HOW INDIVIDUALIST AND COLLECTIVST ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCE WORK PROCESSES, OUTCOMES, AND COOPERATION

By Faye Hartung

A Research Paper

Submitted in Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science Degree with a Major in

Training and Development

Approved: 4 Semester Credits

Mitch Sherman / Investigation Advisor

The Graduate College University of Wisconsin-Stout May, 2000 The Graduate College University of Wisconsin-Stout Menomonie, WI 54751

ABSTRACT

Writer: Hartung, Faye M.

Title: How Individualist and Collectivist organizational cultures

influence work process, outcomes, and cooperation.

Graduate Major: Masters of Science in Training and Development

Research Advisor: Mitchell Sherman

Month/Year: May 2000

Style Manual Used: APA

Research generated from a variety of fields predicts that important benefits will accrue from demographic diversity in organizations by increasing the variance in perspectives and approaches to work that members of different identity groups can bring

(Tushman, 1977; Donnelion, 1993).

The evolving concept of teamwork in organizations today has had the tendency to direct members toward working in diverse groups. Diversity is not only concerned with racial or cultural connotations; it can include a wide variety of characteristics such as people from another country, a different state or city, another generation, or another department within an organization. It is important that organizations incorporate practices into their that creates a workforce and organization that utilizes and embraces workplace diversity. This study is an attempt to determine whether or not behavioris defined and understood by different organizational cultures based on a person's demographic characteristics. The assumption is that personality is determined by the culture and is based on the physical characteristics of its members, not their actual personality. The research collected will contribute to a better understanding of homogeneous and heterogeneous workgroups within organizations as well as individualistic and collectivist organizational cultures, suggesting that each have different results on work processes and outcomes.

This study will also contribute greatly to all areas of business and industry that arc involved competitively in the global marketplace as well as those in the domestic marketplace. As organizations develop a team mentality and, as the concept of diversity begins to become prominent, research conducted on and the effects it has on its members will be crucial to today's business and educational . Table of Contents

Chapter I: Page Introduction to Research Problem and Objectives

o Introduction/Background 2 o Problem Statement 2 L Purpose of the Study 4 u Research Objectives 4 o Significance of the Study 4 o Outline of the Remainder of the Paper 6

Chapter II: Review of Literature o Workplace Diversity 7 o Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Workgroups 12 o Organizational Cultures: and Collectivism 18 o Cooperation Among Organizational Cultures 23

Chapter III: Research Methods

L Overview of the Study 42 L Research Design 42 o Sources of Data 46 o Data Techniques 47 o Data Processing and Analysis 47 o Limitations of the Study 57

Chapter IV: Findings of Analysis and Results o Findings/Interpretation/Discussion of Group #1 59-61 o Findings/Interpretation of Group #2 61-62 L Findings/Interpretation of Group #3 63-64 L Evaluation of Analysis 65 L Summary of Chapter 66 Chapter V: Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations

L Summary of Chapters 68 L Conclusions 69 L Recommendations for Further Research 70

Appendix:

Statistical Analysis of data (database view)

Bibliography 71 List of Tables

1. Misleading Assumptions on a Multicultural World 3 2. Cooperation Mechanisms Used in Individualist and Collectivist Cultures 31 3. Cultural make-up of work teams used in this study 44 4. Statistics of the population 46 5. Results of teams with 7 white group members and 1 black group member 60 6. Results of teams with all-white group members 62 7. Results of teams with 5 white group members and 3 Asian members 63 8. Proof of Hypothesis 66 List of Figures

1. Internal Dimension Approach of Cooperative Behavior 29

List of Exhibits

1-6. Color-coded questionnaires used in the study 45 7. Mean scores and Standard Deviation of Participants (by team) 48 8. T-Test results of Participants (by team) 52 9. Correlation of Results (by team) 54 Chapter I Research Problem and Objectives

Introduction/ Background

People frequently use demographic characteristics to categorize others and predict their likely behaviors. Allport (1954) observed that immediate apparent physical features such as race and sex are widely used to form impressions of others. This tendency may be even more pronounced when demographic diversity is historically or normatively uncommon in a situation. Rather, novel, infrequent, or distinctive stimuli are likely to increase the importance of the particular category that the stimuli represent (Kanter,

1977; Taylor and Fiske, 1978).

Demographic attributes also tend to be used as a basis for social categorization.

For example, demographically similar people are likely to share similar backgrounds and experiences, they are more likely to have been treated similarly by others in the past, and may therefore expect one another to understand and react to situations similarly. As a result, demographic attributes are often assumed to be associated with underlying attributes such as values, cognitive styles, or past experiences. This implies that people will be more likely to use demographic attributes as social categories when they are different from others in a situation and, when that situation has not been characterized by demographic heterogeneity in the past (Chatman, Polzer, Barsade, and Neale, 1998).

