Relation between big fivepersonality traits and Hofstede’s

cultural dimensionsSamples from the USA and India

Laura Ann MiglioreAbundant Knowledge, LLC, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to quantitatively assess the inter-relational aspects ofpersonality traits, using the five-factor model of personality, and Hofstede’s five dimensions of nationalculture for work-related values to evaluate the differences between the US and Indian cultures.

Design/methodology/approach – The research method is quantitative and samples includequalified online-panel respondents, representing educated and experienced business professionals whouse the internet. Data analysis includes Pearson correlation and multiple analysis of variance. Sampleresults show large differences in all five cultural dimensions as compared to Hofstede’s 1980 data.

Findings – Changes in work-related values may reflect the influence of advances in communicationand internet technologies, offering insight toward problems associated with global multiculturalprojects. Correlations between personality traits and cultural dimensions exist for certainoccupational-job categories, and provide insight on leadership characteristics.

Research limitations/implications – Limitations include self-reported responses via a web-basedsurvey, rather than actual observations in the workplace.

Practical implications – Technical and cultural competence is needed for global leaders, especiallywith increased use of the internet and networked environments. Navigating through cross-culturalsituations requires cultural insight, interpersonal skills, and an ability to build trust.

Originality/value – This study extends Hofstede’s 1980 original research by acquiring new,cross-culturally comparative data. It also extends the original research of Donnellan et al., regarding theMini NEO assessment. The study provides confirmatory analysis to the exploratory work of Smith andBond and McCrae, but only for one of the three predicted correlations: extraversion with individualism.

Keywords Culture, Internet, Leadership, Personality

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionSince the early 1990s, IT application development in India has grown and is now close to6 percent of India’s national gross domestic product, making India the favoreddestination for offshore IT services, research and development, and analytics(Rajagopalachari and Parekh, 2009). There is also much speculation and debate onthe long-term competitiveness of the Indian off-shoring industry, given the globaleconomic recession, related financial impacts, and the effectiveness of outsourcingAmerican jobs to Asian countries. As such, the attractiveness to obtain technicalexpertise at a low cost is a common business practice among multinational companiesfor improving profit margins (Prasso, 2007). However, the effectiveness of such businesspractices depends upon the behaviors and interpersonal relationships of the peopleinvolved.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7606.htm

CCM18,1

38

Cross Cultural Management: AnInternational JournalVol. 18 No. 1, 2011pp. 38-54q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1352-7606DOI 10.1108/13527601111104287

Business leaders tend to underestimate the time and skills for effectively managingoverseas projects and assume processes can be easily replicated in foreign countries –the unintended consequences include uncooperative vendor behavior, unsatisfactorydelivery of services, and higher than expected costs (Gurung and Prater, 2006). India is acountry of diversity, and many times foreign business leaders will make the mistake ofassuming a single Indian culture, thinking individuals and social groups will behave thesame throughout the country – a form of unconscious stereotyping that can hinderperformance outcomes.

This article discusses the inter-relational aspects of individual personality andnational culture to help avoid the stereotyping trap and recognize the individualdifferences of people, as well as the influence of work-related values in the businessenvironment. In addition, the study partially replicates the research of Hofstede andMcCrae (2004), a heavily cited journal article. The research questions ask:

RQ1. Are the three strongest correlations for prediction of work-related valuesextraversion with individualism, neuroticism with uncertainty avoidance,and conscientiousness with power distance (McCrae, 2001, 2002; Smith andBond, 1993)?

RQ2. What are the results of the five work-related values for national culture forIndia as compared to Hofstede’s 1980 study of the USA (Migliore, 2009, p. 11)?

Literature reviewTrait psychology has emerged over the past 30 years as a strong anchor for thetheoretical basis of understanding the core definers of the individual in terms ofthoughts, feelings, and patterns of action (McCrae, 2000). There is also much empiricalevidence to support the use of self-reports as valid methods of measurement forpersonality traits (McAdams, 1992; Kenrick and Funder, 1988; Epstein, 1997).In addition, longitudinal studies have assessed personality traits to show stabilityregardless of life events (Costa and McCrae, 1994).

Five-factor model of personalityOne strongly supported theoretical basis for trait psychology is the five-factor model(FFM), which provides the taxonomy of five personality traits, proven by independentresearch teams to have validity at a broad level, i.e. extraversion, agreeableness,conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience (Digman, 1990; Goldberg,1992; McCrae and Costa, 2003; Norman, 1963). Numerous empirical studies of the FFMshow solid evidence for consistency in personality terminology by subjects to describethemselves and others, with stability through out adult-life spans.

The consensus within the research community led to the 1996 online establishment ofthe International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) in the public domain to promote ongoingresearch in the FFM (Goldberg et al., 2006). The placement of FFM personality items,scoring keys, and scales for both the IPIP-NEO, long and short forms in the publicdomain provides free access to researchers without the typical constraints ofcopyrighted personality inventories – creating the Mini NEO 20-item survey, derivedfrom the IPIP-NEO short form by Donnellan et al. (2006). The Mini NEO confirmedreliability and validity with respectable internal consistencies of alphas well above 0.60across the five studies in the research.

Hofstede’scultural

dimensions

39

The five broad-level personality traits vary in degree, from low to high, amongdifferent individuals.

Agreeableness. Agreeableness is described as an individual’s concern for cooperationand social harmony, and behavior characteristics include being considerate, friendly,generous, helpful, and willing to compromise one’s own interests for others ( Johnson,n.d.). High scores indicate adaptability and value getting along with others, whereas lowscores indicate skepticism, challenging others’ ideas, and reluctant to get involved.

Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness is described as the way individuals control,regulate, and direct their impulses, as related to decision-making and action-orientedbehaviors ( Johnson, n.d.). High scores indicate focus, being careful, reliable, and wellorganized, whereas low scores indicate distraction, disorganization, having flexibility,and being causal.

Extraversion. Extraversion is described as being assertive, action oriented, andtypifies individuals who enjoy opportunities for excitement, attention drawing, andtalking ( Johnson, n.d.). Low scores indicate introversion, a person who likes to stay in thebackground, is less talkative, reserved in speech and less action oriented.

Neuroticism. Neuroticism is described as excessive worry that causes mentaldistress, emotional suffering, and an inability to cope with day-to-day life activities( Johnson, n.d.). High scores indicate emotional-reactive behaviors related to negativefeelings such as anxiety, anger, or depression, whereas low scores indicate resilience,calmness and ability to control urges and stress.

Openness to experience. Openness to experience is described as being intellectuallycurious, open to new ideas, involves imaginative and creative cognition styles ( Johnson,n.d.). High scores indicate a broad intellectual curiosity with individualistic andnon-conforming ways of thinking and behaving, whereas low scores indicate apreference for familiarity, narrow, and conservative intellectual focus.

The inter-relational aspects of the five-factor theory of personality and culture aresupported through the extensive work of McCrae and Costa (1996, 1999), whichemphasize distinctions between biologically based tendencies and culturally shapedadaptations (McCrae, 2000). For example, language is a universal basic tendency, but itsadaptation is dependent upon the cultural environment.

Additional studies emphasizing the inter-relational aspects of personality withculture include Parsons and Shils (1962), Norman (1963), Digman (1990), Goldberg(1992), Goldberg et al. (2006), McCrae and Costa (2003) and Hofstede and McCrae (2004).These studies differentiate national-culture-level values and individual personalitytraits, based on the premise of adaptation to act and react according to the circumstancesat hand, utilizing one’s repertoire of learned responses.

Hofstede’s cultural dimensionsHofstede’s cross-cultural research – an IBM multinational company-wide study – is afocused analysis framework of country differences about employee values (Hofstede,2001). Other comparable studies of national values that compete with Hofstede’swork-related values framework include: Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), Hall and Hall(1990), Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998), Schwartz (1992) and Javidan et al.(2006).

Most significant about Hofstede’s research is its foundational framework of the fivecultural dimensions for analyzing a culture and correlations between the FFM, which has

CCM18,1

40

renewed interest among psychologists in the relationship between personalityand culture (Lee et al., 1999). For example, the FFM mean personality scores from33 countries significantly and substantially correlate with Hofstede’s culturaldimensions (Hofstede and McCrae, 2004). In addition, the research of Smith and Bond(1993) hypothesize correlations between the personality scores of McCrae’s research andHofstede’s cultural dimension scores, which correctly predict strong positivecorrelations of individualism with extraversion, uncertainty avoidance withneuroticism, and power distance with conscientiousness. However, Hofstede andMcCrae disagree on which variables are predictors and which ones are the criteria.

Hofstede’s work forms the framework for five cultural dimensions of work-relatedvalues at the national level:

(1) individualism-collectivism;

(2) power distance;

(3) masculinity-femininity;

(4) uncertainty avoidance; and

(5) time orientation, i.e. long term and short term.

IndividualismIndividualism is the opposite of collectivism and represents the degree to which individualsare suppose to look after themselves or remain integrated into groups (Hofstede andHofstede, 2005). Individualistic societies tend to have a self-focused view that only extendsto his or her immediate family; where as societies high in collectivism have a people-groupview from cradle to grave of lifetime protection in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.

Time orientationTime orientation, i.e. short term and long term, represents the extent to which membersof a culture are cognitively programmed to accept delayed gratification of material,social, and emotional needs (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005).

MasculinityMasculinity is the opposite of femininity and it represents a society where:

[. . .] emotional gender roles are clearly distinct: men are supposed to be assertive, tough, andfocused on material success; women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concernedwith the quality of life (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005, p. 402).

Feministic societies overlap the gender roles – both men and women are expected to bemodest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life.

Power distancePower distance is defined as “the extent to which the less powerful members ofinstitutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power isdistributed unequally” (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005, p. 402).

Uncertainty avoidanceUncertainty avoidance is defined as “the extent to which members of a culture feelthreatened by ambiguous or unknown situations” (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005, p. 403).

Hofstede’scultural

dimensions

41

Hofstede defines culture as, “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishesthe members of one group or category of people from another” (Hofstede and Hofstede,2005, p. 400). This definition supports the classic theory of personality structures andculture with the premise that members of a specific culture will internalize group-likecharacteristics and develop a corresponding personality structure – however, this classictheory also assumes culture shapes personality and as cultures vary, so too willindividuals (McCrae, 2000). However, Hofstede is resolute to differentiate between thedifferent levels of culture at the national level, culture at the group or organizational level,and personality at the individual level (Hofstede et al., 2008).

Behaviors in one particular culture may not have the same psychological significancein another culture. For example, assertive behavior – speaking up frequently and beingthe first to answer – align with the personality trait of extraversion. Research showstrait dominance to predict a group’s perception of outspoken individuals (Anderson andKilduff, 2009). For example, members of a group tend to rate individuals whodemonstrate assertive behavior with higher levels of competence as compared toindividuals who are less assertive, even though the study results showed no correlationsbetween competence and personality traits – an indication of cultural values. In the USculture, assertive behavior tends to be interpreted by Americans as a sign of leadershipand it reaffirms a common belief that those who talk more have more to offer, and aremore competent than those who do not talk more. Whereas the Dutch culturalperspective tends to interpret assertive behavior as ostentatious – a stark contrast to theperception of competence and more in view of been perceived as a braggart or assomeone who makes promises they cannot keep (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005).

