Values

Values refer to stable life goals that people have, reflecting what is most important to them. Values
are established throughout one’s life as a result of the accumulating life experiences and tend to be
relatively stable.[199] The values that are important to people tend to affect the types of decisions
they make, how they perceive their environment, and their actual behaviors. Moreover, people are
more likely to accept job offers when the company possesses the values people care about.[200] Value
attainment is one reason why people stay in a company, and when an organization does not help
them attain their values, they are more likely to decide to leave if they are dissatisfied with the job
itself.[201]

What are the values people care about? There are many typologies of values. One of the most
established surveys to assess individual values is the Rokeach Value Survey.[202] This survey lists 18
terminal and 18 instrumental values in alphabetical order. Terminal values refer to end states people
desire in life, such as leading a prosperous life and a world at peace. Instrumental values deal with
views on acceptable modes of conduct, such as being honest and ethical, and being ambitious.

According to Rokeach, values are arranged in hierarchical fashion. In other words, an accurate way of
assessing someone’s values is to ask them to rank the 36 values in order of importance. By comparing
these values, people develop a sense of which value can be sacrificed to achieve the other, and the
individual priority of each value emerges.

Figure 5.2. Sample Items From Rokeach (1973) Value Survey

Where do values come from? Research indicates that they are shaped early in life and show stability
over the course of a lifetime. Early family experiences are important influences over the dominant
values. People who were raised in families with low socioeconomic status and those who experienced
restrictive parenting often display conformity values when they are adults, while those who were
raised by parents who were cold toward their children would likely value and desire security.[203]

Values of a generation also change and evolve in response to the historical context that the generation
grows up in. Research comparing the values of different generations resulted in interesting findings.
For example, Generation Xers (those born between the mid-1960s and 1980s) are more individualistic
and are interested in working toward organizational goals so long as they coincide with their personal
goals. This group, compared to the baby boomers (born between the 1940s and 1960s), is also less
likely to see work as central to their life and more likely to desire a quick promotion.[2

Definition
In general, important and enduring beliefs or ideals shared by the members of
a culture about what is good or desirable and what is not. Values exert
major influence on the behavior of an individual and serve as broad guidelines in all
situations.

Types of Values

In a Lincoln-Douglas Debate you will need to be able to explain not only which values
you are defending but what type of value you are using. There are several methods to use to
categorize the values. These are the four most common categories that values are put into.

Universal Values: These are values that there is nearly unanimous agreement as to the
importance of them. These would include Sanctity of human life, Peace, and human dignity.

Instrumental Values: These are values that can be used to get something else. In other
words the value is an instrument which allows you to get some other things. Examples of these
would include Progress (which allows leisure time), Freedom (Through which we can get
dignity and/or self actualization), and Knowledge(which helps us get economic prosperity, and
progress).

Intrinsic Values: Something has intrinsic worth simply because of what it is and not
necessarily what it will lead to or because of its acceptance. Some possible examples of
intrinsic values would include beauty, artistic expression, and happiness. We value them
because they are an important aspect of life.

Prerequisite Values: These are values that are necessary before you can get to some bigger
goal. It is similar to the prerequisite course that you must take in order to get to the more
advanced course. Some good examples of this type of value include safety (which is needed
before people can even think about having anything else), Justice (which is needed before we
can move onto equality), or the common good (which must be honored if we can ever get to a
state of peace).

Paramount Values: Think of this type of value like you think of Paramount Studios with the
large mountain. It is the value which is above all other things. Some examples of this might
include freedom (which many people have given up their lives for and see as essential to a
decent life) or sanctity of life (which if we do not value or have renders everything else
worthless).

Operative Values: This type of values are the ways that we make judgements on how to live
the rest of our lives. We use these values as the overarching and guiding principles which tell
us what is always right and wrong. These are things such as Integrity, Honesty, and Loyality.

One well-known way of analyzing human culture is that of Dutch anthropologist, Geert Hofstede, who developed his
theories of cross-cultural communication through interviews with international business persons (1).

According to Hofstede, each culture must deal with questions that can be resolved according to a series of
dimensions, which results in a unique gestalt for each society, depending on the intensity of its tendency towards one
or another end of each culture dimension spectrum.

Instrumental values
Instrumental values are values which are instrumental in getting us to desired ends. They
are useful only in that they are acceptable ways of behaving. These are what we often talk
about when we discuss values -- and especially the related Morals and Ethics.
Instrumental values thus moderate how we go about setting and achieving our goals,
ensuring we do so only in ways which are socially acceptable.
Instrumental values can be viewed as having 'evolved'. Thus they are the best values we
can have to create successful societies. Values such as dishonesty and selfishness destroy
societies and, especially in an evolutionary light, are not good for the future of mankind (let
alone the groups of people with whom I interact).
Examples of instrumental values include: honesty, politeness and courage.

End-state values
End-state values are things we actually value. This is where 'values' and 'value' meet, as
we seek and value end-state values. They are the destination, whilst instrumental values
control the journey there.
Examples of end-state values include: happiness, salvation and prosperity.

The Five Dimensions

Individualism/Collectivism: the point here is whether people see themselves at a very deep level as part of a group,
or as a single, independent actor. Hofstede emphasizes that the groups are “natural” ones, such as family or clan, not
just any group that one happens across. Also, it is important to realize that the dimension does not indicate that some
people “like” to be in groups. It is a question of human self-identity.

Uncertainty Avoidance: (Note that the dimensions are not given in any particular order, they work together to describe
a culture.) In some cultures, people prefer to have everything spelled out in detail so there will be few, if any
surprises. In cultures where Uncertainty Avoidance is low, people have more relaxed expectations and are not
anxious when some factors of a situation are unknown.

Power Distance: hierarchy is a feature of most human life, but in some cultures, the relative gap between high and
low is wider, making for a society in which people respect the powerful, and there is lower expectation of movement
between classes, castes, or levels. In cultures where Power Distance is low, people tend to expect that those in
power will have earned it, rather than simply gaining power by virtue of position.

Aggressiveness: within this system, there is a gender gap, and women’s values are said to be more similar across
cultures. Women are said to value gentleness and consensus seeking, and in cultures with a low Aggressiveness
dimension, men also share these values. However, other cultures have more distinctive values for men: competition,
assertiveness and “looking out for Number One.” In such cultures, the values of women also move somewhat
towards the Aggressiveness end of the spectrum, although not as much as men’s do.

Long Term/Short Term Orientation: long-term planning, thrift, and industriousness are valued in cultures with Long
Term orientation, whereas living for the day, celebration, and concerns like “saving face” are more important in those
with Short Term orientation. The Long Term end of the continuum is associated with what are sometimes called
Confucian values, although cultures not historically connected with this influence can also have a Long Term
orientation.

Useful Rules for Crossing Cultures

These five dimensions, taken together, can give important insights for someone wishing to enter a new culture for
business, study, or other purposes. It is important to resist the temptation of stereotyping, because these dimensions
are tendencies not static descriptions of people’s behavior. They can be taken to predict actions of groups, societies,
or nations, but provide little help in predicting the behavior of individuals.

Hofstede’s Five Dimensions theory has been criticized on the grounds of being too static (2), or of being based on a
weak theoretical foundation (3), but it is a well-known framework for cross-cultural dialogue. It will more than repay
careful study, and international business persons and others will find it widely used (and misused) all over the world.

Gerard Hendrik Hofstede (born 3 October 1928, Haarlem) is an influential Dutch organizational

sociologist, who studied the interactions between national cultures and organizational cultures. He is also
an author of several books including Culture's Consequences[1] and Cultures and Organizations, Software
of the Mind, co-authored with his son Gert Jan Hofstede.[2] Hofstede's study demonstrated that there are
national and regional cultural groupings that affect the behaviour of societies and organizations, and that
these are persistent across time
Hofstede's Framework for Assessing Culture
Hofstede has found five dimensions of culture in his study of national work related values. Replication
studies have yielded similar results, pointing to stability of the dimensions across time. The dimensions
are:

 Small vs. large power distance

How much the less powerful members of institutions and organizations expect and accept that
power is distributed unequally. In cultures with small power distance
(e.g. Australia, Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand), people expect and accept power
relations that are more consultative or democratic. People relate to one another more as equals
regardless of formal positions. Subordinates are more comfortable with and demand the right to
contribute to and critique the decisions of those in power. In cultures with large power distance
(e.g. Malaysia), the less powerful accept power relations that are autocratic or paternalistic.
Subordinates acknowledge the power of others based on their formal, hierarchical positions.
Thus, Small vs. Large Power Distance does not measure or attempt to measure a culture's
objective, "real" power distribution, but rather the way people perceive power differences.

 Individualism vs. collectivism

How much members of the culture define themselves apart from their group memberships.
In individualist cultures, people are expected to develop and display their individual personalities
and to choose their own affiliations. In collectivist cultures, people are defined and act mostly as a
member of a long-term group, such as the family, a religious group, an age cohort, a town, or a
profession, among others. This dimension was found to move towards the individualist end of the
spectrum with increasing national wealth.

 Masculinity vs. femininity

The value placed on traditionally male or female values (as understood in most Western
cultures). In so-called 'masculine' cultures, people (whether male or female)
value competitiveness, assertiveness, ambition, and the accumulation of wealth and material
possessions. In so-called 'feminine' cultures, people (again whether male or female)
value relationships and quality of life. This dimension is often renamed by users of Hofstede's
work, e.g. to Quantity of Life vs. Quality of Life. Another reading of the same dimension holds that
in 'M' cultures, the differences between gender roles are more dramatic and less fluid than in 'F'
cultures; but this strongly depends on other dimensions as well.

 Weak vs. strong uncertainty avoidance

 How much members of a society are anxious about the unknown, and as a consequence, attempt
to cope with anxiety by minimizing uncertainty. In cultures with strong uncertainty avoidance,
people prefer explicit rules (e.g. about religion and food) and formally structured activities, and
employees tend to remain longer with their present employer. In cultures with weak uncertainty
avoidance, people prefer implicit or flexible rules or guidelines and informal activities. Employees
tend to change employers more frequently.

Michael Harris Bond and his collaborators subsequently found a fifth dimension which was initially called
Confucian dynamism. Hofstede later incorporated this into his framework as:

 Long vs. short term orientation

A society's "time horizon," or the importance attached to the future versus the past and present.
In long term oriented societies, people value actions and attitudes that affect the future:
persistence/perseverance, thrift, and shame. In short term oriented societies, people value
actions and attitudes that are affected by the past or the present: normative statements,
immediate stability, protecting one's own face, respect for tradition, and reciprocation of
greetings, favors, and gifts.

These cultural differences describe averages or tendencies and not characteristics of individuals. A
Japanese person for example can have a very low 'uncertainty avoidance' compared to a Filipino person
even though their 'national' cultures point strongly in a different direction. Consequently, a country's
scores should not be interpreted as deterministic.

[edit]Criticism of the Framework

Hofstede's conceptualization of culture as static and essential has attracted some criticism. In a recent
article in the Academy of Management's flagship journal, The Academy of Management Review, Galit
Ailon deconstructs Hofstede's book Culture's Consequences by mirroring it against its own assumptions
and logic[3]. Ailon finds several inconsistencies at the level of both theory and methodology and cautions
against an uncritical reading of Hofstede's cultural dimensions.

Hofstede's work has also been criticized by researchers who think that he identifies cultures with nations
based on the supposition that within each nation there is a uniform national culture, a suggestion explicitly
denied by Hofstede himself in chapter 1 of 'Cultures and Organizations'. According to Hofstede, the point
about culture is precisely its resilience to change in spite of all this flux. [4]
Individualism versus collectivism
Individualism and the collectivism is the two commonly mentioned across-cultural value. The individualism
is the extent to which a person values independence and personal uniqueness, while the collectivism is
extent to which people value duty to groups to which they belong and to group harmony Individualism and
collectivism are cultural traits that describe the common attitude toward the individual as compared to the
group (Kim & Hakkoe, 1994). For example a canonical comparison of individualism and collectivism on
the cultural scale are the United States, which ranks as a highly individualist society, and Japan, which
ranks as a highly collectivist society.

Individualism is more focus on the personals goal, hard work and individual achievement purpose rather
than the groups. Some said that Individualism has a controversial relationship with egoism (selfishness).
For example, the Singaporean are likely to be said is very highly individualism which the employees will
always fight for the benefit by themselves and they are very egoism intense of sharing skill or knowledge
among themselves because want to protect their career.

For info, I had the experience which my friend who are very highly individualism. This person is very self-
sufficiency and very personal freedom where he is very independence when doing their assignment alone
and didn’t need their friend help. Mean that this person is very high individualism because he don’t like
doing the assignment in the group because he want to keep their work in personally with he ability. Some
time he gets the low score in their assignment is because the assignments sometime need a group
discussion to do better than individual. 

In contrast, collectivism is focus on strong association to groups including family and work units. For
example, blame for making bad decision is share among group members.
Beside that, I had a experience in this collectivism value where my best friend invite me playing futsal with
other friend and during the match our team have a some misleading in the pointed and make the situation
come worse and hopefully my friend are able to control the situation to be comedown. So in the case, my
friend is very caring with us during the match and asks the result our team wins the match in excited.

Power Distance
The power distance is a degree to which a society expects there to be differences in the levels of power.
A high score suggests that there is an expectation that some individuals with larger amounts of power
than others. A low score reflects the view that all people should have equal rights. Power distance is
importance and it considers very high values in the Asian countries including in Malaysia.

For example, New Zealand and Denmark expect and accept power relations that are more consultative or
democratic. People relate to one another more as equals regardless of formal positions. Subordinates are
more comfortable with and demand the right to contribute to and critique the decision making of those in
power. In large power distance countries, Malaysia is less powerful accepts power relations that are more
autocratic and paternalistic. Subordinates acknowledge the power of others simply based on where they
are situated in certain formal, hierarchical positions. As such the Power Distance Index Hofstede defines
does not reflect an objective difference in power distribution but rather the way people perceive power
differences. (Geert hofstede 2001)

Achievement versus nurturing

Achievement-nurturing orientation reflects a competitive versus cooperation view of relations with other
people. People with high achievement orientation value assertiveness, competitiveness, and materialism.
They appreciate people who are tough and favor the acquisition of money and the material goods. In
contrast, people in nurturing oriented cultures emphasize relationships and the well being of others. They
focus on human interaction and caring rather than competition and personal success.

1. INTRODUCTION
Understanding the relationship between culture and academic dishonesty has many advantages for universities
worldwide. Academic dishonesty includes various activities of collegiate cheating from wrongfully getting
information by looking at a neighbor's test to plagiarizing information in a term paper (Rawwas, Al-Khatib, and
Vitell 2004). Hofstede (1991, p. 5) defines culture as "the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes
the members of one group or category of people from another." Christie et al. (2003) found that culture has a strong
influence on individuals' ethical attitudes. This study develops the theoretical foundations and literature review to
examine the relationship between Hofstede's four dimensions of culture (i.e., collectivism/individualism,
masculinity/femininity, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance), and the four dimensions of Rawwas and
Isakson's (2000) attitudes toward academic dishonesty model (i.e., receiving and abetting academic dishonesty,
obtaining an unfair advantage, fabricating information, and ignoring prevalent practices).

Cross-cultural research has demonstrated contradictory and mixed results in comparing the moral values of
individuals from different countries. These contradictions in past research may stem from the fact that many
researchers did not operationalize the construct of culture. Rather, they used "country" as a surrogate for culture.
Consequently, it is difficult to determine whether differences in ethics across cultures are indeed due to culture or
whether they are due to other factors. Kirkman, Lowe, and Gibson (2006) in their review of 180 studies stated that
researchers tend to depend on Hofstede's (1980) country scores instead of directly measuring cultural values. The
current study partially fills this gap in research by operationalizing the culture construct using Hofstede's framework.
This study fills another gap by studying the relationship between Hofstede's four dimensions of culture and
academic dishonesty. Much of past research has focused on studying the individualism-collectivism dichotomy and
has ignored the other dimensions of Hofstede's cultural framework (Kirkman, Lowe, and Gibson 2006).

In summary, this study has three objectives. First, it lays the theoretical foundation to explore the cultural
orientations of MBA students along the four dimensions of Hofstede's (1980) model. Second, it lays the theoretical
foundation and proposes a methodology to study the academic dishonesty of MBA students along the four
dimensions of Rawwas and Isakson's (2000) model. Third, this study discusses the theory needed to explore the
relationship between culture and academic dishonesty.