Culture Dimensions Supporting Subgroup Entrepreneurs in Nigerian Business Environment

Osarumwense IguisiFaculty of Management Sciences

Department of Human Resource ManagementUniversity of Benin

Benin CityNigeria

Osaru.iguisi@uniben.edu

Lawal Bamidele AkeemFaculty of Management Sciences

Department of Business AdministrationUniversity of Benin

Benin CityNigeria

Bamidele.lawal@uniben.edu

AbstractThis study examined the effect of cultural value perspectives of entrepreneurs from three subgroups of Ibo, Hausa and Yoruba in Nigeria. The results of this study are interpreted within the cultural context of the study.

A major research question was whether the results of this study can help illicit information on the differences and similarities of cultural values among the subgroups, in particular, with dimensions of culture, the Ibos displaying more power orientation, with the Yorubas displaying high degree of uncertainty, while the Hausas are more at ease with the uncertainty of life and work. On environmental influences on starting one’s own business, work experience and lack of alternatives do have a great influence on the subgroup respondents, while the desire for creativity, independence and power were the factors that motivated the entrepreneurs in the different subgroups involved in the study. Lack of training, cash flows and bad planning were identified as the top three factors contributing to business failures in their respective localities. Family was found to be the most important life-related value factor highly shared by the respondents.

Introduction

In studying entrepreneurship, there are two major issues for study:

1. finding common entrepreneurial characteristics and 2. examining differences among entrepreneurs.

This study survey entrepreneur across cultures in order to understand the uncommon and common entrepreneurial characteristics among the three subgroups studied. Entrepreneurship profile is an important factor for business development. Therefore, this cross-cultural business survey result becomes valuable for the in-depth understanding of the essential characteristics of entrepreneurs across the three subgroups.

Defining Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship is a social and economic phenomenon that has consistently been considered essential for national development. Entrepreneurship could therefore be defined as a process of innovation and new-venture creation through the individual, organization, environment, process-and aided by collaborative networks in government, education, and institutions. In the simplest theoretical form for studying entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs cause entrepreneurship. That is entrepreneurship is a function of the entrepreneur. Thus, the continuous examination of entrepreneurial characteristics does help in the evolving understanding of entrepreneurship.

An entrepreneur is someone who perceives profitable opportunities, is willing to take risks in pursuing them, and have the ability to organize a business. In every country, the number of people who are inherently entrepreneurial is limited. A recent review of literature on entrepreneurial characteristics identifies a number of characteristics among which are: inner control, autonomy, innovation, risk-taking, independence, proactiveness, (Lumpkin, 1996). Others include: commitment, motivation to progress, long-term orientation, leadership and obsession with opportunity (Trevisan and Arnoldi, 1995; Trevisan 2014; Lind, 2012). New characteristics are continually being added to this ever-growing list. In addition, many people believe that successful entrepreneurs are individuals who are market oriented with personal initiative to be innovative and not afraid to fail.

Entrepreneurship Development: Promotion and Hindrance Factors

Social scientists (Trevisan, 2014; Lind, 2012) have raised the following general questions: what conditions, economic and non-economic, influences the development of entrepreneurship? Does entrepreneurship appears primarily in response to a particular set of

economic conditions? Or, does it appear only where specific economic, social, political, psychological and cultural conditions are present within a society? For the purpose of clarity, we shall compress the responses to these questions into two compartments, economic and cultural.

Economic Factors:

There are certain economic factors or conditions that impact entrepreneurship development in any society. Essentially, what promote entrepreneurship development in any given society are usually such economic factors as market, raw materials, capital and technology. We are concerned here with two types of capital, investment or real capital. High income per capital makes investment capital more readily available and accessible to would-be-entrepreneurs who would need it to purchase other inputs like raw materials, labor and technology. Availability and low cost of physical or capital, e.g. building and equipment will depend on the level of entrepreneurial activities going on in the society. In entrepreneurship development availability of investment capital is one thing and its accessibility is another. The question that needs to be answered here is; does the would-be-entrepreneur have easy, constraint-free access to credit facilities from the financial institutions in the society?

Cultural Factors:

Social science scholars (Iguisi & Mafiana, 2015; Lind, 2012; Hofstede, 1998, 2011) held the view that economic factors by themselves alone are not enough conditions to promote or hinder entrepreneurial development in any society. Litanies of sociocultural factors which are necessary conditions for or against entrepreneurial development include the following:

a. cultural taboosb. positive or negative attitudes towards business, technology as well as social status.c. tolerant and supportive system which suggests that values need not be actually positive

regarding entrepreneurship, but that they should not be negative either.d. change of “traditional values” that could inhibit or encourage entrepreneurship.e. sociocultural settings in which achievement and universalism rather than ascription and

particularism are value orientations.f. religious discrimination on the basis of genderg. the remnants of traditional society structure, in which women managed the internal

affairs of the home, and men the external affairs.h. The cultural programming of would-be entrepreneurs themselves in the family, in

schools and communities, leading to a lack of interest in pursuing entrepreneurship.

The question this study tries to answer is: are the characteristics of the Hausa/Fulani entrepreneurs similar or differ along cultural values to the Ibo or Yoruba entrepreneurs? This survey seeks to provide some answers to the question.

Conceptual Framework

The Culture Basis of Entrepreneurship

The entrepreneurs no longer brush aside culture as a vague, non-quantifiable variable that takes care of itself if proper business analyses have been accomplished. This study illustrates the point that culture makes a difference in all business relationships.

Discounting culture in entrepreneurship poses cultural risk stemming from differences in values and code of behavior between companies and regulators, among business organizations and between entrepreneurs. In order that we are able to manage the cultural risks in business practices would mean seizing opportunities by learning how to read and respond to business cultures of the regulators, business associates, consumers and clients in order to build effective partnership and strategic alliances.

Whenever a company or entrepreneur must manage communication across business lines, managing cultural risks is a task crucial for competitive performance.

Forward looking firms or entrepreneurs preparing for international and local integration of business activities by augmenting their communication networks and raising their strategic planning processes should also include programs for effective and appropriate management of cultures and value differences within and across cultures.

For the entrepreneurs, business executives, dealmakers, negotiators, consultants, salespersons, and managers, we hope the result of this study will provide valuable compass for the unfamiliar environment.

Definitions of Culture and Value

The constituent elements of a culture consist of the whole complex of distinctive features that characterized a society or social group. These features may be spiritual, intellectual, material or emotional.

Before talking about how to identify culture and its impact on business development and entrepreneurship, we must agree first on a workable definition of culture. Culture is a common word and like most common words it comes with much conceptual baggage, much of it vague, some of it contradictory.

A good place to start building a workable definition of culture is the definition put forward at the World Conference on Cultural Policies (Mexico City, 1982) The World Conference defined culture as:

The whole complex of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features that characterizes a society or social group. It includes not only the arts and letters, but also modes of life, the fundamental rights of the human being, value systems, traditions and beliefs. (UNESCO)

“Whole Complex”

Culture is not one or two things in isolation. It is a whole way of thinking and feeling about the world. While culture is manifest in a particular value system, a certain way of doing things, a distinctive style of dress or food, it is much more than the sum of these things. Culture is an integrated, synergistic whole. Clifford Geertz describes culture as the webs of significance that man has spun for himself. (Geertz, 1973:5) Culture is the code that allows us to interpret signals in a meaningful way and the filter through which we strain the world. As such, culture defines for us what is real and important and what is noise and superfluous.

This is an important point in understanding culture. If culture is the way we make sense of the world, then all people have culture, all people need culture. Some cultures might be more detailed and more alive than others, but all serve the purpose of helping people function in the world.

“Spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional”While our strategies for social change have been almost exclusively material (i.e. economic) in their focus, people live their lives according to certain ideas, values, and feelings as well as economic concerns. To understand culture we must look at more than economics, we must look at the ideas, images, stories, values and feelings that inspire people to live and behave the way they do.

“Characterizes by a society or social group”Because culture is the way a group thinks about and acts in the world, it defines the group and makes it distinctive. If we disrupt or confuse the culture (the way people see themselves and the world) of a group, they will not be able to respond to economic or political opportunities in coherent or sustainable ways.

Geert Hofstede (1980, 2010), a Dutch Professor of Social Anthropology refers to what he calls “culture one” and “culture two”. He defines culture one as manifested in music, painting, dance, art, folklore, literature. The emphasis is on a product, a performance, an artifact-something, which makes up cultural heritage of a society. In this sense, culture is the human made parts of our environment.

Hofstede defines culture two as the “software of the mind”, a collective phenomenon, shared with the people who live in the same social environment. It is the collective programming of the mind, which distinguishes the members of one social group or category of people from another. It includes the society’s institutions, legal system, method of government, family patterns, social conventions-all those activities interactions and transactions, which define the particular flavor of a society (Hofstede, 1991:5). Culture also consists of the patterns of thinking that parents transfer to their children, teachers to their students, friends to their friends, leaders to their followers, and followers to their leaders (Hofstede, 1984).

Culture should be understood as not about right or wrong, not inherited and not about individual behavior. There are wide variations in individual values and behavior within each national culture.

A major dimension in the study of culture is value. Value are basic convictions that people have regarding what is right and wrong, good and bad, important or unimportant. These values are learned from the culture in which the individual is reared, and they help direct the person’s behavior. Values may be regarded as structure building in the sense that it determines value system, social and economic organization. Interacting with the political, economic and social structures, they create the framework of every society, that is to say, it value system and norms. Hofstede defines value as “a broad tendency to prefer certain states of affairs over others”.

Levels of Culture Socialization

We should remember that people in business and entrepreneurs themselves carries with them several layers of cultural programming through socialization processes in the family, at school and in the workplace. We are born within a family, within a nation and subject to the mental programming of our national culture from birth. Here we acquire most of our values. It starts in the family when a child learns basic values about what is right and wrong, good and bad, logical and illogical, beautiful and ugly. This ‘first level’ of culture is the deepest, the most difficult to change and will vary according to the culture in which we grow up. Occupational choice is partly voluntary (depending on the society and family), it leads to the choice of school, where we are further socialized to the values and practices of our chosen occupation (that is, what it means to be a lawyer, engineer, accountant, doctor etc.). When we enter a work environment as adults, most of our values are already in place, but we still become socialized to the practices of the work environment (that is the way a particular organization functions, how people get promoted or how office politics are played and so on). These socialization processes or layers of culture are more ways of doing things, or practices, as opposed to fundamental assumptions about how things are (Hofstede, 1984). (Figure 2).

Figure 2: the levels of cultural differences: national, professional, and organizational

Level of culture Place of socialization

National culture Family/Society (religious beliefs, assumptions, etc)

ValuesProfessional School culture (professional ethics)

PracticesOrganizational Workplace culture (corporate practices)

(Source: Adapted from Hofstede, 1991).

Entrepreneurship and Culture

Entrepreneurs are no robots blindly fulfilling economic functions. They cannot pursue opportunities, or strive for economic efficiency without exhibiting some concern for wider issues. Entrepreneurs are human beings operating within societies, which define, and are defined by, cultures. Clearly, a Hausa/Fulani entrepreneur tends to act differently to an Ibo one who, in turn, behaves differently to a Yoruba one. There are not only great differences between these subgroup cultures which influence the way they work within these cultures. Culture is expressed in both the value judgments an individual makes and the value system of their wider community.

An analysis of culture is not a straightforward matter since a culture is not something that can be placed under a microscope. It is something we construct in order to explain the world rather than something we experience directly. There is a gulf between those who think that culture can be examined as an objective reality and those who think it must be interpreted as something that impresses on our experience at a personal level. We must know that entrepreneurs are necessarily the product of their culture and that their culture influence their actions and what follows is meant to give flavor to some factors which are significant to understanding entrepreneurship in a cultural setting and how they might be approached.

It is neither possible nor particularly useful to draw hard and fast rules about entrepreneurship development within a particular culture. However, the idea of culture provides a perspective and might suggest an approach.

Hofstede’s Dimensions of National Cultural Variability

Hofstede (1980, 1991, 2005) empirically derived four dimensions of cultural categorisation in his large-scale study of a multinational corporation. The four dimensions of culture were based on data that were collected through comparison of the values of similar people (employees and managers) in 64 different national subsidiaries of the IBM Corporation.

According to Hofstede, the 4 dimensions represent elements of common structure in the cultural systems of countries. The position of a country on each of the four dimensions is indicated by a score, which ranges from “0" for a lowest country to “100" for a highest country. In their analysis of most Asian countries’ cultural orientation (Hofstede & Bond, 1988), a fifth dimension of Confucian Dynamism (long-Term Orientation) was included.

The four dimensions of culture are:

1. Individualism versus Collectivism2. Large versus Small Power Distance3. Strong versus Weak Uncertainty Avoidance4. Masculinity versus Femininity

The four dimensions represent elements of common structure in the cultural systems of countries. Hofstede believes that these dimensions are based on very fundamental issues in human societies to which each has to discover its own particular answers.

Individualism versus Collectivism:

As a characteristic of a culture, individualism opposes collectivism (the word is used here in anthropological, not political sense). Individualist cultures assume individuals look primarily

after their own interests of their immediate family (husband, wife, and children). Collectivist cultures assume that individuals-through birth and possibly later events-belong to one or more close “in-groups,” from which they cannot detach themselves. The in-group (whether extended family, clan, or organization) protects the interest of its members, but in turn expects their permanent loyalty. A collectivist society is tightly integrated; an individualist society is loosely integrated. Some societies view individualism positively and see it as the basis for creativity and achievement; others view it with disapproval and see it as disruptive.

Power Distance:

As a characteristic of culture, the fundamental issue here revolves around how a society deals with the fact that people are unequal. People are unequal in physical and intellectual capacities. Some societies also maintain large inequalities in power and wealth. Other societies try to play down inequalities in power and wealth as much as possible. The way societies are structured and relationships are arranged, can create inequalities that nature has not pre-determined. Society now differs in the way they institutionalize inequality by either emphasizing the power distance between individuals or de-emphasizing it.

Strong versus Weak Uncertainty Avoidance:

As a characteristic of a culture, defines the extent to which people within a culture are made nervous by situations that they consider being unstructured, unclear, or unpredictable, and the extent to which they try to avoid such situations by adopting strict codes of behavior and a belief in absolute truths. Cultures with a strong uncertainty avoidance are active, aggressive, emotional, security seeking, and intolerant. Cultures with weak uncertainty avoidance are contemplative, less aggressive, unemotional, accepting of personal risks, and relatively tolerant. Some societies view uncertainty as necessary, so that people can function without worrying about the consequences of uncertainty; others view uncertainty as providing excitement and opportunities for innovation and change.

Masculinity versus Femininity:

As a characteristic of a culture, masculinity opposes femininity. The fundamental issue here has to do with the division of roles between the sexes in a society, in particular the role patterns attributed to men. There are societies that allocate very different roles to men and women, where often the women’s role is extended from biological childbearing and nursing to include all other kinds of caring and serving roles. The men’s social role is sharply oppose to this, in that they are expected to deal with money rather than people and to be assertive not as caring and beauty conscious as women. This is called the social, rather than the biological, sex role division. All social role divisions are more or less arbitrary and what is seen as a typical task for men or for women varies a lot from one society to the other. The fundamental dimension behind this is whether societies try to minimize or maximize the social sex role division. Some societies allow their men to take many different roles. Others make a sharp division between what men and what women should do. In this case, the distribution is always so that men are expected to take the more assertive and dominant roles and women the more service-oriented and caring roles. Hofstede has called the latter type of societies “Masculine” and the former “Feminine”. In Masculine societies, the traditional masculine social values permeate the whole society-even the way of thinking of the women. They include the importance of showing off, of performing, of achieving something visible, of making money, of “big is beautiful”, of resolving conflicts by fighting them out. In more

Feminine societies, the dominant values among the men are those more traditionally associated with the feminine role: not showing off, putting relationships with people before money, minding the quality of life and the preservation of the environment, helping others, in particular the weak, “small is beautiful”, and resolving conflicts by compromise and negotiation.

The Research Setting

This survey study, which was carried out in three regions of Nigeria, (North East; South East and South West) examines entrepreneurs within the three subgroups. Therefore, we must start our investigation by looking at Hofstede’s dimensions of culture, which have been validated, in cross-cultural studies. Hofstede four dimensions of culture have been found to be crucial in entrepreneurial development across nations and organizations (Bettis and Hitt, 1995; Wickham, 1997). We argue here that dimension of cultures to entrepreneurship development will differentiate entrepreneurs from Hausa/Fulani to Ibo and Yoruba.

Research Methodology

The research aimed at comparing entrepreneurs’ perception, attitudes and values across the three subgroups in Nigeria namely the Hausa/Fulanis, the Ibo and the Yourba.

The Research and Development Unit of the Euro-African Capacity Development Centre based in Romford, UK developed the survey questionnaire. The questionnaire used as a base the ‘Value Survey Model’ developed by Hofstede (1984) for cross-national comparison of work-related values, and the Cross-Cultural Management Survey Model developed by Iguisi (1993) for cross cultural comparison on cultures and appropriate management.

The questionnaire numbers 110, but several of the questions contained multiple lines; the total number of choices to be made in answering the questionnaire is 120. Most of the questionnaires were made on five-point Likert type scales. For some demographic items, more detailed rating scales were provided.

The questionnaire tried to obtain a fair representation of the opinions of the respondents, namely: Entrepreneurs. The questionnaire contains items about the entrepreneurs’ work-related values and perception of the environment towards entrepreneurship. Only the questions found significantly relevant for the understanding of the effect of culture on entrepreneurship are reported and examined in this study.

The data for the present study was collected from Hausa/Fulani, Ibo and Yoruba entrepreneurs between August 2014 and February 2015. The criterion for selection of the respondent groups was that they are independent business owners. The aim of this criterion was to get opinions of this group of respondents without constraints as to the analysis within the larger society.

Among the Hausa/Fulani subgroup, 80 questionnaires were administered by face-to-face method. 80 duly filled questionnaires were returned representing a response rate of 100 percent. Among the Ibos, 170 questionnaires were administered using the by face-to-face method to get information on the respondents. 113 questionnaires were returned out of which 105 were found usable for the present analysis. Another 21 questionnaires were received after the data imputation and raw data analysis have been completed therefore we were unable to

include these in this present analysis. The response rate for the Ibos was 78 percent. Among the Ibos, 100 questionnaires were administered using the by face-to-face method. 81 questionnaires were filled and returned representing a response rate of 81 percent.

Since the focus of this study is culture, the results are analyzed within the cultural context of the three subgroups. The extent to which the results of this comparative study can be generalized to the subgroups in particular and the regions in general will be a matter of judgment and further research validation.

The Research Population

Table 1 shows a number of relevant demographic data from the three groups of respondents Table 1: Demographic Data

Hausa/Fulani Ibo YorubaSample size N = 51 N = 105 N = 81

Entrepreneurs: 100 % 100 % 100 %

High education:< 13 years 75 % 45 % 59 %> 13 years 25 % 55 % 41 %Total 100 % 100 % 100 %

Age:< 30 34 % 27 % 25 %> 30 66 % 73 % 75 %

Marital status: Married 77 % 68 % 65 % Single 57 % 80 % 49 %

Immediate family size:< 4 38 % 26 % 30 %> 4 62 % 74 % 70 %

No. of dependents:< 4 27 % 21 % 24 %> 4 73 % 79 % 76 %

Table 1 allows a number of conclusions, which should be taken into account in interpreting our data.

The educational level of the Ibo entrepreneurs is higher than the Hausa/Fulani and the Yoruba entrepreneurs.

The table shows that the Yoruba entrepreneurs are (75%) older than the Ibo (73%) and Hausa/Fulani entrepreneurs.

The table also shows that 77 percent of the Hausa/Fulani, 68 percent of Ibo and 65 percent of the Yoruba entrepreneurs are married.

The question on immediate family size (wife, husband and children) shows that the three subgroup entrepreneurs have lager family size. On the question of number of dependents, the three subgroups shows remarkable increase in the number of dependents compared to their immediate family size (husband, wife, children, relatives and other). These questions of immediate and dependent family sizes are live expressions of individualism versus collective ways of life in a society.

Data Analysis

Dimensions of National Culture: Hausa/Fulani, Ibo and Yoruba Subgroups.

