Management Research Review

The role of individual cultural traits and proactivity in an organizational setting

Kerry D. Carson David S. Baker Patricia A. Lanier

Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)

Article information:
To cite this document:
Kerry D. Carson David S. Baker Patricia A. Lanier , (2014),"The role of individual cultural traits and
proactivity in an organizational setting", Management Research Review, Vol. 37 Iss 4 pp. 348 - 366
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-12-2012-0269
Downloaded on: 27 March 2015, At: 06:24 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 90 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 354 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Mehlika Sara, Ismail Efil, Mehmet Eryilmaz, (2014),"A study of the relationship between personorganization fit and employee creativity", Management Research Review, Vol. 37 Iss 5 pp. 479-501 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-01-2013-0025
Yi-Chun Huang, Ying-Jiuan Wong, Min-Li Yang, (2014),"Proactive environmental management and
performance by a controlling family", Management Research Review, Vol. 37 Iss 3 pp. 210-240 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-09-2012-0196
Erin R. Fluegge-Woolf, (2014),"Play hard, work hard: Fun at work and job performance", Management
Research 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 Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing 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 Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)

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

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm

MRR
37,4

The role of individual

cultural traits and proactivity
in an organizational setting

348

Kerry D. Carson

Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)

Department of Management, University of Louisiana at Lafayette,

Lafayette, Louisiana, USA

David S. Baker
Marketing Department, University of Louisiana at Lafayette,
Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, and

Patricia A. Lanier
Department of Management, University of Louisiana at Lafayette,
Lafayette, Louisiana, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this research is to assess the impact of espoused individual cultural traits
on proactive behaviors within an organizational environment. While there have been many reports
about the positive outcomes of proactivity, there is much less known about the antecedents,
particularly those related to culture.
Design/methodology/approach Sales employees (n 147) in a multi-national organization from
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA were surveyed to assess the impact of cultural
trait influences on proactive behavior at the individual level. Using linear regression and partial least
squares structural equation modeling, three independent variables were found to be significant
antecedents to proactive behavior.
Findings Long-term orientation positively influenced proactive behaviors as did uncertainty
avoidance. Uncertainty avoidance was hypothesized to have a negative impact on proactive
behaviors, but the results of this study implied that individuals found it safer to adjust to a fluid
environment rather than to remain inflexible. No relationship was found between power distance
and proactivity. Masculinity was found to be positively related to proactive behaviors but collectivism
was not.
Research limitations/implications The results of this study should be limited to its own population
and not generalized to larger, more culturally diverse populations which were not represented in the sample.
Practical implications This study provides better understanding of managerial proactive
behavior related to cultural traits, particularly in the domain of field sales.
Originality/value This study is unique in that it explores individual proactivity in an
organizational selling environment related to cultural traits at the individual level.
Keywords Masculinity, Long-term orientation, Cultural traits, Power distance, Proactive behavior,
Uncertainty avoidance
Paper type Research paper
Management Research Review
Vol. 37 No. 4, 2014
pp. 348-366
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-8269
DOI 10.1108/MRR-12-2012-0269

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

Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)

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, must
increasingly allow for flexibility. In fluid situations, roles must be flexible enough so
that employees can go beyond the formalized tasks. They increasingly need to identify
problems, 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 competitive
advantage. Given this general consensus, it is no surprise that significant research has
been done to discover the antecedents of proactive employee behaviors. Proactive
behaviors have been determined to have relationships with various individual level
predictor variables such as self-efficacy (Parker, 2000; Fay and Frese, 2001); role
orientation (Parker, 2000); future work orientation (Strauss et al., 2012); control
aspirations (Frese and Fay, 2001); mood (Bindl et al., 2012); and knowledge, skills, and
ability (Frese and Fay, 2001). In addition, several environmental factors have been
shown to significantly impact individuals proactive tendencies including job control
and complexity (Frese and Fay, 2001; Parker and Sprigg, 1999); social networks
(Morrison, 2002); encouragement and reward (Sibilia, 2008; Grant et al., 2009); and
leader vision (Griffin et al., 2010). Furthermore, proactive behaviors and resulting job
performance have been linked to traditional cultural measures.
For instance, Winkler and Bouncken (2011) found that team members from
countries with traditionally low levels of power distance were less likely to participate
actively in team decisions especially when led by high power distance team leaders.
This phenomenon resulted in member dissatisfaction and lower degrees of buy-in into
the team decisions. Similarly, when comparing individual power distance dimensions,
Robert et al. (2000) found that those sampled from countries with cultures traditionally
high in power distance experienced lower levels of satisfaction with increased levels of
job empowerment. Consequently, this research examines cultural values and how they
are manifested at individual levels and their relationship to proactive behaviors in an
organizational setting.
The purpose of this research is therefore to assess the impact of cultural trait based
influences on proactive behaviors within an organizational environment. While there
have 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 influence
proactivity directly (Crant, 2000). In another study, it has been reported that extraverted
leaders in organizations tend to suppress the expression of proactivity (Kim et al., 2009).
However, few researchers have investigated the relationship between cultural traits and
proactivity in the organizational setting. This study therefore expands the understanding
of antecedents to proactive behaviors through an examination of espoused cultural traits
at an individual level (Hofstede et al., 1993; Leung and Bond, 1989).
Hypothesis development
Proactivity in organizational settings
With regard to the proactivity, it has been reported that individuals exhibiting proactive
behavior 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 of
individual
cultural traits
349

MRR
37,4

Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)

