Strategic Management Journal, Vol.

18:8, 615634 (1997)

THE SALIENCE OF CULTURES CONSEQUENCES:

THE EFFECTS OF CULTURAL VALUES ON TOP
EXECUTIVE COMMITMENT TO THE STATUS QUO
MARTA A. GELETKANYCZ
The Wallace E. Carroll School of Management, Boston College, Chestnut Hill,
Massachusetts, U.S.A.

While top executives are argued to play a central role in strategic adaptation, evidence suggests
that they are not equally open to organizational change. This study extends earlier investigation
of the determinants of top executive commitment to the status quo (CSQ) to the international
arena, examining the influence of cultural values on executive open-mindedness toward change.
Using data from a survey of top managers in 20 countries, analyses reveal that values of
individualism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, and long-term orientation are significantly
related to executives adherence to existing strategy and leadership profiles. Further, while
confirming earlier findings that industry tenure is positively related to strategy CSQ, results
show that tenure does not significantly affect leadership CSQ once cultural values are controlled.
In summary, the findings reveal that culture has an important impact on executive mindsets,
as demonstrated by the fact that executives of differing cultural background are not equally
open to change in organizational strategy and leadership profiles. Second, the findings suggest
that executives views of appropriate leadership profiles reflect the imprint of cultural socialization moreso than professional experience. Finally, and more broadly, the study offers empirical
support for the view that values figure prominently in shaping executives strategic and
leadership orientations. 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Strat. Mgmt J. Vol. 18, 615634 (1997)
No of Figures: 1. No of Tables: 5. No of References: 64.

An important volume of strategy research is

founded on the premise that to remain viable,
organizations must adapt to changes in their
environment. Traditionally, scholars adhering to
an adaptation perspective have argued that the
task of effecting an alignment between the firm
and its environment rests with senior management
(Child, 1972; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). Thus,
it is presumed that as the firms strategic leaders,
top managers monitor the external environment
for developments of relevance to the organization
and its strategic policies, and initiate adjustment
as needed (e.g., Andrews, 1971; Hambrick and
Mason, 1984).
Implicit in this view is the idea that top man-

Key words: executive cognition; strategic change;

executive values; national culture
CCC 01432095/97/08061520 $17.50
1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

agers maintain a vigilant and adaptive stance,

ready to engage in organizational change and
redirection as required to meet changing contingencies. Evidence suggests, however, that managers are not universally open to change, even in
the context of significant environmental adjustment (e.g., Harrigan, 1985; Pettigrew, 1985).
Rather, many develop a strong personal attachment to existing policies and profiles which effectively impedes change in organizational strategy,
and the systems and practices which support it.
To date, little empirical research has explored
executive resistance to change and its antecedents.
One exception is the recent study by Hambrick,
Geletkanycz, and Fredrickson which examined
several commonly posited determinants of top
executive commitment to the status quo (CSQ)
or belief in the enduring correctness of current
organizational strategies and profiles (1993: 402).
Received 3 July 1995
Final revision received 12 September 1996

616

M. A. Geletkanycz

Using data from a sample of U.S. executives,

Hambrick et al. empirically confirmed a longsuspected relationship between positive perceptions of current performance and little felt need
for organizational change. At the same time, they
examined the role of executive characteristics,
finding that firm and industry tenure share moderate and strong associations, respectively, with
adherence to existing strategy and leadership profiles; however, executive age was unrelated to
CSQ. Reflecting on this pattern of findings, Hambrick et al. concluded that experiential
backgroundin particular, the social contexts in
which executives functionconstitute a significant determinant of executives orientation toward
organizational change. Most notably, executives
who have amassed long tenures seem to accrue
a socially constructed industry wisdom which
is not only difficult to cast aside, but also reduces
openness to policies and profiles different from
those already in place within the firm.
The critical role top managers play in strategic
adaptation suggests that further inquiry into
executive commitment to the status quo and its
determinants is warranted. In this study, we
extend Hambrick et al.s (1993) initial investigation in two important manners. First, we revisit
upper echelons theory to examine a second set
of possible determinants. Hambrick and Mason
(1984) proposed that strategic choices are a
reflection of top executives cognitive base
(shaped largely through background experiences)
and values. While the effects of demographic and
experiential characteristics on executive CSQ
have been explored, the impact of executive
values has not yet been considered. Interestingly,
this omission is not unique. Rather, executive
values have largely evaded systematic investigation in studies of strategic choice and executive
leadership, barring Hage and Dewars (1973)
research into management team values and
organizational innovation (e.g., Finkelstein and
Hambrick, 1996). Consequently, in examining the
relationship between executive values and commitment to the status quo, this study partly
addresses a larger void in the literature.
At the same time, we extend the study of CSQ
into the international arena by focusing on the
impact of values related to executives national
culture. Like all individuals, executives maintain a
wide array of values, including religious, political,
theoretical, and social values (Guth and Tagiuri,

1965). Researchers contend, however, that a select subset is especially germane to strategic leadership and decision making, and many agree that
among the most influential are the social values
embedded in national culture (e.g., Finkelstein
and Hambrick, 1996; Hambrick and Brandon,
1988). Of particular importance, cultural values
play a central role in shaping managerial views
of the environment and appropriate organizational
responses (e.g., Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961;
Schein, 1985). Consequently, they are posited to
influence the strategy formulation process and its
outcomes (Hambrick and Brandon, 1988; Schneider, 1989). In the present study we test this
hypothesized linkage by examining the impact of
cultural values on executive CSQ across a sample
of top managers of 20 diverse nationalities.
To begin, an overview of the relationship
between values, particularly those associated with
national culture, and strategic decision making is
presented. We then develop hypotheses concerning the effects of cultural values on executive
CSQ using Hofstedes (1980, 1991) typology,
which a number of scholars has theoretically
linked to strategic choice (e.g, Hambrick and
Brandon, 1988; Schneider, 1989). Our hypotheses
are tested using data from a large-scale, global
study of executive perceptions of the current and
future environmental challenges confronting their
organizations, as well as existing and ideal (for
the future) strategic and leadership profiles.
Results of multivariate tests are presented, and
their implications for research into executive leadership and strategic adaptation are discussed,
together with the relevance of our findings for
practicing managers.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND

HYPOTHESES
The upper echelons perspective maintains that in
their capacity as strategic decision-makers, executives play a key role in shaping organizational
profiles (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). Their
impact is argued to be effected through several
related processes by which the organizations
environment is monitored and choices designed
to cope with its contingencies are made (i.e.,
external scanning, interpretation, alternative generation, and selection). Typically, these processes
are ill-defined, complex, and laden with ambigu-

Cultural Values and Commitment to the Status Quo

ous stimuli (e.g., Mintzberg, Raisinghani, and
Theoret, 1976), creating a context that taxes the
cognitive limitations of most managers. As a
result, decisions are argued to reflect executives
selective filtering and interpretation of available
stimulithis through the idiosyncratic lenses of
their beliefs, knowledge, assumptions, and preferences (March and Simon, 1958; Cyert and
March, 1963).
Insofar as executives background experiences
and values help to shape the knowledge, assumptions, and preferences utilized in decision making,
Hambrick and Mason (1984) propose that they
will be reflected in organizational outcomes.
Valuesbroadly defined as principles for
ordering consequences and alternatives according
to preference (1984: 195)are posited to yield a
particularly salient effect on strategic choice
because they influence the decision process in
several ways. First, values directly affect strategic
choice through a process known as behavior
channeling (England, 1967). In this manner,
values determine choice, as when executives base
their selection of a strategic course of action on
personal preferences. In addition, values indirectly
affect choice through a process of perceptual
screening (England, 1967), or subtle shaping of
managers limited view of the organization and
its environment. Much as executives attend to
information which is familiar or within their
realm of knowledge (Simon, 1957), they selectively focus on information which supports their
particular preferences. As a result, executives not
only develop limited views of reality which reflect
their underlying value orientations, but subsequently formulate and select strategic choices
consistent with those values (Hambrick and Brandon, 1988).
The two pathways by which values influence
the strategic choice process have also been linked
to the development of an orientation adverse to
change in current organizational profiles, or CSQ.
In conceptualizing executive commitment to the
status quo, Hambrick et al. (1993) argue that
executives may, on one hand, adhere to existing
policies because of a preference for the current
state of affairs and the arrangements it entails.
At the same time, they concede that executives
may adhere to the status quo due to an inability
to conceive of other approaches. In other words,
executives simplified models of reality may not
support alternative scenarios. While citing values

617

and preferences as important factors, Hambrick

and colleagues focus their empirical investigation
largely on executives experiential background as
a determinant of CSQ, leaving the effects of
values untested.