According to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, power distance and individualism aresimilar for both Dutch and American cultures. The difference is the third culturaldimension of masculinity vs femininity, where the USA tends to be more masculine andassertive and the Dutch tend to be more feminine in terms of valuing modest behavior.However, when comparing the cultures of the USA and India the difference in themasculinity dimension is not as great as it is with the Dutch culture (Hofstede, 2001).Thus, behaviors in one culture may not have the same psychological significance inanother culture, and the inter-relational aspect of personality and culture will varyamong individuals within a culture.

Methodology/methodsThis study quantitatively assesses the inter-relational aspects of culture and personalityusing the FFM (Digman, 1990; Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Norman, 1963) to evaluate thedifferences between work-related values of the US and Indian cultures. Figure 1 showsthe empirical model to test the variables (Migliore, 2009). Pearson correlation analysismeasures the linear association between the five-factor personality traits and the fivecultural dimensions. In addition, multivariate analysis tests the differences betweengender and the five personality traits, and gender and the five cultural dimensions.

The hypotheses for data analysis tests for a linear relationship between each of thefive personality traits and each of the five cultural dimensions, following themethodology of Hofstede and McCrae (2004). In total, there are 50 hypotheses includingnull and alternative. For example, one of the 50 hypotheses states “there is no linearrelationship between extraversion and individualism as a work-related value (Migliore,2009, p. 115),” with an alternative hypothesis stating the opposite.

CCM18,1

42

This study sought to confirm if the three strongest correlations for prediction ofwork-related values were extraversion with individualism, neuroticism with uncertaintyavoidance, and conscientiousness with power distance (McCrae, 2001, 2002; Smith andBond, 1993). These three correlations in the research of Hofstede and McCrae (2004)showed extraversion with individualism, r ¼ 0.64 and 0.001 significance; neuroticismwith uncertainty avoidance, r ¼ 0.58 and 0.01 significance; and conscientiousness withpower distance, r ¼ 0.52 and 0.01.

There are four gender hypotheses including the null and alternative. For example,one of the four hypotheses states “there is no difference between the five-factorpersonality traits and gender” (Migliore, 2009, p. 120), with an alternative hypothesisstating the opposite. The other hypotheses follow suit for the five cultural dimensionsand gender.

Research subjects are educated, experienced business professionals who use theinternet and are online panel members with MarketTools, a reputable independent,third-party verification and respondent-quality-research provider. MarketTools haslarge and diverse global panels – currently 3.2 million online members – from whichto draw representative samples (MarketTools, 2008). The selection of MarketTools isprimarily based on its unique propriety technology that includes digital fingerprinting

Figure 1.Empirical model

Notes: From “Comparison of the U.S.A. and India Cultures: Linking Personality andWork-related Values” by Laura Ann Migliore, 2009, Doctoral dissertation,Capella University. 2009 by Laura Ann Migliore, reprinted with permission

IndividualismExtraversion

Agreeableness

Neuroticism

Openness to experience

Power distance

Masculinity

Uncertainty avoidance

Time orientation

Dependent variablesHofstede’s National Culture Scores

(using values survey module 94)

Inter-relational

Independent variablesfive-factor personality model

(using IPIP mini NEO)

Conscientiousness

Hofstede’scultural

dimensions

43

and data validation to correlate survey completion time with response patterns toidentify and eliminate fraudulent survey behavior. In addition, MarketTools validatesthe demographics of online panel members to national census targets and otherobjectively validated database resources – all of which allows study results to begeneralized. MarketTools is recognized as a Top 50 Technology Firm by the SiliconValley Deloitte Technology Fast 50 Awards (Deloitte, 2008).

The use of online panels in research has gained momentum, especially with theongoing advances in information and communication technologies of the internet and itsrelated time and cost efficiencies (Heaston, 2007). However, researchers need to ensureonline panels represent the population under study, as well as, pre-evaluate the processthat panel providers use to identify respondents and eliminate suspicious respondentsand duplicates (Migliore, 2009). The literature reveals that most online survey researchextrapolates to national populations or to the population of internet users making itpossible to generalize study results (McDevitt and Small, 2002).

Sample equivalence is of utmost importance in cross-cultural studies (Vijver andLeung, 1997; Hofstede, 2006). This study achieves sample equivalence by surveyingeducated, experienced business professionals who live and work in the countries ofthe USA and India. Occupational categories are controlled per Hofstede’s methodology.The sample criteria included: minimum two years work experience, living and workingin the respective countries of the USA and India, a minimum education of a four-yearbachelor’s degree from a college or university in business or in a technical specialty(e.g. IT, engineering, design, etc.). Research by the Service and Support ProfessionalAssociation (2008) finds 73 percent of hiring managers “define the ideal candidate ashaving more than two years work experience” (p. 9), which supports the criteria of thisstudy for a minimum of two years work experience.

The web-based survey application, Zoomerang, distributes the survey to the researchsubjects, who are qualified participants of MarketTools online panels. The surveycaptures demographic information such as age, gender, education, nationality, type ofwork, and work experience years. This study follows the methodology of Hofstede andcontrols only for occupation groups, as gender and age vary only marginally whenoccupation is controlled (Hofstede, 1980).