350

that will benefit the organization in the future. They set goals, take charge, initiate change,
and persist despite obstacles. They are self-determined because they have great confidence
in their abilities to accomplish the task confronting them (Crant, 2000; Frese et al., 1997).
Sometimes they merely improve processes or procedures that are not working well, but
they also can solve large problems in innovative ways (Parker et al., 2006).
Besides innovation, there are many other positive outcomes associated with
proactivity. Perhaps the most important is that individuals exhibiting these behaviors
are high performing (Crant, 2000). They are also very successful in their careers as they
select the right work environments and then make changes to their situation to promote
their careers (Seibert et al., 2001). Further, individuals who exhibit proactive behaviors
have high life satisfaction because they often achieve self-defined goals which make
them feel good about themselves and their lives (Greguras and Diefendorff, 2010).
Relatedly, they have high job satisfaction because they alter their work situation by
increasing their autonomy and make their jobs more significant (Erdogan and Bauer,
2005; Thomas et al., 2010). Because they proactively adapt to changing work situations,
they feel involved in their organizations (Bateman and Crant, 1993).
Proactive employees craft a work environment that allows them to successfully
accomplish their goals. In order to create a situation that is responsive to their efforts,
proactive employees are skilled at socializing and networking within others. Because
they have established reputations as employees who get things accomplished, they are
held in high esteem by other employees. This organizational support makes it even
more likely that they will initiate changes in the workplace (Thomas et al., 2010).
Proactivity is not, however, just about the individual success of the individual
employee. Proactive employees take others into account in their efforts to improve the
collective organization. They understand the interdependency involved in
accomplishing work outcomes and, therefore, they actively collaborate with others
to achieve their goals. They anticipate help that others may need in order to accomplish
objectives, thus exhibiting organizational citizenship behavior (Greguras and
Diefendorff, 2010). This collaboration promotes completion of group tasks even in
challenging times resulting in increased effectiveness of the work group as well as the
organization (Grant et al., 2009; Griffin et al., 2007).
Long-term orientation and proactive behavior
When Hofstede and Bond (1988) first recognized long-term orientation as a cultural
dimension, they labeled it Confucian dynamism in which work ethic, persistence,
obedience, self-discipline, loyalty, politeness and thrift were valued. However, this complex
construct, identified in 23 countries using the Chinese Value Survey, was perplexing
to researchers. The concept of long-term orientation was clarified by Bearden et al. (2006)
who developed an instrument for measuring long-term orientation at the individual
level. This instrument consisted of just two dimensions; planning and tradition.
This research study focuses exclusively on the planning dimension of this construct.
There are two primary ideas associated with the long-term planning dimension
(Lumpkin and Brigham, 2011). First, there is the belief that distant goals are possible to
accomplish, making it worthwhile to plan and evaluate possible consequences.
The second belief is perseverance, i.e. efforts today will pay off tomorrow. These
individuals realize that they must remain persistent in their labors, yet know they need

Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)

to adapt to changes in their environment. Here, individuals are convinced that working
hard with lead to future success (Ganesan, 1994).
Individuals in cultures with a short-term orientation expect quick results, while those
with a long-term orientation are comfortable with slower outcomes and exhibit more
diligence. They are satisfied with steady progression towards objectives and are better
at imaging the future than those with a short-term orientation (Hofstede, 2001). They are
also more prudent. They are more likely, for example, to focus on saving their money for
a future event rather than make an impulse decision (Dwyer et al., 2005). Individuals
with a long-term orientation are therefore better planners (Ng and Ng, 2003).
Proactive employees are also good planners as they challenge the status quo and
look for opportunities to solve problems. They do not just take on easy problems, but
are also willing to carry on in the face of adversity. Obstacles do not prevent them from
attaining long-term goals. Frese et al. (1996) similar concept of personal initiative
defines behaviors that are proactive as having a long-term focus. Furthermore,
proactive individuals look for ways to bring about changes in their environment or self
to achieve a different future (Parker et al., 2010). Thus, the following is hypothesized:
H1. Long-term orientation is positively associated with proactive behaviors.
Uncertainty avoidance and proactive behavior
Individuals who are low on uncertainty avoidance are comfortable with change, novelty,
and entrepreneurial initiatives. In contrast, those high on uncertainty avoidance feel
threatened by new or ambiguous situations. They are resistant to change and prefer a
stable environment. To cope with anxiety and uneasiness, they look to laws, customs,
rules and religion to provide security and assurance in life (Hofstede, 2001).
Individuals high on uncertainty avoidance prefer well-defined jobs, exact
guidelines, and unambiguous responsibilities to avoid uncertainty. Also, they play it
safe through long organizational tenure (Chew and Putti, 1995). As consumers, high
uncertainty avoidance individuals search for extensive information about products
before purchasing. They prefer to have a choice among several alternatives and also
welcome service guarantees ( John et al., 2011; Quintal et al., 2010).
Hofstede (2001) suggested that cultures high on uncertainty avoidance are threatened
by new or unknown situations and, therefore are resistant to innovation. In contrast,
cultures low on uncertainty avoidance embrace risk and advancement. Consistent with
this, firms in high uncertainty avoidance cultures are reported to have low proactivity
(Kreiser et al., 2010). Because proactive individuals are comfortable with making
changes needed for the future of the organization and are innovative in finding new
approaches to problems, the following is proposed:
H2. Uncertainty avoidance is negatively associated with proactive behaviors.
Masculinity/femininity and proactive behavior
The masculinity/femininity cultural dimension as first proposed by Hofstede was a rather
stereotypical view of the emotional roles of men and women. Masculine cultures are
perceived as tough or aggressive and feminine cultures as tender or nurturing. Masculine
cultures emphasize achievement, competition, determination, and ambition. They value
aggression, action, decisiveness, and performance. Individuals in a masculine achievement
oriented culture are comfortable with money, status symbols, and conspicuous

Role of
individual
cultural traits
351

MRR
37,4

Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)

