Taking another look at the elephant: Are we still (half) blind? Comments on the cross-cultural analysis of achievement motivation by Sagieet al. (1996)

Abstract

Sagie, Elizur, and Yamauchi's (1996) cross-cultural comparison of the structure and strength of achievement motivation is representative of the growing and increasingly popular line of comparative`cross-cultural-and`cross-national' research. It is not surprising, given the growing interest in cultural diversity, globalization, and other culture crossing processes, that incorporating culture as an explanatory factor in comparative studies is gradually becoming a research tradition'. Underlying it is the fundamental issue of whether work-related behavior, or modes of organizing, are`culture-free' or`culture-bound'. Exploring this issue can provide important insights and can signi®cantly contribute to our understanding of organizational processes. Therefore, endeavors to relate cultural settings to individual, group, or organizational behavior that take place within them, ought to be encouraged and applauded.Unfortunately, the vast majority of the studies that follow this tradition adopt an approach that does not discern whether or not culture is indeed a relevant explanatory factor. The most prevalent approach in this stream of research is to focus on statistical comparisons of a set of variables that were measured in samples drawn from dierent countries. Observed dierences, or lack of dierences, are then attributed to presumed cultural dierences among the samples. Yet, the direct impact of culture, or any speci®c dimension of it, is not considered. As a result, research following this approach can only point at sample dierences in the variables measured. It cannot suggest, certainly not establish, the impact of culture on the observed cross-sample dierences.In spite of continuing criticisms (Roberts, 1970;Adler, 1983;Roberts and Boyacigiller, 1984;Lachman, Nedd and Hinings, 1994;Tayeb, 1994) this approach has been widely adopted. Calling attention to the existence of national dierences is important. But, cross-cultural research ought to do more than that. It should focus on the`cultural connection': that is, investigate the direct, speci®ed eects (if any) of culture and the processes through which they are exerted. In conducting cross-cultural, comparative research without focusing on culture and its direct impact on the compared variables, we may be mimicking the six blind men of the famous fable who werè looking' at an elephantÐif I may reiterate the allegory Karlene Roberts used for this purpose as early as 1970. I wonder if we are still blindly grasping only parts of the`cultural elephant', developing a misconception of it.

Proceedings of the 1998 Multicultural Marketing Conference

“…In the fast-moving and dynamic world of business, researchers must keep pace with the growth in international business (Adler 1983a). Researchers who have identified cross-cultural research problems and recommended solutions include, among others, Herskovits (1948), Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), Triandis (1972;, , Adler (1991), NasU: et al (1991), Roberts amd Boyacigiller (1984), Adler (1983a;, Adler, Doctor, Redding (1986), Ronen (1983, Sekaran (1983), Lachman (1997), and Cavusgil and Das (1997).…”

“…Lachman (1997), Cavusgil and Das (1997), Cheng (1989), and Nasif et al (1991) provide the focus for the recommendations made in the remainder of this paper. Researchers in the past have characterized cross-cultural research as expensive, difficult, and more complex than domestic studies (Adler 1983a).…”

“…. .. » Lachman (1997) states that calling attention to the existence of national differences is important, but he also believes that true cross-cultural research should do more than that He suggests that it should focus on a <<CUltural connection», which is investigating the direct, specified effects (if any) of culture and the processes through which they are exerted (Lachman 1997). MoreoVer, he argues that conducting crosscultural, comparative research must focus on culture and its direct impact on the comparable variables.…”

“…In the section on defining culture as a variable, Lachman (1997) points out that many studies do not distinguish «culture» from «nation». He recommends and addresses the issue that researchers stop assuming homogeneity within the national boundaries.…”

“…He also states that culture has to be specific, defined, and differentiated from nation or country. Furthermore, Lachman (1997) suggested, «[Culture must] be directly measured and its effects tested; These [effects] cannot simply be assumed.» In the area of culture as a residual category, he explains that research cannot continue to use culture as the «catch-all» variable if the variables used by the researcher fail to explain the phenomena (Adler 1983a;Lachman 1997). Cultural research as an interpretation is the attempt to investigate the impact of culture on some dependent variable.…”