12-U2D2 -Analyze the terms culture as described in Kivisto and citizenship as described in Kivisto and Faist. What effect does culture have on citizenship or vice versa? What does this mean for you in your role as a global public administrator?see detail

Page 131 Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 1, 2013 THE MELTING POT VS. THE SALAD BOWL:

A CALL TO EXPLORE REGIONAL CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES WITHIN THE U.S.A. Andy Bertsch, Minot State University ABSTRACT This paper renews the call for studies of intra-country cultural differences. This is especially true within geographically large countries such as Russia, China, India, Brazil, and the U.S.A. Sampling should be centered upon theoretically sound literature-supported cross- cultural predictors such as wealth, latitude, population density, ethnic diversity, and the like. It is very likely that geographically large countries are not homogeneous cultures. This paper illustrates that further intra-country studies are in order and offers a framework for conducting regional cross-cultural studies.

INTRODUCTION Culture impacts nearly every aspect of business, including managerial decision making, planning, organizing, leadership, human resource management, marketing, and consumer behavior to name only a few. Researchers within the field of management have made significant contributions in terms of inter-national cross-cultural studies (Adler 2008; Hofstede 1980a, 2001; Hofstede and Hofstede 2005; House, et al. 2004; Kirkman, et al. 2006; Trompenaars 1993a; Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1998). These same researchers have called for intra- national or regional studies based on validated models used in cross-cultural research. Despite this call, little research has been performed on regional or intra-national cultural comparisons within countries. This call for intra-country cultural research recognizes that the vast size of some countries, along with immigration patterns, and varying sources of cultural influence can result in regional cultures. Alesina (2003) states that geographic borders that define nations are a man- made institution and, as such, should not be taken as part of the natural landscape. In fact, even the geographic nature of a country is man-made. Alesina goes on to discuss how borders change with relative frequency. In 1946 there were 76 independent countries in the world. At the time of Alesina’s article in 2003, there were 193. Is it reasonable to assume that the cultural impact of a Russian child growing up in Moscow (which, according to Figes (2002), has received much of its cultural heritage from the West) would be the same as the cultural impact of a Russian child growing up in a region influenced by the Buriats or the Tatars? The significant size of Russia would likely result in regional cultures or national subcultures. Similarly, would a French- Page 132 Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 1, 2013 Canadian school-aged child growing up in Quebec have the same cultural nurturing as a Canadian school-aged child growing up on the other side of Canada in Vancouver, British Columbia? There have been several critics of past research that treats larger societies as one single homogeneous culture (Kirkman, et al. 2006; Lenartowicz, et al. 2003; Sivakumar and Nakata 2001). It is easy to see the validity of such critiques. Huntington (1993) and Schwartz (1999) are two examples of how the international management literature has treated national cultures. Collectively, it has been offered that political boundaries do not necessarily correspond to the shared cultural boundaries of societies. National cultures seldom reach 100% homogeneity (Holt 2007).

Regional Cultures in the U.S.A.

Within the U.S., Garreau (1982) offers the concept that the U.S. culture is not homogeneous but that the North American continent is actually segmented into distinctly different regions. It stands to reason that Scandinavians and Germans who settled the upper Great Plains of Garreau’s “Breadbasket” may very well have had a cultural impact, transcending the generations from settlement to contemporary times, that is significantly different from the ethnic makeup and history of the regional culture of Garreau’s mid-Atlantic “Foundry” or southern “Dixie” states. Borders, at least as they define the collective nature of the United States, may very well be arbitrary when it comes to the impact (or at the very least, the existence) of local or regional cultures. Why is this relevant? As Garreau (1982) stated concerning sub- nations of North America: “Each nation has a distinct prism through which it views the world.” Much of the published research treats the cultures within an entire nation homogeneously. One would be hard pressed to believe that the vast size of the United States, along with immigration patterns, settlement, dates of statehood and the like would lead to one homogeneous culture. Yet, the literature seems to suggest that there is, indeed, only one collective American culture (e.g. the melting pot) that has been studied in the management literature. Other than demographic studies (e.g. Jewish culture, Black culture, generational studies, etc), there has been little done in the realm of cross-cultural studies based on geographic or regional comparisons within the U.S.A.

Indeed, the international management literature treats the United States as a culturally homogeneous society. Based on the assumption that this is incorrect and that Garreau’s (1982) concept of distinct cultural regions in North America has value (e.g. the salad bowl), this paper suggests the need to explore further Garreau’s sub-nation hypothesis. Specifically, researchers should explore similarities and differences between samples of managers drawn from different regions within the U.S.A. Such research should explore perceived values as held by adults born, raised, and currently residing in different regions within the United States. To help create hypotheses in such cross-cultural comparisons, criteria such as population density, wealth per capita, latitude, ethnicity, immigration patterns, religion, and length of time since initial settlement are important determinants (Hofstede 1980a, 2001; House, et al. 2004; Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1998). Page 133 Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 1, 2013 Melting Pot vs. Salad Bowl As editors of a compilation of anthropological, psychological, and business works in 2000 titled Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, Harrison and Huntington (2000) offer discussions of black culture, gender-based cultural comparisons, the culture of certain groups who have something socially in common such as homelessness, membership in a gang, race, etc. Glazer (2000) suggests that discussions of cultural differences in the United States have been avoided because such discussions may communicate the idea that some cultures are better than others, at least in the sense that they do more to promote human well-being. Glazer implies that the risks of pursuing cultural comparisons, at least within the United States, may be greater than the gains and may further be of little long-term significance as the supposed melting pot model of the U.S. tends to attenuate cultural differences (Harrison and Huntington 2000, p. xxxi). Additionally, researchers have concluded that some immigrants can be acculturated to a new dominant culture yet hold on to their own cultural identity (Ogden, et al.

2004). Some may give the impression they have become assimilated into the host culture but, in fact, are simply modifying their behavior to fit in (Shackleton and Ali 1990).