Problem Statement

As citizens of the United States it is apparent that not only our country but the whole world is in constant change. The growing issue of diversity and the complexity of the workforce demands that a person entering the workforce must posses different skills than in the past. The evolving concept of teamwork will direct members toward diverse

2 workgroups and the increasing global marketplace will be conducive to increased

interaction with foreigners and foreign nationals. One hundred percent of people do

business with Americans who are different from them on a daily basis. Whether people

are from another country, a different state or city, another generation, or another

department ignoring these differences will not make organizational any

better.

Table 1: Misleading Assumptions in a Multicultural World

Common and Misleading Less Common and More Appropriate Assumptions Assumptions __ HOMOGENEITY The Melting Pot Myth. We are HETEROGENITY The Image of Cultlural Pluralis. W' all the same are not all the same; there arc many culturally different groups in societ _ SIMILARITY The Myth that they are all just SIMILARITY & They are notjust like me. Many like me. DIFFERENCE people are culturally different from me. Most people have both cultural similarities and differences when compared to me. PAROCHIALISM The Only-One-Way Myth. Our EQUIFINALITY Our way is not the onl\ way'. ITherc way is the only way. We do not are many culturally distinct waysv o recognize any other way of reaching the same goal, or of living living, working or doing things. one's life. ETHNOCENTRISM The One-Best-Way Myth. Our CULTURAL Our way is one possible way. There way is the best way. All other CONTINGENCY are many different and equally good ways are inferior versions of ways to reach the same goal. The best our way way is contingent on the culture of the ______people involved. _

Source: Nancy J. Adler, "Domestic : Cross-Cultural in the Public Sector." in William Eddy, ed., Handbook of Organization Management (New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1983), pp. 481-499

3 Purpose

The purpose of this study is to determine whether or not individual behavior is defined and understood by different organizational cultures based on a person's demographic characteristics. This study will also determine what effect organizational cultures will have on work processes and outcomes.

The research will contribute to a better understanding of homogeneous and heterogeneous workgroups as well as individualistic and collectivist organizational cultures, thereby suggesting that each have different results on work processes and outcomes.

This research will be an attempt to demonstrate that individualist and collectivist cultures can be the source for understanding and have applicability to organizations working toward cooperation, especially in a demographically diverse organization.

Research Objectives:

The research will answer the following questions:

1. What are the attributes of individualist and collectivist cultures in organizations? 2. How can the concepts of individualism and collectivism be applied within organizations? 3. How do individual and collective organizational cultures define the characteristics of other group members? 4. What kind of mechanisms do individualist and collectivist groups use in order to deal with change?

Significance of the Study

An organizational culture is defined as the observable norms and values that characterize the organization and determines which aspect(s)of its operations and its members become important. Organizational culture also determines how members

4 perceive and interact with one another, approach decisions, and solve problems (Trice and Beyer, 1993; O'Reilly and Chatman, 1996).

Research generated from a variety of fields predicts that important benefits will accrue from demographic diversity in organizations thereby increasing the variance in perspectives and approaches to work that members of different identity groups can bring.

Further, work units composed of different members can tap into broad networks of contacts making it likely that useful new information will be incorporated into decisions, which can increase commitment to choices and enhance responsiveness to rapidly changing organizational environments (Tushman, 1977; Donnelion, 1993).

It is important that organizations incorporate practices into their culture that creates a workforce and organization that utilizes and embraces workplace diversity. It is obvious that the culture of an organization will influence which of its members' social categories are activated and whether they are individualist or collectivist in nature

(Chatman et.al. 1998).

For this particular study is it hypothesized that individualist and collective organizational cultures will interact and react differently to when there is an attempt to diversify workgroups. Therefore, it is assumed that people who are more demographically different from their co-workers will interact with one another significantly more frequently when the culture of their organization emphasizes individualism than when it emphasizes collectivism. On the other hand, while members who are more demographically similar to one another will interact with each another with the same frequency regardless of the emphasis of their organizational culture. Our understanding of this connection between culture and interaction, and the implications

5 they have for organizational behavior, is just beginning to develop. Our knowledge

needs to go deeper.

Outline for the Remainder of the Paper

The remainder of this paper will include four additional chapters, each addressing

different components of the research. In chapter two an extensive review of literature

will be examined regarding issues such as the increase and significance of diversity in

today's workplace. Characteristics of homogeneous and heterogeneous workgroups and

the attributes of individualist and collectivist cultures will also be explained. The research

will further explore how cooperation is achieved in different cultures by exploring and

contrasting culturally linked cooperation mechanisms. Doing this generates knowledge

that will be helpful in gaining an understanding of both intra- and intercultural

cooperation (Chen, Chen and Meindl, 1998). The cooperation mechanisms used by each

organizational culture will be illustrated as well. Finally, the impact of demographic

differences of cross-functional teams related to the creativity and productivity of an

organization will be reviewed.

