Performance effects of supply chain integration: The relative impacts of two competing national culture frameworks

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview of cultural dimensions

Hofstede Model (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010)	GLOBE Project (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004)
Power Distance: “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.”	Power Distance: “The degree to which members of a collective expect power to be distributed equally.”
Individualism vs. Collectivism: “Individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose…”	Institutional Collectivism: “The degree to which … practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action.”
Masculinity: “…gender roles are clearly distinct: men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success…”	Assertiveness: “The degree to which individuals are assertive, confrontational, and aggressive in their relationship with others.”
Uncertainty Avoidance: “The extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations.”	Uncertainty Avoidance: “The extent to which … relies on social norms, rules, and procedures to alleviate unpredictability of future events.”
Long vs. Short Term Orientation: “… fostering of virtues oriented toward future rewards—in particular, perseverance and thrift.”	Future Orientation: “The extent to which individuals engage in future-oriented behaviors such as delaying gratification, planning, and investing in the future.”

Table 2. CFA constructs and loadings

Construct	Standard loading	Standard error	R^2
Integration: α = 0.83, AVE = 0.71
Please indicate the extent of investment (money, time and/or people) in the following areas in the last two years.
Customer process integration	0.876	n/a	0.77
Supplier process integration	0.806	0.078	0.65
Delivery performance: α = 0.88, AVE = 0.71
Please indicate your plants performance compared to your major competitor(s).
Delivery speed	0.850	n/a	0.72
Delivery reliability	0.902	0.033	0.81
Response to changes in delivery due date	0.770	0.033	0.59

Table 3. Sample statistics

#	Country	Percent	Number of Employees	Percent
1	Australia	7	≤ 50	24%
2	China	10	51–250	45%
3	Croatia	11	251–500	13%
4	Germany	4	501–2500	13%
5	Hungary	4	>2500	5%
6	India	5
7	Ireland	3
8	Korea (S)	8
9	Nigeria	5
10	Poland	7	Variables	Mean	SD	Min.	Max.
11	Taiwan	4	Size	817.13	4913.5	2	133000
12	USA	16	International	18.78	35.51	0	100
13	Ukraine	5	Delivery Performance	5.22	1.08	1	7
14	Vietnam	13	Integration	4.44	1.4	1	7

Table 4. HLM results

	FUM	PCM		FCM (Hofstede)		FCM (GLOBE)
Plant-Level
Grand Intercept (γ00)	5.221***	5.221***		5.219***		5.219***
Integration (γ10)		0.183***		0.176***		0.171***
Size (γ20)		0.000		0.000		0.000
International (γ30)		−0.000		−0.000		−0.000
Country-Level
			GDP (γ01)	−0.000	GDP (γ01)	−0.000
			HPDI (γ11)	0.001	GLPD(γ11)	0.092
			HIDV (γ12)	−0.001	GLIC (γ12)	−0.073
			HMAS (γ13)	−0.000	GLAS (γ13)	−0.044
			HUAI (γ14)	−0.001	GLUA (γ14)	0.148**
			HLTO (γ15)	0.002	GLFU (γ15)	−0.239**
Variance
σ^2	1.102	1.040		1.040		1.035
τ00	0.073***	0.074***		0.059***		0.059***
τ11		0.006**		0.000*		0.000
Deviance
	3006.3	2955.1		2945.4		2941.4
Number of parameters	3	8		14		14
Reliability
β0	0.794	0.806		0.769		0.770
β1		0.360		0.035		0.020

Significance levels: * p< 0.1, ** p< 0.05, *** p< 0.01; Full maximum likelihood estimation.

Figure 1. Moderation effect of GLOBE dimensions.

Table

	Hofstede					GLOBE
	HPDI	HIDV	HMAS	HUAI	HLTO	GLPD	GLIC	GLFU	GLUA	GLAS
Australia	38	90	61	51	21	2.78	4.4	5.15	3.98	3.81
China	80	20	66	30	87	3.1	4.56	4.73	5.28	5.44
Croatia	73	33	40	80	58	2.57	4.38	5.42	4.99	4.59
Germany	35	67	66	65	83	2.54	4.82	4.85	3.32	3.09
Hungary	46	80	88	82	58	2.49	4.5	5.7	4.66	3.35
India	77	48	56	40	51	2.64	4.71	5.6	4.73	4.76
Ireland	28	70	68	35	24	2.71	4.59	5.22	4.02	3.99
Nigeria	80*	30*	60*	55*	13	2.69	5.03	6.04	5.6	3.23
Poland	68	60	64	93	38	3.12	4.22	5.2	4.71	3.9
S Korea	60	18	39	85	100	2.55	3.9	5.69	4.67	3.75
Taiwan	58	17	45	69	93	3.09	5.15	5.2	5.31	3.28
USA	40	91	62	46	26	2.85	4.17	5.31	4	4.32
Ukraine	92*	25*	27*	95*	86	2.62^	3.89^	5.48^	5.07^	2.83^
Vietnam	70	20	40	30	57	3.24	4.43	5.5	4.63	4.81

^ Values from Russia.

Table

	HPDI	HIDV	HMAS	HUAI	HLTO	HIVR	GDP	GLPD	GLIC	GLIG	GLFU	GLPO	GLHO	GLGE	GLUA	GLAS
HPDI	1
HIDV	−.743**	1
HMAS	−.545*	.677**	1
HUAI	0.186	−0.082	−0.231	1
HLTO	0.281	−.601*	−0.409	0.336	1
HIVR	−0.49	0.416	0.299	−0.384	−.723**	1
GDP	−.893**	.700**	0.31	−0.164	−0.291	.551*	1
GLPD	0.183	−0.266	−0.104	−0.375	−0.021	0.006	−0.17	1
GLIC	−0.123	−0.069	0.339	−0.386	−0.13	0.416	−0.049	0.141	1
GLIG	−0.192	0.461	−0.036	0.446	−0.467	0.282	0.354	−0.263	−0.394	1
GLFU	0.314	−0.174	−0.177	0.233	−0.26	0.152	−0.42	−0.365	−0.067	0.184	1
GLPO	−0.135	0.449	0.401	−0.069	−.665**	0.422	0.086	−0.153	0.387	0.323	0.074	1
GLHO	0.021	0.071	0.072	0.055	−0.381	.580*	0.079	−0.37	0.039	0.186	.541*	0.049	1
GLGE	−.741**	.822**	0.323	−0.068	−.592*	0.448	.723**	−0.377	−0.092	0.519	−0.054	0.522	0.011	1
GLUA	.807**	−.724**	−0.327	0.158	0.18	−0.186	−.791**	0.241	0.152	−0.086	0.417	−0.081	0.118	−.775**	1
GLAS	0.18	−0.127	0.032	−.627*	−0.078	−0.177	−0.168	0.438	−0.07	−0.357	−0.268	0.068	−0.501	−0.114	0.091	1

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01 (Pearson two-tailed); All bold variables are part of the model.

Note: Correlations of comparable Hofstede and GLOBE dimensions in the sample are underlined.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. London: McGraw-Hill.

 Google Scholar

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.

 Google Scholar