Cross-cultural research in management control systems design: a

Cross-cultural research in management control systemsdesign: a review of the current state

Graeme L. Harrison, Jill L. McKinnonSchool of Economic and Financial Studies, Macquarie University, New South Wales 2109, Australia

Abstract

This paper reviews cross-cultural research in management control systems (MCS) appearing in English-language

journals over the past 15 years. The objectives are to examine these studies for their convergence or otherwise withrespect to the state of our understanding of cultural e�ects on MCS design, and to analyse their theoretical andmethodological strengths and weaknesses to guide future research. The review identi®es four major weaknesses seen to

apply collectively to this research: (i) a failure to consider the totality of the cultural domain in theoretical exposition;(ii) a tendency to not consider explicitly the di�erential intensity of cultural norms and values across nations; (iii) atendency to treat culture simplistically both in the form of its representation as a limited set of aggregate dimensions,

and in the assumption of a uniformity and unidimensionality of those dimensions; and (iv) an excessive reliance on thevalue dimensional conceptualization of culture, which has produced a highly restricted conception and focus on cul-ture, and placed critical limits on the extent of understanding derived from the research to date. # 1999 Elsevier Sci-ence Ltd. All rights reserved.

A developing body of research in recent yearshas been directed at understanding the relationbetween national culture and the design of man-agement control systems (MCS) in di�erent coun-tries. This research has gained increasingprominence for two reasons. First, it is importantto the business community. With increasing glo-balization has come the opportunity and necessityfor companies, which may have operated pre-viously in only their home country, to establishinternational operations. The question of whetherthose companies can transport their domesticMCS overseas, or whether they need to redesignthe MCS according to the cultural imperatives ofthe overseas nations, is of considerable practicalsigni®cance. The research is also important to the

academic community. The design of MCS has beena mainstream issue in accounting research formany years. However, despite some early recogni-tion of the importance of culture (French et al.,1960 for example, with respect to budgetary par-ticipation), the great majority of MCS researchhas been conducted within single nations. In theabsence of examination of the in¯uence of culture,models of MCS design are under-speci®ed.

Although cultural research on MCS design isincreasing, it remains relatively recent in that itdates mainly from the 1980s, and may still beconsidered exploratory. As such, it seems anapposite time to review the studies to date withrespect to the state of our understanding of cul-tural e�ects on MCS design, and to analyse those

Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 483±506

0361-3682/98/$ - see front matter # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S0361-3682(97)00048-2

studies' theoretical and methodological strengthsand weaknesses with the purpose of guiding futureresearch.1

This paper seeks to provide such a review, andis organized as follows. The ®rst section brie¯ydiscusses the movement from the comparativeinternational studies of MCS prior to the 1980s tothe culture-theoretic studies which have pre-dominated in the past 15 years. These latter stu-dies are then tabulated and reviewed in aggregate,leading to the observation that while there is evi-dence of some convergence building with respectto the importance of culture's e�ect on MCSdesign, there are also substantive disparitiesamong the ®ndings. The paper then identi®es, andillustrates by reference to speci®c studies, fourmajor weaknesses in the research which may serveto explain some of the disparities and to informfuture research. These weaknesses are: (i) a failureto consider the totality of the cultural domain inthe theoretical development of some studies; (ii)an almost universal tendency to not considerexplicitly the di�erential intensity of culturalnorms and values across nations, resulting in afailure to distinguish between core and peripheralvalues in theoretical exposition; (iii) a tendency totreat culture simplistically both in the form of itsrepresentation by a limited set of aggregate valuedimensions, and in the assumption of a uniformand unidimensional nature of those dimensions;and (iv) an excessive reliance on the value dimen-sional conceptualization of culture which has pro-duced a highly restricted conception and focus onculture, and placed critical limits on our extent ofunderstanding.

The research reviewed is limited to studiesappearing in the main English-language researchjournals. These studies have predominantlyfocused on comparisons between a variety ofAsian nations and the Anglo-American nations ofthe U.S.A. and Australia, although one study inthe review (Frucot & Shearon, 1991) focused onMexico. While one reason for the concentration

on Asian and Anglo-American nations has beenthe appealing appearance of substantive di�er-ences between Eastern and Western cultures,nonetheless the geographic scope restriction ofsuch a concentration has to be acknowledged.

A further restriction on the scope of the paper isimposed by a speci®c characteristic of the studieswhich form the body of research in this area. Thischaracteristic is that the studies have beeninformed almost exclusively by the value-dimen-sional conception of culture in the cross-culturalpsychology literature, and, since the late 1980s,have been even further restricted and narrowed infocus through an almost total adoption of the(psychology based) work of Geert Hofstede. As aconsequence, the research has ignored other rele-vant literatures and perspectives on culture, nota-bly those in sociology, anthropology and history.This issue is identi®ed as the fourth weakness inthe extant research and is returned to later in thepaper in that capacity. However, it must beacknowledged at the outset that the body of stu-dies reviewed for this paper is subject to this nar-rowness of focus, and that the paper itself istherefore similarly restricted in the scope of itsreview and analysis.

1. From comparative international to culture-the-oretic research

Early comparative international studies, such asWhitt (1979), which found di�erences in the levelof budgetary participation between U.S. andMexican companies, and Chiu and Chang (1979),which found di�erences in the use of managementaccounting techniques between U.S. and Taiwa-nese companies, were criticised for their absence ofan underlying theory of culture. A similar criticismapplies to the later Daley, Jiambalvo, Sundem andKondo (1985) study of attitudes of Japanese andU.S. controllers and managers towards aspects ofbudgeting and control systems design. The criti-cism was, that although these studies purported tobe cross-cultural, they were essentially atheoreticabout what culture was, and therefore silent onwhat it was about culture that was associated withthe observed national di�erences. The criticism

1 Readers may also be interested in two other reviews of

cross-cultural studies in related areas in recent years; Smith's

(1992) survey of such studies of organizational behaviour, and

Gernon and Wallace's (1995) survey of culture-based studies in

international (®nancial) accounting.

484 G.L. Harrison, J.L. McKinnon / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 483±506

was expressed variously as culture being treated as`à packaged, unexamined variable'' (Rohner,1984, p. 111), `àn unspeci®ed independent con-struct'' (Bhagat & McQuaid, 1983, p. 685), a``black box'' (Pascale, 1978, p. 107), and a ``residualcategory to explain things not accounted for else-where'' (Kraut, 1975, p. 544).

Based on this criticism, advocates of cross-cul-tural research in the early 1980s were calling for an`ùnbundling'' of the cultural variable into its sub-components, which could then provide the basisfor theoretical explanations of relations betweenculture and other variables of concern. Bhagat andMcQuaid (1983, p. 685), for example, requiredthat di�erences in dependent variables ``shouldnot be attributed to di�erences in culture unlessand until components of the cultural constructhave been satisfactorily speci®ed in the study''.Similarly, Child (1981, p. 330) argued, that for astudy to be e�ectively cross-cultural, it needed todelineate theoretically which subcomponents ofculture were likely to be determinants of theorganizational and behavioural variables at issue,and to postulate those associations in advance ofempirical study.

An example of the `ùnbundling'' of culture intocomponents is the work of Hofstede (1980) who,from his survey of employee attitudes in the world-wide subsidiaries of IBM, disaggregated culture intofour norm values (which he termed ``dimensions'' ofculture): power distance (hereafter abbreviated toPD), individualism (IDV), uncertainty avoidance(UA) and masculinity (MAS). Subsequent researchidenti®ed a ®fth norm value, Confucian Dynamism(CD) (Hofstede & Bond, 1988). Hofstede (1984)ranked 50 nations and three regional groupings oneach of the ®rst four of these dimensions, or compo-nents, and Hofstede and Bond (1988) ranked 22nations on the Confucian Dynamism component.While there are alternative value dimensionalschema of culture developed both before and afterHofstede's work (e.g. Parsons & Shils, 1951;Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Triandis, 1995;Smith, Dugan & Trompenaars, 1996), Hofstede'stypology, together with the country rankings con-tained in his work, has been extensively, almostexclusively, adopted by cross-cultural researchersin MCS in recent years.

2. Cross-cultural MCS studies from 1980 to1996: convergence and disparity

The literature search for this paper yielded 20cross-cultural studies of MCS design appearing inmain English-language research journals since theearly 1980s. These studies are listed in chron-ological order in Table 1, which shows the coun-tries studied, sample size, research method, MCScharacteristics, and the cultural dimensions andsocietal values relied on in each study.

As part of our review, we sought to assess theextent of convergence or disparity in the studies interms of whether they provided evidence for oragainst culture's e�ect on MCS. The criterion waswhether the results in each study supported or didnot support a culture±MCS association, judgedagainst the signi®cance level imposed by the origi-nal authors.2 While this review allowed an assess-ment of reasonable convergence of support for thee�ect of culture across a wide range of MCS char-acteristics, such an assessment must be guardedgiven the substantial di�culties we encountered inundertaking it.

First, as Table 1 shows, a great variety of MCSand organizational characteristics has been exam-ined, and there has been very little replication orcon®rmatory work done on those characteristics.Even where more than one study has examined the``same'' MCS characteristic, the operational de®-nition of that characteristic has often varied, orinsu�cient de®nition has been provided to allowsome assurance of commonality. An example isthe MCS characteristic of formalization/rules andprocedures, which has been operationalized in avariety of ways in the seven di�erent studiesshown in Table 1 as examining this characteristic.Second, di�erent cultural dimensions have some-times been drawn on in di�erent studies to supportthe same culture±MCS linkage, and, even wherethe same cultural dimensions have been used, dif-ferent theories have sometimes been invoked.

2 No assessment of the speci®c nature of convergence or

disparity with respect to prescriptions or proscriptions of MCS

design in di�erent nations is attempted in this paper. Rather,

the focus is on the culture±MCS hypothesis generally, and on

the theoretical and methodological issues relevant to that

hypothesis.

G.L. Harrison, J.L. McKinnon / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 483±506 485

Table 1

Cross-cultural studies of management control system design post 1980

Study Country (sample size) Method MCS characteristic(s) Cultural dimension(s)/values

Lincoln, Hanada and Olson (1981) U.S.A. (522)Japanese companiesin U.S.A.

