review of comparative cultural studies

Nov. 30th 2010

Zhang Chaohui

Three classical comparative studies in cross-cultural management and psychology

Agenda

1 Theory Importance 3

2 The culture dimensions and values model of Hofstede, Schwartz and Trompenaars 4

3 Applied Studies 10

4 Limitations and Project Relative 15

5 References 18

Building the Global Competence for Asian Leaders

Theory Importance

3

•There are a lot of early researches on cultural otherness; researchers(Inkeles、 Kluckhohn、 Eysenck、 Peabody) were trying to build a set of complete measuring index system in order to describe the cultural otherness. But most of these researches are based on researchers’ own understanding national culture without practical examine so that the system is not complete and lakes of rigor.

•Jan-Benedict, E.M.Steenkamp（ 2001） considers that before Hofstede’s theory, cross-cultural management is not precise because there is a lack of theoretical framework which is based on national culture. Smith(1996)believes the national culture dimension offer the hypothesis basic for explaining the difference between manner and behavior.

•Westwood(1992)regards Hofstede’s theory as the standard theory of studying administrational and organizational behavior based on cross-cultural context. and Fernandez(1997) thinks it’s a watershed-like research basic for later cross-cultural studies.

•Followed Hofstede, Trompenaars(1993) and Schwartz(1994) also did some original research. Bilsky&Koch(2002) thinks many of the respective studies have been influenced by Schwartz’ (1992) values theory. Lothar Katz(2007)thinks Trompenaars present a useful framework to help develop a new mindset when working across diverse cultures.Sudhir Kale& Sangita De(2008) believed Trompenaars framework draws together and applies ideas contributed by a range of scholars.

The culture dimensions and values model of Hofstede, Schwartz and Trompenaars


Theory of Hofstede

5

•Hofstede attempted to find out the factors which can explain cultural differences in behaviors. And he classified countries based on five dimensions: Power Distance, certainty Avoidance, Individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity and Confucian dynamism or long-term orientation.

Power Distance : focuses on the degree of equality, or inequality, between people in the country's society

Individualism : focuses on the degree the society reinforces individual or collective, achievement and interpersonal relationships. Masculinity: focuses on the degree the society reinforces, or does not reinforce, the traditional masculine work role model of male achievement, control, and power Uncertainty Avoidance: focuses on the level of tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity within the society - i.e. unstructured situations. Long-Term Orientation : focuses on the degree the society embraces, or does not embrace, long-term devotion to traditional, forward thinking values.


Hofstede‘s Dimension of Culture Scales

6

Country PDI IDV MAS UAI LTOIndonesia 78 14 46 48Singapore 74 20 48 8 48

China* 80 20 66 30 118Germany 35 67 66 65 31

United States 40 91 62 46 29

*Estimated values. Andy Tamas (2007)

LTO in China is the highest-ranking factor (118), which indicates a society's time perspective and an attitude of persevering; that is, overcoming obstacles with time, if not with will and strength. While IDV ranking at 20 may be attributed, in part, to the high level of emphasis on a Collectivist society by the Communist rule, as compared to one of Individualism. Of note is China's significantly higher Power Distance ranking of 80 is indicative of a high level of inequality of power and wealth within the society.

Indonesia has high PDI at 78, which indicates a high level of inequality of power and wealth within the society. The second highest is UAI at 48, reflects a more moderated influence of this Dimension within the Indonesian societyThe combination of two high scores (UAI) and (PDI) create societies that are highly rule-oriented with laws, rules, regulations, and controls in order to reduce the amount of uncertainty, while inequalities of power and wealth have been allowed to grow within the society.

Singapore has a low index value in UA which indicates people feel less threatened by ambiguous situations. Emotions are shown less in public. And are used constructively.


Theory of Schwartz

7

•Schwartz(1999) postulated seven value types .And Schwartz et al.(1995) also worked out Schwartz Values Survey, hoping to trace out world-wide Geography of Values and mapping cultural groups in relative positions.Conservatism: A cultural emphasis on maintenance of the status quo, propriety, and restraint of actions or inclinations that might disrupt the solidary group or the traditional order.Intellectual Autonomy: A cultural emphasis on the desirability of individuals independently pursuing their own ideas and intellectual directions. Affective Autonomy: A cultural emphasis on the desirability of individuals independently pursuing affectively positive experience. Hierarchy: A cultural emphasis on the legitimacy of an unequal distribution of power, roles and resources.

Mastery: A cultural emphasis on getting ahead through active self-assertion.

Harmony: A cultural emphasis on fitting harmoniously into the environment.

Egalitarianism: A cultural emphasis on transcendence of sel.sh interests in favor of voluntary commitment to promoting the welfare of others.

