A Study on Collectivism and Group Decision-Making: An International Comparison of Japan, China, and Russia Using a Gaming Simulation Page 66 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 ABSTRACT International comparative research was conducted on the degree of collectivism and the methods of group decision- making in Japanese, Chinese, and Russian firms, using a gaming simulation we developed called MBABEST21. As a result of our quantitative and qualitative analyses, it was found that: the degree of collectivism obeyed the inequality China>Russia>Japan; teams whose members rated each other highly for fulfilling their respective roles in the gam- ing exhibited good game results; and group decision- making is not stressed in Russian firms, but is stressed to an extreme degree in Chinese companies. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this research was to conduct an interna- tional comparison of group decision-making at Japanese, Chinese, and Russian firms. This research also extends the research in Morita et al. (2010). It was decided to focus on Japan, China, and Russia because, even though the coun- tries of Asia are rapidly developing economically, there has not been a sufficient accumulation of research on those Asian countries compared to research comparing Japan and the US in terms of group decision-making in firms. In Morita et al. (2010), experiments were conducted on working MBA students and data was gathered, and the re- sults were analyzed to explore whether differences are evi- dent in the efficiency (satisfaction) of group decision- A STUDY ON COLLECTIVISM AND GROUP DECISION-MAKING: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON OF JAPAN, CHINA, AND RUSSIA USING A GAMING SIMULATION Mitsuru Morita Aoyama Gakuin University morita@gsim.aoyama.ac.jp Chiaki Iwai Aoyama Gakuin University iwai@gsim.aoyama.ac.jp Masahiro Horiuchi Aoyama Gakuin University horiuchi@sccs.aoyama.ac.jp Masatsugu Oshima Aoyama Gakuin University osh@sccs.aoyama.ac.jp Yu Zhuchao Northeastern University yuzhuchao@163.com Bo Xu Northeastern University bxu@mail.neu.edu.cn mailto:morita@gsim.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:iwai@gsim.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:horiuchi@sccs.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:osh@sccs.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:yuzhuchao@163.com mailto:bxu@mail.neu.edu.cn Page 67 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 making in Japan, China, and Russia. Working MBA stu- dents were selected as the experimental subjects because it was felt that MBA students with experience working in a company would accurately reflect the decision-making style of each country. In fact, when the same type of ex- periments were conducted on MBA students and under- graduates, the results showed a considerable difference between the two. By using MBA students as subjects, it should be possible to obtain results closer to the group de- cision-making in firms. In the experiments on MBA students, the students played a business game we developed called MBABEST21, and analysis was conducted based on ques- tionnaire surveys administered before and after the experi- ment. The business game involves decision-making by teams, and thus is likely to be an appropriate method of capturing the characteristics of group decision-making. Efficiency was measured based on the results of question- naire surveys administered before and after the business game. More specifically, subjects were asked questions about their preferences for group decision-making such as ―When making a decision at work, do you prefer to decide on your own or to consult with somebody else?‖ Experiments using this business game were conducted on 111 Japanese MBA students (at Aoyama Gakuin Uni- versity in Tokyo), 44 Chinese MBA students (at Northeast- ern University in Shenyang), and 12 Russian MBA students (at Moscow University in Moscow). However, since the sample size for Russia was small, the results for Russia are only used for reference. The following findings were obtained by analyzing the experiment results. The Japanese teams conducted deci- sion-making with stress on consensus, and they were deter- mined to have a high degree of emergence due to decision- making as a team. In the Chinese teams, in contrast, it was determined that teams members adequately played their respective roles, and actively cooperated with other mem- bers. The common point between the two countries was that they were evaluated to have ―few conflicts of opinion between team members in decision-making.‖ Thus there were few conflicts of opinion within the groups in both countries, but the reasons for this were found to be different. In Japan the reason was the stress on consensus, whereas in China it was due to the members’ commitment to fulfilling their respective roles. This research extends the above research methodology of Morita et al. (2010) in the following ways. First, analy- sis was conducted using a questionnaire survey based on the Hofstede model for the Individualism-Collectivism dimension (which is thought to be intimately related to group decision-making) in order to detect the characteris- tics of subjects from each country before measuring group decision-making using the gaming simulation. In this re- search, analysis was conducted based on the Hofstede model because it is the pioneering research which has most systematically and quantitatively captured organizational culture through a large-scale survey. Already, more than 30 years have passed since the Hofstede surveys, and the economic and social situation have changed. Therefore, it is significant to validate the model again based on the latest data. Next, in this research, decision-making in corporate organizations is measured in a controlled experimental en- vironment using a gaming simulation conducted at the same time as the questionnaire surveys. More specifically, the results of Morita et al. (2010) are replicated with regard to efficiency of group decision-making. The robustness of the findings obtained last year is examined, and the rela- tionship with the results (win/loss) of the gaming simula- tion, which was not conducted in last year’s research, are also discussed. Furthermore, in this research, we provide a more in- depth discussion based on a qualitative interview survey of the nature of the Chinese group decision-making style, and the likely reasons for the differences with the Japanese group decision-making style. As far was we have investigated, we have found no previous research on organizational decision-making which simultaneously uses the following 3 approaches in a short time frame as in this research: (1) Quantitative question- naire survey beforehand, (2) Laboratory experiment, and (3) Qualitative analysis based on interviews. Therefore, this research is novel in that way. COMPARISON BY COUNTRY OF INDI- VIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM This section discusses the country-specific differences in the latent individualism/collectivism of subjects, based on the research of Hofstede. Data was collected prior to the controlled experiment on group decision-making using a gaming simulation. HOFSTEDE’S INDIVIDUALISM INDEX From 1967 to 1973, Hofstede (1980, 2001) adminis- tered a questionnaire survey to about 110,000 employees working for IBM in 40 countries, in order to measure dif- ferences in culture due to the country. Four dimensions were identified as a result: Power Distance (PDI), Uncer- tainty Avoidance (UAI), Individualism (IDV), and Mascu- linity (MAS). Another indicator—Long Term Oriented (LTO)—was added due to a survey in 1994, and thus cul- ture is captured with five dimensions. In Morita et al. (2010) it was found that members of Chinese teams rated their cooperation with their own team members higher than Japanese team members. In that re- search, a hypothetical model was developed which suggests that, when building cooperation between team members for this sort of group decision-making, in Japan subjects build cooperative relationships by stressing consensus, while in Page 68 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 China subjects build cooperative relationships by clarifying roles and then committing themselves to those roles. Country-specific variables or variables which express the culture of the country (particularly its corporate organ- izational culture) are likely to have an effect on building cooperative relationships for group decision-making. Among those variables are the five dimensions of organiza- tional culture identified by Hofstede (1980, 2001), and of those we focus on Individualism (IDV). The following discusses how this dimension differs between Japan and China based on data obtained from the questionnaire ad- ministered before the game. QUESTIONS FOR MEASURING COLLECTIVISM In order to identify the five dimensions mentioned above, Hofstede asked subjects to answer many questions. To construct a variable expressing Individualism, Hofstede had subjects indicate the subjective importance they as- signed to the following 14 questions. BQ1. Have challenging work to do—work from which you can get a personal sense of accomplishment? (Challenging) BQ2. Live in an area desirable to you and your family? (Desirable Area) BQ3. Have an opportunity for high earnings? (Earnings) BQ4. Work with people who cooperate well with one an- other? (Cooperation) BQ5. Have training opportunities (to improve your skills or to learn new skills)? (Training) BQ6. Have good fringe benefits? (Benefits) BQ7. Get the recognition you deserve when you do a good job? (Recognition) BQ8. Have good physical working conditions (good venti- lation and lighting, adequate work space, etc.) (Physical Condition) BQ9. Have considerable freedom to adopt your own ap- proach to the job. (Freedom) BQ10. Have the security that you will be able to work for your company as long as you want to? (Employment Security) BQ11. Have an opportunity for advancement to higher level job? (Advancement) BQ12. Have a good working relationship with your man- ager? (Manager) BQ13. Fully use your skills and abilities on the job? (Use of Skills) BQ14. Have a job which leaves you sufficient time for your personal of family life? (Personal Time) Subjects were asked to answer the above questions with a 5 point scale, with 1 point indicating ―of very little or no importance‖ and 5 points indicating ―of utmost im- portance to me.‖ Here the points are assigned in the re- verse way from Hofstede’s survey, where 5 points indicate ―of very little or no importance‖ and 1 point indicates ―of utmost importance to me.‖ The questions for the replica- tion of the survey in Morita et al. (2010) examined in the following section use a 7 point scale with 7 indicating the highest evaluation, and thus the scoring was reversed to avoid confusing the subjects. Furthermore, to eliminate effects due to English com- prehension skills, the above questions, the questionnaire administered in the following section, and the interview were translated into the subjects’ native language by re- search collaborators in each country. The subjects also responded in their native language. ANALYSIS RESULTS Hofstede (1980) conducted factor analysis on the re- sponse results to the above questions. As the first factor, he identified a factor indicating Individualism, and as the sec- ond factor, he identified a factor indicating Masculinity. According to Hofstede’s definition, in Individualism the interests of the individual take precedence over the in- terests of the group, and in Collectivism, the interests of the group take precedence over the interests of the individual. With Individualism, there is a tendency to stress Per- sonal Time (BQ14), Freedom (BQ9), and Challenging (BQ1), and to not stress Training (BQ5), Physical Condi- tion (BQ8), and Use of Skills (BQ13). Conversely, Collec- tivism does not stress Personal Time (BQ14), Freedom (BQ9), and Challenging (BQ1), but does stress Training (BQ5), Physical Condition (BQ8), and Use of Skills (BQ13). Stressing Personal Time, Freedom, and Challenging emphasizes the independence of the employee from the organization. Stressing Training, Physical Condition, and Use of Skills is taken to indicate dependence of the em- ployee on the organization because these items are supplied by the organization to the employee. Hofstede listed the items in Table 1 as the results which Individualism and Collectivism have on an organization. As a result of conducting factor analysis on the above questions, the factor of Masculinity was identified as the second factor. According to Hofstede’s definition, Mascu- linity places relative stress on Earnings (BQ3), Recognition (BQ7), Advancement (BQ11), and Challenging (BQ1), while Femininity places relative stress on Manager (BQ12), Cooperation (BQ4), Desirable Area (BQ2), and Employ- ment Security (BQ10). Hofstede listed the items in Table 2 as the results which Masculinity and Femininity have on an organization. The above questions are important for anyone, and thus the effects of ―yes man‖ style acquiescence can appear in the responses. To exclude those effects, Hofstede used a unique approach where he standardized values using the mean and standard deviation for all questions for each country, performed conversion by multiplying by 100 and adding 500, and then indicated the resulting data. Factor analysis was then conducted based on this standardized data for 40 countries, and the factors of Individualism and Masculinity were identified. However, when we attempted to reproduce the same factor analysis in this research, there Page 69 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 was no data except the means for 3 countries, and thus it was impossible to carry out the factor analysis. Thus we first tested the means and mean differences of each country for each question (see Table 3). However, for Chinese subjects we include data for subjects of an experiment with a different scenario (USB memory market in China) in addition to data for subjects of the gaming experiment conducted in the next section. Here we measure cultural characteristics of subjects prior to con- ducting the gaming simulation, and the number of subjects was increased (to 47) in order to ensure robustness of re- sults while increasing the sample size. Also, no significant difference was detected between means for the pre- experiment questionnaire for the two scenarios in China. The items stressed by Japanese subjects are Challeng- ing (BQ1), Use of Skills (BQ13), and Recognition (BQ7), and the items comparatively not stressed are Employment Security (BQ10), Benefit (BQ6), and Physical Condition (BQ8). The items stressed by Chinese subjects are Chal- lenging (BQ1)，Training (BQ5), and Manager (BQ12), and the items comparatively not stressed are Physical Con- dition (BQ8), Freedom (BQ9), and Employment Security (BQ10). For Russia, there are only 12 subjects and thus the data is given only for reference, but the items stressed by Russian subjects are Challenging (BQ1), Cooperation (BQ4), Training (BQ5), and Freedom (BQ9). Conversely, the items comparatively not stressed are Personal Time (BQ14), Benefits (BQ6), and Physical Condition (BQ8). As a result of testing the difference in means between Japan and China, it was found that Chinese subjects signifi- cantly stress Training and Physical Conditions (items indi- cating Collectivism) while Japanese subjects significantly stress Personal Time (an item indicating Individualism). Therefore between the two countries, China has a relatively stronger tendency toward Collectivism. These results are the same as the rank of indicators for Individualism (IDV) in Japan and China given by Hofstede (Table 4). Hofstede asserts that countries with greater economic maturity show a stronger tendency toward individualism, and the results of this research support that assertion. In terms of items stressed by Masculinity, the results showed that China places significant relative stress on Earnings (BQ3). In terms of items stressed by Femininity, China places relatively more stress on Desirable Area (BQ2), Cooperation (BQ4), Employment Security (BQ10), and Manager (BQ12), and thus from an overall perspective, Low Individualism (IDV) High Individualism (IDV) Emphasis on belonging to organization: membership ideal. Emphasis on individual initiative and achievement: lead- ership ideal. Involvement of individuals with organizations primarily moral. Involvement of individuals with organizations primarily calculative. Belief in group decision. Belief in individual decisions. Employees expect organizations to look after them like a family - and can become very