Impact of Industrialisation on Acculturation of Managers in the Global Marketplace.

Abstract

This study examines the impact of national environment on managerial value systems by comparing representative samples of Chinese managers in the United States, Singapore and the People's Republic of China. Two measures were used. The dimensions of western measures were Machiavellianism, Dogmatism, Locus of Control, and Intolerance of Ambiguity. The eastern measures comprised Integration, Confucian dynamism, Human-heartedness and Moral Discipline. The Chinese managers in Singapore were found display more common values with their counterparts in the USA, while showing more dissimilar values with their PRC counterparts.

Studies on the impact of industrialisation on the personal value systems of managers in international business can be broadly categorised under three schools of thoughts. One school, emphasising cultural convergence, proposes that individuals in industrialised nations, through the imperatives of industrialisation and economic development, will embrace common attitudes and behaviours despite cultural differences (Kerr et al, 1964; Webber, 1969; Form, 1972; Eisenstadt, 1973; Dunphy, 1987; Sparrow et al, 1994). This homogenising effect can be observed in areas such as rationalism, secularism, and mechanical time (Form, 1972; Yoo et al, 1995; Bae and Form, 1988). At the organisational level, there is greater similarity of structures such as complexity, formalisation, centralisation, and adoption of universal business practices, and this brings about a similarity in managerial values (Child, 1981; Kelly and Worthley, 1981). In the international arena, when emerging economies take on the free enterprise system of t he west, they also adopt certain ideological values that are part of the free-market capitalism in the west (for example, Dunphy, 1987; Negandhi, 1975; Webber, 1969; Eisenstadt, 1973; Pascale and Maguire, 1980). In this way, the western ways of engaging in business are exposed to these developing economies during industrialisation, and thus the developing countries would assimilate ideologically driven values common to those held in the industrialised western countries (Kordonsky, 1992; Shmelev, 1991; Yip, 1992).

A converse view is held by the divergence school. The divergence theorists propose that cultural values are deeply rooted in individuals and will be retained regardless of economic ideology (Evans, 1970; Kelly and Reeser 1973; Cole, 1973; Shaw, Fisher and Randolph, 1991; Brewster and Larson, 1992; Cole, 1973; Evans, 1970). The divergence theory received a great deal of attention during the 1970s and coincided with the time when the validity of the convergence theory was challenged (Dunphy, 1987). During that period, supranational organisations like the European Common Market, which were founded very much on the convergence belief, began to recognise the onset of national differences (Hofstede, 1983). Consequently, the eastern countries with a history of socialism would not shift their work values toward those held in western capitalistic countries, regardless of how industrialisation occurs (Shaw et al, 1991; Shmelev, 1991).

Proponents of the divergence approach therefore argue that cultural heritage, instead of economic ideology, drives values, and the value systems within the business organisations will remain largely unchanged even if the country adopts capitalism (Lincoln et al, 1978; Ricks et al, 1990). For this reason, they held that the cultural beliefs and values are so deeply rooted in individuals (Abegglen, 1958) that they will remain different for different cultures despite the impact of western style industrialisation (Kelly and Reeser 1973).

A third view, that of crossvergence, asserts that neither convergence nor divergence view is adequate to explain the dynamic interaction of economic ideology and national culture. It argues that the integration of cultural and economic ideological influences will result in a unique value system that is different from any of the original cultures (Beals, 1953; Ralston et al, 1997). The crossvergence school claims that some new crossbred forms of values result when two cultures meet (Beals, 1953). Ralston et al (1997) considered this as a continuum between the polar extremes of convergence and divergence, where an integration of cultural and ideological influences results in a unique value systems that is different from the value set supported by either national culture or economic ideology (Ralston et al, 1993).

A major problem frequently encountered in cross-cultural research is that culture is often equated with country even though the two concepts are not necessarily the same (Ricks, 1990). In effect, national differences found in the characteristics of organisations or their members have been interpreted as cultural differences. Hofstede (1983) maintains that nations are political units with their own institutions, forms of government and legal systems, educational systems, economic and technology development systems, labour and employers association systems. The importance of controlling for the effects of contextual and environmental variables, such as size, technology, legal, economic, ethnic, and political conditions, in comparative studies had been emphasised in studies such as those done by Child (1981), England and Harpaz (1983), Negandhi (1975,1983), Toyne (1976, 1980) and Kelly and Worthley (1981).

This study seeks to examine the validity of the arguments of the three schools of thought. In particular, it tests the impact of the national environment on the personal value system of managers. By using data of managers from a similar ethnic origin, that is, Chinese managers in the People's Republic of China (PRC), United States of America (USA) and Singapore, it controls the effects of contextual and environmental variables in the country, such as technological, legal, educational, economic, and political conditions.

Literature Review

Numerous studies have documented the similarities and differences of values held by different cultures across the nations. An early cross-cultural study by Peterson (1978) investigated the attitudes of international chief executives towards supervisory values and practices. The results supported the hypothesis that culture plays an important role in explaining the differences in attitudinal responses by the chief executives. In a similar vein, Hughes and Flowers' (1978) comparison of Arab managers with managers in the United States provided evidence that differences exist between Arab and American managers. Arab managers were found to have existential, sociometric and conformist values as their dominant style, whereas US managers were dominant on existential and manipulative values. Elsayed and Elkhouly (1997) extended this study by making a comparison of values between Egyptians, Americans, Africans, and Arabs. Using the Rokeach Value Survey (RVS), the study showed that substantial differences exist among al l four regions and between paired comparisons among the regions. The values of the Egyptian executives were least similar to values of American executives and to a lesser degree those of African and Arabian executives.

In addition, the values of African executives were most similar to those of Arab and American executives. Several studies have also used Hofstede's (1980) framework to examine value structures and cultural groups. The empirical results in these studies have led researchers to conclude that managers from different countries exhibit consistently different patterns of values and attitudes (Hofstede, 1985; Kelly et al, 1987; Shenkar and Ronen 1987). For instance, a study by Haire et al (1966) indicated that managers in different countries differed significantly from one another in the extent to which they endorsed participation and in their belief about capacity of their subordinates to participate effectively.

Kerr et al (1964) proposed that, through the "imperatives of industrialisation", the value systems of managers is becoming increasingly similar. This argument is supported by Tse et al (1988) in their study, which suggested that the norms on which organisational culture were subjected to a process of globalisation that reduced cross-cultural and national differences. Another study by Birnbaum and Wong (1985) revealed a convergence of managerial values between PRC and Hong Kong due to industrialisation. Similarly, Schwind and Peterson (1985) noted that the values of Japanese manager trainees in America are more similar to American management students than to Japanese managers, thus implying convergence.

In contrast, other studies revealed that cultural values are deeply rooted in individuals, and will not converge due to industrialisation or economic ideology. They emphasise the uniqueness of each culture and therefore recognise the need to adapt management practices to the local environment (Brewster and Larson, 1992). Particularly, strong evidence was found by Hofstede (1980) that cultural differences persisted over time even for members of the same multinational corporation. similarly, Kelly et al (1987) noted that cultural differences persist even after controlling for individual, organisational and occupational variables. Vertinsky et al (1990) surveyed 155 executives from the PRC, Hong Kong, and Canada to study whether organisational design and management are subject to a process of globalisation. The study found that some norms of organisational design that reflect basic cultural values are resistant to change and convergence. Laurent (1983) found that employees working in a multinational firm in diff erent countries retained their culturally specific ways of work behaviour in spite of common management practices and procedures. Kelly and Reeser (1973) studied branch managers at Hawaiian banks to test if the managerial values of American managers of Japanese ancestry were different from those of Caucasian ancestry. On the whole, the managerial values were similar, but managers of Japanese ancestry possess distinctive attitudes regarding long-term employment company commitment, respect for formal authority, teamwork, and paternalism.

In an evaluation of the literature on cross-cultural aspects of management styles, Evans et al (1989) pointed out that both level of technology and culture affect the styles of management. The authors revealed that while the level of technology determines the management style that is adopted in a specific society, specific culture could be a dominant factor in management style such that management will retain its own unique culture identity even as society develops. The conclusion was that, in general, management style is a function of the level of industrialisation but is tempered by cultural characteristics.

In view of the mixed results, researchers are recognising the impact of interaction between culture and environment variables. Therefore, complete convergence or divergence may not occur. Whiteland and England (1977) suggested that the impact of culture and the process of industrialisation both influence managerial values and should be regarded as complementary rather than competing explanations for similarities and differences in managers' value systems. In addition, Child (1981) found out that convergence of work values is occurring at macro/organisational level (for example, structure, technology) but divergence is occurring at micro/personal level (for example, culturally derived attitudes and values).

A more recent study by Ralston et al (1997) assessed the impact of economic ideology and national culture on individual work values of managers in the USA, Russia, Japan, and China. The framework incorporated the Schwartz Value Survey to test whether there is convergence, divergence or crossvergence in managerial work values. The findings largely support the crossvergence perspective, while also confirming the role of national culture.

Personal Value System of Chinese Managers

When the PRC started transforming its centrally planned economy to a market oriented system during the 1970s, this economic reform has become the turning point where the introduction and transfer of management know-how from foreign countries took place (Fan, 1988). The process of industrialisation has led to revolutionary changes in institutional patterns as well as in peoples' values and attitudes (Farh et al, 1997). Although Chinese values have formed a clear and consistent system for generations (Kindle, 1983; Hsu, 1970), this does not imply that the values and the system have not been changed. During the Cultural Revolution in PRC in the period from 1966-76, classical Chinese value system was disrupted at its basic foundation, the orthodox doctrine of Confucianism, was severely criticised and forbidden.

Shively and Shively (1972) pointed out that other Chinese-dominated societies, such as Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore, have shown inevitable changes in the value systems during the process of rapid social and economic change. Lin (1966), in a study of value orientations of Hong Kong school students and their parents, also found that the value orientations of the younger generation had changed considerably as compared with those of their parents. One explanation is that although the Chinese heritage is strongly rooted in the family and kinship relations, it may be absent in the educational systems in the country (Hsu, 1947, 1963, 1972). This is particularly true for societies like Singapore, which embraces western education. Therefore, some researchers have argued that education would introduce new values, particularly those of the west, which would gradually replace the traditional ones to shape an industrialised society (Shively and Shively, 1972). However, Yau (1992) stressed that the family remains as a c ritical source, which constantly diffuses cultural influences on individual Chinese throughout their lives. Even though they may deviate from the traditional value orientations at some point in their lives, they tend to be assimilated again by their Chinese culture.

Studies on Chinese managers in different countries have produced diverse results on the value systems of Chinese managers. A comparative study of 142 middle managers in departmental and retail stores in Singapore and 137 middle managers in Australia by Harrison (1994) showed that significant differences existed in work-related behaviour and interpersonal relationships between the two countries. Specifically, the Singaporean Chinese managers were less satisfied with their jobs, experienced greater stress in their work situations, and had poorer relationship with their superiors and peers than their Australian counterparts.

A study by Ralston et al (1995) examined the apparent evolution in work values among the young Chinese managers in Shanghai a two-and-a-half-year period that spans the June 1989 Tiananmen Square incident. Findings suggest a growing spirit of Chinese style individualism and also provide some indication that these young Chinese managers are adopting more western ways of doing things.

Another stream of research used the Chinese Value Survey (CVS) framework which was developed by the Chinese Culture Connection in 1977 to study the personal values of Chinese managers. Lee and Wahs' (1994) study on the relationship between Chinese values and organisational practices in Singapore supported the hypothesis that the four value factors from the CVS are significant integrative with organisational practices in Singapore. Particularly, human-heartedness values were significantly correlated to the managerial functions and business orientation in organisational practices. Moral discipline was significantly correlated to managerial functions as well as the human related approach in organisational practices in Singapore. Another study by Ralston et al (1992) compared the eastern values across the USA, Hong Kong, and PRC. The study found that three CVS dimensions -- integration, Confucian work dynamism and human heartedness -- discriminated among the groups.