Building the Global Competence for Asian Leaders 8

As is clearly seen from the figure, Singapore and China are included in Far East cluster while Indonesia is included in Isiam cluster. Data can be compared in these countries in cultural dimensions.

Schwartz‘s Dimension of Culture Scales in Students Samples


Theory of Trompenaars

9

•Fons Trompenaars(1993) proposed another national cultural dimension. Uuniversalism versus pluralism: The degree of importance a culture assigns to either the law or to personal relationships. Iindividualism versus Communitarisnism :The degree to which people see themselves function more as a community or more as individuals. Specific versus Diffuse: The degree to which responsibility is specifically assigned or is diffusely accepted. Affectivity versus neutrality:The degree to which individuals display their emotions. Inner Directed versus Outer Directed :The degree to which individuals believe the environment can be controlled versus believing that the environment controls them. Achieved status versus Ascribed Status :The degree to which individuals must prove themselves to receive status versus status simply given to them. Sequential Time versus Synchronic Time :The degree to which individuals do things one at a time versus several things at once. Cultures developed their own response to time. Past-oriented cultures A culture that is oriented towards the past views the future as a repetition of previous events and experiences. Present-oriented cultures A culture primarily directed to the present does not attach great value to the past or future. Future-oriented cultures A culture concentrated on future prospects and does not deem the past as significant for future events.

(from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fons_Trompenaars)

Applied Studies


Application in Leadership and Cross-Cultural Context

11

•Stewart et al. (1994) compared career management activities for young managers in Germany (high on UA) and the United Kingdom (low on UA) and found that the British managers typically placed more emphasis on career mobility and generalization, while the German managers spent more time in a single job and valued the development of specialized, task-related expertise.

•Karen Newman &Stanley Nollen(1996) built their study on Hofstede’s work and found support for the thesis that business performance is better when management practices are congruent with national culture.

•Offermann & Hellmann (1997) found that managers from high uncertainty avoidance countries tended to be more controlling, less delegating and less approachable. More, UA also influences the expectations leaders have of subordinates and customers have of businesses.

•Adist et al. (1997) suggested that subordinates in lower power distance societies are more likely to doubt their supervisors but not afraid of expressing themselves even they disagree with supervisors while Dickson et al.(2003)believed that leaders tend to be less participative and more authoritarian and directive in high power distance societies.

•Dorfman et al. (1997) compared actual leader behavior in five countries (United States, Mexico, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea). The differences they found reflect differences in PD between these countries. For instance, directive leadership only had positive outcomes in terms of satisfaction and commitment in Mexico and Taiwan (cultures relatively high on Power Distance).


•Helgstrand & Stuhlmacher(1999)examined leader prototypes in a cross-cultural study with Danish and American participants. These two cultures have been found to differ significantly on two major cultural dimensions: individualism and masculinity. Result shows the highest leader ratings were not in conditions with a cultural match between participants and leader candidate. Rather, both cultures saw feminine leaders as most collegial and feminine-individualistic leaders as most effective.

•Jung & Avolio,(1999)suggested that collectivist values seem to fit well with some of the processes central to transformational leadership, such as the central role of the group and identification processes

•Eylon & Au (1999) compared the effects of empowerment for MBAs from high and low PD countries participating in a management simulation, showed society-level PD moderated the relationship between leader style of empowerment and subsequent subordinate performance, suggesting a variform functional universal.

•In the GLOBE study, several leader attributes that reflect differences in IC were found to vary across cultures. For instance, being autonomous, unique, and independent are found to contribute to outstanding leadership in some, but to be undesirable in other cultures (Den Hartog et al., 1999).

•Kessapidou & Varsakelis(2002) explored the impact of national culture on the performance of the foreign affiliates in Greece which is characterised by low international isation and competitiveness, and has been clustered by Hofstede in the Mediterranean culture managing directorial model. Results showed that higher the national culture distance,the better the performance of the Greek affiliate and the higher the score on the individualism dimension of the foreign firm, the higher the performance of its affiliate in a collectivistic society.


•Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997) gave practical advice for doing business with people in different societies.For example,when doing business with specific-oriented individuals, it is necessary to structure the meeting with time, intervals, and agendas while doing business with diffuse-oriented,let the meeting flow, occasionally nudging its process.

•In Lipponen et al.’s study (2004), their approach on values is based on Schwartz’s (1992) theory of universal content and structure of values, examining whether personal value orientation moderated the relationships between perceived organizational justice and group pride, respect within the group, and turnover intentions.