NATIONAL CULTURAL VALUES

Among the earliest and most enduring influences
on executive value development is national culture (England, 1975). Defined as a set of shared
assumptions, culture represents the system of
socially constructed meanings and preferences a
group develops as it collectively negotiates
environmental forces and the complexities of
internal integration (Hofstede, 1980, 1991;
Schein, 1985). Restated, national culture can be
interpreted as a common frame of reference or
logic by which members of a society view organizations, the environment, and their relations to
one another. In turn, scholars have surmised that
national culture is likely to yield important effects
on the process by which the environment is
known and responded to (Schneider,
1989: 152).
As members of national societies, managers
not only contribute to the collective formulation
of cultural norms and views, they experience
social reinforcement pressures which bring their
individual-level assumptions and preferences into
close alignment with those of their native culture
(e.g., Berger and Luckmann, 1967; Van Maanen
and Laurent, 1993). In fact, research has shown
that the differing views and assumptions embedded in national culture are reflected not only in
managerial attitudes and beliefs (e.g., Lodge and
Vogel, 1987), but also in the behaviors and
actions by which organizational members discharge their roles (Jackofsky and Slocum, 1988;
Shane, 1995).
Recently, scholars have begun to explore the
link between national culture and strategic
decision making. In a survey of managers of
diverse cultural background, Schneider and
DeMeyer (1991) uncovered significant differences
in interpretations of and response to a strategic
issue, with managers of Latin European background exhibiting a strong crisis orientation in
reaction to an impending environmental adjustment. Further, these same Latin European managers tended to recommend a proactive course of

618

M. A. Geletkanycz

action. In accounting for these findings, Schneider

and DeMeyer point to underlying differences in
national culture. However, they did not identify
the factors (or processes) driving these differences, but left them for future discovery
(1991: 315).
The conceptual work of Hambrick and Brandon
(1988) and Schneider (1989) suggests that the
variation in executives strategic orientation may
be attributable to the different values embedded
within national cultures. As noted earlier, culture
reflects a given societys understanding of organizations, environments, and their interrelationships.
Cultural values capture the salient dimensions of
this understanding, together with broad societal
preferences surrounding issues of organization
and adaptation (Hofstede, 1991). Executives
socialized from an early age to the value orientations of their cultural heritagebring them to
their senior management roles and responsibilities, including strategic decision making (e.g.,
Hambrick and Mason, 1984). Thus, Hambrick
and Brandon, as well as Schneider, theorize that
cultural values will be reflected in executives
strategic choices. In particular, they suggest that
cultural values will not only help to shape executives view of organizations and the external contingencies they face, but also executives preferences for different courses of strategic action.

HYPOTHESES
Recognition of the need for change in current
organizational profiles is a central aspect of strategic choice as it triggers the search for and
implementation of new measures (Child, 1972;
Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). However, Hambrick
et al. (1993) empirically demonstrated that managers are not equally open to change in extant
policies even in the face of significant environmental adjustment. Their study revealed that
executives often develop a strong attachment to
the status quo which in part stems from prolonged
tenure and accompanying socialization to industry
recipes (Spender, 1977).
The research cited above suggests that an
examination of the determinants of executives
strategic orientations should also consider the
effects of cultural values. Building on the theoretical foundation laid by scholars including Hambrick and Mason (1984), Hambrick and Brandon

(1988), and Schneider (1989), we expect that

executives orientation toward change in current
organizational profiles (or CSQ) will reflect the
values embedded in their national culture. More
specifically, we predict that executives of differing cultural background will vary in the extent
to which they recognize the need for and are
open to change in existing organizational profiles.
As depicted in Figure 1, this variation is attributed to differences in underlying cultural values,
and the assumptions and preferences they reflect.
A number of typologies report to capture critical differences in national cultural values (e.g.,
Ronen and Shenkar, 1985). For purposes of this
investigation, we rely on the value scheme
developed by Hofstede (1980, 1991). Several factors guide this selection, with the most critical
being the particular relevance of Hofstedes
dimensions to our research question. In an extensive reconciliation of value schemes, Hambrick
and Brandon (1988) observed that the values
contained in Hofstedes typology reflect enduring
themes central to executive leadership and strategic decision making. Schneider (1989) echoes
this conclusion for reasons that its dimensions
capture preferences and assumptions related to
external adaptation and internal integration.
Together, their observations suggest that the
typology profiles value differences which are
theoretically important to executives strategic
mindset.1 We turn now to an examination of the
value dimensions identified by Hofstede:
individualismcollectivism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, masculinityfemininity, and
long-term vs. short-term orientation.

1
Apart from an established conceptual linkage with strategic
choice, Hofstedes typology demonstrates numerous strengths
over alternate cultural value frameworks. First, it encompasses
value dimensions which are robust concepts, having strong
roots in both the anthropology and sociology literatures
(Hickson, 1996). Hofstedes study also represents the most
exhaustive cross-cultural investigation of values conducted to
date, involving over 88,000 individuals and 50 countries.
Since its original publication, the study has been successfully
replicated by several independent scholars using different
samples and alternate time intervals (e.g., Hoppe, 1990;
Shackleton and Ali, 1990), leading researchers to conclude
that it meets critical standards of reliability and validity
(Hambrick and Brandon, 1988; Kogut and Singh, 1988; Shane,
1995). Finally, the sheer breadth of countries for which it
offers value measures renders it particularly well suited to
large-scale cross-cultural investigations such as the present
one.

Cultural Values and Commitment to the Status Quo

619

Figure 1. Integrated model

Individualismcollectivism
A key dimension along which cultures differ
concerns interpersonal relations. In cultures with
strong individualist values, societal members perceive themselves largely as individual actors.
Social norms typically affirm the positive qualities
of individual achievement and personal discretion,
leading members to place personal interests above
those of the aggregate. In organizational contexts,
individualist values have been linked to preferences for individual decision making over group
consensus (Hofstede, 1980). By contrast, in
societies emphasizing collectivist values, interpersonal relationships and group affiliation are highly
touted. Concerns over group welfare, equality,
and loyalty are prominent, as aggregate interests
tend to prevail over autonomous ones
(Hofstede, 1991).
The values associated with individualism
collectivism are central to assumptions and views
of strategic leadership. Jackofsky and Slocum
(1988), for example, observed that in highly individualistic cultures there exist stronger attributions
of organizational performance to executive leadership. One consequence of this tendency is greater
turnover in executive positions within individualist cultures. Relatedly, in a cross-cultural study
of executive compensation, Pennings (1993)
found that U.S. managers, members of a highly
individualistic culture, maintain stronger beliefs
in the linkage between executive pay and strategic

performance than do their counterparts in more

collectivist societies.
Together, these research findings suggest that
managers of highly individualistic societies may
be more prone to developing a vested interest in
the organizational status quo. As Vancil (1987)
observed, executives are faced with and overcome
numerous challenges in their ascension to senior
ranks. In the course of their career successes,
they frequently become convinced of the appropriateness of their actions and choices. Individualist values, and the strong leadership attributions
which accompany them, may well exacerbate
executives sense of self-efficacy (e.g., Meindl,
Ehrlich, and Dukerich, 1985). That is, individualist values may induce an overconfidence in executives ability to lead the firm, which taken to an
extreme is likely to diminish executives capacity
to sense the need for change in profiles they have
helped to effect.
At the same time, individualist values are likely
to foster a greater preference for the organizational status quo. Executives of individualist cultures are closely identified with existing profiles
(e.g., Pennings, 1993). They may, therefore, be
unwilling to amend policies for reasons that
changes could be interpreted as an admission of
the inappropriateness of earlier decisionsor
even worse, their leadership abilities. Thus, for
face-saving reasons (Staw and Ross, 1978), as
well as career concerns, executives of strong
individualist orientation are likely to prefer adher-

