Cross-Cultural

Research
http://ccr.sagepub.com/

Hofstede and Shane Revisited: The Role of Power Distance and

Individualism in National-Level Innovation Success
Tiffany Rinne, G. Daniel Steel and John Fairweather
Cross-Cultural Research 2012 46: 91 originally published online 12 October
2011
DOI: 10.1177/1069397111423898
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://ccr.sagepub.com/content/46/2/91

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Society for Cross-Cultural Research
Sponsored by the Human Relations Area Files

Additional services and information for Cross-Cultural Research can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://ccr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://ccr.sagepub.com/content/46/2/91.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Apr 18, 2012

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Oct 12, 2011
What is This?
Downloaded from ccr.sagepub.com by wimby wan on November 1, 2013

423898
23898Rinne et al.Cross-Cultural Research
2012 SAGE Publications

CCR46210.1177/10693971114

Reprints and permission: http://www.

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Hofstede and Shane

Revisited: The Role
of Power Distance
and Individualism in
National-Level
Innovation Success

Cross-Cultural Research
46(2) 91108
2012 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1069397111423898
http://ccr.sagepub.com

Tiffany Rinne1, G. Daniel Steel1,

and John Fairweather1

Abstract
Hofstedes value dimensions offer a measure of one component of culture
(cultural values) and are a means of gaining greater understanding of the
role culture plays in national innovation success. Hofstedes (1980) cultural
measures of individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance, for
example, have been shown to be correlated to the number (per capita) of
trademarks (Shane, 1993). Via multivariate multiple linear regression, we
assess the link between Hofstedes measures of cultural values and innovation as measured by the Global Innovation Index (GII). Our analyses show
a strong negative relationship between Hofstedes dimensions of power distance and GII innovation scores as well as a strong positive relationship
between individualism and GII innovation scores. No relationship was found
for Hofstedes measure of uncertainty avoidance.
Keywords
culture, innovation, hofstede, power distance, individualism
1

Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand

Corresponding Author:
Tiffany Rinne, Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, P.O. Box 84,
Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand
Email:tiffany.rinne@lincoln.ac.nz

92

Cross-Cultural Research 46(2)

In a world that has moved swiftly to global trade, innovation rates have
become one of the tools by which nations and businesses achieve success in
the world. For example, Wind et al. (1990) show that new products, typically
derived from innovation, explain one quarter to one third of financial growth
in businesses. In many cases, businesses and organizations have an innovation imperative in which innovation is deemed necessary for both growth
and survival. With the recognition of the importance of innovation for success at both the business and national levels, scholars have become interested
in investigating what factors help and hinder innovation.
In this article, we look at the role culture plays in influencing national
levels of innovation. Culture is hard to conceptualize and definitions abound.
At its broadest, culture is defined as . . . that complex whole which includes
knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and
habits acquired by man as a member of society (Tylor,1958, p. 1). A more
narrow and cognitively oriented definition is that of Geertz (1973, p. 89),
who defined culture as . . . an historically transmitted pattern of meanings
embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop
their knowledge about and attitudes towards life.
Scholars have long contended that culture influences economic behavior
(Smith, 1776; Weber, 1905), government policies (Fukuyama, 1995; Jin,
2001), and national institutions and business systems (Fukuyama, 1995;
Geertz, 1973; Hall, 1990; Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1993; Hofstede,
1980; Jin, 2001; Lipset, 1990). Thus, it is not difficult to argue that culture
plays a key role in influencing national innovation success. Hofstedes (1980)
cultural measures of individualism and power distance, for example, have been
shown to be correlated to the number (per capita) of patents for inventions
(Shane, 1992) while individualism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance
have been shown to be correlated to number of trademarks (Shane, 1993).
The value dimensions defined by Hofstede (1980, 2001) offer a measure of
one component of culture (cultural values) and are a means of gaining greater
understanding of the role culture plays in national innovation success.
However, the work to date is limited by the use of patent and trademark data
as a proxy for innovation. The intention of this article is to deepen our understanding of Hofstedes measures of cultural values and their link to innovation
by looking at more comprehensive measures of innovation than trademarks
and patents. We examine the relationship between Hofstedes cultural value
dimensions and country scores on the Global Innovation Index (GII).
We start the article by providing an overview of the GII and its component
measures. We then look at Hofstedes value dimensions and their relationships

Rinne et al.