Ralston et al (1993a) compares the impact of managerial values on decision-making between USA and Hong Kong. Machiavellianism, Locus of control, Dogmatism, and the Intolerance of Ambiguity scales were used as measurement instruments. The sample consisted of 75 Hong Kong business students, 187 Hong Kong managers, 62 US business students and 52 US managers and Social Desirability scores have been used as a covariate to help control for cultural differences. Results show that differences exist to affect decision-making behaviour and adaptations have to be made to accommodate the difference in values. Using the same data collected, together with scores on the eastern developed CVS, Ralston et al (1993b) found that both culture and business environment interact to create a unique set of managerial values in a country.

Research Design

In this study, the personal value system of the Chinese managers is evaluated using measures proposed in past studies. The western measures are Machiavellianism (Christie and Geis, 1970), Dogmatism (Schulze, 1962), Locus of Control (Rotter, 1966) and Intolerance of Ambiguity (Martin and Westie, 1959). The eastern measures are adopted from the Chinese Value Survey (CVS) which was developed by The Chinese Culture Connection (CCC) in 1987. The measures include Integration, Confucian dynamism, human-heartedness and moral discipline.

Choice of Countries

To compare the Chinese values across different countries, the selection of countries is not a crucial issue. If the classical Chinese values are maintained, there should not be any significant differences in the values of all the respondents in whichever countries we study. However, should there be any significant differences, it could be a result of the impact of environmental variables such as technology, economic and political conditions of the countries. Thus, to examine whether there is convergence or divergence of managerial values, we have to include a comparison country which has a similar set of economic, legal, and educational systems with one country, and a common cultural heritage with another country (Ralston et al, 1993b).

The cultural values in the PRC are mainly rooted in the teachings of Confucius (Hofstede and Bond, 1988). Its socialistic, legal and political systems are grown out of communist doctrine (Lan, 1987) and the technological base is considered relatively underdeveloped (Ralston et al, 1993). On the other hand, the environment in the USA is characterised as being individualistic, embracing optimal technological development, and a capitalistic business environment that evolved out of the English legal and political systems. Thus, PRC and USA represent ideological opposites in the work environment, in spite of the present move towards capitalism in PRC (Dunne, 1995; Tse et al, 1994). They also represent cultural extremes in the sense of western and eastern beliefs, religious philosophies and social values (Engardio, 1995; Furhman, 1984; Ralston et al, 1995; Xing, 1995). As a result, the USA and PRC were deemed to be diametrically opposite. Singapore fitted well as the comparison group. Its socio-economic, political, and educational systems are more similar to that of the USA, but being a Chinese-dominated society, the cultural heritage of its Chinese citizens, who are the majority in the nation, are similar, if not identical, to that of the PRC.

Hypotheses

Although they are exposed to different economic, political, legal, and educational systems, Chinese American and Chinese managers share an Intergenerationally transmitted culture (Beres, 1984). The Chinese who migrated to other locations (including Hong Kong and Singapore) are known to have carried their cultural values with them even though they may be geographically dispersed (Redding, 1990). We therefore argue that Chinese managers maintain their cultural heritage in their personal values despite staying in different political regions with different legal, educational, economics and technological systems. Our hypotheses are:

H1: There is no significant difference in the western-developed measures between the Chinese managers across the PRC, USA, and Singapore.

H1a: There is no significant difference in the Machiavellianism measure between the Chinese managers across PRC, USA, and Singapore

H1b: There is no significant difference in the Dogmatism measure between the Chinese managers across PRC, USA, and Singapore

H1c: There is no significant difference in the Locus of Control measure between the Chinese managers across PRC, USA, and Singapore

H1d: There is no significant difference in the Intolerance of Ambiguity measure between the Chinese managers across PRC, USA, and Singapore

H2: There is no significant difference in the four dimensions of the Chinese Value Survey (CVS) between the Chinese managers across the PRC, USA, and Singapore.

H2a: There is no significant difference in the Integration (CVS I) dimension of the CVS between the Chinese managers across PRC, USA, and Singapore.

H2b: There is no significant difference in the Confucian Work Dynamism (CVS II) dimension of the CVS between the Chinese managers across PRC, USA, and Singapore

H2c: There is no significant difference in the Human-heartedness (CVS III) dimension of the CVS between the Chinese managers across PRC, USA, and Singapore

H2d: There is no significant difference in the Moral Discipline (CVS IV) dimension of the CVS between the Chinese managers across PRC, USA, and Singapore

We posit a third hypothesis which is contingent on the outcome of the first two hypotheses.

(a) Divergence: If there is a no significant difference in all the pair-wise comparisons among the three countries (that is, between USA and Singapore; between PRC and Singapore; and between USA and PRC), we can conclude that the environmental impact has no influence on the values of the respondents. Although the respondents are located in different political regions, their common cultural heritage has remained strong and resulted similarities of their values. If this is so, then the divergence theory will be supported because it shows that cultural impact has an over-riding influence on one's personal values, as compared to the environmental impact. Therefore, different cultural values will continue to diverge regardless of the extent of industrialisation of the country.

(b) Convergence: If there is a significant difference between the managers in PRC and Singapore but no significant difference between those in Singapore and the USA, we can conclude that environmental influence would remain tenable. Since all the respondents are sharing a common intergenerationally transmitted Chinese culture, the significant difference among them can only be explained by the environmental influence. If the national environmental impact is stronger than the cultural impact, Singapore, being environmentally more similar to the USA than the PRC, will have personal values similar to the USA. Hence, if this is to happen, we can conclude that cultural influence is over-ridden by environmental influence and different cultural values will converge as the operating business environment becomes industrialised and modernised.

(c) Crossvergence: Any other patterns that evolved, besides the ones implying convergence and divergence, is classified as implying crossvergence. They indicate that the individuals have adjusted their values by accommodating the cultural and environmental impacts on the personal values to their own comfortable level. This creates unique values for which comparison cannot be made.

Measures

The western measures are Machiavellianism, Dogmatism, Locus of Control, and Intolerance of Ambiguity. Machiavellianism is one of the most researched and tested measures of an individual's willingness to use social power (Maddona, 1989; Zook, 1985). It is a measure of the degree to which a person places self-interest above the interest of the group (Jafee et al, 1989) and his preference to use social influence tactics and pressures to personal gain (Christie, 1968). For example, a Machiavellian personality type has been characterised as one who "employs aggressive, manipulative, exploiting, and devious moves in order to achieve personal and organisational motives" (Calhoon, 1969, p 211) or as one who manipulates more, persuades others more, and is persuaded less (Christie and Geis, 1970).

Short Dogmatism, as conceived by Rokeach (1973), measures the degree to which a person is not flexible or open to new ideas or ideas different from his own. Rokeach (1973) states that the extent to which a person's belief system is open is "the extent to which the person can receive, evaluate and act on relevant information received from the outside on its own". Schulze (1962) used Guttman's scalogram analysis to select 10 items from the Rokeach's Dogmatism scale which best met the criteria of unidimensionality.

Locus of Control refers to Rotter's (1966) concept of internal versus external control of reinforcement, which in turn refers to the degree to which an individual perceives success and failure as being contingent upon personal initiative (Rotter, 1966). This internal-external continuum assesses the individual's perceptions of the level and direction of control personally held over most situations. At one end are the highly external who perceive effort to be largely instrumental in attaining success. At the opposite end are the highly external who view success and failure as completely unrelated to ability and effort, but mainly due to external forces (for example, luck).

Intolerance of Ambiguity identifies an individual's ability to function and make decisions in an uncertain environment (Martin and Westie, 1959). In other words, it indicates a person's desire for certainty. The scale contains eight items, each scored along a five-point agree-disagree Likert continuum. Scoring is accomplished simply by summing across items and scores can range from eight to 40. Higher scores on the instrument show a desire for more certainty. This measure appears to be somewhat comparable to Hofstede's (1980) uncertainty avoidance dimension of culture. As the uncertainty is particularly high in the international business arena (Adler and Graham, 1989), this construct therefore has definite implications for the international workplace. The Intolerance of Ambiguity will affect a manager's ability to make decisions with less than perfect information.

The eastern measures reflect indigenous themes and tap those fundamental concerns of the Chinese culture world views. In its study of 22 countries, The Chinese Culture Connection (1987) identified four factors within the CVS instrument. The factors are integration (CVS I) which focuses on social stability, CWD (CVS II) which reflects the teachings of Confucius, HH (CVS III) which deals with compassion, and MD (CVS IV) focusing on self-control. Table 1 displays the respective items within each of the four dimensions.

As this study was subjected to the complexities of cross national survey research, a Social Desirability Scale was included in the study to enhance the validity of the results by adjusting the differences in the responses due to the "socially desirable" answers given deliberately by respondents. Social Desirability (SD) refers to the tendency to present oneself favourably regarding current social norms and standards. When asked questions regarding values, ethics or behaviours, people may give answers which are "socially desirable" to put themselves in favourable positions so as to achieve approval of others, instead of giving true answers. To be sensitive to this issue of socially desirable response biases, this measure was used as a covariate to help adjust for differences in responses due to social desirability to increase the precision of our analysis. This method has been used by researchers to adjust for possible response set tendencies (Smith, 1967). The measurement is drawn from Crowne and Marlowe's (1 964) 33-item Social Desirability scale and is a measure of how much of what people say is because they think it is the response others want to hear. It has been widely used in cross-cultural research to adjust for differences in cultural expectations of candor and social politeness in the respondents' response patterns.

Survey Instrument

Since we are assessing the personal value system of the Chinese managers, a questionnaire measuring values indigenous to the Chinese culture is necessary. The Chinese Value Survey developed by The Chinese Culture Connection (1987), an international network of colleagues organised by Michael Bond, is adopted in this study. However, if the heritage of the Chinese culture were not that deeply rooted in the respondents' personal values, we would expect their values could have been influenced by the contextual and environmental variables in their respective nations.

In view of the fact that westernisation is a major factor in this environmental context, the inclusion of western-developed measures seems necessary. Following Ralston (1997), Machiavellianism, Dogmatism, Locus of Control, and Tolerance of Ambiguity have been selected to represent the western developed scales. With the exception for the Locus of Control scale, all the variables are measured using a Likert-type scaling. Munson and McIntrye (1979), in assessing the reliability of the Rokeach Value Survey (RVS), established that in measuring values, a Likert type of scaling approach is more reliable than the more cumbersome ranking approach used by psychologists.

Data Collection

The data was collected through mail surveys. All the instruments were in English and Chinese. The English version of the CVS, which was previously translated by other researchers, was used in this study. For the western measures, a back-translation method is used to ensure accuracy in the translation of the questionnaires. Although the respondents have a choice of language of the questionnaire, the English version was widely used in the USA, English and Chinese versions in Singapore, and the Chinese version in the PRC.

The questionnaire, with a cover letter attached to explain the purpose of the study and to assure strict confidentiality of the individual responses, was mailed to the office of every subject. A self-addressed and postage-paid envelope was also attached to each mailer to encourage response. Subjects were told that there were no right or wrong answers, but that it was only their opinions that matter. Research institutes were contacted to assist in the fieldwork in PRC and the USA. In Singapore, the respondents were randomly picked from companies listed in the Singapore Business Phone book.

Sample

The sample consists of ethnic Chinese managers from the PRC, the USA, and Singapore. Ethnicity describes a commonality transmitted by families over generations and reinforced by the surrounding community. It encompasses those who are united by their common ancestry or history, and it involves group identification of shared values and understandings that fulfill a deep psychological need for identity and historical continuity. Therefore, our subjects will be Chinese as defined by the race in their identity cards. They will have to be at least the second generation Chinese, born in the countries that they reside in instead of being recent immigrants. For example, the Chinese Americans in our sample will be the American-born Chinese managers, and not the Chinese managers from other countries who are just posted to the United States to work.

The respondents from PRC were from Xiamen, while the US sample came from business corporations located in California. The sample in Singapore was territory-wide as Singapore is a small country. Ten responses were unusable and the final sample consisted of 451 Chinese managers from the PRC (n = 193), Singapore (n = 157) and the USA (n = 102). The overall response rate was 66 per cent, with 66 per cent response rate for the PRC data, 80 per cent for Singapore data, and 52 per cent for the US data, respectively. Table 2 presents the demographic data of the sample collected.

Internal Consistency Reliabilities

The internal consistency reliabilities coefficients are tabulated in Table 3. The constructs are all above 0.60 and the overall Cronbach's alpha was 0.89 for western measures and 0.92 for eastern measures.