The survey instruments included the 1994 Values Survey Module, a 26-item survey,and the Mini NEO, a 20-item survey – both having established validity and reliability(Hofstede, 1994; Donnellan et al., 2006). One of the key advantages in using the MiniNEO is minimization of participant errors due to non-attentiveness and carelessresponses that can accompany survey respondent frustration and negativity due toassessment length.

Data analysis includes the Pearson correlation analysis and multiple analysis ofvariance for the respective hypotheses as previously described. Results are shown inTables I, II, and III and accompanied with detailed discussion.

ResultsSample size for the online panel groups are n ¼ 102 for India, and n ¼ 114 for the USA(Migliore, 2009). The ages of online panel participants range from 20 to over 60 years forboth sample groups. However, the Indian sample is younger than the US sample;16 percent of the Indian sample is over the age of 40, whereas 50 percent of the US sampleis over the age of 40. Education- and occupation-job types are similar for both samples.

CCM18,1

44

Variable INV PDI MAS UAI LTO

Extraversion (H1) Pearson correlation 20.107 20.071 20.039 0.207 * * 20.035Sig. (two-tailed) 0.116 0.302 0.564 0.002 0.614

Agreeableness (H2) Pearson correlation 20.095 0.028 0.023 0.158 * 0.014Sig. (two-tailed) 0.163 0.686 0.734 0.020 0.843

Conscientiousness (H3) Pearson correlation 20.032 0.105 20.010 0.039 0.114Sig. (two-tailed) 0.640 0.126 0.884 0.573 0.095

Neuroticism (H4) Pearson correlation 0.019 0.158 * 0.086 0.042 0.106Sig. (two-tailed) 0.776 0.020 0.207 0.543 0.122

Openness to experience (H5) Pearson correlation 20.126 0.031 0.018 0.117 20.016Sig. (two-tailed) 0.063 0.652 0.789 0.087 0.810

Notes: Correlation is significance at the *0.05 and * *0.01 levels (two-tailed); INV, individualism;PDI, power distance; MAS, masculinity; UAI, uncertainty avoidance; LTO, long-term orientationSources: Migliore (2009), copyright 2009 by Laura Ann Migliore, reprinted with permission

Table I.Zero-order correlations

for personality traits andcultural dimensions

Control variables Partial correlation Zero correlation

A, C, N, and O E Correlation with UAI 0.160 * 0.207 * *

Sig. (two-tailed) 0.020 0.002C, N, O, and E A Correlation with UAI 0.083 0.158 *

Sig. (two-tailed) 0.229 0.020O, E, A, and C N Correlation with PDI 0.133 0.158 *

Sig. (two-tailed) 0.053 0.020

Notes: Correlation is significance at the *0.05 and * *0.01 levels (two-tailed); E, extraversion; A,agreeableness; C, conscientiousness; N, neuroticism; O, openness to experience; PDI, power distance;UAI, uncertainty avoidanceSources: Migliore (2009), q 2009 by Laura Ann Migliore, reprinted with permission

Table II.Comparison of zero-order

correlations and partialcorrelations for

personality traits andcultural dimensions

Category 5 Categories 6 and 7Academically trained

professional Combined managerZero-order Partial Zero-order Partial

Variable linear relationships R Sig. R Sig. R Sig. R Sig.

E with INV 0.102 0.383 0.153 0.202 20.315 * * 0.001 20.266 * * 0.007E with UAI 20.023 0.846 20.064 0.597 0.312 * * 0.001 0.288 * * 0.003N with PDI 20.002 0.987 20.010 0.933 0.228 * 0.019 0.148 0.138N with MAS 0.272 * 0.018 0.279 * 0.019 0.052 0.600 0.010 0.922O with MAS 20.037 0.755 20.044 0.715 0.113 0.247 0.135 0.175

Notes: Correlation is significance at the *0.05 and * *0.01 levels (two-tailed); E, extraversion; N,neuroticism; O, openness to experience; INV, individualism; PDI, power distance; MAS, masculinity;UAI, uncertainty avoidance.Sources: Migliore (2009), q 2009 by Laura Ann Migliore, reprinted with permission

Table III.Zero-order and partial

correlation comparisonsby occupational category

Hofstede’scultural

dimensions

45

With regard to gender, the US sample has considerably more men, 69 percent thanwomen, 31 percent, as compared to the Indian sample, which has 54 percent men and46 percent women.

Evaluation of the inter-relational aspects of personality and work-related values ofnational culture, using Pearson correlation analysis for the five personality traits andfive cultural dimensions show no differences between US and Indian businessprofessionals (Migliore, 2009). Only one set of variables, extraversion with uncertaintyavoidance, shows a universal pattern for both US and Indian business professionals,without differentiation by occupation: zero-correlation, r ¼ 0.207 and 0.002 significanceand partial correlation, r ¼ 0.160 and 0.020 significance – enough to reject the nullhypothesis. No other hypotheses of linear relationship for each respective personalitytrait and cultural dimension were rejected, that is when using a universal patternwithout differentiation by occupation. The respective correlations for these hypotheseswere determined first through zero-order and then partial-order analysis as shown inTables I and II.

For example, the zero-order correlation for agreeableness and uncertainty avoidanceis r ¼ 0.158 and 0.020 significance, which confirmed a relationship between these twovariables. However, when the four other personality traits were controlled for, as shownin Table II, the correlation decreased to r ¼ 0.083 and 0.229 significance – more thanenough to not reject the null hypothesis (Migliore, 2009). In addition, the zero-ordercorrelation for neuroticism and power distance is r ¼ 0.158 and 0.020 significance,which confirmed a relationship between these two variables. However, when the otherfour personality traits were controlled for the correlation of neuroticism and powerdistance decreased to r ¼ 0.133 and 0.053 significance, which put it just slightly outsidethe 0.05 range to reject the null hypothesis.

