Cultural Values in Malaysia: Chinese,

Malays and Indians Compared

by Rodrigue Fontaine and Stan ley Rich ard son
The Authors
Dr. Rodrigue Fontaine is a lec turer in cross-cul tural man age ment at Mul ti me dia
Uni ver sity in Ma lay sia.
Dr. Stan ley Rich ard son is an As sis tant Pro fes sor and a for mer ma jor in the Brit ish
army. Since 1963 he has taught in var i ous coun tries around the world, es pe cially
in Hong Kong, Sin ga pore and Ma lay sia. He has been teach ing in Mul ti me dia Uni -
ver sity since 1997.
Back ground
This ar ti cle re ports the find ings of re search that was orig i nally fo cused on work
val ues. The in de pend ent vari able was cul ture and the de pend ent vari able work
val ues. The find ings on work val ues are be ing pub lished else where. How ever, the
find ings on cul ture were in ter est ing enough to be shared.
Shared Val ues
Schnei der and Barsoux (2003: 30-33) dis cuss how man ag ers in var i ous cul tures
around the world see the cri te ria for suc cess in man age ment. Thus, the Amer i cans
fo cus on profit, the Ger mans on prod uct qual ity, the French on tech nol ogy lead er -
ship and the Jap a nese on mar ket share. Launched in 1991, Vi sion 2020 out lines
nine chal lenges that Ma lay sia faces, of which the most im por tant one is es tab lish -
ing a united Ma lay sian na tion with a sense of com mon and shared des tiny. The
idea of shared des tiny nat u rally leads to shared val ues.
Asma (2001: 1), for ex am ple, ob serves that Ma lay sia has of ten been de -
scribed as a mine field of cul tural sen si tiv i ties due to its di verse ra cial and eth nic
com po si tion. Yet, Ma lay sians work in ap par ent har mony and unity brought about
by a few uni fy ing fac tors, the most im por tant of which are val ues that have stood
the test of time. Al though there have been sev eral at tempts to iden tify shared val -
ues, most of these at tempts have used a qual i ta tive ap proach (for ex am ple,
Elashmawari and Har ris, 2000). One ex cep tion is the work of Asma Abdullah. She
has de vel oped a model of Ma lay sian cul ture de rived from an an thro po log i cal ap -
proach. Her re search points to wards eight di men sions: Re la tion ship Task, Har -
mony-Con trol, Shame-Guilt, We-I, Re li gious-Sec u lar, Hi er ar chy Equal ity,
Polychronic Monochronic and High Con text Low Con text (Asma and Lim,
Volume 12 Number 4 2005 63
2001). In ter est ingly, her re search in di cates that Ma lay sians di verge in only one of
the eight di men sions (Re li gious Sec u lar). Thus, there seems to be qual i ta tive
and quan ti ta tive ev i dence to sug gest that Ma lay sians of var i ous races have more
con verg ing cul tural val ues than di verg ing cul tural val ues. How ever, Kwok Leung,
Bond and Schwartz (1995) point out that val ues as a broad ori en ta tions, are un -
likely to be strongly pre dic tive of spe cific be hav iours.
Aim of this Ar ti cle
The aim of this ar ti cle is to com pare the cul tural val ues of the three main eth nic
groups in pen in su lar Ma lay sia us ing a quan ti ta tive ap proach.
Def i ni tion of Cul ture
Hofstede (1980) de fined cul ture as the pro gram ming of the mind that dif fer en ti -
ates one group from an other group. This def i ni tion fo cuses on the dif fer ences be -
tween groups, not be tween races. In Ma lay sia, Ong Fon Sim (1993) found that
there were at least two dif fer ent cul tures within the cat e gory known as
Malaysian Chinese.
Un der stand ing Cul ture
Hofstedes (1980) clas sic model found four di men sions of cul ture, namely power
dis tance, in di vid u al ism-col lec tiv ism, mas cu lin ity-fem i nin ity and un cer tainty avoid -
ance. Later, Hofstede added a fifth di men sion called long-term ori en ta tion
(Hofstede, 2001). Since then, the un der stand ing of cross-cul tural man age ment
has pro gressed. In par tic u lar, Holden (2002) ar gues that tra di tion ally cul ture
was seen as a prob lem rather than an op por tu nity. How ever, ex perts are now re -
cog nis ing that, if prop erly man aged, cul ture can be come a source of com pet i tive
ad van tage (Schnei der and Barsoux, 2003). For ex am ple, Ma lay sian com pa nies
have an ad van tage when try ing to ac cess the Chi nese, In dian or Mus lim mar kets
be cause of the cul tural di ver sity within the coun try. In stead of view ing cul ture as
the dif fer ences be tween groups, Holden (2002) pro poses a Knowl edge Man age -
ment ap proach to man age cul tural dif fer ences. Im plicit in Holdens ar gu ment is:
strat e gies that in di vid u als, or gani sa tions or coun tries can use to man age cul ture
are con text-spe cific. Too of ten, the o ries of cul ture have ig nored the con text, lead -
ing to over-simplistic theories. Overall, the link between culture and behaviour
can be graphically shown in Figure 1 be low.