352

consumption (Hofstede, 2001). They are not conciliatory or compromising when

confronted, but rather are prone to use threats, finger pointing, and blame (Leung, 1987).
Both masculine identity and gender equality may coexist to varying degrees within
one individual. For example, a person may be achievement oriented but also care for
others (Sharma, 2010). This may also be true with the proactive employee. While they are
clearly ambitious in terms of changing the status quo and making a difference, they are
also concerned in that they are often willing to help out others in trouble (Bateman and
Crant, 1993).
Another problem with finding significance relationships between masculinity and
relevant business constructs is the stereotypical items used by Hofstede in his original
research. Because proactive individuals are both ambitious and caring and their focus
seems to be upon betterment of the company and not with gains in individual status
and consumption, there does not seem to be a relationship between proactivity and
masculinity/achievement orientation. This is consistent with Kreiser et al. (2010) who,
on a cultural level, found no significance between masculinity and proactive firm
behavior. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
H3. Masculinity is not significantly associated with proactive behaviors.
Power distance and proactive behavior
Power distance deals with the extent to which less influential members of the society
accept that power is allocated unequally. The greater the expectation or acceptance of
inequity, the higher is the power distance. Inequality is assumed and tolerated in high
power distance cultures. Individuals understand how they fit into the power structure
and contentedly accept their destiny. Employees assume that the powerful will be
privileged and surrounded by visible symbols reflecting their status. In contrast, low
power 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 stress
equality and interdependence and minimize rank and status (Hofstede, 2001).
In high power distance cultures, centralized decision making, tight controls, and
top-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 to
develop dependent and respectful relationships with the leaders. Employees are
reluctant to participate in decision making and tend to be submissive and not disagree
with authority figures (Khatri, 2009; Sharma, 2010).
Proactive employees like to make independent decisions and do not always acquiesce
to management. Rather than conforming to supervisors wishes, proactive employees
are inclined to disagree and voice their concern (Bateman and Crant, 1993). In fact,
research suggests that proactive behaviors are significantly influenced by the degree of
supervisor interaction and job autonomy (Parker et al., 2006). Proactive employees often
challenge the status quo and tackle problems head on. It seems that they would be unable
or unwilling to be proactive in an autocratic organization where the supervisor forcefully
makes all decisions (Grant et al., 2009). For example, Winkler and Bouncken (2011), in
examining the innovation process of global teams, found that when supervised by
high power distance team leaders employees from low power distance cultures felt
left out of the decision making process and therefore, were less willing to accept the

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

Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)

H4. Power distance is negatively associated with proactive behaviors.

Collectivism and proactive behavior
Individualism and collectivism were originally described as opposites by Hofstede
(1980). With the cultural dimension of individualism, there are loose ties between people
and the person looks out for him/herself and his/her immediate family. Those with
collectivistic values look out for other group members and their extended families.
Individualistic cultures essentially underscore me while collectivistic cultures stress
we (Hofstede, 1991, 2001).
Those with individualistic values are less cooperative, have an egotistic working
style, and display less organizational commitment (Emery and Oertel, 2006;
Dorfman and Howell, 1988). In contrast, employees with high collectivistic values
get along with their managers and work groups (Boyacigiller and Adler, 2001) and are
affectively committed to the organization (Clugston et al., 2000). In a study that
compared Ireland, an individualistic culture, with India, a more collectivistic culture,
it was found that Indian employees have higher organizational commitment than did
Irish employees (Ramamoorthy et al., 2007).
Proactive individuals display organizational commitment which reflect collective
values (Bateman and Crant, 1993). They also contribute to the group at work (Kim et al.,
2009). Furthermore, proactive employees are good organizational citizens who are
willing to understand others perspectives (Greguras and Diefendorff, 2010). This
behavior is consistent with findings of a recent study which suggested that individuals
who have collectivistic values do not avoid conflict, as originally thought, but are
capable of engaging in productive discussion (Tjosvold et al., 2010).
However, proactive individuals also display individualism. For example, they spend
more time in direct, rather than indirect, communication (Tu et al., 2011) which reflects
individualistic values. Individualistic values are consistent with proactive employees
sense of freedom and autonomy as well as an orientation toward personal
accomplishment through their careers (Oyserman, 2006). Thus, proactive employees
seem to express both individualistic and collectivistic values. This may explain the mixed
findings at the cultural level between individualistic values and proactive firm behavior.
Some have reported a positive relationship (Shane, 1994) and while others have reported
a negative relationship (Kreiser et al., 2010). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
H5. Collectivism is not associated with proactive behaviors.
Methodology
Many researchers have noted that individuals within the same culture vary on the
cultural traits (Hofstede and McCrae, 2004; Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Triandis et al.,
1988). Hofstede and McCrae (2004), in particular, provide an extensive overview of
research linking personality traits and cultural dimensions. While the widely validated
research by Hofstede (1980, 2001) on cultural dimensions was conducted at the national
level of analysis, subsequent research has utilized the dimensions he identified and
validated additional measures at the individual level of analysis (Clugston et al., 2000;

Role of
individual
cultural traits
353

MRR
37,4

Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)