•Darren & Benjamin(2007) tested 61 Torres Strait entrepreneurs, showing cultural differences exist between the entrepreneurs of the Torres Straits and others. Indices for all dimensions were considerably lower, having a potentially significant impact on policy and the level and types of investment funds made available for enabling entrepreneurship in the Torres Straits.

•Li & Harrison(2008) used Hofstede’s measures of national culture to predict the board composition and leadership structure of firms based in that culture. In lower individual level society and masculinity society, firms tend to have more outside directors on their boards. Also, firms based in societies that prefer high power distances are more likely to have a single leader as board chair and CEO and fewer insiders on the board.

•Steinmetz (2009)illustrated the application of invariance testing to the value theory of Schwartz(2005a,b), using this method with sub-groups within a single society. They test measurement invariance across three education groups and expect these groups to differ in their responding behavior and their latent means.


Application in Other Areas

14

•Earley (1999) investigated the effects of cultural power distance and status characteristics on group efficacy and team performance on a managerial simulation task. In high power distance cultures, high status members’ estimates of efficacy were more strongly related to collective efficacy measures and performance than low status group members’ efficacy estimates. However, in low power distance cultures, group members’ efficacy estimates were equally related to collective efficacy.

•Pressey & Selassie (2002) tested the degree to which cultural difference impact upon buyer-seller relationships using Hofstede’s indices of culture. The findings identified little evidence to support culture’s influence on international business relationships.

•In Astill et al.’s study (2002), they examined the influence of parents, peer groups, teachers and the schools on student values as assessed by the Schwartz Value Survey. Results showed that sex of student, language background, the Christian involvement of the student, parental social position and the values held by parents and peer groups had much greater effects upon the students’ values than the schools and their teachers.

•Hofstede’s cultural framework has been applied in studies of advertising (Alden, Hoyer, and Lee, 1993; Gregory and Munch, 1997; Zandpour et al., 1994), global brand strategies (Roth, 1995), and ethical decision making (Blodgett et al., 2001), and is discussed in numerous textbooks (e.g., Keegan and Green, 2003). (Jeffrey Blodgett & Aysen Bakir & Gregory Rose,2008).

Limitations and Project Relative


Limitations of Cultural Theories

16

•According to criticisms, there are several shortcomings in Hofstede’s theory. Dickson(2003) presented the dimensional conceptualization of culture is overly simplistic and the relationship between country and culture is not one to one, culture is diversiform and changes over time, which Hofstede didn’t pay enough attention to. Baumast(2002)pointed out that nations are not the suitable entities for the study of culture and also, the sample—IBM employees is not enough to verify the findings.

•Baumast(2002) deemed the approaches of Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner is contrary to Hofstede’s as they mix interaction and cultural status quo. But Hofstede (1996)believed that the sample of Trompenaars’s research is small and pooly matched, such database is limited and lacks content validity. More, he also criticized the methodology and the result.

•Yan Guoxiang(2006) proposed that the sample in Schwartz theory should be tested again when applying it in non-western culture since the samples he selected are just only a few countries and most of them are developed nations.


Relative to IS and Leadership

17

•Intercultural sensitivity which defined as the ability to discriminate and experience relevant cultural differences (Hammer, Bennett & Wiseman, 2003). The cultural theories of Hofstede, Schwartz and Trompenaars are often used to masure these cultural difference in cross-cultural content.

• The cultural theories are the theoretical basis of intercultural sensitivity and the premise to understanding and evaluating intercultural sensitivity because the requirement of IS is the culture conflict which result from different national culture that can be classified in the 3 cultural theories.

•Culture permeates the whole process of management and organization and facing culture crash is the first to deal with. At the same time, the application of the cultural theories in leadership and cross-cultural management may help building the global competence for Asian leaders as many of them are also comparative studies.


References

18

•Andrew D. Pressey & Habte G. Selassie. (2002) Are cultural differences overrated? Examining the influence of national culture on international buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 2, 4, 354–368•Andy Tamas (2007) Geert Hofstede's Dimensions of Culture and Edward T. Hall's Time Orientations-An Intercultural Organization Development Tool compiled by Andy Tamas (www.tamas.com) •Brian R. Astill, Norman T. Feather, John P. Keeves. (2002) A multilevel analysis of the effects of parents, teachers and schools on student values. Social Psychology of Education vol.5,345–363

•Brendan McSweeney(2002) Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith-a failure of analysis human relations vol.55(1),88--118

•Darren Lee-Ross & Benjamin Mitchell.(2007) Doing Business In The Torres Straits: A Study Of The Relationship Between Culture And The Nature Of Indigenous Entrepreneurs. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship Vol. 12, 2, 199–216•Dianne Ford , Catherine Connelly ,Darren Meister-2003-Information Systems Research and Hofstede’s Culture’s Consequences: An Uneasy and Incomplete Partnership IEEE Transactions on engineering management,vol.50, 8—25