Barlow, et. al. (2000) mentions that European immigrant groups may identify themselves as being American because the United States is their chosen country of residence. However, they may still not want to assimilate because, in doing so, they might lose valued cultural characteristics from their countries of origin. This desire to hold on to a native culture is, in turn, instilled in the younger generations resulting in greatly resisted dilution and change despite prolonged exposure to the host culture. Culture develops in the course of social interaction, is taught from early infancy, and results in deeply held values (Hansen and Brooks 1994; Hofstede 1991; Hofstede 2000; Weisner 2000).

Hofstede (1985) hypothesizes that Latin European and Mediterranean countries’ pattern of large Power Distance and strong Uncertainty Avoidance was set in Roman days as all these countries are the cultural heirs of Emperor Augustus. Additionally, modern day Latin American cultural patterns are a result of the merger of 16 th century colonists’ values and those values which were prevailing in the local civilizations at the time of colonization resulting in hybrid cultures between immigrants’ cultures and host cultures. Hofstede (1985) concludes with several questions. One most interesting and applicable to the thesis of this paper is, “To what extent are problems of migrants and minorities transferred to the next generation (if they remain in the host country) and are their children stigmatized or integrated into the host culture?” Expanding on this question from Hofstede, several questions are relevant to this call for further research: (i) “Is there an eventual hybrid in the local region’s culture influenced by the country of origin of the ancestral immigrants?”; (ii) “Can it then be hypothesized that the modern day regional cultures within the U.S.A. are derived from the respective immigrants (along with influence from American Culture) to make a unique local hybrid of cultures?”; (iii) “Are the local modern day cultures geographically unique?”; (iv) “Are the local cultures an amalgamation of the predominant groups’ countries of origin?” The concept of immigrants creating a hybrid culture within the host country is, at times, supported within anthropological studies. For example, Glazer (2000) suggests that cultural descendents of every ethnic or racial group now in the United States may no longer represent Page 134 Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 1, 2013 their ancestor’s native cultures; while at the same time, they may not be representative of the “American” culture either. An American visitor to Ireland will not encounter the same culture as the Irish of Boston, MA. Therefore, culture in a large society (e.g. modern day “U.S.A.”) must be disaggregated to the very specific variants that characterize the ancestral immigrants’ native cultures (Glazer 2000).

Many social scientists believe that the world is converging toward a single core global culture, citing interracial marriages, religious conversions, and global travel as primary reasons that people of one culture are adopting behaviors and practices of other cultures. In this regard, it has been said that one can more easily adopt a new culture even if they cannot change their race or ethnicity. At the same time, social scientists agree that people are becoming more aware of their own inherent culture and such local interpretations are becoming more popular, resulting in an increasing resistance to cultural change and assimilation. In effect, culture does matter and will continue to be a fact of life and, similar to race, resistant to change (Glazer 2000; Shweder 2000; Weisner 2000).

Various schools of thought have been offered concerning the impact of studying culture (e.g. divergence, convergence, assimilation, etc). Warner and Joynt (2002) attest to dichotomous schools of thought – divergence vs. convergence – and the subsequent impact and consequences in a managerial and organizational setting. Convergence supporter and esteemed Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter stresses that globalization includes cultural transmission that will tend to homogenize culture and make it easier for countries to overcome cultural differences. In order to participate in the global economy, developing countries may be forced to change long standing practices and beliefs. For some researchers, the idea of convergence is not limited to the idea of whether a developing country’s culture system will change, but rather, when it will change. Such researchers believe that the collective convergence of the world’s developing nations will result in a core global economic culture shared by all participating nations (Kerr, et al. 1973; Porter 2000). Another convergence supporter, albeit more subtly, is Glazer (2000) who states that, at least within the supposed melting pot model of the United States, attenuation of cultural differences results in convergence through assimilation. However, even Porter admits that local cultural differences will remain. “Globalization will not eradicate culture, as some have feared” (Porter 2000, p. 128). This observation by Porter is in line with the observations of Adler (2002, 2008) and Child (2002) who both advocate convergence on the macro level including organizational structure and governance while at the micro level, interpersonal behaviors, norms, and values will continue to be influenced by culture (Holt 2007).

Yet for others, the fact remains that we live in a multicultural world and it is a fact that cannot be ignored or overlooked. Hofstede’s (2001) research indicates that cultures are very stable. For many researchers, cultural differences within nations are becoming increasingly important to study and to understand (de Barros 2002; Grennes 1999; Holt 2007). Indeed, cultural differences are a fact of life for many nations and in the end, cultures will not converge (Shweder 2000). There will continue to be cultural elements which will be resistant to change, even if the convergence theorists are proven correct (Hofstede 2001). Javidan, et al. (2006) state a case for divergence-centric positions more succinctly and urgently: “[T]he future of our planet depends on better understanding and acceptance among people of differing cultures” (p. 911). Page 135 Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 1, 2013 A CALL FOR REGIONAL CROSS-CULTURAL STUDIES For many years, the general theory of managing an international business consisted of a single ‘best way’ to manage people and organizations. The success of the U.S. economy, along with the dominance of U.S. business schools, had led many academics and practitioners to believe that the ‘American way’ of management is, indeed, the ‘best way’ to manage regardless of the local context. (In the context of this research, the word “America” will be used in reference to the United States of America). One cultural anthropologist went so far as to claim this attitude to be ethnocentric monism (Shweder 2000). This philosophy went relatively unchallenged for several decades. Although the most significant authors of cultural research have not agreed on much concerning the cultural models and methods of measurement, they do agree that a single ‘best way’ to manage in any given context is a philosophy in need of updating (Hofstede 1980a, 1980b; House et al. 2004; Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1998). As stated by Huntington (1993), in the post-Cold War era, the distinction between groups of people will no longer be made along political or economic lines, but rather along cultural lines. Even within the world of anthropology and political science, cultural values and attitudes have been deemed to be important yet neglected factors in scholarly work (Harrison and Huntington 2000).

