The Impact Ethics, Values, and Cross-Cultural Differences ...



The Impact Ethics, Values, and Cross-Cultural Differences have on China, Mexico, and the United States through an Analysis of Forsyth’s Ethics Position Questionnaire, Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions, and Rokeach Values Survey By: John ChangBy: Jonny VillatoroResearch of Ethics, Values, and Cross-Cultural Differences on China, Mexico, or the United StatesAbstract:Purpose: Three distinct and unique nations, the United States, Mexico, and China, have different political structures, historical backgrounds, and economical systems. While each of these nations can be considered an integral part to the world economy, each nation has their own distinct ethics, values, and culture which serve as the backbone of the particular region. In order to be successful in international business, knowledgeable as an expatriate, and culturally or ethically aware of key nations in the global market, individuals need to have researched information pertaining to the ethics, cultures, and values of the United States, Mexico, or China in order to blend in and succeed with the foreign cultural environment. Design/Methodology/Approach: This research paper will focus extensively on the impact values, ethics, and cultural differences (based majorly and solely on the Rokeach Values Survey, Forsyth Studies, and Hofsteade’s Model) have on the societies of the United States, Mexico, or China. A review of the empirical studies will demonstrate the importance values, ethics, and culture have on individual life or business environment for the United States, Mexico, or China. Findings: Culture can be a factor which heavily influences a region or nation’s ethics and values.Research Limitations/Implications: When discussing culture, there are many factors such as values, religion, societal norms, customs, beliefs, or deeply-rooted faiths which can impact a nation’s overall collective culture. As a result, cross-cultural differences among a variety of nations, countries, regions, or sub-regions may vary when compared with one another. Through more empirical investigation, research, or study of a nation’s cultural values may there be a more profound, detailed, and legitimate basis for assessing a nation’s ethical constructs. Practical Implications: Understanding the differences of ethics, values, and culture of the United States, China, or Mexico can impact an individual’s experience if serving as an expatriate at the particular location. Each nation has its own distinct and unique social, business, and cultural environment. In order to successfully accomplish international business or to operate a multinational corporation in a global market, individuals need to have a prior understanding of varying cultures, ethical standards, or values in a particular region. Originality/Value: This research paper will present and deliver pertinent information to individuals interested in serving as an expatriate in the United States, China, or Mexico. Individuals can also read this paper to understand, comprehend, or consume more general knowledge of the ethics, values, and culture of the researched locations. Keywords: Forsyth, Ethics Position Questionnaire, Ethics Position Theory, Hofstede Cultural Dimension, masculinity, relationship, harmony, equality, freedom, Rokeach, United States, Mexico, China, Rokeach Values Survey, guanxi.Forsyth’s Ethical Position Questionnaire (EPQ) ModelBased off Forsyth’s Ethical Position Questionnaire (EPQ), the particular study was able to “measure a respondent’s tendency to consider injury to others (idealism) and/or disregard universal moral rules (relativism) when making moral judgments” (Tansey, Brown, Hyman, & Dawson, 1994). According to Forsyth, the scale of Idealism includes a range based off of statements such as “a person should make certain that their actions never intentionally harm another even to a small degree” where the scale of Relativism includes a range based off of statements such as “different types of moralities cannot be compared as to rightness” or “what is ethical varies from one situation and society to another (Forsyth, 1980).” In order to examine an individual’s morals or ethical standards, a questionnaire is administered in which respondents will indicate the level of agreement or disagreement (1 being “completely disagree to 9 being “completely agree”) to given statements. The scales of 1-9 are orthogonal to each other and are only marginally correlated with social desirability (Forsyth & Nye, 1990). Using these classifications, numerous organizations, groups of people with different ethnicities, or nations were extensively researched, studied, and examined based off of Forsyth’s Ethical Position Questionnaire to determine the similarities or differences of each particular group’s variation in ethics from Idealism and Relativism. From the two dimensions of idealism and relativism, many studies have also been utilized to explain individual differences in ethics and morality which can demonstrate consistencies in a culture’s perspective on ethical values and norms in daily life or business settings. While one cultural group may think of X situation as morally right another cultural group may think of X situation as morally wrong. As a result, ethics position theory (EPT), which stems from Forsyth’s EPQ, states and deduces that an individual’s level of relativism and idealism can determine their ethical ideology. For example, if one culture has a high construct in Idealism, then the ethical decisions individuals make from the particular group may be different from a culture with a high construct in Relativism. The theory also states that an individuals’ moral beliefs can and will affect their actions, verbally or non-verbally, decisions, thoughts, judgments, and mental state when dealing with ethical situations on an intense level (Forsyth, O’Boyle, Dr., McDaniel, 2008). From this study, Forsyth also argued that the two components of moral beliefs, Relativism and Idealism, are separate and independent of one another (as cited in Barnett, Bass, Brown, & Herbert, 1998). The two components are then separated into a two-by-two taxonomy, which yields in four different ethical ideologies, Exceptionism, Subjectivism, Absolutism, and Situationism. The varying degree of relativism and idealism is demonstrated and defined in the four ethics positions presented below (as cited in Forsyth, O’Boyle, & McDaniel, 2008): From this table, the following can be concluded (as cited in Barnett et al., 1998):Individuals who are high in relativism and idealism are classified as “situationists.” While these particular groups of people are commonly skeptical of universal principles, they are more known to base ethical judgments on a specific action’s practicality rather than on an intangible moral code (as cited in Barnett et al., 1998). “Absolutists” believe in a set of universal moral laws which dictates their lifestyles and choices. This particular group of people is also very conscious of the general well-being of other individuals. Absolutists also have beliefs which align with the statement of “action must be based on reasons the actor would be willing to have all others use” (Ferrell and Gresham, 1985). As a result, individuals with high absolutism stress social justice and humanitarian ideals and beliefs (Tansey et al., 1994). Absolutists also believe in “first discovering, and then following, inherently good natural laws such as being honest on all occasions” (Schlenker & Forsyth, 1977). “Subjectivists” can be best described as individuals who are more likely to be okay and comfortable with unethical actions that bring harm, danger, or misfortune to other people. Individuals from this particular group are also vested in their own personal self-interests and anchor their ethical judgments based on their own benefits or losses. Individuals with high levels of subjectivism are characterized to also be highly Machiavellian or cunning deceitful (Vitell, Lumpkin, & Rawwas, 1991). According to Forsyth (1980), subjectivists are considered to be ethical egoists because these individuals would “judge the morality of an action by the ensuing net gains rather than by its inherent moral rightness” (Tansey et al., 1994).“Exceptionists” can be best described as individuals who are more likely to believe in a set of universal moral principles. According to Forsyth, exceptionists believe that “moral principles are useful because they provide a framework for making choices and acting in ways that will tend to produce the best consequences for all concerned” (as cited in Tansey et al., 1994). However, in reality, they are more likely to utilize and apply practical principles in their daily lives. Exceptionists are also more likely than Absolutists to accept actions which will harm others if the positive benefits will outweigh the negative ones (as cited in Barnett et al., 1998). A Comparison of Forsyth’s EPQ on the United States and ChinaAdopting this conceptual framework from the EPQ and the EPT to assess ethics, a study, “East Meets West: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Cultural Variations in Idealism and Relativism,” spearheaded by Forsyth, O’Boyle, and McDaniel to investigate cultural variations between the regions of the East and the West in Idealism and Relativism resulted in the following: Before the study was implemented, key deductions and hypotheses were made for the East and West based on the characteristics of being more Idealism-inclined or Relativism-inclined. Forsyth, O’Boyle, and McDaniel predicted the following (Forsyth, O’Boyle, Dr., McDaniel, 2008): With regards to idealism, we predicted that the well-documented individualism of Western nations, relative to the East, suggested that the nations in this region would adopt less idealistic moral philosophies. Individualism is a tradition or worldview based on each individual’s independence and uniqueness. This doctrine assumes people are autonomous, and must be free to act and think in ways that they prefer, rather than submit to the demands of the group. Collectivism, in contrast, puts the group and its goals before those of the individual members.When comparing to Eastern nations (China), Forsyth, O’Boyle, and McDaniel inferred the following: Turning to reliance on moral principles, we predicted that Eastern nations would be more relativistic than Western ones. Eastern philosophies, rooted in cultural traditions of Shintoism, Hinduism, Zen, Buddhism, and Taoism, tend to be more contextual, relational, and dynamic but less dualistic and principle focused in comparison to Western, Judeo-Christian philosophies. From these predictions, Western nations (United States) were deduced to be more exceptionism-based due to less idealism. In contrast, Eastern nations (China) were deduced to be situationism-based due to more values based off of relativism and idealism. In addition to these predictions based on religious and cultural norms of Eastern and Western societies, Forsyth, O’Boyle, and McDaniel also augmented their previous hypotheses by extracting key points concluded in Hofsteade’s Cultural Dimensions and Inglehart’s Dimensions of World Values. The key findings are as follows (as cited in Forsyth, O’Boyle, & McDaniel, 2008): According to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1980), Forsyth, O’Boyle, and McDaniel expected that the construct of idealism would be closely associated with the masculinity dimension while the construct of relativism would be closely related to uncertainty avoidance and individualism. According to Hofstede (1980), cultures that have a low score in masculinity will envelop caring values which are consistent with relationships with friends and family while cultures that have a high score in masculinity will acquire competition, goal-striving, and personal achievement and success over general well-being and concern for other individuals. These particular findings indicate that collectivistic cultures of regions in the East (China) would lean more towards Relativism due to the fact that China has low Individualism while regions in the West would follow less towards Idealism due to the fact that the United States has high individualism (Forsyth, O’Boyle, Dr., McDaniel, 2008). According to Inglehart’s study to examine the relationship between relativism and idealism to cultural dimensions and Inglehart and Baker’s analysis of the World Values Survey, the findings from Inglehart’s (Inglehart, 1997) study indicated that there were persistent distinctions from countries with traditional/secular-rational values (TSV) dimension and survival/self-expression values (SSV) dimension while the findings from Inglehart and Baker’s (Inglehart & Baker, 2000) study indicated that, “the people of traditional societies have high levels of national pride, favor more respect for authority” and “accept national authority passively.” In addition, individuals from cultures of traditional values also “emphasize social conformity rather than individualistic striving [and] believe in absolute standards of good and evil” (Inglehart & Baker, 2000). This indicates that that Eastern countries (China) were high in the TSV dimension while Western countries (United States) were low in the TSV dimension. In contrast, according to Inglehart and Baker (2000), cultures with a low score in traditional/secular-rational values were usually societies that adapted traditional religious beliefs from having faith in God or Hell. From the samples, a majority of Westerners were associated with these particular characteristics of religiosity. As a result, Forsyth, O’Boyle, and McDaniel predicted that idealism would be negatively associated with TSV and relativism would be positively associated with TSV. In the realm of the survival/self-expression values, Inglehart and Baker (2000) concluded that individuals from societies and cultures with high scores of survival/self-expression values will display “…trust, tolerance, subjective well-being, political activism, and self-expression that emerges in postindustrial societies” (Inglehart & Baker, 2000). From these findings, nations with high SSV will possess high relativism when compared to traditional moral standards or TSV. In addition, individuals with strong SSV are also committed to “emerging social values that prize equality, environmentalism, and tolerance” (Inglehart & Baker, 2000). According to Forsyth, O’Boyle, and McDaniel, these demographics suggest that Western nations (United States) would likely score higher on the SSV dimension when compared to the Eastern nations (China). Overall, from Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in conjunction with Inglehart and Baker’s analysis of the World Values Survey, Forsyth, O’Boyle, and McDaniel predicted that “countries where residents express relatively high levels of relativism will have higher scores on indexes of traditional/secular-rational values but lower scores on Individualism and Uncertainty Avoidance” while “countries where residents are low in idealism and relativism (exceptionists) will have higher scores on Survival/Self-expression values index” (Forsyth et al., 2008). From past data of various studies, Forsyth, O’Boyle, and McDaniel (2008) were able to utilize 139 samples collected from a total of 29 countries which totaled a sample size of 30,230 respondents. The data was then examined through a meta-analysis approach that focused on the statistical information produced by past research studies focusing on multiple regions’ EPQ ratings to determine idealism and relativism. The data engendered a collective chart which is as follows:Using the data provided, Forsyth, O’Boyle, and McDaniel converted and allocated the original EPQ metric scores to each nation. From the scores, the researchers were able to find data to support three key findings and conclusions which are as follows (Forsyth, O’Boyle, Dr., McDaniel, 2008):Mean levels of idealism and relativism vary across regions of the world in predictable waysCountries can be classified on the basis of residents’ EPQ scores into one of four ethics positions: Exceptionists (Westerners), subjectivists and situationists (Easterners), and absolutists and situationists (Middle Easterners)Variations in idealism and relativism are consistent with prior students of cultural differences (Hofstede Cultural Dimensions) Some additional findings indicated that Asian countries (China) had a greater score for Relativism while Western countries (United States) had a lower score for Idealism. United States was also classified as exceptionistic while China was classified as being more subjectivist. According to Forsyth, O’Boyle, and McDaniel (2008), “These findings clarify, to a degree, the conceptual meaning of the dimensions of the EPQ, but they also provide additional details regarding the nature of cross-cultural differences in individualism/collectivism.” In conclusion, the key predictions made before the actual study was validated by the data shown from Table II. From these findings, it can be understood that the cultural, religious, and values of a particular nation can impact and affect the ethical standards of its inhabitants to a certain degree and level. Prior analysis and prediction of ethical standards within a nation can be confirmed by cultural and values of a particular country. A Comparison of Forsyth’s EPQ in ChinaAccording to Redfern and Crawford (2004) in another research study, “An Empirical Investigation of the Ethics Position Questionnaire in the People’s Republic of China,” the researchers extensively investigated and studied the ethics based off the EPQ of mainland China as well as the regional differences within China. In order to implement this study, the authors examined the results of the EPQ based on a sample of managers from China. In addition, Redfern and Crawford also investigated possible differences between varying regions of China, mainly the North and South, due to the social and economic differences between these two particular locations (Redfern & Crawford, 2004). In past studies, Forsyth’s EPQ was primarily executed in regions or nations with great similar characteristics of cultures. However, few studies have been performed on locations with a great multitude of regional differences, such as mainland China. In order to validate the conclusions of past studies to actual studies, verify similarities or differences of national EPQ to regional EPQ, and to confirm the applicability and preciseness of western-measures (Forsyth’s EPQ) on non-western nations with possibly different ethical constructs, Redfern and Crawford spearheaded a comprehensive investigation on the People’s Republic of China. To initiate the study, the Ethics Position Questionnaire was administered to 115 managers in both the North and South. However, the questionnaire was self-administered by the managers and collected by hand afterwards. From past research, the strong emphasis on guanxi or relationships and connections in China resulted in surveys to be distributed and collected by hand from known associates instead of generic mailed surveys (Roy, Walters, & Luk, 2001). If surveys were simply administered and collected by strangers without adequate consideration of China’s cultural differences, then data would have been difficult to compile and amass. Guanxi found in China represents a cultural barrier, difference, or distinction when compared to Western nations such as the United States. In addition, regions located within China have been distant and isolated politically, geographically, and historically with differing levels of industrialization, educational reforms, and societal variations (Goodman, 1997). As a result of these varying contrasts, Redfern and Crawford desired to examine differences from regions in China rather than assume one representation based off one entity is the same to every region. From utilizing Forsyth’s EPQ, the survey questions were translated from English to Mandarin-Chinese meticulously to ensure accuracy and consistency of the survey. The data generated from the study are as follows (Redfern & Crawford, 2004): From the data analyzed from Table V, Redfern and Crawford deduced that the highest loading items from the table are associated with Forsyth’s original ethical construct of “Idealism.” However, upon closer investigation, Redfern and Crawford acknowledged that “the Idealism factor might not represent precisely the ‘Idealism’ construct as interpreted by Forsyth” (Redfern et al., 2004). The deeply-rooted belief of benevolence, or ren, serves as the primary virtue of Confucianism which strongly impacts the lives, actions, and thoughts of the Chinese people (Clearly, 1993). As a result of this particular belief, benevolence can be intimately connected with Confucius’ golden rule of, “do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself” or “love your fellow men” (Lau, 1979, p. 16). The virtue of benevolence, or ren, is acknowledged as an integral aspect and prevalent cultural value of everyday principles to be upheld by the majority of the Chinese people (Yang, 1986). These beliefs and ethical ideals closely resemble Forsyth’s western construct of “Idealism.”In the realm of “Relativism,” Redfern and Crawford noted the similarities of the ethical values and beliefs of the Chinese which again stem from the Confucian moral tradition. Relativism describes making a decision or action through a positive and negative consequences approach and labeling the action as immoral or moral (Redfern et al., 2004). This particular belief is closely associated from the Confucian moral tradition that relies on making decisions from situational intuitions of the xin (heart) which are harmonious in nature instead of speculative or theoretical choices (Redfern et al., 2004). Despite these similarities between the Chinese ideals and the Western ideals, Redfern and Crawford (2004) deduced that the Chinese “Relativism” differs from the Western “Relativism” in that the Chinese execute decisions based on an irrational approach from an individual’s intuition, higher ideals, or virtues which guides the decision-making process (Redfern et al., 2004). From the data taken from Table V and translated into Table VI, Redfern and Crawford deduced that China had a high degree of Idealism and Relativism, similar to the original conclusions of Forsyth’s EPQ. According to Redfern and Crawford (2004), the conclusions of the research study were as follows:Factor analyses of the Ethics Position Questionnaire in the current study revealed two dimensions, which overlapped substantially with the Idealism and Relativism dimensions found by Forsyth’s (1980) original study…Thus, the results of this study attest to the reliability of the dimensions in a Chinese sample. However, on inspection of the items loading more strongly on the factors, the first construct [Idealism] is defined by items such as “one should never psychologically or physically harm another person” and “it is never necessary to sacrifice the welfare of other people.” Such themes, interpreted through a Chinese lens, may be consistent with Confucian notions of benevolence, and the importance of harmony in human relationships. Though the data and conclusions were able to match Forsyth’s EPQ, Redfern and Crawford (2004) recognized distinct differences of ethics between the regions of the North and South. The following will address their findings: It was found that significant differences in ethical ideology do exist between the two regions [North and South], with managers in the South scoring higher on “Idealism” than managers in the North. This observation may be suggestive of the higher levels of exposure to Western lifestyle practices and ideology enjoyed by coastal regions in the southeast of China, in contrast to the more dogmatic and bureaucratic history of the country’s capital, Beijing [North].This conclusion indicates that though one particular region may belong to a particular ethical construct pertaining to Forsyth’s Ethics Position Questionnaire on the national level, there can still be regional differences which will be different in comparison to the overall nation. Each sub-region’s ethics within a nation may also vary when compared with the collective nation. The research study by Redfern and Crawford demonstrates the importance of sampling between different regions independently. Correlation of the regions within the same nation does not imply causation of the same ethical standards, norms, or ratings based off the EPQ of nations. Due to cultural, social, or historical differences between regions, there can be minute to distinct effects or impact of the nation’s overall EPQ rating (Redfern & Crawford, 2004). According to Redfern and Crawford (2004), there are too few published empirical studies which attempt to address and discover the suitableness of Forsyth’s EPQ on other cultures other than Western cultures. In many cases of research, surveys, tests, or questionnaires are simply translated into the local dialect or language and then administered without any cultural consideration of the particular group of study. Through this particular method of obtaining information of administering one test (originally meant for Western cultures based on Western measurements and constructs), there may be a dichotomy from the results of the data. By assuming and utilizing one test to portray a universal or “etic” status of ethical constructs from all cultures may be ambiguous and problematic (Yang & Bond, 1990). From this comprehensive study of the People’s Republic of China, the western constructs of both Idealism and Relativism are applicable to China. However, according the Redfern and Crawford, due to the immense and unknown complexities of cross-cultural differences between the East and West, future research and analysis would have to be further refine and then test the constructs of Idealism and Relativism in China in order to successfully determine the “precise nature of the proposed, indigenous measure for use in research on Chinese ethics” (Redfern et al., 2004). Discussion of Forsyth’s Ethics Position QuestionnaireBased off the data, information, and research provided above, the collective findings suggest that a nations cultural values and own unique culture can impact the particular nation’s ethical values and norms. However, in retrospect, a country’s ethics may not necessarily impact a country’s culture. When discussing culture, there are many factors such as values, religion, societal norms, customs, beliefs, or deeply-rooted faiths which can impact a nation’s overall collective culture. As a result, cross-cultural differences among a variety of nations, countries, regions, or sub-regions may vary when compared with one another. Limitations and ConcernsAs depicted in the research from “An Empirical Study of the EPQ in China,” it is shown that a country’s overall EPQ rating based off of relativism and idealism cannot dictate the ethics of a nation in its entirety. Due to a diversity and variation in culture of a particular nation or region, the sub-regions inhabiting the nation may, as a result, have minute differences in ethics, values, or beliefs compared with the aggregate sum of all sub-regions residing in the nation. Therefore, studies and research of the Forsyth Ethics Position Questionnaire based on regions where cultural variations flourish may engender inaccuracies and errors of the nation’s overall EPQ score. One score for one nation cannot represent each and every sub-region’s EPQ located within the nation. For example, if an EPQ study was implemented in parts of Mexico, Chad, Cameroon, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, or Togo (nations with a great amount of cultural diversity); there would be a lot of differences in EPQ rating when compared to the overall nation as a whole. In order to depict more accurate, representational, and precise calculations of a nation’s EPQ, future research of Forsyth’s Ethics Position Questionnaire should focus exclusively on regions with similar cultural values or beliefs. The more consistent and similar the researched locations have with one another, the more consistent and accurate the EPQ rating. Nevertheless, an EPQ rating cannot unconditionally reflect the morals or ethics of every single individual residing in the nation. Though Easterners (China) were labeled as being more subjectivists and situationists while Westerners (United States) were label as being more exceptionists, these classifications cannot represent all of a nation’s inhabitants as one collective body. Through more empirical investigation, research, or study of a nation’s cultural values may there be a more profound, detailed, and legitimate basis for assessing a nation’s ethical constructs. Hofstede Analysis Hofstede Cultural Dimensions Theory is a framework for cross cultural communication, which was developed by Geert Hofstede. This study is utilized in order to understand the culture of countries to assist global businesses to attain partnership and businesses internationally. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory describes the effects of society’s culture on the values of its citizens, and how these values resemble their behavior by using a structured derived from analysis done from variable studies. For instance, the cultures of Mexico, the United States, and China tend to have different cultures that must be understood when doing business with them. In Mexico, the country is known to be more of a Power Distant and Masculine society. In America, the country is known for assertiveness and ambitious individuals, who tend to love to argue, but have more of unsatisfactory outcomes in customer’s perspectives. Lastly, in China there is more preference for mentor-type relationships (guanxi) between managers and persistent qualities in leaders. These results are deduced from various Hofstede Cultural Graphs which reveal these conclusions. MexicoAccording to Terzis, Moridis, and Mendez (2013), the data collected from the graph demonstrated below shows a definite comparison between Mexico and Greece on the four major concerns: Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, and Uncertainty Avoidance. However, from the graph, the data indicates that Mexico has more Power Distance and Masculinity than Greece. On the graph above (figure 3) it shows that “from Hofstede’s findings regarding Power Distance for Greece equals to 60 and for Mexico equals to 81” indicating that “Mexicans are individuals that are influenced from their superiors’ opinions; therefore social influence effect is larger and significant in Mexico” (Terzis, Moridis, & Mendez, 2013). This reveals that Mexicans “are more accepting of unequal share of power” (Rodriguez & Brown, 2014). Mexicans who have less power “accept the inequality because of their psychological need for dependence” (Rodriguez & Brown, 2014). From these findings, the data demonstrates the respect of authority Mexicans have toward their superiorities. In addition, the central norms and values of a typical Mexican family tends to lean more towards the strict roles of males being the respected providers and females being trustworthy mother figures to their children. According to Hofstede’s findings regarding Masculinity, Greece scored a 57 while Mexico scored a 69 (figure 3). These results explain that “with high masculinity such as Mexico, people put more emphasis on goals and tasks, therefore perceived usefulness… in Mexico” (Terzis et al., 2013). This demonstrates that Mexico tends to “emphasize values traditionally associated with male domination such as aggressiveness, assertiveness, money making, and acquisition of objects that denote status and power (big cars, big houses, and so on)” (Rodriguez & Brown, 2014). Mexico tends to have more of an authoritarian mentality in their society compared to Greece. The Mexican people do not really feel the importance of “maintaining quality to life, maturing life, taken care of others, sharing, and caring for the environment and energy conservation” (Rodriguez & Brown, 2014). In addition, Mexicans tend to have more of an ambitious attitude than Greece and not quit until they accomplish their tasks at hand. According to the Hofstede Cross Cultural findings, it concludes that Mexico seems to be more of an aggressive country in comparison to Greece. When considering doing business with Mexico, as indicated on the graph, it is shown that Mexico has a high Power Distance and Masculinity as a country. This was proven from the graph shown above and assists on business leaders from around the world to understand that Mexico seeks for individuals who think big and have the greed to prosper. The Mexican people want power in wealth and material objects, which makes sense for the country to have a high Power Distant and Masculinity. With these findings, representatives of businesses should understand the culture of Mexico and how to approach the distinct culture of the Mexican people. In conclusion, Mexico seeks for individuals who have the greed to succeed, mentality of wealth, and power. United StatesAccording to the graph above by Chambers and Hamer (2012), it shows that the United States ranked individualism as compared to the other values the highest. The United States ranked individualism 36, which determines the US as an independent country. Individualism “measures the degree of independence of economic agents (both households and firms) in managing their affairs, and lack of long-term allegiance to institutions and groups beyond their own affiliation” (Chambers & Hamer, 2012). In other words, the US is a country who does their tasks on their own with no assistance from foreigners. In addition to the research, on the table below from Sachau and Hutchinson, it confirms that the US is ranked highly on individualism. In fact, on this graph it is ranked as number 1. In addition, on this study it was found that “countries that rank high in individualism are also low in in collectivism” (Sachau & Hutchinson, 2012). In other words, Americans value “competition, speaking directly about concerns, self-actualization, independence, and tasks over relationships” (Sachau & Hutchinson, 2012). This shows how the US does not really worry about the relationships; Americans tend to want action done and tasks finished. ChinaAccording to Hofstede (2012), “the fifth dimension deals with “time orientation” and consist of two contrasting poles: “Long-term orientation” versus “short-term orientation” (Table 1) For instance, there was a study conducted on Long term orientation on the country of China. In this study conducted by Tony Fang (2003), the author concluded that China is more of a persistent, relationship oriented, thrift, and having a scene of shame. “In a culture with a high score such as” China, “pragmatism and striving for long-term aims prevail as well as the idea that one should work and study to improve oneself” (Hofstede, 2012). This being said, when doing business with Chinese businesses there has to be some connection of relationship with one another. In these studies made confirm that Chinese people work well with people who are willing to work well as a team and be able to win their trust. As mentioned from prior studies, it is shown that Chinese individuals tend to value friendship a lot and by not confronting them directly when done something incorrectly they tend to assist the individual by giving them more time in being able to correct themselves. When deciding who to send as a representative take in consideration that they seek people who are persistent and again good with relationships as mentioned on table 1 by Tony Fang, and that will guaranteed a position to be able to work with them. LimitationsHofstede’s analysis is used very well and taken into consideration to many international businesses. It tends to have its pros and cons. For instance, it can give out a simple estimate of the culture of a whole country just by asking limited of people and could assist businesses leader in being able to relate with the country as a whole. On the country, it is very limited on the fact that it is limited with the numbers of people taking the surveys. It tends to be more of a labor intensive issue to be able to accumulate the census report and be able to attain all of the population. That would be a task that is merely impossible to accomplish. In addition, the Hofstede does not tend to give accurate information. For instance, on one of the researches done on the United States one was given that the United States ranked 36 on individualism and then another ranked it number 1. Those results vary tremendously and may deceive a business leader into understanding what really a country is known for. Also, surveys are opinionated and results may be suffered by influential issues among their peers. They may be peered pressured into choosing what friends choose. For example in China, Chinese people tend to honor friendship and loyalty; so if one friend tells him to choose what he or she chose than that might take that result into the wrong direction. All studies have their pros and cons and as said before it is just a way to get estimations and for businesses to be able to a pretty good idea of what the country is known for and be able to establish relationship with them. It is all trials and errors at that point. Rokeach Analysis: ValuesInternational business is not a walk in the park for individuals. One must be able to communicate with a wide range of people with different beliefs and languages such as the unique cultures and values that different countries intake and practice within their particular country or region. In the business world, the guidance and utilization of the Rokeach Values Survey can determine and ascertain the specific values of certain countries. The Rokeach Values Survey was developed by a social psychologist, Milton Rokeach. This survey is a classification system of values which consists of two sets of values, terminal and instrumental values, with 18 individual value items in each system, 1 indicating it is the most valued item with 18 indicating it is the least valued item. Terminal values are values that are desirable end-states of existence such as friendship, mature love, family security, etc., while Instrumental Values are preferred modes of behavior such as capability, courage, honesty, imagination, etc. This particular study allows management of varying businesses to determine methods on how to approach business leaders in different countries in order to promote and enhance opportunities for partnerships. For example, one question which may be applicable to the real-life business may include the following: How do world-class economies of Mexico, the United States, and China all work together and generate deals with each other through a unification of cross-cultural values? The study of values, norms, and beliefs of a social group provides pertinent information such as an overview and understanding of a country as a whole to individuals and businesses. In Mexico, the United States, and China, these three countries have unique but similar values that can have the ability to affect business decisions. For example, in Mexico, individuals perceive and value the good aspects or qualities in life, harmony, beauty, and mental characteristics. In the United States, individuals value Christianity, liberty, and freedom. In China, individuals value guanxi, or connections and relationships, as well as mutual trust of their tentative partners. Overall, these three countries all have one similar characteristic in that individuals all seek to gain profit and/or assist family members at all costs. Values: Mexico versus the United States This Rokeach Values Survey below demonstrates the importance of values in Mexico compared to the United States:Table 1. Cultural Value Dimensions DifferenceCountry Comparison between Means Factor 1 - Good Things in Life mature love pleasureUS—Mexico.4222* family security comfortable life sense of accomplishmentMexico—US-.4222* true friendship health exciting lifeFactor 2 - Harmony & Beautyworld at peaceequalityUS—Mexico.5828*world of heautyfreedomMexico—US-.5828*inner harmonynational securityFactor 3 - Mental CharacteristicscourageousintellectualcapableUS—Mexico.2658*independentimaginativeMexico—US-.2658*ambitiousbroad-mindedFactor 4 - Societal Requisitesself-controlledresponsibleUS—Mexico.5972*politeloyalMexico—US-.5972*cleanFactor 5 - Christian ValueshonesthelpfulUS—Mexico-.3119*salvationforgivingMexico—US.3199*obedientloving*Significant at the 0.05 levelValues can be important in one country, but other countries might value them more, as demonstrated by Ueltschy and Ryans’ (1997) table above. “While the respondents in Mexico and the US differed significantly on all five cultural value dimensions derived from the Rokeach Value Survey, over 64% of the total variance was accounted for by… global value dimension” (Ueltschy & Ryans Jr., 1997). The result demonstrates that Mexico tends to have multiple values compared to the United States. Mexico respondents tend to believe that “”good things in life,” was more important to subjects in Mexico than in the US” (Ueltschy et al., 1997). The “good things in life” include things such as “mature love, pleasure, a comfortable life, sense of accomplishment, and family security” (Ueltschy et al., 1997), which are all important aspects and qualities to consider in any country. However, these findings do not suggest that individuals in the United States have differing values in the realm of love, pleasure, harmony, family security, or accomplishments. These particular results only indicate that individuals in Mexico value these characteristics in a higher degree and level when compared to the US. The difference lies in how Americans “were focusing on other areas of their lives; whereas, the Mexican respondents were still striving after them” (Ueltschy et al., 1997). In addition, the “good things in life” are values that the US may simply overlook due to the fact that this quality is second nature for many Americans. In contrast, due to the immense corruption, economic turmoil, political instability, or immediate dangers, individuals in Mexico possibly favors and values “the good things in life” more so than their American counterparts. Furthermore, in the realm of the second value dimension, “harmony and beauty,” a vast majority of individuals in Mexico value this characteristic more than individuals residing in the United States. This dimension includes qualities such as “world at peace, freedom, inner harmony, national security, equality, and world of beauty” (Ueltschy et al., 1997). Many individuals in Mexico treat these values as highly important and significant because “Mexican history has been plagued by revolutions and there is currently an element of political instability in parts of the country” (Ueltschy et al., 1997). In contrast, the United States is the epitome and embodiment of freedom, equality, and prosperity. As a result, many Americans may not value these traits as much as Mexicans since they practice it on everyday life, which “of course, many of these values are taken for granted” in the US (Uelstchy et al., 1997). Moreover, the third dimension, “Mental Characteristics”, and the fourth dimension, “Societal Requisites”, were all superiorly important in Mexico when compared to the United States. From the Rokeach Survey results, the data indicates that Mexico has a variety of values that should be taken into consideration and highly contemplated when doing business with their country. For example, in Mexico, individuals value “the good things in life” and “harmony and beauty” which means that they want everything to be “fifty-fifty” or balanced. Individuals from Mexico want to work as a team but have the same benefits as the one whom they are working with in partnership. In addition, when doing business or generating partnerships, many businesses should consider Mexico as their top choice since they consider “mental characteristics” and “social requisites” highly valuable. This indicates that Mexicans tend to be more responsible and more capable of doing their jobs. Workers in Mexico are clean and self-controlled, which indicates that they can handle work overload, tribulations, and adversity. In contrast, in the US, many individuals believe that Americans strive for and uphold ethics in a high manner. In the United States, “Christian Values” are valued more compared to Mexico. These results might “seem incongruous since Mexico is predominately Roman Catholic country, but studies have reported that actual church attendance in Mexico is surprisingly low” (Uelschy et al., 1997). As a result, Christian beliefs serve as a predominant influence, way of life, or cultural-identity in the eyes of many Americans living in the United States when compared to their Mexican counterparts. As a result, Americans tend to strive in becoming more honest individuals due to the Christian influence and beliefs. In conclusion, when doing business, Americans are more likely to value honesty more so than Mexicans. This distinction in values may severely impact relationships and connections on an international business perspective. As more and more businesses outsource products to Mexico, there will be more scrutiny on their ability to deliver and administer faithfulness, ethics, and honesty. Values: Vietnam versus the United StatesThis portion of the essay will focus on the values of the United States and Vietnam utilizing the same tool, the Rokeach Values Survey. In the value systems discussed in Penner’s article, “A Comparison of American and Vietnamese Value Systems,” there is a great distinction and difference between the values US and Vietnam (1977). According to Penner (1977), the sutdy reveals “significant differences [that] were found between the mean rankings of 13 of the 18 values”, but the major difference between the two countries was on National Security, Freedom, and Social Recognition” (Penner, 1977). The following will address the reasoning and provide clarification on why there are distinct differences of terminal values between America and Vietnam. On Table I, the differences between the values found in the US and Vietnam on National Security are illustrated and provided. The definition of National Security is as follows: National security is defined as “protection from attack” (Penner, 1977). In other words, it is the degree of how people from a particular country value the protection of their country from invaders. For instance, “Vietnamese, on average considered [National Security] more important”, which is depicted through Table I with the US ranking National Security at 9 and Vietnam at 3 (Penner, 1977). This reveals that Vietnam considers National Security as a great importance for their society. In addition, the results “accounted for by the univariate F ratio (1-A: 8.7%) and the covariate F ratio for this value,” reflects how the average Vietnamese individuals are more concerned for the security of their country. These results conclude that because of the “civil war that continued in Vietnam for 30 years,” there is a great “cause for this greater concern with security among the Vietnamese” (Penner, 1977). In contrast, though Americans favor national security, individuals residing in the US tend to focus more on other values than national security. For example, Americans consider Freedom to be more important compared to the Vietnamese.Freedom is defined as when one wants to have the ability to do as one wish. To apply this definition, in America, freedom is considered to be vital and integral part in the lives of many Americans in order to live in this country. According to Penner’s (1977) table, the data “suggested that Vietnamese were not overly concerned with the value that the American government gave as one of its major reasons for its military involvement in Vietnam- Freedom,” which reveals that the protection that the Americans said to give to Vietnamese “did not seem to be very important to the average Vietnamese” (Penner, 1977). This result makes sense to an extent as to determining what political view Vietnam tends to relate to the most. For instance, Rokeach has revealed that people who “rank Freedom high (ranks 1-6) and Equality low (ranks 12-18) are receptive to a capitalistic ideology”, whereas vice versa, people tend to have more of a communist ideology (Penner, 1977). The results demonstrated on Table I show that Vietnamese people tend to value less freedom by default but strive for greater equality as Rokeach discusses, so “the relative importance placed on Freedom and Equality by Vietnamese suggests that they would have been more receptive to a “left-wing” political ideology than would the American sample” (Penner, 1977). In these results there is an identifier which determines that Vietnam tends to be more conservative than most Americans consider themselves (if they were part of the American governmental system). In comparison, America leans more towards the capitalistic ideology. Since America values freedom more than Vietnam in Rokeach terminology, it shows that America is more right wing than Vietnam. According the Penner (1977), the Vietnamese people “probably have opted for a left wing ideology, certainly more so than the average American” (Penner, 1977). The survey reveals many additional determinations on a country’s particular way of thinking. For instance, Vietnamese people tend to value more Social Recognition than Americans. Social Recognition is when one values to be respected and admired. However, in the grand scheme of life, productivity, and societal contributions, the qualities of social recognition do not have any tangible importance or significance. According the Penner, “The largest of these were for the values Social Recognition, a comfortable Life (Vietnamese consider it more important than Americans)” (Penner, 1977). According to Table I, the data demonstrates this statement by representing the ranks on the Rokeach survey. America ranks this value of social recognition as number 17 out of the 18. In contrast, Vietnam feels that this specific value is important because of the rank it tends to give it, which is number 14 out of 18. From the data, it can be inferred that Vietnam believes it to be valuable when respected and admired by their peers. For example, in America, individuals value freedom more they tend to have freedom of speech. As a result, this notion tends to be self-depreciating since Americans are known to speak their minds out loud and disrespect their superiors. In America, many individuals gossip about the President and have the freedom to publicize degrading or demeaning articles. As a result, the survey shows that exact reason why Social Recognition is not valued as much in the US. According to Penner (1977), “this greater concern with Social Recognition among Vietnamese than among Americans was evident in all the subsequent comparison” because American values are mainly Freedom and Christianity. In the business aspect of this discussion, there is a huge importance of the comparison between America and Vietnam in the terminal values. According to the Rokeach Survey results, when trying to do business with America, there is a strong indicator that America tends to value freedom, as previously mentioned. By understanding this characteristic, many countries can utilize this conclusion to assist them when considering doing business with American businesses. For example, there can be flexible work schedules that can accommodate the managers to meet and have flexible hours to work, therefore, promoting and enhancing freedom in the workplace. According to the Rokeach Values Survey, Americans feel the want of being able to do things as the way they believe is right and have that freedom to do so. As a result, they want to be able to spot the wrongdoing right away and be able to speak out in a straightforward manner. (This aspect connects with the freedom of speech discussed previously). In contrast, when doing business in Vietnam, many individuals or businesses should consider that the Vietnamese value National Security and Social Recognition higher and more so than Americans. As a result, Vietnamese tend to favor being respected and honored. In addition, they also want to be admired. In order to successfully integrate a partnership in Vietnam, individuals or businesses should actively focus on what Vietnamese business leaders are doing and applying their suggestions to the workforce. From this application, outside businesses or individuals may be able to engender great harmony among the two businesses which will then guarantee a partnership. (These conclusions came from the analysis given on the Rokeach Survey of only terminal values).Instrumental values are behavioral values such as being ambitious, capable, cheerful, etc. This study is highly important because it reveals the reason why a country leans more toward certain terminal values and how they go about in reaching those terminal values or goals. In continuing with the studies of America and Vietnam from Penner’s article, Penner generates another table showing major differences in Vietnam and America on what they believe is a better instrumental value for their country and to businesses. From this table, it is shown that the US values more Ambition and Broadminded individuals in their workforce. On the contrary, Vietnam values obedient individuals in their workforce. In the Rokeach Values Survey constructed by Penner, the table demonstrates the results which reveal what instrumental values each country value the most. In Penner’s article, the study is made on US and Vietnamese men. Below is the table that reveals the results of the studies made by Penner (1977):According to the table above, it shows that there were 11 out of the 18 univariate F ratio that were extremely different, but the “largest of these were for the values Obedient, Ambition, and Broadminded” (Penner, 1977). On the table above, it defines Ambition and Broadminded as very important for US men. The table also shows that US men rank 3 for Ambitious and 5 for Broadminded. In contrast, Vietnamese men ranked 17 for Ambitious and 15 for Broadminded, which indicates a great difference in between American and Vietnamese men. American and Vietnamese men tend to think differently on the two values that reveals the total difference among the two country’s way of thoughts. With these results and analysis done by the Survey, it can be concluded that American men tend to want the hardworking people who seem to have the mentality of maintain prosperity and taking initiative along with the combination of broadminded individuals. Broadminded people tend to be more creative and think beyond their scope and that is what Americans feel is the key to succeeding in the business world, considering the results on the Rokeach Values Survey. In contrast, Vietnam feels that these qualities, or values, are not important because they feel that maybe ambition and broadminded might be used negatively as being able to take over the country since Vietnam is a communist country. According to the Rokeach Value Survey results on the terminal values, the mentality might intervene to the decision of having an ambition and broadminded individual. Those two characteristics in combination may turn out dangerous and might end up with certain individuals wanting to take over a nation instead of helping the society, which Americans see it as more of a positive because an individual is trying to get things done and always wants to be the best. These two countries, the United States and Vietnam, bump heads on these two values as well as the obedient value. On the table above constructed by Penner, it shows that Vietnamese men rank Obedience as 2, whereas American men value obedience as 16 out of 18 values. Once again there is a divergent between the two countries on this value, but this one is preferred highly on Vietnamese men than on American men. These particular values can impact a culture and the way businesses are run or carried out. According to the data, Vietnam believes that following orders is what should be done (this is related to the terminal values discussed earlier to Vietnam being a communist country and wanting more equality than freedom). Vietnam wants everyone to follow the rules and be equal; they do not want to have anyone indifferent in the company. Whereas