Chapter three will discuss the methodology and procedures used for the data

collection. The population and sample that has been determined, along with their

characteristics, will be provided as well. Chapter three will include samples of the survey

instruments used. Chapter four will discuss and illustrate the findings of the survey as

well as an analysis of the data.

The final chapter of the paper will include the summary of the complete project,

conclusions that refer back to the hypothesis statement and any recommendations for

further research.

6 Chapter II Review of Literature

This chapter begins by presenting information from a broad scope with regards to the concept of workplace diversity. Throughout the chapter, the subject matter will be narrowed down and will focus on the study's specific objectives. First, changes that have led to an increase in workplace diversity and why the issue of diversity is such a concern in today's workplace will be identified. The review of literature will then go on to discuss the definitions and concepts of heterogeneous and homogeneous cultures. The processes of teamwork and how heterogeneous and homogeneous cultures form and progress through each stage will also be addressed.

Once the above issues have been defined, a more specific, in-depth approach will be taken to look at individualist and collectivist organizational cultures. In addition, attributes of these two cultures will be summarized and defined.

Cross-functional teams make up a large portion of discussion as the chapter concludes. The cultural model of cooperation, as well as the contingency approach to cooperation, will be discussed regarding issues of conflict within organizations. To conclude this chapter, motivation and its influence on work processes, outcomes, creativity, and productivity within an organizational context will be analyzed.

Workplace Diversity

Thousands of foreign nationals who arrive in the United States to spend a couple of years working in this country, consider America to be a plum assignment-a chance to learn how the capitalist leader of the world does things, an opportunity to add some polish to their ascendant resume. But it's also a place of baffling contradictions that can leave newcomers reeling with cultural shock (Stamps, 1996). For underrepresented

7 people-minorities, women, seniors and the disabled-the failure by management to recognize their diversity and to the differences they bring to the workplace stands to sabotage not only their success, but also the company's (Alverson, 1998).

The biggest issues facing North American managers in this decade is the increase in diversity and complexity of the workforce. According to the landmark Hudson

Institute's 1987 Workforce 2000 study, 25 million people will join the American workforce between the years 1987 and 2000, of those, only 15 percent will be white males, compared with 47 percent in 1987 (Bloch, 1994). The report also projects that by

2050, 47 percent of all Americans will be nonwhite (Alverson, 1998). Additional demographic reports give emphasis this new reality as well:

• Women, minorities, and immigrants will make up 80 percent of the workforce by the year 2000, * Women alone will compromise two-thirds of labor market growth, or 47 percent of the workforce by the turn of the century, * Native nonwhites and immigrants will equally account for 40 percent of growth by the 21St century. (Elashmawi & Harris, 1993)

Considering that we are living in the year 2000, diversity in the workforce and in the marketplace is no longer just theory. It is obvious that age, gender, and race barriers to employment opportunities are rapidly disintegrating. To compete successfully in an increasingly interdependent global environment, US businesses will have to identify and utilize every advantage. Companies that aren't recognizing and educating employees about diversity stand to lose millions of dollars. This bottom-line incentive, combined with a shrinking labor pool, has turned diversity initiatives in the direction of leadership

(Alverson, 1998). For example, in general, the Japanese and Germans don't have within their work environment, nor do the Chinese. These cultures have the advantage that stems from racial and cultural homogeneity. We [Americans], on the other

8 hand, have to learn to use our diversity as a resource-to stop acting as if our culture is defined and circumscribed by a white, male middle class, American-born norm (Bloch,

1994).

According to Sunderland (1996), there are five reasons that diversity has become a primary concern in managing an organization's human resources. The first involves a shift from a manufacturing to service economy. Not only are workplaces becoming more diverse, the US population is becoming more diversified as well. Service employees need to understand their customers and be able to anticipate their needs and be able to fulfill their expectations.

Second, the globalization of markets has become a concern. As more and more companies become global in nature they have to get closer and closer to their customers.

Consumers profit more from this globalization because they are being offered products that are unavailable to them domestically. In the United States, more than 100,000

American companies do business overseas, including 3,500 multinational companies.

(Triandis, Dunnette, and Hough, 1994). It is estimated that one-third of the profits from

US companies is derived from international business, along with one-sixth of the nation's jobs (Casico, 1989) (Triandis, Dunnette, and Hough, 1994)

Thirdly, new business strategies require teamwork. Company goals are becoming more complex and are relying on teams to help meet these goals. A 'team [may] mean diverse workforces, whether as a result of drawing from the most talented or experienced staff or a deliberate structure of diversity to stimulate creativity (Casico, p.64)

(Sunderland, 1996).

9 Next, mergers and acquisitions that result in organizational downsizing and massive layoffs are another concern. A substantial number of companies have gone through processes of mergers, acquisitions, and downsizing. In the US alone, between

1987 and 1989 there were 11,428 mergers, with a total value of $645,396 million (M&A

Demographics of the Decade, 1990) (Triandis et al. 1994). Research has shown that it is ineffective when one entity simply tries to impose its culture upon another. Rather, it is more productive to seek cultural synergy between and among the systems involved

(Elashwami & Harris, 1993).

