Fajar Nugraha Syahruramdhan

UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL VALUES
DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES AMONG

INDONESIA’S FIVE MAJOR ETHNIC GROUPS
UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Submitted as partial requirement to complete Undergraduate Degree

Faculty of Economics and Business
Universitas Diponegoro
Submitted by:
FAJAR NUGRAHA SYAHRURAMDHAN

NIM. 12010112130154
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS

UNIVERSITAS DIPONEGORO
SEMARANG
2017
THESIS APPROVAL
Author Name : Fajar Nugraha Syahruramdhan
Student Number : 12010112130154
Faculty/Department : Economics and Business/Management
Thesis Title : UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL

VALUES DIFFERENCES AND
SIMILARITIES AMONG
INDONESIA’S FIVE MAJOR
ETHNIC GROUPS
Thesis Supervisor : Dr. Suharnomo, S.E., M.Si.
Semarang, January 23, 2017
Thesis Advisor,
Dr. Suharnomo, S.E., M.Si.

NIP. 1970 07221998 621002
ii
THESIS EXAMINATION APPROVAL
Author Name : Fajar Nugraha Syahruramdhan
Student Number : 12010112130154
Faculty/Department : Economics and Business/Management
Thesis Title : UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL

VALUES DIFFERENCES AND
SIMILARITIES AMONG
INDONESIA’S FIVE MAJOR
ETHNIC GROUPS
has presented and defended in front of the Board of Reviewers on January 31,
2017 for fulfilling the requirement to be accepted.
Board of Reviewers:
1. Dr. Suharnomo, S.E., M.Si. ( )
2. Dr. Fuad Mas’ud, MIR. ( )
3. Andriyani, S.E., M.M. ( )
iii
STATEMENT OF THESIS ORIGINALITY
I, the undersigned, do hereby state that thesis entitled: “Understanding

Cultural Values Differences and Similarities among Indonesia’s Five Major
Ethnic Groups” is the result of my own writing. I hereby state that there is no part
or entire writing written by others that I took by copying or imitating in the form of
words or symbols that show ideas or opinions or thoughts of other authors that I
admitted as if the writing of my own nor is there part or entire writing I copied from
or that I took from the writings of other without giving the original author(s) a
proper credit.
If I committed otherwise to the aforementioned, regardless of whether it was
intentional, I hereby declare to withdraw this thesis which I proposed as my own
writing. If later proved that I had taken action to copy or imitate the writings of
others as ideas of my own, I will let my diploma which has been granted by the
university to be annulled.
Semarang, January 23, 2017
Undersigned,
Fajar Nugraha Syahruramdhan

NIM. 12010112130154
iv
MOTTO AND DEDICATION
“Being Black didn’t degrade Bilal and being Arab didn’t save Abu Lahab”
– Prophet Muhammad ‫ﷺ‬
“We certainly are one single species, and it is becoming morally preferable to say
that we are one human race”
– Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza
I devoted this thesis to my

parents, bapak Darso Rudy
Hartono and ibu Oon Saonah.
And to my sisters, teh Luthfi and
teh Ade, and my brother, Nabil.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Alhamdulillah. All praise be to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala for the strength, ability,
and good health given to me to complete this work.
This thesis becomes a reality with the kind support and help of many individuals. I
would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them.
I would like to express my thanks towards my family for the unconditional love and
encouragement which helped me get through this exhaustive yet exciting process.
My parents, bapak Darso Rudy Hartono and ibu Oon Saonah, for their endless
affection, prayer, and support towards me. To my sisters teh Luthfi and teh Ade,
and my brother, Nabil, for bringing joy and happiness in my life. And to the
newborn, Arka, thank you for your absolute cuteness! You sure did help me
alleviate my stress, boy. Uncle loves ya!
I would like to express my special gratitude and thanks to my advisor, bapak Dr.
Suharnomo S.E., M.Si., for sharing his invaluable knowledge and expertise which
has helped me a lot in my study. This thesis is also possible with his permission to
use his data banks.
To the Board of Reviewers, bapak Dr. Fuad Mas’ud, MIR. and ibu Andriyani
S.E., M.M. who have spent their invaluable time to examine and provide me
meaningful feedback for this thesis.
To bapak Kuscahyo, who has introduced me about the beauty of Academic

English. I used to be too scared to even think about writing my thesis in English.
And..it is now a reality. I hope it is not too bad.
During my study, I have had three different Heads of Management Department,

with whom I feel very much thankful for. To bapak Dr. Suharnomo, pak Erman
Denny S.E., M.M., and pak Dr. Harjum S.E., M.M., thank you for providing a
conducive and competitive environment within the Management Department.
To Drs. R. Djoko Sampurno, M.M. as my Guardian Lecturer who has provided

the encouragement needed especially when I had a slight drop in my grade. Thank
you, Sir.
All lecturers and employees of Faculty of Economics and Business Universitas

Diponegoro for the knowledge and support during my time as a student here.
PT Freeport Indonesia, for the financial support during my study through the
company scholarships. With the fund, I have been able to take Academic English
courses during the past two years.
Izzah Istiadzah, who has been very supportive and encouraging, and loving, and
vi
caring. She was always mad whenever I showed any sign of “relaxing” during these
demanding times and it turned out to be a huge help for me. Thank you, mba Isti!
Ajeng and Romi, who have been my best friends during the campus life. Thank
you for the sincere friendship and supporting gestures. I hope to see you guys again
soon.
EECC Rangers, mba Aisyah, mas Alif, mba Iwana, mas Bahrul, mas Randy, mas
Arief, mba Uli, mba Hasna, mas Shohib, mas Hendra, mas Ghani, Rina,
Taufika, Fattiya, Shasha, Lintang, Meidinta, Puspa, Naufal, Inan, Dika,
Hannina, Yuyun, Windhy, Ruli, Ojan, Rissa, Dinda, Gita, Andini, Dian,
Bunga, Fadhil, Clara, Nadia, Andre, Isti, Saddek, Arsan, Uchi, Andika,
Sholeh, Rini, Atikah, Bagus, Djioe, Marko, Faisal, and other rangers, who have
shared their time together with me in this beautiful organization. Thank you, guys.
BEM FEB Undip members, Naufal, Taufika, Citra, Astuti, Eko & Iman, Asih,
Ian, Rendi, Maesa, Setiawan, Agung, Alvin, Mirza, Harley, Ferdyan, Tama
and other members of this organization, thank you such an amazing experience
working with you guys.
HMJM members, mba Noven, mas Novan, mas Afif, mas Wahyu, mas Tito, mas
Panda, mas Ferdy, Aji, Sofy, Diba, Itang, Mende, Yudha, and other members,
whom I spent most of my first year with. I had a really good time in this
organization.
To ILO Better Work Survey team members, Dr. Harjum, Dr. Mirwan Perdhana
S.E., M.M., Ph.D., mas Ghalih, mas Novan, mba Angela, mba Nabila, and mba
Winda for the exciting experience. I learnt many things from the project as well as
from you. The fact that I enhanced my driving skills during the time of the project
is a bonus. Thank you for the trusts given to me.
Academic English Lads, mba Ratna, Maesa, Setiawan, Yudha, Hannina, Havid,
thank you for helping me to keep pushing until the end.
To pak Pri and family for providing me warm settlement during my time here in
Semarang.
My thanks and appreciations also go to my colleague and people who have willingly
helped me out with their abilities.
vii
ABSTRACT
Given the tendency to present Javanese culture as the culture of Indonesia

and worsen by the lack of studies which discuss Indonesia’s cultural variations,
there may be confusion and generalization toward Indonesia’s cultural values. For
instance, this study was conducted with the aim of proving that there are cultural
differences among Indonesia’s ethnic groups.
In order to achieve that, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions framework was
chosen and his Value Survey Module 1982 (VSM 82) was employed. VSM 82
measures 4 cultural dimensions: Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance,
Individualism versus Collectivism, and Masculinity versus Femininity with scores
normally ranging from 0-100. The respondents of this study were drawn from
employees working in paid jobs originating from five major ethnic groups:
Javanese, Sundanese, Batak, Minangkabau, and Chinese Indonesian. Quasi-
snowballing method was employed in collecting the responses. A total of 699
respondents participated in this study.
The results show that there are significant differences among ethnic groups
studied. However, the Javanese dimensions scores show similar results to those of
Hofstede. Furthermore, when all the responses were recalculated, the dimensions
scores also form similar results to those of Hofstede. These conditions raise the
question of whether Hofstede’s samples were indeed drawn from Javanese
respondents only or whether a culture majority within a nation is able to represent
the national culture of the country. Despite the fact that the VSM 82 was proven to
be able to capture significant differences among the ethnic groups studied, such
approach lacks deeper insights on how exactly they are different. In this regard,
future research is needed with more advanced research design such as conducting
in-depth interviews after scoring has been done to gain better insights to the
findings.
Keywords: cultural values, ethnic group, Indonesia, national culture, value

survey module
viii
ABSTRAK
Dengan adanya kecenderungan untuk menjadikan budaya Jawa sebagai

budaya Indonesia diperparah lagi dengan kurangnya penelitian yang membahas
tentang beragamnya budaya Indonesia, kemungkinan akan terjadinya kebingungan
dan kecenderungan untuk men-generalisir nilai kebudayaan Indonesia yang
sesungguhnya makin tinggi. Dengan demikian, penelitian ini dilaksanakan dengan
tujuan untuk membuktikan bahwa terdapat perbedaan budaya diantara suku bangsa
yang ada di Indonesia.
Untuk itu, kerangka budaya yang didesain oleh Hofstede dipilih beserta
dengan Value Survey Module 1982 (VSM 82) miliknya. VSM 82 mengukur 4
dimensi budaya, yaitu: Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism
versus Collectivism, dan Masculinity versus Femininity. Pada kondisi normal,
dimensi tersebut akan memiliki skor dengan rentang 0 hingga 100. Responden pada
penelitian adalah para pekerja yang berasal dari lima suku bangsa besar di
Indonesia, yaitu: Jawa, Sunda, Batak, Minang, dan Tionghoa. Pengambilan data
dilakukan dengan metode Quasi-Snowballing. Secara total, terdapat 699 responden
yang telah berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa memang terdapat perbedaan yang
signifikan diantara suku bangsa yang diteliti. Namun, skor dimensi kebudayaan
Jawa menunjukkan bahwa skor mereka mirip dengan apa yang ditemukan oleh
Hofstede. Ditambah lagi dengan fakta bahwa setelah semua hasil jawaban di
kalkulasi ulang, hasil tesebut juga menunjukkan kesamaan dengan nilai yang
dimiliki Hofstede. Meskipun fakta menunjukkan bahwa VSM 82 dapat digunakan
untuk melihat perbedaan yang signifikan diantara kelompok suku bangsa,
pendekatan penelitian menggunakan kuesioner saja masih memiliki kekurangan,
yaitu sulitnya mendapat informasi yang lebih mendalam mengenai sejauh mana
kelompok suku bangsa tersebut berbeda. Dengan demikian, berdasar pada hasil
penelitian ini, penelitian di kemudian hari hendaknya dilakukan dengan desain
penelitian yang lebih baik. Contoh nyata adalah pengunaan wawancara mendalam
setelah semua skor didapatkan. Cara seperti ini dapat menutupi kekurangan
keterbatasan dari kuesioner.
Kata kunci: budaya nasional, Indonesia, nilai budaya, suku bangsa, value survey
module
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FRONT COVER ...................................................................................................... i

THESIS APPROVAL ............................................................................................. ii
THESIS EXAMINATION APPROVAL............................................................... iii
STATEMENT OF THESIS ORIGINALITY ........................................................ iv
MOTTO AND DEDICATION ............................................................................... v
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ........................................................................................ vi
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................... viii
ABSTRAK ............................................................................................................. ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ x
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... xiv
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. xv
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the Study .............................................................................. 1
1.2 Problem Statement ........................................................................................ 3
1.3 Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................... 4
1.4 Objectives of the Study................................................................................. 4
1.5 Research Questions....................................................................................... 5
1.6 Significance of the Study.............................................................................. 5
1.7 Scope of the Study ........................................................................................ 6
1.8 Structure of Thesis ........................................................................................ 7
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................ 8
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 8
2.2 Literature Review on Culture ....................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Definitions of Culture ........................................................................ 8
2.2.2 The Concept of National Culture ....................................................... 9
2.2.3 Models of National Cultural Framework ......................................... 10
2.2.3.1 Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Cultural Orientations (1961) 10
2.2.3.2 Edward T. Hall’s Cultural Elements (1960) ....................... 11
2.2.3.3 Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions (1980) ................... 12
2.2.3.4 Trompenaars’ Cultural Dimensions (1993) ........................ 13
2.2.4 Limitations of The Cultural Frameworks ......................................... 16
x
2.2.4.1 Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) ...................................... 16
2.2.4.2 Edward T. Hall (1960) ........................................................ 16
2.2.4.3 Geert Hofstede (1980) ........................................................ 17
2.2.4.4 Trompenaars (1993) ........................................................... 17
2.2.5 The Chosen Framework: Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions ............. 17
2.3 Literature Review on Indonesia and its Subcultures .................................. 19
2.3.1 Indonesia .......................................................................................... 19
2.3.2 Javanese............................................................................................ 20
2.3.3 Sundanese ......................................................................................... 20
2.3.4 Batak ................................................................................................ 21
2.3.5 Minangkabau .................................................................................... 22
2.3.6 Chinese-Indonesian .......................................................................... 23
2.4 Prior Studies ............................................................................................... 24
2.5 Research Gap .............................................................................................. 29
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY........................................................................ 31
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 31
3.2 Respondents of the Study ........................................................................... 31
3.2.1 Population ........................................................................................ 31
3.2.2 Sample .............................................................................................. 32
3.3 Research Instrument Used .......................................................................... 33
3.4 Research Procedure .................................................................................... 33
3.4.1 Pilot Testing ..................................................................................... 33
3.4.2 Questionnaire Design ....................................................................... 34
3.4.3 Data Collection................................................................................. 35
3.5 Data Handling ............................................................................................. 35
3.6 Data Computation and Analysis ................................................................. 36
3.6.1 Data Computation ............................................................................ 36
3.6.1.1 Power Distance Index ......................................................... 36
3.6.1.2 Uncertainty Avoidance Index ............................................. 37
3.6.1.3 Individualism Index ............................................................ 37
3.6.1.4 Masculinity Index ............................................................... 38
3.6.2 Data Analysis ................................................................................... 38
CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................... 41
xi
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 41
4.2 Description of the Sample .......................................................................... 41
4.2.1 Gender .............................................................................................. 43
4.2.2 Age ................................................................................................... 44
4.2.3 Education.......................................................................................... 45
4.2.4 Job Position ...................................................................................... 46
4.3 Results of the VSM 82 Calculations........................................................... 48
4.3.1 Power Distance................................................................................. 49
4.3.1.1 Question 19 of Part 1 (a)..................................................... 52
4.3.1.2 Question 20 of Part 1 (b) .................................................... 54
4.3.1.3 Question 22 of Part 1 (c)..................................................... 55
4.3.2 Uncertainty Avoidance..................................................................... 56
4.3.2.1 Question 21 of Part 1 (d) .................................................... 58
4.3.2.2 Question 19 of Part 2 (e)..................................................... 59
4.3.2.3 Question 23 of Part 1 (f) ..................................................... 60
4.3.3 Individualism vs. Collectivism......................................................... 61
4.3.3.1 Question 4 of Part 1 (m4) .................................................... 63
4.3.3.4 Question 13 of Part 1 (m13)................................................. 67
4.3.4 Masculinity vs. Femininity .............................................................. 68
4.4 Discussion of the Findings ......................................................................... 75
4.4.1 Javanese............................................................................................ 77
4.4.1.1 Javanese Dimensions Scores Comparison .......................... 78
4.4.2 Sundanese ......................................................................................... 80
4.4.3 Batak ................................................................................................ 81
4.4.3.1 Batak and Javanese Scores Comparison ............................. 82
4.4.4 Minangkabau .................................................................................... 83
4.4.5 Chinese Indonesian .......................................................................... 84
xii
4.4.5.1 Chinese Indonesian Scores Comparison............................. 86
4.4.6 Averaged Dimensions Scores of the Present Study (Indonesia) ...... 87
4.4.7 Hofstede’s Unidentified Samples Revealed? ................................... 88
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 92
5.1 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 92
5.2 Research Limitations .................................................................................. 93
5.3 Recommendations ...................................................................................... 94
5.3.1 For Future Studies ............................................................................ 95
5.3.2 For Managers Managing Indonesian Employees ............................. 95
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................. 98
APPENDIX 1 QUESTIONNAIRE BOOKLET ................................................. 104
APPENDIX 2 CALCULATION TABLES (FROM TOTAL SAMPLES) ........ 109
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Prior Studies .................................................................................. 25
Table 4.1 Profile of Respondents .................................................................. 43
Table 4.2 Value Survey Module 82 Formulae .............................................. 49
Table 4.3 Power Distance Scores of Five Ethnic Groups Studied ................ 50
Table 4.4 Uncertainty Avoidance Scores of Five Ethnic Groups Studied .... 57
Table 4.5 Individualism Scores of Five Ethnic Groups Studied ................... 62
Table 4.6 Masculinity Scores of Five Ethnic Groups Studied ...................... 69
Table 4.7 Javanese Comparison with Perdhana (2014) ................................ 78
Table 4.8 Batak and Javanese Scores Comparison ....................................... 83
Table 4.9 Chinese Indonesian Comparison with Perdhana (2014) ............... 86
Table 4.10 Range of VSM Dimensions Scores of Five Ethnic Groups .......... 87
Table 4.11 Javanese and Hofstede Indonesian Scores Comparison................ 89
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Exhibit 3.1 Steps Taken During the Study....................................................... 40
Exhibit 4.1 Gender ........................................................................................... 44
Exhibit 4.2 Age ................................................................................................ 45
Exhibit 4.3 Education Qualification ................................................................ 46
Exhibit 4.4 Job Position ................................................................................... 48
Exhibit 4.5 Full Responses on Question 19-1.................................................. 53
Exhibit 4.6 Full Responses on Question 20-1.................................................. 54
Exhibit 4.7 Question 22-1 Subordinates Afraid to Contradict Boss ................ 56
Exhibit 4.8 Question 21-1 Intensity of Being Nervous about Job ................... 59
Exhibit 4.9 Question 19-2 Company Rules Should Not Be Broken ................ 60
Exhibit 4.10 Question 23-1 Intention to Stay at Current Job............................. 61
Exhibit 4.11 Question 4-1 Have Good Working Environment ......................... 64
Exhibit 4.12 Question 1-1 Sufficient Time for Personal or Home Life ............ 65
Exhibit 4.13 Question 8-1 Have Pleasant People to Work with (IDV) ............. 67
Exhibit 4.14 Question 13-1 Live in a Desirable Area ........................................ 68
Exhibit 4.15 Question 8-1 Have Pleasant People to Work with (MAS)............ 71
Exhibit 4.16 Question 11-1 Have Chances for Better Financial State............... 72
Exhibit 4.17 Question 6-1 Have Security of Employment ................................ 73
Exhibit 4.18 Question 14-1 Have Chances for Promotion ................................ 75
xv
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This chapter explains the background that underlies this research. It also
consists of research questions, the purpose of the research, and usefulness of the
research and structure of the thesis.
1.1 Background of the Study
Over the past decades, the number of employees working in foreign-owned
companies has significantly grown. It is resulted by the continuously expanding
Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) around the world. Such activity has
strengthening the realities of globalization (UNCTAD 2016). In the case of
Indonesia, the country has seen a 6.88% increase in foreign direct investment from
US$ 253.1 billion in 2014 to 271.8 billion in 2015. This number was higher than
those of Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Philippines, Cambodia, and Laos (The
World Factbook 2016). For instance, it indicates that Indonesia is still seen as one
of the promising economies in the Southeast Asia region for investors.
The consequences of the rise in foreign direct investment are more
intercultural interactions. Many business activities will need to have teams
consisted of foreign employees/managers and Indonesian employees. Intercultural
interactions might cause problems if they are not well planned and prepared,
creating frustrations among members of the team.
In order to be successful in operating business across cultures, organizations
must provide proper orientations to their managers that will be placed outside his
1
2
or her home country. Understanding cultural differences will help them become
more effective leaders and thus will increase the chance of their success in the new
countries.
Culture has been recognized as a predominant factor in predicting human
behavior and recent studies have shown its influences on business performance
(Perdhana 2014; Matveev & Milter 2004). It is defined as “the collective mental
programming of the mind that distinguishes the member of a group or society to the
other” (Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010). In order to understand, measure, and
compare cultures, researchers have developed several methods known as cultural
frameworks. One of the most widely used frameworks is Hofstede’s national
culture dimensions.
Hofstede (1980) identifies four dimensions of national culture: Power
Distance, Individualism versus Collectivism, Uncertainty Avoidance and
Masculinity versus Femininity. Later, in 1991, based on Bond’s Chinese Values
Survey across 23 countries, Long- and Short-Term Orientation dimension was
added to the original four dimensions (Hofstede & Bond, 1988). In 2010,
Indulgence versus Restraint dimension was added based on World Values Survey
findings (Hofstede et al. 2010).
The cultural framework allows comparisons among countries, presenting
scores from each dimension ranging from 0 to 100. According to Hofstede’s
findings, Indonesia is a country that is high on power distance, low preference for
avoiding uncertainty, collectivist, low masculine, long-term oriented, and restrained
(Hofstede et al., 2010). Although Hofstede did not explain literally from which
3
ethnicities his respondents were, there is a tendency that he presents ethnic Javanese
in explaining Indonesia (Perdhana 2014). Hofstede also admits his scores might be
misleading in a multiethnic country like Indonesia (Hofstede et al., 2010; p. 158).
The need for understanding the complexity of Indonesia’ culture, however,
is not matched by the availability of the empirical study findings in the country.
Most studies discussing Indonesia’s culture disregarded the cultural variations in
the country (e.g. Liddle 1996; Goodfellow 1997; Irawanto 2009; Irawanto et al.
2012). In response to this problem, recent studies have tried to bridge the gap.
Perdhana (2014) underlines that in order to understand Indonesia’s culture, more
careful approach should be taken. In this case, he proposes to draw comparisons
among ethnic groups in Indonesia.
Given the dearth of literature available for foreign managers and possibly
local managers managing Indonesian employees from various subcultures and
values, this study aims to bridge the gap by extending Hofstede’s work on
Indonesian employees originating from five major ethnic groups: Javanese,
Sundanese, Batak, Minangkabau, and Chinese Indonesian.
1.2 Problem Statement
In Hofstede’s findings, Indonesia was reported to have large power distance
(PDI score 78), collectivistic value (IDV score 14), low masculine (MAS score 46),
and low preference for avoiding uncertainty (UAI score 48). Although all
respondents satisfied Hofstede’s matched-sample requirements in terms of
occupations, there is a possibility that he overlooked the vast variation of cultures
of Indonesia: almost all of the respondents were of Javanese ethnic (Perdhana

