286International Journal of Cross <strong>Cultural</strong> Management 2(3)Table 6 Tests of between-country differencesCanada Mexico Netherlands Taiwan USAN = 190 N = 70 N = 86 N = 286 N = 472Mean a Country Mean a Country Mean a Country Mean a Country Mean a Country(SD) Diffs b (SD) Diffs b (SD) Diffs b (SD) Diffs b (SD) Diffs bRelationshipsIndividualism .277 .109 .123 .059 .279C>M,N,TMM,N,TUU(.221) (.211) (.271) (.237)(.246)Mastery .550 .492 .326 .310 .560C>N,TM>N,TN
Maznevski et al.: <strong>Cultural</strong> Dimensions at the Individual Level of Analysis 287samples are among the most individualistic inthe study, while the average respondentsfrom Mexico and Taiwan are among theleast individualistic. However, we can gainmuch more information by separating individualismfrom collectivism, rather than conceptualizingthem as two ends of a bipolarconstruct (see also Triandis et al., 1995). Forexample, the respondents from Mexico andTaiwan preferred collectivism over individualism,while in the other countries the two variationswere equally preferred by the respondents.Respondents from the five countriesdid not differ from each other statistically ontheir levels of collectivism, which may be dueto measurement error and/or high varianceamong individuals. But it also opens us to therealization that individuals from countriessuch as Canada, the Netherlands, and theUnited States may not be ‘pro-individualism/anti-collectivism’to the same extentthat individuals from other countries, suchas Mexico and Taiwan, are simply ‘nonindividualist’.We note in this regard that thedomestic management practice and researchliterature in the United States is replete withstudies on teams (Cohen and Bailey, 1997),while in the international arena the countryis assumed to be the least team-oriented inthe world. It may be that the preference forcollectivism is not as low in the United Statesas international research has previously supposed.Hierarchy This dimension is similar indefinition to Hofstede’s dimension of powerdistance. Consistent with his results (1980),Canadian and American respondents in thisstudy preferred hierarchy less than Mexicanand Taiwanese ones did. However, whileHofstede found Netherlands to be low onpower distance, compared with our othersamples the Dutch respondents were thehighest. It may be that this group of Dutchbusiness students represents a specific subculturewithin the Netherlands. As with theindividualism/collectivism <strong>dimensions</strong>, thisdemonstrates a potential strength of thecultural orientations perspective. Since theframework conceptualizes cultural variationat an individual (as well as group) level ofanalysis, it allows researchers to propose andmeasure finer grained pictures, includingsmaller subcultures within larger cultures.Further research on this subculture would besuggested from our results.East Asian cultures East Asian cultureshave often been characterized as very differentfrom those in the West (e.g. ChineseCulture Connection, 1987), with a stronginfluence from the religions and philosophiesof Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism(Chew and Putti, 1995; Redding, 1993). Interms of the cultural orientations framework,these foundations predict dominant preferencesfor hierarchy and collectivism for Relationships,harmony with a secondary emphasis onmastery concerning the Environment, and athinking mode of Activity for these cultures(Bond and Hwang, 1986; Hwang, 1985; Oh,1991; Yau, 1988). Not completely as predicted,the Taiwan sample showed a firstpreference for collectivism in terms of Relationships,with hierarchy as the lowest preference;however, their preference for hierarchy washigher than that of respondents from Canadaand the United States, suggesting a relativeacceptance. The Taiwanese sample did showa definite and strong preference of harmonyover mastery over subjugation, and for thinkingover other types of Activity modes. This patternof results fits the descriptions of EastAsian philosophy and religion very well.The fact that these results are, for themost part, consistent with past findings usingalternative frameworks or other ways tounderstand culture lends support to thevalidity of the cultural orientations framework.The latter framework, though, enablesus to examine many more <strong>dimensions</strong> and tocompare results within and between culturesto gain more insight into the complexities ofthe phenomenon.
Change language