alienated if organization dissatisfies them. Organizations are not expected to look after employees from the cradle to the grave. Organization has great influence on members' well- being. Organization has moderate influence on members' well- being. Employees expect organizations to defend their inter- ests. Employees are expected to defend their own interest. Policies and practices based on loyalty and sense of duty Policies and practices should allow for individual initia- tive. Promotion from inside. Promotion from inside and outside. Promotion on seniority. Promotion on market value. Less concern with fashion in management ideas. Managers try to be up-to-date and endorse modern man- agement ideas. Policies and practices vary according to relations (particularism) Policies and practices apply to all. Note: Extracts taken by the authors from Fig. 5.6 and 5.8 in Hofstede (1980). Key difference between collectivist and individualist societies Table 1 Page 70 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 the results indicate that China has a tendency toward Femi- ninity. When comparing Japan and Russia for reference, Rus- sia significantly stresses Training (BQ5) among items indi- cating Collectivism, but in terms of Individualism, Russia exhibits relative stress on Freedom (BQ9). Earlier it was noted that many countries were not sur- veyed in this research, and thus it is not possible to repro- duce the factor analysis from the response results for the administered questionnaires. However, it is important to compare with values for Individualism (IDV) and Mascu- linity (MAS) in past previous research. Thus, in this re- search, a different approach is taken. The factor loadings of Hofstede are used as is, and a method for finding indica- tors of Individuality (IDV) and Masculinity (MAS) is em- ployed. More specifically, factor score coefficients are deter- mined from the factor loadings presented by Hofstede, and then standardization is done using the mean and standard deviation for all questions for each country. The resulting values are then converted in a unique way by multiplying by 100 and adding 500, and then IDV and MAS indicators are obtained from the factor score coefficients for the con- verted data. However, for the necessary factor loadings, only the parts where the factor loadings are high for the first and second factor are clearly indicated in the previous studies by Hofstede (1980, 2001), and factor loadings for all questions are not presented. Therefore, it is not possible to replicate the results. Thus Fujita (1999) shows a reproduction method for finding the factor loadings for each question from the Hofstede data. This research also replicates the factor analysis using the data of Hofstede (2001) based on Fujita (1999). All of the factor loadings for each question were found, and IDV and MAS indicators were found from the factor scoring coefficients (see the values in parentheses in Table 4). The same rank relationships of Individualism and Masculinity between Japan and China were obtained as in the past previous research of Hofstede. Compared to China, Japan had relatively higher individualism, and there was no reversal in rank. When the values of Individuality indicators (IDV) were compared with previous research, there was a tendency for values to increase overall for both countries. This result suggests that in developing countries such as China and Russia, the tendency toward Individual- ism has increased compared to past surveys. In Hofstede’s previous research, Masculinity (MAS) exhibited a high value because almost all of the subjects were men, but in this survey using MBA students as subjects, the percentage of women was higher than in Hofstede’s research, and thus it is likely the Masculinity value decreased. Also, if the current state of women’s penetration into society is re- flected, it is likely that Masculinity (MAS) has decreased from the IBM survey results in corporate organizations. Low Masculinity (MAS) High Masculinity (MAS) Service ideal. Achievement ideal. Interdependence ideal. Independence ideal. Intuition. Decisiveness. Leveling; don't try to be better than others. Excelling;: try to be the best. Some young men and women want careers, others do not. Young men expect to make a career; those who don't see themselves as failures. Organization should not interfere with people's private lives. Organization interests are a legitimate reason for interfer- ing with people's private lives. More women in more qualified and better-paid jobs. Fewer women in more qualified and better-paid jobs. Women in more qualified jobs not particularly asser- tive. Women in more qualified jobs are very assertive. Lower job stress. Higher job stress. Less industrial conflict. More industrial conflict Appeal of job restructuring permitting group integra- tion. Appeal of job restructuring permitting individual achievement. Note: Extracts taken by the authors from Fig. 6.4 and 6.6 in Hofstede (1980). Key differences between masculinity and femininity societies Table 2 Page 71 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 Questionnaire Dimension Japan China Russia Difference (Japan minus China) Difference (Japan minus Russia) Difference (China minus Russia) AQ1. Challenge Individualism Masculinity Mean 4.44 4.52 4.58 -0.08 -0.14 -0.06 SD 0.661 0.612 0.9 N 97 99 12 AQ2. Desirable Area Femininity Mean 3.32 3.92 3.58 -0.6 -0.26 0.34 SD 0.941 0.922 0.793 ** N 97 99 12 AQ3. Earnings Masculinity Mean 3.87 4.08 4.08 -0.21 -0.21 0 SD 0.759 0.695 0.515 * N 97 99 12 AQ.4 Cooperation Femininity Mean 4.08 4.41 4.42 -0.33 -0.34 -0.01 SD 0.745 0.623 0.669 ** N 97 98 12 AQ5. Training Collectivism Mean 3.23 4.51 4.25 -1.28 -1.02 0.26 SD 1.026 0.56 0.452 ** ** N 97 99 12 AQ6. Benefits Mean 3.07 4.08 3 -1.01 0.07 1.08 SD 1.111 0.742 0.953 ** ** N 97 98 12 AQ7. Recognition Masculinity Mean 4.11 4.26 3.92 -0.15 0.19 0.34 SD 0.748 0.708 0.669 N 97 99 12 AQ8, Physical Condition Collectivism Mean 3.21 3.7 3.17 -0.49 0.04 0.53 SD 0.978 0.839 0.577 ** * N 97 99 12 AQ9. Freedom Individualism Mean 3.76 3.78 4.25 -0.02 -0.49 -0.47 SD 0.774 0.777 0.622 * * N 97 99 12 AQ10. Employment Security Femininity Mean 2.86 3.84 3.25 -0.98 -0.39 0.59 SD 1.07 0.817 0.866 ** * N 97 99 12 AQ11. Advancement Masculinity Mean 4.13 4.28 3.75 -0.15 0.38 0.53 SD 0.656 0.822 0.965 * N 97 98 12 AQ12. Manager Femininity Mean 3.76 4.43 3.42 -0.67 0.34 1.01 SD 0.609 0.556 0.996 ** ** N 97 99 12 AQ13. Use of Skills Collectivism Mean 4.41 4.36 4.17 0.05 0.24 0.19 SD 0.608 0.562 0.389 N 97 99 12 AQ14. Personal Time Individualism Mean 3.55 4.09 3 -0.54 0.55 1.09 SD 0.947 0.809 0.953 ** ** N 97 99 12 Note: ** indicates significance at the 1% level, and * indicates significance at 5% level. Descriptive statistics and testing of mean differences for the questionnaire of Hofstede Table 3 Page 72 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ON GROUP DECISION-MAKING—COMPARISON OF JAPAN, CHINA AND RUSSIA Group decision-making experiments were conducted on MBA students from 3 countries in 2010. This section describes the experiments—including the 2009 results re- ported in Morita et al. (2010)—and provides some discus- sion. STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS The experimental design and hypothesis are the same as in Morita et al. (2010). Before the game starts, students in each team are asked to decide on their own on a CEO (to be the superior) and a CMO (Chief Maketing Officer), CPO (Chief Product Officer), CFO (Chief Financial Officer), and CRO (Chief Research & Development Officer) as roles to handle other tasks. The problem addressed by this experiment is the pos- sibility of eliminating adverse effects of group decision- making and stimulating effective interaction by adopting a business game as the setting for group decision-making. The hypothesis was formulated as follows. This hypothesis was developed based on group decision-making theory in Iwai (2007a). Hypothesis ―There are differences in the effectiveness of group deci- sion-making between Japan, China, and Russia.