a comparison of group decision-making systems …t11938/reports/group decision making...a comparison...

A Comparison of Group Decision-Making Systems in Japan, China, Hong

Kong, and Vietnam

- Agent, Strategy, and Population of Agents -

Abstract

This paper elucidates the distinguishing features of group decision making in business-gaming

simulation experiments in Japan, China, Hong Kong, and Vietnam. The subjects of the gaming

simulation experiment were master’s degree program students in these countries, and most were

also employed at companies. Our data come from two approaches to the quantitative analysis of the

game outcomes and survey results. To elucidate the group decision-making systems of each country,

we attempted comparison of groups categorized by agent, strategy, and population of agents,

employing a framework of complex adaptive systems. We employed Hofstede’s cultural dimensions

framework for analyzing agents. Finally we pictured four countries group decision making systems

comparison.

Introduction

Today, international alliances and co-working opportunities are increasing rapidly in Asian regions. In Japan,

many “domestic” companies are obliged to travel across Asia to find new markets and/or manufacturing facilities, as

shown in Figure 1. When these companies partner with local companies, there are always differences in business

operations, and, in particular, in the way decisions are made; thus, some companies experience difficulties in making

decisions in conjunction with business partners from other countries. It is not easy to observe and compare methods

of group decision making between different countries. However, if business leaders are able to understand these

differences beforehand, they may be able to cooperate more smoothly with partners from other Asian countries and

build a more competitive organization.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

FY2001FY2002FY2003FY2004FY2005FY2006FY2007FY2008FY2009FY2010

Figure 1 The number of Japanese local subsidies in Asia

adapted from “the 41st Survey on Overseas Business Activities”

Copyright 2012 by Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry Japan

Our research question in this paper was whether the mechanisms of corporate group decision making differ by

country, and, if so, what causes such differences. There has been much research on cross-national business

operations (Child 2006). In previous studies, it has been difficult to find consistency in comparisons of different

countries’ decision making across theoretical boundaries. For example, Lewis (2006) offered a large international

comparison of business culture research, as shown in Table 1. Although the work is interesting and informative,

these results are based primarily on the author’s business experience, and we found little consistency in research

methods. In this paper, we mainly focused on two theories. One was economic theory, which is not sensitive to

particular nations or regions but refers instead to universal rationales. To elucidate the difference between countries,

we conducted the same business game with MBA/master students in four countries and compared those results. The

other theory we focused on was cultural theory (Hofstede 1991; Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov 2010). We asked

cultural questions before the game started and compared the results by countries.

Table 1 Empirical comparison of decision making of four countries (Lewis 2006)

Countries Factors with regards to meeting and decision making

Japan They normally negotiate in teams, each member of which has a different specialty.

Their questions constitute an information-gathering process only. They are not about to make a decision

based on your answers.

Their decisions will eventually be made by consensus; therefore, no person will stick out as an individual.

They are willing to go over the same information many times to avoid later misunderstandings and achieve

clarity.

They are cautious and skilled in stalling tactics and will not be rushed.

China Remember that power distance is large and that inequalities are expected and desired.

The meeting is principally for information gathering; the real decisions will be made elsewhere.

In a collectivist culture, accountability for decisions is avoided in many meetings. Authority is not passed

downward from the leaders.

Decisions have a long-term orientation. Negotiations in China are important social occasions during which

one fosters relationships and decides if the people on the other side of the table are suitable partners for the

long run.

Hong Kong They negotiate briskly and factually to achieve quick results.

They show perspicacity and clear-sightedness when asking questions.

Take risks and show them how to make money.

They want only facts, hardly any preambles, and no “padding.”

Vietnam Collective leadership according to Confucian tenets has been the traditional model.

As a group-oriented society, they are used to living and working in close proximity to each other.

Although basically courteous, they are often willing to use counter-arguments.

Decision making is by consensus.

