pilot study from China, the U.S.A. and U.K. Journal of International Business Studies 27 (1): 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations