National culture and innovation capability: some observations concerning Chinese‐Americans

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to review the literature and discuss the relations between national culture, national subcultures and innovation based on three perspectives: divergence, convergence and crossvergence.Design/methodology/approachBased principally on previous studies in the “culture” and “culture and innovation” literature, this paper reviews two key sets of literature: first, the three perspectives of macro‐level cultural interaction are reviewed; second, the relationship between culture and innovation is reviewed. Hofstede's five dimensions of culture in the workplace are employed when discussing the impact of culture and innovation.FindingsThe outcome of the review suggests that the product of crossvergence (Chinese‐American culture in this case) has a high potential to be more innovative than one of the two interacting cultures (Chinese), but does not draw a conclusion regarding relative innovativeness between Chinese‐American and US culture. It is generally found that Western cultures tend to be more innovative than Eastern cultures.Research limitations/implicationsThis conceptual paper has implications for business strategy but does not present fresh empirical data to support its propositions.Practical implicationsIn today's highly competitive and highly complex global environment, innovation is a key success factor in organizations worldwide. The search for talented and innovative employees should not be limited to domestic sources alone. The talent pool of Chinese‐Americans and others from multicultural backgrounds should be tapped. Ethnocentric viewpoints are outdated.Originality/valueThe value of this paper is its exploration of the impacts of the crossvergence of cultures on innovation.

National Innovation Capability Variables and Dimensions

“…To perform the analysis and modification of the model of national innovation capabilities that have been developed by Chang and Lin (2012) is by comparing studies that have been done related to the national innovation capability, such as studies done by Natario, Couto, Tiago, and Braga, (2011); Chen, Hu, and Yang, (2011); Sun (2009); Turen, Dilek, and Gokmen, (2013); Wong, Everett, & Nicholson, (2008); Chang and Cui (2013); Stern, Porter, & Furman, (2000); and Kutlaca (2008). Kutlaca (2008) developed a model of national innovation capability of Serbian state taking into account the national statistical data and measurement methodology used by OECD.…”

“…Several studies analyze variables that affect national innovation capabilities, including Natario, et al 2011, Chen et al (2011), Sun (2009), Wong, Everett and Nicholson (2008), Chang and Cui (2013), Stern et al (2000), and Castellaci and Natera (2013). Natario et al (2011) conducted a study by evaluating factors affecting national innovation capability, including analysis of small and medium enterprise (SME) innovation capability using cluster analysis method.…”

“…Similarly, studies conducted by Wong et al (2008) related to the influence of culture on innovation capabilities. In the review conducted, it was obvious that the national cultural relations with innovation were based on three perspectives: divergent, convergent, and crossvergence.…”

A Conceptual Model of Cultural Distance, MNC Subsidiary Roles, and Knowledge Transfer in China-based Subsidiaries

“…Despite some criticisms about the nature and early period of Hofstede's seminal studies (Tayeb, 2003), researchers have used these culture dimensions in different ways. Hofstede's (1980) model is the most widely used framework in the research of cross-cultural knowledge transfer (e.g., Ford & Chan, 2003;Lucas, 2006;Wong, Everett &Nicholson, 2008). Based on this approach, a few studies (Cui et al, 2006;Lucas, 2006) have been conducted to explore how cultural distance influences knowledge transfer within MNCs.…”

“…Cultural dimensions from Hofstede's (1980Hofstede's ( , 2001 model are adopted to develop a set of propositions concerning the impact of cultural distance and cultural dimensions on the knowledge transfer process within MNCs. Hofstede's cultural framework is employed 1) due to its conceptual comprehensiveness, attested convergent validity, and significant impact on the social science and management literature; and 2) because it remains the most widely accepted cultural framework within research on knowledge transfer (e.g., Ford & Chan, 2003;Lucas, 2006;Wong, Everett & Nicholson, 2008). Several researchers (Ambos & Ambos, 2009;Bhagat et al, 2002;Buckley et al, 2006;Chow et al, 2000;Cui et al, 2006;De Long & Fahey, 2000;Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000;Li & Scullion, 2006;Qin, Ramburuth & Wang, 2008;Simonin, 1999) view cultural distance as an obstacle in the knowledge transfer process, even though specific culture values are argued to have positive impact on knowledge transfer (Almeida, Song & Grant, 2002).…”