This paper is an attempt to synthesize these two theories to address group decision making in each country as a

single system. In the experiments, groups considered and decided on decision-making variables (i.e., prices,

advertising and promotional costs, research and development costs, production volume, investment in plant

expansion, and borrowing of funds) with certain restrictions (i.e., time to make a decision and fixed team

membership and roles), toward an explicit objective (maximization of accumulated profit). In this paper, we decided

to employ the complex adaptive systems of Axelrod and Cohen (2000) for the structural analysis of the above

conditions. Complex adaptive systems constitute domains approximating systems based on the multiple academic

domains of evolutionary biology, computer science, and social design. Axelrod and Cohen (2000) describe the

advantages of such a system as bridging the gap that often separates humanistic and hard science approaches to

social analysis. We tried to synthesize the economic decision making of the business game with the cultural way of

thinking of each country’s students and how they worked as a team. Thus, in the experiments described in this paper,

we collected data from a different framework, incorporating agent, strategy, and population of agents as well as

traditional business culture and organization theory. We also decided to analyze group decision making in each

country as a system on the basis of the interactions between agent, strategy, and population of agents.

Method

Outline of the Experiments

The four experiments were conducted locally with students at business schools in Japan, China, Hong Kong, and

Vietnam. The outline of the business-game experiments discussed in this paper is shown in Table 2. Subjects

participated for learning purposes, as a part of graduate-school classes or preparatory courses, without knowing the

purpose of the experiment. The business game used in the experiment was the MBABEST21 system (Iwai,

Horiuchi, Oshima, and Morita 2010), with a scenario in which each participating team played the role of a

manufacturer producing and selling a tablet PC product like the iPad2 or Blu-Ray disc player in a single market. The

winning team, the one that achieved the largest cumulative profit at the end of the game, received a prize. Instructors

from each country formed the teams in advance, grouping subjects into teams of four or five members each. Each

team was given a personal computer for input use, and the instructor informed subjects of the rules and of the fact

that the best-performing team would receive a prize. Subject teams held tactical meetings for approximately 15

minutes each to decide on a company name, a mission statement, and roles within the team (i.e., president, finance

officer, marketing director, production manager, R&D manager). After this meeting, they filled out a questionnaire

on cultural dimensions (see Appendix 1). Following a practice round of the game, a new round of game input and

output was conducted from period one to period four, although we did not tell subjects clearly about the number of

periods in advance. At every period of the game, each team decided on input variables through meetings of roughly

20 minutes, while looking at the overall rankings and their own companies’ financial statements. After completion

of the fourth period, the game finished and debriefing was conducted. The subjects answered questionnaires on the

group decision making of their own teams immediately after the game (see Appendix 2). The process concluded

with the announcement of the winning teams.

Table 2 Outline of the experiment using a business game

Japan China Hong Kong Vietnam

Experiment location Tokyo Shengyang Hong Kong Hanoi

Subjects New MBA students New MBA students Master’s course

students (2nd year)

Master’s course

students (2nd year)

Number of subjects 99 45 26 23

Game scenario Manufacture and sale of a tablet PC

product similar to the iPad 2 Same as Japan Same as Japan

Manufacture and sales

of an HD player or a

Blu-Ray player*

Required

experiment time 3.5 hours 3.5 hours 3 hours 5 hours

Number of trials 2 (1 practice trial, 1 actual trial) Same as Japan Same as Japan Same as Japan

Number of

competing teams 24 14 6 6

Students per team 4 or 5 Same as Japan Same as Japan Same as Japan

Input variables Price, marketing, R&D, production

volume, capital investment, borrowing Same as Japan Same as Japan Same as Japan

Game target

variable Maximizing cumulative profit Same as Japan Same as Japan Same as Japan

* The scenario differed in Vietnam game at the local adviser’s request. However, the structure and parameters are exactly the same as those of

the other countries’ games.

Framework of Analysis

In accordance with the complex adaptive system, we introduce the concepts of agent, strategy (and measure of

success), and population of agents as the framework for comparative analysis of group decision making. Axelrod

and Cohen (2000) defined each of these concepts as follows: “An agent has the ability to interact with its

environment, including other agents. An agent can respond to what happens around it and can do things more or less

purposefully.” “Strategy is the way an agent responds to its surroundings and pursues its goal … Human agents have

some awareness of their own strategies, and they may be able to observe something about how well they are doing

according to some measure of success.” “Populations are important in three ways: as a source of possibilities to

learn from, as recipients for a new found improvement, and as a part of your environment.” Furthermore, they wrote

a summary of how the parts of the framework form a working whole as follows: “Agents, of a variety of types, use

their strategies, in patterned interaction, with each other … Performance measures on the resulting events drive the

selection of agents and/or strategies … thus changing the frequencies of the types within the system.”

Using the concepts above, in this study, we defined agent, strategies (and measure of success), and population of

agents as described below:

- Agent: Subjects from Japan, China, Hong Kong, and Vietnam, respectively. The distinguishing features of each

were measured immediately prior to the game using a total of 19 dual-method questions on cultural dimensions.

- Strategy: Decision making on variables, conducted by each team, measured by the input values for each variable

and the team’s ranking. Here, ranking is defined as a measure of success, maximizing cumulative profit. It is

measured using the total ranking report for each quarter as the game progresses.

- Population of agents: This refers to the team itself, made up, in principle, of four or five subjects. It is measured

using questionnaires on group decision making immediately after the game.

Results

Comparison among Countries: Agents

Table 3 shows a breakdown of agents. The Japanese agents had been in service for a relatively long time. On the

other hand, the Vietnamese were young workers with relatively few service years. There was also a difference in

male-female ratios. These results reflect the situations of MBA/master students in each country. Thus, this paper

focuses on the worker who would be the manager in each country.

Table 3 Subjects’ profile working experience

Japan China Hong Kong Vietnam

Female Mean 9.0 5.8 6.6 4.7

SD 6.7 3.6 3.4 4.2

N 27 27 9 12

Male Mean 9.8 7.4 9.9 6.2

SD 6.3 2.7 6.5 3.5

N 71 18 13 11

Total Mean 9.6 6.4 8.7 5.4

SD 6.4 3.4 5.4 3.9

N 98 45 24 23

We attempted comparison in our analysis of agents, taking into consideration the cultural aspects of each country

using the yardstick of cultural dimensions (Hofstede 1991, Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov 2010), that is, the four

cultural dimensions of power distance, individualism and collectivism, masculinity and femininity, and uncertainty

avoidance. As a model synthesizing the macro environment of policy, economics, and society at a national level and

the micro behavioral norms of the values possessed by the people of each country, cultural dimensions provide a

measure for use in international comparison. Hofstede (1991) argued that these indicators differ by country and

gender. Hofstede, Pedersen, and Hofstede (2002) also proposed a method of using gaming simulation to encourage

mutual understanding of these cultural differences.

In our experiments, immediately prior to the start of the game, we asked all subjects 19 questions concerning the

four cultural dimensions using a dual method. We used dual-method questions because when asking questions on a

semantic differential scale, interpretations are not necessarily identical in different countries, leading to the

possibility of loss of reliability in analyses, such as comparison using average values (Usunier & Lee 2009). After

first translating an English-language questionnaire into Japanese, Chinese, and Vietnamese, we asked for the

instructors from each country to check and correct the translation and used the result as the final version. Appendix 1

shows the before-game questionnaire on cultural dimensions.

We conducted factor analysis on the response results to the questionnaire corresponding to Hofstede’s four

dimensions (power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance), and we identified six factors. Table

4 shows the factor loadings for each question.

Table 4 Factor loadings of agents’ cultural dimensions

Factor loadings (After promax rotation)

Ambiguity

lover (FC1)

Top-down

decision lover

(FC2)

Meritocracy lover

(FC3)

Leadership lover

(FC4)

Live to work

(FC5)

Priority of given

role (FC6)