4
2014). Hofstede himself admits that his score may be misleading in a multiethnic
country like Indonesia (Hofstede et al. 2010; pp. 158).
This leaves a question whether it is still relevant to rely on Hofstede’s
findings to understand Indonesia’s cultural values. By comparing the cultural values
of major ethnic groups in Indonesia, this study aims to show that there are cultural
variations that need to be acknowledged and provide a better explanation to the
cultural variations that exist in Indonesia.
1.3 Purpose of the Study
Given the tendency to present Javanese culture as the culture of Indonesia
and worsen by the lack of studies which discuss Indonesia’s cultural variations,
there may be confusion and generalization toward Indonesia’s cultural values.
In response to the danger of generalizations, a more focused research is
needed to investigate to what extent the differences among ethnic groups in
Indonesia exists. The purpose of the present study was to assess whether a national
cultural framework would be able to describe cultural differences among ethnic
groups in Indonesia by studying Javanese, Sundanese, Minangkabau, Batak, and
Chinese-Indonesian employees.
1.4 Objectives of the Study
The objectives of this study are:
1. to investigate the cultural values of Javanese, Sundanese, Minangkabau,
Batak, and Chinese-Indonesian employees;
2. to assess whether Hofstede’s national cultural framework will be able to
describe in-country cultural differences;

5
1.5 Research Questions
1. What are the cultural values of Javanese, Sundanese, Minangkabau,
Batak, and Chinese Indonesian employees?
2. To what extent does Hofstede’s national cultural framework
meaningfully describe in-country cultural differences?
1.6 Significance of the Study
This research studied employees from five ethnic groups in Indonesia. It has
been discussed that there is a tendency among many researchers to generalize
Indonesians as having one single culture. Recent studies have shown that there are
differences among ethnic groups which proved to be essential in determining one’s
success in a business world (Perdhana 2014).
With the small number of literature that empirically discuss the variations
of culture within Indonesia, the present study was aimed to fill in the gap by
investigating five major ethnic group in Indonesia. Previous studies have mostly
described Indonesia’s culture as one; disregarding the fact that Indonesia consists
of thousands of ethnic groups with different customs and values.
This study was also conducted with the aim of contributing to both academic
and practical level, as follows:
1. For academic advancement, this study will hopefully contribute to the
existing knowledge regarding the cultural values of Indonesian
employees with more specific views through the comparisons on an
ethnic group level.

6
2. As for practical benefit, this study will serve as an empirical finding
regarding the actual condition of cultural values among Indonesian
employees. Managers can refer to the findings of the study in trying to
solve their problems in managing Indonesian employees. However, as
this research studied only 5 ethnic groups out of 31 major ethnic groups
in Indonesia, the generalizability is limited on the studied ethnic groups
only.
1.7 Scope of the Study
The present study collected 699 responses from 1000 distributed
questionnaires, making 69.9% response rate. The respondents were all employees
mainly residing in Central Java. With the help of Dr. Suharnomo’s students,
questionnaires were also sent to respondents’ domiciles. Therefore, the method
employed for the study was quasi-snowballing sampling method. The
questionnaires were distributed from May 2014 until May 2015. All questionnaires
were paper based and therefore the responses were manually inputted into the
electronic form.
The instrument used in this study was Hofstede’s Value Survey Module
1982 (VSM 82). The use of this instrument was based on the rationale that it was
the closest instrument to the IBM’s value survey module. The weakness is,
however, VSM 82 doesn’t cover two additional dimensions that are only available
on the latest version, the Value Survey Module 2013. Despite being old, however,
the findings of the study have been able to show differences and similarities among
ethnic groups studied.

7
1.8 Structure of Thesis
This thesis has been structurally written to adhere the Undergraduate Thesis
Guidance of Faculty of Economics and Business. Therefore, there will be five
chapters that will serve their own purposes with the following explanation:
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses the background and its theoretical rationale of this
study, statement of the problem, research purposes and usefulness and the
structure of this thesis
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides literature used for the present study as the theoretical
basis, discussion regarding previous studies, framework and hypotheses.
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter explains about the methodology used for the study, sampling
and data, analysis method and data processing.
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter explains and describes the object of this study, the findings,
data analysis, interpretations and implications of the study.
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION
This chapter explains the conclusions, limitations of the study and
recommendation based on the findings of this study.

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter evaluates the literature regarding the concept of culture.
Subsequently, the existing literature on Indonesia and its ethnic groups; particularly
Javanese, Sundanese, Batak, Minangkabau, and Chinese Indonesian will be
presented in order to provide a general idea about the cultural complexity in the
country. The emphasis will be on the historical experiences of the respectable ethnic
groups which affect their values.
2.2 Literature Review on Culture
2.2.1 Definitions of Culture
Culture has been defined in many ways. It has been a discussion among
scholars especially psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists. There is no
consensus regarding a universal definition about culture as it can be explained in
many ways and thus has many different definitions.
One of the earliest definition of culture was coined by the British
anthropologist, Sir Edward Tylor in 1871 (Kottak 2013). Tylor (as cited in Kottak
2013) defines culture as “…complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, arts,
morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a
member of society”. By the definition, Sir Tyler underlines the role of culture as
preparation tools needed for somebody in order to fit in in their society. It indicates
that culture is learned, not genetically passed from one’s genes.
8
9
Culture can also be defined as “the sum total of the beliefs, rules, techniques,
institutions, and artifact that characterize human populations” (Ball & McCulloch
1999). Hall & Hall (1990) define culture as “a system for creating, sending, storing,
and processing information developed by human beings, which differentiates them
from other life forms.”
The term of culture used in the present study was coined by the Dutch
professor, Geert Hofstede. It is defined as “the collective mental programming of
the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from
others” (Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010; p. 6). This term of culture also indicates
that culture is learned. Hofstede distinguishes culture from human nature and
individual’s personality. Human nature is inherited. It is the same within all human
beings. The human ability to feel anger, fear, joy, sadness, and shame. Whilst the
personality, refers to a unique set of mental programs within an individual which
needn’t be shared with any other human being. It is partly inherited from one’s
genes and partly learned (Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010).
2.2.2 The Concept of National Culture
Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. (2010) define culture as the collective mental
programming of the mind. The word “collective” is often associated with a national
border, arguing that nationality and culture tend to correspond with each other.
Even though a nation incorporates a broad variety of institutions, regional customs,
local beliefs, many researchers think that making comparisons among countries is
often the best compromise (Hofstede 2002). Access to data is often unavailable for
closer investigation regarding culture. Hence, the term national culture is argued to
10
have been coined due to the need for understanding cultural differences across
cultures. National stereotypes have been proved to be useful in capturing the variety
of cultures across the globe.
2.2.3 Models of National Cultural Framework
In the attempts to unlock the complexity of culture, researchers have
proposed many frameworks for the past few decades. The purpose of the study was
to investigate the cultural variations among five major ethnic groups in Indonesia;
Javanese, Sundanese, Batak, Minangkabau, and Chinese Indonesian. Of many
available frameworks, 4 well known frameworks have been reviewed and is
presented on section 2.2.3.1 – 2.2.3.1. Discussion on the chosen framework will be
presented on section 2.2.4.
2.2.3.1 Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Cultural Orientations (1961)
Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) explained five basic assumptions which
can be used to understand the cultural orientation of a society. These assumptions
are: their orientation to time, orientation to humanity and environment, orientation
to relationship with other people, their motives for behaving, and their human
nature. The basic assumptions regarding this framework is that a society has its own
perception toward questions which distinguish one to the other.
The first dimension is time orientation, whether the people should put more
emphasis on the past, on the present, or on the future. Second, humanity and natural
environment, whether the people should be mastery, harmonious, or submissive
toward the nature. Motive for behaving, whether the people behave driven by their
own internal motivation, or motivated by what is highly valued, or driven by the

11
external sources of motivation. Relating to other people, whether there should be
hierarchy in the society, or whether the people should be treated as equals. Nature
of human nature, whether the people are good, evil, or in between.
There was also a sixth value dimension of Space suggested in the
framework. However, Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck (1961) did not really elaborate it
(Hills 2002).
2.2.3.2 Edward T. Hall’s Cultural Elements (1960)
According to Hall (1960; 1990), there are important elements which is
essential in identifying cultural differences. Using these elements, they make
contrasting discussion regarding the culture of Americans, French, and Germans.
These dimensions are their view toward time and the context of the culture –
whether they belong to the low context or high context culture.
The first dimension is the society’s view toward time. Hall and Hall (1990)
described that any society either belongs to monochronic or polychronic. In a
monochronic culture, time is seen as a one-track linear. It is a resource that will
never return when it has passed. Therefore in a monochronic society, everything is
done one at a time with a focused manner. On the contrary, in a polychronic culture
time is seen as a rotating sequence which can repeat itself (Hall & Hall 1990).
The second dimension is the context. Context refers to all drives and
motives that surround every communication, and the degree of how much it matters
is different in many cultures. Therefore, Hall and Hall (1990) divided this
dimension into low context and high context.
In high context cultures, communications will occur implicitly. It is marked

12
with the extensive network within a family, friends, clients, and partners. Their
relationship is tight and personal as they always try to be well informed regarding
the state of their closest people. Whilst in low context cultures, communications
will occur explicitly. The people have a tendency to separate one activity from the
other. Therefore to give a meaning from one specific event, they will need a lot of
specific information in the communication. The context should deliver explicit
message.
2.2.3.3 Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions (1980)
Another framework that is essential in understanding culture and cultural
differences among many countries is Hofstede’s (Hofstede 1980a; Hofstede 2001)
national cultural dimensions. Not only making cultural comparisons, his framework
is also able to provide explanations toward the how culture will define the behavior
of a person at the workplace. The four dimensions are presented in points below:
1. Power Distance. Power distance is defined as “the extent to which less
powerful members of institutions and organizations accept that power is
distributed unequally” (Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010).
2. Uncertainty Avoidance. Uncertainty Avoidance is defined as “the extent
to which the members of institutions and organizations within a society
feel threatened by uncertain, unknown, ambiguous, or unstructured
situations” (Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010)
3. Individualism versus Collectivism. Individualism stands for “a society
in which the ties between individuals are loose: a person is expected to
look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family only”.
13
Whilst, collectivism stands for “a society in which people from birth
onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which continue
to protect them throughout their lifetime in exchange for unquestioning
loyalty” (Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010).
4. Masculinity versus Femininity. Masculinity stands for “a society in
which social gender roles are clearly distinct: men are supposed to be
assertive, tough, and focused on material success; women are supposed
to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life”.
Femininity stands for “a society in which social gender roles overlap:
both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned
with the quality of life” (Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010).
2.2.3.4 Trompenaars’ Cultural Dimensions (1993)
Fons Trompenaars, also a Dutch researcher, conducted a ten-year long
research involving a massive 15,000 respondents from 50 countries. The findings
of the research was first published in 1993 (Trompenaars 1993). His work is
believed to be an extension of Hofstede’s (1980) work with more emphasis on
addressing issues of doing business across cultures.
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997) identifies seven dimensions of
culture. Similar to Hofstede, Trompenaars used the questionnaire responses to draw
map of variety of cultures. Each dimension has a continuum from one extreme to
the other.
1. Universalism versus Particularism. Universalism reflects the value of a
culture which believes that ideas and practices can equally be applied in
14
anywhere else regardless of the culture. On the contrary, particularism
believes that every ideas and practices should consider the actual
condition and circumstances surrounding (Trompenaars & Hampden-
Turner 1997).
2. Individualism versus communitarianism. It is argued that this dimension
is the same in concept to Hofstede’s Individualism versus Collectivism
dimension (Perdhana 2014). Individualism pertains to the tendency of
the people within a culture that will pay more attention to themselves
and their nuclear family. In decision making, Individualist society relies
on themselves, meaning there is no need for views or opinions from
other people. On the contrary, communitarianism reflects that people
pay close attention to their extended family. In decision making,
communitarianist society takes into account the views from the
important persons, seeking their confirmations before making a final
decision (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1997).
3. Specific versus diffuse. Specific means that individual has a large room
of privacy and at the same time has a little room of private space. The
people within these cultures put emphasis on the importance of dividing
personal affairs with business affairs. In diffuse cultures, this separation
is diffused, meaning there aren’t really differences between personal
affairs and business affairs (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1997).
4. Neutral versus affective. In neutral cultures, people should control their
emotion and keep it for themselves. For instance, in this culture people
15
will have neutral expressions regarding an event and have tendencies
not to hurt others’ feelings. On the contrary, in affective culture
emotions are widely expressed. It is important for people of this culture
to express what is inside their mind (Trompenaars 1993; Trompenaars
& Hampden-Turner 1997).
5. Achievement versus ascription. In achieving cultures, respect toward
somebody is based on his or her achievement. As a result, drives among
people within this culture are motivated by personal rewards and
achievements. In comparison, the people within ascribing cultures will
give the respect due to the ascribed status which is based on the person’s
age, social status, and family background (Trompenaars & Hampden-
Turner 1997).
6. Attitudes toward the environment. This dimension reflects the attitudes
of the people toward their nature and the natural environment. Should
human take full control over the nature? Or should human live in
harmony with the nature? (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1997).
7. Attitudes toward time. Trompenaars divided this dimension into
Sequential (time as a sequence of events) versus synchronic (several
events are done at the same time). This dimension is identical to Hall
and Hall's (1990) monochronic versus polychronic dimension. In a
culture in which its people see time as sequential, punctuality is seen as
a serious matter. In contrast to synchronic culture in which its people
like to do many things at once, punctuality is seen as optional; only when

16
it is possible. The people within this culture are used to deal with
simultaneous issues or events at the same time and like to keep tabs for
better options or deals coming along the way (Trompenaars &
Hampden-Turner 1997).
2.2.4 Limitations of The Cultural Frameworks
The previous section has presented the concept of national culture and
recent frameworks designed to study cultural differences among countries. In order
to be able to achieve the aim of investigating the cultural values of employees from
Javanese, Sundanese, Batak, Minangkabau, and Chinese Indonesian, the suitable
framework must be chosen. The first step was to understand each framework’
weaknesses. Discussion regarding the weaknesses of the frameworks is presented
in points below:
2.2.4.1 Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961)
One of the earliest framework developed was Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck's
(1961) dimensions of culture. It is no doubt that it has inspired many researchers to
develop other theories around their work. However, despite being the first
researchers who proposed the universality of values in cultural studies, Perdhana
(2014) considers their work as “too ambiguous” that the interpretations of each
dimension relies heavily on subjective judgment. Moreover, Hills (2002) notes that
the work of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck is unfinished yet attempts at continuing the
work is nowhere to be found.
2.2.4.2 Edward T. Hall (1960)
Hall & Hall (1990) described cultures as being either primarily High
17
Context or primarily Low Context. Each culture use both contexts in their
communications with various degrees. Unlike Hofstede (1980a), Hall never
discussed his methods, creating doubts over the rigorousness of the framework
(Cardon 2008).
2.2.4.3 Geert Hofstede (1980)
The third framework is Hofstede’s four dimensions of national culture.
Despite being touted as the most comprehensive in explaining cultural differences
among countries (Shackleton & Ali 1990; Triandis 1982; Schuler & Rogovsky
1998), his work is also subject to criticisms. McSweeney (2002) points out the issue
of the use of country as the unit of analysis in comparing cultures. In his response,
Hofstede (2002) admits that it is not the best unit of analysis but argues that nations
are “usually the only kind of units available for comparison and better than
nothing.”
2.2.4.4 Trompenaars (1993)
The last framework is Trompenaars’ 7 dimensions of national culture.
Bearing similar problems to Hall’s work, Trompenaars’ framework didn’t have any
peer-reviewed academic publications and never specified the actual contents of his
database (Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010). Moreover, Perdhana (2014) argues that
Trompenaars’ items was too complex to use given a huge number of items asked
only for 7 dimensions.
2.2.5 The Chosen Framework: Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions
For the purpose of this study, which was to investigate the cultural values
of employees from Javanese, Sundanese, Batak, Minangkabau, and Chinese

18
Indonesian, this study decided to employ Hofstede’s cultural framework. It had
been selected due to two main considerations.
Hofstede’s framework is argued to be the most comprehensive in explaining
cultural variations among countries (Triandis 1982; Shackleton & Ali 1990) and his
work is also widely cited and used by management scholars and practitioners
(Venaik & Brewer 2010). Although, to some extent, Hofstede missed certain details
such as failing to capture the cultural variations within a culturally complex country
such as Indonesia (Perdhana 2014), the present study did not bear the same problem.
The present study drew samples from employees working in telecommunication,
food and beverages, textile, and service industries originating from Javanese,
Sundanese, Batak, Minangkabau, and Chinese Indonesian. Due to the fact that these
ethnic groups are different from each other (Koentjaraningrat 1982;
Koentjaraningrat 2004), it is also argued that they will also have different cultural
values (Mangundjaya 2013; Perdhana 2014).
The second consideration is the ease of use of the questionnaire. The present
study decided to employ the Value Survey Module 1982 (VSM 82). It is a set of
questions which is divided into 2 main parts consisting a total of 47 items. The
relatively small number of items asked toward the respondents made it easier for
respondents to stay focus during the data completion.
The present study is fully aware that there are newer versions of Hofstede’s
Value Survey Module, such as VSM 08 and VSM 13 which generate 7 and 6
dimensions respectively compared to 4 dimensions in VSM 82. VSM 82 was
chosen due to having the original items used in the IBM’s original questionnaire
19
(Hofstede 1982). Another reason was even in Hofstede’s newer publications
Indonesia has all 6 scores for 6 dimensions, only 4 of which were derived from the
IBM project. The other 2 dimensions were obtained from the findings of other
replications (Perdhana 2014).
2.3 Literature Review on Indonesia and its Subcultures
2.3.1 Indonesia
Indonesia is the world’s largest archipelagic country consisting of over
13,000 islands spread across from the tip of Sumatra Island to the edge of West
New Guinea (Papua). Indonesia is also world’s largest Muslim-majority and the
fourth world’s most populous country (The World Factbook 2016). Indonesia is has
over 1,300 distinct ethnicities and tribes which are incorporated into 31 major ethnic
groups (Statistics Indonesia 2011). Indonesia has a unifying language which is
called “Bahasa Indonesia” or simply “Bahasa”. Bahasa Indonesia is used mainly in
more formal situation or whenever one is interacting with another person of
different ethnic group. Indonesian people in general like to use their own traditional
language in daily conversation.
Indonesia’s founding fathers recognized the diversity of Indonesia. Thus, in
order to be able to be functioning as a united nation, the founding fathers have set
a unifying philosophy for Indonesia: Pancasila. Pancasila literally means “The Five
Principles” (Kennedy, Lee, & Grossman 2010, as cited in Perdhana 2014). These
five principles serve as Indonesia’s state philosophy. Moreover, Indonesia also has
a national motto of “Bhinneka Tunggal Ika” or Unity in Diversity. The spirit of
being united despite all the differences is essential to the harmonious life among
20
Indonesian people.
2.3.2 Javanese
Javanese ethnic group is the largest ethnic group in Indonesia in terms of
population. It comprises 40.2% of the total population (Statistics Indonesia 2011).
Within the Javanese ethnic group, there are many distinct smaller ethnic groups
such as Javanese ethnic, Osing, Tengger, Samin, Bawean, Naga, Nagaring and
other ethnics living in the Java Island.
In its social interaction, people are divided based on its social status.
According to Geertz (1981) Javanese people can be identified from 3
classifications, they are santri, abangan, and priyayi. A person is classified as santri
is the one who embraces pure teachings of Islam. Whilst for abangan, it refers to
the persons who mix the teachings of Islam with traditional beliefs called Kejawen.
The last, priyayi, refers to the aristocrats.
Javanese people believe that everything has been set up for them by God,
and thus most people will have accepting behavior. With this belief, a Javanese
person will think that being ambitious is unnecessary because when it is meant for
him or her, he or she will get it eventually.
2.3.3 Sundanese
Sundanese is the second largest ethnic groups in terms of population. It
comprises around 15% of the total Indonesia’s populations. In the perspective of
cultural anthropology, Sundanese people or Sundanese ethnic group people are the
ones who have been speaking Sundanese language for generations and reside in
West Java area. This area is also known as “Tanah Pasundan” or “Tatar Sunda.”
21
Sundanese culture in general cannot be separated from the influence of
Islamic culture (Harsojo 2004). It is even more difficult to distinguish which one is
custom and which one is Islamic teachings or sharia. In terms of linage, Sundanese
culture has bilateral kinship system (Harsojo 2004). Bilateral kinship system is the
lineage which takes into account the kinship through the male and the female.
2.3.4 Batak
Bangun (2004) explains that there are certain unwritten rules regarding
social stratification within Batak culture. The judgment of social status is mainly
based on 1) age differences, 2) blood purity, 3) titles and positions, 4) marital status.
Age differences affect in the way in which the responsibilities among the people
are determined particularly in traditional ceremonies and patrimonies. In traditional
ceremonies or family business, only the elderly who has the right to voice his or her
opinions and make subsequent decisions. For younger adults, their job is to
implement the decision. As expected, younger members within the culture don’t
have any rights to speak nor to implement the decision. Even in the matter of
patrimonies, their mothers will take the patrimony for them since they are not
allowed to do anything (Bangun 2004). This aspect of Batak shows that there
hierarchical order that is maintained by Batak people, indicating they are a high
power distance culture.
Batak culture is mainly influenced by Islamic teachings and Christianity. In
1810, Islam was spread by Minangkabau people and it is now embraced mostly by
Southern Batak people, such as Mandailing and Angkola. As for Christianity, it was
initially spread in 1863 by religion organization from Germany to Toba and

22
Simalungun regions and by the Dutch religion organization to Karo region (Bangun
2004). To date, Christian Protestant and Islam are the two major religions among
Batak people.
2.3.5 Minangkabau
Minangkabau ethnic is originated from West Sumatra, Riau, the northern
part of Bengkulu, West Jambi, North Sumatra's west coast, southwest of Aceh, and
Negeri Sembilan in Malaysia (Jong 1976). According to Statistics Indonesia (2011),
the population of Minangkabau ethnic comprises 2.73% of Indonesia’s total
population.
There is a fair number of Minangkabau people who are prominent in the
field of commerce, as a professional, and an intellectual. According to Jones (2009),
they are the inheritors of a long tradition of Malay and Sriwijaya kingdom who likes
to trade. Besides trading, Minangkabau ethnic group also has high tendency to leave
their village and settle in elsewhere which is considered to provide a better life.
Minangkabau also the largest culture which has matrilineal social system.
A matrilineal social system following the maternal lineage (Junus 2004).
Matrilineal system is adopted by both within a marriage, tribal, heritage, and so on.
Koning (2000) explains that Minangkabau women have a special position in the
social system of the society. The women are called as Bundo Kanduang, played a
role and determine the successful implementation of the decisions made by men in
positions as mamak and the Penghulu (headman). A big influence is even making
women Minang to be symbolized as Limpapeh Rumah Nan Gadang (the main
pillars of the house).

23
Tribe is the basis of social and political organizations in the Minangkabau’s
community settings. In addition, the tribe is also the basis of economic units. The
wealth of a family is determined by the family land ownership, property, and other
sources of income known as inheritance. Inheritance is the joint property of all
members of a family member. Such property can’t be sold nor can it be privately
owned (Batuah & Madjoindo 1959).
Minangkabau culture is very much influence by the teachings of Islam.
According to Junus (2004), it would be an anomaly for a Minangkabau to embrace
other teachings or religion beside Islam. Nowadays, in Minangkabau culture there
is almost no distinctive rituals or symbols coming from their own culture. Almost
all rituals are influenced by Islamic customs such as kitan and katam which are
ceremonies of circumcision and reading the Quran until finish.
2.3.6 Chinese-Indonesian
Chinese Indonesian is a minority ethnic group in Indonesia, comprising
about 1.2% of the total population (Statistics Indonesia 2011). Despite being
smaller in terms of populations, however, Chinese Indonesian has long been
recognized for their impact on Indonesia’s economy. For many years, the wealthiest
men in Indonesia have been dominated by persons of Chinese Indonesian descent
(Forbes 2017). Their success in the business sector can be traced back to Indonesia’s
history during the colonial time.
Chinese ethnic who lives in Indonesia (Chinese Indonesia or Tionghoa) was
historically not from a specific area of the mainland China. They mostly came from
Fukien and Kwantung provinces. In terms of languages, Chinese Indonesians used

24
to be divided into several languages, namely Hokkien, Teochew, Hakka, and
Canton. These languages have significant differences that most of the time a
speaker from one language cannot effectively communicate from other speaker of
other language.
One of the characteristics of Chinese culture is it is influenced by religiosity
and ancestral culture (Whitehead & Brown 2011). Such characteristics are reflected
in the Chinese Indonesian ethnic who still holds the values and thoughts of
Confucianism. Chinese people believe in Confucianism teachings which taught that
the key of success is hard work and willingness to sacrifice (Seng 2006).
Confucianism emphasizes ethics in the life of family and relationship with other
human beings. The main values of the Confucianism teachings are ren (humanity),
xiao (filial piety), zhi (wisdom), yi (righteousness), and li (courtesy) (Rozie 2012).
2.4 Prior Studies
Many researches with similar approach, which study cultural differences
among subcultures within a country, have been conducted in the past studies.
25
Table 2.1
Prior Studies
Author(s)
No. Title Scope Methods
(Year)
1. Comparing Hofstede, Regional level comparisons in VSM 82 &
Regional Garibaldi de Brazil. Three independently VSM 94
Cultures Hilal, conducted studies. (quantitative)
within a Malvezzi,
Country: Tanure, &
Lessons from Vinken
Brazil (2010)
2. In for a Oliver Dividing Hofstede’s Arab VSM 94
Surprise Fischer & World into its own countries: (quantitative)
Piloting the Ahmad Al- Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon,
Arab Version Issa (2012) Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria,
of the VSM and UAE.
94
3. Is There Mangundja Ethnic group level comparison Modified
Cultural ya (2013) in one public organization, version of
Changes in the 2000 respondents of various VSM 94
National level of job position. (quantitative)
cultures of
Indonesia?
4. Cultural Perdhana Ethnic group level comparison Mixed
Values and (2014) in Indonesia. Samples: 100 methods:
Leadership managers for each ethnic group employing
Styles of from different organizations. VSM 13 and
Managers in MLQ5X
Indonesia: (quantitative)
Javanese and and in-depth
Chinese interviews
Indonesians (qualitative).
5. Measurement Weustink Regional level comparisons in VSM 94
of Culture; are (2014) India. (quantitative)
Regional and
National
Level Culture
Any
Different?
India as a case
study
Source: Compiled for the present study 2017.
1. Hofstede, Garibaldi de Hilal, et al. (2010)
Hofstede, Garibaldi de Hilal, et al. (2010) published a joint article reporting
three independently conducted research projects done by Sao Paulo-based

26
Institudo de Marketing Industrial (IMI), doctoral dissertation project at
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro conducted among Multinational
Companies (MNC), and another doctoral dissertation at Brunel University,
UK among Business Executives (BEX).
The article was published with the aim of testing common
assumption that a cultural framework designed from country level
comparisons can also be used for comparing other collective groups within
a country such as regional culture or ethnic group. The VSM used in these
three studies were VSM 82 and VSM 94. Despite the results of the study
suggest that there are significant differences among regional cultures, they
were reluctant to recommend using the VSM in understanding regional
differences. They recommended future research to extend the questionnaires
based on local literature.
2. Fischer and Al-Issa (2012)
In 2012, Fischer and Al-Issa published a brief report which extended
Hofstede’s research by investigating Arab countries. Hofstede has made
generalization regarding the cultural values of Arab countries by presenting
all of them as a single culture labeled as “Arab World” (Hofstede 1980a;
Hofstede 2001; Hofstede & Hofstede 2005; Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010).
Fischer and Al-Issa’s sample was students enrolled at a university in
Sharjah, UAE.
The evidence suggests that despite showing the opposite value to the
scores of Hofstede’s Arab World, their results formed a similar pattern

27
suggesting that Arab cultures might have a similar cultural values. However,
instead of admitting that the scores formed similarities among countries
studied, Fischer and Al-Issa pointed out that there might be changes in
values. Moreover, they also questioned the rigorousness of the cultural
framework by mentioning Baskerville's (2003) critics toward Hofstede’s
framework.
3. Mangundjaya (2013)
In 2013, similar research was conducted by an Indonesian researcher.
Mangundjaya (2013) studied a single state-owned company with a total of
2,025 respondents participated in the study. She employed a modified
version of VSM 94. Mangundjaya was well aware about the sampling
problem in the Hofstede’s Indonesian samples. Therefore, she divided her
respondents based on their ethnicities, to see whether each ethnic group
would indeed generate different results or scores. There were Javanese,
Sundanese, Batak, Minangkabau, Balinese, Ambonese, and Malay.
The results indicate that all ethnic groups are categorized as large
power distance, individualist, moderate preference for avoiding uncertainty,
and masculine. Compared to Hofstede’s findings, her results were different
in individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity dimensions.
Mangundjaya (2013) argued that shifts in values were due to the
organizational culture which promote the value of individualism and
masculinity. However, since Mangundjaya only studied a single company
and each ethnic groups show strong similarities in the dimensions scores,
28
the generalizability of the study becomes absent. Therefore, Mangundjaya
(2013) recommends future research to be conducted in various
organizations rather than studying a single organization.
4. Perdhana (2014)
In 2014, a doctoral dissertation was published after studying the cultural
values and leadership style of managers originating from Javanese and
Chinese Indonesian ethnic groups (Perdhana 2014). The purpose was to
investigate whether Chinese Indonesian has certain values which allow
them to be more competitive in the business competition in the country
compared to its Javanese counterpart (Perdhana 2014). In the study,
Perdhana (2014) employed VSM 13 to measure the cultural values of
Javanese and Chinese Indonesian managers. Not only did he measure the
cultural values with a set of questionnaire, he also conducted in-depth
interviews. It is found that Chinese Indonesian managers demonstrate more
collectivistic and assertive behavior. Chinese Indonesian managers are more
open toward ambitious behavior compared to the Javanese managers.
5. Weutsink (2014)
In the same year, Weutsink (2014) reported his comparative study of
regional cultures in India. He argues that India is a heterogeneous country
and thus will also have different cultural values. It is found that there are
indeed cultural values differences among the regional studied. These
differences mainly due to its economic disparity. Weutsink concluded that
Hofstede’s national cultural framework has been able to capture regional

29
cultural differences in India.
2.5 Research Gap
As Hofstede et al., (2010) define culture as “the collective mental
programming of the mind” that differentiate members of a collective group to
another, the term “collective group” is not always refer to the national culture. It
can also be applied to various levels of cultures such as regional cultures and ethnic
group cultures within a single country. A country might be formed with high degree
of similarities or homogeneous society such as Japan, or it might also be formed
because of the same vision due to sharing the same historical events in the past such
as Indonesia.
As a multiethnic country, Indonesia consists of many different cultures and
values that make Indonesia a unique country. According to Statistics Indonesia
(2011), the country has over 1,300 ethnicities with hundreds of local languages
which are formed into 31 major ethnic groups such as Javanese, Sundanese, Batak,
Minangkabau, Balinese, Chinese Indonesian, etc. It is quite impossible to study all
minor ethnic groups because the differences among them are often only visible
among the members of the ethnic groups themselves. The purpose of the present
study was to give a closer investigation regarding the cultural variations using
Hofstede’s national cultural framework. Therefore, the classification of cultural
differences in the present study is based on ethnicities and ethnic groups.
Ethnicity refers to “cultural practices and outlooks of a given community
that have emerged historically and set people apart” (Giddens et al. 2012). Members
of ethnic groups see themselves as culturally distinct from other groups and are seen
30
as distinct by those other groups. Different characteristics may distinguish ethnic
groups form one another, but the most common are some combination of language,
history, religious faith, and ancestry – real or imagined – and styles of dress or
adornment. (Giddens et al. 2012). Examples of ethnic groups in Indonesia are
Javanese, Madurese, Balinese, Sundanese, Batak, and so on.
Cross-cultural comparison studies have been conducted based on two or
more nationally distinct group of respondents, building stereotypes at national level
to help understand the essential differences among the countries studied. Whilst not
rejecting this approach entirely, the present study argued that such approaches are
only useful at the early stage of a research project. At the early stage, data
validations for the concept is very much needed. Therefore, comparing one nation
to the other (disregarding the actual conditions of many multiethnic countries) is
easier and more accessible.
Given the fact that Indonesia is a multiethnic country and Indonesian
researchers have begun to have strong awareness (i.e. Mangundjaya 2013; Perdhana
2014; Mas’ud 2010; Suharnomo 2016; Mas’ud 2008) towards this problems, efforts
must be aimed at addressing the cultural variations within the country. In response
with it, the present study was done with the aim of investigating the cultural
differences and similarities among employees from five major ethnic groups:
Javanese, Sundanese, Batak, Minangkabau, and Chinese Indonesian.

