Culture values and entrepreneurial innovativeness: A comparative study of Malaysian ethnic entrepreneurs

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Table 1. Items’ measures and sources.

Variables	Items	No. of items	Source
Indulgence (IND)	IND1: I have time for fun and joyful things in my life.	5	Urban and Ratsimanetrimanana (2015)
	IND2: I am happy and satisfied with my life.
	IND3: I have freedom of choice.
	IND4: I like to spend time with my friends.
	IND5: Overall I am a happy person.
High collectivism (HC)	HC1: I am well understood and known as a member of my group.	5	Wu (2006) and Yoo et al. (2011)
	HC2: I have respect for authority figures with whom I interact.
	HC3: I would rather do a group task rather than do alone.
	HC4: I sacrifice my self-interest for the group I belong to.
	HC5: For me, the group success and welfare is more important than individual success and reward.
Entrepreneurial innovativeness (EI)	EI1: I change the appearance or packaging of existing products.	6	Idris (2011)
	EI2: I improve the quality of existing services and promote existing products and services to new target markets.
	EI3: I introduce new products or services within the same industry.
	EI4: I open new branches and used to move my business to a new location.
	EI5: I engage new suppliers and use new supplies.
	EI6: I develop new promotional techniques and change the price of existing products or services.
Long-term orientation (LTO)	LTO1: I do planning for the long-term rather than short-term.	3	Yoo et al. (2011)
	LTO2: I do careful management of resources (Thrift).
	LTO3: I continue my tasks in spite of opposition (Persistence).
Masculinity (MAS)	MAS1: For me, materialist success is the most important.	4	Hofstede (1980, 1983, 2001)
	MAS2: I am motivated to run business in order to generate more money.
	MAS3: I strive to compete my rivals to get more success in business.
	MAS4: I really want to generate huge profits from my business.
Low power distance (LPD)	LPD1: I usually make decisions after consulting my employees.	5	Yoo et al. (2011)
	LPD2: I like to interact socially with my employees.
	LPD3: I give important tasks to my employees.
	LPD4: I always ask opinions from my employees.
	LPD5: My employees are not bound to always obey and agree with the decisions made by me.
Low uncertainty avoidance (LUA)	LUA1: I am comfortable in making decisions according to my feelings or ideas.	7	Ahmad (2007)
	LUA2: I do not always need to know the specific outcome before starting a project.
	LUA3: I am comfortable with my immediate decisions in any situation.
	LUA4: I do not need to know the specific outcome before starting a project.
	LUA5: I actively try to look at a situation from different perspectives.
	LUA6: I am willing to make decisions based on my judgments.
	LUA7: I actively look for the signs that the situation is changing.

Table 2. Demographic profile of firms.