Next, zero-order and partial-order correlation comparisons by occupational categoryas shown in Table III confirm three sets of variables with significant linearrelationships:

(1) extraversion with individualism (managers);

(2) extraversion with uncertainty avoidance (managers); and

(3) neuroticism with masculinity (academically trained professionals, and notmanagers of people).

All three of these variables by occupational category show strong correlations for bothzero-order and partial-order analysis to reject the null hypotheses. The combinedmanager group in Table III represents managers of subordinates and managers ofmanagers. This rationale is based on job-type homogeneity.

Regarding the hypotheses for gender differences, no differences show between thefive-factor personality traits and gender, and the five cultural dimensions and gender;an indication of equal variances, and therefore the gender hypotheses were not rejected(Migliore, 2009). For example, the Box’s tests of equality of covariance matrices for genderand personality traits yield a significance level of 0.287. In addition, the multivariate testsfor gender and personality show a significance level of 0.520. Similarly, the Box’s test ofequality of covariance matrices for gender and cultural dimensions yields a significancelevel of 0.112, and the multivariate tests for gender and cultural dimensions show asignificance level of 0.417.

CCM18,1

46

Next, the work-related values of national culture in Table IV shows the comparativecountry-score data from Hofstede’s original 1980 data to the 2009 online-panel data.However, it is important to keep in mind that the data samples from 1980 were drawnfrom educated business professionals who worked for IBM in the US and Indianlocations. Whereas the data samples from this study are drawn from educated businessprofessionals who use the internet and do not work for the same employer, but work forvarious employers and are members of MarketTools global online panels in the USA andIndia.

The results of this study extend Hofstede’s 1980 original research by acquiring new,cross-culturally comparative data on the work-related values between Indian and UScultures using online research panels. This study also provides confirmatory analysis tothe exploratory work of Smith and Bond (1993) and McCrae (2001, 2002), but only for thepredicted correlation of extraversion and individualism. For example, this study’sfindings show a negative zero-order correlation r ¼ 20.315 and 0.001 significance forthe occupational group of managers. Whereas Hofstede and McCrae (2004) showpositive zero-order correlation, r ¼ 0.64 and 0.001 significance for extraversionand individualism. The two other predicted correlations of Smith and Bond (1993)and McCrae (2001, 2002), neuroticism with uncertainty avoidance andconscientiousness with power distance, are not confirmed in this study. In addition,the use of the 20-itemMiniNEO extends the original research of Donnellan et al. (2006) toanother population group, the educated and experienced business professional usingthe internet – confirming it as a useful tool for researchers needing a very-shortassessment of the FFM.

LimitationsThis study is limited to self-reported responses collected via a web-based survey, ratherthan actual observations in the workplace. Comparing Hofstede’s 1980 data to 2009online panel data is limited by not having the same exact people from the initial study tosurvey and therefore is not longitudinal. Nevertheless, the online panel samples for thisstudy match in equivalence and meet the criteria for cross-cultural research (Gudykunstand Mody, 2002; Hofstede, 1980; Van Raaij, 1978; Vijver and Leung, 1997).

The non-replication of McCrae’s (2002) proprietary and much lengthier personalityassessment of 240 items, NEO-PI-R presents a limitation in this study. Like theMini NEO, the NEO-PI-R derived from the parent IPIP-NEO. Hofstede and McCrae(2004) used the NEO-PI-R, which measures the five major domains of personality plus

USA India

Cultural dimensions n ¼ 116,000a n ¼ 114bChange(þ /2 ) n ¼ 116,000a n ¼ 102b

Change(þ /2 )

Individualism 91 84 27 48 76 þ28Power distance 40 22 218 77 26 251Masculinity 62 47 215 56 43 213Uncertainty avoidance 46 42 24 40 63 þ23Long-term orientation 29 41 þ12 61 30 231

Notes: aHofstede’s 1980 IBM data; bOnline Panel 2009 dataSources: Migliore (2009), q 2009 by Laura Ann Migliore, reprinted with permission

Table IV.Comparative

country-score data

Hofstede’scultural

dimensions

47

the six lower-level domains of the FFM. The Mini NEO measures only the five maindomains. Nevertheless, the NEO-PI-R and the Mini NEO both provide sufficientvalidity and reliability as measures of the FFM, however, both instruments couldbenefit from improvement (Mental Measurements Yearbook, 2004; Donnellan et al.,2006). For example, the NEO-PI-R could further improve in terms of validity of the newfacet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness and the Mini NEO has somecontent overlap, which presents a limitation in the construct breadth. The keyadvantage in using the Mini NEO, a 20-item survey, as compared to the much lengthier240-item NEO-PI-R is minimization of participant errors due to non-attentiveness andcareless responses that can accompany survey respondent frustration and negativitydue to assessment length.

It is also important to mention a limitation in the level of analysis for this study, whichmeasures hypothesized cultural values at a national level with personality traits at theindividual level to make inferences about organizational-level workplace behaviors. Thefield of cross-cultural research has a large gap in disentanglement of hypothesizedcultural values from other moderating variables within nested data frameworks at thenational-culture level, organizational-culture level, and individual-culture level –indication of need for advanced data analysis using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM)to aggregate properly nested data and measure hypothesized cultural values (Tsui et al.,2007). In addition, the debate of universal approaches to culture and culture-specificapproaches indicates need for a systematic framework that addresses the construct ofculture at its very core – in other words, where do cultural values come from – what isthe etiology of cultural values.