93

to innovation followed by a discussion of the research methods. The subsequent sections examine the relationships found between Hofstedes measures
of cultural values and differences in national innovation scores on the GII.
Our multivariate multiple linear regression analyses show a strong negative
relationship between Hofstedes dimensions of power distance and GII innovation scores and a strong positive relationship between individualism and
GII innovation scores. These results suggest a link between cultural dimensions and innovation indicating that it occurs for more sophisticated measures of innovation than trademarks and patents.

The GII
The GII (INSEAD, 2009) consists of five input measures (termed pillars) for
innovation and two output measures (pillars). The inputs are those things that
enable an economy to be innovative. In other words, those things that help
provide a conducive environment for innovation. Outputs are the results of a
nations innovative activities.
The five input pillars are institutions and policies, human capacity, general
and ICT infrastructure, market sophistication, and business sophistication
(see Figure 1). The Institutions and Policies pillar attempts to capture the
macroeconomic stability and the institutional framework of a country
(INSEAD, 2009, p. 21). A regulatory framework which helps to attract businesses through incentives and protection is deemed essential for all nations
wishing to achieve in innovation. The Human Capacity pillar refers to education standards and research activity within a nation as these are believed to be
important determinants of innovation capacity. The General and ICT
Infrastructure pillar is considered an important measure because appropriate
infrastructure is needed to feed the national innovation system. Infrastructure
fosters growth in businesses, raises the standard of living, and increases productivity and efficiency levels. Infrastructure is considered the backbone of
any economy. The Market Sophistication pillar tries to capture the state of
credit availability and the condition of creditors and investors in an economy (INSEAD, 2009, p. 23). The financial is important to assess as it is
considered an important measure of economic well-being and is a focus of
significant government policies. Finally, the business sophistication pillar
tries to capture the nature of the business environment and its conduciveness
to innovation activity in the economy (INSEAD, 2009, p. 24).
The two GII output measures included scientific outputs and creative outputs and well-being (see Figure 2). The first pillar of the outputs encompasses
factors like patent numbers and number of scientific publications. It is meant

94

Cross-Cultural Research 46(2)

Figure 1. Global Innovation Indexinputs

to represent a composite measure of those variables which are traditionally

thought to be fruits of innovation (INSEAD, 2009, p.25). The second output
pillar assesses how innovation has influenced the creative industry as well as
living standards.
As can be seen by Figures 1 and 2, each of the input and output measures are
based on several variables. The data for the input and output measures were
obtained from such reputable sources as World Economic Forum and the World
Bank. It should be noted, the no information is currently available regarding the
internal consistency of the GII measures. This is an area for future research.

Hofstedes Dimensions of Culture

Hofstede defines culture as The collective mental programming . . . part of
our conditioning that we share with other members of our nation, region or

Rinne et al.

95

Figure 2. Global Innovation Indexoutputs

group but not with members of other nations, regions, or groups (Hofstede,
1983, p. 76). From 1967 to 1978, using systematically collected data from a
large number of national cultures, Hofstede sought to develop empirically
based terminologies to describe different cultures. Working as a psychologist
for IBM, Hofstede collected data on employee attitudes and values in multiple cultures via standardized paper questionnaires. Values were defined as
desires and assessed via questions ascertaining preferences. More than
116,000 questionnaires were collected for 40 countries. Questionnaires at
IBM were administered twice, once between 1967 and 1971 and again

