LINKÖPINGS UNIVERSITY & MERCEDES BENZ

Transcription

1 LINKÖPINGS UNIVERSITY & MERCEDES BENZ Decision making in inter corporate projects A qualitative and quantitative study of project workers in automobile research and pre development projects in Japan and Germany Supervisor: Rune Olsson Master thesis LIU IEI TEK A 09/00621 SE Department of Management and Engineering Division of Project, Innovation and Entrepreneurship

2 Acknowledgements In August of 2008 I got the opportunity to start an internship at Mercedes Benz Research & Development in Yokohama, Japan. During the internship I was allowed to start working on this thesis. It was a great learning experience, with a lot of hard work, but most of all a lot of fun. Many people have been involved in bringing this thesis forward and I would thank everyone that has supported me along the way. First of all I would like to thank Jochen Feese, Matthias Schulze and Christian Hansen at Daimler AG for letting me do this thesis and for all the support during the process. Also a big thank you to all the members of RDJ in Yokohama for advice and help. I would also like thank my supervisor and tutor at Linköping University, Rune Olsson for all the help and feed back. A special mention goes out to Amanda Hasselberg Sofie Löwengren, and Petter Sund who have read and given suggestions on the contents of the thesis throughout the process. Thank you all!

3 Executive summary This thesis is dealing with the integration of Japanese and German project workers in automobile inter corporate research/pre development projects. The focus is on better understanding the respective decision making process. As cultural differences play a big role in the way that people behave an extra focus was put on investigating this. The methods chosen for this study were quantitative research in the form of a questionnaire and qualitative research in the form of an interview series. For the quantitative research, literature in the cross cultural field was studied and from different cultural dimensions suggested by various authors, a synthesis was derived. This was then used as the base for a questionnaire. The data both enabled a quantitative research study and supported the qualitative study. A number of questions with a more straightforward approach to decision making in projects were also a part of the questionnaire. The data was processed using the statistical software SPSS and the results were analyzed using factor analysis and ANOVA. The factor analysis of the quantitative data had only one factor which had a significant difference between the German and the Japanese sample. The dimension was called individuality reward and describes to which degree a society reward competent group behavior versus competent individual behavior. The German sample showed a strong tendency towards favoring competent individual behavior whereas the Japanese sample leaned towards favoring competent group behavior. The questionnaire questions directly linked to decision making showed no significant differences between the samples showing that individual attitudes within the German and Japanese sample varies more than the cultural differences between the two groups. This shows that you cannot expect a Japanese or German person to act in a certain way in a certain decision making situation just judging on their cultural background. In order to get a deep understanding of the decision making process a qualitative series of interviews were conducted. All interviews with Japanese and other people on location in Japan were conducted in person at different locations around the Tokyo area. Interviews with people situated in Europe were made over the phone. The interviews were recorded and later transcribed and interpreted to gain a thorough understanding of the decision making process. From the qualitative material several differences in how German and Japanese people work and make decisions were found. More time is put into sharing information and getting consensus before a decision in Japan than in Germany were discussions and arguing in meetings are more tolerated. The reason for this behavior in Japan is to not lose face and as well as making it possible to make a decision fast once brought up in a meeting. Germans

4 remain more flexible to revisions after a decision has been made because of the shorter preparation phase. There is big overlap of members between different inter corporate research projects in the automobile industry. Japanese project members tends to be older than their German counterparts which makes them more stable as younger people might disappear from a project as they move up the corporate ladder. In Japan there is a greater emphasis put into after work activities compared to Germany where it is seen as beneficial but not as often used as a way to gain a personal relationship. The thesis concludes that by relatively small measures common decision making between Japanese and German project workers can become smooth and with few misunderstandings. Introductions to respective cultures as well as keeping an open mindset and non assertive attitude should help avoid some of the worst case scenarios. A kick off in the beginning of a project in order to build a personal relationship and trust would surely help the project come off to a good start. Setting common goals for the project and confirming data with people involved in a decision process will facilitate common consensus decision making. Also confirming decisions as simply as paraphrasing what has been said or by informal one onone discussions in a break or after a meeting can keep misunderstandings due to the language barrier to a minimum.

5 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Background Purpose Research Problems Delimitations Definitions Disposition Methodology Research Method Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research Design Inductive vs. Deductive Research Design Data Collection Secondary Data Primary Data Sampling Interview Method and Process Questionnaire Method and Process Credibility Validity Reliability External Validity Objectivity Sources of Error Thesis Work Structure Theoretical Frame of Reference Culture and Cultural Differences Hofstede Power Distance Individualism Uncertainty Avoidance i

6 3.2.4 Masculinity Long term Orientation Globe Performance Orientation Humane Orientation Hall Low vs. High Context Cultures Synthesis of Cultural Dimensions Decision Making Decision Making in Germany Decision Making in Japan German Japanese Decision Making Decision Models Intuitive Decision Model Rational Decision Model Poor Man s Hierarchy Model Value Focused Thinking Evolution of a Group Explicit and Tacit Knowledge Quantitative Results and Analysis Study Design Factor Analysis Results of the Factor Analysis ANOVA of Decision Making Questions Qualitative Dissection Inter Corporate Decision Making Preparations for Inter Corporate Decisions Overlap of Project Members After Work Activities Revisions of Decisions Communication and Documentation ii

7 5.7 Model for Decision Making Dealing With Opposition To a Decision Cultural Differences Conclusions Final notes Recommendations Start of a Project Before a Decision During a Decision After a Decision References Articles Research papers Books Internet Other Appendices Appendix 1: SPSS Descriptives Appendix 2: SPSS ANOVA for Factors Appendix 3: SPSS ANOVA for Decision Making Questions Appendix 4: Questionnaire Code Appendix 5: Questionnaire English Appendix 6: Questionnaire Japanese iii

8 List of Figures Figure 1 Research problems and categories... 2 Figure 2 Work Structure Model Figure 3 Questionnaire gender distribution Figure 4 Questionnaire age distribution Figure 5 Questionnaire tenure distribution Figure 6 Individuality Reward Figure 7 Uncertainty Avoidance Figure 8 Implicit Equals Figure 9 Humane Orientation Figure 10 Long Term Orientation List of tables Table 1 Cultural dimensions Table 2 Example of a paired comparison analysis Table 3 Rotated component matrix iv

9 1 Introduction This chapter gives an introduction to the thesis. It starts with a background, followed by the purpose and research problems of the thesis. The delimitations are presented and recurring words are defined. Finally a disposition showing an overview of the thesis is presented. 1.1 Background Inter cultural and inter corporate communication in projects is a field in which there has been extensive research performed. Research such as Hofstede s (2001) and the GLOBE project s (House 2002) give an account on which values and characteristics different cultures display in different areas. These differences might not always be so clear when you travel between countries in the same geographical region that share a similar history and underlying values. But in the case of Europe and Japan these differences are in some cases very obvious and can cause frustration for even the most experienced project member. Automobile projects research/pre development projects are due to large costs often partly funded by governments or other large organizations and the workload shared by many companies. These companies are not seldom from different countries which puts extra strain on the project management due to geographical distance as well as cultural differences. In Germany, which is the largest automobile producer in Europe, and Japan, which is the largest automobile producer in the world, it is important for these international intercorporate projects to be successful ( ). Because of this there is a need for German as well as Japanese project workers to gain more knowledge about how the other one works in projects. In discussions with supervisors at Daimler it was decided to put the emphasis on the process of decision making as this seems to be an area in which there are many misunderstandings and frustration. 1.2 Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate the decision making process used by project members in inter corporate automobile research/pre development projects in Japan and Germany focusing on planning and management meetings. 1.3 Research Problems Based on the background presented and the purpose of the thesis several research problems were brought forward together with the supervisors at Mercedes Benz and Linköping University. These questions were categorized into three different areas in order to get a good overview. The categories are communication, culture and location & time and can be seen in figure 1 below. 1

10 Communication Culture Location & Time What kind of communication is used for the process of decision making in projects? Are decisions frequently revised/modified and why? How long have the project members worked in the field and what kind of relation do they have? What influences the process of decision making in in projects in regards to culture? Are certain processes of decision making harder (or easier) to make in Japan or Germany? Is there an influence from out of work activities on the process of decision making? Is meetings the primary place for the process of decision making in projects? How long is the process of decision making in projects? Figure 1 Research problems and categories 1.4 Delimitations The thesis should help project members to understand the process of decision making in other cultures but should not be a handbook or training manual on how to behave in working groups etc. in Japan or Germany. Further, the thesis is about the process of decision making and not about the preferred/chosen alternative(s) or the subsequent outcomes of the decision or who is responsible for a decision being successful or unsuccessful. One aspect of culture is the organizational culture. Even in those organizations where cultural issues receive little attention, how people in a company think, feel, value and act are guided by ideas, meanings and beliefs of a cultural (socially shared) nature. It is however hard to distinguish what values or ideas in an organization stems from societal culture and what is due to organizational culture. The interesting cultural aspects of organizations are not what is unique for a single organization, but deeper and broader patterns that to some extent are a part of a more general business, industrial or societal culture. Understandings of cultural manifestations in organizations should not take the organization as a self evident starting point. Organizational and cultural boundaries cannot be equated. (Alvesson, 2002, p.159) Because of this problem and since I don t have a focus on the subject, organizational culture will not be discussed any further in this thesis. 1.5 Definitions Culture Culture has many definitions and affects everything people do in their society because of their ideas, values, attitudes, and normative or expected patterns of behavior. Hofstede (2001, p.21) defines culture as the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group from another. This is also the definition used in this thesis. 2

11 Inter corporate project A project where several companies cooperate to achieve a common goal. 1.6 Disposition Each part of this thesis is connected from the problem background to the conclusions and recommendations and is presented in nine chapters. Chapter 1 contains the thesis background, purpose and research questions. Additionally, this chapter presents the delimitations, definitions, and disposition. Chapter 2 addresses the methodology of the thesis, where the choices of actions are presented and justified. The topics raised are research method, credibility, sources of error and data collection. Chapter 3 contains the theoretical frame of reference relevant for this study. The main topics are culture and cultural differences, decision making, decision models and the evolution of groups. Chapter 4 presents the quantitative study results and analysis based on the questionnaire created and distributed among Japanese and German project workers. Chapter 5 presents the qualitative study results based on the interviews conducted in the study. Chapter 6 contains the conclusions from the qualitative and quantitative study. Chapter 7 contains recommendations based on the findings in the thesis. Chapter 8 presents the sources used for the thesis. Chapter 9 contains the appendices of the thesis. 3

12 2 Methodology In this chapter the choice of research design, research method, data collection, and analysis method will be presented. In conjunction with this the intentions for the analysis as a whole and how it is pursued is displayed. Finally, the reliability and validity of the study will be discussed. 2.1 Research Method The choice between qualitative and quantitative approach is one of the major decisions in research methods. This choice will set the structure for the whole following study and the way it is outlined. (Denscombe, 2007) Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research Design A qualitative approach gives the opportunity to look at details, and to receive a deeper understanding and a general picture of what the situation appears to be. It can be interviews or observations and is characterized by flexibility and closeness to the test object. The quantitative approach has its fundamental starting point in that the society can be measured by methods that give information in numbers. The quantitative approach gives the possibility to measure different opinions on a large number of questions from a large range of respondents. (Denscombe, 2007) The thesis use a mixed mthod approach to the research design in that it includes both a questionnaire which will give quantitative data as well as interviews which will give qualitative data. The use of more than one method can enhance the findings of research by providing a fuller and more complete picture of what is being studied. The benefit of the Mixed Methods approach in this instance is that data produced by the different methods can be complementary. They can provide alternative perspectives that, when combined go further towards an all embracing vision of the subject than can be produced using a monomethod approach. (Denscombe, 2007, p.110) Inductive vs. Deductive Research Design The deductive approach goes from theory to empiricism. When a researcher adopts a deductive approach, he has to obtain certain expectations about how the world appears, and then collect empirical data to see if the expectations coincide with reality. (Gummesson, 2000) The inductive approach goes the opposite way, from empiricism to theory. The researcher goes into the reality without any expectations, collects all relevant information, and finally systematizes the data collected. Deductive research primarily tests theories that already exist, whereas inductive research primarily generates new theories. (Gummesson, 2000) 4

13 The abductive approach is a mix between the inductive and deductive approach, combining already written material with new information received through the interviews and questionnaires (Gummesson, 2000) This thesis includes both inductive and deductive research design. First relevant theory was collected on the subject through secondary data, and then a collection of empirical data was created on this foundation. This approach was chosen to able to make good questionnaire and interview material. This could be considered being deductive. However, the risk with this approach is that only information that support my own expectations are collected. This can lead to that important and relevant information is ignored (Denscombe, 2007). Therefore, the approach boarders against being abductive, as it also aims to get additional information from the interviews and questionnaire in a more exploratory nature. 2.2 Data Collection This study consists of both secondary and primary data. As mentioned, I started out by reviewing secondary data to gain a better understanding of the subject and to have a good foundation to build on when collecting primary data Secondary Data Secondary data is data that is already collected by other people to serve another purpose. The biggest attraction to collecting this kind of data is that it is easily available compared to primary data (Denscombe, 2007). The secondary data in this study includes books, articles, and web sources. These sources have primarily been found using Business Source Premier, netlibrary and ebrary databases found available on the Linkoping University Library homepage as well the Metropolitan Library in Tokyo. Google was also used a few times to find interesting websites and information. There is a need to evaluate the credibility of the source and the procedures used to produce the original data. It should also be kept in mind that the material is secondary data and has therefore likely been produced for another purpose than the specific aim of the investigation. (Denscombe, 2007) Primary Data Primary data is information that has been collected for the specific research at hand. The data collection is specifically structured for the study and can be done through interviews, surveys or observations. (Denscombe, 2007) The primary data for this thesis was collected by doing interviews with project workers from 15 different companies and organizations in Japan and Europe. To further add to the results of the interviews an internet questionnaire was created. 5

14 2.2.3 Sampling Sampling is the final stage in the research process before data is collected, and is concerned with identifying the objects for our primary data collection. The sampling process for the interview of this thesis was a purposive non probability sampling as the interview object were handpicked by me with the help of Jochen Feese (for Japan) and Matthias Schulze (for Germany/Europe)(Denscombe, 2007). This process was chosen since I wanted to interview people that had a deep knowledge of the research area. For the questionnaires the sampling process was a mixture of purposive non probability sampling as I handed it out to people at different companies and also snow ball sampling (Denscombe, 2007) as those people were asked to recommend other people that they thought might be relevant for the purpose of the research (or in other words that they worked or had worked in inter corporate development projects) to send the questionnaire to Interview Method and Process All the Interviews in Japan were made face to face in Japanese or English depending on the nationality of the person. All of the people interviewed in Japan were located around the Tokyo/Yokohama area. The interviews with people located in Europe were made in English over the phone. The interview material was produced to answer the research questions and the questions were open ended since answers that reflect opinions, attitudes and explanations were wanted. The interviews were structured in that sense that there was a list of questions which were asked to everyone. But also non planned follow up questions were asked to interesting answers to produce new insights that were not thought of in advance (Timm, 1994). 24 interviews were conducted. 9 Germans, 10 Japanese and 5 people from other European countries were interviewed. The people who were not German or Japanese had experience in working in projects with Japanese or German people. The interview method was based on that of Kvale (1996). Notes were taken during the interviews which were also recorded. The interviews were as soon as possible transcribed, with the help of the recordings and the notes, according to the meaning condensation process (Kvale, 1996) whereby the important parts of the interviews were extracted to be used in the later analysis. When the analysis phase began the information from the interviews was put into categories to find common themes. 6

15 2.2.5 Questionnaire Method and Process The questionnaire was used to further probe the results from the interviews and to see if it was possible to see quantifiable cultural differences between the Japanese and German project workers. Because of the large geographical distances and many companies involved the questionnaire was sent out with e mail. For creating the internet questionnaire the website Surveymonkey ( ) was used. The website Surveymonkey is a tool which with it is possible to create reliable internet surveys. To measure possible cultural differences between the Japanese and German project workers I used already existing theories on cultural dimensions created by Hofstede (2001), the GLOBE project (House, 2001) and Hall (1995) to come up with relevant questions. I also included relevant questions concerning decision making. The questionnaire was first made in English and then translated into Japanese with the help of three Japanese colleagues at the Mercedes Benz R&D office in Yokohama. I first made a translation to the best of my ability. This translation was then checked by the three Japanese colleagues with good English skills to see that the translations were correct. After this procedure I translated every question back into English to see that the question had not lost its meaning or nuance according to the procedure used by Martinsson (1999). 2.3 Credibility It is important for all researchers to be able to show that the methods used and the results of the research are credible. According to Denscombe (2007) the conventional bases for judging the quality of research are: validity, reliability, external validity and objectivity Validity A high degree of validity implies that the data and the methods for the research are correct. Validity describes whether the research data reflect the truth, reflects reality and covers the important areas. (Gummesson, 2000) The idea of validity hinges around the extent to which research data and the methods for obtaining research data are deemed accurate, honest and on target. (Denscombe, 2007, p.335) Reliability A high degree of reliability is gained if the data that the research produces can be trusted. That if anyone else where to follow the same procedures and repeat a study; the study would show the same results as the prior one. A study with high reliability can thus be replicated by others. (Gummesson, 2000) External Validity The external validity (generalizability) of research is about being able to apply the results to other examples of the phenomenon. The ability of research results to explain phenomena at 7

16 a universal level rather than something that is particular to the cases used for the research. (Denscombe, 2007) Objectivity This is about there being no bias in the research. The research should be impartial and neutral and the data collection and analysis should be fair and even handed. (Denscombe, 2007) 2.4 Sources of Error In this section the factors that could affect the validity, reliability external validity and objectivity of the thesis are discussed. A problem with a having a qualitative approach is how to handle the gathered information. Due to its nature there is no fixed process for analyzing qualitative data (Kvale, 1996). One thing that can affect the reliability of a study is the preconceived notions of the researcher concerning the topic as this can influence the collection and interpretation of the data. These might be personal biases or prejudices that have become internalized in the researcher through research or experience in the area of investigation. This is especially true in the case of qualitative research which depends heavily on the process of interpretation (Denscombe, 2007). The researchers identity, values and believes can however not entirely be eliminated from the process of analyzing data (Denscombe, 2007). I believe that by being a Swedish person investigating German and Japanese project workers that I am relatively unbiased. The interview questions and the questionnaire were tested on colleagues at Mercedes Benz Research and Development in Yokohama to make sure they were easily understandable. During the translation process the translations were checked by several different people at the office to make sure that the meaning of the questions carried over from English to Japanese. These precautions should have minimized the risk of people misunderstanding questions or translation errors and therefore raising the reliability and validity of the thesis. There are a number of common techniques that provides a rough guide on how to navigate in the information obtained via the interviews. In this thesis the style called meaning condensation (Kvale, 1996) has been chosen whereby an interpretation of what the interviewee has said are made and important parts are extracted. This condensation is then used in order to build reasoning and draw conclusions. By using an established technique it should be easier to repeat the findings for consequent researchers. In other words, this improves the reliability. The possibility of not capturing the true meaning of what the interviewee has intended to say may render the analysis erroneous and thus lower the validity of the results. However, 8

17 the process of listening to the recordings were made with caution not to make any mistakes and this combined with extensive notes that were taken during interview sessions should limit the consequences of this potential source of error. All the people interviewed in Japan were located around the Tokyo/Yokohama area and were interviewed in Japanese if the interviewee preferred that over English. The interviews with people in Europe were made in English over the phone. It would have been nice to meet these people face to face as I might have missed important clues by not being able to see the person s posture, gestures or facial expressions which can be as important as the statements (Gummesson, 2000). Due to the geographical distance and economical restraints this was however not possible. This might have lowered the validity of the study somewhat. The selection of people to interview and send questionnaires to were made with the support of Jochen Feese (General Manager for Research & Development Japan, Mercedes Benz Japan) and Matthias Schulze (Senior Manager ITS & Services, Daimler AG, Germany). They have long experience in the industry and helped contacting knowledgeable people at companies in Japan and Germany. By interviewing and sending questionnaires to people from many different companies in both Japan and Germany I believe that the external validity of this thesis is quite high. Making a thesis on inter corporate decision making and only investigating the process in one company would most likely give low levels of validity and reliability to the research. To get as many good questionnaire respondents as possible a method called snow ball sampling was used. Relevant people were asked if they would like to answer the questionnaire. If they agreed they were also asked to suggest other people to send the questionnaire to. It is possible that the suggestions of some people not were good. But this should have a minimal effect on the result of the thesis since the questionnaire responses were screened and respondents not fitting the sample was removed before analysis. The interviewees all had experience within the research area, in many cases having been involved in inter corporate projects over a long period of years. This increases the validity of the study. However, the people interviewed are also captured inside their own pattern of thoughts, and might have based some of their statements on behalf of single incidents or personal prejudice. I have limited the amount of web sources to a minimum since they in general not are as stable as other sources and tend to disappear or be relocated. The internet sources that were chosen to be in the thesis are considered to be reliable. 9

18 2.5 Thesis Work Structure In figure 2 below the work structure of the thesis is displayed. Figure 2 Work Structure Model Problem Background Purpose & Research Questions Communication Culture Location & Time Methodology TheoreticalFramework Data Collection Preparation Interview Material Questionnaire Data Collection Qualitative Data Quantitative Data Analysis Additional Theory Added Conclusions Recommendations The thesis work started with the creation of a problem background. This led to a purpose and research question being created in cooperation with supervisors at Daimler and Linköping University. Then a methodology suited to the thesis was decided upon and after that a theoretical framework was created from sources relevant to the thesis subject. When the theoretical framework was in place the preparations for the thesis data collection was started. In this phase interview questions and the questionnaire were created and translated from English to Japanese. Upon finishing the data collection material the interviews were held and the questionnaire was distributed. When the data collection was completed the data was analyzed and additional theory was added to fill in subjects not thought of earlier. From the analysis created conclusions were made and recommendations on how to improve the situation were given. 10

19 3 Theoretical Frame of Reference In this chapter a number of theories relevant for the thesis are presented and discussed. The topics raised are cultural differences, decision making models, German and Japanese decision making and the evolution of groups. 3.1 Culture and Cultural Differences There is much literature on culture and cultural differences. In this thesis the focus has been on classifying cultural characteristics in regards to Germany and Japan and therefore literature that is relevant for this has been reviewed. The most prominent author is Hofstede (2001) who created a multidimensional cultural model during the 80 s. His proposed multidimensional cultural model quickly gained wide recognition and has since been proven again and again by other researchers. His research should thus provide accurate information on relative cultural differences between countries. A more recent study by GLOBE, which is a large scale international project that improves upon Hofstede s work, is also discussed. Both GLOBE and Hofstede provide statistical data and suggested cultural dimensions concerning Germany and Japan and have therefore been chosen as the main theoretical works to be discussed in this frame of reference. Also the high low context dimension proposed by Edward Hall is discussed. 3.2 Hofstede Geert Hofstede is a Dutch researcher and writer on the interaction between national cultures and organizational cultures. At the end of the 60s and the beginning of the 70s he started a large amount of attitude surveys within IBM s offices in 64 countries all over the world. The results from these studies and subsequent studies of students in 23 countries, elites in 19 countries, commercial airline pilots in 23 countries, up market consumers in 15 countries, and civil service managers in 14 countries (a total of over people in 72 countries) were published in 1980 in the book Culture s Consequences. He was able to distinguish five distinct cultural value dimensions; power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity and long term orientation. (Hofstede, 2001) Power Distance Low vs. high power distance reflects the degree to which less influential members of an organization and institutions accept and expect power to be distributed unequally. This dimension suggests that a society s level of inequality is created as much by the followers as by the leaders. This has a direct effect on if decisions of power holders are challenged or readily accepted. Low power distance countries people regard each other more as equals regardless of formal position and subordinates are used to and demand the right to contribute and critique their superiors. In high power distance countries less influential people accept and acknowledge the power of others based solely on where they are situated 11

20 in a certain predetermined hierarchal system. The power distance dimension as such does not really measure the actual power difference between individual people but rather how people perceive the difference in power. (Hofstede, 2001) Individualism High vs. low Individualism refers to which degree individuals within a society are integrated into groups. In societies with high individualism people are expected to act and take care of themselves and the people in their immediate family. The people in these societies tend to create relationships with larger amounts of people, but with the relationship being weak. In societies with low individualism people are from birth integrated into strong life long groups and the ties between individuals are strong. People in such societies lean towards collective responsibility. (Hofstede, 2001) Uncertainty Avoidance Strong vs. weak uncertainty avoidance deals with to which extent a culture tolerance uncertainty and ambiguity. It refers to which extent a person feels insecure and threatened in uncertain situations and tries to avoid it by establishing more structure around them. Cultures with strong uncertainty avoidance prefer to avoid conflict and desire consensus. Cultures with weak uncertainty avoidance have a high tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity and believe in and accept taking risks and trying new things. (Hofstede, 2001) Masculinity High vs. low masculinity (femininity) refers to the distribution of roles between the genders. Hofstede s studies reveal that women s values differ less than men s values across different cultures. Men s values however contain a dimension from very competitive and assertive on the one side to modest, caring and similar to the women s values on the other. In highly masculine cultures things such as ambition, assertiveness, and the accumulation of wealth are highly valued. Women in these cultures are somewhat assertive and competitive, but not as much as the men. These cultures show a larger gap between men s and women s values. People in cultures with low masculinity (feminine cultures) put more value on relationships and the quality of life. In these cultures the women have the same modest caring values as the men. (Hofstede, 2001) Long term Orientation High vs. low long term orientation (short time orientation) describes the importance attached to the future versus the past and present. Values associated with Long Term Orientation are thrift and perseverance values. Associated with Short Term Orientation are respect for tradition, fulfilling social obligations, and protecting one's 'face'. (Hofstede, 2001) 12

21 3.3 Globe GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Efficiency) is multi method projects in which investigators from all over the world examines the inter relationships between societal culture, organizational culture and organizational leadership. (House 2002) Almost 150 social scientists and management scholars from 61 cultures representing every major region of the world are involved in this study. In the GLOBE project 9 different cultural dimensions are studied. 7 of them have their origin in the dimensions of culture that Hofstede (2001) and will therefore not be discussed. The two discussed are performance orientation and humane orientation Performance Orientation This dimension defined as the extent an organization or society encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence (House 2001, p.6). This dimension has according to the GLOBE researchers turned out to be a very important. Performance oriented societies will exercise direct, explicit communication and will value more what one does than who one is. Societies which are not so performance oriented will typically have a rather indirect style of communication with a large extent of implicit communication. They will tend to value who one is more than what one does. (House 2001) Humane Orientation This dimension defined as the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies encourage and reward individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring and kind to others (House, 2001, p.6). Societies high on humane orientation will regard the interests of other people to be important and believe that everyone in the society has a responsibility to promote the wellbeing of others. Societies low on humane orientation will regard the one s own interests as important and they will be motivated primarily by a need for power and material possessions. (House, 2001) 3.4 Hall The Low vs. high context model was developed by Edward Hall (1989) and deals with the way different cultures tend to communicate and seek information Low vs. High Context Cultures In low context cultures feelings and thoughts are expressed in words and communication is mostly explicit. People in these cultures seek for information in databases and reports etc. People in high context culture mostly seek out information through personal networks. In these cultures feelings and thoughts are not so often communicated through words and communication is mostly implicit. Interpretation of what is going on depends heavily on the context. (Hall, 1989) 13

22 3.5 Synthesis of Cultural Dimensions From the work of Hofstede, the GLOBE researchers and Hall 8 different cultural dimensions has emerged and are displayed in table 1 below. Dimension Description Author Power distance The degree to which less influential members of an organization and institutions accept and Hofstede expect power to be distributed unequally. Individualism To which degree individuals within a society are integrated into groups. Hofstede Uncertainty avoidance To which extent a culture tolerance uncertainty and ambiguity. Hofstede Masculinity The distribution of roles between the genders Hofstede Long term orientation Describes the importance attached to the future versus the past and present. Hofstede The extent an organization or society Performance encourages and rewards group members for orientation performance improvement and excellence GLOBE The degree to which individuals in Humane orientation organizations or societies encourage and reward individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring and kind to others GLOBE High Low Context Table 1 Cultural dimensions How different cultures tend to communicate and seek information Hall These dimensions will be used as a base for the questionnaire to determine relevant cultural differences between the Japanese and the German project workers. 3.6 Decision Making Since the aim of the thesis is to investigate the decision making process of German and Japanese project workers it is interesting to take a look at what conclusions other researchers have made concerning the topic Decision Making in Germany Making decisions in German companies are usually a linear process. Different courses of actions are identified and rejected one after the other until the best solution for the problem at hand has been identified. The decisions are ideally made by those highest up in the company and then passed down from senior management down the hierarchy. This model is often called top down method. (Haak 2004) 14

23 The corporate decision making in Germany is pyramidal with one person or a handful or professional managers ruling from the top down. Middle management might not even be aware of the final purpose of their efforts. Recommendations upwards from lower hierarchies are not expected. Middle management s main responsibility is the operational day to day overseeing of strategic decisions they have had little or no part in making. The German traditional respect for authority makes this acceptable. (Flamini 1997) Decision Making in Japan Decision making in Japanese companies can be described as circular. Generally in Japan, decisions within the company often first start as suggestions prepared by middle management. Thereafter starts a process called nemawashi which is a consensus building practice where a proposal initiator will discuss a proposal with other middle managers, peers and support staff informally to build support and discover any opposition. The initiator attempts, through persuasion and discussion of merit, to turn opposition into support. By this process a solution that fits harmoniously with the environment and creates as little friction as possible is created. Everyone that is affected by the decision gets to be more or less involved in the decision making process and enables the group to avoid heated discussions or debates in the official meeting. A suggestion by an employee in a meeting might make his superiors lose face, causing a potentially disastrous situation (Peltokorpi, 2006). As a result of this process, decision making in Japanese organization takes more time than in the west but the execution is faster. (Kobayashi 1997) Nemawashi is a time consuming process but has in the end some favorable aspects (Haak 2004): Many people have been able to give input to the proposal. By the time a proposal makes it to the formal meeting, potential problems and means of solving them have been identified. The proposal can be approved without debate or challenge and the possible resulting embarrassment, which the Japanese desire to avoid in order to maintain harmony and save face. Senior management takes on a guiding function for all the lower hierarchies but in the end they still have responsibility for the decision. (Haak 2004) The Japanese stile of decision making is often called a bottom up process or top directed bottom up decision making (Kobayashi 1988, p.33) to stress senior management s responsibility German Japanese Decision Making Since in many cases the Japanese style decision making process takes longer time than the German one it can create frustration. Germans can find the long nemawashi process whereby a certain problem is discussed over and over again with different Japanese employees irritating and time consuming. The Japanese style has the benefit that when the decision in the end is taken it can be implemented quickly since complete consensus has 15

24 been reached and everyone is therefore willing to support it. In the German style it might take longer to implement the decision as complete consensus might not have been reached leading to internal resistance from employees not having been involved in the process. The problem that German management might have in getting cooperation from their employees in implementing a decision they have imposed can irritate the Japanese management and make them question the managerial ability of the Germans. (Flamini 1997) 3.7 Decision Models The reason for creating a model is in many cases to be able to exploit or control a system in some way. In other cases, systems are modeled to gain deeper understanding about something. Many system models are mathematical and analysis of such a model can lead to insights and understanding about the workings of the natural system. Decision models are system models used specifically for decision making purposes. Such models explicitly incorporate decisions, the available alternatives, and a way to measure the value of possible outcomes. (Keeney, 1992) Humans have different approaches to making decisions. Some weigh more towards the rationalistic approach of weighing facts, and others have the tendency for a more normative (intuitive) approach. The latter involves relying primarily on experience based tacit knowledge, subjective judgments, intuition and gut feeling as opposed to hard data. There is however a tendency to view both as intermingled and complementary. (Hatami, 2005) Intuitive Decision Model An intuitive decision making model is the easiest decision making model and is based on experience and gut feeling. An intuitive model could look like these four steps. (McKim 1980) A problem occurs Wondering, thinking, sleeping on the problem. Idea and insight! Checking to see if solution works. The same four steps illustrated in as a meeting agenda could look like this: Discussion meeting. Investigating, defining and bringing out alternatives. Time for afterthought. Analysis of ideas. Decision meeting 16

25 3.7.2 Rational Decision Model The rational decision making model is a systematic way of analyzing a problem and making a decision. The model has in this case been divided into 8 steps in 2 different stages; problem identification and problem solution. (McKim 1980) Problem identification 1. Assess the decision environment. 2. Define the decision problem. 3. Specify decision objectives. 4. Diagnose the problem. Problem Solution 5. Develop alternative solutions. 6. Evaluate alternatives. 7. Choose the best alternative. 8. Implement the chosen alternative. The difference between rational and intuitive decision making models is that there is a structure to the rational model which is not in the intuitive one. The gut feeling and experience factor of the intuitive model is here replaced by information gathering and evaluating all available alternatives until the best one is found Poor Man s Hierarchy Model This model can help work out the importance of a number of demands or options relative to each other and can be extra helpful when you don t have any objective data to base a decision on. Paired comparison analysis can for example be used when prioritizing conflicting demands on resources. (Taylor, 2006) These are the steps that are carried out when working with the model in a worksheet: 1. List realistic demands or options 2. If needed make a rough division into two groups 3. Put the demands which is in the most important group under the column Demands 4. Put the demands in the same order at the top of columns. 5. Compare the different demands and decide which one is more important. Put a 1 in the cell if the demand in row demand won. Otherwise put a zero. 6. Do this comparison with all pairs. 17

26 7. Count the amount of each row demand s won comparisons and make a ranking from this. Demands Demand 1 Demand 2 Demand 3 Result Ranking Demand Demand Demand Table 2 Example of a paired comparison analysis In the example of a paired comparison analysis which can be seen in the table above demand 2 is decided as the most important when compared to both demand 1 and 3 and is therefore the most important of the three as can be seen in the ranking. Paired comparison analysis is a good way of weighing up the relative importance of different options where priorities are not clear. (Taylor 2006) 3.8 Value Focused Thinking When it comes to decision making the normal focus is usually on alternatives. Decision problems are created by the action of others (stakeholders, suppliers, management, etc.) or as a result of result of circumstances (economic recession, change of business focus, etc.) When the problem has arisen the solving begins. Most often the decision makers concentrate mainly on the alternatives and first thereafter address the objectives or criteria used to evaluate the alternatives. This is called alternative focused thinking and is according to Keeney (1992) a limited way to think about decision situations and is reactive, not proactive. Alternatives are in the end only relevant because they are means to achieve the values of the decision maker. Because of this Keeney (1992) thinks that it is of greater importance for the decision makers to first focus on their values and later on the alternatives that might achieve them. There should be iterations between articulating values and creating alternatives but the principle is values first. This way of thinking is called value focused thinking. By using this process a decision problem can instead be thought of as a decision opportunity. (Keeney, 1992) 18

27 3.9 Evolution of a Group Whenever two or more people interact in a group the resulting group process will be heavily influenced by the participant s interpersonal needs. Schutz (1958) postulates that there are three phases that become manifest in the group process; inclusion, control and affection. Inclusion: This is the first phase of group life where members decide if they want to join or not. The members begin to learn their role in the group, the group s importance, its relationship to their identity, how committed they are willing to become and whether they feel included in the group. (Schutz, 1958) Control: In the second phase the group members decide who should have authority and how much of it, where the responsibility lies, and what the enforcement patterns should be. (Schutz, 1958) Affection: In the third phase the members become concerned with affection. This is the point at which the group attempts to seek emotional integration of its members, who gradually seek to relate to one another beyond the assigned group roles. (Schutz, 1958) The evolution of a group shows a gradual internalization of structure, process and content which in the end establishes the group as a unified entity. Only by bringing the group emotionality into contact with the problem solving process can the emotionality of the group and its unconscious motivation reach new levels. (Ashbach, 1994) 3.10 Explicit and Tacit Knowledge One benefit of working in a close group is the transfer of explicit and more importantly tacit knowledge between the members. Explicit knowledge is information that can be transferred from one person to the next by words or pictures. Therefore explicit knowledge can be saved in books, documents or datafiles and is easy to copy and distribute. Tacit knowledge is knowledge is knowledge that is hard to express in words and pictures and need to be transferred from one person to the next by human interaction. (Berggren & Lindkvist, 2001) According to Tonnquist (2006) tacit knowledge can be described as the hub which coheres with the explicit knowledge and makes it useful, which means that both explicit and tacit knowledge are important in order to make a project successful. 19

28 4 Quantitative Results and Analysis In this chapter the results and analysis of the Quantitative analysis is shown. 4.1 Study Design As mentioned in the method a questionnaire was distributed among about 80 Japanese and Germans involved in inter corporate automobile development projects in Japan and Europe. The questions for the questionnaire have been designed to measure cultural characteristics of the Japanese and German project workers. The questions are derived from the cultural dimensions described in the frame of reference. Some of the questions were constructed especially for this questionnaire and some of them are modified questions from the GLOBE study. The reasons for using these were that they already have undergone scientific review and that it would make it possible to correctly measure the dimensions that the study generated. The questions that were created especially for this questionnaire were reviewed other people, both Japanese and German, to make sure that they were understood correctly. The statistical software tool SPSS was used to analyze the data from the questionnaires. Since the questionnaires were all gathered electronically over the internet there was no risk for any mistakes in inputting the results. The first thing after the questionnaires were put into SPSS was to weed out bad respondents by checking control questions, making sure that they had answered all the questions and controlling that they were of Japanese or German origin. This was done by using frequency and descriptive statistics. (See Appendix 1) After this control there were about 60 questionnaires left for analysis. The distribution for gender, age and number of years in current company (tenure) for the sample population can be viewed below in figure three, four and five below. Figure 3 Questionnaire gender distribution 20

29 Figure 4 Questionnaire age distribution Figure 5 Questionnaire tenure distribution Both in the Japanese and German sample there were far more males than females. The German sample had a larger percentage of young people while the Japanese sample weighed more to the other side of the spectrum with a larger percentage of older people. The amount of years worked in the current company (tenure) shows almost opposite results for the Germans and the Japanese sample. Almost half of the Japanese respondents had worked 21 years or more for their company while only a small percentage of the Germans had done so. On the other side of the scale reverse results can be found. 4.2 Factor Analysis The first analysis was a factor analysis of the questions connected to the eight cultural dimensions described in the theoretical frame of reference. This is a method in which the questions in the questionnaire are grouped together into natural groups. Mathematically speaking it is a search for linear combinations of measured variables which creates a set of factors. If the factors do not group together as the cultural dimensions described in the theoretical framework, they will hopefully make enough sense for logical names to be assigned to them. (Sjöström, 2009) 21

30 The factor analysis generates a component matrix, which consists of a number of factors that explain the variance in the question set. The component matrix is then rotated using Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation in order to create an orthogonal component matrix (i.e. uncorrelated factors). The default SPSS setting for eigenvalues with lambda values bigger than one were choosen for the analysis. The reason for this is that a factor should explain more of the variance than one variable. (Sjöström, 2009) All factors were then analyzed and compared using ANOVA with Bonferroni correction to check for differences between the German and Japanese samples. The analysis was done with a significance level of 95%. If there is no significant difference between the groups, this means that the comparison falls below the 95% mark. The 95% mark is often used as the significance level in statistics. (Sjöström, 2009) The findings are presented in tables and graphs, and it should be noted that the value zero in the graphs in this section represent a neutral stance with respect to the dimension measured. A value higher than zero represents a preference for the aspect of the dimension that is measured. Consequently, a negative value would indicate a preference for the opposite. The focus is however to find differences between the German and Japanese samples and not necessarily to label them. The bar on both ends of the line displays the confidence interval for the measured mean value. If the confidence interval of the two mean values crosses each other there is no proven significant difference between the two. (Detailed results of the Questionnaire results and ANOVA can be found in Appendix 1, 2 and 3) Results of the Factor Analysis As mentioned above the factor analysis was performed on the 8 cultural dimensions described in the theoretical frame of reference. Power distance (PD) Individualism (IND) Uncertainty avoidance (UA) Masculinity (MAS) Long term orientation (LTO) Performance orientation (PO) Humane orientation (HO) High Low context (HLC) The component matrix that emerged from the analysis is displayed in table 3 below. There are three questions on each of the dimensions. (For example the three questions in regards the masculinity dimension is written as MAS1, MAS2 and MAS3.) 22

31 Rotated Component Matrix a Component MAS1,868 MAS2,682 MAS3,787 HLC1,770 HLC2,689 HLC3,457 PO1,658 PO2,465,495 PO3,624 UA1,830 UA2,548,612 UA3,666 IND1,771 IND2,642 IND3,693 PD1,780 PD2 -,853 PD3,429 LTO1,847 LTO2,567 LTO3,655 HO1,515 HO2,811 HO3,676 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 10 iterations. Table 3 Rotated component matrix The factor component matrix (table 3) shows eight factors over which the questions have been divided. They have not been divided exactly as the culture dimensions described in the theoretical frame of reference but there are some similarities. 23

32 Factor 1 In the first factor which explains over 20% of the variance (See Appendix 2) there are mainly questions from the IND and PO dimensions which describes to which degree individuals within a society are integrated into groups and the extent an organization or society encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence. There is also one question from the UA dimension. The grouping of IND and PO in this factor is an interesting finding as it suggests a correlation between Hofstede s IND dimension and the PO dimension from the GLOBE researchers even if the question from the UA dimension does however confuse the picture somewhat. I think this dimension could well explain to which degree a person in a society is rewarded for being competent and individualistic and will therefore call this factor the individuality reward dimension. Figure 6 Individuality Reward From the graph we can see that there is a significant difference between the Germans and the Japanese in this dimension and that the Germans score a lot higher than the Japanese. These findings suggest that the German project workers rewards competent individualistic 24

33 behavior more than the Japanese which are on the negative scale which could mean a preference for the opposite meaning; rewarding competent group behavior. Factor 2 The second factor has all the questions from the UA dimension as well as one question from the LTO dimension. The UA dimension measures to which extent a culture tolerance uncertainty and ambiguity and the LTO dimensions describes the importance attached to the future versus the past and present. The LTO question in this case has to do with the importance of scheduling which also fits nicely in with the handling of uncertainty and ambiguity. Because of all the questions from the UA being in this factor and the LTO question which has snuck in has to do with handling uncertainty I would like to label this factor the uncertainty avoidance dimension. Figure 7 Uncertainty Avoidance Even though the Japanese show a higher value than their German counterparts, which would mean that they prefer to avoid conflict and desire consensus, there is no significant difference between the two. 25

34 Factor 3 The third factor consists of two questions from the HLC dimension which explains how different cultures tend to communicate and seek information and one question from the PD dimension which is the degree to which less influential members of an organization and institutions accept and expect power to be distributed unequally. The PD question is in this case strongly negative which means that a low level of power distance is correlating with a high context level. This is in other words a dimension where a high score describes that feelings and thoughts are not so often communicated through words, communication is mostly implicit and people might have a tendency to regard each other more as equals regardless of formal position. I would therefore like to call this factor the implicit equals dimension. Figure 8 Implicit Equals Both the German and Japanese mean value in this dimension is very close to zero which represents a neutral stance with respect to the dimension measured. There is also no significant difference between the two samples. 26

35 Factor 4 I would like to call this factor 4 the Humane Orientation dimension as suggested by GLOBE as it is dominated by 2 questions from the HO dimension. HO measures to what extent individuals in organizations or societies encourage and reward individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring and kind to others. There is also some noise created by one question from the MAS dimension that measures the distribution of roles between the genders which might suggest that cultures with a high humane orientation are a bit more of a masculine nature. Figure 9 Humane Orientation The German sample has a higher value than the Japanese signaling that they might be of a higher humane orientation as well as being slightly more masculine. There is however no significant difference between the two groups. Factor 5 This factor seems to fit well with the Hofstede s Long Term Orientation dimension and will thus be labeled as such. It consists of only the questions LTO1 and LTO2 without any noise from other dimensions. Long Term Orientations describes the importance attached to the future versus the past and present. 27