Statistical Estimation Method

Owing to their inherent differences, the western and eastern measures were analysed separately. The initial step of each analysis was a one-way multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) with Social Desirability as a covariate to control the error rate within the multiple dependent measures. In the event that the covariate is not significant, it will be dropped and a MANOVA will be used for the analysis instead. For the western measures, the dependent variables are the scores for Machiavellianism, Dogmatism, Locus of Control and the Intolerance of Ambiguity. For the eastern measures, the dependent variables are the four dimensions in the CVS, which are namely Integration, Confucian Work Dynamism, Human-heartedness and Moral Discipline.

If significant effect was found in the multivariate analyses (MANCOVA/MANOVA), the univariate analyses (ANCOVA/ANOVA) for the effect will be calculated for the individual dependent variables. Significant univariate effects were further tested for differences among the three groups of managers using Bonferroni adjusted t-tests based on the adjusted means, error terms and degrees of freedom from the univariate analyses.

Results

Western Measures

Social Desirability, with a significant Wilk's Lambda (F = 6.339; p < 0.001), was retained in the model. The three groups of managers also differed significantly in the western measures (F = 4.128, p < 0.00 1). Therefore, H1 is rejected and there is significant difference in the western measures between the Chinese managers in the three countries.

Since significant effect was found in the multivariate analysis, the univariate effects were assessed in ANCOVA for the respective four dependent variables. Table 4 shows the results of the ANCOVA. It can be noted that the Chinese managers from the three countries differed significantly on three of the four western developed measures on personal values. They are namely, Machiavellianism (F = 5.618, p <0.05), Dogmatism (F = 5.317, p < 0.05) and Locus of Control (F = 5.278, p < 0.05). However, there is no significance regarding Intolerance of Ambiguity. Accordingly, H1a, H1b and H1c are rejected.

The differences between individual groups of the respondents in the three countries were further tested using Bonferroni adjusted t-tests on Machiavellianism, Dogmatism and Locus of Control. Table 5 presents the results of the post-hoc tests.

The American-Chinese managers scored significantly lower on Machiavellianism than the Chinese manager in the PRC and Singapore. In the areas of Dogmatism and Locus of Control, the Chinese managers in PRC were significantly less their counterparts in Singapore and the US. There is no difference between Chinese managers in Singapore and the US showed no significant differences in these areas.

Eastern Measures

Social Desirability was again retained in the model; its Wilk's Lambda was significant (F = 2.642; p < 0.05). The three groups of managers differed significantly in the eastern measures (F = 11.932, p = 0.00 < 0.001). Thus, H2 is rejected.

Table 6 shows the results of the ANCOVA. Results showed that the Chinese managers from the three countries differed significantly on all the four dimensions of Chinese Value Survey. Hence, hypotheses H2a, H2b, H2c and H2d are rejected. Particularly, the difference was most significant in Moral Discipline (F = 36.241, p < 0.001), followed by Integration (F = 17.657, p < 0.001), Human-heartedness (F = 7.262, p < 0.001) and Confucian Dynamism (F = 4.148, p < 0.05).

The differences between individual groups of the respondents in the three countries were further tested using Bonferroni adjusted t-tests on all the four dimensions of the CVS. Table 7 presents the results of the post-hoc tests.

The results reveal that the Chinese managers in PRC were significantly different from their counterparts in Singapore in all the four dimensions of CVS. They differed significantly with the Chinese American managers on the dimensions of Integration and Moral Discipline. There is no difference between Singapore and American Chinese managers in any of the eastern measures.

Discussion

The study generally supports the convergence theory and reveals some keys issues in cross-cultural research. First, homogeneity cannot be assumed within a culture. The Chinese across the three countries differed in their values in both the western and eastern developed measures. Although Redding (1990) claimed that the Chinese have carried their cultural values with them when they migrated to other lands like Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong, these cultural value seem to have changed over the generations. The rejection of hypotheses H1 and H2 that the Chinese will remain the same in terms of their personal values regardless of the country that they reside leads us to the conclude that Chinese cultural values are not as strong and deeply ingrained in the Chinese managers. The findings contrast with the assertion that certain cultural values are relatively unchanging, especially those that regulate social behaviour (Schneider, 1988).

The results point to the significant role of the national environment in the formation of the personal value systems of managers. Although the Chinese managers in Singapore and the USA held similar value system, they differed from the Chinese in PRC. This deviates from the general expectation that the Chinese Singaporean managers will display more similar cultural values with the managers in PRC by virtue of their common cultural heritage. Chinese forms a majority of the citizens in both countries which are located in Asia and share the eastern culture. However, in our study, the Chinese in these two countries differed in two of the western measures and in all the eastern measures. The Singaporean Chinese managers displayed similar cultural values with the American Chinese managers in all the eastern measures and are only significantly higher in terms of the western measure- Machiavellianism. These similarities could be largely due to the comparable environmental variables present in both countries. Both coun tries have evolved out of the western legal and political systems that are highly democratic in nature, and the business environment has been capitalistic with ample incentives for technological development. The educational systems in the two countries are also largely based on a common westernised platform. English is the official language as well as the medium of instruction in the education. Therefore, in the debate on the influence of cultural heritage versus the national environment on personal values (Adler and Graham, 1989; Dunphy, 1987; Kelly et al, 1987; Ricks et al, 1990), this study points to the latter as having a significant influence on the personal value systems of individuals.

Surprisingly, the Chinese managers in PRC were found to be the least dogmatic in our study. This is contrary to past beliefs that they are very traditional and are more likely to reject new ideas. The Chinese cultural values are also the weakest among these managers, which is another contrast to past research. As they are Chinese from the motherland, we would expect them to hold stronger Chinese cultural values than the Chinese managers in foreign countries who might have discarded some of their Chinese cultural roots over the generations. However, our results indicate that the native Chinese managers in PRC hold significant weaker cultural values than the Singaporean Chinese managers. Although this could be due to the heavy emphasis on the Chinese cultural roots by the Singaporean government, it can also be viewed from the other perspective that the Chinese in PRC have discarded or placed less emphasis on their Chinese cultural roots in the process of industrialisation.

