Cultural dimensions - IMD

More documents

Recommendations

Info

290International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 2(3)better understand the relationship betweenparticipation and organizational commitmentcross culturally. The variations withinthe orientations lend themselves to testingmany relationships only theorized about atpresent (Adler, 1997). For example, we cannow test the effect that a mastery versus aharmony or subjugation orientation has onbusiness planning and decision-making.Similarly, we can test the effect a manager’sbelief on the nature of humans has onmanagement style. Yet another possiblestudy could look at the effect of an individual’sactivity orientation on their preferencefor certain rewards. Such researchcould go a long way in beginning to test motivationtheories cross culturally. The possibleresearch questions are infinite, with scalesthat measure cultural values at the individuallevel.Limitations and Suggestionsfor Future ResearchThe contribution of this research is limited byseveral factors. First, although the Kluckhohnand Strodtbeck framework incorporates sixorientations with a combined total of 16 variations,only four of the orientations (11 of thevariations) were measured here. The orientationsof Time and Space, which we did notmeasure, play a large role in cultural normsand values, as demonstrated by Hall’s work(Hall, 1966, 1973), so they clearly deservefuture research attention. Moreover, otherbasic dimensions not identified in Kluckhohnand Strodtbeck’s research may be found.Further research on cultural differences couldprovide more tests of the cultural orientationsframework itself, and elaborate on its dimensions.Second, the measures demonstratedadequate psychometric properties for earlystages of research, especially given thebreadth and depth of the constructs beingstudied, but they are clearly not ideal. Thelarge amount of measurement error contributesto a decrease in the power of statisticalcomparisons, and our results may haveprovided sharper distinctions if we had hadbetter measures. Research is needed todevelop these measures further. In addition,issues such as cross cultural equivalence ofmeasures must be addressed with greatersophistication in the field of internationalmanagement. For example, while Mullen(1995) and Singh (1995) assert that a constructis only equivalent in two samples ifthe same items load on to the same factorsignificantly, Cheung and Rensvold (1997)propose that different items will inevitablyload on to the same factor in different cultures,and that measures should not beassumed to be incomparable due to nonequivalence.The progress currently beingmade in methodology will contribute greatlyto the development of better measures ofcultural dimensions.Third, to obtain more valid measures theitems were contextualized by business situationsand the samples here were limited topeople involved in business. The dimensionstheoretically should apply more generallyto the broader population, but culture isimpossible to articulate without a context.The importance of appropriate context,including matching the measures with thesample and context to be studied, providesanother possible explanation of the counterintuitiveresults from the Netherlands. Thesample of undergraduate students, who onaverage had not worked at all in a full-timecapacity, may actually be representative ofNetherlands culture. However, the instrumentmight not have provided statements thatrelated to a cultural context in which theyhad experienced Dutch cultural patterns,and thus it may not have provided a validmeasure of cultural orientations for them.Measures of the framework’s dimensionsshould be adapted for different contextsso the cultural orientations of other subpopulationscan be measured and compared.Finally, further research should incorpo-
Maznevski et al.: Cultural Dimensions at the Individual Level of Analysis 291rate other variables of interest to cross culturalresearchers, such as perceptions, beliefs,values, and behaviors. The fact that the culturalorientations and their variations can beconceptualized and measured at the individuallevel of analysis should provide morecomprehensive and conclusive studies ofcross cultural phenomena. As this study hasdemonstrated, the framework provides interestingnew interpretations and raises newquestions regarding issues relevant to crosscultural research.NotesThe authors gratefully acknowledge fundingfrom the McIntire Foundation and Ivey BusinessSchool.1 Note that, in Table 1 and throughout the restof this article, we have revised Kluckhohnand Strodtbeck’s original labels for thevariations in the Relationships and Activityorientations to make them more consistentwith typical cross cultural managementusage. More specifically, we have renamedtheir lineal as hierarchical, collateral as collective,being-in-becoming as being, and reflecting asthinking.2 MANOVA of gender’s main effect resultedin F = 3.75, p = .000; in Canada, theNetherlands, and the US males scored lowerthan females on Environment–harmony; inCanada males scored higher than females onEnvironment-mastery, in the Netherlands malesscored lower than females on HumanNature–changeable; in the United States malesscored higher than females onActivity–thinking.3 We conducted principal components andstructural equation modeling analyses withall 11 variations simultaneously, but theresults were not interpretable.4 Within-person standardization is usuallycalculated with respect to the wholeinstrument (Leung and Bond, 1989).However, if these data are standardized withrespect to the instrument as a whole, thescores for one orientation affect the scores foranother, reducing the validity of crosscountrycomparisons at the orientation level.For example, the strength of an individual’sresponses to Environment statements willaffect the eventual standard scores of his orher Relationship statements, making theRelationship scores difficult to compare ontheir own with the Relationship scores fromothers. We therefore standardized the datawithin person and within orientation.ReferencesAdler, N.J. (1997) International Dimensions ofOrganizational Behavior, 3rd edn. Cincinnatti:South-Western.Alduncin Abatia, E. (1993) Los Valores de losMexicanos: En Busca de una Esencia. Mexico:Fomento Cultural Banamex.Bond, M.H. and Hwang, K.-K. (1986) ‘TheSocial Psychology of Chinese People’, inM.H. Bond (ed.) The Psychology of the ChinesePeople, pp. 213–66. Hong Kong: OxfordUniversity Press.Brislin, R.W. (1980) ‘Translation and ContentAnalysis of Oral and Written Materials’, inH.C. Triandis and J.W. Berry (eds) Handbookof Cross-cultural Psychology, vol 2 (Methodology),pp. 389–444. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J.,Gelfand, M.J., Francesco, A.M., Chen, Z.X,Leung, K., Bierbrauer, G., Gómez, C.,Kirkman, B.L. and Shapiro, D.L. (2001)‘Culture and Procedural Justice: TheModerating Influence of Power Distance onReactions to Voice’, Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology 37: 300–15.Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961) TheManagement of Innovation. London: TavistockPublications.Cheung, G.W. and Rensvold, R.B. (1997) ‘CrossculturalComparisons Using NonequivalentMeasurement Items’, paper presented atAcademy of Management Annual Meeting.Chew, I.K.H. and Putti, J. (1995) ‘Relationshipof Work-related Values of Singaporean andJapanese Managers in Singapore’, HumanRelations 48(10): 1149–70.Chinese Culture Connection (1987) ‘ChineseValues and the Search for Culture-freeDimensions of Culture’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 18(2): 143–64.Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E. (1997) ‘WhatMakes Teams Work: Group EffectivenessResearch from the Shop Floor to theExecutive Suite’, Journal of Management 23(3):239–90.Condon, J.C. (1985) Good Neighbors. Yarmouth,ME: Intercultural Press.
Page 1 and 2: ArticlesCCM2002 Vol 2(3): 275-295In
Page 3 and 4: Maznevski et al.: Cultural Dimensio
Page 13: Maznevski et al.: Cultural Dimensio
Page 18 and 19: 292International Journal of Cross C
Page 20 and 21: 294International Journal of Cross C

Cultural dimensions - IMD

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?