Conclusions and recommendationsThe correlations of extraversion with individualism and extraversion with uncertaintyavoidance for the occupational group of managers provide general discussion in terms ofleadership in the twenty-first century. For example, individual personality andwork-related values influence interactions between people, and are known to causenuances in international business – underestimation of time or skills needed to completea project, unmet or failed expectations, uncooperative behaviors, and higher thanexpected costs. Navigating through cross-cultural situations is a necessary competencefor global business leaders (Migliore, 2009). It starts with acknowledging that culturaldifferences exist, and continues with the leader’s willingness to learn and respect thosedifferences. As such, global leadership development is important in terms of improvinginterpersonal skills, trust, and consensus building, especially given the increased use ofthe internet and networked environments. Technical competence is needed to solveinformational-age data problems like security, governance, privacy protection, andissues related to information sharing.

The results of this study, as shown in Table V, by occupational-job categories, showhigh individualism, indicating work-related values in self-sufficiency. Additionally,the correlations shown in Table III for both US and Indian manager groups indicatea negative correlation for extraversion and individualism, and a positive correlation forextraversion and uncertainty avoidance. Extraversion is typically marked with assertivebehavior and in some cultures, like the USA, this behavior can influence group memberperceptions that those who talk more have more to offer, and are more competent thanthose who do not (Anderson and Kilduff, 2009). Even though the literature did not show

CCM18,1

48

any correlations of personality to competence, the power of perception in some culturesreaffirms this belief and therefore, it is something leaders should be mindful of in terms ofother peoples’ perceptions towards leadership capabilities.

Masculinity differencesThe masculinity country scores in Table IV show a significant decrease for bothcountry samples, whereas Table V shows differences between the two occupationalgroups: academically trained professionals (not managers of people), India (44) andUSA (42), and combined manager groups, India (39) and USA (50) (Migliore, 2009).Discussion is limited on this dimension as the multivariate tests for gender and culturaldimensions shows no statistical significance, even though the Indian sample had moreeven mix of men (54 percent) and women (46 percent) as compared to the US sample ofmen (69 percent) and women (31 percent).

Uncertainty avoidance differencesThe work-related values of the manager-group occupations, Table V, show differencesbetween the USA and India. For example, the US managers scored 33, much lower thanthe Indian managers score of 64, indicating that perhaps US managers are morecomfortable with ambiguous or unknown situations than Indian managers; anindication of cultural difference (Migliore, 2009). Consider American outsourced jobs toAsian nations – an ongoing debate in terms of the effects on US job loss and the ethicalconsiderations in terms of getting low-cost labor in countries like India for the sakeof improving profit margins. Hofstede’s findings indicate low-uncertainty avoidancecountries, like the USA, may benefit by developing innovations in high-uncertaintyavoidance countries like India (Hofstede, 2001). This rationale is based upon the humanenergy needed for precision and punctuality, which comes more naturally in ahigh-uncertainty avoidance country as compared to low-uncertainty avoidancecountry where these behaviors have to be learned and managed.

Training personnel is a necessary component for the transfer of knowledge and skilland the effective implementation of operations abroad. However, it is common toassume processes performed in the home country can be easily transferred abroadwithout much focus on the cross-cultural aspects of knowledge and skill transfer.As such, having a project management office in the host country staffed by the locals,

Category 5 Categories 6 and 7Academically trained professional Manager of people (combined)

Cultural dimension India (n ¼ 40) USA (n ¼ 35) India (n ¼ 45) USA (n ¼ 61)

INV 78 75 72 88PDI 26 25 20 21MAS 44 42 39 50UAI 53 56 64 33LTO 32 45 28 39

Notes: INV, individualism; PDI, power distance; MAS, masculinity; UAI, uncertainty avoidance;LTO, long-term orientationSources: Migliore (2009), copyright 2009 by Laura Ann Migliore, reprinted with permission

Table V.Country scores

by occupational – jobcategory – combined

manager

Hofstede’scultural

dimensions

49

along with the support of the home-country managers, can help facilitate the learningprocess to improve on time delivery and adherence to quality requirements.

Power distance differencesThe low-power distance scores for both online sample groups, specifically the 51-pointdecrease, per Table IV, for Indian online panel participants as compared to Hofstede’s1980 India data, presents an interesting point. Hofstede defined power distance as “theextent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within acountry expect and accept that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede and Hofstede,2005, p. 402). Research by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) in Indiashows a shortage in supply of Indian business professionals with the required skills andcompetencies to fill the demand of Indian corporations and gives indication ofentitlement mindsets among young Indian business professionals (SHRM India, 2008).It may be that young Indian business professionals with the required skills andcompetencies:

[. . .] see themselves as having opportunity to obtain power via moving up corporate laddersor becoming their own boss, via entrepreneurialism, and thus expectations have changedsince Hofstede’s 1980 original study [. . .] (Migliore, 2009, p. 173).

The rapid changes in information and communication technologies via the internet, mayaccount for the large decreases in power distance for the US and Indian businessprofessionals, as compared to Hofstede’s 1980 original findings (Migliore, 2009).Significant changes in new technologies enable people all over the world to gain greateraccess to information and data – all of which seems to represent a new type of powerdistribution via the World Wide Web. These advances have helped facilitate the creationof virtual organizations, where geographically dispersed business professionals cancoordinate work electronically rather than face to face; an example of USA outsourcedwork to India involving virtual operations, where segments of work are handledremotely, i.e. call centers (Ramo, 2004).

Long-term orientation differencesAnother consideration regarding the changes in long-term orientation scores for boththe US and Indian samples maybe attributed to changes in the global economy,especially since the data were collected in March 2009 (Migliore, 2009). Perhaps, the largeUS unemployment numbers and continued threats of job loss, created a temporarytolerance for delays in gratification of material and social needs – all of which mayaccount for the increase in US long-term orientation scores. For example, there had beena steady decrease in US personal consumption from August 2008 to March 2009 and inMarch 2009 alone personal incomes decreased $34.4 billion or 0.3 percent, withdisposable personal income decreasing $1.8 billion, or less than 0.1 percent (Bureau ofEconomic Analysis, 2009). In comparison, India’s large decrease in long-term orientationscore may be directly related to the explosive economic growth in India as Hofstedesuggested, and thus influenced mindset changes towards how long individuals arewilling to accept delays in gratification of material, social, and emotional needs.However, the author acknowledges there may be other explanations regarding theresults of the study and encourages future research in these areas.

CCM18,1

50

Implications for further researchThe use of online panels in research is anticipated to increase, given the ongoing advancesin technologies to ensure quality samples, and the convenience of time and cost-efficiencystrengths. It is further anticipated an increased use in HLM for measuring hypothesizedcultural values at individual, organization, and national levels (Tsui et al., 2007).Considering the limitations of data-level analysis in the majority of cross-cultural researchstudies, it is recommended an organizational study be conducted with senior-level andlower-level employees of large US-based and Indian-based organizations using HLM, aswell as ensuring sample equivalence and adequate sample size. Another curious studywould be the work-related values of young, US business professionals (ages 20-30) ascompared to young Indian business professionals, also including these types of researchdisciplines. Scholars recommend including other national differentiators such as climate,political systems, legal systems, as well as economic influences of GNP/per capita,technology deployment, etc. in order to develop a clear theoretical framework formeasuring cross-national differences in organizational behavior – providing a moreconvincing analysis of cultural influences in employee workplace behaviors (Hofstede,1980, 2006; Peterson and Smith, 1997; Tsui et al., 2007). Further research in these areas willhelp fill a global business need to understand better the inter-relational aspects ofpersonality and work-related values in the twenty-first century.

References

Anderson, C. and Kilduff, G.J. (2009), “Why do dominant personalities attain influence inface-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 2, pp. 491-503.

Bureau of Economic Analysis (2009), “Personal income and outlays: March 2009”, available at:www.bea.gov (accessed 5 May 2009).

Costa, P.T. Jr and McCrae, R.R. (1994), “Set like plaster? Evidence for the stability of adultpersonality”, in Heatherton, T. and Weinberger, J. (Eds), Can Personality Change?,American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 21-40.

Deloitte (2008), 2008 Silicon Valley Deloitte Technology Fast 50 Awards, Deloitte Development,LLC, San Francisco, CA.

Digman, J.M. (1990), “Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model”, Annual Reviewof Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 417-40.

Donnellan, M.B., Oswald, F.L., Baird, B.M. and Lucas, R.E. (2006), “The Mini-IPIP scales:tiny-yet-effective measures of the big five factors of personality”, PsychologicalAssessment, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 192-203.

Epstein, S. (1997), “The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of thetime”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37, pp. 1097-126.

Goldberg, L.R. (1992), “The development markers for the big-five factor structure”, PsychologicalAssessment, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 26-42.

Goldberg, L.R., Johnson, J.A., Eber, H.W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M.C. and Cloninger, C.R., Gough, H.C.(2006), “The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personalitymeasures”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 40, pp. 84-96.

Gudykunst, W.B. and Mody, B. (2002), Handbook of International and InterculturalCommunication, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Gurung, A. and Prater, E. (2006), “A research framework for the impact of culture on IToutsourcing”, Journal of Global Information Technology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 24-43.

Hofstede’scultural

dimensions

51

Hall, E.T. and Hall, M.R. (1990), Understanding Cultural Differences: Keys to Success in WestGermany, France, and the United States, Intercultural Press, Yarmouth, ME.

Heaston, S.E. (2007), “Use of the internet for self-management of health by healthcare consumers:application of the health belief model”, Doctoral dissertation, Walden University,Baltimore, MD.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values,Beverly Hills, CA, Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1994), “Values Survey Module (VSM) 94 Model”, available at: www.geert-hofstede.com (accessed 28 April 2008).

Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, andOrganizations Across Nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Hofstede, G. (2006), “What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus respondents’minds”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37, pp. 882-96.

Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G.J. (2005), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind,McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (revised and expanded, 2nd ed.).

Hofstede, G. and McCrae, R.R. (2004), “Personality and culture revisited: linking traits anddimensions of culture”, Cross-Cultural Research, Vol. 38 No. 52, pp. 52-88.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., Minkov, M. and Vinken, H. (2008), Values Survey Module 2008Manual, available at: www.geerthofstede.nl (accessed 28 April 2008).

Javidan, M., House, R.J., Dorfman, P.W., Hanges, P.J. and Luque, M.S. (2006), “Conceptualizingand measuring cultures and their consequences: a comparative review of GLOBE’s andHofstede’s approaches”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37, pp. 897-914.

Johnson, J.A. (n.d.), “IPIP–NEO narrative report”, available at: www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/5/j5j/IPIP (accessed 28 April 2008).

Kenrick, D.T. and Funder, D.C. (1988), “Profiting from controversy: lessons from theperson-situation debate”, American Psychologist, Vol. 43, pp. 23-34.