36 Figure 10 Long Term Orientation Both the German and Japanese samples are quite close to a zero value in this dimension representing a neutral stance towards the dimension. Once again there is no significant difference between the two samples. Factor 6, 7 and 8 In these factors mathematical correlations have been found by the factor analysis but they are hard to make sense of. Just because there are mathematical correlations in data material does not mean that there is a logical correlation or that they are practically useful (Sjöström, 2009). Because of these reasons factor 6, 7 and 8 will not be discussed further. It is however possible that the variables that have ended up in these factors are one reason to why the factor analysis has not been completely clean. 4.3 ANOVA of Decision Making Questions There were also a number of questions included in the quantitative analysis cowering different aspects of the decision making. However none of these questions showed a statistically significant difference between the Japanese and the German project workers. 28

37 This was in due part to large confidence intervals on both the German and the Japanese side (See Appendix 3). What this means is that there is a large variance in the individual answers within the two samples. This means that that the difference in how people perceive different issues within one sample is quite large. 29

38 5 Qualitative Dissection This chapter displays the results from the 24 interview that were conducted as the qualitative part of this thesis. The interviews were analyzed using meaning condensation explained earlier in the method section of the thesis and have in this section been broken down into topics interesting to the thesis. 5.1 Inter Corporate Decision Making In joint projects one company cannot make all decisions by themselves, the decisions must be borne by all. Because of the fact that there are different companies with different interests, decision making can take more time than a company internal decision. You have to consider all the opinions of the companies involved which means that decision making to some extent is a process of compromise finding. Most German and Japanese project workers that were interviewed agreed on that in intercorporate projects it sometimes can be quite complicated to get a decision accepted. The situation is different compared to company internal development projects. In that case there is a clear hierarchical structure with a project leader who has some say on the people who work in the project and he can use the resources of the company to solve problems. In a research project where you have to work with a consortium agreement with other companies it is more complicated. Here you also have a project manager who has some say over the project but he only has it over a content and organizational point of view. He does not have the hierarchical control over the people in the other companies. You need to use other kinds of management to deal with this. You need more cooperative attempts to come up with unanimous solutions. Otherwise you might lose partners. One German project leader mentioned that there might be a time you have to go your own way but most of the time that is not the case. Everybody needs to have the same understanding and have to be satisfied with the decision; otherwise you might have much more problems in turning a decision into reality later on. In project meetings, things can sometimes not be decided and the members have to bring the point back to their respective companies. One Japanese project worker said that the decisions which are hard to make are often things that might disclose the performance of the different companies. One common Japanese viewpoint was that in a meeting within the company one person s mistake in a way is everyone s mistake since there is always shared responsibility, but in inter corporate meetings the people represents their whole company and therefore cannot afford to do mistakes. This creates nervousness and caution. There is a need to both think about the benefit of the project as well as the benefit of the own company. This viewpoint is mirrored by the Germans who many times over expressed the view that all project members knows what is good for the project at the same time as 30

39 they have some kind of hidden agenda for their company. There is in other words sometimes a conflict between what is good for the company and what is good for the project. 5.2 Preparations for Inter Corporate Decisions. The importance of the preparation phase for an inter corporate decision was stressed over and over again in the interviews. Even as a project manager you can t just say that I take this from that part of the project. You have to prepare the decision very closely and then come up with a viable solution that makes everyone in the consortium at least somewhat happy. (German project leader) On the German side a possible decision is usually prepared with some key players (which can be the people from the different companies with the most technical knowledge in a certain area). Then there is a need for a meeting or at least some kind of written conversation by e mail that gives all the partners the same information on what the plan is. Then a common understanding and consensus has to be found on the solution that is proposed. One project worker mentioned that the preparation phase is very important because if there are too many uncertainties when you are talking about a decision in a meeting and you have too much discussion you will never end up with a common decision in that meeting. It was also mentioned that the decision preparation phase cannot replace the formal decision. You usually have some idea of what the decision should be through the preparation but the actual decision, if important, is most often taken in a meeting. This gives a somewhat different picture than the one Haak (2004) and Flamini (1997) draws up but this difference can be explained by the difference in management of projects within a company and projects that involves several different companies. On the Japanese side it is even more emphasised that the preparation phase is important. Consensus is usually sought as much as possible before a meeting by giving out information to the people involved and getting to know their feedback. It was mentioned that meetings sometimes only exists to make decisions already taken in the preparation phase official which is similar to the nemawashi process explained by Kobayashi (1997). In order to make good decisions that are easy to agree upon it is important to apply value focused thinking (Keeney 1992). Several German and Japanese project workers mentioned the technique of preparing a few different solutions to a problem to present in a meeting and then strongly recommending one of them. One German project manager said: If you don t give a clear cut recommendation on what to choose the discussion can get very long without coming to a conclusion. Also in an inter corporate project the project manager or the preparation team has to take over the responsibility and say: We think we have to do it that way. If you do it the other way around it will turn out worse. Even if the steering 31

40 committee in the end have to take the decision the project manager or the preparation team has to act as if they had the power to decide. Kind of a hard roll because you are not in the decision making power but you have to live with the consequences of the decision. By using this method different alternatives are shown and the one that is most in line with the values of the project can be chosen. 5.3 Overlap of Project Members In both Japan and Germany the overlap of members from one inter corporate project to the next is large. Many members therefore already know each other from earlier project within the same area of development. Younger people involved in these types of projects might disappear after a while as they move up the corporate ladder in their respective companies. The older members in higher position are therefore often the most stable ones. Also within ongoing projects that span over long periods there are member changes. Both the Japanese and German people that were interviewed uniformly thought that the overlap was a good thing as you needed less time to get to know each other and that the decision process was therefore faster from the start. The Germans were about evenly divided between thinking that: 1. new members are time consuming as they try to bring in new ideas into the project without the experience to know that they would be fruitless and impossible to realize. 2. new members are good as they bring in new ideas and viewpoints to a project which makes room for innovation. The Japanese interviewed mentioned no such opinions. This is most likely since a young and inexperienced project worker in Japan would not dare to make a suggestion because of the seniority of his project co workers. A suggestion by a younger employee might also make his superiors lose face, causing a potentially disastrous situation (Peltokorpi, 2006). 5.4 After Work Activities In Japan after work activities such as dinners and going out for a beer are seen as very beneficial for creating a personal relationship so that consensus can be reached in a smoother way. In Germany it is not seen as important part of the project but can be a good thing if the atmosphere within the project group is good and it is kept on a voluntary basis. In both countries the benefit of getting to know each other outside of work is emphasised but in Japan it is more an integrated part of the culture. This could have an impact on the evolution of groups in Japan and Germany. While German project groups might stay in an inclusion phase a Japanese group might move towards being in a control or affection state 32

41 (Schutz 1958). The benefits of having a highly evolved project group is according to Ashbach (1994) a more motivated group that acts more as one entity making problem solving easier. 5.5 Revisions of Decisions Because of the emphasis put on getting complete consensus, also described as nemawashi by Kobayashi (1997), in the preparation phase in the Japanese projects, decisions are generally not revised as much in Japanese as in German projects. This can however lead to problem later if the first decision was not the correct one. In Germany the preparation phase is not as long but they are more flexible to later revisions if something turns out bad. These later revisions of the decisions can however lead to higher costs and lost time as you might have to redo parts of the projects. Some Japanese people uttered frustration with this behavior and thought that efforts should instead be put on the next decision process. This frustration on behalf of the Japanese project workers is also described by Flamini (1997) which shows that this not a finding exclusive to this thesis. One German project manager commented that it is hard to know sometimes if it is better to use hierarchal power to get a decision or if it is better to try to get complete consensus. In the case of the hierarchical decision there might be unhappy project members lower down in the hierarchy. But on the other hand the consensus building often requires a lot of compromising that might bring down the overall quality of the decision. Decisions are more stable if there is consensus and everyone is happy. You might think that decisions in research project are more stable (than company internal decisions that might be more based on a hierarchical decision process that has left subordinates unsatisfied) since you work towards consensus agreements but on the other hand this process can lead to a lot of compromises since you have to make everybody happy. It is hard to say which one of these two styles (forced by hierarchy or consensus process) is more efficient. Technological advances, economic situation or changes in the corporate strategy can cause a need for revising decisions in the inter corporate projects which often span over many years. 5.6 Communication and Documentation Because of the often large geographical distances between project members in intercorporate projects e mail and phone are the two most common ways of communicating in between project meetings. Because of this most small decisions are taken by e mail as a decision proposal can be easily distributed to all members. Due to the fact that the project workers seldom meet certain information might be lost. If project workers are allowed to work side by side the project workers are able to share explicit knowledge and also more importantly tacit knowledge that would be lost over the 33

42 phone or e mail (Berggren & Lindkvist, 2001). For a project to be successful, both explicit and tacit knowledge are important. (Tonnquist, 2006). A common view between both German and Japanese project workers was the need to have a meeting protocol that states the decisions taken and the consequences that result from them. This is especially important for the project manager since he has a document on what has been decided if things don t work out. In both the Japanese and the German inter corporate projects the writing of meeting minutes is widely used for documenting decisions that was made and action points to come. In one big Japanese inter corporate project the task of writing the meeting minutes were passed around to a different project member at each monthly meeting. A draft of the meeting minutes were then passed out some days later by e mail so that everyone involved could read through and comment on the contents. Each monthly meeting was also started by reading the meeting minutes from the last meeting for any final revisions. The meeting minutes are completely written in Japanese which is probably why some German project workers complained on that they rarely saw any meeting minutes from the projects that they were involved in. In inter corporate projects in Germany where there are members from different companies the project language is English. Therefore also the minutes are written in English. 5.7 Model for Decision Making In Germany there is always some kind of written agreement that usually looks about the same. This agreement states a formal procedure on how to approve a proposal for example in the steering committee, which can be having a majority vote or a quorum of some sort. This is however kind of academic as most of the time head for a joint decision that everybody is happy with. Such written agreement seems not to exist in the Japanese joint projects as the project workers that were asked all said no. This could be because the consensus seeking is so natural to the Japanese that there is no need for that kind of agreement. That opinion is further strengthened by both Japanese as well as German project workers with experience in Japan who said that collaboration in Japan are many times not based on contracts or written agreements. It is usually only verbal agreements and because of this there is a need to implement certain levels of trust before starting to collaborate. This can lead to the start up phase taking a long time. One German project worker said that you are not well advised if you think you can fix everything with a contract in Japan. To get collaboration you need to get the trust and to have a common goal and it can take many visits and meetings before the trust needed is developed. 34

43 5.8 Dealing With Opposition To a Decision When asked how they deal with opposition towards a decision proposition in a meeting the two different cultures had different responses. Germans said that this is quite normal and often had techniques for dealing with this. When the Japanese were asked the same question they did not have very much to say more than that strong resistance is rare in a Japanese meeting and if there is no way to reach consensus there is a need for more information gathering. This could be because of the Japanese many time already having reached consensus before the meeting has started in order not to lose face during the meeting. One German project worker said that a good new proposal during a meeting is always welcome but you have to ask yourself what you did wrong in the preparation phase. If that partner would have been asked in the preparation phase you could have known about the proposal before the meeting. One problem with a new solution being introduced during the meeting without prior introduction is that it will be hard to make a decision during this meeting since people will want to go back to their companies and analyze the solution with their experts. 5.9 Cultural Differences The biggest problem for a Germans and Japanese working together is the language barrier. The common language within international automobile projects is English and it is not unusual for Japanese project workers to have low level of proficiency compared to the Germans. There is no easy fix to solve this problem but learning about the cultural differences can make it easier to understand the contexts. One German project worker mentioned is extremely important to be honest from the beginning and be clear about what it is you want to do when dealing with a Japanese company. He further explained that there might be a need to explain the same several times because Japanese people sometimes doubt there own ability to understand correctly and you have to make absolutely sure that they did not just nod their head but also understood what you said. To do this you should be aware of body language, behaviour and the answers you get. You should try to ask additional questions. Not ask them if they understood because since that could cause embarrassment. You should say the same thing several times each time in a different and look at their reaction until you are sure they have understood. One common opinion among the interviewed Germans was that Japanese people not are very outspoken in bigger groups. The smaller the group the more they get to the point. One Japanese project worker said that he has different techniques depending on how big a group is. He said that he is not very assertive if there are a lot of people since they might become bothered but if there are only a few people or one person you can be more assertive. 35

44 Emotional speeches in meetings with many people are not very usual in Japan as it looks as if the person is acting alone and is trying to shift everyone in a the direction that the person decided alone. Such behavior is very selfish to the Japanese and not attractive. Emotions can however be good after something has been decided. Many German project workers had had problems reading the Japanese people s intentions during meetings as they are generally very nice and keeps smiling and nodding there head even though they in the end don t agree. In a meeting with only Germans the people might not be so polite but are therefore easier to read. A common viewpoint among the German project workers was that if communicating with Japanese people you can usually trust your opponent if he can make a decision or not. If you can decide you can be fairly confident that he could make the decision. In Germany you cannot always be sure if the person was allowed to decide or not with the risk that the decision might be revised later on. 36

45 6 Conclusions This chapter shows the conclusions of the qualitative and quantitative research and aims to answer the research questions stated earlier. One part of the research in this thesis was whether or not there were measurable cultural differences between the Japanese and the German project workers. According to the quantitative research there were many areas where there were no statistically significant differences between the two samples. The factor analysis of the existing theoretical cultural dimensions had a significant overlap between the different dimensions. Because of that, new cultural dimensions were created in order to better correspond with the samples at hand. If possible, these dimensions received new labels that more precisely describe the characteristics of the sample. The factors that emerged were: Individuality reward: A dimension which explains to which degree a person in a society is rewarded for being individually competent versus being rewarding for competent group behavior. There was a significant difference in attitude between the Japanese and the German samples concerning this dimension. Uncertainty avoidance: Even though the Japanese show a higher value than their German counterparts, which would mean that they prefer to avoid conflict and desire consensus more than the Germans, there was no significant difference between the two samples. Implicit equals: Both the German and Japanese mean values in this dimension is very close to zero which represents a neutral stance with respect to the dimension measured. There is also no significant difference between the two samples. Humane orientation: The German sample has a higher value in this dimension than the Japanese signaling that they might be of a higher humane orientation as well as being slightly more masculine. There is however no significant difference between the two groups. Long Term Orientation: Both the German and Japanese samples are quite close to a zero value in this dimension representing a neutral stance towards the dimension. Once again there was no significant difference between the two samples. According to the factor analysis the only measurable cultural difference that was statistically significant was the individuality reward dimension. This was not a very surprising find as Japanese people tend to be less individualistic compared to German people. 37

46 There were also a number of decision making questions included in the quantitative analysis cowering. However not in a single one of this questions were there a statistically significant difference between the Japanese and the German project workers. This was in due part to large confidence intervals on both the German and the Japanese side. What this means is that there is a large variance in the individual answers within the two samples. This means that that the difference in how people perceive different issues within one sample is quite large. An interesting conclusion that can be made from this is that individual differences in attitude between two people in one of the cultures can be larger than the cultural difference between the two cultures. This means that you cannot say how a German or a Japanese project member will act when making a decision only by knowing his or her nationality. The international experience of many of the inter corporate project workers in Japan and Germany might make them thinking alike in a lot of ways making the results of the quantitative study similar for the two groups. Another question asked in the thesis is whether or not there are decisions that are easier or harder to make in the Japan or Germany. It was hard to say a certain kind of decision that would be easier to make in either of the culture. However, one thing that both German and Japanese project workers commented on was that, in Japan, if time is put into gaining mutual trust and the first decision is made the rest of the decision making processes will most of the time be smooth and fast. This because of the time put into the preparation of the first decision and that the involved partners trust each other. In Germany the first decision might be a bit faster and smoother. But there is not a much of an improvement for the next decision and the process can have resistance and be time consuming once again. The language barrier is of course a significant problem in order to achieve effective communication in decision making. Japanese people do not always have great English speaking skills compared to the Germans, but they are generally fairly proficient in written English. Differences in communication styles further enhance misunderstandings that take place. Concerning communication when making decisions the main difference lie in the way the Germans and the Japanese prepare decisions. The Japanese tend to put in more time before a meeting to talk to the people involved in making the decision. When the meeting is held the decision is often already almost taken and needs only be made official. This is to avoid discussions in the meeting with the potential to lose face. There are of course many times when things are discussed and decided in the meetings in Japan also. But not so much as the German counterparts, who generally discuss much more in the meetings. In both the Japanese and the German inter corporate projects the writing of meeting minutes is widely used for documenting decisions that was made and action points to come. The minutes in Japan are however many times written in Japanese making them unreadable for non Japanese speaking project members. Because of the Japanese having a longer preparation phase for a decision their decisions are also less often revised compared to the Germans who tend to remain more flexible to 38

47 changes after their decision has been made. Since the Japanese tend not to revise decisions much it is important that the first decision is correct. This can sometimes be hard due to language misunderstandings in inter corporate projects with both Japanese and non Japanese. There is a big overlap between project workers in automobile inter corporate projects in both Japan and Germany from one project to the next. In Europe there is a large amount of young project workers who might disappear from the projects as they move up the corporate ladder. The older project workers are therefore be more stable. In Japan there are not as many young people in the inter corporate projects making it quite stable. In Japan there is more of an emphasis on after work activities with colleagues than in Germany. In Japan after work activities such as dinners and going out for a beer are seen as very beneficial for creating a personal relationship so that consensus can be reached in a smoother way. In Germany it is not seen as important part of the project but can be a good thing if the atmosphere within the project group is good and it is kept on a voluntary basis. In both countries the benefit of getting to know each other outside of work is emphasized but in Japan it seems to be more an integrated part of the culture. 6.1 Final notes From the Quantitative analysis it was clear that there were larger individual differences between the project workers in Japan and Germany than the influence from culture except for in the case of individual versus group behavior. The Japanese strife for consensus building and acting as a group is the biggest difference to the more individual and hierarchy based Germans (Flamini 1997, Kobayashi, 1997, Haak, 2004). But the big individual variance shows that you cannot expect a Japanese or German project worker to act in a specific way in a specific situation just because of their nationality. In all work which includes people from different cultures the most important thing is to act with an open mind and to have patience with differences in behavior both as a result of culture as well as those caused by individual variance. 39

48 7 Recommendations Based on the results of this thesis this chapter aims to give recommendation on how German and Japanese project workers can improve common decision making. The recommendations have been grouped into things that can be done at the start of a project and before, duringand after a decision. 7.1 Start of a Project Introductionary course to respective culture Keep an open mindset and non assertive attitude Create trust in a way which the culture prescribes Explain the need for contracts for Kick off to gain personal relation and knowledge gain First off, introductions in the form of courses to each other s cultures would lead to a good initial understanding and thus project groups would most certainly be off to a better start. It should also be on the agenda of every project group to create a common framework for the way of working together that can accustom all individuals. An open mindset is the beginning for a sound foundation on which to base the work of a new project. This combined with empathy and respect should help multicultural projects to be able to proceed in a manner that accommodates performance high level. Judging every situation only by one s own frame of reference is a recipe for potential disaster. From the analysis it is clear that highly assertive personnel, in the meaning of direct and confrontational, would not be as successful in multicultural projects as more humane oriented project managers. In Japan a period before joining a project in which trust is gained and competence is proven is often required. Germans should be ready to put a lot of effort into this phase and not expect that a project will get rolling immediately. If this phase goes well the rest of the project will be smooth since the partners trust each other and are sure that they will not lose face because of others. Since the Japanese don t put so much of an emphasis on contracts, Germans should make certain that the Japanese understand that it will not be a disadvantage to write a contract if needed. Explaining that the need for a contract comes from German custom and that it might be needed for organizational reasons should make this easily understandable for the Japanese. A good way to gain trust and share knowledge in the beginning of a project is to have a kickoff. By getting bringing everyone together in the beginning of the project and letting people work next to each other they get to know each other on a personal level. The project workers can by doing this gain trust in each other making it possible for the group evolve from the inclusion phase to a control or affection phase (Schutz, 1958). A kick off can be 40

49 extra beneficial in inter corporate projects where most of the communication is by e mail and phone because of the geographical distances between the project members. By working side by side the project workers are able to share explicit knowledge but more importantly tacit knowledge that would be lost over the phone or e mail. For a project s success, both explicit and tacit knowledge are important. During the kick off it can be good to discuss how to make decisions before actually making them. A good way is looking at and discussing already existing decision making models such as the rational, intuitive and poor man s hierarchy models (Taylor 2006, McKim 1980) that are described in the theoretical frame of reference. Even if the models in the end are not used in the project, discussing them will show how the different project workers perceive the decision making process. 7.2 Before a Decision Set common goals Confirm data It is important to make sure before making a decision that all partners share common goals for the decision. This is very important in inter corporate projects as each company will have their own internal goals for the project. This is something that could and should be discussed during a project kick off. As Keeney (1992) mentions by sharing common values and goals a problem that has to be decided upon can instead be thought of as an opportunity for common decision making. The Japanese anchor decisions before a making them by talking to other project members one on one in order to not lose face during meetings (Kobayashi, 1997, Flamini 1997). This is also practiced in Germany but not to the same degree as it is more accepted to have arguments in meetings there. This is something that the German project workers also should try to avoid in order not to embarrass Japanese partners. Talking to all the members involved in the decision making, sharing information and getting their feed back should create proposals without much resistance during the decision making meeting. It is however important that the information that is gathered is as objective as possible. A good way of weighing up the relative importance of different options where priorities are not clear is to use the poor man s hierarchy model (Taylor, 2006) which is described in the theoretical frame of reference. 7.3 During a Decision Seek consensus Control emotions Communicate effectively 41

50 The Japanese have a consensus seeking culture both within the companies as well as intercorporate. Germans, who tend to be deciding by majority or by hierarchy within the companies, are when working inter corporate seeking also making decisions by consensus since there is less formal hierarchical power and because otherwise partners might be lost. This should therefore not be a problem for Germans and Japanese working together in intercorporate projects. In meetings in Japan it is not common show emotions in meetings with many people as it looks as if the person is acting alone and is trying to shift everyone in a the direction that the person decided alone. Such behavior seems selfish to the Japanese and goes against the consensus building that should have been made before the meeting. Japanese people working in Germany should be prepared for more emotionality and argumentation within meetings. Emotions can however be good to show after something has been decided to emphasize the effort of all partners. Japanese tend not to be very outspoken in meetings in which there are many people and especially in meetings where English is used. The language barrier can make effective communication difficult and lead to misunderstandings on what is decided. A German interviewee suggested that in order to be sure that something has been agreed upon, one should specifically ask Do you agree?. Another technique suggested was to explain the same thing from different points of views to make it more precise. Also using the active listening skill of paraphrasing, which means that one rephrases what one has heard and states it as one has understood it can be used to avoid miscommunication and be vital in order to quickly correcting misunderstandings. Taking a break for a coffee is also a great opportunity to talk one on one with a partner to casually confirm what has been said. 7.4 After a Decision Translate minutes Confirming decisions In both the Japanese and the German projects the writing of meeting minutes is widely used for documenting decisions that was made and action points to come. There seems however that the minutes in Japan from meetings held in Japanese often not are translated into English and that it is up to each company to do so. This could instead be the responsibility of the partner making the minutes and to distribute at the same time as the Japanese version. By doing this the non Japanese speaking project workers are not alienated by getting information about the progress later than the Japanese speaking partners. This is another thing that could be decided in a project kick off. Since more emphasis is put upon the anchoring of a decision in Japan than in Germany there is also less revisions after a decision is made (Flamini, 1997). Because of this it is very 42

51 important that the first decision in Japan is correct and making sure that everyone has the same idea of what has been decided. By confirming what has been said during meetings and having minutes in both Japanese and English misunderstandings can be kept to a minimum. Japanese people working in Germany should be prepared for resistance and revisions to decisions already made and remain flexible. 43

52 8 References 8.1 Articles House, R., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. (2001): Project Globe: An Introduction, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 2001, October, Vol. 50, Issue 4,. House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dorfman, P. (2002): Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: an introduction to project GLOBE, Journal of World Business, 2002, Vol. 37, Issue 1 Keeney, R. (1992): Value focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kobayshi, N. (1988): Strategic Alliances with Japanese Firms, Long Range Planning, 1988, Vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 29 to 34 Kobayashi, S. (1997): Characteristics of Japanese communication., Communication World, Dec96/Jan97, Vol. 14 Issue 1, p14, 3p Szabo, E., Brodbeck, F. C., Den Hartog, D. N., Reber, G., Weibler, J., Wunderer, R. (2002): The Germanic Europe cluster: where employees have a voice, Journal of World Business, 2002, Volume 37, Issue 1 Triandis, H. C. (1996): The Psychological Measurement of Cultural Syndromes. American Psychologist, Vol. 51, no 4, pp Research papers Martinsson M, (1999): Comparing the decision styles of American, Japanese and Chinese business leaders, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China. 8.3 Books Alvesson, M. (2002): Understanding Organizational Culture, Sage Publications Ltd ISBN: Ashbach, C. (1994): Object Relations, the Self and the Group, Routledge, ISBN: Berggren, C. & Lindkvist, L. (2001): Projekt Organisation för målorientering och lärande, Lund: Studentlitteratur. Denscombe, M. (2007): The Good Research Guide, Third Edition, Open University Press, Birkshire, England, ISBN 10: Flamini, Roland. (1997): Passport Germany, World Trade Press, ISBN:

53 Gummesson, Evert. Qualitative Methods in Management Research, Thousand Oaks, Calif. Sage Publications, Inc., ISBN: Hofstede, G. (2001): Culture s Consequences, Sage publications, London, ISBN: Jönsson, S. (2004): Product Development Work for Premium Values, Marston Book Services, Oxfordshire, ISBN: Haak, R. (2004): Theory and Management of Collective Strategies in International Business : The Impact of Globalization on Japanese German Business Collaboration in Asia, Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN: Hall, W. (1995): Managing Cultures, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, ISBN: X Hall, E.T. (1989): Beyond Culture, Anchor Press, NewYork, ISBN: Hatami, A. (2005): Exploring the Impacts of Knowledge (Re)Use and Organizational Memory on the Effectiveness of Strategic Decisions: A Longitudinal Case Study, IGI Global, ISBN: Kvale, S. (1996): Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, ISBN: McKim, R. (1980): Experiences in visual thinking, Wadsworth, Belmont, ISBN: Peltokorpi, V. (2005): Japanese Organizational Behavior in Nordic Subsidiaries, Graduate School of International Corporate Strategy, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo Schutz, W.C. (1958): FIRO: A Three Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Relations, Holt, New York Taylor, J (2006): A survival guide for project managers, AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn, ISBN: Timm P, Farr R. (1994): Business Research: An Informal guide, Course Technology Crisp, ISBN: Tonnquist, B. (2006): Projektledning. Andra upplagan. Stockholm: Bonnier Utbildning AB. 8.4 Internet hofstede.com/ ( ) ( ) ( ) 45

54 ( ) 8.5 Other Sjöström, R. (2009) Avancerad dataanalys med SPSS, Version 7.0, Linköping University, (Laboratory guide) 46

55 9 Appendices 9.1 Appendix 1: SPSS Descriptives Power distance (PD) (1=Low, 7=High) Individualism (IND) (1=Low, 7=High) Uncertainty avoidance (UA) (1=Low, 7=High) Masculinity (MAS) (1=Low or feminine, 7=High or masculine) Long term orientation (LTO) (1=Low or short, 7=High or long) Performance orientation (PO) (1=Low, 7=High) Humane orientation (HO) (1=Low, 7=High) High Low context (HLC) (1=Low, 7=High) Descriptive Statistics N Mean Std. Deviation Variance Gender: 60 1,13,343,118 Age: 60 41,30 10, ,417 Nationality: 60,43,500,250 Tenure 60 13,03 9,597 92,101 MAS1 60 5,97 1,248 1,558 MAS2 60 3,08 1,587 2,518 MAS3 59 4,25 1,970 3,883 HLC1 60 5,80 1,273 1,620 HLC2 55 3,18 1,504 2,263 HLC3 60 5,72,993,986 PO1 59 5,95 1,395 1,946 PO2 59 5,71 1,175 1,381 PO3 56 2,93 1,450 2,104 UA1 58 5,67 1,220 1,487 UA2 60 5,70 1,212 1,468 UA3 58 4,86 1,594 2,542 IND1 60 5,42 1,453 2,112 IND2 60 6,10 1,145 1,312 IND3 58 5,03 1,426 2,034 PD1 59 4,17 1,566 2,454 PD2 60 2,58 1,608 2,586 PD3 57 4,44 1,680 2,822 LTO1 59 2,78 1,587 2,520 LTO2 60 3,43 1,741 3,029 47

56 LTO3 60 5,08 1,453 2,112 HO1 57 3,54 1,440 2,074 HO2 58 5,21 1,553 2,413 HO3 59 4,29 1,682 2,829 DM1 60 5,68 1,490 2,220 DM2 59 2,90 1,749 3,058 DM3 58 4,47 1,698 2,885 DM4 58 4,79 1,630 2,658 DM5 59 4,95 1,547 2,394 DM6 57 5,42 1,487 2,212 DM7 56 3,12 1,696 2,875 DM8 60 6,00 1,276 1,627 DM9 59 4,17 1,428 2,040 DM ,02 1,578 2,491 DM ,03 1,661 2,757 Valid N (listwise) 41 48

57 9.2 Appendix 2: SPSS ANOVA for Factors Descriptives 95% Confidence Interval Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound 95% CI - Individuality Reward German, , , , , Japanese -, , , , , Total, , , , , % CI - Uncertainty Avoidance German -, , , , , Japanese, , , , , Total, , , , , % CI - Implicit Equals German, , , , , Japanese -, , , , , Total, , , , , % CI - Humane Orientation German, , , , , Japanese -, , , , , Total, , , , , % CI - Long Term Orientation German, , , , , Japanese -, , , , , Total, , , , , Factor score 6 - Noise German -, , , , , Japanese, , , , , Total, , , , , Factor score 7 - Noise German -, , , , , Japanese, , , , , Total, , , , , Factor score 8 - Noise German, , , , , Japanese -, , , , , Total, , , , ,

58 9.3 Appendix 3: SPSS ANOVA for Decision Making Questions Descriptives 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound DM1 German 5,32 1,451,249 4,82 5,83 Japanese 6,15 1,434,281 5,57 6,73 Total 5,68 1,490,192 5,30 6,07 DM2 German 2,82 1,704,297 2,21 3,42 Japanese 3,00 1,833,359 2,26 3,74 Total 2,90 1,749,228 2,44 3,35 DM3 German 4,36 1,496,260 3,83 4,89 Japanese 4,60 1,958,392 3,79 5,41 Total 4,47 1,698,223 4,02 4,91 DM4 German 5,15 1,395,243 4,66 5,65 Japanese 4,32 1,819,364 3,57 5,07 Total 4,79 1,630,214 4,36 5,22 DM5 German 4,94 1,368,238 4,45 5,42 Japanese 4,96 1,777,349 4,24 5,68 Total 4,95 1,547,201 4,55 5,35 DM6 German 5,47 1,391,246 4,97 5,97 Japanese 5,36 1,630,326 4,69 6,03 Total 5,42 1,487,197 5,03 5,82 DM7 German 3,27 1,617,295 2,66 3,87 Japanese 2,96 1,800,353 2,23 3,69 Total 3,12 1,696,227 2,67 3,58 DM8 German 6,03 1,058,182 5,66 6,40 Japanese 5,96 1,536,301 5,34 6,58 Total 6,00 1,276,165 5,67 6,33 DM9 German 4,26 1,463,251 3,75 4,78 Japanese 4,04 1,399,280 3,46 4,62 Total 4,17 1,428,186 3,80 4,54 DM10 German 4,29 1,404,241 3,80 4,78 50

59 Japanese 3,65 1,742,342 2,95 4,36 Total 4,02 1,578,204 3,61 4,42 DM11 German 4,09 1,528,266 3,55 4,63 Japanese 3,96 1,843,362 3,22 4,71 Total 4,03 1,661,216 3,60 4,47 51

60 9.4 Appendix 4: Questionnaire Code This shows what number in the questionnaire the different questions were placed. Code Questionnaire Number UA1 4 UA2 13 UA3 29 PO1 3 PO2 8 PO3 32 PD1 6 PD2 19 PD3 27 LTO1 11 LTO2 12 LTO3 17 HO1 16 HO2 22 HO3 33 IND1 5 IND2 18 IND3 24 MAS1 1 MAS2 10 MAS3 30 HLC1 2 HLC2 9 HLC3 25 DM1 7 DM2 14 DM3 15 DM4 20 DM5 21 DM6 23 DM7 26 DM8 28 DM9 31 DM10 34 DM

61 9.5 Appendix 5: Questionnaire English Decision making survey 2009 Master Thesis, Linköping University on behalf of Mercedes-Benz Research and Development Japan Dear respondents, My name is and I am a graduate student who is doing my master thesis on behalf of Mercedes-Benz Research and Development Japan. The purpose of this questionnaire is to strengthen the cooperation between project team members of different nationalities working together in Japan and Europe by a deeper understanding of their respective decision making process. For the sake of my research and for the future benefit of project workers in Germany and Japan it would be greatly appreciated if you could fill out this questionnaire. It will take approximately 15 minutes of your time and all data will be handled confidentially. Yours faithfully, 53

62 The way things generally should be in your work organization Instructions: In this questionnaire, I am mostly interested in what you personally think the norms, values and practices should be in your organization. By organization I refer to whatever company, organization or project you are currently working in. There are no right or wrong answers, and the answers do not reflect if the organization is good or bad. Please respond to the questions by circling the number that most closely represents your opinion of how things should be. An example would be: In my organization, people should wear black shoes. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable If you feel that black shoes should be the norm in your organization, you circle 5, 6 or 7 depending on how strongly you feel so. If you do not agree with the statement, you circle 1, 2 or 3 depending on the strength of your conviction. If you have a neutral stance regarding the statement and feel that you neither agree nor disagree, you circle 4. If you do not want to answer the question or do not feel that you understand the statement or the contents thereof, you circle the X below Not applicable. As you turn the page, you will find that the questionnaire begins with some background information before continuing with questions following the format above. Please take the time to fill these in before moving on. 54

63 Background information: Age: Gender: Male Female Nationality: Company: Position within company: Number of years you have worked at your current company: Main Section 1. In my organization, personnel should strive to take initiatives. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 2. When someone says something I try to figure out what they really mean. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 3. In my organization, managers should encourage employees to strive for continuously improved performance. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 4. In my organization, orderliness and consistency should be stressed, even at the expense of experimentation and innovation. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 55

64 5. In my organization, employees should feel loyalty to the organization. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 6. People at higher levels of an organization should look after those below them. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 7. It is important for me to have proper introductions to people I don't know before I begin working with them on a project. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 8. In my organization, employees should set challenging work goals for themselves. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 9. When communicating a message to a colleague that he/she may not want to hear, what I say has one meaning on the surface and another meaning below the surface. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 10. In discussions within my organization, people should be confrontational. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 11. The future is too uncertain for my organization to be able to create long term strategic plans. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 56

65 12. In my organization, the accepted norm should be to focus on the present situation. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 13. I am uncomfortable when my manager observes the progress of my work very closely. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 14. In my organization, only people with higher authority should be able to revise or challenge decisions. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 15. In my organization there should be written down instructions on how decisions should be made. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 16. Employees in my organization should satisfy their own needs before they think about others' needs. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 17. In this organization, meetings should be scheduled well in advance. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 18. I believe that the entire team should share the blame even if one individual is responsible for the team not meeting its goals. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 57

66 19. In my organization people at lower levels should not expect to have much power. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 20. Project leaders should promote participation by project members in all decisions. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 21. Decisions should be made in meetings. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 22. Employees at my organization should be motivated primarily by a need for power and material possessions. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 23. After work activities with colleagues should not have an influence on work related decisions. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 24. Every team member should be prepared to sacrifice their own personal goals in order to achieve the goals of the team as a whole. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 25. How something is said is often more important than what has been said. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 26. In my organization, a decision should be concluded with the signing of a document and this document is not to be modified. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 58

67 27. Members of my organization should accept that people at higher levels have more privileges than those at lower levels. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 28. In my organization it should always be clear who will make the final decision. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 29. In my organization, job requirements and instructions should be written in detail so employees know what they are expected to do. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 30. In my organization, it should be important to respect the feelings of others. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 31. For a smooth decision making process the project members should have worked together for a long time. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 32. I think that personal ambition is a key ingredient to being successful on the job. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 33. Employees at my organization should regard the interests of other people to be important. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 59

68 34. In project teams, information should be documented in much detail. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 35. Decisions should be discussed to the degree that everyone agrees before it is officially decided. Strongly Strongly Not agree disagree applicable 60

69 9.6 Appendix 6: Questionnaire Japanese Appendix XX: Japanese Questionnaire 決 定 プロセスに 関 しての 調 査 Linköping 大 学 及 びメルセデス ベンツ 研 究 開 発 日 本 のためのマスター 卒 業 論 文 ご 回 答 いただける 皆 様 へ ペッター マルクラ()と 申 します 現 在 大 学 院 生 でメルセデ ス ベンツのために 卒 業 論 文 を 書 いています この 調 査 の 目 的 はドイツと 日 本 それぞれの 決 定 プロセスを 研 究 し その 結 果 をドイ ツ 人 と 日 本 人 からなるプロジェクトチームの 円 滑 な 運 営 に 生 かせるようにすること にあります ドイツと 日 本 にいるプロジェクトメンバー 及 び 私 の 研 究 のためにこの 調 査 表 にご 記 入 いただけると 幸 いです ご 記 入 には15 分 程 度 でかかります ご 記 入 いただいた 情 報 は 本 調 査 にのみ 使 用 し それ 以 外 の 目 的 には 使 用 いたしません どうぞよろしくお 願 いいたします ペッター マルクラ() 61

70 組 織 の 運 営 方 法 と 個 人 の 価 値 観 はどうあるべきだとお 考 えになりますか? あなたの 個 人 的 な 意 見 をお 聞 かせください ここでの 組 織 というのは あなたが 現 在 働 いてる 会 社 や 組 織 やプロジェクトを 意 味 します この 設 問 に 正 解 というものはありません また この 回 答 によってあなたの 所 属 し ている 組 織 が 良 いか 悪 いかを 判 定 するものではありません あなたの 意 見 をもっとも 的 確 に 表 現 している 番 号 を 選 んでください 例 : 組 織 において 従 業 員 は 黒 い 靴 をはいているべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 例 えばあなたが 所 属 している 組 織 では 従 業 員 は 黒 い 靴 を 履 いているべきだと 強 く 思 えたら7を まったくそうは 思 わなければ1を どちらでもない 場 合 はご 自 分 の 感 じ 方 に 従 って 選 択 してください 質 問 に 答 えたくない 場 合 または 質 問 の 内 容 が 分 からない 場 合 は どれも 当 てはまらない を 選 んでください 次 のページからアンケート 調 査 を 始 めます 62

71 Questionnaire (Jap Eng Combined) 年 齢 : 性 別 : 国 籍 : 会 社 名 : 役 職 名 : 勤 続 年 数 : 1. 組 織 において 自 発 的 に 仕 事 を 進 めるよう 努 めるべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 2. 人 に 何 かを 言 われたとき その 真 意 を 考 える 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 3. 組 織 は 従 業 員 が 継 続 的 に 能 力 が 向 上 するよう 助 長 するべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 4. 組 織 は 新 しい 試 みや 革 新 を 犠 牲 にしても 秩 序 と 調 和 を 重 視 するべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 5. 従 業 員 は 組 織 に 対 して 忠 誠 心 を 持 って 働 くべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 63

72 6. 上 司 は 部 下 の 健 康 や 生 活 の 状 態 に 気 を 配 るべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 7. 面 識 がない 人 とプロジェクトで 一 緒 に 働 く 場 合 始 めにきちんと 自 己 紹 介 するこ とは 重 要 だ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 8. 従 業 員 は 自 分 でやりがいのある 目 標 を 設 定 するべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 9. 同 僚 が 聞 きたくないことを 伝 える 場 合 婉 曲 的 に 言 うようにしている 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 10. 組 織 において 人 々は 対 立 的 であるべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 11. 将 来 はとても 不 確 かなので 長 期 的 な 戦 略 計 画 を 立 てることはできない 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 12. 組 織 において 用 いられる 基 準 は 現 在 に 焦 点 を 合 わせるべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 64

73 13. 上 司 に 自 分 の 仕 事 の 経 過 を 逐 一 チェックされると 落 ち 着 かない 気 分 になる 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 14. 組 織 において 決 定 事 項 に 異 議 を 唱 えられるのは より 上 の 権 限 を 持 った 人 であ るべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 15. 組 織 において どのようにして 決 定 が 行 われたか 書 かれた 指 示 書 があるべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 16. 組 織 において 従 業 員 は 他 人 のニーズを 考 える 前 に 自 分 自 身 のニーズを 満 たすべ きだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 17. 組 織 において 会 議 は 事 前 によく 準 備 されるべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 18. 目 標 を 達 成 できないとき たとえそれがある 個 人 の 責 任 であっても チームとし て 共 同 責 任 を 負 うべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 19. 組 織 において スタッフレベルの 人 間 が 決 定 できるということを 期 待 すべきで はない 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 65

74 20. プロジェクトリーダーはすべての 決 定 においてメンバーの 参 加 を 呼 びかけるべき だ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 21. プロジェクトの 中 の 決 定 は 計 画 された 会 議 で 決 めるべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 22. 従 業 員 のやる 気 は 昇 進 と 昇 給 によって 起 こさせるべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 23. 仕 事 後 の 同 僚 との 付 合 いは 仕 事 上 の 決 定 に 影 響 をもたらすべきではない 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 24. チームとしての 目 標 を 達 成 するためには 個 人 の 目 標 を 犠 牲 にすることはやむを 得 ない 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 25. 何 かを 言 う 時 には その 内 容 よりも 言 い 方 が 重 要 である 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 26. 組 織 において 決 定 は 書 類 への 署 名 を 以 って 結 ばれ その 書 類 は 変 更 不 可 能 とす るべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 66

75 27. 会 社 の 上 司 は 部 下 よりも 多 くの 特 権 を 持 つことが 期 待 できるべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 28. 組 織 において 最 終 決 定 を 誰 が 行 うかについて 明 白 であるべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 29. 組 織 において 求 人 の 際 には 詳 細 な 仕 事 内 容 が 分 かるようにするべきだ それ によってどのようなことが 従 業 員 に 期 待 されているか 理 解 できる 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 30. 組 織 において 他 の 人 の 気 持 ちを 尊 重 すべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 31. プロジェクトメンバーは 容 易 に 決 定 ができるように 長 い 期 間 仕 事 を 一 緒 にす るべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 32. 仕 事 で 成 功 するためには 個 人 的 に 大 志 を 持 つことが 鍵 となると 思 う 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 33. 従 業 員 は 他 の 人 が 大 事 にしていることに 敬 意 を 払 うべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 67

76 34. プロジェクトチームにおいて すべての 決 定 は 概 略 ではなく 細 部 まで 文 書 化 さ れるべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 35. 正 式 に 決 定 される 前 には 全 ての 人 が 同 意 できるまで 議 論 するべきだ 強 く 強 く どれも そう 思 わない そう 思 う 当 てはまらない 68