Conclusion

This study has attempted a broad-based theoretically guided field study of the impact of the national environment on the personal value system of managers. While the past studies use ethnically diverse managers from different nationalities, we have controlled the moderating influence of cultural heritage by using managers from a single ethnic group. Further, by including Social Desirability in our framework of analysis, our study provides a more coherent explanation by adjusting for possible response set tendencies.

The findings in this study tie in well with the theories of acculturation and cross-cultural research. This study underscores the significant role of the environmental forces in shaping the personal values of manager. It points to the convergence of cultural values due to the homogeneity of technological and environmental systems arising from industrialisation and modernisation. As industrialisation results in uniform industrial attitudes and business structures, managers from different nationalities will embrace common work attitudes and behaviour. These findings have important implications as they contribute to justifying greater attention to areas important to firms in their process of evolving an international management system. The results are promising and provide the platform for a number of future research possibilities. Future research could validate the results by using samples drawn from managers of other ethnic groupings. This would require a more refined conceptualisation and measurement of ethni city of the managers. At a broader level, it would be interesting to assess the managerial value systems from countries clustered in accordance to the stages of industrialisation.

In conclusion, three principal caveats of this research must be noted. First, the findings of convergence of personal values among Chinese managers may not be universally valid to managers of other ethnic origins. Further research may be needed to test this relationship. Next, the western measures and Eastern measures, widely used in past studies and adopted in this study, need to be carefully conceptualised and applied. From our post-hoc observation, the measures, by virtue of their labels do not necessarily associate with the personal value characteristics of managers in the west or east. Lastly, as the personal values of managers are constantly evolving, it would be ideal to adopt a longitudinal approach to see how managerial values have changed with the national environment. However, given the subjective nature of this enquiry, the collection of data remains a formidable challenge.

References

Abegglen, JC (1958). The Japanese Factory: Aspects of Its Social Organization, Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Adler, Nancy J and John L Graham (1989). "Cross-cultural interaction: The International Comparison Fallacy?", Journal of International Business Studies, Fall: 515-37.

Bae, K and W Form (1988). "Convergence theory and the Korean connection", Social Forces, 66:618-44.

Beals, R (1953). "Acculturation", in AL Kroeber (ed), Anthropology Today, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Beres, ME (1984). "An historical concept of culture: Advantages and implications", paper presented at the National Academy of Management Meetings, International Management Division, Boston.

Birnbaum, PH and GYY Wong (1985). "Managerial values in the Peoples' Republic of China and Hong Kong", paper presented at the National Academy of Management Meetings, Aug 1I-14, San Diego California.

Brewster, C and HH Larson (1992). "Behavior in Europe: Evidence from 10 countries", The International Journal of Behavior, 3(3):409-434.

Calhoon, RP (1969). "Niccolo Machiavelli and the 20th century administrator", Academy of Management Journal, 12:205-212.

Child, John D (1981). "Culture, contingency and capitalism in the cross-national study of organisation", in LL Cummings and GM Staw (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Greenwich, CT:JAI Publishers, 3:303-356.

Christie, R (1968). "Machiavellianism scale", in JP Robinson and PR Shaver (eds), Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes, Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Christie, R and FL Geis (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism, New York: Academic Press.

Cole, RE (1973). "Functional alternatives and economic development; An empirical example of permanent employment in Japan", American Sociological Review, 38:424-438.

Crowne, DP and D Marlowe (1964). The Approval Motive, New York: Wiley.

Dunne, MJ (1995). "Scaling the wall of China", Management Review, 84(8):13-14.

Dunphy, Dexter (1987). "Convergence/Divergence: A temporal review of the Japanese enterprise and its management", Academy of Management Review, 12(3):445-459.

Eisenstadt, Samuel N (1973). Tradition, Change and Modernity, New York: John Wiley.

Elsayed-Elkhouly, SM and R Buda (1997). "A cross cultural comparison of value system of Egyptians, Americans, Africans and Arab executives", International Journal of Commerce and Management, 7(3): 102-119.

Engardio, Pete (1995). "China: Move over, Karl Marx -- Here comes Confucius", Business Week, May 29:53.

England, GW and R Lee (1974). "The relationship between managerial values and managerial success in the US, Japan, India and Australia", Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(4):411-419.

England, GW and I Harpaz (1983). "Some methodological and theoretical issues and advancements in cross-cultural research", Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2):49-60.

Evans, R (1970). "Evolution of the Japanese systems of employer-employee relations, 18681945", Business History Review, 44(1): 110-125.

Evans, WA, KC Hau and D Sculli (1989). "A cross-cultural comparison of managerial styles", Journal of Management Development, 8(3):5-13.

Fan, Ying (1998). "The transfer of western management to China", Management Learning, Thou- sand Oaks, 29(2):201-221.

Farh, Jiing-Lih, P Christopher Earley and Shu-Chi Lin (1997). "Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organisational citizenship behaviour in Chinese society", Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3): 421-444.

Furnham, Adrian (1984). 'The protestant work ethic: A review of the psychological literature", European Journal of Social Psychology, 14:87-104.

Haire, MH, EE Ghiselli and LW Porter (1966). Managerial Thinking: An International Study, New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Hofstede, G (1980). Culture 's Consequences, Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage.

_____, (1983). "Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three regions", in JB Deregowski, S Dziurawiec and RC Annis (eds), Expectations in Cross-cultural Psychology, Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger, 335-355.

Hofstede, G and MH Bond (1988). "Confucius and economic growth: New insights into culture consequences", Organizational Dynamics, 228-232.

_____, (1984). ""Hofstede's culture dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach's value survey", Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 15:417-433.

Hsu, ELK (1947). Under the Ancestors' Shadow: Kinship, Personality and Social Mobility in China, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

_____, (1970). American and Chinese: Passage to Differences, 3rd edition, Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.

_____, (1963). "Psychological anthropology: An essential detect and its remedy", paper presented at the 1968 annual meeting of the American Anthropologist Association, Seattle, Washington.

_____, (1972). "Chinese kinship and Chinese behavior", in Ho PT and Tsou T (eds), China in Crisis, vol 2, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hughes, C and V Flowers (1978). Value System Analysis: Theory and Management Application, Dallas, Tx: Centre for Values Research.