Survey questionnaire Vertical di�erentiationHorizontal di�erentiation

Hierarchical dependenceRankPaternalism

Birnbaum and Wong(1985)

Hong Kong (93)Multi-national banksin Hong Kong

Survey questionnaire CentralizationVertical di�erentiationHorizontal di�erentiation

Formalization

Power distanceUncertainty avoidanceHierarchy

Daley et al., (1985) Japan (385)U.S.A. (303)

Survey questionnaire Controllability; review by othersAutonomy in purchases; budget slackBudget development/participationCommunication with budgetsDollar vs quantities; evaluation with budgetsShort vs long run emphasisCompensation; motivationAnalytic orientation

No speci®c culturaldimensions drawn on

Lincoln, Hanada and McBride (1986) Japan (51)U.S.A. (55)

Structured interviewsSurvey questionnaire

Hierarchy height (vertical di�erentiation)Functional specialization (horizontal di�erentia-tion)Centralization of formal authorityParticipation in decision making at lower levels

of management

Hierarchical dependenceRankConsensus building

Snodgrass and Grant(1986)

Japan (550)U.S.A. (550)


Explicit vs implicit management control systems:Monitoring; Evaluation; Reward

HierarchyTrust and interdependenceHarmony

Birnberg and Snodgrass(1988)

Japan (550)U.S.A. (550)


Implicit vs explicit management control systems:Role de®nitionInformation disseminationPerformance recordingRule observation

Harmony and reciprocityCo-operationGroup versus individualHierarchy and dependenceKluckhohn and Strodtbeck,(1961) cultural dimensions

Chow, Shields and Chan (1991) Singapore (96)U.S.A. (96)

Experiment Work ¯ow interdependencePay interdependence

Individualism

Frucot and Shearon(1991)

Mexico (83) Survey questionnaire Relation between locus of control, budgetaryparticipation, performance, job satisfaction

Power distanceUncertainty avoidance

Vance, McClaine, Boje and Stage(1992)

ThailandIndonesia

MalaysiaU.S.A.707�68% response

Survey questionnaire Formality of structures and controlsIndividual vs team development

Employee involvement in appraisalIntrinsic versus extrinsic rewardsFeedback frequency

Uncertainty avoidancePower distance

Individualism

Harrison (1992) Singapore (115)Australia (96)

Survey questionnaire Relation between budgetary participation andreliance on accounting performance measures(budget emphasis) in manager evaluation

Power distanceIndividualism

486

G.L.Harriso

n,J.L.McK

innon/Acco

untin

g,Organiza

tionsandSociety

24(1999)483±506

Harrison (1993) Singapore (115)Australia (96)

Survey questionnaire Reliance on accounting performance measuresin superior evaluative style


Ueno and Sekaran

(1992)Ueno and Wu (1993)

U.S.A. (205)

Japan (247)

Survey questionnaire Formalizing communication and coordination in

budgetary planning processesBudgetary slackControllability in performance evaluationLength of time horizon in performance evaluationStructure of budget planning process

(procedures and rules)Time horizon in budget planning process

Individualism

Uncertainty avoidance

Harrison, McKinnon,Panchapakesan and Leung (1994)

U.S.A. (104)Australia (140)Singapore (65)Hong Kong (55)

Survey questionnaire Organizational design:DecentralizationResponsibility centres

Planning and control:Use of quantitative techniquesPlanning time horizonGroup vs individual decision makingFormalization

Power distanceIndividualismConfucian dynamism

Chow, Kato and Shileds (1994) U.S.A. (54)Japan (39)

Experiment Organizing:Environmental uncertainty, Hierarchy height,Centralization, Interdependencies,Formal rules

Planning:Top down planning, Standard di�culty

Evaluating:Controllability ®lters, Relative evaluation

Rewarding:Individual-based rewards, Preset pay

Power distanceIndividualismUncertainty avoidanceMasculinity

Lau, Low and Eggleton (1995) Singapore (112) Survey questionnaire Relation between budget emphasis, budgetaryparticipation and task characteristics a�ecting

jobrelated tension and performance


Merchant, Chow and Wu (1995) Taiwan (23)U.S.A. (54)

Open-ended,in-depth interviews

Size of performance dependent rewardsGroup vs individual-based performance rewards

Long term performance incentivesSubjective vs objective performance evaluations

Power distanceCollectivism

Confucian dynamismUncertainty avoidanceMasculinity

O'Connor (1995) Singapore (125) Survey questionnaire Participation in budget settingParticipation in evaluation

Power distance

Chow, Shield and Wu (1996a) Taiwan (155) Survey questionnaire Decentralization, Structuring of activities,Participative budgeting, Standard tightness,Performance rewards, Controllability ®lters,Reliance on accounting performance measures,Participative performance evaluation

Power distanceIndividualismConfucian dynamismUncertainty avoidanceMasculinity

Chow, Kato and Merchant (1996b) U.S.A. (54)Japan (28)

Survey questionnaire Control tightnessProcedural controlsControls through directives at meetings

CollectivismPower distanceUncertainty avoidance

G.L.Harriso

n,J.L.McK

innon/Acco

untin

g,Organiza

tionsandSociety

24(1999)483±506

487

Third, although the survey questionnaire hasbeen the predominant (almost universal) methodused to date, di�erences in sample sizes, manage-rial level and location of respondents, and thedegree to which other variables are controlled for,all contribute to a di�culty in assessing con-vergence or disparity in the ®ndings. The failure ofVance et al. (1992) to control for the backgroundsof respondents in their study is an example. Vanceet al. (1992) studied perceptions of managementperformance systems in the U.S., Thailand, Indo-nesia and Malaysia, expecting them to di�erbetween the U.S. and the three Asian nations.While some signi®cant di�erences were found inthat comparison, it was also found, contrary toexpectations, that there was as much di�erencebetween the three Asian nations themselves asthere was between those nations and the U.S. Amethodological cloud on the Vance et al. (1992)results is the considerable systematic variations inthe backgrounds of the respondents from theAsian nations, particularly in the proportion whohad studied or worked abroad.

A further example is Birnbaum and Wong(1985), who surveyed 93 Chinese managers in 20multinational banks in Hong Kong to examine therelation between job satisfaction and four ele-ments of organizational structure; vertical andhorizontal di�erentiation, centralization and for-malization. The home country of the banks wasused to proxy for culture, and the banks wereclassi®ed into a cultural matrix based on Hof-stede's (1980) rankings for PD and UA. However,there was substantial variation in the distributionof respondents across the cells. The data weredominated by a concentration of the sample (64out of 93) in the low PD/low UA cell, with lownumbers (12, 13 and 14) in the other three cells.

While our assessment of the studies in Table 1showed evidence of some convergence building forculture's e�ect on MCS characteristics (with thecaveat of the issues in the preceding paragraphs),it also showed substantive disparities among ®nd-ings, with a number of studies reporting theabsence of a cultural e�ect and others producingequivocal results. The remainder of this paperidenti®es several key issues or weaknesses arisingfrom analysis of the research, which may help

both to explain some of the disparity in the resultsto date, and to guide future research. Theseweaknesses were noted earlier as: (i) a failure toconsider the totality of the cultural domain intheoretical exposition; (ii) a tendency to not con-sider explicitly the di�erential intensity of culturalnorms and values across nations; (iii) a tendencyto treat culture simplistically; and (iv) an excessivereliance on the value dimensional conceptualiza-tion of culture. Each of these weaknesses is nowdiscussed in turn.

The ®rst three issues relate to de®ciencies andweaknesses with the way in which cross-culturalMCS research to date has operationalized culturewithin a functionalist conception based on normsand values. Ways in which future research may beenhanced within this conception are proposed.The fourth issue relates to limitations imposed bythis conception of culture, and leads to discussionof how other conceptions from the sociology,anthropology and history literatures may allowfuture research to open up new understandings ofMCS in cultural contexts.

3. Failure to consider the totality of the culturaldomain: omitted dimensions

As Table 1 shows, there has been a tendency inmany of the cross-cultural MCS studies to selectsome cultural dimensions for use in the theoreticalspeci®cation of the study, and to ignore others.While all dimensions do not need to be present inthe theory speci®cation, they are of course presentin the empirics, in that respondent samples fromdi�erent societies bring with them the totality ofthose societies' cultures, not just the ones drawnon in the theory. Consequently, the choice to omita dimension from the theoretical exposition of thestudy must be taken on an equally theory-drivenevaluation of the irrelevance of the dimension tothe dependent variable or relation at issue. Chowet al. (1991) is an example of good practice here.Although they relied only on IDV in their experi-mental study of work¯ow and pay inter-dependence in Singapore and the U.S., theydemonstrated that IDV was the most relevantdimension for the MCS characteristic they


studied. Alternatively, the omitted dimension mustbe otherwise attended to in the study's methodol-ogy; for example, by matching the cultures understudy on this dimension. Harrison (1992, 1993) isan example of where sample countries were mat-ched on dimensions not implicated in the theory.While there are examples of good practice in theresearch reviewed, there are also instances wherethe choice of dimensions and countries has notbeen adequately motivated, with the result that apartial explanation for some of the disparity in theresearch ®ndings to date appears to lie in the the-oretical omission of relevant dimensions.

Frucot and Shearon (1991) is an example. Theyfocused on budgetary participation, and sought toexamine the cross-cultural generalizability ofBrownell's (1982) study of participation amongU.S. managers. They hypothesized that Brownell'sresults might not generalize to Mexico, on thegrounds that Mexican society was ranked (byHofstede, 1980) as higher on PD and UA than theU.S., and that high rankings on these dimensionswould be associated with a preference for anautocratic, rule-based organization, and for lessparticipation. Frucot and Shearon's results wereessentially contrary to their expectations. Althoughthe results suggested that some cultural e�ect mightbe present in managerial level and ®rm ownershipsubsets of their samples, their main ®nding wasthat no cultural e�ect was present, and thatBrownell's U.S. results essentially did generalize toMexico.

However, although Frucot and Shearon notedthat the U.S. and Mexico also di�ered on the cul-tural dimension of IDV (with Mexico more col-lectivist), they did not formally incorporate thelikely e�ects of such a di�erence into their theory.Yet a relatively substantial amount of literaturesuggests an association between collectivism and apreference for participation (Lincoln & McBride,1987; Chow et al., 1991, p. 211; Harrison, 1992).While concurring theoretically with Frucot andShearon that PD is an important cultural in¯uenceon reactions to participation, with high (low) PDassociated with negative (positive) reactions, Har-rison (1992) argued that IDV is also an importantin¯uence which cannot be ignored in theoreticalspeci®cation, with low (high) IDV being asso-

ciated with positive (negative) reactions. Thus,Harrison hypothesized and found that if a societywere both high PD and low IDV (as is Mexico) orlow PD and high IDV (as is the U.S.), the poten-tial e�ects of participation would be similar in andhence generalizable to both societies. As this is theresult Frucot and Shearon essentially found, whatthey interpreted as a non-cultural result based onthe theoretical inclusion of PD and UA alone,may, in fact, be quite the opposite and evidence ofa culturally consistent ®nding with the theoreticalinclusion of IDV.3

A methodological concern with the Frucot andShearon study is that they did not measure PDand UA to provide support that their respondentsample was re¯ective of the cultural dimensionsthey were asserting for Mexico. While it may beargued that such measurement is not necessary, onthe grounds that culture's e�ects are present in thelocation of the individual in the society manifest-ing that culture, nonetheless it seems sensible toassess whether the respondent sample is consistentin its collective values with that of the society it isbeing used to represent. This is a methodologi-cal concern widely applicable to the extantresearch, in that few studies (exceptions areChow et al., 1991; Harrison, 1992, 1993; Harri-son et al., 1994; and O'Connor, 1995) haveformally measured the cultural dimensions onwhich they rely for their respondent samples.

A second example of omitted dimensions isBirnbaum and Wong (1985), who drew on Hof-stede's dimension of UA to hypothesize that HongKong nationals would prefer lower levels of hor-izontal di�erentiation than (by implicit contrast)U.S. nationals. They formed this hypothesisbecause ``Hofstede (1980, p. 315) found that Hong

3 This point needs to be made cautiously because Harrison

(1992) used Singapore and Australia to proxy for high PD/low

IDV and low PD/high IDV cultures, respectively. Thus, the

conclusion about the cultural consistency of Frucot and

Shearon's ®ndings relies on the assumption that the intensity or

relative importance of PD and IDV are the same in their e�ects

on participation in the nations studied by Harrison (1992)

(Singapore and Australia) and by Frucot and Shearon (1991)

(Mexico, and by implicit comparison, the U.S.). This assump-

tion may not hold as the following section dealing with the

issue of core and peripheral values will demonstrate.


Kong employees had a strong preference for lowlevels of uncertainty avoidance, which isstrongly associated with low levels of horizontaldi�erentiation (Hofstede, 1980, p. 187)'' (Birn-baum & Wong, 1985, p. 265). Birnbaum andWong's results failed to support their hypoth-esis. This is not surprising, however, in thattheir hypothesis was developed by the selectedand abstracted juxtaposition of two separatequotes from Hofstede, without consideration ofother cultural attributes of Hong Kong societywhich are highly likely to a�ect preferred levelsof horizontal di�erentiation in that country.Birnbaum and Wong's theoretically uncriticalselection of UA obscured a number of otherimportant considerations, including, most nota-bly in this instance, the evidence from otherresearch. The anomalous situation arises forBirnbaum and Wong whereby, although theymotivate their study from Lincoln et al. (1981),they ignore the ®nding of that study in the for-mulation and assessment of their theory. Lin-coln et al. (1981) found a low level ofhorizontal di�erentiation in Japan, a nationwhere UA is high, whereas Birnbaum andWong hypothesized a low level of horizontaldi�erentiation in Hong Kong where, andbecause, UA is low.

4. Di�erential intensity of cultural norms andvalues: core and peripheral values

Table 1 shows that considerable research atten-tion has been focussed on Anglo-American (parti-cularly the U.S. and Australia) vs Asian(particularly Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong)societies, and has relied substantially on di�er-ences across those societies in PD, IDV and UA.Because the Anglo-American cluster nations aretypically regarded as higher IDV and lower PDthan the Asian ones, the studies have tended toassume that IDV and PD are values maintainedwith equal intensity and importance in each ofthese nations. The extreme instance of thisassumption is Harrison (1992), who, as notedabove, predicated his hypothesis that responses toparticipation would be similar in a low PD/high

IDV culture and a high PD/low IDV one, on theargument that these composite cultures comprisedequal and o�setting levels of PD and IDV withrespect to their impact on participation. That is,he assumed that the weight and intensity of thedimensions of PD and IDV in the two nations hestudied were equal. However, as Lachman, Neddand Hinings (1994, p. 14) argue:

...not all values are equally important (in allnations), or have the same impact in regulatingbehavior. Cultural values ought to be di�er-entiated in terms of the impact they have inlegitimizing and directing choices of modes oforganizing and patterns of managerial beha-vior.

Lachman et al. (1994, p. 41) go on to argue that``the impact cultural values have is determined bytheir centrality within the value system of a cul-tural setting more than by their prevalence in thissetting'' (emphasis added). They distinguish valueswhich are central to a culture as core, and thosewhich are not as peripheral, and contend (p. 41)that ``the more important and central the value,the stronger will be its impact and the more con-sequential it will be for di�erences in organiza-tional and managerial practices''. By extension,the more central a value, the more enduring andresistant to change it is, both across time and incompetition with contrary values. By contrast,peripheral values are less stable and less enduring,with members of the society either manifestingdi�erent levels of attachment to them, or evendisregarding them (Lachman et al., 1994, p. 42).

The concept of core versus peripheral valuesmay explain some of the disparity in existing ®nd-ings from the cultural studies of MCS, and may beuseful in guiding future research. First, it may be apotential explanation of the reported failure to ®ndcultural e�ects in the results of Ueno and Sekaran(1992) (and, by extension, Ueno and Wu (1993), asboth papers report the same study), and Birnbaumand Wong (1985).

As Table 1 shows, Ueno and Sekaran (1992)studied six budget control practices in manu-facturing companies in Japan and the U.S. Theresults were as hypothesized for four of the six


practices. Compared to Japanese companies, U.S.companies (i) used formal communication andcoordination in budget planning processes, (ii)built slack into budgets, and (iii) practised con-trollability of budgets to a greater extent, and (iv)used long-term evaluation horizons to a lesserextent. The remaining two hypotheses that Japa-nese companies would structure their budget plan-ning processes, and use long time horizons in thoseprocesses to a greater extent than U.S. companieswere not supported. The supported four were pre-mised on di�erences in IDV between Japan and theU.S., and the unsupported two were premised ondi�erences in UA. Similarly, Birnbaum and Wong(1985) found support for a greater preference forcentralization in decision making in Hong KongChinese organizations (in implied comparison withthe U.S.), with this cultural expectation premisedon di�erences in PD; but found no cultural e�ectfor other structural characteristics when the cul-tural expectations were premised on UA.

Ueno and Sekaran (1992) commented that thereappeared to be a di�erence in the relative sig-ni®cance of IDV and UA within the national andMCS contexts of their study; a comment whichmay have been implicit recognition of the coreversus peripheral value argument of Lachman etal. (1994). Relevant to both Ueno and Sekaranand Birnbaum and Wong is that there is evidenceto suggest that IDV is a core value of both U.S.and Japanese societies, and PD a core value ofChinese society (Lachman et al., 1994, p. 49),while there is also evidence to suggest that UAmay not be a core value in these societies.Although UA was identi®ed in Hofstede's (1980)study as one of the four dimensions on whichsocieties di�ered, and has been supported in otherstudies (Bosland, 1984), the UA dimension wasnot found to be present in the Chinese Value Sur-vey (CVS) (Hofstede & Bond, 1988), or in Smith etal.'s (1996) value dimensional analysis across 43nations. The CVS results raise the question ofwhether UA is a cultural dimension relevant only towestern nations (and discernible only in instrumentsdeveloped with western biases), while the Smith etal. (1996) results question UA's relevance morefundamentally. Further support for the irrele-vance, or at best peripheral nature of the UA

value in non-western societies is the substantialvariation found among Chinese-based nations onmeasure of this dimension.4

An implication of core versus peripheral valuesfor research relying on value dimensional analysisis that the basis for choice of the dimensions can-not be made solely on grounds of di�erences innational scores on the dimensions. While we notedthat Ueno and Sekaran (1992) may have implicitlyrecognized the issue of core versus peripheralvalues, that recognition was ex post and for-tuitous, and arose because of the insu�cient theo-retical premise for their choice of IDV and UA,which was that these were the two culturaldimensions on which the U.S. and Japan are``maximally di�erentiated in Hofstede's empiricalstudy'' (Ueno & Sekaran, 1992, p. 662). Hence, itwas conjectured that these two dimensions ``wouldexplain ... any di�erences that might exist in budgetcontrol practices in the two countries'' (Ueno &Sekaran, 1992, p. 671). Their results and theLachman et al. (1994) work demonstrate that it isnot su�cient to choose cultural dimensions on thebasis of their di�erences on Hofstede's (or others')scoring alone. Rather, such choice must also beinformed by the centrality and intensity of thedimensions in the contexts of both the societies andtheMCS characteristics at issue. Reinterpreting theUeno and Sekaran (1992) and Birnbaum andWong (1985) results in the light of core versusperipheral values suggests that those of their®ndings which did not support a cultural e�ect maynot be evidence of the absence of such an e�ect

4 On Hofstede's (1980, p. 165) country UA index (with an

observed range of 8 to 112 for low to high UA), Chinese-based

nations range from 8 (Singapore) through 29 (Hong Kong) to

69 (Taiwan). As an example of subsequent measures, Harrison

et al. (1994) administered Hofstede's original instrument to

managers in Australia, U.S., Singapore and Hong Kong. While

the scores for PD and IDV were consistent with Hofstede's

across all four countries for PD particularly, and IDV to a les-

ser extent, they were quite variant on UA for the Chinese

societies. Singapore was scored at 52 in Harrison et al. com-

pared to Hofstede's score of 8, and Hong Kong at 63 compared

to 29. Similarly, Cragin (1986), cited in Smith et al. (1996,

p. 121), used Hofstede's instrument with a PRC sample and

found high collectivism and high power distance (in accord

with Hofstede), but, in contrast to Hofstede's scores for

Chinese-based cultures, found a high score for uncertainty

avoidance.


at all, but evidence, rather, of an invalid test ofculture through the use of peripheral or irrelevantcultural values.

A second implication of the centrality of valuesrelates to research examining whether multi-national companies need to modify their domesticMCS to suit the national culture of a foreigncountry, or whether they can create an organiza-tional culture in the foreign subsidiary withinwhich their domestic MCS can be implemented.Much of the research has been premised implicitlyon the former assumption, with Chow et al.(1996a) lending evidence to support this by ®nding,in their study of eight MCS characteristics inJapanese and U.S. organizations operating inTaiwan, that the organizations from both coun-tries substantially modi®ed their MCS to suit thedi�erent Taiwanese culture. By contrast, O'Con-nor (1995) found evidence of ®rms' modifying(through selection, socialization and training) themicrocosmic organizational cultures of their over-seas subsidiaries to suit the ®rms' home o�ceMCS. This is not inconsistent with Chow et al.(1996a); rather it suggests that organizations havea choice, and that the choice is dependent on thecosts of modifying the organizational culture ver-sus those of modifying and maintaining di�erentMCS in di�erent nations. No research has yetexamined the cost/bene®t issue. However, when itdoes, it will need to be cognisant of the centralityof values issue. One of the criteria di�erentiatingcore and peripheral values is their resistance tochange (Lachman et al., 1994, p. 41), suggestingthat the costs of modifying components of orga-nizational cultures where those componentsinvolve core national values are likely to be muchgreater than where they involve peripheral values.

Lachman et al. (1994, pp. 50±52) provide amatrix framework of core vs peripheral values atboth organizational and national levels, and sug-gest abstracted strategies for organizational adap-tation in each combination cell. While they suggestdi�erent strategies for each of the four cells, essen-tially they argue that where a core cultural value isinvolved, the costs of challenging that value andseeking to change it are likely to be high in terms ofcon¯ict, friction, alienation of organizational con-stituencies, and impaired e�ectiveness. They provide

examples to ``suggest that even a very powerful andculturally indigenous organization may ®nd itmore e�ective to accommodate core cultural valuesthan to challenge them'' (Lachman et al., 1994, p. 51).While the Lachman et al. strategies are not directedtowards MCS, they are su�ciently generic to pro-vide an informative model for future MCS work.

