O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
and
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
u
l
t
u
r
e
:
How
“
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
?
"
Lrong Lim
Keywords: national culture， organizational behavior， Malaysia， Japan Abstract This paper has two goals Relying on Hofstede's framework， it first explores the extent to which national culture“influences" organizational behavior among J apanese and Malaysian enterprises. Secondly， the paper tests the degree to which J apanese and Malaysian organizations can be correctly classified into their respective cultural groups based on analyzing a set of behavioral items. Results show that organizational behavior is consistent with national culture on aspects relating to power relationships and monitoring systems but not with aspects relating to social relationships and motivation systems Results also show that power and social relation -ship items were most contributive to the process of correctly classifying J apanese and Malaysian enterprises into their respective cultural groups Possible explanations for the mixed results were offeredIntroduction
In the opening remarks of a new journal， Jackson and Aycan (2001 : 7) commented that there is no longer a necessity to ask if culture plays a role in managemenL The appropriate issue， thcy contended， is that
-220ー Kagawa Unzversity Eωnomic Review 604
researchers should be pursuing theoretical and empirical studies to under -stand the “extent and ways to which" culture plays a role in management.
Along this thought， this paper seeks to investigate the extent to which national culture“influences" organizational behavior within the context of Malaysian and Japanese enterprises.. By doing so， this paper also attempts to rationalize the apparent gap between the “perceived" culture of a nation and the “actual" culture of enterprises in the said nation This paper primarily relies on Hofstede's framework to examine the relationship between national culture and organizational behavior Hof -stede's model was found to be superior in several aspects when compared to rival frameworks such as those of Schwartz (1994) and Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) Firstly， his framework， inc1uding the definitions of "culture" and the four dimensions are simple to understand and interpret Secondly， his model is the most widely used framework in cross-cultural studies. Thirdly， other models are found to support and amplify， rather than to offer an alternative to his model
The pairing of Malaysia with Japan is quite natural Besides being the most successful Asian country in economic terms， J apan is a huge investor in Asia.. Malaysia looks at Japan as a role model for economic develop -ment. This was openly dec1ared in the “Look East Policy" launched in late 198L The objective of the policy was to learn the J apanese work values and ethics that were purportedly responsible for Japan's economic success
(Jomo， 1985) Malaysia has a multi-cultural population of approximately 22 million people. Malays make up about 60%， Chinese about 25% and lndians about 10% of the population Presently， although Malaysians tend to identify themselves with different ethnic groups， they are generally believed to share similar values.. This is because they co-exist within the same "geopolitical， economic and social space"， thus influencing one
another's values (Westwood & Everett， 1995: 4) The next section reviews the literature. Based on the review， the paper lays out the research propositions In the following section， the research methodology is described. Sections on data analyses and discus -sions follow.. The paper concludes with a comment on the implications of results and future research Literature review Hofstede defined culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another.“ This definition offers simplicity and clarity， and is especially useful for cross-cultural research (Shackleton and Ali， 1990: 110) Hof -stede's national culture model consists of four dimensions : power distance， uncertainty avoidance， individualism and masculinity (time orientation was added later). Power distance defines the degree to which the less powerful person in a society accepts inequality in power and considers it as normaL Uncertainty avoidance defines the extent to which people in a society are made nervous by situations that are unstructured， unclear， or unpredict -able， and the extent to which they try to avoid such situations by adopting strict codes of behavior and a belief in absolute truths. lndividualism assumes that individuals primarily look after their own interests and the interests of their immediate family Masculinity suggests that individuals in masculine cultures are assertive， competitive， and they strive for mate -rial success and idolize whatever is big， strong， and fast Hofstede's model is considered as perhaps the most comprehensive and straight -forward means to dimensionalize national culture (Smith， 1992: 41)
Combining the works of Child (1981) and Hofstede (1984)， Sekaran and Snodgrass (1986: 216) developed a framework to illustrate how “organ
-222 KagawaUniver.si~y E.ιonomic Review 606