‖ In the experimental design for this paper, it was de- cided (due to the closed model) to assume that there is no difference of subject’s capabilities between countries, be- cause homogeneous MBA students were used as subjects in the three countries. Here, the following questions were prepared as indicators for measuring effectiveness. In a questionnaire given before the game, subjects were asked whether or not they prefer group decision-making, and af- terward they were asked various questions about decision- making through the course of the game. The questions asked before and after the game are indicated below. Sub- jects were asked to answer with a 7 point scale, with 7 points indicating maximum agreement, and 1 point indicat- ing maximum disagreement. BQ15. When making a decision at work, do you prefer to decide on your own or to consult with somebody else? AQ1. Were you able to advance through the game in coop- eration with other team members? AQ2. Were you able to perform the role you were as- signed? AQ3. Were your teammates cooperative with you? AQ4. Did your teammates perform the roles they were as- signed? AQ5. Did you have any differences of opinion with team- mates in decision-making? AQ6. Do you think that through consulting with teammates you were able to make better decisions than you would have been able to make alone? AQ7. Were team decisions made democratically through mutual agreement? AQ8. Did any ideas that you would not have thought of alone come up in discussions with teammates? BQ indicates a question asked beforehand, and AQ indicates a question asked afterward. For these questions, higher numeric values indicate higher effectiveness in group decision-making. Each sub- ject’s higher satisfaction means higher effectiveness of group decision making. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN The following experimental design was devised to experimentally verify the hypothesis. (1) Game specifications The business game MBABEST21 (Table 5) used in the demonstration experiment is a frame game which en- ables free and flexible development of games using actual business cases studies (Iwai 2007b). (2) Game scenario and course This experiment used a market growth curve estimat- ing the initial product life cycle of a plausible next- generation PDA (2009) and e-book reader (2010) at the time of the experiment, and the interest and tax rates in the Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions Table 4 Note: The figures in parentheses are for the IDV and MAS dimensions found in this research. Country PDI IDV MAS UAI LTO Japan 54 46 (59) 95 (63) 92 80 China 80 20 (50) 66 (51) 30 118 Russia 93 39 (50) 36 (59) 95 Page 73 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 Japanese market (2009) and in the Chinese market (2010). Both products were used because it is a comparatively ho- mogeneous product in the various countries. It was de- cided to play the game with the same interest and tax rate conditions in all countries at the same year to keep those factors from affecting game results. During the course of the game, management decision-making (deciding vari- ables such as product pricing, production volume, R&D expenditures, and marketing expenditures) is done in quar- terly units, and decision-making for the next quarter is done based on financial statements and rankings of management indicators for all companies. The game progresses as this process is repeated each quarter. When managers of differ- ent departments in the same company make a decision, they do so as a group, in a competitive environment with other competing companies. Their decisions are based on the financial statements and ranking reports reported each quarter. This game was played twice by each team. The first time, it was played for two quarters as practice, and the second time, decisions were made for 4 or 5 quarters. The response variable was taken to be maximization of cumula- tive net profit at the end of the game. (3) Overview of conducted experiment Table 6 gives an overview of the experiment (2009, 2010 Japan) conducted with MBA students in Japan (Aoyama Gakuin University), the experiment (2009, 2010 Russia) conducted with MBA students in Russia (Moscow State University), and the experiment (2009, 2010 China) conducted with MBA students in China (North Eastern University). Both Japanese and Chinese students were homogeneous since these students had just started MBA program. On the other hand Russian students are the sec- ond year students in MBA and the number of Russian Stu- dents was small, those results were not used for hypothesis testing. (4) Method of collecting variables The response variable in this business game can be regarded as the outcome variable of decision-making in the closed model. In MBABEST21, the input/output variables of subjects are automatically recorded in the computer as the game progresses, and thus they can be used as is. The survey form was filled out by subjects immedi- ately after decision-making in the two games. Evaluation was done subjectively by the subjects. COMPARISON OF SUBJECT RESPONSES BY COUNTRY Table 7 shows the response results to post-test ques- tions for the 3 countries. In the comparisons by country, Japan did not rank first among the 3 countries for any ques- tion, and its scores were low overall. On the other hand, Russia ranked first among the 3 countries for 7 of the 8 questions, and scored high overall. China came in between the other two countries. Here we will summarize the results for each question. For the question BQ15 ―When making a decision at work, do you prefer to decide on your own or to consult with somebody else?‖ Russia and China tended to prefer group decision-making, while Japan tended to choose almost the middle between individualism and collectivism. For AQ1 ―Were you able to advance through the game in coopera- tion with other team members?‖ both Russia and China were close to the highest possible score. For AQ2 ―Were you able to perform the role you were assigned?‖ Russia and China scored high, while Japan scored relatively low with a value roughly in the middle of the scale. For AQ3 ―Were your teammates cooperative with you?‖ all countries scored highly, and there was no great difference between the three. For AQ4 ―Did your teammates perform the roles they were assigned?‖ Japan scored somewhat low com- pared to Russia and China. For AQ5 ―Did you have any differences of opinion with teammates in decision- making?‖ Japan tended to answer in the negative compared to the other two countries. For AQ6 ―Do you think that through consulting with teammates you were able to make better decisions than you would have been able to make alone?‖ Japan scored somewhat low compared to Russia and China. For AQ7 ―Were team decisions made democ- ratically through mutual agreement?‖ all countries scored Gaming simulation specifications Table 5 Gaming Development Tool MBABEST21 Product Next-generation e-Book Reader Market Consumer market somewhere in Asia Number of period 1 quarter × 4 periods Input variables Selling price, production volume, R&D expenditures, marketing expenditures, factory expansion investment, short term debt Output reports Income statement, Balance sheet, Cash flow statement, Team ranking report Exogenous variables Market growth rate, Interest, Tax rate Page 74 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 Comparison of three experiments Table 6 2009 Japan 2009 Russia 2009 China Experiments Place Japan (Oiso) Japan (Tokyo) China (Shenyang) Subjects Japanese Russian Chinese New MBA students MBA students New MBA students Number of subjects 111 12 44 Game scenario Next-generation PDA Same as at left Same as at left Required experiment time 3 hours Same as at left Same as at left Number of trials 2 (Same members in 1st and 2nd trial) Same as at left Same as at left Number of competing teams 25 companies 5 companies 10 companies Students per team 4 or 5 3 4 or 5 Team selection Recommended by others Same as at left Same as at left Form of organization Hierarchical Same as at left Same as at left Experiment location On-campus lab (Japan) Same as at left On-campus lab (China) Game facilitator 1 university instructor 1 university instructor 2 university instructors 2010 Japan 2010 Russia 2010 China Experiments Place Japan (Oiso) Japan (Tokyo) China (Shenyang) Subjects Japanese Russian Chinese New MBA students MBA students New MBA students Number of subjects 97 12 56 Game scenario New Book Reader Same as at left Same as at left Required experiment time 3 hours Same as at left Same as at left Number of trials 2 (Same members in 1st and 2nd trial) Same as at left Same as at left Number of competing teams 24 companies 4 companies 13 companies Students per team 4 or 5 3 4 or 5 Team selection Recommended by others Same as at left Same as at left Form of organization Hierarchical Same as at left Same as at left Experiment location On-campus lab (Japan) Same as at left On-campus lab (China) Game facilitator 1 university instructor 1 university instructor 2 university instructors Note: For Experiment 2009 Russia, the experiment was conducted with a total of 5 teams, including 4 teams made up of Russians, 1 computer team and 1 Japanese team (with 3 members). The questionnaire was administered only to the 12 members of the Russian teams. Page 75 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 highly, and there was no great difference between the three. For AQ8 ―Did any ideas that you would not have thought of alone come up in discussions with teammates?‖ there was no great difference between the 3 countries, but they all scored relatively low compared to the other questions. Next, we shall examine whether there are any differ- ences in results due to the year when the experiment was conducted. For all countries, there were no major differ- ences in scores due to the year of the experiment for any question, and the results showed almost the same values. However, variation due to the year was evident in the same country for AQ5 ―Did you have any differences of opinion with teammates in decision-making?‖ and AQ8 ―Did any ideas that you would not have thought of alone come up in discussions with teammates?‖ RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GAME RESULTS AND SUBJECT EVALUATIONS In all experiments, the evaluation scale for determin- ing winning or losing of the game was the cumulative net profit when the game ended. Subjects were instructed be- fore the game began to make decisions with the goal of maximizing cumulative net profit. This section shows the results of calculating rank cor- relations (Kendall TauB) between the cumulative net profit for each team (which is the response variable of the game) and the mean evaluation by the subjects of each team, and examines the relationship between the two. Rank correla- tion was used because the cumulative net profit values vary greatly between games and thus it is difficult to make sim- ple comparisons with absolute values, and because in al- most all cases subjects made decisions while paying more Descriptive statistics on questions for improving efficiency Table 7 BQ15 AQ1 AQ2 AQ3 AQ4 AQ5 AQ6 AQ7 AQ8 Japan 2009 Mean 3.86 5.95 4.59 6.32 5.77 3.53 5.77 6.19 5.89 SD 1.735 1.025 1.391 0.798 1.221 1.613 1.401 0.879 1.123 N 109 111 111 111 111 110 111 111 111 Japan 2010 Mean 4.78 5.73 4.31 6.1 5.61 3.01 5.57 5.99 5.3 SD 1.66 1.229 1.402 0.895 1.132 1.41 1.62 1.046 1.445 N 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 96 China 2009 Mean 4.5 6.48 6.09 6.43 6.41 4.59 6.05 6.05 5.2 SD 1.899 1.023 0.91 0.998 0.923 1.743 1.275 1.18 1.564 N 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 China 2010 Mean 5.73 6.41 6.05 6.54 6.3 4.71 6.46 6.34 5.66 SD 1.396 0.93 0.999 0.538 0.807 1.486 0.808 0.769 1.339 N 49 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 Russia 2009 Mean 4.42 6.83 6.25 6.83 6.58 5.67 6.42 6.33 5.67 SD 1.975 0.389 0.866 0.577 0.793 1.303 0.996 0.778 1.969 N 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Russia 2010 Mean 5.58 6.83 5.58 6.58 6.5 4 6.42 6.42 6.42 SD 1.379 0.389 1.084 0.515 0.522 2.216 1.165 0.9 0.9 N 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Total Average Mean 4.59 6.1 5.05 6.33 5.95 3.81 5.91 6.15 5.6 SD 1.797 1.095 1.469 0.822 1.112 1.727 1.388 0.959 1.377 N 323 332 332 332 332 331 332 332 331 Page 76 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 attention to the rank of their team than to the absolute value of cumulative net profit. In Japan, a significant but weak positive correlation was evident between cumulative net profit and AQ1 ―Were you able to advance through the game in cooperation with other team members?‖ In Russia and Japan, a significant positive correlation was evident between cumulative net profit and AQ2 ―Were you able to perform the role you were assigned?‖ A significant positive correlation was evident in Japan and China (2009) between cumulative net profit and AQ3 ―Were your teammates cooperative with you?‖ but there was no correlation in the case of China (2010). A significant positive correlation was evident in Japan, Russia (2009), and China (2009) between cumula- tive net profit and AQ4 ―Did your teammates perform the roles they were assigned?‖ No significant correlation was seen in any experiment between cumulative net profit and AQ5 ―Did your teammates perform the roles they were assigned?‖ In all experiments except Russia (2010), a sig- nificant correlation was evident between cumulative net profit and AQ6 ―Do you think that through consulting with teammates you were able to make better decisions than you would have been able to make alone?‖ A significant corre- lation between cumulative net profit and AQ7 ―Were team decisions made democratically through mutual agree- ment?‖ was evident only in Japan (2009), and the results showed variation in the sign of the correlation coefficient between experiments. A significant but weak positive cor- relation was evident in Japan for AQ8 ―Did any ideas that you would not have thought of alone come up in discus- sions with teammates?‖ Looking at each country, Japan had a comparatively large number of teams (24), and partly for that reason a weak but significant positive rank correlation with cumula- tive net profit at the end of the game was evident for all questions except AQ5 ―Did you have any differences of opinion with teammates in decision-making?‖ Also, the correlation coefficients had almost the same value in 2009 and 2010. In China, a weak but significant positive rank correlation with cumulative net profit at the end of the game was evident for the two questions AQ4 ―Did your teammates perform the roles they were assigned?‖ and Rank correlations regarding game results and questions for improving efficiency Table 8 Countries N rank correla- tion coeffi- cient AQ1 AQ2 AQ3 AQ4 AQ5 AQ6 AQ7 AQ8 Japan 2009 24 Kendall τ 0.33 0.32 0.48 0.30 0.08 0.31 0.40 0.41 p value 0.03* 0.03* 0.00** 0.05* 0.60 0.04* 0.01** 0.01** 2010 24 Kendall τ 0.39 0.28 0.39 0.29 -0.08 0.35 0.21 0.36 p value 0.01** 0.06 0.01** 0.05* 0.60 0.02* 0.18 0.02* China 2009 10 Kendall τ -0.14 0.19 0.66 0.57 -0.22 0.57 -0.02 -0.16 p value 0.59 0.46 0.01** 0.02* 0.37 0.02* 0.93 0.53 2010 13 Kendall τ -0.05 0.22 0.00 0.32 -0.12 0.39 0.22 0.30 p value 0.80 0.30 1.00 0.14 0.58 0.07 0.30 0.16 Russia 2009 4 Kendall τ 0.00 0.91 0.24 0.91 0.55 0.91 0.91 0.33 p value 1.00 0.07 0.65 0.07 0.28 0.07 0.07 0.50 2010 4 Kendall τ 0.00 1.00 0.18 0.00 -0.33 0.55 -0.71 0.55 p value 1.00 . 0.72 1.00 0.50 0.28 0.18 0.28 Note: ** indicates significance at the 1% level, and * indicates significance at 5% level. Page 77 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 AQ6 ―Do you think that through consulting with team- mates you were able to make better decisions than you would have been able to make alone?