Huo, Y Paul and Donna M Randall (1990). "Exploring subcultural differences in Hofstede's Value Survey: The case of the Chinese", Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 8(2): 159-173.

Jafee, Eugene D, ID Nebenzahl and H Gotesdyner (1989). "Machiavellianism, task orientation and team effectiveness revisited", Psychological Reports, 64:819-824.

Kelly, L and C Reeser (1973). "The persistence of culture as a determinant of differentiated attitudes on the part of American managers of Japanese ancestry", Academy of Management Journal, 16:67-76.

Kelly, L and R Worthley (1981). "The role of culture in comparative management: A cross-cultural perspective", Academy of Management Journal, 24(1): 164-173.

Kelly, L, A Whatley and R Worthley (1987). "Assessing the effects of culture on managerial attitudes: A three-culture test", Journal of International Business Studies, 17-31.

Kerr, C, JT Dunlop, E Harbison and CA Myers (1964). Industrialism and Industrial Man, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kindle, 1(1983). "A partial theory of Chinese consumer behavior: Marketing strategy implications", Hong Kong Journal of Business Management, 1:97-109.

Kordonsky, Simon (1992). "Pressure groups in the social structure of reforming society", Communist Economies and Economic Transformation, 4(1): 85-95.

Lan, XL (1987). "The guiding principles of values adjusting the relationship between fairness and efficiency", Brightness Daily, May 21:3.

Laurent, Andre (1983). "The cultural diversity of western management conception", International Studies of Management and Organization, 13: 75-96.

Lee, Jean and Sheh Seow Wah (1994). "Chinese Values and Organisational Practices: A Study in Singapore", International Journal of Management, 11(4): 946-954.

Lin, WT (1966). "Chinese value orientation in Hong Kong", Sociological Analysis, 27:53-66.

Lincoln, JR, J Olson and M Hanada (1978) "Cultural effects on organizational structures: The case of Japanese firms in the United States", American Sociological Review, 43:829-847.

Madonna, 5, AL Wesley and HN Anderson (1989). "Situational and dispositional social cues that define the Machiavellian orientation", The Journal of Social Psychology, 78-83.

Maguire, MA and RT Pascale (1978). "Communication, decision-making and implementation among managers in Japanese and American managed companies in the United States ", Sociology and Social Research, 63:1-23.

Martin, JG and FR Westie (1959). "The tolerant personality", American Sociological Review, 24:521-528.

Munson, JM and SH McIntrye (1979). "Developing practical procedures for the measurement of personal values in cross-cultural marketing", Journal of Marketing Research, 16:48-52.

Negandhi, Anant R. (1975). "Comparative management and organizational theory: A marriage needed", Academy of Management Journal, 18:334-344.

Pascale, RT and MA Maguire (1980) "Comparison of selected work factors in Japan and the United States", Human Relations, 33:433-455.

Peterson, RB and JY Shimada (1978). "Sources of management problems in Japanese-Americans joint ventures", Academy of Management Review, 3: 796-805.

Ralston, David A, DH Holt, RH Terpstra and KC Yu (1997). "The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: A study of the US, Russia, Japan and China", Journal of International Business Studies, 28(1): 177-207.

Ralston, David A, DJ Gustafson, Priscilla M Elsass, Fanny Cheung and RH Terpstra (1992). "Eastern values: A comparison of managers in the US, Hong Kong and the PRC", Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5):664-671.

Ralston, David A, DJ Gustafson, RH Terpstra and DH Holt (1995). "Pre-post Tiananmen Square: Changing values of Chinese managers", Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 12(1):1-20.

______,(1993a). "The Impact of Managerial Values on Decision Making Behavior: A comparison of the US and Hong Kong", Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 10(l):21-37.

Ralston, David A, David J Gustafson, Fanny Cheung and Robert H. Terpstra (1993b). "Differences in Managerial Values: A Study of US, Hong Kong and PRC Managers", Journal of International Business Studies, 24(2): 249-274.

Ricks, David A, B Toyne and Z Martinez (1990). "Recent Developments in International Management Rresearch", Journal of Management, 16(2) :219-253.

Rokeach, Milton (1973). The Nature of Human Values, New York: Free Press.

Rotter, Julian B (1966). "Generalized expectancies for internal vs external control of reinforcement", Psychological Monographs, 80(1): 1-31.

Schneider, SC (1988). "National vs corporate culture: Implications for human resource management", Human Resource Management, 27(2):23 1-246.

Schulze, Ro1f HK (1962). "A shortened version of the Rokeach Dogmatism scale", Journal of Psychological Studies, 13:92-97.

Shaw, James B, CP Fisher and WA Randolph (1991). "From materialism to accountability: The changing cultures of MA Bell and Mother Russia", Academy of Management Executive, 5(1):7-20.

Shenkar, O and S Ronen (1987). "Structure and importance of work goals among managers in the PRC", Academy of Management Journal, 30(3):564-576.

Shively, AN and S Shively (1972). "Value changing during period of modernisation: The case of Hong Kong", working paper, Institute of Social Research, Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Shmelev, Nikolai (1991). "New anxieties", in A Jones and W Moskoff (eds), The Great Market Debate in Soviet Economies, Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.

Smith, NR (1967). The Entrepreneur and His Firm: The Relationship between the Type of Man and Type of Company, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press.

Sparrow, PR Schuler and S Jackson (1994). "Convergence or divergence: Human resource practice and policies for competitive advantage worldwide", The International Journal of Behavior, 5(2):267-299.

The Chinese Culture Connection (1987). "Chinese Values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture", Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 143-163.

Toyne, B (1976). "Host country managers of multinational firms: An evaluation of variables affecting their managerial thinking patterns", Journal of International Business Studies, 7(1):39-56.

_____, (1980). Host Country Managers of MNCs, New York: Arno Press.

Tse, DK, KH Lee, I Vertinsky and DA Wehrung (1988). "Does Culture Matter? A Cross-cultural study of executives' choice, decisiveness and risk adjustment in international marketing", Journal of Marketing, 52:81-95.