izational members behave functionally by adhering to their preferred modes of behavior within the organizational system" Lachman et aL (1994: 48) similarly echoed through their framework the effects of cultural values on organizational choices Both these studies suggested that societies with high power distance tend to have “power relationships" that are centralized and rigid in hierarchy Societies with low power distance have a decentral -ized and fluid hierarchy， with behaviors that are interdependent They also noted that individualistic societies have“social relationships" that evaluate achievement at the individual level in a calculative manner. Meanwhile， collectivistic societies evaluate performance at the organ -izationallevel in a moralistic way Societies with weak uncertainty avoid -ance tend to have simplistic “monitoring systems" Members in such societies usually have low levels of anxiety and stress.. Societies with high uncertainty avoidance favor complex， comprehensive monitoring systems and are usually affected by high anxiety and stress levels. Finally， mascu-line societies have “motivation systems" that emphasize money， power，
and recognition while feminine societies favor reward systems that focus on security， cooperation， and quality of life at the workplace
Research propositions
Compared to Malaysia， the national culture of Japan is characterized by lower power distance， higher uncertainty avoidance， higher individual -ism， and higher masculinity The four subsequent types of behavior are thus believed to vary
Pro
ρ
osilion la.. Power relationshits in }apanese organizations are less hiaanhi，じaland less centralized than those in Malaysi'an organizations. Insocieties with moderate power distance such as J apan， the organizational hierarchy is merely a convenience to demarcate different work roles“ The
hierarchy by itself is not accompanied by a notion of “ power'¥Decentrali-zation is supposedly more popular and widely practiced Subordinates expect to be consulted before decisions are made and the communication process is two-way. Superiors tend to operate under the consultative or democratic principle And， members shun privileges and status symbols In societies with a high power distance such as Malaysia， the organizational hierarchy reflects the existential inequality between the powerful individ -uals and the less powerful individuals Centralization is more widely practiced than decentralization Decision-making is the prerogative of superiors while subordinates are merely expected to execute the orders without question. Subordinates are not consulted before the decisions are made. Communication process is usually a top-down process. Managers adopt a rather autocratic or paternalistic approach while privileges and status symbols are both expected and popular. Protosition lb S ...ocial relationshψs inJ.α'fJanese organizations tend to be more individ仰 listi齢cthan those in Malaysian0培anization
s
.
.
In moderately individua1istic societies like Japan， the employer-employee relationship is business-like and based on contract. There is a higher degree of job specialization among the employees. A wider gap in the salary range exists between superiors and subordinates. There is clear emphasis on individual rewards and incentives backed up by a strong commitment toward individualist goals. The work environment is generally competi -tive.. In a collectivistic society such as Malaysia， the employer-employee relationship is perceived in moral terms like a family link Management means the management of groups of people.. Rewards and goals are tuned to meet the needs of the collective引 Job specia1ization among employees islow and the work environment is generally termed as cooperative
-224- Kagawa University Economic Review 608
(~初ork" 。ηented while zn Malaysian organizations， it is“non-work" ori' -ented. In J apan where masculinity is the norm， managers are supposed to be decisive and assertive The principle of equity and competition prevails， and conflicts are resolved by “fighting" them out.. Employees are very work-focused， with rewards and incentives being extrinsic in nature.. In Malaysia where masculinity is moderate， managers prefer to use intuition and to strive for consensus Equality， solidarity， and quality of life are emphasized while conflicts are resolved through compromise and negotia -tion. Employees focus on the“joy of living" with rewards and incentives being primarily intrinsic Proposition ld.. The monitoring system in ]apanese organizations i5 more "complex" than that in Mαlaysian organiza抑制“ Japan's high uncer -tainty avoidance suggests the preference of high formalization of rules whereby deviant ideas and behaviors are suppressed. Time is valued and employees have an inherent urge to be busy and productive. There is also a tendency to emphasize precision and punctuality. Malaysia with low uncertainty avoidance is characterized by a low formalization of rules. Employees do not perceive time to be of much value and they have no inner
urgeto work hard.. Precision and punctuality does not come naturally but have to be learned.. Finally， there is a tolerance of deviant and innovative ideas and behavior. Pro
ρ
osition 2 sω
tes that ]apanese and Malaysicln organizations can be categorized uηder their resρective national culture groups on the bαsis of theル
urかρes of organizational behaviors.. This tests the extent to which . J apanese and Malaysian organizations can be correctly classified into their respective cultural groups based on analyzing the behavioral items. Litera -ture generally assumes that cultures are monolithic and consist of members that are essentially homogeneous.. This is an “old" issue where researcherschoose to ignore intra-cultural differences in a sample. This proposition also tests to see which among the four types of behavioral variables contribute to the classification of cultures of the samples
Research methodology
Forty-four questions are theoretically derived from the literature (see Table 1) Twelve questions are devoted to measure power relationships These twelve items are actually two “mirror" sets of six items each : one set is designed to measure behaviors related to low power distance while the other set measures behaviors related to high power distance.. For example， “Hierarchy as a convenience" is argued to be a behavior characteristic of
Japan， which has a low power distance The “mirror" item is "Hierarchy
shows inequality" which is theorized to be reflective of behavior in a society like Malaysia with a large power distance. Twelve items measure social relationships in a similar manner.. The number of items measuring motiva -tion systems and monitoring system is ten for each case. The questions are structured to facilitate ease of response“ The responses are anchored in five Likert・-styledpoints that range from “1" (strongly agree) to“5" (strong -ly disagree). The English version was sent to Malaysian respondents and the J apanese version to J apanese respondents. The addresses of one hundred Malaysian firms were taken from a list obtained from the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange web site.. Similarly， the addresses of two hun -dred Japanese firms were taken from a list obtained from Toyo Keizai English web site. The questionnaires were mailed in summer 2000 to top management such as President， Chairman， or Director There were ninety-four J apanese respondents and thirty-three Malaysian respondents This represents a return rate of 47% and 33% respectively“
226 Kagawa University EconomκReview 610
Data analyses
Both samples share some characteristics while differing in others The similarities include the high proportion of respondents working in the manufacturing sector Senior male personnel aged over thirty-five years who are university-educated also dominated both samples Meanwhile， only half of the Japanese firms in the sample are established after the Second World War as compared to almost all of the Malaysian firms A
majority of Japanese firms employ more than one thousand workers while a majority of Malaysian firms employ less than five hundred workers.. Over half of the J apanese respondents have an employment record of more than ten years while over half of the Malaysian respondents have a record of less than ten years
Table I: Descriptive Statistics Mean Standard Sk巴wness Kurtosis Items N Statistic Deviation Statistic Std Erlor Statistic Std ErTor Power relationships Hierarchy as convenience 127 2..2126 9397 L019 ..215 871 427 Decentralization popular 127 2.4724 .9243 204 215 ー796 .427 Subordinates consulted 127 2.4252 引9303 492 .215 ー161 427 Two-way communication 127 2.2441 9898 638 .215 371 427 Consultative principle 127 2.4252 10120 604 215 037 .427 Privileges frowned upon 126 2.7143 10797 167 216 ー.669 428 Hierarchy shows inequality 127 3.2441 Ll319 ー228 .215 847 427 Centralization popular 127 2.9921 9041 -050 .215 1.044 427 Subordinates not consulted 127 3.0315 9167 063 215 ー.690 427 T op-down communication 127 3.5039 L0681 -328 215 -1073 427 Autocratic approach 127 37323 Ll016 ー572 .215 596 427 Privileges popular 127 30157 L0464 .095 215 ー706 .427 Social relationships Low job specialization 123 3.3659 L0809 379 218 ー764 433 Narrow salary range 123 31220 1.0210 127 218 ー.875 433
Group rewards emphasized 127 35354 10823 ー245 215 948 427 Commitment on group goals 127 25827 9713 502 215 266 427 Moralistic relationship 127 2..8740 9999 354 215 -524 427 Cooperative climat巴 127 24331 8222 958 215 685 427 High job specialization 123 25935 9987 491 218 -.432 433 Wide salary range 123 29350 9386 一111 218 -.874 433 lndividual rewards 127 27874 9397 .031 215 711 427 lndividual goals 127 28583 9655 343 215 -..817 427 Contractual relationship 127 28661 9625 002 215 -.759 427 Competitive climate 127 32520 .9169 -.210 215 一984 427 Motivation systems lntrinsic r巴wards 123 26992 .8678 .399 218 ー437 433 Joy of living 127 26378 9484 219 215 -..602 427 Consensus strived for 124 32097 8485 -093 217 -.634 431 Equality， quality of work life 127 28661 9707 .432 215 一575 427 Compromise
&
negotiation 127 25276 .8982 684 215 -.212 427 Extrinsic rewards 123 19756 7941 843 218 772 433 J oy of working 127 37795 9251 ザ.401 215 -350 427 Assertive managers 127 2.1969 8361 773 215 678 427 Equity and competition 127 31339 8941 138 215 -.708 427 Conflict resolved by fighting 127 39370 8975 ← 745 215 298 427 Monitoring systems Low rule formalization 127 32913 1.0474 273 215 -..893 427 Time not valuable resource 127 38031 11754 711 215 ー711 .427 No inner urge to work hard 127 31890 1.0818 035 215 -1.128 427 Precision unnatural 127 22756 9651 981 215 730 427 Tolerance of ideas 127 28189 9793 321 215 向 501 427 High rule formalization 127 29291 8835 210 215 -.872 427 Time means money 127 1.9921 8591 931 215 950 427 lnherent urge to be busy 127 27165 9076 142 215 司 791 427Precision natural 127 32677 9956 -..513 215 -.711 427 Deviant ideas suppressed 127 30787 9645 056 215 -.614 427
Prior to testing the research propositions， preliminary analyses are conducted. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the variables There appears to be no major normality problem with the data judging from
-228- Kagawa University Ewnomic Review 612 the skewness and kurtosis statistics.. The data is next screened for reliabil -ity Items are sequentially removed to maximize the reliability coeffi -cients The resultant alpha coefficients range from moderate to high;0..81
for power relationships， 0..74 for social relationships， 041 for motivation system， and 0..57 for monitoring system. This process results in retaining twenty-two questionnaire items as shown in the appendix.
A series of t-tests is executed to verify if organizational behavior of
J
apanese and Malaysian firms follows the predictions Table II shows the results.. Most of the significant differences occur along the“Nation" column while much less significant differences occur along other demo-graphic factors such as sex， the year the company was established， age，number of years worked in the company， and education level. More precisely， there are significant differences occurring in thirteen items when tested on “Nation". When tested on sex， the year the company was established， age， number of years worked in the company， and education level， the respective number of significant differences found are six， eight，
zero， ten， and one. Although these results appear interesting (particularly those relating to number of years worked in the company)， discussions on them are better handled as a separate topic. TableII:Summary of T -Test results (t-values and significant levels) Variables Nation Sex Yr est Age Yrs wrk Edu Power relationships Decentralization popular .186 ー1.01 ーL52 ー0..79 L65 0.15 Two-way communication 185 3..51** 1.08 012 2.72ホ * L49 Consultative principle -3 16* * 119 1.05 045 2.55* 0.98 Hierarchy shows inequality 3.98**ホ 0.96 151 0..07 ー1.60 0.67 Top-down communication 6..75*叫 2.61* 3.83***ー046 3.53** 一111 Autocratic approach 754村 ホ 176 4J3*** OJ3 3..82*** -2..99**
Social relationships Low job specialization Nanow salary range High job specialization 0.47 -0.63 -050 033 093 0.28 3.83*** -3.57** 0.05 005 Wide salary range 3..58*** 296** Individual rewards emphasized 196* -101 Commitment on individual goals 287** 123 Motivation system 2..65* 0.46 324ホ 2.20 104 0.01 -125 053 446*** 116 -0.04 0.55 461*** -0.48 -0.81 0.24 L81 -0.82 -305** 018 Intrinsic rewards -191* -2.83** -0..51 037 139 042 Equality and quaIity ofIife -137 -2..34 * ー230ホ 096 216* 051 ConfIict resolved by compromise 0..32 0.22 -184 -205 098 029 Conflict resolved by fighting 3 17*ホ 0.84 2..65** -0.61 -219車 135 Monitoring system Time not a valuable resource 4.41*** 1.45 2.51* -0.98 -1.79 -178 No inner urge to work hard 1.94* 0..33 1.31ω2.04 -111 -113 Precision not natural 044 1.06 -066 -0.56 -070 063 Time means money 064 -1.56 0.63 0.29 195* 0.59 Inherent urge to be busy -0 52 -0..29 -0..23 0.94 0 87 0.58 Precision and punctuality natural -253* -0.93 2.47* 017 113 -0..03 Note: *significant to 0 05 level; **significant to 0.01 level， *本*significantto 0.001 level
In power relationships，
J
apanese managers are found to score higher on the question that managers operate under the consultative or democratic principle. On the other hand， Malaysian managers score higher with respect to hierarchy reflecting an inequality of authority among employees， superior-subordinate communication being a top-down process， and that managers are rather autocratic or paternalistic in approach The results on power relationships are consistent with the prediction that Malaysian organizations tend to behave in a hierarchical way. For social relation -ships， J.apanese managers indicate a preference for narrow salary range between superiors and subordinates Meanwhile， Malaysian managers prefer a wider salary range between superiors and subordinates while emphasizing individual rewards and a commitment on individual goals-230ー Kagawa Universiry Economic Revieω 614 This is contrary to expectations as Japanese organizations are predicted to exhibit more individualistic orientations than Malaysian organizations In motivation systems， Japanese managers favor rewards and incen -tives that tend to be intrinsic (e.g.， feelings of accomplishment) Compared to Malaysian managers， they reject more strongly the resolutions of con -flicts by “fighting" them out. The results for motivation systems are also found to be inconsistent with expectations in that Japanese managers are predicted to exhibit more masculine behavior.. Finally for monitoring systems， Malaysian managers appear to agree more than J apanese man-agers with the impressions that employees do not perceive“time" as a valuable resource and that employees have no inner urge to work hard(i..e，
“external" push is needed). At the same time， J apanese managers believe more strongly than Malaysian managers that precision and punctuality comes naturally to the employees. The findings for monitoring systems were consistent with the speculation that behavior is congruent with low uncertainty avoidance in Malaysia and the high uncertainty avoidance in Japan. The twenty-two items are next aggregated under the four groups of behaviors to facilitate discriminant analysis“ Discriminant analysis com-bines information from the organizational variables in a function to see how well the two groups of nations can be discriminated.. The four groups of independent variables are power relationships， social relationships， motiva -tion systems， and. .monitoring systems while the dependent variable is nation A necessary assumption [Green et a.l (2000: 279) listed data independence and normality as the two other assumptions] for discriminant analysis is equality of group covariance matrices (SPSS， 1999: 263) Box's multivariate M statistic tests the hypothesis that the covariance matrices are equa.l The value of Box's M statistic is17.91 and its signifi
-cance probability， based on an F transformation， is insignificant at ..074 The null hypothesis of equal group covariance matrices is not rejected， thus permitting the use of discriminant analysis on this data The discriminant function has an eigen value of 439 and a canonical correlation of 0.55. The squaring of the canonical correlation reveals that 30% of the variability of the scores for the discriminant function is account -ed for by differences in the dependent variables. Accordingly， Wilk's lambda is ..70 and Chi Square is 44..75 with a ..001 significant leveL These resu1ts indicate a significant difference between the two group centroids This is reflected by results from the tests of equality of group means on the individual factors: F(l， 125) = 36.3.2， p = ..001 for power relationships， F(l， 125) = 7..76， p = ..01 for social relationships， F(l， 125) = 7.30， p = ..01 for motivation systems， and F(l， 125) = 9..38， pニ ..01for monitoring systems.. Table III: Standardized canonical coefficients and structure coefficients Power relationships Social relationships Motivation systems Monitoring systems Standardized coefficients 796 485 191 -.242 Structure coefficients 814 376 65 ー413
Table III shows the standardized canonical coefficients and structure coefficients of the independent variables.. Both sets of coefficients show that power relationships have the greatest impact， followed by social relationships and motivation systems. These findings are consistent with results from the regression analysis test: r2 = ..31， F(4， 122) = 13.38， p = . 001 Among the four groups of behaviors， power relationships is found to be most significant at t(122) = -5..07， p =001 followed by social relation -ships at t(122) -3.01， p = ..01 Motivation and monitoring systems are found to have insignificant impact
-232← Kagawa University Eじonomi(Review 616 Table IV: Classification Results of Discriminant Analysis Predicted group membership Japan Malaysia Original Japan 88 6 936% 64% Malaysia 16 17 485% 515% 乙ross-validated Japan 88 6 936% 64% Malaysia 17 16 515% 485% Note: 827% of original grouped cases correctlyc1assified; 81 9% of cross validated grouped cases correctlyc1assified Finally， Table IV shows the classification results of the discriminant analysis The model correctly classifies Japanese organizations at 936% but can only marginally do likewise for Malaysian organizations at 5L5% The classification remains unchanged after cross-validation on the J apanese sample But the classification for the Malaysian sample becomes worse off after cross-validation The results show that the model is more successful in classifying Japanese organizations than Malaysian organiza -tions.. The classification however， may have been affected by chance As kappa corrects for chance classification， its statistic is computed to further assess the accuracy of the group memberships. A kappa value of 43 (p
=
001)is found， generally indicating a moderately accurate classification Discussions The aim of the first research proposition is to verify if Japanese organizations“follow" a certain set of behaviors while Malaysian organiza -tions another set of behaviors as “dictated" by their respective cultures The results are consistent for behaviors on power relationships andmonitoring systems but are inconsistent for behaviors centering on social relationships and motivation systems Thus， propositions 1a and 1d are supported while propositions 1b and 1c are not These results are summar-ized in Table
v
.
.
Table V: Summary results of organizational behavior of Japanese and Malaysian managers Organizational behavior Results Proposition 1a Japanese more consultative Supported Malaysians more autocratic Proposition 1b Japanese less individualistic Not supported Malaysians more individualistic Proposition 1c J apanese less masculine than expected N ot supported Malaysians more masculine than expected Proposition 1d Japanese more risk averse Supported Malaysians more r巴laxedwith status quo Proposition 2 Japanese organizations are bett巴rpredicted than Partially Malaysian organizations by power relationships supported and social relationships items The second proposition sets out to verify the degree to which Japanese and Malaysian organizations can be accurately classified into their respec -tive cultural groups based on analyzing the behavioral items. The results show that the model is more capable in conectly classifying Japanese organizations than Malaysian organizations The results also reveal that the behavioral items playing a significant role in the classification are those of power relationships and social relationships.. Motivation and monitor -ing systems have insignificant roles in the classifications These results partially support proposition 2..A caveat for this study is the reliance on Hofstede's findings for Japan and Malaysia. Some researchers cautioned that his findings are outdated (Nicholson and Stepina， 1998) Yet， a review of literature confirms that
234 Kagawa Universily EconomZc Revzew 618
present day researchers still conduct research that relies on his findings (Steensma， Marino and Weaver， 2000) This study treats Hofstede's find -ings as a “kick-off" platform for analysis Assuming that Hofstede's contentions still hold true， the results from this study suggest that organ -izational behavior does not necessarily “follow" the dictates of national culture Only half of the predictions come through while the other half do not Malaysian organizational behavior appears to be still deeply entren・
ched in the concept of power among its employees while J apanese organ -izational behavior still appears to operate under the risk aversion principle.. A possible explanation for the “non-compliance" of organizational behavior to national culture may be that， national culture today is different from that observed by Hofstede thirty years ago. This may be due to factors such as “generational changes"(Johnson and Lenartowicz， 1998: 351) For example， Chew and Putti (1995)， Lim (2001)， and Yeh (1988) revealed that Japanese organizations were feminine instead of masculine.. This may explain the behavioral preference of J apanese organizations for intrinsic rewards and their rejection of conflict resolution by “fighting" them out Meanwhile， researchers have highlighted the increase in individualism in Malaysia (Ross-Larson， 1978: 13) This may logically account for the behavioral preference of Malaysian organizations for wider salary range between superiors and subordinates， and an emphasis on individual rewards and individual goals. In fact， Tamam et al. (1996: 54) discovered that a substantial number of Malaysian public and private firms have begun to foster independence in thought and action. These organizations encourage employees at the individual level to emphasize initiatives， responsibilities，
and achievement. With increasing affluence and mobility (both social and geographical)， these trends are expected to influence future reward struc
-l
i
tures and criteria十
The higher accuracy classification of Japanese organizations suggests that they are relatively homogeneous. Malaysian organizations on the other hand appear to be more diverse. They resist easy classification. This could be due to the possibility that the respondents come from differ -ent ethnic backgrounds (there were eighteen Chinese Malaysians， seven Malay Malaysians， three Indian Malaysians， and five anonymous respon -dents in the sample)
Equally interesting is the finding that only power relationships and social relationships contribute to the classifications. This result appears to suggest that the power distance and individualism dimensions and their subsequent consequences are more stable that the other two dimensions and their consequences. This concurs with the opinion of Smith (1996) who observed the general stability of the power distance and individualism dimensions
Behavior related to the motivation and monitoring systems were not found to be contributive to the classificatioil. A possible reason is that the
two original dimensions had some “interpretive" problems The labels， mascu1inity and femininity， were perceived as too sexistれ Inaddition，
there was confusion as to whether the dimension referτed to sexual roles or the orientation towards career or humanity. Researchers have suggested alternative labels for the term; for example， career vsゎ workorientation
(Adler， 1997: 55)， competitive orientation (Elenkov， 1998)， and material -ism (McGrath et aL， 1997) Yet other researchers such as Kennedy and Mansor (2000) preferred to split the dimension into two sub-dimensions as in gender ega1itarianism and assertiveness
Meanwhile， Newman and Nollen (1996: 756) noted that uncertainty avoidance is probably the most criticized dimension among the four dimen
--236← Kagaωa UniversiかEconomicRevieω 620 sions. One criticism highlighted that the dimension could be an artifact of the particular time period when Hofstede obtained his data. A second criticism suggested that the dimension may not be relevant for Asians based on the finding by Hofstede and Bond (1988) that uncertainty avoidance failed to emerge as a dimension in a study conducted on Asian countries using an instrument based on a Chinese values study. This led Newman and N ollen (1996: 775) to suggest that uncertainty avoidance may not a useful dimension for cross cultural research Conclusions This paper has attempted to rationalize the gap that exists between “perceived" national culture and “actual" organizational behavior The attempt has resulted in mixed findings in that organizational culture may only be partially“influenced" by national culture. The findings from this study should be treated as tentative. This is partly due to the small sample size and to the likelihood that such a sample is not representative of the two cultures.. The tentative findings also acknowledge the many criticisms against Hofstede's model that this study relies on.. As such， findings should be concurrently interpreted with findings from research based on other frameworks.. A theoretical implication from the mixed results is that， national culture need not necessarily“dictate" organizational culture.. This is consistent with Pizam et al (1997: 138) who suggested that national values do not necessarily affect behavior For example， Gomez-Mejia and Palich (1997) revealed that culture might not be as critical a factor for performance.. Other factors may be at play. As i1lustrated by Milkovich and Bloom (1998)， factors relating to the“logic of the global marketplace" such as strategic flexibility and corporate culture may provide a more
relevant foundation than national culture for managing rewards and com-pensations
Future research may be conducted to further verify the changes in culture， particularly those of individualism and femininity.. Research has shown that there is a relationship between national wealth and individual -ism (Yang， 1998) Malaysia has been developing rapidly over the last few decades Her society may have become more individualistic as a result of marked economic development. On the other hand， a developed country such as J apan may be turning more feminine.. Having achieved material affluence， her citizens may now be yearning for a more caring society
Acknowledg.ement
The author thanks the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for its Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research 再1(2630128)that funded this study This paper is dedicated to my teacher and friend， Professor Kazuo Ohyabu
References Adler， N..1997.International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. Southwest Publi -shing Cincinnati， Ohio・South-Western College Publishing Chew， 1.& Putti， l (1995) Relationship on work-relat巴dvalues of Singaporean and Japanese managers in Singapore Human Relations， 48(10)， 1149-1170 ChildJ 1981.Culture， contingency and capitalism in the cross-national study of organi -zations. InLL.Cummings andBM.. Staw (Eds.)， Reseaκh in0忽anizationalBehav -iOη3: 303-356. Greenwich， Conn: Jai Press
Elenkov ns 1998. Can American management concepts work in Russia? A cross-cul -tural comparative study. California Management Revie肌 40(4): 133-156
Gomez-Mejia L R， Palich L E 1997.. Cultural diversity and the performance of multi -national firms fournal of International Business Studies， 28(2): 309-335.
Green5..8.，Salkind， Nl & Akey， T M. 2000.【!singSPSS /or Windows. Analyzing
and Understanding Data， Second edition New Jersey: Prentice hall. Hofstede， G 1984.Culture~s Consequenas London: Sage
-238ー Kagawa University Economic Review 622
economic growth OrganizatiOnal Dynamics， 16(4):5~21
Jackson， T and Aycan， Z 2001. Editorial: International Journal of Cross Cultural Management ~ towards the future 1河t:ernatzonalJournal0/Cross Cultural Manage
-押1ent，1(1):5~9
Johnson， J & Lenartowicz， T. 1998 Culture， freedom and economic growth Joumal of World Business， 33(4):332~356
Jomo， K (1985)The Sun Also Sets Second edition Kuala Lumpur: Insan
Kennedy， J and Mansor， N. 2000 Malaysian culture and the leadership of organiza -tions: a GLOBE study Malaysian Management Revieω， 35(2):44~53
Lachman， R， Nedd， A. & Hinings， B 1994 Analyzingcross~national management and organizations: a theoretical framework Managem四tSdence， 40(1):40~55
Lim， L 2001Work~related values of Malaysians and Japan巴se:a reザexaminationof
Hofstede's propositions Journal0/Transnatzonal Management Develop押1ent，2001，
Volume 6， Number 3
McGrath， R G.， MacMillan， I C， Yang， E A & Tsai， W 1997 Does culture endure， or is it malleable? Issues for entrepreneurial economic development. In National
Culture and lntemational Management in East Asia， edited by Davis H J and Schulte W D， pp 390~412 London: International Thompson Business Press Mead， R lnternatzonal Management Cross Cultural Dimensions Second edition
Oxford， UK: Blackwell
Milkovich， George T & Bloom， Matt. 1998 Rethinking International Compensation Compensation And BenポtsR仰 ew，30(1):15~23
Newman， K L & Nollen， SD.1996. Culture and congruence: the fit between manage-ment practices and national culture Joumal of lntemational Business Studies，
27( 4):753~ 780
Nicholson， JD & Stepina， L P 1998 Cultural values: a cross-national study. Cross Cultural Management， 5(1/2): 33-47.