‖ The sign of the correlation coefficient tended to be the same regardless of the year. Since there were only 4 teams for Russia, the results are given here only for reference. COMPARISON BY YEAR OF POST-EXPERIMENT QUESTIONS BETWEEN JAPAN AND CHINA In this section, the results of group decision-making, including the results reported in Morita et al. (2010), are evaluated for Japan and China using variance analysis. As shown in Table 9, response results from the subjects of the two countries were evaluated by the year of the experiment (2009, 2010). Evaluation was done by the year of the ex- periment in order to check whether consistent results tran- scending the year appear in measurement of group decision -making for the two countries. The results are as shown in Table 10. While there was a significant difference between the two countries for AQ1, AQ2, AQ3, AQ4, AQ5, and AQ6, no significant difference was evident for the year or the interaction. Therefore, there were no differences due to the time of the experiment, and we were able to confirm the robustness of these questions. The main factors for AQ7 and AQ8 are not signifi- cant, and thus the responses to these two questions are situ- ational, and exhibit a tendency to differ depending on the year. In testing the difference of means (Table 11), there was a significant difference in both 2009 and 2010 for AQ1 (5% significance), AQ2 (1% significance), AQ4 (5% sig- nificance), and AQ5 (1% significance). In all of these cases, the mean for China exceeded the mean for Japan. Factors between subjects Table 9 Variance analysis for questions on improving efficiency Table 10 Note: ** indicates significance at the 1% level, and * indi- cates significance at 5% level. df F P BQ15 Country 1 12.637 0.000 ** Year 1 27.724 0.000 ** Country * Year 1 0.747 0.388 Error 299 (2.844) AQ1 Country 1 16.577 0.000 ** Year 1 0.428 0.513 Country * Year 1 0.808 0.369 Error 299 (1.236) AQ2 Country 1 94.206 0.000 ** Year 1 1.053 0.306 Country * Year 1 0.581 0.446 Error 299 (1.657) AQ3 Country 1 6.634 0.01 ** Year 1 0.133 0.72 Country * Year 1 2.914 0.09 error 299 (0.683) AQ4 Country 1 24.859 0.00 ** Year 1 0.592 0.44 Country * Year 1 0.161 0.69 error 299 (1.180) AQ5 Country 1 53.304 0.00 ** Year 1 1.349 0.25 Country * Year 1 2.328 0.13 error 299 (2.407) AQ6 Country 1 10.811 0.00 ** Year 1 0.262 0.61 Country * Year 1 2.796 0.10 error 299 (1.911) AQ7 Country 1 0.420 0.52 Year 1 0.043 0.84 Country * Year 1 3.500 0.06 error 299 (0.936) AQ8 Country 1 1.978 0.16 Year 1 0.198 0.66 Country * Year 1 9.305 0.00 ** error 299 (1.810) Item Category N Country China 95 Japan 208 Year FY2009 158 FY2010 145 Page 78 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 DISCUSSION First, we shall examine the robustness of the experi- mental methodology, which is the analysis methodology we adopted. In terms of distinguishing features of the evaluation by subjects of post-game questions, the response trends for each country were the same in both 2009 and 2010. When comparing 2009 and 2010, there were some differences in the game scenario, but the same gaming soft- ware was used in all cases, and the input items, output items, and response variables were the same. Furthermore, the subjects were MBA students at the same universities. For the above reasons, it is possible to conclude that our experimental methodology—where efficiency relating to group decision-making is measured for subjects from dif- ferent countries based on gaming simulations—is a stable and robust technique. Previously, when measuring decision-making inside an organization, the typical methods have been to select a random sample from a fixed population and measure using questionnaires, or to conduct a case study employing par- ticipant observation for a limited set of firms. However, simply comparing the multiple survey subjects with those methodologies is not easy because the external environ- ments are different. In this case, evaluation was done after having subjects from different countries play games with similar scenarios, and thus it was possible to measure dif- Testing of mean differences regarding questions for improving efficiency in Japan and China Table 11 Note: ** indicates significance at the 1% level, and * indicates significance at 5% level. 2009 2010 difference (Japan minus China) t-value p difference (Japan minus China) t-value p BQ15 -0.638 -2.002 0.047 * -0.785 –2.825 0.005 * * AQ1 -0.531 -2.911 0.004 ** -0.601 –2.910 0.004 * * AQ2 -1.496 -7.858 0.000 ** -1.612 –7.785 0.000 * * AQ3 -0.117 -0.762 0.447 -0.407 –2.967 0.004 * * AQ4 -0.643 -3.553 0.001 ** -0.705 –4.499 0.000 * * AQ5 -1.064 -3.613 0.000 ** -1.735 –6.966 0.000 * * AQ6 -0.280 -1.197 0.235 -0.825 –4.103 0.000 * * AQ7 0.144 0.829 0.408 -0.285 –1.712 0.089 AQ8 0.687 2.657 0.010 ** -0.201 –0.809 0.420 Page 79 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 ferences while controlling the external environment. Dif- ferences due to degree of language understanding were eliminated by providing the experiment explanation and questionnaires in the native languages of the participants. Next, we examine the implications of the results obtained from analysis of the relationship between game results (response variable given by the game) and evalua- tions by the subjects. As has been pointed out by McKinney and Dill (1966), Norris and Niebuhr (1980), Wolfe, Bowen and Roberts (1989), and Iwai (2009), there is not necessarily a fixed relationship between the response variable from gam- ing and evaluations by subjects. Even if the same game is played by the same population, the relationship is unstable, and there are many cases where it does not exhibit a fixed trend. However, as shown in this section, the experimental game was played two times each in 3 countries, for a total of 6 times, and in the results, a significant positive correla- tion was evident for Japan, Russia (2009), and China (2009) between cumulative net profit and AQ4 ―Did your teammates perform the roles they were assigned?‖ For China (2010) there was also a positive correlation, although it was not statistically significant. This shows that teams where subjects rated their fellow team members highly for performing their assigned roles had better game results. For Japan and China, there was also a positive rank correla- tion for AQ6 ―Do you think that through consulting with teammates you were able to make better decisions than you would have been able to make alone?‖ On the other hand, there was no significant correlation between the pre-experiment question BQ15 ―When making a decision at work, do you prefer to decide on your own or to consult with somebody else?‖ and the responses to any of the AQ’s. From this it can be determined that the responses to the post-experiment questions regarding group decision- making primarily reflected the effects which the gaming simulation had on the subject more than the attitude which subjects had beforehand toward group decision-making. Therefore, the responses for AQ4 and AQ6 in this case reflect the results of the gaming simulation. The implication of these facts is that, in order for the MBA students from 3 countries to effectively carry out group decision-making, it is important for the team mem- bers to work hard at their assigned roles, and for other members to highly rate that activity. However, the cause and effect relationship be- tween the game’s response variable and the post- experiment questions should be carefully examined. That is, it is not clear whether a high evaluation was obtained because good results were achieved in the game, or whether good results were achieved because the team members carried out their respective assigned roles. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS BASED ON IN- TERVIEWS In the previous section, we tried an approach based on quantitative analysis where we administered questionnaires to subjects before and after the gaming simulation, and analyzed the results. For this section, we tried a qualitative analysis approach where we conducted interviews after the gaming simulation, and here we report on the results of that qualitative analysis. Qualitative analysis was conducted in order to dis- cover points which cannot be captured with quantitative analysis. In quantitative analysis, problems are examined based on an analytic framework or analytic perspective established beforehand by the analyst, but in qualitative analysis, it is possible to discover new points not intended by the analyst beforehand. This sort of qualitative analysis is not performed in experiments on Japanese MBA students. This is partly because we the analysts are Japanese, and can to a certain extent predict the results, but it was mostly due to a lack of preparation. We feel there is a need to conduct qualitative analysis on Japanese MBA students in the next experiment. In the experiments on Russian MBA students, there was no deep consideration of the approach to qualitative analysis, and thus the approach was preliminary. More specifically, the following two questions were asked of Russian students after the end of the experiment: ―How do you make group decision-making in Russian Companies?‖, ―Are there any difference in group decision-making in the Russian and Japanese companies?