354

Srite and Karahanna, 2006; Wagner, 1995). These individualized measures will be
utilized in this study.
Given the cultural trait aspects of this research, it has also been suggested that the level
of analysis of this research is not solely at the individual level, but at the pan-cultural level
of analysis. This is defined as pooling the data from N individuals together, regardless of
the culture they belong to (Hofstede et al., 1993, p. 487). Also, it has been noted that the level
of analysis between the dependent variable and the independent variables should be
consistent. In this study, an individualized measure of proactive behavior was used.
Therefore, independent variables reflecting espoused cultural traits were also measured at
the individual level (Bockner and Hesketh, 1994; Clugston et al., 2000).
Data
This study was conducted with a field research questionnaire. The 147 respondents
worked in sales at an organization that operates multi-nationally in over 120 countries in
the industrial business-to-business sector. Field sales employees queried in this survey
were employed in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA. The lead
author used his professional history to gain the cooperation of the executives in sales
management which provided a 95 percent response rate. The average chronological age
of the sample was 46 years, average organizational tenure was 14 years, and 41 percent
held a college degree. Of the 147 respondents, six individuals exited the survey at
various points and did not return to complete it. This constituted less than 5 percent of
the sample responses, and incomplete responses were therefore removed from the final
analysis. Descriptive statistics of the sample are summarized in Table I.
Measures
Age and tenure in the organization were included in the model as control variable.
The following Likert-scale measures were used in this study.
Proactive behaviors. Proactivity was measured by a six-item scale (composite
reliability 0.90) reported to be valid both across and within cultures (Claes et al.,
2005) two samples item in this measure are I am always looking for better ways to do
things and No matter what the odds, if I believe in something, I will make it happen.
Long-term orientation. Long-term orientation was gauged with a four-item scale
(composite reliability 0.88). Two sample items of the long-term planning dimension
developed by Bearden et al. (2006) measured at the individual cultural trait levels are I plan
for the long term and I dont mind giving up todays fun for success in the future.

Demographic variable

Table I.
Sample descriptive
statistics

Age
Education
High school or equivalent
Some college education
Bachelors degree or
equivalent
Graduate university degree
Mean tenure at company (years)

USA
UK
Canada
(n 59) (n 42) (n 25)

Australia/New Zealand
(n 15)

Total
sample
(n 141)

48

44

46

48

46 years

26
7

30

12
2

74
9

23
3
16

12

10
1
15

54
4
14

12

13

Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)

Uncertainty avoidance. Uncertainty avoidance was tapped using a five-item scale

(composite reliability 0.93) developed by Dorfman and Howell (1988) to conceptualize
and 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 and
instructions spelled out in detail so that employees always know what they are expected
to do and Managers expect employees to closely follow instructions and procedures.
Masculinity. Masculinity was measured with three-items (composite
reliability 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 opportunity
for advancement and It is important for me to work in a prestigious and successful
company or organization.
Power distance. Power distance was gauged with a six-item scale (composite
reliability 0.82). The measure was developed by Dorfman and Howell (1988) and
has been used to capture individual differences within cultures (Clugston et al., 2000).
Samples items are employees should not disagree with management decisions and
managers should seldom ask for the opinions of employees.
Collectivism. Collectivism was measured with six-items (composite
reliability 0.83) developed by Dorfman and Howell (1988) to conceptually tap
Hofstedes (1980) theoretically derived national cultural dimension at the individual
trait level. The instrument has been used at the individual level of analysis (Dorfman
and Howell, 1988; Clugston et al., 2000). Examples of the items are managers should
encourage group loyalty even if individual goals suffer and group success is more
important than individual success.
Data analysis and results
To test initial item and construct discriminate and convergent validity, the authors
conducted a principal-axes factor analysis using a varimax rotation on the dependent
variable and the five independent variables. The original set of 31 items in
the six measures was examined for overlapping items. Six discriminant factors were
extracted. The results of the principal-axes factor analysis are shown in Table II. There
were no unacceptable cross-loadings between items. All items loaded on
the hypothesized factor at 0.60 or higher, and there were no cross-factor item loadings
that 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 the
average variance extracted for each of the constructs to the correlation between each
two of them (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Pearson correlation analysis implied that
proactivity 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 significant
but in the opposite direction of H2. Masculinity (r 0.49, p # 0.01) was significant
rather than non-significant as proposed for H3. H4 was not supported in that
proactivity was not related to power distance (r 2 0.16, ns), and the null proposition
was supported for collectivism in H5 (r 0.07, ns).
Model testing
The hypothesized model was initially tested with linear regression using SPSS
19 software. Tests were conducted for normality, heteroscedasticity, multicollinearity,

Role of
individual
cultural traits
355

MRR
37,4

Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)

356

Table II.
Measurement item
rotated component
matrix

Component
LT1
LT2
LT3
LT4
UA1
UA2
UA3
UA4
UA5
AC1
AC2
AC3
PD1
PD2
PD3
PD4
PD5
PD6
IC1
IC2
IC3
IC4
IC5
IC6
PP1
PP2
PP3
PP4
PP5
PP6

0.248
0.052
0.049
0.097
0.718
0.786
0.887
0.825
0.833
0.398
0.158
0.031
0.069
0.299
0.056
20.013
20.120
20.023
0.112
0.051
0.233
0.148
0.025
0.060
0.207
0.100
0.045
0.214
0.236
0.085

0.395
0.371
0.176
0.317
0.227
0.146
0.010
0.185
0.110
0.094
0.104
0.333
2 0.060
2 0.025
2 0.274
0.091
2 0.056
2 0.046
2 0.187
2 0.127
2 0.101
2 0.054
0.293
0.118
0.664
0.727
0.759
0.692
0.613
0.730

2 0.030
0.184
0.078
2 0.019
0.011
0.063
0.062
0.144
0.180
0.127
0.102
0.008
0.046
0.248
2 0.034
0.009
0.110
2 0.084
0.722
0.748
0.506
0.805
0.785
0.796
0.042
0.105
0.008
2 0.050
0.010
2 0.109

2 0.006
2 0.137
2 0.078
2 0.048
0.106
0.127
0.016
2 0.053
2 0.052
2 0.078
2 0.042
2 0.158
0.699
0.595
0.698
0.680
0.745
0.706
2 0.028
0.029
2 0.262
0.113
0.015
0.167
2 0.050
2 0.035
2 0.170
2 0.097
2 0.091
0.111