620

M. A. Geletkanycz

ence to the existing organizational course over

adjustment.
Hypothesis 1: The greater the individualist
values associated with an executives national
culture, the greater the executives commitment
to the status quo.
Uncertainty avoidance
The value dimension of uncertainty avoidance
concerns response to unstructured and ambiguous
contexts. In high uncertainty avoidance cultures,
societal members tend to feel uncomfortable dealing with uncertainty. As a result, preferences lean
toward greater structure, together with clear rules
and standardized operating procedures (Hofstede,
1980). By contrast, in low uncertainty avoidance
cultures there exists a greater tolerance for uncertainty. Members are relatively more at ease with
unfamiliar situations, and assumedly more tolerant
of different ideas, approaches, and concepts.
By its definition, uncertainty avoidance is
suggestive of managerial resistance to change.
Change, or deviance from existing policy, connotes adjustment and variance in the current state
of affairs. Executives who maintain a low tolerance for conditions other than a predictable or
certain context are likely to shy away from rendering action which alters their environment.
Rather, as Kets de Vries and Miller (1986) conclude, executives favoring an (uncertainty) avoidant perspective are likely to prefer a more stable
and conservative intraorganizational environment
in essence, one that adheres to the status quo.
By contrast, executives whose cultural backgrounds are characterized by low uncertainty
avoidance values are more comfortable with instability. Consequently, Hambrick and Brandon
(1988) posit that they are likely to be less averse
to novelty, and more open to experimentation
with new or untested initiatives. In a similar vein,
Schneider (1985) concluded that executives from
cultural backgrounds low in uncertainty avoidance
are likely to engage in greater entrepreneurial
activity. Together, these observations suggest that
it is executives whose background cultures are
characterized by low uncertainty avoidance values
who will be more open to new or different policies.
Hypothesis 2: The greater the uncertainty

avoidance values associated with an executives national culture, the greater the executives commitment to the status quo.
MasculinityFemininity
This value dimension addresses two issues: gender roles and qualities often ascribed to them.
With regard to the latter, Hofstedes (1980)
examination revealed significant differences in the
extent to which cultures emphasize so-called
masculine qualities of assertiveness, ambition,
and competition over more feminine ones of
modesty, caring, and solidarity. In masculine cultures, preferences lean in the direction of managerial decisiveness and a performance orientation.
In feminine cultures, a more social orientation is
observed, accompanied by a strong concern for
the preservation of existing relationships.
While gender roles have not been linked to
strategic activity, the preferences and views associated with masculine values suggest that they
may be more conducive to change. Masculine
cultures, for example, view qualities of aggressiveness and an action orientation favorably
(Hofstede, 1980). Unlike feminine cultures,
wherein the maintenance of stable and nurturing
interpersonal ties are given a high priority, masculine cultures place strong emphasis on results. In
short, the task at hand is key, taking precedence
over social relations. This suggests that executives
socialized to masculine values will be more
receptive to policies which call for the alteration
of existing arrangements, particularly in situations
(such as strategic leadership) where change or
adaptation enhances chances of success (e.g.,
Aldrich, 1979).
Hypothesis 3: The greater the masculine
values associated with an executives national
culture, the less the executives commitment to
the status quo.
Power distance
The value dimension of power distance addresses
the issue of social (in)equality. Cultures with
low power distance values are typically more
egalitarian in nature, with societal members
viewed largely as equals. At the other extreme,
high power distance cultures are characterized
by significant inequalities among their individual

Cultural Values and Commitment to the Status Quo

constituents. Class divisions typify these societies,
leading to the concentration of power and authority among select groups (Hofstede, 1980).
In high power distant cultures, hierarchical
structures and centralized decision making are the
norm, in part because they help preserve the
existing social order and its related distribution of
power (Hofstede, 1980). Hage and Aiken (1970)
contend that such bureaucratic tendencies often
pose formidable barriers to novelty and change.
For example, centralization promotes routinized
behavior and reduces organizational responsiveness to changing external conditions. At the same
time, it offers little incentive for innovation.
These factors may play a role in the partial
support Shane (1993) observed for a hypothesized
linkage between power distance values and differences in rates of innovation across cultures.
Accordingly, we expect that high power distance values are likely to encourage greater
executive adherence to policies already established within the firm. On one hand, executives
accustomed to routines may be unable to appreciate the wisdom of alternatives which break from
standardized practice. Rather, they are likely to
assume that routinized policies are most appropriate. Whats more, the hierarchical structures typical of high power distance cultures may isolate
them from new ideas and opportunities, leading to
an executive inability to envision policies which
deviate from the organizational status quo.
Finally, high power distance values may foster a
resistance to change due to concerns over established power structures. Executives of high power
distance cultures may be reticent to consider new
initiatives for fear that adjustment would disrupt
extant power balances, placing their high-ranking
status and position at risk.
Hypothesis 4: The greater the power distance
values associated with an executives national
culture, the greater the executives commitment
to the status quo.

621

ented cultures, on the other hand, tend to be fixed

on the present and past; their members typically
uphold the importance of stability and tradition
(Hofstede, 1993).
A common assumption in long-term oriented
cultures is that success mandates adjustment and
change. Members of these cultures recognize that
environments are dynamic; therefore, if goals and
objectives are to be met, individuals must remain
steadfast in their intent while confronting and
adapting to changes in their surrounding context.
To that end, Hofstede (1991) observes that longterm oriented values are more conducive to successful entrepreneurial activity. By contrast, members of short-term oriented, or low Confucian
dynamism cultures are more reflective, frequently
looking back to the past. Their values tend to
emphasize personal steadiness and respect for
traditional practice. Consequently, new initiatives,
innovation, and change are typically discouraged
in favor of actions which uphold historical mores
(Hofstede, 1991).
These observations suggest that values linked
to long-term vs. short-term orientation are likely
to hold significant importance for strategic adaptation and executive CSQ. To the extent that
long-term oriented societies anticipate a changing
environment, managers may be more open to
change in extant organizational profiles. In fact,
consistent with long-term values, they are likely
to assume that adjustments to the status quo are
needed to ensure continued success. By contrast,
executives of short-term oriented cultures are
likely to promote fewer new initiatives inasmuch
as they prefer adherence to past conventions.
Hypothesis 5: The greater the long-term oriented values associated with an executives
national culture, the less the executives commitment to the status quo.

METHODS
Sample

Long-term vs. short-term orientation

This fifth cultural dimension, also known as Confucian dynamism, refers to preferences between
a forward-looking vs. more historical perspective.
Cultures maintaining a long-term orientation are
characterized by values emphasizing the future,
including thrift and perseverance. Short-term ori-

Data used to test our hypotheses were drawn

from a global study of top executives conducted
in 1988. A survey was administered asking senior
executives to describe their firms existing (1988)
strategic and leadership profiles, as well as the
profiles they considered appropriate for their
organization in the year 2000. The instrument

622

M. A. Geletkanycz

was distributed to a total of 8000 executives

worldwide, with 1540 usable responses received
for an effective response rate of 19 percent. While
below the average for studies employing survey
methods, this response rate is well within the
normal range for research on top managers. In
fact, it is above the 1012 percent rate typical
for study targeting executives in upper echelons
(Hambrick et al., 1993; Pearce and Zahra, 1991),
and compares favorably with response rates
reported in cross-cultural studies of top management (e.g., Norburn, 1987).
Sample organizations were derived from country-specific lists of industry leaders. For the U.S.
sample, these included the Fortune 500, the Fortune Service 500, and assorted industry rosters.
For the non-U.S. sample, mailing lists were
derived from Dun and Bradstreets Directory of
Principal International Businesses, foreign ministries of commerce, and available published rankings of industry leaders (e.g., Times of London
1000). In total, responses were received from
managers of 20 nationalities representing:
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada,
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, South Korea, Spain,
Switzerland, Thailand, United Kingdom, United
States, and Venezuela. An examination of the
organizations they led reveals a diverse range of
businesses, with 21 percent of the firms primarily
focused on industrial products, 22 percent on
consumer products, 19 percent on financial services, and 38 percent principally involved in other
service industries. The average size of our sample
firms measured by the number of employees was
21,219 (standard deviation = 45,800). While the
broad range of businesses and countries captured
in the sample enhances the generalizability of
findings across industry and cultural environments, our use of a nonrandom sampling procedure suggests possible limits to generalizability
across other settings (e.g., small firms).
Considerable attention was directed to the formulation of the survey instrument, including its
pretesting. Initially drawn from earlier research
into leadership and strategy, survey scales
underwent augmentation based on the contributions of expert panels. Specifically, appropriate
inventories of strategy and leadership dimensions
were first extracted from studies by Hambrick
(1983), Kotter (1988), Levinson (1980), and
Porter (1980). Following initial construction

