Management Research ReviewThe role of individual cultural traits and proactivity in an organizational settingKerry D. Carson David S. Baker Patricia A. Lanier

Article information:To cite this document:Kerry D. Carson David S. Baker Patricia A. Lanier , (2014),"The role of individual cultural traits andproactivity in an organizational setting", Management Research Review, Vol. 37 Iss 4 pp. 348 - 366Permanent 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.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 354 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Mehlika Sara, Ismail Efil, Mehmet Eryilmaz, (2014),"A study of the relationship between person-organization fit and employee creativity", Management Research Review, Vol. 37 Iss 5 pp. 479-501 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-01-2013-0025Yi-Chun Huang, Ying-Jiuan Wong, Min-Li Yang, (2014),"Proactive environmental management andperformance by a controlling family", Management Research Review, Vol. 37 Iss 3 pp. 210-240 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-09-2012-0196Erin R. Fluegge-Woolf, (2014),"Play hard, work hard: Fun at work and job performance", ManagementResearch Review, Vol. 37 Iss 8 pp. 682-705 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-11-2012-0252

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 444336 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of M

aryl

and

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge U

MU

C A

t 06:

24 2

7 M

arch

201

5 (P

T)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of M

aryl

and

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge U

MU

C A

t 06:

24 2

7 M

arch

201

5 (P

T)

The role of individualcultural traits and proactivityin an organizational setting

Kerry D. CarsonDepartment of Management, University of Louisiana at Lafayette,

Lafayette, Louisiana, USA

David S. BakerMarketing Department, University of Louisiana at Lafayette,

Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, and

Patricia A. LanierDepartment 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 traitson proactive behaviors within an organizational environment. While there have been many reportsabout 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 fromAustralia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA were surveyed to assess the impact of culturaltrait influences on proactive behavior at the individual level. Using linear regression and partial leastsquares structural equation modeling, three independent variables were found to be significantantecedents to proactive behavior.

Findings Long-term orientation positively influenced proactive behaviors as did uncertaintyavoidance. Uncertainty avoidance was hypothesized to have a negative impact on proactivebehaviors, but the results of this study implied that individuals found it safer to adjust to a fluidenvironment rather than to remain inflexible. No relationship was found between power distanceand proactivity. Masculinity was found to be positively related to proactive behaviors but collectivismwas not.

Research limitations/implications The results of this study should be limited to its own populationand not generalized to larger, more culturally diverse populations which were not represented in the sample.

Practical implications This study provides better understanding of managerial proactivebehavior related to cultural traits, particularly in the domain of field sales.

Originality/value This study is unique in that it explores individual proactivity in anorganizational 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

Historically, managers provided employees with clear job descriptions because theyhad very specific jobs they wanted employees to perform. Performance was thenmeasured by how well the employee met the formalized tasks. However, unbendingemployee expectations only work in a stable environment which does not describe

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm

Management Research ReviewVol. 37 No. 4, 2014pp. 348-366q Emerald Group Publishing Limited2040-8269DOI 10.1108/MRR-12-2012-0269

MRR37,4

348

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of M

aryl

and

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge U

MU

C A

t 06:

24 2

7 M

arch

201

5 (P

T)

the milieu in which most organizations operate. In todays interconnected world,organizations can no longer operate with such rigid procedures.

The dynamic nature of business, particularly in the international arena, mustincreasingly allow for flexibility. In fluid situations, roles must be flexible enough sothat employees can go beyond the formalized tasks. They increasingly need to identifyproblems, envision possible modifications, and then initiate these changes. That is,they must be able to engage in proactive behaviors (Griffin et al., 2007).

In fact, a proactive workforce is widely viewed as essential in gaining a competitiveadvantage. Given this general consensus, it is no surprise that significant research hasbeen done to discover the antecedents of proactive employee behaviors. Proactivebehaviors have been determined to have relationships with various individual levelpredictor variables such as self-efficacy (Parker, 2000; Fay and Frese, 2001); roleorientation (Parker, 2000); future work orientation (Strauss et al., 2012); controlaspirations (Frese and Fay, 2001); mood (Bindl et al., 2012); and knowledge, skills, andability (Frese and Fay, 2001). In addition, several environmental factors have beenshown to significantly impact individuals proactive tendencies including job controland complexity (Frese and Fay, 2001; Parker and Sprigg, 1999); social networks(Morrison, 2002); encouragement and reward (Sibilia, 2008; Grant et al., 2009); andleader vision (Griffin et al., 2010). Furthermore, proactive behaviors and resulting jobperformance have been linked to traditional cultural measures.

For instance, Winkler and Bouncken (2011) found that team members fromcountries with traditionally low levels of power distance were less likely to participateactively in team decisions especially when led by high power distance team leaders.This phenomenon resulted in member dissatisfaction and lower degrees of buy-in intothe team decisions. Similarly, when comparing individual power distance dimensions,Robert et al. (2000) found that those sampled from countries with cultures traditionallyhigh in power distance experienced lower levels of satisfaction with increased levels ofjob empowerment. Consequently, this research examines cultural values and how theyare manifested at individual levels and their relationship to proactive behaviors in anorganizational setting.

The purpose of this research is therefore to assess the impact of cultural trait basedinfluences on proactive behaviors within an organizational environment. While therehave been many reports about the positive outcomes of proactivity (Crant, 2000;Thomas et al., 2010), there is much less known about the antecedents (Grant et al., 2011).One of the articles on antecedents has indicated that organizational culture can influenceproactivity directly (Crant, 2000). In another study, it has been reported that extravertedleaders in organizations tend to suppress the expression of proactivity (Kim et al., 2009).However, few researchers have investigated the relationship between cultural traits andproactivity in the organizational setting. This study therefore expands the understandingof antecedents to proactive behaviors through an examination of espoused cultural traitsat an individual level (Hofstede et al., 1993; Leung and Bond, 1989).