96

Cross-Cultural Research 46(2)

between 1971 and 1973. Hofstede published his groundbreaking findings in

the 1980 book Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors,
Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. The book is currently in its
second edition (see Hofstede, 2001).
Hofstede initially identified four criteria that reliably differentiate between
cultural values in diverse nations. The first cultural dimension was individualism versus collectivism. Individualistic societies have loose ties among
their members and everyone looks after their own interests. The United
States, Canada, and Australia score high on Hofstedes individualism dimension. Collectivist nations, in contrast, tend to have stronger ties between
group members, and will place a higher value on communal interests than
individual interests. Examples of collectivist societies include Taiwan, Japan,
and Colombia.
Hofstedes second cultural dimension was large versus small power distance. Power distance refers to the . . . extent to which less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that
power is distributed unequally (Hofstede & Bond, 1988, p. 10). High power
distance nations are more autocratic and individuals are more willing to
accept differences in power and wealth. High power distance nations include
India, France, and Mexico. Low power distance nations value equality among
their members and encourage democratic forms of participation. Such nations
include the United States, Australia, and Israel.
Strong versus weak uncertainty avoidance is Hofstedes third cultural value
dimension. This dimension is concerned with the manner in which cultures
deal with an unpredictable future. Societies like Singapore, the United States,
and Canada, which are low on this factor, tend to be tolerant of uncertainty and
feel relatively secure. Countries high on this factor such as France, Belgium,
and Greece actively avoid uncertainty and work to create a sense of control.
The fourth cultural value dimension identified by Hofstede was that of
masculine versus feminine values. Masculine cultures like Venezuela, Italy,
and Germany place great value . . . on achievement, tasks, money, performance, and purposefulness, whereas more feminine cultures emphasize people, the quality of life, helping others, preserving the environment, and not
drawing attention to oneself (Nakata & Sivakumar, 1996, p. 64).
A fifth cultural dimension, long-term versus short-term orientation, and a
sixth cultural dimension, indulgence versus restraint, have since been added
to Hofstedes list of cultural dimensions (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov,
2010). Thrift and perseverance are associated with a long-term orientations,
whereas respect for tradition and fulfillment of social obligations are associated with a short-term orientations. Indulgence refers to a tendency toward

Rinne et al.

97

the free gratification of human desires. On the opposite pole, restraint refers
to the belief that gratifying ones desires needs to be curbed and social norms
regulated.
Hofstedes work has been shown to have high validity and reliability, as
indicated by robust factor analyses results (Shane, 1992). Regarding reliability, Hofstede administered his questionnaire twice and used only those questions showing high correlation to derive his cultural value scales (Hofstede,
1980; Kogut & Singh, 1988; Shane, 1992). Furthermore, Hofstedes indices
have shown strong correlations with similar indices devised by other researchers (see, for example, Gordon, 1976 and Schwartz, 1994).
Since the initial studies by Hofstede, there have been six major replications of the survey for non-IBM employees (e.g., airline pilots, European
consumers, municipal civil servants, and so on), each covering 14 or more
nations originally studied by Hofstede (see de Mooij, 2004; Hoppe, 1990;
Merritt, 2000; Mouritzen, 2002; Shane, 1995; van Nimwegen, 2002). These
replications, conducted decades after Hofstedes original work, support
Hofstedes original findings and suggest that the findings are still relevant
today. Although the countries cultures may have changed since Hofstedes
original study, the replications indicate that if they changed, they did so
together, such that their relative positions remained intact (Hofstede, 2010).

Innovation and Hofstedes Measures

Shane (1992) found several connections between innovation and Hofstedes
cultural dimensions. Specifically, his research found a positive relationship
between national individualism scores and numbers of patents issued in a
nation. Furthermore, a negative relationship between power distance scores and
numbers of patents issued was identified. These relationships remained significant when the data on innovation were adjusted for wealth. In a 1993 study,
using trademarks instead of patents as a proxy for innovation, and controlling
for income and industrial structure, Shane (1993) found similar results regarding power distance and individualism but also found that high uncertainty
avoidance was negatively correlated with the number of trademarks produced.
Shane (1993) utilized institutional theory as an explanatory framework to
understand why differences in cultural dimensions and rates of innovation
are linked. According to this theory, the societies in which businesses operate
influence their manner of operation. Shane (1993, p. 70) contends: As organizational characteristics reflect societal values, managers might find that the
organizational behaviours that promote innovation are easiest to develop in
uncertainty accepting, individualistic, non-power distant societies, and these

98

Cross-Cultural Research 46(2)

behaviours, in turn, might help to increase national rates of innovation.