The fifth and final concern is the changing labor market. As the labor market changes, so will the people that compromise the workforce. In the future, corporations will be characterized by more cultural diversity. Some examples of this changing labor market include the unification of Europe as well as the political changes in the former

Soviet republic, both of which have resulted in waves of immigrants across cultural borders (Triandis, Dunnette and Hough, 1994).

Corporations and business schools have begun scrambling to understand the implications of diversity. It has been reported that as many as 30 to 50 percent of major corporations and government agencies have some sort of diversity program on the books

(Bloch, 1994). These numbers may be encouraging however, human resource experts estimate that in spite of the current growth of the diversity industry, only 3 to 5 percent of

US corporations are diversifying their workforces effectively (Bloch, 1994). Many companies are suffering because the leadership is confused by similarities among

Affirmative Action, Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and diversity. According to

Billings-Harris, president of Excel Development Systems, Inc., an international

10 Greensboro-based consulting firm, 'organization think they're looking at diversity issues, but they're really sill looking at hiring and retention. Diversity is more than race and sex'

(Alverson, 1998).

According to The Diversity Advantage, EEO refers to government-mandated regulations on companies with 15 or more employees, that "engage in industries that affect commerce". These regulations require employers to provide an equal opportunity for "protected class" to apply for positions and be promoted. Affirmative

Action requires businesses to create and maintain a work force whose demographics match those of the community where it is located. If a discrepancy exists, companies must develop plans to identify what steps will be taken, yearly, to attract underrepresented people (Alverson, 1998).

The assumption is made with both EEO and Affirmative Action that if enough

"different" people work together on a daily basis prejudice will eventually disappear.

However, this hasn't happened because little or no attention is given to how employees are treated once they're hired. Once they're hired, workers are expected to assimilate themselves into the company's norms, values, and behaviors, even at the cost of their own culture. The problem is that this "melting pot" theory doesn't work anymore

(Alverson, 1998). As employee populations become more diversified, the need to ensure that the full spectrum of people in the workforce are given the opportunity to contribute to business goals is essential (Triandis, Dunnette & Hough, 1994).

As more American employers reach out to a culturally diverse labor market organizations will have an increasing number of individuals in their workforce with culturally distinct attitudes, behaviors, expectations and demands. Reliance on work

]1 teams to solve complex problems is now common among many organizations. This is a radical departure from familiar practices in which group members operated within a single culture. It also requires all group members to enter a learning situation every time a diverse work group is formed (Smith and Berg, 1997). Managing individuals according to their own special talent and creating an environment where both the individual and the organization work together to develop a mutually beneficial relationship (Triandis,

Dunnette & Hough, 1994) can be critical elements when working and communicating in a diverse environment.

Although we tend to regard language as the main channel of communication, research reveals that 80 to 90 percent of information is communicated by other means.

(Elashmawi & Harris, 19993). The world of communication is divided into three elements: words, material things, and behavior. By studying these elements in our own and other cultural contexts, we can come to understand a vast, unexplored region of human behavior that exists outside the range of people's conscious awareness- information. Each cultural world operates according to its own internal dynamics, its own principles, and its own laws-written and unwritten. Any culture is primarily a system for sending, storing and processing information. Communication underlies everything and is essential as we continue to interact within this multicultural resurgence of diversity (Hall & Hall, 1987).

Heterogeneous/Homogeneous Workgroups

Organizations are composed of individuals who are required to work together. As people from various cultures enter the workforce, management of cultural diversity within the organization and, more important within work groups, will assume critical

12 importance (Bettenhausen, 1991; Cox, 1991; Jackson, Stone & Alvarez, 1992). Teams bring diverse functional skills and expertise to bear on complex problems in an organization. Teams also bring together a diversity of people (Baugh & Graen, 1997), and long before this diverse team will be able to function effectively, its members must learn how to learn from each other (Smith and Berg, 1997).

When a newly formed group is composed of individuals of the same nationality there are a number of shared cultural assumptions about group life that eases the process of formation and enables the group to function (Smith and Berg, 1997). However, when groups are composed of individuals from different cultural and national backgrounds, assumptions about how the group will function can vary widely making the group's formation and its continued existence exceedingly difficult (Smith and Berg, 1997).

These heterogeneous workgroups present both opportunities and potential stumbling blocks not only for the team, but also the organization as a whole. There are no formulas as to how this learning is to occur, therefore it must be discovered or invented anew each time (Smith and Berg, 1997).

In the early phases of group development it is hard for members to learn about their differences (Smith and Berg, 1997). Teams often do not take regular time to examine how they are working in a synergistic manner or examine individuals' expectations and their changing perspectives for effective teamwork. Differences in

members' cultural and national backgrounds are often ignored during group formation

and, and as a result, the initial stages of group life become awkward and anxiety filled.

Unless these differences are addressed they will inhibit the group from functioning

(Smith and Berg, 1997).

13 Team managers should be aware that both team and self-dimensions are necessary for team effectiveness across time. Facilitation of this processing often brings the true view out from the team (Watson & Johnson; Merritt, 1998).

Team Processing

During the early stages of group processing, culturally diverse teams seem to perform less effectively than culturally non-diverse teams because of coordination problems resulting from significantly different backgrounds (Cox, 1993; Watson &

Kumar, 1992; Watson et al., 1993). According to Smith and Berg (1997), in order for a multi-cultural group to function effectively, it is important for its members to know that the unique contributions each individual brings will be listened to, understood and embraced. When addressed directly, this kind of assurance can be created rather quickly.

In research conducted by Hill (1982) and Watson et al. (1991), it was determined that the type of task is also very important in determining the effectiveness of homogeneous or heterogeneous workgroups. On complex tasks of longer duration, culturally diverse teams have reported greater cooperation than non-diverse work groups

(Wagner, 1993). The more culturally diverse teams could immediately recognize their differences and devote more energy to teaming behaviors due to their awareness. On tasks of shorter duration however, teams may not have the time to adjust to the basic differences. As a result, on team tasks that take several hours to complete, culturally diverse teams will use their background (Watson, Johnson; Merritt, 1998) to complete the task. This research has led to the presumption that early on culturally diverse teams will perform more effectively at complex, longer-duration tasks than will culturally non-

diverse teams (Watson, Johnson; Merritt, 1998).

14 To provide evidence for this presumption, a study conducted by Watson, Kumar

& Michaelson (1993) illustrated that variation with respect to race was found to affect both member-reported team processes and performance on a team project among college students. Racially heterogeneous teams initially reported poorer team process and performed not as well as the homogeneous teams. Both types of teams improved over the duration of the study (17 weeks), but the racially heterogeneous teams improved enough to catch up with the homogeneous teams by the end of the study (Baugh & Graen, 1997).

Gersick (1998) concluded in his studies that a project team examines their performance behaviors at critical points in their lifecycles. The study also showed that when time was provided periodically during the team's lifecycle for sharing feedback and when guidance was provided for problem solving, the differences in performance between culturally diverse and culturally non-diverse teams were shown to diminish over time. (Watson et al., 1993). There is also evidence that periodic, effective communication of team and self-issues do decrease diversity issues that interfere with performance.

Although heterogeneous groups have been found to outperform homogeneous

groups on complex problem-solving tasks, a number of studies have found that even

moderate degrees of diversity increases the complexity of group interactions. In the

opinions of Watson, Johnson & Merritt (1998), the short-run for culturally diverse groups

will indicate greater self-orientation and possibly less team-orientation, rather than in the

long-tun. This conclusion is due to the greater variety in viewpoints stemming from

ethnicity and nationality differences.

15 With regards to self-orientation, a consistent assumption is that diverse teams have greater perspectives to consider and utilize from each member. Therefore, diverse teams may report greater self-orientation over time rather than in the short-run (Watson

& Johnson; Merritt, 1998). When given time to develop through discussion and feedback of task performance, as well as interpersonal processes, groups tend to become more effective over time because members' well-being is tied to group performance (Watson, et al, 1993). In the later stages, differences between team-orientation and self-orientation should diminish. The presumption generated from this data concludes that over time, culturally diverse groups will report team orientation and self-orientations similar to that of culturally non-diverse groups (Watson & Johnson; Merritt, 1998).

The study from Watson, Johnson and Merritt (1998) concluded that the nature of a task requirement, as well as team and self-orientations, appear to be important issues from which work teams can be studied over time. Regardless of their diversity, teams can learn to communicate better with periodic feedback about their performance and how to improve interpretive processes, which in turn create an increase in performance.

(Watson, et al., 1998).

Another theoretical model regarding team processes created by Pfeffer (1983) suggests that demographic heterogeneity negatively influences team processes. This, in turn influences outcome variables such as performance and turnover. This model fails to consider the fact that teams are embedded within larger organizations and that the demographic composition of larger organizations may have some effects on the team.

Thus, minority members are numerical minorities not only on the team but in the larger organization as well (Baugh & Graen, 1997). Pfeffer concluded that individuals who

16 were in this numeric minority have been found to suffer from increased performance pressure, isolation from social and professional networks, and stereotypical role encapsulation (Kanter, 1977; Konrad & Gutek, 1987; Wharton, 1992). Both isolation and role encapsulation inhibit the development of good working relationships within team settings. Therefore, relationships with the team leader and team members will suffer due to the constraints that are placed on role enactment as a result of diversity in team . The difficulty encountered in the development of relationships within the team may also lead to perceptions of reduced teamwork effectiveness within the team.

When individuals have more difficulty in developing good leadership relationships or effective working relationships among team members, the team will be viewed as generally less well integrated and less effective in its teamwork (Baugh, and Graen,

1997).