based on these scholarly works, a panel of 20

senior executives was asked to examine the constructed scales and contribute their thoughts on
any omissions or inappropriate items. Per their
review and comments, the instrument was modified and submitted to a second panel of 20. This
latter group suggested only minor changes, which
were likewise instituted.
The survey, initially prepared in the United
States and thus in the English language, was
translated into five additional languages: French,
German, Italian, Japanese, and Spanish. Following a standard protocol designed to alleviate
potential problems of translation bias, these versions were then back-translated into English to
verify accuracy and compatibility. Few inconsistencies were identified in the front and back translation, in part because the survey was designed
with an emphasis on common business terminology and minimal use of idiomatic statements.
Those which were revealed were reconciled with
the assistance of staff from an international
executive recruiting firm (also cosponsor of the
initial research project), which regularly conducts
large-scale survey research of top management.
At the same time, the size of our sample reduces
the risk of any translation bias which might have
escaped the rigor of the surveys front-and-back
translation. As Hofstede et al. (1990: 288) note,
national idiosyncrasies and nuances of questionnaire translation weigh heavily in a two-, three-,
or four-country study, but . . . national patterns
start to show a global structure, which the noise
of the idiosyncrasies of individual countries cannot suppress in studies involving larger samples.
This suggests that the risk of translation error
accounting for this studys significant findings
is relatively small (Shane, Venkataraman, and
MacMillan, 1995). Ideally, the absence of translation bias would be verified through a comparison of results for respondents answering in their
native language and those for respondents answering in a second or foreign language. Our survey
design, however, failed to capture data on respondents first language. Thus, we were precluded
from conducting the test in the present study.
Nonetheless, it remains an important methodological refinement for future cross-cultural studies.2
Prior to the mailing of the professionally pro-

Thanks are owed an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.

Cultural Values and Commitment to the Status Quo

duced survey, an advance personalized letter was
sent to the CEO of each sample organization
requesting his/her participation. Those who did
not respond to the initial distribution of the questionnaire were sent a follow-up mailing. In total,
58 percent of the usable surveys were answered
by CEOs themselves, as reported in a survey
item inquiring about the respondents title, while
84 percent were completed by CEOs or their
direct reports. The remaining 16 percent worked
closely with the CEO, or top executive group.
The mean age of all respondents was 51 years
(standard deviation = 8.79).

623

CEOs should be similar, was derived by subtracting the difference measure from the
maximum possible difference score of 4.
Strategy CSQ was measured in a manner identical to leadership CSQ, though based on respondents scores gauging the degree to which he/she
perceived that 11 different types of competitive
weaponry and seven modes of growth strategy
accurately described the firm at the time of the
study (1988), and would be appropriate for the
same organization in the year 2000. The Cronbach alpha for these items is 0.76. The reader is
again referred to Appendix 1 for their summary
listing).

Measures
Commitment to the status quo
Two organizational profiles shaped by executives
are examined in this study: organizational strategy
and leadership. Absent any a priori expectations
of differences in executive attachment to either
strategic or leadership characteristics, or potentially differential effects of cultural values on
either profile, both were studied in an effort to
better assess executives adherence to the organizational status quo. Their measurements,
described below, were developed and validated
in an earlier study of executive CSQ by Hambrick
and colleagues (1993).
Leadership CSQ captures the degree to which
respondents believed that the present (1988)
CEOs expertise and behaviors should constitute
the expertise and behaviors of the CEO in the
year 2000. It was measured by first asking
respondents to describe along a 5-point scale the
extent to which a series of 11 areas of expertise
and 15 managerial behaviors accurately depicted
their firms current CEO. (Survey items and scaling methods are detailed in Appendix 1). Respondents were then asked to identify the extent to
which they perceived these same dimensions of
expertise and behavior appropriate for the CEO
serving at the helm of the firm in the year 2000,
again using a 5-point scale. Absolute differences
in the two scores for each of the expertise and
behavioral items were calculated and averaged
(Cronbach alpha: 0.79), creating a measure of the
extent to which the respondent believed the current and future leaders should differ along these
attributes. A measure of leadership CSQ, or perceived degree to which the current and future

National cultural values

Respondents were assigned their countrys cultural value score for individualism, uncertainty
avoidance, masculinity, power distance, and longterm vs. short-term orientation as provided in
Hofstede (1980, 1991). (A summary of country
scores is presented in Appendix 2). These measures were employed for several reasons. First,
cultural values, like all social values, are grouplevel phenomena. Consequently, they are most
accurately captured at the group (country) level
(Hofstede et al., 1990). At the same time, a
number of methodological advantages is offered.
First, use of scores derived in an outside study
precludes potential problems of common-method
bias. In addition, concerns over validity and
reliability are mitigated as Hofstedes scores have
repeatedly been tested and shown to meet reasonable standards (e.g., Kogut and Singh, 1988).
This last point noted, we nevertheless undertook
a second test of the hypotheses substituting value
scores from a replication study by Hoppe (1990).
The results confirmed those achieved using Hofstedes scores, attesting further to their validity.

Control variables
Prior investigation has shown that factors including perceptions of organizational performance,
industry tenure, expected environmental change,
and CEO status are each related to executive CSQ
tendencies (Hambrick et al., 1993). Consequently,
they are included in the analyses, together with
industry identifiers designed to control for any
possible industry influences.

624

M. A. Geletkanycz

Organizational performance Research suggests

that, absent perceptions of poor or unacceptable
performance, individuals will frequently resist
organizational change in favor of persistence with
extant policies (e.g., Kimberly and Quinn, 1984;
Milliken and Lant, 1991). Not surprising, then,
executives assessments of their organizations
performance have been shown to be positively
related to CSQ (Hambrick et al., 1993). Respondents perceptions of their firms performance
were captured by asking them to describe their
organizations profitability using a 4-item scale,
with 1 = unprofitable, 2 = breaking even, 3 =
moderately profitable, and 4 = very profitable.
Industry tenure Previous study has shown that
those executives who have accrued the longest
industry tenures demonstrate the greatest CSQ
(Hambrick et al., 1993). As such, tenure in the
industry was measured by asking respondents
how many years they had worked in the current
industry.
Expected environmental change Environmental
change figures prominently in organizational
adaptation. To the extent that executives perceive
an unchanging environment, they may fail to
sense the need to alter the status quo. Hence,
a third control variable, expected environmental
change, was introduced. It was captured using
items which asked respondents to describe the
current and expected future relevance of 23
environmental factors (e.g., change in product
technology, availability of capital, foreign competition, government regulation) along a 5-point scale
(ranging from not relevant/very low to very high).
They were then asked to identify from the list the
three most threatening and three most favorable to
their firm at the time of the study, and those
anticipated to be so in the year 2000. Absolute
difference scores in the current and future relevance
of these most critical environmental dimensions
were calculated and averaged, creating a measure
of expected environmental change.
CEO respondent CEO status is added for two
important reasons. First, CEOs are often, though
not always, the most powerful of organizational
members (Finkelstein, 1992). When true, existing
firm profiles may well reflect their preferences
above otherssuggesting that CEOs will hold
the greatest vested interest in the status quo. At

the same time, there may exist a response bias

associated with respondents status. Namely,
respondents may answer differently when describing another (CEO), than when describing themselves.3 CEO respondent was operationalized as
a dummy variable, created through a survey item
in which respondents described their position
(chief executive, direct report, or other).
Industry controls Finally, to control for possible
industry effects on CSQ tendencies, 29 dummy
variables were created to differentiate the 30 primary industries identified by respondents selfreports of their firms competitive focus.

RESULTS
Table 1 provides descriptive statistics on executive CSQ, cultural values, and key control variables. Consistent with expectations, correlational
analyses reveal that cultural values are related to
executive openness to change, with four of five
values (masculine values being the single
exception) significantly related to commitment to
the status quo.4 Further, they suggest that current
performance, industry tenure, expected degree of
environmental change, and CEO status are each
correlated with CSQ, confirming the need for
their control.
Multiple regression results (omitting coefficients for industry dummy controls) are reported
in Table 2. This method was chosen over hierarchical regression because causal priority could
not be persuasively attributed to the earlierobserved determinants of CSQ. In fact,
researchers have suggested that the social influences attendant to national culture are perhaps
more fundamental to executive perception and
action than influences associated with professional
experience (e.g., Jackofsky, Slocum, and
McQuaid, 1988; Van Maanen and Laurent, 1993).
This said, the results were unchanged under hierarchical regression methods. As reported in Table
2, the cultural values were not introduced into the
3

Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for this observation.

