Cross-cultural research in management control systems design: A review of what has been done after Harrison & McKinnon (1999)

(1)

Cross-cultural research in management control

systems design: A review of what has been done

after Harrison & McKinnon (1999)

Mark Fekken S 2526913 m.m.fekken@student.rug.nl Business Administration MSc. Business Administration

Specialization: Organizational & Management Control Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business Supervisor: dr. C.P.A. Heijes Second assessor: dr. N. Mangin

July 19th, 2017

(2)

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to shine a light on the extent of which Harrison & McKinnon’s (1999) criticism and suggestions, about research on the influence of national culture on management control systems (MCS), have been implemented.

Design/methodology/approach

A quantitative literature review has been applied. First, a coding template was made, based on the findings and criticism of Harrison & McKinnon (1999). Subsequently, national culture and MCS were searched for in two different search engines and filtered twice. Relevant information has been added to the coding template and categorized based on the findings. Following this, this information is presented in the results section and discussed and compared to Harrison & McKinnon (1999).

Findings

Through this paper it is found that a majority of the studies is still relying on value dimensional frameworks. However progress is seen, several papers use a stream of literature to create a framework. Moreover, several additional variables are used in a significant amount of papers, indicating a more complex and comprehensive approach towards the cultural concept. However, a significant amount of hypotheses finds no support in the papers. Another striking result is the fact that some papers choose to ignore the criticism.

Research limitations/implications

Main limitations of this research are not always the critical awareness may be shown in papers, additionally there has been no specific attention given to specific management control system elements. Furthermore, this paper analyzes the results in a simplistic way, no statistical correlation analysis has been made.

Practical implications

Researchers may use these findings to apply more comprehensive frameworks. Furthermore, relevant additional variables are seen in the results. Researchers using such variables and frameworks contribute to a better understanding of the complex concept of national culture and its effects.

Originality/value

(3)

Acknowledgements

The past few months may have very well been the busiest months of my life; school, full-time work and private life (including moving to a different city with my girlfriend), have been combined. One of my beliefs: “having little to do, makes lazy and drains energy” has not exactly been put to the test.

It has been very interesting and informative to study the cultural frameworks researchers use to study Management Control Systems and its relationship with national culture.

Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor, dr. Coen Heijes for all of his efforts supporting me in the making of this paper. His time, views and, inherently, advice and feedback have been very useful. He guided me in the right directions when needed and really is a person I look up to in several aspects. Secondly, I would like to thank my second assessor, dr. Nicolas Mangin, for also taking the time and effort to review this paper.

(4)

norms

and values 27

Treatment of culture in a simplistic way 28

Reliance on value dimensionsional concept of culture 28

Limitations 28

Future research 29

List of references 30

Appendix 1: List of papers used 39

Appendix 2: Coding Template 43

(5)

1

Introduction

Globalization of firms has led to an increase to an increase of firms dealing with different cultures. Management control systems are a tool for aligning the organization’s members with the organizational goals. Contingency theory has labelled culture as an important variable affecting the design of management control systems or the outcome of these systems (e.g. Chenhall, 2003 and Bhimani, 1999).

These differences in culture, even though they are hard to measure and observe, are highly important. In the past few years it became evident that culture affect several managerial behaviors, for instance risk-taking and quality of earnings (e.g., Han, Kang, Salter, & Yoo, 2010; Kanagaretnam, Lim, & Lobo, 2011). Failure in accounting for and appreciating these differences may lead to embarrassing blunders, poor relationships and a substantial decrease in organizational performance (Ghemawat & Reiche, 2013).

Literature regarding national culture and management control systems is still contradicting. Additionally, concepts are not axiomatic; a significant amount of hypotheses do not get confirmed or are contradictory throughout literature (e.g. McSweeney, Brown & Iliopoulou, 2016 and Messner, 2016).

(6)

2

Consequently, there is a need for further investigation. This study aims to give further insight on 21st century research on the relationship between National Culture and Management Control Systems and on to which extent researchers have adopted the advice of of Harrison & McKinnon. Not only does this give insight in the reliance on Hofstede, it sheds an additional light, particularly considering the Harrison & McKinnon study and criticism and the contradicting literature, on why researchers use Hofstede (and) or other frameworks. Such post-Harrison & McKinnon (1999) research has not been done before.

This study is structured as follows: in the first part of the study the literature review is given, followed by the methodology of this study. Then the results of the study are given, followed by the conclusion.

(7)

3

Literature review

In this section the relevant aspects are described: Management Control Systems (MCS’s); the relevance of national culture for MCS’s; frameworks for national culture and Harrison & McKinnon’s (1999) view on MCS’s and national culture. Lastly, the objective of this study is described.

MCS

Management control systems are tools to make subordinates in the organization become and behave in alignment with the goals of the firm (e.g. Helsen et al., 2017 and Malmi & Brown, 2008). Management can use these tools to implement desired strategies, however, strategies by themselves get implemented through management controls, the structure of the organizations, culture and HRM.

Horngren et al. (2005) describe management control as an integrated technique to collect and use information on influencing employee behavior and evaluating the performance. Amongst the tools in MCS’s are Activity Based costing, budgeting, the Balanced Scorecard and Total Quality Management. According to Simons (1995) MCS’s are formal routines and procedures as tools for managers to maintain or adjust patterns of activities within the organization.

There has been a discussion (e.g. Otley, 2016) in literature as to which aspects are relevant for MCS’s. This is linked to contingency theory, where organizations are viewed as open systems that have no general optimal structure, national culture being an important one (Burke et al., 2014). People acting and behaving differently affects the performance of an MCS (Birnberg & Snodgrass, 1988 and Hopper & Powell, 1985). This is in line with Ansari & Bell (1991) and Uddin (2009) who argue an MCS needs to be seen in its social context.

National Culture

(8)

4

Power distance (high vs low): The power distance dimension is an expression of to which level less powerful members of a society expect power to be unequally distributed. Important for this dimension is how inequalities are handled by the society (Hofstede, 2010). Amongst countries with the highest power distance are Asian countries such as Malaysia, China and the Philippines and Latin American countries such as Mexico, Guatemala and Venezuela. Amongst the countries with the lowest Power distance index are Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Israel and Austria.

Power distance is considered to be an indicator of trust (e.g. Rizwan, 2014 and Shane, 1992). As aforementioned, trust plays a major role in the success of International Joint Ventures. Individualism (vs collectivism): The level of individualism indicates whether the society expects individuals to mostly look after themselves own or also others (Beugelsdijk, Maseland & van Hoorn, 2015). The first case is called a loosely-knit social framework. The latter is also known by the word “collectivism”. This dimension is an indicator of whether people see themselves in terms of “I” or “we” (Hofstede, 2010).

