The research model is illustrated in Figure 3.1, which contains seven cultural dimensions as the factors that may contribute to the impacts of social interaction, some of them applying Hofstede Cultural Dimension Theory (1984). The independent factor is social interaction which is regarded as a factor that influences decision outcomes. The decision outcomes are defined to be efficiency, quality, consensus, and commitment, up next a brief statement of each decision outcome. Firstly, efficiency refers to the good use of time and energy in a way that does not waste any, two important terms when making business are on the definition of efficiency “time” and “energy”, Organizational culture within a multicultural organization is critical to performance efficiency. A threat to performance efficiency can include communication breakdowns due to cultural misunderstandings (Reyes, 2010).
Therefore, this research is looking for the possible relationship between the social interactions and the efficiency. Quality as one of the listed decision outcomes is define as the standard of something as measure against other things of similar kind, over all is the degree of excellence of something, subsequently the analysis of the results between the relationship of quality and the social interactions will allow the reader to understand the importance of the social interactions toward quality. The fallowing decision outcome is consensus it refers to the process of synthesizing the wisdoms of all the subjects into the best decision possible at the time, important to know the relations between the social interactions and consensus since a consensus between different cultures tend to be tougher than people from the same culture, therefore to have the knowledge of the relationship is important for this research. The final decision outcome consider on this research is commitment and is the act of binding yourself (intellectually or emotionally) to a course of actions, commitment is an important factor to analyze, employees with higher commitment are heavily bound to their values and assume themselves more obliged to the competition of organizational goals (Hamidi, Mohammaddibakhsh, Soltaniana, behzadifar, 2017) independently the culture, when the employees it committed it becomes a win-win situation, thus, its important to know the relation between social interactions and commitment. Having the decision outcomes concepts clear the propositions are developed as follows.
22
Proposition 1: The social interaction is related to decision outcomes toward decision outcomes Proposition 2: The power distance is related to social interaction toward decision outcomes Proposition 3: The partnership is related to social interaction toward decision outcomes
Proposition 4: The dominant sexuality is related to social interaction toward decision outcomes Proposition 5: The planning is related to social interaction toward decision outcomes
Proposition 6: The communication skills toward different cultures is related to social interaction toward decision outcomes
Proposition 7: The cultural empathy is related to social interaction toward decision outcomes Proposition 8: The open mindedness is related to social interaction toward decision outcomes
P3 Power distance
Decision Outcomes 1. Efficiency 2. Quality 3. Consensus 4. Commitment Social
Interaction P2
Individualism vs collectivism Masculinity vs femininity P4
Uncertainty avoidance P5 P1 Communication skills
toward different cultures P6
Cultural empathy P7 Open mindedness P8
Figure 3-1: Research Model ADJUST
23 3.2 Sample and Measure
3.2.1 Sample
This study is focus on the model describe on the previous figure 3-1, on which the study tries to find the relationship of the cultural dimensions with the social interactions toward decision outcomes. The main purpose of this study is to provide the reader which are the dimensions that are more related to the social interactions that affect the decision outcomes. The results of the research pretend to provide the knowledge to those who might work on a multinational company, organization or diplomatic affairs and treat with employees or customers with different cultural background in order to simplify the integration of the subjects on the working environment.
Therefore, the subjects on this research questionnaire are those that have interact with Dominicans as employees/ coworkers/friends and Taiwanese as employees/ coworkers/friends that have a more intimate knowledge from Taiwanese or Dominican culture, like this being able to answer the questionnaire on a satisfactory way. The background of the subject is diverse, trying to embrace different scenarios and obtain results from different perspectives, thus each subject that have been interview are considered qualify.
To collect the research data, this research releases the questionnaire online to reach those subjects who were not in the same location of the investigation (other country, e.g. Dominican Republic), also some of the subjects had been personally interviewed by the research investigator fallowing the online questionnaire in order to obtain more detailed answers.