Hypothesis developmentProactivity in organizational settingsWith regard to the proactivity, it has been reported that individuals exhibiting proactivebehavior are more aware of the dynamic, shifting nature of the work environment(Crant, 2000). They are self-starters who confront the status quo and look for changes

Role ofindividual

cultural traits

349

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of M

aryl

and

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge U

MU

C A

t 06:

24 2

7 M

arch

201

5 (P

T)

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 confidencein 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, butthey also can solve large problems in innovative ways (Parker et al., 2006).

Besides innovation, there are many other positive outcomes associated withproactivity. Perhaps the most important is that individuals exhibiting these behaviorsare high performing (Crant, 2000). They are also very successful in their careers as theyselect the right work environments and then make changes to their situation to promotetheir careers (Seibert et al., 2001). Further, individuals who exhibit proactive behaviorshave high life satisfaction because they often achieve self-defined goals which makethem feel good about themselves and their lives (Greguras and Diefendorff, 2010).Relatedly, they have high job satisfaction because they alter their work situation byincreasing 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 successfullyaccomplish their goals. In order to create a situation that is responsive to their efforts,proactive employees are skilled at socializing and networking within others. Becausethey have established reputations as employees who get things accomplished, they areheld in high esteem by other employees. This organizational support makes it evenmore likely that they will initiate changes in the workplace (Thomas et al., 2010).

Proactivity is not, however, just about the individual success of the individualemployee. Proactive employees take others into account in their efforts to improve thecollective organization. They understand the interdependency involved inaccomplishing work outcomes and, therefore, they actively collaborate with othersto achieve their goals. They anticipate help that others may need in order to accomplishobjectives, thus exhibiting organizational citizenship behavior (Greguras andDiefendorff, 2010). This collaboration promotes completion of group tasks even inchallenging times resulting in increased effectiveness of the work group as well as theorganization (Grant et al., 2009; Griffin et al., 2007).

Long-term orientation and proactive behaviorWhen Hofstede and Bond (1988) first recognized long-term orientation as a culturaldimension, they labeled it Confucian dynamism in which work ethic, persistence,obedience, self-discipline, loyalty, politeness and thrift were valued. However, this complexconstruct, identified in 23 countries using the Chinese Value Survey, was perplexingto 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 individuallevel. 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 toaccomplish, making it worthwhile to plan and evaluate possible consequences.The second belief is perseverance, i.e. efforts today will pay off tomorrow. Theseindividuals realize that they must remain persistent in their labors, yet know they need

MRR37,4

350

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of M

aryl

and

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge U

MU

C A

t 06:

24 2

7 M

arch

201

5 (P

T)

to adapt to changes in their environment. Here, individuals are convinced that workinghard with lead to future success (Ganesan, 1994).

Individuals in cultures with a short-term orientation expect quick results, while thosewith a long-term orientation are comfortable with slower outcomes and exhibit morediligence. They are satisfied with steady progression towards objectives and are betterat imaging the future than those with a short-term orientation (Hofstede, 2001). They arealso more prudent. They are more likely, for example, to focus on saving their money fora future event rather than make an impulse decision (Dwyer et al., 2005). Individualswith a long-term orientation are therefore better planners (Ng and Ng, 2003).

Proactive employees are also good planners as they challenge the status quo andlook for opportunities to solve problems. They do not just take on easy problems, butare also willing to carry on in the face of adversity. Obstacles do not prevent them fromattaining long-term goals. Frese et al. (1996) similar concept of personal initiativedefines behaviors that are proactive as having a long-term focus. Furthermore,proactive individuals look for ways to bring about changes in their environment or selfto 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 behaviorIndividuals who are low on uncertainty avoidance are comfortable with change, novelty,and entrepreneurial initiatives. In contrast, those high on uncertainty avoidance feelthreatened by new or ambiguous situations. They are resistant to change and prefer astable 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, exactguidelines, and unambiguous responsibilities to avoid uncertainty. Also, they play itsafe through long organizational tenure (Chew and Putti, 1995). As consumers, highuncertainty avoidance individuals search for extensive information about productsbefore purchasing. They prefer to have a choice among several alternatives and alsowelcome service guarantees ( John et al., 2011; Quintal et al., 2010).

Hofstede (2001) suggested that cultures high on uncertainty avoidance are threatenedby new or unknown situations and, therefore are resistant to innovation. In contrast,cultures low on uncertainty avoidance embrace risk and advancement. Consistent withthis, firms in high uncertainty avoidance cultures are reported to have low proactivity(Kreiser et al., 2010). Because proactive individuals are comfortable with makingchanges needed for the future of the organization and are innovative in finding newapproaches to problems, the following is proposed:

H2. Uncertainty avoidance is negatively associated with proactive behaviors.

Masculinity/femininity and proactive behaviorThe masculinity/femininity cultural dimension as first proposed by Hofstede was a ratherstereotypical view of the emotional roles of men and women. Masculine cultures areperceived as tough or aggressive and feminine cultures as tender or nurturing. Masculinecultures emphasize achievement, competition, determination, and ambition. They valueaggression, action, decisiveness, and performance. Individuals in a masculine achievementoriented culture are comfortable with money, status symbols, and conspicuous

Role ofindividual

cultural traits

351

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of M

aryl

and

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge U

MU

C A

t 06:

24 2

7 M

arch

201

5 (P

T)

consumption (Hofstede, 2001). They are not conciliatory or compromising whenconfronted, but rather are prone to use threats, finger pointing, and blame (Leung, 1987).

