1. Nov. 30th 2010
Zhang Chaohui
Three classical comparative studies in cross-
cultural management and psychology

2. Agenda
1 Theory Importance 3
2
The culture dimensions and values model
of Hofstede, Schwartz and Trompenaars
4
3 Applied Studies 10
4 Limitations and Project Relative 15
5 References 18

3. Building the Global Competence for Asian Leaders
Theory Importance
3
•There are a lot of early researches on cultural otherness; researchers(Inkeles、Kluckhohn、Eysenck、
Peabody) were trying to build a set of complete measuring index system in order to describe the cultural
otherness. But most of these researches are based on researchers’ own understanding national culture
without practical examine so that the system is not complete and lakes of rigor.
•Jan-Benedict, E.M.Steenkamp（2001）considers that before Hofstede’s theory, cross-cultural management
is not precise because there is a lack of theoretical framework which is based on national culture.
Smith(1996)believes the national culture dimension offer the hypothesis basic for explaining the difference
between manner and behavior.
•Westwood(1992)regards Hofstede’s theory as the standard theory of studying administrational and
organizational behavior based on cross-cultural context. and Fernandez(1997) thinks it’s a watershed-like
research basic for later cross-cultural studies.
•Followed Hofstede, Trompenaars(1993) and Schwartz(1994) also did some original research.
Bilsky&Koch(2002) thinks many of the respective studies have been influenced by Schwartz’ (1992) values
theory. Lothar Katz(2007)thinks Trompenaars present a useful framework to help develop a new mindset
when working across diverse cultures.Sudhir Kale& Sangita De(2008) believed Trompenaars framework
draws together and applies ideas contributed by a range of scholars.

4. The culture dimensions and values model
of Hofstede, Schwartz and Trompenaars

5. Building the Global Competence for Asian Leaders
Theory of Hofstede
5
•Hofstede attempted to find out the factors which can explain cultural
differences in behaviors. And he classified countries based on five
dimensions: Power Distance, certainty Avoidance,
Individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity and Confucian
dynamism or long-term orientation.
Power Distance : focuses on the degree of equality, or inequality, between
people in the country's society
Individualism : focuses on the degree the society reinforces individual or
collective, achievement and interpersonal relationships.
Masculinity: focuses on the degree the society reinforces, or does not
reinforce, the traditional masculine work role model of male achievement,
control, and power
Uncertainty Avoidance: focuses on the level of tolerance for uncertainty
and ambiguity within the society - i.e. unstructured situations.
Long-Term Orientation : focuses on the degree the society embraces, or
does not embrace, long-term devotion to traditional, forward thinking
values.

6. Building the Global Competence for Asian Leaders
Hofstede‘s Dimension of Culture Scales
6
Country PDI IDV MAS UAI LTO
Indonesia 78 14 46 48
Singapore 74 20 48 8 48
China* 80 20 66 30 118
Germany 35 67 66 65 31
United States 40 91 62 46 29
*Estimated values. Andy Tamas (2007)
LTO in China is the highest-ranking factor (118), which indicates a society's time perspective and an attitude of persevering;
that is, overcoming obstacles with time, if not with will and strength. While IDV ranking at 20 may be attributed, in part, to
the high level of emphasis on a Collectivist society by the Communist rule, as compared to one of Individualism. Of note is
China's significantly higher Power Distance ranking of 80 is indicative of a high level of inequality of power and wealth within
the society.
Indonesia has high PDI at 78, which indicates a high level of inequality of power and wealth within the society. The second
highest is UAI at 48, reflects a more moderated influence of this Dimension within the Indonesian societyThe combination of
two high scores (UAI) and (PDI) create societies that are highly rule-oriented with laws, rules, regulations, and controls in
order to reduce the amount of uncertainty, while inequalities of power and wealth have been allowed to grow within the
society.
Singapore has a low index value in UA which indicates people feel less threatened by ambiguous situations. Emotions are
shown less in public. And are used constructively.

7. Building the Global Competence for Asian Leaders
Theory of Schwartz
7
•Schwartz(1999) postulated seven value types .And Schwartz et
al.(1995) also worked out Schwartz Values Survey, hoping to trace out
world-wide Geography of Values and mapping cultural groups in
relative positions.
Conservatism: A cultural emphasis on maintenance of the status quo,
propriety, and restraint of actions or inclinations that might disrupt
the solidary group or the traditional order.
Intellectual Autonomy: A cultural emphasis on the desirability of
individuals independently pursuing their own ideas and intellectual
directions. Affective Autonomy: A cultural emphasis on the
desirability of individuals independently pursuing affectively positive
experience.
Hierarchy: A cultural emphasis on the legitimacy of an unequal
distribution of power, roles and resources.
Mastery: A cultural emphasis on getting ahead through active self-
assertion.
Harmony: A cultural emphasis on fitting harmoniously into the
environment.
Egalitarianism: A cultural emphasis on transcendence of sel.sh
interests in favor of voluntary commitment to promoting the welfare
of others.

8. Building the Global Competence for Asian Leaders 8
As is clearly seen from the figure, Singapore and China are included in Far East cluster while Indonesia is
included in Isiam cluster. Data can be compared in these countries in cultural dimensions.
Schwartz‘s Dimension of Culture Scales in Students Samples

9. Building the Global Competence for Asian Leaders
Theory of Trompenaars
9
•Fons Trompenaars(1993) proposed another national cultural dimension.
Uuniversalism versus pluralism: The degree of importance a culture assigns to
either the law or to personal relationships.
Iindividualism versus Communitarisnism :The degree to which people see
themselves function more as a community or more as individuals.
Specific versus Diffuse: The degree to which responsibility is specifically
assigned or is diffusely accepted.
Affectivity versus neutrality:The degree to which individuals display their
emotions.
Inner Directed versus Outer Directed :The degree to which individuals believe
the environment can be controlled versus believing that the environment
controls them.
Achieved status versus Ascribed Status :The degree to which individuals must
prove themselves to receive status versus status simply given to them.
Sequential Time versus Synchronic Time :The degree to which individuals do
things one at a time versus several things at once. Cultures developed their
own response to time. Past-oriented cultures A culture that is oriented
towards the past views the future as a repetition of previous events and
experiences. Present-oriented cultures A culture primarily directed to the
present does not attach great value to the past or future. Future-oriented
cultures A culture concentrated on future prospects and does not deem the
past as significant for future events.
(from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fons_Trompenaars)

10. Applied Studies

11. Building the Global Competence for Asian Leaders
Application in Leadership and Cross-Cultural Context
11
•Stewart et al. (1994) compared career management activities for young managers in Germany (high on UA)
and the United Kingdom (low on UA) and found that the British managers typically placed more emphasis on
career mobility and generalization, while the German managers spent more time in a single job and valued
the development of specialized, task-related expertise.
•Karen Newman &Stanley Nollen(1996) built their study on Hofstede’s work and found support for the thesis
that business performance is better when management practices are congruent with national culture.
•Offermann & Hellmann (1997) found that managers from high uncertainty avoidance countries tended to
be more controlling, less delegating and less approachable. More, UA also influences the expectations
leaders have of subordinates and customers have of businesses.
•Adist et al. (1997) suggested that subordinates in lower power distance societies are more likely to doubt
their supervisors but not afraid of expressing themselves even they disagree with supervisors while Dickson
et al.(2003)believed that leaders tend to be less participative and more authoritarian and directive in high
power distance societies.
•Dorfman et al. (1997) compared actual leader behavior in five countries (United States, Mexico, Japan,
Taiwan, and South Korea). The differences they found reflect differences in PD between these countries. For
instance, directive leadership only had positive outcomes in terms of satisfaction and commitment in Mexico
and Taiwan (cultures relatively high on Power Distance).