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This study argued that in order to understand the national culture of
Indonesia, cultural differences on ethnic level must be acknowledged. To achieve a
better understanding of the culture of the country, one must also understand the
cultural values of its ethnicities. Therefore, this study employed Hofstede’s national
cultural framework to derive score on each of the four dimensions of national
culture from five ethnic groups in Indonesia: Javanese, Sundanese, Minangkabau,
Batak, and Chinese Indonesian.
3.2 Respondents of the Study
A total of 699 employees working in telecommunication, food and
beverages, textile, and service industries in Central Java were recruited to
participate in this study. The sample consisted of 452 males (64.66%) and 247
females (35.34%). In terms of age, the sample was relatively young with the age
group of 20 to 29 years old dominated the composition with a total number of 428
respondents (61.23%). The ethnic composition was fairly distributed: 28.61% of
respondents were Javanese, 21.32% were Sundanese, 14.31% were Batak, 14.31%
were Minangkabau, and 21.46% were Chinese Indonesian.
3.2.1 Population
Population refers to the entire group of people, events, or things of interest
that a researcher wishes to investigate. It is the groups of people, events, or things
31
32
of interest for which the researcher wants to make inferences based on sample
statistics (Sekaran & Bougie 2013). The aim of this study was to closely investigate
the cultural values of employees from five major ethnic groups in Indonesia:
Javanese, Sundanese, Minangkabau, Batak, and Chinese Indonesian. Therefore, the
population of this study is all employees originating from those five ethnic groups.
3.2.2 Sample
A sample is a subset of the population. It comprises some members selected
from it (Sekaran & Bougie 2013; Sekaran 2009). The purpose of employing
Hofstede’s VSM was to locate groups of respondents on the four dimensions of
Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism, and Masculinity.
According to Hofstede (1982), in order to obtain statistically reliable (stable) scores,
groups of respondents should not be smaller than 50. As mentioned earlier, this
study managed to collect responses from 699 respondents with 200 of which were
Javanese, 149 were Sundanese, 100 were Minangkabau, Batak with the same
amount as Minangkabau, and 150 were Chinese Indonesian. With the minimum
number of 100 of each group, the present study has exceeded Hofstede’s minimum
criteria of 50 respondents.
The four dimensions in which groups will be scored were developed for
describing national cultures. However, the scores are also affected by other
characteristics of the respondent groups such as educational level, sex, age,
occupation, organizational subculture, etc. For instance, Hofstede (1982) reminds
VSM users to only collect data from matched groups of respondents from two or
more countries (in the case of this study, ethnic groups). To satisfy this requirement,
33
this research utilized purposive sampling method with the following criteria:
a. A person, either man or woman, who is employed in a paid job of any
position;
b. the person was raised, from 0-10 years of age, in an environment in
which his or her ethnic groups was originated (e.g. a Sundanese by blood
but was raised in Tembagapura, Papua is ineligible);
3.3 Research Instrument Used
This study employed the 1982 version of Hofstede’s Value Survey Module
(VSM 82). It is the first version of VSM that was available for research replications
and extensions. The composition of the module is based on research among 116.000
respondents within IBM Corporation (Hofstede 1980a).
VSM 82 consists of three parts: 1) first part consists of 23 questions with
the response option ranges from 1 (of utmost importance) to 5 (of very little or no
importance); 2) second part is asking specific about culture. It consists of 24
questions; and 3) the last part is demographic questions which ask about age,
gender, ethnicity, education, and occupation.
3.4 Research Procedure
3.4.1 Pilot Testing
VSM 82 was only available in the original English version. According to
English First English Proficiency Index (EF EPI) (2016), Indonesia is ranked 32nd
out of 72 countries, placing the country in the moderate proficiency band. On this
level, Indonesian employees are expected to be able to participate in meetings in
their area of expertise and passive communication only. They will not be able to
34
make a proper presentation at work or read advanced texts with ease (English First
2016). Understanding this fact, translation into Bahasa Indonesia was considered as
compulsory. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, VSM 82 was translated.
After the first draft of translation was obtained, the researcher consulted the
result to the supervisor, resulting a revised version to be used in a preliminary
research or pilot testing. Pilot testing was aimed to obtain comment and clarification
from the respondents about any mistakes found in the questionnaire such as typos
and unclear terms. On the other hand, researchers were able to estimate the total
amount of time needed to finish a single questionnaire which was helpful in
convincing respondents in the real research.
Consequently, the revised draft of the questionnaire was used in the pilot
test. The pilot test was conducted in the Master of Management Department,
Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Diponegoro (FEB Undip). There
was a total of 40 respondents in the test which were divided into two groups. Only
students who were employed in a company were eligible to participate in the pilot
test. This was due to the research sample used in this study which was employees
of various industries. Their responses were included in the research data according
to their own ethnic groups.
3.4.2 Questionnaire Design
Participating in a research involves time and effort from the respondents. To
express researchers’ seriousness and commitment towards the respondents, the final
version of the questionnaire was designed in a professional yet attractive manner.
Their contributions to the study couldn’t be much appreciated. Therefore, the

35
carefully designed questionnaire was intended to appreciate their involvement in
the study.
3.4.3 Data Collection
After the pilot test was done and the new design had been applied, the next
stage was data collection. The data collection was mainly done by the Management
students from batch 2012 who were taking Manajemen Indonesia or Indonesian
Management courses. Dr. Suharnomo, as the coordinator of this research project,
would brief the students and explain the intention and the background of this study.
He then explained about the criteria of respondents as mentioned in the section 3.2.1
regarding the population of this study. In order to achieve the goal of the study,
which was understanding the cultural variations among five ethnic groups, he
stressed the importance of matching the criteria.
After the briefing, each class was divided into 5 groups. Each group was
tasked to collect data from one specific ethnic group after the middle test, each
group would present their findings using available literature about Hofstede
national cultural framework and the cultures of Indonesian’s ethnic groups. For
instance, in each class, there were five ethnic groups studied: Javanese, Sundanese,
Minangkabau, Batak, and Chinese Indonesia.
3.5 Data Handling
All responses were obtained through pen-to-paper questionnaires. At this
state, the responses were not able to be calculated comfortably. Therefore,
researchers transformed these responses in electronic form using Microsoft Excel.
The responses were divided according to the ethnicity of the respondents.

36
3.6 Data Computation and Analysis
VSM 82 is a set of questions that allow measurement of four dimensions of
national culture. They are Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism
versus Collectivism, and Masculinity versus Femininity. The score normally ranges
between 0-100 creating two continuum on each dimension (e.g. small power
distance to large power distance). “Normally ranges” implies that in a certain
situation, the score may exceed the normal range.
Data analysis rely on the scores on each dimension. The discussion was
based on Hofstede et al. (2010) book, the Cultures and Organizations: Software of
the Mind and literature available that discuss Indonesia’s subcultures, in this case,
Javanese, Sundanese, Batak, Minangkabau, and Chinese Indonesian.
3.6.1 Data Computation
All responses were treated as prescribed in the VSM 82 formulae. The
mechanism of data treatment will be discussed on each dimension, as follows:
3.6.1.1 Power Distance Index
This dimension uses questions 19, 20, and 22 of Part 1 of the VSM. Data
computation was done on each ethnic group using Power Distance Index, as
follows:
PDI = 135 – a + b – 25 c
The “a”, “b”, and “c” in the formula are:
a) The percentage of “manager 3” in question 19 of Part 1 (the percentage
base consists of the number of valid responses only, that is those who
chose manager 1, 2, 3 or 4; meaning blanks and/or double answers were

37
excluded).
b) The percentage of “manager 1” plus “manager 2” in question 20 of Part
1 (again the percentage base is valid responses; in this case, also
response no 5 is considered valid).
c) The mean score on question 22 of Part 1 (subordinates afraid to express
disagreement). Mean scores on this and other question were computed
as follows:
1 x (% answer 1) + 2 x (% answer 2) + 3 x (% answer 3) + 4 x (%
answer 4) + 5 x (% answer 5), divided by 100
The percentage base was also valid answers only (blanks and doubles
were excluded).
3.6.1.2 Uncertainty Avoidance Index
This dimension uses questions 21 and 23 of Part 1 and question 19 of Part
2. Data computation was done on each ethnic group using Uncertainty Avoidance
Index, as follows:
UAI = 300 – 40 d – 30 e – f
The “d”, “e”, and “f” in the formula are:
d) The mean score on question 21 of Part 1 (treated the same as Power
Distance Index above, point c).
e) The mean score on question 19 of Part 2
f) The percentage of “two years at the most” plus “from two to five years”
in question 23 of Part 1 (percentage base is valid answers only).
3.6.1.3 Individualism Index

38
The computation of the Individualism Index (IDV) used the mean scores on
questions 1, 4, 8 and 13 of Part 1 (treated the same as Power Distance Index, point
c). The means were then calculated using this formula:
IDV = 76 m4 – 43 m1 + 30 m8 – 27 m13 – 29
3.6.1.4 Masculinity Index
An approximated calculation for the Masculinity Index (MAS) has been
developed in the same way as for IDV (Hofstede 1982). It uses the mean scores on
questions 6, 8, 11 and 14 of Part 1. Question 8 is used both in the IDV and MAS.
The means were then calculated using this formula:
MAS = 60 m8 – 66 m11 + 30 m6 – 39 m14 + 76
3.6.2 Data Analysis
The data obtained during data collection process was transformed into the
electronic form. In this process, there were 3 responses that had been omitted due
to quality issue such as exceeding 25% blank responses criteria. Therefore, out of
702 responses, there are 699 responses that was ready to be computed.
As mentioned in the previous section, the data computation was done using
the formulae VSM 82. The present study was able to produce all four dimensions
from five major ethnic groups in Indonesia.
After the scores had been obtained, data analysis was able to be done. Data
analysis relied on Hofstede’s definition regarding all four dimensions studied and
its consequences toward the behavior of the people of the culture. Literature
regarding Indonesia and its ethnic groups are now available to help address the
unique findings of this research.

39
The data analysis was also done by looking closely on how each ethnic
group responded to each question and see how it eventually affected the overall
scores given to them. A detailed discussion regarding the results and their analysis
is presented on Chapter IV.

40
Exhibit 3.1
Steps Taken During the Study
STEP 1
DESIGNING AND PREPARING THE INSTRUMENT
1. Determining which VSM version that would be used;
2. Translating the chosen instrument;
3. Reviewing the first draft of translation;
4. Conducting a pilot test to obtain feedback;
5. Perfecting the instrument as well as applying new design to it;
6. The questionnaire is ready.
STEP 2
DATA COLLECTION
1. Communicating the research purposes and objectives to the students of
Manajemen Indonesia;
2. Dividing the classes into several groups, and assigning each of them to
focus on a particular ethnic group;
3. Questionnaire distribution to targeted respondents;
4. Distribution done, each group would then make a brief report and
present their findings in the class;
5. Physical questionnaires submission to Dr. Suharnomo.
STEP 3
DATA CLEANING
1. The questionnaires were given to the researcher in order to data
recalculation;
2. 702 questionnaires were obtained and transformed into an electronic
document, in this case the researcher used MS Excel;
4 4 out of questionnaires were omitted in for being short of quality;
3. The data is ready to calculate.
STEP 4
DATA CALCULATION AND INTERPRETATION
1. Calculation was done as prescribed by the formulae of VSM 82;
2. Each ethnic group was given four scores on Power Distance,
Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism, and Masculinity;
3. Interpretation was based on Hofstede’s own explanation regarding the
consequences of the scores and the literature available regarding
Indonesia and its ethnic groups’ cultures.
4. Writing research report: thesis and article for publication
Source: Developed for the study 2017.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
The previous chapter presented the methodology used in this study in order
to investigate the cultural values and make comparison among Indonesia’s five
major ethnic groups. This chapter will show the results obtained after employing
Hofstede’s Value Survey Module 1982 (VSM 82) on our sample.
The data computation was done as prescribed by Hofstede’s Value Survey
Module 1982 formulae. With the formulae, this study was able to produce scores
on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions of Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance,
Masculinity and Individualism on each of the ethnic group.
The aim of this study was to investigate the cultural values of Javanese,
Sundanese, Batak, Minangkabau, and Chinese Indonesian ethnic groups, the results
will be presented on each of the dimension. Subsequent consequences of the results
will be discussed according to the existing literature regarding the cultural
framework as well as Indonesia’s subcultures.
4.2 Description of the Sample
This research involved sampling of employees working in
telecommunication, food and beverages, textile, and service industries mainly
reside in Central Java, meaning there were employees of non-Javanese ethnic
groups who live in the area. With the involvement of students of Management FEB
Undip, some questionnaires were also able to be distributed directly to the addresses
of the respondents and/or via email to ease all the process of data collection. For
41
42
responses through email, the students would then fill the responses to the paper
version of the questionnaire before submitting all the physical questionnaires to Dr.
Suharnomo.
The initial responses of this study were 702 responses. It is worth to note
that there were 3 responses that have been omitted due to exceeding the acceptable
amount of blank responses of 25% (Sekaran & Bougie 2013). For instance, the total
sample of this study was 699 respondents from Javanese, Sundanese, Batak,
Minangkabau, and Chinese Indonesian employees.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the cultural values of Javanese,
Sundanese, Batak, Minangkabau, and Chinese Indonesian employees, to determine
whether there were any distinctive cultural values that exist among them. This study
argued that in order to understand the culture of Indonesia, one must first understand
the cultural values that exist on an ethnic group level. Understanding similarities
and differences among ethnic groups will benefit one’s ability to interact to and to
work with different people from different background.
Table 4.1 outlines the profile and demographic characteristic of the
respondents:
43
Table 4.1
Profile of Respondents
Variable N Percentage
Ethnicity
Javanese 200 28.6
Sundanese 149 21.3
Batak 100 14.3
Minangkabau 100 14.3
Chinese-Indonesian 150 21.5
Gender
Male 436 62.4
Female 263 37.6
Age
20 – 24 years old 316 45.2
25 – 29 years old 112 16.0
30 – 34 years old 76 10.9
35 – 39 years old 50 7.2
40 – 49 years old 90 12.9
Over 50 years old 55 7.9
Education
Doctorate Degree 6 0.9
Master’s Degree 110 15.7
Bachelor Degree 452 64.7
Senior High School 163 23.3
Junior High School 8 1.1
Job Position
Manager of at least
164 23.5
one subordinate
Employee 535 76.5
Source: Research Data 2017.
4.2.1 Gender
Masculinity versus Femininity is a dimension in which the responses might
be influenced by the respondents’ sex and gender (Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010).
For this reason, it is essential to have a fair and balanced composition based on
gender in employing Hofstede’s Value Survey Module. The present study was able
to successfully collected responses from both male and female employees at an

44
acceptable composition.
In total, female respondents comprise more than one-third out of 699
respondents. The composition remained similar in Javanese, Batak, and Chinese
Indonesian with 30% to 34% of female respondents. Whilst in the case of
Sundanese and Minangkabau employees, the compositions are almost similar with
48.32% for Sundanese and 46% for Minangkabau. Exhibit 4.1 outlines the gender
composition of the current sample:
Exhibit 4.1
Gender
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
JAVANESE SUNDANESE BATAK MINANGKABAU CHINESE
INDONESIAN
MALE FEMALE
4.2.2 Age
The age profile of reveals that the respondents were mostly at very young
age. Sixty-percent of Javanese respondents belonged to the age category between
20 and 24 years old. For the rest of ethnic groups, there were at least 30% belonged
to this age category. The percentage is almost similar for Sundanese, Batak, and
Minangkabau for age category between 20 and 24 years old with 42.3%, 44%, and
45
44% respectively. Exhibit 4.2 outlines the respondents’ age category in full as
follows:
Exhibit 4.2
Age
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
20 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 49 > 50
JAVANESE SUNDANESE BATAK MINANGKABAU CHINESE INDONESIAN
4.2.3 Education
In terms of educational qualifications, the respondents can be considered as
adequately educated, referring to the Indonesian Government Regulation No. 47 of
2008 regarding 9-Year Compulsory Education. The lowest degree participated in
in the study was Junior High School with the number of as small as 8 respondents,
whilst the highest degree was Doctorate Degree, albeit only with 6 respondents.
Moreover, both groups were only contributed by a single ethnic group: the group
of Doctorate Degree was only available in Sudanese sample whilst group of Junior
High School was only available in Javanese sample.
The group of Bachelor Degree dominated this study with 452 respondents,
comprising 64.7% of the total sample. The second and third highest groups in terms
46
of education were Senior High School and Master’s Degree with 163 and 110
respondents respectively. Exhibit 4.3 outlines the educational qualification by
ethnicity:
Exhibit 4.3
Education Qualification
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
DOCTORATE MASTER BACHELOR SENIOR HIGH JUNIOR HIGH
SCHOOL SCHOOL
JAVANESE SUNDANESE BATAK MINANGKABAU CHINESE INDONESIAN
4.2.4 Job Position
The question asking the respondent’s job position has 3 options, they are 1)
I am a manager (have at least one subordinate in the organizational structure); 2) I
am not a manager but I work in an office; and 3) I am not a manager and I don’t
work in an office. Option number 1 and 2 were used to differentiate the respondents
based on their role in their organizations whilst option number 3 served as a
controlling option to ensure that the respondents match the criteria of this study.
As indicated in the options mentioned above, job position classification is
divided into two positions. The first position is manager. A person who has at least
one subordinate is considered as manager. He or she might be a person managing

47
another manager or non-manager. The second position is a regular employee
without any extra role in terms of managing another person. The decision to draw
samples from only these two categories of respondents was due to the purpose of
this study which was to obtain the cultural values among employees from five major
ethnic groups in Indonesia and to investigate their subsequent behaviors in the
workplace.
The respondents’ characteristic based on job position reveals that the
majority of respondents were non-managing employees. Seventy-six-point-five
percent of the total 699 respondents were non-managing employees, whilst 23.5%
of them were managers. The composition differs slightly when observed on each
ethnicity. Ethnic Minangkabau has the least managers both in number and in
percentage with 17 samples out of 100 samples. On the contrary, ethnic Chinese
Indonesian has the highest managers both in number and in percentage with 45
samples out of 150 samples. Exhibit 4.4 outlines the characteristic of the present
study samples based on job position:

48
Exhibit 4.4
Job Position
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
JAVANESE SUNDANESE BATAK MINANGKABAU CHINESE
INDONESIAN
MANAGER EMPLOYEE
4.3 Results of the VSM 82 Calculations
In the present study, cultural dimensions scores of Javanese, Sundanese,
Batak, Minangkabau, and Chinese Indonesian were calculated using Value Survey
Module 82 (VSM 82). It consists of 47 main items which were divided into two
parts or sections. There are also demographic questions in the last part of the
questionnaire.
VSM 82 measures 4 main cultural dimensions: Power Distance, Uncertainty
Avoidance, Individualism versus Collectivism, and Masculinity versus Femininity.
It normally produces scores for each dimension with a range between 0-100
(Hofstede 1982). The formulae for VSM 82 questionnaire are presented in Table
4.2.
49
Table 4.2
Value Survey Module 82 Formulae
Dimension Formula
Power Distance (PDI) PDI = 135 – a + b – 25 c
Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) UAI = 300 – 40 d – 30 e – f
Individualism vs. Collectivism (IDV) IDV = 76m4 – 43m1 + 30m8 – 27m13 – 29
Masculinity vs. Femininity (MAS) MAS = 60m8 – 66m11 + 30m6 – 39m14 + 76
Source: Adapted from Hofstede (1982).
On the PDI formula, “a” represents the percentage of “manager 3”
responses on question 19 of part 1. Moreover, “b” represents the percentage of
“manager 1” plus “manager 2” on question 20 of part 1. As for “c”, it represents the
mean score on question 22 of part 1.
On the UAI formula, “d” and “e” represent the mean score on question 21
of part 1 and question 19 of part 2 respectively. Whilst “f” on the formula represent
the percentage of option 1 “two years at the most” plus option 2 “from two to five
years” on question 23 of part 1.
On the IDV and MAS formulae, “mn” represents the mean score on question
n of part 1. Therefore, “m8” is the mean score on question 8 of part 1, “m11” is the
mean score on question 11 of part 1, and so on. As for the numbers 76, 43, 60, 66
etc. before the “mn”, they represent the weighting factors of the equations. The
results and further explanation regarding the formulae will be presented on each of
the dimension, as follows:
4.3.1 Power Distance
Power Distance is the extent to which less powerful members of
institutions/organizations expect and accept that power is distributed unequally
(Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010). It has two poles of a continuum: small power
distance to large power distance (Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010).

50
Power Distance scores of Javanese, Sundanese, Batak, Minangkabau, and
Chinese Indonesian are presented as follows:
Table 4.3
Power Distance Scores of Five Ethnic Groups Studied
Formula
Ethnic Group a b c Score Cat.
PDI = 135 – a + b – 25 c
Javanese 32.00 41.00 3.32 135 – 32.00 + 41.00 – (25*3.32) 61.00 Large
Sundanese 35.57 30.87 3.08 135 – 35.57 + 30.87 – (25*3.08) 53.29 Mod.
Batak 31.00 40.00 2.83 135 – 31.00 + 40.00 – (25*2.83) 73.25 Large
Minangkabau 41.00 44.00 2.88 135 – 41.00 + 44.00 – (25*2.88) 66.00 Large
Chinese
22.00 32.00 3.23 135 – 22.00 + 32.00 – (25*3.23) 64.33 Large
Indonesian
PDI = Power Distance Index
a = percentage of option 3 in question 19 of Part 1
b = percentage of option 1 plus option 2 in question 20 of Part 1
c = the mean value of question 22 of Part 1
Cat. = Category; Large = Large Power Distance
From the calculations above, it can be seen that all ethnic groups scored
more than 50 on this dimension and can be considered as having large power
distance (Hofstede 1982; Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010). Nevertheless, there are
still obvious differences that can be observed. According to the results, ethnic
Sundanese has the lowest score compared to the rest of other ethnicities with the
score 53.29, whilst ethnic Batak has the highest score with 73.25. Smit (2015)
indicates that 10 points difference in Hofstede’s culture dimensions will allow
people of other culture to feel the difference. For instance, to Sundanese employees,
Batak employees will be more hierarchical compared to themselves. On the other
hand, ethnic Javanese, Minangkabau, and Chinese Indonesian have the scores of
61.00, 66.00, and 64.33 respectively.
Overall, the results of this dimension are not too surprising. Hofstede et al.,
(2010) regards Indonesia as a country with large power distance with managers
51
would employ paternalistic and authoritative leadership styles. On his findings,
Indonesia was given score 78 on Power Distance dimension.
To examine how each ethnic groups responded to each question, more
detailed analysis was applied resulting in the writing of point 4.3.1.1 regarding
question 19 of Part 1; 4.3.1.2 regarding question 20 Part 1; and 4.3.1.3 regarding
question 22 of Part 1.
Before going into more specific explanation regarding each question used
in the calculation for this dimension, here are 4 types of managers that are explained
in the VSM 82 questionnaire. It is located after question 18 of Part 1.
Manager 1. He or she usually makes a swift decision. After that, he or she
would communicate the decision to the subordinates with concise explanation and
great assurance. He or she expects the subordinates to act accordingly. Decisions
are therefore made by him or herself and it is subordinates’ job to finish them (this
type of manager is classified as having autocratic style).
Manager 2. He or she also makes a quick decision but before proceeding,
he or she would try to explain his or her decision to the subordinates, including the
justifying reasons on why that particular decision is going to be made. He or she
always answers to the questions addressed to him regarding the decision. Decisions
are made by him or herself with clear explanation (this type of manager is classified
as having paternalistic style).
Manager 3. He or she usually consults his or her subordinates before making
any decision. He or she always listens to what the subordinates have to say, and
then announce the decision that he or she takes. After the decision has been made,
52
the subordinates are expected to be able to implement it regardless of the conformity
to the suggestions made by the subordinates earlier (this type of manager is
classified as having consultative style).
Manager 4. He or she usually gathers everyone including his or her
subordinates whenever a decision has to be made. Beforehand, he or she would
explain about the problems faced by them and therefore there will be a discussion
among them. In the end, the manager will ask everyone to vote and then make a
decision based on the vote (this type of manager is classified as having
participative style).
4.3.1.1 Question 19 of Part 1 (a)
Question 19 of part 1 asked about the respondents’ preference regarding his
or her ideal type of boss as explained above. In the calculation, only responses that
chose “manager 3” or option number 3 were included into the equation. It can be
concluded that the “a” in the formula pertains to the respondents’ view regarding
managers with the participative style of leadership.
In this section, analysis regarding the full responses of each ethnic group is
presented. Exhibit 4.5 shows the comparison among ethnic groups studied. Due to
the differences in the number of respondents for each ethnic groups, the responses
will be presented in percentage. In total, there were 699 respondents participated in
this study. Two-hundred of which were of Javanese ethnicity, 149 for Sundanese,
Batak and Minangkabau 100 each, and 150 for Chinese Indonesian.
53
Exhibit 4.5
Full Responses on Question 19-1
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
MANAGER 1 MANAGER 2 MANAGER 3 MANAGER 4
JAVANESE 1% 12% 32% 56%
SUNDANESE 2% 17% 36% 46%
BATAK 18% 22% 31% 29%
MINANGKABAU 14% 19% 41% 26%
CHINESE INDONESIAN 43% 14% 22% 21%
From Exhibit 4.5, it can be seen that the majority of Chinese Indonesian
employees (43%) preferred manager type 1. Manager type 1 makes decisions
quickly and by him or herself. After that, it is the job of the subordinates to do the
rest of the work as desired by the manager. On the contrary, Javanese and
Sundanese employees would never want to be bossed by that type of manager as
indicated by the response rate on manager 1 of only 1% for Javanese and 2% of
Sundanese. Both Javanese and Sundanese employees would be pleased to have a
type of manager who is accessible and a great listener or manager type 4. Javanese
and Sundanese opted for the manager 4 for 56% and 46% respectively. In the case
of Batak and Minangkabau employees, they opted the highest on manager type 3
with 31% and 41% respectively.

54
4.3.1.2 Question 20 of Part 1 (b)
Question 20 of part 1 asked respondents regarding the type of their current
boss or manager. In the calculation, “b” is the percentage of answers that chose
“manager 1” and “manager 2”. As mentioned above, these type of managers have
tendencies to make decisions by him or herself and thus, are regarded as having an
authoritative style of leadership. Therefore, the “b” has positive value in the
equation which reflects on having high power distance value.
In the Exhibit 4.6, it can be seen that Javanese, Batak, and Minangkabau
employees had virtually the same amount of all type of managers. Whilst Sundanese
employees had mostly manager type 3 as their managers with 45%. Despite having
a strong preference on being bossed by decisive managers, Chinese Indonesian
employees were mostly (38%) bossed by managers with the participative style of
leadership as their boss.
Exhibit 4.6
Full Responses on Question 20-1
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
MANAGER 1 MANAGER 2 MANAGER 3 MANAGER 4 NEITHER
JAVANESE 21% 21% 25% 29% 5%
SUNDANESE 11% 19% 45% 21% 3%
BATAK 14% 26% 30% 21% 9%
MINANGKABAU 22% 22% 28% 20% 8%
CHINESE INDONESIAN 18% 14% 24% 38% 6%

55
4.3.1.3 Question 22 of Part 1 (c)
Question 22 of part 1 asked the respondents about the intensity of being
afraid in showing disagreement to their bosses. “c” in the equation is the mean value
of the question 22 of Part 1.
From Exhibit 4.7, it can be observed that the majority of Sundanese (47%)
and Javanese (40%) employees opted for “Sometimes” in this question. In relation
to the question 19, in which the Javanese and Sundanese employees had virtually
no preference on being bossed by managers with the autocratic style of leadership,
the responses in question 22 shows that they also sometimes are afraid to confront
their own managers whenever their disagreement. Interestingly, there is still 30%
of Javanese employees of rarely feel afraid to confront their managers.
In the case of Batak and Minangkabau employees, they often feel afraid to
show disagreement to their bosses as indicated by the responses of 38% and 37%
respectively. Whilst for Chinese Indonesian employees, they have lower tendencies
in being afraid to show disagreement with their boss as indicated by the relatively
high rate of responses on “seldom” with 33%.

56
Exhibit 4.7
Question 22-1 Subordinates Afraid to Contradict Boss
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
ALWAYS OFTEN SOMETIMES SELDOM NEVER
JAVANESE 3% 16% 40% 30% 12%
SUNDANESE 7% 14% 47% 26% 5%
BATAK 6% 38% 32% 15% 9%
MINANGKABAU 4% 37% 34% 17% 8%
4.3.2 Uncertainty Avoidance
Uncertainty Avoidance is defined as ‘the extent to which the members of
institutions and organizations within a society feel threatened by uncertain,
unknown, ambiguous, or unstructured situations” (Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010).
In a high-avoiding uncertainty culture, there is an emotional need for the people to
have both written and unwritten rules.
Using Value Survey Module 82 formula, the present study was able to
extract scores on this dimension for each ethnic group and will be presented in Table
4.4 below:
57
Table 4.4
Uncertainty Avoidance Scores of Five Ethnic Groups Studied
Formula
Ethnic Group d e f Score Category
UAI = 300 – 40 d – 30 e – f
300 – (40*2.70) – (30*3.04)
Javanese 2.70 3.04 57.00 – 57.00
43.80 Weak
300 – (40*3.38) – (30*2.91)
Sundanese 3.38 2.91 38.26 – 38.26
39.33 Weak
300 – (40*3.50) – (30*2.73)
Batak 3.50 2.73 58.59 – 58.59
19.51 Very Weak
300 – (40*3.08) – (30*2.70)
Minangkabau 3.08 2.70 34.34 – 34.34
61.46 Strong
Chinese 300 – (40*2.82) – (30*2.88)
2.82 2.88 33.57 67.23 Strong
Indonesian – 33.57
UAI = Uncertainty Avoidance Index
d = mean value of question 21 of Part 1
e = mean value of question 19 of Part 2
f = percentage of option 1 and option 2 in question 23 of Part 1
Low = Low Uncertainty Avoidance; Very Low = Very Low Uncertainty Avoidance; High = High
Uncertainty Avoidance
According to the results above, it can be seen that there are significant
differences among five ethnic groups studied in the way they are dealing with
uncertainties. From the calculations above, the ethnic groups can be divided into
three classifications: 1) strong uncertainty avoidance culture indicated by a score
above 50, 2) weak uncertainty avoidance indicated by a score ranges from 30 to 49,
and 3) very weak uncertainty avoidance indicated by a score below 29.
Ethnic groups of the first category are Chinese Indonesian and
Minangkabau with score 67.23 and 61.46 respectively. In a high uncertainty
avoiding cultures, the need for more structured and written rules are higher. On the
second category, there are Javanese and Sundanese with score 43.80 and 39.33
respectively. And the last category with a very low preference for avoiding
uncertainty is Batak with score 19.51. Dividing these ethnic groups into different
categories will help in discussion section later in this chapter.

58
question 21 of Part 1; 4.3.2.2 regarding question 19 of Part 2; and 4.3.2.3 regarding
question 23 of Part 1.
4.3.2.1 Question 21 of Part 1 (d)
Question 21 of part 1 asked “how often do you feel nervous or tense at
work?” With the options range from 1 (always) to 5 (never), scoring high in this
question will indicate lower preference for avoiding uncertainty and vice versa.
As can be observed in Exhibit 4.8, Batak had the highest percentage of
option 4 (seldom) to option 5 (never) answers with a combined percentage of 51%.
The fact that Batak scored very low on the UAI dimension (19.51), this isn’t too
surprising. What isn’t too surprising either is the fact that the ethnic groups which
scored high on this dimension, Minangkabau and Chinese Indonesian, had also high
percentage of option 1 (always) and 2 (often) with 34% each. This is not the case
for Javanese, however, despite scoring low on this dimension (43.80), they still
have high anxiety regarding their job as indicated with the high percentage of option
1 and 2 (37%).
In the end, Sundanese showed another consistent relationship between the
overall score of UAI dimension and the percentage answers on this question. As a
culture with low preference for avoiding uncertainty (39.33), Sundanese had high
percentage of option 4 and 5 with a combined value of 44% and small percentage
of option 1 and 2 with only 9%.

59
Exhibit 4.8
Question 21-1 Intensity of Being Nervous about Job
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
ALWAYS OFTEN SOMETIMES SELDOM NEVER
JAVANESE 16% 21% 45% 15% 4%
SUNDANESE 3% 6% 47% 37% 7%
BATAK 4% 13% 32% 31% 20%
MINANGKABAU 9% 24% 31% 22% 14%
4.3.2.2 Question 19 of Part 2 (e)
Question 19 of part 2 asked the respondents regarding their views that
company rules shouldn’t be broken even if it was done in the aim of benefitting the
organization. In this question, the options range from 1 (utmost importance) to 5
(not important). “e”, in the UAI formula, is the mean value of question 19 of part 2
which means scoring high on this question will indicate higher preference for
avoiding uncertainty. Cultures with high uncertainty avoidance will see the rules as
tools in protecting themselves and providing much needed certainty.
As can be observed in Exhibit 4.9, Minangkabau and Chinese Indonesian as
high-avoiding uncertainty cultures, scored very high on option 1, 2, and 3 with a
combined percentage of 82% and 84% respectively. Whilst Javanese as low-
avoiding uncertainty culture, scored relatively high on option 4 and 5 with

60
combined percentage of 30%. Lastly, in spite of being identified as having low
preference for avoiding uncertainty, Batak and Sundanese still reflected the
importance of obeying the rules. Respectively, 84% and 81% of the respondents
regarded this matter as important.
Exhibit 4.9
Question 19-2 Company Rules Should Not Be Broken
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
UTMOST VERY FAIRLY NOT
IMPORTANT
IMPORTANCE IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT
JAVANESE 6% 22% 42% 22% 8%
SUNDANESE 5% 19% 56% 17% 2%
BATAK 8% 30% 43% 19% 0%
MINANGKABAU 9% 30% 43% 18% 0%
4.3.2.3 Question 23 of Part 1 (f)
Question 23 of part 1 asked the respondents about their intention toward
their future in the organization. There are 4 options to choose, 1 being “maximum
2 years”, 2 being “between 2 to 5 years”, 3 being “more than 5 years”, and 4 being
“until retired”. “f” is the percentage of option 1 plus option 2 in the question 23 of
part 1. As indicated by the options that were measured, scoring high percentage of
option 1 plus option 2 will indicate lower preference for avoiding uncertainty.
In this question, Javanese and Batak, identified as low-avoiding uncertainty

61
cultures, had very high percentage in option 1 and 2 with combined percentages of
58% and 58% respectively. Whilst for Minangkabau and Chinese Indonesian, they
had relatively small percentage in option 1 and 2 with combined percentages of
34% and 33% respectively. Surprisingly, Sundanese, identified as a low-avoiding
uncertainty culture, also had a relatively small percentage of option 1 and 2 with a
combined percentage of 38%. Instead, Sundanese had high percentage in option 3
and 4 with 52%. Exhibit 4.10 provides all the answers on question 23 of part 1:
Exhibit 4.10
Question 23-1 Intention to Stay at Current Job
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
BETWEEN 2 - 5 MORE THAN 5
MAX 2 YEARS UNTIL RETIRED
YEARS YEARS
JAVANESE 21% 37% 20% 23%
SUNDANESE 19% 19% 19% 43%
BATAK 16% 42% 19% 22%
MINANGKABAU 3% 31% 33% 32%
CHINESE INDONESIAN 8% 25% 34% 32%
4.3.3 Individualism vs. Collectivism
The next dimension is Individualism versus Collectivism. Individualism
stands for a society in which “the ties between individuals are loose: a person is
expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family only”.
Whilst, collectivism stands for a society in which people from birth onwards are
62
“integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which continue to protect them
throughout their lifetime in exchange for unquestioning loyalty” (Hofstede,
Hofstede, et al. 2010).
Using the formula provided for VSM 82, the present study was able to
produce scores on this dimension for each ethnic group as follows:
Table 4.5
Individualism Scores of Five Ethnic Groups Studied
Ethnic Formula
m4 m1 m8 m13 IDV = 76 m4 – 43 m1 + 30 Score Cat.
Group
m8 – 27 m13 – 29
(76*1.97) – (43*2.21) +
Javanese 1.97 2.21 1.94 2.09 (30*1.94) – (27*2.09) – 29
27.60 Col.
(76*2.08) – (43*2.35) +
Sundanese 2.08 2.35 2.45 2.70 (30*2.45) – (27*2.70) – 29
28.76 Col.
(76*1.99) – (43*2.11) +
Batak 1.99 2.11 2.30 2.70 (30*2.30) – (27*2.70) – 29
27.61 Col.
(76*1.99) – (43*1.96) +
Minangkabau 1.99 1.96 2.29 2.01 (30*2.29) – (27*2.01) – 29
52.39 Ind.
Chinese (76*2.20) – (43*2.35) +
2.20 2.35 1.96 2.31 37.93 Col.
Indonesian (30*1.96) – (27*2.31) – 29
IDV = Individualism versus Collectivism Index
Cat. = Category; Col. = Collectivistic Culture; Ind. = Individualistic Culture
mn = mean of question n of Part 1
The table above reveals a rather unsurprising outcome. Hofstede et al.
(2010) describes Indonesia as a country with collectivistic value. As can be
observed from the table, almost all ethnic groups are categorized as collectivistic
cultures except for Minangkabau which scored at a moderate score with 52.39.
Javanese, Sundanese, and Batak scored similarly in this dimension with
scores 27.60, 28.76, and 27.61 respectively. Whilst for Chinese Indonesian, the
ethnic scored slightly higher compared to the three ethnic groups mentioned earlier
with 37.93. For instance, these ethnic groups are still categorized as cultures with
collectivistic culture.
63
question 4 of Part 1; 4.3.3.2 regarding question 1 of Part 1; 4.3.3.3 regarding
question 8 of Part 1; and 4.3.3.4 regarding question 13 of Part 1.
4.3.3.1 Question 4 of Part 1 (m4)
Question 4 of part 1 asked the respondents’ opinion of having a good
working environment. “m4” is the mean value of question 4 of part 1. It has five
options to choose from 1 (of utmost importance) to 5 (of little or no importance).
As shown in Exhibit 4.11, the graph shows similar patterns for ethnic groups
which scored low on the IDV dimension (Javanese, Sundanese, Batak, and Chinese
Indonesian). Most of the respondents opted for option 2 which regarded of having
good working environment as very important. Whilst second most opted option was
option 1, which is of the utmost importance. This fact is in line with the majority of
the IDV scores for each ethnic group which indicate as collectivistic cultures.
As expected, Minangkabau showed a slightly different pattern in the graph.
Minangkabau’s pattern showed a more sloping graph especially in the option 2
(very important).
64
Exhibit 4.11
Question 4-1 Have Good Working Environment
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
IMPORTANT
JAVANESE 27% 54% 14% 5% 0%
SUNDANESE 26% 50% 15% 7% 1%
BATAK 29% 47% 20% 4% 0%
MINANGKABAU 33% 39% 24% 4% 0%
Question 1 of part 1 asked the respondents about their opinion on having
sufficient time for themselves as well as for their family. “m1” is the mean value of
question 1 of part 1. It has five options to choose from 1 (of utmost importance) to
5 (of little or no importance). In the equation, the
As can be observed in Exhibit 4.12, all group of respondents showed the
importance of having quality time for themselves and for their family. This
preference is identified as one of the collectivistic value. In the case of this study,
as much as 38% of Minangkabau respondents regarded this question as the utmost
importance. Moreover, 31% of them regarded personal and family time as very
important. This is interesting because in the IDV score overall, Minangkabau scored
at a moderate point (52.39) which is higher than any other studied ethnic groups.
65
Another interesting fact is the answers of Sundanese respondents. Overall,
Sundanese had a low score on the IDV dimension with 28.76. However, as can be
observed on Exhibit 4.12, only 17% of the Sundanese respondents regarded
personal and family time as the utmost importance. Nevertheless, 44% of them
regarded this matter as moderate importance.
In the case of other ethnic groups, the results showed a rather unsurprising
fact. By combining responses of option 1 and 2, it can be seen that Javanese, Batak,
and Chinese Indonesian had high percentages with 58%, 63%, and 51%
respectively. For further investigation, refer to Exhibit 4.12 below:
Exhibit 4.12
Question 1-1 Sufficient Time for Personal or Home Life
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
IMPORTANT
JAVANESE 26% 32% 39% 4% 0%
SUNDANESE 17% 36% 44% 4% 0%
BATAK 31% 32% 32% 5% 0%
MINANGKABAU 38% 31% 28% 3% 0%
Question 8 of part 1 was used both in the calculation of Individualism versus
Collectivism (IDV) and Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS) dimensions. It asked

66
the respondents about their opinion in having pleasant people to work with at the
workplace. “m8” is the mean value of the question 8 of part 1 and it had five options
to choose from 1 being (of utmost importance) and 5 being (not important).
The presentation of Exhibit 4.13 did not reveal any surprising fact. As can
be observed in the graph, there are as much as 66% Minangkabau respondents
regarded to have pleasant people to work with as very important. As for Batak, there
is also high percentage of respondents who regard this matter as very important,
albeit not as high, with 49%. On the contrary, the majority of Sundanese (44%)
respondents only regarded this matter as of moderate importance. Meanwhile,
around one-third of Javanese and Chinese respondents regarded having pleasant
people to work with as their top priority. Overall, there is almost no part of the
respondents in each ethnic group regarded having pleasant people to work with as
not important, meaning that having a close relationship with everyone in the
organization is desirable on each ethnic group. Full presentation regarding the
answers of question 8 of part 1 can be seen in Exhibit 4.13 below:

67
Exhibit 4.13
Question 8-1 Have Pleasant People to Work with (IDV)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
IMPORTANT
JAVANESE 32% 42% 26% 0% 0%
SUNDANESE 15% 33% 44% 7% 1%
BATAK 15% 49% 29% 5% 2%
MINANGKABAU 5% 66% 25% 3% 1%
Question 13 of part 1 asked respondents about their preference in living in
a desirable area. “m13” is the mean value of question 13 of part 1. It had five options
to choose from 1 being (of utmost importance) and 5 being (not important).
As can be observed in the graph, Javanese and Sundanese had relatively
large portions of respondents who regarded living in a desirable area as very
important with 44% and 40% respectively. In spite of having a relatively large
percentage of option 2, Sundanese also had a fair amount of respondents who
regarded this matter only as fairly important with 22%.
In the case of Minangkabau, there is a significant portion of respondents
who regarded this matter as utmost importance with 35%. Moreover, 36% of them
regarded living in a desirable area as very important. This is also the case for
68
Chinese Indonesian. They showed the importance of living in a desirable area by
having fairly distributed answers on the option 1, 2, and 3. Meanwhile, Batak had
a fair amount of respondents who regarded this matter as not important (13%). It
might indicate their preference for chasing their luck in another place or even island.
For further investigation on the question 13 of part 1, refer to the figure
below:
Exhibit 4.14
Question 13-1 Live in a Desirable Area
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
IMPORTANT
JAVANESE 28% 44% 21% 7% 1%
SUNDANESE 11% 40% 22% 22% 5%
BATAK 17% 30% 32% 8% 13%
MINANGKABAU 35% 36% 24% 3% 2%
4.3.4 Masculinity vs. Femininity
The last dimension of this study is the Masculinity versus Femininity
dimension. Masculinity stands for a society in which social gender roles are clearly
distinct: men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success;
women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of
life. Femininity stands for a society in which social gender roles overlap: both men
69
and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of
life (Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010).
With the formula provided, the present study was able to obtain scores for
each ethnic group and the calculation is as follows:
Table 4.6
Masculinity Scores of Five Ethnic Groups Studied
Ethnic Formula
m8 m11 m6 m14 MAS = 60 m8 – 66 m11 + Score Cat.
Group
30 m6 – 39 m14 + 76
(60*1.94) – (66*2.16) +
Javanese 1.94 2.16 2.53 2.14 (30*2.53) – (39*2.14) – 76
42.28 Low Mas
(60*2.45) – (66*2.17) +
Sundanese 2.45 2.17 2.03 2.26 (30*2.03) – (39*2.26) – 76
52.26 Low Mas
(60*2.30) – (66*2.03) +
Batak 2.30 2.03 2.41 2.04 (30*2.41) – (39*2.04) – 76
72.76 Mas
(60*2.29) – (66*2.02) +
Minangkabau 2.29 2.02 1.66 2.34 (30*1.66) – (39*2.34) – 76
38.62 Fem
Chinese (60*1.96) – (66*1.88) +
1.96 1.88 2.50 2.03 65.46 Mas
Indonesian (30*2.50) – (39*2.03) – 76
MAS = Masculinity versus Femininity Index
Cat. = Category; Mas = Masculine; Low Mas = Low Masculine; Fem = Feminine
mn = mean of question n of Part 1
As can be observed in Table 4.6, the results varied among ethnic groups.
Nevertheless, they can be classified into 3 different categories: 1) masculine
category indicated by score of more than 55; 2) low masculine category indicated
by score between 41 and 54; and 3) feminine category indicated by score of less
than 40. These classifications were based on Hofstede et al., (2010) explanations
about Indonesia’s MAS score. In Hofstede’s finding, Indonesia was given MAS
score of 46. Considering that Indonesia scored relatively higher than North
European countries which are very low in this dimension yet not as high as other
Asian countries like Japan, China, and India, Indonesia is regarded as low
masculine (ITIM International 2017; Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010).

70
As shown in the table above, the ethnic groups categorized as masculine are
Chinese Indonesian and Batak with score 65.46 and 72.76 respectively. These
results are very much as expected. Chinese Indonesians are identified by their
success in the business sector. The evidence provide further support on Perdhana's
(2014, 2015) findings which show that Chinese Indonesians have higher sense of
assertiveness, competition, and are more open toward ambitions and ambitious
behaviors compared to their Javanese counterparts.
question 8 of Part 1; 4.3.4.2 regarding question 11 of Part 1; 4.3.4.3 regarding
question 6 of Part 1; and 4.3.4.4 regarding question 14 of Part 1.
As mentioned in section 4.3.3.3, question 8 of part 1 was used both in the
calculation of Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV) and Masculinity versus
Femininity (MAS) dimensions. It asked the respondents about their opinion in
having pleasant people to work with at the workplace. “m8” is the mean value of
the question 8 of part 1 and it had five options to choose from 1 being (of utmost
importance) and 5 being (not important). Having high score on this question for this
dimension represent the value of masculinity. In masculine society, the prospect of
working with pleasant people at the workplace isn’t a priority.
Full presentation regarding the answers of question 8 of part 1 can be seen
in Exhibit 4.15 below:

71
Exhibit 4.15
Question 8-1 Have Pleasant People to Work with (MAS)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
IMPORTANT
JAVANESE 32% 42% 26% 0% 0%
SUNDANESE 15% 33% 44% 7% 1%
BATAK 15% 49% 29% 5% 2%
MINANGKABAU 5% 66% 25% 3% 1%
Question 11 of part 1 asked respondents about their views regarding the
importance of having better financial state from the job they do. “m11” in the
equation was derived from the mean value of question 11 of part 1. It had five
options to choose, from 1 being “of utmost importance” and 5 being “not
important”.
As can be observed in Exhibit 4.16, Chinese Indonesian ethnic showed
significant importance of having chances for better financial state from the work
they do. This is in line with the MAS score of Chinese Indonesian ethnic which was
identified as a masculine society. In a masculine society, the people are driven to
achieve material success, assertive, and tough (Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010).
Surprisingly, the majority of Javanese ethnic (44%) regarded this matter as very
72
important despite being identified as feminine society. This number is even higher
compared to Sundanese which was identified as a low masculine culture. As for
Batak and Minangkabau, they showed a slightly similar pattern in the graph.
However, there are more people favoring to have better financial state (as indicated
by option 3) among Minangkabau’s respondents with 26% compared to Batak’s
15%.
Exhibit 4.16
Question 11-1 Have Chances for Better Financial State
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
IMPORTANT
JAVANESE 24% 44% 24% 8% 0%
SUNDANESE 27% 36% 30% 6% 1%
BATAK 33% 42% 15% 9% 1%
MINANGKABAU 30% 41% 26% 3% 0%
Question 6 of part 1 asked respondents about the importance of having job
security. “m6” in the MAS equation was derived from the mean value of question
6 of part 1. This question also had 5 option, from 1 being “of utmost importance”
to 5 being “not important”.
As can be observed in Exhibit 4.17, Minangkabau, identified as feminine

73
culture in this study, showed significant proportions in option 1 (of utmost
importance) and 2 (very important) with the percentages of 48% and 39%
respectively. On the contrary, more than one-third of Batak ethnic, identified as a
masculine society in this study, only regarded having a job security as of moderate
importance. This is also the case for Chinese Indonesian ethnic. Also identified as
a masculine culture, the majority of Chinese Indonesian respondents only regarded
having job security as of moderate importance. Surprisingly, Javanese ethnic also
indicated that this matter was of moderate importance to them. Lastly, Sundanese
ethnic, identified as low masculine in this study, indicated higher importance
toward having job security with the percentages of option 1 and 2 were 33% and
38% respectively. For full investigation of the question 6 of part 1, refer to Exhibit
4.17 below:
Exhibit 4.17
Question 6-1 Have Security of Employment
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
IMPORTANT
JAVANESE 22% 25% 38% 12% 5%
SUNDANESE 33% 38% 21% 7% 0%
BATAK 20% 31% 38% 10% 1%
MINANGKABAU 47% 37% 8% 8% 0%

74
The last question in the MAS dimension is question 14 of part 1. The
question asked respondents about their views regarding chances for promotion.
“m14” in the equation was derived from the mean value of question 14 of part 1. It
had five options to choose, from 1 being “of utmost importance” to 5 being “not
important”.
The findings of this question showed two interesting facts to mention. First,
the Javanese finding. As a culture identified as having feminine value, Javanese
showed very high importance of having chances for promotion. There was no less
than 44% of the Javanese respondents regarded this matter as very important. And
second, the Batak finding. Batak was identified as having masculine value in this
study. However, there were still a fair amount of Batak respondents who regarded
this matter as not important with 13%.
Other than those interesting facts, the overall results of this question did not
show any particular surprising fact. Sundanese, as a low masculine culture, showed
a fairly balanced results. Most of them (40%) regarded having chances for
promotion as very important whilst at the same time, there was a fair amount of
them (22%) who regarded this matter as a fairly important. The evidence shows that
material success isn’t always the source of motivation for Sundanese people. There
are other important reasons for them other than this particular matter.
As can be expected, Batak and Chinese Indonesian showed similar patterns
in the graph due to sharing the same value of masculinity. On both cases, the
percentage of option 2 and 3 answers dominated their overall compositions. By

75
combining those two options, it was found that Batak had 62% of the respondents
who regarded having chances for promotion as an important matter. Whilst for
Chinese Indonesian, there was no less than 69% of the respondents regarded this
matter as important. Not to mention there were 22% of them who regarded having
chances for promotion as their top priority. For further investigation, refer to
Exhibit 4.18 below:
Exhibit 4.18
Question 14-1 Have Chances for Promotion
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
IMPORTANT
JAVANESE 28% 44% 21% 7% 1%
SUNDANESE 11% 40% 22% 22% 5%
BATAK 17% 30% 32% 8% 13%
MINANGKABAU 35% 36% 24% 3% 2%
4.4 Discussion of the Findings
The previous sections have presented the findings of the present study with
an emphasis on its key ones and how each responses contribute to the overall scores
given on each ethnic group. In this section, the results are presented once again one
by one for all dimensions and comparisons among ethnic groups are applied.
Consequently, the results will again be presented in full to see how the
76
scores of ethnic groups will compare to the overall score of this study’s respondents
and to Hofstede’s Indonesia’s scores. It is important to note that Hofstede’s data is
not comparable to those of the present study. Presenting the results with Hofstede’s
was aimed to give more insights regarding the findings of this study rather than
making a direct comparison.
Direct comparison to Hofstede is virtually impossible for the following
reasons. First, Indonesia’s VSM dimensions scores were only available in 1982
after Hofstede published a booklet entitled “Cultural Pitfalls for Dutch Expatriates
in Indonesia” in which he obtained the scores from as small as 20 respondents in
Jakarta (Perdhana 2014). Had he not set a minimum respondents needed for VSM
comparison studies of as small as 20 respondents, Indonesia’s dimensions scores
wouldn’t have been available in the first place (Perdhana 2014). Second, there is a
chance that Hofstede used an earlier version, the VSM 80, which was not available
publicly. Finally, the occupation of Hofstede’s Indonesian respondents were either
sales or service people, matching the rest of the samples in his study (Hofstede,
Hofstede, et al. 2010; p. 64). On the contrary, the present study employed
employees of more various occupations. The occupational differences thus makes
it impossible to have matched sample criteria with those of Hofstede.
Perdhana (2014) conducted a comparative study of the cultural values of
Javanese and Chinese Indonesian managers. On the contrary, the present study drew
sample from mostly non-managing employees. However, despite there are
differences in job position, his findings are rather similar to the findings of the
present study. Therefore, it was argued that it is worth to discuss in special sections
77
after the discussion of each dimension’s findings has been presented. In this case,
the Javanese dimensions scores comparison with Perdhana’s findings is presented
in the section 4.4.1.1. As for Chinese Indonesian comparison, it is presented in the
section 4.4.5.1.
4.4.1 Javanese
The overall dimensions scores of Javanese ethnic groups reveals an
interesting that they have strong uncertainty avoidance (PDI score of 61), low
preference for avoiding uncertainty (UAI score of 44), collectivistic value (IDV
score of 28), and low masculinity (MAS score of 42).
With PDI score of 61, Javanese culture embraces centralization. Javanese
managers rely on subordinate’s obedience. Javanese managers are urged to have
clear idea on the responsibility of their subordinates because the subordinates
expect their managers to tell what to do. Since the subordinates expect to be told
what to do, more supervisory personnel is needed among Javanese employees due
to having passive behavior. Moreover, the relationship between subordinate and
superior are emotional. Managers will take the role as father/bapak in an
organization (Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010).
In terms of UAI, Javanese has a score of 44 which means they have a rather
low preference for avoiding uncertainty. Employees with low uncertainty
avoidance will generally feel satisfied about their lives. Therefore they tend to be
more relaxed on their approach to life. Managers have to maintain subordinate’s
motivation in order to stay focused on reaching the company’s goals. Javanese
employees also have high tolerance about uncertainty at the workplace (Hofstede,
78
At 28 in the IDV dimension, Javanese is identified as a collectivist culture.
In such a culture, relationship prevails over task. It might make life of Javanese
managers difficult because when they have to be firm toward their subordinates, the
managers will feel hesitant to do so because there is already warm relationship built
among them (Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010).
In the MAS dimension, Javanese has score of 42 which indicate that they
have low masculinity. There is a tendency for the people to chase material success.
However, the main motivation was not really material gain, but the higher status
achieved through high job position and high education. In the Javanese society, now
there are more freedom between genders regarding career. Both men and women
are allowed to choose their job that is suitable for themselves (Hofstede, Hofstede,
et al. 2010).
4.4.1.1 Javanese Dimensions Scores Comparison
Compared to Perdhana’s (2014) findings, the scores of Javanese of the
present study show a rather similar results. The comparison table is presented
below:
Table 4.7
Javanese Comparison with Perdhana (2014)
Javanese Javanesea
Dimension
Score Category Score Category
PDI 61 Large PD 54 Large PD
UAI 44 Weak UA 30 Weak UA
MAS 42 Low Mas 47 Low Mas
IDV 28 Collectivist 49 Collectivist
PDI = Power Distance Index; UAI = Uncertainty Avoidance Index; MAS =
Masculinity Index; IDV = Individualism Index
a
Based on Perdhana (2014); two newer dimensions Long Term Orientation
(LTO) and Indulgence versus Restraint (IVR) are excluded
79
Despite the differences in VSM choice, in which the present study chose to
employ VSM 82 (compared to VSM 13 in Perdhana’s study), and the criteria of the
sample, the scores between the two are showing that they both are in the exact same
categories. However, it must also be noted there are still significant scores
differences between the two findings. It is argued that these differences are due to
the sampling criteria. Perdhana’s study decided to gather responses from a very
specific group of respondents: employed as a manager and is working in a company
that employs no less than 300 employees. On the contrary, the present study decided
to draw samples from employees of any position working in a paid job.
As the result, there are also differences in terms of age and educational
qualification. The majority of Perdhana’s Javanese samples are between 40 to 49
years old, whilst in this study, the majority of this study’s samples were between 20
to 24 years old. In terms of educational qualification, Perdhana’s samples are
dominated by employees holding Postgraduate Degree. In the present study, since
the majority of the samples were very young, the samples were dominated by
employees holding Bachelor Degree.
Heuer et al. (1999) indicate that higher educational degree will make a shift
in values among the persons, especially in the power distance and individualism
dimension. People with higher education will have less need for preserving power
and collectivistic behavior. As can be observed in the table 4.7, Perdhana’s Javanese
samples score lower power distance and show tendency toward individualistic
value. For instance, Heuer et al.’s (1999) findings are perhaps further supported by
the findings of the present study and those of Perdhana.