Innovations carry with them a threat to the social hierarchy by redistributing
power; lower status members can become more highly valued for their potential to do more, or do it better. Thus, high power distance nations may find it
hard to innovate according to Shane (1992, 1993). The positive relationship
between individualism and innovation suggests that autonomy, independence, and freedom, beliefs associated with individualism, are needed for a
nation to be innovative. Finally, the positive relationship between uncertainty
acceptance and innovation rates suggests that risk tolerance and acceptance
of change are helpful when engaging in innovation, as innovation necessarily
brings about change.
Although theoretically plausible, Shanes (1992, 1993) empirical findings
need to be interpreted with some caution, inasmuch as individualism and
power distance accounted for approximately 17% and 14% of the variance in
number of patents issued across nations, respectively (Shane, 1992). Using
number of patents issued as a proxy for inventiveness is problematic, as well,
in that nations differ in their requirements for issuance of such patents. A
strong argument can be made that collectivist nations simply do not officially
recognize individual inventiveness (or inventions) as readily as individualist
nations and therefore may be innovative but have low numbers of patents.
Use of trademarks as a proxy for innovation also has its problems. First,
trademarks are given only to products that are to be marketed while process
innovations are not trademarked. Second, the relationship between innovations and trademarks is not one-to-one as many innovations might fall under
the umbrella of one trademark. Finally, as was the case with the use of patents
as a proxy for innovation, nations differ in their requirements for trademarking and the protection offered by trademarks. These problems indicate a need
for better measures of innovation and suggest that there may be other factors
involved in the link between Hofstedes cultural dimensions and innovation.

Research Hypotheses
We tested three hypotheses regarding the relationship between Hofstedes
measures of cultural values and country scores on the GII. These hypotheses
are based on Shanes findings described earlier regarding the links between
cultural values and innovation.
Hypothesis 1: Power Distance will be negatively related to innovation
index scores on the GII.

Rinne et al.

99

Hypothesis 2: Individualism will be positively related to innovation

index scores on the GII.
Hypothesis 3: Uncertainty Avoidance will be negatively related to
innovation index scores on the GII.

Method
One set of research variables were taken from Hofstede et al. (2010) work on
cultural valuespower distance, individualism, and uncertainty avoidance.
Hofstedes measures of time orientation and masculinity were not used in
this research as they have not been previously linked to innovation, and we
could think of no strong theoretical argument for such a connection. The
other set of research variables was taken from the GII. By using the GII, we
draw the boundary of our measure of innovation at the national level.
Although businesses have globalized and many companies have corporations
in multiple countries, we believe it best to draw our boundary at the national
level as multinational corporations must abide by the laws and policies of the
country in which they operate and, in most cases, the majority of their
employees will be members of the national culture.
The aim of the statistical analysis was to uncover the relationships between
selected cultural dimensions (power distance, individualism, and uncertainty
avoidance), and the GII innovation scores (five input measures and two output measures). The two data sets were merged, which yielded 66 countries
that had scores for the Hofstede dimensions and the GII Inputs and Outputs
(see Table 1). These data were analyzed using a multivariate multiple linear
regression. The three cultural variables (Power Distance, Individualism, and
Uncertainty Avoidance) were used as predictors; the innovation scores
became the criteria variables. Bivariate correlations were then calculated to
test the strength and direction of the relationships of the Hofstede dimensions
and the GII scores. All raw data used in our analyses can be found in
appendix.