Both masculine identity and gender equality may coexist to varying degrees withinone individual. For example, a person may be achievement oriented but also care forothers (Sharma, 2010). This may also be true with the proactive employee. While they areclearly ambitious in terms of changing the status quo and making a difference, they arealso concerned in that they are often willing to help out others in trouble (Bateman andCrant, 1993).

Another problem with finding significance relationships between masculinity andrelevant business constructs is the stereotypical items used by Hofstede in his originalresearch. Because proactive individuals are both ambitious and caring and their focusseems to be upon betterment of the company and not with gains in individual statusand consumption, there does not seem to be a relationship between proactivity andmasculinity/achievement orientation. This is consistent with Kreiser et al. (2010) who,on a cultural level, found no significance between masculinity and proactive firmbehavior. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

H3. Masculinity is not significantly associated with proactive behaviors.

Power distance and proactive behaviorPower distance deals with the extent to which less influential members of the societyaccept that power is allocated unequally. The greater the expectation or acceptance ofinequity, the higher is the power distance. Inequality is assumed and tolerated in highpower distance cultures. Individuals understand how they fit into the power structureand contentedly accept their destiny. Employees assume that the powerful will beprivileged and surrounded by visible symbols reflecting their status. In contrast, lowpower distance cultures play down inequalities in terms of social status and privilege.Leaders in these societies do not have the trappings reflecting their power. They stressequality and interdependence and minimize rank and status (Hofstede, 2001).

In high power distance cultures, centralized decision making, tight controls, andtop-down communication are expected because it keeps the authority hierarchy intact(Yoo and Donthu, 2005). Adherence to the rules is the norm (Chew and Putti, 1995).Because of a sense of obligation, employees are faithful to their organizations(Clugston et al., 2000). Employees in high in power distance organizations tend todevelop dependent and respectful relationships with the leaders. Employees arereluctant to participate in decision making and tend to be submissive and not disagreewith authority figures (Khatri, 2009; Sharma, 2010).

Proactive employees like to make independent decisions and do not always acquiesceto management. Rather than conforming to supervisors wishes, proactive employeesare inclined to disagree and voice their concern (Bateman and Crant, 1993). In fact,research suggests that proactive behaviors are significantly influenced by the degree ofsupervisor interaction and job autonomy (Parker et al., 2006). Proactive employees oftenchallenge the status quo and tackle problems head on. It seems that they would be unableor unwilling to be proactive in an autocratic organization where the supervisor forcefullymakes all decisions (Grant et al., 2009). For example, Winkler and Bouncken (2011), inexamining the innovation process of global teams, found that when supervised byhigh power distance team leaders employees from low power distance cultures feltleft out of the decision making process and therefore, were less willing to accept the

MRR37,4

352

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of M

aryl

and

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge U

MU

C A

t 06:

24 2

7 M

arch

201

5 (P

T)

team outcomes. Additionally, at the cultural value level, it was reported that high powerdistance negatively influenced the proactive behaviors of firms (Kreiser et al., 2010).Thus, on an individual cultural trait level similar findings are proposed:

H4. Power distance is negatively associated with proactive behaviors.

Collectivism and proactive behaviorIndividualism and collectivism were originally described as opposites by Hofstede(1980). With the cultural dimension of individualism, there are loose ties between peopleand the person looks out for him/herself and his/her immediate family. Those withcollectivistic values look out for other group members and their extended families.Individualistic cultures essentially underscore me while collectivistic cultures stresswe (Hofstede, 1991, 2001).

Those with individualistic values are less cooperative, have an egotistic workingstyle, and display less organizational commitment (Emery and Oertel, 2006;Dorfman and Howell, 1988). In contrast, employees with high collectivistic valuesget along with their managers and work groups (Boyacigiller and Adler, 2001) and areaffectively committed to the organization (Clugston et al., 2000). In a study thatcompared Ireland, an individualistic culture, with India, a more collectivistic culture,it was found that Indian employees have higher organizational commitment than didIrish employees (Ramamoorthy et al., 2007).

Proactive individuals display organizational commitment which reflect collectivevalues (Bateman and Crant, 1993). They also contribute to the group at work (Kim et al.,2009). Furthermore, proactive employees are good organizational citizens who arewilling to understand others perspectives (Greguras and Diefendorff, 2010). Thisbehavior is consistent with findings of a recent study which suggested that individualswho have collectivistic values do not avoid conflict, as originally thought, but arecapable of engaging in productive discussion (Tjosvold et al., 2010).

However, proactive individuals also display individualism. For example, they spendmore time in direct, rather than indirect, communication (Tu et al., 2011) which reflectsindividualistic values. Individualistic values are consistent with proactive employeessense of freedom and autonomy as well as an orientation toward personalaccomplishment through their careers (Oyserman, 2006). Thus, proactive employeesseem to express both individualistic and collectivistic values. This may explain the mixedfindings at the cultural level between individualistic values and proactive firm behavior.Some have reported a positive relationship (Shane, 1994) and while others have reporteda negative relationship (Kreiser et al., 2010). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

H5. Collectivism is not associated with proactive behaviors.

MethodologyMany researchers have noted that individuals within the same culture vary on thecultural traits (Hofstede and McCrae, 2004; Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Triandis et al.,1988). Hofstede and McCrae (2004), in particular, provide an extensive overview ofresearch linking personality traits and cultural dimensions. While the widely validatedresearch by Hofstede (1980, 2001) on cultural dimensions was conducted at the nationallevel of analysis, subsequent research has utilized the dimensions he identified andvalidated additional measures at the individual level of analysis (Clugston et al., 2000;

Role ofindividual

cultural traits

353

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of M

aryl

and

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge U

MU

C A

t 06:

24 2

7 M

arch

201

5 (P

T)

Srite and Karahanna, 2006; Wagner, 1995). These individualized measures will beutilized in this study.

