Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)
Article information:
To cite this document:
Kerry D. Carson David S. Baker Patricia A. Lanier , (2014),"The role of individual cultural traits and
proactivity in an organizational setting", Management Research Review, Vol. 37 Iss 4 pp. 348 - 366
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-12-2012-0269
Downloaded on: 27 March 2015, At: 06:24 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 90 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 354 times since 2014*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 444336 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm
MRR
37,4
348
Kerry D. Carson
Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)
David S. Baker
Marketing Department, University of Louisiana at Lafayette,
Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, and
Patricia A. Lanier
Department of Management, University of Louisiana at Lafayette,
Lafayette, Louisiana, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this research is to assess the impact of espoused individual cultural traits
on proactive behaviors within an organizational environment. While there have been many reports
about the positive outcomes of proactivity, there is much less known about the antecedents,
particularly those related to culture.
Design/methodology/approach Sales employees (n 147) in a multi-national organization from
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA were surveyed to assess the impact of cultural
trait influences on proactive behavior at the individual level. Using linear regression and partial least
squares structural equation modeling, three independent variables were found to be significant
antecedents to proactive behavior.
Findings Long-term orientation positively influenced proactive behaviors as did uncertainty
avoidance. Uncertainty avoidance was hypothesized to have a negative impact on proactive
behaviors, but the results of this study implied that individuals found it safer to adjust to a fluid
environment rather than to remain inflexible. No relationship was found between power distance
and proactivity. Masculinity was found to be positively related to proactive behaviors but collectivism
was not.
Research limitations/implications The results of this study should be limited to its own population
and not generalized to larger, more culturally diverse populations which were not represented in the sample.
Practical implications This study provides better understanding of managerial proactive
behavior related to cultural traits, particularly in the domain of field sales.
Originality/value This study is unique in that it explores individual proactivity in an
organizational selling environment related to cultural traits at the individual level.
Keywords Masculinity, Long-term orientation, Cultural traits, Power distance, Proactive behavior,
Uncertainty avoidance
Paper type Research paper
Management Research Review
Vol. 37 No. 4, 2014
pp. 348-366
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-8269
DOI 10.1108/MRR-12-2012-0269
Historically, managers provided employees with clear job descriptions because they
had very specific jobs they wanted employees to perform. Performance was then
measured by how well the employee met the formalized tasks. However, unbending
employee expectations only work in a stable environment which does not describe
Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)
Role of
individual
cultural traits
349
MRR
37,4
Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)
350
that will benefit the organization in the future. They set goals, take charge, initiate change,
and persist despite obstacles. They are self-determined because they have great confidence
in their abilities to accomplish the task confronting them (Crant, 2000; Frese et al., 1997).
Sometimes they merely improve processes or procedures that are not working well, but
they also can solve large problems in innovative ways (Parker et al., 2006).
Besides innovation, there are many other positive outcomes associated with
proactivity. Perhaps the most important is that individuals exhibiting these behaviors
are high performing (Crant, 2000). They are also very successful in their careers as they
select the right work environments and then make changes to their situation to promote
their careers (Seibert et al., 2001). Further, individuals who exhibit proactive behaviors
have high life satisfaction because they often achieve self-defined goals which make
them feel good about themselves and their lives (Greguras and Diefendorff, 2010).
Relatedly, they have high job satisfaction because they alter their work situation by
increasing their autonomy and make their jobs more significant (Erdogan and Bauer,
2005; Thomas et al., 2010). Because they proactively adapt to changing work situations,
they feel involved in their organizations (Bateman and Crant, 1993).
Proactive employees craft a work environment that allows them to successfully
accomplish their goals. In order to create a situation that is responsive to their efforts,
proactive employees are skilled at socializing and networking within others. Because
they have established reputations as employees who get things accomplished, they are
held in high esteem by other employees. This organizational support makes it even
more likely that they will initiate changes in the workplace (Thomas et al., 2010).
