4.2 Data Summary and findings
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 participation willingness has a good degree of significance (0.80) in Dominican Republic and at the same time has a very good influence (0.89) toward the decision outcomes. In this way, the Proposition 1-5 is accepted. Finally, Proposition 1-6 advocates the relationship between Uncertainty removal and decision outcome in Dominican Republic is 0.60*0.91=0.54. This implies that in Dominican Republic, the Uncertainty removal is slightly significant (0.60), but, on the other hand, it has a good level of influence (0.91) toward the decision outcomes. Hence, the proposition 1-6 due to the kindly low strength, should be partially accepted.
36
Table 4.5: Relationship between social interaction and decision outcome for Dominican Republic (15 Dominicans subjects participate on this research).
Social interactions (volume) Support Relative frequency Confidence Decision outcomes
Conflict management (15) 15/15
Commitment (11/15=0.73) Task management (14) 14/15
Commitment (10/14=0.71) Quality (14/14=1)
Consensus (11/14=0.78) Efficiency (13/14=0.92)
3.41/4
Behavior influence (15) 15/15
Commitment (11/15=0.73)
Uncertainty removal (9) 9/15
Commitment (8/9=0.88)
37
Support: The expected proposition of number of items that are addressed in interview survey for the social interaction. For example, 15/15 means there are 15 out of 15 subjects addressing conflict management.
Confidence: The expected sum of relative frequency from the interview survey for the decision outcomes.
For example, 3.46/4.0 means that the total sum of relative frequency for conflict management is 3.46 among 4 items of decision outcomes.
Table 4.6: Support, confidence, and strength (Dominican Republic)
Social interactions (volume) Support Confidence Strength
Conflict management (15) 1.00 0.86 0.86
Strength = Support * Confidence
Figure 4.4: Support, confidence, and strength for social interaction items (Dominican Republic)
0.86 0.79 0.86 0.86
38
Figure 4-5: Evidence for social interactions toward items of decision outcome (Dominican Republic)
The results for relationship of cultural dimension towards social interactions in Dominican Republic are shown in the Table 4-7. The support, confidence, and strength for cultural dimensions are presented in Table 4.8 and Figure 4.5. In average, the strength is 0.51*0.90, which is 0.45. This value reveals that the strength of relationship between cultural dimensions and social interactions is 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 0.60*0.90, which is 0.54. This implies that in Dominican Republic, on the one hand the culture of Power distance is slightly significant (0.66) and at the same time strongly influence social interactions (0.98) conducive to decision outcomes. Accordingly, the Proposition 2 is partially accepted.
Second, the relationship of Individualism vs collectivism and social interactions is 0.33*0.93=0.30. This means that in Dominican Republic the culture of Individualism vs collectivism culture is poorly significant (0.33), and also has a strong influence on the social interactions (0.93) toward the decision outcome. Therefore, the Proposition 3 is rejected. The following proposition is the relationship between the culture Masculinity vs femininity and the social interactions, and it is expressed as 0.60*0.85=0.51. These results expresses that in Dominican Republic the Masculinity vs femininity culture has certain strength as it shows its support value (0.60), and it has a high significant rate regarding to the relation with the social interactions (0.85) in contribution to decision outcome. Consequently, the Proposition 4 is partially accepted.
0.76
1.00
0.74
0.98
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Commintment (4.61/6)
Quality (6/6) Consensus (4.49/6) Efficiency (5.92/6)
39
The relationship of Uncertainty avoidance and social interaction as the Proposition 5 is 0.53*0.89, which is 0.47. This suggests that in Dominican Republic, the culture of Uncertainty avoidance is slightly considerable (0.53) and at the same time this culture have influence over the social interactions (0.89) conducive to decision outcomes. Thus, the proposition 5 is partially accepted. The proposition 6 its regarding to the relationship of Communications skills toward different cultures and social interactions and is 0.46*0.92, which is 0.42. This implies that in Dominican Republic, the culture of Communications skills toward different cultures has slightly low significant level (0.46) and at the same time influence the social interactions (0.92) conducive to decision outcomes. Accordingly, for Dominican Republic, the Proposition 6 should be rejected.
