"Academy of Management Review, 1985, Vol. 10, No. 3, 435-454.

Clustering Countries on Attitudinal Dimensions: A Review and Synthesis

by SIMCHA RONEN

New York University

ODED SHENKAR

Tel-Aviv University, Israel

Eight empirical studies using attitudinal data to cluster countries are reviewed. The major dimensions accounting for similarities among countries are discussed, and a final synthesis of clusters is presented. As a field of inquiry, comparative management involves the cross-cultural comparison of behavior in organizations. More specifically, it attempts to establish the degree to which cultural environment systematically influences employees' attitudes and behavior in addition to influencing intracultural individual differences. Assuming that there is sufficient justification for treating cultures as distinct entities, and assuming also that nations can be operationalized as practical proxies for these entities, one line of research has attempted to establish clusters of countries based on their relative similarity according to relevant organizational variables. This paper reviews the published literature on country clustering and proposes a map that integrates and synthesizes the available data. The variables forming the basis for the empirical grouping reviewed here are related to employee work attitudes. The comparisons are based primarily on general attitudes towards work (as reflected in the individual's work values or goals) rather than on more specific attitudes relevant to the immediate job and its conditions. These variables are used to group countries or nations, as opposed to cultures, as the unit of analysis. By defining the country as the unit of analysis, the clustering of these countries has important
Requests for reprints should be sent to Simcha Ronen, Management Department, Graduate School of Business Administration, New York University, 90 Trinity Place, New York, NY 10006. 435

implications for managers and academicians. Managers in multinational corporations (MNCs) can better understand the basis for similarities and differences between countries. With this knowledge, they can more effectively place international assignees, establish compatible regional units, and predict the results of policies and practices across national boundaries (Ronen & Kraut, 1977). Clusters also can help academicians by defining the extent to which results should be generalized to other countries. Properly employed results from one country can be generalized to the entire group of countries sharing a particular variable within the same cluster. Clusters also aid the researcher in identifying variables that explain the variance in work goals and managerial attitudesvariables such as language, religion, or level of industrialization.

Studies
Eight cluster studies emerged from the literature search. These included Haire, Ghiselli, and Porter (1966); Sirota and Creenwood (1971); Ronen and Kraut (1977); Hofstede (1976); Griffeth, Hom, Denisi, and Kirchner (1980); Hofstede (1980); Redding (1976); and Badawy (1979). Two of the studies under review examined one world region each. Redding (1976) studied eight countries in Southeast Asia, and Badavkry (1979) studied six countries in the Middle East. Although these studies did not perform any clustering of countries, there are good reasons to include

them in the review. The Arab group that Badawy surveyed did not appear in any other study, and its inclusion provides information on a world region with distinct work goals. Redding's study of Southeast Asia provides additional information on work values in countries not surveyed elsewherenamely, Indonesia, Malaysia, and South Vietnamthus allowing a broader inspection of the variations within this region. Also, data from different organizations in Hong Kong, Japan, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand can be compared to data collected by Hofstede (1980) on subsidiaries of an MNC in those countries. Two of the eight studies reviewed take the form of books rather than papers (Haire et al., 1966; Hofstede, 1980). Needless to say, the book format allowed a more detailed report of both theory and methodology than would have been possible in a paper. Also, some studies used in-house data collected by an MNC; others collected data designed specifically for the study (Haire et al., 1966). This paper discusses the variables used in the studies, the sampling, questionnaire administration, and the procedure for data analysis. It evaluates the methodological rigor of these studies, establishes a basis for comparison and synthesis, and suggests future directions for research.

Variables
The studies reviewed dealt with various variables that can be grouped into four categories: work goal importance; need deficiency, fulfillment, and job satisfaction; managerial and organizational variables; and work role and interpersonal orientation. The variables used in each study and the research instruments are presented in Table 1. Work goal importance was surveyed by Haire et al. (1966) through an 11-item scale, later utilized by Redding (1976). Sirota and Greenwood (1971) listed 14 work goals; Ronen and Kraut (1977) used a list of 22 work goals (for their own data); and Hofstede (1980) used several surveys, each with a different number of work goals. However, all the scales used are based on a modified Maslow (1954) list of categories, and there appears to be a reasonable basis for comparison.
436

Need deficiency, fulfillment, and job satisfaction were examined by Haire et al. (1966) through 11 items depicting a modified Maslow need categories. The questionnaire omits biological needs and splits the ego needs into autonomy and esteem. The same instrument was used by Redding (1976). Badawy (1979) utilized a 13-item instrument based on Porter's (1961) derivation of Maslow's categories. Hofstede (1980) used more than one survey and therefore a different number of items. Griffeth et al. (1980) used an attitude survey to measure satisfaction with nine job facets. Need importance and need satisfaction are fundamentally different. Unlike need importance, need satisfaction is constrained by the individual's immediate job (Guion, 1958) and is tied to the particular reward structure (Deci, 1971). Can studies that survey work goal importance be compared, then, to studies that survey aspects of satisfaction? A partial empirical answer is provided by Haire et al. (1966) as well as by Redding (1976) who studied both importance and satisfaction variables with similar results. Caution is suggested, however, when these two different types of job attitudes are compared. Four studies examined managerial or organizational variables. Two studies used eight items depicting classical versus democratic managerial attitudes toward the capacity for leadership and initiative, the sharing of infonnation and objectives, and participation and internal control (Badawy, 1979; Haire et al., 1966). Hofstede (1980), who also examined managerial styles, used a different instrument, asking respondents to choose among four tjrpes of managers characterizing their actual and preferable supervisor. Griffeth et al. (1980) examined organizational variables; role overload, organizational commitment, organizational climate, and organizational structure. Three studies surveyed work role and interpersonal orientation. Haire et al. (1966) researched cognitive descriptions of the managerial role using a semantic differential technique (which, incidentally, reduced the response rate for the entire study). Redding (1976) briefly studied relations with subordinates. Hofstede (1976) used the survey of personal values (Gordon, 1967, 1976) to measure practical mindedness, achievement.

Table 1 Variables Used in the Studies Reviewed

Field studies Variables Work goals importance Haire, Ghiselli, ft Porter (1966) 11 items based on modified Maslow's categories' 11 items based on modified Maslow's categories Sirota ft Greenwood (1971) Ronen
ft

'

'

'

' "

'

! , . . . . , . ^ . . . , _

Griffeth, Hom, Denisi, Badawy (1979)

ft

Hofstede (1976)

Redding (1976) 11 items as in Haire et al. (1966)

Kraut (1977)

Kirchner (1980)

Hofstede (1980) Varying number of items from different surveys'^ Various number of items from different surveys Manager's style: present ft desired

14 work goals
<-

22 work goals'"

Need deficiency. fulfillment.

ft job

, .

11 items as in Haire et al. (1966)

satisfaction

13 items based on Maslow's categories (Porter's instrument) 8 items depicting managerial style as in Haire et al. (1966)

65 items of satisfaction with 9

job

facets Organizational variables. role overload. organizational commitment. organizational climate and structure

Managerial ft organizational variables

8 items depicting classical or democratic managerial style Cognitive descriptions of the managerial role

Work role ft interpersonal orientation

Survey of Personal Relations Values (SPV) with ft Survey of subordinates Interpersonal Values (SrV)

, :
.