Kluckhohn, F. and Strodtbeck, F. (1961), Variations in Value Orientations, Row, Peterson,Westport, CT.

Lee, Y.T., McCauley, C.R. and Draguns, J.G. (1999), Personality and Person Perception AcrossCultures, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

McAdams, D.P. (1992), “The five-factor model in personality: a critical appraisal”, Journal ofPersonality, Vol. 60, pp. 329-61.

McCrae, R.R. (2000), “Trait psychology of the revival of personality and culture studies”,American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 10-31.

McCrae, R.R. (2001), “Trait psychology and culture: exploring intercultural comparisons”,Journal of Personality, Vol. 69, pp. 819-46.

McCrae, R.R. (2002), “NEO–PI–R data from 36 cultures: further intercultural comparisons”,in McCrae, R.R. and Allik, J. (Eds), The Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Cultures,Kluwer/Plenum, New York, NY, pp. 105-25.

McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. Jr (1996), “Toward a new generation of personality theories:theoretical contexts for the five-factor model”, in Wiggins, J.S. (Ed.), The Five-factor Modelof Personality: Theoretical Perspectives, Guilford, New York, NY, pp. 51-87.

McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. Jr (1999), “A five-factor theory of personality”, in Pervin, L.A. andJohn, O.P. (Eds), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 2nd ed., Guilford,New York, NY, pp. 139-53.

CCM18,1

52

McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. Jr (2003), Personality in Adulthood: A Five-Factor TheoryPerspective, 2nd ed., Guilford, New York, NY.

McDevitt, P.K. and Small, M.H. (2002), “Proprietary market research: are online panelsappropriate”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 20 Nos 4/5, pp. 285-96.

MarketTools, Inc. (2008), Introducing True Sample: The Market Research Industry’s FirstQuality-assured Sample, MarketTools, San Francisco, CA.

Mental Measurements Yearbook (2004), “Revised NEO personality inventory”, in Costa, P.T. Jrand McCrae, R.R. (Eds), Mental Measurements Yearbook, Vol. 12, The Buros Institute ofMental Measurements and the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska,Lincoln, NE.

Migliore, L.A. (2009), “Comparison of U.S.A. and India cultures: linking personality withwork-related values”, Doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.

Norman, W.T. (1963), “Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factorstructure in peer nomination personality ratings”, Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, Vol. 66 No. 6, pp. 574-83.

Parsons, T. and Shils, E.A. (1962), Toward a General Theory of Action: Theoretical Foundationsfor the Social Sciences, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Peterson, M.F. and Smith, P.B. (1997), “Does national culture of ambient temperature explaincross-national differences in role stress? No sweat!”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 930-46.

Prasso, S. (2007), “Lessons for the Indian market”, Chief Executive, Vol. 233, pp. 46-53.

Rajagopalachar, H. and Parekh, H. (2009), “Indian offshoring industry and budget 2009 to 2010”,available at: www.globalservicesmedia.com/Content/general200907096931.asp (accessed10 July 2009).

Ramo, H. (2004), “Moments of trust: temporal and spatial factors of trust in organizations”,Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 760-7.

Schwartz, S.H. (1992), “Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advancesand empirical test in 20 countries”, in Zanna, M. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental SocialPsychology, Vol. 25, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-65.

Service and Support Professional Association (2008), “Talent management in emerging markets:best practices for attracting, developing, and retaining talent in India”, available at: www.thesspa.com (accessed 5 January 2009).

SHRM India (2008), “Corporate Indian companies: forging new talent pipelines and creativecareer pathways”, available at: www.shrm.org (accessed 28 April 2009).

Smith, P.B. and Bond, M.H. (1993), Social Psychology Across Cultures: Analysis and Perspectives,Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York, NY.

Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1998), Riding the Waves of Culture: UnderstandingCultural Diversity in Business, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, London.

Tsui, A.S., Nifadkar, S.S. and Ou, A.Y. (2007), “Cross-national, cross-cultural organizationalbehavior research: advances, gaps, and recommendations”, Journal of Management,Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 426-78.

van de Vijver, F. and Leung, K. (1997), Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research,Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Van Raaij, W.F. (1978), “Cross cultural research methodology as a case of construct validity”,Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, pp. 693-701.

Hofstede’scultural

dimensions

53

Further reading

Wigand, F.D.L. (2008), “Newly emerging organizational and coordination forms”, Academy ofInformation & Management Sciences, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 19-22.

About the authorLaura Ann Migliore, PhD, is a Managing Member at Abundant Knowledge, LLC, an executivecoaching and strategy-consulting firm (www.abundantknowledge.com). She is an experiencedexecutive coach and organizational strategy consultant with specialization in human resources,and has extensive automotive industry experience. She has also contributed articles in trademagazines such as the Automotive Industry Action Group Actionline Magazine and journals,such as the Journal of Electronic Commerce – for electronic data communications withinautomotive supply chains. Laura Ann Migliore currently serves as Vice President and FinancialChair/Board member for the International Institute of Metropolitan Detroit (www.iimd.org), anon-profit organization dedicated to helping newly arrived immigrants learn English, become UScitizens, and adapt to the community. Her areas of interest are work-related values, diversity,executive coaching, team building, and strategic management. Laura Ann Migliore enjoyshelping individuals achieve high levels of personal and professional excellence, and helpingorganizations improve their competitive position through performance excellence andinnovation. Laura Ann Migliore can be contacted at: lamigliore@abundantknowledge.com

CCM18,1

54

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints