How Can We Better Understand Current and Future Workforce Values in the Global Business Environment?
Abstract
Our study tested the predictive power of socioeconomic development theory and age differences theory to explain work values across cultures and across age groups. We compared the values orientations of future managers, business students under the age of 25, with those of current managers and professionals, who we split into three decade groups (30 to 39, 40 to 49, and 50 to 59). Our respondents (n = 1,518) come from six diverse societies: Brazil, Germany, Indonesia, Russia, the United States, and Vietnam. Our findings indicate that both theories contribute to our understanding of work values and behaviors. One implication is that while socioeconomic development theory makes an important contribution, it is clearly not sufficient by itself to explain work values/behavior differences in the global context. The study findings and the discussion of them will hopefully provide multinational managers with a clearer assessment of current and future workforce values/behavior. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Introduction
A crucial factor for international businesses in the 21st century is truly understanding the diverse values of those in the global workforce. With this challenge as our focus, we ask two distinct questions. First, are the personal values orientations of members of societies at a lower level of socioeconomic development different from those at a higher level of development? Second, are there universal age-related differences in values orientations? The first question implies that macro-level differences in the wealth and stability of a country affect the values held by members of that country. This question is fairly consistent with the question explored in much of the previous cross-cultural research that used country as a surrogate measure for culture (e.g., Inglehart & Baker, 2000). Our second question implies that micro-level differences in age level affect the values held by individuals, regardless of the socioeconomic status of their country.
For our first question, we base the argument for economic development being the driver on societal modernization theory (Inglehart & Baker, 2000), which identifies cross-national cultural values variation as associated with economic development. Specifically, this theory proposes that as societies move from preindustrial to industrial and then postindustrial, there will be changes in societal values from traditional to secular/rational values and from survival to self-expression values. Whereas societal modernization theory highlights important change dynamics of cultural values, especially in transitional economies, we note that the cross-national cultural management literature has generally focused on current managers' values (e.g., Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Schwartz, 1994; Smith, Dugan, & Trompenaars, 1996). Hence, we expand the breadth of the focus by comparing the values of both current and future managers in this study.
For our second question, we base the argument for an age difference effect on life-stage theory, which posits that there is a universal developmental sequence throughout the human life cycle (Erickson, 1968, 1997). While previous research has explored the effect of age differences in values orientations, empirical tests of age differences theory have been limited to one-country or two-country comparisons (e.g., Egri & Ralston, 2004; Ralston, Hallinger, Egri & Naothinsuhk, 2005). In this study, we provide a more complete test of age differences theory by investigating within-society differences in personal values orientations across age groups for the six identified countries. Current managers were allocated to three age groups (30 to 39, 40 to 49, and 50 to 59 years) for a fine-grained analysis of the age-related differences in values orientations in the present workforce (per Inglehart & Baker, 2000). To provide insight into the values that business leaders and managers of the future may hold, we included business students (18 to 24 years) as the fourth age group in our study.
In summary, the two questions in our study—economic development level vis-à-vis life stage—look to different levels of analysis for the answers to the same question, and they imply competing answers for the broader question: which set of influences is the primary driver of individual values formation? In this paper, we simultaneously explore the competing explanations of macro-level (economic development level) and the micro-level (age level) influences for understanding values formation and evolution. We focus our exploration specifically on three values: collectivism, individualism, and universalism. In the context of the three stages of societal modernization theory (Inglehart & Baker, 2001; Inglehart & Welzel, 2005), collectivism is most closely associated with preindustrial societies, individualism with industrial societies, and universalism with postindustrial societies. As such, societal modernization theory implies that there is a societal-level progression or hierarchy of values closely associated with socioeconomic development. Life-stage theory proposes that as individuals get older they become progressively less individualist and more collectivistic and self-transcendent (e.g., Erikson, 1968, 1997). Thus, life-stage theory implies that there is an individual-level progression or hierarchy of values closely associated with age level. The overarching goal of this study is to simultaneously investigate the within-country values evolution, from present to future managers, as well as the between-country values differences, from low to high socioeconomic status.
Knowing how workforce values/behaviors may change or not change is today—and will continue to be tomorrow—a crucial aspect of success in our dynamic global business environment. Thus, we believe that answers to our two research questions, which concern both societal-level and individual-level influences on values, provide a more inclusive perspective of workplace values and behaviors than have most previous studies that focused solely on one level. For instance, collectivism, individualism, and universalism values are related to how employees, suppliers, and customers would think of the business relationship. Those individuals who highly value collectivism would tend to think of loyalty, trust, and mutual obligations as very important to interpersonal business relationships. Those who highly value individualism would tend to think of the business relationship in terms of calculative economic benefits for oneself. Those who highly value universalism have a more inclusive and global concern with the well-being (e.g., equality, social justice) across all groups rather than the interests of particular in-groups or oneself. Thus, these differences in values priorities suggest that firms would do well to be mindful of what is personally important to those with whom they are engaging whether it be developing internal recognition and reward systems for employees or managing external value-chain partnerships and marketing efforts.
We operationalize the exploration of our overarching goal by testing the predictions of socioeconomic development theory and life-stage theory with a sample of 1,518 current and future managers in six countries: Brazil, Germany, Indonesia, Russia, the United States, and Vietnam. Indonesia and Vietnam are on the lower end of the economic scale; Brazil and Russia are in the middle; Germany and the United States are at the higher end. In terms of political ideology, Russia and Vietnam have a communist history. Indonesia has a legacy of sultanate rule, with power and wealth concentrated at the top. Brazil, Germany, and the United States are federal republics and have a history of market-oriented economies. However, it should be noted that while Brazil now has a democratically elected government, it was governed by military regimes until as recently as 1985 (Central Intelligence Agency, 2010). As such, this study contributes to the current understanding of work values and practices in the global business environment by an integrative comparison of age-related differences in values orientations within and across a socioeconomically and politically diverse set of countries.
In the subsequent sections of the article, we review previous relevant research and develop hypotheses regarding the relative contributions of national socioeconomic development and age differences theories on values formation and evolution for the six countries in this study. We then present the methods and results of the study. We conclude this article with a discussion of our findings including insights regarding how they apply to practicing multinational managers.
Literature Review and Hypotheses
Defining Values
The discussion of “values” has taken on importance in the management literature since the work of Rokeach in the 1960s. Rokeach (1973, p. 5) defined a value system as “an enduring organization of beliefs concerning preferable modes of conduct or end states of existence along a continuum of relative importance. Hofstede (1980) subsequently moved this discussion to the cross-cultural arena by describing cultural (societal) values in the context of the programming of the minds of a group such that the “programming” (i.e., indoctrination) differentiated one group (culture) from another. Schwartz and Bilsky (1990, p. 878) continued the refinement by noting that “values (a) are concepts or beliefs, (b) pertain to desirable end states or behaviors, (c) transcend specific situations, (d) guide selection or evaluation of behavior and events, and (e) are ordered by relative importance.” Then, in contrast, the GLOBE group (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004) took the perspective of equating “values” to the ideals that a society should aspire to attain, while “practices” were equated to the perceived actual societal values. Peterson (2004) was the first to raise this point, along with the concern that there were negative correlations between “values” and “practices” for several of the GLOBE dimensions. From our review of the literature, only the GLOBE group has taken this “aspirations” perspective on values. Thus, in this study, we follow the more traditional definition of cultural values as the standards that people develop over time and use to make judgments about what is valuable in their lives (Triandis, 1995). Tung (2002) synthesizes these discussions of values and culture by noting that “culture is an evolving set of shared beliefs, values, attitudes, and logical processes which provide cognitive maps for people within a given societal group to perceive, think, reason, act, react, and interact.”
In this study, we focus on the values of collectivism, individualism, and universalism (cf. Smith & Schwartz, 1997). Per Triandis's (1995) conceptual work and Ralston and colleagues' empirical studies (cf. Ralston, 2008), we view collectivism and individualism as separate constructs rather than endpoints on an individualism–collectivism continuum (cf. McSweeney, 2002; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). This is consistent with recent research that has found that while individualism and collectivism are to some degree correlated, these two values dimensions are conceptually distinct (e.g., Kemmelmeier et al., 2003; Ralston, 2007). Collectivism may be described as giving priority to relationships, with loyalty, trust, and obligation being of supreme importance; and individualism relates to the giving of priority to one's self-interests, with business relationships being viewed in calculative, not relational, terms. Further, per Schwartz (1994, 2007) and Inglehart and Welzel (2005), we include universalism as the third relevant construct for understanding values differences. Universalism relates to moral values and rules of fairness (e.g., equality, social justice, and unity with nature) that are concerned with societal welfare beyond that of in-groups (Schwartz, 2007). Prior studies have found that age, gender, and political system impact the importance attributed to universalism (Schwartz, 2007; Schwartz & Rubel, 2005). Universalism, which emphasizes equality, social justice, and unity with nature, integrates the importance of the individual with the importance of the group, noting that group now refers to all, not just the in-group of collectivists (Schwartz, 2007). Thus, in cultures where universalism is highly valued, there has been both maturation from and a synthesis of collectivistic and individualistic values.
Socioeconomic Development (Modernization) Theory as a Predictor of Values
Hypothesis 1a: Indonesian and Vietnamese respondents attribute higher importance to collectivism values than do Brazilians and Russians, who in turn attribute higher importance to collectivism than do German and US respondents.
Hypothesis 1b: German and US respondents attribute higher importance to individualism values than do Brazilians and Russians, who in turn attribute higher importance to individualism values than do Indonesian and Vietnamese respondents.
Hypothesis 1c: German and US respondents attribute higher importance to universalism values than do Brazilians and Russians, who in turn attribute higher importance to universalism values than do Indonesians and Vietnamese respondents.
Age Differences Theory as a Predictor of Values
Age differences theories of values orientations hold that there is a universal developmental sequence throughout the human life cycle. As individuals age they become progressively more conservative, self-transcendent, and collectivistic, and become less open to change, self-enhancing, and individualistic (Erikson, 1968, 1997; Smith & Schwartz, 1997; Stevens-Long, 1990). Following Inglehart and Baker (2000), we examine four birth cohorts, grouped by decade, from 20 to 59 years old. These are the age groups most relevant in the workforce and represent both future and current managers. In early adulthood (age 20 to 39), one is concerned with success in personal and business relationships. This stage is one of experimenting and making important decisions about career, lifestyle, and personal relationships. In middle adulthood (age 40 to 59), one is concerned with being a stable, responsible, compassionate, and productive member of society. This stage is one of personal mastery and assuming leadership in family, work, and community social systems (Erikson, 1997). In the present study, following Inglehart and Baker (2000), we investigate age differences using decade groups. Using decade groups (birth cohorts) allows for a more fine-grained life-stage analysis.
Although Erikson (1968, 1997) argued that life stages are universal, most research on life stages has been conducted in Western societies (Ralston et al., 2005). As an exception, in their study comparing Thai and US managers, Ralston et al. (2005) found that life stage is important, as is culture, in explaining differences in the perceptions of ethical upward influence behaviors. Further, Egri, and Ralston (2004) found cultural values differences in their Chinese and US sample, but also partial support for the existence of generational differences in values orientations. Other cross-cultural studies, however, have not found significant age-related differences in the personal and work-related values of managers and employees (Bigoness & Blakely, 1996; Smith et al., 1996). Recently, Tung (2008) presented a convincing argument as to why the cross-cultural research of today needs to progress beyond mere country comparisons.
Hypothesis 2a: Irrespective of society, older respondents attribute higher importance to collectivism than do younger respondents.
Hypothesis 2b: Irrespective of society, younger respondents attribute higher importance to individualism values than do older respondents.
Hypothesis 2c: Irrespective of society, older respondents attribute higher importance to universalism values than do younger respondents.
Methods
Sample
Our sample consisted of 1,518 respondents from six countries: Brazil (n = 260), Germany (n = 231), Indonesia (n = 220), the Russian Federation (n = 257), the United States (n = 296), and Vietnam (n = 254). The sample also consisted of a similar proportion of current managers (n = 746) and business school students, future managers (n = 772). The manager category includes top-level managers, middle-level managers, first-level supervisors, and professionals/nonsupervisors. We divided this group by decades into 30 to 39 years, 40 to 49 years, and 50 to 59 years (per Inglehart & Baker, 2000). We will henceforth refer to this group as “current managers.” Business students, all under the age of 25, were surveyed to represent the future generation of managers. For the current-manager data collection, we used a cross-sectional sampling design for a mail survey. The future manager data collections were conducted in university classrooms at the beginning of class sessions. Both data collections were consistent on two important facets of data collection methodology; both were voluntary and both were anonymous. Given that we used cross-sectional data, we assessed the stability in values between younger and older age groups, while not examining whether a particular age group's values were stable over time. Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the study samples.
