Faculty of Business

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/10679/4

Browse

Browsing by Subject "Acquisitions"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Placeholder
    ArticlePublicationMetadata only
    The conceptual difference really matters: Hofstede vs GLOBE’s uncertainty avoidance and the risk-taking behavior of firms
    (Emerald Publishing Limited, 2019-12-05) Alipour, Ali; Business Administration; ALIPOUR, Ali
    Purpose In spite of the common label, uncertainty avoidance (UA) across Hofstede and GLOBE models has been found to be negatively correlated and capture distinct concepts. Nevertheless, the empirical research focusing on the impact of UA on a variety of constructs has strongly neglected this conceptual difference, assuming them equivalent constructs and using one as an alternative for the other, or merely applying one for reasons other than conceptual relevance. Challenging this taken-for-granted assumption, the purpose of this paper is to show that their conceptual difference matters by showing that their causal impact on a given construct is not consistent given their conceptual difference. Design/methodology/approach Hypotheses are tested using hierarchical linear modeling analyses on firms from Compustat Global Database across 44 countries within the time span of 1990-2017. Findings The findings show that the causal effects of Hofstede UA index (UAI) and GLOBE UA society practices on the risk-taking behavior of firms are not consistent. Unlike Hofstede UAI, GLOBE UA (society practices) does not reduce the risk-taking behavior of firms. Originality/value This study is valuable in that it raises awareness on the conceptual differences between UA dimensions across Hofstede vs GLOBE and challenges one of the taken-for-granted assumptions in the empirical literature that the two are equivalent by empirically showing that their impacts on a given construct (i.e. the risk-taking behavior of firms) are not consistent.
  • Placeholder
    ArticlePublicationMetadata only
    What matters for the future? Comparing Globe's future orientation with Hofstede's long-term orientation
    (Emerald, 2021-09-06) Alipour, Ali; Business Administration; ALIPOUR, Ali
    Purpose This paper aims to compare the future orientation (FO) society practices dimension of the Globe model with Hofstede's long-term orientation (LTO) by testing their causal effects on three firm-level variables: cash holdings, long-term investments and acquisitions. In doing so, this research challenges the already taken-for-granted assumption in the empirical research that the two dimensions are equivalent. Design/methodology/approach Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used to test the hypotheses on 7,065 firms across 49 countries between 2000 and 2017. Findings The findings show that the causal impacts of FO society practices and LTO on a given construct are not consistent. Although LTO increases cash holdings, the impact of FO society practices on this variable is insignificant. Additionally, unlike FO society practices, which significantly increases long-term investments and acquisitions, LTO does not influence long-term investments and decreases acquisitions. Originality/value This study is valuable since it addresses the confusion surrounding the similarities and differences between FO society practices and LTO. Despite the dissimilarity also emphasized by Globe, Hofstede claims that they are equivalent, and the great majority of the empirical literature has assumed them to be equivalent in their analyses. Addressing this confusion, this research provides further empirical evidence that these two dimensions are dissimilar. The additional important contribution of the study is theorizing and examining the impact of FO society practices and LTO on the firm-level outcomes that reflect their temporal orientation (i.e. long-term investments and acquisitions), which is surprisingly neglected in the literature.