BQ1 PDI -0.180 0.048 0.156 0.006 0.234 0.034

BQ2 PDI -0.035 0.008 -0.026 1.015 -0.035 -0.004

BQ3 PDI -0.314 0.121 0.316 -0.078 -0.140 -0.111

BQ4 PDI -0.145 0.062 0.091 -0.081 0.225 0.037

BQ5 PDI 0.047 0.020 0.064 -0.080 -0.274 0.150

BQ6 IDV -0.064 0.086 0.005 0.117 0.088 0.542

BQ7 IDV -0.413 0.356 0.001 -0.062 -0.105 0.090

BQ8 IDV 0.125 0.177 0.082 0.072 0.163 -0.352

BQ9 IDV 0.017 -0.027 0.735 0.043 0.153 0.013

BQ10 IDV 0.160 0.015 0.071 0.063 -0.197 -0.001

BQ11 MAS 0.201 -0.073 -0.078 -0.037 -0.081 0.277

BQ12 MAS -0.048 -0.074 0.460 -0.076 -0.044 -0.112

BQ13 MAS 0.190 -0.019 0.048 -0.056 0.673 -0.084

BQ14 MAS 0.096 1.039 -0.060 0.020 0.015 -0.107

BQ15 UAI 0.379 -0.039 0.357 0.037 0.093 0.074

BQ16 UAI 0.242 -0.034 0.243 0.088 -0.330 -0.117

BQ17 UAI -0.715 -0.063 0.094 -0.011 -0.137 0.115

BQ18 UAI 0.190 -0.011 0.007 -0.105 0.068 -0.007

BQ19 UAI 0.746 0.107 0.045 -0.109 -0.168 0.189

The six factors we identified are as follows: “Ambiguity lover,” “Top-down decision lover,” “Meritocracy lover,”

“Leadership lover,” “Lives to work,” and “Priority on given role.” Figure 2 shows the mean of each factor by

country.

Figure 2 Cultural aspects of the four countries

China does not resemble Japan on any factor at all. The Chinese prefer that things be clear whereas the Japanese

particularly prefer ambiguity. In addition, the Chinese also prefer and expect managers to be decisive and assertive,

whereas the Japanese prefer that their managers use intuition and strive for consensus. However, Japanese managers

are also required to show leadership. Thus, in Japan, the boss who demonstrates leadership while considering the

opinions of subordinates is preferred. In addition, the Japanese attach greater importance to the human relations

within an organization than to a given role. Hong Kong and China were similar on each factor.

Vietnam is similar in some respects to Japan. The Vietnamese prefer ambiguity, meritocracy, and the boss’s

leadership. However, the difference is that the Vietnamese prefer top-down decision making with the subordinates

faithfully playing a role against the boss’s decision.

Comparison among Countries: Strategy

Next, we compare the countries’ strategies. In this business game, maximization of cumulative profit is the

measure of success. Before the game, the following expression was explained to the subjects from each country:

Profit = Revenue (price × units sold) – Cost (cost of goods sold + R&D + marketing + depreciation + interests)

Although participating teams employed multiple strategies within this framework, the variables they could

manipulate directly were price, quantity of production, marketing, R&D, capital investment, and borrowing. In this

business-game experiment, participants were able to get a general feel for the relationship between these variables

and profit in the practice round, that is, the relationship between strategy and measurement of success. We focused

first on which variables were manipulated by each team, and how, during the initial input in the actual round. We

attempted comparison of the differences among the countries’ strategies using teams’ tendencies in deciding on

initial variables.

Figure 3 shows a comparison by country of the degree to which the initial team decision-making input variables

varied from the default values. The Japanese teams’ strategy sought to differentiate products by quality, with a

somewhat low value for price, a very high degree of importance assigned to R&D, and some importance given to

marketing and capital investment. The Chinese teams’ strategy had a somewhat higher value for price but relatively

low values for marketing, R&D, and capital investment, seeking to secure profit by cutting costs. The strategy of the

Hong Kong teams ascribed importance to marketing and capital investment. The strategy of the Vietnamese teams

was low direct cost, that is, they tended to keep prices and manufacturing costs low.

Figure 3 The first quarter (Period 1) input variables by countries

Figure 4 The final quarter (period 4) input variables by countries

Changes in each country’s strategy can be seen from changes in the ranking of each team as well. As shown in

Table 5, a look at correlations of rank between the first (period 1) and the final (period 4) net income shows that

China had the highest level, Japan a medium level, and Hong Kong the lowest level. In other words, for China, once

a strategy was determined, it was rare for teams to make changes in accordance with changes in conditions;

therefore, changes in rank were rare as well. At the same time, Hong Kong’s teams were relatively bold in terms of

changing strategy, and as a result, the changes in rank were larger. The ranking of Vietnam’s team changed

dramatically—higher-ranked teams slipped lower and vice versa; however, most of the Vietnamese teams

maintained the low-price/low-cost strategy. It should be noted, however, that both Vietnam and Hong Kong had a

smaller number of teams, only six each.