We earlier advanced a general hypothesis that executive
CSQ varies across cultures. Though not reported here, an
analysis of variance examining differences across aggregate
country clusters was performed. It revealed that, as expected,
executive commitment to both the strategic and leadership
status quo varies significantly across cultures.
4

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Leadership CSQ
Strategy CSQ
Current performance
Industry tenure
Expected environmental
change
CEO respondent
Individualism
Uncertainty avoidance
Masculinity
Power distance
Long-term orientation

1.

2.

3.39 0.30 1.00

3.49 0.32 0.31*** 1.00
3.17 0.77 0.08**
0.10***
19.32 12.10 0.09*** 0.08**
0.51 0.45 0.12*** 0.11***
0.58
76.91
59.01
32.35
59.80
47.30

0.50
20.53
20.13
12.63
12.19
13.87

*p , 0.05; **p , 0.01; ***p , 0.001; N = 1540

0.27***
0.06*
0.05*
0.02
0.07*
0.02

3.

4.

5.

1.00
0.04
0.02

1.00
0.04

1.00

6.

0.01
0.09*** 0.27*** 0.01
1.00
0.12*** 0.09*** 0.04
0.09** 0.06*
0.12*** 0.06*
0.05
0.14*** 0.07**
0.04
0.04
0.08** 0.08** 0.08**
0.12*** 0.08** 0.06*
0.19*** 0.04
0.08**
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.01

7.

8.

9.

10.

1.00
0.59*** 1.00
0.07** 0.03
1.00
0.78*** 0.76*** 0.02
1.00
0.81*** 0.80*** 0.27***0.76***

11.

1.00

Cultural Values and Commitment to the Status Quo

Mean S.D.

625

626

Multiple regression results: Standardized beta coefficients reported (standard error)

Variable

Current performance
Industry tenure
Expected environmental change
CEO respondent
Individualism

Leadership CSQ

Strategy CSQ

II

III

IV

II

III

IV

0.125***
(0.010)
0.023
(0.001)
0.123***
(0.018)
0.288***
(0.017)
0.060*
(0.001)

0.123***
(0.010)
0.022
(0.001)
0.119***
(0.018)
0.289***
(0.017)

0.121***
(0.010)
0.027
(0.001)
0.128***
(0.018)
0.282***
(0.017)

0.124***
(0.010)
0.023
(0.001)
0.117***
(0.018)
0.286***
(0.017)

0.109***
(0.012)
0.022
(0.001)
0.101***
(0.022)
0.303***
(0.020)

0.114***
(0.011)
0.076**
(0.001)
0.092***
(0.019)
0.003
(0.019)
0.110***
(0.001)

0.110***
(0.011)
0.075**
(0.001)
0.087**
(0.019)
0.004
(0.019)

0.105***
(0.011)
0.082**
(0.001)
0.101***
(0.019)
0.013
(0.019)

0.111***
(0.011)
0.076**
(0.001)
0.083**
(0.020)
0.007
(0.019)

0.089**
(0.013)
0.078*
(0.001)
0.084**
(0.024)
0.008
(0.022)

0.070**
(0.001)

Uncertainty avoidance

0.110***
(0.001)
0.001
(0.001)

Masculinity

0.010
(0.001)
0.061*
(0.001)

Power distance

0.018
(0.001)

Long-term orientation
R2

0.099***
(0.001)

0.14***

0.14***

0.14***

0.14***

0.16***

0.088**
(0.001)
0.07***

0.07***

0.06***

0.07***

0.07***

*p , 0.05; **p , 0.01; ***p , 0.001; Models IIV, N = 1540; Models V, N = 1101.A reduced sample is employed in Models V because country scores for long-term vs.
short-term orientation are only available for a total of 23 countries, 11 of which are represented in this data set.

M. A. Geletkanycz

Table 2.

Cultural Values and Commitment to the Status Quo

analyses collectively; rather, due to high intercorrelations (consistent with Hofstede, 1980), each was
examined via an individual regression model.
Examining control variables first, results unambiguously confirm prior findings by Hambrick and
colleagues (1993) with regard to firm performance, expected environmental change, and CEO
status. As indicated in Table 2, current performance is positively related to both leadership and
strategy CSQ (p , 0.001). This suggests that
executives who view their firms performance
favorably maintain the greatest confidence in
(commitment to) existing organizational profiles.
Results for expected degree of environmental
change are also consistent with earlier research,
demonstrating a negative relationship with both
types of CSQ. They suggest that the greater the
expected change in external contingencies, the
greater the perceived need to adjust both leadership and strategy profiles across the international
pool of executives sampled. Finally, the dummy
variable designating CEO respondent is shown to
hold a positive relationship with leadership CSQ
(p , 0.001), providing further evidence of CEOs
proclivity toward self-cloning (Hambrick et al.,
1993; Levinson, 1974). It is not, however, significant for strategy CSQ, suggesting that relative
to other executives CEOs are no more prone to
steadfast adherence to existing strategic policies.
In considering the final control variable
industry tenurethe role of executives social
context is introduced. Prior study by Hambrick
et al. (1993)limited to U.S. executives
observed a significant positive relationship
between length of industry experience and both
types of CSQ.5 The findings of this study confirm
that executive tenure in the industry is positively
and significantly related to strategy CSQ. Interestingly, however, once cultural values are controlled, industry tenure fails to demonstrate a
significant relationship with leadership CSQ.
Thus, while industry experience contributes significantly to the shaping of executives orien5
As noted earlier, Hambrick et al. (1993) also observed firm
tenure to be related to executive CSQ; however, its impact
was found to be significantly less than that of industry tenure.
In separate analyses not reported here, these findings were
generally confirmed, with results for firm tenure reflecting a
similar pattern to those reported above for industry tenure.
Again, however, the effects of firm tenure were less significant. In light of these findings, as well as as the fact that
firm tenure is nested in industry tenure, we focus on the
latter determinant.

627

tations toward strategic change, once cultural

values are introduced it does not affect their
orientation toward change in leadership profiles.
With the effects of control variables examined,
we turn to an examination of the impact of
cultural values on executive CSQ. Hypothesis 1
posited that individualist values would be positively related to attachment to existing organizational profiles. Multivariate results confirm this
expectation, with positive and significant results
observed for both leadership CSQ (p , 0.05) and
strategy CSQ (p , 0.001). Thus, it appears that
executives socialized to cultural values encouraging strong leadership attributions are more
likely to resist change in organizational profiles.
Hypothesis 2 addressed the value dimension of
uncertainty avoidance, arguing that it would be
positively associated with executive CSQ. Results
indicate a negative relationship between uncertainty avoidance and both leadership (p , 0.01)
and strategy CSQ (p , 0.001), suggesting that it
is executives socialized to values of uncertainty
tolerance who most often persist with existing
policies. Thus, contrary to expectations, uncertainty avoidance values appear to induce greater
openness toward change, while uncertainty tolerance values foster the patience required to persevere with earlier chosen courses of action.
Per Hypothesis 3, masculine values were
expected to be negatively related to commitment
to the status quo. Multivariate tests show that
this value dimension does not have a significant
effect on either strategy or leadership CSQ, suggesting that values attributed to gender fail to
substantively contribute to the shaping of executives strategic and leadership mindsets.
Hypothesis 4 considered cultural values of
power distance, positing that they would be positively related to executive CSQ. While regression
analyses controlling for other determinants indicate significant associations with both leadership
(p , 0.05) and strategy CSQ (p , 0.001), they
reveal that the relationship between power distance and CSQ is a negative one. Thus, while
high power distance values reflect preferences for
hierarchical structures and centralized decisionmaking (Hofstede, 1980), they do not preclude
executive openness to adjustments in organizational profiles. In fact, results indicate that in
high power distance cultures, wherein there exist
clear distinctions in power and authority, managers are more amenable to changes in policy.