12. Building the Global Competence for Asian Leaders 12
•Helgstrand & Stuhlmacher(1999)examined leader prototypes in a cross-cultural study with Danish and
American participants. These two cultures have been found to differ significantly on two major cultural
dimensions: individualism and masculinity. Result shows the highest leader ratings were not in conditions
with a cultural match between participants and leader candidate. Rather, both cultures saw feminine leaders
as most collegial and feminine-individualistic leaders as most effective.
•Jung & Avolio,(1999)suggested that collectivist values seem to fit well with some of the processes central to
transformational leadership, such as the central role of the group and identification processes
•Eylon & Au (1999) compared the effects of empowerment for MBAs from high and low PD countries
participating in a management simulation, showed society-level PD moderated the relationship between
leader style of empowerment and subsequent subordinate performance, suggesting a variform functional
universal.
•In the GLOBE study, several leader attributes that reflect differences in IC were found to vary across cultures.
For instance, being autonomous, unique, and independent are found to contribute to outstanding leadership
in some, but to be undesirable in other cultures (Den Hartog et al., 1999).
•Kessapidou & Varsakelis(2002) explored the impact of national culture on the performance of the foreign
affiliates in Greece which is characterised by low international isation and competitiveness, and has been
clustered by Hofstede in the Mediterranean culture managing directorial model. Results showed that higher
the national culture distance,the better the performance of the Greek affiliate and the higher the score on
the individualism dimension of the foreign firm, the higher the performance of its affiliate in a collectivistic
society.

13. Building the Global Competence for Asian Leaders 13
•Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997) gave practical advice for doing business with people in different
societies.For example,when doing business with specific-oriented individuals, it is necessary to structure the
meeting with time, intervals, and agendas while doing business with diffuse-oriented,let the meeting flow,
occasionally nudging its process.
•In Lipponen et al.’s study (2004), their approach on values is based on Schwartz’s (1992) theory of universal
content and structure of values, examining whether personal value orientation moderated the relationships
between perceived organizational justice and group pride, respect within the group, and turnover
intentions.
•Darren & Benjamin(2007) tested 61 Torres Strait entrepreneurs, showing cultural differences exist
between the entrepreneurs of the Torres Straits and others. Indices for all dimensions were considerably
lower, having a potentially significant impact on policy and the level and types of investment funds made
available for enabling entrepreneurship in the Torres Straits.
•Li & Harrison(2008) used Hofstede’s measures of national culture to predict the board composition and
leadership structure of firms based in that culture. In lower individual level society and masculinity society,
firms tend to have more outside directors on their boards. Also, firms based in societies that prefer high
power distances are more likely to have a single leader as board chair and CEO and fewer insiders on the
board.
•Steinmetz (2009)illustrated the application of invariance testing to the value theory of Schwartz(2005a,b),
using this method with sub-groups within a single society. They test measurement invariance across three
education groups and expect these groups to differ in their responding behavior and their latent means.

14. Building the Global Competence for Asian Leaders
Application in Other Areas
14
•Earley (1999) investigated the effects of cultural power distance and status characteristics on group efficacy
and team performance on a managerial simulation task. In high power distance cultures, high status
members’ estimates of efficacy were more strongly related to collective efficacy measures and performance
than low status group members’ efficacy estimates. However, in low power distance cultures, group
members’ efficacy estimates were equally related to collective efficacy.
•Pressey & Selassie (2002) tested the degree to which cultural difference impact upon buyer-seller
relationships using Hofstede’s indices of culture. The findings identified little evidence to support culture’s
influence on international business relationships.
•In Astill et al.’s study (2002), they examined the influence of parents, peer groups, teachers and the schools
on student values as assessed by the Schwartz Value Survey. Results showed that sex of student, language
background, the Christian involvement of the student, parental social position and the values held by
parents and peer groups had much greater effects upon the students’ values than the schools and their
teachers.
•Hofstede’s cultural framework has been applied in studies of advertising (Alden, Hoyer, and Lee, 1993;
Gregory and Munch, 1997; Zandpour et al., 1994), global brand strategies (Roth, 1995), and ethical decision
making (Blodgett et al., 2001), and is discussed in numerous textbooks (e.g., Keegan and Green, 2003).
(Jeffrey Blodgett & Aysen Bakir & Gregory Rose,2008).

15. Limitations and Project Relative

16. Building the Global Competence for Asian Leaders
Limitations of Cultural Theories
16
•According to criticisms, there are several shortcomings in Hofstede’s theory. Dickson(2003) presented the
dimensional conceptualization of culture is overly simplistic and the relationship between country and
culture is not one to one, culture is diversiform and changes over time, which Hofstede didn’t pay enough
attention to. Baumast(2002)pointed out that nations are not the suitable entities for the study of culture
and also, the sample—IBM employees is not enough to verify the findings.
•Baumast(2002) deemed the approaches of Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner is contrary to Hofstede’s as
they mix interaction and cultural status quo. But Hofstede (1996)believed that the sample of Trompenaars’s
research is small and pooly matched, such database is limited and lacks content validity. More, he also
criticized the methodology and the result.
•Yan Guoxiang(2006) proposed that the sample in Schwartz theory should be tested again when applying it
in non-western culture since the samples he selected are just only a few countries and most of them are
developed nations.

17. Building the Global Competence for Asian Leaders
Relative to IS and Leadership
17
•Intercultural sensitivity which defined as the ability to discriminate and experience relevant cultural
differences (Hammer, Bennett & Wiseman, 2003). The cultural theories of Hofstede, Schwartz and
Trompenaars are often used to masure these cultural difference in cross-cultural content.
• The cultural theories are the theoretical basis of intercultural sensitivity and the premise to understanding
and evaluating intercultural sensitivity because the requirement of IS is the culture conflict which result from
different national culture that can be classified in the 3 cultural theories.
•Culture permeates the whole process of management and organization and facing culture crash is the first
to deal with. At the same time, the application of the cultural theories in leadership and cross-cultural
management may help building the global competence for Asian leaders as many of them are also
comparative studies.

18. Building the Global Competence for Asian Leaders
References
18
•Andrew D. Pressey & Habte G. Selassie. (2002) Are cultural differences overrated? Examining the influence
of national culture on international buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 2, 4, 354–
368
•Andy Tamas (2007) Geert Hofstede's Dimensions of Culture and Edward T. Hall's Time Orientations-An
Intercultural Organization Development Tool compiled by Andy Tamas (www.tamas.com)
•Brian R. Astill, Norman T. Feather, John P. Keeves. (2002) A multilevel analysis of the effects of parents,
teachers and schools on student values. Social Psychology of Education vol.5,345–363
•Brendan McSweeney(2002) Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A
triumph of faith-a failure of analysis human relations vol.55(1),88--118
•Darren Lee-Ross & Benjamin Mitchell.(2007) Doing Business In The Torres Straits: A Study Of The
Relationship Between Culture And The Nature Of Indigenous Entrepreneurs. Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship Vol. 12, 2, 199–216
•Dianne Ford , Catherine Connelly ,Darren Meister-2003-Information Systems Research and Hofstede’s
Culture’s Consequences: An Uneasy and Incomplete Partnership IEEE Transactions on engineering
management,vol.50, 8—25
•Edmund R. Thompson ,Florence T. T. Phua. (2005) Are National Cultural Traits Applicable To Senior Firm
Managers? British Journal of Management, Vol. 16, 59–68 DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00430.x
•Desiree Knoppen & Willem Saris (2009) Do we have to combine Values in the Schwartz’ Human Values Scale
Survey Research Methods, Vol.3, 91-103