Schwartz， S 1994. Beyond individualism/collectivism In U Kim， et al. (Eds)， lndi -vidualism and Collectivism， pp..85-119 Newbury Park， CA: Sage
Pizam， A， Pine， R， Mok， C & Shin， JY 1997. Nationality vs industry cultures: which has a greater effect on managerial behavior? lntemational Joumal 0/Hoψitalily Management， 16(2): 127-145
Ross-Larson， B.. 1978.. The revolt against accepted values. In B Ross-Larson (Ed.)， Malaysia 2001， pp3-17 Kuala Lumpur: Syed Kechik Foundation.
Sekaran， U.& Snodgrass， C R 1986. A model for examining organizational effective -ness cross-culturally Advances in lntemational Comparative Management， 2: 211 -232
Shackleton， V & Ali， A.1990 W ork-related values of managers lournal0/Cross Cultural Psyιhology， 21: 109-118 Smith， P 1992. Organizational behavior and national culture British lournal0/ Management， 3(1):39-51 Smith， PB 1996.. N ational cultures and the values of organizationa! employees: time for another look In Mωwgir;g Across Cultures Issues and Perspeai伽ves，edited by
P Joynt and M Warner， pp.92-102 London: International Thomson Business Press
Ste巴nsma，H.K， Marino， L & Weav巴r，K M 2000 Attitudes toward cooperative strat -egies: a cross-cultural analysis of entrepreneurs Journal0/lnternational Busi引ness
Studies， 31(4): 591-609
SPSS 1999 SPSS Base 10. 0.AρPlications Guidι ，
Tamam， E， Hassan， M.S & Said， M Y (1996) Are Malay middle-Ievel executives more collectivistic than individualistic? Malaysian Management Review， 31(4)， 50-56 Trompenaars， F & Hampden-Tumer， C.1998.. Riding the Wavιs0/Culture.. Under
-standing Diversity in Global Business 2nd edition， New York: McGraw-HiII
Westwood， R & Everett， l 1995 Comparative managerial values: Malaysia and the West Journal0/Asia-Paafic Business， 1(3): 3-37
Yang， K.S. 1988 Will societa! modemization eventua1y leliminate cross-cu1tural psycho -logical differences? In The Cross-Cultural Challenge to Social Psychology， edited by M H Bond， Sage， Newbury Park， CA
Yeh， R (1988) Values of American， Japanese and Taiwanese managers in Taiwan Aωdemy 0/Management Best Papers Pro正eeding， 1s. 06-110
Items used in data analyses Power relationships Appendix 2 Decentralization is popular and widely practiced 4. Superior-subordinate communication is normally a two-way process 5 Managers operate under the consultative or democratic principle 7 Hierarchy reflects an inequality of authority among employees 10 Superior-subordinate communication is usually a top-down process 11 Managers are rather autocratic or patemalistic in approach Social relationships
13 There is a low degree of job specialization among employees 14 There is a narrow salary range between superiors and subordinates 19 There is a high degree of job specialization among employees
-240- Kagaωa UniversiかEconomicReview 20 There is a wide salary range between superiors and subordinates 21 There is a clear巴mphasison individual rewards and incentives 22 There is a strong commitment toward self or individual goals Motivation system
25 Rewards and incentives tend to be intrinsic (eg， feelings of accomplishm巴nt) 28 Equality， solidarity， and quality of work life are clearly emphasized 29 Resolution of conflicts is by compromise and negotiation
34 Resolution of conflicts is by “fighting" them out Monitoring system
36.. Employees do not perceive that“time" is a valuable resource
37 Employees have no inner urge to work hard (i.e， ‘'external" push is needed) 38 Precision and punctuality does not come naturally but have to be learned 41. Time means money and business opportunities
42. There is an inherent urge to be busy and productive 43. Precision and punctuality comes naturally