To better understand diversity and the effect it has on teams, we must realize that within each of us lie four layers of diversity. These "layers" can be used to take full advantage of the various cultural populations we encounter daily. The APHIS Council on

Managing Diversity defined the "four layers of diversity" in everyone as the following:

1. Personality:The innate elements that make an individual unique. 2. Internal Dimension: Age, gender, ethnicity, physical ability, race, and sexual orientation. 3. External Dimension: income, personal habits, religion, recreational habits, educational background, work experience, appearance, parental status, marital status, geographic location. 4. OrganizationalDimension: Work content/Field, Division/Department/Unit/Group, seniority, work location, union affiliation, management status, functional level/ classification.

In order to take full advantage of diversity within teams, we must be aware of our

own diversity lying within each of the four areas. After that, we can become aware of the

17 differences of those whom we work with (www.aphis.usda.gov/mb/wfd/define.html). By understanding this, we may begin to realize the potential of ourselves and the differences of others. Thus creating an environment where an organization can work amid the differences of their employees and maintain profitability.

It has been concluded that differences in the demographic composition of teams will be especially problematic when those differences are introduced by individuals with demographic characteristics that are numerically rare in the organization as a whole.

Those with a relatively homogeneous background will serve to highlight those rare numerically demographic differences that exist (Kanter, 1977; Wharton, 1992; Wiersman

& Bird, 1993). Therefore, it is critical that all group members and leaders understand that they are entering a learning situation each time a diverse workgroup is created.

Organizational Culture-Individualism and Collectivism

An organization's emphasis on individualism or collectivism typically depends on factors such as the task environment, history, industry, and the primary nations in which it operates. However, both ends of the spectrum are considered legitimate and effective models of organizational functioning (Chatman and Barsade, 1995).

The concepts of Collectivism and Individualism are based on a variety of studies

in the social sciences that began with Lukes (1973) and have been applied to research in

the areas of values, religion, economic development and social systems. It is important to

acknowledge that no culture is wholly individualistic or collectivist, aspects of both occur

in any . Nonetheless, the degree to which the two elements are emphasized from

culture to culture varies greatly (Victor, 1992). According to Gary Weaver, professor of

intercultural communication at American University, "as a multicultural workforce, it is

18 important to understand both perspectives and become comfortable with them" (Garfield,

1992).

Western European white men, the "founding fathers" of American industry, government, academe and society, have shaped most US businesses which have resulted in an institution of many norms, expectations, habits, behaviors, and traditions that make up contemporary organizational cultures (Loden and Rosener, 1991). Because of these norms, expectations, habits, behaviors and traditions, we [Americans] tend to undervalue the "other" and operate under the false assumption that "otherness" is a liability rather than an asset to an organization (Garfield, 1992). It is a unique feature of the United

States to value individualism. In a majority of other cultures, individualism is considered a counterproductive force, equated with selfishness, unpatriotic feelings, or disruptive behavior that undermines harmony with the community (Victor, 1992:101-102).

As the name implies, an individualist culture is one that stresses independence and is seen in most traditional American organizations today. According to Bing,

"Individuality is not simply an American trait, it is our most distinctive cultural trait. The idea ingrained into each of us is that, when all is said and done, you're on your own"

(Stamps, 1996).

Loden and Rosener (1991) emphasize that the "rugged individualist myths" of

traditional organizations include the following characteristics:

* Mainstream employees fail to recognize the power of traditional culture in shaping opportunities and expectations. * Organizations do not recognize how their own success is linked to the norms, habits, biases and traditions of the culture. * Success is viewed as a result of individual efforts. * The dominant group does not recognize that "otherness" is the central issue. * The infusion of diverse people is seen as a lowering of the performance standards.

19 It is obvious that individualistic cultures tend to focus on and reward achievement that can be attributed to a particular person rather than to a collective group. By emphasizing this, individualism causes people to focus on their own and others' unique abilities and characteristics-on what differentiates them from others (Chatman, Polzer,

Barsade, and Neal, 1998), rather than what each can contribute.

Individuals maintain their independence from others in an organizational culture by attending to the self and by discovering and expressing their unique inner attributes

(Markus and Kitayama, 1991:224). Overt connectedness, attending to others, and harmonious interdependence are neither assumed nor valued in individualistic cultures

(Chatman et.al. 1998). As a result, organizations that promote individualistic values may be inadvertently prohibiting the positive effects that would otherwise arise from having diverse members (Chatman et.al. 1998).

Collectivist cultures, on the other hand, have different strategies regarding diverse work environments. In collectivist cultures, the focus is on shared objectives, interchangeable interests and commonalties among members. According to Triandis

(1995: 52), members of a collectivist culture are more likely to agree on what constitutes correct action, behave according to the norms of the culture, and suffer or offer severe criticism for even slight deviations from the norm (Chatman, Polzer, Barsade, and Neal,

1998). Feelings of similarity and a common fate among members cultivated in collectivist cultures lead members to consider more of their coworkers to be included as a part of the "in-group". As a result, organizational membership may be used as a basis for

social categorization. Simply by being a member of an organization, one may qualify as

an "in-group" member (Chatman, et al, 1998).