Table 5 Correlations of rank between the first period and cumulative profit

Rank correlation Number of teams

Japan .52 ** 24

China .79 ** 14

Hong Kong .37

6

Vietnam -.77 6

Note: Spearman’s rank correlation between cumulative net income of period 1 and 4. ** p < .01

Comparison among Countries: Population of Agents

The comparison of agent population was conducted using the answers to a group decision-making questionnaire

administered immediately after conducting the experiment in each country; the after-game questionnaire is shown in

Appendix 2. When we conducted a factor analysis with regard to the mean of data of the above questionnaire by

team, the results focused on the following three factors from Table 6. We then depicted the relationship between

each factor score in a scatter diagram (Japan: J, China: C, Hong Kong: H, Vietnam: V).

Factor 1: Consistency of given role

Factor 2: Cooperation in a team

Factor 3: Emergent property

Table 6 Factor loadings of the features of the population of agents’ group decision making

Factor loadings (After promax rotation)

Consistency of given role

(FC1) Cooperation in a team (FC2) Emergent property (FC3)

AQ1 My Cooperation 0.259 0.214 0.197

AQ2 My role 0.682 0.024 -0.004

AQ3 Other member’s cooperation -0.115 1.048 -0.030

AQ4 Other member’s role 0.970 0.044 -0.040

AQ5 Conflict 0.494 -0.136 -0.033

AQ6 Consensus 0.127 0.490 0.102

AQ7 Democracy -0.040 0.465 -0.109

AQ8 Emergent property -0.046 -0.049 1.008

A look at the relationship between consistency of given role and avoidance of conflict among the teams, as shown

in Table 7 and Figure 5, reveals that although many Vietnamese and Chinese teams complied with their assigned

roles, the Japanese and Hong Kong teams conducted decision making without much concern for their given roles.

The Hong Kong teams scored as preferring to make decisions by group consensus and their decision-making

process tended to be democratic; in the actual game, decision making was by consensus. The Japanese and Chinese

teams showed variation by team in this tendency, with the Chinese teams in particular showing the largest variation

among the four countries between teams. In the case of learning and creativity as well, many Hong Kong and

Vietnamese teams answered in the affirmative; however, comparison among Japanese and Chinese teams shows

variation in this tendency, with Chinese teams in particular showing the largest between-team variation among the

four countries, as shown in Figure 6.

Table 7 Mean and standard deviation of factor scores of decision-making questionnaire by countries

Country

Consistency of given role

(FC1)

Cooperation in a team

(FC2)

Emergent property

(FC3)

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Japan -0.367 0.784 -0.310 1.084 -0.007 0.848

China 0.476 1.111 0.172 1.079 -0.439 1.190

Hong Kong -0.394 0.887 0.311 0.615 0.558 0.628

Vietnam 0.750 0.841 0.526 0.434 0.493 1.117

Figure 5 Consistency of given role and cooperation in a team

Figure 6 Cooperation in a team and learning and creativity in a team

Discussion

Through the preceding sections, we conducted comparative analysis among four countries based on the data

obtained from an experiment. In this section, we will synthesize the knowledge attained from this analysis and

analyze the distinctive features of group decision-making systems in each of the four countries, treating each of the

countries as a system.

Table 8 identifies some characteristic results from the analysis conducted through the preceding sections. We will

attempt to depict the group decision-making systems of the four countries using this table.

Japan’s Group Decision-Making System

The Japanese agents preferred a flat organization, ambiguity and consensus within an organization, and

emphasize the human relationship. They also demanded performance-based compensation. Discussions took place

in groups without giving much attention to assigned roles; however, there was a strong tendency to avoid uncertainty.

Furthermore, a characteristic response was that interpersonal relations and consensus were important. This can be

interpreted as avoidance of people whose opinions stand out or behavior that stands out.

In strategy, R&D costs and marketing costs were seen to be important, with product differentiation being a main

competitive strategy. Furthermore, as the game progressed, R&D costs were reduced and marketing costs increased

in order to maximize cumulative profit. In other words, non-price-based competition was employed. In this sense,

Japan’s group decision-making system can be said to be one of non-price-based competition more than cost

competition, and, as seen in the table above, R&D was given importance within this system (R&D focus). Since

agents disliked taking risks, even within non-price-based competition, they sought to develop products that could

overwhelm the competition by giving more importance to R&D than to marketing activities.

