The Impact Ethics, Values, and Cross-Cultural Differences have on China, Mexico, and the United States through an Analysis of Forsyth’s Ethics Position Questionnaire, Hofstede’s

Cultural Dimensions, and Rokeach Values Survey

By: John Chang

By: Jonny Villatoro

Research of Ethics, Values, and Cross-Cultural Differences on China, Mexico, or the United States

Abstract:

Purpose: Three distinct and unique nations, the United States, Mexico, and China, have different political structures, historical backgrounds, and economical systems. While each of these nations can be considered an integral part to the world economy, each nation has their own distinct ethics, values, and culture which serve as the backbone of the particular region. In order to be successful in international business, knowledgeable as an expatriate, and culturally or ethically aware of key nations in the global market, individuals need to have researched information pertaining to the ethics, cultures, and values of the United States, Mexico, or China in order to blend in and succeed with the foreign cultural environment.

Design/Methodology/Approach: This research paper will focus extensively on the impact values, ethics, and cultural differences (based majorly and solely on the Rokeach Values Survey, Forsyth Studies, and Hofsteade’s Model) have on the societies of the United States, Mexico, or China. A review of the empirical studies will demonstrate the importance values, ethics, and culture have on individual life or business environment for the United States, Mexico, or China.

Findings: Culture can be a factor which heavily influences a region or nation’s ethics and values.

Research Limitations/Implications: When discussing culture, there are many factors such as values, religion, societal norms, customs, beliefs, or deeply-rooted faiths which can impact a nation’s overall collective culture. As a result, cross-cultural differences among a variety of nations, countries, regions, or sub-regions may vary when compared with one another. Through more empirical investigation, research, or study of a nation’s cultural values may there be a more profound, detailed, and legitimate basis for assessing a nation’s ethical constructs.

Practical Implications: Understanding the differences of ethics, values, and culture of the United States, China, or Mexico can impact an individual’s experience if serving as an expatriate at the particular location. Each nation has its own distinct and unique social, business, and cultural environment. In order to successfully accomplish international business or to operate a multinational corporation in a global market, individuals need to have a prior understanding of varying cultures, ethical standards, or values in a particular region.

Originality/Value: This research paper will present and deliver pertinent information to individuals interested in serving as an expatriate in the United States, China, or Mexico. Individuals can also read this paper to understand, comprehend, or consume more general knowledge of the ethics, values, and culture of the researched locations.

Keywords: Forsyth, Ethics Position Questionnaire, Ethics Position Theory, Hofstede Cultural Dimension, masculinity, relationship, harmony, equality, freedom, Rokeach, United States, Mexico, China, Rokeach Values Survey, guanxi.

Forsyth’s Ethical Position Questionnaire (EPQ) Model

Based off Forsyth’s Ethical Position Questionnaire (EPQ), the particular study was able

to “measure a respondent’s tendency to consider injury to others (idealism) and/or disregard

universal moral rules (relativism) when making moral judgments” (Tansey, Brown, Hyman, &

Dawson, 1994). According to Forsyth, the scale of Idealism includes a range based off of

statements such as “a person should make certain that their actions never intentionally harm

another even to a small degree” where the scale of Relativism includes a range based off of

statements such as “different types of moralities cannot be compared as to rightness” or “what is

ethical varies from one situation and society to another (Forsyth, 1980).” In order to examine an

individual’s morals or ethical standards, a questionnaire is administered in which respondents

will indicate the level of agreement or disagreement (1 being “completely disagree to 9 being

“completely agree”) to given statements. The scales of 1-9 are orthogonal to each other and are

only marginally correlated with social desirability (Forsyth & Nye, 1990).

Using these classifications, numerous organizations, groups of people with different

ethnicities, or nations were extensively researched, studied, and examined based off of Forsyth’s

Ethical Position Questionnaire to determine the similarities or differences of each particular

group’s variation in ethics from Idealism and Relativism.

From the two dimensions of idealism and relativism, many studies have also been utilized

to explain individual differences in ethics and morality which can demonstrate consistencies in a

culture’s perspective on ethical values and norms in daily life or business settings. While one

cultural group may think of X situation as morally right another cultural group may think of X

situation as morally wrong. As a result, ethics position theory (EPT), which stems from Forsyth’s

EPQ, states and deduces that an individual’s level of relativism and idealism can determine their

ethical ideology. For example, if one culture has a high construct in Idealism, then the ethical

decisions individuals make from the particular group may be different from a culture with a high

construct in Relativism. The theory also states that an individuals’ moral beliefs can and will

affect their actions, verbally or non-verbally, decisions, thoughts, judgments, and mental state

when dealing with ethical situations on an intense level (Forsyth, O’Boyle, Dr., McDaniel,

2008). From this study, Forsyth also argued that the two components of moral beliefs, Relativism

and Idealism, are separate and independent of one another (as cited in Barnett, Bass, Brown, &

Herbert, 1998). The two components are then separated into a two-by-two taxonomy, which

yields in four different ethical ideologies, Exceptionism, Subjectivism, Absolutism, and

Situationism. The varying degree of relativism and idealism is demonstrated and defined in the

four ethics positions presented below (as cited in Forsyth, O’Boyle, & McDaniel, 2008):

From this table, the following can be concluded (as cited in Barnett et al., 1998):

Individuals who are high in relativism and idealism are classified as “situationists.”

While these particular groups of people are commonly skeptical of universal principles, they are

more known to base ethical judgments on a specific action’s practicality rather than on an

intangible moral code (as cited in Barnett et al., 1998).

“Absolutists” believe in a set of universal moral laws which dictates their lifestyles and

choices. This particular group of people is also very conscious of the general well-being of other

individuals. Absolutists also have beliefs which align with the statement of “action must be

based on reasons the actor would be willing to have all others use” (Ferrell and Gresham, 1985).

As a result, individuals with high absolutism stress social justice and humanitarian ideals and

beliefs (Tansey et al., 1994). Absolutists also believe in “first discovering, and then following,

inherently good natural laws such as being honest on all occasions” (Schlenker & Forsyth, 1977).

“Subjectivists” can be best described as individuals who are more likely to be okay and

comfortable with unethical actions that bring harm, danger, or misfortune to other people.

Individuals from this particular group are also vested in their own personal self-interests and

anchor their ethical judgments based on their own benefits or losses. Individuals with high levels

of subjectivism are characterized to also be highly Machiavellian or cunning deceitful (Vitell,

Lumpkin, & Rawwas, 1991). According to Forsyth (1980), subjectivists are considered to be

ethical egoists because these individuals would “judge the morality of an action by the ensuing

net gains rather than by its inherent moral rightness” (Tansey et al., 1994).

“Exceptionists” can be best described as individuals who are more likely to believe in a

set of universal moral principles. According to Forsyth, exceptionists believe that “moral

principles are useful because they provide a framework for making choices and acting in ways

that will tend to produce the best consequences for all concerned” (as cited in Tansey et al.,

1994). However, in reality, they are more likely to utilize and apply practical principles in their

daily lives. Exceptionists are also more likely than Absolutists to accept actions which will harm

others if the positive benefits will outweigh the negative ones (as cited in Barnett et al., 1998).

A Comparison of Forsyth’s EPQ on the United States and China

Adopting this conceptual framework from the EPQ and the EPT to assess ethics, a study,

“East Meets West: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Cultural Variations in Idealism and

Relativism,” spearheaded by Forsyth, O’Boyle, and McDaniel to investigate cultural variations

between the regions of the East and the West in Idealism and Relativism resulted in the

following:

Before the study was implemented, key deductions and hypotheses were made for the

East and West based on the characteristics of being more Idealism-inclined or Relativism-

inclined. Forsyth, O’Boyle, and McDaniel predicted the following (Forsyth, O’Boyle, Dr.,

McDaniel, 2008):

With regards to idealism, we predicted that the well-documented individualism of Western nations, relative to the East, suggested that the nations in this region would adopt less idealistic moral philosophies. Individualism is a tradition or worldview based on each individual’s independence and uniqueness. This doctrine assumes people are autonomous, and must be free to act and think in ways that they prefer, rather than submit to the demands of the group. Collectivism, in contrast, puts the group and its goals before those of the individual members.

When comparing to Eastern nations (China), Forsyth, O’Boyle, and McDaniel inferred the

following:

Turning to reliance on moral principles, we predicted that Eastern nations would be more relativistic than Western ones. Eastern philosophies, rooted in cultural traditions of Shintoism, Hinduism, Zen, Buddhism, and Taoism, tend to be more contextual, relational, and dynamic but less dualistic and principle focused in comparison to Western, Judeo-Christian philosophies.

From these predictions, Western nations (United States) were deduced to be more exceptionism-

based due to less idealism. In contrast, Eastern nations (China) were deduced to be situationism-

based due to more values based off of relativism and idealism.

In addition to these predictions based on religious and cultural norms of Eastern and

Western societies, Forsyth, O’Boyle, and McDaniel also augmented their previous hypotheses by

extracting key points concluded in Hofsteade’s Cultural Dimensions and Inglehart’s Dimensions

of World Values. The key findings are as follows (as cited in Forsyth, O’Boyle, & McDaniel,

2008):

According to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1980), Forsyth, O’Boyle, and

McDaniel expected that the construct of idealism would be closely associated with the

masculinity dimension while the construct of relativism would be closely related to uncertainty

avoidance and individualism. According to Hofstede (1980), cultures that have a low score in

masculinity will envelop caring values which are consistent with relationships with friends and

family while cultures that have a high score in masculinity will acquire competition, goal-

striving, and personal achievement and success over general well-being and concern for other

individuals.

These particular findings indicate that collectivistic cultures of regions in the East (China)

would lean more towards Relativism due to the fact that China has low Individualism while

regions in the West would follow less towards Idealism due to the fact that the United States has

high individualism (Forsyth, O’Boyle, Dr., McDaniel, 2008).

According to Inglehart’s study to examine the relationship between relativism and

idealism to cultural dimensions and Inglehart and Baker’s analysis of the World Values Survey,

the findings from Inglehart’s (Inglehart, 1997) study indicated that there were persistent

distinctions from countries with traditional/secular-rational values (TSV) dimension and

survival/self-expression values (SSV) dimension while the findings from Inglehart and Baker’s

(Inglehart & Baker, 2000) study indicated that, “the people of traditional societies have high

levels of national pride, favor more respect for authority” and “accept national authority

passively.” In addition, individuals from cultures of traditional values also “emphasize social

conformity rather than individualistic striving [and] believe in absolute standards of good and

evil” (Inglehart & Baker, 2000). This indicates that that Eastern countries (China) were high in

the TSV dimension while Western countries (United States) were low in the TSV dimension.

In contrast, according to Inglehart and Baker (2000), cultures with a low score in

traditional/secular-rational values were usually societies that adapted traditional religious beliefs

from having faith in God or Hell. From the samples, a majority of Westerners were associated

with these particular characteristics of religiosity. As a result, Forsyth, O’Boyle, and McDaniel

predicted that idealism would be negatively associated with TSV and relativism would be

positively associated with TSV.

In the realm of the survival/self-expression values, Inglehart and Baker (2000) concluded

that individuals from societies and cultures with high scores of survival/self-expression values

will display “…trust, tolerance, subjective well-being, political activism, and self-expression that

emerges in postindustrial societies” (Inglehart & Baker, 2000). From these findings, nations with

high SSV will possess high relativism when compared to traditional moral standards or TSV. In

addition, individuals with strong SSV are also committed to “emerging social values that prize

equality, environmentalism, and tolerance” (Inglehart & Baker, 2000). According to Forsyth,

O’Boyle, and McDaniel, these demographics suggest that Western nations (United States) would

likely score higher on the SSV dimension when compared to the Eastern nations (China).

Overall, from Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in conjunction with Inglehart and Baker’s

analysis of the World Values Survey, Forsyth, O’Boyle, and McDaniel predicted that “countries

where residents express relatively high levels of relativism will have higher scores on indexes of

traditional/secular-rational values but lower scores on Individualism and Uncertainty Avoidance”

while “countries where residents are low in idealism and relativism (exceptionists) will have

higher scores on Survival/Self-expression values index” (Forsyth et al., 2008).

From past data of various studies, Forsyth, O’Boyle, and McDaniel (2008) were able to

utilize 139 samples collected from a total of 29 countries which totaled a sample size of 30,230

respondents. The data was then examined through a meta-analysis approach that focused on the

statistical information produced by past research studies focusing on multiple regions’ EPQ

ratings to determine idealism and relativism. The data engendered a collective chart which is as

follows:

Using the data provided, Forsyth, O’Boyle, and McDaniel converted and allocated the

original EPQ metric scores to each nation. From the scores, the researchers were able to find data

to support three key findings and conclusions which are as follows (Forsyth, O’Boyle, Dr.,

McDaniel, 2008):

1. Mean levels of idealism and relativism vary across regions of the world in predictable ways

2. Countries can be classified on the basis of residents’ EPQ scores into one of four ethics positions: Exceptionists (Westerners), subjectivists and situationists (Easterners), and absolutists and situationists (Middle Easterners)

3. Variations in idealism and relativism are consistent with prior students of cultural differences (Hofstede Cultural Dimensions)

Some additional findings indicated that Asian countries (China) had a greater score for

Relativism while Western countries (United States) had a lower score for Idealism. United States

was also classified as exceptionistic while China was classified as being more subjectivist.

According to Forsyth, O’Boyle, and McDaniel (2008), “These findings clarify, to a degree, the

conceptual meaning of the dimensions of the EPQ, but they also provide additional details

regarding the nature of cross-cultural differences in individualism/collectivism.” In conclusion,

the key predictions made before the actual study was validated by the data shown from Table II.

From these findings, it can be understood that the cultural, religious, and values of a particular

nation can impact and affect the ethical standards of its inhabitants to a certain degree and level.

Prior analysis and prediction of ethical standards within a nation can be confirmed by cultural

and values of a particular country.

A Comparison of Forsyth’s EPQ in China

According to Redfern and Crawford (2004) in another research study, “An Empirical

Investigation of the Ethics Position Questionnaire in the People’s Republic of China,” the

researchers extensively investigated and studied the ethics based off the EPQ of mainland China

as well as the regional differences within China. In order to implement this study, the authors

examined the results of the EPQ based on a sample of managers from China. In addition,

Redfern and Crawford also investigated possible differences between varying regions of China,

mainly the North and South, due to the social and economic differences between these two

particular locations (Redfern & Crawford, 2004). In past studies, Forsyth’s EPQ was primarily

executed in regions or nations with great similar characteristics of cultures. However, few studies

have been performed on locations with a great multitude of regional differences, such as

mainland China. In order to validate the conclusions of past studies to actual studies, verify

similarities or differences of national EPQ to regional EPQ, and to confirm the applicability and

preciseness of western-measures (Forsyth’s EPQ) on non-western nations with possibly different

ethical constructs, Redfern and Crawford spearheaded a comprehensive investigation on the

People’s Republic of China.

To initiate the study, the Ethics Position Questionnaire was administered to 115 managers in

both the North and South. However, the questionnaire was self-administered by the managers

and collected by hand afterwards. From past research, the strong emphasis on guanxi or

relationships and connections in China resulted in surveys to be distributed and collected by hand

from known associates instead of generic mailed surveys (Roy, Walters, & Luk, 2001). If

surveys were simply administered and collected by strangers without adequate consideration of

China’s cultural differences, then data would have been difficult to compile and amass. Guanxi

found in China represents a cultural barrier, difference, or distinction when compared to Western

nations such as the United States. In addition, regions located within China have been distant and

isolated politically, geographically, and historically with differing levels of industrialization,

educational reforms, and societal variations (Goodman, 1997). As a result of these varying

contrasts, Redfern and Crawford desired to examine differences from regions in China rather

than assume one representation based off one entity is the same to every region.

From utilizing Forsyth’s EPQ, the survey questions were translated from English to

Mandarin-Chinese meticulously to ensure accuracy and consistency of the survey. The data

generated from the study are as follows (Redfern & Crawford, 2004):

From the data analyzed from Table V, Redfern and Crawford deduced that the highest

loading items from the table are associated with Forsyth’s original ethical construct of

“Idealism.” However, upon closer investigation, Redfern and Crawford acknowledged that “the

Idealism factor might not represent precisely the ‘Idealism’ construct as interpreted by Forsyth”

(Redfern et al., 2004). The deeply-rooted belief of benevolence, or ren, serves as the primary

virtue of Confucianism which strongly impacts the lives, actions, and thoughts of the Chinese

people (Clearly, 1993). As a result of this particular belief, benevolence can be intimately

connected with Confucius’ golden rule of, “do not do to others what you do not want done to

yourself” or “love your fellow men” (Lau, 1979, p. 16). The virtue of benevolence, or ren, is

acknowledged as an integral aspect and prevalent cultural value of everyday principles to be

upheld by the majority of the Chinese people (Yang, 1986). These beliefs and ethical ideals

closely resemble Forsyth’s western construct of “Idealism.”

In the realm of “Relativism,” Redfern and Crawford noted the similarities of the ethical

values and beliefs of the Chinese which again stem from the Confucian moral tradition.

Relativism describes making a decision or action through a positive and negative consequences

approach and labeling the action as immoral or moral (Redfern et al., 2004). This particular

belief is closely associated from the Confucian moral tradition that relies on making decisions

from situational intuitions of the xin (heart) which are harmonious in nature instead of

speculative or theoretical choices (Redfern et al., 2004). Despite these similarities between the

Chinese ideals and the Western ideals, Redfern and Crawford (2004) deduced that the Chinese

“Relativism” differs from the Western “Relativism” in that the Chinese execute decisions based

on an irrational approach from an individual’s intuition, higher ideals, or virtues which guides

the decision-making process (Redfern et al., 2004).

From the data taken from Table V and translated into Table VI, Redfern and Crawford

deduced that China had a high degree of Idealism and Relativism, similar to the original

conclusions of Forsyth’s EPQ. According to Redfern and Crawford (2004), the conclusions of

the research study were as follows:

Factor analyses of the Ethics Position Questionnaire in the current study revealed two dimensions, which overlapped substantially with the Idealism and Relativism dimensions found by Forsyth’s (1980) original study…Thus, the results of this study attest to the reliability of the dimensions in a Chinese sample.

However, on inspection of the items loading more strongly on the factors, the first construct [Idealism] is defined by items such as “one should never psychologically or physically harm another person” and “it is never necessary to sacrifice the welfare of other people.” Such themes, interpreted through a Chinese lens, may be consistent with Confucian notions of benevolence, and the importance of harmony in human relationships.

Though the data and conclusions were able to match Forsyth’s EPQ, Redfern and

Crawford (2004) recognized distinct differences of ethics between the regions of the North and

South. The following will address their findings:

It was found that significant differences in ethical ideology do exist between the two regions [North and South], with managers in the South scoring higher on “Idealism” than managers in the North. This observation may be suggestive of the higher levels of exposure to Western lifestyle practices and ideology enjoyed by coastal regions in the southeast of China, in contrast to the more dogmatic and bureaucratic history of the country’s capital, Beijing [North].

This conclusion indicates that though one particular region may belong to a particular

ethical construct pertaining to Forsyth’s Ethics Position Questionnaire on the national level, there

can still be regional differences which will be different in comparison to the overall nation. Each

sub-region’s ethics within a nation may also vary when compared with the collective nation. The

research study by Redfern and Crawford demonstrates the importance of sampling between

different regions independently. Correlation of the regions within the same nation does not imply

causation of the same ethical standards, norms, or ratings based off the EPQ of nations. Due to

cultural, social, or historical differences between regions, there can be minute to distinct effects

or impact of the nation’s overall EPQ rating (Redfern & Crawford, 2004).

According to Redfern and Crawford (2004), there are too few published empirical studies

which attempt to address and discover the suitableness of Forsyth’s EPQ on other cultures other

than Western cultures. In many cases of research, surveys, tests, or questionnaires are simply

translated into the local dialect or language and then administered without any cultural

consideration of the particular group of study. Through this particular method of obtaining

information of administering one test (originally meant for Western cultures based on Western

measurements and constructs), there may be a dichotomy from the results of the data. By

assuming and utilizing one test to portray a universal or “etic” status of ethical constructs from

all cultures may be ambiguous and problematic (Yang & Bond, 1990).

From this comprehensive study of the People’s Republic of China, the western constructs

of both Idealism and Relativism are applicable to China. However, according the Redfern and

Crawford, due to the immense and unknown complexities of cross-cultural differences between

the East and West, future research and analysis would have to be further refine and then test the

constructs of Idealism and Relativism in China in order to successfully determine the “precise

nature of the proposed, indigenous measure for use in research on Chinese ethics” (Redfern et

al., 2004).

Discussion of Forsyth’s Ethics Position Questionnaire

Based off the data, information, and research provided above, the collective findings

suggest that a nations cultural values and own unique culture can impact the particular nation’s

ethical values and norms. However, in retrospect, a country’s ethics may not necessarily impact a

country’s culture. When discussing culture, there are many factors such as values, religion,

societal norms, customs, beliefs, or deeply-rooted faiths which can impact a nation’s overall

collective culture. As a result, cross-cultural differences among a variety of nations, countries,

regions, or sub-regions may vary when compared with one another.

Limitations and Concerns

As depicted in the research from “An Empirical Study of the EPQ in China,” it is shown

that a country’s overall EPQ rating based off of relativism and idealism cannot dictate the ethics

of a nation in its entirety. Due to a diversity and variation in culture of a particular nation or

region, the sub-regions inhabiting the nation may, as a result, have minute differences in ethics,

values, or beliefs compared with the aggregate sum of all sub-regions residing in the nation.

Therefore, studies and research of the Forsyth Ethics Position Questionnaire based on regions

where cultural variations flourish may engender inaccuracies and errors of the nation’s overall

EPQ score. One score for one nation cannot represent each and every sub-region’s EPQ located

within the nation. For example, if an EPQ study was implemented in parts of Mexico, Chad,

Cameroon, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, or Togo (nations with a great amount of

cultural diversity); there would be a lot of differences in EPQ rating when compared to the

overall nation as a whole.

In order to depict more accurate, representational, and precise calculations of a nation’s

EPQ, future research of Forsyth’s Ethics Position Questionnaire should focus exclusively on

regions with similar cultural values or beliefs. The more consistent and similar the researched

locations have with one another, the more consistent and accurate the EPQ rating. Nevertheless,

an EPQ rating cannot unconditionally reflect the morals or ethics of every single individual

residing in the nation. Though Easterners (China) were labeled as being more subjectivists and

situationists while Westerners (United States) were label as being more exceptionists, these

classifications cannot represent all of a nation’s inhabitants as one collective body. Through

more empirical investigation, research, or study of a nation’s cultural values may there be a more

profound, detailed, and legitimate basis for assessing a nation’s ethical constructs.

Hofstede Analysis

Hofstede Cultural Dimensions Theory is a framework for cross cultural communication,

which was developed by Geert Hofstede. This study is utilized in order to understand the culture

of countries to assist global businesses to attain partnership and businesses internationally.

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory describes the effects of society’s culture on the values of

its citizens, and how these values resemble their behavior by using a structured derived from

analysis done from variable studies. For instance, the cultures of Mexico, the United States, and

China tend to have different cultures that must be understood when doing business with them. In

Mexico, the country is known to be more of a Power Distant and Masculine society. In America,

the country is known for assertiveness and ambitious individuals, who tend to love to argue, but

have more of unsatisfactory outcomes in customer’s perspectives. Lastly, in China there is more

preference for mentor-type relationships (guanxi) between managers and persistent qualities in

leaders. These results are deduced from various Hofstede Cultural Graphs which reveal these

conclusions.

Mexico

According to Terzis, Moridis, and Mendez (2013), the data collected from the graph

demonstrated below shows a definite comparison between Mexico and Greece on the four major

concerns: Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, and Uncertainty Avoidance. However,

from the graph, the data indicates that Mexico has more Power Distance and Masculinity than

Greece.

On the graph above (figure 3) it shows that “from Hofstede’s findings regarding Power Distance

for Greece equals to 60 and for Mexico equals to 81” indicating that “Mexicans are individuals

that are influenced from their superiors’ opinions; therefore social influence effect is larger and

significant in Mexico” (Terzis, Moridis, & Mendez, 2013). This reveals that Mexicans “are more

accepting of unequal share of power” (Rodriguez & Brown, 2014). Mexicans who have less

power “accept the inequality because of their psychological need for dependence” (Rodriguez &

Brown, 2014). From these findings, the data demonstrates the respect of authority Mexicans have

toward their superiorities. In addition, the central norms and values of a typical Mexican family

tends to lean more towards the strict roles of males being the respected providers and females

being trustworthy mother figures to their children. According to Hofstede’s findings regarding

Masculinity, Greece scored a 57 while Mexico scored a 69 (figure 3). These results explain that

“with high masculinity such as Mexico, people put more emphasis on goals and tasks, therefore

perceived usefulness… in Mexico” (Terzis et al., 2013). This demonstrates that Mexico tends to

“emphasize values traditionally associated with male domination such as aggressiveness,

assertiveness, money making, and acquisition of objects that denote status and power (big cars,

big houses, and so on)” (Rodriguez & Brown, 2014). Mexico tends to have more of an

authoritarian mentality in their society compared to Greece. The Mexican people do not really

feel the importance of “maintaining quality to life, maturing life, taken care of others, sharing,

and caring for the environment and energy conservation” (Rodriguez & Brown, 2014). In

addition, Mexicans tend to have more of an ambitious attitude than Greece and not quit until they

accomplish their tasks at hand.

According to the Hofstede Cross Cultural findings, it concludes that Mexico seems to be

more of an aggressive country in comparison to Greece. When considering doing business with

Mexico, as indicated on the graph, it is shown that Mexico has a high Power Distance and

Masculinity as a country. This was proven from the graph shown above and assists on business

leaders from around the world to understand that Mexico seeks for individuals who think big and

have the greed to prosper. The Mexican people want power in wealth and material objects, which

makes sense for the country to have a high Power Distant and Masculinity. With these findings,

representatives of businesses should understand the culture of Mexico and how to approach the

distinct culture of the Mexican people. In conclusion, Mexico seeks for individuals who have the

greed to succeed, mentality of wealth, and power.

United States

According to the graph above by Chambers and Hamer (2012), it shows that the United

States ranked individualism as compared to the other values the highest. The United States

ranked individualism 36, which determines the US as an independent country. Individualism

“measures the degree of independence of economic agents (both households and firms) in

managing their affairs, and lack of long-term allegiance to institutions and groups beyond their

own affiliation” (Chambers & Hamer, 2012). In other words, the US is a country who does their

tasks on their own with no assistance from foreigners. In addition to the research, on the table

below from Sachau and Hutchinson, it confirms that the US is ranked highly on individualism. In

fact, on this graph it is ranked as number 1. In addition, on this study it was found that “countries

that rank high in individualism are also low in in collectivism” (Sachau & Hutchinson, 2012). In

other words, Americans value “competition, speaking directly about concerns, self-actualization,

independence, and tasks over relationships” (Sachau & Hutchinson, 2012). This shows how the

US does not really worry about the relationships; Americans tend to want action done and tasks

finished.

China

According to Hofstede (2012), “the fifth dimension deals with “time orientation” and

consist of two contrasting poles: “Long-term orientation” versus “short-term orientation” (Table

1) For instance, there was a study conducted on Long term orientation on the country of China.

In this study conducted by Tony Fang (2003), the author concluded that China is more of a

persistent, relationship oriented, thrift, and having a scene of shame. “In a culture with a high

score such as” China, “pragmatism and striving for long-term aims prevail as well as the idea

that one should work and study to improve oneself” (Hofstede, 2012). This being said, when

doing business with Chinese businesses there has to be some connection of relationship with one

another. In these studies made confirm that Chinese people work well with people who are

willing to work well as a team and be able to win their trust. As mentioned from prior studies, it

is shown that Chinese individuals tend to value friendship a lot and by not confronting them

directly when done something incorrectly they tend to assist the individual by giving them more

time in being able to correct themselves. When deciding who to send as a representative take in

consideration that they seek people who are persistent and again good with relationships as

mentioned on table 1 by Tony Fang, and that will guaranteed a position to be able to work with

them.

Limitations

Hofstede’s analysis is used very well and taken into consideration to many international

businesses. It tends to have its pros and cons. For instance, it can give out a simple estimate of

the culture of a whole country just by asking limited of people and could assist businesses leader

in being able to relate with the country as a whole. On the country, it is very limited on the fact

that it is limited with the numbers of people taking the surveys. It tends to be more of a labor

intensive issue to be able to accumulate the census report and be able to attain all of the

population. That would be a task that is merely impossible to accomplish. In addition, the

Hofstede does not tend to give accurate information. For instance, on one of the researches done

on the United States one was given that the United States ranked 36 on individualism and then

another ranked it number 1. Those results vary tremendously and may deceive a business leader

into understanding what really a country is known for. Also, surveys are opinionated and results

may be suffered by influential issues among their peers. They may be peered pressured into

choosing what friends choose. For example in China, Chinese people tend to honor friendship

and loyalty; so if one friend tells him to choose what he or she chose than that might take that

result into the wrong direction. All studies have their pros and cons and as said before it is just a

way to get estimations and for businesses to be able to a pretty good idea of what the country is

known for and be able to establish relationship with them. It is all trials and errors at that point.

Rokeach Analysis: Values

International business is not a walk in the park for individuals. One must be able to

communicate with a wide range of people with different beliefs and languages such as the unique

cultures and values that different countries intake and practice within their particular country or

region. In the business world, the guidance and utilization of the Rokeach Values Survey can

determine and ascertain the specific values of certain countries.

The Rokeach Values Survey was developed by a social psychologist, Milton Rokeach.

This survey is a classification system of values which consists of two sets of values, terminal and

instrumental values, with 18 individual value items in each system, 1 indicating it is the most

valued item with 18 indicating it is the least valued item. Terminal values are values that are

desirable end-states of existence such as friendship, mature love, family security, etc., while

Instrumental Values are preferred modes of behavior such as capability, courage, honesty,

imagination, etc. This particular study allows management of varying businesses to determine

methods on how to approach business leaders in different countries in order to promote and

enhance opportunities for partnerships. For example, one question which may be applicable to

the real-life business may include the following: How do world-class economies of Mexico, the

United States, and China all work together and generate deals with each other through a

unification of cross-cultural values?

The study of values, norms, and beliefs of a social group provides pertinent information

such as an overview and understanding of a country as a whole to individuals and businesses. In

Mexico, the United States, and China, these three countries have unique but similar values that

can have the ability to affect business decisions. For example, in Mexico, individuals perceive

and value the good aspects or qualities in life, harmony, beauty, and mental characteristics. In the

United States, individuals value Christianity, liberty, and freedom. In China, individuals value

guanxi, or connections and relationships, as well as mutual trust of their tentative partners.

Overall, these three countries all have one similar characteristic in that individuals all seek to

gain profit and/or assist family members at all costs.

Values: Mexico versus the United States

This Rokeach Values Survey below demonstrates the importance of values in Mexico

compared to the United States:

Table 1. Cultural Value Dimensions

Difference

Country Comparison between Means

Factor 1 - Good Things in Life

mature love pleasure US—Mexico .4222* family security comfortable life

sense of accomplishment Mexico—US -.4222* true friendship health exciting lifeFactor 2 - Harmony & Beauty

world at peaceequality US—Mexico .5828*world of heautyfreedom Mexico—US -.5828*inner harmonynational security

Factor 3 - Mental Characteristicscourageousintellectualcapable US—Mexico .2658*independentimaginative Mexico—US -.2658*ambitiousbroad-minded

Factor 4 - Societal Requisitesself-controlledresponsible US—Mexico .5972*politeloyal Mexico—US -.5972*clean

Factor 5 - Christian Valueshonesthelpful US—Mexico -.3119*

salvationforgiving Mexico—US .3199*obedientloving*Significant at the 0.05 levelValues can be important in one country, but other countries might value them more, as

demonstrated by Ueltschy and Ryans’ (1997) table above. “While the respondents in Mexico and

the US differed significantly on all five cultural value dimensions derived from the Rokeach

Value Survey, over 64% of the total variance was accounted for by… global value dimension”

(Ueltschy & Ryans Jr., 1997). The result demonstrates that Mexico tends to have multiple values

compared to the United States. Mexico respondents tend to believe that “”good things in life,”

was more important to subjects in Mexico than in the US” (Ueltschy et al., 1997). The “good

things in life” include things such as “mature love, pleasure, a comfortable life, sense of

accomplishment, and family security” (Ueltschy et al., 1997), which are all important aspects

and qualities to consider in any country. However, these findings do not suggest that individuals

in the United States have differing values in the realm of love, pleasure, harmony, family

security, or accomplishments. These particular results only indicate that individuals in Mexico

value these characteristics in a higher degree and level when compared to the US. The difference

lies in how Americans “were focusing on other areas of their lives; whereas, the Mexican

respondents were still striving after them” (Ueltschy et al., 1997).

In addition, the “good things in life” are values that the US may simply overlook due to

the fact that this quality is second nature for many Americans. In contrast, due to the immense

corruption, economic turmoil, political instability, or immediate dangers, individuals in Mexico

possibly favors and values “the good things in life” more so than their American counterparts.

Furthermore, in the realm of the second value dimension, “harmony and beauty,” a vast

majority of individuals in Mexico value this characteristic more than individuals residing in the

United States. This dimension includes qualities such as “world at peace, freedom, inner

harmony, national security, equality, and world of beauty” (Ueltschy et al., 1997). Many

individuals in Mexico treat these values as highly important and significant because “Mexican

history has been plagued by revolutions and there is currently an element of political instability

in parts of the country” (Ueltschy et al., 1997). In contrast, the United States is the epitome and

embodiment of freedom, equality, and prosperity. As a result, many Americans may not value

these traits as much as Mexicans since they practice it on everyday life, which “of course, many

of these values are taken for granted” in the US (Uelstchy et al., 1997). Moreover, the third

dimension, “Mental Characteristics”, and the fourth dimension, “Societal Requisites”, were all

superiorly important in Mexico when compared to the United States.

From the Rokeach Survey results, the data indicates that Mexico has a variety of values

that should be taken into consideration and highly contemplated when doing business with their

country. For example, in Mexico, individuals value “the good things in life” and “harmony and

beauty” which means that they want everything to be “fifty-fifty” or balanced. Individuals from

Mexico want to work as a team but have the same benefits as the one whom they are working

with in partnership. In addition, when doing business or generating partnerships, many

businesses should consider Mexico as their top choice since they consider “mental

characteristics” and “social requisites” highly valuable. This indicates that Mexicans tend to be

more responsible and more capable of doing their jobs. Workers in Mexico are clean and self-

controlled, which indicates that they can handle work overload, tribulations, and adversity. In

contrast, in the US, many individuals believe that Americans strive for and uphold ethics in a

high manner. In the United States, “Christian Values” are valued more compared to Mexico.

These results might “seem incongruous since Mexico is predominately Roman Catholic country,

but studies have reported that actual church attendance in Mexico is surprisingly low” (Uelschy

et al., 1997). As a result, Christian beliefs serve as a predominant influence, way of life, or

cultural-identity in the eyes of many Americans living in the United States when compared to

their Mexican counterparts. As a result, Americans tend to strive in becoming more honest

individuals due to the Christian influence and beliefs. In conclusion, when doing business,

Americans are more likely to value honesty more so than Mexicans. This distinction in values

may severely impact relationships and connections on an international business perspective. As

more and more businesses outsource products to Mexico, there will be more scrutiny on their

ability to deliver and administer faithfulness, ethics, and honesty.

Values: Vietnam versus the United States

This portion of the essay will focus on the values of the United States and Vietnam

utilizing the same tool, the Rokeach Values Survey. In the value systems discussed in Penner’s

article, “A Comparison of American and Vietnamese Value Systems,” there is a great distinction

and difference between the values US and Vietnam (1977). According to Penner (1977), the

sutdy reveals “significant differences [that] were found between the mean rankings of 13 of the

18 values”, but the major difference between the two countries was on National Security,

Freedom, and Social Recognition” (Penner, 1977). The following will address the reasoning and

provide clarification on why there are distinct differences of terminal values between America

and Vietnam.

On Table I, the differences between the values found in the US and Vietnam on National

Security are illustrated and provided. The definition of National Security is as follows: National

security is defined as “protection from attack” (Penner, 1977). In other words, it is the degree of

how people from a particular country value the protection of their country from invaders. For

instance, “Vietnamese, on average considered [National Security] more important”, which is

depicted through Table I with the US ranking National Security at 9 and Vietnam at 3 (Penner,

1977). This reveals that Vietnam considers National Security as a great importance for their

society. In addition, the results “accounted for by the univariate F ratio (1-A: 8.7%) and the

covariate F ratio for this value,” reflects how the average Vietnamese individuals are more

concerned for the security of their country. These results conclude that because of the “civil war

that continued in Vietnam for 30 years,” there is a great “cause for this greater concern with

security among the Vietnamese” (Penner, 1977). In contrast, though Americans favor national

security, individuals residing in the US tend to focus more on other values than national security.

For example, Americans consider Freedom to be more important compared to the Vietnamese.

Freedom is defined as when one wants to have the ability to do as one wish. To apply this

definition, in America, freedom is considered to be vital and integral part in the lives of many

Americans in order to live in this country. According to Penner’s (1977) table, the data

“suggested that Vietnamese were not overly concerned with the value that the American

government gave as one of its major reasons for its military involvement in Vietnam- Freedom,”

which reveals that the protection that the Americans said to give to Vietnamese “did not seem to

be very important to the average Vietnamese” (Penner, 1977). This result makes sense to an

extent as to determining what political view Vietnam tends to relate to the most. For instance,

Rokeach has revealed that people who “rank Freedom high (ranks 1-6) and Equality low (ranks

12-18) are receptive to a capitalistic ideology”, whereas vice versa, people tend to have more of a

communist ideology (Penner, 1977).

The results demonstrated on Table I show that Vietnamese people tend to value less

freedom by default but strive for greater equality as Rokeach discusses, so “the relative

importance placed on Freedom and Equality by Vietnamese suggests that they would have been

more receptive to a “left-wing” political ideology than would the American sample” (Penner,

1977). In these results there is an identifier which determines that Vietnam tends to be more

conservative than most Americans consider themselves (if they were part of the American

governmental system). In comparison, America leans more towards the capitalistic ideology.

Since America values freedom more than Vietnam in Rokeach terminology, it shows that

America is more right wing than Vietnam. According the Penner (1977), the Vietnamese people

“probably have opted for a left wing ideology, certainly more so than the average American”

(Penner, 1977). The survey reveals many additional determinations on a country’s particular way

of thinking. For instance, Vietnamese people tend to value more Social Recognition than

Americans.

Social Recognition is when one values to be respected and admired. However, in the

grand scheme of life, productivity, and societal contributions, the qualities of social recognition

do not have any tangible importance or significance. According the Penner, “The largest of these

were for the values Social Recognition, a comfortable Life (Vietnamese consider it more

important than Americans)” (Penner, 1977). According to Table I, the data demonstrates this

statement by representing the ranks on the Rokeach survey. America ranks this value of social

recognition as number 17 out of the 18. In contrast, Vietnam feels that this specific value is

important because of the rank it tends to give it, which is number 14 out of 18. From the data, it

can be inferred that Vietnam believes it to be valuable when respected and admired by their

peers. For example, in America, individuals value freedom more they tend to have freedom of

speech. As a result, this notion tends to be self-depreciating since Americans are known to speak

their minds out loud and disrespect their superiors. In America, many individuals gossip about

the President and have the freedom to publicize degrading or demeaning articles. As a result, the

survey shows that exact reason why Social Recognition is not valued as much in the US.

According to Penner (1977), “this greater concern with Social Recognition among Vietnamese

than among Americans was evident in all the subsequent comparison” because American values

are mainly Freedom and Christianity.

In the business aspect of this discussion, there is a huge importance of the comparison

between America and Vietnam in the terminal values. According to the Rokeach Survey results,

when trying to do business with America, there is a strong indicator that America tends to value

freedom, as previously mentioned. By understanding this characteristic, many countries can

utilize this conclusion to assist them when considering doing business with American businesses.

For example, there can be flexible work schedules that can accommodate the managers to meet

and have flexible hours to work, therefore, promoting and enhancing freedom in the workplace.

According to the Rokeach Values Survey, Americans feel the want of being able to do things as

the way they believe is right and have that freedom to do so. As a result, they want to be able to

spot the wrongdoing right away and be able to speak out in a straightforward manner. (This

aspect connects with the freedom of speech discussed previously).

In contrast, when doing business in Vietnam, many individuals or businesses should

consider that the Vietnamese value National Security and Social Recognition higher and more so

than Americans. As a result, Vietnamese tend to favor being respected and honored. In addition,

they also want to be admired. In order to successfully integrate a partnership in Vietnam,

individuals or businesses should actively focus on what Vietnamese business leaders are doing

and applying their suggestions to the workforce. From this application, outside businesses or

individuals may be able to engender great harmony among the two businesses which will then

guarantee a partnership. (These conclusions came from the analysis given on the Rokeach

Survey of only terminal values).

Instrumental values are behavioral values such as being ambitious, capable, cheerful, etc.

This study is highly important because it reveals the reason why a country leans more toward

certain terminal values and how they go about in reaching those terminal values or goals. In

continuing with the studies of America and Vietnam from Penner’s article, Penner generates

another table showing major differences in Vietnam and America on what they believe is a better

instrumental value for their country and to businesses. From this table, it is shown that the US

values more Ambition and Broadminded individuals in their workforce. On the contrary,

Vietnam values obedient individuals in their workforce.

In the Rokeach Values Survey constructed by Penner, the table demonstrates the results

which reveal what instrumental values each country value the most. In Penner’s article, the study

is made on US and Vietnamese men. Below is the table that reveals the results of the studies

made by Penner (1977):

According to the table above, it shows that there were 11 out of the 18 univariate F ratio

that were extremely different, but the “largest of these were for the values Obedient, Ambition,

and Broadminded” (Penner, 1977). On the table above, it defines Ambition and Broadminded as

very important for US men. The table also shows that US men rank 3 for Ambitious and 5 for

Broadminded. In contrast, Vietnamese men ranked 17 for Ambitious and 15 for Broadminded,

which indicates a great difference in between American and Vietnamese men. American and

Vietnamese men tend to think differently on the two values that reveals the total difference

among the two country’s way of thoughts. With these results and analysis done by the Survey, it

can be concluded that American men tend to want the hardworking people who seem to have the

mentality of maintain prosperity and taking initiative along with the combination of broadminded

individuals.

Broadminded people tend to be more creative and think beyond their scope and that is

what Americans feel is the key to succeeding in the business world, considering the results on

the Rokeach Values Survey. In contrast, Vietnam feels that these qualities, or values, are not

important because they feel that maybe ambition and broadminded might be used negatively as

being able to take over the country since Vietnam is a communist country. According to the

Rokeach Value Survey results on the terminal values, the mentality might intervene to the

decision of having an ambition and broadminded individual. Those two characteristics in

combination may turn out dangerous and might end up with certain individuals wanting to take

over a nation instead of helping the society, which Americans see it as more of a positive

because an individual is trying to get things done and always wants to be the best. These two

countries, the United States and Vietnam, bump heads on these two values as well as the

obedient value.

On the table above constructed by Penner, it shows that Vietnamese men rank Obedience

as 2, whereas American men value obedience as 16 out of 18 values. Once again there is a

divergent between the two countries on this value, but this one is preferred highly on Vietnamese

men than on American men. These particular values can impact a culture and the way businesses

are run or carried out. According to the data, Vietnam believes that following orders is what

should be done (this is related to the terminal values discussed earlier to Vietnam being a

communist country and wanting more equality than freedom). Vietnam wants everyone to follow

the rules and be equal; they do not want to have anyone indifferent in the company. Whereas in

America, obedience is not really necessary because they want people to think out of the box and

do what they believe is best for the company.

In the previous discussion, it is discussed in the terminal values that Americans feel that

freedom is more important than equality which is why they have a capitalistic mentality. This

would make sense why Americans would feel that obedience is least important because they

want people to feel free to speak their opinion and have the freedom to disagree whenever they

believe is essential to express on a meeting or other business related issues. The Rokeach Values

Survey results demonstrate these connections that many global businesses should consider in

making business with these two countries.

The Rokeach Values Survey, tends to assist international leaders who seek to make

businesses international to have a better understanding of a country. For instance, in these

previous studies, it can be concluded that when doing business with American individuals,

companies or individuals must seek to be ambitious and broadminded people, according to the

results in the survey of instrumental values. Americans want people who are creative and always

want to get to their goals at any cost and not quit. In contrast, Vietnam wants people who are

obedient and follow what is told. Vietnamese people value individuals who follow instructions

and construct a trustworthy relationship, and follow the structure of the company and should go

through a fixed way of getting to their goals. In conclusion, the main difference of these two

sections of the Rokeach Survey study is that “respondents in the two countries was not their

goals in life (i.e., terminal values), but rather the means by which these goals are reached (i.e.,

instrumental values), which concludes the reason of the ranking on the table among the two

countries (Penner, 1977). American is one of the important countries in doing business, but

China does not fall behind. On the contrary, it is one of the most important countries in world

trade. As a result, the main goals of many businesses are to engender business relations with

China.

Values: Australia versus the United States

Prior to this comparison, there were studies already discussed about Mexico and the

United States. In addition, another global and economic leading country is the People’s Republic

of China. China is known for being one of the most important trading partners in the world since

the country is ranked highly in GDP. In this section of the research, studies made comparing

China with Australia with the use of the Rokeach Values Survey as well as the results identifying

what type of values the countries differed from will be provided. In Feather’s table below, it

demonstrates the results of the ranking of the terminal values that each country believed were of

great importance. However, the major difference that was found in the terminal values study was

between the values of National Security, Social Recognition, and Inner Harmony. The table

constructed below by Feather (1986) reveals the drastic differences between these specific values

among the two countries (as demonstrated by the mean between the genders):

According to the table above, the terminal values that China feels as of great importance

are National Security and Social Recognition. From the table, China ranked 6.4 on National

Security and 10.3 on Social Recognition. This demonstrates that China values the security of the

country or “protection from attack” mentioned in Penner’s article because they are a communist

country. As a result, the individuals residing in China feel that their country should be protected

from foreign invaders. This might be because of China is not seen as an “economically affluent

nation when compared with societies like Australia” (Feather, 1986). From a historical

perspective, China has “undergone marked social and political upheaval over the past 40 years or

so” (Feather, 1986). When there are political concerns in society, there are always a high

percentage of security being of high interest within the country. In addition, China valued Social

Recognition higher than Australia. This makes sense because of the known cultural values of

China. China is known for their interest in having a harmonious environment with establishing

trust and that is why Social Recognition is ranked highly. They want to be recognized by being

respected and not be betrayed. The Chinese people value friendship highly, according to the

table, which boosts the importance of Social Recognition because they tend to go hand on hand.

With friendship being involved, there has to be an involvement of recognition and respect among

individuals. China stresses extreme importance on these particular circumstances compared to

their Australian counterparts. In contrast, Australia tends to value Inner Harmony more when

compared with China.

Australia is known for being a country that concerns more on “love, self-definition, and

self-fulfillment”, which explains why Inner Harmony is ranked highly compared to China

(Feather, 1986). According to the table above, Australians value friendship highly, as

demonstrated by the close ranks to China (Ranked on Friendship: Australia 6.1 and China 5.1).

This further augments the fact that Australians tend to value a lot on relationships between their

peers. Basically, what Feather discovered through the research is that Australians tend to value

the personality of the individuals and what comes more into the heart. The reason is because of

the study being made in “an affluent, secure, and stable society”, which was located in a

“distinctive culture with its own unique history and patterns of cultural transformation” (Feather,

1986). This could be a huge factor of the responses given to the research. The responses reveal

that Australia is more into the harmonious aspect of their society because they tend to not have

much of political issues going on at the moment in comparison to China, who has huge political

conflicts throughout many years.

Through the studies coming from only terminal values, there can be conclusions done on

what one must do when dealing with these two countries as well as trying to attain business with

them. For instance, since China values more on National Security and Social Recognition, then it

would be convenient for an individual to treat them with respect and discuss a similar interest on

the security of the country. Chinese tend to look more into their goals as a whole on the

protection of the country and to not be invaded. They also value the relationship among their

workforce and believe that it is important to have a harmonious bond for employees to feel

comfortable to work with them. In contrast, Australians tend to look more into Inner Harmony,

which means that Australians tend to look on actions more than what is shown. They seek and

value more of what is inside a person character wise, so it would be ideal when doing business

with Australians to send someone who has a soft, easy-going, and personable personality. In

addition, Australians also really care and value for relationships like Chinese do with guanxi.

These two countries value friendship, connection, and relationships at the top of their lists which

can be used in business planning, meetings, or mergers in order to make deals go smoothly and

professionally. Although terminal values are able to provide significant information about the

goals of the country to various businesses or organizations, there is still a need for the

instrumental values, or the way the country seeks to get to their goals.

Continuing with the comparison of China and Australia, there is another difference

between these instrumental values in the realms of Ambition, Intellect, Honesty, and Forgiveness

which are disclosed on the table 2 (see below) constructed by Feather:

According to the graph above, China ranked Ambition 2.3 out of 18. This indicates that

the Chinese people value ambitious individuals very highly when compared to Australian

individuals who ranked it 10.7 out of 18. Chinese people seem to want people who can get things

done and are very aware of what they are doing. That is why intellect is also valued highly

compared to Australian people. According to the studies shown above, the Chinese were more

interested on “values related to competence and scholarship (e.g., wisdom, being capable,

imaginative, intellectual, and logical) when compared to the Australian” people (Feather, 1986).

Individuals in China have the mental ideology that if there is competition in the workforce then

there will be more success because people tend to work harder when their job is on the line. As

mentioned from the terminal values, China valued social recognition which makes sense for the

country to have more concern on the wise and elderly. According to the research, the Chinese

value respect, which means that in order to earn the respect of their peers, one must gain the trust

and friendship of individuals through guanxi. According to Feather, the Chinese also “assigned

higher priority to values concerned with respect, hard work, and self-restraint”, which

demonstrates the reason of ranking Ambition and Intellect highly (Feather, 1986). In contrast, the

Australian people value more on honesty and forgiveness.

From the table above, Feather reveals that the Australian people ranked a 3.9 out of 18

for Honesty and a 7.5 out of 18 being for Forgiveness. Compared to Chinese people who ranked

Honesty as a 8.8 out of 18 and Forgiveness as a 13.5 out of 18, Australians tend to value these

highly which makes sense because of the country focusing more on the terminal value of Inner

Harmony. As it was discussed before, Australian individuals tend to want the best of the people

but worry more about the inner self, as in the personality of the person. These results, honesty

and forgiving, go with the inner harmony that was found by the terminal value results from the

first studies made by Feather. Australian individuals “saw self-related values and excitement as

more important (e.g., happiness, inner harmony, and an exciting life),” which connects to the

results of them focusing more on the personality of the individual (Feather, 1986). One could

conclude these results by just analyzing the results from the terminal values, but it is also

important to be able to see why the country chose these values and how do they tend to attain

their goals.

Through the studies given in the instrumental portion many can conclude, in the business

aspect, that Chinese people tend to desire ambition and intellect in their workforce or citizens,

which demonstrates to international business leaders that they should send someone who is

persistent, hardworking, and resolute to make business with the Chinese. In addition, the

individual should do it with a mentality that the Chinese want to be respected and be honored. As

a result, the individual who is representing the country in order to deal with Chinese leaders must

know how to communicate with them in a friendly manner and be able to attain their trust, but

not sound too weak while doing it also. Individuals or businesses trying to engender or generate

partnerships with the Chinese must also focus on establishing and enhancing relationships,

friendships, connections, or guanxi. In contrast, when dealing with Australians, an individual

must be energetic, up-beat, optimistic, outgoing, and happy. Individuals or businesses trying to

engender or generate partnerships with Australia must also possess a humble attitude and attain

soft emotions. Australians feel the want to work with people who are genuine and beautiful in

spirit. Simply sending someone who is charismatic and having that attitude will most likely get

the contract with them, according to Rokeach Values Survey’s results.

Discussion of the Rokeach Values Survey

In conclusion, there were wonderful results from the great analysis done with the

Rokeach Values Survey, which assisted on what one should focus on when doing business with

these three main countries: Mexico, USA, and China. Studies were done with each individual

country compared to an outside country. For instance, Mexico was compared to the US and the

US was compared to Vietnam, and China was compared to Australia. The countries were not

compared directly with them (with the exception of Mexico because it would make sense to

compare them with the US, which are major trading partners at the moment). All in all, there was

a conclusion made that these three countries seem to work together because of the qualities each

of them seek. For instance, the US seeks ambition which correlates with China and that is why,

at the moment, Americans and Chinese individuals are making progress with international

business trades and working fluently. It is a great fit, which is determined by the survey.

Limitations and Concerns

Although the results comply with the real world, there can still be huge limitations on the

research methods and results. One, the survey is limited only to a certain amount of people

taking the survey. For instance, in Penner’s survey it showed only results from only 1428

Americans and 349 Vietnamese. This comparison and imbalance of sample size among

Americans and Vietnamese do not accurately represent reality, which can manipulate the

variances, thus creating a false result. In addition, the influences also might intervene with the

results. For example, parents might force their children, if doing studies with them, to rank other

values highly when in reality they feel that other values are more important. All these factors

come into play and can be the reason why this tool may not be as reliable as many may think.

Nothing in the world of studies can be 100% accurate because of the enormous factors of

population and influential purposes. However, studies implemented and concluded can bring

estimations that might be able to relate to reality. Through extensively studying different

cultures, values, and belief systems of differing nations, individuals or businesses may be able to

utilize the data, information, and conclusions from past studies and apply them to everyday

decisions, professionally or personally. In doing so, individuals and businesses may be able to

have a more comprehensive and profound knowledge, understanding, or awareness of certain

cultures. With this cultural intelligence and comprehension, individuals and businesses may

become successful and prosperous in the global market.

References

Hofstede, G.: 1980, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values (Sage, Newbury Park, CA).

Barnett, T., Bass, K., Brown, G., & Hebert, F. J. (1998). Ethical ideology and the ethical judgment of marketing professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(7), 715-723.

Chambers, D., & Hamer, S. (2012). Culture and growth: Some empirical evidence. Bulletin Of Economic Research, 64(4), 549-564. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8586.2010.00364.x

Cleary, T: 1993, The Essential Confucius: The Heart of Confucius' Teachings in Authentic I Ching Order (Harper Collins, San Francisco)

Feather, N. T. (1996). Extending the search for order in social motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 7(3), 223.

Ferrell, O. C. and Larry G. Gresham (1985), "A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 49 (Summer), 87-96.

Forsyth, D., O’Boyle, E., & McDaniel, M. (2008). East meets west: A meta-analytic investigation of cultural variations in idealism and relativism. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 813-833. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9667-6

Forsyth, D. R. and J. L. Nye. (1990). Personal moral philosophy and moral choice. Journal of Research in Personality 24, 398–414.

Forsyth, D.R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, 175-184.

Goodman, D. S. G.: 1997. 'China in Reform', in D. S. G. Goodman (ed.), China's Provinces in Reform (Routledge, London), pp. 1-15.

Hofstede, G., & Tipton Murff, E. J. (2012). Repurposing an old game for an international world. Simulation & Gaming, 43(1), 34-50. doi:10.1177/1046878110388250

Inglehart, R.: 1997, Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)

Inglehart, R. and W. E. Baker. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review 65, 19–51.

Lau, D. C: 1979, Confucius: The Analects (Lun yu) (Penguin Books, London).

Penner, L. A., & Anh, T. (1977). A comparison of American and Vietnamese value systems. Journal of Social Psychology, 101(2), 187.

Redfern, K., & Crawford, J. (2004). An empirical investigation of the ethics position questionnaire in the people's republic of china. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(3), 199-210.

Rodriguez, A., & Brown, A. (2014). Cultural differences: A cross-cultural study of urban planners from japan, mexico, the u.s., serbia-montenegro, russia, and south korea. Public Organization Review, 14(1), 35-50. doi:10.1007/s11115-012-0204-9

Roy, A., P. G. Walters and S. T Luk. (2001) Chinese puzzles and paradoxes: Conducting business research in china. Journal of Business Research 52, 203-210.

Sachau, L., & Hutchinson, S. (2012). Trends in culturally relevant interface design features for Latino Web site users. Educational Technology Research & Development, 60(6), 1033-1050. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9270-5

Schlenker, Barry R. and Donelson R. Forsyth (1977), "On the Ethics of Psychological Research," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(4), 369-396.

Tansey, R., Brown, G., Hyman, M. R., & Dawson Jr., L. E. (1994). Personal moral philosophies and the moral judgments of salespeople. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 14(1), 59-75.

Terzis, V., Moridis, C. N., Economides, A. A., & Mendez, G. (2013). Computer based assessment acceptance: A cross-cultural study in greece and mexico. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 16(3), 411-424.

Tony, F. (2003). A critique of hofstede's fifth national culture dimension. International Journal Of Cross Cultural Management, 3(3), 347-368.

Ueltschy, L. C., & Ryans Jr., J. K. (1997). Employing standardized promotion strategies in mexico: The impact of language and cultural differences. International Executive, 39(4), 479-495.

Vitell, Scott, J., James R. Lumpkin, and Mohammed Y. A. Rawwas (1991), "Consumer Ethics: An Investigation of the Ethical Beliefs of Elderly Consumers," Journal of Business Ethics, 10 (May), 365-375.

Yang, K. S.: 1986, 'Chinese Personality and Its Change", in M. H. Bond (ed.). The Psychology of the Chinese People (Oxford University Press, New York), pp. 106-170.

Yang, K. S. and M. H. Bond. (1990). Exploring implicit personality theories with indigenous or imported constructs: The chinese case. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58(6), 1087-1095.