The influence of cultural values on work behavior: why and how individual power distance belief matters

1
The influence of cultural values on work
behavior why and how individual power distance
belief matters

• Jiing-Lih (Larry) Farh
• Hong Kong U of Science and Technology
• Presented at I-Shou University
• March 31, 2008

2
Objectives

• Power distance as a psychological construct
• How and why power distance affects behavior in
  the workplace?
• Implications for future research direction

3
Culture as Shared Values

• the collective programming of the mind that
  distinguishes one group or category of people
  from another (Hofstede, 1980, p. 89)
• shared motives, values, beliefs, identities, and
  interpretations or meanings of significant events
  that result from common experiences of members of
  collectives that are transmitted across
  generations (House, 2004)
• Even though scholars generally agree that
  variations between groups can exist on multiple
  dimensions (cognitions, behaviors, and values),
  cross-cultural research has focused on shared
  cultural values as the major source of
  differentiation among national groups. (Tsui et
  al. 2007)

4
Although most research on cultural values has
focused on individualism-collectivism, Hofstedes
original research on social values found that
differences in power- distance values were the
most important of the four cultural dimensions
identified in his analysis.
---Tyler, Lind and Huo (2000 1140)
5
Initial Observations on Power Distance

• Hierarchy is apparent in all human societies.
  Without hierarchy, we cease to function as a
  collective.
• PD is a hypothetical construct, referring to the
  degree of inequality between hierarchies in human
  societies.
• This degree of inequality can be defined and
  measured along multiple attributes (e.g., wealth,
  rights and obligations across groups, status,
  privileges, power and influence). We focus on
  values.
• PD can be conceptualized at multiple levels.

6
Power Distance as a Multi-level Construct

• Societal Level (SPD)
• Defined as the extent to which a society accepts
  the fact that power in institutions and
  organizations is distributed unequally
  (Hofstede, 1980)
• Useful for explaining behavior differences across
  societies.
• Group Level (GPD)
• Defined as group members shared values that
  authorities should be shown deference and can
  rightfully dictate those in subordinate
  positions (Yang et al. 2007)
• useful for explaining group influence on
  individual/group behavior.
• Individual Level (IPD)
• Defined as the extent to which an individual
  accepts the unequal distribution of power in
  institutions and organizations (Clugston,
  Howell, and Dorfman, 2000).
• useful for explaining and predicting individual
  behavior.

7
Power distance as a Multilevel Construct
Societal Power Distance (SPD)
PDNation
YNation
Group Power Distance (GPD)
PDGroup
YGroup
Individual Power Distance (IPD)
YInd.
PDInd.
8
The Importance of IPD

• IPD reflects in part how people are socialized in
  their life domains.
• IPD can be readily obtained through self-reports.
  
• IPD is relatively stable.
• There is plenty of within-country variation on
  cultural values (Hofstede, 1980a Au, 1999).
  Clearly, people vary on pivotal psychological
  dimensions (e.g., PD orientation) both on a
  between-country basis and on a within-country
  basis (Brockner, 2005 355). (Kirkman et al.
  2006)
• IPD has sufficient variation within a single
  culture, which allows for studying within country
  cultural variation in mono-cultural research.
• IPD is key to unpack country level or
  cross-cultural effects of PD on behavior.

9
From Culture to Individual Values to Individual
Action
Cultural Press!!!
10
Some Potential Determinants of IPD

• Societal
• Shared history/ideology/religion/ecology/values
• Language
• Group
• Family
• Occupational groups
• Organizational contexts
• Peer
• Individual
• Individual demographics (edu., age, gender,
  ethnicity)
• Need for order, structure, and closure
• Heredity

Individual power distance orientation
11
How to Operationalize IPD?
Key Issues

• Etic or emic approach
• Values, norms or beliefs
• Degree of context specificity (general,
  organizational, family, school)
• Multiple facets
• Preference for hierarchy
• Respect for superior
• Endorsement for autocratic leadership
• Measurement models Latent construct or aggregate
  construct

12
Values, Norms or Beliefs

• Values---most general, abstract, context free
• Norms---what we are expected to do in our roles
  (i.e., we should) more concrete, context
  specific
• Beliefs---refers to beliefs in certain
  relationships more concrete, context specific

13
When Will IPD Affect Behavioral Outcomes?

• Do we have sufficient variation in IPD in the
  research sample (fulltime MBA students from
  Sweden???)
• Is PD salient in the studys context (e.g.,
  priming)?
• Do individuals have sufficient autonomy?

14
Etic versus Emic Approaches to IPD

• Etic approach
• Presumed culturally universal
• De-contextualized
• Tend to be measured at a highly abstract level
• E.g., Schwartzs value types
• Emic approach
• Presumed culturally specific
• Contextualized--tied to specific cultural
  tradition
• Tend to be measured at a more concrete level
• E.g., Chinese individual traditionality

15
Research Design
Effects of PD on Individual Outcomes (PD as Main
Effect)

• Power distance
• Societal
• Group
• Individual

• Outcomes
• Satisfaction
• Commitment
• Behavior

16
Research Design
Effects of PD on Individual Outcomes (PD as
Moderator)

• Contexts
• Management style
• HRM practices
• Leadership
• Climate
• Job characteristics

• Attitudes
• Org just
• Satisfaction
• Trust
• Perceived support

• Outcomes
• Commitment
• Intent to stay
• OCB
• Job performance

• Power distance
• Societal
• Group
• Individual

17
Research Design
IPD as Mediators

• Power distance
• Individual

• Outcomes
• Satisfaction
• Commitment
• Behavior

Country/Group Differences
18
Empirical Research Incorporating Hofstedes
Cultural Values Framework in Top-tier Management
and Applied Psychology Journals (1980 2002)
Individual Level Group/ organization Level Country Level Total
Culture as a Main Effect 64 6 78 148
Culture as a Moderator 23 5 4 32
TOTAL 87 11 82 180
From Kirkman et al (2006). A quarter century of
Cultures Consequences A review of empirical
research incorporating Hofstedes cultural values
framework, JIBS.
19
Number of Inclusions of Cultural Values by Type
of Effect and Level of Analysis
Individualism-Collectivism Power Distance Uncertainty Avoidance Masculinity-Femininity Confucian Dynamism Cultural Distance
Main Individual 58 11 8 8 3 1
Main Group/Organizational 8 1 1 1 0 0
Main Country 27 27 26 20 2 54
Moderating Individual 19 9 3 3 0 0
Moderating Group/Organizational 5 1 0 0 0 0
Moderating Country 3 2 1 1 0 1
From Kirkman et al. 2006. A quarter century of
Cultures Consequences A review of empirical
research incorporating Hofstedes cultural values
framework, JIBS.
20
(No Transcript)
21
Power Distance Measures

• 20 empirical studies on power distance at the
  individual level
• 12 based on Hofstede index or items
• 9 involved 8 different measures
• No generally accepted instrument
• Generally low in internal consistency reliability
  
• Maznevski et al. (1997)--- 7 item relational
  hierarchy scale (Kirkman Shapiro, 2001 Chan
  Ong, 2002) alpha .65-.84
• Earley Erez (1997)--- 8 item power differential
  measure (Brockner et al. 2001)
• Dorfman and Howell (1988)--- 6 item measure
  (Clugston et al. 2000 Begley et al., 2002)
  alpha .51 to .70

22
(No Transcript)
23
IPD as Moderator Some studies

• Justice (voice) to outcome relationship Brockner
  et al. (2000) (JESP) (US, China)
• Goal setting to goal commitment
• Sue-Chan Ong (2000) (OBHDP) (Australia)
• Justice to outcome relationship
• Lam, Schaubroeck Aryee (2002) (JOB) (HK, US)
• Procedure justice to trust relationship
• Lee, Pillutla, Law (2000) (JOM) (HK)

24
Power Distance
Lam et al. (2002)
25
Why Does IPD Moderate?

• Tylers relational model of authority (Tyler
  2000)
• Accept authoritys decision uncritically
• Less sensitive to variations in fair treatment
• Lower expectation for fair treatment
• Larger zone of tolerance for authority
• System justifying theory (Jost 2004)

26
Tylers Relational Model of Authority (2000)

• People care most strongly about how they are
  treated by authorities when they have
  personalized connections with them
• Relationships become personalized when
  individuals are able to negotiate the terms,
  rules and expectations governing them, which is
  possible only when the power gap btw the exchange
  partners is small
• When PD is high, great social distance is
  maintained, and role expectations bind the
  employees to show deference, respect, loyalty and
  dutifulness to the authority figure
• When PD is low, relational cues (perceived
  support) is salient, convey support and org
  member status and nourish a self-concept that
  includes the exchange partner

27
Chinese Individual Traditionality (CIT)

• CIT defined as the typical pattern of more or
  less related motivational, evaluative,
  attitudinal and temperamental traits that is most
  frequently observed in people in traditional
  Chinese society and can still be found in people
  in contemporary Chinese societies such as Taiwan,
  Hong Kong, and mainland China (KS Yang, 2003
  265).
• Five oblique factors within which these traits
  manifested themselves in values and beliefs,
  including
• submission to authority
• filial piety and ancestral worship
• conservatism and endurance
• fatalism and defensiveness
• male dominance

Yang, Yu, Yeh, 1989
28
Confucian Social Ethics

• Five cardinal relationships
• Emperor-minister
• Father-son
• Husband-wife
• Older brothersyounger brothers
• Friends
• Two organizing principles of Confucianism (Hwang,
  2000)
• Respect the superior
• Favor the intimate (guanxi)

29
Traditionality as Submission to Authority

• Individuals endorsement of hierarchical role
  relationships as defined by the five cardinal
  relationships in Confucianism.

Farh et al., 1997 Farh et al. 2007
30
Measure of Traditionality
Farh, Earley, Lin (ASQ, 1997 432)
Cardinal Relationships
Corresponding Items
Government and citizens Senior and
junior Father and daughter, husband and
wife Senior and junior Parents and children

• The chief government official is like the head of
  a household. The citizens should obey his
  decisions on all state matters.
• The best way to avoid mistakes is to follow the
  instructions of senior persons.
• Before marriage, a woman should subordinate
  herself to her father. After marriage, to her
  husband.
• When people are in dispute, they should ask the
  most senior person to decide who is right.
• Children should respect those who are respected
  by their parents.

31
Nomological Net of Traditionality Measure
Sex PD IndH IndV ColH ColV SM Neuro Extra Open Agree Consc Desir
Traditionality .16 .34 -.22 .01 .03 .20 .05 .05 .04 -.10 .06 .02 -.10
.00 .00 .00 .90 0.53 .00 .25 .49 .53 .18 .39 .77 .18
445 449 449 449 449 449 449 200 200 200 200 200 190
Power Distance .10 1.0 -.02 .03 -.33 -.11 .07 .24 -.18 .01 -.22 -.19 -.07
Power Distance .03 .00 .68 .52 0.00 .03 .17 .00 .01 .95 .00 .01 .35
445 449 449 449 449 449 449 200 200 200 200 200 190
Sample HKUST UG students, 2006 IC Triandis and
Gelfand (1998) Big Five NEO_PI-S (Costa
Mccrae, 1992)
One month delay
32
Traditionalist Behavior

• High traditionalists compared to low
  traditionalists are less likely to base their
  attitudes and behavioral responses on how they
  are treated by authority figures. Rather, their
  attitudes and behaviors are governed more by a
  felt obligation to fulfill the expectations and
  responsibilities of their prescribed social roles
  (Gabrenya Hwang, 1996).
• More prone to role constraints and situational
  influences

33
Individual traditionality as moderator--empirical
evidence (1)

• Hierarchical work relations
• Farh, Earley, Lin (ASQ, 1997) (Taiwan)
• Cheng et al. (AJSP, 2004) (Taiwan)
• Hui et al. (OS, 2004) (China)
• Spreitzer (JOB, 2005) (China US)
• Chen Aryee (AMJ, 2007) (China)
• Farh et al. (AMJ, 2007) (China)
• Individuals in groups
• Pillutla, Farh, et al. (GMS, 2007) (Hong Kong)
• Occupational choice
• Farh et al. (JVB, 1998) (Hong Kong)

34
Individual traditionality as moderator--empirical
evidence

• Justice perceptions and OCB (Farh et al., 1997,
  ASQ)
• LMX and OCB (Hui et al., 2004, OS)
• Authoritarian leadership and subordinate
  responses (Cheng et al., 2004, AJSP)
• Transformational leadership and leader
  effectiveness (Spreitzer et al., 2005, JOB)
• Perceived delegation and both organization-based
  self esteem and insider status (Chen Aryee,
  2007, AMJ)
• Perceived organizational support and subordinate
  outcomes (Farh et al. 2007, AMJ)

35
Distributive Justice and OCB (Conscientiousness)
Relationship by Traditionality Farh, Earley,
Lin (1997)
36
Differentiate Power Distance from Traditionality
(Farh et al. 2007)
Power Distance Chinese Traditionality
Nature of the construct Etic Emic
Frame of reference Workplace Family, political, general social context
Construct domain Beliefs in hierarchical differentiation, respect for superior, and autocratic leadership Beliefs in submission to prescribed social roles
Measurement model Latent model Aggregate model
Influenced by orgal contexts More susceptible Less susceptible
Moral Overtone Weak Strong
37
Power distance vs. traditionality as moderators
Farh, Hackett, Liang, 2007, amj
Power Distance

• Management style
• HRM practices
• Leadership
• LM exchange relationship
• Justice
• Job characteristics

• Subordinate outcomes
• Org commitment
• Citizenship behaviors
• Job performance

Perceived organization support
Traditionality
38
Power distance vs. traditionality

• PD is a high fidelity etic measure with a
  workplace frame of reference while TD is
  indigenous to the Chinese with a broader
  societal/familial frame-of-reference
• PD is more proximal, narrowly specified (e.g.,
  supervisor/organization) and contextually
  embedded (e.g., workplace)
• PD is expected to be a stronger moderator in POS
  to outcome relationships than traditionality

39
Sample

• From 27 companies in two major cities of China
  matching questionnaires by 163 supervisor-subordin
  ator dyads
• Two source data
• Supervisor---performance ratings and OCB
• Subordinate---perceived supervisor support,
  perceived organizational support, cultural
  beliefs, commitment and intent to quit
• Controls
• Subordinate age, tenure, and position level

40
Measures

• Organizational support. 8 items from Settoon,
  Bennett, Liden (1996), alpha .78
• Power distance. Dorfman and Howell (1988), 6
  items, alpha .72
• Traditionality. 5 items from Farh, Earley, Lin
  (1997), alpha .68
• Organizational commitment. 6 items from Mowday et
  al (1979), alpha .77.
• Job performance. 3 items from Farh, Dobbins,
  Cheng (1991), alpha .84.
• Organizational citizenship behavior. Three
  subscales (conscientiousness, altruism, voice)
  from Farh, Zhong and Organ (2004), the PRC OCB
  scale, all alphas exceeded .75

41
TABLE 3 Moderated Regression Analyses of Power
Distance and Traditionality on Perceived
Organizational Support to Outcomes Relationshipsa
42
POS conscientiousness by power distance
43
Summary

• Chinese vary in individual cultural values of
  traditionality and power distance.
• These values can be clearly differentiated from
  personality and collectivism/individualism.
• These values interact with work roles in
  regulating behavior in work settings.
• For subordinates, these values tend to weaken
  perception?attitude?behavior chain.

44
Future Research Direction (1)

• Theorizing about PD/TD
• Need more theories about PD (group value theory,
  system justification theory, status
  characteristics theory)
• Does IPD influence behaviors beyond leadership
  and social exchange? (recent research by Xie on
  stress)
• Research on process Why and how does IPD
  influence the context?attitude?behavior chain?
  (testing of combined moderation/mediation models)
• Experimental research on IPD (priming)
• What explain behaviors of high power
  distance/traditionalist individuals?

45
Future Research Direction (2)

• What about supervisors IPD and how does it
  interact with subordinates IPD to determine
  behaviors?
• GPD (climate) How does it form? (organizational
  change) What are its effects on behavior?
• What determines IPD? (acculturation experiences)
• Do IPD and GPD interact in affecting behavior?

46
Future Research Directions (3)

• Construct validity/measurement issues
• A multidimensional scale on IPDs (hierarchical
  differentiation, respect for superior, autocratic
  leadership)
• Research on IPD scales focusing on norms, values,
  beliefs, and habitual actions
• Research on IPD in multiple life domains
  (workplace, family, political..)
• Etic versus emic approach to IPD

47
Future Research DirectionsObservations from
Kirkmans Review

• When culture is a moderator, it is possible to
  specify the influence of a particularly potent
  dimension, and this dimension is likely to
  single-handedly account for differences across
  countries. This was not the case in main effects
  research, where a single cultural value very
  rarely explained all of the variation across
  countries.
• We urge more Type II research on PD. Perhaps
  within-culture variation on PD explains why the
  expected relationship between participative
  goal-setting and both satisfaction and
  performance has not been consistently supported
  in the US. We urge more studies on employee
  participation (e.g., Lam et al., 2002a),
  utilizing all of the cultural value dimensions as
  possible moderators.
• Finally, more research is needed to determine
  whether the lack of moderating effects for
  commitment (e.g., Palich et al., 1995) and
  turnover intentions (Vandenberghe et al., 2001)
  is due to the overall difficulty of detecting
  moderators (McClelland and Judd, 1993), using
  country scores instead of direct measures, or a
  high level of cultural invariance on these
  outcomes.
• Much work remains to be done to develop or select
  relevant theories to explain the underlying
  dynamics of cultural valueoutcome linkages.
• It is also likely that the various outcome
  measures employed have differential validity in
  differing cultural contexts.
• We strongly recommend refraining from producing
  yet another study at the same level of analysis
  and with the same measures already well
  investigate.

48
Chinese Traditional Values

• Core Beliefs Values
• Confucianism, Legalism
• Buddhism, Taoism
• Chinese language

From Redding 1990

• Relationship Rules
• Filial Piety
• Ingroup/outgroup
• Renqing/face/guanxi

• Social Structures
• Family
• Networks
• Ethnicity

• Rules of Action
• Work Ethic
• Money and Frugality
• Pragmatism

Agrarian Society Subsistence Living Sense of
Vulnerability
49
Sources of Contemporary Chinese Cultural Values
Socialistic Values
Modern Values
Traditional Values