628

M. A. Geletkanycz

Hypothesis 5 then proposed that a long-term

orientation would be negatively related to executive commitment to the status quo. Models V of
Table 2 report findings for this value dimension.
As expected, they indicate a negative relationship
between long-term values and both measures of
CSQ after controlling for other observed determinants, though significance is only achieved for
strategy CSQ (p , 0.01). Together, these results
suggest that executives whose background cultures emphasize a long-term perspective are more
likely to recognize the need to adjust existing
strategic policies, though they are not necessarily
more open to change in leadership profiles.
As a final note, attention is drawn to the
differential effects of industry tenure and cultural
values on executive CSQ. The multivariate analyses in Table 2 reveal a pattern that was not
hypothesized, yet holds the potential for significant importance to the study of strategic leadership. The analyses show that in terms of variance
explained, the effects of cultural values are no
less salient than those of experiential background.
In fact, where significant, cultural values surmount industry tenure in predicting executive
CSQ, and do so substantively in analyses of
leadership CSQ. Thus, while executives are subject to a host of socialization pressures over the
course of their careers (e.g., acculturation to firm
practices and industry recipes), the imprint of
their cultural heritage is not suppressed. Rather,
its effects are enduring, affecting executives perceptions of appropriate strategy and leadership
profiles even through the often long ascension to
senior ranks.

DISCUSSION
Researchers, as well as practitioners, have long
suspected that national culture influences executive thought and action. However, with limited
exception (e.g., Hitt, Tyler, and Park, 1990;
Schneider and De Meyer, 1991), empirical investigation of the relationship between national culture and executive strategic orientation has been
wanting. Whats more, the few studies that have
been undertaken, while ascertaining the existence
of significant cross-cultural differences, fail to
identify the processes or factors underlying this
variation. In the present study, our aim was to
address this void in part by examining the role

values embedded within cultures play in shaping

top executives strategic and leadership mindsets.
Our findings demonstrate that cultural values significantly affect executives openness toward
change in the organizational status quo, even
after controlling for earlier-observed determinants
such as experiential background. In doing so,
they offer some insight into the reasons for crosscultural variation in executives responses to their
environments. At the same time, a broader contribution is made insofar as our results provide
empirical support for assertions that values influence the strategic choice process (Hambrick and
Mason, 1984; Hambrick and Brandon, 1988).
Which cultural values matter?
In examining this studys findings directly, perhaps the most straightforward are results showing
that individualist values contribute to strong
executive attachment to existing firm policies.
Whereas scholars earlier surmised that executives
commonly develop a vested interest in the policies they have helped to effect, this tendency
was most often attributed to self-interest and the
preservation of power (Pfeffer, 1981; Vancil,
1987). The findings reported here join Hambrick
et al.s (1993) in suggesting that more subtle
factors associated with executives social context
are also at play. In this case, our analyses reveal
that cultural values which affirm individual autonomy and achievement, leading to strong leadership attributions (Jackofsky and Slocum, 1988),
tend to foster among senior managers a sense of
ownership and accompanying reluctance to alter
organizational profiles.
Our findings also indicate greater commitment
to strategic policies among managers whose cultural heritage emphasizes a short-term orientation
(or low Confucian dynamism values). Hofstede
(1991) noted that individuals who are strongly
oriented toward the short term often experience
difficulty envisioning the future. Their views and
perspectives do not extend far into the future,
and their chosen course of action tends to reflect
traditional mores. Our results extend these obervations, demonstrating that social tendencies
which encourage a reflective stance ultimately
reduce executives ability to sense the need to
adapt strategic profiles.
Two of our findings, nevertheless, underscore
the complexity of cultural values: the black box

Cultural Values and Commitment to the Status Quo

of executive mindsets, and their interrelations
referring to the unexpected direction of results
for values of uncertainty avoidance and power
distance. At first glance, it may seem counterintuitive that values of uncertainty avoidance, typically associated with preferences for stability and
predictability, would be negatively related to
commitment to existing strategic and leadership
profiles. After all, adherence to established practice (CSQ) is adherence to a known (i.e., certain)
course. It infers stability. Further, it is consistent
with threat-rigidity arguments, which suggest that
reliance on well-learned or dominant responses is
a favored means of coping with uncertainty and
perceived threat (Staw, Sandelands, and Dutton,
1981). Yet the adaptation literature suggests that
adherence to earlier-effected policies often poses
greater
riskin
effect,
induces
more
uncertaintythan does change. Theorists including Thompson (1967) and Pfeffer and Salancik
(1978) argue that to enhance their survival prospects organizations must engage in adaptation and
adjustment. Our results indicate that executives
whose background cultures are characterized by
uncertainty avoidance values tend to subscribe
to the latter perspective. Namely, in an era of
globalization and technological revolution, these
executives seem to be attempting to reduce their
uncertainty through a posture of adaptation.
Rather than steadfastly adhere to earlier-effected
policiesand cope with the risks and uncertainties a changing environment poses
executives socialized to uncertainty avoidance
values seem to favor adjustment.
Interestingly, these observations are consistent
with the conclusions reached by Schneider and
De Meyer (1991). In their investigation, they
found that members of a high uncertainty avoidance culture (Latin Europeans) were more likely
to recommend proactive behavior in response to
an environmental change than members of other
cultures. Their results led them to surmise that
cultures do not so much differ in uncertainty
avoidance per se, but rather in their preferred
approaches to dealing with uncertainty. Clearly,
further research into this value dimension and its
implications for decision-making is warranted.
Similarly, the direction of findings for power
distance values was unanticipated. As noted earlier, this value dimension captures the extent to
which societal members assume an uneven distribution of power often associated with underlying

629

social divisions (Hofstede, 1980). While it was

expected that managerial interest in the preservation of power (differences) would promote
stronger adherence to existing policies, results
indicate that high power distance values are associated with less resistance to change in the status
quo. Thus, in societies where there exist clear
power imbalances, managers demonstrate a
greater willingness to alter existing organizational
profiles. One possible explanation for this finding
is that in high power distance cultures mechanisms at the societal level (e.g., class structures)
ensure the continuance of executives status and
position; consequently, executives need not resort
to organization-level means such as adherence to
the status quo for this purpose. In fact, with
contestability of their power and position limited,
executives apparently sense a greater freedom to
envision and implement novel policies. Restated,
high power distance values seem to confer on
executives greater latitude of actionor managerial discretion (Hambrick and Finkelstein,
1987). Such interpretation is consistent with findings in the innovation championing literature.
Namely, researchers have observed that successful
champions often perceive little sense of personal
risk in advancing their innovations (Howell and
Higgins, 1990). High power distance values
appear to contribute to a sense of political buffering, which in turn facilitates an openness to new
or different initiatives.
Finally, the only cultural value dimension
found not to be significantly related to executive
CSQ was masculinityfemininity. Inasmuch as
this dimension refers to gender roles and the
attributes typically ascribed themfactors not
generally associated with strategic orientations
and decision processesthe lack of significant
findings may be less than surprising. For that
matter, these results support some scholars omission of masculinityfemininity in models linking
national culture and strategic decision-making
(e.g., Schneider, 1989).
Cultural values vs. experience
The findings reported above offer compelling evidence in support of the view that cultural values
help to shape the orientations top executives bring
to their roles as organization leaders and strategic
decision-makers (Hambrick and Mason, 1984;
Hambrick and Brandon, 1988; Schneider, 1989).