Results
The result of the multivariate multiple linear regression analysis indicated
that Power Distance and Individualism were reliably related to innovation
scores. Uncertainty Avoidance was not. The complete set of statistical results
for this analysis can be found in Table 2.
The bivariate correlations used to assess strength and direction of relationship showed that both GII Input and Output scores were individually related

100

Cross-Cultural Research 46(2)

Table 1. Countries Included in the Multivariate Multiple Regression Analyses

Argentina
Australia
Austria
Bangladesh
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
Chile
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Ecuador
El Salvador
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece

Guatemala
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
Malta
Mexico
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Peru
Philippines

Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Trinidad & Tobago
Turkey
United Kingdom
Uruguay
USA
Venezuela
Vietnam

to Power Distance and Individualism, albeit in different directions for each of

the cultural variables. Power Distance was negatively associated with both
GII Input and Output (r =-.64 and r = -.58, respectively; both p < .001). In
contrast, Individualism was positively related to GII Input and Output (r = .66
for both, p < .001).

Discussion
This study explored the links among cultural values and national-level innovation ratings. Previous research has linked Hofstedes cultural values with
innovation outcomesspecifically trademarks and patents. This study
extends the relationship between Hofstedes cultural values and innovation
by looking at the relationship between Hofstedes dimensions and a more
comprehensive measure of national innovationthe GII. Our research offers
mixed support for Shanes (1992, 1993) findings.

101

Rinne et al.
Table 2. Results of Multivariate Multiple Regression; Hofstede Dimensions as
Predictors and GII Input and Output as Criteria
Dimension
Power distance
Individualism
Uncertainty avoidance

Wilks

Fa

Partial 2

Observed power

.876
.773
.955

4.23
8.80
1.42

.019
.0004
.250

.124
.227
.045

.720
.964
.293

Note: df = 2; Error df = 60.

a. Hypotheses.

The results of our analysis indicate that the cultural dimension of power
distance is strongly and negatively related to innovation in line with Shanes
(1992, 1993) findings. High power distance nations may find it hard to
encourage their citizens to innovate as inequalities among people are not only
expected but desired and communication is limited between those of different strata (Hofstede, 2010). In high power distance nations subordinates in a
workplace expect to be told what to do, thus, opportunities to think for oneself and to use imagination are limited. By contrast, subordinates in low
power distance nations expect to be consulted and having imagination is
prized (Hofstede, 2010). In low power distance nations, it is believed that all
people should have equal rights and equal opportunities to succeed (Hofstede,
2010). In high power distance nations, it is believed that the powerful should
have special privileges and it is expected that not everyone will have an equal
opportunity to reach the highest level of advancement (Hofstede, 2010). With
limited opportunities for advancement, people in high power distance nations
in the lower strata may feel little motivation to be innovative as it is unlikely
they will be able to reap the rewards directly or even get their idea noticed by
those higher up in the social hierarchy.
It appears that the degree to which a culture reduces the barriers between
status levelsthat is, places a high value on egalitarianismis, in some
manner, connected to levels of innovation. This means that as a person in a
country feels able to approach, make suggestions to, and debate with someone in a higher status position, so does that countrys innovation score
increase. Thus, the increased amount of communication between the levels of
society and within business could allow for the easier flow and acceptability
of innovation ideas. It should also be noted that egalitarian societies emphasize meritocracy which can, in turn, put an emphasis on education (Lipset,
1990). A society in which people rise and fall based on merit is a society in

102

Cross-Cultural Research 46(2)