	Chinese sample (N = 150)		Malay sample (N = 150)		Indian sample (N = 150)
Categories	Frequency	Percentages	Frequency	Percentages	Frequency	Percentages
Firm Location
Selangor	53	35.3	43	28.7	48	32.0
Kuala Lumpur	56	37.3	58	38.7	52	34.7
PutraJaya	5	3.3	2	1.3	3	2.0
Perlis	4	2.7	2	1.3	6	4.0
Kedah	5	3.3	3	2.0	3	2.0
Penang	5	3.3	3	2.0	6	4.0
Perak	3	2.0	4	2.7	6	4.0
Kelantan	2	1.3	6	4.0	3	2.0
Terengganu	2	1.3	6	4.0	4	2.7
Pahang	3	2.0	5	3.3	2	1.3
Malacca	3	2.0	7	4.7	4	2.7
Johor	5	3.3	5	3.3	6	4.0
Negeri Sembilan	4	2.7	6	4.0	7	4.7
No. of Employees
5-30	121	80.7	118	78.7	124	82.7
30-75	29	19.3	32	21.3	26	17.3
Prior Working Experiences
No experiences	7	4.6	3	2	5	3.3
1-2 years	48	32	10	6.7	43	28.7
3-4 years	25	16.7	40	26.7	29	19.3
5-7 years	40	26.7	38	25.3	22	14.7
7-10 years	12	8	23	15.3	36	24
11-15 years	18	12	36	24	15	10
Position in Company
Business owner	134	89.3	123	82.0	122	81.3
Business partner	16	10.7	27	18.0	28	18.7
Years of Company Start Up
3-5	14	9.3	7	4.7	9	6.0
6-10	64	42.7	84	56.0	50	33.3
11-20	72	48.0	59	39.3	91	60.7
Hours Spent to Manage Business Per Week
21-40	0	0	25	16.6	0	0
41-60	32	21.3	55	36.7	47	31.3
More than 60	118	78.7	70	46.7	103	68.7
Annual Sales Turnover
RM 300,000 to less than RM 3 million	121	80.7	118	78.7	124	82.7
RM 3 million to not exceeding RM 20 million	29	19.3	32	21.3	26	17.3
Business Category
Wholesale	71	47.3	43	28.7	61	40.7
Retail	79	52.7	107	71.3	89	59.3
Wholesale/Retail Format
Pharmaceutical, medical, and orthopaedic goods	2	1.3	0	0	2	1.3
Textile and clothing	2	1.3	30	20	17	11.3
Tudung	0	0	47	31.3	9	6
Footwear and leather goods	3	2	0	0	13	8.7
Household appliances and equipment	5	3.3	3	2	17	11.3
Hardware, paint and glass	2	1.3	8	5.3	9	6
Sports and recreational goods	4	2.7	2	1.3	12	8
Boutique, salon, and spa	8	5.3	2	1.3	9	6
Gifts and crafts	12	8	5	3.3	6	4
Watches	16	10.7	10	6.7	10	6.7
Carpets	14	9.3	11	7.3	8	5.3
Perfumes	10	6.7	7	4.7	8	5.3
Furniture	6	4	7	4.7	5	3.3
Toys	7	4.7	3	2	5	3.3
Books	8	5.3	10	6.7	5	3.3
Interior decorators	12	8	2	1.3	5	3.3
Towel and bed sheets	15	10	2	1.3	5	3.3
Gold and diamond	24	16	1	0.7	5	3.3
Ownership Structure
Sole Proprietorship	10	6.7	0	0	8	5.3
Partnership	53	35.3	52	34.7	48	32
Private Limited Company	87	58	98	65.3	94	62.7

Table 3. Assessment of reliability and validity.

Constructs	Items	Loadings	α	CR	AVE	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. EI	EI1	0.857	0.882	0.912	0.638	0.798
	EI2	0.851
	EI3	0.796
	EI4	0.834
	EI5	0.861
	EI6	0.545
2. HC	HC1	0.797	0.756	0.836	0.508	0.383	0.713
	HC2	0.734
	HC3	0.740
	HC4	0.701
	HC5	0.574
3. IND	IND1	0.632	0.769	0.838	0.510	0.475	0.032	0.714
	IND2	0.628
	IND3	0.758
	IND4	0.791
	IND5	0.746
4. LTO	LTO1	0.903	0.563	0.726	0.543	0.493	0.037	0.551	0.737
	LTO2	0.605
	LTO3	0.897
5. MAS	MAS1	0.809	0.779	0.856	0.601	0.743	0.249	0.511	0.634	0.775
	MAS2	0.826
	MAS3	0.845
	MAS4	0.594
6. LPD	LPD1	0.785	0.833	0.866	0.565	0.640	0.299	0.443	0.412	0.705	0.751
	LPD2	0.647
	LPD3	0.754
	LPD4	0.785
	LPD5	0.777
7. LUA	LUA1	0.824	0.878	0.906	0.589	0.437	0.261	0.399	0.329	0.585	0.826	0.768
	LUA2	0.834
	LUA3	0.772
	LUA4	0.826
	LUA5	0.670
	LUA6	0.832
	LUA7	0.804

Note: IND = indulgence; HC = collectivism; LTO = long-term orientation; MAS = masculinity; LPD = low power distance; LUA = low uncertainty avoidance; EI = entrepreneurial innovativeness; α = Cronbach’s alpha; AVE = average variance extracted; CR = construct reliability; Off diagonal factors = correlations; Bold diagonal factors = square root of variance shared.

Table 4. Assessment of goodness of fit indices.

Measurement models	CMIN/df	CFI	GFI	AGFI	NFI	IFI	TLI	RMSEA
Threshold values	< 3	> .95	> .95	> .8	> .9	> .9	> .9	.05–.1
Configural invariance (baseline model)	4.081	.90	.80	.78	.86	.88	.84	.093
Metric invariance	2.05	.95	.90	.85	.92	.95	.95	.061

Note: df = degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index; NFI = normed fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

Table 5. Testing of hypotheses.

Hypotheses	Chinese sample (N = 150)					Indian sample (N = 150)					Malay sample (N = 150)
	Direct effects (β)	SE	CR	p-value	Decision	Direct effects (β)	SE	CR	p-value	Decision	Direct effects (β)	SE	CR	p-value	Decision
H1: IND→ EI	.126	.044	2.86	.002**	S	.148	.052	2.868	.004**	S	.479	.204	2.345	.019*	S
H2: HC→ EI	.633	.100	6.328	.000***	S	.501	.061	8.174	.000***	S	.594	.064	9.298	.000***	S
H3: LTO→ EI	.289	.083	3.476	.000***	S	−.016	.071	−0.227	.820	NS	.015	.051	.301	.764	NS
H4: MAS→ EI	.039	.053	.730	.466	NS	.088	.050	1.777	.046*	S	−.292	.136	−2.14	.032*	RS
H5: LPD→ EI	.289	.132	2.191	.028*	S	.144	.076	1.881	.047*	S	.162	.053	3.056	.028*	S
H6: LUA→ EI	−.305	.094	−3.253	.001**	RS	−.227	.069	−3.28	.001**	RS	.075	.033	2.272	.040*	S

*p < .05, **p < .01, and ***p < .001. Note: IND = indulgence; HC = collectivism; LTO = long-term orientation; MAS = masculinity; LPD = low power distance; LUA = low uncertainty avoidance; EI = entrepreneurial innovativeness; S = supported; NS = not supported; RS = reversely supported; SE = standard error; CR = critical ratio.

Figure 2. SEM model for Malaysian Chinese, Indian, and Malay samples. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Note: IND = indulgence; HC = collectivism; LTO = long-term orientation; MAS = masculinity; LPD = low power distance; LUA = low uncertainty avoidance; EI = entrepreneurial innovativeness; IV = independent variable; DV = dependent variable.

Table 6. Fit indices for invariance tests.

Model	χ^2	df	GFI	RMSEA	NFI	CFI	IFI	Model comparison	∆χ^2	df	p-value
M1	783.52	124	.95	.063	.92	.95	.95	Chinese-Indian	116.98	45	< .01
M2	769.69	120	.96	.050	.93	.95	.95	Chinese-Malay	236.16	80	< .01
M3	809.03	130	.96	.050	.93	.95	.95	Indian-Malay	249.32	85	< .01

Note: χ² = chi-squared difference; df = degrees of freedom; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NFI = normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; IFI = incremental fit index.

Table 7. Results of multigroup analysis for direct relations.

Hypotheses	Path Coefficients-diff (|Chinese – Indian|)	Path Coefficients-diff (|Chinese – Malay|)	Path Coefficients-diff (|Indian – Malay|)	p-value (Chinese vs Indian)	p-value (Chinese vs Malay)	p-value (Indian vs Malay)
H1: IND -> EI	.046	.092	.046	.383	.276	.249
H2: HC -> EI	.005	.517	.512	.564	1.000*	1.000*
H3: LTO -> EI	.180	.010	.190	.030*	.554	.988*
H4: MAS -> EI	.059	.586	.645	.672	.001*	.000*
H5: LPD -> EI	.043	.435	.392	.324	.014*	.019*
H6: LUA -> EI	.407	.714	.307	1.000*	1.000*	.938*

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001.

Urban, B., & Ratsimanetrimanana, F. A. (2015). Culture and entrepreneurial intentions of Madagascan ethnic groups. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 7(2), 86–114. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-01-2015-0008

 Google Scholar

Wu, M. (2006). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions 30 years later: A study of Taiwan and the United States. Intercultural Communication Studies, 15(1), 33–42. https://web.uri.edu/iaics/files/04-Ming-Yi-Wu.pdf

 Google Scholar

Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lenartowicz, T. (2011). Measuring Hofstede’s five dimensions of cultural values at the individual level: Development and validation of CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23(3–4), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2011.578059

 Google Scholar

Idris, A. (2011). Ethnicity and cultural values: An empirical study of Malay and Chinese entrepreneurs in Peninsular Malaysia. Sarjana, 26(1), 22–40. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.679.4307&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 Google Scholar

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organisations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 10(4), 15–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1980.11656300

 Google Scholar

Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organisational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490867

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.

 Google Scholar

Ahmad, N. H. (2007). A cross cultural study of entrepreneurial competencies and entrepreneurial success in SMEs in Australia and Malaysia. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Adelaide.

 Google Scholar