comparative value priorities of chinese and new zealand

Analysing SSA item-dimension structure for the two samples indicates a core
dimension of Managing the Business System. In Guangzhou the business system
includes leader-subordinate relationships. The dimension structures are different and
will be discussed further in the next chapter.
Implications of these results are that both the New Zealand and the Guangzhou City
samples demonstrate different individual value structures and different structures for
preferred leader behaviour dimensions. These indications are important, but, due to
sampling only two countries with relatively small samples, only indications at this
point. Plans have been put in place for additional data collection in China and other
countries to identify what dimensions are consistent within countries and across
countries. At this moment, given the acceptable fit analyses from SEM, I will accept the
theoretical dimension models as valid and investigate differences between the samples
by comparing the means of the theoretical dimensions.
RESULTS OF PAST SVS AND LBDQXII STUDIES IN GUANGZHOU AND NEW ZEALAND
In this section I test the hypothesis: Hypothesis: Value Structure: Results of past SVS
studies in Guangzhou will indicate a pattern of means of individual value dimensions
consistent with past studies. Results of analyses indicate that the patterns of values of
means from different SVS samples are significantly different, though the relative
rankings are similar. As I do not have raw data from all studies of businesspeople in
China, I will use Hierarchical Cluster Analysis to investigate the similarities of the
patterns of SVS dimension means there.
Comparison of New Zealand Samples of Studies Using the SVS
In a comparison of relative value priorities in sample data from New Zealand, results of
the analysis of variance test in Figure 5.16 for the samples indicate significant
differences amongst the mean for the dimensions for all of Schwartz’ NZ samples and
my NZ Business sample.
234