Proactivity is not, however, just about the individual success of the individual
employee. Proactive employees take others into account in their efforts to improve the
collective organization. They understand the interdependency involved in
accomplishing work outcomes and, therefore, they actively collaborate with others
to achieve their goals. They anticipate help that others may need in order to accomplish
objectives, thus exhibiting organizational citizenship behavior (Greguras and
Diefendorff, 2010). This collaboration promotes completion of group tasks even in
challenging times resulting in increased effectiveness of the work group as well as the
organization (Grant et al., 2009; Griffin et al., 2007).
Long-term orientation and proactive behavior
When Hofstede and Bond (1988) first recognized long-term orientation as a cultural
dimension, they labeled it Confucian dynamism in which work ethic, persistence,
obedience, self-discipline, loyalty, politeness and thrift were valued. However, this complex
construct, identified in 23 countries using the Chinese Value Survey, was perplexing
to researchers. The concept of long-term orientation was clarified by Bearden et al. (2006)
who developed an instrument for measuring long-term orientation at the individual
level. This instrument consisted of just two dimensions; planning and tradition.
This research study focuses exclusively on the planning dimension of this construct.
There are two primary ideas associated with the long-term planning dimension
(Lumpkin and Brigham, 2011). First, there is the belief that distant goals are possible to
accomplish, making it worthwhile to plan and evaluate possible consequences.
The second belief is perseverance, i.e. efforts today will pay off tomorrow. These
individuals realize that they must remain persistent in their labors, yet know they need
Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)
to adapt to changes in their environment. Here, individuals are convinced that working
hard with lead to future success (Ganesan, 1994).
Individuals in cultures with a short-term orientation expect quick results, while those
with a long-term orientation are comfortable with slower outcomes and exhibit more
diligence. They are satisfied with steady progression towards objectives and are better
at imaging the future than those with a short-term orientation (Hofstede, 2001). They are
also more prudent. They are more likely, for example, to focus on saving their money for
a future event rather than make an impulse decision (Dwyer et al., 2005). Individuals
with a long-term orientation are therefore better planners (Ng and Ng, 2003).
Proactive employees are also good planners as they challenge the status quo and
look for opportunities to solve problems. They do not just take on easy problems, but
are also willing to carry on in the face of adversity. Obstacles do not prevent them from
attaining long-term goals. Frese et al. (1996) similar concept of personal initiative
defines behaviors that are proactive as having a long-term focus. Furthermore,
proactive individuals look for ways to bring about changes in their environment or self
to achieve a different future (Parker et al., 2010). Thus, the following is hypothesized:
H1. Long-term orientation is positively associated with proactive behaviors.
Uncertainty avoidance and proactive behavior
Individuals who are low on uncertainty avoidance are comfortable with change, novelty,
and entrepreneurial initiatives. In contrast, those high on uncertainty avoidance feel
threatened by new or ambiguous situations. They are resistant to change and prefer a
stable environment. To cope with anxiety and uneasiness, they look to laws, customs,
rules and religion to provide security and assurance in life (Hofstede, 2001).
Individuals high on uncertainty avoidance prefer well-defined jobs, exact
guidelines, and unambiguous responsibilities to avoid uncertainty. Also, they play it
safe through long organizational tenure (Chew and Putti, 1995). As consumers, high
uncertainty avoidance individuals search for extensive information about products
before purchasing. They prefer to have a choice among several alternatives and also
welcome service guarantees ( John et al., 2011; Quintal et al., 2010).
Hofstede (2001) suggested that cultures high on uncertainty avoidance are threatened
by new or unknown situations and, therefore are resistant to innovation. In contrast,
cultures low on uncertainty avoidance embrace risk and advancement. Consistent with
this, firms in high uncertainty avoidance cultures are reported to have low proactivity
(Kreiser et al., 2010). Because proactive individuals are comfortable with making
changes needed for the future of the organization and are innovative in finding new
approaches to problems, the following is proposed:
H2. Uncertainty avoidance is negatively associated with proactive behaviors.