Tse, DK, J Francis and J Walls (1994). "Cultural differences in conducting intra- and intercultural negotiations: Sino-Canadian comparison", Journal of International Business Studies, 537-555.

Vertinsky, I, DK Tse, DA Wehrung and KR Lee (1990). "Organisational Design and Management Norms: A Comparative Study of Managers' Perceptions in the PRC, UK and Canada", Journal of Management, 16(4):853-867.

Webber, RA (1969). "Convergence or divergence?", Columbia Journal of World Business, 4(3):75-83.

Westwood, R (1997). "Managerial values across cultures: Australia, Hong Kong and the U.S", Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 14(1):31 1-66.

Whitely, W and GW England (1977). "Managerial values as a reflection of culture and the process of industrialisation", Academy of Management Journal, 20:439-453.

Xing, Fan (1995). "The Chinese cultural systems: Implications for cross-cultural management", SAM Advanced Management Journal, 60(1):20.

Yau, Oliver HM (1988). "Chinese cultural values: Their dimensions and marketing implications", European Journal of Marketing, Bradford, 22(5):44-57.

Yip, George S (1992). Total Global Strategy: Managing for Worldwide Competitive Advantage, Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Zook, Avery (1985). "On measurement of Machiavellianism", Psychological Reports, 57(3):982.

Table 1

Dimension of Eastern Measure


CVS I (Integration)               Tolerance of others
                                  Harmony with others
                                  Solidarity with others
                                  Non-competitiveness
                                  Trustworthiness
                                  Contentedness
                                  Being conservative
                                  A close, intimate friend
                                  Filial piety
                                  Patriotism
                                  Chastity in women

CVS II (Confucian work dynamism)  Ordering relationship
                                  Thrift
                                  Persistence
                                  Having a sense of shame
                                  Reciprocation
                                  Personal steadiness
                                  Protecting your "face"
                                  Respect for tradition

CVS III (Human-heartedness)       Kindness
                                  Patience
                                  Courtesy
                                  Sense of righteousness
                                  Patriotism

CVS IV (Moral discipline)         Moderation
                                  Keeping oneself disinterested
                                   and pure
                                  Having few desires
                                  Adaptability
                                  Prudence
Table 2

Demographic Data (By Country) of Subjects

Demographics                 Unit          PRC  Singapore   USA  Total

Age                    Mean no of yr      35         38    38     37
Gender                 Per cent of males  68.9       70.8  41.8   63.4
Education              Mean no of yr      13.9       15.8  16.3   15.3
Managerial Experience  Mean no of yr       5.5        6.7   8.0    6.7
Table 3

Cronbach's Alpha Coefficients of the Scales

Scale                            Cronbach's alpha

Western Measures (overall)             0.89
Mach IV Scale                          0.76
Short Dogmatism Scale                  0.64
Locus of Control Scale                 0.73
Intolerance of Ambiguity Scale         0.70
Chinese Values Survey (Overall)        0.92
Integration (CVS I)                    0.69
Confucian Dynamism (CVS II)            0.67
Human Heartedness (CVS III)            0.66
Moral discipline (CVS IV)              0.62
Social Desirability Scale              0.77
Table 4

ANCOVA Results of the Western Measures

Effect         Dep Variable          F    df  Effect Size  Power

Country
         Machiavellianism          5.618   2     0.024     0.865
         Dogmatism                 5.317   2     0.023     0.845
         Locus of Control          5.278   2     0.022     0.824
         Intolerance of Ambiguity  0.443   2     0.002     0.123

Effect     Sig

Country
         0.003 (*)
         0.005 (*)
         0.006 (*)
         0.640

(*) p < 0.05
Table 5

Results of Bonferroni T-Tests on the Western Measures

Dep Variable      Country (I)  Country (J)  Mean Diff  Std Error
                                              (I-J)

Machiavellianism  PRC          Singapore     -0.189      1.373
                  PRC          USA            4.073      1.353
                  Singapore    USA            4.262      1.466
Dogmatism         PRC          Singapore     -2.469      0.831
                  PRC          USA           -2.079      0.819
                  Singapore    USA            0.390      0.887
Locus of Control  PRC          Singapore      1.258      0.437
                  PRC          USA            1.078      0.431
                  Singapore    USA           -0.180      0.467

Dep Variable         Sig


Machiavellianism  1.000
                  0.008 (*)
                  0.011 (*)
Dogmatism         0.009 (*)
                  0.034 (*)
                  1.000
Locus of Control  0.013 (*)
                  0.038 (*)
                  1.000

(*) p < 0.05
Table 6

Ancova Results of the Eastern Measures

Effect   Dep Variable                   F     df  Effect Size  Power

Country
         Integration (CVS I)          17.657  2      0.074     1.000
         Confucian Dynamism (CVS II)   4.148  2      0.020     0.779
         Human-heartedness (CVS III)   7.262  2      0.031     0.938
         Moral Discipline (CVS IV)    36.241  2      0.143     1.000

Effect      Sig

Country
         0.000 (**)
         0.010 (*)
         0.001 (**)
         0.000 (**)

(*)p < 0.05,

(**)p < 0.001
Table 7

Results of Bonferroni T-Tests on the Eastern Measures

Dep Variable        Country (I)  Country (J)  Mean Diff  Std Error
                                                (I-J)

Integration         PRC          Singapore     -0.662      0.115
                    PRC          USA           -0.397      0.103
                    Singapore    USA            0.235      0.136
Confucian Dynamism  PRC          Singapore     -0.401      0.117
                    PRC          USA           -0.264      0.122
                    Singapore    USA            0.168      0.134
Human-heartedness   PRC          Singapore     -0.427      0.119
                    PRC          USA           -0.202      0.128
                    Singapore    USA            0.305      0.138
Moral Discipline    PRC          Singapore     -1.019      0.132
                    PRC          USA           -1.118      0.141
                    Singapore    USA            0.017      0.143

Dep Variable           Sig


Integration         0.000 (**)
                    0.000 (**)
                    0.153
Confucian Dynamism  0.012 (*)
                    0.121
                    1.000
Human-heartedness   0.000 (**)
                    0.414
                    0.081
Moral Discipline    0.000 (**)
                    0.000 (**)
                    1.000

(*)p < 0.05

(**)p < 0.001