in America, obedience is not really necessary because they want people to think out of the box and do what they believe is best for the company. In the previous discussion, it is discussed in the terminal values that Americans feel that freedom is more important than equality which is why they have a capitalistic mentality. This would make sense why Americans would feel that obedience is least important because they want people to feel free to speak their opinion and have the freedom to disagree whenever they believe is essential to express on a meeting or other business related issues. The Rokeach Values Survey results demonstrate these connections that many global businesses should consider in making business with these two countries. The Rokeach Values Survey, tends to assist international leaders who seek to make businesses international to have a better understanding of a country. For instance, in these previous studies, it can be concluded that when doing business with American individuals, companies or individuals must seek to be ambitious and broadminded people, according to the results in the survey of instrumental values. Americans want people who are creative and always want to get to their goals at any cost and not quit. In contrast, Vietnam wants people who are obedient and follow what is told. Vietnamese people value individuals who follow instructions and construct a trustworthy relationship, and follow the structure of the company and should go through a fixed way of getting to their goals. In conclusion, the main difference of these two sections of the Rokeach Survey study is that “respondents in the two countries was not their goals in life (i.e., terminal values), but rather the means by which these goals are reached (i.e., instrumental values), which concludes the reason of the ranking on the table among the two countries (Penner, 1977). American is one of the important countries in doing business, but China does not fall behind. On the contrary, it is one of the most important countries in world trade. As a result, the main goals of many businesses are to engender business relations with China. Values: Australia versus the United StatesPrior to this comparison, there were studies already discussed about Mexico and the United States. In addition, another global and economic leading country is the People’s Republic of China. China is known for being one of the most important trading partners in the world since the country is ranked highly in GDP. In this section of the research, studies made comparing China with Australia with the use of the Rokeach Values Survey as well as the results identifying what type of values the countries differed from will be provided. In Feather’s table below, it demonstrates the results of the ranking of the terminal values that each country believed were of great importance. However, the major difference that was found in the terminal values study was between the values of National Security, Social Recognition, and Inner Harmony. The table constructed below by Feather (1986) reveals the drastic differences between these specific values among the two countries (as demonstrated by the mean between the genders): According to the table above, the terminal values that China feels as of great importance are National Security and Social Recognition. From the table, China ranked 6.4 on National Security and 10.3 on Social Recognition. This demonstrates that China values the security of the country or “protection from attack” mentioned in Penner’s article because they are a communist country. As a result, the individuals residing in China feel that their country should be protected from foreign invaders. This might be because of China is not seen as an “economically affluent nation when compared with societies like Australia” (Feather, 1986). From a historical perspective, China has “undergone marked social and political upheaval over the past 40 years or so” (Feather, 1986). When there are political concerns in society, there are always a high percentage of security being of high interest within the country. In addition, China valued Social Recognition higher than Australia. This makes sense because of the known cultural values of China. China is known for their interest in having a harmonious environment with establishing trust and that is why Social Recognition is ranked highly. They want to be recognized by being respected and not be betrayed. The Chinese people value friendship highly, according to the table, which boosts the importance of Social Recognition because they tend to go hand on hand. With friendship being involved, there has to be an involvement of recognition and respect among individuals. China stresses extreme importance on these particular circumstances compared to their Australian counterparts. In contrast, Australia tends to value Inner Harmony more when compared with China. Australia is known for being a country that concerns more on “love, self-definition, and self-fulfillment”, which explains why Inner Harmony is ranked highly compared to China (Feather, 1986). According to the table above, Australians value friendship highly, as demonstrated by the close ranks to China (Ranked on Friendship: Australia 6.1 and China 5.1). This further augments the fact that Australians tend to value a lot on relationships between their peers. Basically, what Feather discovered through the research is that Australians tend to value the personality of the individuals and what comes more into the heart. The reason is because of the study being made in “an affluent, secure, and stable society”, which was located in a “distinctive culture with its own unique history and patterns of cultural transformation” (Feather, 1986). This could be a huge factor of the responses given to the research. The responses reveal that Australia is more into the harmonious aspect of their society because they tend to not have much of political issues going on at the moment in comparison to China, who has huge political conflicts throughout many years. Through the studies coming from only terminal values, there can be conclusions done on what one must do when dealing with these two countries as well as trying to attain business with them. For instance, since China values more on National Security and Social Recognition, then it would be convenient for an individual to treat them with respect and discuss a similar interest on the security of the country. Chinese tend to look more into their goals as a whole on the protection of the country and to not be invaded. They also value the relationship among their workforce and believe that it is important to have a harmonious bond for employees to feel comfortable to work with them. In contrast, Australians tend to look more into Inner Harmony, which means that Australians tend to look on actions more than what is shown. They seek and value more of what is inside a person character wise, so it would be ideal when doing business with Australians to send someone who has a soft, easy-going, and personable personality. In addition, Australians also really care and value for relationships like Chinese do with guanxi. These two countries value friendship, connection, and relationships at the top of their lists which can be used in business planning, meetings, or mergers in order to make deals go smoothly and professionally. Although terminal values are able to provide significant information about the goals of the country to various businesses or organizations, there is still a need for the instrumental values, or the way the country seeks to get to their goals. Continuing with the comparison of China and Australia, there is another difference between these instrumental values in the realms of Ambition, Intellect, Honesty, and Forgiveness which are disclosed on the table 2 (see below) constructed by Feather: According to the graph above, China ranked Ambition 2.3 out of 18. This indicates that the Chinese people value ambitious individuals very highly when compared to Australian individuals who ranked it 10.7 out of 18. Chinese people seem to want people who can get things done and are very aware of what they are doing. That is why intellect is also valued highly compared to Australian people. According to the studies shown above, the Chinese were more interested on “values related to competence and scholarship (e.g., wisdom, being capable, imaginative, intellectual, and logical) when compared to the Australian” people (Feather, 1986). Individuals in China have the mental ideology that if there is competition in the workforce then there will be more success because people tend to work harder when their job is on the line. As mentioned from the terminal values, China valued social recognition which makes sense for the country to have more concern on the wise and elderly. According to the research, the Chinese value respect, which means that in order to earn the respect of their peers, one must gain the trust and friendship of individuals through guanxi. According to Feather, the Chinese also “assigned higher priority to values concerned with respect, hard work, and self-restraint”, which demonstrates the reason of ranking Ambition and Intellect highly (Feather, 1986). In contrast, the Australian people value more on honesty and forgiveness. From the table above, Feather reveals that the Australian people ranked a 3.9 out of 18 for Honesty and a 7.5 out of 18 