Masculinity/femininity and proactive behavior
The masculinity/femininity cultural dimension as first proposed by Hofstede was a rather
stereotypical view of the emotional roles of men and women. Masculine cultures are
perceived as tough or aggressive and feminine cultures as tender or nurturing. Masculine
cultures emphasize achievement, competition, determination, and ambition. They value
aggression, action, decisiveness, and performance. Individuals in a masculine achievement
oriented culture are comfortable with money, status symbols, and conspicuous
Role of
individual
cultural traits
351
MRR
37,4
Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)
352
team outcomes. Additionally, at the cultural value level, it was reported that high power
distance negatively influenced the proactive behaviors of firms (Kreiser et al., 2010).
Thus, on an individual cultural trait level similar findings are proposed:
Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)
Role of
individual
cultural traits
353
MRR
37,4
Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)
354
Srite and Karahanna, 2006; Wagner, 1995). These individualized measures will be
utilized in this study.
Given the cultural trait aspects of this research, it has also been suggested that the level
of analysis of this research is not solely at the individual level, but at the pan-cultural level
of analysis. This is defined as pooling the data from N individuals together, regardless of
the culture they belong to (Hofstede et al., 1993, p. 487). Also, it has been noted that the level
of analysis between the dependent variable and the independent variables should be
consistent. In this study, an individualized measure of proactive behavior was used.
Therefore, independent variables reflecting espoused cultural traits were also measured at
the individual level (Bockner and Hesketh, 1994; Clugston et al., 2000).
Data
This study was conducted with a field research questionnaire. The 147 respondents
worked in sales at an organization that operates multi-nationally in over 120 countries in
the industrial business-to-business sector. Field sales employees queried in this survey
were employed in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA. The lead
author used his professional history to gain the cooperation of the executives in sales
management which provided a 95 percent response rate. The average chronological age
of the sample was 46 years, average organizational tenure was 14 years, and 41 percent
held a college degree. Of the 147 respondents, six individuals exited the survey at
various points and did not return to complete it. This constituted less than 5 percent of
the sample responses, and incomplete responses were therefore removed from the final
analysis. Descriptive statistics of the sample are summarized in Table I.
Measures
Age and tenure in the organization were included in the model as control variable.
The following Likert-scale measures were used in this study.
Proactive behaviors. Proactivity was measured by a six-item scale (composite
reliability 0.90) reported to be valid both across and within cultures (Claes et al.,
2005) two samples item in this measure are I am always looking for better ways to do
things and No matter what the odds, if I believe in something, I will make it happen.
Long-term orientation. Long-term orientation was gauged with a four-item scale
(composite reliability 0.88). Two sample items of the long-term planning dimension
developed by Bearden et al. (2006) measured at the individual cultural trait levels are I plan
for the long term and I dont mind giving up todays fun for success in the future.
Demographic variable
Table I.
Sample descriptive
statistics
Age
Education
High school or equivalent
Some college education
Bachelors degree or
equivalent
Graduate university degree
Mean tenure at company (years)
USA
UK
Canada
(n 59) (n 42) (n 25)
Australia/New Zealand
(n 15)
Total
sample
(n 141)
48
44
46
48
46 years
26
7
30
12
2
74
9
23
3
16
12
10
1
15
54
4
14
12
13
Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)
Role of
individual
cultural traits
355
MRR
37,4
Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)
356
Table II.