19. Building the Global Competence for Asian Leaders 19
•Jiatao Li , J. Richard Harrison (2008). National Culture and the Composition and Leadership Structure of
Boards of Directors . The Authors Journal compilation . Vol 16. 5 doi:10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00697.x
•G Hofstede(2002)Dimensions do not exist: A reply to Brendan McSweeney.Human Relations, vol.55 (11)
•G Hofstede(2003) What is culture? A reply to Baskerville Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28, 811-
813
•Jeffrey Blodgett & Aysen Bakir & Gregory Rose(2008)A Test of the Validity of Hofstede’s Cultural Framework
Advances in Consumer Research vol.35,762—763
•Marcus W. Dicksona, Deanne N. Den Hartogb, Jacqueline K. Mitchelson (2003) Research on leadership in a
cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions. The Leadership Quarterly vol.14 729–768
•Offermann, L. R., & Hellmann, P. S. (1997). Culture’s consequences for leadership behavior: National values
in action. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol.28,3, 342–351.
•Low Sui Pheng & Shi Yuquan(2002)An exploratory study of Hofstede’s cross-cultural dimensions in
construction projects Management Decision vol.40(1),7--16
•Jukka Lipponen, Maria-Elena Olkkonen, Liisa Myyry (2004). Personal Value Orientation as a Moderator in
the Relationships Between Perceived Organizational Justice and Its Hypothesized Consequences. Social
Justice Research Vol17, 3,275-292, DOI:10.1023/B:SORE.0000041294.68845.0f

20. Building the Global Competence for Asian Leaders 20
•Shalom H. Schwartz & Wolfgang Bilsky (1987) Toward A Universal Psychological Structure of Human Values
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol. 53, No. 3, 550-562
•Rita Gunther McGrath, Ian C. MacMillan, Sari Scheinberg (1992) Elitists, Risk-Takers, and Rugged Individualists
An Exploratory Analysis of Cultural Differences between Entrepreneurs and Non Entrepreneurs. Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 7, Issue 2, p. 115-135 1992. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1504488
•Shalom H. Schwartz(1999)A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for Work Applied Psychology:
an International Review, 48(1), 23--47
•Shalom H. Schwartz(1992)Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20
countries Advances in experimental social psychology Vol. 25, 1--65
•Shalom H. Schwartz(1990) Individualism-collectivism critique and proposed refinements Journal of Cross-
cultural Psychology, Vol.21 No.2, 139--157
•Peter B. Smith & Mark F. Peterson & Shalom H. Schwartz(2002)Cultural Values, Sources of Guidance, and
Their Relevance to Managerial Behavior Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, Vol.33, 188--208
•William Wardrope(2005)Beyond Hofstede: Cultural Application for Communicating with Latin American
Business Association for Business Communication Annual Conversation

21. Global Competence for Asian Leaders
Research Partners:
An applied research collaboration supported by the Human Capital Leadership
Institute (Singapore) with the objective to derive a model for Asian leaders, which will
lead to systematic global leadership development programs with Asian
characteristics.
Built on our previous researches on Chinese and Indonesian intercultural sensitivity,
we continue in this study by elaborating the cross-cultural experiences of the
Chinese, Indonesian and Singaporean international assignees and their respective
local co-workers in China and Indonesia. Intercultural sensitivity has been widely
accepted as one of the most significant element of global competencies and one of
the strongest predictor for global leaders and managers accomplishments.
The principal investigators of the project are Dr. Hora Tjitra, Dr. Hana Panggabean,
and the research team of the the Zhejiang University (Hangzhou, China), Zhejiang
University of Technology (Hangzhou, China) and the Atma Jaya Indonesia Catholic
University (Jakarta, Indonesia).
Funding Partner:
Zhejiang University
China
www.zju.edu.cn
Zhejiang University of Technology
China
www.zjut.edu.cn
Atma Jaya Catholic University
Indonesia
www.atmajaya.ac.id
Human Capital Leadership Institute
Singapore
www.smu.edu.sg
Hora Tjitra
Hana Panggabean
Juliana Murniati
Quan HEJiewei ZHENG
Chaohui ZHANGTeng SHENTU Jia ZHOU
Xiaojuan WANG
Dan ZHAOXixie ZHANG
Sebastian Partogi Yuanbo LIU Tayyibah Mushtaq

22. Thank You
Contact us via…
Mail: zjutzhangchaohui@gmail.com
Follow: zhangchaohui@sinau.me
Website: http://sinau.me/hcli