台灣 香港與中國大陸跨文化之比較 : 以 Hofstede 文化構面分析

Transcription

1 台灣 香港與中國大陸跨文化之比較 : 以 Hofstede 文化構面分析 A Comparative Analysis of Culture among Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China: Employing Hofstede s Cultural Dimensions 凃榮宗崇右技術學院企業管理系 Jung Tsung Tu Assistant Professor, Department of Business Administration, Chungyu Institute of Technology, 劉昇雯環球技術學院企管系 Sheng Wen Liu Assistant Professor, Department of Business Administration, Transworld Institute of Technology 丁美靜育達技術學院國際貿易系 May Jing Ting Assistant Professor, Department of International Business, Yu Da College of Business 摘要 台灣 香港和中國大陸雖然有著近似的祖先和文化背景, 但也各自發展出其特有之文化 從歷史事實的角度來看,1985 年台灣成為日本之殖民地但目前也跟隨著美國之腳步 ; 香港被英國統治了 156 年, 制度及文化上跟隨英國的後塵 ; 而中國大陸自 1945 年以來, 採行了計劃經濟並且施行了共產主義 ; 不同的時空背景也讓每個地區發展出獨特的經濟和教育體系 這文化 歷史背景之差異, 使得台灣 香港和中國大陸不僅須瞭解如何與世界各國溝通, 並且也須瞭解如何在這三個地區的內部溝通 該研究中,Hofstede 的個人主義 / 集體主義模式是依變數, 藉此驗證該三個地區文化是否顯著差異 而 ANOVA 則用來檢視台灣 香港和中國大陸的個人主義 / 集體主義程度是否有其差異性 研究結果發現台灣 香港和中國大陸的個人主義 / 集體主義程度有顯著的差異性 ; 台灣有著最高傾向的集體主義 而香港有著最高程度的個人主義 而這樣的結果和 Hofstede 之前研究結果是有一致性的 1

2 ABSTRACT Although Taiwan, Hong Kong and Mainland China share a similar ancestry and cultural background, each has developed unique practices and cultures. As a result of historical circumstances, each has developed differing economic and educational systems. From the viewpoint of history, Taiwan became a Japan s colony in 1985, and also typically follows American practices. Hong Kong was ruled by England for 156 years, and typically follows British practices. Mainland China has adopted the command economic system and communism since These historic-cultural different among Chinese make it increasingly more important for Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China not only to understand how to communicate with the rest of the world, but also to understand how to communicate with each other. In this research, Hofstede s model of individualism-collectivism value system was a dependent variable reflecting the culture. For Research Question, an ANOVA was conducted to investigate individualism/collectivism degree in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China. The findings were a statistically significant difference between the individualist/collectivist attitude among Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China. Hong Kong has highest individualism attitude compared to Taiwan and Mainland China. Taiwan has highest collectivism attitude compared to Mainland China and Hong Kong. These results of the study were consistent with the findings of the prior empirical study by Hofstede. 關鍵詞 : 大中華地區 文化 Hofstede 的文化構面 Key Words: Greater China, Culture, Hofstede s Cultural Dimensions INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Introduction and Background to the Problem Although Taiwan, Hong Kong and Mainland China share a similar ancestry and cultural background, each has developed unique practices and cultures. As a result of historical circumstances, each has developed differing economic and educational systems. In 1839, Mainland China and Britain engaged in a war because of the opium problem. The war was called the Anglo-Chinese (Opium) War. British gunboats finally won the war and the parties signed the Treaty of Nanjing in The treaty provided a payment for war indemnities, opened five ports, and ceded Hong Kong to Britain (Huang, 1997). After years of the gradual erosion of the Qing Dynasty s authority in Mainland China, Dr. Sun Yat-Sen led the people in a revolution that overthrew the Qing government, and founded the Republic of China (ROC) in 1911 (Chu, 1997). After the October Revolution in Russia in 1917, The Marxist-Leninist doctrine spread among Mainland China s working class, which led to the founding of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 1921 ( Part to, 2001). In 1894, the Sino-Japanese war broke out in which Mainland China and Japan went to war due to a territorial dispute over the Korean landmass. Though Korea had previously been governed by China, Japan wanted to colonize the area. After a year, Japan emerged as the victor of the conflict and ratified the Treaty of Shimonoseki in

3 (Huang, 1997). One of the provisions of the treaty was that Taiwan was ceded to Japanese control (Bartlett, 1997). At the end of World War II, Japan returned Taiwan to Mainland China ( Mapping the News, 2003). Shortly thereafter, with the defeat of the Nationalist government in the civil war 1949, Taiwan became a refuge from the communist forces (Keum & Campbell, 2001). In October of the same year, the People s Republic of China was established in Mainland China ( Chinese Agency, 2000). After 156 years of colonial rule, on July 1, 1997, the British Crown Colony of Hong Kong was returned to Mainland China as a Special Administrative Region (SAR), under Deng Xiaoping s Policy of One Country, Two Systems. Mainland China s government also hopes that the experiences relating to the return of Hong Kong will persuade Taiwan to rejoin the Mainland (Bartlett, 1997). From the viewpoint of history, Taiwan typically follows American practices. Hong Kong was ruled by England for 156 years, and typically follows British practices. Mainland China has adopted the command economic system and communism since 1945 (Kemenade, 1998). These differences have imbued each area with a specific set of values and attitudes. The vast cultural differences between the geographically similar areas as well as the rapid increases in globalization, it is important to understand cross-cultural variations. Purpose Despite the general classification, those people living in Greater China are not culturally homogenous. There are cultural differences among Chinese living in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China that affect the internal and external communication. Thus, the examination of the cultural differences among Chinese is also increasingly important. Due to the historical separation of Taiwan and Hong Kong from the Mainland China, the communication within these three regions has been greatly impacted. These historic-cultural different among Chinese make it increasingly more important for Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China not only to understand how to communicate with the rest of the world, but also to understand how to communicate with each other. The purpose of the study is to explore the impact of the historic-cultural differences of Taiwan, Hong Kong and Mainland China. The study is imperative in that Greater China and the international community need to make genuine strides in learning about each other s methods of communication. Justification Although Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China largely originate from similar cultures and shared ancestry, their styles of negotiations have been greatly influenced by their different socio-political systems (Prasad & Rumbaugh, 2003). In recent history, Mainland China has been separated politically and economically, which has had a great influence on the development of the business climate of each area. The competing evaluations of the regions also highlight the role of ethnic and cultural influences in the development of business climates. Different countries and different regions within some countries have different cultures, so there is a need to understand the impact of cultures on international communications. Lee & Trim (2008) indicated that a shared organizational culture can help the management of an international partnership 3

4 arrangement, and senior managers will need to know the knowledge of national cultural value and traits of the people concerned. REVIEW TO THE LITERATURE Greater China (Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China) During the past 20 years, international business and investment among the economic areas in East Asia, including three areas referred to as Greater China, have intensified and contributed to the area s overall economic growth (Cui, 1998). The concept of Greater China is a sophisticated phenomenon, defined through scholarly studies that investigated Chinese subjects within the three economies, i.e. Mainland China (PRC), Hong Kong and Taiwan (Sin & Ho, 2001; Wang & Zhang, 2004; Hodson, 2003). The economic integration and growth among Mainland China (PRC), Hong Kong and Taiwan have occurred so rapidly that the group of countries is referred to as the Chinese Economic Area (CEA), also known as Greater China (Cui, 1998). The World Bank Report (1994) reported that economists have predicted that the economy of "Greater China" will become the largest marketplace of goods and services in the world by 2010 (as cited in Sin & Ho, 2001). For this study, Greater China is defined as Taiwan, Mainland China, and Hong Kong. Many international companies have invested and expanded their businesses in Mainland China through joint ventures or mergers (Fan & Zigang, 2004). In recent years, Made in China has become a matter of merchandising outsourcing options. It is estimated that Mainland China produces more than 20 percent of the world s refrigerators, 25 percent of its washing machines, 30 percent of its air-conditioners and televisions, 50 percent of its cameras, and 70 percent of the world s metal cigarette lighters (Thorpe, 2003). Today, in the consumer merchandise industry, Mainland China plays a key role, and has become an important source of goods due to its ability to produce goods less expensively. In 2001, Deutsche Bank indicated that Hong Kong serves as a financial center by serving Mainland China s investment needs and providing investment services. Hong Kong s economic environment is being shaped by global economic conditions and regional cost-competitiveness over which it has little control. With Mainland China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2002, the mission of Hong Kong has become increasingly clear. As one researcher puts it, Hong Kong s goal is to actively participate in bringing capitalism to Mainland China in alignment with the best international practices (Loh, 2002, p. 7). At present, Mainland China is already one of Taiwan s primary trading partners, and one of its major areas of investment. With each passing year, Taiwan's investments in Mainland China grow. Guo (2003) reported Taiwan's investment in Mainland China increased to more than US $100 billion between 1980 and 2001, and there were about 60,000 Taiwanese manufacturing companies and 500,000 Taiwanese managers operating in Mainland China from 1990 to Mainland China and Taiwan are developing closer economic ties, and these ties will further deepen in the future ( China, 2002). Culture 4

5 Culture is commonly defined as a set of shared values and beliefs that characterize national, ethnic, moral and other group behavior (Faure & Sjostedt, 1993, Craig & Douglas, 2006). Culture also refers to individual cultures revealed through the food, songs, and stories that are exchanged with people outside of that region (Parra, 2001). One further definition of culture was put forth by Schein as a pattern of shared basic assumptions that a group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore be taught to new members as the appropriate way to perceive, think, and feel with relation to those problems (as cited in Reigle, 2001). Simintiras and Thomas (1998) defined cultures as accepted values and norms that influence the way in which people think, feel, and behave. Barbash & Taylor (1997) indicated that culture includes religion, gender, language, class, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Since sub-cultures, cultures and super-cultures merge and evolve, while being less bounded than before, the idea of culture is more porous and various than before (Barbash & Taylor, 1997). D Andrade (1984) presents a slightly more comprehensive interpretation of culture: Learned systems of meaning, communicated by means of natural language and other symbol systems capable of creating cultural entities and particular senses of reality. Through these systems of meaning, groups of people adapt to their environment and structure interpersonal activities. Cultural systems can be defined as a very large diverse pool of knowledge, or shared clusters of norms, or subjectively shared, symbolically created realities (p. 116). Hofstede s Cultural Dimensions With the goal of helping individuals distinguish the various cultural differences of individual countries, Hofstede (1980) introduced his seminal theory of four cultural dimensions based on his earlier qualitative, phenomenological studies. This theory identifies four major variables of cultural differences: power, uncertainty/avoidance, individualism/collectivism, and masculinity/femininity (Hofstede, 1994 & 1980). The major proposition is that cultural differences impact business conduct, decision making and communication; therefore, an increased cultural awareness is important for international managers (as cited in Chang, 2003). Over the past 20 years, the theory has been revised and adapted to address cross-cultural negotiations by Michael Bond. In 1988, Hofstede and Bond added a fifth dimension to the cultural dimension model, identified as Confucian dynamism to make a distinction Chinese and Western cultural values (Hofstede & Bond, 1988). A schematic model was developed to depict these direct and indirect relationships among concepts that continue to be refined (Chang, 2003). The five cultural dimensions were defined by Barry in 2001 as follows: Power difference is the perceived degree of inequality among people. Uncertainty avoidance is the extent to which a society feels threatened by uncertain situations and avoids these situations by providing stable systems with formal rules. Individualism - Collectivism is a social fabric in which each individual takes care of himself or herself in contrast with collectivism in which groups take care of the individual. Masculinity-Femininity reflects on whether 5

6 the dominant values that are associated with the collection of money and things (masculinity) as contrasted with values associated with caring for others and quality of life (femininity). Confucian dynamism reflects whether the members of a society are short-term or long-term oriented in outlook (p. 35). Hofstede noted in a study from 1980 that one unique style of negotiation is to share disparate cultural values (Hofstede, 1980). This theory is significant in addressing some of the essential issues concerning cross- cultural differences in the discipline of negotiation, and is also beneficial for those people conducting international business. Due to its relative simplicity and empirical support, this theory is often used when examining cultural differences. In order to test the practical applications of Hofstede s theory, Gulbro & Herbig (1999) conducted a study about cultural differences in the process of conducting negotiations. The study s construct consisted of a non-experimental, causal comparative, quantitative design. A thousand surveys were mailed to various US companies randomly which names and addresses are from export directories. Two hundred surveys additionally were sent to multinational companies randomly which included Chinese, Latin American, French/Italian, Japanese, and German companies in the US. The five groups were chosen due to similarity to the cultures discussed by Hofstede s earlier study. Gulbro & Herbig s literature review highlighted a gap in the existing research about the effects of Hostfede s four cultural dimensions on cross-cultural negotiation. To address this need, Gulbro & Herbig designed the following study (as cited in Gulbro & Herbig, 1999). Gulbro & Herbig s interpretation of the findings was significant, and led to the following conclusions: (a) high levels collectivism of will result in more time spent on indirect activities unrelated to the negotiations, (b) high levels of individualism result in more time spent conducting direct negotiations, (c) with higher power differences, individuals will spend less time trying to reach a compromise, (d) with high level of femininity more time will be spent in the act of persuasion, (e) with lower uncertainty avoidance less time will be spent trying to reach an agreement, and (f) in individualistic cultures less time will be spent on the planning and debriefing for negotiations than collective cultures. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Though Taiwan, Hong Kong and Mainland China are geographically similar, each area has its own unique culture. This study determined perceptual differences based on cultures among Chinese who live in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China. Theoretical Framework for the Study Among Hofstede s cultural dimensions, individualism-collectivism is most frequently applied in the study of cross-cultural negotiation (Bazerman, Curhan, Moore & Valley, 2000). Hofstede found that people from individualistic cultures tend to be more concerned with their own rights, benefits, and outcomes; people from collectivist cultures are typically more concerned with the group and social welfare (Osman-Gani & Tan, 2002). In this research, Hofstede s model of individualism-collectivism value system was a dependent variable reflecting the culture. 6

7 Research Design The study employs a non-experimental, quantitative research design to analyze cultural differences of Chinese people living in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Mainland China. The research design was a causal comparative and explanatory study, and is intended to examine, describe, and explore the cultural differences in the three distinct geographic regions of Greater China. The individualistic-collectivist characteristic was a dependent variable. The three distinct geographic regions of Greater China including Taiwan, Hong Kong and Mainland China will be independent variables. The objectives will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the differences and similarities of culture in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China. Hypothesis The hypothesis in the study is There is a significant difference of individualism/collectivism among CEOs, sale and purchasing managers from public companies in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Mainland China. Population and Sampling Plan The primary purpose of the study is to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the differences and similarities between culture in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China. Therefore, the target population was the people who are presently working in public companies in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China. Participants were randomly selected from public companies throughout various industries in these three regions. For this study, the accessible population was chosen from public companies listed under the Taiwan Stock Exchange Corporation (TSEC), Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEx), Shenzhen Stock Exchange (SSE) and Shanghai Stock Exchange in China. There are 700 listed companies in the Taiwan Security Exchange Corporation (TSEC). There are 911 listed companies on the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEx). In Mainland China, there are 585 listed companies (including A stock: 530 companies and B Stock: 55 companies) in the Shenzhen Stock Exchange (SSE), and there are 872 listed companies (including A stock: 820 companies and B Stock: 52 companies) in Shanghai Stock Exchange. All information, such as the names of CEOs, sale and purchase managers and addresses of listed companies were made possible through the website. The participants were invited to participate via an that provides an explanation of the research and a hyper-link to the survey website, without direct contact with the researcher. The questionnaire was posted on the website in English, traditional and simplified Chinese. The researcher asked respondents to return the surveys within 30 days by sending an to website. A random sample was taken from each of these sectors through a technique called stratified random sampling. This study was employ stratified random sampling, a probability-sampling plan, to select a representative research sample. Overall, this method for determining a sample population is more accurate than purely random sampling, further it allows the researcher to select a sample that accurately reflects the diverse sectors and characteristic 7

8 patterns in the desired population (Wallen & Fraenkel, 2001). The listed companies in stock markets in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Mainland China are 3,068 as given exchanges. With an accessible population of 9,204 including CEOs, sale and purchase managers in each company, the desired sample size is 4,605 in order to increase generalization and reduce sampling errors suggested by Wallen, Fraenkel. A stratified probability sampling plan was result in the self-selected, data producing sample of respondents. Data collection was employed through a composite questionnaire to measure the independent variables and dependent variables. Instrumentation A two-part questionnaire was used to measure variables, and developed by the researcher. Part 1 is a socio-demographic profile. This section elicits information about the respondent s background. Part 1 has 12 questions that examined the attribute variables such as education level, religious beliefs, work experiences, and years of residence in other countries. The questions in Part 2 was to characterize the respondents Individualism/Collectivism attitude. The survey is self-administered and completed by respondents from the selected sample population. In addition, the survey uses three methods of response: checklists, fill-in-the blanks, and a five-point Likert scale. The survey takes about five to ten minutes to complete. Part 1: Socio-Demographic Profile Demographic variables of the questionnaire for this part include gender, education background, work experience, religion, age and residence in foreign countries. This information is based on self-reported data. Gender is defined as a dichotomous variable (1=Male; 2=Female). Education is defined as a nominal variable (1= High School Diploma or Equivalent; 2= Associate s Degree; 3= Bachelor Degree; 4= Graduate Degree). Religion is defined as a nominal variable (1= Buddhist; 2= Christian; 3= Muslim; 4= Others). Age is defined as a nominal variable (1= under 35; 2= 35-45; 3= 46-55; 4= over 55). The years of business negotiation experience and tenure in an organization is defined as a nominal variable (1= Under 5; 2= 5-10; 3= 11-20; 4= 0ver 20). Years of residence in foreign countries is defined as a nominal variable (1= none; 2= 1-3; 3= 4-6; 4= over 6). Part 2: Individualism / Collectivism The questionnaire was developed by the researcher through the following procedure: 1) Write 10 questions concerning Individualism / Collectivism. 2) Submit questions to a panel of judges for review and to establish content validity. 3) Analyze the critical ratio (CR) for each question and decide which questions to utilize in the survey. 4) Estimate reliability by performing a Cronbach Alphas on the study data for internal consistency. Reliability To ensure the study s reliability, the questionnaire was translated by the Asian Translation Link Company into traditional and simplified Chinese, and then be certified by the Translation & Attestation Association of Taipei. There are three versions on their website: the traditional Chinese version, the simplified Chinese version, and the English 8

9 version. When responding, participants select the version that they prefer to use. The questionnaire was posted on the website and the company was asked for intractability IP addresses for the research. All companies and subjects need to meet two criteria in order to provide reliable information. First, the companies must have been listed on either the Taiwan Stock Exchange Corporation (TSEC), Hong Kong Exchanges, Clearing Limited (HKEx), Shenzhen Stock Exchange (SSE), or the Shanghai Stock Exchange in Second, the respondents must have at least one year of experience in international business. Methods of Data Analysis The Statistics Package of Social Science (SPSS) for Windows version 13.0 was utilized for the data analysis of the collected surveys. For Research Question, an ANOVA was conducted to investigate individualism/collectivism degree in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS After a panel reviewed all questions to establish content validity, the questionnaire was sent to relevant business people first for doing a pilot study, and analyzed the critical ratio (CR) for each question and decided which questions were included in the survey. In this study, 4,605 invitation s were sent to public company s CEOs, sales and purchase managers in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China by a stratified probability sampling plan, and a hyper-link was provided to the survey web site on each invitation . After one month of data collection, 860 questionnaires were returned. However, 251 questionnaires were incomplete or ineffective. Hence, a total of 609 usable questionnaires were obtained for data analysis as shown in Table 1. All questionnaires were coded for statistical analysis with the computer software of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Table 1 The number of respondent questionnaires in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China Taiwan Hong Kong Mainland China Invitation s sent 1,050 1,368 2,187 Respondent Questionnaires Usable Questionnaires Reliability Analysis Cronbach s coefficient a is employed typically to analyze variables that are composed of several Likert scale items. In this study, the internal consistency reliability was measured by using Cronbach s coefficient a according to the mean or average 9

10 correlation of each item with every other item. In this study, the internal consistency reliability of the individualism/collectivism was assessed and the reliability coefficients of ten items was Cronbach α = Leech, Barrett and Morgan (2005) indicated that Cronbach s a value should be above 0.70, but Lin (2006) indicated that Cronbach s a value should be at least 0.80 in basic research. For higher internal consistency reliability, items #2002, 2003, 2004 and 2007 of individualism/collectivism were removed, and the Cronbach s a value becomes The internal consistency reliability of instruments of this study was considered to be sufficient for social science research. Socio-Demographic Descriptive Analysis Among the 609 respondents, most of the respondents gender was male. There were 453 (74.4%) male and 156 (25.6%) female. In this study, most of the respondents income was under US $35,000. There were 243 (39.9%) respondents income under US $35,000; there were 140 (23.0%) respondents income from US $35,001 to 50,000; there were 164 (26.9%) respondents income from US $50,001 to 65,000; and there were 62 (10.2%) respondents income more than US $65,000. Most of the respondents education level had bachelor degree. The 39 (6.4%) respondents were high school diploma or equivalent; the 23 (3.8%) respondents were associate's degree; the 319 (52.4%) respondents were bachelor degree; and the 228 (37.4%) respondents were graduate degree. The 165 (27.1%) respondents were Buddhist; the 67 (11.0%) respondents were Christian; the 38 (6.2%) respondents were Muslim; and the 339 (55.7%) respondents were others. The 168 (27.6%) respondents were from Taiwan; the 179(29.4%) respondents were from Hong Kong; and the 262(43.0) respondents were from Mainland China. In this study, the 168 (27.6%) respondents were from Taiwan; the 179(29.4%) respondents were from Hong Kong; and the 262(43.0) respondents were from Mainland China. Most of the respondents age was from 35 to 45 years old. There were 169 (27.7%) respondents age under 35 years old; 258 (42.4%) respondents age were from 35 to 45 years old; 132 (21.7%) respondents age were from 46 to 55 years old; and 50 (8.2%) respondents above 55 years old. In this study, most of the respondent s business experience was from 11 to 20 years. There were 179 (29.4%) respondents business experience under 5 years; there were149 (24.5%) respondents business experience from 5 to 10 years; there were 188 (30.8%) respondents business experience from 11 to 20 years; and there were 93 (15.3%) respondents business experience more than 20 years. Most of the respondent s negotiation experience was under 5. There were 221 (36.3%) respondents negotiating experience under 5 years; there were 123 (20.2%) respondents negotiating experience from 5 to10 years; there were 157 (25.8%) respondents negotiating experience from 11 to 20 years; and there were 108 (17.7%) respondents negotiating experience more than 20 years. In this study, most of the respondent s native language was Chinese. The 338 (55.5%) respondents native language were Chinese; the 64 (10.5%) respondents native language were Taiwanese; the 202 (33.2%) respondents native language were Cantonese; and the 5 (0.8%) respondents speak other language. Most of the respondents other language speak English. The 537 (88.2%) respondents speak English; the 2 (0.3%) 10

11 respondents speak Spanish; the 18 (3.0%) respondents speak Indian Language; and the 52 (8.5%) respondents speak other language. In this study, most of the respondents never live abroad. The 314 (51.5%) respondents never lived in foreign countries; the 205 (33.7%) respondents who lived in foreign countries were from 1 to 3 years; the 56 (9.2%) respondent lived in foreign countries were from 4 to 6 years; and the 34 (5.6%) respondents who lived in foreign countries were more than 6 years. Hypothesis The hypothesis is There is a significant difference of individualism/collectivism among CEOs, sale and purchasing managers from public companies in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Mainland China. An ANOVA was conducted to investigate individualism/collectivism degree in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China. A statistically significant difference was found in Individualism/ Collectivism among three regions, F (2, 606) = , p =.000 as shown in Table 2. Table 2 One-Way Analysis of Variance Summary Comparing Three Regions of Individualism/ Collectivism Source Sum of Squares Mean Square F Sig. df Individualism / Collectivism Between Groups Within Groups Total As shown in Table 3, a multiple comparisons of Post Hoc Tests showed that there was a significant difference between Taiwan and Hong Kong, and the mean difference was There was a significant difference between Taiwan and Mainland China, and the mean difference was More over, there was a significant difference between Hong Kong and Mainland China, and the mean difference was Table 3 Multiple Comparisons of Post Hoc Tests of Three Regions on Individualism/Collectivism Dependent Variable Individualism /Collectivism Region (I) Region (J) Mean Difference (I-J) Sig. Taiwan Hong Kong *.000 Mainland China *.036 Hong Kong Taiwan.1099*.000 Mainland China.0531*.049 Mainland China Taiwan.0568*.036 Hong Kong *.049 * The mean difference is significant at the.05 level. 11

12 Conclusion This part presents a final review of this research. To identify the cultural differences among Taiwan, Hong Kong and Mainland China, this part begins with a description of the research findings based on the data analysis, following the discussion on interpretations of the research findings with regard to the current literature and gives rational explanations for the outcomes of this study. The next section provides practical implications according to the findings of this study among Taiwan, Hong Kong and Mainland China. The final section reviews this study and provides the limitation, recommendations for future studies. Research Findings and Interpretations The findings were as follows: There was a statistically significant difference between the individualist/collectivist attitude among Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China. Socio-Demographic: The descriptive statistics of socio-demographic factors in this research were consistent with the latest population statistics by public companies on the Taiwan Stock Exchange Corporation (TSEC), Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEx), Shenzhen Stock Exchange (SSE), and Shanghai Stock Exchange in Hence, this study can properly represent all public companies in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Mainland. Context of Culture: From the Post Hoc Tests showed that there was a significant difference between Taiwan, Hong Kong and Mainland China in individualism/collectivism attitude. Hong Kong has highest individualism attitude compared to Taiwan and Mainland China. Taiwan has highest collectivism attitude compared to Mainland China and Hong Kong. These results of the study were consistent with the findings of the prior empirical study by Hofstede (1980). Practical Implications Based on the findings of this study, these practical implications were as follows, and will be practical in communication from different culture. 1. The study found that Hong Kong has highest individualism attitude than Taiwan and Mainland China. Hofstede found that people from individualistic cultures tend to be more concerned with their own rights, benefits, and outcomes (Osman-Gani & Tan, 2002). From the point of view of communication, Gulbro & Herbig (1999) stated that high levels of individualism result in more time spent conducting direct communication. 2. The study found that Taiwan has highest collectivism attitude than Mainland China and Hong Kong. Hofstede found that people from collectivist cultures are typically more concerned with the group and social welfare (Osman-Gani & Tan, 2002). From the viewpoint of communication, Gulbro & Herbig (1999) indicated that high levels collectivism of will result in more time spent on indirect activities unrelated to the communication. Limitations This study was confined by several limitations as follows: 1. The findings were limited to the public companies under the Taiwan Stock Exchange 12

13 Corporation (TSEC), Hong Kong Exchanges, Clearing Limited (HKEx), Shenzhen Stock Exchange (SSE), or Shanghai Stock Exchange in The participants of this study were selected only from public companies of CEOs, sale and purchasing managers among Taiwan, Hong Kong and Mainland China, and this study may not be generalized to all public companies. 3. This study was constrained by person-power, financial resources and time; hence, the study adopted only a quantitative research method and employed a questionnaire to conduct the survey. However, the questionnaire is a self-reporting instrument. The researcher can not control the authenticity of the responses of the subjects. Hence, this study assumes that all of the respondents replied truthfully. 4. This study was based on Hofstede s model of individualism-collectivism. Although Hofstede s model had been widely utilized to examine cultural issue, only one factor was examined in this study. Some important factors that were not identified in this study, such as power, uncertainty/ avoidance, and masculinity/femininity, etc., may also influence the communication styles. Recommendations for Future Study There are some recommendations for future research that would extend the research. The recommendations are listed as follows: 1. Future studies could consider comparing different cultures to explore the differences and similarities of cultures in different countries or regions. 2. The future studies may employ a qualitative method to make up the insufficiencies in the quantitative method. 3. This study was limited to the public companies; future research may extend the study to other business groups to extensively investigate the influence of cultures to negotiation styles. 4. Hofstede s other cultural dimensions, such as power, uncertainty/avoidance, and masculinity/femininity may also employ. 5. The research should be expanded to other field, such as influence of culture on business or political negotiations. REFERENCES Barbash, I., & Taylor, L. (1997). Cross-cultural filmmaking. University of California Press. Bartlett, B. (1997). Hong Kong & Taiwan. Commonweal, 124(8), Bazerman, M. H., & Curhan, J. R. & Moore, D. A. & Valley, K. L. (2000). Negotiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, Chang, L. C. (2003). An examination of cross-cultural negotiation: Using Hofstede framework. Journal of American Academy of Business, 2(2), China. (2002, May 31). Taiwan investing more in mainland. Asia Times. Retrieved March 14, 2004, from: atimes. com/china/de31ad02. html Chinese agency comments on reunification, business with Taiwan. (2000, December 19). BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific Political, p. 1. Chu, S. K. (1997). China since Pacific Affairs, 70(1), Craig, C. S., & Douglas, S. P. (2006). Beyond national culture: implications of cultural 13

14 dynamics for consumer research. International Marketing Review, 26(3), D Andrade, R. (1965). Cultural meaning system. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Fan, P., & Zigang, Z. (2004). Cross-cultural challenges when doing business in China. Singapore Business Review, 26(1), Faure, G. O., & Sjostedt, G. (1993). Culture and negotiation: An introduction. Gulbro, R. D. & Herbig, P. (1999). Cultural differences encountered by firms when negotiating internationally. Industrial Management + Data Systems, 99(2), Guo, J. J. (2003). Comments on Taiwan and the political implications of cross-strait economic relations. Peace Forum. Retrieved April 1, 2005, from: www. peaceforum. org. tw/onweb. jsp?webno= &webitem_no=649. Hodson, J. (2003). A case for American studies: The Michael Fay affair, Singapore-US relations, and American studies in Singapore. American Studies International, 41(3), Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture s consequences: international differences in work-related values. CA: Beverly Hill- Sage Publications. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots to Economic Growth. Organizational Dynamics. New York: Spring, 16(4), Huang, R. (1997). China: a macrohistory. NY: An East Gate Book. Kemenade, W. V. (1998). China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Inc.: the dynamics of a new empire. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CICS), and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Keum, H., & Campbell, J. R. (2001). Devouring dragon and escaping tiger: China's unification policy vs. Taiwan's quasi-independence as a problem of international relations. East Asia: An International Quarterly, 19(1/2), Lee, Y. I. & Trim, R. J. (2008). The link between cultural value systems and strategic marketing; Unlocking the mindset of Japanese and South Korean managers. Cross Cultural Management, 15(1), Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2005). SPSS for intermediate statistics use and interpretation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Loh, C. (2002). Hong Kong s SMEs. CLSA Emerging Markets. Retrieved March 13, 2004, from: civic-exchange. org/03publication/hkprimer. pdf Mapping the news. (2003, May 7). Arizona Daily Star, p. A4. Osman-Gani, A. M., & Tan, J. S. (2002). Influence of culture on negotiation styles of Asian managers: An empirical study of major cultural/ethic group in Singapore. Thunderbird International Business Review, 44(6), Party to rejuvenate nation. (2001, July 2). China Daily, p. 1. Parra, C. (2001). Political psychology: Cultural and cross-cultural foundations. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 30(1), Prasad, E., & Rumbaugh, T. (2003). Beyond the great wall. Finance & Development, 40(4), 46. Reigle, R. F. (2001). Measuring organic and mechanistic cultures. Engineering Management Journal, 13(4), 3-9. Sin, L. Y. M., & Ho, S. C. (2001). An assessment of theoretical and methodological 14

15 development in consumer research on Greater China: Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 13(1), Thorpe, J. (2003). The China factor. National Post. Retrieved March 10, 2004, from: yangtzetelecom. com/i/pdf/chinafactor_e. pdf Wallen, N. E. & Fraenkel, J. R. (2001). Educational Research: A guide to the Process (2 nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, inc. Wang, Q., & Zhang, W. (2004). China's potato industry and potential impacts on the global market. American Journal of Potato Research, 81(2),