630

M. A. Geletkanycz

To summarize, cultural values of individualism,

(low) uncertainty avoidance, (low) power distance, and short-term orientation were found to
constitute significant determinants of executive
CSQ, even after controlling for earlier-observed
determinants including current performance,
expected environmental change, and industry tenure. What bears special attention is that the
impact of these cultural values is no less than
the impact of experiential background. In fact,
the analyses show that cultural values are often
stronger predictors of executive CSQ. For
example, when cultural values are controlled,
industry tenure remains a significant determinant
of strategy CSQ, but it no longer constitutes a
significant predictor of leadership CSQ.6 Thus,
while both prior experience and cultural socialization contribute to the shaping of executives
strategic mindsets, it is cultural values which
shape executives views of appropriate leadership
profiles. Whats more, a comparison of coefficients reveals that, on average, these four cultural values explain greater variance in executives commitment to the strategic and leadership
status quo than does tenure.
This pattern of findings raises a number of
important issues. First, contrary to popular
assertions (e.g., Jacob, 1994), it appears that
executives cultural identity is not lost over time,
nor is it overshadowed by professional acculturation associated with firm or industry experience.
Rather, the values embedded in national culture
seem to have a profound and enduring effect on
executives orientations, independent of the logics
and wisdom accrued in managerial development.
More broadly, the results suggest that earlier
findings concerning the determinants of executive
orientation cannot be assumed generalizable
across cultures. For example, while Hambrick et
al. (1993) presented clear evidence that industry
tenure is a critical determinant of both leadership
and strategy CSQ among U.S. executives, their
findings must be cautiously applied to managers
of differing cultural background. Similarly, the
conclusions reached in other research should be
examined for cultural or ethnocentric biases
(Hickson, 1996), as important differences appear
to exist not only in the mindsets and choices of
6

The same patternboth in terms of significance and variance

explainedwas observed for firm tenure in analyses not
reported here.

managers of differing background, but also in the

determinants giving rise to them. Finally, the
findings reaffirm the need for further consideration of the role executive values play in strategic
leadership (e.g., Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1996;
Hambrick and Brandon, 1988). In restricting
focus to demographic variables such as experiential background, researchers appear to be overlooking an important set of factors which affect
leadership activity.
Of course, the analyses also suggest that the
effect of cultural values (and previous experience)
should not be overstated. That is, while the results
demonstrate that the influence of cultural values
surmounts that of either firm or industry tenure,
their effects are not overwhelming. This suggests
that much remains to be learned about the factors
which shape executives mindsets, and executive
CSQ, in particular. A definitive model of its
determinants would clearly be useful to both
research and practice; however, it is beyond the
scope of this investigation. Therefore, further
research is needed into the other influences with
which culture and firm and industry experience
must compete. For example, researchers might
consider the effects of such factors as personality
characteristics, as well as personal and professional motivations to name but a few.
It is also important to acknowledge the limitations of this investigation. The first stems from
reliance on a single cultural value typology.
Future research should consider the use of other
cultural value typologies, both as a means of
confirming the relationship between cultural
values and executive mindsets, as well as
developing a richer understanding of the cultural
value dimensions which contribute to executives
cognitive make-up. At the same time, both
researchers and practitioners would benefit from
study which examines other types of values
including, for example, theoretical or political
values (e.g., Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1996)
as cultural values constitute but a subsegment of
the many which together comprise executives
value orientations.
A second limitation surrounds this studys sample. The focus here is predominantly on the senior
executive leadership of large firms. Consequently,
our findings may not be generalizable to executives of smaller organizations. Similarly, our
results may not apply to younger (more junior)
managers. It may be the case that managers of

Cultural Values and Commitment to the Status Quo

later generations do not adhere as closely to
traditional values as do their more senior counterparts. Thus, research which considers the effects
of cultural values on more junior managers would
be useful, not only to assess generalizability, but
also to expand our appreciation of the implications of cultural values at multiple career stages
and managerial levels.
Implications for practice
The studys findings raise some important implications for practitioners. Perhaps the most
important of these is that the results show that
executives of differing cultural backgrounds are
not equally open to change. Rather, in accordance
with their cultures values, executives maintain
varying levels of commitment to established policies. This finding is likely to affect managerial
decision-making in numerous transnational contexts. For example, within multinational organizations where knowledge flows across international
subsidiaries are critical to success (e.g., Gupta
and Govindarajan, 1991), recognition of differences in CSQ tendencies might reduce impediments to organizational learning and information
transfer. Likewise, coordinated decision-making
and communication across firms of different
national originfor example, between joint venture partnersmight be improved if advance consideration is given to culturally based propensities
(dis)favoring change. In fact, awareness of differences in CSQ tendencies might lead to more
appropriate selection of outside partners,
especially critical in dynamic environments where
adaptation to environmental shifts is key.
Attention to culture-based differences in managerial perspectives is also relevant to top management team composition. At a time of increasing
globalization, both in firm-level activity and
executive team make-up, organizations headed by
a managerial group whose members are drawn
exclusively from cultures resistant to change may
face a priori impediments to adaptation. Such
teams are likely to be unable to effectively cope
with changing contingencies. Consequently, a
team comprised of members whose orientations
balance one another would seem most effective
over the long term.
Finally, the findings suggest that, at least in
the short term, the idea of a culture-free executive
is but a myth (e.g., Hofstede, 1991). Inter-

631

nationally, economies and general market conditions may be converging, but as our results
indicate, significant differences still characterize
the mindsets of top executives of differing cultural background. This suggests that firms which
seek to develop an international cadre of executives free of cultural predispositions (e.g.,
Edstrom and Galbraith, 1977) face formidable
challenge. Given the salient effects of cultural
socialization, firms might be better advised to
instill a cultural empathy and understanding
among executives, while simultaneously adopting
organizational mechanisms which tap into the
advantages of a culturally diverse management
group.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks are owed Don Hambrick, Jim Fredrickson, and Korn/Ferry International for sharing the
data base employed here. The paper has benefited
greatly from the support and suggestions provided
by Sylvia Black, as well as thoughtful comments
by Don Hambrick, Aneil Mishra, Ed Zajac, and
two anonymous reviewers.

REFERENCES
Aldrich, H. (1979). Organizations and Environments.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Andrews, K. (1971). The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Berger, P. L. and T. Luckmann (1967). The Social
Construction of Reality. Doubleday, New York.
Child, J. (1972). Organization structure, environment,
and performance: The role of strategic choice, Sociology, 6, pp. 122.
Cyert, R. M. and J. G. March (1963). A Behavioral
Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Edstrom, A. and J. Galbraith (1977). Transfer of managers as a coordination and control strategy in multinational organizations, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 22, pp. 248263.
England, G. W. (1967). Personal value systems of
American managers, Academy of Management Journal, 10, pp. 5368.
England, G. W. (1975). The Manager and his Values.
Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.
Finkelstein, S. (1992). Power in top management
teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation,
Academy of Management Journal, 35, pp. 505538.
Finkelstein, S. and D. C. Hambrick (1996). Strategic
Leadership: Top Executives and Their Effects on
Organizations. West Publishing, St. Paul, MN.

632

M. A. Geletkanycz

Gupta, A. and V. Govindarajan (1991). Knowledge

flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations, Academy of Management
Review, 16, pp. 768792.
Guth, W. D. and R. Tagiuri (1965). Personal values
and corporate strategy, Harvard Business Review,
43, pp. 123132.
Hage, J. and M. Aiken (1970). Social Change in
Complex Organizations. Random House, New York.
Hage, J. and R. Dewar (1973). Elite values versus
organizational structure in predicting innovations,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, pp. 279290.
Hambrick, D. C. (1983). High-profit strategies in
mature capital goods industries: A contingency
approach, Academy of Management Journal, 26,
pp. 687707.
Hambrick, D. C. and G. Brandon (1988). Executive
values. In D. C. Hambrick (ed.), The Executive
Effect: Concepts and Methods for Studying Top
Managers. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 334.
Hambrick, D. C. and S. Finkelstein (1987). Managerial
discretion: A bridge between polar views on organizations. In B. Staw and L. L. Cummings (eds.),
Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9. JAI
Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 369406.
Hambrick, D. C., M. A. Geletkanycz and J. W. Fredrickson (1993). Top executive commitment to the
status quo: Some tests of its determinants, Strategic
Management Journal, 14 (6), pp. 401418.
Hambrick, D. C. and P. Mason (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top
managers, Academy of Management Review, 9,
pp. 193206.
Harrigan, K. R. (1985). Strategic Flexibility. Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
Hickson, D. J. (1996). The ASQ years then and now
through the eyes of a Euro-Brit, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 41, pp. 217228.
Hitt, M. A., B. B. Tyler, and D. Park (1990). A crosscultural examination of strategic decision models:
Comparison of Korean and U.S. executives, Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings,
pp. 111115.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures Consequences. Sage,
Beverly Hills, CA.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations:
Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories, Academy of Management Executive,
7, pp. 8194.
Hofstede, G., B. Neuijen, D. D. Ohayv, and G. Sanders
(1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study ascross twenty cases,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, pp. 286316.
Hoppe, M. (1990). A comparative study of country
elites: International differences in work-related
values and learning and their implications for management training and development, unpublished dissertation, University of North CarolinaChapel
Hill.
Howell, J. M. and C. A. Higgins (1990). Champions of
change: Identifying, understanding, and supporting
champions of technological innovations, Organizational Dynamics, 18, pp. 4055.