Measurement item
rotated component
matrix
Component
LT1
LT2
LT3
LT4
UA1
UA2
UA3
UA4
UA5
AC1
AC2
AC3
PD1
PD2
PD3
PD4
PD5
PD6
IC1
IC2
IC3
IC4
IC5
IC6
PP1
PP2
PP3
PP4
PP5
PP6
0.248
0.052
0.049
0.097
0.718
0.786
0.887
0.825
0.833
0.398
0.158
0.031
0.069
0.299
0.056
20.013
20.120
20.023
0.112
0.051
0.233
0.148
0.025
0.060
0.207
0.100
0.045
0.214
0.236
0.085
0.395
0.371
0.176
0.317
0.227
0.146
0.010
0.185
0.110
0.094
0.104
0.333
2 0.060
2 0.025
2 0.274
0.091
2 0.056
2 0.046
2 0.187
2 0.127
2 0.101
2 0.054
0.293
0.118
0.664
0.727
0.759
0.692
0.613
0.730
2 0.030
0.184
0.078
2 0.019
0.011
0.063
0.062
0.144
0.180
0.127
0.102
0.008
0.046
0.248
2 0.034
0.009
0.110
2 0.084
0.722
0.748
0.506
0.805
0.785
0.796
0.042
0.105
0.008
2 0.050
0.010
2 0.109
2 0.006
2 0.137
2 0.078
2 0.048
0.106
0.127
0.016
2 0.053
2 0.052
2 0.078
2 0.042
2 0.158
0.699
0.595
0.698
0.680
0.745
0.706
2 0.028
0.029
2 0.262
0.113
0.015
0.167
2 0.050
2 0.035
2 0.170
2 0.097
2 0.091
0.111
0.622
0.745
0.783
0.654
2 0.008
0.128
0.109
0.124
0.072
0.142
0.078
0.126
2 0.124
2 0.006
2 0.006
2 0.026
2 0.113
0.037
0.231
0.201
0.227
2 0.098
2 0.063
2 0.052
0.206
0.212
0.018
0.312
0.461
0.332
2 0.034
0.086
0.124
0.202
0.008
0.112
0.148
0.112
0.129
0.639
0.779
0.694
0.093
0.000
2 0.167
2 0.054
2 0.015
2 0.159
0.244
0.285
0.336
2 0.085
2 0.025
2 0.076
2 0.063
0.263
0.130
0.112
0.082
0.086
Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: varimax with
Kaiser normalization
and influential outliers to insure the normality and reliability of the data. All of these
tests met acceptable guidelines (Hair et al., 2010).
The results of the regression model are shown in Table IV (r 2 0.46, F 28.44,
p # 0.01). The regression model supported the direction of results from the Pearson
correlations. Proactivity was positively related to long-term orientation (b 0.49, p # 0.01),
masculinity (b 0.24, p # 0.01), and uncertainty avoidance (b 0.142, p # 0.05).
Proactivity showed no significant relationship with collectivism or power distance.
Next, structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed using partial least squares
with the cultural traits as independent variable antecedents to the dependent variable of
proactivity. Smart PLS 2.0 was the software utilized for the analysis. As noted by
Hair et al. (2011), partial least squares-SEM (PLS-SEM) is a causal modeling approach
intended to maximize explained variance of the dependent latent constructs.
While PLS-based SEM is a somewhat newer approach to SEM modeling in
comparison to co-variance based SEM, it is increasingly being utilized used in
Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)
Mean SD
Long-term
orientation
(LTO)
Uncertainty
avoidance
(UA)
Masculinity
(MA)
Power
distance (PD)
Collectivism
(CO)
Proactive
personality
(PP)
CR
LTO
UA
MA
PD
CO
PP
Pearson
5.96 0.685 0.88
correlation
0.805 0.308 *
0.435 * 2 0.159
0.225 *
0.633 *
Pearson
5.22 1.02 0.93
correlation
0.308 * 0.844
0.369 *
0.084
0.252 *
0.353 *
Pearson
correlation
Pearson
correlation
Pearson
correlation
Pearson
correlation
0.435 * 0.369 *
0.719 2 0.111
0.287 *
0.488 *
357
0.084
2 0.111
0.668 2 0.034
2 0.156
0.225 * 0.252 *
0.287 * 2 0.034
0.673
0.063
0.633 * 0.353 *
0.488 * 2 0.156
0.063
0.780
Notes: Correlation is significant at: *0.01 level (two-tailed); the square root of the AVE is shown in
italics on the diagonal
Model
Long-term orientation
Masculinity
Uncertainty avoidance
Collectivism
Power distance
Unstandardized
coefficients
B
SE
0.614
0.248
0.119
2 0.082
2 0.045
Role of
individual
cultural traits
0.088
0.076
0.058
0.056
0.053
Standardized coefficients
b
t-value
Sig.
0.494
0.235
0.142
20.095
20.054
6.957
3.242
2.043
21.458
20.848
0.000
0.001
0.043
0.147
0.398
business disciplines. The method has benefits not offered by CB-SEM that are
important to this study. First, PLS-SEM has an ability to work effectively with smaller
sample sizes (Chin, 1998a, b; Chin and Newsted, 1999). Second, it is a preferred method
for prediction and theory development (Hair et al., 2011). Finally, PLS-SEM is also a
well-established method for investigating cause-effect relationships in business
research (Gudergan et al., 2008; Hair et al., 2010).
Results of the PLS-SEM analysis supported two of the five hypotheses. H1 stated that
long-term orientation would be positively associated with proactive behaviors which
was strongly supported (path coefficient 0.464). H2 stated that uncertainty avoidance
would be negatively associated with proactive behaviors. As indicated from the
correlation, this was in the opposite direction than predicted. The positive association
was supported in both the linear regression and the PLS-SEM model
(path coefficient 0.186). H2 was therefore not supported. H3 stated that
masculinity would not be associated with proactive behaviors. However, within the
model masculinity showed a positive association with proactive behavior
(pathcoefficient 0.249), which did not support this hypothesis.
Table III.
Measurement descriptive
statistics and correlations
Table IV.
Linear regression model
coefficients
MRR
37,4
358
Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)
Discussion
Findings
This study provides practical insight into understanding proactive behavior related to
espoused individual cultural traits in an organizational setting. Long-term orientation
was found to be significantly related to proactive behavior, and it is also associated
with other positive organizational outcomes. For example, it was previously reported
that long-term orientation explained over 26 percent of the variance in performance
(Chakrabarty et al., 2008). Long-term orientation is also important in the success of a
family firm. Top leadership in family firms is aware that goals are often accomplish
only after considerable delay. Effectiveness is increased when the family focuses on its
long-term interests and not just on its quarterly profits (Le Breton-Miller and Miller,
2006). Also, Lin (2009) hypothesized and found that long-term orientation of
automotive plants led to innovation as measured by the number of issued patents.
Similarly, two other research groups reported that long-term orientation and product
innovation were positively correlated (Allred and Swan, 2004; Nakata and Sivakumar,
1996). Finally, Nevins et al. (2007) also reported that marketing managers who value a
long-term orientation were more ethical.
Managers can use this knowledge to reinforce long-term orientation in the
organizational culture, particularly in cultures that tend to be more skewed at a
national level toward short-term orientation (such as those within the sample
Long Term
Orientation
Uncertainty
Avoidance
0.464
0.186
Masculinity/
Achievement
0.249
Proactive
Personality
0.107
Power
Distance
0.069
0.093
Figure 1.
The PLS-SEM model
0.049
Collectivism
Age
Tenure
Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)
population of this study). The results of this study imply that individual level
long-term orientation and planning directly influences proactive behavior. It also leads
to more productivity, improved financial success, increased innovation as well as
higher ethical standards. Companies would do well to design more holistic reward
systems that avoid emphasizing short-term profits because it results in less ethical
behavior (Chaffin and Fidler, 2002). This study therefore implies that even in
short-term oriented cultures reward systems at the individual level should thus strive
to balance short-term and long-term results in order to encourage consistent proactive
behavior of employees.
The significant finding in the study between uncertainty avoidance and proactivity
was in the opposite direction that would be suggested by Hofstede (2001). However,
there have been other researchers who have reported similar unexpected findings with
regard to uncertainty avoidance. For example, Schneider and De Meyer (1991)
indicated that individuals in Latin American cultures high on uncertainty avoidance
are more likely to be proactive in the face of environmental flux as compared to those
cultures low in uncertainty avoidance. Also, Rauch et al. (2000) showed that in
Germany, which is comparatively higher than average on uncertainty avoidance
(Hofstede, 2001), firms engage in planning to control future events which matched the
customers needs.
However, the best explanation for the outcome in the current study is that it is risky
to be too rigid in the face of change; particularly in an environment of global and
technological turmoil. Rather than facing the uncertainty of consistently adhering to
one position, it is safer to engage in change to actually reduce uncertainty (Pfeffer and
Salancik, 1978). This is what Geletkancyz (1997) surmised. She originally hypothesized
that executives with high uncertainty avoidance would be committed to the status quo.
Because of their need for certainty, she suggested that they would resist change and
avoid action. However, her research ultimately deduced that individuals higher on
uncertainty avoidance find it safer to change along with a dynamic environment as
compared to attempting to remain static. Mancheno-Smoak et al. (2009) reported
similar findings with regards to transformational leadership.
Though not hypothesized, masculinity had a positive relationship with proactive
personality within this study. While literature and previous research based on
Hofstedes (1980) original conceptualization of masculinity/femininity were reviewed to
develop the hypothesis, a more recent individual level measurement was utilized in this
study (Vitell et al., 2003). This three-item instrument did not confuse gender issues with
masculine identity. Rather it gauged promotion, pay, and firm prestige which are more
closely aligned with a de-limited aspect of masculinity that focuses directly on
ambition and success. These achievement-oriented items are consistent with the
behaviors of a proactive individual (Bateman and Crant, 1993).
The other finding in this study is the lack of significance between power distance
and proactive behavior. This is not consistent with other researchers who found that
high power distance inhibits proactivity (Grant et al., 2011; Kreiser et al., 2010). Two
limitations related to the study could explain the lack of significance in the current
study. First, the relatively small sample size may not have provided sufficient
statistical power. Second, there may have been insufficient variance as the sample was
from one organization, and respondents were from five countries have similar cultural
values that on the national level are comparatively low in power distance.
Role of
individual
cultural traits
359
MRR
37,4
Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)
360
Managerial implications
The systematic selection and development of human resources is of major importance
to contemporary organizations. Workers need to be increasingly adaptive, versatile,
and tolerant of uncertainty to operate effectively in changing and varied environments
(Pulakos et al., 2000, p. 612). Researchers suggest that proactive employee behaviors offer
valuable contributions to fluctuating business situations. Yet, establishing a proactive
workforce presents several challenges, especially for international human resource
managers. If proactive behavior is viewed as a stable individual characteristic (Frese et al.,
1997; Parker et al., 2006), the emphasis needs to be placed on hiring employees who exhibit
these traits. However, if, as this studys findings suggest, aspects of national culture can
predict proactive tendencies, then recruiting proactive individuals may prove challenging
in countries where these behaviors are not socially encouraged. For instance, Smith (2007)
suggested that in collectivist cultures where hierarchy or power distance is endorsed,
employees would be more driven by working in teams rather than individually.
However, if proactive behavior is thought to be an alterable individual characteristic,
these behaviors could be created in employees via appropriate training and
developmental processes. In fact, research suggests that if companies want a
proactive workforce, it must be created through mechanisms such as job design (Tims
and Bakker, 2010; Grant and Parker, 2009; Parker et al., 2006); performance management
(Grant et al., 2009; Griffin et al., 2007); encouragement (Sibilia, 2008); team management
(Winkler and Bouncken, 2011; Williams et al., 2010); supervisor relationships (Belschak
and Den Hartog, 2010; Griffin et al., 2010); and feedback (Stobbeleir et al., 2010).
This suggests two different human resource strategies for obtaining a proactive
workforce. The wide diversity of international cultures and related individual
personality characteristics only serve to complicate this issue. However, the current
internalization of businesses demands human resource managers tailor their selection,
compensation, performance management, and development practices to fit these
expected differences across cultures. Our findings indicate that proactivity may
be more difficult to find in some cultures than in others. Therefore, international
human resource managers will need to explore ways to accommodate cultural
variations while simultaneously meeting the increasing demand for adaptable,
take-action employees.
Limitations and future research
The nature of the sample in this study must be kept in mind. Proactive oriented
individuals are attracted to sales. This could be considered a limitation of the study in that
it prevents any generalization beyond the study sample population without
cross-validation studies utilizing a more diverse population. The sample also consists
only of Anglo-based cultures, which limits its generalizability in other cultures, especially
those with comparatively higher national level extremes of cultural values (such as Asian
or Middle Eastern based cultures). While this study was conducted at the individual level,
the sample population from which it was derived is generally considered to be lower on
collectivism at the national level. Individuals from these Anglo-based cultures generally
prefer adaptive techniques and also have less uncertainty avoidance. Therefore, while
interesting in its potential for further cross-validation studies, this study should be limited
to its own population and not generalized to larger, more culturally diverse populations
which were not represented in the sample.
Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)
References
Allred, B. and Swan, K. (2004), Global versus multi-domestic: cultures consequence on
innovation, Management International Review, Vol. 44, pp. 81-105.
Bateman, T. and Crant, J. (1993), The proactive component of organizational behavior: a measure
and correlates, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 103-118.
Bearden, W., Money, R. and Nevins, J. (2006), A measure of long-term orientation: development
and validation, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 456-467.
Belschak, F. and Den Hartog, D. (2010), Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of
proactive behaviour: differential antecedents and consequences, Journal of Occupational
& Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 475-498.
Bindl, U., Parker, S., Totterdell, P. and Hagger-Johnson, G. (2012), Fuel of the self-starter:
how mood relates to proactive goal regulation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 1,
pp. 134-150.
Bockner, S. and Hesketh, B. (1994), Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job-related
attitudes in a culturally diverse work group, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 233-257.
Boyacigiller, N. and Adler, N. (2001), The parochial dinosaur: organizational science in a global
context, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 262-292.
Chaffin, J. and Fidler, S. (2002), Enron revealed to be rotten to the core, Financial Times, Vol. 30,
April 9.
Chakrabarty, S., Oubre, D., Brown, G. and Widing, R. (2008), The effect of long-term orientation
on sales performance, Society for Marketing Advances Proceedings, pp. 276-277.
Chew, I. and Putti, J. (1995), Relationship on work-related values of Singaporean and Japanese
managers in Singapore, Human Relations, Vol. 48 No. 10, pp. 1149-1170.
Chin, W. (1998a), Commentary: issues and opinion on structural equation modeling,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 22, pp. 7-16.
Chin, W. (1998b), The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling, in
Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erbaum,
Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295-336.
Chin, W. and Newsted, P. (1999), Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples
using partial least squares, in Hoyle, R. (Ed.), Statistical Strategies for Small Sample
Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 307-341.
Claes, R., Beheydt, C. and Lemmens, B. (2005), Unidimensionality of abbreviated proactive
personality scales across cultures, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 54,
pp. 476-489.
Clugston, M., Howell, J. and Dorfman, P. (2000), Does cultural socialization predict multiple
bases and foci of commitment?, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 5-30.
Crant, J. (2000), Proactive behavior in organizations, Journal of Management, Vol. 26,
pp. 435-462.
Dorfman, P. and Howell, J. (1988), Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership
patterns: Hofstede revisited, Advances in International Comparative Management, Vol. 3,
pp. 127-150.
Dwyer, S., Mesak, H. and Hsu, M. (2005), An exploratory examination of the influence of
national culture on cross-national product diffusion, Journal of International Marketing,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 1-28.
Role of
individual
cultural traits
361
MRR
37,4
Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)
362
Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)
Role of
individual
cultural traits
363
MRR
37,4
Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)
364
Oyserman, D. (2006), High power, low power, and equality: culture beyond individualism and
collectivism, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 352-356.
Parker, S. (2000), From passive to proactive motivation: the importance of flexible role
orientations and role breadth self-efficacy, Applied Psychology: An International Review,
Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 447-469.
Parker, S. and Sprigg, C. (1999), Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: the role of job
demands, job control, and proactive personality, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84
No. 6, pp. 925-939.
Parker, S., Bindl, U. and Strauss, K. (2010), Making things happen: a model of proactive
motivation, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 827-856.
Parker, S., Williams, H. and Turner, N. (2006), Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at
work, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91, pp. 636-652.
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. (1978), The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence
Perspective, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Pulakos, E., Arad, S., Donovan, M. and Plamondon, K. (2000), Adaptability in the workplace:
development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 85, pp. 612-624.
Quintal, V., Lee, J. and Soutar, G. (2010), Tourists information search: the differential impact of
risk and uncertainty avoidance, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 321-333.
Ramamoorthy, N., Kulkarni, S., Gupta, A. and Flood, P. (2007), Individualism-collectivism and
employees attitudes: a comparison of employees from the high-technology sector in India
and Ireland, Journal of International Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 187-203.
Rauch, A., Frese, M. and Sonnentag, S. (2000), Cultural differences in planning/success
relationships: a comparison of small enterprises in Ireland, West Germany, and
East Germany, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 28-41.
Robert, C., Probst, T., Martocchio, J., Drasgow, F. and Lawler, J. (2000), Empowerment and
continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: predicting fit on
the basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 5, pp. 643-658.
Schneider, S. and De Meyer, A. (1991), Interpreting and responding to strategic issues: the
impact of national culture, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 307-320.
Seibert, S., Kraimer, J. and Crant, M. (2001), What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model
linking proactive personality and career success, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54,
pp. 845-874.
Shane, S. (1994), Cultural values and the championing process, Entrepreneurship Theory
& Practice, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 25-41.
Sharma, P. (2010), Measuring personal cultural orientations: scale development and validation,
Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, Vol. 38, pp. 787-806.
Sibilia, K. (2008), Proactive encouragement, Occupational Health & Safety, Vol. 77 No. 6, p. 64.
Smith, P. (2007), Towards studies of organizational behavior with greater local relevance,
Revista de Psicologia, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 178-195.
Srite, M. and Karahanna, E. (2006), The role of espoused national cultural values in technology
acceptance, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 679-704.
Stobbeleir, K., Ashford, S. and Sully de Luque, M. (2010), Proactivity with image in mind: how
employee and manager characteristics affect evaluations of proactive behaviors, Journal
of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 347-369.
Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)
Strauss, K., Griffin, M. and Parker, S. (2012), Future work selves: how salient hoped-for
identities motivate proactive career behaviors, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 3,
pp. 580-598.
Thomas, J., Whitman, D. and Viswesvaran, C. (2010), Employee proactivity in organizations:
a comparative meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs, Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 275-300.
Tims, M. and Bakker, A. (2010), Job crafting: towards a new model of individual job redesign,
SA Journal of Industrial Psychology (SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde), Vol. 36 No. 2, Art.
No. 841, 9 pages.
Tjosvold, D., Wu, P. and Chen, F. (2010), The effects of collectivistic and individualistic values
on conflict and decision making: an experiment in China, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 40 No. 11, pp. 2904-2926.
Triandis, H., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M., Asai, M. and Laccu, N. (1988), Individualism and
collectivism: cross-cultural perspectives on self-in-group relationships, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 323-338.
Tu, Y., Line, S. and Chang, Y. (2011), A cross-cultural comparison by individualism/collectivism
among Brazil, Russia, India and China, International Business Research, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 175-182.
Vitell, S., Paolillo, J. and Thomas, J. (2003), The perceived role of ethics and social
responsibility: a study of marketing professionals, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 63-86.
Wagner, J. III (1995), Studies of individualism-collectivism-effects on cooperation in groups,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 152-172.
Williams, H., Parker, S. and Turner, N. (2010), Proactively performing teams: the role of work
design, transformational leadership, and team composition, Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 301-324.
Winkler, V. and Bouncken, R. (2011), How does cultural diversity in global innovation teams
affect the innovation process?, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 24-35.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2005), The effect of personal cultural orientation on consumer
ethnocentrism: evaluations and behaviors of US consumers toward Japanese products,
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 Nos 1/2, pp. 7-44.
Further reading
Chang, C. (2006), Cultural masculinity/femininity influences on advertising appeals, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 46, pp. 315-323.
Fang, T. (2003), A critique of Hofstedes fifth dimension, International Journal of Cross-Cultural
Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 347-368.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. and Kemmelmeier, M. (2002), Rethinking individualism and
collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 3-72.
About the authors
Kerry D. Carson, PhD, CCP, GRP, is a Management Professor at the University of Louisiana at
Lafayette where he has served as the Director of the quality enhancement plan for accreditation.
He received his doctorate from Louisiana State University in business administration.
His research interests are in commitment and performance management, and he consults in the
compensation area.
Role of
individual
cultural traits
365
MRR
37,4
Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)
366