being for Forgiveness. Compared to Chinese people who ranked Honesty as a 8.8 out of 18 and Forgiveness as a 13.5 out of 18, Australians tend to value these highly which makes sense because of the country focusing more on the terminal value of Inner Harmony. As it was discussed before, Australian individuals tend to want the best of the people but worry more about the inner self, as in the personality of the person. These results, honesty and forgiving, go with the inner harmony that was found by the terminal value results from the first studies made by Feather. Australian individuals “saw self-related values and excitement as more important (e.g., happiness, inner harmony, and an exciting life),” which connects to the results of them focusing more on the personality of the individual (Feather, 1986). One could conclude these results by just analyzing the results from the terminal values, but it is also important to be able to see why the country chose these values and how do they tend to attain their goals.Through the studies given in the instrumental portion many can conclude, in the business aspect, that Chinese people tend to desire ambition and intellect in their workforce or citizens, which demonstrates to international business leaders that they should send someone who is persistent, hardworking, and resolute to make business with the Chinese. In addition, the individual should do it with a mentality that the Chinese want to be respected and be honored. As a result, the individual who is representing the country in order to deal with Chinese leaders must know how to communicate with them in a friendly manner and be able to attain their trust, but not sound too weak while doing it also. Individuals or businesses trying to engender or generate partnerships with the Chinese must also focus on establishing and enhancing relationships, friendships, connections, or guanxi. In contrast, when dealing with Australians, an individual must be energetic, up-beat, optimistic, outgoing, and happy. Individuals or businesses trying to engender or generate partnerships with Australia must also possess a humble attitude and attain soft emotions. Australians feel the want to work with people who are genuine and beautiful in spirit. Simply sending someone who is charismatic and having that attitude will most likely get the contract with them, according to Rokeach Values Survey’s results. Discussion of the Rokeach Values SurveyIn conclusion, there were wonderful results from the great analysis done with the Rokeach Values Survey, which assisted on what one should focus on when doing business with these three main countries: Mexico, USA, and China. Studies were done with each individual country compared to an outside country. For instance, Mexico was compared to the US and the US was compared to Vietnam, and China was compared to Australia. The countries were not compared directly with them (with the exception of Mexico because it would make sense to compare them with the US, which are major trading partners at the moment). All in all, there was a conclusion made that these three countries seem to work together because of the qualities each of them seek. For instance, the US seeks ambition which correlates with China and that is why, at the moment, Americans and Chinese individuals are making progress with international business trades and working fluently. It is a great fit, which is determined by the survey. Limitations and ConcernsAlthough the results comply with the real world, there can still be huge limitations on the research methods and results. One, the survey is limited only to a certain amount of people taking the survey. For instance, in Penner’s survey it showed only results from only 1428 Americans and 349 Vietnamese. This comparison and imbalance of sample size among Americans and Vietnamese do not accurately represent reality, which can manipulate the variances, thus creating a false result. In addition, the influences also might intervene with the results. For example, parents might force their children, if doing studies with them, to rank other values highly when in reality they feel that other values are more important. All these factors come into play and can be the reason why this tool may not be as reliable as many may think. Nothing in the world of studies can be 100% accurate because of the enormous factors of population and influential purposes. However, studies implemented and concluded can bring estimations that might be able to relate to reality. Through extensively studying different cultures, values, and belief systems of differing nations, individuals or businesses may be able to utilize the data, information, and conclusions from past studies and apply them to everyday decisions, professionally or personally. In doing so, individuals and businesses may be able to have a more comprehensive and profound knowledge, understanding, or awareness of certain cultures. With this cultural intelligence and comprehension, individuals and businesses may become successful and prosperous in the global market. ReferencesHofstede, G.: 1980, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values (Sage, Newbury Park, CA).Barnett, T., Bass, K., Brown, G., & Hebert, F. J. (1998). Ethical ideology and the ethical judgment of marketing professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(7), 715-723. Chambers, D., & Hamer, S. (2012). Culture and growth: Some empirical evidence. Bulletin Of Economic Research,?64(4), 549-564. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8586.2010.00364.xCleary, T: 1993, The Essential Confucius: The Heart of Confucius' Teachings in Authentic I Ching Order (Harper Collins, San Francisco)Feather, N. T. (1996). Extending the search for order in social motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 7(3), 223.Ferrell, O. C. and Larry G. Gresham (1985), "A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 49 (Summer), 87-96.Forsyth, D., O’Boyle, E., & McDaniel, M. (2008). East meets west: A meta-analytic investigation of cultural variations in idealism and relativism. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 813-833. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9667-6Forsyth, D. R. and J. L. Nye. (1990). Personal moral philosophy and moral choice. Journal of Research in Personality 24, 398–414.Forsyth, D.R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, 175-184. Goodman, D. S. G.: 1997. 'China in Reform', in D. S. G. Goodman (ed.), China's Provinces in Reform (Routledge, London), pp. 1-15.Hofstede, G., & Tipton Murff, E. J. (2012). Repurposing an old game for an international world. Simulation & Gaming, 43(1), 34-50. doi:10.1177/1046878110388250Inglehart, R.: 1997, Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)Inglehart, R. and W. E. Baker. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review 65, 19–51.Lau, D. C: 1979, Confucius: The Analects (Lun yu) (Penguin Books, London).Penner, L. A., & Anh, T. (1977). A comparison of American and Vietnamese value systems. Journal of Social Psychology, 101(2), 187.Redfern, K., & Crawford, J. (2004). An empirical investigation of the ethics position questionnaire in the people's republic of china. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(3), 199-210. Rodriguez, A., & Brown, A. (2014). Cultural differences: A cross-cultural study of urban planners from japan, mexico, the u.s., serbia-montenegro, russia, and south korea. Public Organization Review, 14(1), 35-50. doi:10.1007/s11115-012-0204-9Roy, A., P. G. Walters and S. T Luk. (2001) Chinese puzzles and paradoxes: Conducting business research in china. Journal of Business Research 52, 203-210.Sachau, L., & Hutchinson, S. (2012). Trends in culturally relevant interface design features for Latino Web site users.?Educational Technology Research & Development,?60(6), 1033-1050. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9270-5Schlenker, Barry R. and Donelson R. Forsyth (1977), "On the Ethics of Psychological Research," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(4), 369-396.Tansey, R., Brown, G., Hyman, M. R., & Dawson Jr., L. E. (1994). Personal moral philosophies and the moral judgments of salespeople. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 14(1), 59-75.Terzis, V., Moridis, C. N., Economides, A. A., & Mendez, G. (2013). Computer based assessment acceptance: A cross-cultural study in greece and mexico. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 16(3), 411-424.Tony, F. (2003). A critique of hofstede's fifth national culture dimension. International Journal Of Cross Cultural Management, 3(3), 347-368.Ueltschy, L. C., & Ryans Jr., J. K. (1997). Employing standardized promotion strategies in mexico: The impact of language and cultural differences. International Executive, 39(4), 479-495.Vitell, Scott, J., James R. Lumpkin, and Mohammed Y. A. Rawwas (1991), "Consumer Ethics: An Investigation of the Ethical Beliefs of Elderly Consumers," Journal of Business Ethics, 10 (May), 365-375.Yang, K. S.: 1986, 'Chinese Personality and Its Change", in M. H. Bond (ed.). The Psychology of the Chinese People (Oxford University Press, New York), pp. 106-170.Yang, K. S. and M. H. Bond. (1990). Exploring implicit personality theories with indigenous or imported constructs: The chinese case. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58(6), 1087-1095. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download