0.622
0.745
0.783
0.654
2 0.008
0.128
0.109
0.124
0.072
0.142
0.078
0.126
2 0.124
2 0.006
2 0.006
2 0.026
2 0.113
0.037
0.231
0.201
0.227
2 0.098
2 0.063
2 0.052
0.206
0.212
0.018
0.312
0.461
0.332

2 0.034
0.086
0.124
0.202
0.008
0.112
0.148
0.112
0.129
0.639
0.779
0.694
0.093
0.000
2 0.167
2 0.054
2 0.015
2 0.159
0.244
0.285
0.336
2 0.085
2 0.025
2 0.076
2 0.063
0.263
0.130
0.112
0.082
0.086

Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: varimax with
Kaiser normalization

and influential outliers to insure the normality and reliability of the data. All of these
tests met acceptable guidelines (Hair et al., 2010).
The results of the regression model are shown in Table IV (r 2 0.46, F 28.44,
p # 0.01). The regression model supported the direction of results from the Pearson
correlations. Proactivity was positively related to long-term orientation (b 0.49, p # 0.01),
masculinity (b 0.24, p # 0.01), and uncertainty avoidance (b 0.142, p # 0.05).
Proactivity showed no significant relationship with collectivism or power distance.
Next, structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed using partial least squares
with the cultural traits as independent variable antecedents to the dependent variable of
proactivity. Smart PLS 2.0 was the software utilized for the analysis. As noted by
Hair et al. (2011), partial least squares-SEM (PLS-SEM) is a causal modeling approach
intended to maximize explained variance of the dependent latent constructs.
While PLS-based SEM is a somewhat newer approach to SEM modeling in
comparison to co-variance based SEM, it is increasingly being utilized used in

Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)

Mean SD
Long-term
orientation
(LTO)
Uncertainty
avoidance
(UA)
Masculinity
(MA)
Power
distance (PD)
Collectivism
(CO)
Proactive
personality
(PP)

CR

LTO

UA

MA

PD

CO

PP

Pearson
5.96 0.685 0.88
correlation

0.805 0.308 *

0.435 * 2 0.159

0.225 *

0.633 *

Pearson
5.22 1.02 0.93
correlation

0.308 * 0.844

0.369 *

0.084

0.252 *

0.353 *

Pearson
correlation
Pearson
correlation
Pearson
correlation
Pearson
correlation

0.435 * 0.369 *

0.719 2 0.111

0.287 *

0.488 *

5.92 0.809 0.81

357

2.54 1.02 0.82 2 0.159

0.084

2 0.111

0.668 2 0.034

2 0.156

4.85 0.980 0.83

0.225 * 0.252 *

0.287 * 2 0.034

0.673

0.063

5.45 0.851 0.90

0.633 * 0.353 *

0.488 * 2 0.156

0.063

0.780

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

Model
Long-term orientation
Masculinity
Uncertainty avoidance
Collectivism
Power distance

Unstandardized
coefficients
B
SE
0.614
0.248
0.119
2 0.082
2 0.045

Role of
individual
cultural traits

0.088
0.076
0.058
0.056
0.053

Standardized coefficients
b

t-value

Sig.

0.494
0.235
0.142
20.095
20.054

6.957
3.242
2.043
21.458
20.848

0.000
0.001
0.043
0.147
0.398

Note: Dependent variable: proactive personality

business disciplines. The method has benefits not offered by CB-SEM that are
important to this study. First, PLS-SEM has an ability to work effectively with smaller
sample sizes (Chin, 1998a, b; Chin and Newsted, 1999). Second, it is a preferred method
for prediction and theory development (Hair et al., 2011). Finally, PLS-SEM is also a
well-established method for investigating cause-effect relationships in business
research (Gudergan et al., 2008; Hair et al., 2010).
Results of the PLS-SEM analysis supported two of the five hypotheses. H1 stated that
long-term orientation would be positively associated with proactive behaviors which
was strongly supported (path coefficient 0.464). H2 stated that uncertainty avoidance
would be negatively associated with proactive behaviors. As indicated from the
correlation, this was in the opposite direction than predicted. The positive association
was supported in both the linear regression and the PLS-SEM model
(path coefficient 0.186). H2 was therefore not supported. H3 stated that
masculinity would not be associated with proactive behaviors. However, within the
model masculinity showed a positive association with proactive behavior
(pathcoefficient 0.249), which did not support this hypothesis.

Table III.
Measurement descriptive
statistics and correlations

Table IV.
Linear regression model
coefficients

MRR
37,4

H4 stated that power distance would be negatively associated with proactive

behaviors, but the path coefficient was only 2 0.107. While this association was in
the direction hypothesized, it was not considered strong enough to fully support the
hypothesis. Finally, H5 stated that collectivism would not be associated with proactive
behaviors which was supported (path coefficient 2 0.069). Graphical results of the
PLS-SEM analysis are shown in Figure 1.

358
Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)

Discussion
Findings
This study provides practical insight into understanding proactive behavior related to
espoused individual cultural traits in an organizational setting. Long-term orientation
was found to be significantly related to proactive behavior, and it is also associated
with other positive organizational outcomes. For example, it was previously reported
that long-term orientation explained over 26 percent of the variance in performance
(Chakrabarty et al., 2008). Long-term orientation is also important in the success of a
family firm. Top leadership in family firms is aware that goals are often accomplish
only after considerable delay. Effectiveness is increased when the family focuses on its
long-term interests and not just on its quarterly profits (Le Breton-Miller and Miller,
2006). Also, Lin (2009) hypothesized and found that long-term orientation of
automotive plants led to innovation as measured by the number of issued patents.
Similarly, two other research groups reported that long-term orientation and product
innovation were positively correlated (Allred and Swan, 2004; Nakata and Sivakumar,
1996). Finally, Nevins et al. (2007) also reported that marketing managers who value a
long-term orientation were more ethical.
Managers can use this knowledge to reinforce long-term orientation in the
organizational culture, particularly in cultures that tend to be more skewed at a
national level toward short-term orientation (such as those within the sample