Table 2: Score on the dimensions of national cultureHausa/Fulani Ibo Yoruba

Power Distance 70 62 69Individualism 48 46 58Uncertainty Avoidance 57 62 34Masculinity 27 33 27

Power Distance IndexCalculation of Power Distance Index uses the following formula: PDI = 135 – a + b – 25c. Where:

a = the percentage ‘Manager 3’ in question 40 (Autocratic; Paternalistic; Consultative; and Democratic): now for the four types of manager, please mark the one that you would prefer to work under.

b = the percentage ‘Manager 1’ plus ‘Manager 2’ in question 41 (to which one of the four managers would you say your present boss most closely corresponds?

c = the mean score on question 12 (in this organisation, how often are employees afraid to disagree with their boss?

Individualism Index

Formula for calculating the Individualism Index uses the mean score of following questions:IDV = 76m5 – 43m1 + 30m8 – 27m13 – 29. Where:

5 = mean score of question 24. 5 (have good physical working condition)1 = mean score of question 24. 1 (have time left for your family life)8 = mean score of question 24. 8 (work with people who cooperate with others)13 = mean score of question 24. 13 (live in area desirable to you and your family)

Masculinity Index

Formula for calculating the Masculinity versus Femininity Index uses the mean score of responses to the following four item questions: MAS = 60m8 – 66m11 + 30m6 – 39m14 + 76. Where:

6 = mean score of question 24. 6 (have security of employment).8 = mean score of question 24. 8 (work with people who cooperate well with each

other).11= mean score of question 24. 11 (have an opportunity for high earnings).14 = mean score of question 24. 14 (have an opportunity for advancement to higher

level jobs).

Uncertainty Avoidance Index

Formula for calculating the Uncertainty Avoidance Index uses the mean scores and percentages of responses to the following question items: UAI = 300 – 40d – 30e – f. Where:

d = mean score of question 43 (how often do you feel nervous at work?)

e = percentage of question 44-a (a company or organisation’s rules should not be broken – not even when the employee thinks it is in the company’s best interest).

f = percentage of question 45 (how long do you think you will continue working for the organisation or company you presently work for?) (percent, two + two to five years).

It should be stressed that the scores indicate only relative positions of cultures. The scales have been chosen so that for each dimensions the distance between the lowest and the highest scoring culture is about 100 points. In addition, the scores depend on the nature of samples that are compared, which should always match from one culture to another. For example, the nature of job plays a role, as well as average educational levels.

A low power distance score indicates that entrepreneurs tend to underplay the use of power in superior-subordinate relations in the enterprise and are inclined towards consultative or participative style of leadership. The high individualism score indicates the belief that everyone is expected to look for his or her own interest without expecting much from others. A person may go only as far as feeling responsible for his or her immediate family such as the spouse or children. They emphasize this individualism and their private life should not be a concern for their organization. A low masculinity score indicates a caring altitude towards one another and a feeling that assertiveness is not important. The high uncertainty avoidance score indicates that people tend to have high level of anxiety which becomes manifest in greater nervousness, emotionality and aggressiveness.

Considered on the context of the effective range of the dimensions scale, the present results show that power distance among the Hausa/Fulani respondents is higher than the Ibo and Yoruba respondents. However, the difference among the three subgroups is less significant.

The difference among the three subgroups is such that the Yorubas scoring themselves lowest in uncertainty avoidance while the Ibos scores the highest. When we compare the score for individualism, we also found the Yoruba scoring highest and the Ibos at the lowest side. For the dimension of masculinity, we found little difference among the scores for the three subgroups. Ibos in the present study scores highest among the three subgroups.

When the various patterns of scores on various constituent items used for measuring each dimension were considered separately, it was found that 48 percent of the Hausa/Fulani entrepreneurs preferred to work under a consultative superior while 60 percent perceived their superior to be authoritative or paternalistic (Table 3). They also perceived that in their work environments, subordinates are sometimes (40 percent) or seldom (22 percent) afraid to express disagreement with their superiors. For the Ibos, it was found that (48 percent) preferred to work under a consultative superior, while 62 percent perceived their superior to be authoritative or paternalistic. They perceived that in their work environment, subordinates are sometimes (41 percent) or seldom (21 percent) afraid to express disagreement with their superiors. Within the Yoruba respondents, it was found 59 percent of the entrepreneurs preferred to work under a consultative superior while 62 percent perceived their superior to be autocratic or paternalistic. They also perceived that in their work environment, subordinates are sometimes (30 percent) or seldom (24 percent afraid to express disagreement with their superiors.

Managerial Leadership Styles

From the Value Survey Model (VSM), a description was taken of four types of managers/leaders (Likert 4 management/leadership systems). The description does not use these terms, but we have used the term 1. Autocratic, 2. Paternalistic, 3. Consultative and 4. Democratic leaders. The VSM asked for the preferred type and the (actual) type to which one’s superior most closely corresponds. In the Cross-Culture Management Survey (Iguisi, 1993), a new question was added about the most rejected type of leader “which one of the four types of managers would you strongly prefer not to work under?”