The Proposition 7 is looking to determine the relation between Cultural empathy and the social interactions, it is represented as fallow 0.66*0.93=0.61. This is interpreted fallow, in Dominican Republic the Cultural empathy culture is significant (0.66) and this cultural dimension is also considerable highly significant (0.93) toward the social interactions conducive to decision outcomes. Thus, the Proposition 7 should be accepted. The last Proposition 8 that refers to the relationship of the culture of Open mindedness and social interaction obtains 0.40*0.91, which is 0.45. This shows that in Dominican Republic, the Open mindedness has a low significance level (0.40) and at the same time this cultural dimension represents high level of confidence and significance (0.90) conducive to the decision outcomes. Thus, the proposition is rejected.
Table 4.7: Relationship between cultural dimension and social interaction for Dominican Republic. (15 Dominicans subjects participate on this research).
Cultural dimensions
(volume) Support Relative frequency Confidence Social interactions
Power distance (9) Individualism vs Conflict management (5/5=1)
40
different cultures (7) 7/15
Conflict management (7/7=1)
41 Uncertainty removal (7/10=0.70)
Open-mindedness (6)
6/15
Conflict management (6/6=1) Task management (6/6=1) Behavior influence (6/6=1) Idea generation (6/6=)1 Enhancement of participation
willingness (4/6=0.66) Uncertainty removal (5/6=0.83)
5.49/6
54/105
= 0.51
38.14/42
= 0. 90
Support: The expected proposition of number of items that are addressed in interview survey for the social interaction. For example, 9/15 means there are 9 out of 15 subjects addressing conflict management.
Confidence: The expected sum of relative frequency from the interview survey for the decision outcomes.
For example, 5.42/6.0 means that the total sum of relative frequency for conflict management is 3.8 among 4 items of decision outcomes.
Table 4.8: Support, confidence, and strength for cultural dimension (Dominican Republic) Cultural dimensions (volume) Support Confidence Strength
Power distance (9) 0.60 0.90 0.54
Individualism vs collectivism (5) 0.33 0.93 0.30
Masculinity vs femininity (9) 0.60 0.85 0.51
Uncertainty avoidance (8) 0.53 0.89 0.47
Communication skills toward different
cultures (7) 0.46 0.92 0.42
Cultural empathy (10) 0.66 0.93 0.61
Open mindedness (6) 0.40 0.91 0.36
Average 0.51 0.90 0.45
Strength = Support * Confidence
42
Figure 4.6: Support, confidence, and strength for cultural dimensions (Dominican Republic)
To summarize the proposition test results in a concise manner, the Table 4.9 reveals all propositions and the test results for Taiwan and Dominican Republic. The results are shown in the last two columns, one for Taiwan results and the other one for Dominican Republic results. Each row on the table represent the propositions of the research starting with the Proposition 1, Social interaction is related to decision outcomes in business communication, followed by each sub proposition, and continuing with the Proposition 2 to Proposition 8, the relationship of the cultural dimensions and social interactions toward decision outcomes. Overall, four out of eight propositions reveal the same test results for both Taiwan and Dominican Republic, they are P1, P5, P7, and P8. Particularly, the sub-propositions from P1-1 to P1-4 are the same in both countries.
Table 4-9: Propositions test results for Taiwan and Dominican Republic
Propositions TW DR
Proposition 1:
Social interaction is related to decision outcomes in business communication PS S P1-1: Social interaction is related to decision efficiency S S
P1-2: Social interaction is related to decision quality S S
P1-3: Social interaction is related to decision consensus PS S
0.54
0.3
0.51 0.47 0.42
0.61
0.36
0.10 0.2 0.30.4 0.50.6 0.7 0.80.91
Support Confidence Strength
43
P1-4: Social interaction is related to decision outcomes in business communication S S Proposition 2:
The power distance culture is related to social interaction toward decision outcomes. NS PS Proposition 3:
The individualism vs collectivism culture is related to social interaction toward decision outcomes.
PS NS
Proposition 4:
The masculinity vs femininity culture is related to social interaction toward decision outcomes.
NS PS
Proposition 5:
The uncertainty avoidance culture is related to social interaction toward decision outcomes.
NS PNS
Proposition 6:
The communication skills toward different cultures culture is related to social interaction toward decision outcomes.
PS PNS
Proposition 7:
The cultural empathy culture is related to social interaction toward decision outcomes.
PS PS
Proposition 8:
The open mindedness culture is related to social interaction toward decision outcomes.
NS NS
TW: Taiwan; DR: Dominican Republic; S: Supported; NS: Not supported, PS; Partially supported, PNS:
partially not suported
44 4.3 Discussion and Implications
4.3.1 Social interaction
The social interactions are the bridge on the model proposed in this research, linking the cultural dimensions with the decision outcomes. Thus, the implications of the social interactions are very important for the conclusions. In order to obtain the results of the impact of social interaction on the decision outcomes, the average of the support is multiplied by the average of the confidence, providing as a result of the strength of the variable on the dependent variable. For Taiwan the results go as following the 0.75x0.83=0.63, which shows that in Taiwan the influence of the social interactions toward decision outcome is relevantly remarkable. Hence, when regarding to social interactions toward decision outcomes in business communication, in Taiwan, the factor of social interaction should be carefully considered since this variable can lead to positively the decision outcomes on companies that have constant interactions with international employees or partners in the context of Taiwanese.
Similar situation, or even obviously, is presented in the case of Dominicans. The results for Dominican Republic regarding to social interactions toward decision outcomes go as following 0.88x0.87=0.77. With a positive result as Taiwan, the variable social interaction plays a stronger role, compare to Taiwan, on the research model. Thus, as Taiwan, Dominicans companies or businessmen when making business with Taiwanese companies should be careful on the way how to manage situations that involve conflict management, task management etc. in order to keep the harmony, and a productive environment regarding the cultural differences. Overall, the research shows that the cultural difference does not matter when referring to social interactions, having different degrees of strength, both countries shows that if there is no attention toward the social interactions, the decision outcomes on business communication might be affected. Details for the influence of cultural dimension on social interactions are presented as follows.
4.3.2 Power distance
For Taiwan, the strength of influence of power dissipation toward the social interactions is 0.66x0.58=0.38. The 0.38 represents the influence of power distance culture on social interaction, which is very weak. It confirms with the answers from the Subject 2 of the interview who said “I don’t think it’s obvious in Taiwan” referring to power distance, as subject 2, Subject 1 had a similar
45
answer in the interview. This implies that the power distance culture in Taiwan will not have any significant impact on the social interaction, neither decision outcome on business communication.
Since there is some weak influence in Taiwan but little higher influence in Dominican Republic, it may be always good to consider this variable when making business, specially between Taiwan and Dominican Republic.
The relationship of power distance and social interactions in Dominican Republic is 0.60x0.90=0.54. As the research proposes, there is a significant influence between these two variables, as Subject 9 on the interview said “Because right now the people are focusing in the self-behavior” regarding to power distance. In Dominican Republic the power distance evidence is not really strong, but it does influence the social interaction conducive to the decision outcomes in business communication. When interacting with the Dominican business community is a factor that people should consider for when making business with Dominican investors or companies.
4.3.3 Individualism vs Collectivism
The third cultural dimension Individualism vs collectivism is very important when regarding to team work, in particular for the international team work that needs to manage different cultural opinions and circumstances. For the Taiwanese results, the research shows 0.83x0.76=0.63.
Subject 18 from this research commented: “I work at a conservative school, so they build the
Subject 18 from this research commented: “I work at a conservative school, so they build the