Table 3-1: Interview subjects
Code Gender Age Job type Working seniority Company industry
S1 F 35-40 Manager < 15 years Orex, Education
S2 M 28 Merchant < 4 years Furnitures
S3 F 30-35 Diplomat < 8 years Goverment
S4 F 26 Logistic < 3 years Logistics
S5 M 30-35 Nurse < 6 years Biology
S6 M 59 Engineering < 30 years Equimax. Electric,
Agriculture, Construction
24
S7 M 27 Customer service,
Sales
< 5 years Hospitality
S8 F 26 Nurse < 2 years Medicine
S9 M 24 Merchant < 2 years Trade
S10 M 22 Composer, Arranger < 2 years Entertainment
S11 F 30 Teacher < 5 years Education
S12 M 24 Lawyer < 2 years Law
S13 F 22 Photographer < 2 years Entertainment
S14 M 27 Sales < 2 years Steel
S15 F 26 Customer Service < 3 years Hospitality
S16 M 29 Logistics < 2 years Logistics
S17 F 27 Assitanant < 4 years Education/Logistics
S18 F 25 Officer, section of overseas student
affairs.
< 3 years Education/ hospitality
S19 M 23 Free lancer < 2 years Free lancer
S20 M 25 Programming < 4 years Technology
S21 M 40-45 Lecturer < 12 years Education, Research
3.2.2 Measure
The interview questionnaire is presented in the Appendix. It contains three parts. The first part tries to have a clear understanding from each subject interviewed about their opinion toward each cultural dimension (e.g. power distance). This first section will show the possible impact that each cultural dimension has and looks to know the reason why these dimensions are evident by asking why do the subject think so. All the questions are open format, giving the opportunity to each subject to express and to obtain detailed information.
The second section of the questionnaire is targeting to find the relationship from each cultural dimension (e.g. power distance) toward each social interaction (e.g. conflict management), at this point of the questionnaire is important to know the relationship between the social interaction and the cultural dimensions since the objective of the research is to find which of the cultural
25
dimensions are more related to the social interactions, furthermore which could be the effect of these social interaction toward the decision outcomes.
The last section on the questionnaire is looking for the relationship between the social interactions (e.g. conflict management) toward the decision outcomes (e.g. efficiency). Finding the results of the relationship between each cultural dimension with the social interactions toward the decision outcomes, will allow this research to conduct an analyze of the questionnaire and provide the results of which are the cultural effect on decision outcomes.
3.3 Data Analysis
To analyze the collected research data, after interview each subject personally or online, a table is made to encounter the relationship of cultural dimensions with social interaction toward decision outcomes. The table is used to find which are the items that are more influent over others complimented by a brief description of the results for a clearer interpretation on the conducted study. The criteria used to develop the association between one variable to another is the frequency that subjects mentioned variables when talking their relationships or how strong they think the variables are related. By analyzing the results of the subjects, the research can provide the results used to conclude whether accepted, partially accepted, or not accepted the propositions and their sub-propositions.
26
Chapter 4 Results
4.1 Data Collection
The research questionnaire had an open format on which the questions did not guide the subjects to any specific answers and the subjects are freely to express the “why” of their answers on each of the three sections. To be an eligible subject, each of them where required to have interacted for at least 2 months with people from Taiwan (in case of the Dominican subjects) and with people from Dominican Republic (in case of the Taiwanese subjects). Doing so is to ensure that each subject has enough knowledge about each other culture. There is a total of 21 subjects that accepted to be interviewed. Of the subjects, 6 were personally interviewed and 15 online. Each subject had a working experience of at least 2 years, which provides a sign that each subject was qualified to provide interview responses. The diversity on the background of each subject is wide enough to capture opinions from different working industries such as diplomats (government) to freelancers (independent). Those characteristics previously described encompass a diverse spectrum that allows this research to provide results from different working perspectives.
