comparative value priorities of chinese and new zealand

CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS
Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you
have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.
--Karl Popper
In this study of relationships between individual value dimensions as predictors of
leader behaviour preference dimensions between samples of businesspeople from
Guangzhou City, China, and New Zealand, the contribution of the thesis lies in
advancing the knowledge of the relationships of values and leader behaviour
preferences by subordinates, and specifically how the relationships exist and differ
across two cultures. The particular theoretical approaches adopted in this study are the
“Ohio State” Theory of Leadership, operationalised by the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire version XII (LBDQXII), and Schwartz Theory of Values, operationalised
by the Schwartz Values Survey version 57 (SVS57). In the course of the research
project questions arose concerning the validity and reliability of the LBDQXII and the
SVS57 relating to lack of sample invariance across cultural and demographic samples. I
will now discuss theories in general and review the evolution of the specific theories.
THEORIES
Sutton and Staw (1995) propose that social science articles must contain strong
theoretical development to warrant publication. Sutton and Straw indicate there is little
agreement about what constitutes strong versus weak theory in the social sciences, and
though many writers have written how to articles (Freese, 1980; Kaplan, 1964; Merton,
1967), Freese (1980) notes the literature on theory building can leave a reader more
rather than less confused about how to write a paper that contains strong theory. There
is lack of agreement about what is a model and what is a theory, and whether a model is
a theory. Additionally, there is disagreement as to whether typologies and topologies are
properly labelled theories or not, and whether falsifiability is a prerequisite for a theory.
Sutton and Staw add a qualification as to whether the strength of a theory depends on
how interesting it is. One important point Sutton and Staw discuss is what is not theory,
a list of descriptions of variables or constructs is not theory; this excludes typologies
and some topologies. As Merton (1967: 39) put it,
Like so many words that are bandied about, the word theory threatens
to become meaningless. Because its referents are so diverse—
including everything from minor working hypotheses, through
34