For ex am ple, stud ies have shown that in di vid u als at tach ment to cul tural val -
ues is con tin gent on their level of trust, be lief in self-ef fi cacy and pres sure from
their peers. Gen er ally, the higher the level of mis trust, the more dif fi cult it will be
for dif fer ent groups to work to gether, even though they might share the same val -
ues (Berry and Sam, 1997; Ward, Bochner and Furnham, 2001; Castano, Yzerbyt,
Paladina and Sacchi, 2002). At the same time, the friend ship be tween in di vid u als
of dif fer ent eth nic groups cre ates a better un der stand ing be tween eth nic groups
64 Cross Cultural Management
(Hewstone, 2003). The en vi ron ment stim uli ex plain why some in di vid u als choose
spe cific ca reers, like be com ing en tre pre neurs (Kuratko and Hodgetts, 2004). For
ex am ple, in Fig ure 1, in di vid u als with sim i lar char ac ter is tics (cul tural val ues, per -
son al ity, peer pres sure and the same en vi ron men tal stim uli) can choose rad i cally
dif fer ent goals (be com ing an en gi neer in stead of be com ing a doc tor).
Mod els of Na tional Cul ture
Early and Singh (2000) state that there are four re cog nised at tempts to pro file the
cul tures of na tions; namely Hofstede (1980), Schwartz (1994), Trompenaars
(1993) and Maznevski, et al. (1993). Trompenaars (1993) and Maznevski, et al.
(1993) have rarely been used in Ma lay sia, so there is lit tle ev i dence to sug gest
whether these the o ries are valid or re li able in Ma lay sia. Hofstede (1980) has been
used ex ten sively by Ma lay sian schol ars (for ex am ple, Roselina, Syed Azizi, et al.,
2002). How ever, Hofstedes work has some va lid ity and re li abil ity lim i ta tions
(Spector, et al., 2001). Fontaine and Rich ard son (2003) ar gue that a more de sir -
able al ter na tive is the instrument used by Schwartz (1994).
The work of Schwartz has been in ter na tion ally re cog nised (Church and
Lonner, 1998; Early and Singh, 2000; Hofstede, 2001). Ganon and Audia (2000:
103) and Tayeb, 2000: 323) point out that Schwartz builds on Hofstedes work
and is an im prove ment. In par tic u lar, Schwartz re placed Hofstedes di men sions of
In di vid u al ism by two di men sions (Au ton omy ver sus Con ver sa tion and Hi er ar chy
and Mas tery at the cul tural-level) (Kagitcibasi, 1997: 17). Fur ther more, re search -
ers have taken Schwartzs the ory and de vel oped a dif fer ent in stru ment that has
proved valid and re li able across cul tures (Schwartz, et al., 2001). Schwartzs re -
search cor re lates well with other es tab lished in stru ments (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz
and Knafo, 2002).
Schwartzs (1994) Model
Hav ing col lected over 44,000 re spon dents since the 1980s, Schwartz and his col -
leagues have de vel oped an in stru ment (the SVS) that com prises 57 cul tural val -
Volume 12 Number 4 2005 65
Fig ure 1: Some of the Fac tors that Con trib ute to Be hav iour
Cul ture
In di vid ual per son al ity
Pres sure from peers
Self-ef fi cacy
Trust
En vi ron men tal stim uli
Be hav iour
Goals
Source: Adapted from Fontaine and Rich ard son (2003)
ues. These 57 val ues rep re sent 10 di men sions at the in di vid ual level (see Ta ble 1)
and seven di men sions at the cul tural level (see Ta ble 2) (Smith and Schwartz,
1997).
Ta ble 1: Schwartzs 10 Di men sions at the In di vid ual-Level Schwartzs Seven Di men sions
at the Cul tural-Level
Value Def i ni tion
Power So cial sta tus, dom i nance over peo ple and re sources
Achievement Per sonal suc cess ac cord ing to so cial stan dards
Hedonism Plea sure or sen su ous grat i fi ca tion
Stimulating Ex cite ment and nov elty
Self-direction In de pend ence of thought and ac tion
Universalism Un der stand ing, tol er ance and pro tec tion for the wel fare of all peo ple and nature
Benevolence Pre serv ing and en hanc ing the wel fare of peo ple to whom one is close
Tradition Re spect and com mit ment to cul tural or re li gious cus toms and ideas
Conformity Re straint of ac tions and im pulses that may harm oth ers and vi o late so cial
ex pec ta tions
Security Safety and sta bil ity of so ci ety, re la tion ships and self
Ta ble 2: Schwartzs 7 di men sions at the cul tural level
Cul tural level
Roughly
Cor re sponds
To
In di vid ual level
Embeddedness El e ments of se cu rity, con for mity, tra di tion and re li -
gion
Hi er ar chy El e ments of power and tra di tion
Mas tery El e ments of achieve ment and stim u la tion
Af fec tive au ton omy El e ments of he do nism and stim u la tion
In tel lec tual au ton omy El e ments of self-di rec tion
Egalatarianism El e ments of uni ver sal ism
Har mony El e ments of uni ver sal ism
Schwartz and his col leagues col lected data in two schools in Ma lay sia in 1989.
Since then, Schwartzs model has only been used in Ma lay sia by the two au thors
of this study.
The In stru ment
The in stru ment was in Eng lish. The first sec tion in cluded all 57 cul tural val ues in
Schwartzs SVS and the sec ond sec tion in cluded 66 work-val ues used by the Ma -
lay sian In sti tute of Man age ment (Asma, Lim 2001). For the pur pose of this ar ti cle,
data from the first sec tion only is dis cussed. The first sec tion asks re spon dents to
rate 57 cul tural val ues us ing a Likert scale from 1 to 7 (see Appendix A).
The Re search De sign
Through the use of re search as sis tants, 324 in di vid u als com pleted us able ques -
tion naires. The de mo graphic in for ma tion is found in Ta ble 3. The sam pling strat -
egy was of con ve nience as the re search as sis tants had ac cess to var i ous firms in
66 Cross Cultural Management
three ar eas (Penang, Kuala Lumpur and Johor) and knew the re spon dents. From a
meth od olog i cal per spec tive, this ap proach rep re sents a pos si ble flaw in this re -
search. How ever, such an ap proach was not de cided based upon con ve nience but
based upon pre vi ous ex pe ri ences in sur vey ing Ma lay sian firms. Ma lay sians are
very sus pi cious of anon y mous sur veys through the post (Fontaine and Tan, 2003).
As Cronbach (1984: 69) ob served, in a psy cho log i cal test, the sub ject places him -
self on the scale, and un less he cares about the re sult, he can not be mea sured.
Sim i larly, when re spond ing to a ques tion naire, the re sults can vary ac cord ing to
the anx i ety and the level of trust or mis trust of the re spon dent (Cronbach, 1984:
71). It is as sumed that re spon dents would have a higher level of trust when re -
spond ing to an in stru ment administered by someone they know and therefore
their responses would be genuine.
Ta ble 3: De mo graphic Char ac ter is tics of the Sam ple
Male
(n=194)
Fe male
(n=130)
To tal
(n=324)
Gen der 59.90% 40.10% 100.0%
Age
Less than 26 6.20% 23.80% 13.30%
26 to 35 46.90% 50.00% 48.10%
36 to 45 30.40% 21.50% 26.90%
Over 45 16.50% 4.70% 11.70%
In dus try
Oil & Gas 14.90% 12.30% 13.90%
Bank ing 16.00% 11.50% 14.20%
Man u fac tur ing 16.50% 12.30% 14.80%
IT 11.30% 13.10% 12.00%
Ser vices 20.10% 33.10% 25.30%
Oth ers 21.20% 17.70% 19.80%
Po si tion
No sub or di nates 23.20% 43.80% 31.50%
1 to 5 sub or di nates 36.10% 63.20% 36.10%
More than 5 sub or di nates 40.70% 20.00% 32.40%
Race
Ma lay 34.00% 36.20% 34.90%
Chi nese 38.70% 41.50% 39.80%
In dian 26.30% 20.80% 24.10%
Oth ers 1.00% 1.50% 1.20%
Ed u ca tion
SPM (school cer tif i cate) 0.50% 3.80% 1.90%
Di ploma (2 years
programme af ter school)
29.90% 33.20% 31.20%
Bach e lors 29.40% 31.50% 30.20%
Mas ters and above 40.20% 31.50% 36.70%
Sta tis ti cal Anal y sis
The data was ana lysed us ing an Anal y sis of Covariance ap proach (ANCOVA). This
ap proach was cho sen be cause the re sults of the sur vey will be in flu enced by sev -
eral de mo graphic vari ables. Us ing ANCOVA, the ef fect of other vari ables (po si tion
Volume 12 Number 4 2005 67
in the or gani sa tion, sec tor of in dus try and level of ed u ca tion) are con trolled. The
ra cial cat e gory oth ers was excluded from the analysis.
The Find ings at the In di vid ual-Level
In Ta ble 4, the over all find ings for the in di vid ual-level anal y sis com pared to the
Ma lay score is shown. For ex am ple, for the di men sion of con for mity, there is no
sta tis ti cal dif fer ences be tween Ma lay, Chi nese (t-value of 1.5) and In di ans (t-value
of 0.019.
Ta ble 4: ANCOVA Anal y sis Com pared to the Ma lay Score
Chi nese In dian
t-value Sig. t-value Sig.
In di vid ual level Con for mity 1.500 0.222 0.019 0.890
In di vid ual level Tra di tion 7.226 0.008 5.608 0.019
In di vid ual level Be nev o lence 1.948 0.164 1.380 0.241
In di vid ual level Uni ver sal ism 1.480 0.225 1.115 0.292
In di vid ual level Self-Di rec tion 0.593 0.442 0.232 0.630
In di vid ual level Stim u la tion 0.138 0.710 1.180 0.278
In di vid ual level He do nism 1.476 0.225 2.426 0.121
In di vid ual level Achieve ment 4.688 0.031 0.451 0.503
In di vid ual level Power 3.230 0.073 1.736 0.189
In di vid ual level Se cu rity 2.605 0.108 1.181 0.278
As Ta ble 4 shows, there is no sig nif i cant cul tural dif fer ences ex cept in two di men -
sions, namely tra di tion and achieve ment. The value of tra di tion is made up of
five com po nents: re spect for tra di tion, mod er ate, hum ble, ac cept ing my fate in
life and de vout (see Ta ble 5).
Ta ble 5: Means and Stan dard De vi a tions for the Com po nents of Tra di tion
Re spect for
tra di tion
Mod er ate Hum ble Ac cept ing my
fate in life
De vout
Ma lay
Mean 4.23 4.49 4.77 3.88 5.74
N 113 113 113 113 113
Std.Dev. 1.658 1.609 1.539 2.336 1.361
Chi nese
Mean 3.97 4.64 5.24 3.29 4.41
N 129 128 128 129 129
Std.Dev. 1.699 1.451 1.284 2.466 1.955
In dian
Mean 4.69 4.32 4.96 2.71 5.16
N 78 77 78 77 78
Std.Dev. 1.902 1.665 1.515 2.496 1.615
68 Cross Cultural Management
An anal y sis be tween these com po nents shows that there are sig nif i cant dif -
fer ences at 5% for re spect for tra di tion (t-value 4.291, p-value 0.039 for Chi -
nese), mod er ate (t-value 5.888, p-value 0.016 for In di ans), ac cept ing my fate
(t-value 10.510, p-value 0.001 for In di ans) and de vout (t-value 26.258, p-value
0.000 for Chi nese; t-value 5.848, p-value 0.016 for In di ans).
The di men sion of achieve ment is made up of four com po nents: am bi tious,
in flu en tial, ca pa ble and suc cess ful (see Table 6)
Ta ble 6: Com po nents That Make Up the Di men sion of Achieve ment
Am bi tious In flu en tial Ca pa ble Suc cess ful
Ma lay
Mean 5.39 4.20 5.67 5.69
N 113 113 113 113
Std.Dev. 1.205 1.570 0.967 1.110
Chi nese
Mean 5.36 4.08 5.59 5.44
N 128 129 129 129
Std.Dev. 1.271 1.615 1.072 1.224
In dian
Mean 5.60 4.61 5.91 5.82
N 78 78 78 78
Std.Dev. 1.272 1.470 1.083 1.224
An anal y sis of these com po nents shows that only suc cess ful is sta tis ti cally
sig nif i cant at 5% (t-value 7.594, p-value 0.006). As Fig ure 1 il lus trated, the fact
that Chi nese re spon dents re port a lower mean than Ma lays or In dian does not re -
flect the out come as per for mance is a func tion of cul ture, per son al ity, peer pres -
sure, self-ef fi cacy and en vi ron men tal stim uli.
Over all, there are only five cul tural val ues out of the fifty-seven that are sig -
nif i cantly different at 5% at the in di vid ual level. In other words, 91% of the cul -
tural val ues at the in di vid ual-level are shared be tween the three main ethnic
groups.
The Find ings at the Cul tural Level
At the cul tural-level, there is only one that is sig nif i cantly dif fer ent at 5%, namely
embeddedness (see Ta ble 7).
Ta ble 7: ANCOVA at the Cul tural-level Com pared to the Ma lay Mean Score
Chi nese In di ans
t-value Sig. t-value Sig.
Cul tural level Embeddedness 5.659 0.018 0.085 0.771
Cul tural level Hi er ar chy 0.555 0.457 0.594 0.441
Cul tural level Mas tery 1.289 0.257 0.023 0.881
Cul tural level Af fec tive au ton omy 1.089 0.298 0.408 0.524
Volume 12 Number 4 2005 69
Cul tural level In tel lec tual au ton omy 0.600 0.439 0.218 0.641
Cul tural level Egal i tar i an ism 1.510 0.220 0.033 0.856
Cul tural level Har mony 2.607 0.108 0.708 0.401
Embeddedness is com posed of four teen com po nents, of which seven are sta tis ti -
cally dif fer ent at 5%, namely re cip ro cat ing fa vours, mod er ate, na tional se cu -
rity, self-dis ci pline, hon our ing par ents and el ders, pre serv ing my pub lic im age
and de vout (see Ta ble 8).
Ta ble 8: Com po nents of Embeddedness that are Statiscally Sig nif i cant at 5%
Ma lay Chi nese In dian
Mean St.Dev. Mean St.Dev. Mean St.Dev
Na tional se cu rity 5.51 1.482 5.09 1.809 5.63 1.758
Re cip ro cat ing fa vours 4.11 1.948 4.21 1.779 4.87 1.844
Self-dis ci pline 5.39 1.235 5.28 1.329 5.66 1.420
Mod er ate 4.49 1.609 4.64 1.451 4.32 1.665
Hon our ing par ents 5.89 1.609 5.57 1.144 5.71 1.484
Pre serv ing pub lic im age 4.57 1.630 4.15 1.833 4.52 1.991
De vout 5.74 1.361 4.41 1.955 5.16 1.615
For the In di ans, there are sig nif i cant dif fer ences com pared to the Ma lay
score in re cip ro cat ing fa vours (t-value 4.214, p-value 0.041), de vout (t-value
5.034, p-value 0.026) and mod er ate (t-value 5.370, p-value 0.021). For the Chi -
nese, the dif fer ences are with na tional se cu rity (t-value 6.913, p-value 0.009),
self-dis ci pline (t-value 4.242, p-value 0.40), hon our ing par ents and el ders
(t-value 4.154, p-value 0.042), pre serv ing my pub lic im age (t-value 6.477,
p-value 0.011) and de vout (t-value 25.864, p-value 0.000). Again, the most sig -
nif i cant dif fer ence was on the value de vout.
Over all, the three main eth nic groups shared 82% of the fifty-seven cul -
tural-val ues at the cul tural-level.
The Dif fer ence Be tween Man ag ers and Sub or di nates
Thus far, the anal y sis has fo cused on the val ues be tween groups as this is the most
com mon theme in the Ma lay sian cross-cul tural lit er a ture. How ever, the data col -
lected al lows com par i son be tween three cat e go ries of em ploy ees: em ploy ees who
have no sub or di nates, em ploy ees who have be tween 1 and 5 sub or di nates and
em ploy ees who have more than five subordinates. The ANCOVA again al lows
hold ing other de mo graphic vari ables con stant. Over all, the cat e gory 1 to 5 sub or -
di nates was sig nif i cantly dif fer ent at 5% at both the in di vid ual-level and the cul -
tural-level (see Ta ble 9 and Ta ble 10).
70 Cross Cultural Management
At the in di vid ual level, there are sig nif i cant dif fer ences on nine out of the
ten di men sions. At the cul tural level, there are sig nif i cant dif fer ences on five out
of the seven di men sions.
Ta ble 9: ANCOVA for the Cat e gory 1 to 5 sub or di nates at the In di vid ual-level
t-value Sig.
In di vid ual level Con for mity 8.170 0.005
In di vid ual level Tra di tion 7.828 0.006
In di vid ual level Be nev o lence 5.631 0.018
In di vid ual level Uni ver sal ism 10.689 0.001
In di vid ual level Self-Di rec tion 4.749 0.030
In di vid ual level Stim u la tion 0.759 0.384
In di vid ual level He do nism 6.173 0.014
In di vid ual level Achieve ment 7.230 0.008
In di vid ual level Power 8.008 0.005
In di vid ual level Se cu rity 5.660 0.018
Ta ble 10: ANCOVA for the Cat e gory 1 to 5 sub or di nates at the Cul tural-level
t-value Sig.
Cul tural level Embeddedness 9.061 0.003
Cul tural level Hi er ar chy 10.610 0.001
Cul tural level Mas tery 3.546 0.061
Cul tural level Af fec tive au ton omy 5.972 0.015
Cul tural level In tel lec tual au ton omy 3.085 0.080
Cul tural level Egal i tar i an ism 5.727 0.017
Cul tural level Har mony 12.730 0.000
Dis cus sion
To sum ma rise the find ings, at the in di vid ual-level, 91% of the val ues in
Schwartzs SVS are shared by all three eth nic groups with out any sig nif i cance dif -
fer ences at 5%. At the cul tural-level, 82% of the val ues are shared. The re spon -
dents were quite di verse, from dif fer ent lo ca tions in the coun try, dif fer ent
in dus tries, with dif fer ent lev els of ed u ca tion and dif fer ent lev els of re spon si bil ity
(man ag ers and non-man ag ers). Al though it is dif fi cult to prove that the sam ple is
truly rep re sen ta tive, there is noth ing to in di cate that it is not rep re sen ta tive
(Cronbachs Al pha is 0.91). The key dif fer ence be tween the three main eth nic
groups is the rat ing of the value de vout. The find ings broadly con firm the find -
ings of Asma and Lim (2001) who found that the only sig nif i cant dif fer ences be -
tween the three eth nic groups was on the di men sion of re li gi os ity, thereby
cross-val i dat ing both in stru ments. Thus the cul tural per cep tion to wards re li gion
stands out as being the only significant difference between the main ethnic
groups.
Volume 12 Number 4 2005 71
The anal y sis be tween no sub or di nates, 1 to 5 sub or di nates and more than
5 sub or di nates sug gest that there are sig nif i cantly more vari a tion in cul tural val -
ues due to the po si tion in the or gani sa tion rather than the eth nic group. This is a
very im por tant find ing that has only been im plic itly raised in the lit er a ture thus
far. In other words, there will be greater cul tural ho mo ge ne ity be tween sub or di -
nates from dif fer ent eth nic groups com pared to sub or di nates and su pe ri ors within
the same eth nic group. This is con sis tent with the find ings of Schein (1996) and
Hofstede (1998). When com ment ing on power dis tance, Hofstede (2001: 83) ar -
gues that the mere ex er cise of power will give sat is fac tion, so that the more pow -
er ful in di vid ual will strive to main tain or to increase the power distance to the less
powerful person.
The find ings fur ther con firm the the o ret i cal frame work dis cussed in Fig ure
1. Al though shared cul tural val ues are im por tant, how they are operationalised
de pends on con tex tual fac tors that need to be man aged. For ex am ple, if in di vid u -
als with shared val ues do not be lieve that their multi cul tural team will func tion ef -
fec tively (i.e. low self-ef fi cacy), that team is not likely to func tion prop erly un til
the leader has been able to re move that be lief from the team mem bers. Sim i larly,
a multi cul tural team com posed of in di vid u als with shared val ues but who do not
trust one an other is un likely to func tion un til the leader has been able to build a
level of trust. At the same time, a multi-eth nic team (i.e. Chi nese, Ma lays and In -
di ans of the same rank) can have enough shared val ues to work to gether ef fec -
tively pro vided the leader can cre ate an en vi ron ment where peo ple trust one
an other and be lieve in one an other. When re view ing the ex ist ing lit er a ture of
cross-cul tural man age ment in Ma lay sia, it seems that the fo cus is still very much
on com par ing the cul tural val ues of each eth nic group. Maybe a con sen sus can be
reached that the cul ture of each eth nic group is ac tu ally quite sim i lar and man ag -
ers need to learn the prac ti cal as pects of cross-cul tural man age ment: how to build
trust among mem bers? How to in crease self-ef fi cacy? How to avoid ste reo typ ing
in the work place? How to align the val ues of sub or di nates and of su pe ri ors? How
to train man ag ers to ask the right ques tions to the right peo ple at the right time
(Rich ard son, 1990)?
In creas ingly, Ma lay sia is play ing an im por tant role in South East Asia. The
au thors agree with the view that The re gion, how ever, does have a par tic u larly
in ter est ing fea tureIt con tains some of the most suc cess ful post-war econ o -
mies (Redding, 1987). Since then, Ma lay sia has dem on strated its con sid er able
suc cess. How ever, the im por tance of un der stand ing man a ge rial at ti tudes and
styles cross-cul tur ally con tin ues to be of par a mount im por tance. Spe cif i cally, too
much fo cus has been on be tween-groups com par i sons and there has maybe been a
lack of within-group stud ies. Much fur ther re search on this topic in Ma lay sia is re -
quired. The meth od ol ogy de scribed in Redding and Rich ard son (1986) should be
use ful. An at tempt has been made, con fined to Ma lay sias tele com mu ni ca tion
industry (Richardson and Arnold, 1999) but more needs to be done.
72 Cross Cultural Management
Con clu sions
This study has used Schwartzs SVS to in ves ti gate the cul tural val ues of 324 em -
ploy ees work ing in var i ous in dus tries through out pen in su lar Ma lay sia. Three im -
por tant conclusions are:
a) There are in fact few significant differences in cultural-values between ethnic
groups at either the individual-level or cultural-level
b) There are highly significant differences in cultural values between
subordinates and superiors.
c) More research investigating the differences between and within ethnic
groups in Malaysia would add considerable insight. To a large extent, such
withing-group research is noticeably absent.
Volume 12 Number 4 2005 73
Ref er ences
Asma Abdullah (2002) Un der stand ing the Ma lay sian workforce: Guide lines for man -
ag ers (re vised edi tion). Kuala Lumpur: MIM.
Asma Abdullah and Lrong Lim (2001) Cul tural di men sions of An glos, Aus tra lians
and Ma lay sians. Ma lay sian Man age ment Re view, 36(2), pp.1-17.
Berry, J.W. and Sam, D.L. (1997) Ac cul tur a tion and ad ap ta tion. In J.W. Berry,
M.H. Segall and C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.) Hand book of Cross Cul tural Psy chol ogy, Vol.
3, So cial Be hav ior and Ap pli ca tions (2
nd
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., Paladina, M.P. and Sacchi, S. (2002) I be long, there fore
I ex ist: ingroup iden ti fi ca tion, ingroup entitavity and ingroup bias. Per son al ity
and So cial Psy chol ogy Bul le tin, 28(2), pp.135-144.
Church, A.T. and Lonner, W.J. (1998) The cross-cul tural per spec tive in the study
of per son al ity. Jour nal of Cross Cul tural Psy chol ogy, 29(1), pp.32-62.
Cronbach, L.J. (1984) Es sen tials of psy cho log i cal test ing 4
th
ed. New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
Early, P.C. and Singh, H. (2000) In no va tions in In ter na tional and Cross-cul tural
Man age ment. Thou sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Elashmawi, F. and Har ris, P.R. (2001) Multi cul tural Man age ment: New Skills for
Global Suc cess. Kuala Lumpur: Syn ergy Books.
Fontaine, R. and Rich ard son, S. (2003) Cross cul tural re search in Ma lay sia.
Jour nal of Cross Cul tural Man age ment, 10(2), pp.70-90.
Fontaine, R. and Tan, Kel vin (2003) Intra-eth nic dif fer ences in Ma lay sia: A qual i -
ta tive ap proach. A pa per pre sented to the In ter na tional Con fer ence on the Ad -
vance ment of Man age ment (ICAM), Se oul, 6
th
to 9
th
July.
Gannon, M.J. and Audia, A. (2000) Cul tural met a phors. In P.C. Early and H.
Singh (Eds.) In no va tions in In ter na tional and Cross-cul tural Man age ment. Thou -
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hewstone, M. (2003) In ter group con tact: Pan a cea for prej u dice? The Psy chol o -
gist, 16(7), pp.352-355.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Cul tures con se quences. Thou sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001) Cul tures con se quences: 2
nd
edi tion. Thou sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holden, N.J. (2002) Cross-cul tural man age ment: A knowl edge man age ment per spec -
tive. Harlow: Pearson.
74 Cross Cultural Management
Kagitcibasi, C. (1997) In di vid u al ism and col lec tiv ism. In J.W. Berry, M.H. Segall
and C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.) Hand book of Cross Cul tural Psy chol ogy, Vol. 3: So cial Be -
hav ior and Ap pli ca tions (2
nd
ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kuratko, D.F. and Hodgetts, R.M. (2004) En tre pre neur ship: The ory, Pro cess, Prac -
tice, 6
th
ed. Ma son, OH: South West ern: Mason.
Kwok Leung; Bond, M.H. and Schwartz, S.H. (1995) How to ex plain cross-cul -
tural dif fer ences: Val ues, va lences and ex pec tan cies? Asian Jour nal of Psy chol ogy,
1(2), pp. 70-75.
Maznevski, M., Nason, S. and DeStefano, J. (1993) Four teen faces of cul ture: A
new in stru ment for un der stand ing cul tural dif fer ences. A pa per pre sented at the
Acad emy of In ter na tional Busi ness, An nual meet ing, Maui, Hawaii, October.
Ong Fon Sim (1993) Chi nese eth nic ity: Its re la tion ship to some se lected as pect of
con sumer be hav iour. Ma lay sian Man age ment Re view, 28(2), pp. 29-43.
Redding, S.G. (1987) Re search on Asian cul ture and man age ment: Some
epistemological is sues. Asia Pa cific Jour nal of Man age ment, 5(1), pp.89-96.
Redding, S.G. and Rich ard son, S. (1986) Participative man age ment and its vary -
ing rel e vance in Hong Kong and Sin ga pore. Asia Pa cific Jour nal of Man age ment,
3(2), pp.76-98.
Rich ard son, S. (1990) Em pow er ing man ag ers with the proper ques tion ing tech -
niques. Man age ment De vel op ment Jour nal of Sin ga pore, 2(1), pp.14-18.
Rich ard son, S. and Ar nold, J. (1999) Man age ment style and pro duc tiv ity in Ma -
lay sias telecom in dus try. A pa per pre sented at the 7
th
Tun Ab dul Razak In ter na -
tional Con fer ence, December, Penang.
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S.H. and Knafo, A. (2002) The Big Five per son al -
ity fac tors and per sonal val ues. Per son al ity and So cial Psy chol ogy Bul le tin, 28(6),
pp.789-801.
Roselina Ahmad Saufi, Syed Azizi Wafa and Mohd Yusoff Zainun Hamzah (2002)
Lead er ship style pref er ences of Ma lay sian man ag ers. Ma lay sian Man age ment Re -
view, 37(1), pp.1-10.
Schnei der, S.C. and Barsoux, J.L. (2003) Man ag ing across cul tures. Harlow:
Pearsons.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994) Are there uni ver sal as pects in the struc ture and con tent of
hu man val ues? Jour nal of So cial Is sues, 50(4), pp.19-45.
Schwartz, S.H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Bur gess, S., Har ris, M. and Owens, V.
(2001) Ex tend ing the cross-cul tural va lid ity of the the ory of ba sic hu man-val ues
Volume 12 Number 4 2005 75
with a dif fer ent method of mea sure ment. Jour nal of Cross Cul tural Psy chol ogy,
32(5), pp.519-542.
Spector, P.E., Coo per, C.L. and Sparks, K. (2001) An In ter na tional study of
psychometric prop er ties of Hofstede Value Sur vey Mod ule, 1994: A com par i son of
in di vid ual and coun try/prov ince level re sults. Ap plied Psy chol ogy: An In ter na -
tional Re view, 50(2), pp.269-281.
Tayeb, M. (2000) In ter na tional busi ness: The o ries, pol i cies and prac tices. Harlow:
Pearson.
Trompenaars, F. (1993) Find ing the wave of cul ture: Un der stand ing cul tural di ver -
sity in busi ness. Lon don: Econ o mist Books.
Ward, C., Bochner, S. and Furnham, A. (2001) The psy chol ogy of cul ture shock (2
nd
ed.). Hove: Routledge.
76 Cross Cultural Management
Ap pen dix A: Schwartzs SVS
The re spon dents are asked to con sider what val ues are im por tant to ME as a
guid ing prin ci ple in MY life. A to tal of 57 val ues are pre sented. Each value is
given a brief de scrip tion. The break down of the di men sions are given below.
In di vid ual Level Di men sions
Con for mity Po lite ness, Self-dis ci pline, Hon our ing par ents and el ders, Obe di ent
Tra di tion Re spect for tra di tion, Mod er ate, Hum ble, Ac cept ing my fate in life,
De vout
Be nev o lence Loyal, Hon est, Help ful, Re spon si ble, For giv ing
Uni ver sal ism Equal ity, A world at peace, Unity with na ture, Wis dom, A world of
beauty, So cial jus tice, Broadminded, Pro tect ing the en vi ron ment
Self-di rec tion Free dom, Cre ativ ity, In de pend ent, Choos ing own goals, Cu ri ous
Stim u la tion An ex cit ing life, A var ied life, Dar ing
He do nism Plea sure, En joy ing life, Self-in dul gent
Achieve ment Am bi tious, In flu en tial, Ca pa ble, Suc cess ful
Power So cial power, Wealth, Au thor ity, Pre serv ing my pub lic im age
Se cu rity So cial or der, Na tional se cu rity, Rec i proc ity of fa vours, Fam ily se cu rity,
Clean
Cul tural Level Di men sions
Embeddedness So cial or der, Po lite ness, Na tional se cu rity, Rec i proc ity of fa vours, Re -
spect for tra di tion, Self-dis ci pline, Wis dom, Mod er ate, Hon our ing par -
ents and el ders, Pre serv ing my pub lic im age, Obe di ent, De vout,
For giv ing, Clean
Hi er ar chy So cial power, Wealth, Au thor ity, Hum ble, In flu en tial
Mas tery Am bi tious, Dar ing, Ca pa ble, Suc cess ful
Affective au ton omy Plea sure, An ex cit ing life, A var ied life, In de pend ent, Choos ing own
goals, En joy ing life, Self-in dul gent
In tel lec tual au ton omy Free dom, Cre ativ ity, Broadminded, Cu ri ous
Egal i tar i an ism Equal ity, So cial jus tice, Loyal, Hon est, Help ful, Re spon si ble
Har mony A world at peace, Unity with na ture, A world of beauty, Pro tect ing the
en vi ron ment
Volume 12 Number 4 2005 77