4.2 Data Summary and findings
The collected data was analyzed and summarized in Appendix II. It contains subjects from both Taiwan and Dominican Republic, cultural dimensions, social interaction items, and decision outcomes that each subject mentioned. It should be noticed that each item was included along with a number that represents the item frequency in the interview. For example, the “Idea generation 3”
in the row S1 from Taiwan represents that he or she mentioned the idea generation 3 times along with concepts, opinions, and experiences that are associated with idea generation. In other words, this number does not simple represent the strength that he or she placed the emphasis on the item Idea generation. The overall opinions, concepts, and experiences regarding the social interactions and decision outcomes depend entirely on the contents that he or she presented in the questionnaire.
It was found that the results in the Appendix II vary in all columns. For example, S1 cares three decision outcomes, consensus, efficiency, and quality, while S2 places emphasis on commitment, efficiency, and quality. At the same time, the social interaction items that S1 cares
27
are different from those in S2, and also the cultural dimensions they place emphasis on are different.
Similar situation occurs for the subjects from Dominican Republic. This phenomenon is supported by the original contents of the questionnaire.
Moreover, to develop the relationships among variables, relative frequency with equal strength are considered. The support and confidence are also calculated to present the strength of evidence that social interaction items are associated with decision outcomes (See Table 4.1). For example, for the subjects from Taiwan there are five out of six subjects who talked about Conflict management, one of the social interaction items, and at the same time five of all talked about the Commitment, Quality, and Efficiency, but four of them talked about Consensus. This signifies that the confidence that Conflict management is related to decision outcomes is 3.80/4.0, which is 0.95.
Details are presented in Table 4.2 and illustrated in Figure 4.1. Moreover, the sum of relative frequency that social interaction items are related to decision outcomes are presented. For example, the evidence that six items of social interaction are related to Commitment is 4.91/6.0, which is 0.82. Details are presented in Figure 4.2.
4.2.1 Findings from Taiwan
According to the above, the results for relationship of social interactions towards decision outcomes in Taiwan are shown in the Table 4.2. In average, the strength is 0.75*0.83, which is 0.63. The meaning of this value shows that the strength of relationship between social interactions and decision outcomes are considerably reasonable. Despite this result, when we look to each social interaction individually, and some changes can be appreciated. In first place, the Proposition 1-1 of conflict management and decision outcomes is 0.83*0.95=0.79. This implies that in Taiwan, the conflict management is significant (0.83) and at the same time the influence to the decision outcome its very significant (0.79). Accordingly, the Proposition 1-1 is accepted.
In second place, as Proposition 1-2 tells about the relationship between task management and decision outcomes that is 1*0.83, which is 0.83. This represent that in Taiwan, the variable task management have a perfect significant rate (1) and also great level of influence to decision outcome (0.83). Thus, the Proposition 1-2 should be accepted. Behavior Influence and decision outcomes relationship, and idea generation and decision outcomes are the Proposition 1-3 and the Proposition 1-4 respectively (since both Proposition present the exact same results) are represented as fallow, 0.67*0.81=0.54. This implies that in Taiwan, behavior influence and idea generations
28
are slightly significant both with a support value of (0.67), in the other hand both variables are significant, and have a good degree of influence (0.81) toward decision outcome. Hence, Proposition 1-3 and Proposition 1-4 both are partially accepted. The relationship of Enhancement of participation willingness and decision outcome (Proposition 1-5) is 1*0.83, which is 0.83. This means that, on the one hand enhancement of participation willingness is perfectly significant (1) and at the same time has a very good influence toward the decision outcomes. In this way the Proposition 1-5 should be accepted. Finally, Proposition 1-6 represented by the relationship between uncertainty removal and decision outcome is 0.33*0.75=0.25. This implies that in Taiwan, the uncertainty removal is not really significant (0.33) but, in the other hand, it does influence the decision outcomes (0.75). Hence, the proposition 1-6 due to the low strength should not be accepted.
Table 4.1: Relationship between social interaction and decision outcome for Taiwan (6 Taiwanese subjects participate on this research).
Social interactions
(volume) Support Relative frequency Confidence Decision outcomes
Conflict management
29 Enhancement of
participation willingness
(6)
6/6
Commitment (5/6=0.83) Quality (5/6=0.83) Consensus (4/6=0.66) Efficiency (6/6=1)
3.32/4
Uncertainty removal (2)
2/6 Commitment (1/2=0.50) Quality (2/2=1)
Consensus (1/2=0.50) Efficiency (2/2=1)
3.00/4
27/36
= 0.75
19.94/24
= 0.83
Support: The expected proposition of number of items that are addressed in interview survey for the social interaction. For example, 5/6 means there are 5 out of 6 subjects addressing conflict management.
Confidence: The expected sum of relative frequency from the interview survey for the decision outcomes.
For example, 3.8/4.0 means that the total sum of relative frequency for conflict management is 3.8 among 4 items of decision outcomes.
Table 4.2: Support, confidence, and strength for social interactions (Taiwan) Social interactions (volume) Support Confidence Strength
Conflict management (5) 0.83 0.95 0.79
Task management (6) 1.00 0.83 0.83
Behavior influence (4) 0.67 0.81 0.54 Idea generation (4) 0.67 0.81 0.54 Enhancement of participation willingness (6) 1.00 0.83 0.83 Uncertainty removal (2) 0.33 0.75 0.25
Average 0.75 0.83 0.63
Strength = Support * Confidence
30
Figure 4.1: Support, confidence, and strength for social interaction items (Taiwan)
Figure 4-2: Evidence for social interactions toward items of decision outcome (Taiwan)
The results for relationship of cultural dimension towards social interactions in Taiwan are shown in the Table 4.3. The support, confidence, and strength for cultural dimensions are presented in Table 4.4 and Figure 4.3. In average, the strength is 0.54*0.70, which is 0.37. Although quite close to 0.4, this value reveals that the strength of relationship between cultural dimensions and social interactions is considerably weak. However, when looking at the influence of each cultural dimension on social interactions, the results vary. First, the relationship of power distance and social interactions is 0.66*0.58, which is 0.38. This implies that in Taiwan, on the one hand the
0.79 0.83
0.54 0.54
0.83
0.25 0.00
0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Support Confidence Strength
0.82 0.86
0.65
1.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Commitment (4.91/6) Quality (5.16/6) Consensus (3.87/6) Efficiency (6/6)
31
culture of Power distance is slightly significant (0.66) and at the same time slightly influences social interactions (0.58) conducive to decision outcomes. Accordingly, the Proposition 2 should not be accepted.
Second, the relationship of Individualism vs collectivism and social interactions is 0.83*0.76=0.63. This means that in Taiwan the culture of Individualism vs collectivism culture is considerable significant (0.83), and also have some reasonable influences on the social interactions (0.76) toward the decision outcome. As to the Proposition 3 should be accepted. The following proposition is the relationship of the culture Masculinity vs femininity and the social interactions, and it is express as 0.16*0.83=0.13. These results expresses that in Taiwan the Masculinity vs femininity culture is almost null as it shows its support value (0.16), but it has a high significant rate regarding to the relation with the social interactions (0.83) in contribution to decision outcome.
Consequently, the Proposition 4 should not be accepted due to the low strength of the relationship.
The relationship of uncertainty avoidance and social interaction as the 5 Proposition is 0.50*0.77, which is 0.38. This suggest that in Taiwan, the culture of uncertainty avoidance is “even”
(0.50) and at the same time this culture have influence over the social interactions (0.77) conducive to decision outcomes. Thus, the Proposition 5 should not be accepted. The Proposition 6 is regarding to the relationship of Communications skills toward different cultures and social interactions and is 0.66*0.79, which is 0.52. This implies that in Taiwan, the culture of Communications skills toward different cultures is slightly significant (0.66) and at the same time influence the social interactions (0.79) conducive to decision outcomes. Accordingly, for Taiwan, the Proposition 6 is partially accepted.
The Proposition 7 is looking to determine the relation between cultural Empathy and the social interactions, it is represented as 0.83*0.70=0.58. This is interpreted that in Taiwan the empathy culture is significant (0.83) and this cultural dimension is also considerable significant (0.70) toward the social interactions conducive to decision outcomes. Thus, the Proposition 7 should be partially accepted. The last Proposition 8, refers to the relationship of the culture of Open mindedness and social interaction that is 0.16*0.50, which is 0.08. This shows that in Taiwan, the open mindedness is not really significant (0.16) and at the same time this cultural dimension represents and average level of confidence (0.50) conducive to the decision outcomes. Hence the Proposition 8 should not be accepted.
32
Table 4.3: Relationship between cultural dimension and social interaction for Taiwan (6 Taiwanese subjects participate on this research).
Cultural dimensions
(volume) Support Relative frequency Confidence Social interactions
Power distance (4) 4/6
33
Support: The expected proposition of number of items that are addressed in interview survey for the social interaction. For example, 4/6 means there are 4 out of 6 subjects addressing Power distance.
Confidence: The expected sum of relative frequency from the interview survey for the decision outcomes.
For example, 3.5/6.0 =0.58 means that the total sum of relative frequency for Power distance is 3.5 among 6 items of social interactions.
34
Table 4.4: Support, confidence, and strength for cultural dimensions (Taiwan) Cultural dimensions (volume) Support Confidence Strength
Power distance (4) 0.66 0.58 0.38
Individualism vs collectivism (5) 0.83 0.76 0.63 Masculinity vs femininity (1) 0.16 0.83 0.13
Uncertainty avoidance (3) 0.50 0.77 0.38
Communication skills toward different
cultures (4) 0.66 0.79 0.52
Cultural empathy (5) 0.83 0.70 0.58
Open mindedness (1) 0.16 0.50 0.08
Average 0.54 0.70 0.37
Strength = Support * Confidence
Figure 4.3: Support, confidence, and strength for cultural dimensions (Taiwan)
0.38
35 4.2.2 Findings from Dominican Republic
The results for relationship of social interactions towards decision outcomes in the Dominican Republic are shown in the Table 4.5. The support, confidence, and strength for cultural dimensions are presented in Table 4.6 and Figure 4.4. In average, the strength is 0.88*0.87, which is 0.77. The meaning of this value shows that the strength of relationship between social interactions and decision outcomes in the Dominican Republic are considerably reasonable.
Despite this result, when looking to each social interaction individually some changes can be seen.
First of all, the Proposition 1-1 of Conflict management and decision outcomes is 1*0.86=0.0.86.
This implies that in Dominican Republic, the Conflict management is perfectly significant (1) and at the same time the influence to the decision outcome its very significant (0.86). Accordingly, the Proposition 1-1 should be accepted.
In second place, as Proposition 1-2 tells about the relationship between Task management and decision outcomes and the strength is 0.93*0.85, which is 0.79. This presents that in Dominican Republic, the variable Task management has a strong significant rate (0.93) and also a great level of influence on decision outcome (0.85). Thus, the Proposition 1-2 is accepted. The relationship of Behavior influence and Idea generation with decision outcomes are the Proposition 1-3 and the Proposition 1-4, respectively and both present the exact same results as 1*0.86=0.86.
This implies that in Dominican Republic, behavior influence and idea generations are very significant both with a support value of (1), in the other hand both variables are significant, and have a good degree of influence (0.86) toward decision outcome. Hence, both Proposition 1-3 and Proposition 1-4 are undoubtedly accepted.
The relationship of Enhancement of participation willingness and decision outcome Proposition 1-5 is 0.80*0.89, which is 0.71. This mean that, on the one hand Enhancement of
The relationship of Enhancement of participation willingness and decision outcome Proposition 1-5 is 0.80*0.89, which is 0.71. This mean that, on the one hand Enhancement of