Given the cultural trait aspects of this research, it has also been suggested that the levelof analysis of this research is not solely at the individual level, but at the pan-cultural levelof analysis. This is defined as pooling the data from N individuals together, regardless ofthe culture they belong to (Hofstede et al., 1993, p. 487). Also, it has been noted that the levelof analysis between the dependent variable and the independent variables should beconsistent. In this study, an individualized measure of proactive behavior was used.Therefore, independent variables reflecting espoused cultural traits were also measured atthe individual level (Bockner and Hesketh, 1994; Clugston et al., 2000).

DataThis study was conducted with a field research questionnaire. The 147 respondentsworked in sales at an organization that operates multi-nationally in over 120 countries inthe industrial business-to-business sector. Field sales employees queried in this surveywere employed in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA. The leadauthor used his professional history to gain the cooperation of the executives in salesmanagement which provided a 95 percent response rate. The average chronological ageof the sample was 46 years, average organizational tenure was 14 years, and 41 percentheld a college degree. Of the 147 respondents, six individuals exited the survey atvarious points and did not return to complete it. This constituted less than 5 percent ofthe sample responses, and incomplete responses were therefore removed from the finalanalysis. Descriptive statistics of the sample are summarized in Table I.

MeasuresAge 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 (compositereliability 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 dothings 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 dimensiondeveloped by Bearden et al. (2006) measured at the individual cultural trait levels are I planfor the long term and I dont mind giving up todays fun for success in the future.

Demographic variableUSA

(n 59)UK

(n 42)Canada(n 25)

Australia/New Zealand(n 15)

Totalsample

(n 141)Age 48 44 46 48 46 yearsEducation

High school or equivalent 26 30 12 6 74Some college education 7 2 9Bachelors degree orequivalent 23 12 10 9 54Graduate university degree 3 1 4

Mean tenure at company (years) 16 12 15 13 14

Table I.Sample descriptivestatistics

MRR37,4

354

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of M

aryl

and

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge U

MU

C A

t 06:

24 2

7 M

arch

201

5 (P

T)

Uncertainty avoidance. Uncertainty avoidance was tapped using a five-item scale(composite reliability 0.93) developed by Dorfman and Howell (1988) to conceptualizeand measure Hofstedes original national cultural dimension at the individual trait level(Clugston et al., 2000). Two of the items are It is important to have job requirements andinstructions spelled out in detail so that employees always know what they are expectedto do and Managers expect employees to closely follow instructions and procedures.

Masculinity. Masculinity was measured with three-items (compositereliability 0.81) used by Vitell et al. (2003) at the individual level of analysis.Two sample items are It is important to me to have a job that provides an opportunityfor advancement and It is important for me to work in a prestigious and successfulcompany or organization.

Power distance. Power distance was gauged with a six-item scale (compositereliability 0.82). The measure was developed by Dorfman and Howell (1988) andhas been used to capture individual differences within cultures (Clugston et al., 2000).Samples items are employees should not disagree with management decisions andmanagers should seldom ask for the opinions of employees.

Collectivism. Collectivism was measured with six-items (compositereliability 0.83) developed by Dorfman and Howell (1988) to conceptually tapHofstedes (1980) theoretically derived national cultural dimension at the individualtrait level. The instrument has been used at the individual level of analysis (Dorfmanand Howell, 1988; Clugston et al., 2000). Examples of the items are managers shouldencourage group loyalty even if individual goals suffer and group success is moreimportant than individual success.

Data analysis and resultsTo test initial item and construct discriminate and convergent validity, the authorsconducted a principal-axes factor analysis using a varimax rotation on the dependentvariable and the five independent variables. The original set of 31 items inthe six measures was examined for overlapping items. Six discriminant factors wereextracted. The results of the principal-axes factor analysis are shown in Table II. Therewere no unacceptable cross-loadings between items. All items loaded onthe hypothesized factor at 0.60 or higher, and there were no cross-factor item loadingsthat exceeded the item loading on its originally hypothesized factor (Hair et al., 2010).

Model measurement descriptive statistics and correlations are shown in Table III.Construct discriminant validity was assessed by compare the square root of theaverage variance extracted for each of the constructs to the correlation between eachtwo of them (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Pearson correlation analysis implied thatproactivity was significantly and positively related to long-term orientation (r 0.63,p # 0.01) supporting H1. Uncertainty avoidance (r 0.35, p # 0.01) was significantbut in the opposite direction of H2. Masculinity (r 0.49, p # 0.01) was significantrather than non-significant as proposed for H3. H4 was not supported in thatproactivity was not related to power distance (r 20.16, ns), and the null propositionwas supported for collectivism in H5 (r 0.07, ns).

Model testingThe hypothesized model was initially tested with linear regression using SPSS19 software. Tests were conducted for normality, heteroscedasticity, multicollinearity,

Role ofindividual

cultural traits

355

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of M

aryl

and

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge U

MU

C A

t 06:

24 2

7 M

arch

201

5 (P

T)

and influential outliers to insure the normality and reliability of the data. All of thesetests 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 Pearsoncorrelations. 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 squareswith the cultural traits as independent variable antecedents to the dependent variable ofproactivity. Smart PLS 2.0 was the software utilized for the analysis. As noted byHair et al. (2011), partial least squares-SEM (PLS-SEM) is a causal modeling approachintended to maximize explained variance of the dependent latent constructs.