A look at the agent populations shows that this system was relatively homogeneous, with small variations among

teams in terms of satisfaction with group decision making. In the end, more often than collaborative decision

making within the group, decision making was conducted on the basis of the judgment of a capable person who

listened, to some extent, to the opinions of those around him or her. In addition, although this system was easier to

control because it made it easier to share information with other team members, it also is one in which it was

difficult to gather collective intelligence. System management by a conciliatory leader was preferred in order to

gather agents tending toward collectivism and uncertainty avoidance. Although traditionally such

consensus-building leaders have been said to be characteristic of Japanese-style management, the time in which a

leader needed only to build consensus among the views of agents has passed. Instead of simply building consensus,

the leader needs to demonstrate strong leadership in a way that does not stand out. This is why we have used the

term “conciliatory.” Figure 7 diagrams the Japanese group decision-making system from the information above.

Figure 7 Group decision-making system: Japan

China’s Group Decision-Making System

The China agents dislike ambiguity and prefer the boss’s clear-cut judgment. They attach a higher value to

evaluation within the organization than to the individual’s ability. Although the Chinese agents had high tolerance

for uncertainty, they rarely performed jobs other than their own. A tendency toward making leaders’ positions clear

and managing subordinates as a group is seen in the characteristic responses. Another tendency that became

apparent is reliably performing jobs within the scope assigned but not doing any unnecessary work. From these

results, it can be said that agents had behavioral properties that made it easy to adapt to a hierarchical organization.

Here, we will call this an organizational membership orientation.

A characteristic of the Chinese teams’ strategy was a general orientation toward low costs, with lower than the

base values for R&D, marketing, and capital investment (cost strategy). In decision making as well, each variable

diverged little from the pre-identified base values, and the rate of strategic changes from the first to the last period

Strategy

R&D focus

Agent

Ambiguity lover

Low power distance

Population of Agents

Management by a conciliatory leader

was low as well. For this reason, there were few changes in rank, and strategy decisions appear to have been made

from a long-term perspective (strategic stability).

Among the agents, the opinions of subordinates were listened to; this was done solely to increase the quality of

decision making by the top leaders, and not to make decisions democratically. Here, we will refer to this as

management by leaders with exclusive authority. For this reason, the individuality and ability of the team leader

affected team performance. Variation in terms of satisfaction was quite large between teams with frequent internal

conflicts of opinion and those with few such conflicts. Under this system, the risk of great success or massive failure

depending on team membership was larger than in other countries, and results show considerable variation among

teams. Further, since management was conducted by leaders with exclusive authority, another apparent

characteristic was strategic stability, in which once a policy (strategy) was determined, it did not change, even as the

game progressed. Figure 8 diagrams the Chinese group decision-making system from the information above.

Figure 8 Group decision-making system: China

Hong Kong’s Group Decision-Making System

The Hong Kong agents demanded work rules and performance-based compensation without doing unnecessary

work. Similar to Chinese, they dislike ambiguity and attach a higher value to evaluation within the organization than

to the individual’s ability.

While these agents gave importance to marketing costs and expanding plant size (marketing focus), strategy was

Strategy

Cost strategy, strategic stability

Agent

Dislike ambiguity,

Organizational membership

orientation


Management by a leader with

exclusive authority

more flexible than in other countries, with initial strategies changing in accordance with the circumstances (strategic

flexibility).The strategy may also have had a relatively short-term perspective.

The population of agents showed a relatively high degree of emergence within the team (high emergence), so that

collective intelligence and learning effects could be expected from group decision making. As in the case of China,

tolerance for uncertainty was high, but unlike the Chinese teams, the Hong Kong teams conducted flexible decision

making in response to uncertainty. In addition, this system was homogeneous, with relatively small variation among

teams in their satisfaction with group decision making. The decision-making members consulted with each other

without giving much importance to their assigned roles. They gave priority to smooth interpersonal relations, and

teams that employed democratic decision making tended to rise to the top ranks (management through democratic

leadership). Figure 9 diagrams the Hong Kong group decision-making system from the information above.

Figure 9 Group decision-making system: Hong Kong

Vietnam’s Group Decision-Making System

Generally speaking, the Vietnamese agents rigorously performed their roles, which were assigned in the game,

and many Vietnamese agents believed that jobs were more important than human relations. This point is the

distinguishing feature of Vietnamese agents: There was a big difference between Vietnam and Japan because the

Japanese gave importance to human relationships.