-,. ,

, -'

' The modified Maslow's hierarchy applied by Haire, Ghiselli, ft Porter (1966) omits biological needs and adds the higher level need of autonomy. The modified list thus contains the following needs: (1) security, (2) social, (3) esteem, (4) autonomy, (5) self actualization. : . . Tlonen ft Kraut (1977) also analyzed Haire et al's and Sirota ft Greenwood's data. Tactors extracted were power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, and masculinity. ',

variety, decisiveness, orderliness, ind goal orientation; he also used the survey of interpersonal values (Gordon, 1975) to measure support, conformity, recognition, independence, benevolence, and leadership. A review of the variables raises the question of how comparable the data are in these eight studies. Five studies referred to work goals importance; another five surveyed need deficiency, fulfillment, and job satisfaction; four studies included managerial or organizational variables; and three studies examined work role and interpersonal orientation. Furthermore, the same vari437

ables were frequently measured using different instruments. Nevertheless, there seem to be important reasons for comparing and synthesizing the various studies. First and foremost, these studies represent the most sophisticated efforts available in clustering work attitude by nations, and they provide guidelines for future research. Second, there is a substantial overlap in the variables examined in the various studies, which increases the reliability of the comparison. Finally, five of the reviewed studies used multiple variables; the remaining three employed values or work goals.

It is suggested here, however, that work goals are preferable to other variables. Work goals are less constrained by the immediate job and environment, and they best represent the cultural milieu of individuals, thus allowing for more thorough cross-national research. It has been suggested that one of the major links between the cultural milieu and individuals' job behavior lies in their work values (England, 1978, Haire et al. 1966; Hofstede, 1980). The use of alternate measures to examine the stability of clusters is another possible strategy. It may be necessary, however, to use diverse measures in the same study to attribute clustering differences to the measures applied.

Sampling

The sampling method carries important implications for how representative the studies are.

how much one can generalize from them, and how easily they can be replicated. Table 2 presents the sampling methods in the studies reviewed. Sample Size The samples reviewed vary from 248 employees in six Middle Eastern countries (Badawy, 1979) to 88,000 in 66 countries (Hofstede, 1980). Fiscal and technical considerations constrain the use of large samples, which usually are unavailable to the academic researcher. In some of the studies reviewed, however, the samples seem too small to represent the worker population in the countries surveyed. It is recommended that the sample size for each country be reported and that researchers follow Sirota and Creenwood (1971) and Hofstede (1976) in omitting from their analysis countries represented by too few respondents.

Table 2 Research Procedure Describing Samples and Questionnaires

Haire, Ghiselli, & Porter (1966) Sample Size 3,641 Sirota & Greenwood (1971) Hofstede (1976) Redding (1976) Ronen & Kraut (1977)' Badawy (1979) Griffeth. Hom, Denisi. & Kirchner (1980) 1768 Hofstede (1980) Total of 88,000 respondents in two surveys. 65 (66 including U.S.) Varies, where less tban 8 respondents on some items data omitted. Various occupational levels

about 13.000

315

736

4.000

248

^:p:i:yi%i:'^r
Number of countries
14 14

Minimum Sample Size of eacb country Organization level/ function

All samples are above 100

40 in each occupational group y;

8 (Southeast Asia only) Not reported

At least 40

6 in the Middle East Not reported

15 Western countries
11

Various levels of management

Salesmen Tecbnical Personnel Service Pereonnel Not reported Not reported

Middlelevel managers

Middlelevel managers

Tecbnicians

Mid-management (exact definition given)

Managers - . ,

Control for ethnic/ linguistic affiliation Response rate Inclusion of only those bom. reared. educated in same country

Not reported Not reported

Reported Not reported

Reported Not reported

Not reported Not reported

Not reported 85% (251, 248 usable out of 295) Not reported

Reported Not reported

Reported Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

438

Table 2 (Continued)
Haire, Gbiselli. & Porter (1966) Background information on employees Age Education Sirota & Greenwood (1971) Hofstede (1976) Redding (1976) Ronen & Kraut (1977)* Badawy (1979) Griffetb, Hom. Denisi. ft Kircbner (1980) Not reported Hofstede (1980)

Occupation (tbe above 3 groups)

Age Occupation Sex (3 females)

Not
reported

occupation (comparison to Haire et al.; Sirote ft Greenwood) Not reported (large size implicit from number of subsidiaries)

Age Experience Education Occupation Department

Occupation Sex Age

Organization size

Reported

Not reported

Not
reported

Reported. just over balf from organizations employing less than 100 people.

Reported

Reported as "large"

Implicit from number of subsidiaries.

Industry

A variety of businesses ft industries

Manufacturer of electrical equipment (one organization) U.S.A. Yes, including back translation ft pretesting

Not
reported

Not
reported

Multinational electronic company (one organization) U.S.A. Yes, including backtranslation

Cbemical Petroleum Transportation (no control) Irrelevant No translation. Respondents fluent in English

Intemationai manufacturing corporation (one organization) U.S.A.

Manufacturer ft seller of bigb tecbnology products (one organization) U.S.A. Yes. Gbeck by in-company personnel. Backtranslation only exceptionally Gompanyadministered

Headquarters location Questionnaire translation

Irrelevant Yes, including back translation + cbecking by local social scientists ft businessmen Through companies. employers' associations. universities. training centers.

Irrelevant No. Questionnaire administered in English

Irrelevant Only for 3 countries. Face-toface administration Part time training in various institutions of bigber education + in-company

Yes

Questionnaire administration

Group session. on site. company time.

A management development program at IMEDE, Switzerland.

Company time

Training On location program's participants in Saudi Arabia. ,

- . . , ' '

. -

:... . - [.:

" Ronen ft Kraut (1977) also reanalyzed tbe data from Haire, Gbiselli, ft Porter (1966) and Sirota ft Greenwood (1971). Tbe data presented in tbis column pertain only to Ronen ft Kraut's own data. .

Response Rate With the exception of Badawy (1979), none of the reviewed studies reported the rate of response for their sample. The rate of response, however, may influence the representativeness of the sample because a possible bias may be inherent in the process of self-selection. Haire et al. (1966) were aware of the response problem and suggested that those inclined to cooperate may have been impressed by modern human relations management.

Organizational Level The eight studies surveyed different groups of employees. The middle management groups (used in three samples) were too vaguely defined in two studies (Hofstede, 1976; Redding, 1976). One study provided a detailed list of occupational titles included in the middle management sample (Badawy, 1979). In Criffeth et al. (1980), the group studied was even broadernamely, managerswith no specification of level. Haire et al. (1966) studied various levels of managers and

439

noted the modest impact of managerial levels on their findings. Extending beyond the managerial layer, however, there were few studies. Hofstede (1980) studied various occupational groups. Sirota and Creenwood (1971) surveyed three nonsupervisory groups: salesmen, technical personnel, and service personnel. Ronen and Kraut (1977), in addition to reanalysis of Haire et al. (1966), and Sirota and Creenwood (1971) studied technicians, thus adding to the relatively limited knowledge of nonmanagerial personnel. Sirota and Creenwood (1971) illustrated the problems involved in comparing data sets based on different types of workers. They reported substantial differences in the importance of work goals for the different kinds of workers studied. For instance, job security was ranked 2.5 by service personnel, but only 10 and 11 by salesmen and technical personnel. Elsewhere, Kraut and Ronen (1975) have shown that both country and occupation contributed to differences in work attitude and behavior. Organizational Size The size of the employing organization was not always reported (Hofstede, 1976). In some studies, a large organization was implicit in the numerous subsidiaries reported (Ronen & Kraut, 1977). Redding (1976) noted that just over half of the respondents in his sample came from organizations employing less than 100 people. Haire et al. (1966) reported organizational size for all respondents. The omission of organizational size by several authors may point to an additional constraint on the ability to generalize findings based on the samples reviewed. The impact of size on organizational structure as well as on job attitudes and behavior (Porter & Lawler, 1965) has already been established. Haire et al. (1966), for instance, found that managers from larger companies were more inclined towards a democratic-participative managerial attitude. Badawy (1979) found that those coming from smaller organizations were more democratic regarding subordinates' capacity for leadership and participation in goal setting. Workers in smaller organizations, however, held a classical view toward the sharing of information and the intemal control of rewards. Organizational size thus was the

only variable that could explain variation in internal control. ,, . ._ Industry Some studies (Hofstede, 1976; Redding, 1976) did not specify the industry in which the respondents were employed. Badawy (1979) specified the type of industry, but did not report any breakdown of findings by this variable. (For a few studies that researched the employees of one company each, the question was, of course, irrelevant.) If differences in departmental affiliation can explain some of the variance in employee work goals, one can assume that the type of industry in which workers are employed also will have an impact on these goals. Headquarters Location The studies involving one company (Sirota & Greenwood, 1971) were careful to note the location of company headquarters, a variable that seems to have considerable importance. Knowing the country of origin, for instance, may help assess the extent to which an MNC influences the values of its overseas workforce toward greater conformity with the values of its country of origin. Departmental Affiliation Hofstede (1976) found that employees' area of employment (e.g., finance, marketing) influenced their work-related personal values (though the influence was not significant). Badawy (1979) reported that marketing and general administration managers were most democratic in their leadership style preference and production executives had the most autocratic attitude. Production managers favored the sharing of objectives and information; financial executives objected. Participation in goal setting was endorsed only by personnel managers. Demographic Variables Some studies did not report any demographic information on employees (Criffeth et al., 1980; Redding, 1976). Age was reported in four studies; occupation, in five studies; sex and education, in two studies; experience and department, in one study (Badawy, 1979). Data already at hand, however, suggest that part of the variance in
440

employee work goals is explained by demographic variables rather than by country. Education Hofstede (1980) found that education correlated with both individualism and masculinity indices (which he extracted from work goals), thus establishing a connection between educational level and work goals. Age and Experience Haire et al. (1966) reported that older managers showed greater fulfillment of needs but were more dissatisfied with this fulfillment. Hofstede (1976) reported that older managers described themselves as more "conforming" and more "benevolent" (with nonsignificant lower "support" and "independence"). Badawy (1979) found that managers in the 30 to 39 age group took a more democratic view of leadership style than did both younger and older managers; that those between 25 and 34 had a more democratic attitude towards the sharing of infonnation and objectives; and that those between 40 and 44 favored participation in goal setting more than others. Badawy found that managers with less experience favored a classic autocratic attitude towards subordinates and that the two middle groups held a classical view of participation in goal setting. Sex As Hofstede (1980) summarized, males in most studies rated advancement and earnings as more important; females scored interpersonal relations, service, and physical environment as more important. Origin and Ethnic Affiliation Almost no information about origin of the respondents is provided by the studies. Only Redding (1976) emphasized that he included only those born, reared, and educated in the same country. Needless to say, a failure to account for those factors might be an enormous source of error in such studies. Not all studies surveyed have taken into account the diversity within a country's borders. Haire et al. (1966), Sirota and Creenwood (1971), Ronen and Kraut (1977), and Badawy (1979) do
441

not report whether they took note of this factor. In contrast. Redding (1976) included only designated ethnic and linguistic groupsfor instance, the Chinese in Singapore. Similarily, both Hofstede (1976, 1980) and Criffeth et al. (1980) distinguished among the different linguistic segments of Swiss population. Reporting a country's internal diversity is important. Many countries are not homogeneous; they consist of various populations. They may differ according to language (French and Flemish in Belgium; French, Cerman, and Italian in Switzerland, etc.); according to climate and differing proximity to other countries (e.g.. Northem and Southern Italy); or according to urban/ mral and other differences. These factors should affect the choice of sampleor at least be noted and accounted for. To summarize the sampling procedures, there seems to be enough overlap in the samples chosen to justify a synthesis despite the difference in the sampling methods. For instance, most studies include a managerial layer in their sample, and all four studies that examined one MNC chose a U.S.-based corporation. It is recommended, however, that in the future, researchers will report national sample sizes and response rates as well as individual and organizational information for respondents. The additional data will facilitate the assessment of the representativeness of the samples and will enable a more precise comparison of work goals and attitudes among various groupings.

Preparation and Administration , of Questionnaire u

An essential part of any empirical research is the method for collecting data from the designated sample. Two aspects are of particular importance in cross-cultural research: translation and administration of questionnaires. The data are presented in Tahle 2. Language is not only an important explanatory variable in cross-cultural studies, but also a vital instrument of research in such studies. Of the eight studies reviewed, two (Badaviry, 1979; Hofstede 1976) did not use translated questionnaires because the respondents were fluent in English. Although the problem is minimized in this case, there is a possibility that respondents

from different countries attach different meanings to similar questions. In Redding's study (1976), translation was made for three of the eight countries surveyed. This might raise a problem of reliability, although the face-to-face administration of the questionnaire may have solved part of the problem. The other six studies relied on translation of the questionnaire into the local languages. At least one study (Criffeth et al., 1980) did not report a back-translation or any other measure to examine the instrument's validity. (Back-translation means the translation of the questionnaire into the native language, then translation back into the original language as a check.) Hofstede (1980) checked translation by in-company personnel, but back-translation was used only sporadically. Ronen and Kraut (1977) used back-translation; Sirota and Creenwood (1971) supplemented it with pretesting. The most rigorous translation was used by Haire et al. (1966), whose back-translation was supplemented by the checking of the translation by local social scientists and businessmen. Researchers administered the questionnaires in different ways. Three of the studies used the convenience of a training program to collect information (Badawy, 1979; Hofstede, 1976; Redding, 1976). However, this arrangement might introduce a source of errornamely, trainees could be a particular group whose goals do not necessarily represent those of the entire organization (not to mention the entire population of workers in a given country). Other studies collected information on location (Criffeth et al., 1980), on company time (Ronen & Kraut, 1977), or else collection was company-administered (Hofstede, 1980). What seems particularly unreliable is a mixture of the two types discussed. Redding (1976) collected information from managers undergoing training programs and made "a small addition" of in-company executives. Redding did not provide a breakdown of findings for the two groups, thus making it impossible to account for possible discrepancies in their responses. The use of some kind of check on virtually all translations suggests that there is a basis for comparing and synthesizing the data generated from the various studies. A thorough back-translation of questionnaires, however, is strongly urged for future studies. It also is recommended that, when442

ever possible, questionnaires be administered on site rather than in various training programs.

Procedure and Analysis

The six studies that performed worldwide clustering all employed some type of multivariate procedure in their analysis. These procedures may be classified as either metric or nonmetric methods. Metric analysis was predominant, as signified by its use in five of the six clustering studies. Haire et al. (1966) used factor analysis to study cognitive descriptions of the managerial role through a semantic differential technique. Factor scores were calculated on the basis of the factor loadings of the nine scales comprising that part of the study. To create country clusters, the authors obtained a correlation matrix on the basis of all three parts of their study, each given equal weight. Countries were grouped on the basis of similarity, each cluster consisting of countries similar to one another and dissimilar to countries in other clusters. A Q (inverted) factor analysis was used by Sirota and Creenwood (1971) and by Hofstede (1976). In his 1980 study, Hofstede performed factor analysis within and between groups (ecological). He acknowledged trying smallest space analysis with very similar results to factor analysis. Hofstede (1980) preferred factor analysis because of his greater familiarity with this method. Griffeth et al. (1980) used the generalized Pjrthagorean distance measure (D^) to measure profile similarity. Cluster analysis was applied to the D^ scores to create country clusters. The authors applied a one-way multivariate analysis of variance to determine the main effect of nationality. A multigroup discriminant analysis was performed to interpret the results of the analysis. The only use of nonmetric multivariate analysis was by Ronen and Kraut (1977), who employed the technique for their own data as well as for their reanalysis of the data in Haire et al. (1966) and Sirota and Greenwood (1971). The consensus among the researchers that multivariate analysis is vital in the process of clustering raises the question of whether metric or nonmetric techniques are preferable. There are

advantages and disadvantages to each method, but the present authors suggest that nonmetric techniques generally are better suited to the purpose of cross-cultural clustering (Ronen, 1982).

Smallest Space Analysis (SSA)

Smallest space analysis is one of several nonmetric multidimensional scaling techniques. (A similar technique is the ALSCAL, by Takane, Young, & DeLeeuw, 1976.) Developed by Guttman (1968) and Lingoes (1965, 1977), the SSA provides a geometric representation of the variables as points in Euclidean space, so that distances in this space are inversely related to correlations. Factor analysis and SSA both identify clusters and presumed factors by finding interrelated groups of correlation coefficients. In both techniques, a set of coordinates (factor loadings) is calculated for locating tbe cases as points in space, yielding a similar basic configuration (Scblesinger & Guttman, 1969). SSA and factor analysis differ, however, in several respects: 1. Factor analysis treats the correlation coefficient as a measure of the common variance to be decomposed; SSA uses the correlation coefficient as an index of similarity (Karni & Levin, 1972). 2. Factor analysis assumes an interval level of measurement; SSA requires only ordinal measurement (Karni & Levin. 1972). 3. Factor analysis tries to account for common variance through a limited number of presumed underlying variates; SSA emphasizes the configuration of the variables and the interpretation of order relations among the data (Karni & Levin, 1972). 4. In contrast to SSA, factor analysis utilizes a single, rigid formula for reproducing observed correlations from the interpoint distances in the common-factor space (Schlesinger & Guttman, 1969). 5. SSA involves a priori assumptions on the structure of tbe variables; factor analysis does not. As a result of tbe above differences, SSA maintains several important advantages over factor analysis, some of whicb are particularly useful for tbe clustering of countries in terms of employee work goals (Ronen, 1982). 1. Tbe statistical rigidities and indeterminancies regarding both rotations and stopping criteria contained in factor analysis have some drawbacks. For instance, tbe classification of a large number of variables into factors based on a variety of rotational criteria may obscure ratber than 443

clarify tbe relationsbips of tbe variables to one anotber botb witbin and across factors (Ronen, Kraut, Lingoes, and Aranya, 1979). 2. Relationsbips among clusters can be identified more easily in SSA than in factor analysis. In studying work goals, for example, tbe SSA enables tbe identification of clusters of employee work goals, interrelationsbips among tbese clusters, and interrelationsbips among individual work goals witbin tbe clusters. In otber words, SSA reveals tbe relationsbips among variables witbin regions as well as the relationsbips of various regions to one anotber (Ronen et al., 1979). 3. Tbe SSA is less sensitive to measurement difficulties sucb as noninterval level measurement, distributional properties due to scaling, or attenuation due to cbanges in reliability (Ronen et al., 1979). For example, it is questionable wbetber an interval assumption on work goals is justifiable, because it assumes equal intervals among tbe values of eacb item. 4. Tbe SSA can reveal more fundamental order relations (order in terms of classification and not in terms of tbe prepotency of factors). By viewing tbe space as a wbole ratber tban concentrating on specialized problems of rotation of axes, SSA is more useful tban factor analysis in identifying tbe general configurational problems, ieading to a better understanding of tbe researcbed pbenomenon. Tbus, tbe analysis of work goals in terms of SSA definitional facets may lead to more fundamental insigbts into tbe laws of formation of tbe structure of correlation matrices (Scblesinger & Guttmem, 1969). 5. A priori assumptions on configuration of variables against wbicb tbe empirical data are validated enable better testing of bypotbeses. Perbaps tbe most important advantage of SSA over factor analysis for country clustering is tbe relative parsimony of tbe SSA: Tbe smallest space analysis usually renders a space of fewer dimensions tban tbat produced by factor analysis (Scblesinger & Guttman, 1969). Tbis parsimony meems tbat meemingful displays of complex data often can be grapbed in only two dimensions, providing visual accessibility to researcbers (Ronen et al., 1979). Sucb accessibility is even more important for practitioners, wbo could use data as a decision making tool. Tbe use of diverse procedures in tbe studies reviewed does not negate tbe possibility of synthesizing tbeir findings. Tbere are SSA analyses of four of tbe six studies tbat performed worldwide clustering: Ronen and Kraut's (1977) own data; Ronen and Kraut's SSA reanalysis of Haire et al. (1966); Ronen and Kraut's reanalysis of Sirota and Greenwood; and Hofstede's report of

having tried tbe SSA witb results similar to tbose from factor analysis. Ronen and Kraut's reanalysis of Sirota and Greenwood's data produced some differences in clusteringfor example, tbe exclusion of Switzerland and Austria from tbe Anglo cluster. Tbe exclusion of tbese two countries from tbe Anglo cluster, however, was supported by tbe findings of all otber studies.

Country Clusters and their Underlying Dimensions

The clusters of countries identified by the various studies are presented in Table 3. The use of national units for clustering is logical because national boundaries delineate tbe legal, political, and social environments witbin wbicb organizations and workers operate. Yet, to understand why certain countries cluster, one sbould look across national boundaries for tbe dimensions underlying tbe clusters. Tbree sucb dimensions are discussed bere: geograpby, language, and religion. Tbe differentiation of tbese dimensions is mainly analytical, because geograpby, language, and religion are closely intertwined. Table 3 Country Clusters by Studies Reviewed
Ronen & Kraut (1977); SSA of Sirota & Greenwood Hofstede (1971) (1976) U.K. VX. : : U.S. U.S. Sweden Australia Canada India New Zealand South Africa

It is apparent from Table 3 tbat countries tend to group togetber geographically. Indeed, tbe names of tbe clusters describe geograpbic areas. One could argue tbat geograpby casually precedes other variables, sucb as language and religion, because a culture spreads first to tbose areas nearest its "birthplace." Tbere is one striking exception, however, to tbis geographical grouping: tbe Anglo-American cluster, wbicb contains countries from all five continents. In tbis case, tbe spread of culture may be attributed to colonization and immigration. In addition, geograpby may influence work goals in ways otber tban territorial proximity. Hofstede (1980), for instance, found tbat a country's climate was correlated with its masculinity index, hence witb its employees' work values. Language is anotber dimension underlying tbe clusters. A language contains meanings and values that are likely to influence individuals' work goals. For tbe most part, tbe countries in each cluster sbare a language or language group. For instance, people in tbe Anglo countries speak Englisb; people in tbe Germanic countries speak German; and tbose in Nordic countries (with the

Haire, Ghiselli, i Porter (1966) U.K. U.S.

Sirota & Greenwood (1971) U.K. U.S. Australia Canada India New Zealand South Africa Austria Switzerland

Redding (1976)
'.v -.-.
^ ,

Ronen & Kraut (1977) U.K. Ireland South Africa Israel

Badawy (1979) /

Griffeth, Hom. Denisi. & Kirchner Hofstede (1980) (1980) U.K. Canada U.K. , U.S. Australia Canada Ireland New Zealand South Africa

s
o

Austria Germany Switzerland

Austria Germany Switzerland

Austria Germany Switzerland

Austria Denmark Finland Germany Norway Sweden Switzerland

Austria Germany Israel Switzerland

444

Table 3 (Continued)
Ronen & Kraut (1977); SSA of Sirota & Greenwood Hofstede (1971) (1976) Denmark Finland Norway Denmark Norway

'

Haire, Ghiselli, & Sirota & Porter Greenwood (1966) (1971)

Redding (1976)

Ronen & Kraut (1977) Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Belgium France

Badawy (1979)

Griffeth, Hom, Denisi, & Kirchner Hofstede (1980) (1980) Denmark Finland Netherlands Norway Sweden Belgium Greece Italy Netherlands Portugal Spain Argentina Belgium Brazil France Italy Spain Chile Colomhia Mexico Peru Portugal Venezuela Greece Iran Turkey Yugoslavia

y,
<

Denmark Germany Norway Sweden Belgium France Italy Spain

Denmark Finland Norway

Belgium France

Belgium France

P < o
_3 oc

Brazil France Italy Switzerland

Argentina Chile S U India <

(/J

Argentina Chile Colomhia Mexico Peru

Argentina Chile Colomhia Mexico Peru Venezuela

i
5g
Hong Kong Indonesia Japan Malaysia Philippines Singapore S. Vietnam Thailand

Hong Kong India Pakistan Philippines Singapore Taiwan Thailand

Ahu-Dhabi Bahrain Kuwait Oman Saudi Arabia United Arab Emirates Brazil Israel Japan Sweden India Iran Japan Jap>an

Japan

S Q

Brazil Germany Israel lapan Sweden Venezuela

445

exception of Finns) speak a variety of languages that are members of a separate branch of the Germanic linguistic family. Language and geography are highly interdependent: the spread of language and culture is associated primarily with physical (or in the case of the Anglo-America cluster, with colonial) elements. Religion, too, affects how the countries cluster. Religious beliefs are associated with certain values and norms, and some support for the correlation of those norms with employee work goals has been found (Ajiferuke & Boddewyn, 1970). Most groupings in the clusters have religion in common. For example, the Anglo, Germanic, and Nordic clusters are predominantly Protestant; the Latin American and Latin European clusters are predominantly Catholic. It is apparent that these three dimensions geography, language, and religion ire not independent. In fact, it is likely (though not certain) that countries with one of these elements in common will share all three. Another dimension on which countries cluster, though less likely to be related to the previous three, is technological development. According to Webber (1969), the level of technology and the corresponding level of development will affect managerial style and attitudes. Some indirect evidence of this is visible in some of the clusters. Haire et al. (1966) show the three developing countries of Argentina, Chile, and India clustered together despite cultural differences. More direct evidence of this effect can be seen in the SSA plot of the Haire et al. data done by Ronen and Kraut (1977), which shows a progression from left to right of countries with increasing levels of development. Hofstede (1980) presents additional evidence. He found that his individualism index (an underlying aspect explaining work values) was highly correlated (r=.82, p<.01) with per capita GNP. Country scores on this index are the major difference between the Latin European countries and the Latin American countries, which Hofstede refers to as more and less developed Latin countries, respectively. Hofstede's cultural dimensions are worth noting because of his unusual methodology and his departure from more traditional dimensions. A short description of each of Hofstede's indices follows. The first index, power distance, is de446

fined as a measure of the interpersonal power or influence between boss and a subordinate as perceived by the less powerful of the two. Uncertainty avoidance measures the degree to which a society deals with the uncertainty and risk present in everyday life. People with high uncertainty avoidance tend to worry more about the future, have higher job stress, tolerate less change, and stay with one employer for a longer length of time. The third factor, individualism, indicates level of dependence on or independence from the organization. It was positively related to such variables as personal time, freedom, challenge, the organization, and negatively related to the use of skills, physical conditions, and training. Hofstede labeled the last dimension the masculinity index. Concepts such as manager, cooperation, desirable area, and employment security were negatively related to this factor; challenge, advancement, recognition, and earnings contributed positively. Hofstede (1980) clustered the countries in his study on the basis of their placement on the four indices. The results of this cluster analysis are shown in Table 3. Each cluster can now be described by its placement on the four continuums and by the attitudinal and work goal characteristics associated with that placement. It is now known which countries are most similar, and one is in a hetter position to predict the sources of similarities and differences. Hofstede thus provides four defining factors of culture (nationality) backed both by theory and empirical evidence. More importantly these four defining factors are continuous variables, whereas culture and nationality are discrete variables.

Purpose and Implications of Clustering

According to Hartigan (1975), the principal functions of clustering are to (a) name, (b) display, (c) summarize, (d) predict, and (e) require explanation. These functions may illustrate the implications of clustering countries according to their work values. The contributions appear to be in both the practical and theoretical domains. To Name By giving all countries in the same cluster the same name (e.g., Nordic), the characteristic work

values of the group are identified. For example, the Latin European group is high on uncertainty avoidance, the Latin American group is low on individualism, and the Near Eastern group is high on power distance. This provides for a preliminary infonnation hase on work values in countries in which ventures are considered. To Display For suhtle differences to become more apparent, all countries in the same cluster are physically adjoined on a map. This display facilitates predicting the difficulty in assignment hetween any two countries. It also may simplify identifying areas in which difficulties may arise. This information may help in deciding overseas assignments and in training personnel for such assignments. The display also may assist the grouping of business units or country organizations into international combinations (Kraut, 1975; Ronen & Kraut, 1977). To Summarize Data are summarized by referring to properties of clusters rather than to properties of individual countries. The summary makes it easier to understand and manipulate the data. For instance, it becomes apparent that power distance and uncertainty avoidance tend to vary together (except for Far Eastern countries, where Western instruments may be inadequate). The summary of data helps in enhancing understanding of the interactions among various work values. To Predict If some countries in a cluster have a certain work values system, other countries in the cluster probably have something similar. Hartigan (1975) notes that prediction might occur in either of two ways. First, if a new country is classified into one of these groups by some other means, the same values will be predicted for the variables. Thus, Honduras would be expected to be in the Latin American group and to have high power distance and uncertainty avoidance with low individualism. This may enable some prediction of work values in countries not yet studied. Second, a new measurement of a similar type would produce a similar grouping. Thus, if Denmark is low on rules emphasis, it may be pre447

dicted that Norway also is low on this same value. This may enable better forecasting of problems associated with the introduction of organizational policies and practices. It also may indicate whether the problems of certain groups of countries require different types of handling (Kraut, 1975; Ronen & Kraut, 1977). To Require Explanation Clear-cut clusters require an explanation of their existence and thus promote the development of theories. Of special importance are those clusters that differ from geographic, linguistic, and religious classifications. For example, Brazil is not included in the Latin American cluster, and this increases awareness of nongeographic variables; it suggests that one should simultaneously consider factors such as economic development. In the long range, increased awareness of all factors will encourage the development of theories incorporating social, economic, and political phenomena as explanatory variables. Here, perhaps, lies the greatest theoretical significance of cluster studies of work values in different countries. Implications The practical implications of country clustering can be illustrated through the following hypothetical case. An MNC is establishing a venture in Switzerland. The corporation's directors must determine if management skills will be imported from its subsidiaries in France, Cermany, or Italy. (All three languages are spoken in Switzerland, albeit in different areas.) The country clustering suggests that managers be brought from Germany because Switzerland and Germany belong to the same cluster of work values. German managers therefore can be expected to be closer to and more familiar with workers' attitudes in Switzerland.

Critiques of the Cluster Approach

Some researchers feel that cluster studies greatly exaggerate the differences between countries. They conclude that the sources of differences in attitudes are primarily occupational and individual. For example, England and Negandhi (1979) compared steel workers in India and the United States as to their concern for societal issues and problems, their perceived job factor

importance, and their preferred management style. They utilized a reference group of U.S. auto workers in order to compare between- and withincountry differences. As expected, large country differences were found in the workers' concern for societal issues and problems. Indian workers were highly concerned only with the economy and housing problems; U.S. workers were considerably more concerned about a variety of issues such as peace, health, crime, and pollution. These differences, however, did not transfer into other areas. In rating work factor importance, the Indian workers rated all factors as more important than did both of the U.S. samples. The differences between the two U.S. groups were as large or larger than the differences between the U.S.-India groups on four of the eight job factors. The relative ranking of the eight items also was very similar for all three groups. England and Negandhi thus concluded that there were few if any national differences in work values across the two countries. They went on to say: "In our judgment, the literature purporting to show real national and cultural differences in employee attitudes, behavior and commitment are highly exaggerated" (1979, p. 180). Unfortunately, this study involved only two countries, although it was part of a larger nine-country study, the rest of which has yet to be published. In addition, the statistical analysis presented was not sufficient to show areas in which real national differences might exist. A second study supporting this line of thought was an eight-country investigation by Schaupp and Kraut (1975). The workers were employed by subsidiaries of an American company. Schaupp and Kraut found no significant differences between countries in the ranking of attitudes by blue-collar workers. A Q-factor analysis showed that all of the countries loaded on one factor, indicating a high degree of similarity. Intercorrelations among countries were never lower than .69, with most above .85. To test whether the data might reflect company socialization, Schaupp and Kraut split their sample by the length of service with the organization. The Q-factor analysis of each group again resulted in only one factor, suggesting that company socialization probably was not the reason for the similarity among countries. Schaupp and Kraut leave open the possibility that this company may
448

attract a particular type of worker by virtue of its management style, which could account for the high degree of similarity. The findings of these researchers support the importance of individual and occupational differences without negating the contribution of variance that can be explained by cultural differences. In their study, Haire et al. (1966) note that it seems clear from the data reported in their study that there is a high degree of similarity among managers' attitudes in all the countries studied. Haire et al. go on to state, however, that approximately one third of the variance in work goals and managerial attitudes could be explained by country. This result is supported by England (1978) and by Griffeth et al. (1980), who found that approximately one-third and one-half of the variance, respectively, can be explained by country differences. It should be noted, however, that the degree of similarity between countries is not determined on an absolute scale, but is relative to the level of dissimilarity with other countries, and therefore influenced by the number of countries included in the clustering.

Synthesizing the Clusters

Applying the dimensions discussed earlier to the different studies, and drawing from the similarities of results across the reviewed studies, a synthesis of the results of the eight studies was prepared (Table 3). This synthesis is presented in Figure 1 as a map rather than as a table, using per capita GNP as a general guideline (Kraut, 1975) for the concentric distances from the center of the map: that is, the nearer to the center a particular country is placed in comparison to other countries, the higher the GNP per capita in comparison to those other countries. The most highly developed countries are placed close to the center, indicating the effect of the level of development on the values and attitudes of the countries. However, because of the limitation of a two-dimensional presentation, cluster arrangement (as well as proximity) is not always an indication of intercluster similarity. The Anglo cluster was found in all of the cluster studies. The only inconsistencies were Sirota and Greenwood (1971), whose Anglo cluster included Switzerland, Austria, and India, and

NEAR EASTERN

Abu-Dhabi United Arab Emirates Kuwait

United States Canada FAR EASTERN Philippines / South Vietnam Indonesia Taiwan LATIN AMERICAN LATIN EUROPEAN Venezuela Chile New Zealand ANCLO

United Kingdom Ireland South Africa

Brazil INDEPENDENT Japan

Israel

Figure 1. A sjrnthesis of country clusters. explain the inclusion of India (Sirota & Greenwood, 1971) and Israel (Ronen & Kraut, 1977). At one time both were under British rule, although culturally they are quite diverse on other dimension. Hofstede (1980) found that countries in the Anglo cluster generally have a low to medium score on the power distance index, a low to
449

Hofstede's (1976) inclusion of Sweden. Ronen and Kraut's reanalysis of the Sirota and Greenwood data did not support the inclusion of Switzerland and Austria. A close observation of the Anglo clusters in Tahle 3 indicates that with the ahove exceptions, the countries in the Anglo clusters were former British colonies. This also would

medium score on the uncertainty avoidance index, and high scores on the individualism and masculinity indices. For the purpose of synthesis, the countries that were characterized as former British colonies are included in the Anglo cluster. These include the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Ireland. India appears as Independent in Figure 1 because of the confusion of study results over its placement. As can be seen from Table 3, it has been included in the Latin American cluster (Haire et al., 1966), as an independent (Hofstede, 1976), and in the Far Eastern cluster (Hofstede, 1980). The Germanic and the Nordic countries were differentiated in four studies (Hofstede, 1976, 1980; Ronen & Kraut, 1977; and Ronen & Kraut's 1977 reanalysis of Sirota & Greenwood, 1971). There appears to be some degree of reliability in the countries appearing in these clusters, subject to the countries included in the study: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland consistently appear in the Nordic cluster; Germany, Austria, and Switzerland compose the Germanic group. Two studies did not differentiate between the Nordic and the Germanic clusters (Griffeth et al., 1980; Haire et al., 1966). In both of these studies, the two clusters were combined into a Northern European cluster. The Haire et al. results may be attributed to their inclusion of more Germanic countries. Griffeth et al. (1980), however, had three Germanic and four Nordic countries and still found only one cluster. Sirota and Greenwood (1971) did not find a Germanic cluster in their analysis; however, Ronen and Kraut's SSA map of their data showed it clearly. Hofstede's (1980) data revealed that the two clusters were quite similar on three of the four indices he defined; with the exception of the masculinity index, the clusters are very close and can be combined. In the present s5Tithesis, the Nordic and Germanic clusters are separate but contiguous, reflecting the empirical results of Table 3. Austria, Germany, and Switzerland are included in the Germanic cluster; Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden are included in the Nordic group. The Latin European cluster was the last cluster commonly found. Its most consistent members
450

were France and Belgium. When Spain, Italy, and Portugal were included in a study, they also fell into this group. Although these countries differ in language, they all are variations of the Romance tongue, and religion and geography are common dimensions of the cluster. There is some indication that this cluster may be subdivided into two groups: one containing Spain and Italy, the other France and Belgium. A cluster that might be expected to resemble the Latin Europeans is the Latin American group. There is some indirect evidence to support this notion. Spain and Portugal colonized Latin America, and this suggests strong cultural ties. One effect of colonization is similarity in religion and language, both certainly evident in the Latin American group. Another cluster consists of Great Britain and its former colonies; it is probable that Spain and Portugal and their former colonies form one also. Hofstede's (1980) indices provide futher support for the combination of the Latin European and Latin American clusters. Both Latin clusters are characterized by a high power distance, high uncertainty avoidance, and high variance in masculinity. The major difference is on the individualism index, which is low for Latin American countries. As Hofstede has shown, the individualism index is highly correlated (r = .82, p<.01) with a country's per capita GNP. This observation implies that the major difference between the Latin European cluster and the Latin American cluster is their level of development; if this is true, then they may be considered a single cultural cluster. Spain, the least developed member of the Latin European cluster, also had the lowest score on individualism in that cluster. In addition, Ronen and Kraut's SSA map of the Haire et al. data shows Spain and Italy distinctly separate from the more developed France and Belgium, and closer to the developing countries of Argentina and Chile. These arguments for combining the Latin European and Latin American clusters assume that changes in the level of development cause changes in a country's individualism index. However, if cultural differences cause differences in level of development or rate of development, the above arguments are meaningless. Under this hypothesis, a less-developed country may never develop, or may develop at a much slower rate,

because of the relatively unchanging values and goals of society. Following this argument, the Latin European and Latin American clusters may remain distinct clusters. To resolve this apparent conflict of theory, values related to individualism should be observed over time for significant change. Hofstede (1980) attempted this by comparing the results from the 1968 portion of his data set to the results from the 1972 portion. He found that the individualism index for countries increased over the period from 1968 to 1972, although convergence did not take place. Hofstede speculates that the individualism index for a country will increase with the wealth of that country. More evidence collected over a longer time period is needed, however, before one can draw this conclusion. The present clusters of Latin American and Latin European countries follow fairly closely the results of Hofstede (1980) and Sirota and Greenwood (1971). Consistent with the argument made concerning the similarities between these two clusters, they are contiguous on the map in Figure 1. These countries are not combined into one cluster because the evidence from the studies (Table 3) suggests stronger support for differentiating these clusters. In six of the studies, results were limited to the clusters so far described. Hofstede (1980) investigated other countries in addition to those that fit into the previous five clusters. Not surprisingly, he found two new clusters that are included in the conceptualization presented here. The Near Eastern cluster contains Greece, Iran, Yugoslavia, and Turkey. This cluster is characterized by high power distance, high uncertainty avoidance, low individualism, and medium masculinity. Aside from Hofstede's dimensions, geography appears to be the main dimension in common among these countries. The diversity of language, religion, and history of these countries makes it a particularly complex grouping. It is difficult to evaluate the validity of Hofstede's technique, as reflected in this finding, because these countries were not included in any other study. Griffeth et al. (1980) included Greece in the Latin European cluster. The differences in Hofstede's and Griffeth's methodologies, however, and in their underlying dimensions for clustering, create difficulty when comparing these results. As the other 451

countries were not included in the Griffeth et al. study, one may only guess whether a separate cluster of Near Eastern countries would have emerged had these countries been samples. In the present synthesis, the Near Eastern countries reflect Hofstede's grouping, forming a separate cluster. Hofstede (1980) also found a Far Eastern cluster, including Pakistan, India, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Thailand, Singapore, and the Philippines. These countries are characterized by high power distance, low to medium uncertainty avoidance, low individualism, and medium masculinity. Redding (1976) studied eight countries in the Far East using the Haire et al. questionnaire. These are considered here as a Far Eastern cluster (despite the unavailability of other countries to form a basis for comparison) on the grounds of results similar to Hofstede's (1980), and in keeping with the present authors' own expectations. However, given the diversity of religion and language, and given the huge geographic area covered by these countries, one Far East cluster may be a serious oversimplification. Furthermore, the Western instruments used here may be inadequate to measure validly the differences among Far Eastern countries' cultural dimension. Because of these limitations, a Far East cluster has been included in the present synthesis, but with the reservation that more countries from the Oriental world must be included in future studies before reliable conclusions can be drawn. Finally, one study defined an Arab cluster. Badavkry (1979) used the Haire et al. questionnaire to examine Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, AbuDhabi, Bahrein, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. As in the Redding (1976) study, Badawy (1979) did not include countries representing other clusters; thus comparisons are difficult. It is proposed, however, that this grouping represents a separate cluster of countries, distinct from the others described thus far. Several countries studied by one or more researchers are noticeably absent from the clusters shown here, and are grouped in different clusters or classified as independent across studies. For example, Ronen and Kraut (1977) clustered Israel with the Anglo countries. This makes intuitive sense, because the British controlled "Palestine" for several decades and because many

Israeli professionals are trained in the AngloAmerican countries. On the other hand, Hofstede (1980) placed Israel in his Germanic cluster. This placement also is credible, given the large number of Westem European Jews who immigrated to Israel in the 1930s and after World War II. These disparate findings suggest that differences in samples can have an important impact on cluster membership. Sirota and Greenwood (1971) and the Ronen and Kraut (1977) reanalysis found Israel to be an independent country. Clearly, more evidence is needed before Israel can be placed in a particular cluster. Until such evidence is available, it may be considered independent. Japan also has posed problems for the clustering process. It has been included in six studies. Five of the six classified it as an independent. Redding (1976) includes Japan in the Far East cluster but, as mentioned earlier, his study was limited to countries in the Far East. It therefore appears that Japan's combination of culture and development is not similar to any other country's. An alternative explanation is available for Japan's apparent uniqueness. With the exception of Hofstede and Redding, the studies that include Japan do not include any other countries from the Far East. It seems likely that Japan would appear to be independent from the Germanic, Latin European, and Latin American countries studies by Haire et al. (1966). If researchers had included more countries, especially those with cultural dimensions in common with Japan, a cluster including Japan might have emerged. Given the present findings, however, it seems safest to consider Japan its own cluster, independent from other countries. S The countries classified as independents allow one to hypothesize that economic development and technology override the traditional dimensions of language, geography, and religion as a basis for cluster membership. Those countries higher on economic development tend to separate from their geographic groupings (e.g., Israel, Sweden, Brazil, Japan). Countries listed as independent are separate from other clusters, yet not necessarily similar to one another.

Conclusions
The clusters presented here include much of the non-Communist world. Many areas, such as
452

Africa, have not been studied at all; other areas, such as the Middle East and the Far East, have not been studied sufficiently. These gaps in the research make it difficult to draw conclusions about cluster membership in these parts of the world. Major studies need to be undertaken in which countries from all areas of the world will be included. Otherwise, one will continue to confront the problems of countries such as Japan, because conclusions about cluster membership are limited by the countries included in the sample. Despite these limitations, however, the results available thus far allow one to draw certain conclusions. First, it appears that countries/ nations can be clustered according to similarities on certain cultural dimensions. These dimensions typically measure work goals, values, needs, and job attitudes. The discriminant validity of these variables is supported: the resulting clusters consistently discriminate on the basis of language, religion, and geography. The support for the Anglo, Germanic, Nordic, Latin European, and Latin American clusters appears to be quite strong. Clusters describing the Far East and Arab countries are ill-defined and require further research, as do countries classified as independents (e.g., Israel and Japan). As multinational companies increase their direct investment overseas, especially in less developed and consequently less studied areas, they will require more information concerning their local employees in order to implement effective types of interactions between the organization and the host country. The knowledge acquired thus far can help one to understand better the work values and attitudes of employees throughout the world. American theories work very well for Western nations. Are they equally applicable in non-Western countries? Clearly, more cluster research is called for, including research in countries from all parts of the globe. Data in cross-national research are hard to acquire. It is an expensive operation and requires the collaboration of researchers in different locations; it is long term in nature. The rewards of such studies for individual researchers (in comparison to noncultural studies) are questionable. It is not surprising, therefore, that the most reliable and extensive data come from the in-house

researchers in MNCs. The present review was undertaken to utilize and interpret the available information on crosscultural clustering of employee work values. As a result, future researchers will not have to refer to the findings of individual studies, but may use the exhaustive interpretation of the data as presented here. A critical evaluation of the studies has been given, and a tentative, cautious synthesis has been suggested as a starting point for future studies. In the future, researchers are urged to increase the methodological rigor of their studies and to report in detail the procedures for sampling, data collection, and analysis. Obtaining a sample that represents the various groups, strata, and organizations of a given country is almost impossible. Studies that surveyed only one MNC (Hofstede, 1980), although far from representative, controlled for industrial and organizational climate variables, thus enabling researchers to attribute variation in work values to national differences. Other studies should consider various organizational and demographic variables in the course of sampling as well as in collecting and analyzing the data. It also is suggested that question-

naires undergo a thorough back-translation process and be administered, whenever possible, in a similar, in-company setting. Only such precautions will increase a sense of confidence that the findings result from national differences and not from other variables. The use of a noimietric cluster analysis such as the SSA or the ALSCAL (Takane et al., 1976) rather than factor analysis is recommended as a method rendering a parsimonious but meaningful configuration of clusters of employee work goals by countries. It is suggested, however, that other clustering techniques be applied in the future so as to determine their usefulness. The clusters produced in the present synthesis can be used as a general framework of reference for theoreticians and practitioners. Researchers in the future should put these clusters to continuous empirical testing. They should be concerned, however, not only with the predictive qualities of clustering, but also with its promotion of theoretical development. Rather than just inquire about the nature of differences in employee work goals, future researchers should proceed to investigate the underlying cultural and social traits that may produce those differences.

References
Ajiferuke, B.. & Boddewyn, J. (1970) Culture and other explanatory variables in comparative management studies. Academy o/Management /ournal, 13, 153-165. Badawy, M. R. (1979, August) Managerial attitudes and need orientations o/Mid-Eastern executives; An empirical crosscultural analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta. Deci, E. L. (1971) The effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105-115. England, C. W. (1978) Managers and their value systems: A five country comparative study. Columbia /ournal of World Business, 13(2), 35-44. England, C. W., & Negandhi, A. R. (1979) National context and technology as determinants of employee's perceptions. In C. W. England, A. R. Negandhi, & B. Wilpert (Eds.), Organizational functioning in a cross-cultural perspective, (pp. 175-190). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Gordon, L. V. (1967) Survey of personal valuesManual. Chicago: Science Research Associates. Gordon, L. V. (1975) The measurement of interpersonal values. Chicago: Science Research Associates. Gordon, L. V. (1976) Survey o/interpersonal valuesRevised Manual. Chicago: Science Research Associates. Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., Denisi, A., & Kirchner. W. (1980 August) A multivariote. multinational comparison of managerial attitudes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Detroit. Guion, R. M. (1958) Industrial morale: The problem of terminology. Personnel Psychology, 11, 59-64. Guttman, L. (1968) A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coo-dinate space for a configuration of points. Psychometrika, 33, 461-469. Haire, M., Ghiselli, E. E., & Porter, L. W. (1966) Managerial thinking: An international study. New York: Wiley. Hartigan, J. A. (1975) Clustering algorithms. New York: Wiley. Hofstede, G. (1976) Nationality and espoused values of managers, /ournal of Applied Psychology, 61, 148-155. Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture's consequences: International di//erences in work related values. Beverly Hills: Sage. Kami, E. S., & Levin, J. (1972) The use of smallest space analysis in studying scale structure, /ournal of Applied Psychology, 56, 341-346.

453

Kraut, A. 1. (1975) Some recent advances in cross-national management research. Academy of Management /oumai, 18, 538-549. Kraut. A. I., & Ronen, S. (1975) Validity of job facet importance: A multinational multicriteria study, /ournal of Applied Psychology, 60, 671-677. Lingoes, |. C. (1965) An IBM-7090 program for GuttmanLingoes smallest space analysisI. Behavioral Science, 10, 183-184. Lingoes, ). C. (1977) Identifying regions in the space for interpretation. In J. C. Lingoes (Ed.), Geometric represento* tions o/relational data (pp. 113-127). Ann Arbor: Mathesis. Maslow, A. H. (1954) Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. Porter. L. W. (1961) A study of perceived need satisfaction in bottom and middle management jobs, /ournal of Applied Psychology, 45. 1-10. Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1965) Properties of organizational structure in relation to job attitudes and job behavior. Psychological Bulletin. 64, 23-51. Redding, G. (1976) Some perceptions of psychological needs among managers in South-East Asia. In Y. H. Poortinga (Ed.), Basic problems in cross-cultural psychology, (pp. 338-343). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger B. V.

Ronen. S. (1982, August) Applying nonmetric multivariate analysis in cross-cultural research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, New York. Ronen, S., & Kraut, A. I. (1977) Similarities among countries based on employee work values and attitudes. Columbia /ournal of World Business, 12(2), 89-96. Ronen, S.. Kraut, A. I.. Lingoes, J. C, & Aranya, N. (1979) A nonmetric scaling approach to taxonomies of employee work motivation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14, 387-401. Schaupp. D., & Kraut, A. i. (1975) A study of the communality of industrial values across cultures. Proceedings of the Academy o/Management, 291-292. Schlesinger, I. M.. & Guttman, L. (1969) Smallest space analysis of intelligence and achievement tests. Psychological Bulletin, 71(2), 95-100. Sirota, D.. & Greenwood, J. M. (1971) Understand your overseas work force. Harvard Business Review, 49(1), 53-60. Takane, Y.. Young, F. W., St De Leeuw. J. (1976) Nonmetric individual differences multidimensional scaling: An alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 42, 7-67. Webber, R. H. (1969) Convergence or divergence. Columbia /oumai of World Business, 4(3), 75-83.

Simcha Ronen is Associate Professor of Management and Organizational Behavior in the Graduate School of Business Administration, New York University. Oded Shenkar is a lecturer of Management and O;:ganizational Behavior in the Faculty of Management, TelAviv University, Israel.

454