Title: Organizations, culture and behaviour: Opportunities, challenges and implications for crosscultural r
1Organizations, culture and behaviourOpportunitie
s, challenges and implications for cross-cultural
research
- Ronald Fischer
- Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research
- Victoria University Wellington
2Organizations, Culture and Behaviour (OCaB)
Project
- Multi-level study
- Exploration of relationships between variables at
different levels - Cross-level effects
- Units of investigation are nested within each
other - Compare the effect of organizational practices
and cultural factors on employee behaviour - Extra-role behaviour/Organizational Citizenship
Behaviour
3Challenges.
- Understanding organizational behaviour in context
- Single country/organization studies
- Two country/organizations comparisons
- Necessary
- studies including variables at multiple levels
4Multilevel theories
- Exploration of relationships between variables at
different levels - Units of investigation are nested within each
other
5Example
6Norms, values behaviour
Behavior
Norms Values (Descriptive, Injunctive)
Groups
Socialization (internalization)
Individuals
Values (Public, private)
Fischer, 2006, Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin
7Values as moderatorsFischer Smith (2004, JCCP
2006, APIR)
Decision-Maker
Is this fair ???
Use of allocation principles Equity Seniority
Values
8Interaction between self-enhancement (high)
versus self-transcendence (low) values and
consideration of work performance (equity) on
justice
9Important questions
- What is the relative effect of cultural values
(compared to other non-cultural variables)? - How do cultural values/norms affect (work)
behavior?
10Fischer, Ferreira, Assmar, Redford Harb, 2005,
IJCCM
Cultural Dimensions
Organizational Practices
11Explaining cultural differences in organizational
reward allocationFischer et al. (2007, JCCP)
Conservation/ Hierarchy
Nation-Level
Unemployment rate
Organization Level
Organizational Culture (Economic/Egalitarian)
Sector
Individual Level
Need
Equity
Equality
12Explaining national differences in organizational
commitmentFischer Mansell (submitted)
Hofstedes Power Distance
GLOBE In-Group Practices
GLOBE PD Practices
Hofstedes Individualism
GNI/GDP
Nation-Level
_
_
_
Organization Level
Method Effects
Occupation
Continuance Commitment
Affective Commitment
Normative Commitment
Individual Level
Cultural variables explained max. 10 of the
variance
13Organizations, Culture and Behaviour (OCaB)
Project
- Compare the effect of organizational practices
and cultural factors on employee attitudes and
behaviour - Affective Commitment
- Extra-role behaviour/Organizational Citizenship
Behaviour - Perceived organizational justice
14Organizational Practices
Nation-Level
Power Distance
Collectivism
Fatalism
Paternalism
Organization- Level
_
_
Employee Orientation
Innovation
Formalization
Individual Level
_
_
Helping
Voice
15Culture level dimensionDescriptive Norms
(similar to GLOBE)
- Power distance
- Acceptance of hierarchy
- Social distance
- Egalitarian relations
- Paternalism
- Fatalism
- Control
- Inactivity
- Uncertainty avoidance
- Structured lives
- Rule obedience
- Individualism Collectivism (Triandis, 1995)
16Individualism-Collectivism
- Dominant paradigm for studying cultural
differences in psychology - Confusion about meaning definitions
- Oyserman et al. (2002) 7 Ind and 8 Col domains
- Single-bipolar or independent dimension
(Hofstede, 1980, Gelfand et al., 1996, Triandis
et al.) - Confusion about measurement
- Self-ratings on Likert-type scales
- Neglect of relevant in-group (exception Hui,
1988) - Reference-group effects (Heine et al., 2001)
- Abstract meanings, cultural anchor missing
17Defining attributes of Individualism
Collectivism (Triandis, 1995)
- Definition of self
- Structure of goals
- Norms versus attitudes
- Relatedness versus rationality
18New scale