While PLS-based SEM is a somewhat newer approach to SEM modeling incomparison to co-variance based SEM, it is increasingly being utilized used in

Component1 2 3 4 5 6

LT1 0.248 0.395 20.030 20.006 0.622 20.034LT2 0.052 0.371 0.184 20.137 0.745 0.086LT3 0.049 0.176 0.078 20.078 0.783 0.124LT4 0.097 0.317 20.019 20.048 0.654 0.202UA1 0.718 0.227 0.011 0.106 20.008 0.008UA2 0.786 0.146 0.063 0.127 0.128 0.112UA3 0.887 0.010 0.062 0.016 0.109 0.148UA4 0.825 0.185 0.144 20.053 0.124 0.112UA5 0.833 0.110 0.180 20.052 0.072 0.129AC1 0.398 0.094 0.127 20.078 0.142 0.639AC2 0.158 0.104 0.102 20.042 0.078 0.779AC3 0.031 0.333 0.008 20.158 0.126 0.694PD1 0.069 20.060 0.046 0.699 20.124 0.093PD2 0.299 20.025 0.248 0.595 20.006 0.000PD3 0.056 20.274 20.034 0.698 20.006 20.167PD4 20.013 0.091 0.009 0.680 20.026 20.054PD5 20.120 20.056 0.110 0.745 20.113 20.015PD6 20.023 20.046 20.084 0.706 0.037 20.159IC1 0.112 20.187 0.722 20.028 0.231 0.244IC2 0.051 20.127 0.748 0.029 0.201 0.285IC3 0.233 20.101 0.506 20.262 0.227 0.336IC4 0.148 20.054 0.805 0.113 20.098 20.085IC5 0.025 0.293 0.785 0.015 20.063 20.025IC6 0.060 0.118 0.796 0.167 20.052 20.076PP1 0.207 0.664 0.042 20.050 0.206 20.063PP2 0.100 0.727 0.105 20.035 0.212 0.263PP3 0.045 0.759 0.008 20.170 0.018 0.130PP4 0.214 0.692 20.050 20.097 0.312 0.112PP5 0.236 0.613 0.010 20.091 0.461 0.082PP6 0.085 0.730 20.109 0.111 0.332 0.086

Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: varimax withKaiser normalization

Table II.Measurement itemrotated componentmatrix

MRR37,4

356

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of M

aryl

and

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge U

MU

C A

t 06:

24 2

7 M

arch

201

5 (P

T)

business disciplines. The method has benefits not offered by CB-SEM that areimportant to this study. First, PLS-SEM has an ability to work effectively with smallersample sizes (Chin, 1998a, b; Chin and Newsted, 1999). Second, it is a preferred methodfor prediction and theory development (Hair et al., 2011). Finally, PLS-SEM is also awell-established method for investigating cause-effect relationships in businessresearch (Gudergan et al., 2008; Hair et al., 2010).

Results of the PLS-SEM analysis supported two of the five hypotheses.H1 stated thatlong-term orientation would be positively associated with proactive behaviors whichwas strongly supported (path coefficient 0.464).H2 stated that uncertainty avoidancewould be negatively associated with proactive behaviors. As indicated from thecorrelation, this was in the opposite direction than predicted. The positive associationwas supported in both the linear regression and the PLS-SEM model(path coefficient 0.186). H2 was therefore not supported. H3 stated thatmasculinity would not be associated with proactive behaviors. However, within themodel masculinity showed a positive association with proactive behavior(pathcoefficient 0.249), which did not support this hypothesis.

Mean SD CR LTO UA MA PD CO PP

Long-termorientation(LTO)

Pearsoncorrelation

5.96 0.685 0.88 0.805 0.308 * 0.435 * 20.159 0.225 * 0.633 *

Uncertaintyavoidance(UA)

Pearsoncorrelation

5.22 1.02 0.93 0.308 * 0.844 0.369 * 0.084 0.252 * 0.353 *

Masculinity(MA)

Pearsoncorrelation

5.92 0.809 0.81 0.435 * 0.369 * 0.719 20.111 0.287 * 0.488 *

Powerdistance (PD)

Pearsoncorrelation

2.54 1.02 0.82 20.159 0.084 20.111 0.668 20.034 20.156

Collectivism(CO)

Pearsoncorrelation

4.85 0.980 0.83 0.225 * 0.252 * 0.287 * 20.034 0.673 0.063

Proactivepersonality(PP)

Pearsoncorrelation

5.45 0.851 0.90 0.633 * 0.353 * 0.488 * 20.156 0.063 0.780

Notes: Correlation is significant at: *0.01 level (two-tailed); the square root of the AVE is shown initalics on the diagonal

Table III.Measurement descriptivestatistics and correlations

Unstandardizedcoefficients Standardized coefficients

Model B SE b t-value Sig.

Long-term orientation 0.614 0.088 0.494 6.957 0.000Masculinity 0.248 0.076 0.235 3.242 0.001Uncertainty avoidance 0.119 0.058 0.142 2.043 0.043Collectivism 20.082 0.056 20.095 21.458 0.147Power distance 20.045 0.053 20.054 20.848 0.398

Note: Dependent variable: proactive personality

Table IV.Linear regression model

coefficients

Role ofindividual

cultural traits

357

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of M

aryl

and

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge U

MU

C A

t 06:

24 2

7 M

arch

201

5 (P

T)

H4 stated that power distance would be negatively associated with proactivebehaviors, but the path coefficient was only 20.107. While this association was inthe direction hypothesized, it was not considered strong enough to fully support thehypothesis. Finally, H5 stated that collectivism would not be associated with proactivebehaviors which was supported (path coefficient 20.069). Graphical results of thePLS-SEM analysis are shown in Figure 1.