which competitiveness is more likely to occur. In such a society, innovation

provides an edge to those who are competitively inclined.
Also, in support of Shanes (1992, 1993) findings, our analysis indicates
that individualism is strongly and positively related to innovation. The positive relationship between individualism and innovation suggests that autonomy, independence, and freedombeliefs associated with individualismare
needed for a nation to be innovative. In individualist societies, speaking ones
mind is highly valued whereas in collectivist societies direct confrontation is
avoided to maintain harmony (Hofstede, 2010). Innovation thrives on ideas
and in collectivist societies the avoidance of confrontation may serve to limit
the number of ideas that get expressed and heard. Furthermore, research
within the field of psychology suggests that students within individualist
society have more creative potential than students within collectivist societies (Jaquish & Ripple, 1984; Jellen & Urban, 1989; Zha et al., 2006). In
individualist societies, the purpose of getting an education is to learn how to
learn (Hofstede, 2010). According to Amabile (1983), this type of learning
environment fosters creativity. By contrast, in collectivist societies, the purpose of education is to learn how to do (Hofstede, 2010). This type of learning environment may stifle creativity as children are not allowed sufficient
opportunity to pursue personal interests and initiatives. In a world in which
technology is rapidly changing, the emphasis in individualist societies on
learning how to learn, may put such nations in a better position as far as innovation with members being better able to adapt to a world in which they will
be constantly needing new skills.
Our analysis indicates that uncertainty avoidance is unrelated to innovation as measured by the GII. This is not an entirely surprising finding. Shane
found mixed results with respect to uncertainty avoidance. In his 1992 study,
Shane found no relationship between uncertainty avoidance and patents.
However, in his 1993 study, a relationship between uncertainty avoidance
and trademarks was identified (low uncertainty avoidance was associated
with a higher number of trademarks) and Shane concluded that uncertainty
avoiding cultures were slower regarding innovation. Our findings support
Shanes original findings showing no clear relationship between uncertainty
avoidance and innovation. The principal driver behind Hofstedes uncertainty avoidance dimension appears to be a desire for control, such that outcomes can be reasonably accurately predicted. A need for control can both
help and hinder innovation.
Research comparing self-employment levels with a nations Uncertainty
Avoidance score found that self-employment was actually higher in

Rinne et al.

103

uncertainty avoiding cultures (Hofstede et al., 2010). Researchers found that

low subjective well-being was associated with uncertainty avoiding cultures
and this in turn was the likely motivator for people to choose self-employment as self-employment provided people with greater perceived control
over their lives. According to Schumpeter (1983), entrepreneurs, such as
those who start their own business, are a significant source of innovation. In
this instance, the need for control may actually be spurring innovation.
Similarly, uncertainty avoiding countries may be better at developing innovative ideas into new products and services as implementation requires attention to detail and punctuality. Uncertainty accepting countries, however, may
be better at coming up with innovative ideas and with basic innovations. In
either case, uncertainty avoiding and accepting, innovation does take place. It
is the form of innovation that changes.
It is important to note that although cultural characteristics may limit innovation, nations do have the potential to overcome cultural deficits to innovation
once they become aware of the situation. Fukuyama (1995), for example, writes
of those cultures predisposed to high trust and those predisposed to low trust
among their people. High trust societies have a strong sense of communal solidarity which enables the formation of large scale business enterprises. Low trust
societies, however, limit their trust to family members or an ethnic group and
businesses are kept small, often within a family. The result of different levels of
trust has led to different roles of the state. In low trust societies, such as Italy and
China, the government has intervened to help create large-scale business. The
same can be done for cultural deficits to innovation. The key is in identifying the
deficit. Our results indicate that power distance is strongly and negatively related
to national measures of innovation whereas individualism is strongly and positively related to measures of innovation. Government and business policies
designed to overcome or work around issues of power distance and a collectivist
orientation may prove helpful for national-level innovation.
Although 66 nations from across the world were utilized in this study,
further research is needed as the Middle East and Africa were underrepresented in the sample (Hofstede measures were unavailable). Future research
should also look into the role institutional frameworks, such as laws and
innovation policies; play in complicating or mitigating cultural values in so
far as they influence innovation. As previously mentioned, government policies and initiatives can work to overcome cultural deficits to innovation.
Exploring ways in which governments and businesses have successfully
worked around culture to be innovative would be of great interest academically as well as practically.