Instrument and Measures
Personal values. To measure personal values orientations, we used the well-established Schwartz Values Survey (SVS) which has been utilized in cultural values research in over 75 countries (Schwartz, 1992, 1994, 2007; Spini, 2003). The SVS consists of 56 items that respondents rated using a 9-point Likert-type scale (–1 = opposed to my values, 1 = not important, 3 = important, 7 = of supreme importance). Only the 45 SVS items found by Schwartz (1992) to have cross-culturally equivalent meanings were retained to measure the three dependent measures: individualism, collectivism, and universalism (Smith & Schwartz, 1997). Standard translation–back-translation procedures were used to translate the SVS from English into each of the native languages of the study countries (Brislin, 1986).
Following previous cultural values studies (e.g., Ralston, Egri, Stewart, Terpstra, & Yu, 1999; Ralston, Thang, & Napier, 1999), the collectivism dimension is comprised of 19 SVS items, the individualism dimension is comprised of 21 items, and the universalism dimension is comprised of 9 items (Ralston, Holt, Terpstra, & Yu, 1997; Schwartz, 1992). The individual country values scales reliabilities (Cronbach α) ranged as follows: collectivism (α = .74 to .85), individualism (α = .71 to .80), and universalism (α = .72 to .77). To address cross-cultural differences in scale response style (Fischer, 2004), within-subject standardized scores were calculated. Using standardized scores indicates whether a value is relatively more (or less) important than other values in a country.
Age groups. To ensure separation between the future- and current-manager groups, only future managers who were less than 25 years of age and only current managers who were 30 years or older were included in the study. In that there may be age differences within the current manager samples, we used three age-decade groups: 30 to 39 years, 40 to 49 years, and 50 to 59 years. Gender was included in our analyses given previous research that has found gender differences in personal values orientations (e.g., Beutel & Marini, 1995; Schwartz & Rubel, 2005).
Analyses
Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) and post hoc group comparisons (least significant differences test) were conducted to test hypotheses regarding influences on personal values orientations. In the MANCOVA, the dependent variables were the standardized SVS values scores for individualism, collectivism, and universalism. The independent variables were country, age group, and gender. To determine whether there were country differences in values based on age group and gender, we included the following interaction terms: country-by-age group, country-by-gender, and country-by-age group-by-gender.
Results
Table 2 presents the MANCOVA full factorial model results. These results indicate significant effects for country (Wilks λ = .908, F = 9.49, p < .001), age group (Wilks λ = .948, F = 8.58, p < .001), and the country-by-age group interaction (Wilks λ = .910, F = 3.075, p < .001). In addition, gender was significant (Wilks λ = .993, F = 3.25, p < .05), as well as the country-by-age group-by-gender interaction (Wilks λ = .941, F = 1.66, p < .01). For all three values dimensions (collectivism, individualism, and universalism), there are significant differences for country (range of F = 3.17 to F = 14.71, all at least at p < .01 level). There are significant age group differences for the collectivism and individualism values (respectively, F = 15.50 and F = 21.40, both at p < .001 level), but no significant age group difference for the universalism value (F = 2.10). The country-by-age group interaction was significant for all three values dimensions (range of F = 2.30 to F = 6.33, all at least p < .01 level). Gender also contributes significantly to the models for individualism (F = 9.60, p < .01), and the country-by-gender interaction is significant for the universalism value dimension (F = 2.30, p < .05). The country-by-age group-by-gender three-way interaction contributes significantly to the models for collectivism and individualism (respectively, F = 2.15 and F = 2.83, both at least p < .01).
Socioeconomic Development (Modernization) Theory Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1 (socioeconomic development) proposed that differences would be found among the six countries regardless of age group. Hypothesis 1a proposed the following country differences in the relative importance of collectivism values: (Indonesia, Vietnam) > (Brazil, Russia) > (Germany, United States). As shown in Table 3, the post hoc analyses provide moderate support for the predicted relationships in that the country collectivism scores are: Indonesia > (Vietnam, United States) > Brazil > (Germany, Russia). Contrary to expectations, US respondents had intermediate (not low) collectivism scores, and Russian respondents had low (not intermediate) collectivism scores.
Hypothesis 1b proposed the following country differences in the relative importance of individualism values: (Germany, United States) > (Brazil, Russia) > (Indonesia, Vietnam). The post hoc analyses provide moderate support for Hypothesis 1b in that country individualism scores are: Germany > (Brazil, United States, Russia, Indonesia) > Vietnam. Inconsistent with Hypothesis 1b, US respondents have intermediate (not high) individualism scores, and Indonesian respondents have intermediate (not low) individualism scores.
Hypothesis 1c proposed the following country differences in the relative importance of universalism values: (Germany, United States) > (Brazil, Russia) > (Indonesia, Vietnam). The post hoc comparisons showed the following country differences in universalism values: (Brazil, Vietnam, Germany) > (Russia, United States) > Indonesia. Hypothesis 1c is partially supported in that German respondents had high universalism scores, Russians had intermediate universalism scores, and Indonesians had low universalism scores. However, US respondents had low-intermediate (not high) universalism scores, Brazilian respondents had higher (not intermediate) universalism scores, and Vietnamese respondents had high (not low) universalism scores.
Age Differences Theory Hypotheses
Hypothesis 2 proposed that regardless of society, older individuals would attribute higher importance to collectivism (Hypothesis 2a) and universalism (Hypothesis 2c) values, whereas younger ones would attribute higher importance to individualism values (Hypothesis 2b). As shown in Table 4, which reports the post hoc comparisons for age groups, future managers (less than 25 years old) had significantly lower collectivism values and significantly higher individualism values than the current managers (30 years and older). The future managers had similar universalism values scores to the youngest current managers (30 to 39 years) but had significantly lower universalism scores than current managers who were 40 years and older. Hence, full support was found for Hypothesis 2a (collectivism) and Hypothesis 2b (individualism), and partial support was found for Hypothesis 2c (universalism).
Examination of the age group differences within the current-manager sample shows that managers in the two oldest age groups (40 to 49 years and 50 to 59 years) have very similar values orientations that are significantly different from their younger counterparts (30 to 39 years). Consistent with life-stage theory (Erikson, 1968, 1997; Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, & McKee, 1978), older managers are more collectivistic and universalistic but less individualistic than managers in the earlier years of middle adulthood.
To examine the nature of the country-by-age group interactions, we conducted separate country t-tests. For collectivism, current managers have higher scores than future managers in all countries except for the United States, which has no significant age group difference. For individualism, future managers have higher scores than current managers in all countries except for Indonesia, which has no significant age group difference. For universalism, current managers have higher scores than future managers in Russia, the United States, and Vietnam, whereas future managers had higher universalism scores than current managers in Indonesia. There are no significant age group difference in universalism values for Brazil and Germany. Together, these results indicate that age differences theory predictions regarding the importance of collectivism, individualism, and universalism values are most consistent for respondents in Russia and Vietnam, and least consistent for respondents in Indonesia.
We also examined whether gender differences were a factor in values orientations across and within country and age groups. As shown in Table 2, there was a significant main effect for gender only with respect to individualism values (F = 9.60, p < .10), and there was a significant country-by-gender interaction for universalism values (F = 2.30, p < .05). In addition, there were significant three-way country-by-age group-by-gender interactions for collectivism (F = 2.15, p < .01) and individualism (F = 2.83, p < .001).
Focusing first on collectivism values, post hoc analyses showed no significant gender differences within age groups for respondents in Brazil, Germany, Indonesia, and the United States. For Russian respondents, the only gender difference concerned the oldest age group (50 to 59 years), for which females were more collectivistic than their male counterparts. The significant three-way interaction for collectivism values is largely attributable to Vietnamese respondents. For the under-25-year age group, male respondents were more collectivistic than female respondents, whereas for the 30- to 39-year age group, female respondents were more collectivistic than male respondents. The two oldest age groups did not have gender differences in collectivism values.
With respect to individualism values, the majority of gender differences concerned the 25 years and younger age group, for which male respondents are more individualistic than female respondents in Brazil, Germany, Indonesia, and the United States, and female respondents are more individualistic than male respondents in Vietnam. For the 30- to 39-year age group, only Vietnam had a significant gender difference, with males being more individualistic than females. For the 40- to 49-year age group, males were more individualistic than females only in Brazil and the United States, while there are no significant gender differences for the oldest age group.
With respect to universalism values, significant gender differences were only within countries. Whereas female respondents were more universalistic than male respondents in Germany and the United States, males were more universalistic than females in Vietnam, and there were no significant gender differences for Brazil, Indonesia, and Russia.
Discussion
At the beginning of this article, we asked two questions: (1) Are the values of members of societies at a lower level of socioeconomic development different from those at a higher level of development?, and (2) are there universal age-related differences in values orientations? While the answer to the second question is yes, the answer to the first question is that, while there is a country socioeconomic development effect, it depends—partly on age and partly on gender. The question now is: what are the relationships between and the relative contributions of the socioeconomic development level and individual age-level influences on values formation?
As noted earlier, countries that value collectivism tend to think of the business relationship in terms of loyalty, trust, and obligations. For collectivism values, we found that future managers place less importance on these values than do their elders. This is true for each of the nationalities in our sample, although among US respondents this difference is not significant. In terms of development clusters, we found that, overall, those nationalities at a lower level of socioeconomic development generally attribute more importance to collectivism than do those nationalities at a higher level of development. The exceptions were the US and Russian respondents. The US respondents were more similar to the Indonesian and Vietnamese respondents than to the German respondents in terms of placing high importance on collectivism values. Additionally, this importance placed on collectivism is consistent across all US age groups. As such, it would seem reasonable to ask why the US respondents attributed high importance to collectivism values? As a possible explanation, it may be the emphasis on teamwork, in both school and work environments, that has impacted the US respondents. For example, in schools, team sports are seen as valuable ways to build team-player skills. Group projects are common in both the classroom and workplace. In contrast, the Russians attribute less importance to collectivism values than do the others in our sample. This is due primarily to the Russian future-manager group, both male and female, and to a lesser extent, the 30- to 39-year-old current managers. In fact, the female Russian managers over 50 attribute significantly more importance to collectivism values than their male counterparts. Why do we see such a gap in Russia? The future manager group grew up after the fall of the Berlin wall and the dismantling of many Russian state-owned enterprises, along with the social “safety net.” During a critical time in their formative lives, many young Russians may have seen their parents struggle to adapt and survive in the new economy. These younger Russians now place less importance on collectivism values and more on self-reliance, perhaps out of perceived necessity.
Individualistic cultures tend to think of the business relationship in terms of reciprocal economic benefit. Priority is given to the task at hand as opposed to the relationship. For individualism, we found that future managers are more individualistic than their current-manager counterparts, except for Indonesia. As found for collectivism, there is a general clustering of countries by development stage, again indicating that socioeconomic development plays a role in shaping individualism values. US respondents are an exception. They are in the middle cluster, along with Brazil and Russia. Further, US managers, who are 40 years and older, place significantly less importance on individualism values than do the US future managers. We also see a significant gender gap between the male and female future managers and the 40- to 49-year-old current-manager age group in the United States. The future managers follow a global pattern in which they generally place more importance on individualism values than do their elders, and the young males place more importance on these values than do the young females. The exception to this pattern is the Vietnamese sample. The female Vietnamese future managers attribute less importance to collectivism values, and more importance to individualism values than do the male Vietnamese future managers. We do not have a definitive explanation for this curious finding, but we proffer as a possibility that in a lower socioeconomically developed, Confucian culture, to survive in the business world as a female, one needs to be more “aggressive” than one's male counterparts. Further, the gap between current and future managers is particularly large in Vietnam, as it is in Russia, the two transitioning communist countries in our survey.
For universalism, future managers attribute less importance to these values than do the current manager group. Current managers in their 30s also have significantly lower universalism scores than do managers in their 40s. However, the inconsistent across-countries findings for both the level of significance and the direction of development stage differences suggest that national culture has a weak influence on one's universalistic orientation. Brazilians, Vietnamese, and Germans are in the highest-scoring group, while Russians, Americans, and Indonesians score significantly lower. Brazilians place the most importance on universalism values, and there are no significant age or gender differences. Vietnamese are second, after Brazilians. This is driven by the current-manager group, as there is a significant gap between them and the future managers. Why are the US respondents in the second-lowest group? The findings show that it is due to the very low importance placed on universalism by future managers. Also, there is a gender gap, with US males placing less importance on universalism values than US females.
In sum, we find stronger support for age differences than for socioeconomic development. Of relevance is the Inglehart and Welzel (2005) modification to modernization theory indicating that life-stage differences should primarily be expected in developed societies. Our findings do not support this extension to modernization theory. We found similar life-stage differences across respondents from countries of different levels of socioeconomic development.
Although not a principal focus of this study, we found that gender contributed significantly to the models for individualism and collectivism, as noted earlier. Overall, males attribute more importance to individualism values than females do. This is driven primarily by the future manager age group in Brazil, Germany, Indonesia, and the United States. There were no significant gender differences among the Russian respondents. In Vietnam, however, it was the female future managers who placed significantly more importance on individualism than the male future managers. For collectivism, females were more collectivistic that their male counterparts, overall. This gap is particularly large for the 50- to 59-year-old managers in Russia and the 30 to 39 age group in Vietnam. Counter to what would be expected, the Vietnamese male future managers attribute significantly more importance to collectivism values than do the Vietnamese female future managers. There are no significant differences in the sample as a whole between males and females with regard to the importance of universalism values.
In terms of limitations, our six-country study is not a large enough sample to utilize multilevel modeling analyses to capture differences in the separate levels of individual, organization, and country. Additionally, we do not purport to have covered all potentially relevant exogenous influences. There are a number of other interesting possible influences to investigate at the macro level (e.g., corruption level, cultural tightness), meso level (e.g., organizational culture, industry), and micro level (e.g., educational level, religious orientation). These limitations identify aspects of the overarching question—which influences contribute to our understanding of values?—that were beyond the scope of this study. Nonetheless, our study does provide insight into the within-country values evolution, from the present to future managers, as well as the between-country values differences that exist and can be projected to exist in the future. Further, our findings indicate clear preliminary support for age differences and socioeconomic development as relevant influences in values formation and evolution. Thus, the foundational work of this study, including the identification of areas not covered by this study, provides directions for future research opportunities.
Conclusions
Our findings have several implications for global managers and project teams. For instance, those with US, Indonesian, or Vietnamese employees will need to find ways of demonstrating that their company values and reciprocates loyalty. Further, these employees are likely to understand the mutual obligations involved in being part of a productive project team. Those who attribute more importance to individualism values, as the younger Russians do, will seek individual recognition and rewards. If a team project does not provide this, these individuals will be more likely to either “free-ride” on the efforts of others or find some other way to gain individual recognition. Managers of younger Russians might consider motivating and rewarding these employees more on an individual basis with cash bonuses and promotions. Further, they should give the younger Russians specific responsibility for achieving objectives and goals, and for completing tasks. Those with both younger and older Russians in their project teams need to be particularly aware that there are considerable differences between these two age groups, and be prepared for potential conflict between the self-oriented younger individuals and the older individuals who value trustworthiness, loyalty, and compatibility with coworkers.
Universalism, which includes values such as unity with nature, equality, and social justice, shows that the Brazilian current and future managers, as well as the Vietnamese current managers, attribute higher importance to universalism values than do the other groups. The Russian and US future managers and the Indonesian current managers attribute less importance to universalism values. While we found a very small gap in universalism values between the Brazilian and German current and future managers, once again, the gap in values is largest between the Russian current and future managers. One implication for global managers is that Brazilians and older Vietnamese should be very responsive to corporate social responsibility programs and “green” efforts. However, managers should not expect as much enthusiasm from older Indonesians or from younger Russians or Americans. In terms of group project teams, the Brazilians and older Vietnamese should be more accepting of those who are different from themselves and treat them justly, while the older Indonesians and the younger Russians and Americans will be less “broad-minded.”
-
How does one know when it might be appropriate to shift from country-specific human resources policies to those that are more in line with corporate policies?
-
How can one predict the work values of one's future employee base overseas?
-
How can one predict whether what motivates current employees in a specific location will also work with future employees in that location?
While not providing definitive answers to these questions, we hope that this study will assist corporate managers to make predictions and plans regarding how to best manage their organizations in the six countries that we examined, as well as potentially other countries that share similarities with these six.
Biographical Information
Malika Richards is associate professor of management at Pennsylvania State University–Berks. She obtained her PhD in international business and strategic management from the Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Prior to graduate studies, she studied in Japan for a year and worked in Thailand for five years. She was recently a Fulbright scholar at Soochow University, Taiwan. Her research interests are the impact of culture on international management and multinational firm strategy. Her research has been published in journals such as the Journal of International Management, International Business Review, and the Journal of International Business Studies.
Carolyn P. Egri is a professor of management and organization studies in the Faculty of Business Administration at Simon Fraser University (Canada) as well as a visiting professor of management at Xi'an Jiaotong University (China). Dr. Egri has published extensively on the topics of international management, corporate environmental and social responsibility, leadership, and organization change. She has been guest coeditor of special issues for the Journal of International Management, Leadership Quarterly, and Journal of Management Education, and currently serves on the editorial boards of the Academy of Management Learning & Education, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Journal of Management Education, Journal of World Business, Management and Organization Review, and Organization & Environment. She has also served as a chair of the Organizations and the Natural Environment Division of the Academy of Management, and as a director of the Organizational Behavior Teaching Society.