‖ The students were asked to freely respond to these two questions. For the latter question, the Russian students were un- familiar with Japanese companies, and thus it was not pos- sible to obtain clear responses. However, it was possible to obtain fairly clear answers from the Russian students for the former question. In Russian firms, the decision-making is top-down, and decision-makers who have decision authority make decisions alone. Group decision-making, particularly deci- sion-making stressing consensus, generally does not hap- pen. This kind of response agrees with the common view that strong leaders tend to be preferred for top management positions. Next we conducted the same sort of qualitative analy- sis for Chinese MBA students. One point we reflected on is that Russian students were only asked to respond orally, and thus it was not possible to hear the opinions of all of the subjects. Furthermore, since there were many Chinese students (55), listening to them all freely express their opin- ions were not realistic in terms of feasibility, and survey efficiency/effectiveness. Thus the following method was adopted. (1) Explanation of the survey purpose and questions by the instructor, (2) Filling out the questionnaire form Page 80 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 (free answer), (3) Collection of questionnaire forms, and interviewing and obtaining further information for re- sponses regarded as suitable by the instructor due to their content, and for responses regarded as needing supplemen- tal explanation. The time allocation for each section was (1) 10 minutes, (2) 15 minutes, and (3) 35 minutes, and the entire process was completed in about 1 hour. We feel that by adopting this method we were able to efficiently collect the necessary data regardless of the large number of sub- jects to be interviewed. The following were the seven questions in this free answer questionnaire survey. Question 0: Description of current job (the interviewees were new MBA students, and all had jobs). Question 1: Under what conditions do you make decisions in a group? Question 2: How are decisions made when decision-making in a group? Question 3: How do you resolve conflicts which arise between group mem- bers? Question 4: Which is more important for generating new ideas, working in a group or working as individuals? Question 5: Is decision-making in a group important for you to make a decision? Question 6: Do you think there are differences in the method of decision-making between Japanese and Chinese companies? A distinctive result of this free answer questionnaire comes from Question 5. The number of subjects who an- swered that decision-making in a group is extremely impor- tant or important was 50 out of 55, or more than 90%. Of the five subjects who did not answer that it was extremely important or important, one wrote that ―In general it is im- portant, but in some cases it is also important to take a stand as an individual,‖ and another wrote that ―The best ideas are produced by incorporating the opinions of indi- viduals.‖ These answers too did not deny the importance of group decision-making in Chinese firms. Therefore, only three subjects explicitly did not ascribe importance to group decision-making. These subjects wrote: ―For me, group decision-making is not important‖ (civil servant above the section manager level), ―In general, I decide by myself‖ (finance department manager), and ―It depends on the specific situation‖ (assistant manager of consumer de- partment). Thus it is clear that a majority of managers in Chinese firms believe that group decision-making is impor- tant. Now, why do Chinese managers feel that group deci- sion-making is important? Many of the subjects simply responded only with the word ―Important‖ in the free an- swer questionnaire, but a number of subjects clearly indi- cated a reason. On the one hand, some subjects expressed the opinion that group decision-making improves feasibil- ity, e.g.: ―The policy or strategy cannot be executed if group decision-making is not done,‖ ―It improves feasibil- ity,‖ and ―It is easier to cooperate with other people by lis- tening to different opinions.‖ Other subjects expressed the opinion that it is useful for generating ideas, e.g.: ―Good ideas are produced by incorporating the opinions of oth- ers,‖ and ―By listening to the opinions of others, you can obtain ideas you never would have thought of yourself.‖ This can also be confirmed from the results for Question 4. When asked ―Which is more important for generating new ideas, working in a group or working as individuals?‖ many subjects responded that working in a group is more important. However, more than a few subjects expressed the opinion that working as an individual is more impor- tant. In the responses to Question 3 —―How do you resolve conflicts which arise between group members?‖—the most frequent response was that the conflict is carefully re- viewed, and then the final decision is made by a superior. This is natural because it involves deciding based on work responsibilities. However, the next most frequent response was that the conflict is resolved by majority vote. A dis- tinctive point is that majority vote is used as the final deci- sion method in cases where work responsibilities and roles are not clear. Finally, to summarize the above, we shall describe the experience of an interviewed manager who had experience working at a Japanese company, a Chinese state-owned enterprise, and a Chinese private firm. The Japanese com- pany is characterized by its frequent use of group decision- making, and when a big problem occurs, they often ask for instructions from the main office in Japan (through telecon- ferencing). In contrast, at the state-owned enterprise in- structions (decisions) from above are important, and there are no cases where subordinates communicate with each other and make decisions. In the Chinese private firm, su- periors listen carefully to the opinions of their subordinates, but they make the final decision. Interview-based analysis like the above reveals two cases: those where group decision-making is used to im- prove feasibility and those where group decision-making is used to generate and refine ideas. These approaches are often mixed, but in China the basic approach is for superi- ors to make decisions as individuals, and to only listen to their subordinates opinions for reference. Among workers at the same level, final decisions are made by majority vote. In this survey, it was found that the decision-making style is likely to be different in foreign-owned companies, state-owned enterprises, and private firms, but China is a geographically huge country, and thus there may be re- gional differences between the north, south, and other re- gions. Huo and Randall (1991) have verified and pointed out regional differences in organizational culture inside China by using Hofstede’s analysis. This issue will also need to be considered in the future. CONCLUSIONS AND ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE This research attempts to make an international com- parison of group decision-making between Japan, China, and Russia by using a gaming simulation we developed Page 81 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 called MBABEST21. The conclusions reached in this re- port can be summarized as follows: (1) An attempt was made to measure Individualism- Collectivism and Masculinity-Femininity based on the prior research of Hofstede. The results showed that the ranking of Individualism between the countries at the time of this research was the same as in the past prior research of Hofstede. In this survey, Individualism exhibited a rela- tively high value compared to the prior research of Hofstede. This result reflects social and economic changes. Particularly in China and Russia, the degree of Collectiv- ism has declined due to economic development. (2) Experiments using the same gaming simulation as last year’s research (Morita et al. 2010) were also con- ducted this year. Almost the same results as last year’s research were obtained. Thus it was possible to show the robustness of our research approach as an analysis method- ology for group decision-making. (3) We attempted an analysis of the relationship be- tween game results (amount of cumulative net profit) and the post-experiment questions to subjects, which could not be analyzed in last year’s research due to the small sample size. As a result, we reached the conclusion that, in Japan and China, teams whose members rated each other highly for fulfilling their respective roles exhibited good game results. In other words, there was found to be a strong rela- tionship between the degree to which members fulfill their roles and game results. (4) The results of qualitative analysis based on inter- views with Russian MBA students indicated that Russian firms place no stress at all on group decision-making. In contrast, the results of qualitative analysis based on inter- views with Chinese MBA students showed that Chinese firms place an extremely high degree of importance on group decision-making. Qualitative analysis was not con- ducted in Japan, but prior research on decision-making in Japan reached the conclusion that group decision-making is stressed in Japanese companies. Two reasons were discovered for why Chinese compa- nies regard group decision-making as important: because it improves the ability to implement the decision, and because incorporating the opinions of others helps to generate good ideas. Conclusions such as the above were reached as a result of this research, but the following points can be raised as issues for the future. (1) We were only able to address two of the five cul- tural dimensions asserted by Hofstede, but this analysis can be deepened by examining other dimensions. In particular, it was found from interview-based qualitative analysis that, for Russia in particular, group decision-making is more closely related with Power Distance (PDI) than with Indi- vidualism-Collectivism. Therefore, further analysis of the relationship between group decision-making and other such cultural dimensions will be needed. (2) We feel we were able to establish a methodology for analyzing group decision-making using gaming simula- tion. Thus there is a need to extend the validity of the meth- odology by applying analysis based on it to countries other than China and Russia. (3) There was found to be a strong relationship be- tween the degree to which members fulfilled their duties and game results, but the cause and effect relationship be- tween the two was not clarified in this analysis. A cause and effect model should be developed by using techniques such as path analysis. (4) In this research, it was only possible to do qualita- tive analysis based on interviews with Chinese MBA stu- dents. It should be possible to establish the hypothesis through analysis using the same methodology with Japa- nese students. Although the above issues for the future remain, we believe we have successfully established a methodology and obtained new findings through the analysis in this re- search. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by Aoyama Gakuin Research Institute and Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) (22330121). REFERENCES Fujita (1999), ―Chapter 10: The Possibility of Comparing National Cultures‖ in Existence and Diversity, written and edited by Nobuo Takahashi, Hakuto Shobo. (In Japanese). Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences:: Interna- tional Differences in Work-related Values, Sage, Lon- don Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behavior, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations Huo, Y.P. & Randall, D.M. (1991), Exploring subcultural differences in Hofstede’s value survey: the case of the Chinese, Asia-Pacific, Journal of Management, 8, 2, 159-164 Iwai, C. (2007a). An experiment of improvement of group decision making in organization by business game, Studies in Simulation and Gaming JASAG, 17(2), 101- 108. Iwai, C. (2007b). Development of MBABEST21, A case- based management game. International Conference on Internet-Business (ibiz2007), 291-300. Iwai, C. (2009). Group decision experiments using business game – Problem solving with conflict, Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, 36, 165-170. Martinsons, M.G. & Davison, R.M. (2007), Strategic deci- sion making and support system: comparing American, Japanese and Chinese management, Decision Support System, 43, 284-300 Page 82 - Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, volume 38, 2011 McKenny, J.L., & Dill, W.R. (1966). Influences on learn- ing in simulation game, American Behavioral Scien- tist, 10(2), 28-32. Morita, M., Horiuchi, M., Iwai, C., Oshima, M., & Yu, Z. (2010), An experiment on group decision-making us- ing a business game: An international comparison of MBA students in Japan, China, and Russia, Develop- ments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exer- cises, 37, 141-150 Norris, D.R., & Niebuhr, R.E. (1980). Group variables and gaming success, Simulation & Games, 11(3), 301–312. Wolfe J., Bowen, D.D., & Roberts, C.R. (1989). Team building study, Simulation & Gaming, 20(4), 388–408. Table of Contents Volume 38, 2011 Simulated Tabletop Exercise for Risk Management - Anti Bio-terrorism Scenario Simulated Tabletop Exercise From Business Games to Simulations - Simuworlds & Microworlds Demand Equation Redux: The Design and Functionality of the Gold/Pray Model in Computerized Business Simulations Managing Client-Based Learning: Insights from Successful Teaching Project Courses in Marketing Tracking Forecast Error Type, Frequency and Magnitude with the Forecast Error Package Responding to Facilitate Collaboration Simulating Sudden Change and the Value of Timely Information Managing Human Resources Simulation A Study on Collectivism and Group Decision-Making: An International Comparison of Japan, China, and Russia Using a Gaming Simulation The Use of Management Games in the Management Research Agenda Gaming On-Line: A Simulation Application Positioning and Performance in Simulated Networks Supply Chain Management: A Simulation Application Simulation as a Teaching Method in Strategic Management Distance Studies Entrepreneurship: A Game of Risk and Reward Phase II: The Start-Up Return to the Paradise Islands: From Confrontation to Cooperation Effect on Market Performance of Displaying Supply and Demand Curves in a Business Simulation Appreciating Complexity: The Chief of Staff of the Army Game Managing Organizations: Experiential MBA Course Teaches Alternatives to the Machine Model A Simulation Model for Analyzing the Night-Time Emergency Health Care System in Japan The Continuing Evoluation of Assessing Project Management as an Academic Learning Outcome (ALO) Should College Instructors Change Their Teaching Styles to Meet the Millenial Student? The Mouse Game and its Effects on Team Interdependence Learning from the Gulf Oil Spill to Prepare for a Brighter Future: A New Game Engaging Stake Holders in Triple Bottom Line Accounting & Strategic Planning Video Killed the Biblio Star: The Impact of Digital Media on Student Learning Outcomes Exploring Motivation: Using Emoticons to Map Student Motivation in a Business Game Exercise An Alternative to PC and Internet Based Simulations: The Internet Integrated Mode MiddleState University -- A Crisis in Education Complexity Avoidance, Narcissism and Experiential Learning Examining the Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor Dimensions in Management Skill Development Through Experiential Learning: Developing a Framework A Situational Leadership Exercise Based on the Biology of a Starfish JOGAI CEFET -- The Industrial Administration Undergraduate Game Would You Take a Marketing Man to a Quick Service Restaurant? Modeling Corporate Social Responsibility In A Food Service Menu-Management Simulation Use of a Simulation in a Large Class Environment for a Marketing Principles Class: A Qualitative Analysis of Whether Learning Objectives were Met A Team Based Information Literacy Exercise ABSEL Marketing Communications Plan An Interdisciplinary Study of the Impact of Playing a Marketing Simulation Game on Student Knowledge of Management Accounting/Finance Principles Analyzing Construction Planning of Interiro Finish Work of Apartment Building by Simulation Doing Murder One Again The Simple Business Game and Simulation Transfering the Knowledge of Middle Management to Novices Infectious Disease Simulation Model for Estimation of Spreading Understanding the Relative Influence of Several Factors in ERP Simulation Performance: An Exploration of Ecological Validity Tragedy of the Commons: An Exercise Using Clickers to Illustrate and Teach a Key Concept in Negotiations The Meaning of Firm Demand in Business Simulations If the Games Work, Why Aren't More Faculty Willing to Play? Those Who Do and Those That Don't: A Study of Engaged and Disengaged Business Game Players