Jackofsky, E. F. and J. W. Slocum (1988). CEO roles

across cultures. In D. C. Hambrick (ed.), The
Executive Effect: Concepts and Methods for Studying
Top Managers. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 67
99.
Jackofsky, E. F., J. W. Slocum, and S. J. McQuaid
(1988). Cultural values and the CEO: Alluring
companions?, Academy of Management Executive,
2, pp. 3949.
Jacob, R. (7 February 1994). Americas best?, Fortune, 129, p. 54.
Kets de Vries, M. and D. Miller (1986). Personality,
culture, and organization, Academy of Management
Review, 11, pp. 266279.
Kimberly, J. R. and R. E. Quinn (1984). Managing
Organizational Transitions. Richard D. Irwin,
Homewood, IL.
Kluckhohn, F. R. and R. L. Strodtbeck (1961). Variations in Value Orientations. Row, Peterson, Evanston, IL.
Kogut, B. and H. Singh (1988). The effect of national
culture on the choice of entry mode, Journal of
International Business Studies, 19, pp. 411432.
Kotter, J. P. (1988). The Leadership Factor. Free Press,
New York.
Levinson, H. (1974). Dont choose your own successor, Harvard Business Review, 52, pp. 5362.
Levinson, H. (1980). Criteria for choosing chief executives, Harvard Business Review, 58, pp. 113120.
Lodge, G. C. and E. F. Vogel (eds.) (1987). Ideology
and National Competitiveness. Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
March, J. G. and H. A. Simon (1958). Organizations.
Wiley, New York.
Meindl, J., S. Ehrlich, and J. Dukerich (1985). The
romance of leadership, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 30, pp. 78102.
Milliken, F. J. and T. K. Lant (1991). The impact
of an organizations recent performance history on
strategic persistence and change: The role of managerial interpretations. In P. Shrivastava, A. Huff and
J. Dutton (eds.), Advances in Strategic Management,
Vol. 7. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 129156.
Mintzberg, H., D. Raisinghani, and A. Theoret (1976).
The structure of unstructured decision processes,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, pp. 246275.
Norburn, D. (1987). Corporate leaders in Britain and
America: A cross-national analysis, Journal of
International Business Studies, 18, pp. 1532.
Pearce, J. A. and S. A. Zahra (1991). The relative
power of CEOs and boards of directors: Associations
with corporate performance, Strategic Management
Journal, 12 (2), pp. 135153.
Pennings, J. (1993). Executive reward systems: A
cross-national comparison, Journal of Management
Studies, 30, pp. 261280.
Pettigrew, A. (1985). The Awakening Giant. Basil
Blackwell, Oxford.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations. Ballinger,
Cambridge, MA.
Pfeffer, J. and G. Salancik (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Harper & Row, New York.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. Free Press,
New York.

Cultural Values and Commitment to the Status Quo

Ronen, S. and O. Shenkar (1985). Clustering countries
on attitudinal dimensions, Academy of Management
Review, 10, pp. 435454.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Schneider, S. C. (1985). Strategy formulation: The
impact of national culture. The case of France,
paper presented at the Northeast Regional Meeting
of the Academy of International Business, Boston,
MA.
Schneider, S. C. (1989). Strategy formulation: The
impact of national culture, Organization Studies,
10, pp. 149168.
Schneider, S. C. and A. De Meyer (1991). Interpreting
and responding to strategic issues: The impact of
national culture, Strategic Management Journal,
12 (4), pp. 307320.
Shackleton, V. and A. Ali (1990). Work related values
of managers: A test of the Hofstede model, Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, pp. 109118.
Shane, S. A. (1993). Cultural influences on national
rates of innovation, Journal of Business Venturing,
8, pp. 5973.
Shane, S. A. (1995). Uncertainty avoidance and the
preference for innovation championing roles, Journal of International Business Studies, 26, pp. 4768.

633

Shane, S., S. Venkataraman, and I. MacMillan (1995).

Cultural differences in innovation championing strategies, Journal of Management, 21, pp. 931952.
Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative Behavior. Macmillan, New York.
Spender, J.-C. (1977). Managerial judgement as the
basic issue of organizational strategy making,
unpublished working paper, Manchester Business
School.
Staw, B. M. and J. Ross (1978). Commitment to a
policy decision: A multi-theoretical perspective,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, pp. 4064.
Staw, B., L. E. Sandelands, and J. E. Dutton (1981).
Threat rigidity cycles in organizational behavior,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, pp. 501524.
Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in Action.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Van Maanen, J. and A. Laurent (1993). The flow
of culture: Some notes on globalization and the
multinational corporation. In S. Ghoshal and D. E.
Westney (eds.), Organization Theory and the Multinational Corporation. St. Martins Press, New York,
pp. 275312.
Vancil, R. (1987). Passing the Baton: Managing the
Process of CEO Succession. Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.

APPENDIX 1: SURVEY ITEMS AND SCALING METHOD

Leadership CSQ
A. CEO expertise
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Accounting/finance
Marketing/sales
Production/operations
Science/technology/R&D
International economics and
politics
Human resource management
Foreign languages
Media skills/public speaking
Negotiation and conflict
resolution
Strategy formulation
Computer literacy

B. CEO behaviors
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

Frequently communicates with employees

Frequently communicates with customers
Personally makes all major decisions
Promotes management training and development
Rewards loyalty and length of service
Actively plans for executive succession
Closely links compensation to individual performance
Readily reassigns/terminates individuals who do not meet
objectives
Frequently uses outside consultants
Delegates substantial authority
Frequently visits outlying plants/offices
Is personally involved in community public affairs.
Emphasizes international outlook
Maintains lean staff
Sets personal example of cost-consciousness

634

M. A. Geletkanycz

Strategy CSQ
A. Competitive edge

B. Growth strategies

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

1.
2.
3.
4.

Low price
Quality products/services
Premium image
New products/services
Customer service
Distribution network
Promotion/advertising
Timely/reliable delivery
Product styling/features
Technology
Productivity

Acquisitions in industries new to the firm

Acquisitions in industries the firm already participates in
Internal development of new businesses
Internal development of new products/services in existing
businesses
5. Development of new geographic (including international
markets)
6. Increased market share in existing products/markets
7. Joint ventures with other firms

For purposes of scaling, the Competitive edge, Growth strategies, and CEO expertise sections all employed a forced-choice scaling
system, with possible scores ranging from 1 to 5. In answering Competitive edge and Growth strategy items, respondents were
asked to select which three alternatives were more important, and which three were less important to their firms in years 1988 and
2000. From those items selected respondents then identified which single option was most important, and which least important.
These choices, respectively, received scores of 5 and 1. The other two selections noted as more important received a score of 4,
while the remaining less important items received a value of 2. Finally, those items not identified as either very important or not
important, hence of average importance, scored a value of 3.
The CEO behaviors segment was scaled in Likert-type manner, also employing a 5-point scale. In this section, respondents were
asked to describe how closely the questionnaire items described the current CEO and ideal CEO (for the same firm) of the year
2000: Given alternatives ranged from not at all, which received a score of 1, to extremely applicable, with a score of 5.

APPENDIX 2: SAMPLED COUNTRIES SCORES ALONG HOFSTEDES

CULTURAL DIMENSIONSa

Argentina
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
France
Germany
Italy
Japan
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
Singapore
South Korea
Spain
Switzerland
Thailand
United Kingdom
United States
Venezuela
a

Indivisualism

Uncertainty
avoidance

Masculinity

Power distance

Long-term
orientation

46
90
75
38
80
71
67
76
46
30
80
69
20
18
51
68
20
89
91
12

86
51
94
76
48
86
65
75
92
82
53
50
8
85
86
58
64
35
46
76

56
61
54
49
52
43
66
70
95
69
14
8
48
39
42
70
34
66
62
73

49
36
65
69
39
68
35
50
54
81
38
31
74
60
57
34
64
35
40
81

31

65
23

31

80

44

48
75

56
25
29

Adapted from Hofstede (1991). Scores represent each countrys relative position along an approximate 100-point scale (ranging
low to high, 0100). Scores for Long-term Orientation are only available for 11 of this studys 20 sampled countries;
signifies a missing (unavailable) score along this dimension.