As shown in Figure 10, almost all teams started with very low prices and gave importance to capital investment

Strategy

Marketing focus, strategic flexibility

Agent

Dislike ambiguity,

Prefer evaluation in organization


High emergent properties, management

by a democratic leader

for plant expansion, and they strove to keep prices set at lower levels. China’s teams, in general, also maintained

their strategies during the game. However, although both countries maintained their strategies and did not change

them, those strategies were different. China set the prices high and kept other expenditures (R&D and marketing)

low. The Vietnamese teams achieved cost reduction through capacity expansion.

The population of agents showed that consistency of given role and cooperation in teams were very high, and

there was a large difference between Vietnam and Japan on this point. In addition, the emergent property was a

feature of Japanese companies, but according to our experiment, Vietnam had more emergent property than Japan.

There were only a few Vietnamese teams participating in the experiment, so it was difficult to form statistically

significant conclusions. However, we were able to build a hypothetical model from our sparse data.

Figure 10 Group decision-making system: Vietnam

Above, we modeled the group decision-making systems of the four countries. These are hypothetical models

combining the highly characteristic results from the data we obtained in our experiment. In this study, each

experiment was conducted over a short period of roughly three hours, and the experiments were not conducted

continually using the same members. It is likely that long-term observation of decision making by the same team

members in a class through the academic term could identify changes in systems. Particular examples include

problems and formation of subgroups resulting from interactions between team members, such as changes in

satisfaction or other factors when the game is repeated, learning, habituation heuristics, and differences in values and

Strategy

Low price strategy by expansion of

capacity

Agent

Compliance with rules


Management by a leader

with exclusive authority

feelings. Although there are limits to constructing a theory in this way, we believe that we have presented one

method of modeling using a business game. We would like to have additional samples for refining and testing those

models.

Table 8 Summary of experiment results using a complex adaptive system framework

Japan

China

Hong Kong Vietnam

Agent Characteristic responses Agents prefer ambiguity and

consensus within an organization,

and emphasize the human

relationship.

Agents dislike ambiguity and prefer the

boss’s clear-cut judgment. They attach a

higher value to evaluation within the

organization than to the individual’s ability.

Similar to Chinese, agents

dislike ambiguity and attach a

higher value to evaluation within

the organization than to the

individual’s ability.

Agents like a boss with strong

leadership, and prefer

meritocracy. They live to work

and discharge their duties

faithfully.

Strategy The first period inputs R&D is seen as very important, and

teams try to differentiate products by

quality. Marketing is seen as

important

While prices are somewhat high, other

variables are observed relatively carefully

without deviating greatly from the initial

values.

Teams give importance to

marketing costs and to capital

investment for plant expansion.

Teams start with very low price

and give importance to capital

investment for plant expansion.

The final period inputs In comparison with the first period,

increased marketing costs and

decreased R&D costs. Changes in

input variables are in the middle

range among the four countries.

Marketing costs and production quantity

increase from the first period. However, as in

the first period, the difference from the base

value is relatively small for each variable.

As in the first period, marketing

is seen as most important, but

R&D costs and capital

investment increase as well.

Large fluctuations on almost all

variables, as decision making is

flexible.

Prices remain very low.

Because of decreased cash,

teams are obliged to decrease

R&D, marketing expenses, and

capital investment.

Rank correlation between

first and last periods Medium rank changes

Rank is fixed, and changes in strategy are

few. Once teams decide on a strategy, they

stick to the original idea and do not change

even if their ranking is low.

Rank is fluid, and often changes

their strategy.

Rank changes dramatically,

with upper teams’ ranks

lowering and vice versa.

However, most teams keep the

low-price/low-cost strategy.


Consistency of given role Low

High, Considerable variation among teams

Low Very High

Avoidance of conflict in team Low, Slight variation among teams

Middle, Considerable variation among teams

High Very High

Emergence Middle, Slight variation among teams

Low, Considerable variation among teams

High High

Appendix 1. Before-game questionnaire.

BQ1 1. The ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat, or a “good father.”

2. The ideal boss is a resourceful democrat.

3. Don’t know/Undecided

BQ2 1. Teachers should take all the initiative in class.

