26.11.2012 Views

comparative value priorities of chinese and new zealand

comparative value priorities of chinese and new zealand

comparative value priorities of chinese and new zealand

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Direction, Universalism, Benevolence, Tradition, Conformity, <strong>and</strong> Security. These<br />

<strong>value</strong>s are purportedly found in all cultures <strong>and</strong> represent universal needs <strong>of</strong> human<br />

existence. The theory also postulates a structure <strong>of</strong> relations amongst the <strong>value</strong> types,<br />

based on the conflicts <strong>and</strong> compatibilities experienced when pursuing them. This<br />

structure permits one to relate systems <strong>of</strong> <strong>value</strong> <strong>priorities</strong>, as an integrated whole, to<br />

other variables. A <strong>value</strong>s survey instrument based on the theory <strong>and</strong> suitable for crosscultural<br />

research is described. The initial samples for assessing the theory consisted <strong>of</strong><br />

97 samples in 44 countries.<br />

Schwartz’ claim <strong>of</strong> universality <strong>of</strong> his cultural motivational <strong>value</strong> dimensions does not<br />

preclude the possibility that there are additional, dimensions unique to specific cultures.<br />

His approach is that unique factors whilst interesting <strong>and</strong> useful in studying single<br />

cultures would not be useful in defining a universal ethnographic system. Schwartz’<br />

universality claim implies only that the constructs <strong>of</strong> the theory are meaningful in all the<br />

cultures he studied; an additional assumption is that they provide a sufficiently broad, if<br />

not necessarily comprehensive, coverage <strong>of</strong> the full range <strong>of</strong> dimensions in all cultures.<br />

Other cultural variables, such as spirituality or intelligence, might also be the source <strong>of</strong><br />

cultural institutions.<br />

Taking a more psychological view, Schwartz (1992, 1994) <strong>and</strong> his associates asserted<br />

that the essential distinction between societal <strong>value</strong>s is the motivational goal each<br />

expresses. His model has been applied to basic areas <strong>of</strong> social behaviour, but its<br />

application to organizational studies has been limited (Bond, 2001), <strong>and</strong> to business<br />

organisations practically nil. A list <strong>of</strong> Schwartz’ dimensions is in Figure 3.1. The<br />

dimensions are discussed in detail later in this chapter.<br />

Figure 2.7. Schwartz’ Cross-Cultural <strong>and</strong> Individual <strong>value</strong> Dimensions<br />

Openness to change<br />

1. Self direction<br />

2. Stimulation<br />

3. Hedonism<br />

Self-enhancement<br />

4. Achievement<br />

5. Power<br />

74

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!