80
4.4.2 Sundanese
The evidence for Sundanese ethnic group shows that they have moderate-
to-high power distance (PDI score of 53), low preference for avoiding uncertainty
(UAI score of 39), collectivist value (IDV score of 29), and low masculinity (MAS
score of 52).
Sundanese has PDI score of 53, which is regarded as having moderate-to-
high power distance. Every person needs to know their own position in the
organization and act accordingly. Managers are respected for their position and they
count on the obedience of the subordinates. With such a score, however, employees
see their managers as more accessible (compared to the absolute high PDI of Batak).
In the UAI score, Sundanese has a score of 39 which indicates that they have
low preference for uncertainty avoidance. Sundanese people are identified by their
religiosity. In Perdhana (2014) findings, it is found that religion is closely related
to the uncertainty avoidance. People of faith believe that everything has been
decided by God and thus there is no point of doing an extra mile (Perdhana 2014).
In terms of IDV score, Sundanese scores 29 which is regarded as collectivist
culture. At the workplace, relationships between subordinates and superiors are like
family. Superiors take the role of father which gives the subordinates an example.
For instance, relationship prevails over task (Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010).
As for MAS dimension, Sundanese has a score of 52 which indicates that
they have low masculinity value. In this case, there is a tendency among Sundanese
people to chase their career in order to have higher job position and thus higher
social status. The drive to be successful isn’t always the money in a low masculine
81
culture (Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010).
4.4.3 Batak
The evidence for Batak ethnic group shows that they have large power
distance (PDI score of 73), low preference for avoiding uncertainty (UAI score of
20), collectivistic value (IDV score of 28), and tendency toward masculinity (MAS
score of 73).
With PDI score of 73, Batak is regarded as a large power distance culture.
In fact, Batak scores the highest in this dimension. At the workplace, managers rely
on superiors and on formal rules. There is strong dependency of the subordinates
toward their superiors (Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010). In general life, people are
respected due to their social status, wealth, job occupation and position, and
ownership of land (Bangun 2004).
In terms of UAI dimension, Batak has a score of 20 which is regarded as
very low uncertainty avoidance. The tendency of Batak people in search of better
life underlines their low preference for avoiding uncertainty. They will take it as a
challenge rather than as a burden. Batak people are thus identified as adaptable and
will not be annoyed by uncertain condition.
In the IDV dimension, Batak has a score of 28 which is regarded as
collectivist culture. At the workplace, employees are member of in-groups who will
pursue their in-group’s interest and employer-employee relationship is basically
moral (Hofstede & Hofstede 2005; Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010).
With the MAS score of 73, Batak people live in order to work. In terms of
gender careers, men are obliged to be financially independent. Due to high in PD,
82
status and symbols are very important for Batak people. Therefore in relation to the
MAS dimension, money gain is preferred over more leisure time (Hofstede,
4.4.3.1 Batak and Javanese Scores Comparison
In Hofstede’s 2010 book, the 3rd edition of Cultures and Organizations, there
are two ethnic groups from Indonesia that are mentioned in the book, they are
Javanese and Batak. Interestingly, we found a piece in the book that indicates that
there are indeed cultural differences among ethnic groups in Indonesia. Despite
admitting that there are cultural variations in Indonesia, there is no attempt at fixing
the issue of generalization. Here is the piece quoted from Hofstede, Hofstede, et al.
(2010; pp. 158):
“Indonesians agree that especially on the tough-tender dimension, ethnic

groups within the country vary considerably, with the Javanese taking an
extreme position toward the tender side. The Dutch consultant said that
even some of the other Indonesians were surprised by the Javanese’s feel-
ings. A Batak from the island of Sumatra said that he now understood why
his Javanese boss never praised him when he himself felt that praise should
have been due.”
The findings of this study are interestingly able to give, to some extent,
answers on why a Batak on Hofstede’s book feels the way he or she feels about his
or her Javanese boss. The evidence shows that Batak has a high score of masculinity
dimension with 73. Compared to Javanese, which has a score of 42 in masculinity
dimension, cultural difference in this dimension can definitely be felt. In a feminine
culture, praising a good performer within a team might disrupt the confidence of
other team members and thus the Javanese boss (of feminine culture) prefer not to
give his or her Batak subordinate praise in public.

83
Table 4.8 below outlines the full dimensions scores for Javanese and Batak
ethnic groups:
Table 4.8
Batak and Javanese Scores Comparison
Batak Javanese Indonesiana
Dimension
Score Category Score Category Score Category
PDI 73 Large PD 61 Large PD 78 Large PD
UAI 20 Weak UA 44 Weak UA 48 Weak UA
MAS 73 Masculine 42 Low Mas 46 Low Mas
IDV 28 Collectivist 28 Collectivist 14 Collectivist
PDI = Power Distance Index; UAI = Uncertainty Avoidance Index; MAS = Masculinity Index;
IDV = Individualism Index
a
Based on Hofstede et al. (2010); excluding two newer dimensions Long Term Orientation
b
(LTO) and Indulgence versus Restraint (IVR)
4.4.4 Minangkabau
The evidence for Minangkabau ethnic group shows that they have large
power distance (PDI score of 66), high preference for avoiding uncertainty (UAI
score of 61), tendency toward less collectivistic value (IDV score of 52), and
tendency toward femininity (MAS score of 39).
Minangkabau has PDI score of 66 which indicates that they are a large
power distance culture. The people embrace status symbols as a source of pride. At
the workplace, superiors are respected due to their positions, not necessarily their
achievement. As for subordinates, there is also high dependence toward superiors
(Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010).
In terms of UAI dimension, Minangkabau has a score of 61. With this score,
Minangkabau is identified to have a strong preference for avoiding uncertainty. In
a society in which there is a strong preference for avoiding uncertainty, there are
more self-employed people. For example is there are many of Minangkabau people
84
who are successful in small businesses.
In terms of IDV score of 52, Minangkabau is identified as the least
collectivist compared to the rest of other ethnic groups. It indicates that the people
are independent self. On the other hand, the fact that Minangkabau is matriarchate
culture might lead them to pay attention only to their nuclear family only. Whenever
a man is married, he brings the name of his wife. His responsibility lies on the wife’s
family (Junus 2004).
In the MAS dimension, Minangkabau has a score of 39 which indicates that
they are a feminine culture. In a feminine culture, relationships and quality of life
are important. In terms of career choices, both are optional for both of them
4.4.5 Chinese Indonesian
The evidence for Chinese Indonesian ethnic group shows that they have
large power distance (PDI score of 64), high preference for avoiding uncertainty
(UAI score of 67), tendency toward less collectivistic value (IDV score of 38), and
tendency toward femininity (MAS score of 65).
Chinese Indonesian has PDI score of 64. It indicates that they are large
power distance society. Within a family parents teach children obedience. Parents
expect nothing but full obedience from their parents. Within a business context,
centralization is popular. Decisions are made from top management, subordinates
are expected to follow (Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010)
Chinese Indonesian people are identified by their tendency to find success
from trade or business activity. In the Dutch colonial era, Chinese Indonesian
85
people are only allowed to work as traders and money lenders. At the same time,
they have faced long history of discrimination either from the Dutch government or
from the Indonesian government. After Indonesia gained independence, there are
uncertainties regarding the status of Chinese Indonesian people whether they are
recognized as Indonesian citizens. Long story short, only after the late President
Abdurrahman Wahid took the presidential office, full recognition towards Chinese
Indonesian in Indonesia was achieved. These conditions are argued to have
influence the high score of UAI (64) for Chinese Indonesian samples. In a high
uncertainty avoidance culture, their strong motivation in what they are doing is to
get security. There is an emotional need from both written and unwritten rules
among the people of this culture as well as an inner urge to work hard (Hofstede,
In terms of IDV, Chinese Indonesian has a score of 38 which indicates that
they are a collectivist culture. Within a family, harmony should always be
maintained. Compared to other ethnic groups such as Javanese, Sundanese, and
Batak, Chinese Indonesian scores a little higher. This might indicate that among
employees, collectivistic behavior are shown more significantly among other ethnic
groups.
Another dimension in which Chinese Indonesian differs significantly
compared to the other ethnic groups is masculinity dimension. Chinese Indonesia
has a MAS score of 65. It indicates that they are a masculine society. The fact that
Chinese Indonesian people prefer to sacrifice their family time in order to be
successful financially underlines the masculinity value among them. Women of

86
wives are usually supporting what their husbands do (Vasanty 2004). For instance,
more money is preferred over leisure time and people live in order to work
4.4.5.1 Chinese Indonesian Scores Comparison
Table 4.9 below presents the dimensions scores of the present study and
those of Perdhana (2014):
Table 4.9
Chinese Indonesian Comparison with Perdhana (2014)
Chinese Indonesian Chinese Indonesiana
Dimension
Score Category Score Category
PDI 64 Large PD 65 Large PD
UAI 67 Strong UA 30 Weak UA
MAS 65 Masculine 63 Masculine
IDV 38 Collectivist 36 Collectivist
PDI = Power Distance Index; UAI = Uncertainty Avoidance Index;
MAS = Masculinity Index; IDV = Individualism Index
a
Based on Perdhana (2014); two newer dimensions Long Term
Orientation (LTO) and Indulgence versus Restraint (IVR) are excluded
As can be observed from the table above, there are no significant differences
between the two findings except for uncertainty avoidance. The argument presented
here is probably due to the fact that Perdhana’s samples were drawn from
employees working in Chinese Indonesian-owned companies. Such condition
provide stability and certainty and thus, it is argued that the Chinese Indonesian
managers in the case of Perdhana’s study have less external source of anxieties.
On the contrary, the present study drew samples from mostly non-managing
employees and at the same time, the majority of the respondents are aged between
20 to 29 years old. It can be inferred that they are still in their beginning stage of
their career and thus they have strong preference for avoiding uncertainties. In terms
87
of decision-making, the high score on uncertainty avoidance will influence their
choice to work in a Chinese Indonesian-owned company.
4.4.6 Averaged Dimensions Scores of the Present Study (Indonesia)
In this section, overall scores are presented again along with the average
score of the total samples in this study and with Hofstede’s Indonesian scores. The
purpose was to examine whether Hosftede’s findings regarding the cultural values
of Indonesia is reliable and accurate in describing the culture of Indonesia.
Table 4.10
Range of VSM Dimensions Scores of Five Ethnic Groups
Dimension
Ethnic Group
PDI UAI IDV MAS
Javanese 61 44 28 42
Sundanese 53 39 29 52
Batak 73 20 28 73
Minangkabau 66 61 52 39
Chinese-Indonesian 64 67 38 65
Indonesiana 63 47 34 53
Indonesian b 78 48 14 46
VSM = Value Survey Module; PDI = Power Distance Index;
UAI = Uncertainty Avoidance Index; MAS = Masculinity Index;
a
Based on total calculation of the present study
b
Based on Hofstede et al. (2010); excluding two newer dimensions Long Term
b
Orientation (LTO) and Indulgence versus Restraint (IVR)
After doing full analyses on the findings, all 699 responses were
recalculated again resulting dimensions scores labeled as Indonesian (see Table
4.10). The results might indicate an aggregate value of what applies among
Indonesian employees. According to the results, Indonesia is identified as having
large power distance (PDI score 63), low preference for avoiding uncertainty (UAI
score 47), low masculine (MAS score 53), and collectivistic value (IDV score 34).
To some extent, these findings might indicate that Hofstede’s Indonesian

88
findings was accurate despite being challenged due to lack of research design and
planning (Javidan, Dorfman, De Luque, & House, 2006 as cited in Perdhana, 2014)
and small number of respondents (Perdhana 2014). In his findings, Indonesia is
described as having large power distance (PDI score 78), low preference for
avoiding uncertainty (UAI score 48), low masculine (MAS score 46), and
collectivistic value (IDV score 14).
However, despite categorized within the same categories, the results of this
study also show significant differences in two dimensions: Individualism versus
Collectivism and Power Distance dimension. In this study, the average score of
Individualism versus Collectivism dimension is 34. Compared to Hofstede’s IDV
score of 14, there is a probable indication that Indonesia is not as collectivist as it
was around 40 years ago when Hofstede studied Indonesia. Smit (2015) states that
10 point difference is big enough to make people of other culture feel the value
differences.
As for Power Distance dimension, the result of the present study shows that
the average score of Indonesia was significantly less than that of Hofstede with 63.
Overall, the results of the present study can be explained by the fact that education
has been more reachable nowadays. As mentioned in the Chapter 3, the majority of
respondents were graduates of bachelor degree. As Heuer et al. (1999) argue based
on their findings, education introduces new ways and ideas that might not be
thought before, thus creating a shift in values to accommodate the new ideals.
4.4.7 Hofstede’s Unidentified Samples Revealed?
When Hofstede’s revealed Indonesia’s dimensions scores, it was slightly

89
late compared to the other countries. It was due to the small size of respondents
who participated in the Indonesia’s samples (Perdhana 2014). Only after the VSM
82 had been publicly available, containing the scoring guide which set the minimum
of 20 respondents, Indonesia’s dimensions scores were also available in a booklet
entitled “Cultural Pitfalls for Dutch Expatriates in Indonesia” published in the same
year as the VSM 82. Some researchers have suggested the strong Javanese bias in
the discussion regarding the Indonesian dimensions scores in the booklet (e.g.
(Perdhana 2015; Perdhana 2014).
The present study had conducted scoring for five major ethnic groups in
Indonesia. Overall, the results are considered to be able to capture in-country
cultural differences. What is surprising is the score similarities of Javanese,
Indonesian (averaged from the total samples), and Hofstede’s Indonesian version.
Table 4.11
Javanese and Hofstede Indonesian Scores Comparison
Javanese Indonesiana Indonesianb
Dimension
Score Category Score Category Score Category
PDI 61 Large PD 63 Large PD 78 Large PD
UAI 44 Weak UA 47 Weak UA 48 Weak UA
MAS 42 Low Mas 53 Low Mas 46 Low Mas
IDV 28 Collectivist 34 Collectivist 14 Collectivist
Source: Research Data 2017
PDI = Power Distance Index; UAI = Uncertainty Avoidance Index; MAS = Masculinity Index;
a
Based on the average scores from the total sample of the present study
b
Based on Hofstede et al. (2010)
As shown in table 4.11, all three cultures belong to the same categories:
large power distance, weak uncertainty avoidance, low masculine, and collectivist.
The evidence can be a source of a debate: whether indeed Hofstede’s unidentified
Indonesian samples were merely Javanese or whether the culture of the ethnic
90
majority can indeed represent the culture and values of the entire country.
The first view toward this subject is whether Hofstede’s unidentified
Indonesian samples were merely Javanese. The notion that Hofstede only used
respondents of Javanese descent in his study was started after critically reviewing
his publication regarding to Indonesia (Perdhana 2014). The extensive use of
Javanese cultures in Hofstede’s publications was a sign that this notion is true. The
present study shows that Javanese ethnic is identified as having large power
distance, weak uncertainty avoidance, low masculine, and collectivist. The
identifications have matched Hofstede’s own findings on Indonesian samples.
The second view toward this evidence is that the culture of ethnic majority
can represent the culture and the values of the entire country. Many researchers
have taken this approach either in explaining the Indonesian culture in general or in
comparing Indonesian culture with those of other countries (e.g. (Liddle 1996;
Goodfellow 1997; Irawanto 2009; Irawanto et al. 2012) This view is supported by
the fact that after recalculating all responses, the scores showed that it also formed
similar patterns or categories like those of Hofstede’s findings (see table 4.11).
Either way, for the time being the evidence suggests that Hofstede’s
findings is accurate in showing the typical Indonesian values. However, careful
must always be taken by anyone who uses this score in attempting to understand
Indonesia. The present study recommends users of Hofstede to also accompany
their readings with the latest findings on the cultural values of Indonesia’s ethnic
groups and subcultures.
In the end, the present study also argues that as long as there are still many
91
ethnic groups left unstudied, this is still a subject for debate. The key here when it
comes to intercultural interactions, one mustn’t stop questioning the reliability and
generalizability of any cultural findings. One must take these findings as an initial
guidance to help what to expect from people coming from these five ethnic groups,
not as the ultimate way of understanding the cultural variations.