Long Term
Orientation
Uncertainty
Avoidance

0.464
0.186

Masculinity/
Achievement

0.249

Proactive
Personality

0.107
Power
Distance

0.069
0.093

Figure 1.
The PLS-SEM model

0.049

Collectivism
Age

Tenure

Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)

population of this study). The results of this study imply that individual level
long-term orientation and planning directly influences proactive behavior. It also leads
to more productivity, improved financial success, increased innovation as well as
higher ethical standards. Companies would do well to design more holistic reward
systems that avoid emphasizing short-term profits because it results in less ethical
behavior (Chaffin and Fidler, 2002). This study therefore implies that even in
short-term oriented cultures reward systems at the individual level should thus strive
to balance short-term and long-term results in order to encourage consistent proactive
behavior of employees.
The significant finding in the study between uncertainty avoidance and proactivity
was in the opposite direction that would be suggested by Hofstede (2001). However,
there have been other researchers who have reported similar unexpected findings with
regard to uncertainty avoidance. For example, Schneider and De Meyer (1991)
indicated that individuals in Latin American cultures high on uncertainty avoidance
are more likely to be proactive in the face of environmental flux as compared to those
cultures low in uncertainty avoidance. Also, Rauch et al. (2000) showed that in
Germany, which is comparatively higher than average on uncertainty avoidance
(Hofstede, 2001), firms engage in planning to control future events which matched the
customers needs.
However, the best explanation for the outcome in the current study is that it is risky
to be too rigid in the face of change; particularly in an environment of global and
technological turmoil. Rather than facing the uncertainty of consistently adhering to
one position, it is safer to engage in change to actually reduce uncertainty (Pfeffer and
Salancik, 1978). This is what Geletkancyz (1997) surmised. She originally hypothesized
that executives with high uncertainty avoidance would be committed to the status quo.
Because of their need for certainty, she suggested that they would resist change and
avoid action. However, her research ultimately deduced that individuals higher on
uncertainty avoidance find it safer to change along with a dynamic environment as
compared to attempting to remain static. Mancheno-Smoak et al. (2009) reported
similar findings with regards to transformational leadership.
Though not hypothesized, masculinity had a positive relationship with proactive
personality within this study. While literature and previous research based on
Hofstedes (1980) original conceptualization of masculinity/femininity were reviewed to
develop the hypothesis, a more recent individual level measurement was utilized in this
study (Vitell et al., 2003). This three-item instrument did not confuse gender issues with
masculine identity. Rather it gauged promotion, pay, and firm prestige which are more
closely aligned with a de-limited aspect of masculinity that focuses directly on
ambition and success. These achievement-oriented items are consistent with the
behaviors of a proactive individual (Bateman and Crant, 1993).
The other finding in this study is the lack of significance between power distance
and proactive behavior. This is not consistent with other researchers who found that
high power distance inhibits proactivity (Grant et al., 2011; Kreiser et al., 2010). Two
limitations related to the study could explain the lack of significance in the current
study. First, the relatively small sample size may not have provided sufficient
statistical power. Second, there may have been insufficient variance as the sample was
from one organization, and respondents were from five countries have similar cultural
values that on the national level are comparatively low in power distance.

Role of
individual
cultural traits
359

MRR
37,4

Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)

360

Managerial implications
The systematic selection and development of human resources is of major importance
to contemporary organizations. Workers need to be increasingly adaptive, versatile,
and tolerant of uncertainty to operate effectively in changing and varied environments
(Pulakos et al., 2000, p. 612). Researchers suggest that proactive employee behaviors offer
valuable contributions to fluctuating business situations. Yet, establishing a proactive
workforce presents several challenges, especially for international human resource
managers. If proactive behavior is viewed as a stable individual characteristic (Frese et al.,
1997; Parker et al., 2006), the emphasis needs to be placed on hiring employees who exhibit
these traits. However, if, as this studys findings suggest, aspects of national culture can
predict proactive tendencies, then recruiting proactive individuals may prove challenging
in countries where these behaviors are not socially encouraged. For instance, Smith (2007)
suggested that in collectivist cultures where hierarchy or power distance is endorsed,
employees would be more driven by working in teams rather than individually.
However, if proactive behavior is thought to be an alterable individual characteristic,
these behaviors could be created in employees via appropriate training and
developmental processes. In fact, research suggests that if companies want a
proactive workforce, it must be created through mechanisms such as job design (Tims
and Bakker, 2010; Grant and Parker, 2009; Parker et al., 2006); performance management
(Grant et al., 2009; Griffin et al., 2007); encouragement (Sibilia, 2008); team management
(Winkler and Bouncken, 2011; Williams et al., 2010); supervisor relationships (Belschak
and Den Hartog, 2010; Griffin et al., 2010); and feedback (Stobbeleir et al., 2010).
This suggests two different human resource strategies for obtaining a proactive
workforce. The wide diversity of international cultures and related individual
personality characteristics only serve to complicate this issue. However, the current
internalization of businesses demands human resource managers tailor their selection,
compensation, performance management, and development practices to fit these
expected differences across cultures. Our findings indicate that proactivity may
be more difficult to find in some cultures than in others. Therefore, international
human resource managers will need to explore ways to accommodate cultural
variations while simultaneously meeting the increasing demand for adaptable,
take-action employees.
Limitations and future research
The nature of the sample in this study must be kept in mind. Proactive oriented
individuals are attracted to sales. This could be considered a limitation of the study in that
it prevents any generalization beyond the study sample population without
cross-validation studies utilizing a more diverse population. The sample also consists
only of Anglo-based cultures, which limits its generalizability in other cultures, especially
those with comparatively higher national level extremes of cultural values (such as Asian
or Middle Eastern based cultures). While this study was conducted at the individual level,
the sample population from which it was derived is generally considered to be lower on
collectivism at the national level. Individuals from these Anglo-based cultures generally
prefer adaptive techniques and also have less uncertainty avoidance. Therefore, while
interesting in its potential for further cross-validation studies, this study should be limited
to its own population and not generalized to larger, more culturally diverse populations
which were not represented in the sample.

Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)

References
Allred, B. and Swan, K. (2004), Global versus multi-domestic: cultures consequence on
innovation, Management International Review, Vol. 44, pp. 81-105.
Bateman, T. and Crant, J. (1993), The proactive component of organizational behavior: a measure
and correlates, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 103-118.
Bearden, W., Money, R. and Nevins, J. (2006), A measure of long-term orientation: development
and validation, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 456-467.
Belschak, F. and Den Hartog, D. (2010), Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of
proactive behaviour: differential antecedents and consequences, Journal of Occupational
& Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 475-498.
Bindl, U., Parker, S., Totterdell, P. and Hagger-Johnson, G. (2012), Fuel of the self-starter:
how mood relates to proactive goal regulation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 1,
pp. 134-150.
Bockner, S. and Hesketh, B. (1994), Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job-related
attitudes in a culturally diverse work group, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 233-257.
Boyacigiller, N. and Adler, N. (2001), The parochial dinosaur: organizational science in a global
context, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 262-292.
Chaffin, J. and Fidler, S. (2002), Enron revealed to be rotten to the core, Financial Times, Vol. 30,
April 9.
Chakrabarty, S., Oubre, D., Brown, G. and Widing, R. (2008), The effect of long-term orientation
on sales performance, Society for Marketing Advances Proceedings, pp. 276-277.
Chew, I. and Putti, J. (1995), Relationship on work-related values of Singaporean and Japanese
managers in Singapore, Human Relations, Vol. 48 No. 10, pp. 1149-1170.
Chin, W. (1998a), Commentary: issues and opinion on structural equation modeling,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 22, pp. 7-16.
Chin, W. (1998b), The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling, in
Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erbaum,
Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295-336.
Chin, W. and Newsted, P. (1999), Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples
using partial least squares, in Hoyle, R. (Ed.), Statistical Strategies for Small Sample
Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 307-341.
Claes, R., Beheydt, C. and Lemmens, B. (2005), Unidimensionality of abbreviated proactive
personality scales across cultures, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 54,
pp. 476-489.
Clugston, M., Howell, J. and Dorfman, P. (2000), Does cultural socialization predict multiple
bases and foci of commitment?, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 5-30.
Crant, J. (2000), Proactive behavior in organizations, Journal of Management, Vol. 26,
pp. 435-462.
Dorfman, P. and Howell, J. (1988), Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership
patterns: Hofstede revisited, Advances in International Comparative Management, Vol. 3,
pp. 127-150.
Dwyer, S., Mesak, H. and Hsu, M. (2005), An exploratory examination of the influence of
national culture on cross-national product diffusion, Journal of International Marketing,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 1-28.

Role of
individual
cultural traits
361

MRR
37,4

Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)

362

Emery, C. and Oertel, S. (2006), An examination of employee culture-based perceptions as a

predictor 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 unobservable
variables 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 the
21st century, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 133-187.
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A. and Zempel, J. (1996), Personal initiative at work: differences
between 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 of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 139-161.
Ganesan, S. (1994), Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 1-19.
Geletkancyz, M. (1997), The salience of cultures consequences: the effects of cultural values on
top 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 of
Management Annals, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 317-375.
Grant, A., Gino, F. and Hofmann, D. (2011), Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: the
role 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: supervisor
reactions 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 satisfaction
and work behaviors? A field investigation of the mediating role of the self-concordance
model, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 539-560.
Griffin, M., Neal, A. and Parker, S. (2007), A new model of work role performance: positive
behavior 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 and
proactive 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 PLS
modeling, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61, pp. 1238-1249.
Hair, J., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-151.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)

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 economic
growth, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 16, pp. 5-21.
Hofstede, G. and McCrae, R. (2004), Personality and culture revisited: linking traits and
dimensions 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 cultural
value-based perspective, International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 2
No. 22, pp. 7-14.
Khatri, N. (2009), Consequences of power distance orientation in organizations, Journal of
Business Perspective, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Kim, T.Y., Hon, A.H. and Crant, J.M. (2009), Proactive personality, employee creativity, and
newcomer outcomes: a longitudinal study, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 93-103.
Kreiser, P., Marino, L., Dickson, P. and Weaver, K. (2010), Cultural influences on entrepreneurial
orientation: 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?, Entrepreneurship
Theory & 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-cultural
comparisons, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 192-208.
Lin, L.H. (2009), Effects of national culture on process management and technological
innovation, Total Quality Management, Vol. 20 No. 12, pp. 1287-1301.
Lumpkin, G. and Brigham, K. (2011), Long-term orientation and inter-temporal choice in family
firms, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 1149-1169.
Mancheno-Smoak, L., Endres, G., Polak, R. and Athanasaw, Y. (2009), The individual cultural
values and job satisfaction of the transformational leader, Organization Development
Journal, 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 during
socialization, 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, Journal
of 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 of
individual
cultural traits
363

MRR
37,4

Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)

