Cultural dimensions - IMD

More documents

Recommendations

Info

278International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 2(3)testing resulted in a strong conceptual framework.Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s (1961) frameworkand its roots influenced the selection ofdimensions of some frameworks commonlyused today, therefore, some overlaps areapparent. For example, elements of theRelationships orientation are echoed in Hofstede’sindividualism and power distanceconcepts (Hofstede, 1980), and Trompenaars’individualism–communitarianism, achievement–ascription,and equality–hierarchy dimensions(Trompenaars, 1993). The Environmentorientation is related to Trompenaars’inner direction–outer direction dimension,and the Activity orientation encompasses hisanalysis–integration dimension and much ofthe meaning of the sequential time–synchronizedtime dimension (Trompenaars, 1993).Hall’s dimensions of time and space (Hall,1966, 1973) are captured in the Kluckhohnand Strodtbeck dimensions of the samename.However, three key assumptions underlyingKluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s approachdistinguish it from the others and make thecultural orientations framework particularlywell suited for research in cross culturalmanagement. First, individuals are clearlyidentified as the ‘holders’ of the preferencesfor variations, and the cultural pattern isdefined by patterns among individuals’ preferences.Consistent with the framework,researchers can make hypotheses and testthem at the individual level of analysis, aggregatemeasures to develop descriptions of cultures,and examine variance both within andbetween cultures. Second, all dimensions arepresumed to be found in all societies, but eachsociety is proposed to exhibit, at the aggregatelevel, a defining rank order of elements withineach orientation. This assumption allowsresearchers to analyze the dynamics withincultures as well as identify major aggregatetrends. Variations in patterns within culturesare assumed to be inevitable and even necessaryfor societies to function effectively as awhole and to change and adapt over time.Third, the dimensions are proposed to beconceptually independent, even within orientations.For example, Relationships–individualis independent from Activity–being, but so alsois Relationships–individual from collective, andActivity–doing from being. This aspect allowsanalysis of culture in more depth than ispossible with a less complex, bipolar framework.It does not preclude individuals fromagreeing with two variations within an orientation.In fact, such complexity may allowresearchers a better understanding of culturaldifferences. For example by allowing individualsthe ability to agree with two variationswithin an orientation, we may discover thatthose who agree with both variations act differentlyfrom those who agree with only one.The cultural orientations framework complementsresearch by Triandis and colleagueson individualism/collectivism and allocentrism/idiocentrism(e.g. Kim et al., 1994;Triandis, 1972, 1988; Triandis et al., 1995)and by Schwartz on values (Schwartz, 1992,1994; Schwartz and Bilsky, 1990; Schwartzand Sagiv, 1995). Certainly the assumptionsbehind Triandis’s work and dimensionsthemselves fit squarely into the cultural orientationsframework, articulating in more detailtwo of the Relationships variations. The othercultural orientation dimensions, then, can beseen as adding to Triandis’s approach.The cultural orientations framework isalso complementary to Schwartz’s and Hofstede’svalues approach in two importantrespects. First, values are beliefs that relate todesirable end states or behaviors and as suchtranscend specific situations and guide selectionor evaluation of behavior and events(Schwartz, 1992; Rokeach, 1973). Despitethis definition of values, both Schwartz’s andHofstede’s research incorporates how a focalindividual would like the world to work withassumptions about how the world really doeswork. The cultural orientations frameworksimilarly focuses on how individuals believethe world should work and an individual’s
Maznevski et al.: Cultural Dimensions at the Individual Level of Analysis 279assumptions about how the world works. Suchassumptions are naturally a reflection of theculture to which that individual belongs; assuch the individual is reporting on his or herculture. It is important to note that theseassumptions are typically not questioned,nor are they even normally discussed. Forexample, in a society dominated by theActivity–doing, most people would know that,‘of course’, humans’ basic nature is toachieve and keep busy, and perhaps if theability to achieve and work towards goalswere removed from people, they and theirsociety would suffer from severe trauma andbreakdown (see Marx’s Communist Manifesto inCowling, 1998).Second, values generally focus on thevalue-holder him- or herself. Values aremotivators of individual behavior. For example,someone who values ‘helpful’ is motivatedto be helpful, derives satisfaction frombeing helpful, and fulfills a personal needwhen being helpful. Cultural orientationsalso comprise the individuals’ assumptionsabout social organization and elements outsidethe individual. The orientations serve asperceptual filters that screen information andpotential choices about behavior (Erez andEarley, 1993), and provide scripts for socialinteraction (Maznevski and Peterson, 1997).The cultural orientations frameworkthrough an understanding of values will helpus understand individual motivations, andwill illuminate many elements of individualbehavior alone and in social settings, withinand across cultures (Schwartz, 1992, 1994;Schwartz and Bilsky, 1990; Schwartz andSagiv, 1995). In addition, the cultural orientationswill provide an understanding ofsocial behavior patterns, organized systemsand decision-making.Given the above review of literature andour comparison between the cultural orientationand other approaches, we expect to findseveral important results when testing thecultural orientations framework with datafrom five countries. First, we expect thevariations within and across orientations tobe conceptually independent. Second, weexpect there to be variations within orientationswithin each country included in thestudy. Finally, we expect to find betweencountrydifferences on the variations withinorientations. These differences should be inline with the research that has been conductedon cross cultural values differences(Hofstede, 1980; Ronen and Shenkar, 1985),but should also add richness to prior explanations.These results will provide validity tothe cultural orientations framework.MethodologyTo gain some initial empirical evidence forevaluating the utility of the cultural orientationsframework in cross cultural research,we measured the orientations and their variationsin five countries selected to be similarand different on cultural characteristicsaccording to previous research (e.g. Hofstede,1980): Canada, Mexico, the Netherlands,Taiwan, and the United States. Wethen examined within-country characteristicsand between-country comparisons to identifypatterns, comparing them with previousresearch.InstrumentWe used the Cultural Perspectives Questionnaire,version 4 (CPQ4: Maznevski et al.,1997) to measure 11 variations of four culturalorientations (Relationships, Environment,Nature of Humans, Activity). The instrumentconsisted of 79 single-sentence statementsand asked the respondent to record his or herstrength of agreement with each, on a scalefrom ‘1’ (strongly disagree) to ‘7’ (stronglyagree). Variations were measured withbetween five to eight items. Appendix 1shows sample items and the number of itemsfor each variation. To reduce response biasfrom proximity of similar items, items foreach variation were randomly distributedthroughout the questionnaire. The question-
Page 1 and 2: ArticlesCCM2002 Vol 2(3): 275-295In
Page 3: Maznevski et al.: Cultural Dimensio
Page 7 and 8: Maznevski et al.: Cultural Dimensio
Page 13: Maznevski et al.: Cultural Dimensio
Page 16 and 17: 290International Journal of Cross C

Cultural dimensions - IMD

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?