The purpose of this paper is to critically examine, theoretically and empirically, the two time orientation dimensions – long‐term orientation (LTO) and future orientation (FO) – in the national culture models of Hofstede and GLOBE, respectively.
Following Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck's past‐present‐future theoretical lens, the Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO measures are analysed to understand the conceptual domain covered by these two dimensions. Next, the authors empirically examine the relationship of Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO with secondary data from Hofstede, GLOBE, and the World Values Survey.
This paper shows that Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO dimensions capture different aspects of time orientation of societies. In particular, Hofstede LTO focuses on past (tradition) versus future (thrift) aspect of societies, GLOBE FO practices capture the present versus future (planning) practices of societies, and GLOBE FO values reflect societal aspirations and preferences for planning.
A specific implication of these findings is that the three dimensions of time orientation are not interchangeable since they represent different characteristics of societies. A wider implication for researchers is to ensure high level of precision in and congruence among construct labels, definitions and measures to avoid confusion and misapplication of cross‐cultural concepts.
In an increasingly globalized world, a clear understanding of societal time orientation will help managers deal more effectively with their counterparts in other countries.
The key contribution of this paper is in identifying and clarifying, both theoretically and empirically, the anomalies in the labels, definitions and measurement of Hofstede long‐term orientation and GLOBE future orientation national culture dimensions. It also shows a useful way forward for researchers on how to use these national culture dimensions to explain other phenomena of interest to cross‐cultural scholars.