364

Oyserman, D. (2006), High power, low power, and equality: culture beyond individualism and
collectivism, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 352-356.
Parker, S. (2000), From passive to proactive motivation: the importance of flexible role
orientations and role breadth self-efficacy, Applied Psychology: An International Review,
Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 447-469.
Parker, S. and Sprigg, C. (1999), Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: the role of job
demands, job control, and proactive personality, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84
No. 6, pp. 925-939.
Parker, S., Bindl, U. and Strauss, K. (2010), Making things happen: a model of proactive
motivation, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 827-856.
Parker, S., Williams, H. and Turner, N. (2006), Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at
work, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91, pp. 636-652.
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. (1978), The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence
Perspective, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Pulakos, E., Arad, S., Donovan, M. and Plamondon, K. (2000), Adaptability in the workplace:
development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 85, pp. 612-624.
Quintal, V., Lee, J. and Soutar, G. (2010), Tourists information search: the differential impact of
risk and uncertainty avoidance, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 321-333.
Ramamoorthy, N., Kulkarni, S., Gupta, A. and Flood, P. (2007), Individualism-collectivism and
employees attitudes: a comparison of employees from the high-technology sector in India
and Ireland, Journal of International Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 187-203.
Rauch, A., Frese, M. and Sonnentag, S. (2000), Cultural differences in planning/success
relationships: a comparison of small enterprises in Ireland, West Germany, and
East Germany, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 28-41.
Robert, C., Probst, T., Martocchio, J., Drasgow, F. and Lawler, J. (2000), Empowerment and
continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: predicting fit on
the basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 5, pp. 643-658.
Schneider, S. and De Meyer, A. (1991), Interpreting and responding to strategic issues: the
impact of national culture, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 307-320.
Seibert, S., Kraimer, J. and Crant, M. (2001), What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model
linking proactive personality and career success, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54,
pp. 845-874.
Shane, S. (1994), Cultural values and the championing process, Entrepreneurship Theory
& Practice, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 25-41.
Sharma, P. (2010), Measuring personal cultural orientations: scale development and validation,
Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, Vol. 38, pp. 787-806.
Sibilia, K. (2008), Proactive encouragement, Occupational Health & Safety, Vol. 77 No. 6, p. 64.
Smith, P. (2007), Towards studies of organizational behavior with greater local relevance,
Revista de Psicologia, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 178-195.
Srite, M. and Karahanna, E. (2006), The role of espoused national cultural values in technology
acceptance, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 679-704.
Stobbeleir, K., Ashford, S. and Sully de Luque, M. (2010), Proactivity with image in mind: how
employee and manager characteristics affect evaluations of proactive behaviors, Journal
of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 347-369.

Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)

Strauss, K., Griffin, M. and Parker, S. (2012), Future work selves: how salient hoped-for
identities motivate proactive career behaviors, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 3,
pp. 580-598.
Thomas, J., Whitman, D. and Viswesvaran, C. (2010), Employee proactivity in organizations:
a comparative meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs, Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 275-300.
Tims, M. and Bakker, A. (2010), Job crafting: towards a new model of individual job redesign,
SA Journal of Industrial Psychology (SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde), Vol. 36 No. 2, Art.
No. 841, 9 pages.
Tjosvold, D., Wu, P. and Chen, F. (2010), The effects of collectivistic and individualistic values
on conflict and decision making: an experiment in China, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 40 No. 11, pp. 2904-2926.
Triandis, H., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M., Asai, M. and Laccu, N. (1988), Individualism and
collectivism: cross-cultural perspectives on self-in-group relationships, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 323-338.
Tu, Y., Line, S. and Chang, Y. (2011), A cross-cultural comparison by individualism/collectivism
among Brazil, Russia, India and China, International Business Research, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 175-182.
Vitell, S., Paolillo, J. and Thomas, J. (2003), The perceived role of ethics and social
responsibility: a study of marketing professionals, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 63-86.
Wagner, J. III (1995), Studies of individualism-collectivism-effects on cooperation in groups,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 152-172.
Williams, H., Parker, S. and Turner, N. (2010), Proactively performing teams: the role of work
design, transformational leadership, and team composition, Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 301-324.
Winkler, V. and Bouncken, R. (2011), How does cultural diversity in global innovation teams
affect the innovation process?, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 24-35.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2005), The effect of personal cultural orientation on consumer
ethnocentrism: evaluations and behaviors of US consumers toward Japanese products,
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 Nos 1/2, pp. 7-44.
Further reading
Chang, C. (2006), Cultural masculinity/femininity influences on advertising appeals, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 46, pp. 315-323.
Fang, T. (2003), A critique of Hofstedes fifth dimension, International Journal of Cross-Cultural
Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 347-368.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. and Kemmelmeier, M. (2002), Rethinking individualism and
collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 3-72.
About the authors
Kerry D. Carson, PhD, CCP, GRP, is a Management Professor at the University of Louisiana at
Lafayette where he has served as the Director of the quality enhancement plan for accreditation.
He received his doctorate from Louisiana State University in business administration.
His research interests are in commitment and performance management, and he consults in the
compensation area.

Role of
individual
cultural traits
365

MRR
37,4

Downloaded by University of Maryland University College UMUC At 06:24 27 March 2015 (PT)

366

David S. Baker, DBA, is an Assistant Professor of marketing and international business at

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette. He earned his DBA from Grenoble Ecole De
Management and his MBA from The Thunderbird School of Global Management. His research
and publication interests include strategic management in cross-cultural environments,
adaptive learning behaviour, cultural values and cognition related to motivation, and adaptation
to technology in the organizational setting. David S. Baker is the corresponding author and can
be contacted at: dbaker@louisiana.edu
Patricia Lanier, DBA, SPHR, is an Associate Professor of management at the B.I. Moody III
College of Business Administration. She teaches strategic management, organizational
behaviour, and human resource courses. She earned her BS in management from Tulane
University, 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 published
her work in notable academic journals including the Academy of Management Journal. She has
also presented her research at National and Regional Conferences. Her research interests include
strategic management, human resources, management education, and management history.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints