A Comparison of Group Decision-Making Systems in Japan, China, Hong
Kong, and Vietnam
- Agent, Strategy, and Population of Agents Abstract
This paper elucidates the distinguishing features of group decision making in business-gaming
simulation experiments in Japan, China, Hong Kong, and Vietnam. The subjects of the gaming
simulation experiment were master’s degree program students in these countries, and most were
also employed at companies. Our data come from two approaches to the quantitative analysis of the
game outcomes and survey results. To elucidate the group decision-making systems of each country,
we attempted comparison of groups categorized by agent, strategy, and population of agents,
employing a framework of complex adaptive systems. We employed Hofstede’s cultural dimensions
framework for analyzing agents. Finally we pictured four countries group decision making systems
comparison.
Introduction
Today, international alliances and co-working opportunities are increasing rapidly in Asian regions. In Japan,
many “domestic” companies are obliged to travel across Asia to find new markets and/or manufacturing facilities, as
shown in Figure 1. When these companies partner with local companies, there are always differences in business
operations, and, in particular, in the way decisions are made; thus, some companies experience difficulties in making
decisions in conjunction with business partners from other countries. It is not easy to observe and compare methods
of group decision making between different countries. However, if business leaders are able to understand these
differences beforehand, they may be able to cooperate more smoothly with partners from other Asian countries and
build a more competitive organization.
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
FY2001FY2002FY2003FY2004FY2005FY2006FY2007FY2008FY2009FY2010
Figure 1 The number of Japanese local subsidies in Asia
adapted from “the 41st Survey on Overseas Business Activities”
Copyright 2012 by Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry Japan
Our research question in this paper was whether the mechanisms of corporate group decision making differ by
country, and, if so, what causes such differences. There has been much research on cross-national business
operations (Child 2006). In previous studies, it has been difficult to find consistency in comparisons of different
countries’ decision making across theoretical boundaries. For example, Lewis (2006) offered a large international
comparison of business culture research, as shown in Table 1. Although the work is interesting and informative,
these results are based primarily on the author’s business experience, and we found little consistency in research
methods. In this paper, we mainly focused on two theories. One was economic theory, which is not sensitive to
particular nations or regions but refers instead to universal rationales. To elucidate the difference between countries,
we conducted the same business game with MBA/master students in four countries and compared those results. The
other theory we focused on was cultural theory (Hofstede 1991; Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov 2010). We asked
cultural questions before the game started and compared the results by countries.
Table 1 Empirical comparison of decision making of four countries (Lewis 2006)
Countries
Japan
Factors with regards to meeting and decision making
 They normally negotiate in teams, each member of which has a different specialty.
 Their questions constitute an information-gathering process only. They are not about to make a decision
based on your answers.
 Their decisions will eventually be made by consensus; therefore, no person will stick out as an individual.
 They are willing to go over the same information many times to avoid later misunderstandings and achieve
clarity.
 They are cautious and skilled in stalling tactics and will not be rushed.
China




Hong Kong
Vietnam








Remember that power distance is large and that inequalities are expected and desired.
The meeting is principally for information gathering; the real decisions will be made elsewhere.
In a collectivist culture, accountability for decisions is avoided in many meetings. Authority is not passed
downward from the leaders.
Decisions have a long-term orientation. Negotiations in China are important social occasions during which
one fosters relationships and decides if the people on the other side of the table are suitable partners for the
long run.
They negotiate briskly and factually to achieve quick results.
They show perspicacity and clear-sightedness when asking questions.
Take risks and show them how to make money.
They want only facts, hardly any preambles, and no “padding.”
Collective leadership according to Confucian tenets has been the traditional model.
As a group-oriented society, they are used to living and working in close proximity to each other.
Although basically courteous, they are often willing to use counter-arguments.
Decision making is by consensus.
This paper is an attempt to synthesize these two theories to address group decision making in each country as a
single system. In the experiments, groups considered and decided on decision-making variables (i.e., prices,
advertising and promotional costs, research and development costs, production volume, investment in plant
expansion, and borrowing of funds) with certain restrictions (i.e., time to make a decision and fixed team
membership and roles), toward an explicit objective (maximization of accumulated profit). In this paper, we decided
to employ the complex adaptive systems of Axelrod and Cohen (2000) for the structural analysis of the above
conditions. Complex adaptive systems constitute domains approximating systems based on the multiple academic
domains of evolutionary biology, computer science, and social design. Axelrod and Cohen (2000) describe the
advantages of such a system as bridging the gap that often separates humanistic and hard science approaches to
social analysis. We tried to synthesize the economic decision making of the business game with the cultural way of
thinking of each country’s students and how they worked as a team. Thus, in the experiments described in this paper,
we collected data from a different framework, incorporating agent, strategy, and population of agents as well as
traditional business culture and organization theory. We also decided to analyze group decision making in each
country as a system on the basis of the interactions between agent, strategy, and population of agents.
Method
Outline of the Experiments
The four experiments were conducted locally with students at business schools in Japan, China, Hong Kong, and
Vietnam. The outline of the business-game experiments discussed in this paper is shown in Table 2. Subjects
participated for learning purposes, as a part of graduate-school classes or preparatory courses, without knowing the
purpose of the experiment. The business game used in the experiment was the MBABEST21 system (Iwai,
Horiuchi, Oshima, and Morita 2010), with a scenario in which each participating team played the role of a
manufacturer producing and selling a tablet PC product like the iPad2 or Blu-Ray disc player in a single market. The
winning team, the one that achieved the largest cumulative profit at the end of the game, received a prize. Instructors
from each country formed the teams in advance, grouping subjects into teams of four or five members each. Each
team was given a personal computer for input use, and the instructor informed subjects of the rules and of the fact
that the best-performing team would receive a prize. Subject teams held tactical meetings for approximately 15
minutes each to decide on a company name, a mission statement, and roles within the team (i.e., president, finance
officer, marketing director, production manager, R&D manager). After this meeting, they filled out a questionnaire
on cultural dimensions (see Appendix 1). Following a practice round of the game, a new round of game input and
output was conducted from period one to period four, although we did not tell subjects clearly about the number of
periods in advance. At every period of the game, each team decided on input variables through meetings of roughly
20 minutes, while looking at the overall rankings and their own companies’ financial statements. After completion
of the fourth period, the game finished and debriefing was conducted. The subjects answered questionnaires on the
group decision making of their own teams immediately after the game (see Appendix 2). The process concluded
with the announcement of the winning teams.
Table 2 Outline of the experiment using a business game
Japan
China
Experiment location
Tokyo
Shengyang
Subjects
New MBA students
New MBA students
Number of subjects
99
45
Game scenario
Manufacture and sale of a tablet PC
product similar to the iPad 2
Vietnam
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Master’s course
students (2nd year)
26
Hanoi
Master’s course
students (2nd year)
23
Same as Japan
Same as Japan
Manufacture and sales
of an HD player or a
Blu-Ray player*
3.5 hours
3.5 hours
3 hours
5 hours
2 (1 practice trial, 1 actual trial)
Same as Japan
Same as Japan
Same as Japan
24
14
6
6
4 or 5
Same as Japan
Same as Japan
Same as Japan
Input variables
Price, marketing, R&D, production
volume, capital investment, borrowing
Same as Japan
Same as Japan
Same as Japan
Game target
variable
Maximizing cumulative profit
Same as Japan
Same as Japan
Same as Japan
Required
experiment time
Number of trials
Number of
competing teams
Students per team
* The scenario differed in Vietnam game at the local adviser’s request. However, the structure and parameters are exactly the same as those of
the other countries’ games.
Framework of Analysis
In accordance with the complex adaptive system, we introduce the concepts of agent, strategy (and measure of
success), and population of agents as the framework for comparative analysis of group decision making. Axelrod
and Cohen (2000) defined each of these concepts as follows: “An agent has the ability to interact with its
environment, including other agents. An agent can respond to what happens around it and can do things more or less
purposefully.” “Strategy is the way an agent responds to its surroundings and pursues its goal … Human agents have
some awareness of their own strategies, and they may be able to observe something about how well they are doing
according to some measure of success.” “Populations are important in three ways: as a source of possibilities to
learn from, as recipients for a new found improvement, and as a part of your environment.” Furthermore, they wrote
a summary of how the parts of the framework form a working whole as follows: “Agents, of a variety of types, use
their strategies, in patterned interaction, with each other … Performance measures on the resulting events drive the
selection of agents and/or strategies … thus changing the frequencies of the types within the system.”
Using the concepts above, in this study, we defined agent, strategies (and measure of success), and population of
agents as described below:
- Agent: Subjects from Japan, China, Hong Kong, and Vietnam, respectively. The distinguishing features of each
were measured immediately prior to the game using a total of 19 dual-method questions on cultural dimensions.
- Strategy: Decision making on variables, conducted by each team, measured by the input values for each variable
and the team’s ranking. Here, ranking is defined as a measure of success, maximizing cumulative profit. It is
measured using the total ranking report for each quarter as the game progresses.
- Population of agents: This refers to the team itself, made up, in principle, of four or five subjects. It is measured
using questionnaires on group decision making immediately after the game.
Results
Comparison among Countries: Agents
Table 3 shows a breakdown of agents. The Japanese agents had been in service for a relatively long time. On the
other hand, the Vietnamese were young workers with relatively few service years. There was also a difference in
male-female ratios. These results reflect the situations of MBA/master students in each country. Thus, this paper
focuses on the worker who would be the manager in each country.
Table 3 Subjects’ profile working experience
Female
Male
Total
Japan
China
Hong Kong
Vietnam
Mean
9.0
5.8
6.6
4.7
SD
6.7
3.6
3.4
4.2
N
27
27
9
12
Mean
9.8
7.4
9.9
6.2
SD
6.3
2.7
6.5
3.5
N
71
18
13
11
Mean
9.6
6.4
8.7
5.4
SD
N
6.4
98
3.4
45
5.4
24
3.9
23
We attempted comparison in our analysis of agents, taking into consideration the cultural aspects of each country
using the yardstick of cultural dimensions (Hofstede 1991, Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov 2010), that is, the four
cultural dimensions of power distance, individualism and collectivism, masculinity and femininity, and uncertainty
avoidance. As a model synthesizing the macro environment of policy, economics, and society at a national level and
the micro behavioral norms of the values possessed by the people of each country, cultural dimensions provide a
measure for use in international comparison. Hofstede (1991) argued that these indicators differ by country and
gender. Hofstede, Pedersen, and Hofstede (2002) also proposed a method of using gaming simulation to encourage
mutual understanding of these cultural differences.
In our experiments, immediately prior to the start of the game, we asked all subjects 19 questions concerning the
four cultural dimensions using a dual method. We used dual-method questions because when asking questions on a
semantic differential scale, interpretations are not necessarily identical in different countries, leading to the
possibility of loss of reliability in analyses, such as comparison using average values (Usunier & Lee 2009). After
first translating an English-language questionnaire into Japanese, Chinese, and Vietnamese, we asked for the
instructors from each country to check and correct the translation and used the result as the final version. Appendix 1
shows the before-game questionnaire on cultural dimensions.
We conducted factor analysis on the response results to the questionnaire corresponding to Hofstede’s four
dimensions (power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance), and we identified six factors. Table
4 shows the factor loadings for each question.
Table 4 Factor loadings of agents’ cultural dimensions
Factor loadings (After promax rotation)
BQ1 PDI
BQ2 PDI
BQ3 PDI
BQ4 PDI
BQ5 PDI
BQ6 IDV
BQ7 IDV
BQ8 IDV
BQ9 IDV
BQ10 IDV
BQ11 MAS
BQ12 MAS
BQ13 MAS
BQ14 MAS
BQ15 UAI
BQ16 UAI
BQ17 UAI
BQ18 UAI
BQ19 UAI
Ambiguity
lover (FC1)
Top-down
decision lover
(FC2)
Meritocracy lover
(FC3)
Leadership lover
(FC4)
Live to work
(FC5)
Priority of given
role (FC6)
-0.180
-0.035
-0.314
-0.145
0.047
-0.064
-0.413
0.125
0.017
0.160
0.201
-0.048
0.190
0.096
0.379
0.242
-0.715
0.190
0.746
0.048
0.008
0.121
0.062
0.020
0.086
0.356
0.177
-0.027
0.015
-0.073
-0.074
-0.019
1.039
-0.039
-0.034
-0.063
-0.011
0.107
0.156
-0.026
0.316
0.091
0.064
0.005
0.001
0.082
0.735
0.071
-0.078
0.460
0.048
-0.060
0.357
0.243
0.094
0.007
0.045
0.006
1.015
-0.078
-0.081
-0.080
0.117
-0.062
0.072
0.043
0.063
-0.037
-0.076
-0.056
0.020
0.037
0.088
-0.011
-0.105
-0.109
0.234
-0.035
-0.140
0.225
-0.274
0.088
-0.105
0.163
0.153
-0.197
-0.081
-0.044
0.673
0.015
0.093
-0.330
-0.137
0.068
-0.168
0.034
-0.004
-0.111
0.037
0.150
0.542
0.090
-0.352
0.013
-0.001
0.277
-0.112
-0.084
-0.107
0.074
-0.117
0.115
-0.007
0.189
The six factors we identified are as follows: “Ambiguity lover,” “Top-down decision lover,” “Meritocracy lover,”
“Leadership lover,” “Lives to work,” and “Priority on given role.” Figure 2 shows the mean of each factor by
country.
Figure 2 Cultural aspects of the four countries
China does not resemble Japan on any factor at all. The Chinese prefer that things be clear whereas the Japanese
particularly prefer ambiguity. In addition, the Chinese also prefer and expect managers to be decisive and assertive,
whereas the Japanese prefer that their managers use intuition and strive for consensus. However, Japanese managers
are also required to show leadership. Thus, in Japan, the boss who demonstrates leadership while considering the
opinions of subordinates is preferred. In addition, the Japanese attach greater importance to the human relations
within an organization than to a given role. Hong Kong and China were similar on each factor.
Vietnam is similar in some respects to Japan. The Vietnamese prefer ambiguity, meritocracy, and the boss’s
leadership. However, the difference is that the Vietnamese prefer top-down decision making with the subordinates
faithfully playing a role against the boss’s decision.
Comparison among Countries: Strategy
Next, we compare the countries’ strategies. In this business game, maximization of cumulative profit is the
measure of success. Before the game, the following expression was explained to the subjects from each country:
Profit = Revenue (price × units sold) – Cost (cost of goods sold + R&D + marketing + depreciation + interests)
Although participating teams employed multiple strategies within this framework, the variables they could
manipulate directly were price, quantity of production, marketing, R&D, capital investment, and borrowing. In this
business-game experiment, participants were able to get a general feel for the relationship between these variables
and profit in the practice round, that is, the relationship between strategy and measurement of success. We focused
first on which variables were manipulated by each team, and how, during the initial input in the actual round. We
attempted comparison of the differences among the countries’ strategies using teams’ tendencies in deciding on
initial variables.
Figure 3 shows a comparison by country of the degree to which the initial team decision-making input variables
varied from the default values. The Japanese teams’ strategy sought to differentiate products by quality, with a
somewhat low value for price, a very high degree of importance assigned to R&D, and some importance given to
marketing and capital investment. The Chinese teams’ strategy had a somewhat higher value for price but relatively
low values for marketing, R&D, and capital investment, seeking to secure profit by cutting costs. The strategy of the
Hong Kong teams ascribed importance to marketing and capital investment. The strategy of the Vietnamese teams
was low direct cost, that is, they tended to keep prices and manufacturing costs low.
Figure 3 The first quarter (Period 1) input variables by countries
Figure 4 The final quarter (period 4) input variables by countries
Changes in each country’s strategy can be seen from changes in the ranking of each team as well. As shown in
Table 5, a look at correlations of rank between the first (period 1) and the final (period 4) net income shows that
China had the highest level, Japan a medium level, and Hong Kong the lowest level. In other words, for China, once
a strategy was determined, it was rare for teams to make changes in accordance with changes in conditions;
therefore, changes in rank were rare as well. At the same time, Hong Kong’s teams were relatively bold in terms of
changing strategy, and as a result, the changes in rank were larger. The ranking of Vietnam’s team changed
dramatically—higher-ranked teams slipped lower and vice versa; however, most of the Vietnamese teams
maintained the low-price/low-cost strategy. It should be noted, however, that both Vietnam and Hong Kong had a
smaller number of teams, only six each.
Table 5 Correlations of rank between the first period and cumulative profit
Rank correlation
Number of teams
Japan
.52
**
24
China
.79
**
14
Hong Kong
.37
6
Vietnam
-.77
6
Note: Spearman’s rank correlation between cumulative net income of period 1 and 4. ** p < .01
Comparison among Countries: Population of Agents
The comparison of agent population was conducted using the answers to a group decision-making questionnaire
administered immediately after conducting the experiment in each country; the after-game questionnaire is shown in
Appendix 2. When we conducted a factor analysis with regard to the mean of data of the above questionnaire by
team, the results focused on the following three factors from Table 6. We then depicted the relationship between
each factor score in a scatter diagram (Japan: J, China: C, Hong Kong: H, Vietnam: V).
Factor 1: Consistency of given role
Factor 2: Cooperation in a team
Factor 3: Emergent property
Table 6 Factor loadings of the features of the population of agents’ group decision making
Factor loadings (After promax rotation)
AQ1
AQ2
AQ3
AQ4
AQ5
AQ6
AQ7
AQ8
My Cooperation
My role
Other member’s cooperation
Other member’s role
Conflict
Consensus
Democracy
Emergent property
Consistency of given role
(FC1)
Cooperation in a team (FC2)
Emergent property (FC3)
0.259
0.682
-0.115
0.970
0.494
0.127
-0.040
-0.046
0.214
0.024
1.048
0.044
-0.136
0.490
0.465
-0.049
0.197
-0.004
-0.030
-0.040
-0.033
0.102
-0.109
1.008
A look at the relationship between consistency of given role and avoidance of conflict among the teams, as shown
in Table 7 and Figure 5, reveals that although many Vietnamese and Chinese teams complied with their assigned
roles, the Japanese and Hong Kong teams conducted decision making without much concern for their given roles.
The Hong Kong teams scored as preferring to make decisions by group consensus and their decision-making
process tended to be democratic; in the actual game, decision making was by consensus. The Japanese and Chinese
teams showed variation by team in this tendency, with the Chinese teams in particular showing the largest variation
among the four countries between teams. In the case of learning and creativity as well, many Hong Kong and
Vietnamese teams answered in the affirmative; however, comparison among Japanese and Chinese teams shows
variation in this tendency, with Chinese teams in particular showing the largest between-team variation among the
four countries, as shown in Figure 6.
Table 7 Mean and standard deviation of factor scores of decision-making questionnaire by countries
Consistency of given role
(FC1)
Mean
SD
Cooperation in a team
(FC2)
Emergent property
(FC3)
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Japan
-0.367
0.784
-0.310
1.084
-0.007
0.848
China
0.476
1.111
0.172
1.079
-0.439
1.190
Hong Kong
-0.394
0.887
0.311
0.615
0.558
0.628
Vietnam
0.750
0.841
0.526
0.434
0.493
1.117
Country
Figure 5 Consistency of given role and cooperation in a team
Figure 6 Cooperation in a team and learning and creativity in a team
Discussion
Through the preceding sections, we conducted comparative analysis among four countries based on the data
obtained from an experiment. In this section, we will synthesize the knowledge attained from this analysis and
analyze the distinctive features of group decision-making systems in each of the four countries, treating each of the
countries as a system.
Table 8 identifies some characteristic results from the analysis conducted through the preceding sections. We will
attempt to depict the group decision-making systems of the four countries using this table.
Japan’s Group Decision-Making System
The Japanese agents preferred a flat organization, ambiguity and consensus within an organization, and
emphasize the human relationship. They also demanded performance-based compensation. Discussions took place
in groups without giving much attention to assigned roles; however, there was a strong tendency to avoid uncertainty.
Furthermore, a characteristic response was that interpersonal relations and consensus were important. This can be
interpreted as avoidance of people whose opinions stand out or behavior that stands out.
In strategy, R&D costs and marketing costs were seen to be important, with product differentiation being a main
competitive strategy. Furthermore, as the game progressed, R&D costs were reduced and marketing costs increased
in order to maximize cumulative profit. In other words, non-price-based competition was employed. In this sense,
Japan’s group decision-making system can be said to be one of non-price-based competition more than cost
competition, and, as seen in the table above, R&D was given importance within this system (R&D focus). Since
agents disliked taking risks, even within non-price-based competition, they sought to develop products that could
overwhelm the competition by giving more importance to R&D than to marketing activities.
A look at the agent populations shows that this system was relatively homogeneous, with small variations among
teams in terms of satisfaction with group decision making. In the end, more often than collaborative decision
making within the group, decision making was conducted on the basis of the judgment of a capable person who
listened, to some extent, to the opinions of those around him or her. In addition, although this system was easier to
control because it made it easier to share information with other team members, it also is one in which it was
difficult to gather collective intelligence. System management by a conciliatory leader was preferred in order to
gather agents tending toward collectivism and uncertainty avoidance. Although traditionally such
consensus-building leaders have been said to be characteristic of Japanese-style management, the time in which a
leader needed only to build consensus among the views of agents has passed. Instead of simply building consensus,
the leader needs to demonstrate strong leadership in a way that does not stand out. This is why we have used the
term “conciliatory.” Figure 7 diagrams the Japanese group decision-making system from the information above.
Population of Agents
Management by a conciliatory leader
Strategy
R&D focus
Agent
Ambiguity lover
Low power distance
Figure 7 Group decision-making system: Japan
China’s Group Decision-Making System
The China agents dislike ambiguity and prefer the boss’s clear-cut judgment. They attach a higher value to
evaluation within the organization than to the individual’s ability. Although the Chinese agents had high tolerance
for uncertainty, they rarely performed jobs other than their own. A tendency toward making leaders’ positions clear
and managing subordinates as a group is seen in the characteristic responses. Another tendency that became
apparent is reliably performing jobs within the scope assigned but not doing any unnecessary work. From these
results, it can be said that agents had behavioral properties that made it easy to adapt to a hierarchical organization.
Here, we will call this an organizational membership orientation.
A characteristic of the Chinese teams’ strategy was a general orientation toward low costs, with lower than the
base values for R&D, marketing, and capital investment (cost strategy). In decision making as well, each variable
diverged little from the pre-identified base values, and the rate of strategic changes from the first to the last period
was low as well. For this reason, there were few changes in rank, and strategy decisions appear to have been made
from a long-term perspective (strategic stability).
Among the agents, the opinions of subordinates were listened to; this was done solely to increase the quality of
decision making by the top leaders, and not to make decisions democratically. Here, we will refer to this as
management by leaders with exclusive authority. For this reason, the individuality and ability of the team leader
affected team performance. Variation in terms of satisfaction was quite large between teams with frequent internal
conflicts of opinion and those with few such conflicts. Under this system, the risk of great success or massive failure
depending on team membership was larger than in other countries, and results show considerable variation among
teams. Further, since management was conducted by leaders with exclusive authority, another apparent
characteristic was strategic stability, in which once a policy (strategy) was determined, it did not change, even as the
game progressed. Figure 8 diagrams the Chinese group decision-making system from the information above.
Population of Agents
Management by a leader with
exclusive authority
Strategy
Cost strategy, strategic stability
Agent
Dislike ambiguity,
Organizational membership
orientation
Figure 8 Group decision-making system: China
Hong Kong’s Group Decision-Making System
The Hong Kong agents demanded work rules and performance-based compensation without doing unnecessary
work. Similar to Chinese, they dislike ambiguity and attach a higher value to evaluation within the organization than
to the individual’s ability.
While these agents gave importance to marketing costs and expanding plant size (marketing focus), strategy was
more flexible than in other countries, with initial strategies changing in accordance with the circumstances (strategic
flexibility).The strategy may also have had a relatively short-term perspective.
The population of agents showed a relatively high degree of emergence within the team (high emergence), so that
collective intelligence and learning effects could be expected from group decision making. As in the case of China,
tolerance for uncertainty was high, but unlike the Chinese teams, the Hong Kong teams conducted flexible decision
making in response to uncertainty. In addition, this system was homogeneous, with relatively small variation among
teams in their satisfaction with group decision making. The decision-making members consulted with each other
without giving much importance to their assigned roles. They gave priority to smooth interpersonal relations, and
teams that employed democratic decision making tended to rise to the top ranks (management through democratic
leadership). Figure 9 diagrams the Hong Kong group decision-making system from the information above.
Population of Agents
High emergent properties, management
by a democratic leader
Strategy
Marketing focus, strategic flexibility
Agent
Dislike ambiguity,
Prefer evaluation in organization
Figure 9 Group decision-making system: Hong Kong
Vietnam’s Group Decision-Making System
Generally speaking, the Vietnamese agents rigorously performed their roles, which were assigned in the game,
and many Vietnamese agents believed that jobs were more important than human relations. This point is the
distinguishing feature of Vietnamese agents: There was a big difference between Vietnam and Japan because the
Japanese gave importance to human relationships.
As shown in Figure 10, almost all teams started with very low prices and gave importance to capital investment
for plant expansion, and they strove to keep prices set at lower levels. China’s teams, in general, also maintained
their strategies during the game. However, although both countries maintained their strategies and did not change
them, those strategies were different. China set the prices high and kept other expenditures (R&D and marketing)
low. The Vietnamese teams achieved cost reduction through capacity expansion.
The population of agents showed that consistency of given role and cooperation in teams were very high, and
there was a large difference between Vietnam and Japan on this point. In addition, the emergent property was a
feature of Japanese companies, but according to our experiment, Vietnam had more emergent property than Japan.
There were only a few Vietnamese teams participating in the experiment, so it was difficult to form statistically
significant conclusions. However, we were able to build a hypothetical model from our sparse data.
Population of Agents
Management by a leader
with exclusive authority
Strategy
Low price strategy by expansion of
capacity
Agent
Compliance with rules
Figure 10 Group decision-making system: Vietnam
Above, we modeled the group decision-making systems of the four countries. These are hypothetical models
combining the highly characteristic results from the data we obtained in our experiment. In this study, each
experiment was conducted over a short period of roughly three hours, and the experiments were not conducted
continually using the same members. It is likely that long-term observation of decision making by the same team
members in a class through the academic term could identify changes in systems. Particular examples include
problems and formation of subgroups resulting from interactions between team members, such as changes in
satisfaction or other factors when the game is repeated, learning, habituation heuristics, and differences in values and
feelings. Although there are limits to constructing a theory in this way, we believe that we have presented one
method of modeling using a business game. We would like to have additional samples for refining and testing those
models.
Table 8 Summary of experiment results using a complex adaptive system framework
Japan
Agent
Characteristic responses
Strategy The first period inputs
The final period inputs
Rank correlation between
first and last periods
China
Hong Kong
Vietnam
Agents prefer ambiguity and
consensus within an organization,
and emphasize the human
relationship.
Agents dislike ambiguity and prefer the
boss’s clear-cut judgment. They attach a
higher value to evaluation within the
organization than to the individual’s ability.
Similar to Chinese, agents
dislike ambiguity and attach a
higher value to evaluation within
the organization than to the
individual’s ability.
Agents like a boss with strong
leadership, and prefer
meritocracy. They live to work
and discharge their duties
faithfully.
R&D is seen as very important, and
teams try to differentiate products by
quality. Marketing is seen as
important
While prices are somewhat high, other
variables are observed relatively carefully
without deviating greatly from the initial
values.
Teams give importance to
marketing costs and to capital
investment for plant expansion.
Teams start with very low price
and give importance to capital
investment for plant expansion.
In comparison with the first period,
increased marketing costs and
decreased R&D costs. Changes in
input variables are in the middle
range among the four countries.
Marketing costs and production quantity
increase from the first period. However, as in
the first period, the difference from the base
value is relatively small for each variable.
As in the first period, marketing
is seen as most important, but
R&D costs and capital
investment increase as well.
Large fluctuations on almost all
variables, as decision making is
flexible.
Prices remain very low.
Because of decreased cash,
teams are obliged to decrease
R&D, marketing expenses, and
capital investment.
Medium rank changes
Rank is fixed, and changes in strategy are
few. Once teams decide on a strategy, they
stick to the original idea and do not change
even if their ranking is low.
Rank is fluid, and often changes
their strategy.
Rank changes dramatically,
with upper teams’ ranks
lowering and vice versa.
However, most teams keep the
low-price/low-cost strategy.
Population of Agents
Consistency of given role
Avoidance of conflict in team
Emergence
Low
High, Considerable variation among teams
Low
Very High
Low, Slight variation among teams
Middle, Considerable variation among teams
High
Very High
Middle, Slight variation among teams
Low, Considerable variation among teams
High
High
Appendix 1. Before-game questionnaire.
BQ1
1. The ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat, or a “good father.”
2. The ideal boss is a resourceful democrat.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
BQ2
1. Teachers should take all the initiative in class.
2. Teachers expect initiative from students in class.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
BQ3
1. Subordinates expect to be told what to do.
2. Subordinates expect to be consulted.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
BQ4
1. There is a wide salary range between the top and the bottom of the organization.
2. There is a narrow salary range between the top and the bottom of the organization.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
BQ5
1. Privileges and status symbols are normal and popular.
2. Privileges and status symbols are frowned upon.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
BQ6
1. Task prevails over relationship.
2. Relationship prevails over task.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
BQ7
1. The employer–employee relationship is a contract between parties in a labor market.
2. The employer–employee relationship is basically moral, like a family link.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
BQ8
1. Management is management of individuals.
2. Management is management of groups.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
BQ9
1. Hiring and promotion decisions are supposed to be based on skills and rules only.
2. Hiring and promotion decisions consider the employee’s in-group behavior.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
BQ10 1. Speaking one’s mind is a characteristic of an honest person.
2. Harmony should always be maintained and direct confrontations avoided.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
BQ11 1. Resolution of conflicts by letting the strongest win.
2. Resolution of conflicts by compromise and negotiation.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
BQ12 1. Stress on equity, competition among colleagues, and performance.
2. Stress on equality, solidarity, and quality of work life.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
BQ13 1. People live in order to work.
2. People work in order to live.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
BQ14 1. Managers are expected to be decisive and assertive.
2. Managers use intuition and strive for consensus.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
BQ15 1. Emotional need to be busy; inner urge to work hard.
2. Comfortable feeling when lazy; work hard only when needed.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
BQ16 1. What is different is dangerous.
2. What is different is curious.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
BQ17 1. Acceptance of familiar risks; fear of ambiguous situations and unfamiliar risks.
2. Comfortable in ambiguous situations and with unfamiliar risks.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
BQ18 1. Suppression of deviant ideas and behavior; resistance to innovation.
2. Tolerance of deviant and innovative ideas and behavior.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
BQ19 1. The uncertainty inherent in life is a continuous threat that must be fought.
2. Uncertainty is a normal feature of life, and each day is accepted as it comes.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
Appendix 2. After-game Questionnaire.
AQ1
How did you behave in the business game?
1. I tended to cooperate with my team members.
2. I tended to play the game at my own pace.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
AQ2
What about the role you were given in the business game?
1. I tended to play the game with little concern for my given role.
2. I tended to play the game while sticking to my given role.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
AQ3
What is your view of your teammates?
1. They tended to cooperate with me.
2. They tended to work individually.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
What about the role they were given in the business game?
1. They tended to play the game with little concern for their given role.
2. They tended to play the game while sticking to their given role.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
AQ4
AQ5
When your team decided on input variables…
1. Our team tended to have many opposing opinions.
2. Our team tended to have few opposing opinions.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
AQ6
When you look back on the game, the decision about input variables…
1. Should have been made by me alone.
2. Should have been made by group consensus.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
AQ7
Your team’s process of deciding input variables…
1. Tended to be democratic and was by consensus.
2. Tended to involve decisions made by specific group leaders.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
AQ8
Did any ideas come up that you would not have thought of alone?
1. During the game, new ideas that I wouldn’t have thought of alone did come up.
2. No new ideas came up.
3. Don’t know/Undecided
References
Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. D. (2000). Harnessing complexity. Basic Books.
Child, J. (2000). Theorizing about organization cross-nationally. Advances in International Comparative
Management, 13, 27-75.
Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey
methodology. John Wiley & Sons.
Hofstede,
G.
(n.d.).
National
cultural
dimensions.
Retrieved
from
http://geert-hofstede.com/national-culture.html
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations. McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, J. G., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations (3rd Ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, J. G., Pedersen, B. P., & Hofstede, G. (2002). Exploring Culture. Intercultural Press.
Iwai, C., Horiuchi, M., Oshima, M., & Morita, M. (2010). Development and implementation of business game
“MBABEST21.”Studies in Simulation and Gaming, 20 (1), 12-18.
Lewis, R. D. (2006). When cultures collide (3rd Ed.). Nicholas Brealey International.
Usunier, J. C., & Lee, J. A. (2009). Marketing across cultures (5th Ed.). Pearson Education Europe.