5. Simplistic treatment of culture

Perhaps the major weakness in the studiesreviewed for this paper is a tendency to assume anexcessive simplicity about the nature of culturalvalues and dimensions, and to neglect the greaterdepth, richness and complexity of culture and cul-tural diversity, which those dimensions cannotcapture. Expressed one way, this is the tendency toassume, for example, that ``PD is PD is PD'', andthat theory and empirical results associated withone high PD country are therefore applicable toother high PD nations. Harrison's (1992) frame-work for studying the cross-cultural general-izability of MCS, developed from his study ofparticipation in Singapore and Australia, is per-haps the most striking example of this simplisticapproach. This is exempli®ed in his conclusionthat, because 32 other countries exhibit the highPD/low IDV characteristics of Singapore and 15the low PD/high IDV characteristics of Australia(as reported by Hofstede, 1980), the ``results ofresearch into the e�ects of participation (in Singa-pore and Australia) may therefore have wide-spread application and generalizability cross-nationally'' (Harrison, 1992, p. 13).

This conclusion is sustainable only on theassumption that the form and nature of PD andIDV, and their implications for MCS, are thesame across those 32 and 15 nations. Yet thecross-cultural psychology and sociology literaturesprovide evidence that this is not the case, with theform and nature of these and other culturaldimensions being quite di�erent among, and evenwithin, societies (Triandis, 1995). The dimensionsof PD and IDV are drawn on here to illustrate thediversity and complexity of cultural characteristicsacross and within societies. PD and IDV are cho-sen because they have received the strongest


concordance across value dimensional studies(Schwartz, 1994; Smith et al., 1996).

5.1. Power distance (PD)

Lincoln et al. (1981) point out a major di�er-ence in the nature of PD in vertical hierarchicalrelationships in, for example, France compared toJapan (two nations classi®ed in the high PD clus-ter as scored by Hofstede, 1984, p. 214). They notethat while PD manifests in relatively rigid verticaldi�erentiation in social and organizational struc-tures in both societies, the underlying reasons forsuch manifestation are virtually opposite, leadingto contrasting rather than common expectationsfor related issues such as MCS design. Drawing onCrozier (1964), Lincoln et al. (1981) note thatbureaucratic rigidity in France is based on theFrench distaste for relationships of personaldependency.

Bureaucratic forms in France...are shaped toallow organization under authoritarian admin-istration while elaborate structural barriers(rules, rigid division of labour) shelter employeesfrom personal dependencies (Lincoln et al.,1981, pp. 93±94).5

By contrast, drawing on Marsh and Mannari(1976) and Rohlen (1974), Lincoln et al. (1981)describe how an equivalent emphasis on verticaldi�erentiation in Japan is premised on a pre-ference for paternalism and for high levels ofdependency and commitment in hierarchical rela-tionships.

While Crozier saw French organizationalforms responding to the French need to avoiddependency ties, vertical di�erentiation inJapanese organizations can be traced directlyto a Japanese cultural expectation of relationsof precisely this sort (Lincoln et al., 1981,pp. 95±96).

Whitley (1991) also discusses the dependencyand mutual trust nature of vertical relationshipsin Japanese organizations, and allows insightinto how the form and nature of power distancevaries between Japan and other East Asian, par-ticularly Chinese, societies, where PD translatesinto a more authoritarian relationship betweensuperior and subordinate.

Japanese managers are not expected to be asremote and aloof from subordinates as areChinese and Korean ones. A key part of theirrole is to maintain high morale and perfor-mance and they are less directive or didacticthan managers in Korean and Chinese ®rms.These di�erences in managerial authority areechoed by variations in employment policiesand practices which together generateconditional loyalties in Chinese and Koreanbusinesses as opposed to...èmotional' loyal-ties in Japanese kaisha (Whitley, 1991, p. 3;references in the original quotation areomitted.)

Bond (1991) also elaborates on the paternalisticbut more authoritarian relationship betweensuperior and subordinate in Chinese society com-pared to Japan. Bond (1991, p. 79) notes thatChinese managers:

spend less time consulting in large meetings,reasoning with peers, persuading sub-ordinates, making concessions within theworkplace...and...spend more time makingdecisions alone, giving orders, supervising theexecution of those orders personally.

Thus, although the nations illustrated (France,Japan and Chinese-based societies) may be clus-tered as high PD, and distinguished from anAnglo-American cluster of low PD nations, thevariation in the form and nature of power distancein the high PD cluster, at least, means that it is notsu�cient to premise MCS studies on an assumedcommonality of PD implications for MCS designacross these nations. MCS characteristics such asparticipation, the use of implicit versus explicitcontrols, and information ¯ows, are all likely to be

5 Triandis, McCusker, Betancourt, Iwao, Leung, Salazar

et al. (1993) provide empirical support for the strong rejection

of dependence in France in that, of the ten nations they studied,

rejection of dependence was strongest in France and was

accompanied by an equally strong rejection of sociability.


di�erentially a�ected by the di�erent forms andnature of PD in these nations.

With respect to information ¯ows for example,Snodgrass and Grant (1986), in their study of therelative emphasis on implicit versus explicit con-trols in the monitoring, evaluation and rewardcomponents of the MCS in companies in Japanand the U.S., noted that the emphasis on thehierarchy is a strength in Japanese ®rms in that itcontributes to more open lines of communicationand enhanced information sharing. This occursbecause the high degree of vertical di�erentiation`èliminates the need to hoard information forone's own career or advancement. Because everyoneknows what their personal interdependencies are (asde®ned by the hierarchy), information can beshared'' (Snodgrass & Grant, 1986, p. 214). Addedto this is the trust relationship which maintainsbetween hierarchical levels in Japanese organiza-tions (Snodgrass & Grant, 1986, p. 215; Whitley,1991, p. 3). Snodgrass and Grant (1986, p. 215)argue, that because of the trust and personalinterdependence that underscores the hierarchy,the hierarchy is ``probably the strongest controlmechanism in these (Japanese) companies''.

By contrast, the hierarchy may be seen as anobstacle to the free ¯ow and open exchange ofinformation in Chinese-based organizations. Bond(1991, p. 83) argues this way when noting themore authoritarian and distanced nature of rela-tionships in Chinese hierarchies.

Subordinates are less likely to volunteer opi-nions, take individual initiative, or depart fromstandard operating procedures without a super-ior's approval. For the consequences of makinga mistake will devolve upon the subordinateand there will be little institutional protectionagainst the superior's wrath (Bond, 1991, p. 83).

This authoritarian and distanced relationship,combined with loyalties which Bond notes are`ònly as wide as the immediate boss's range ofrelationships...and hence...di�cult to meld into anorganization-wide a�liation...often results ininter-departmental indi�erence, stonewalling, andcompetitiveness in Chinese organizations'' (Bond,1991, p. 84).

The foregoing examples which demonstrate thesubstantially di�erent (indeed, opposite) e�ects onMCS characteristics arising from di�erences in theform and nature of PD in nations otherwise clas-si®ed in aggregate as high PD, also demonstratethe need for future studies to draw more deeply onthe literatures that allow a richer, more complexunderstanding of the cultures of speci®c societies.It is salutary to note that the examples given(Lincoln et al., 1981; Snodgrass & Grant, 1986)are both early studies in the research reviewed anddid not draw on Hofstede's (1980) dimensions.Rather, they drew on in-depth sociological andanthropological works on the speci®c countriesand cultures at issue (Crozier's (1964), sociology-based treatise on French bureaucracy and Roh-len's (1974) anthropological study of Japanese``white-collar'' organizations). As such, they wereinformed by a deeper understanding of the com-plexity and diversity of culture in the nations atissue than were the later studies in the review.These later studies have tended to seize uponHofstede's aggregated and clustered dimensions,and, as a result, have glossed over important dif-ferences and nuances in culture and drawninappropriate and simplistic conclusions.

5.2. Individualism/collectivism (IDV)

The failure to recognize or capture the complex-ity and diversity of culture in much of the cross-cultural MCS research is evident also in the treat-ment of Individualism/Collectivism (IDV). Devel-oping in parallel with the MCS research is asubstantial body of research into individualism andcollectivism in the psychology literature, the resultsof which suggest a number of important con-siderations in the examination of IDV in cross-cul-tural MCS research. Two of these are (i) thecomplex factor structure of collectivism and thevariation in that structure among nations whichmay, in more aggregate terms, be classi®ed as col-lectivist, and (ii) the focus of collectivism in termsof the de®nition of the ingroup.

5.2.1. Factor structure of collectivism

Triandis (1995) notes that there are a large num-ber of di�erent types of collectivism and


individualism. With respect to individualism, he(1995, pp. 45±46, 95±99) provides examples of dif-ferences between Swedish, North American, Aus-tralian, British, German and French individualism.With respect to collectivism, Triandis et al. (1993,p. 377) argue, and demonstrate through their studyof 1614 people in ten countries, that ``cultures arenot 'monolithically collectivist' but that there issubstantial complexity in their tendencies towardscollectivism''. Their ®ndings for Indonesia illus-trate their argument. While they found that Indo-nesia shared values of a strong rejection ofseparation from the group with some other col-lectivist nations, and a strong emphasis on socia-bility with others, they also found a number of``collectivist'' factors which emerged uniquely forIndonesia (including a�liation without competi-tion), and which therefore distinguished the formand structure of Indonesian collectivism from thatof other equally strong collectivist societies.

Triandis (1989, 1995) also invokes Pelto's (1968)distinction between tight and loose (or homo-geneous and heterogeneous) cultures as an impor-tant consideration in assessing e�ects ofcollectivism. Tight cultures are ones in which``norms and values of ingroups are similar (andwhich are) rigid in requiring that ingroup mem-bers behave according to the ingroup norms''; bycontrast ``heterogeneous societies have groupswith dissimilar norms (and) are ¯exible in dealingwith ingroup members who deviate from groupnorms'' (Triandis, 1989, p. 511). Triandis (1989)argues that there is considerable variation in thedegree of ``tightness'' or ``looseness'' within col-lectivist nations.

