might be seen in corporate strategic plans, built either on what has been
achieved, what is needed now, or future long-term objectives. These variations
echo Trompenaars’ study of the importance given to past, present or future, as
well as Hofstede’s Long-term versus Short-term Orientation.
The Space orientation varies between public, private and mixed space. This
orientation evolves around the sense of ‘ownership’ of space by which people
are surrounded. In the public orientation, space is seen as available for every-
one’s use. In a work environment, this might be displayed by preference for an
open office layout. The opposite variation values privacy. The sense of owner-
ship of the space surrounding individuals is high. Offices tend to have closed
doors and superiors might prefer to have bigger rooms. The mixed variation is
a combination of the public and private perceptions. Clearly this orientation
to space would influence communication, and information flows will be freer
and more rapid in open office configurations.
Going beyond paradoxesLane, DiStefano and Maznevski’s study differs from other studies of cultural
values in at least two ways. The value orientations proposed by Lane, DiStefano
and Maznevski (2000) are not bipolar, but offer three options (see Table 6.6).
Unlike the cultural dimensions developed by Hofstede and Trompenaars, the
orientations suggest that alternatives are not mutually exclusive. Trompenaars
had, for example, numerous items in his questionnaire that were forced
choices between two alternatives, each one representing one pole of a dimen-
sion. For example, Hofstede measured Individualism by the high level of
importance given to certain work goals and deduced that the low importance
given to the same work goals must be the opposite: Collectivism. The common
feature shared by Hofstede and Trompenaars is that they developed bipolar
dimensions, maybe forcing respondents to adopt either a ‘Western’ (or maybe
American/North European) or ‘Other’ points of view. Maznevski and DiStefano’s
questionnairecontrasts on that feature.
Considering only the dominant values or the dominant behavior in a
society leads to what Osland and Bird call a cultural paradox which they define
as ‘situations that exhibit an apparently contradictory nature’ (2000: 65).
Simply stated, this phenomenon acknowledges the fact that, given the com-
plexity of the human response to any given situation, ‘it is difficult to make
useful generalizations since so many exceptions and qualifications to the
stereotypes, on both a cultural and individual level, come to mind’ (ibid.).
Consequently, a great deal of people’s behavior in each country cannot be
explained by dominant values or most broadly shared perceptions because of
the multiplicity of variables influencing each specific situation. The instrument
developed by Maznevski and DiStefano however can show a rank of preference.
160 International Human Resource Management