DiscussionFindingsThis study provides practical insight into understanding proactive behavior related toespoused individual cultural traits in an organizational setting. Long-term orientationwas found to be significantly related to proactive behavior, and it is also associatedwith other positive organizational outcomes. For example, it was previously reportedthat 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 afamily firm. Top leadership in family firms is aware that goals are often accomplishonly after considerable delay. Effectiveness is increased when the family focuses on itslong-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 ofautomotive plants led to innovation as measured by the number of issued patents.Similarly, two other research groups reported that long-term orientation and productinnovation were positively correlated (Allred and Swan, 2004; Nakata and Sivakumar,1996). Finally, Nevins et al. (2007) also reported that marketing managers who value along-term orientation were more ethical.

Managers can use this knowledge to reinforce long-term orientation in theorganizational culture, particularly in cultures that tend to be more skewed at anational level toward short-term orientation (such as those within the sample

Figure 1.The PLS-SEM model

ProactivePersonality

UncertaintyAvoidance

Masculinity/Achievement

PowerDistance

Long TermOrientation

Collectivism

0.107

0.464

0.249

0.186

0.069

Age Tenure

0.0490.093

MRR37,4

358

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of M

aryl

and

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge U

MU

C A

t 06:

24 2

7 M

arch

201

5 (P

T)

population of this study). The results of this study imply that individual levellong-term orientation and planning directly influences proactive behavior. It also leadsto more productivity, improved financial success, increased innovation as well ashigher ethical standards. Companies would do well to design more holistic rewardsystems that avoid emphasizing short-term profits because it results in less ethicalbehavior (Chaffin and Fidler, 2002). This study therefore implies that even inshort-term oriented cultures reward systems at the individual level should thus striveto balance short-term and long-term results in order to encourage consistent proactivebehavior of employees.

The significant finding in the study between uncertainty avoidance and proactivitywas in the opposite direction that would be suggested by Hofstede (2001). However,there have been other researchers who have reported similar unexpected findings withregard to uncertainty avoidance. For example, Schneider and De Meyer (1991)indicated that individuals in Latin American cultures high on uncertainty avoidanceare more likely to be proactive in the face of environmental flux as compared to thosecultures low in uncertainty avoidance. Also, Rauch et al. (2000) showed that inGermany, which is comparatively higher than average on uncertainty avoidance(Hofstede, 2001), firms engage in planning to control future events which matched thecustomers needs.

However, the best explanation for the outcome in the current study is that it is riskyto be too rigid in the face of change; particularly in an environment of global andtechnological turmoil. Rather than facing the uncertainty of consistently adhering toone position, it is safer to engage in change to actually reduce uncertainty (Pfeffer andSalancik, 1978). This is what Geletkancyz (1997) surmised. She originally hypothesizedthat 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 andavoid action. However, her research ultimately deduced that individuals higher onuncertainty avoidance find it safer to change along with a dynamic environment ascompared to attempting to remain static. Mancheno-Smoak et al. (2009) reportedsimilar findings with regards to transformational leadership.

Though not hypothesized, masculinity had a positive relationship with proactivepersonality within this study. While literature and previous research based onHofstedes (1980) original conceptualization of masculinity/femininity were reviewed todevelop the hypothesis, a more recent individual level measurement was utilized in thisstudy (Vitell et al., 2003). This three-item instrument did not confuse gender issues withmasculine identity. Rather it gauged promotion, pay, and firm prestige which are moreclosely aligned with a de-limited aspect of masculinity that focuses directly onambition and success. These achievement-oriented items are consistent with thebehaviors of a proactive individual (Bateman and Crant, 1993).

The other finding in this study is the lack of significance between power distanceand proactive behavior. This is not consistent with other researchers who found thathigh power distance inhibits proactivity (Grant et al., 2011; Kreiser et al., 2010). Twolimitations related to the study could explain the lack of significance in the currentstudy. First, the relatively small sample size may not have provided sufficientstatistical power. Second, there may have been insufficient variance as the sample wasfrom one organization, and respondents were from five countries have similar culturalvalues that on the national level are comparatively low in power distance.

Role ofindividual

cultural traits

359

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of M

aryl

and

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge U

MU

C A

t 06:

24 2

7 M

arch

201

5 (P

T)

Managerial implicationsThe systematic selection and development of human resources is of major importanceto 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 offervaluable contributions to fluctuating business situations. Yet, establishing a proactiveworkforce presents several challenges, especially for international human resourcemanagers. 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 exhibitthese traits. However, if, as this studys findings suggest, aspects of national culture canpredict proactive tendencies, then recruiting proactive individuals may prove challengingin 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 anddevelopmental processes. In fact, research suggests that if companies want aproactive workforce, it must be created through mechanisms such as job design (Timsand 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 (Belschakand Den Hartog, 2010; Griffin et al., 2010); and feedback (Stobbeleir et al., 2010).

This suggests two different human resource strategies for obtaining a proactiveworkforce. The wide diversity of international cultures and related individualpersonality characteristics only serve to complicate this issue. However, the currentinternalization of businesses demands human resource managers tailor their selection,compensation, performance management, and development practices to fit theseexpected differences across cultures. Our findings indicate that proactivity maybe more difficult to find in some cultures than in others. Therefore, internationalhuman resource managers will need to explore ways to accommodate culturalvariations while simultaneously meeting the increasing demand for adaptable,take-action employees.