This point allows potential explanation forsome of the disparity in prior cross-cultural MCSresearch. For example, Triandis (1989, 1995)determined that Japan constituted a tight collecti-vist culture, while Thailand, China and India wererelatively loose, with Thailand being singled out asa particularly loose collectivist culture. This isconsistent with, and may explain, the ®ndings ofVance et al. (1992) in their study of performanceevaluation systems in Thailand, Malaysia andIndonesia that the Thais seemed to be more indi-vidualistic than collectivist when compared to theother two East Asian nations. In explaining the

looseness of Thai collectivism, Triandis (1989,p. 511) highlights Thailand's ``marginal positionbetween the major cultures of India and China''with the result that Thai ``people are pulled indi�erent directions by sometimes contrastingnorms, and hence they must be more ¯exible inimposing their norms''. Added to this, Vance etal. (1992, p. 322) noted the widespread in¯uence ofTheravada Buddhism in Thailand which stressestolerance for individual diversity and initiative.Thus, the ®ndings of Vance et al., which may beseen as anomalous from an assumption of com-monality and uniformity of collectivism, areexplicable with recognition of the diversity of thedimension's factor structure.6

5.2.2. Focus of collectivism

There is a tendency in the cross-cultural MCSresearch to assume that collectivist nations prefergroup situations over individual ones, with a vari-ety of prognoses for, inter alia, participation(Harrison, 1992; Lau et al., 1995; Chow et al.,1996a), decision making processes (Harrison et al.,1994), and incentive schemes (Chow et al., 1991;Chow et al., 1994; Merchant et al., 1995); and thatsuch preferences are driven by a collectivist orien-tation to the group situation generically andabsolutely. However, there is now considerableevidence that the assumption of a generic orienta-tion to group situations is invalid. In this respect,Kagitcibasi and Berry (1989) point out that whothe group is makes a critical di�erence. They,along with many other writers in this area such asEarley (1993), Triandis (1989) and Bond (1991),distinguish between ingroups and outgroups, andcontend that subjects from collectivist culturesexhibit the behavioural characteristics typically

6 An additional complexity is the assumption that individu-

alism/collectivism is unidimensional. While Hofstede's scoring

of countries on this dimension suggests unidimensionality, and

MCS studies have tended to assume accordingly, the psychol-

ogy literature suggests otherwise. Kagitcibasi and Berry (1989)

show that individualism and collectivism are not mutually

exclusive. Similarly Bochner (1994), in his study of Malaysian

(collectivist) and Australian and British (individualist) subjects,

found that all three subject samples had more idiocentric than

group self-descriptions, although the ratio of group to idio-

centric statements was signi®cantly higher in Malaysia com-

pared to the two individualist cultures.


associated with collectivism only with members ofthe in-group; by contrast, ``with out-group mem-bers their behaviour resembles that of subjectsfrom individualistic cultures'' (Kagitcibasi &Berry, 1989, p. 517).

Triandis (1988, pp. 74±75) de®nes an ingroup asa group whose members share many commoninterests and traits and are concerned about eachother's welfare, with Kagitcibasi and Berry (1989)and Triandis (1988) both demonstrating how themeaning and membership of ingroups (and out-groups) vary across collectivist cultures. Whitley(1991), in his study of the social construction ofbusiness systems in East Asia which contrasts theJapanese kaisha, the Korean chaebol, and theChinese family business, makes the distinctionthat the collectivist orientation of the Japanese istowards the organization, and that of the Chinesetowards the family.7 Thus, while the focus of col-lectivism in Japan might be relatively closelyaligned with the organization, with the sharing ofinterests at corporate level resulting in theobserved commitment to the organization of mostemployees therein (Whitley, 1991), the situation isdi�erent in Chinese nations where the corporationis likely to comprise multiple ingroups and out-groups aligned with more restricted workgroupswithin the corporation. This latter situation givesrise to a number of observed behaviours in cor-porations in Chinese collectivist cultures which arenot normally or generically associated with col-lectivism.8

The distinction between ingroups and out-groups has not been clearly recognized or addres-sed in the MCS research employing the

collectivism dimension, and may account for someof the disparity or absence of ®ndings. Chow et al.(1991), for example, hypothesized that peoplefrom individualist cultures would perform betterunder work¯ow and pay independence (i.e. inde-pendence from groups and others), and peoplefrom collectivist cultures would perform bestunder work¯ow and pay interdependence (withgroups and others). Their results, obtained froman experiment within which Singaporean and U.S.university students undertook a task of translatingtriplets of numbers into alphabetic letters via atranslation code, showed no, or only limited sup-port for their interactive culture hypotheses. Thefailure to ®nd the hypothesized e�ect may well beattributable to the failure of their experimentalmanipulation to establish the ingroup/outgrouprelationship with su�cient reality and intensity toactivate the presumed collective behaviours. Chowet al. (1991, p. 215) note:

Cultural individualism was controlled experi-mentally by obtaining half of the sample fromSingapore and the other half from the U.S.A.This manipulation was empirically successful,as the U.S. subjects measured signi®cantlyhigher in individualism.

This statement assumes that the act of assigningpeople (in this instance, students) from collectivistcultures to a generic group situation is su�cient toactivate group oriented behaviour. However,although the Singapore sample might have recor-ded more ``collectivist'' scores than the U.S. sam-ple on a pencil and paper IDV measure, it isunlikely that the act of group assignment alonewas su�cient to simulate the speci®c interpersonalrelationships and interdependency characteristic

8 Examples of such observed behaviours among members of

the same corporation but of di�erent outgroups within the

corporation include poor communication (Triandis, 1967),

counterproductive competitiveness, hostility and lack of trust

(Triandis, 1989, p. 516). Additionally, Earley (1993), in an

experiment involving collectivist and individualist subjects,

found that the individualists performed better alone than in a

group, and the collectivists performed best in a group situation,

but only where the group was an ingroup. Collectivists per-

formed better alone than in an outgroup.

7 This distinction was also pointed out by one of the

authors' postgraduate students through the analogy that Japa-

nese collectivism is a ``block of granite'' (Fukuyama, 1995, Ch.

14), while Chinese collectivism is a ``tray of sand'', with each

grain representing a family. By contrast with both Japanese

and Chinese society, the focus of collectivism in Indonesia is

the community. Termed pancasila, Indonesia's community

based collectivism is founded on a set of ®ve basic principles,

which are embedded in the Constitution and are inculcated

through the education system. The principles are belief in God,

civilized humanity, unity, consultation to reach consensus, and

social justice. Gotong royong (mutual assistance) is a main value

in pancasila, which brings together the multi-ethnic and reli-

gious groups that comprise Indonesia.


of ingroups, which are, in turn, necessary to sti-mulate the group oriented behaviours on whichthe Chow et al. (1991) theory rested. By contrast,Earley (1993), in his study of group vs individualperformance between collectivists and individual-ists, went to considerable e�ort in his experimentalrealizations to create the ingroup/outgroup status,and to establish perceptions of shared character-istics among ingroup members, including kinship,friendship and religious backgrounds, as well asgeneral interests and lifestyles.

The di�erent foci of collectivism is also relevantas a potential explanator of the results of otherMCS studies including Vance et al. (1992) andMerchant et al. (1995). The variable and partiallyinconsistent results of Vance et al. (1992) amongthe three ``collectivist'' societies of Thailand,Malaysia and Indonesia may well be a re¯ectionnot only of the relative tightness and looseness ofcollectivism in those societies (as discussed in theprevious section), but also of the di�erent focus ofcollectivism. (See Footnote 7 for how the natureof collectivism in Indonesia contrasts with otherAsian nations.) Similarly, Merchant et al. (1995)developed and tested several hypotheses aboutperformance evaluation systems in the U.S. andTaiwan, part of the theory for which rested on theassumption that, as Taiwan was a collectivistnation, there would be a culturally-driven orien-tation of Taiwanese managers to the ®rm, i.e. thatthe focus of collectivism in Taiwan is the ®rm.That their results were largely inconsistent withtheir hypotheses may well be attributable to thequestion of whether this assumption is valid orwhether, as noted earlier, the focus of collectivismin Chinese based organizations is aligned not withthe organization as a whole, but with morerestricted subgroups within the organization, withconsequences for competitive, rather than coop-erative, behaviour among organizational sub-groups.

The Merchant et al. (1995) study highlights theneed for a better understanding of the nature andfunctioning of ingroups and outgroups in modernChinese organizations. We know little about MCS-related situations in which the ingroup/outgroupcon¯ict is important (and where it is not), and howthe presence of other characteristics of Chinese cul-

ture, such as respect for hierarchical relations, con-cern with face, and a sense of duty and loyalty,a�ect the balance between a concern with ingroupand a concern with company in di�erent MCScontexts.

As for the conclusion of the earlier discussion ofPD, the reason that we know little about theimplications of the ingroup/outgroup distinctionfor MCS, and that the cross-cultural MCSresearch has not recognized or accommodated thecomplexity of collectivism, again appears to resultfrom an unquestioned and uncritical reliance onHofstede's aggregate cultural dimensions. Theconsequence of this reliance has been a corre-sponding neglect of the richer and more indepthunderstandings of individualism/collectivism (andof culture generally) available in works dedicatedto describing and analysing the cultures of indivi-dual societies. It is to these literatures that futurecross-cultural MCS research must turn if it is toovercome the present simplicity in its treatment ofculture.

6. Restricted conception of culture

The foregoing sections of the paper have identi-®ed a number of de®ciencies with the way in whichthe cross-cultural MCS research to date has oper-ationalized the treatment of culture within a con-ception of culture that is based on norms andvalues. Additionally, the paper has sought to dis-cuss ways in which future research can beimproved within this conceptualization. However,as noted at the outset, the restriction of the exist-ing research to this conception of culture is itself aweakness, and one which places critical limits onthe extent of understanding that can be derivedfrom such research.

By conceptualizing culture through the func-tionalist lens of values alone, the research fails torecognize that values are only one aspect of cul-ture (Triandis, 1993), and only one way of con-ceiving of culture (Wuthnow, Hunter, Bergesen &Kurzweil, 1984; Agger, 1992). As a consequence,the research fails to bene®t from other, post-func-tionalist conceptions in sociology, anthropologyand history. The limitations on perspective


imposed by the value lens are summarised byAlexander and Smith (1993) as; (i) failing torecognize the ``complexity and contingency ofhuman action'' (p. 151), and (ii) failing to explainthe ``characteristics and dynamics of speci®cgroups, organizations, and subsystems in concretesocial settings'' (p. 155).

The ®rst of these limitations is seen by Alex-ander and Smith (1993, p. 155) to derive from thefact that values are analytical constructs, typicallydeveloped from observed behaviour, and, as such,do not address ``the concrete thoughts, feelingsand emotive responses of members of a lifeworld''.They argue, also, that while values comprisemeaning, they ``pitch meaning at a very general-ized level under umbrella-like concepts (and,hence, fail to provide) a detailed picture of theinternal workings of the cultural environment''(Alexander & Smith, 1993, p. 155). In similar vein,Alexander and Seidman (1990, p. 6) argue that thefunctionalist value lens does not capture symbolicphenomena such as ritual, myth, narrative, meta-phor, language and code. The second limitation isseen to derive from the perspective of the valuelens on shared (i.e. agreed upon) meaning, withimplications for the presumption of consensus insocietal existence which typi®ed functionalism(Giddens, 1993, p. 721). Such a premise was seento conceal from this lens social structural con-siderations (of power and economic resource dis-tribution, for example), and the con¯icts andtensions arising from asymmetries and di�er-entials therein, which underscore the conceptionsof culture in institution and class based theories(Alexander & Smith, 1993, p. 155; Giddens, 1993,p. 721).