2. Teachers expect initiative from students in class.


BQ3 1. Subordinates expect to be told what to do.

2. Subordinates expect to be consulted.


BQ4 1. There is a wide salary range between the top and the bottom of the organization.

2. There is a narrow salary range between the top and the bottom of the organization.


BQ5 1. Privileges and status symbols are normal and popular.

2. Privileges and status symbols are frowned upon.


BQ6 1. Task prevails over relationship.

2. Relationship prevails over task.


BQ7 1. The employer–employee relationship is a contract between parties in a labor market.

2. The employer–employee relationship is basically moral, like a family link.


BQ8 1. Management is management of individuals.

2. Management is management of groups.


BQ9 1. Hiring and promotion decisions are supposed to be based on skills and rules only.

2. Hiring and promotion decisions consider the employee’s in-group behavior.


BQ10 1. Speaking one’s mind is a characteristic of an honest person.

2. Harmony should always be maintained and direct confrontations avoided.


BQ11 1. Resolution of conflicts by letting the strongest win.

2. Resolution of conflicts by compromise and negotiation.


BQ12 1. Stress on equity, competition among colleagues, and performance.

2. Stress on equality, solidarity, and quality of work life.


BQ13 1. People live in order to work.

2. People work in order to live.


BQ14 1. Managers are expected to be decisive and assertive.

2. Managers use intuition and strive for consensus.


BQ15 1. Emotional need to be busy; inner urge to work hard.

2. Comfortable feeling when lazy; work hard only when needed.


BQ16 1. What is different is dangerous.

2. What is different is curious.


BQ17 1. Acceptance of familiar risks; fear of ambiguous situations and unfamiliar risks.

2. Comfortable in ambiguous situations and with unfamiliar risks.


BQ18 1. Suppression of deviant ideas and behavior; resistance to innovation.

2. Tolerance of deviant and innovative ideas and behavior.


BQ19 1. The uncertainty inherent in life is a continuous threat that must be fought.

2. Uncertainty is a normal feature of life, and each day is accepted as it comes.


Appendix 2. After-game Questionnaire.

AQ1 How did you behave in the business game?

1. I tended to cooperate with my team members.

2. I tended to play the game at my own pace.


AQ2 What about the role you were given in the business game?

1. I tended to play the game with little concern for my given role.

2. I tended to play the game while sticking to my given role.


AQ3 What is your view of your teammates?

1. They tended to cooperate with me.

2. They tended to work individually.


AQ4 What about the role they were given in the business game?

1. They tended to play the game with little concern for their given role.

2. They tended to play the game while sticking to their given role.


AQ5 When your team decided on input variables…

1. Our team tended to have many opposing opinions.

2. Our team tended to have few opposing opinions.


AQ6 When you look back on the game, the decision about input variables…

1. Should have been made by me alone.

2. Should have been made by group consensus.


AQ7 Your team’s process of deciding input variables…

1. Tended to be democratic and was by consensus.

2. Tended to involve decisions made by specific group leaders.


AQ8 Did any ideas come up that you would not have thought of alone?

1. During the game, new ideas that I wouldn’t have thought of alone did come up.

2. No new ideas came up.


References

Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. D. (2000). Harnessing complexity. Basic Books.

Child, J. (2000). Theorizing about organization cross-nationally. Advances in International Comparative

Management, 13, 27-75.

Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey

methodology. John Wiley & Sons.

Hofstede, G. (n.d.). National cultural dimensions. Retrieved from

http://geert-hofstede.com/national-culture.html

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations. McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, J. G., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations (3rd Ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, J. G., Pedersen, B. P., & Hofstede, G. (2002). Exploring Culture. Intercultural Press.

Iwai, C., Horiuchi, M., Oshima, M., & Morita, M. (2010). Development and implementation of business game

“MBABEST21.”Studies in Simulation and Gaming, 20 (1), 12-18.

Lewis, R. D. (2006). When cultures collide (3rd Ed.). Nicholas Brealey International.

Usunier, J. C., & Lee, J. A. (2009). Marketing across cultures (5th Ed.). Pearson Education Europe.

a comparison of group decision-making systems …t11938/reports/group decision making...a comparison...

Documents