Table 3: Type of leaders preferred, actual and rejected across cultures Hausa/Fulani Ibo Yoruba

prefer actual reject prefer actual reject prefer actual reject Entrepreneurs: Autocratic 28 % 40 % 61 % 11 % 36 % 52 % 17 % 29 % 55 %Paternalistic 48 % 20 % 0 % 33 % 36 % 0 % 46 % 33 % 0 %Consultative 14 % 30 % 9 % 48 % 20 % 11 % 30 % 22 % 0 % Democratic 10 % 10 % 30 % 8 % 8 % 37 % 7 % 15 % 45 %

For areas printed in bold, the difference for the three subgroups is significant at the .05 level

The results in Table 3 have been compared among the three subgroups because of their vantage point. The Hausa/Fulani entrepreneurs (48 percent) moderately preferred the paternalistic manager. The consultative manager (48 percent) is moderately preferred by the Ibo entrepreneurs and the Yoruba (46 percent) entrepreneurs moderately preferred paternalistic manager. When we analyzed for the manager that the respondents would strongly preferred not to work under (rejected), we found that the democratic manager was the most rejected by the Yoruba respondents. For about one in three Hausa/Fulani and Ibos respondents, the democratic manager is the most rejected type. Generally, the democratic manager is the more often rejected among the three subgroups than preferred.

Conclusions

This study describes the results of a survey study of three subgroups; Hausa/Fulani, Ibo and Yoruba.

The results confirm that the national cultures of the Hausa/Fulani, Ibo ad Yoruba as measured by the work values and desire of the entrepreneurs’ population involved are to some extent different. The Hausa/Fulani shows high power distance than the Ibo and Yoruba entrepreneurs, the Ibos displays high uncertainty avoidance more than the Hausa/Fulani and the Yoruba, while the Yoruba displays moderate individualism more than the Hausa/Fulani and the Ibo. The Hausa/Fulani are more concerned with higher earnings and cooperative colleagues and less concerned with opportunity for advancement and sufficient time for themselves and family, compared to the Ibos who are more concerned with advancement and earnings with little or no concern for employment security and time, while the Yorubas are more concerned with cooperative colleagues and living area, and less concern with advancement and earnings.

With respect to styles of management, the empirical evidence presented in Table 3 reveals that the three subgroup respondents strongly attributes the most positive characteristics to a boss who is seen as consultative. Likert’s advocate for a participative management style

being the most effective in all situations has no validation in this study and others (Iguisi, 1994). In general, the participative management style is the more often rejected than preferred among the three subgroup respondents. The boss-subordinates relationship is a socio-cultural phenomenon which bears resemblance to more fundamental relationships earlier in life; that of parents and child, and teacher and pupil. Both as bosses and subordinates, people can be expected to carry over values and norms from their early life experiences as children and school pupils. As family and school environments differ strongly among cultures, we can expect to find the traces of these differences in management styles as evidenced in our present research results.

The Yoruba need for independence on the psychological level is matched by a need for dependence, and the Fulani/Hausa and Ibo need for power is a need for security. Dependence and security needs stems from early childhood and are common to all humankind. Independence and power are very strong attributes of successful entrepreneurs.

The similarities and differences among the three country respondents suggest that it make sense to study and compare cultural values, beliefs, perception and attitudes among organizations and enterprises across regions and sub-cultures within the same country.

In conclusion, we have presented important empirical evidences of differences and similarities among the Hausa/Fulani, Ibo ad Yoruba entrepreneurs based on cultural values. We have glossed over the fact that there are wide and narrow differences and similarities among culture dimensions. We do not suggest that cultural values are the only factors that influence entrepreneurship and those cultural values that we have been considering are themselves not subjected to change. At the same time, there is evidence (Wiredu 1995) that traditional values remain pervasive across cultures. Cultural factors interact with pressure from markets, patterns of authority legitimization and political systems. We urge the reader to use his or her personal cultural experience to give more and better meaning by the deeper interpretation of the cultural differences and similarities that we have here provided, because we are of the opinion that the cultural explanation of our findings can be tautological, since we cannot determine which cultural elements will persist and which will not. The cultural explanation of entrepreneurial differences and similarities and the explanation of culture itself must thus be linked to other components of history, economics and social structures.

One major limitation in this research is the behavioral approach, which we adopted, so as to encounter the respondents’ within the context of their activities, and to inquire by means of questionnaire (and not interview which would have validated the questionnaire responses) about their attitudes towards entrepreneurship. Hence, apart from the atypical social and economic circumstances in which the entrepreneurs were encountered, the desire to ensure a consistency of responses beyond the pencil and paper questionnaire is rarely achieved. This is because of the undetectable implicit cultural understandings, socio-cultural conditioning and the inter-familial relationships of the respondents that cannot be captured by questionnaire alone, but by the combination of questionnaire and interview methods.

Thus, the interplay of the influence of culture on entrepreneurship, on beliefs, perceptions and values need further investigation by more appropriate methods than the one we have used in this study. It is not the intention in this study to provide a comprehensive analysis of entrepreneurial attitudes or profile in the sub-cultures of the countries involved in the study, which may vary according to the sub-cultures. The aim of the study is to illustrate a general framework for such an analysis. The results from the data on this comparison that may not or

may look impressionistic needs further investigation and validation. Our research analysis and findings is solely based on the questionnaire data received from the respondents involved in the project.

At least the overall results suggest that environmental and socio-cultural factors are necessary to explain entrepreneurial differences and similarities across-cultures and within cultures. However, what are the economic, historical and deep-rooted socials factors responsible for these differences? These are yet to be investigated by future research with more elaborate measuring instruments.

Recommendations for Business Ventures and Partnerships

Hausa/Fulani Entrepreneurs on Culture Dimensions and Managerial Leadership Style

Among the Hausa/Fulani entrepreneurs, there is high Power Distance, moderately high Uncertainty Avoidance, moderate Individualism and low Masculinity.

The Hausa/Fulani subgroup has a high Power Distance score, which means that Hausa/Fulani businesses have high degree of hierarchy. Entrepreneurs/Managers do not consult with their subordinates as evidenced in our research result. Hausa/Fulani entrepreneurs/managers give orders on what need to be done and supervises subordinates towards achieving of business objectives. It is therefore important that non-Hausa/Fulani entrepreneurs hoping to do business with the Hausa/Fulani entrepreneurs realises these differences before venturing into any business relationships.

The moderately high Uncertainty Avoidance score among the Hausa/Fulani subgroup means that, they are an uncertainty avoiding society. Based on this there would be a high degree of formalization and standardization of business dealing in order to give guidance to the entrepreneurs and their subordinates should they encounter an unforeseen situation, or go into business ventures with entrepreneurs who defer along this dimension. The Hausa/Fulani entrepreneurs tend to have an emotional need for rules, both written and unwritten, and they are unable to cope with the unknown or uncertainties inherent in business dealings. The attitudes of the Hausa/Fulani entrepreneurs in this research as interpreted within the observed cultural framework would be in sharp contrast to entrepreneurs from a society that is low on Uncertainty Avoidance.

Managerial Leadership Style: from the results on the preferred, Actual and Rejected types of leadership, we found the Hausa/Fulani subgroup entrepreneurs preferring a paternalistic type of leadership in their enterprises. A further scan of the results also reveals that the actual situation as reported by the responders is that, their leader is actually autocratic in their leadership style. They would highly reject such autocratic style of leadership in their future business ventures.

Ibo Subgroup Entrepreneurs on Culture Dimensions and Managerial Leadership Style

Within the Ibo subgroup, there is high Power Distance, high Uncertainty Avoidance, moderate Individualism and low Masculinity.

The high Power Distance observed in Ibos means that businesses have high degree of hierarchy. Entrepreneurs do not consult with their subordinates before taking decisions.

Subordinates at all levels of the hierarchy are heavily dependent on their superiors and they expect their superiors to act autocratically.

The high Uncertainty Avoidance means that there is a high degree of formalization and standardization of rules in business dealings given guidance to the conducts of business and personal behaviours of the entrepreneurs and their subordinates. There is an emotional need for rules, both written and unwritten, and unable to cope with unstructured situations without guiding rules. Rules are to be strictly followed and not to be broken even if broken the rule is in the best interest of the business. The strict rule adherence, the Ibos feels, satisfies their business and emotional needs for order and predictability.

The low Masculine score of the Ibo subgroup entrepreneurs would mean that they place more emphasis in their business ventures on cooperative attitudes of their business or would-be business partners, security and enhancement of their quality of life, which would result from such business dealings. Because of the feminist orientation of the Italian entrepreneurs, problems resulting from business dealings, they would prefer to settle through negotiations and compromises. This would be in sharp contrast to societies with masculine values who would prefer to settle such problems or disputes through litigation in the court of law. The Italian like the French entrepreneurs would be very upset and become disinterested in such business dealings where partners results to settling of problems resulting from differences in the law court.

Managerial leadership: the Ibo entrepreneurs in this study would prefer a consultative’ type of leadership. The actual situation as reported by the respondents in this study is the autocratic or paternalistic type of leadership. This means that the ideal superior (leader) to most Ibo entrepreneurs is a benevolent autocrat or paternalist. What this amount to is that superiors enjoy privileges, laws and rules that are different from those of their subordinates, and status symbols are very important in contributing to the authority of the superior. Based on this result, it becomes very important and significant that non-Ibo entrepreneurs wishing to enter into business deals with their Ibo counterparts must understand these cultural differences and to enter into business ventures that permits a consultative type of leadership and management.

Yoruba Subgroup Entrepreneurs on Culture Dimensions and Managerial Leadership Style

Yoruba subgroup has a high to moderate Power Distance, low Uncertainty Avoidance, high Individualism and low Masculinity scores.

Yoruba subgroup with its high to moderate power distance score means that the Yoruba business will have high to moderate degree of hierarchy. Entrepreneurs would most likely not consult with their subordinates as evidenced in this study. However, they are indeed very differential towards authority, though at the same time they would dislike being ordered about. Business venture or dealings rest on a degree of trust between colleagues and between superiors and subordinates that allow them to run in a less bureaucratic manner with details more or less specified. These cultural attitudes of the Yorubas should be well understood by non-Yoruba entrepreneurs wishing to enter into business deals with the Yoruba partners. The low Uncertainty Avoidance score of the Yoruba entrepreneurs based on this result means that they are a very low uncertainty-avoiding nation. Among the Yoruba entrepreneurs there would be less formalised or standardised ways of business dealings by pragmatic gradualists

working things out bit and move by move and applying the concept of muddling along and to wait and see attitude. The Yoruba entrepreneurs are more willing to take time in negotiation and to proceed with care, due to their low uncertainty avoidance score, the emotional needs for standardization and rules that prevails among the Hausa/Fulani and the Ibo entrepreneurs is in sharp contrast to the Yoruba entrepreneurs who are more spontaneous, innovative and consequently more able to cope with unstructured and ambiguous situations. The Yoruba entrepreneurs are tolerant of other people’s points of view and therefore compromise is a very important tool in negotiating with them.

Masculinity: the low masculinity score of the Yoruba entrepreneurs in this study would mean that they are more feminine oriented with feminine values. In their business dealings or negotiations, they would place more emphasis on cooperative attitudes of their business partners, stress on the security and sustainability of the deal and enhancement of the quality of life that the successful deal would offer.

Because of their tolerant and cooperative or compromising attitudes, the Yoruba entrepreneurs’ general attitude to conflict resolution would be to set up a joint committee to solve it. Decision-making are often postponed, but when they are finally made, they are in most cases based on an easy compromise. The typical Yoruba entrepreneurs do not perceive work as the ladder to success, yet hard work and honesty are key elements of their culture. The Scottish entrepreneurs do not equate time with money, but they do expect foreign partners to be punctual and obey the rules regarding proper time for scheduled activities. This therefore means that one should not attempt to rush negotiation or business meetings.

Based on the score of the Yoruba entrepreneurs in this study, it would be safely said that they have the view oriented towards “We” collective self-interest being more important than “I” individual. This means that the Yoruba entrepreneurs in this study would prefer, in their business dealings with others, relationships prevailing over the task at hand.

Managerial Leadership: from the results on the Preferred, Actual and Rejected types of leadership, we found the Yoruba entrepreneurs preferring a consultative’ type of leadership in their enterprises. Further scans of the results also reveal that the actual situation as reported by the respondents is that, their leader is actually paternalistic in their leadership style. They would highly reject autocratic and to a large extent the democratic styles of leadership in their future business ventures. Based on this result, it becomes very important and significant that non-Yoruba entrepreneurs wishing to enter into business deals with their Yoruba counterparts must understand these cultural differences and to enter into business ventures that permits a combination of consultative type of leadership with a touch of paternalistic management.

ReferencesBettis, R.A. and Hitt, M.A (1995). “The new competitive landscape”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 16, pp. 7-19.Geertz, C (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.Hofstede G. (2011), Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. CA:

Sage.Hofstede, Geert, G. J. Hosfstede and M. Minkov. (2010). Cultures and Organizations:

Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede G. (2005) Culture Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviour, Institutions and Nations. CA: Sage.

Hofstede G. (2001) Culture Consequences (2nd ed,). Thousand Oaksm CA: Sage.Hofstede G. (1991) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw

Hill. Hofstede G. and M.H. Bond (1988). `The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth', Organization Dynamics, 16, pp.4-21.Hofstede G (1980) Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Relate

Values. Newbury Park CA: Sage Iguisi O. & Ekanem D (2015), Traditional - Related Values in Motivation across Cultures. Faculty

of Management Science Journal, Management Science Review Vol 6, 1&2, 2015Iguisi O (1998). The Role of Culture in Appropriate Management and Indigenous

Development in Africa. Paper delivered at the African seminar on Culture Dimensions to Appropriate management and Sustainable Development in AfricaUNESCO Publications, Paris

Iguisi O. (1998). Supporting Entrepreneurship in New Strategic Environment (SENSE): Cultural Perspectives to Entrepreneurial Effectiveness across Cultures. EU-ADAPT/E-AMARC Research Publications.

Iguisi O (1994). Appropriate Management in an African Culture. In: Journal of Management in Nigeria. Vol., 30 No.1, 16-24.

Iguisi O. and Hofstede G (1993). Industrial Management in an African Culture. IRIC University of Limburg Press, Maastricht

Iguisi, O (1993). Cross-Culture Management Survey. Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation: University of Limburg, Maastricht-NL.

Lind P. (2012). Small Business Management in Cross-Cultural Environments. London: Routhledge PressLumkin, G.T and Dess, G (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review 21 135-172.Trevisan I. (2014). Universality or Specificity of Entrepreneurial Factors: A report from cross-cultural study.Trevisan I. and Arnoldi M (1997). The role of socio-cultural components in local development: notes towards a line of research starting from Italian Experience. In:Iguisi O. (eds) Culture Dimensions to Appropriate Management in Africa. Maastricht: UNESCO & E-AMARC Publications.The World Bank (2001). Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth.

Washington, DC: World Bank.Unesco. (1997). Culture Dimensions to Appropriate Management in Africa. Unesco:Paris,

FranceWickham, P (1997). Strategic Entrepreneurship: A decision-making approach to new venture creation and management. PITMAN Publishing, London.

Wiredu K. (1995) “The moral foundations of an African culture”, Person and community (CIPSH/UNESCO, 1992) pp.193-206. In: Croetzee P.H. and Roux A. P. The African Philosophy Reader. Routledge: London.