Masculinity (vs femininity): A high level of masculinity indicated a societal preference for achievement, heroism, material rewarding of success and a need to be assertive. Rivalry plays an important role for this dimension (Hofstede, 2010).

Uncertainty avoidance (high vs low): This dimension indicated the extent of which the societal members are comfortable with a high level of uncertainty and ambiguity. Key for this dimension is how the society deals with an unknown future; trying to take control over it or letting it happen. Societies with a high score tend to be unaccepting towards unorthodox behaviour and ideas (Hofstede, 2010).

Long term orientation (vs short term orientation): Societies scoring low in this dimension tend to prefer time-honoured traditions and norms and look at changes in society with suspicion. A high level indicated thrift encouragement and efforts in modern education as a way to prepare for future challenges (Hofstede, 2010). This dimension has been added in 1991, following results found in the Chinese Value Survey by Bond, M. (1987).

(9)

5

Criticism on Hofstede

Several authors (e.g. Orr & Hauser, 2008 & Messner, 2016) criticize the work of Hofstede, some of the main arguments being used are: Lack of usefulness to operationalize culture through dimensions; certain dimensions require qualitative techniques (McSweeney, 2002); Cultural convergence has been occurring; dimensions are changing (e.g. Shenkar, 2001); IBM formed the basis for Hofstede’s study, making it not generalizable (e.g. Javidan et al., 2006 & Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990). Pothukuchi et al. (2002) argue the culture of the organization should be accounted for as well. Additionally, DiMaggio (1997) argues culture is fragmented across group and national lines. This is in line with McSweeney (2002) who also states cultures are not per definition bounded by borders. Due to Hofstede (1980) using one organization to study the differences, one of the other criticism his study gets is the fact that results from one organization cannot be applied to a complete country’s culture (Sondergaard, 1994). However, Hofstede’s (1980, 2010) dimensions, have not changed much over time, according to Beugelsdijk, Maseland & Hoorn (2015) and Hofstede (2011).

Amongst the other studies providing frameworks for capturing national culture are: the GLOBE-study (House et al., 2004); Kogut & Singh (1988); Schwartz (1994); Tang & Koveos (2008) and Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner (1997).

GLOBE

The GLOBE study (House et al., 2004) is a study conducted in the 90’s. The study was designed for replication and expansion of Hofstede’s (2001). This study is a large scale empirical study involving more than 100 researchers and data from 18.000 managers divided over 62 countries (House et al., 2004). In the GLOBE study, the relationships are tested between own practice and value measures as well as the links between its own dimensions compared to Hofstede’s dimensions. With this study, GLOBE produced nine dimensions. These dimensions include those of Hofstede (2001). These are the following dimensions: Assertiveness; Future (Time) orientation, Uncertainty avoidance, Gender differentiation; Power distance; Societal collectivism; Individual collectivism; Performance orientation and Humane orientation.

The not-Hofstede dimensions can be briefly described as follows: Assertiveness

A high level of assertiveness means the society stimulates toughness, assertiveness and competitiveness. A low level means tenderness and concern is considered more important. Gender differentiation: A high level of gender differentiation refers to a society maximizing role differences; men tend to have more status in these countries.

Societal collectivism: Scoring high on this dimensions means institutions encourage a tightly knit collectivist society in which people are considered a relevant part of a group.

Individual collectivism: This dimension refers to the level to which individuals are proud of being part of a family, close circle of friends or an organization.

Performance orientation: Scoring high on this dimension means performance and rewards for people’s increased level of efforts and performance are considered important.

(10)

6

Kogut & Singh

Kogut & Singh (1988) developed a framework containing the cultural distance dimension based on Hofstede’s four dimensions.

Schwartz

Schwartz (1994) studied students and teachers divided over 31 countries. Seven dimensions were developed:

Conservatism: refers to the level of which status quo is emphasized

Intellectual autonomy: refers to the level of which curiosity, creativity and intellectual ideas are emphasized

Affective autonomy: refers to the extent affective stimulation and hedonism is emphasized. Hierarchy: refers to the level of which power distribution being unequally divided is accepted.

Mastery: refers to the society’s will to control its environment.

Egalitarian commitment: refers to the will to drop own interests to favor the group’s interest. Harmony: Refers to fitting in the current world, without trying to change it. Scoring high implies unity with nature.

Tang & Koveos

Tang & Koveos (2008) updated Hofstede’s work by testing Hofstede’s five dimensions against GDP per capita. In this study a negative relationship between GDP per capita and power distance as well as long-term orientation was found. They argue this may be a result of a strong focus on hierarchy; these societies tend to be more bureaucratic and inefficient. Additionally, they argue future concerns may lead to higher savings rates and lower expenditures per person in short term. Another relationship they found was individualism and GDP per capita; they argue a higher reliance on others weakens the economic sector.

Trompenaars

Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner (1997) researched national culture by doing a large scale study involving more than 8000 managers and employees divided over 43 countries. They came up with a model containing seven dimensions:

Universalism - particularism: Refers to whether rules apply universally or can be individually dealt with.

Individualism - communitarianism: Refers to the society’s focus on the individual or the community.

Neutral - emotional: Refers to the amount of feelings that are accepted to be publicly displayed.

Specific - diffuse: Refers to the level we engage others in certain life areas.

Achievement - ascription: Refers to the level of which higher status is achieved by certain society members.

Attitude towards time: Refers to the society’s perspective on past, present and future.

(11)

7

Table 1 shows the most popular frameworks; the dimensions they include with the used abbreviations.

Table 1: Frameworks and dimensions

Relationship national culture and MCS

Harrison & McKinnon (1986) were one of the first to argue culture should be accounted for in frameworks used for explanation and prediction of international differences in the management accounting world. Hofstede (1980) describes the work-related norms and values of stakeholders are different between cultures. Following this, it can be argued that the basic nature, for instance the work related norms and values, of stakeholders is different between cultures (Ekanayake, 2004). Additionally, Ghemawat & Reiche (2013) argue challenges caused by differences in culture have been a major risk for multinational companies. Amongst these major challenges are aspects such as trust (Doney, Cannon & Mullen, 1998; Ghemawat & Reiche, 2013).

Harrison & McKinnon (1999)

In 1999 Harrison & McKinnon published a literature review on the cross-cultural research in the design of management control systems. One of the major outcomes of this study were several flaws on cross-cultural research and MCS’s. Four major weaknesses found are:

A failure to consider the total cultural domain;

A lacking consideration of different norms and values; A tendency to treat culture in a simplistic way;

(12)

8

A failure to consider the total cultural domain

Harrison & McKinnon (1999) found a major part of the studies did not select all dimensions. Certain dimensions were ignored for several reasons. Harrison & McKinnon (1999) argue all of the dimensions are present in the empirics. Society members are affected by the complete cultural domain; all dimensions play a role. If certain dimensions are omitted, an extensive theoretic evaluation must be the driver supporting this decision. In certain cases omitted dimensions may have very well been the explanation for studies not finding or only partially finding support for their hypotheses.

A lacking consideration of different norms and values.

Another major weakness found by Harrison & McKinnon (1999) was that, in general, different norms and values not being taken into consideration. Not all values are the same in each nation. An example of this is the research attention focussing on Anglo-American versus Asian societies. Anglo-American countries are seen as countries with a higher individualism level and a lower power distance level. Because of this, these studies were often found to assume individualism and power distance have an equally great influence and importance in each of these countries. There are differences inside of each nation. This influences the behaviour.

A tendency to treat culture in a simplistic way

Harrison & McKinnon (1999) argue the majority of the studies assumes results linked to a certain cultural dimension are applicable for other countries scoring a similar level in this cultural dimension. Literature provides evidence such a generalizability is not correct (Triandis, 1995). Additionally, certain dimensions are considered more important. Additionally, two countries may score the same in a certain dimensions, but may very well have completely different reasons for these scores, for instance Japan and France on Power Distance. Aspects such as history, status and religion and tradition should be taken into account as well (Nishimura, Nevgi & Tella, 2009).

A reliance on a value dimensional conception of culture

Harrison & McKinnon (1999) found the majority of the researchers only uses Hofstede’s framework, inherently meaning a reliance on value dimensional conception of culture, which is based on different norms and values. This, however is only one (functionalist) aspect of culture. Conceptions from studies in sociology, anthropology and history are denied. Culture is too complex to properly capture with such a value dimensional conception. A deeper understanding of culture is therefore omitted, decreasing the quality of the research.

(13)

9

these studies usually assume generalizability of found results to countries scoring similar in a certain value dimension. Additionally, a large part of the studies then chose to omit certain dimensions in this framework and assumed certain dimensions to be equally important. Objective of this study is to gain insight in the extent of Harrison & McKinnon’s (1999) advice has been followed, additionally, to shine a further light on the effects of national culture (and its dimensions) on management control systems, therefore, the main research question of this paper is:

To which extent has post-Harrison & McKinnon (1999) research on the effects of national culture on management control systems changed?

Research Sub Questions

The information above has led to the formulation of the following research sub questions: Which cultural frameworks have been used since Harrison & McKinnon (1990)?

Which reasons are given for the use of these frameworks? What level of criticism awareness do these researchers have? Which cultural dimensions are used?

Which other variables are taken into account? Which methodology is being used?

Which hypotheses get confirmed? Which hypotheses get disconfirmed?

(14)

10

Methodology

Structure of the study

For this research paper it is chosen to do a systematic literature review (secondary data). Fink (2005) defines a literature review as a “systematic, explicit, and reproducible method for identifying, evaluating, and synthesising the existing body of completed and recorded work produced by researchers, scholars, and practitioners” (p. 4). This paper adopts this definition. Controllability, validity and reliability will be accounted for; strengthening the study (Aken, Berend & Bij, 2012). Relevant information will be written down and the processes are clearly described (making the research controllable). For instance, when information is clustered, the process of categorization will be described. All selected journals and relevant information within these journals will be shown in a table, subsequently added as an appendix to this report. By doing so, the replicability of this paper is enhanced (Aken, Berend & Bij, 2012).

Data collection

Systematic literature review

This study starts by doing literature research. This is done by looking for keywords in renowned journals and in recent publications, whilst making use of both business source premier and google scholar. These studies may only have been published after Harrison & McKinnon (1999), therefore, all studies must be published in 2000 or later. Each article is rated based on date and journal. Only the articles with an SJR-rating (SCImago, 2007) are selected for use in order to improve the quality of the study. Additionally, only field and case studies are included in this study, iteratively, to increase the quality of this study.

During the first search, using the keywords mentioned below, the title, abstract and conclusion of each paper is analyzed for usefulness. This search led to 124 papers.

During the second phase of the data collection, papers are analyzed thoroughly for usefulness other papers and papers from not-SJR-rated journals have been removed. This has led to a sample of 49 papers. In the results-section data is clustered in categories. This contributes to presenting and getting insight in the collected data and results.

The list of used papers is displayed in Appendix 1 and the coding table is displayed in appendix 2.

Keywords being used are:

(15)

11

design; management control culture; management control and culture; cross-cultural control; cross-cultural management control; performance and management control; cross-cultural performance; multinational management control; national culture and performance.

Harrison & McKinnon

Harrison & McKinnon (1999) form a basis for this study; their research formed a base for the research questions. These research questions will be discussed here:

Which cultural frameworks have been used since Harrison & McKinnon (1990)? Which reasons are given for the use of these frameworks?

What level of criticism awareness do these researchers have? Which cultural dimensions are used?

Which other variables are taken into account? Which methodology is being used?

Which hypotheses get confirmed? Which hypotheses get disconfirmed?

Which cultural frameworks have been used since Harrison & McKinnon (1999)?

Harrison & McKinnon (1999) provided four major flaws. By using this question in the study, To answer this question, from all selected journals the framework including a description (if needed) will be written down and added to the information in the “Results” section. Insight will be gained on whether the “total cultural domain” is considered, whether a “value dimensional conception of culture” is still relied on, additionally it contributes to insight on whether culture is still treated in a “simplistic way” and whether “different norms and values” are considered. Changes (or lack there of) in adopted cultural frameworks for cross-cultural research on MCS can be depicted.

Which reasons are given for the use of these frameworks?

(16)

12 What level of criticism awareness do these researchers have?

To answer this question, during the research the level of criticism is written down and clustered in four categories: None; Weak; Medium and Strong. Afterwards, it will be displayed in a table. This raises insight as to the general level of awareness and possible links between level of awareness and framework may become clear. Criticism awareness levels are considered weak when papers acknowledge there is criticism on their framework or if they acknowledge the complexity of capturing culture. When the criticism is slightly further elaborated on it gets a “Medium” rating. When there is an extensive elaboration of the criticism, the “Strong” category is used.

Which cultural dimensions are used?

For the answer of this question, the dimensions of the used frameworks in each study will be noted and displayed in a table in the results section of this paper. This shows to which extent dimensions are denied, as Harrison & McKinnon (1999) mentioned as one of the major flaws.

Which other variables are taken into account?

Additional variables taken into consideration by the study (e.g. organizational culture) will be written down and presented in the results table. This gives insight in potential shifts in the “simplistic” treatment of national culture, as Harrison & McKinnon (1999) depicted, additionally it may indicate shifts in research..

What level of criticism awareness do these researchers have?

To answer this question, each paper is analyzed for awareness level. Following these, levels are presented in a table. Inherently, insight is gained as to whether researchers are aware of the criticism on the treatment of culture.

Which methodology is being used?

The methodology for each study is written down and shown in the results table. By doing so, insight in links between methodology, hypotheses, frameworks and results is gained. Furthermore, insight is gained on how culture is treated. Large scale quantitative research indicates a “simplistic treatment” of culture and a lack of considering the “total cultural domain”. Social embeddedness of the firm is hard to measure by quantitative constructs (Child, 2000).

Do these hypotheses get confirmed/disconfirmed?

(17)

13

Results

After the collection and analysis of the data, intriguing results are found. In this chapter the results are displayed. For each of the criticism aspects given by Harrison & McKinnon (1999) the relevant data is presented in a table and the results are given.

Sample size

A total of 49 studies have been examined. The list of studies can be found in Appendix 1. The list of used journals and their SJR-ratings are depicted in the table 2 below.

All journals with an SJR-rating have been accepted.

Table 2: Journals, papers and SJR-rating

(18)

14

However, the other papers are also fairly divided. Table 3 depicts their used journals and the current SJR-scores for those journals.

Table 3: Harrison & McKinnon’s (1999) journals.

Similarly to the journals in this study, Harrison & McKinnon (1999) used papers from journals with a variety of SJR-scores, averaging a score slightly higher than the average of papers used in this study.

Which cultural frameworks have been used since Harrison & McKinnon (1990)?

In the table below the used cultural frameworks are displayed:

Table 4: Frameworks used

(19)

15

Furthermore there is an occurrence of interpretive frameworks. Five papers apply interpretive research, for instance Tsamenyi et al. (2008) who base their research methodology on Ansari & Bell (1991). Another example of a paper using interpretive research is Efferin & Hopper (2007), they used a grounded theory approach suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1998). Which reasons are given for the use of these frameworks?

The information is clustered in the following categories: Widely used related reasons, Not stated, Best Fit, Further drawing on previous work, Insightful, Exploratory use; Not measuring culture but.. and Different importance.

The numbers of papers using each reason is depicted in the table 5 on the next page.

Table 5: Reasons per framework

(20)

16

the most widely validated by further theoretical and empirical evidence” (Choe, 2003, p. 670) and “We focus on these three dimensions since those are of utmost

importance for the innovation research stream…” (Strese, Adams, Flatten & Brettel, 2016, p. 1152).

As for the papers applying an own framework, the majority extensively describes the reasoning for using an own framework. Examples are Lertxundi & Landeta (2012), who state: “Consequently, anthropological research commonly uses a mixture of emic and etic approaches (Marshall, 1998). This research pursued this path in order to engage with prior MCS and Chinese culture research using etic categorisations” (p. 232).

Tsamenyi, Noormansyah & Uddin (2008) apply an anthropological understanding of culture. They use streams of literature and extensively describe political and socio-cultural contexts of their sample.

(21)

17 Which cultural dimensions are used?

Harrison & McKinnon (1999) argued many dimensions are not used. This has to do with not all values being considered equally important. This still is the case for the majority of the studies. The used cultural dimensions are displayed in table 6.

Table 6: Frameworks and dimensions

(22)

18

Several dimensions in frameworks used are neglected. Examples of papers omitting dimensions are: Bengoa, Kaufmann & Vrontis (2012); Chen, Podolski & Veeraraghavan (2017); Drogendijk & Holm (2012) and Naor, Linderman & Schroeder (2010).

Which other variables are taken into account?

The adoption of additional variables depicts to which extent researchers attempt to understand the total cultural domain; the wider context is taken into account. Table 7 displays the used additional variables. The following displays the used additional variables.

Table 7: Additional variables

As can be seen in table 7, the majority of the additional variables taken into consideration when studying culture are related to the organization. This is in line with several studies (e.g. Parboteeah et al., 2005; Gerhart, 2008; Heneman, Heneman, & Judge, 1997; Park & Ungsson, 1997 and Tsui, Wang, & Xin, 2006).

A majority of these organizational variables are related to size and structure. One of the studies using such a set is Chao, Kao, Kuo & Chiu (2012), who also include variables such as R&D intensity, number of employees. Rocha, Antonsen & Ekstedt (2014) include organizational structure and extensively present the reasons for doing this.

Chen, Podolski & Veeraraghavan (2017) state: “We include a number of firm level controls in the regression analysis. Following Hall and Ziedonis (2001), we control for firm size and capital intensity.” (p. 177). Salter & Sharp (2007) include work experience as one of their variables. Choe uses firm size and firm age as additional variables.

Avny & Anderson (2008) use a different set of organizational variables, namely: “Process vs. Result orientation; Employee vs. Job orientation; Parochial vs. Professional orientation; Open vs. Closed system Orientation; Loose vs. Tight control Orientation and

Normative vs. Pragmatic Orientation” (p. 138). In the study of Bhaskaran & Sukumaran (2007) organizational variables are divided over different clusters, namely control process, staff relationships and management selection. Williams & van Triest (2009) use firm size, corporate innovativeness and shared values in their set of variables.

(23)

19

taken into account and state: “We have chosen to discuss three such factors that might be particularly relevant in shaping uses of incentive practices. They include formalization of the terms of employment, tax rates, and experience with incentive systems.” (p. 63). Slangen & Tulder use Political risk, governance quality of foreign countries as institutional variables. This is in line with suggestions by Harrison & McKinnon (1999): “future research should also target culture’s interplay with those characteristics of organizational functioning

which are seen as increasingly necessary for success in the contemporary business environment, with its characteristics of unprecedented levels of technological change, product and service innovation, and intense global competition.” (p. 503).

(24)

20 What level of criticism awareness do these researchers have?

Harrison & McKinnon (1999) argue the researchers do not question their frameworks. To see whether this still is the case the information has been clustered in the following categories: None; Weak; Medium and Strong. The results are presented in table 8 and 9.

(25)

21

and institutional) variables. When there is a choice for frameworks other than Hofstede, the awareness levels tend to be medium or strong.

Tallaki & Bracci (2015) choose to ignore the criticism on Hofstede and state the following: “Our goal is not to discuss the Hofstede model. So, we do not analyze the criticisms and researches that have validated the model.” (p. 9).

Some of the researchers scoring “Medium” and still using Hofstede (Jansen, Merchant & van der Stede, 2009) acknowledge the criticism but for comparison purposes base their research on Hofstede related dimensions and/or select countries that are largely distant within these dimensions.

Around one third of the papers show no critical awareness (e.g. Awasthi, Chow & Wu, 2001; Calhoun, Teng & Cheon, 2002; Chang, Kao, Kua & Chiu, 2012; Cravens, Piercy & Low, 2006 and Martinsons Davison, & Martinsons, 2009). When Hofstede is used, almost all of the studies use quantitative research.

Which methodology is being used?

Based on the information found, the following categorization has been made: Survey; Data analysis; Interviews; Questionnaires; Observations and experimental team comparison. This information is presented in the following table:

Table 10: Methodology used

Table 10 shows almost half (49%) of the studies related to management control and national culture are based on or include surveys. Moreover, questionnaires can be seen as part of surveys, which would make surveys a majority. Another large amount of studies uses or includes data analysis (43%) in the methodology.

(26)

22

McKinnon. Amongst the papers using this methodology are , who collected “Financial data and information from the Taiwan Economic Journal (TEJ) database” (p. 1163). One of the other studies, Drogendijk & Holm (2012), use data “collected for a large international project initiated in 1997 to investigate the impact of subsidiary role development in MNC’s” (p. 389).

Which of these hypotheses get confirmed/disconfirmed?

Table 11 displays which dimensions in hypotheses find support, partial support or no support in the results sections.

Table 11: dimensions used in hypotheses and results

Table 11 tells us a majority of the hypotheses (around 66%) using cultural dimensions gets confirmation. While a large section is supported, a significant amount of these hypotheses find no-support (25%) or are only partly supported (9%).

In the Hofstede dimensions around one third of the hypotheses finds no confirmation. A similar thing can be said about Cultural Distance. The other dimensions appear to be diverse in the results, however, the results amount is low.

(27)

23

Another example is Lertxundi & Landeta (2012), they extensively describe reasoning for not finding support, one of them being: “This apparent incongruence may, in our opinion, be due to a number of different causes: superiority of the HPWS variable as a reflection of the thesis of convergence of HRM practices; unsuitability of the theoretical model used to measure the real cultural distance perceived by the management staff or – and this is the cause that in our opinion has the best theoretical and empirical grounds – responses by the management staff that reflect different levels of abstraction: non-consideration of

the cultural context in the decision to export the general principles of the HRM

system, consideration of this variable in specifying HRM policies and practices.” (p. 1800). Furthermore, several papers do not give any reasons or state the findings are in line with certain other studies (e.g. Aggarwal & Goodell, 2017; Bhaskaran & Sukumaran, 2007; Rouzies & Macquin, 2003 and Williams & van Triest, 2009)

(28)

24

Discussion

Framework

The results show Hofstede is still dominant in the use frameworks. This, despite the fact that the use of Hofstede has been severely criticized and not in the least papers (e.g. McSweeney, 2002; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990 and Shenkar, 2001). This can be considered a dilemma. A majority (54%) of the authors legitimize using Hofstede by stating its wide use and comparability. However, a significant part does not legitimize its choice for the use of a framework. This does not mean they did not have a reason, it just goes unstated. Additionally, some papers use Hofstede while being aware of the criticism. Holding that against other research on the use of Hofstede it appears Hofstede is still used because of its simplicity and because it is present. (Magnusson et al., 2008). Additionally, it appears to work in two thirds of the cases. On the one hand, one third, a significant part, finds no confirmation. However, considering the possibility of publication bias, this may very well be a larger part. Publication bias occurs when studies supporting the current views of academic research are overrepresented or when non-significant findings and disconfirmed hypotheses are withheld from publication. Evidence has been found the level of publication bias has increased over the past few years (Joober, Schmitz, Annable & Boksa, 2012).

Moreover, other frameworks such as GLOBE build on Hofstede’s work. Hofstede’s following dimensions (labels) are included in this study, e.g. Time orientation, Power Distance and Uncertainty avoidance. Individualism has been split into two dimensions, to strive for psychological validity (Shi, 2011). A few other dimensions are added. Even though House et al. (2004) use a different set of explanations to support their choices and dimensions. This only is a “simple” addition to further encompass the concept of culture. Furthermore, it also treats culture in a value dimensional way. GLOBE attempted to define the dimensions in such a matter that they held face validity and made psychological sense (Hofstede 2006, 2010). According to Hofstede cultures are no large scale individuals but wholes. The understanding of their internal logic cannot be done by the use of terms for individual personality dynamics, moreover eco-logic is different than individual logic (Hofstede, 2001). Hofstede argues GLOBE adopted six dimensions and expanded them to nine (Hofstede, 2010). Shi (2011) partly supports this view and argues many similarities can be seen, for instance in the way culture is viewed and in the data selection and origins of the dimensions. However, GLOBE did try to combine a few other cultural studies in their framework.

A further attempt to capturing the whole concept of culture is the addition of variables. This study shows a significant amount of researchers use additional variables. Most of these variables lie on an organizational or institutional level. However, according to Witte (2012), this still is insufficient, she argues “Even if country indices were used to control for wealth, latitude, population size, density and growth, privileged males working as engineers or sales personnel in one of the elite organizations of the world, pioneering one of the first multinational projects in history, can not be claimed to represent their nations” .

(29)

25

value-dimensional approaches involves the use of case studies. These case studies extensively try to understand the established culture whilst taking into account different literature streams and different factors.

In order to capture culture more accurately such interpretative frameworks are a necessity, considering other frameworks fail to capture valuable aspects. This is not just in line with Harrison & McKinnon, but also with a statement by (Earley & Gibson, 1998), over 15 years ago. They claimed researchers should quit focussing on value refocus their attention away from values surveys, but they should start directing their attention on the development of theories and frameworks to understand the linkages between relevant aspects such as culture, organizations, perceptions and actions.

Research method

The majority of the studies apply large quantitative research; either surveys or data analysis. Almost all studies using Hofstede are using large quantitative research. There is only one exception, Jansen, Merchant & van der Stede (2009) who also include interviews in their study.

(30)

26

(31)

27

Conclusion, limitations and suggestions for future research

Conclusion

Returning to the central research question about to which extent post-Harrison & McKinnon’s (1999) research on the effects of national culture on management control systems changed, this literature review presents several insights. The results regarding the four major weaknesses given by Harrison & McKinnon (1999) are individually described. First of all, this study indicates Hofstede’s research is still considered relevant and is used by a large majority of the researchers.

Failure to consider the total cultural domain

Harrison & McKinnon (1999) argued researchers fail to consider the total cultural domain. To capture the extent to which this criticism still holds, this study checks the current status based on analyzing the used dimensions, used frameworks and additional variables. The results depict a significant amount of the papers “still” omits certain dimensions (e.g. Drogendijk & Holm, 2012 and Naor, Linderman & Schroeder, 2010). Additionally, there may be more dimensions than the one Hofstede and Hofstede related frameworks use, also considering the fact certain papers (e.g. Hewege 2011) take into consideration several literature streams and several different factors including political situation, religion and history, which is needed to approach capturing the complete cultural domain.

However, a significant part of the group using Hofstede, include other frameworks in their study (e.g. Bik & Hooghiemstra, 2017 and Ozturk & Swiss, 2008). Additionally, more than half of the papers use additional variables, therefore approaching the total cultural domain more accurately (e.g. Drogendijk & Holm, 2012 and Magnusson, Peterson & Westjohn, 2014). Most of these are organizational and institutional variables. Based on these results we can state progression has been made compared to the results found and the suggestions made by Harrison & McKinnon (1999).

Lacking consideration of different norms and values

(32)

28

Treatment of culture in a simplistic way

Similar to the previous question, additional variables and frameworks used play a key role in finding the extent to which culture is treated simplistically. The methodology used implied large scale quantitative research and a “simple” value dimensional approach on national culture. Considering the significant amount of papers applying different frameworks and additional variables, and mostly the presence of papers using qualitative research and applying frameworks based on streams of literature, it can be stated some progression has been made.

Reliance on value dimensionsional concept of culture

A large majority relies directly or indirectly on Hofstede’s dimensions (e.g. Brock, Shenkar, Shoham & Siscovick, 2008 and Liu, Meng & Fellows, 2015). However, Jansen, Merchant & van der Stede (2009) argue they only use this framework to compare different countries. Additionally, Tallaki & Bracci (2015) mention there is criticism, however they choose to ignore this for similar reasons.

Overall, this paper argues Harrison & McKinnon’s (1999) criticism is still up to date, nonetheless, progress has been made on all aspects. It appears hard to move away from the Hofstede paradigm, considering the ease of use and the fact it is so widely used. Some researchers simply use Hofstede to compare country differences not to analyze the exact relationships between different dimensions and the management control system (related elements). Additionally a number of papers chooses to ignore the criticism. These findings are in line with McSweeney (2013) who addresses the failure in a proper methodology in a large part of cross-cultural research. There is a tension to assume national characteristics affect lower level characteristics. Additionally, differences within each nation needs to be accounted for.

If the suggestions for future research, mentioned in this chapter, are followed, this criticism may lose importance. When future qualitative research is transformed into quantitative research, the value dimensional concept may prove itself to be very useful.

Limitations

(33)

29

Furthermore, there are several aspects in this dataset that can be further examined, also providing an avenue for future research. Amongst these aspects are a distinction in industries, a distinction in MCS aspects, for instance influences on performance, organizational structure or MCS-design. As aforementioned, there have been updates on Hofstede since Harrison & McKinnon (1999), these have added culture dimensions and may be more encompassing of the actual concept of culture. Furthermore, some researchers may be aware of the criticism without mentioning it in their paper. Additionally, due to time restrictions, this merely is a presentation of clear tables depicting the results, rather than a correlation analysis. However, this study captures important results.

Future research

In this paper it was depicted many papers still use the value dimensional concept of culture. It may be hard to move beyond the Hofstede paradigm, due to wide use related reasons and the ease of use. However, to capture the cultural concept more accurately, interpretive research is needed. In general, there still is a need for researchers to adapt their methodology and cultural framework to the complexity of culture. This will also help capturing different norms and values. A significant amount of studies do not show critical awareness, the quality of these papers would increase by showing awareness and giving extensive reasons why certain dimensions and frameworks are omitted. This also is in line with Harrison and McKinnon’s (1999) original suggestions.

Given the significant amount of hypotheses not finding support or partly finding support and considering Harrison & McKinnon’s (1999) Criticism, it can be argued the used frameworks lack to take in consideration certain contingencies. This provides avenues for further research; contextual variables such as institutional (economic, history, politics, religions, traditions) and organizational variables should be accounted for. These may also differ within the country. In line with McSweeney (2013), not everything needs to be treated as a purely cultural consequence.

Concerning the cultural domain, when a value dimensional conception is used, an improvement could be made by more researchers taking all dimensions from their framework into account, considering they all play a role. Furthermore, future research could use different frameworks as add-on. This already is the case in a few studies, though additional variables (organizational and norms and values) also should to be taken into account. This tends to make the research more encompassing of the cultural domain and adds to the more sophisticated manner of treating culture.

(34)

30

List of references

Aggarwal, R. & Goodell, J. 2017. Sovereign wealth fund governance and national culture. International Business Review. Not yet released: 1-15.

Aken, van J., Berends, H. & Bij, van der H. 2012. Problem solving in organizations. A methodological handbook for business and management students.

Anthony, R. and Govindarajan, V., 2007. Management Control Systems, Chicago, Mc-Graw-Hill IRWIN.

Ansari, S. & Bell, J. 1991. Symbolism, collectivism and rationality in organizational control. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 4 (2): 4-27.

Ashraf, B. & Arshad, S. 2017. Foreign bank subsidiaries’ risk-taking behavior: Impact of home and host country national culture, Research in International Business and Finance, Volume 41 (1): 318-335.

Ashraf, B., Zheng, C. & Arshad, S. 2016. Effects of national culture on bank risk-taking behavior. Research in International Business and Finance 37 (1): 309-326.

Avny, G. & Anderson, A. 2008. Organisational culture, national culture and performance in International Joint Ventures based in Israel. International Journal of Business and

Globalisation, 2 (2), pp. 133-145.

Awasthi, V., Chow C. & Wu, A. 2001. Cross-cultural differences in the behavioral consequences of imposing performance evaluation and reward systems: An experimental investigation. International Journal of Accounting 36 (3): 291-309.

Bachmann, J., Engelen, A. & Schwens, C. 2016. Toward a Better Understanding of the Association Between Strategic Planning and Entrepreneurial Orientation: The Moderating Role of National Culture. Journal of International Management 22 (4): 297-315.

Bengoa, D. Kaufmann, H. & Vrontis, D. 2012. A new organisational memory for cross‐ cultural knowledge management. Cross Cultural Management 19 (3): 336-351.

Beugelsdijk, S., Maseland, R. & Hoorn, A. 2015. Are Scores on Hofstede's Dimensions of National Culture Stable over Time? A Cohort Analysis. Global Strategy Journal 5 (3): 223-240

Bhaskaran, S. & Sukumaran, N. 2007. National culture, business culture and management practices: consequential relationships? Cross Cultural Management 14 (1): 54-67.

(35)

31

Birnberg, J.G. and Snodgrass, C. 1988. Culture and control: a field study. Accounting, Organizations and Society 13 (5): 447-464.

Bond, M. 1987. Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 18 (2): 143-164.

Boyce, C. & Neale, P. 2006. Conducting in depth interviews: A Guide for Designing and conducting In-Depth Interviews for Evaluation Output. Pathfinder International Tool Series, Monitoring and Evaluation-2.

Boubakri, N., Mirzaei, A. & Samet, A. 2017. National culture and bank performance: Evidence from the recent financial crisis. Journal of Financial Stability 29 (1): 36-56. Brock, D. 2005. Multinational acquisition integration: the role

of national culture in creating synergies. International Business Review 14 (3): 269-288. Brock, D. Shenkar, O., Shoham, A. & Siscovick, I. 2008. National Culture and Expatriate Deployment. Journal of International Business Studies 39 (8): 1293-1309.

Burkert, M., Davila, A., Mehta, K. and Oyon, D. (2014), "Relating alternative forms of contingency fit to the appropriate methods to test them. Management Accounting Research 25 (1): 6-29.

Calhoun, K., Teng, J., & Cheon, M. 2002. Impact of national culture on information

technology usage behaviour: an exploratory study of decision making in Korea and the USA. Behaviour & Information Technology 21 (4): 293-302.

Chand, P. Cummings, L. & Patel, C. 2012. The Effect of Accounting Education and National Culture on Accounting Judgments: A Comparative Study of Anglo-Celtic and Chinese Culture. European Accounting Review 21 (1): 153-182.

Chang, Y., Kao, M., Kua, A. & Chiu, C. 2012. How cultural distance influences entry mode choice: The contingent role of host country's governance quality. Journal of Business

Research 65 (1): 1160-1170.

Chao, G. & Moon, H. 2005. The cultural mosaic: A metatheory for understanding the complexity of culture. Journal of Applied Psychology 90: 1128–1140.

Chen, Y. Podolski, E. & Veeraraghavan, M. 2017. National culture and corporate innovation. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 43 (1): 173-187.

(36)

32

Choe, J. 2004.The consideration of cultural differences in the design of information systems. Information & Management 41 (1): 669–684.

Cravens, D., Piercy, N., & Low, G. 2006. Globalization of the Sales Organization:. Management Control and Its Consequences. Organizational Dynamics 35 (3): 291-303. Dal Maso, L., Liberatore, G., & Mazzi, F. 2017. Value Relevance of Stakeholder Engagement: The Influence of National Culture. Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management 24 (1): 44-56.

De Waal, A. 2005. The Role of Behavioral Factors and National Cultures in Creating Effective Performance Management System. Systemic Practice and Action Research 19 (1): 61-79.

Doney, P., Cannon, J. & Mullen, M. 1998. Understanding the Influence of National Culture on the Development of Trust. The Academy of Management Review 23 (3): 601-620.

Drogendijk, R. & Holm, U. 2012. Cultural distance or cultural positions? Analysing the effect of culture on the HQ–subsidiary relationship. International Business Review 21 (1): 383-396. Drogendijk, R. & Slangen, A. 2006. Hofstede, Schwartz, or managerial perceptions? The effects of different cultural distance measures on establishment mode choices by

multinational enterprises. International Business Review 15 (1): 361–380.

Duarte, C. & Vidal-Suarèz, M. 2010. External uncertainty and entry mode choice: Cultural distance, political risk and language diversity. International Business Review 19 (1): 575-588

Earley, P. 2006. Leading cultural research in the future:a matter of paradigms and taste. Journal of International Business Studies 37 (1): 922–931.

Earley P. & Gibson C. 1998. Taking stock in our progress of individualism and collectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community. Journal of Management 24 (1): 265–304.

Efferin, S, & Hopper, T. 2007. Management control, culture and ethnicity in a Chinese Indonesian company. Accounting, Organizations & Society 32 (3): 223-262.

Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 532-550.

Ekanayake, S. 2004. Agency Theory, National Culture and Management Control Systems. The Journal of American Academy of Business 4 (1): 49-54.

(37)

33

Gerhart, B. 2008. How Much Does National Culture Constrain Organizational Culture? Management and Organization Review 5 (2): 241-259.

Ghemawat, P. & Reiche, S. 2013. National cultural differences and multinational business. Globalization Note Series 11: 1-18.

Hewege, C. 2011 Acculturation and Management Control: Japanese Soul in Sri Lankan Physique. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research 7 (1): 3-20. Ismail, T., Wiyantoro, L. & Muchlish, M. 2012. Strategy, Interactive Control System and National Culture:A Case Study of Batik Industry in Indonesia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 65 (1): 33-38.

Haka, S. & Heitger, D. 2004. International managerial accounting research:

A contracting framework and opportunities. International Journal of Accounting 39 (1): 21-69.

Hopper, T. and Powell, A. 1985. Making sense of research into the organizational and social aspects of management accounting: A review of its underlying assumptions. Journal of Management Studies 22 (5): 429-465.

Han, S., Kang, T., Salter, S., & Yoo, Y. K. (2010). A cross-country study on the effects of national culture on earnings management. Journal of International Business Studies 41: 123-141.

Harrison, G. & McKinnon, J. 1986. Culture and accounting change: a new perspective on corporate reporting regulation and accounting policy formula. Accounting, Organizations andSociety 11 (3): 233-252.

Harrison, G. & McKinnon, J. 1999. Cross-cultural research in management control systems design: a review of the current state. Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (5-6): 483-506.

Helsen, Z, Lybaert, N, Steijvers, T, Orens, R, & Dekker, J. 2017. Management Control Systems in Family Firms: A Review of the Literature and Directions for the Future. Journal Of Economic Surveys 31 (2): 410-435.

Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. SAGE Publications: Beverly Hills, CA.

Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations (2nd edn). SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.

(38)

34

House, R., Hanges, M., Javidan, P., Dorfman, W. & Vipin, G. 2004. Culture Leadership and Oranizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Jansen, E., Merchant, K. & van der Stede, W. 2009. National differences in incentive compensation practices: The differing roles of financial performance measurement in the United States and the Netherlands. Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (1): 58-84. Javidan, M., House, R, Dorfman, W., Hanges, J. & Sully de luque, M. 2006.

Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: a comparative review of GLOBE's and Hofstede's approaches. Journal of International Business Studies 37 (6): 897-914.

Joober, R., Schmitz, N., Annable, L. & Boksa, P. 2012. Publication bias: What are the challenges and can they be overcome? Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience : JPN 37 (3): 149–152.

Kanagaretnam, K., Lobo, G., Ma C. & Zhou, J. 2016. National Culture and Internal Control Material Weaknesses Around the World. Journal Of Accounting, Auditing & Finance 31 (1) 28-50.

Kaplan, D. 1965. The superorganic: science or metaphysics. American Anthropologist 67: 958–976.

Lertxundi, A., & Landeta, J. 2012. The dilemma facing multinational enterprises: transfer or adaptation of their human resource management systems. International Journal Of Human Resource Management 23 (9): 1788-1807.

Liu, J., Meng, F. & Fellows, R. 2015. An exploratory study of understanding project risk management from the perspective of national culture. International Journal of Project Management 33 (3): 564-575 .

Magnusson, P., Baack, D., Zdravkovic, S., Staub, K. & Amine, L. 2008. Meta-analysis of cultural differences: Another slice at the apple. International Business Review 17 (5): 520-532

Magnusson, P. Peterson, R. & Westjohn, S. 2014, 'The influence of national cultural values on the use of rewards alignment to improve sales collaboration', International Marketing Review 31 (1): 30-50

Marshall, G. 1998. Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford University Press.

(39)

35

Matten, D. & Geppert, M. 2004. Work systems in heavy engineering: the role of national culture and national institutions in multinational corporations. Journal Of International Management 10 (2): 177-198.

McSweeney, B. 2002. Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their

consequences: a triumph of faith: a failure of analysis. Human Relations 55 (1): 89-118. McSweeney, B. 2013. Fashion founded on a flaw: The ecological mono‐deterministic fallacy of Hofstede, GLOBE, and followers. International Marketing Review 30 (5): 483-504

McSweeney, B., Brown, D. & Iliopoulou, S. 2016. Claiming too much, delivering too little: testing some of Hofstede's generalisations. Irish Journal of Management 35 (1): 34-57. Messner, W. 2016. The Misconstruction of Hofstede's Uncertainty Avoidance Dimension: The Fallacy of Ecological Operation without Construct Validity at the Individual Level. Journal of Global Marketing 29 (5): 298-313.

Naor, M., Linderman, K. & Schroeder, R. 2010. The globalization of operations in Eastern and Western countries: Unpacking the relationship between national and organizational culture and its impact on manufacturing performance Journal of Operations Management. Journal of Operations Management 28 (1): 194-205.

Ng, S., Lee, J. & Soutar, G. 2007. Are Hofstede's and Schwartz's value frameworks congruent?. International Marketing Review 24 (2): 164-18

Nguyen, J., Larimo, H. & Ali, T. 2016. How do ownership control position and national culture influence conflict resolution strategies in international joint ventures? International Business Review 25 (2): 559-568.

Nishimura, S., Nevgi, A. & Tella, S. 2009. Communication Style and Cultural Features in High/Low Context Communication Cultures: A Case Study of Finland, Japan and India: 783-796.

Orr, L. & Hauser W. A Re-inquiry of Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions: A Call For 21st Century Cross-Cultural Research. Marketing Management Journal 18 (2): 1-19.

Otley, D. 2016. The contingency theory of management accounting and control: 1980–2014. Management Accounting Research 31 (1): 45–62

Ozturk, A., & Swiss, J. 2008. Implementing management tools in Turkish public hospitals: the impact of culture, politics and role status. Public Administration & Development 28 (2): 138-148.

(40)

36

Park, S. & Ungson, G. 1997. The Effect of National Culture, Organizational

Complementarity and Economic Motivation on Joint Venture Dissolution. Academy of Management Journal 40 (2): 279-307.

Pothukuchi, V., Damanpour, F., Choi, J., Chen, C. & Park, S. 2002. National and

Organizational Culture Differences and International Joint Venture Performance. Journal of International Business Studies 33 (2): 243-265.

Rizwan, T. 2014. The Impact of National and Organizational Cultural Differences on International Joint Venture Performance. IBA Business Review 9 (1): 47-63.

Rocha Flores, W., Antonsen, E. & Ekstedt, M. 2014. Information security knowledge sharing in organizations: Investigating the effect of behavioral information security governance and national culture. Computers & Security 43 (1): 90-110.

Rouzies, D. & Macquin, A. 2003. An Exploratory Investigation of the Impact of Culture on Sales Force Management Control Systems in Europe. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 23 (1): 61-72.

Salter & Sharp (2001). Agency effects and escalation of commitment Do small national culture differences matter? International Journal Of Management Accounting 36 (1): 33-45. Salzmann, A. & Soypak K. 2017. National culture and private benefits of control. Finance Research Letters 20 (1): 199-206.

Schwandt, T. 2007. The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry, 3rd edition, Sage Publications.

Schwartz, S. 1994. Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. Individualism and collectivism: Theory, methods, and applications: 85-119. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Schwartz, S. & Bilsky, W. 1990. Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 (5): 878-91.

Segalla, M. Rouziès, D., Besson, M. & Weitz, B. 2006. A cross-national investigation of incentive sales compensation. International Journal of Research in Marketing 23 (4): 419–433 Shane, S.1992. The Effect of Cultural Differences in Perceptions of Transaction Costs on National Differences in the Preference for Licensing. Management International Review (MIR), 32 (4): 295-311.

(41)

37

Shi, X. 2011. Interpreting Hofstede Model and GLOBE Model: Which Way to Go for Cross-Cultural Research? International Journal of Business and Management 6 (5): 93-99.

Slangen, A. & Van Tulder, R. 2009. Cultural distance, political risk, or governance quality? Towards a more accurate conceptualization and measurement of external uncertainty in foreign entry mode research. International Business Review 23 (4): 419-433.

Søndergaard, M. 1994. Research Note: Hofstede's Consequences: A Study of Reviews, Citations and Replications. Organization Studies 15 (3): 447-456.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Swanborn, P. 1996. A common base for quality control criteria in quantitative and qualitative research. Quality and Quantity, 30 (1): 19-35.

Tallaki, M. & Bracci, E. 2015. The Importance of National Culture in the Design of

Management Control Systems: Evidence from Morocco and Italy. Journal Of Management Research 14 (1): 7-29.

Tang, L. & Koveos, P. 2008. A framework to update Hofstede’s cultural value indices: economic dynamics and institutional stability. Journal of International Business Studies 39 (6): 1045-1063.

Triandis, H. 1995. Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. 1997. Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business. 1st edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tsamenyi, M., Noormansyah, I. & Uddin, S. 2008. Management controls in family-owned businesses (FOBs): A case study of an Indonesian family-owned University. Accounting Forum 32 (1): 62-74.

Tsui, A. S., Wang, H., & Xin, K. R. 2006. Organizational culture in China: An analysis of culture dimensions and culture types. Management and Organization Review, 2(3): 345–376. Uddin, S. 2009. Rationalities, domination and accounting control: A case study from a traditional society. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 20 (6): 782-794.

(42)

38

Wilkinson, T., Peng, G., Brouthers, L. & Beamish, P. 2008. The diminishing effect of cultural distance on subsidiary control. Journal of International Management 14 (2): 93-107. Williams, J. & Seaman, A. 2001. Predicting change in management accounting systems: national culture and industry effects. Accounting, Organizations and Society 26 (4-5): 443-460.

Williams, C. & van Triest, S. 2009. The impact of corporate and national cultures on

decentralization in multinational corporations. International Business Review 18 (2): 156-167 Witte, A. 2012. Making the Case for a Postnational Cultural Analysis of Organizations. Journal of Management Inquiry 21 (2): 141-159.

Cross-cultural research in management control systems design: A review of what has been done after Harrison & McKinnon (1999)