Limitations and future researchThe nature of the sample in this study must be kept in mind. Proactive orientedindividuals are attracted to sales. This could be considered a limitation of the study in thatit prevents any generalization beyond the study sample population withoutcross-validation studies utilizing a more diverse population. The sample also consistsonly of Anglo-based cultures, which limits its generalizability in other cultures, especiallythose with comparatively higher national level extremes of cultural values (such as Asianor 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 oncollectivism at the national level. Individuals from these Anglo-based cultures generallyprefer adaptive techniques and also have less uncertainty avoidance. Therefore, whileinteresting in its potential for further cross-validation studies, this study should be limitedto its own population and not generalized to larger, more culturally diverse populationswhich were not represented in the sample.

MRR37,4

360

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of M

aryl

and

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge U

MU

C A

t 06:

24 2

7 M

arch

201

5 (P

T)

References

Allred, B. and Swan, K. (2004), Global versus multi-domestic: cultures consequence oninnovation, Management International Review, Vol. 44, pp. 81-105.

Bateman, T. and Crant, J. (1993), The proactive component of organizational behavior: a measureand 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: developmentand 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 ofproactive 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-relatedattitudes in a culturally diverse work group, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 25No. 2, pp. 233-257.

Boyacigiller, N. and Adler, N. (2001), The parochial dinosaur: organizational science in a globalcontext, 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 orientationon sales performance, Society for Marketing Advances Proceedings, pp. 276-277.

Chew, I. and Putti, J. (1995), Relationship on work-related values of Singaporean and Japanesemanagers 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, inMarcoulides, 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 samplesusing partial least squares, in Hoyle, R. (Ed.), Statistical Strategies for Small SampleResearch, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 307-341.

Claes, R., Beheydt, C. and Lemmens, B. (2005), Unidimensionality of abbreviated proactivepersonality 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 multiplebases 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 leadershippatterns: 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 ofnational culture on cross-national product diffusion, Journal of International Marketing,Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 1-28.

Role ofindividual

cultural traits

361

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of M

aryl

and

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge U

MU

C A

t 06:

24 2

7 M

arch

201

5 (P

T)

Emery, C. and Oertel, S. (2006), An examination of employee culture-based perceptions as apredictor of motivation, Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict,Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 13-29.

Erdogan, B. and Bauer, T. (2005), Enhancing career benefits of employee proactive personality:the role of fit with jobs and organizations, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 859-891.

Fay, D. and Frese, M. (2001), The concept of personal initiative: an overview of validity studies,Human Performance, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 97-124.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.

Frese, M. and Fay, D. (2001), Personal initiative: an active performance concept for work in the21st century, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 133-187.

Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A. and Zempel, J. (1996), Personal initiative at work: differencesbetween East and West Germany, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1,pp. 37-63.

Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K. and Tag, A. (1997), The concept of personal initiative:operationalization, reliability, and validity in two German samples, Journal ofOccupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 139-161.

Ganesan, S. (1994), Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships, Journalof Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 1-19.

Geletkancyz, M. (1997), The salience of cultures consequences: the effects of cultural values ontop executive commitment to the status quo, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 8,pp. 615-634.

Grant, A. and Parker, S. (2009), Redesigning work design theories, The Academy ofManagement Annals, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 317-375.

Grant, A., Gino, F. and Hofmann, D. (2011), Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: therole of employee proactivity, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54, pp. 528-550.

Grant, A., Parker, S. and Collins, C. (2009), Getting credit for proactive behavior: supervisorreactions depend on what you value and how you feel, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 62,pp. 31-55.

Greguras, G. and Diefendorff, J. (2010), Why does proactive personality predict life satisfactionand work behaviors? A field investigation of the mediating role of the self-concordancemodel, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 539-560.

Griffin, M., Neal, A. and Parker, S. (2007), A new model of work role performance: positivebehavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 50, pp. 327-347.

Griffin, M., Parker, S. and Mason, C. (2010), Leader vision and the development of adaptive andproactive performance: a longitudinal study, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 1,pp. 174-182.

Gudergan, S., Ringle, C., Wende, S. and Will, A. (2008), Confirmatory tetrad analysis in PLSmodeling, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61, pp. 1238-1249.

Hair, J., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet, Journal ofMarketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-151.

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, PearsonPrentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

MRR37,4

362

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of M

aryl

and

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge U

MU

C A

t 06:

24 2

7 M

arch

201

5 (P

T)

Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill,New York, NY.

Hofstede, G. (2001), Cultures Consequences, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Hofstede, G. and Bond, M. (1988), The Confucius connection: from cultural roots to economicgrowth, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 16, pp. 5-21.

Hofstede, G. and McCrae, R. (2004), Personality and culture revisited: linking traits anddimensions of culture, Cross-Cultural Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 52-87.

Hofstede, G., Bond, M.H. and Luk, C. (1993), Individual perceptions of organizational cultures:a methodological treatise on levels of analysis, Organization Studies, Vol. 14 No. 4,pp. 483-504.

John, J., John, J. and Baker, D. (2011), Control and participation at the service encounter: a culturalvalue-based perspective, International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 2No. 22, pp. 7-14.

Khatri, N. (2009), Consequences of power distance orientation in organizations, Journal ofBusiness Perspective, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-9.

Kim, T.Y., Hon, A.H. and Crant, J.M. (2009), Proactive personality, employee creativity, andnewcomer outcomes: a longitudinal study, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 24No. 1, pp. 93-103.

Kreiser, P., Marino, L., Dickson, P. and Weaver, K. (2010), Cultural influences on entrepreneurialorientation: the impact of national culture on risk taking and proactiveness in SMEs,Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 959-983.