In response to the limitations on the value lensperspective, post-functionalist approaches haveemphasised actor-centred and/or social structuralunderstandings of culture. These perspectives, andthe social philosophies underlying them, are mul-tiple, diverse and contested in their base dis-ciplines. Van Maanen (1988, p. 10) notes that: `Ìnanthropology, for example, pitched battles arefought on this issue (of what constitutes an ade-quate cultural description and understanding)...and similar controversies rage across severalsociologies''. Theoretical exploration of the multi-

ple perspectives and their contestation is beyondthe scope and purpose of this paper. However, ofgreat relevance to the paper is the contributionthat such perspectives can make in removing thenarrowness of scope imposed by the concentrationof existing cross-cultural MCS research on valuelens models. To this end, in the remainder of thepaper we draw attention to examples of such per-spectives and some instances of applications whichmay help guide future cross-cultural MCSresearch.

One such perspective is that of Thompson(1990), who conceives of culture as symbolic formsin structured contexts and describes cultural ana-lysis as:

the study of symbolic formsÐthat is, mean-ingful actions, objects and expressions ofvarious kindsÐin relation to the historicallyspeci®c and socially structured contexts andprocesses within which, and by means ofwhich, these symbolic forms are produced,transmitted and received (Thompson, 1990,p. 136).

Thompson gives the example of a speech whichcannot be understood in terms of its structuralfeatures and systemic elements, but only byattending to contextual aspects such as the settingand occasion of the speech, the relations betweenthe speaker and the audience, and the media oftransmission. These aspects ``can be discernedonly by attending to the social contexts, institu-tions and processes within which the speech isuttered, transmitted and received and by analysingthe relations of power, forms of authority, kindsof resources and other characteristics of thesecontexts'' (Thompson, 1990, p. 145).

Similar conceptualizations of culture are con-tained in the work of Giddens (1987) and Alex-ander and Smith (1993). Giddens (1987) arguesthat a theory of culture must be built upon a basisof human agency, which, in turn, must be expli-cated in terms of practical consciousness (the pro-cess whereby humans ``re¯exively monitor whatthey do as an intrinsic part of what it is thatthey do'') and the contextuality of action (``set-tings of action, whose qualities agents routinely


draw upon in the course of orienting what theydo and what they say to one another'') (Gid-dens, 1987, p. 215). Alexander and Smith (1993,p. 16) conceive of culture as `à system of sym-bolic codes which specify the good and theevil'', and argue through illustration how sym-bolic codes are implicated in individual actionthrough both their internalization in informingaction and their external accountability foraction.9

These conceptualizations of culture provideopportunities for cross-cultural MCS research tobreak o� the shackles of its hitherto reliance onthe value lens perspective, and to open up newareas of understanding. First, they allowopportunities for such research to move beyondits existing static nature, which constrain it toestablishing (or not establishing) point-in-timestatistical associations between values as inde-pendent variables and a�ective and/or beha-vioural responses as dependent ones. With thevariables remote and unanchored in time andcontext and their temporal and spatial depen-dencies unexplored, and with associationsamong the variables premised on assertedlydeterministic and equally unexplored meanings,such research cannot explore the dynamics andprocesses of MCS and their cultural interplays,cannot get at the cultural meaning and sig-ni®cance constituted in actions in MCS settings,and cannot appreciate the spatial and temporal/historical context of those processes and actions.

An example relates to the understanding ofparticipation in MCS contexts. Existing cross-cul-tural MCS research generally corroborates anassociation between culture (operationalizedthrough measurement of the power distance andindividualism/collectivism value dimensions) andparticipation (measured using the Milani (1975)six-item pencil and paper self-report instrument)(Harrison, 1992; O'Connor, 1995; Lau et al.,1995). However, with (and despite) the exceptionof the insight into the involvement and in¯uencesub-dimensions of participation in O'Connor's(1995) ®ndings, these studies and their constrain-ing methods reveal nothing about the variousforms participation may take in di�erent societies,the various purposes participation may serve, orthe dynamics of the process whereby participationtakes place, including both the vehicles andmechanisms it may use and the roles of di�er-entiated actors in the participation process. Norcan these studies gain understandings of the spe-ci®c meanings, motives and signi®cations attrib-uted to participation by organizationalmembers, or of the historical and social struc-tural contexts within which such meanings,motives and signi®cations are formed and embed-ded.

While not concerned with participation per se,Nussbaum-Gomes' (1994) ethnographic study ofcontrol in the Japanese organization MitsubishiHeavy Industries provides an example of how theforegoing conceptions of culture and their asso-ciated methodologies can bene®t MCS research.As part of her study, Nussbaum-Gomes examinesthe phenomenon of informal group socializingamong Japanese employees after hours and in theorganized ``works outings'' and special parties.While participation in such activities is espousedas voluntary on an individual basis, the tendencyis that everyone always goes. A value drivenexplanation for this behaviour might draw on themaintenance of shared values of collectivism,group (organizational) consciousness and cohe-siveness, and harmony. While probably containingsome partial contribution to explanation, such anexplanation would nonetheless be facile.

Nussbaum-Gomes uses ethnographic techni-ques to seek out the individuals' articulation and

9 While not seeking to constrain researchers in their choice

of the multiple perspectives o�ered in the contemporary

sociology, anthropology and history literatures, these perspec-

tives are chosen here because they appear to overcome some of

the criticisms of other perspectives. For example, Thompson

(1990), while stating his regard for Geertz's symbolic/semiotic

work as the most important formulation of culture in the

anthropology literature, provides several criticisms of this work

including its inadequate attention to the structured social rela-

tions (including those of power and con¯ict) within which

symbols and symbolic actions are embedded. Thus, Thompson

follows Geertz's symbolic interpretational conception of cul-

ture, wherein symbols and symbolic forms are the active

expressions of agents, but adds to it the spatio-temporal con-

text in which symbols and symbolic forms are embedded.

Similarly, Alexander and Smith (1993) criticise the actor-

centred and social structural conceptions generally for their

inability to attend to issues of meaning.


meaning of these informal and organized socialactivities, and demonstrates that employees inter-pret and construct them not as voluntary but asobligatory, and participate not as an intrinsic,unre¯exive, manifestation of shared values, butbecause of a conscious and knowledgeable choiceof self-interested action. Speci®cally, Nussbaum-Gomes describes a situation where the values ofcohesiveness and harmony are not uncontestedamong individuals, but where those values areprimary criteria for manager evaluation and pro-motion and are known to be such, with the con-sequences that social activities become symbolicrepresentations of organizationally valued beha-viours. The conscious choice on the part of indi-viduals to participate in them arises,paradoxically, from their perceived absence ofchoice, with failure to participate having real con-sequences in adverse e�ects on evaluation, rewardand promotion.

This example is used not only to demonstratethe importance of getting at the meanings indivi-duals attribute to actions and choices, and thespeci®c structures, including power di�erentials,surrounding those actions, (rather than leaving themeaning link unexplored and unexplained exceptin value-assertive terms); the example alsodemonstrates the revelations and discoveries thatare possible through the approach Nussbaum-Gomes employs. Of particular relevance to thestudy of participation here is the ®nding that theinformal after-hours socializing and work outingsare forums for information exchange amongorganizational members at all levels, and forkeeping individuals informed of, and involved inorganizational decisions. In their articulation ofwhat the socializing and outings meant to them,employees described a situation where, if they didnot attend, they would not know what was goingon in the organization and their absence would benoted and talked about. Thus, Japanese manage-ment may be seen to construct the socializing andoutings, and the attendant climate surroundingthem, such that they play an important role bothin promoting information sharing among organi-zational members, and in ensuring employeesare informed about, and become acceptive of,management decisions. Such forums, therefore,

constitute in the organization concerned, andpotentially more widely in Japanese organiza-tions, a signi®cant vehicle of participation, butone which would not have been visible throughthe value perspective and the methods employedin the cross-cultural MCS research to date.10

A second example relates to understanding howmanagement control systems are constituted holi-stically in di�erent societies and how they operatein terms of their processual dynamics. Chow et al.(1994) pointed out that, contrary to most of thecross-cultural MCS research to that time (andsince) which treated both national culture andMCS as comprised of separate and independentdimensions or component parts, both culture andMCS are holisms, with MCS existing as packagesof mechanisms and processes which are in simul-taneous dynamic operation, and which may serveas substitutes or complements for one another.Based on the presumption that such packages andprocesses might di�er cross-nationally, and draw-ing on cultural value dimensions, Chow et al.(1994) examined, through laboratory experimentsinvolving Japanese and U.S. MBA students, whe-ther the preference sets among eleven MCS char-acteristics di�ered between the Japanese and U.S.subjects. While they did ®nd di�erent preferencesand trade-o�s among preferences between thesamples, they were unable to disentangle andexplain the link between the cultural dimensionsand these compensatory trade-o�s.

This interpretation failing could support anargument for more studies using the value con-ceptualization of culture and the cross-sectionalanalytical methodologies typical of the existing

10 As a reviewer for the paper pointed out, the Nussbaum-

Gomes study does not answer the question of whether the

Japanese companies construct the social activities to serve the

purposes of participation and information exchange, or whe-

ther the (corporate) values lead to the existence of the social

activities generically with a consequence that the purposes

identi®ed are subsequently served therein. At a general level,

this comment suggests that neither the values perspective,

which assumes a linear dominance of values over behaviour,

nor the alternative perspectives, which deny this linearity and

dominance, may be su�cient in explanation. Rather, explana-

tion may need recognition of the greater complexity and

potential reciprocity of the interrelationship among collective

values, and individual actions and choices.


cross-cultural MCS research, as part of the reasonfor the failure was the lack of theoretical orempirical work on some MCS characteristics.However, an alternative argument is that theattempt to articulate an holistic conception ofMCS through a value driven conceptualization ofculture and its attendant methodologies not onlyplaces unmanageable demands on the interpreta-tional capabilities of cross-sectional methods andstatistical analyses, but also misses the essence ofMCS holism that Chow et al. (1994) correctlyidenti®ed, as well as missing the processual dyna-mism and complexity of MCS.

Understanding the contemporary state of anholistic MCS, where state does not imply stasisbut rather the processes and interactions amongactors and structures that constitute the dynamicand complex life of the whole, is possible throughthe interpretational perspectives and methodolo-gies of anthropology, sociology, and history.Janelli (1993) is a good example of how ananthropologist using ethnographic methods ofparticipant observation and interviews and draw-ing on narrative and history, can produce a richand complex description and analysis of thedynamics of life and work among white-collarworkers and managers in a South Korean con-glomerate. Van Maanen's (1988) ethnographicstudy of police culture, again based on participantobservation and using narrative and stories, issimilarly insightful.

The emphasis on narrative and history in theseexamples is integral to understanding the dynamicfunctioning of contemporary MCS in di�erentsocieties (and of broader systems such as theorganization of Janelli (1993), or of narrower onessuch as budget processes within MCS), and howthat functioning re¯ects and carries culture. Nar-rative and stories are emphasised because of theirimportance in conveying how people in the orga-nization see and interpret how they ®t into thesocial structural context: `Ìn talk, the agent andthe setting are the means whereby culture is linkedto communication'' (Giddens, 1987, p. 217).Shearing and Ericson (1991) provide an opera-tional example in their study of police culture.They conceive of culture as ®gurative action anddiscuss, and rely on, the importance of stories in

communicating and understanding culture.

Stories and the tropes that drive them, pro-vide a very di�erent sort of `generative pro-gram' from that envisioned when suchprograms are rule guided. This conceptiondoes not conceive of people as `culturaldopes' (Shearing & Ericson, 1991, pp. 499±500).

History is emphasised because of its importancein understanding how a speci®c phenomenon (theMCS for example) has reached its contemporarystate, particularly via the cultural, economic, andsocial structural backgrounds that have led to thatstate. Emirbayer and Goodwin (1994, p. 1411), intheir assessment of network theory in sociologicalresearch, conclude that `ònly a strategy for his-torical explanation that synthesizes social struc-tural and cultural analysis can adequately explainthe formation, reproduction, and transformationof (as their particular phenomenon of interest)networks themselves''. They point out the impor-tance of culture and cultural structures in histor-ical context and analysis for understanding howactors are enabled and constrained in socialaction. By way of illustration, Abelmann (1996)cites several examples of anthropological studieswhich have incorporated such historical analysis,including Kondo's (1990) ethnographic study of aJapanese factory wherein ``culturally, historic spe-ci®c pathways'' were seen to o�er insight andexplanation into present phenomena. Similarly,Janelli's (1993) study, noted earlier, also usesKorean political, economic and social history toinform his description of life in the Korean con-glomerate.

Perspectives and methodologies from sociology,anthropology and history, such as those describedand exempli®ed in this section of the paper, haveinformed studies of organizations and organiza-tional cultures for some time (see the December1979 and September 1983 special issues of Admin-istrative Science Quarterly on Qualitative Metho-dology and Organizational Culture, respectively,and subsequent issues for examples of such work),as well as being called on in a variety of account-ing research contexts (a review of the contents of


Accounting, Organizations and Society over thelast two decades will yield examples of theoreticaland empirical work in this vein). However, suchperspectives and methodologies have not, to date,informed cross-cultural MCS research, where theyhave much to o�er.

7. Conclusions and suggestions for futureresearch

As we noted at the outset, cross-cultural MCSresearch is still in its infancy. While it has pro-gressed beyond its atheoretical stage to one wheremost studies now consider culture explicitly, ourreview suggests that we may have reached anotherturning point at which we must reconsider the wayin which we approach culture in MCS research.The research to date has been informed almostexclusively by the value dimensional conception ofculture typical of the cross-cultural psychologyliterature, and even more narrowly within thatconception, has relied almost totally on Hofstede'svalue dimensions. While such reliance hasadvanced our ability to conduct theoretically dri-ven cross-cultural studies, it has also allowed us tobecome lazy. Even within the value dimensionalconception, our review identi®ed three majorweaknesses in the studies to date. First, weobserved a tendency to be selective among thecultural dimensions relied on in many studies witha consequent failure to consider, theoretically and/or methodologically, the totality of the culturaldomain as it may impact on MCS. Second, weobserved an almost universal tendency to treat thedimensions as if they were equally importantacross nations, with a corresponding failure toconsider the more complex issue of the di�erentialcentrality or intensity of cultural norms and valuesacross societies. And third, we observed the ten-dency to treat the value dimensions super®ciallythrough assuming a uniformity and uni-dimensionality for each dimension that is neithersustainable nor valid.

Concentration on the value dimensional con-ception of culture, and the concomitant cross-sectional methodology of variable relationships,has also meant that the MCS research to date has

ignored other conceptions and perspectives onculture, and their associated methodologies,emerging from the anthropology, sociology, andhistory literatures. As such, the research has beenhighly restricted in focus, and limited in its abilityto examine and understand the dynamic processesof MCS and their cultural interplays, the culturalmeaning and signi®cance constituted in the actionsof actors in MCS processes, and the spatial andtemporal contexts of those processes and actions.

For those who choose to work within the valuedimensional conception, much remains to bedone. For example, as noted earlier, there hasbeen little overlap in the MCS characteristics stu-died to date, and, where overlap exists, typicallythe methods of operationalizing the characteristicshave been su�ciently di�erent to make compar-isons di�cult. The research to date has, literally,``grown like Topsy'' (a bit here and a bit there),with no underlying systematic pattern and, hence,with little cumulative addition to our knowledgebase. Even those authors who have concentratedtheir e�orts in this area, and who have contributedmultiple studies to the literature, tend not to havedeveloped their studies sequentially, but rather tohave jumped from one MCS characteristic to thenext. While this tendency may be driven by a per-ception of lack of peer acceptance of replication orcorroborative work, it seems clear that such workis needed in future research in the cross-culturalMCS area.

A number of other avenues for fruitful futureresearch have emerged from our review, our dis-cussions with colleagues in this area of study, andparticularly from the insightful comments of theanonymous reviewers for this paper. These sug-gestions, while acknowledging in general termsthat replication work is needed, require that futurework targeting previously studied or new issuesmust ensure organizational and managerial rele-vance in the constantly changing technologicaland competitive environment of the late 20th and21st centuries, and also needs to recognize (andexamine) culture's interdependencies with otherimportant variables, as well as the culture±MCSinterdependency itself.

Taking this latter consideration ®rst, the major-ity of the extant research has assumed that culture


(comprising one or more of a set of componentdimensions) exists, and a�ects or interacts withMCS, in isolation from or independent of othervariables or circumstances, including economicvariables of competition and markets, for exam-ple, and technological, regulatory and politicalcircumstances. On the one hand, this is a limita-tion of the existing research, with the omission ofsuch variables and circumstances, and the neglectof their e�ect on the culture±control relation,substantially circumscribing the research's poten-tial to explain control characteristics. On the otherhand, it points to two important opportunities forfuture research to include such variables alongwith culture. An important theoretical issue forfuture research is whether and how such non-cul-tural variables interact (either in moderating orintervening form) with culture in the culture±con-trol relation. An important empirical issue is therelative importance of cultural and non-culturalvariables in explaining control phenomena, inde-pendently and/or in interaction. A further relatedavenue for future research lies in the recognitionof the interdependency between culture and con-trol in terms of their joint ability to a�ect out-come variables. This would overcome the presentrestriction of focus on the association betweenculture and control, and allow examination ofmore complete, multiple contingency relation-ships.

With respect to outcome variables, futureresearch should also target culture's interplay withthose characteristics of organizational functioningwhich are seen as increasingly necessary for suc-cess in the contemporary business environment,with its characteristics of unprecedented levels oftechnological change, product and service innova-tion, and intense global competition. Within thisenvironment, some of the ``traditional'' variablesstudied in much of the extant cross-cultural MCSliterature may be dated. Although opinions willdi�er, we suggest that future research will be morecontemporarily relevant and productive if directedless at issues such as vertical and horizontal dif-ferentiation, formalization, responsibility centreformat, participation, and budget emphasis inevaluative style, for example, (issues which arethemselves becoming less important in the general

management and control literatures, or are at leastassuming di�erent forms), and more towardsthose operational capabilities needed to attain andsustain organizational learning, adaptive ¯exibilityand innovation. In this latter context, futureresearch can usefully address the interplaybetween culture and issues such as informationand experience sharing behaviours within organi-zations, risk taking and innovative propensities,and the development and maintenance of ¯exibleorganization structures and interaction patterns,such as the use of ¯uid workgroups and teams.

Other suggestions for future research have beennoted in the paper. At the speci®c level, theseinclude research into the nature and functioning ofingroups and outgroups in modern Chinese orga-nizations, and how such group interrelationshipsa�ect MCS and organizational characteristicssuch as, for example, information sharing. At thegeneral level is the potentially very fruitful ques-tion of the relation between national and organi-zational cultures, and whether organizationsoperating internationally must accept uncriticallythe national cultural dictates of their overseas hostcountries, or whether through time and selectionand socialization practices those organizations canmodify national cultural in¯uences within theiroverseas units through the creation of culturalmicroclimates. As noted earlier, only two studieshave examined this issue and have produced con-trasting results. Further work has the potential toforge a coherent research agenda in this importantarea.

Future studies using the value dimensional lensare, therefore, clearly warranted. However, suchstudies need to become more precise in their theo-retical understanding and methodological oper-ationalization of culture, and to address thegreater complexity and diversity of culture thanhas typi®ed research relying on Hofstede. Suchstudies need to recognize and accommodate intheir theory the centrality of values, perhaps usingthe instructive core versus peripheral valuesapproach (an approach particularly pertinent tothe national vs organizational culture issue notedin the paragraph above), and the ®ner partitioningof culture and cultural dimensions, as evidenced inthe analysis of power distance and individualism/


collectivism previously in the paper. To do this itwill be necessary to go beyond Hofstede's scoresand ranks and draw more deeply on the richersocial and cultural literatures and commentariesfor the speci®c nation(s) concerned.

Transcending Hofstede's scores and ranks willalso allow future research to address concernsabout the contemporary relevance of those scoresand ranks generated nearly 30 years ago. Whilecultures, by de®nition, change only slowly, andHofstede's measures have received more recentsupport (Smith et al., 1996, for example), therapidity and intensity of globalization in con-temporary times has the potential to reduce somecultural di�erences across societies, particularlywith generational change. Which cultural di�er-ences may maintain and which may be reducedthrough such global exchange and generationalchange is a question meritorious of study in its ownright, and one which, again, would usefully be gui-ded by the core versus peripheral values con-ceptualization.

A ®nal methodological caution on the past andfuture research relates to method. It was notedearlier that the predominant, almost exclusive,method employed to date has been the mail surveyquestionnaire. It is unusual in research generallyfor exploratory work to be conducted using thesurvey method. Typically, this method is invokedlater in the development of a research area asrelationships among variables and phenomena atissue are better understood through ®eld orexperimental methods. While the mail surveyquestionnaire has allowed cost e�ciencies in theconduct of cross-cultural MCS research, we mayhave paid a price in its having yielded a lower levelof understanding of the phenomena than we mighthave obtained with other methods or, at least,with multiple methods.

The time and cost constraints of full ethno-graphic studies probably mean that such methodsare not available to all, indeed even many,researchers. For those who choose to look beyondthe value dimensional lens on culture, and this isthe only way in which the research can transcendits present limitations of scope and focus, theethnographic methods and the conceptualiza-tions of culture in the anthropology, sociology,

and history literatures are probably necessary ando�er promising opportunities. Even for those forwhom such methods are unattainable, however, itmust be recognized that continued reliance onmail survey questionnaires alone will continue torestrict understanding and meaning. A potentialresolution to this dilemma is the use of ®eld basedsurveys (a term usefully provided by one of thereviewers of this paper), whereby the researchervisits and gains insight into the context of theresearch site(s) before administering and inter-preting the data from his/her questionnaire. Aquestionnaire administered in this context mightusefully include, in addition to closed-ended,quantitative-based questions, open-ended ques-tions which allow the researcher to explorethrough discussion the complexities and interrela-tions that underlie the respondent's answers to thequantitative questions. This approach, whicho�ers the advantages of lower costs than full eth-nographic studies and greater contextual under-standing than mail surveys, may well be ane�ective methodological step forward in cross-cultural MCS research.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the helpfulcomments of Anthony Hopwood, two anonymousreviewers, participants at the AOS Conference onComparative Management Accounting, Uni-versity of Siena, November 1996, and participantsin the research seminar series at Warwick Uni-versity Business School, the University of Ade-laide, and Macquarie University.

References

Abelmann, N. (1996). Reviews of ``culture'' and capitalism in

South Korea. Reviews in Anthropology, 25, 185±194.

Agger, B. (1992). Cultural studies as critical theory. London:

The Falmer Press.

Alexander, J. C., & Seidman, S. (1990). Culture and society:

contemporary debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Alexander, J. C., & Smith, P. (1993) The discourse of Amer-

ican civil society: a new proposal for cultural studies. Theory

and Society, 22, 151±207.


Bhagat, R. S., & McQuaid, S. J. (1983). Role of subjective cul-

ture in organizations: a review and directions for future

research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653±695.

Birnbaum, P. H., & Wong, G. Y. Y. (1985). Organizational

structure of multinational banks in Hong Kong from a cul-

ture-free perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30,

262±277.

Birnberg, J. G., & Snodgrass, C. (1988). Culture and control: A

®eld study.Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13, 447±464.

Bochner, S. (1994). Cross-cultural di�erences in the self con-

cept: a test of Hofstede's individualism/collectivism distinc-

tion. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 273±283.

Bond, M. H. (1991). Beyond the Chinese face: insights from

psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bosland, N. (1984). Some studies on the value survey module.

Unpublished M.A. thesis, Catholic University, Tilburg, The

Netherlands.

Brownell, P. (1982). The role of accounting data in perfor-

mance evaluation, budgetary participation, and organizational

e�ectiveness. Journal of Accounting Research, 20, 12±27.

Child, J. (1981). Culture, contingency and capitalism in the

cross-national study of organizations. In L. L. Cummings &

B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp.

303±356). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Chiu, J. S., & Chang, D. L. (1979). Management accounting in

Taiwan. Management Accounting, 60, 50±55.

Chow, C. W., Shields, M. D., & Chan, Y. K. (1991). The e�ects

of management controls and national culture on manu-

facturing performance: an experimental investigation.

Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16, 209±226.

Chow, C. W., Kato, Y., & Shields, M. D. (1994). National

culture and the preference for management controls: an

exploratory study of the ®rm-labor market interface.


Chow, C. W., Shields, M. D., & Wu, A. (1996a, November).

The importance of national culture in the design of and pre-

ference for management controls for multinational opera-

tions. Paper presented at the Accounting, Organizations and

Society Comparative Management Accounting Conference,

University of Siena, Italy.

Chow, C. W., Kato, Y., & Merchant, K. A. (1996b). The use of

organizational controls and their e�ects on data manipulation

and management myopia: a Japan vs U.S. comparison.


Cragin, J. P. (1986). Management technology absorption in

China. In S. R. Clegg, D. C. Dunphy & S. G. Redding

(Eds.), The enterprise and management in East Asia. Hong

Kong: Centre of Asian Studies of Hong Kong.

Crozier, M. (1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Daley, L., Jiambalvo, J., Sundem, G. L., & Kondo, Y. (1985).

Attitudes toward ®nancial control systems in the United

States and Japan. Journal of International Business Studies,

Fall, 91±110.

Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets west meets mideast: further

explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work groups.

Academy of Management Journal, 36, 319±348.

Emirbayer, M., & Goodwin, J. (1994). Network analysis, cul-

ture, and the problem of agency. American Journal of

Sociology, 99, 1411±1454.

French, J., Israel, J., & As, D. (1960). An experiment on parti-

cipation in a Norwegian factory. Human Relations, 13, 3±20.

Frucot, V., & Shearon, W. T. (1991). Budgetary participation,

locus of control, and Mexican managerial performance and

job satisfaction. The Accounting Review, 66, 80±99.

Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: the social virtues and the creation

of prosperity. London: Penguin Books.

Gernon, H., & Wallace, R. S. O. (1995). International

accounting research: a review of its ecology, contending the-

ories and methodologies. Journal of Accounting Literature,

14, 54±106.

Giddens, A. (1987). Structuralism, post-structuralism and the

production of culture. In A. Giddens, & J. Turner (Eds.),

Social theory today (pp. 195±223). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Giddens, A. (1993). Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Harrison, G. L. (1992). The cross-cultural generalizability of

the relation between participation, budget emphasis and job

related attitudes. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17,

1±15.

Harrison, G. L. (1993). Reliance on accounting performance

measures in superior evaluative styleÐthe in¯uence of

national culture and personality. Accounting, Organizations

and Society, 18, 319±339.

Harrison, G. L., McKinnon, J. L., Panchapakesan, S., &

Leung, M. (1994). The in¯uence of culture on organizational

design and planning and control in Australia and the United

States compared with Singapore and Hong Kong. Journal of

International Financial Management and Accounting, 5, 242±261.

Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture's consequences: international

di�erences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. H. (1984). The cultural relativity of the quality of

life concept. Academy of Management Review, 27, 389±398.

Hofstede, G. H., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The confucius con-

nection: from cultural roots to economic growth. Organiza-

tional Dynamics 16, 5±21.

Janelli, R. L. (1993). Making capitalism: the social and cultural

construction of a South Korean conglomerate. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press.

Kagitcibasi, C., & Berry, J. W. (1989). Cross-cultural psychol-

ogy: current research and trends. Annual Review of Psychol-

ogy, 40, 493±531.

Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in

value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Kondo, D. (1990). Crafting selves: power, gender, and discourses

of identity in a Japanese workplace. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Kraut, A. I. (1975). Some recent advances in cross-national

management research. Academy of Management Journal, 18,

538±549.

Lachman, R., Nedd, A., & Hinings, B. (1994). Analyzing cross-

national management and organizations: a theoretical fra-

mework. Management Science, January, 40±55.

Lau, C. M., Low, L. C., & Eggleton, I. R. C. (1995). The

impact of reliance on accounting performance measures on


job-related tension and managerial performance: additional

evidence. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 359±

381.

Lincoln, J. R., & McBride, K. (1987). Japanese industrial

organization in comparative perspective. Annual Review of

Sociology, 13, 289±312.

Lincoln, J. R., Hanada, M., & Olson, J. (1981). Cultural

orientations and individual reactions to organizations: a

study of employees of Japanese-owned ®rms. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 26, 93±115.

Lincoln, J. R., Hanada, M., & McBride, K. (1986). Organiza-

tional structures in Japanese and U.S. manufacturing.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 338±364.

Marsh, R. M., & Mannari, H. (1976). Modernization and the

Japanese factory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Merchant, K. A., Chow, C. W., &Wu, A. (1995). Measurement,

evaluation and reward of pro®t center managers: a cross-

cultural ®eld study. Accounting, Organizations and Society,

20, 619±638.

Milani, K. W. (1975). The relationship of participation in bud-

get-setting to industrial supervisor performance and atti-

tudes: a ®eld study. The Accounting Review, 50, 274±284.

Nussbaum-Gomes, M. (1994). The subconscious in organiza-

tional control: the case of Mitsubishi Heavy Industry. Inter-

national Journal of Comparative Sociology, 35, 103±130.

O'Connor, N. G. (1995). The in¯uence of organizational cul-

ture on the usefulness of budget participation by Singapor-

ean-Chinese managers. Accounting, Organizations and

Society, 20, 383±403.

Parsons, T., & Shils, E. A. (1951). Values, motives and systems

of action. In T. Parsons, & E. A. Shils (Eds.), Toward a gen-

eral theory of action (pp. 47±109). Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Pascale, R. T. (1978). Communication and decision making

across cultures: Japanese and American comparisons.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 91±110.

Pelto, P. J. (1968). The di�erence between ``tight'' and ``loose''

societies. Transaction, April, 37±40.

Rohlen, T. (1974). For harmony and strength: Japanese white-

collar organizations in anthropological perspective. Los

Angeles: University of California Press.

Rohner, R. P. (1984). Toward a conception of culture for cross-

cultural psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,

15, 111±138.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Cultural dimensions of values: towards

an understanding of national di�erences. In U. Kim, H. C.

Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi & G. Yoon (Eds.), Indi-

vidualism and collectivism: theoretical and methodological

issues (pp. 85±119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shearing, C. D., & Ericson, R. V. (1991). Culture as ®gurative

action. British Journal of Sociology, 42, 481±506.

Smith, P. B. (1992). Organizational behaviour and national

cultures. British Journal of Management, 3, 39±51.

Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National

culture and the values of organizational employees. Journal

of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 231±264.

Snodgrass, C., & Grant, J. H. (1986). Cultural in¯uences on

strategic planning and control systems. Advances in Strategic

Management, 4, 205±228.

Thompson, J. B. (1990). Ideology and modern culture: critical social

theory in the era of mass communication. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Triandis, H. C. (1967). Interpersonal relations in international

organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance, 2, 26±55.

Triandis, H. C. (1988). Collectivism v. individualism: a recon-

ceptualisation of a basic concept in cross-cultural social psy-

chology. In G. K. Verma & C. Bagley (Eds.), Cross-cultural

studies of personality, attitudes, and cognition (pp. 60±95).

New York: St. Martin's Press.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in di�ering

cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506±520.

Triandis, H. C. (1993). Review of Hofstede, G., Culture and

organizations: software of the mind (New York:

McGraw±Hill, 1991). Administrative Science Quarterly, 38,

132±134.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder,

CO: Westview Press.

Triandis, H. C., McCuster, C., Betancourt, H., Iwao, S.,

Leung, K., Salazar, J. M., Setiadi, B., Sinha, J. B. P., Tou-

zard, H., & Zaleski, Z. (1993). An etic-emic analysis of indi-

vidualism and collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 24, 366±383.

Ueno, S., & Sekaran, U. (1992). The in¯uence of culture on

budget control practices in the USA and Japan: an empirical

study. Journal of International Business Studies, 23, 659±674.

Ueno, S., & Wu, F. H. (1993). The comparative in¯uence of

culture on budget control practices in the United States and

Japan. International Journal of Accounting, 28, 17±39.

Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the ®eld: on writing ethno-

graphy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Vance, C. M., McClaine, S. R., Boje, D. M., & Stage, D.

(1992). An examination of the transferability of traditional

performance appraisal principles across cultural boundaries.

Management International Review, 32, 313±326.

Whitley, R. D. (1991). The social construction of business sys-

tems in East Asia. Organization Studies, 12, 1±28.

Whitt, J. D. (1979). Motivating lower level management of

Mexican a�liates. Management Accounting, 60, 46±49.

Wuthnow, R., Hunter, J. D., Bergesen, A., & Kurzweil, E.

(1984). Cultural analysis: the work of Peter L. Berger, Mary

Douglas, Michel Foucault and Jurgen Haberman. Boston,

MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul.


Documents

Cross-cultural research in management control systems design: a