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
5.1 Conclusion
The present study has drawn samples from employees of
telecommunication, food and beverages, textile, and service industries and job
positions originating from five ethnic groups in Indonesia: Javanese, Sundanese,
Batak, Minangkabau, and Chinese Indonesian. The objectives of this study are to
investigate the cultural variations among ethnic groups in Indonesia and to confirm
whether Hofstede’s national cultural framework will be able to meaningfully
describe in-country cultural differences. Therefore, the present study was conducted
with the aim of answering the following questions:
1. What are the cultural values of Javanese, Sundanese, Minangkabau,
Batak, and Chinese Indonesian employees?
2. To what extent does Hofstede’s national cultural framework
meaningfully describe in-country cultural differences?
To answer the first questions, the present study had investigated the cultural
values of the ethnic groups by employing a cultural framework available to be used.
In the case of this study, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions is the chosen framework.
Whilst for instruments used in this study, VSM 82 was employed. The rationale
behind these choices has been presented in Chapter 2.
Subsequently, to answer the second question, which is to confirm whether
Hofstede’s national framework is reliable in understanding the cultural variations
92
93
within a country. In Chapter 4, the findings of this study and discussion regarding
the subsequent behavior from each dimension have been presented. The followings
are the key findings of the present study:
1. Javanese’s dimensions scores show the exact same category to those of
the average score of Indonesia and Hofstede’s Indonesian scores.
Javanese is categorized as having large power distance, collectivist, low
preference for avoiding uncertainty, and tendency toward femininity
(low masculine);
2. Sundanese is the least hierarchical among the ethnic groups studied,
other dimensions, however, show similarities toward Hofstede’s
Indonesian scores;
3. Batak is the most hierarchical, the least annoyed by uncertainties, and
masculine. The evidence shows that Batak has significant differences
compared to Javanese;
4. Minangkabau has strong preference for avoiding uncertainty.
Minangkabau is also found to be the least collectivistic and the least
masculine (high in femininity);
5. Chinese Indonesian also has strong preference for avoiding uncertainty
and show to be a masculine society.
5.2 Research Limitations
Research limitations are as follows:
1. Generalizability. This research only studied 5 out of the total 31 major
ethnic groups in Indonesia. Although the overall findings or the average

94
scores from sample of the present study are seemingly forming the same
values to those found by Hofstede, it still remains to be seen whether
Hofstede’s Indonesian dimensions scores are able to represent the
cultural variations among the ethnic groups.
2. VSM 82. VSM 82 has been able to show that there are significant
differences in cultural values among ethnic groups studied. However,
since the module is one of the first version, it can only measure 4 main
dimensions of culture. VSM 13 is the most recent version and it
measures 2 additional dimensions: Long Term Orientation and
Indulgence versus Restraint.
c. Criteria of Respondents. The criteria of this study’s respondents were:
1) a person, either man or woman, who is employed in a paid job of any
position and 2) the person was raised, from 0-10 years of age, in an
environment in which his or her ethnic groups was originated. With such
criteria, the results of this study might not be able to represent the
cultural values of persons working in a very specific job with a strong
occupational culture such as an accountant or a pilot.
d. Research Method. Culture is a very complex matter. To obtain in-depth
understanding about the cultural variations of ethnic groups in Indonesia
or in any other multiethnic countries, quantitative method shouldn’t
serve as the ultimate way. There are still many aspects that can’t be
explained through this particular method.
5.3 Recommendations
95
5.3.1 For Future Studies
The purpose of this study was to assess whether a national cultural
framework will be able to describe in-country cultural difference. The evidence
shows that a national cultural framework has been able to capture in-country
cultural differences. However, different approach should be undertaken for
different research objectives. The design of the current study is suitable for
identifying whether there are any cultural differences among ethnic groups in
Indonesia. Since the evidence has shown that there are indeed cultural values
differences, future studies must be conducted upon the limitations of the present
study in order to be able to give more significant results to the cross-cultural
management field.
5.3.2 For Managers Managing Indonesian Employees
The present study measured four dimensions of culture from employees
originating from Javanese, Sundanese, Batak, Minangkabau, and Chinese
Indonesian. The results of the present study show that each ethnic group has its own
cultural values as highlighted in section 6.1 on key findings of this study. However,
the overall results show strong similarities in power distance dimension and
significant differences in masculinity dimension. Therefore, the recommendation
will be focused on these two dimensions.
The findings regarding power distance dimension show that all ethnic
groups uphold that power gap between more powerful person and less powerful
person is maintained. It can be seen in day-to-day life at work in Indonesia,
subordinates usually give certain gestures to show the boss their respect. Managers
96
need to assess whether this type of behavior is suitable and beneficial for their
organizational culture. For example, in a creative company such as advertising
company, such behavior might hinder the flow of communication between
subordinates and managers. On the contrary, power gap might be more suitable to
be established in a bureaucratic organization and in a labor intensive company in
which the education gap or differences among the members are huge.
In masculinity dimension, an example has been presented in Batak
discussion. In the section, it was mentioned that a Batak employee (coming from a
masculine culture) would have liked his Javanese boss to be more vocal about
praising employees with good performance. However, in a feminine culture,
praising an individual might disrupt the motivation or even confidence of other
team members and thus the Javanese boss will never do it.
Another consequence regarding the Masculinity dimension is how people
perceive ambitions. In a masculine culture, having an ambition in life or career is
urged and it is fine to express it to other people. However, in a feminine culture,
ambition should be reserved as personal drive and it is not acceptable to show it to
other people. At the workplace, managers need to have very clear idea about how
they perceive ambitions since some employees, particularly of masculine culture
(Batak or Chinese Indonesian), might be more open about their ambitions compared
to the employees of feminine culture (Minangkabau and Javanese).
Therefore, the present study suggests managers managing Indonesian
employees to enhance their multicultural awareness by starting to understand their
own culture. Without understanding their own culture, it would be difficult for
97
managers to treat their subordinates fairly as there would be a tendency to favor
employees who share the same culture with themselves. In conclusion, a good
manager managing a multicultural team must have an adequate understanding about
their own culture and then the cultural differences among the members and how
these differences affect a person’s behavior.

98
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ball, D.A. & McCulloch, W.H., 1999. International Business: The Challenge of
Global Competition, Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Bangun, P., 2004. Kebudayaan Batak. In Koentjaraningrat, ed. Manusia dan

Kebudayaan di Indonesia. Jakarta: Djambatan, pp. 94–117.
Baskerville, R.F., 2003. Hofstede never studied culture. Accounting, Organizations

and Society, 28(1), pp.1–14.
Batuah, A.D. & Madjoindo, A.D., 1959. Tambo Minangkabau dan Adatnya,
Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.
Cardon, P.W., 2008. A critique of Hall’s contexting model - A meta-analysis of

literature on intercultural business and technical communication. Journal of
Business and Technical Communication, 22(4), pp.399–428.
English First, 2016. EF English Proficiency Index. Available at:

http://www.ef.edu/epi/ [Accessed December 25, 2016].
Fischer, O. & Al-Issa, A., 2012. In for a surprise piloting the Arab version of the
VSM 94. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(5), pp.737–742.
Forbes, 2017. Indonesia’s 50 Richest. Available at:

http://www.forbes.com/indonesia-billionaires/list/#tab:overall [Accessed
January 1, 2017].
Geertz, C., 1981. Abangan Santri Priyayi dalam Masyarakat Jawa, Bandung:
Dunia Pustaka Jaya.
Giddens, A. et al., 2012. Introduction to Sociology 8th Ed., New York: W. W.

Norton & Company.
Goodfellow, R., 1997. Indonesian Business Culture, Singapore: Butterwort-

Heinemann.
Hall, E.T., 1960. The Silent Language in Overseas Business. Harvard Business
Review.
Hall, E.T. & Hall, M.R., 1990. Understanding cultural differences, Available at:
http://p2048-
99
www.liberty.edu.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.c
om.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/docview/922421573?accountid=12085.
Harsojo, 2004. Kebudayaan Sunda. In Koentjaraningrat, ed. Manusia dan

Heuer, M., Cummings, J.L. & Hutabarat, W., 1999. Cultural Stability or Change
Among Managers in Indonesia? Journal of International Business Studies,
30(3), pp.599–610.
Hills, M.D., 2002. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Values Orientation Theory. Online
Readings in Psychology and Culture, 4(4), pp.1–14.
Hofstede, G., Garibaldi de Hilal, A. V., et al., 2010. Comparing Regional Cultures
Within a Country: Lessons From Brazil. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 41(3), pp.336–352.
Hofstede, G., 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors,

Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Kultura, p.164.
Hofstede, G., 1980a. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-

Related Values, New York: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G., 2002. Dimensions Do Not Exist: A Reply to Brendan McSweeney.

Human Relations, 55(11), pp.1355–1361.
Hofstede, G., 1980b. Motivation, Leadership, and Organization: Do American

Theories Apply Abroad? Organizational Dynamics, Summer AMACOM. A
Division of American Management Association., pp.42–63.
Hofstede, G., 1982. Scoring Guide for Values Survey Module Version 1982,
Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Hofstede, G. & Bond, M.H., 1988. The Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots
to Economic Growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), pp.4–21.
Hofstede, G. & Hofstede, G.J., 2005. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the
Mind 2nd Ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. & Minkov, M., 2010. Cultures and Organizations:
Software of the Mind 3rd Ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.
100
Irawanto, D., 2009. An analysis of national culture and leadership practices in

Indonesia. Journal of Diversity Management (JDM), 4(2), pp.41–48.
Available at:
http://cluteonline.com/journals/index.php/JDM/article/view/4957.
Irawanto, D.W., Ramsey, P.L. & Tweed, D.C., 2012. Exploring paternalistic
leadership and its application to the Indonesian public sector. The
International Journal of Leadership in Public Services, 8(1), pp.4–20.
ITIM International, 2017. What About Indonesia? Available at: https://www.geert-

hofstede.com/indonesia.html [Accessed January 12, 2017].
Jong, S.D., 1976. Salah Satu Sikap Hidup Orang Jawa, Yogyakarta: Yayasan
Kanisius.
Junus, U., 2004. Kebudayaan Minangkabau. In Koentjaraningrat, ed. Manusia dan

Kluckhohn, C.L. & Strodtbeck, F.L., 1961. Variations in Value Orientations,

Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and Company.
Koentjaraningrat, 2004. Manusia dan Kebudayaan di Indonesia 20th Ed., Jakarta:

Djambatan.
Koentjaraningrat, 1982. Masalah-Masalah Pembangunan: Bunga Rampai

Antropologi Terapan, Jakarta: Lembaga Penelitian, Pendidikan dan
Penerangan Ekonomi dan Sosial.
Koning, J., 2000. Women and Households in Indonesia: Cultural Notions and
Social Practices, Routledge.
Kottak, C.P., 2013. Anthropology: Appreciating Human Diversity 15th Ed., New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Liddle, R.W., 1996. Leadership and Culture in Indonesian Politics, Sydney: Allen
& Unwin.
Mangundjaya, W.L.H., 2013. Is There Cultural Change in the National Cultures of

Indonesia? Steering the Cultural Dynamics, pp.59–68.
Mas’ud, F., 2008. Menggugat Manajemen (Barat), Semarang: Badan Penerbit

Universitas Diponegoro.
101
Mas’ud, F., 2010. Pengaruh Budaya Nasional terhadap Praktek Manajemen

Organisasi.
Matveev, A. V. & Milter, R.G., 2004. The value of intercultural competence for
performance of multicultural teams. Team Performance Management, 10(5/6),
pp.104–111.
McSweeney, B., 2002. Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their
consequences: A triumph of faith - a failure of analysis. Human Relations,
55(1), pp.89–118.
Perdhana, M.S., 2015. A Closer Look on the Masculinity/Femininity of the

Javanese and Chinese Indonesian Female Managers. 12th Ubaya International
Annual Symposium on Management, pp.95–113.
Perdhana, M.S., 2014. Cultural Values and Leadership Styles of Managers in

Indonesia: Javanese and Chinese Indonesian. Deakin University Australia.
Rozie, F., 2012. Negeri Sejahtera Ala Konfusianisme Melalui Self Cultivation.
Jurnal Kalam. Available at:
http://download.portalgaruda.org/article.php?article=307873&val=5895&titl
e=NEGERI SEJAHTERA ALA KONFUSIANISME MELALUI SELF
CULTIVATION.
Schuler, R.S. & Rogovsky, 1998. Understanding Compensation Practice Variations

across Firms: The Impact of National Culture. Journal of International
Business Studies, First Quar, p.1: 159 – 177.
Sekaran, U., 2009. Research Methods for Business: Metodologi Penelitian untuk
Bisnis 4th Ed., Jakarta: Salemba Empat.
Sekaran, U. & Bougie, R., 2013. Research methods for business: a skill-building
approach 6th ed., West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Seng, W.A., 2006. Rahasia Bisnis Orang Cina, Jakarta: Hikmah.
Shackleton, V. & Ali, A.H., 1990. Work-Related Values of Managers: A Test of

the Hofstede Model. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, pp.109–118.
Smit, C., 2015. Humor and Culture in International Business. Available at:
https://youtu.be/MB6NXzGKMKg.
102
Statistics Indonesia, 2011. Kewarganegaraan, Suku Bangsa, Agama, dan Bahasa

Sehari-Hari Penduduk Indonesia: Hasil Sensus Penduduk 2010, Jakarta:
Badan Pusat Statistik.
Suharnomo, 2016. Manajemen Indonesia: Strategi Mengelola Karyawan dalam

Perspektif Budaya Nasional 1st Ed., Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
The World Factbook, 2016. Indonesia. Available at:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/id.html
[Accessed December 13, 2016].
Triandis, H.C., 1982. Review of Culture’s Consequences. Human Organization, 41,

pp.86–90.
Trompenaars, F., 1993. Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural

Diversity in Business, London: Economist Books.
Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C., 1997. Riding the Waves of Culture:

Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business 2nd Ed., London: Nicholas
Brealey Publishing London.
UNCTAD, 2016. World Investment Report 2016 - Investor Nationality: Policy

Challenges, Geneva: United Nations. Available at:
http://unctad.org/en/pages/DIAE/World Investment Report/WIR-Series.aspx.
Vasanty, P., 2004. Kebudayaan Orang Tionghoa di Indonesia. In Koentjaraningrat,

ed. Manusia dan Kebudayaan di Indonesia. Jakarta: Djambatan, pp. 353–373.
Venaik, S. & Brewer, P., 2010. Avoiding uncertainty in Hofstede and GLOBE.
Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8), pp.1294–1315. Available at:
http://link.springer.com/10.1057/jibs.2009.96.
Weustink, A., 2014. Measurement of Culture: Are Regional and National Level
Culture Any Different? India as a Case Study. Available at:
http://essay.utwente.nl/65879/1/201408251400 Thesis compleet
compleet.pdf.
Weutsink, A., 2014. Measurement of Culture: are Regional and National Level
Culture any Different? India as a Case Study. University of Twente.
Whitehead, G. & Brown, M., 2011. Authenticity in Chinese leadership: A

quantitative study comparing western notions of authentic constructs with
Chinese responses to an authenticity instrument. International Journal of
103
Leadership Studies, 6. Available at:

http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/ijls/new/vol6iss2/Full issue
vol6 Iss2.pdf.
APPENDIX 1
QUESTIONNAIRE BOOKLET
104
105
106
107
108
109
APPENDIX 2
CALCULATION TABLES (FROM TOTAL SAMPLES)
1. Power Distance Calculation
a b c
OPTION 3 1 2 1 2 3 4 5
N 222 121 139 29 161 269 180 60
PERCENTAGE 4.15 23.03 38.48 25.75 8.58
VALUE 31.76 37.20 3.12
FORMULA PDI = 135 – a + b – 25 c
CALCULATION PDI = 135 – (31.76) + 37.20 – 25 (3.12)
PDI 62.54
2. Uncertainty Avoidance Calculation
d e f
OPT. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2
N 68 118 289 167 57 52 154 343 122 28 101 210
% 9.7 16.9 41.3 23.9 8.2 7.4 22 49.1 17.5 4
VAL. 3.04 2.89 45.07
FORM. UAI = 300 – 40 d – 30 e – f
CALC. UAI = 300 – 40 (3.04) – 30 (2.89) – (45.07)
UAI 46.82
3. Individualism versus Collectivism Dimension Calculation
OPT. M1 M1 (%) M4 M4 (%) M8 M8 (%) M13 M13 (%)

1 187 26.75 188 26.90 164 23.46 157 22.46
2 214 30.62 343 49.07 302 43.20 267 38.20
3 271 38.77 122 17.45 201 28.76 181 25.89
4 27 3.86 38 5.44 25 3.58 67 9.59
5 0 0.00 8 1.14 7 1.00 27 3.86
MEAN 2.20 2.05 2.15 2.34
FORM. IDV = 76 m4 – 43 m1 + 30 m8 – 27 m13 – 29
CALC. IDV = 76 (2.05) – 43 (2.20) + 30 (2.15) – 27 (2.34) – 29
IDV 33.61
110
4. Masculinity versus Femininity Dimensions Calculation
OPT. M6 M6 (%) M8 M8 (%) M11 M11 (%) M14 M14 (%)

1 196 28.04 164 23.46 220 31.47 170 24.32
2 212 30.33 302 43.20 270 38.63 298 42.63
3 209 29.90 201 28.76 161 23.03 184 26.32
4 66 9.44 25 3.58 40 5.72 37 5.29
5 16 2.29 7 1.00 8 1.14 10 1.43
MEAN 2.28 2.15 2.06 2.17
FORM. MAS = 60 m8 – 66 m11 + 30 m6 – 39 m14 + 76
CALC. MAS = 60 (2.15) – 66 (2.06) + 30 (2.28) – 39 (2.17) + 76
MAS 52.72

Fajar Nugraha Syahruramdhan - 12010112130154

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fajar Nugraha Syahruramdhan - 12010112130154

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL VALUES

DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES AMONG

Submitted as partial requirement to complete Undergraduate Degree

FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS

Author Name : Fajar Nugraha Syahruramdhan

Student Number : 12010112130154

Faculty/Department : Economics and Business/Management

Thesis Title : UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL

Thesis Supervisor : Dr. Suharnomo, S.E., M.Si.

Semarang, January 23, 2017

Dr. Suharnomo, S.E., M.Si.

Author Name : Fajar Nugraha Syahruramdhan

Student Number : 12010112130154

Faculty/Department : Economics and Business/Management

Thesis Title : UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL

1. Dr. Suharnomo, S.E., M.Si. ( )

2. Dr. Fuad Mas’ud, MIR. ( )

3. Andriyani, S.E., M.M. ( )

I, the undersigned, do hereby state that thesis entitled: “Understanding

Semarang, January 23, 2017

Fajar Nugraha Syahruramdhan

I devoted this thesis to my

To bapak Kuscahyo, who has introduced me about the beauty of Academic

During my study, I have had three different Heads of Management Department,

To Drs. R. Djoko Sampurno, M.M. as my Guardian Lecturer who has provided

All lecturers and employees of Faculty of Economics and Business Universitas

Given the tendency to present Javanese culture as the culture of Indonesia

Keywords: cultural values, ethnic group, Indonesia, national culture, value

Dengan adanya kecenderungan untuk menjadikan budaya Jawa sebagai

FRONT COVER ...................................................................................................... i

research and structure of the thesis.

1.1 Background of the Study

Over the past decades, the number of employees working in foreign-owned

companies has significantly grown. It is resulted by the continuously expanding

Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) around the world. Such activity has

strengthening the realities of globalization (UNCTAD 2016). In the case of

those of Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Philippines, Cambodia, and Laos (The

of the promising economies in the Southeast Asia region for investors.

The consequences of the rise in foreign direct investment are more

intercultural interactions. Many business activities will need to have teams

consisted of foreign employees/managers and Indonesian employees. Intercultural

creating frustrations among members of the team.

In order to be successful in operating business across cultures, organizations

Culture has been recognized as a predominant factor in predicting human

other” (Hofstede, Hofstede, et al. 2010). In order to understand, measure, and

compare cultures, researchers have developed several methods known as cultural

frameworks. One of the most widely used frameworks is Hofstede’s national

Hofstede (1980) identifies four dimensions of national culture: Power

Distance, Individualism versus Collectivism, Uncertainty Avoidance and

Masculinity versus Femininity. Later, in 1991, based on Bond’s Chinese Values

Survey across 23 countries, Long- and Short-Term Orientation dimension was

findings (Hofstede et al. 2010).

The cultural framework allows comparisons among countries, presenting

scores from each dimension ranging from 0 to 100. According to Hofstede’s

avoiding uncertainty, collectivist, low masculine, long-term oriented, and restrained

misleading in a multiethnic country like Indonesia (Hofstede et al., 2010; p. 158).

The need for understanding the complexity of Indonesia’ culture, however,

Most studies discussing Indonesia’s culture disregarded the cultural variations in

Perdhana (2014) underlines that in order to understand Indonesia’s culture, more

careful approach should be taken. In this case, he proposes to draw comparisons

among ethnic groups in Indonesia.

local managers managing Indonesian employees from various subcultures and