ISSN 0798 1015

HOME Revista ESPACIOS ! ÍNDICES ! A LOS AUTORES !

Vol. 38 (Nº 34) Año 2017. Pág. 12

The Relationship between Culture and

Entrepreneurship: From Cultural
Dimensions of GLOBE Project
A relação entre cultura e empreendedorismo: a partir das
dimensões culturais do projeto GLOBE
CASTILLO-PALACIO, Marysol 1; BATISTA-CANINO, Rosa M. 2; . ZUÑIGA-COLLAZOS, Alexander 3

Recibido: 16/02/2017 • Aprobado: 22/03/2017

Content
1. Introduction
2. Conclusions
Bibliographic references

ABSTRACT: RESUMO:
This article is theoretical and conceptual, and aims to Este artigo é teórico e conceitual, cujo objetivo é
identify previous studies that have estimated the identificar estudos anteriores têm abordado a relação
relationship between the cultural dimensions of the entre as dimensões culturais propostas pelo Projeto
GLOBE project and entrepreneurship. Among the most GLOBE e empreendedorismo. Entre as correntes
important current theories that attempt to explain the teóricas mais importantes que tentam explicar a relação
relationship between culture and entrepreneurial entre cultura e empreendedorismo é a Teoria Econômica
activity is the Institutional Economic Theory of North. Institucional do Norte. Além disso, o projeto GLOBE
On the other hand, GLOBE raises nine cultural envolve nove dimensões culturais para identificar
dimensions to identify cultural practices and cultural práticas e valores culturais de uma sociedade. A partir
values of a society. From these cultural factors authors desta perspectiva, outros autores realizaram estudos
have developed studies that conclude that the em que se concluiu que essas dimensões culturais estão
dimensions that are related to business activity. Key relacionados aos negócios.
words: Culture, Entrepreneurship, GLOBE Project, New Palavras-Chiave Cultura, Empreendedorismo, GLOBE
Institutional Economics (NIE) Project, Nova Economia Institucional

1. Introdução
The essence of entrepreneurship is the initiation of change through creation or innovation
(Morrison et al., 1999). New markets, customers and jobs are created through innovation and
organizational renewal, which create an impact on both the social and economic systems of
industrial sectors, regions and nations (Morrison et al., 1999). Entrepreneurship is considered a
systemic phenomenon, which requires individuals to take the risk and the challenge of creating
a new company, and to necessitate an environment to promote this individual initiative. In this
sense, there are some studies that have focused on identifying the factors that encourage
entrepreneurship as well as potential obstacles that limit it; among the most current and
important theories is the Institutional Economic Theory, which states that there are both formal
and informal factors influencing entrepreneurial activity, and where culture, which is part of the
informal factors, is one of the key elements for business.
Culture combines elements that are characteristic of a society and that can be differentiated
from other populations. It also determines, among other things, the behavior of individuals in
society. One of the definitions of this dimension referenced from anthropology is Kluckhohn's
definition (1951, p.86): “[…] culture consists of patterns of thinking, feeling and reacting,
acquired and transmitted mainly by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of
human groups, including how to make the products; the essential core of culture consists of
traditional ideas and values associated”. On the other hand, from an organizational perspective,
the research program GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness)
defines culture as shared motives, values, beliefs, identities and interpretations or meanings of
events that result from common experiences among members of a community and are
transmitted from generation to generation (House et al., 2002; House and Javidan, 2004).
Thus, culture plays a fundamental role in the entrepreneurial activity of a society. In this sense,
some authors argue that the social and cultural context of an individual influences the corporate
behavior of citizens, particularly in the creation of business, thereby constituting cultures that
encourage more entrepreneurship than others (Mueller and Thomas, 2001; Reynolds et al.,
2002; Li, 2007; Gurel et al., 2010).

1.1. Entrepreneurship: Concept and economic contribution

Although there is no single definition of entrepreneurship accepted by the academic and
research community (Low and MacMillan, 1988; Van Praag, 1999; Mahoney and Michael, 2004;
Thurik and Wennekers, 2004), there is a general consensus that entrepreneurship is the
creation of something new.
In 1730, the French economist Richard Cantillon described the entrepreneur as an individual
who identifies opportunities and takes risks (Rumball, 1989). Schumpeter (1934) suggested
that an entrepreneur is an individual who tends to break the balance of the market by
introducing innovation within the system. Some use a broader definition such as the creation of
new companies (Gartner, 1985), and many academics focus on Kirzner’s (1979) pursuit of
opportunities. Harper (1996) identified that entrepreneurship is the main force of the economy
and defined entrepreneurship as “[…] an activity search of profits aimed at identifying and
solving specific problems in structurally complex and uncertain situations” (Harper, 1996, p.3).
Over time "[...] the definition of entrepreneurship has expanded to include economic
classification, management style and/or personal attitude" (Sheffield 1988, p.34).
Low (2001) defines entrepreneurship as "[...] the process of identifying, evaluating and
capturing an opportunity" (Engelen et al., 2009). Moreover, George and Zahra (2002) define
entrepreneurship as the acts and processes by which societies, regions, organizations or
individuals identify and continue business opportunities to generate wealth. Katz and Green
(2009) define the entrepreneur as "[...] a person who owns and initiates an organization"
focusing on "earnings and growth" and, as indicated by Carland et al. (1984), shows a tendency
to "innovative behavior".
Although there is no universally accepted definition, there is a general consensus that corporate
behavior includes initiative, leadership and innovation, organization and reorganization of both
economic and social mechanisms and risk taking (Lordkipanidze, 2002). Therefore, the essence
of entrepreneurship is the initiation of change through creation or innovation.
1.2. Institutional economic theory and business creation
As Zhao et al. (2012) suggests there are two lines of theoretical interpretation about how
culture affects business. The first is rooted largely in psychological literature, and assumes that
culture has a direct manifestation in the behavior of people belonging to a specific culture
(Hosftede, 1980). It influences the personal values and behavior of individuals. Thus, national
culture can support or prevent corporate behavior at the individual level (Hayton et al., 2002).
From this perspective, a culture that supports entrepreneurship allows more people to exercise
entrepreneurial potential, and in turn, increases business activity. The second line, which is
based largely on institutional theory, assumes that culture, as an informal institution, is the
basis of the formal institution (North, 2005). Therefore, in some countries there are institutional
conditions adapted to support business activity, for example, free and competitive market,
protection of private property, and an open and innovative educational system, which in turn
produces more business activity in these countries. Zhao et al. (2012) describe this line as a
model "culture-institution-enterprise", based heavily on Institutional Economic Theory, which
includes culture as a so-called informal factor and, along with the approach of a number of
investigations, one of the key factors to entrepreneurial activity. This theory suggests that the
social and cultural context influences the individual, in this case, the entrepreneur, who is the
agent responsible for the creation of new companies and changes in the environment.
As Veciana (1999, p.25) suggests, the Institutional Economic Theory is "[...] certainly the
theory that currently provides a more consistent and appropriate conceptual framework for the
study of the influence of environmental factors on the business function ". His approach is
related to the influence of social and cultural factors in the context of business creation, which
identify, explain and analyze the social and institutional aspects that encourage entrepreneurial
activity of the individual. Díaz-Casero et al. (2005) conclude that the Institutional Economic
Theory from North’s approach can be a valid theoretical framework for the study of
environmental factors affecting the creation of new companies.

1.3. Culture
Culture has been defined in various ways; one of the most referenced definitions from
anthropology is from Kluckhohn (1951, p.86) for whom “[…] the culture consists of patterns of
thinking, feeling and reacting, acquired and transmitted mainly by symbols, constituting the
distinctive achievements of human groups, including how to make the products”. For this
author, the essential core of culture consists of traditional ideas and associated values.
Additionally, the definition provided by the anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1973) has had great
resonance among researchers, conceptualizing culture as: "[...] the sets of control
mechanisms, plans, recipes, symbols, rules, constructions" (Geertz, 1973, p.44). White (1959)
as an anthropologist defines culture as follows; "[...] an extrasomatic continuum (non-genetic,
non-corporal) and temporal things and dependent facts of symbolization ... Culture consists of
tools, implements, utensils, clothing, ornaments, customs, institutions, beliefs, rituals, games,
art, language, etc." (White, 1959, p.3). Meanwhile, Hofstede (1980) defines culture as "[...] the
collective programming of the mind distinguishing members of a group or category of people
from others" where the "category" can refer to nations and regions within or between nations,
ethnic groups, religions, occupations, organizations or genres (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede and
McCrae, 2004).
Thus, culture is used to refer to the set of values of a nation, a region or an organization; also
culture shares and strengthens social institutions, and over time, these institutions, reinforce
cultural values (George and Zahra, 2002). UNESCO (1982) defined culture as the set of
distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features that characterize a society or
social group. While Russell et al. (2010) refer to culture as an amalgam of formal and informal
institutions of a country and is associated with the practices adopted by citizens in every aspect
of life. Meanwhile, Pinillos and Reyes (2011) define it as the system of values for a specific
group or society, which is the development of certain personality traits, and motivates
individuals toward a behavior that may not be evident in other societies. As these authors
suggest, most people in a country are not aware of how culture influences their values,
attitudes, ideas and norms, and most countries manifest a dominant culture.
The research program GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness)
defines culture as shared motives, values, beliefs, identities and interpretations or meanings of
events that result from common experiences among members of a community and are
transmitted from generation to generation (House et al., 2002; House and Javidan, 2004). In
addition, GLOBE sympathizes with the definition of culture proposed by Herskovitz (1948), who
proposed that "[...] culture is the human part developed to fit the environment." As Mueller and
Thomas (2001) show in their study based on the cultural dimensions of Hofstede (1980),
culture is an underlying system of particular values to a specific group or society, which displays
the development of certain features both of the personality and behavior of individuals that
may not be apparent in other societies.
Table 1 contains a summary of the various definitions of culture and patterns that characterize
these definitions as the statements of some authors. However, most agree that values and
behavior are fundamental elements in culture.

Table 1
Definitions of culture

Author Definition of culture Key elements

Herskovitz
Culture is the human part developed to fit the environment
(1948)

Culture consists of patterns of thinking, feeling and reacting,

Kluckhohn acquired and transmitted mainly by symbols, constituting the Traditional ideas
(1951) distinctive achievements of human groups, including how to make and values
the products

Customs,
Culture is an extrasomatic continuum (non-genetic, not corporal)
beliefs,
and temporal things and dependent facts of symbolization...Culture
White (1959) institutions,
consists of tools, implements, utensils, clothing, ornaments,
rites and
customs, institutions, beliefs, rituals, games, art, language, etc.
language

Hofstede The collective programming of the mind distinguishing members of Beliefs and
(1980) a group or category of people from others values

Spiritual,
material,
UNESCO The set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional
intellectual
(1982) features that characterize a society or social group
and emotional
features

Culture is an underlying system of particular values to a specific

Mueller and
group or society, where the development of certain features both of Values and
Thomas
the personality and behaviors of individuals are displayed and may behaviors
(2001)
not be apparent in other societies.
 Culture is a separate part of the human being, a possession. Along
Bauman
with the personality, the unique quality of being both a defining Feature
(2002)
"essence" and a descriptive "existential trait" of human creatures

House et al.
Shared motives, values, beliefs, identities and interpretations or
(2002);
meanings of events that result from common experiences of
House and Values and
members of a community and are transmitted from generation to
Javidan beliefs
generation
(2004)

An amalgam of formal and informal institutions of a country and is

Russell et al.
associated with the practices adopted by citizens in every aspect of Practices
(2010)
life

A system of values for a specific group or society, which is the

Pinillos and Values and
development of certain personality traits and motivates individuals
Reyes (2011) behaviors
toward a behavior that may not be evident in other societies

Source: Own elaboration

1.4. Culture and Entrepreneurship

The cultural dimensions traditionally related to entrepreneurial activity and entrepreneurship
include individualism, power distance and uncertainty avoidance. However, for many authors,
the empirical evidence for such relationships is weak and often contradictory (Hayton et al.,
2002). For example, power distance was positively related to innovation in a previous study of
Shane (1992), but this relationship was negative in a later study (Shane, 1993). Thus Zhao et
al. (2012) suggest that there are moderators that affect the relationship between culture and
entrepreneurship. For this reason, these authors conducted an empirical study arguing that
national wealth -measured as GDP per capita- is a moderating variable in this relationship, and
may influence the effects of culture on entrepreneurship. Subsequently, depending on the
country's wealth, the culture can have a positive or negative effect on entrepreneurial activity.
This study is based on some of the cultural dimensions raised by the GLOBE project (2002,
2004), which are closely related to entrepreneurship in theory: the dimensions of a traditional
society -in group collectivism, humane orientation and power distance- and the dimensions
related to modernism -performance orientation, future orientation and uncertainty avoidance-,
excluding the three cultural dimensions: institutional collectivism, gender egalitarianism and
assertiveness. On the other hand, Ozgen (2012) presents a theoretical and conceptual article, a
study about the influence of cultural dimensions proposed by the GLOBE project (2002, 2004)
to support the recognition of opportunities in the emerging economies and how these cultural
aspects create an impact on the recognition of opportunities by the entrepreneur and the
entrepreneurial activity. His approach focused on female entrepreneurship and business
activities motivated by opportunities rather than necessity.
The research program Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE)
House et al. (2002), House and Javidan (2004) suggest nine cultural dimensions to analyze
culture: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, institutional collectivism (collectivism I), in-
group collectivism (collectivism II), gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, future orientation,
performance orientation, human orientation, and distinguishes between two types of cultural
manifestations: cultural practices and cultural values. This approach was developed out of the
psychological tradition and behavioral study of culture, and assumes that members of a
particular culture should study its interpretations (Segall et al., 1998; House et al., 2010).
Thus, the practices (society "is") are the perceptions of people of how things are done in their
countries and values (society "should be") are the aspirations of people on the way things
should be done (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Types of cultural manifestations have been studied by GLOBE

Source: Own elaboration from House et al. (2002)

From the proposal by GLOBE, previous theoretical and empirical studies linking the cultural
dimensions to entrepreneurial activity are identified.
Power Distance. This dimension is defined as the degree to which members of a society
expect the power to be shared unequally. Mitchell et al. (2000) suggest that a high power
distance has a negative effect on business creation processes. This argument is based on the
fact that in these societies, individuals of lower social class may consider entrepreneurship as a
unique process for individuals of high social class, as the latter would have the necessary
resources at their disposal and experience required as a result. In this way, a high proportion of
population outside this small group could fail to carry out entrepreneurship in the exercise of
assessment of opportunities within the context. Previous research found that entrepreneurs in
cultures with low power distance will have more autonomy and negotiate with less hierarchical
bureaucracy, so they are more involved in the behavior of taking risks than those in cultures
with high power distance (Shane, 1993; Kreiser et al., 2010). Contrary to this argument,
Ardichvili and Gasparishvili (2003) associate the high power distance with increased business
activity, although not theoretically justifying this position. Meanwhile, when Hofstede (1980)
refers to the dimension of power distance in the family, it is found that children in countries
with high power distance are socialized to work hard and observe obedience, while in countries
with low power distance the children are socialized towards independence. In this regard, the
proposal is contrary to that proposed by Ardichvili and Gasparishvili (2003); however, it should
be stressed that Hofstede (1980) did not relate dimensions with entrepreneurship. Therefore, it
has been argued that business should be higher in countries with low power distance (Hayton
et al., 2002). However, it is difficult for potential entrepreneurs underpowered groups to take
advantage of profitable opportunities because they may have limited access to resources, skills,
and information. Nevertheless, contrary to this position, power distance can affect the
entrepreneurial activity positively because one way to demonstrate independence is to become
an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship can be used as one tool to achieve personal independence
and increase one’s own position of power. The results of the study of Zhao et al. (2012) support
the hypothesis that assumes there is a positive relationship between power distance and the
early stages of entrepreneurship and consolidated (or established) entrepreneurship in
countries with low and middle GDP, whereas there is no such relationship in countries with high
GDP.
Table 2 presents a summary of the position of the authors exposed, on the level of power
distance in a society and its influence on entrepreneurial activity.

Table 2.
Influence of power distance on the level of entrepreneurship

Level of Influence on the

Author Power level of The author's argument
Distance entrepreneurship

Mitchell et al. High High Individuals of lower social class may consider
(2000) entrepreneurship as a unique process for
individuals of high social class, as the latter
would have the necessary resources at their
disposal and therefore experience required

Ardchvili and High High Associates the high power distance with
Gasparishvili increased business activity, although not
(2003) theoretically justifying this position.

Zhao et al. High High in countries There is a positive relationship between power
(2012) with low and middle distance and the entrepreneurship in countries
GDP with low and middle GDP, whereas there is no
such relationship in countries with high GDP.

Source: Own elaboration

Uncertainty avoidance. This term refers to the degree to which members seek order,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures and laws that cover the situations in their daily
living. Practices associated with uncertainty avoidance include aspects such as resistance to
risk, and resistance to both changes and development of new products; therefore, it is
estimated that a society with high uncertainty avoidance shows little support for
entrepreneurship (Hayton et al., 2002). Zhao et al. (2012) proposed a hypothesis that claims
uncertainty avoidance is positively associated with high entrepreneurial quality in countries with
a high GDP, but the results did not support this hypothesis.
Although decisions are taken in situations where information is limited (Busenitz and Barney,
1997), individuals in cultures with low uncertainty avoidance take risks and explore some
opportunities identified in their midst (Busenitz and Lau, 1996), and this finally creates a
context for these types of societies in that they are more inclined towards greater
entrepreneurial behavior. The same conclusion comes from Pinillos and Reyes (2011), who
suggest that both the individualist and low level of uncertainty avoidance cultures are
associated with the development of institutional arrangements, and possibly with psychological
traits and/or cognitive processes which have been associated with entrepreneurship.
Autio et al. (2013) in their empirical study on cultural practices and their relationship to the
initiative and entrepreneurial growth, based on the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor GEM and
Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE), found that cultural
practices of uncertainty avoidance are negatively associated with entrepreneurship but not with
the aspirations of entrepreneurial growth. Similarly, Mueller and Thomas (2001) argue that
cultures with low uncertainty avoidance are better-equipped and more supportive of
entrepreneurs than other cultures. Table 3 shows the summary of the position of the authors
regarding uncertainty avoidance and entrepreneurship.

Table 3
Influence of uncertainty avoidance on the level of entrepreneurship

Level of Influence on the

Author Uncertainty level of The author's argument
avoidance entrepreneurship

Busenitz and Low High Individuals in cultures with low uncertainty

Lau (1996) avoidance take risks and explore some
opportunities; this finally creates a context for
these types of societies who are more inclined
towards greater entrepreneurial behavior

Pinillos and Low High The cultures with low level of uncertainty
Reyes (2011) avoidance are associated with the development
of institutional arrangements and possibly with
psychological traits and/or cognitive processes,
which have been associated with
entrepreneurship

Mueller and Low High Cultures with low uncertainty avoidance are
Thomas better equipped and more supportive of
(2001) entrepreneurs than other cultures

Autio et al. High Low Cultural practices of uncertainty avoidance are

(2013) negatively associated with entrepreneurship
but not with the aspirations of entrepreneurial
growth

Hayton et al. High Low It is estimated that a society with high

(2002) uncertainty avoidance, which includes aspects
such as resistance to risk and resistance to the
changes, shows little support of
entrepreneurship

Source: Own elaboration

Collectivism (Institutional Collectivism). This dimension reflects the degree to which

individuals are encouraged by social institutions to integrate into groups within organizations
and society. In this sense, societies that value entrepreneurship and innovation introduce an
efficient institutional system to promote innovative companies. Thus, the institutional
environment influences the rate of economic activity, entrepreneurship and strategic actions of
organizations in a society (Aldrich and Wiedenmayer, 1993; Manolova et al., 2008; Yamakawa
et al., 2008). A number of authors have found that the strength of an institutional environment,
such as the legal and financial system of a society shapes cognitions and the will of an
entrepreneur to start a business (Mitchell et al., 2002; Lim et al., 2010). Ozgen (2012)
proposed theoretically that individuals in societies of high institutional collectivism perceive the
results of its business efforts as desirable, because these companies strengthen the socio-
cultural infrastructure of society, establish systems of support to the training and facilitate
business activities and the creation of new companies (Steier, 2009).
On the other hand, according to empirical studies, potential entrepreneurs in societies in low
institutional collectivism may face socio-cultural barriers, such as negative public attitude
towards creativity and innovation, legal institutional barriers and regulatory complexities, strict
administrative processes, bureaucratic procedures (Grilo and Thurik, 2005; Klapper et al.,
2006), and the difficulty in accessing credit or lack of specific training programs (Ozgen, 2012),
among others.
Collectivism II (In group-Collectivism). This dimension refers to the pride and loyalty to
family, and to the close circle of friends and organizations of which the individual is a member.
Tiessen (1997) mentions that researchers have associated individualist cultures with the
business behavior of the individual as founder or individual entrepreneur, while collectivist
societies seem more inclined to promote corporate entrepreneurship. Moreover, in such
societies that dominate the collective economic activity, there are few opportunities for
individuals to develop the skills and abilities necessary to create new companies (Mitchell et al.,
2000). By contrast, Pinillos and Reyes (2011) mentioned in their research that some studies
based on empirical support, as studies Hunt and Levie (2003) and Baum et al. (1993) have
shown a positive relationship between collectivism and entrepreneurial activity. Specifically, the
rate of entrepreneurship in a country is negatively related to the dimension "individualism"
when the country's development is medium or low, and is positively related when the level of
development is high; therefore, individualism is not related to entrepreneurship in the same
way in countries with different levels of development.
The collectivist orientation fosters commitment and sacrifice among employees (Gelfand et al.,
2004) and provides a protective environment that minimizes the uncertainty associated with
business creation and application of innovation (Stewart, 1989). However, as indicated by Zhao
et al. (2012), these aspects are only important in countries with low and middle GDP rather
than countries with high GDP due to the availability of alternative resources in the latter. It is
only in countries of the low and middle GDP that startup entrepreneurs need to be able to use
these traditional resources of in-group collectivism.
It is clearly seen in Table 4, which summarizes the position of some authors on the relationship
between the level of in-group collectivism of a society and its level of entrepreneurship, Mitchell
et al. (2000) and Hayton et al. (2002) coincide in their views, indicating that in a society with a
high level of in-group collectivism a higher level of entrepreneurship is perceived.

Table 4
Influence of collectivism II on the level of entrepreneurship

Level of Influence on the

Author Collectivism level of The author's argument
II entrepreneurship

Mitchell High Low In collectivist societies, which dominate the

(2000) collective economic activity, there are few
opportunities for individuals to develop the
skills and abilities necessary to create new
companies
 Hayton et al. High Low In-group Collectivism is negatively related to
(2002) entrepreneurship, because it is an activity of
enterprising individuals who are rewarded
individually

Oyserman et Low High Individualism has been a key dimension to

al. (2002) understanding entrepreneurial behavior

Pinillos and High High in countries In societies with low or middle GDP and a high
Reyes (2011) with low or middle level of in-group collectivism, increased
GDP business activity is estimated

Zhao et al. High High in countries In societies with low or middle GDP and high
(2012) with low or middle level of in-group collectivism, increased
GDP business activity is estimated

Source: Own elaboration

Assertiveness. This dimension refers to the extent to which individuals are (or should be)
assertive, confrontational and aggressive in social relationships. In highly assertive societies
people may be encouraged to take risks, negotiate aggressively and be competitive, while in
the less assertive societies, harmony and supportive relationships (Ozgen, 2012) are
encouraged. Little or nothing has been published on the relationship of this dimension to
entrepreneurship; however, from a theoretical perspective, Ozgen (2012) suggests that a lower
level of assertiveness in society will produce less entrepreneurship by opportunity.
Humane orientation. This is the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies
encourage and reward others to be fair, altruistic, friendly, generous and caring with others, and
according to empirical studies as developed by Zhao et al. (2012), a society of low or middle
GDP and high level of humane orientation is driven towards entrepreneurship.

2. Conclusions
Entrepreneurship is a systemic phenomenon that requires individuals who are willing to take
the risk and the challenge of creating and developing a venture. In this sense, there are some
studies that have focused on identifying the factors that promote or inhibit entrepreneurship;
among the most influential currents is the Institutional Economic Theory, which suggests that
there are formal and informal factors influencing entrepreneurial activity, being the culture of
the so-called informal factors and one of the key aspects for the development of
entrepreneurial activity.
Among the models found in the literature to identify the cultural dimensions of society in
studies of organizational field, the one conducted by GLOBE stands out (House et al., 2002;
House and Javidan, 2004), in which the relationship between culture and leadership is studied,
but the relationship of culture with entrepreneurial activity were not analyzed. GLOBE raises
nine cultural dimensions to identify cultural practices (society "is") and cultural values (society
"should be") of a society. From these cultural factors authors have developed studies that
conclude that the dimensions that are related to business activity are: Power Distance (Mitchell
et al., 2000; Ardichvili and Gasparishvili, 2003; Zhao et al., 2012), Uncertainty Avoidance
(Busenitz and Lau, 1996; Pinillos and Reyes, 2011; Mueller and Thomas, 2001; Autio et al.,
2013; Hayton et al., 2002), Collectivism I (Mitchell et al., 2002; Lim et al., 2010; Ozgen, 2012;
Grilo and Thurik, 2005; Klapper et al., 2006), Collectivism (Mitchell et al., 2000; Hayton et al.,
2002; Pinillos and Reyes, 2011; Zhao et al., 2012), Assertiveness (Ozgen, 2012) and Humane
Orientation (Zhao et al., 2012).
Thus Ardichivili and Gasparishvili (2003) and Zhao et al. (2012) agree in their positions,
claiming that the high level of power distance in a society significantly influences
entrepreneurial activity. By contrast, Mitchell et al. (2000) indicates that in societies with high
power distance, the entrepreneurial activity will be lower, since it can be considered that
individuals from higher socio-economic strata have the resources required to start
entrepreneurial activity, unlike those in low economic positions. On the other hand, the authors
that have performed studies on the dimension of uncertainty avoidance and its relationship with
the entrepreneurship coincide with the position that in societies with a higher level of
uncertainty avoidance, less entrepreneurial activity has been observed
The approaches of the authors consulted on the institutional collectivism dimension agree that
in cultures with a low level of institutional collectivism, a low level of entrepreneurship is
reflected. While, on the relationship between the level of in-group collectivism of a society and
its level of entrepreneurship, Mitchell et al. (2000) and Hayton et al. (2002) coincide in that in
a society with a high level of in-group collectivism, a higher level of entrepreneurship is
perceived. Similarly, but with reference to individualism, Oyserman et al. (2002) argue that
individualism is a major cultural feature for entrepreneurship. While in the case of Pinillos and
Reyes (2011) and Zhao et al. (2012) the studies include Gross Domestic Product GDP as a
moderating variable, and therefore conclude that in societies with a low or middle GDP and with
a high level of in-group collectivism, greater entrepreneurial activity is estimated. Regarding
the cultural dimension, assertiveness there is a deficient number of publications on the
relationship of this dimension with entrepreneurship; in this case, only the theoretical study by
Ozgen (2012) was found, claiming that the lower the level of assertiveness in society, the less
opportunities for entrepreneurship will be evident. Finally, on the cultural dimension of humane
orientation, according to the literature review, there are few studies addressing its relationship
with entrepreneurship; in this case, the only empirical study found was by Zhao et al. (2012)
which concluded that a society of low or middle GDP and with a high level of humane
orientation can lean towards more entrepreneurial activity. There have only been a few
empirical studies addressing the relationship of culture and entrepreneurship from the proposed
cultural dimensions by the GLOBE project. This may be due, in principle, to the purpose of the
GLOBE project which was to analyze the relationship of culture with leadership and not with
entrepreneurship and, secondly, could be considered as a relatively new proposal, to
characterize the culture of a society. Thus, of the nine cultural dimensions of GLOBE, six
dimensions are related to entrepreneurial activity, according to previous studies. Specifically the
relationship of entrepreneurship with dimensions: Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance,
Institutional Collectivism, In-group Collectivism, Gender Egalitarianism, Future Orientation,
Performance Orientation and Humane Orientation, has been supported empirically, whereas in
the case of the cultural variable of Assertiveness, only one theoretical proposal has been made
concerning its influence on entrepreneurship.

Bibliographic references
Aldrich, H.E. & Wiedenmayer, G. (1993). From traits to rates: an ecological perspective on
organizational and Inclusive Development. Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and
growth, 145-195.
Ardichvili, A. & Gasparishvili, A. (2003). Russian and Georgian entrepreneurs and non-
entrepreneurs: a study of value differences. Organization Studies, 24(1), 29–46.
Autio, E., Pathak, S. & Wennberg, K. (2013). Consequences of cultural practices for
entrepreneurial behaviors. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(4), 334-362.
Baum, J. R., Olian, J. D., Erez, M., Schnell, E. R., Smith, K. G., Sims, H. P., et al. (1993).
Nationality and work role interactions: A cultural contrast of Israeli and US entrepreneurs'
versus managers' needs. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(6), 499-512.
Busenitz, L. W. & Barney, J. B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in
large organizations: biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of Business
Venturing, 12(1), 9–30.
Busenitz, L. W. & Lau, C. M. (1996). A cross-cultural cognitive model of new venture creation,
Entrepreneurship. Theory and Practice, 20, 25–39.
Carland, J.W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. & Carland, J.A.C. (1984). Differentiating entrepreneurs from
small business owners: a conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 354-359.
Díaz-Casero, J. C., Urbano-Pulido, D. & Hernández-Mogollón, R. (2005). Teoría económica
institucional y creación de empresas. Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la
Empresa, 11(3), 209-230.
Engelen, A., Heinemann, F. & Brettel M. (2009). Cross-cultural entrepreneurship research:
Current status and framework for future studies. Journal of International Entrepreneurship,
7(3), 163-189.
Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture
creation. Academy of management review, 10(4), 696-706.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (Vol. 5019). Basic books.
Gelfand, M. J., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Hishi, L. H., & Bechtold, D. J. (2004). Individualism and
collectivism. En House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M. & Dorfman, P.W. & Gupta, V. (Eds.),
Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (437-512). Thousand
Oaks, CA.: Sage.
George, G. & Zahra, S.A. (2002). Culture and its consequences for entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 5-8.
Grilo, I. & Thurik, R. (2005). Latent and actual entrepreneurship in Europe and the US: Some
recent developments. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1(4), 441-459.
Gurel, E., Altinay, L. & Daniele, R. (2010). Tourism student’s entrepreneurial intentions. Annals
of Tourism Research, 37(3), 646–669.
Harper, D. A. (1996). Entrepreneurship and the Market Process, London: Routledge.
Hayton, J. C., George, G. & Zahra, S. A. (2002). National culture and entrepreneurship: A
review of behavioral research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 33-52.
Herskovitz, M.J. (1948). Man and His Work: The Discipline of Cultural Anthropology, New York:
Knopf.
Hofstede, G. & McCrae, R. (2004). Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and
dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(1), 52-88.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values,
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
House R.J., Quigley N.R. & De Luque M.S. (2010). Insights from Project GLOBE Extending
global advertising research through a contemporary framework. International Journal of
Advertising, 29(1), 111-139.
House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P. & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit
leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World
Business, 37(1), 3–10.
House, R.J. & Javidan, M. (2004): Overview of GLOBE. En House, R.J., Hanges, R.J., Javidan,
M., Dorfman, P.W. & Gupta, V. (Eds), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study
of 62 Societies (9-26).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hunt, S., & Levie, J. (2003). Culture as a predictor of entrepreneurial activity. En W. D. Bygrave
(Ed.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research 2003 (171–185). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Katz, J. A. & Green, R. P. (2009). Entrepreneurial small businesses. (2nd ed.). Irwin NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Kirzner, I. M. (1979). Perception, Opportunity and Profit: Studies in the Theory of
Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Klapper, L., Leaven, L. & Rajan, R. (2006). Entry regulation as a barrier to entrepreneurship.
Journal of Financial Economics, 82(3), 591-629.
Kluckhohn, C. (1951). The study of culture. En Lerner, D. & Lasswell, H.D. (Eds.), The policy
sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Kreiser, P.M., Marino, L.D., Dickson, P. & Weaver, K. M. (2010). Cultural influences on
Entrepreneurial orientation: The impact of national culture on risk taking and proactiveness in
SMEs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(5), 959-983.
Li, L. (2007). A review of entrepreneurship research published in the hospitality and tourism
management journals. Tourism Management, 29(5), 1013-1022.
Lim, D.S.K., Morse, E.A., Mitchell, R.K. & Seawright, K.K. (2010). Institutional environment and
entrepreneurial cognitions: A comparative business systems perspective. Entrepreneurship
theory and Practice, 34(3), 491- 516.
Lordkipanidze, M. (2002). Enhancing Entrepreneurship in Rural Tourism for Sustainable
Regional Development: The case of Söderslätt region. Sweden, Published by IIIEE, Lund
University, PO Box, 196.
Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges.
Journal of management, 14(2), 139-161.
Low, M.B. (2001). The adolescence of entrepreneurship research: specification of purpose.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 17-25.
Mahoney, J. & Michael. S. (2004). A subjective theory of entrepreneurship. En Alvarez, S. (Ed.),
Handbook of Entrepreneurship. Boston, MA: Kluwer, forthcoming
Manolova,T. S., Eunni, R. & Gyoshev, B. S. (2008). Institutional environments for
entrepreneurship: evidence from emerging economies in Eastern Europe. Entrepreneurship:
Theory and Practice, 32(1), 203-218.
Mitchell, R. K., Smith, B., Sewright, K. W. & Morse, E. A. (2000). Cross-cultural cognitions and
the venture creation decision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 974–993.
Mitchell, R. K., Smith, J. B., Morse, E. A., Seawright, K. W., Peredo, A. M., & McKenzie, B.
(2002). Are entrepreneurial cognitions universal? Assessing entrepreneurial cognitions across
cultures. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 26(4), 9-33.
Morrison, A. J., Rimmington, M. & Williams, C. (1999). Entrepreneurship in the Hospitality,
Tourism and Leisure Industries. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Mueller, S. & Thomas, A. (2001). Culture and Entrepreneurial Potential: A Nine Country Study
of Locus of Control and Innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1), 51-75.
North, D. C. (2005). Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M. y Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and
collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin,
128(1), 3–72.
Ozgen, E. (2012). The effect of the national culture on female entrepreneurial activities in
emerging countries: an application of the GLOBE Project cultural dimensions. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship, 16, Special Issue, 69-92.
Pinillos M.J. & Reyes L. (2011). Relationship between individualist–collectivist culture and
entrepreneurial activity: evidence from Global Entrepreneurship Monitor data. Small Business
Economics, 37(1), 23-37.
Reynolds, P. D., Bygrave, W. D, Autio, E., Cox, L. W. and Hay, M. (2002). Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor (Kansas City: Kauffman Foundation).
Rumball, D. (1989). The Entrepreneurial Edge: Canada’s Top Entrepreneurs Reveal the Secrets
of their Success. Toronto: Key Porter.
Russell, S. S., Nabamita, D. & Sanjukta, R. (2010). Does cultural diversity increase the rate of
entrepreneurship?. The Review of Austrian Economics, 23(3), 269-286.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital,
credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Segall, M.H., Lonner, W.J. & Berry, J.W. (1998). Cross-cultural psychology as a scholarly
discipline: on the flowering of culture in behavioral research. American Psychologist, 53(10),
1101-1110.
Shane, S. (1992). Why do some societies invent more than others?. Journal of Business
Venturing, 7(1), 29-46.
Shane, S. (1993). Cultural influences on national rates of innovation. Journal of Business
Venturing, 8(1), 59-73.
Sheffield, E. A. (1988). Entrepreneurship and Innovation: In Recreation and Leisure Services.
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 59(8), 33-34.
Steier, L.P. (2009). Familiar capitalism in global institutional contexts: Implications for corporate
governance and entrepreneurship in East Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-
535.
Stewart, A. (1989). Team entrepreneurship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Thurik, A.R. & Wennekers M. (2004). Entrepreneurship, small business and economic growth.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(1), 140–149.
Tiessen, J. H. (1997). Individualism, collectivism and entrepreneurship: a framework for
international comparative research. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), 367–384.
UNESCO. "Conferencia Mundial sobre las Políticas Culturales" (1982). Disponible en:
http://www.unesco.org/new/es/mexico/work-areas/culture/
Van Praag, C. M. (1999). Some Classic Views on Entrepreneurship. De Economist, 147(3), 311–
335.
Veciana, J.M. (1999). Creación de Empresas como programa de investigación Científica. Revista
Europea de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, 8(3), 11-36.
White, L. A. (1959). The Concept of Culture. American anthropologist, 61(2), 227-251.
Yamakawa, Y., Peng, M.W. & Deeds, D. L. (2008). What drives new ventures to internationalize
from emerging to developed economies?. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 59-82.
Zhao, X., Li, H., & Rauch, A. (2012). Cross-Country Differences in Entrepreneurial Activity: The
Role of Cultural Practice and National Wealth. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 6(4),
447-474.

1. PhD in scientific perspectives on tourism and management of tourism companies. Researcher Professor, University of
San Buenaventura Cali, Cali, Colombia. E-mail: mcastillop@usbcali.edu.co
2. PhD in economic and business sciences. Vice-Rector for Entrepreneurship and Employment, University of Las Palmas de
Gran Canaria, Spain. E-mail: rosa.batistacanino@ulpgc.es
3. PhD in scientific perspectives on tourism and management of tourism companies. Full Professor, Departamento de
Ciencias Turísticas.Facultad de Ciencias Contables, Económicas y Administrativas. Universidad del Cauca, Colombia. E-
mail: alexanderzuniga@unicauca.edu.co

Revista ESPACIOS. ISSN 0798 1015

Vol. 38 (Nº 34) Año 2017
 [Índice]
[En caso de encontrar algún error en este website favor enviar email a webmaster]

©2017. revistaESPACIOS.com • Derechos Reservados