•Edmund R. Thompson ,Florence T. T. Phua. (2005) Are National Cultural Traits Applicable To Senior Firm Managers? British Journal of Management, Vol. 16, 59–68 DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00430.x

•Desiree Knoppen & Willem Saris (2009) Do we have to combine Values in the Schwartz’ Human Values Scale Survey Research Methods, Vol.3, 91-103


•Jiatao Li , J. Richard Harrison (2008). National Culture and the Composition and Leadership Structure of Boards of Directors . The Authors Journal compilation . Vol 16. 5 doi:10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00697.x

•G Hofstede(2002)Dimensions do not exist: A reply to Brendan McSweeney.Human Relations, vol.55 (11)

•G Hofstede(2003) What is culture? A reply to Baskerville Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28, 811-813

•Jeffrey Blodgett & Aysen Bakir & Gregory Rose(2008)A Test of the Validity of Hofstede’s Cultural Framework Advances in Consumer Research vol.35,762—763

•Marcus W. Dicksona, Deanne N. Den Hartogb, Jacqueline K. Mitchelson (2003) Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions. The Leadership Quarterly vol.14 729–768

•Offermann, L. R., & Hellmann, P. S. (1997). Culture’s consequences for leadership behavior: National values in action. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol.28,3, 342–351.

•Low Sui Pheng & Shi Yuquan(2002)An exploratory study of Hofstede’s cross-cultural dimensions in construction projects Management Decision vol.40(1),7--16

•Jukka Lipponen, Maria-Elena Olkkonen, Liisa Myyry (2004). Personal Value Orientation as a Moderator in the Relationships Between Perceived Organizational Justice and Its Hypothesized Consequences. Social Justice Research Vol17, 3,275-292, DOI:10.1023/B:SORE.0000041294.68845.0f


•Shalom H. Schwartz & Wolfgang Bilsky (1987) Toward A Universal Psychological Structure of Human Values Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol. 53, No. 3, 550-562

•Rita Gunther McGrath, Ian C. MacMillan, Sari Scheinberg (1992) Elitists, Risk-Takers, and Rugged Individualists? An Exploratory Analysis of Cultural Differences between Entrepreneurs and Non Entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 7, Issue 2, p. 115-135 1992. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1504488

•Shalom H. Schwartz(1999)A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for Work Applied Psychology: an International Review, 48(1), 23--47

•Shalom H. Schwartz(1992)Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries Advances in experimental social psychology Vol. 25, 1--65

•Shalom H. Schwartz(1990) Individualism-collectivism critique and proposed refinements Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, Vol.21 No.2, 139--157

•Peter B. Smith & Mark F. Peterson & Shalom H. Schwartz(2002)Cultural Values, Sources of Guidance, and Their Relevance to Managerial Behavior Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, Vol.33, 188--208

•William Wardrope(2005)Beyond Hofstede: Cultural Application for Communicating with Latin American Business Association for Business Communication Annual Conversation

Global Competence for Asian LeadersResearch Partners:

An applied research collaboration supported by the Human Capital Leadership

Institute (Singapore) with the objective to derive a model for Asian leaders, which will

lead to systematic global leadership development programs with Asian

characteristics.

Built on our previous researches on Chinese and Indonesian intercultural sensitivity,

we continue in this study by elaborating the cross-cultural experiences of the

Chinese, Indonesian and Singaporean international assignees and their respective

local co-workers in China and Indonesia. Intercultural sensitivity has been widely

accepted as one of the most significant element of global competencies and one of

the strongest predictor for global leaders and managers accomplishments.

The principal investigators of the project are Dr. Hora Tjitra, Dr. Hana Panggabean,

and the research team of the the Zhejiang University (Hangzhou, China), Zhejiang

University of Technology (Hangzhou, China) and the Atma Jaya Indonesia Catholic

University (Jakarta, Indonesia).

Funding Partner:

Zhejiang University

China

www.zju.edu.cn

Zhejiang University of Technology

China

www.zjut.edu.cn

Atma Jaya Catholic University

Indonesiawww.atmajaya.ac.id

Human Capital Leadership Institute

Singaporewww.smu.edu.sg

Hora Tjitra

Hana Panggabean

Juliana Murniati

Quan HE Jiewei ZHENG

Chaohui ZHANGTeng SHENTU Jia ZHOU

Xiaojuan WANG

Dan ZHAOXixie ZHANG

Sebastian Partogi Yuanbo LIU Tayyibah Mushtaq

Thank You

Contact us via…

Mail: [email protected]: [email protected]: http://sinau.me/hcli