David A. Ralston is a Knight Ridder research fellow at Florida International University. His research interests lie in the cross-cultural management areas related to values, ethics, influence, and corporate responsibility. He is a consulting editor for the Journal of International Business Studies. Additionally, he serves on the editorial boards of the Thunderbird International Business Review, Journal of International Management, Journal of World Business, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Management and Organization Review, Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, and Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies. He has also served as guest editor for the Journal of International Business Studies, the Academy of Management Review and the Journal of International Management. He is the AIB recipient of the 2007 Decade Award for best paper in 1997, and received the JIBS Best Reviewer award for 2008 and 2009. For more information, please go to http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/R/David.A.Ralston-1/.
Irina Naoumova, PhD, is an associate professor and a director of the Institute of Entrepreneurship and Economic Development at the University of Hartford Barney School of Business. Dr. Naoumova was a Fulbright Professor at the George Washington University, Washington, D.C.; a long-term visiting professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, associate professor at the State University–Higher School of Economics (Moscow, Russia), and Kazan State University, where she also served as a chair of the Department of Management. Her research interests are focused on various aspects of international management, firm performance, and good governance. She published in Journal of World Business, Corporate Governance: International Review, JIBS, MIR, and other journals. In the international arena, Dr. Naoumova is a board member of the Alliance of Universities for the Democracy, registered under the umbrella of UNESCO, and keeps an active involvement in various academic associations.
Tania Casado, PhD, is a professor at the University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil, as well as a psychologist. Her academic experience includes undergraduate and graduate (master's and PhD) teaching, dissertations and thesis supervision, new professor practice orientation, foreign student supervision, and new courses and curricula evaluation. She also teaches and coordinates MBAs and executive programs. She is a recipient of teaching and researches awards in Brazil and Japan. Her research interests include career and cross-cultural issues. She is the director of Career Services at USP and member of the board of counselors at USP Business School. She is a member of the board of counselors at SAY Institute and GESC Institute (linked to MBAs FIA Alumni Association). She is representative at large for the Career Division at the Academy of Management. She is also a consultant for global and international organizations in South America.
Florian v. Wangenheim is professor of services and technology marketing at the Technische Universität München, Germany. His doctoral degree is from the University of Mainz, Germany (2002). The results of his research appear in the Journal of Marketing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of International Business Studies, MSI Research Report Series, and Journal of Service Research, among others. For his work, he received the best service paper in 2007 award from the American Marketing Association, and various research awards from organizations such as the Academy of Management (AoM), the German Federal Ministry of Higher Education (BMBF), the Academy of Marketing Science (AMS), the German Marketing Association (DMV), and the German Association of Business Professors (VHB).
Vu Thanh Hung is associate professor of management at the National Economic University, Hanoi, Vietnam. He obtained his PhD in human resource management and labor economics from the National University, Hanoi, Vietnam. Prior to this, he received his MBA degree at Boise State University, Idaho. He was a visiting professor at Oklahoma University in 2002 and at Northern Territory University, Australia, in 1996. He is currently deputy director of the Business School, National Economic University, Hanoi, Vietnam. His research interests are human behavior in organizations. His research has been published in journals such as the Journal of International Business Studies, Economics and Development Review, and Labor Economics Review.
Andre A. Pekerti is a senior lecturer in the Strategy Cluster at UQ Business School. He is Indonesian-Chinese, born in Jakarta. Currently a naturalized New Zealander, Andre lives and works in Brisbane. Andre's multicultural background complements his research interest in international management and international organizational behavior. His primary research topics are cross-cultural organizational attribution, international and indigenous corporate governance, cross-cultural communication and cognitive consistency, and cultural intelligence. Andre consistently presents in a number of international conferences and has published in international journals, including Career Development Quarterly, International Journal of Conflict Management, International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, and Thunderbird International Business Review.
Sylvia Schroll-Machl works as an intercultural freelance trainer and coach conducting trainings in cooperation with a worldwide network of partners. She holds a degree in psychology and received a PhD in intercultural psychology from the University of Regensburg. Her clients are numerous international companies from Europe, the United States, and Asia. In addition to her career as a trainer, she is involved in research and publication projects related to intercultural business cooperation on a national as well as an international level. She is the author of several research-based intercultural books (e.g., Doing Business with Germans and Handbook of Intercultural Communication and Cooperation: Basics and Areas of Application) and publications, won the prize of the University of Economics Prague for the best international publication in 2000 and 2003, and worked as a columnist for intercultural business issues for the famous German newspaper FAZ. In addition, she has been working as a university lecturer in the field of intercultural communication for several European universities, especially in MBA programs. For more information, please go to www.schroll-machl.de.