Although culture has been a much studied and much debated topic in recent decades within the management literature, the vast majority of that literature has been focused on cross- cultural comparisons across nations (Hofstede 1980a, 2001; Hofstede and Hofstede 2005; House et al. 2004; Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1998). Little work has been done concerning the regional impact that culture has within a nation. Huntington (1993) tells us that, “The culture of a village in southern Italy may be different from that of a village in northern Italy…” (p. 24). Hofstede has been criticized for assuming that cultures follow political boundaries and for not accounting for within-country differences (Jaeger 1983; Shackleton and Ali 1990). Due to the geographical size of some countries (e.g. Russia, Canada, the United States, China, Brazil, etc), it would seem more regional cultural studies are in order. There exists a gap in the literature concerning the existence of subcultures within national boundaries (Lenartowicz et al. 2003; Ogden et al. 2004).

Very little attention in the management literature has been given to the concept that American culture is not homogeneous. However, researchers are increasingly dropping the notion that the U.S.A. is a melting pot of cultural groups whereby all cultures eventually mix into a single homogeneous culture (Ogden et al. 2004). In addition to Garreau’s (1982) discussion of distinct cultural regions within North America, cross-cultural differences have been linked to several factors including population density, wealth (income and production per capita), and the distance from the equator of a group of people (Edgerton 2000; Hofstede 1980a, 2001; Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1998).

A FRAMEWORK FOR INTERSTATE CROSS-CULTURAL STUDIES IN THE U.S.A.

Any interstate cross-cultural study should attempt to apply cultural theory and a relevant theoretical model to the intra-national cultural context. In this case, such research should seek to Page 136 Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 1, 2013 determine whether interstate cultural differences exist within a given nation; specifically, what are the similarities across and differences between perceptions of values within the dimensions of culture in managers from the chosen regions? In order to explore the possible existence of interstate or regional subcultures within a given nation, future research should explore dimensions of culture in the context of regional intra-nation cultural comparisons. The remainder of this paper suggests steps to follow for such regional cross-cultural research.

Proposed Framework Chapters 1 & 2: The Context and Literature Review The primary intent of regional cross-cultural research is to determine whether cultural differences exist within nations. More specifically, what are the similarities across and differences between perceptions of values within the relevant dimensions of culture in managers within the same nation yet geographically or otherwise divided? Guided by such a research question, a literature review must first set out to define the concept of culture (Earley 2006). Past scholars have debated the existence and measurement of various dimensions of culture due to the lack of consistency in definition and assessment. Properly defining the concept of culture is necessary due to the ambiguity and murkiness of the topic (Earley 2006). The researcher is encouraged to include a brief discussion of culture in each subculture (e.g. each ‘society’). This should include information centric to how culture can be found everywhere groups of people are found, how culture manifests itself, and descriptive aspects of culture such as its normative nature. In addition to the context, the literature review should also include the assessment of culture including the actual dimensions used to measure, assess, and compare cultures. A key outcome of a thorough literature review would be to find a representative theoretical model in order to assess meaningful cultural dimensions. Such a model would be drawn from relevant and applicable cross-cultural research and studies and would be applied to the new context of a regional cross-cultural study within a nation. The purpose would be to ferret out meaningful cultural dimensions using existing tested and validated survey instruments applied to the new context.

In order to avoid the pitfalls identified by Schein (2004), Earley (2006), Harrison and Huntington (2000), and many others, the concept of culture would need to be clearly defined and presented as a means of settling on a definition to help guide the remainder of the research. The underlying intent of a thorough literature review, as suggested by Earley (2006), would be to answer the question, ‘What is culture?’. Once a definition is derived and the concept of culture is explored, the literature review should include a discussion of how culture manifests itself in the given regions. Here, the questions to answer is ‘How can one recognize culture in the chosen regions?’ and ‘Where can one recognize culture?’ Finally, the literature review should include an outline of how previous researchers have gone about assessing culture. Although there have been several models put forth to ferret out measurable aspects of culture, a regional study would do well to focus on those that have been the most instrumental in shaping cross-cultural theory. In order to avoid the pitfalls of new theory in a new context, universally accepted dimensions should be chosen and applied to the new context of regional intra-national cultural studies. Here the question to answer is, ‘How does one measure and compare cultures?’ In order to formulate the necessary hypotheses to guide the remainder of the research effort, the final section of the Page 137 Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 1, 2013 literature review should focus on predictors of culture; and, specifically, as those predictors relate to the chosen context. The question this final section would answer is, ‘What are the determinants of culture?’ Assessing Culture. One of the more challenging aspects of any review of the literature surrounding the topic of culture is the means by which scholars have approached, defined, conceptualized, operationalized, and measured the concept of culture (Earley 2006). Even though many prominent scholars agree that culture is historically determined, learned, persistent, contains subjective and objective elements, is collective and shared, and provides solutions to life’s problems, these same scholars universally admit that culture is difficult to grasp. This difficulty is due, in part, to the lack of consistency in developing universally meaningful definitions, dimensions, scales, and measures (Earley 2006; Holt 2007).

Cross-cultural research projects must settle on a framework so meaningful comparison can be made (Earley 2006). This framework inherently must contain well defined dimensions, scales, and measurements in order to provide meaningful differences and similarities across cultures. Cavusgil and Das (1997) provide an appreciable approach to cross-cultural research beginning with theory and construct definition. Repeatedly, cross-cultural researchers emphasize the importance of properly defining the paradigm of culture, its conceptualization relative to the study at hand, and the underlying dimensions and means of measurement (see for example Earley (2006)). Dominant Frameworks. There have been several frameworks proposed by scholars. Each allegedly offers researchers opportunities to compare and contrast cultures based on measurable and comparable dimensions (Adler 2008; Cullen and Parboteeah 2008; Deresky 2006; Hofstede 1980a, 2001; House et al. 2004; McFarlin and Sweeny 2006; Phatak, et al. 2005; Trompenaars 1993a; Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1998). However, there is a noticeable lack of agreement on a universal definition of the actual dimensions used to make cross-cultural comparisons. Many authors have attributed much attention to the constructs and historical significance of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s initial cultural model. For example, Miroshnik (2001) and Adler (2002) speak of the significance that Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) have had on the study of culture. Sondergaard (1994) and Sivakumar and Nakata (2001) have documented the vast appeal and impact that Hofstede’s model has had on management literature. It has been said that the use of Hofstede’s model continues to rise (McFarlin and Sweeny 2006). Triandis, when writing the forward to the recent GLOBE project’s massive publication, described the GLOBE effort as the most massive and influential cross-cultural undertaking of its kind; going on to say that the GLOBE project will influence thousands of doctoral dissertations well into the future (Triandis 2004). Smith (2006) spoke of the Hofstede and GLOBE models as ‘elephants’ in the realm of cross cultural studies. In addition, Trompenaars’s 7d model is solidly grounded in Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s initial work of 1961. Lastly, the GLOBE authors and Hofstede both cite Page 138 Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 1, 2013 Trompenaars’s model in many of their respective cultural dimensions. An important decision will need to be made by the researcher: what measure should be used in a cross-cultural comparison?

Hypothesis Generation. A regional cross-cultural research effort should ground proposed hypotheses in literature- supported environmental variables that theoretically predict a society’s cultural manifestations. In other words, what are the environmental variables that attribute to a society’s relative placement on the chosen cultural dimension’s continuum? Within established cultural dimensions, past researchers have offered “predictors” for each cultural dimension. As offered by culture researchers such as Hofstede (1980a, 2001) and the GLOBE authors (House et al.

2004) – and supported by anthropologists – cultural predictors include population (and population density), wealth, climate and latitude, among others such as religion, social programs and such. Researchers would do well to include such support for hypotheses based on cultural “predictors”. Population & Population Density. Edgerton (2000) discusses the significant difference that population has on culture. Specifically, he subscribes to a theory that people in smaller societies have lived in far greater harmony and happiness than larger populated societies. Additionally, Edgerton offers that people in small societies continue, to this day, to be more harmonious, happy, and devoted to community. Edgerton offers anthropological views that populous societies and cities are besieged with crime, disorder, and human suffering compared to smaller societies with their much more harmonious communities; and that these views date back to Aristophanes circa 300 BC and Tacitus in the first century AD. This philosophy carried forward to impact the thoughts and research of 19 th century scholars such as Ferdinand Tönnies, Henry Maine, Fustel de Coulanges, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber (Edgerton 2000). Edgerton concludes rather unequivocally that anthropologists agree small-scale societies are better adapted to their circumstances, and hence serve their societal members better than larger urban societies. The bottom line is that members of a smaller populated society are more closely knit. An example of how this impacts a dimension of culture includes the idea that relative Power Distance is positively correlated with more populated cultures where there is more acceptance of a separation of power and much looser ties within the society (Hofstede 1980a, 2001).

Ogden et al. (2004) speak of how the level of homogenization is affected by the urban vs.

rural setting in which a person was raised and the amount of consistent exposure a subculture received from the new culture. Rural settings create opportunities for the original culture to be more ‘sticky’ (a term coined by Hofstede (2002a)) by limiting exposure to the new host culture. Urban areas, with greater population densities, results in a greater exposure to the new host culture and people are more inclined to adopt the new culture (Ogden et al. 2004).

Page 139 Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 1, 2013 Wealth.

In the massive research project commonly known as the GLOBE study, researchers have empirically shown the effect that wealth has on culture (House et al. 2004). In fact, wealth was such a pronounced determinant, it led Javidan et al. (2006) to proclaim that 12 out of the 18 values and practices measured by the GLOBE study were correlated with societal wealth as measured by per capita production and per capita income (GDP per capital and GNI per capita). Hofstede also concludes that wealth is a predictor of placement within three of his five cultural dimensions, i.e., power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity (Hofstede 1980a, 2001).

Climate and Latitude. Other social scientists, including political scientists and anthropologists, state that as a variable, culture is influenced by numerous factors such as geography, climate, politics, and other such environmental variables. Tropical and Mediterranean climates result in a relatively larger hierarchical distance or a larger degree of verticality than cold or temperate countries while latitude directly affects societal member interaction, wealth, power distribution, and uncertainty avoidance (Diamond 1999; Etounga-Manguelle 2000; Harrison and Huntington 2000; House et al. 2004). This directly correlates with Hofstede’s claims of latitude as a predictor for the relative placement in several of his dimensions. For example, there is a significantly negative correlation between the power distance index score of a country and the distance of its capital from the equator (Hofstede 1980a, 2001; Shackleton and Ali 1990). Such a predictor could help researchers develop theoretically sound hypotheses in intra-national cross- cultural studies.

Religion. The literature supports that religion plays a role in determining the placement on the uncertainty avoidance continuum, the universalism/particularism continuum, humane orientation, and the performance orientation continuum (Hofstede 2001; House et al. 2004; Javidan 2004; Kabasakal and Bodur 2004; Trompenaars 1993a; Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1998). Other researchers have indicated that a higher level of Catholicism will yield a higher placement on the UAI index while societies with higher concentrations of Protestantism, Buddhism, and Islam have lower UAI scores (Tang and Koveos 2008). Other Predictors. Homogeneous cultures typically favor collectivism (low IDV scores) while societies that are more ethnically diverse score higher on the IDV scale (Lenartowicz et al. 2003; Triandis 1989). This is particularly true for ethnic groups that make up over 70% of the population (Tang and Koveos 2008). Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) offer that a higher level of tolerance for linguistic variability relates to a lower score on the UAI scale (MacNab and Worthley 2007). Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) have linked low power distance scores to a society’s increased Page 140 Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 1, 2013 access to socialized programs (MacNab and Worthley 2007). Factors other than national culture have been found to have an impact on some dimensions of culture. For example, Bosland (1985) found that PDI and UAI scores deviated considerably from Hofstede’s published scores and that ‘years of education’ was found to be an intervening variable (Shackleton and Ali 1990). Researchers may wish to attempt to control for years of education to reduce spurious artifact which this intervening variable may cause. In the end, there are numerous theoretically sound predictors of culture that will allow the researcher to be well positioned to make meaningful and testable hypotheses across each chosen cultural dimension.

Proposed Framework Chapter 3: Methodology Methodology would include sections devoted to research design, instrumentation, measurement, validity, reliability, questionnaire design, and sampling frame. Researchers are well advised to consider the documented limitations associated with using Hofstede’s instruments which past literature has argued are unreliable due to low coefficient alphas. However, as noted by Sondergaard (1994), the scales from Hofstede’s Values Survey Module scales have been very popular among researchers. Both GLOBE and Hofstede have advocated matched samples. Researchers would do well to ensure that samples are matched as closely as possible including demographically and like industries. Hofstede suggests that organizational culture can influence respondents and that matched samples should also include a single firm. This ‘limitation’ is not universally accepted across the literature as some researchers would consider matched samples at the organizational level a weakness when studying societal cultures (for discussion see Hofstede (2001) and the GLOBE project (House et al. 2004)).

A potential sample design limitation results from the idea that the level of measurement versus the unit of analysis has confounded cross-cultural research for quite some time (Hofstede 1980a, 2001; House et al. 2004). The problems lie in the ‘ecological fallacy’ and ‘reverse ecological fallacy’ associated with the levels of measurement and analysis (Hofstede 1980a, 2001; Robinson 1950). Researchers should acknowledge the debate in the literature concerning the measurement of individuals and the analysis of societies in cross-cultural studies. Scales such as those developed by Hofstede and GLOBE are unidimensional where each dimension is measured along a continuum (“more of one trait means less of the other” (Bearden, et al. 2006), The methodology section should discuss the process, steps, and methodology of assessing the chosen dimensions in the context of an intranational cross cultural study. Issues to be addressed in the methodology include research design, measurement, scaling, validity and reliability of any borrowed scales, and sample design. Proposed Framework Chapter 4: Analysis It is suggested that the Analysis section should include (i) examining and scrubbing the data set to identify any erroneous responses and possible outliers, (ii) actually measuring the constructs including construct validity, (iii) testing for normality and performing both Page 141 Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 1, 2013 exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, (iv) testing each of the hypotheses with appropriate discussion, and (v) assessing any relevant implications that the cultural differences have in the selected contexts. Data analysis procedures should include exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory analysis. “Never create a summated scale without first assessing its unidimensionality with exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis” (Hair, et al. 2006, p 139 box). Data Examination. Examination of the data would include dealing appropriately with missing data, performing any recoding of survey items, identifying outliers, and testing the underlying data structure to ensure that multivariate data analysis techniques are appropriate. Authors should follow specific guidelines for data examination found in the analytical literature such as Hair et al. (2006), Malhotra (2007), and Field (2009).

Exploring Assumptions. The next step in ‘making friends with the data’ (Rosenthal, from Azar, 1999), would be to test the assumptions that are necessary in order to proceed with multivariate analysis techniques such as factor analyses. Authors should follow the collective advice in the literature concerning the steps necessary to test the underlying data structure to ensure factor analysis is appropriate (Field 2009; Hair et al. 2006; Malhotra 2007; Pallant 2007). When exploring the existence of regional intra-national cultures, these steps can be limited to testing the normality of the underlying data. Other tests such as homoscedasticity, linearity, and correlated errors are typically tests used in dependence or predictive relationships (Hair et al. 2006). As such, studies devoted to discovering regional cultures would normally not explore any dependent relationships so tests for homoscedasticity, linearity, and correlated errors may not apply.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). Researchers are advised to use factor analyses to first explore the usability of the scale items (EFA) and then to confirm the underlying data structure and relationship(s) between the actual survey item variables and the latent variables that are purportedly being measured (Confirmatory Factor Analysis – CFA). The study of ‘culture’ is a rather fuzzy concept that is difficult to conceptualize (Earley 2006). Each dimension of culture (e.g. Power Distance, Individualism, etc.) cannot be directly measured. When a concept cannot be directly measured (i.e. it is a “latent variable”), it requires several survey items that are used to attempt to measure the concept (Field 2009). Exploratory factor analysis is a technique that allows the researcher to simplify data from a large number of survey items (variables) to a smaller number of latent variables (Hair, et al. 2003). When conducting exploratory factor analysis in regional cross- Page 142 Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 1, 2013 cultural studies, each sample from each respective region should be treated and explored separately (see for example Holt (2007) and Bertsch (2009)).

To guide the process of exploring the existence of factors in the datasets, a list of steps should be developed from the collective literature. These steps are offered below and should be followed for each of the constructs in each dataset (Bertsch, 2012). The first three steps are necessary to determine whether factor analysis is appropriate and are used to determine the degree of correlation between relevant variables in each factor. 1. Partial Correlations. This is the amount of unexplained correlation within a set of variables and is represented in the anti-image correlation matrix in SPSS. If a factor does exist within the given variables, the partial correlations should be relatively small. Values beyond the ± 0.7 interval are considered inappropriate for factor analysis. Preferably, partial correlations should be within the interval of ± 0.5 (Field 2009; Hair et al. 2006).

2. Bartlett’s test of sphericity. This will determine whether the correlation between each of the survey items (that purportedly measure a single construct) is statistically significant. In other words, are the correlation coefficients of the actual survey items significantly different from zero in order for researchers to reasonably conclude that the items are, indeed, measuring a single latent variable? The χ 2 and significance values are keys to determine appropriateness of the dataset relative to this test (Field 2009; Hair et al. 2006).

3. Measure of Sampling Adequacy (MSA). A common method of measuring sampling adequacy is to use the KMO test embedded in most statistical analysis software packages. This test represents the ratio of squared actual correlation between variables to the squared partial correlation between variables. The possible values range from zero (0) to one (1). Values above 0.5 are considered ‘acceptable’; values above 0.7 ‘good’; values above 0.8; ‘great’ and values above 0.9 ‘superb’. SPSS provides the overall KMO value for all variables selected. Additionally, the MSA values for individual variables are the diagonals of the anti-image correlation matrix (Field 2009; Hair et al. 2006). After performing steps 1, 2, and 3, researchers can determine whether any of the variables within a construct are worthy of factor analysis. The remaining variables, if any, are then subjected to the remaining steps of exploratory factor analysis.

4. Principle Components Analysis (PCA). A step in factor analysis is to determine the method of extraction. The literature suggests that Principle Components Analysis (PCA) is the most common method as it is a psychometrically sound procedure and it is conceptually less complex than other methods of factor analysis. Clearly, PCA is not truly ‘factor analysis’ but has been treated as such in the literature (Field 2009; Hair et al.

2006). Kaiser’s suggestion of ‘Eigenvalues>1’ should be employed when assessing the number of factors extracted (Field 2009; Hair et al. 2003; Hair et al. 2006).

5. Factor Loadings. Depending on the sample size within each region, authors should determine the appropriate threshold for factor loadings to determine the retention of each survey item (variable). This threshold will serve as the minimum required to ensure Page 143 Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 1, 2013 statistical significance given that each sample exceeded a predetermined n (sample size within each region). The significance of factor loadings is dependent on the sample size. As reported by Field (2009), Stevens suggests that samples of 100 requires factor loadings of 0.512 in order to be considered significant while samples of 200 require factor loadings of 0.364 (Field 2009, p. 644). So the range of factor loadings for the samples within any given research effort will be determined by the sample size (n). However, Hair et al. (2006, p. 128) is even more specific by offering that samples above 150 but below 200 would require factor loadings of 0.45 in order to be significant.

6. Communality. This is a measure of the amount of shared (common) variance in a particular variable. The value of the communality is the amount of variance for each variable that can be explained by the extracted factor(s). Although there are no real ‘rules-of-thumb’ to guide researchers, communalities of each variable should be considered in conjunction with the factor loadings when determining the retention of variables in a factor solution (Field 2009; Hair et al. 2006). Steps 4, 5, and 6 will determine whether variables within a given construct should be eliminated. Once these steps are exhausted for each of the chosen constructs within each regional dataset, a final step (Step 7) should be used to determine the final factor loadings within each group of constructs. Step 7 cannot be completed during the initial phase of exploratory factor analysis because only one construct at a time is being explored. Rotation requires at least two factors. 7. Rotation: The end result of these steps will be to determine which variables, if any, will be retained for each latent variable. Hair et al. (2006) describe several rules of thumb when interpreting the factors during exploratory factor analysis. These steps include looking for high factor loadings, eliminating factors that cross load, and reviewing the communalities. A final suggestion includes the possibility of using different rotational methods to better define the underlying structure (Hair et al. 2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Dubbed the opposite of Exploratory Analysis, Confirmatory Analysis will test (e.g.

confirm) the relationship or lack of a relationship that exists between two or more constructs based on theory developed and applied a priori. EFA explores the structure of the data regardless of theory (Hair et al. 2006). In this regard and to effectively approach the confirmatory analysis, effort should be made to confirm that the chosen constructs are, indeed, ‘constructs’ and that there exists sufficient evidence to believe that the constructs are separate, independent constructs. As part of confirmatory analysis, convergent and discriminant validity will need to be assessed relative to the chosen constructs and measures. Assessing convergent validity, although cumbersome, is rather straightforward and can be conducted on the individual indicators within each theoretical construct. However, discriminant validity is easier to test on summated scales and, therefore, should be conducted after the summated scales are created. Page 144 Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 1, 2013 Summated Scales. The previous analysis would have addressed one aspect of confirmatory analysis (convergent validity). The next steps will be to create the summated scales based on the previously conducted analyses and the theory. Specifically, summated scales rely on conceptual definitions, dimensionality, reliability, and validity. Conceptual definitions and dimensionality would have already been satisfied by virtue of the theory described in the literature review, the scale development described in the methodology section, and the exploratory and confirmatory analysis conducted earlier in this section. Within Chapter 4, discussion should include creating the actual summated scales and testing discriminant validity of the resulting summated scales. Coupled with convergent validity tested previously, discriminant validity is another testing in the effort to illustrate overall construct validity. The main purpose of a summated scale is to capture multiple aspects of a concept in a single measure. When reliability and validity of the factor structure have been documented, either in the literature or through statistical techniques, summated scales are the preferred method among researchers (Hair et al. 2006). Once summated scales are created, each hypothesis can then be tested.

Hypothesis Testing. Researchers should begin the discussion of hypothesis testing by first stating the actual steps that will be followed to test each of the hypotheses. Once the steps are provided, each individual hypothesis can then be tested. Proposed Framework Chapter 5: Contributions This final chapter will provide contributions offered by the researcher. Where appropriate, this should include discussions surrounding the contribution to the theory, methodology, and application (context). The results of each hypothesis test should be accompanied by discussion of the social, organizational, and economic implications that are associated with each respective cultural dimension and the respective differences one could reasonably expect between the chosen regions’ cultures. For example, higher individualism may result in employees being more likely to be emotionally independent and autonomous from their places of work and showing a preference for quick individual decision making and authority; whereas employees in higher collectivistic societies would have a relationship with employers based on moral terms (like a family link) and would find comfort working in larger organizations where order and group belongingness could be fulfilled. Societies scoring higher along the Power Distance continuum would result in employees more readily accepting authority based on the boss’s formal position in the organizational setting and would seldom bypass that structure.

Conversely, in societies scoring lower on the PDI index, employees and their superiors often see each other as equals which leads to greater harmony and cooperation. Many other such Page 145 Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 1, 2013 examples of differences in employee behavior, management styles, and other aspects of business implications could be unearthed in regional cross-cultural studies.

CONCLUSIONS This paper set out to offer a framework for studying regional cultures within nations with an emphasis on the United States. There exists a gap in the literature concerning the existence of subcultures within national boundaries (Ogden et al. 2004). Past cultural studies within the United States have been limited to demographic variables such as religion (Jewish Culture), race (Black Culture), age (Generational Culture) and the like (see, for example, Zemke, et al. (2000), Lancaster and Stillman (2002), and the collection of works edited by Harrison and Huntington (2000)). Although it makes intuitive sense that the rust-belt, the bible-belt, the Midwest, or the Pacific Northwest would have different value systems, there have been few empirical tests supporting the intuitive belief of geographic cultures within the United States. Such studies would add credence to the sub-nations espoused by Garreau (1982). The notion that the U.S. is homogeneous may be in need of updating. The ramifications of differences in cultures within the United States may lead to significant and meaningful managerial and leadership differences as well (Adler 2002, 2008; Cullen and Parboteeah 2008; Hofstede 1980a, 1991, 1993b; Phatak et al. 2005; Rodrigues 2001).

Future studies may confirm the existence of subcultures within the broader U.S. culture. Glazer (2000) states that, at least within the melting pot model of the United States, attenuation of cultural differences results in convergence through assimilation. However, Porter offers that local cultural differences will remain. “Globalization will not eradicate culture, as some have feared” (Porter 2000, p. 128). This observation by Porter is in line with the observations of Adler (2002, 2008) and Child (2002) who both advocate convergence on the macro level including organizational structure and governance while at the micro level, interpersonal behaviors, norms, and values will continue to be influenced by culture (Holt 2007). Indeed, further research could continue to explore other geographic subcultures; possibly using the sub- nations model derived by Garreau (1982).

REFERENCES Adler, N. J. (2002) International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 4th, Mason, OH, Thomson Southwestern.

Adler, N. J. (2008) International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 5th, Mason, OH, Thomson Southwestern.

Alesina, A. (2003) The Size of Countries: Does it Matter? Journal of European Economic Association, 1, 301-316.

Barlow, K., Taylor, D. & Lambert, W. (2000) Ethnicity in America and Feeling 'American'. Journal of Psychology, 134, 581.

Bearden, W. O., Money, A. H. & Nevins, J. L. (2006) Multidimensional versus unidimensional measures in assessing national culture values: The Hofstede VSM 94. Journal of Business Research, 59, 195-203.

Bertsch, A. (2009) Exploring Perceptions of Values in U.S. Managers: Interstate Cross-Cultural Differences and Similarities within the U.S.A.. Henley-on-Thames, Henley Management College Page 146 Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 1, 2013 Bertsch, A. (2012) Validating GLOBE’s Societal Values Scales: A Test in the U.S.A., International journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 3 (8), April 2012, ISSN 2219-1933 (Print) ISSN 2219-6021 (Online) Bosland, N. (1985) An evaluation of replication studies using the Values Survey Module. Working Paper No. 85-2.

Arnhem, The Netherlands, Institute for Research on International Cooperation Cavusgil, S. T. & Das, A. (1997) Methodological Issues in Emperical Cross-cultural Research: A Survey of the Management Literature and a Framework. Management International Review, 37, 71-96.

Child, J. (2002) Theorizing About Organization Cross-nationality: Part 1 - An Introduction. In Warner, M. and Joynt, P. (Eds.) Managing Across Cultures: Issues and Perspectives. 2nd ed. ed. London, Thomson Learning.

Cullen, J. B. & Parboteeah, K. P. (2008) Multinational Management: A Strategic Approach, 4th ed., Mason, OH, Thomson South-Western.

De Barros, B. T. (2002) Perceptions of values of Brazilian managers: Cross-cultural differences and similarities in Brazil. Henley-on-Thames, U.K., Henley Management College Deresky, H. (2006) International Management: Managing across borders and cultures, 5th ed., New Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall.

Diamond, J. (1999) Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, New York, Norton.

Earley, P. C. (2006) Leading cultural research in the future: a matter of paradigms and taste. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 922-931.

Edgerton, R. S. (2000) Traditional Beliefs and Practices - Are Some Better than Others? In Harrison, L. E. and Huntington, S. P. (Eds.) Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. New York, Random Books.

Etounga-Manguelle, D. (2000) Does Africa Need a Cultural Adjustment Program? In Harrison, L. E. and Huntington, S. P. (Eds.) Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. New York, Random Books.

Field, A. (2009) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.

Figes, O. (2002) Natasha's Dance: A Cultural History of Russia, New York, Picador.

Garreau, J. (1982) The Nine Nations of North America, Boston, Avon Books.

Glazer, N. (2000) Disaggregating Culture. In Harrison, L. E. and Huntington, S. P. (Eds.) Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. New York, Random Books.

Grennes, T. (1999) Perceptions of values and commitment of Norwegian managers. Henley-on-Thames, U.K., Henley Management College Hair, J. Jr., Babin, B., Money, A. & Samouel, P. (2003) Essentials of Business Research Methods, NJ: Wiley.

Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. & Tatham, R., L. (2006) Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson Prentice Hall.

Harrison, L.& Huntington, S.(2000) Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, New York, Basic Books.

Hofstede, G. (1980a) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, London, Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1980b) Motivation, Leadership, and Organization: Do American Theories Apply Abroad?

Organizational Dynamics, 9, 42.

Hofstede, G. (1985) The Interaction Between National and Organizational Value Systems. The Journal of Management Studies, 22, 347.

Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival, London, McGraw Hill.

Hofstede, G. (1993b) Cultural Dimensions in People Management. In Pucik, V., Tichy, N. M. and BarnettE, C. K. (Eds.) Globalizing Management. New York, Wiley.

Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, London, Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (2002a) Organization Culture. In Warner, M. (Ed.) International Encyclopedia of Business Management. London, Thomson Learning.

Hofstede, G. & Hofstede, G. J. (2005) Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind, New York, McGraw Hill.

Holt, G. (2007) Organizational Culture and Performance: A Survey in Norway and Pakistan. Henley-on-Thames, Henley Management College House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. & Gupta, V. (2004) Culture, Leadership and Organizations:

The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Thousand Oaks, Sage.

Huntington, S. P. (1993) The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72, 22-49. Page 147 Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 1, 2013 Jaeger, A. M. (1983) The transfer of organizational culture overseas: An approach to control in the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 14 (2), 91-114.

Javidan, M. (2004) Performance Orientation. In House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. and Gupta, V.

(Eds.) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.

Javidan, M., House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J. & De Luquet, M. S. (2006) Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: a comparative review of GLOBE's and Hofstede's approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 897-914.

Kabasakal, H. & Bodur, M. (2004) Humane Orientation in Societies, Organizations, and Leader Attributes. In House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. Gupta, V. (Eds.) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations:

The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.

Kerr, C., Dunlop, J. Harbison, F. & Meyers, C. (1973) Industrialism and Industrial Man, England, Penguin Books.

Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B. & Gibson, C. B. (2006) A Quarter Century of Culture's Consequences: A Review of Empirical Research Incorporating Hofstede's Cultural Values Framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 10, 1-36.

Lancaster, L. C. & Stillman, D. (2002) When Generations Collide, New York, NY, HarperCollins.

Lenartowicz, T., Johnson, J. & White, C. (2003) The neglect of intra-country cultural variation in international management research. Journal of Business Research, 56 (12), 999-1008.

MacNab, B. R. & Worthley, R. (2007) Culture Typing versus Sample Specific Accuracy: An Examination of Uncertainty Avoidance, Power Distance, and Individualism for Business Professionals in the U.S. and Canada.

Multinational Business Review, 15 (3).

Malhotra, N. (2007) Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson Prentice Hall.

McFarlin, D. B. & Sweeny, P. D. (2006) International Management: Startegic Opportunities and Cultural Challenges, 3rd ed., Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin.

Miroshnik, V. (2001) Culture and international management: a review. Journal of Management Development, 21, 24.

Ogden, D., Ogden, J. R. & Jensen Schau, H. (2004) Exploring the Impact of Culture and Acculteration on Consumer Purchase Decisions: Toward a Microcultural Perspective. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2004 (3).

Pallant, J. (2007) SPSS Survival Manual, 3rd, New York, NY, McGraw Hill.

Phatak, A. V., Bhagat, R. S. & Kashlak, R. J. (2005) International Management: Managing in a diverse and dynamic global environment, New York, McGraw Hill Irwin.

Porter, M. E. (2000) Attitudes, Values, Beliefs, and the Microeconomics of Prosperity. In Harrison, L. E. and Huntington, S. P. (Eds.) Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. New York, Random Books.

Robinson, W. S. (1950) Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15, 351-357.

Rodrigues, C. (2001) International Management: A Cultural Approach, Cincinnati:South-Western Publishing.

Schein, E. H. (2004) Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd ed., San Franscisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Schwartz, S. H. (1999) A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for Work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 23-47.

Shackleton, V. J. & Ali, A. H. (1990) Work-related values of managers: A test of the Hofstede model. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21 (1), 109-118.

Shweder, R. A. (2000) Moral Maps, "First World" Conceits, and the New Evangelists. In Harrison, L. E. and Huntington, S. P. (Eds.) Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. New York, Random Books.

Sivakumar, K. & Nakata, C. (2001) The Stampede Toward Hofstede's Framework: Avoiding the Sample Design Pit in Cross-Cultural Research. Journal of International Business Studies, 32, 555-574.

Smith, P. B. (2006) When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled: the GLOBE and Hofstede projects. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 915-921.

Sondergaard, M. (1994) Hofstede's Consequences: A study of reviews, citations, and replications. Organization Studies, 15, 447-456.

Tang, L. & Koveos, P. E. (2008) A framework to update Hofstede's cultural value indices: economic dynamics and institutional stability. Journal of International Business Studies, 39. Page 148 Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Volume 17, Number 1, 2013 Thomas, D. C. & Kerr, I. (2005) Cultural Intelligence: People skills for a global workplace. Consulting to Management, 16.

Triandis, H. (1989) The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3), 506- 520.

Triandis, H. C. (2004) Forward. In House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. and Gupta, V. (Eds.) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.

Trompenaars, F. (1993a) Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business, 1st. ed., London, Economist Books.

Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998) Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business, 2nd, New York, McGraw Hill.

Warner, M. & Joynt, P. (2002) Introduction: cross-cultural perspecitves. In Warner, M. and Joynt, P. (Eds.) Managing Across Culture, Issues and Perspectives. 2nd ed. ed. London, Thomson Learning.

Weisner, T. S. (2000) Culture, Childhood, and Progress in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Harrison, L. E. and Huntington, S. P. (Eds.) Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. New York, Random Books.

Zemke, R., Raines, C. & Filipczak, B. (2000) Generations at Work, New York, NY, AMACOM.

R epro duce d w ith p erm is sio n o f th e c o pyrig ht o w ner. F urth er r e pro ductio n p ro hib ite d w ith out p erm is sio n.