Le Breton-Miller, I. and Miller, D. (2006), Why do some family business out-compete?Governance, long-term orientation, and sustainable capability?, EntrepreneurshipTheory & Practice, Vol. 30, pp. 731-746.

Leung, K. (1987), Some determinants of reaction to procedural models for conflict resolution:a cross-cultural study, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 898-908.

Leung, K. and Bond, M.H. (1989), On the empirical identification of dimensions for cross-culturalcomparisons, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 192-208.

Lin, L.H. (2009), Effects of national culture on process management and technologicalinnovation, Total Quality Management, Vol. 20 No. 12, pp. 1287-1301.

Lumpkin, G. and Brigham, K. (2011), Long-term orientation and inter-temporal choice in familyfirms, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 1149-1169.

Mancheno-Smoak, L., Endres, G., Polak, R. and Athanasaw, Y. (2009), The individual culturalvalues and job satisfaction of the transformational leader, Organization DevelopmentJournal, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 9-21.

Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1991), Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion,and motivation, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 224-253.

Morrison, E. (2002), Newcomers relationships: the role of social network ties duringsocialization, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45, pp. 1149-1160.

Nakata, C. and Sivakumar, K. (1996), National culture and new product development:an integrative review, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 61-72.

Nevins, J., Bearden, W. and Money, B. (2007), Ethical values and long-term orientation, Journalof Business Ethics, Vol. 71, pp. 261-274.

Ng, K. and Ng, S. (2003), Do the economies of specialization justify the work ethics?An examination of Buchanans hypothesis, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,Vol. 50, pp. 339-353.

Role ofindividual

cultural traits

363

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of M

aryl

and

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge U

MU

C A

t 06:

24 2

7 M

arch

201

5 (P

T)

Oyserman, D. (2006), High power, low power, and equality: culture beyond individualism andcollectivism, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 352-356.

Parker, S. (2000), From passive to proactive motivation: the importance of flexible roleorientations 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 jobdemands, job control, and proactive personality, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84No. 6, pp. 925-939.

Parker, S., Bindl, U. and Strauss, K. (2010), Making things happen: a model of proactivemotivation, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 827-856.

Parker, S., Williams, H. and Turner, N. (2006), Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior atwork, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91, pp. 636-652.

Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. (1978), The External Control of Organizations: A Resource DependencePerspective, 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 ofrisk 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 andemployees attitudes: a comparison of employees from the high-technology sector in Indiaand Ireland, Journal of International Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 187-203.

Rauch, A., Frese, M. and Sonnentag, S. (2000), Cultural differences in planning/successrelationships: a comparison of small enterprises in Ireland, West Germany, andEast 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 andcontinuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: predicting fit onthe basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 85 No. 5, pp. 643-658.

Schneider, S. and De Meyer, A. (1991), Interpreting and responding to strategic issues: theimpact 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 modellinking 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 technologyacceptance, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 679-704.

Stobbeleir, K., Ashford, S. and Sully de Luque, M. (2010), Proactivity with image in mind: howemployee and manager characteristics affect evaluations of proactive behaviors, Journalof Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 347-369.

MRR37,4

364

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of M

aryl

and

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge U

MU

C A

t 06:

24 2

7 M

arch

201

5 (P

T)

Strauss, K., Griffin, M. and Parker, S. (2012), Future work selves: how salient hoped-foridentities 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 valueson 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 andcollectivism: cross-cultural perspectives on self-in-group relationships, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 323-338.

Tu, Y., Line, S. and Chang, Y. (2011), A cross-cultural comparison by individualism/collectivismamong 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 socialresponsibility: a study of marketing professionals, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 13No. 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 workdesign, transformational leadership, and team composition, Journal ofOccupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 301-324.

Winkler, V. and Bouncken, R. (2011), How does cultural diversity in global innovation teamsaffect 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 consumerethnocentrism: 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 ofAdvertising Research, Vol. 46, pp. 315-323.

Fang, T. (2003), A critique of Hofstedes fifth dimension, International Journal of Cross-CulturalManagement, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 347-368.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. and Kemmelmeier, M. (2002), Rethinking individualism andcollectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses, PsychologicalBulletin, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 3-72.

About the authorsKerry D. Carson, PhD, CCP, GRP, is a Management Professor at the University of Louisiana atLafayette 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 thecompensation area.

Role ofindividual

cultural traits

365

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of M

aryl

and

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge U

MU

C A

t 06:

24 2

7 M

arch

201

5 (P

T)

David S. Baker, DBA, is an Assistant Professor of marketing and international business atThe University of Louisiana at Lafayette. He earned his DBA from Grenoble Ecole DeManagement and his MBA from The Thunderbird School of Global Management. His researchand publication interests include strategic management in cross-cultural environments,adaptive learning behaviour, cultural values and cognition related to motivation, and adaptationto technology in the organizational setting. David S. Baker is the corresponding author and canbe contacted at: dbaker@louisiana.edu

Patricia Lanier, DBA, SPHR, is an Associate Professor of management at the B.I. Moody IIICollege of Business Administration. She teaches strategic management, organizationalbehaviour, and human resource courses. She earned her BS in management from TulaneUniversity, her MBA from Baylor University, and her doctorate from Louisiana Tech University.She also holds the SPHR certification in human resource management. Dr Lanier has publishedher work in notable academic journals including the Academy of Management Journal. She hasalso presented her research at National and Regional Conferences. Her research interests includestrategic management, human resources, management education, and management history.

MRR37,4

366

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of M

aryl

and

Uni

vers

ity C

olle

ge U

MU

C A

t 06:

24 2

7 M

arch

201

5 (P

T)