Convergence in international business ethics? A comparative study of ethical philosophies, thinking style, and ethical decision-making between US and Korean managers

This study investigates the relationship among ethical philosophy, thinking style, and managerial ethical decision-making. Based on the premise that business ethics is a function of culture and time, we attempt to explore two important questions as to whether the national differences in managerial ethical philosophies remain over time and whether the relationship between thinking style and ethical decision-making is consistent across different national contexts. We conducted a survey on Korean managers’ ethical decision-making and thinking style and made a cross-cultural, cross-temporal comparison with the results presented by previous studies that surveyed Korean and US managers with the same questionnaire at different points in time. Our analysis revealed that Korean managers have become more reliant on rule utilitarianism for ethical decision-making over the last two decades, which is dominantly used by US managers, corroborating our convergence hypothesis built on social contracts theory. However, as opposed to previous research, we found that managers with a balanced linear and nonlinear thinking style do not necessarily make more ethical decisions compared to those with a predominantly linear or nonlinear thinking style. This study contributes to international business ethics literature by presenting a theoretical framework that may explain the convergence of ethical philosophies employed by managers in different national contexts over time, and that the relationship between thinking style and managerial ethical decision-making may not be universal, but contingent on contextual factors

Societal-level versus individual-level predictions of ethical behavior: a 48-society study of collectivism and individualism

Is the societal-level of analysis sufficient today to understand the values of those in the global workforce? Or are individual-level analyses more appropriate for assessing the influence of values on ethical behaviors across country workforces? Using multi-level analyses for a 48-society sample, we test the utility of both the societal-level and individual-level dimensions of collectivism and individualism values for predicting ethical behaviors of business professionals. Our values-based behavioral analysis indicates that values at the individual-level make a more significant contribution to explaining variance in ethical behaviors than do values at the societal-level. Implicitly, our findings question the soundness of using societal-level values measures. Implications for international business research are discussed

Individualism-collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE

This paper examines the Individualism-Collectivism (I-C) dimension of national culture in the Hofstede and GLOBE models. We identify major contradictions within and between the two culture models, which result in contradictory relationships with external variables such as economic prosperity. We critically evaluate the content validity of the items used to measure this construct in both models. Based on our analysis, we suggest that Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism index be relabelled as Self-orientation versus Work-orientation, GLOBE’s Institutional Collectivism as Organizational Collectivism, and GLOBE’s In-group Collectivism as Family Collectivism. We demonstrate how the proposed alternative conceptualizations of the Individualism-Collectivism dimensions in both Hofstede and GLOBE models can help reconcile the anomalous relationships between these two models of national culture, and between their dimension scores and other external variables of interest to researchers, such as economic prosperity

Establishing Organizational Ethical Climates: How Do Managerial Practices Work?

communication, empowerment, organizational ethical climate,

Avoiding uncertainty in Hofstede and GLOBE

This paper compares the Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) dimension of national culture across the Hofstede and GLOBE models, looking at relationships in both data and analysis. Rather than mutual support, we detail major differences and anomalies across the studies. We show how these anomalies are resulting in contradictory explanations in research on national differences across a range of individual-, firm- and country-level phenomena. We clarify the UA measurement in both Hofstede and GLOBE, and find that the two models are measuring different components of the UA construct. We propose a two-component model of UA, namely, UA-stress and UA-rule orientation, and confirm its validity with national culture data from the Hofstede and GLOBE studies, and economic data from the World Bank. We also explain the negative GLOBE UA practices-values relationship using motivational theories. A way forward in future UA-related research is suggested. The Hofstede UA index, the GLOBE UA practices scores and the GLOBE UA values scores should be used within the specific domains that they represent: that is, stress, rule orientation practices and rule orientation aspirations, respectively. Resolving the contradictions in UA between and within Hofstede and GLOBE will help cross-cultural researchers develop more robust theories and more practical recommendations for international business management