104

Cross-Cultural Research 46(2)

Appendix
Raw Data-Hofstedes Cultural Value Scores
and the GII Innovation Scores
Country
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Bangladesh
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
Chile
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Ecuador
El Salvador
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Guatemala
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Latvia
Lithuania

GII score

GII inputs

GII outputs

PDI

IDV

UAI

2.91
4.28
4.21
2.52
4.31
2.97
3.26
4.55
3.35
3.32
2.76
3.35
3.28
3.77
4.72
2.43
2.76
3.76
4.66
4.20
4.32
3.28
2.72
3.54
3.10
2.95
4.27
4.11
3.47
2.95
4.50
3.29
3.44

3.44
5.04
5.00
2.88
4.95
3.62
3.79
5.32
4.18
3.64
3.50
3.90
3.81
4.45
5.46
2.85
3.61
4.71
5.42
4.94
5.09
3.91
3.41
4.19
3.82
3.62
4.95
4.79
3.95
3.78
5.01
4.03
4.22

2.39
3.52
3.42
2.16
3.68
2.32
2.74
3.78
2.52
2.99
2.03
2.80
2.76
3.10
3.99
2.00
1.91
2.81
3.90
3.45
3.56
2.65
2.02
2.90
2.37
2.27
3.59
3.42
2.98
2.13
3.98
2.56
2.67

49
36
11
80
65
69
70
39
63
80
67
35
73
57
18
78
66
40
33
68
35
60
95
46
77
78
28
13
50
45
54
44
42

46
90
55
20
76
38
30
80
23
20
13
15
33
58
74
8
19
60
63
71
67
35
6
80
48
14
70
54
76
39
46
70
60

86
51
70
60
94
76
85
48
86
30
80
86
80
74
23
67
94
60
59
86
65
112
101
82
40
48
35
81
75
13
92
63
65

(continued)

105

Rinne et al.

Appendix (continued)
Country
Malaysia
Malta
Mexico
Morocco
Netherlands
New
Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Trinidad &
Tob.
Turkey
United
Kingdom
Uruguay
USA
Venezuela
Vietnam

GII score

GII inputs

GII outputs

PDI

IDV

UAI

3.77
3.74
2.96
2.74
4.62
4.60

4.51
4.26
3.51
3.33
5.14
5.11

3.04
3.21
2.41
2.14
4.10
4.08

104
56
81
70
38
22

26
59
30
46
80
79

36
96
82
68
53
49

4.59
2.67
2.99
2.78
2.89
3.28
3.56
3.22
3.03
4.65
3.48
3.80
3.24
4.24
3.74
2.86
4.85
4.82
3.97
3.06
3.15

5.25
3.10
3.82
3.46
3.24
3.98
4.38
3.81
3.47
5.43
4.08
4.52
4.34
4.73
4.40
3.08
5.54
5.36
5.07
3.79
3.85

3.93
2.24
2.16
2.10
2.53
2.57
2.74
2.64
2.60
3.88
2.87
3.07
2.15
3.74
3.09
2.65
4.16
4.29
2.86
2.34
2.45

31
55
95
64
94
68
63
90
93
74
104
71
49
60
57
86
31
34
58
64
47

69
14
11
16
32
60
27
30
39
20
52
27
65
18
51
48
71
68
17
20
16

50
70
86
87
44
44
104
90
95
8
51
88
49
85
86
92
29
58
69
64
55

2.99
4.42

3.67
5.17

2.30
3.68

66
35

37
89

85
35

3.17
4.57
2.45
2.95

3.80
5.40
2.67
3.52

2.54
3.74
2.22
2.38

61
40
81
70

36
91
12
20

100
46
76
30

106

Cross-Cultural Research 46(2)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for this research was provided
by the New Zealand Foundation for Research, Science and Technology under contract number LINX0801.