- Four defining attributes
- Single dimension
- Specifying important in-groups
- Appropriate referent for cultural comparison
importance within ones culture - referent-shift consensus model (Chan, 1998)
- Provide meaningful anchors examples of
individualistic and collectivistic behaviour - similar to semantic differential type scales
19Constructing items
- Team process (international collaboration)
- Self (Gudykunst et al., 1994 Singelis, 1994)
- Structure of goals (Yamaguchi, 1994)
- Norms versus attitudes (all new)
- Rationality versus relatedness (Clark et al.,
1987 Gudykunst et al., 1994 Singelis, 1994) - Three pilot studies
20Scale development
- Study 1
- Brazilian (N 517), Taiwanese (N 178), NZ (N
210) and NZ international students (N 89) - Cross-validation Brazilian (N 89) NZ (N 85)
and Taiwanese (N 62) employees - Between 3 and 4 factors in each sample (Scree
test) - Structure of goal items (Yamaguchi, 1994) did not
clearly load - Internal consistencies
- Self (a range .52 - .77)
- Norms (a range .80 - .84)
- Rat. Vs. Relat. (a range .78 - .89)
21Study 2
- Objectives
- Construct new items for goal attributes
- Validate with different samples
- Confirmatory factor analysis
- Between culture variability
- Further evidence of convergent validity
- Vertical and Horizontal IndCol
22Study 2
- 1,680 social science and psychology students
- Argentina (N 189),
- Brazil (N 255),
- Germany (N 108),
- India (N 152),
- Lebanon (N150),
- New Zealand (N 158),
- Peru (N 133),
- Saudi Arabia (N107),
- Taiwan (N 137),
- United Kingdom (N 42) and
- United States (N 183)
- Dimensionality and validity at an individual and
cultural level
23Confirmation of the Structure
- Overall model (pooled within-group matrix)
- ?2(203) 1195.91, TLI .95, CFI .96, RMSEA
.058 (with revised model, item 17 loading on
Self- Factor) - Multigroup analysis
- ?2(2876) 6931.40, TLI .93, CFI .93, RMSEA
.076 - Means and Covariance Structure Analysis (MACS)
- ?2(2733) 5079.37, TLI .92, CFI .92, RMSEA
.081 - No strong evidence of uniform or non-uniform item
bias (response styles unlikely) - Multilevel equivalence
- ?2(424) 1437.87, TLI .93, CFI .94, RMSEA
.057
24Agreement within cultures
- The average agreement across all items and
cultural samples was relatively low (.43). - Mean for self (.39), attitudes versus norms
(.43), relational versus rational concerns (.41),
goal structure (.50) - High agreement UK (.59), New Zealand (.56),
Germany (.53) - Low agreement Lebanese (.31) and Indian samples
(.34)
25Convergent validity
- Individual level
- Significant correlations with vertical-horizontal
individualism-collectivism (Triandis Gelfand,
1998) especially HI VC - At culture level
- Self x Hofstede IDV r .65
- Self x GLOBE In-Group Col Practices r -.62
- Self x GLOBE Institutional Col values r -.67
- No other significant correlations
- No significant correlation with PD (Hofstede,
GLOBE)
26Study 3
- Study with 161 NZ students
- New scale explained additional variance beyond
established scales (e.g., Triandis Gelfands
Vertical-Horizontal Scale) in conformity oriented
and altruistic behaviour - But normative IC does not explain variance in
self-oriented behaviour
27Implications for cultural measurement
- When interested in cultural comparison
- Treat participants as informants (Glick, 1985)
use Referent-shift consensus models (Chan, 1998,
see Klein et al., 1994) - Referent Culture in general
- Specify in-group of interest
- Provide anchoring points
- When interested in relating personal cultural
attributes to other person-level variables - Use individual-level referents
- Specify relevant in-group provide anchoring
points
28Discussion
- Construct validity at individual and cultural
level - Good overlap with previous individual level
measures - Consistent relationship between self scale and
previous individualism-collectivism scales - Important theoretical aspects have been missing
in previous research!
29Typology of Culture InventoriesAshkanasy,
Broadfoot Falkus 2001
Level 1 Artefacts Level 1 Patterns of Behaviour
Types
Profiles
Behavior Fit
Effective Behaviour
Behavioral Patterns
Level 2 Beliefs and Values
Types
Profiles
Value Fit
Descriptive Values
Effectiveness Values
Level 3 Basic Assumptions
30Organizational practices
- Practices are observable and visible
manifestations of organizational culture
(compared with underlying values, norms and
beliefs) such as symbols, heroes, rituals,
alternative labels include conventions, customs,
habits, mores, traditions and usages (Hofstede,
Neuijen, Ohayv, Sanders, 1990)
31Fischer et al. 2005 IJCCM
32Item development
- Team process (Simultaneously in English,
Portuguese Spanish) - Translation backtranslation into Turkish
- English version in Malaysia
- 71 items derived from the literature or newly
developed - Focus on specific practices
- Criteria
- Related to a general organizational culture
dimension - Relevance for one of our outcome variables
33Item format
- Focus on observable and visible practices
- Examples
- Whenever an employee is ill, managers ask about
him/her with interest - Targets to be attained by employees are clearly
specified - There is a lot of investments in new products in
this organization - Instructions
- Below you see a number of statements about work
practices and behaviours. Please indicate how
frequently each of these situations occurs in the
organization in which you work. - 7 point Likert scale (never to always)
34Organizational Pilot Study
- 1243 employees from various organizations in
- Argentina (N 215),
- Brazil (N 279),
- Malaysia (N81),
- New Zealand (N 310),
- Turkey (N 200), and
- US (N 158)
35Demographics
- Equal number of males and females in all samples
(about 50) - Majority employed in private sector (62), but
less in NZ US - 1/3 middle management 1/3 process/clerical
workers about 1/10 senior management - Majority employed in service industry (60),
followed by primary/manufacturing (30)
36Factor structure
- Employee orientation (work organization, task
versus employee orientation dimensions) - Innovation (Innovation dimension)
- Formalization and Bureaucratic practices (Control
dimension) - Mean congruence (Tuckers Phi) excellent (.97)
structure clearly replicated in all samples
37Reliability
- Employee orientation (10 items)
- Range from .92 to .95
- Innovation (7 items)
- Range from .74 to .89
- Formalization Bureaucratic practices (7 items)
- Range from .78 to .87
38Effects on work behaviour
- Hofstede (1980) scores at the nation-level
- Organizational Practices ERB at the
individual-level - Cross-Level Operator Analysis (equivalent to
Hierarchical Linear Modeling)
39Nation-Level
Economic Growth
Individualism
Individual- Level
Formalization
Employee orientation
Innovation
Helping
Organizational Practices effects independent
of Cultural variables
40Nation-Level
Individualism
Economic Growth
Individual Level
Employee orientation
Innovation
_
Formalization
Voice
41Study 2
- 1541 employees from 50 organizations in NZ
- 471 from 19 organizations in Lebanon
42Aggregation statistics
- NZ
- Aggregate reliability
- ICC(1) between .16 (employee orientation) to .30
(formalization) - ICC(1) for voice (.06) and helping (.05)
- Agreement
- Mean awg between .53 (employee orientation) and
.55 (innovation) - Mean awg for voice helping (.51)
43- Lebanon
- Aggregate reliability
- ICC(1) between .03 (formalization) to .26
(innovation) - ICC(1) for voice (.26) and helping (.34)
- Agreement
- Mean awg between .24 (employee orientation) and
.30 (innovation) - Mean awg for voice (.32) helping (.35)
44HLM Analysis
- Level 2 Organizational Practices (employee
orientation, innovation, formalization) - Level 1 Individual level self-reported
extra-role behaviour (helping, voice)
45NZ significant effects
Organization Level
Employee Orientation
Innovation
Formalization
.21
Individual Level
Helping
Voice
Correlation between employee orientation voice
at organization level .27, p .05
46Lebanon significant effects
Organization Level
Employee Orientation
Innovation
Formalization
-.64
-.53 p .07
1.52
1.81
Individual Level
Helping
Voice
47Discussion
- Effects of organizational practices are moderated
by nation-level norms values - Pro-innovation bias in Western societies might
not generalize - Formalization can have positive effects in some
contexts - Level of analysis issues potential fallacies
(e.g., significant correlation at aggregate
level, but not in HLM agreement reliability
issues)
48Research in progress
- Aim 20 organizations in 20 countries 3 level
structure (nation, organization, individual) - Investigate separate effects of nation-level
values norms and organizational practices - To date
- Organizational practice effects are not universal
- Nation-level values moderate some effects (e.g.,
INDCOL), but significant cross-national variation
is not accounted for by existing nation-level
indicators
49Data collected
- NZ
- Lebanon
- Brazil
- Malaysia
- Taiwan
- Philippines
- Egypt
- Saudi Arabia
- UAE
- UK
- Indonesia
- (Singapore)
- (Belgium)