References
Amabile, T.M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY:
Srpinger-Verlag.
de Mooij, M. (2004). Consumer behavior and culture: Consequences for global marketing and advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of culture. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gordon, L. V. (1976). Survey of interpersonal values-revised manual. Chicago, IL:
Science Research.
Hall, E. T. (1990). Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural.
Hampden-Turner, C., & Trampenaars, A. (1993). The seven cultures of capitalism:
Value systems for creating wealth in the United States, Japan, Germany, France,
Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands. New York, NY: Currency/Doubleday.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work
related values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories.
Journal of International Business Studies, 14, 75-89.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: International differences in work
related values (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots
to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 5-21.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of
the mind (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Hoppe, M. H. (1990). A comparative study of country elites: International differences in work-related values and learning and their implications for management
training and development. Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, NC.
INSEAD. (2009). Global Innovation Index 2008-2009. Retrieved from http://elab
.insead.edu

Rinne et al.

107

Jaquish, G. A., & Ripple, R. E. (1984). A life-span developmental cross-cultural study

of divergent thinking abilities. Human development, 20, 1-11.
Jellen, H. U., & Urban, K. (1989). Assessing creative potential worldwide: The first
cross-cultural application of the test for creative thinking-drawing production
(TCT_DP). Gifted Education, 6, 78-86.
Jin, D. (2001). The dynamics of knowledge regimes: Technology, culture and competitiveness in the USA and Japan. London, UK: Continuum.
Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The effect of national culture on the choice of entry
mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19, 411-430.
Lipset, S. M. (1990). Continental divide: The value and institutions of the United
States and Canada. New York, NY: Routledge.
Merritt, A. (2000). Culture in the cockpit: Do Hofstedes dimensions replicate?
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 283-301.
Mouritzen, P. E., & Svara, J. H. (2002). Leadership at the apex: Politicians and administrators in western local governments. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Nakata, C., & Sivakumar, K. (1996). National culture and new product development:
An integrative review. Journal of Marketing, 60, 61-72.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1983). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into
Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle (1934). Translated from
the German by Redvers Opie. New Brunswick, N.J. : Transaction Books.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivismNew cultural
dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi,
& G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, Method and
Applications (pp. 85-119). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Shane, S. (1992). Why do some societies invent more than others? Journal of Business
Venturing, 7, 29-46.
Shane, S. (1993). Cultural influences on national rates of innovation. Journal of Business
Venturing, 8, 59-73.
Shane, S. (1995). Uncertainty avoidance and the preference for innovation championing roles. Journal of International Business Studies, 26, 47-68.
Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations.
London, UK: Methuen.
Tylor, E. B. (1958). Primitive culture. New York, NY: Harper.
van Nimwegen, T. (2002). Global banking, global values: The in-house reception of
the corporate values of ABN AMRO. Doctoral Dissertation, Nyenrode University,
Delft, Eburon.
Weber, M. (1958). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Wind, J., Mahajan, V., & Bayless, J. L. (1990). The role of new product models in
supporting and improving the new product development process: Some preliminary results. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

108

Cross-Cultural Research 46(2)

Zha, P., Walczyk, J. J., Griffith-Ross, D., Tobacyk, J., & Walczyk, D. (2006). The
impact of culture and individualism-collectivism on the creative potential and
achievement of American and Chinese adults. Creativity Research Journal, 18,
355-366.

Bios
Tiffany Rinne graduated from the University of Georgia with a PhD in anthropology
in 2008. She is now a research associate at Lincoln Universitys Agribusiness and
Economics Research Unit. Her research focus is cross-cultural differences in perceptions of innovation and technology.
G. Daniel Steel received his PhD in psychology from the University of British
Columbia, in 1994. He holds the position of senior lecturer in social psychology, in
the Faculty of Environment, Society, and Design, at Lincoln University. His current
research interests include human adaptation to extreme and unusual environments,
individual and community resilience to natural disasters, and national-level correlates
of innovation.
John Fairweather is a professor and full-time social science researcher attached to
Lincoln Universitys Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit. His work in
applied sociology primarily deals with describing, monitoring, and interpreting
changes in farming and rural society. Additional research activity focuses on research
methods, farmer resilience, causal mapping of farm systems, environmental orientations of farmers, farming styles, and user innovation.