20 Group relationships in a collectivist culture are usually nurtured over long periods of time. The outsider has not experienced this and, may not be able to receive access to them. A web of interrelationships among the group members is formed which may make it difficult to become part of the collective group (Victor, 1992). However, a collectivist emphasis may help increase the effectiveness of diverse people working together.

(Chatman, et al., 1998).

To better summarize the differences between individualist and collectivist cultures, Triandis (1995) condensed four distinct, defining attributes of each (Chen,

Chen, and Meindl, 1998) into the following categories:

1. Conceptions of the self: · Individualists define the self as an autonomous entity independent of groups. * Collectivists define the self in terms of its connectedness to others in various in- groups (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

2. Goal Relationships: · Personal goals have priority over group goals in an individualistic culture. * Personal goals are subordinated to collective goals in collectivism (Triandis, 1989, Yamaguchi, 1994).

3. Dedicated Interests: · Individuals find it permissible to give priority to self-interest when there are conflicts. * Collectivists feel obliged to give priority to collective interests (Parsons, 195 1).

4. Relative importance of attitudes and norms: * Attitudes and norms of individuals are more likely to be driven by their own beliefs, values and attitudes (Bontempo & Rivero, 1992; Davidson, Jaccard, Triandis, Morales, & Diaz-Guerrero, 1976). * Social behaviors of collectivists are more likely to be driven by social norms, duties and obligations.

5. Emphasis on relationships: * Individualists are more oriented toward task achievement, sometimes at the expense of their relationships with others.

2 1 Collectivists put more emphasis on harmonious relationships, sometimes at the expense of task accomplishment (e.g. Kim, Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994; Redding, 1993).

To illustrate further, Hofstede conducted a study in 1984 that surveyed people in 40 countries to assess the relative effect of culture in determining an individualist or collectivist culture in the workplace. (Victor, 1992: 105). The results of this study were able to give people interacting in a diverse work environment some organizational norms prevalent in various cultures. However, it is important not to stereotype people based on this information. It is general cultural information that should function only as an initial predictor and starting point for members beginning to understand diversity. It should not be considered absolute.

Hofstede's study was conducted as follows. Basing his survey on 14 questions regarding work goals, Hofstede ranked the forty nations according to the survey respondents' views of six main goals most closely tied to individualism: personal time, freedom, challenge, use of skills, physical conditions and training. The results of the

study showed the highest amount of individualism in the United States. Significantly, five of the six nations defining the top of the individualism scale were English-

speaking- ranked second, Britain third, Canada fourth, and sixth.

Only the Netherlands, which ranked fifth, was not part of this English-speaking culture

cluster.

Those nations with a low individualism rank consisted of Mexico, Portugal,

Yugoslavia, Hong Kong, Chile, Singapore and Thailand. The five lowest ranked nations

were Taiwan, Peru, Pakistan, Colombia and Venezuela. Typically these cultures are

focused on win-win results that maintain the harmony of the group (Garfield, 1992).

22 It is obvious that cultures have a variety of characteristics that are different from each other. In order for organizations to be successful, whether they are individualist or collectivist by nature, they must have some concept of cooperation. In the next section, cooperation methods of these two distinct cultures will be analyzed.

Cooperation Among Organizational Cultures

It has been recognized that cooperation is crucial to the success of organizations.

Recent restructuring of work and organizations toward cross-disciplinary and cross- functional teams has made cooperation even more important in work environments. The increase of inter-organizational and internal collaborations and alliances has made cooperation more important (Adlerm, 1991; Byrne, 1993; Jackson, 1991; Lawler, 1990;

Manz & Sims, 1987).

Workplace cooperation has been conceptualized as the willful contribution of employee effort to the successful completion of interdependent organization tasks

(Wagner, 1995: 152). Workplace cooperation is often manifested in members'

willingness to work with others, even when it is not normally demanded, and in

preferences for being rewarded for working alone or in groups. Personality, or one's

tendency to pursue individualistic or collectivist goals can influence both cooperative

behaviors. (Chatman & Barsade, 1995). To illustrate, a person with a high disposition to

cooperate places priority on associating with others for mutual benefit, gaining social

approval, and working together with others toward a common end or purpose. While a

person with a low disposition to cooperate places priority on maximizing his or her own

welfare regardless of others' welfare. Related research suggests that cooperative people

may adjust their behavior more than individualistic people do in order to accommodate

23 the cooperative or individualistic norms emphasized in different social settings. (Chatman

& Barsade, 1995).

It has been found that people tend to be more satisfied when they are in settings that meet their particular needs or that are congruent with their disposition (Diener,

Larsen, and Emmons, 1984: 582). The degree of similarity, fit, or match between two conceptually distinct, but comparable, person-and-situation constructs is typically referred to as person-situationcongruence. Congruence theories consider how individual and situational characteristics combine to influence a person's affective or behavioral response in a given situation (Chatman & Barsade, 1995).

According to Chatman (1991), the congruence between personal values and organizational culture has been shown to be a better predictor of performance, commitment, and length of stay than either characteristic alone (Chatman & Barsade,

1995). Greater person-situation congruence thus increases individuals' effectiveness in a situation and their tendencies to seek out such situations in the future are increased.

On the other hand, research has shown that demographic differences among group members can cause in-group/out-group biases (Brewer, 1979). Those who are most different in terms of various demographic characteristics (out-group members) are viewed as less cooperative (Tsui, Egan, and O'Reilly, 1992). Cox, Lobel and McLeod

(1991) found greater cooperative behavior among groups from collectivist traditions than from homogeneous races that emphasized individualism (Chatman and Barsade, 1995).

To illustrate this concept of cooperation among individualist and collectivist workgroups, Kelley and Stahelski (1970a) conducted two-person prisoner's dilemma games. The results of their study are as follows: subjects who had self-interested motives

24 behaved individualistically, regardless of whether or not their opponent behaved individualistically or cooperatively. On the other hand, cooperators differentiated between their opponents' individualistic or cooperative behavior and responded accordingly. Those with individualistic motives simply did not consider the possibility that other people could (or would) behave cooperatively and thus, always behaved and responded individualistically.

This study suggests that people develop strategies for behaving that are based on their expectations of what other people will do. This same pattern may be generalized beyond an individual's expectation of a single opponent's behavior to an individual's expectations of a coworker's behavior in an organization. Organizational culture, or the form of social control that clarifies which behaviors and attitudes are more or less appropriate for members (O'Reilly, & Chatman, 1996), may help individuals anticipate the likely reactions of others regarding their attitudes and behaviors. (Chatman &

Barsade, 1995).

Research also shows however, that even when people understand the benefits of cooperation and the detriments of self-interest in interdependent settings, they often choose to behave individualistically (Chatman & Barsade, 1995). Though this research seems to be contradictory, it is important to remember that not all cultures are wholly individualist or collectivist, aspects of each can occur in an organization. Axelrod

(1984) has suggested three ways of promoting and creating cooperation within an

organization. First, changing payoffs to make cooperation more appealing and defection

less attractive can enhance cooperation. For instance, by making individual rewards

contingent on cooperation in teams. Therefore, managers should carefully construct

25 reward schemes in order to demonstrate the cooperative behavior they are hoping to achieve.

Second, emphasizing the future of the organization and allowing members to use the threats in order to reduce defection can reinforce cooperation. In other words, if an employee can't contribute to an organization's goals, then out the door they go! This illustrates that longer time horizons, specifically manifested in lower employee turnover, can contribute to cooperative decision making.

Third, teaching people values, facts, and skills that will promote cooperation, such as the importance of reciprocity and how to recognize social norms can enhance cooperative orientations. (Chatman & Barsade, 1995). What this research suggests to managers attempting to encourage cooperation is that they need to realize that individualists may require greater persuasion than originally planned for and some employees may never actually adapt to collectivist demands (Chatman & Barsade, 1995).

The understanding of the connection between culture and cooperation-and their implications for organizational behavior-is just beginning to develop. In order to deepen the understanding we have, it is essential that we explore how cooperation is achieved differently in different cultures. Exploring and contrasting culturally linked cooperation mechanisms will generate knowledge that may be helpful in gaining an understanding of both intra- and intercultural cooperation (Chen, et al., 1998).

Three distinctive approaches have been identified for the conception and definition of cooperation. In the tradition of Mead, one approach emphasizes the

psychological motives of the participants. Mead defines cooperation as the 'act of

working together to one end' (1976: 8). She emphasizes the actor's cooperative motives

26 of working toward a common goal rather than them engaging in collective activity (Chen,

Chen Meindel, 1998). Research has suggested that psychological motivators of individualist cultures would be different from those cultures that emphasize collectivism.

Some of the dominant responses of those socialized and working in individualistic nations (i.e. the United States) may be self-interest, while the dominant response of those socialized and working in collectivist nations may be cooperation. This research raises the question about whether cooperative people are more adaptable than others across a wide array of situations, or whether results are specific to only the cooperative dimensions studied. (Chatman & Barsade, 1995).

A second conception of cooperation can be defined in terms of social relations and situations. Deutsch (1949a) pioneered this approach and elaborates and transforms

Mead's cultural conception of cooperation by focusing on the nature of relationships that exist between the goals of social actors in any given social situation. Deutsch differentiated these situations as "cooperative and competitive" depending on how participants' goals were related to each other. A situation was considered cooperative if the goals of the participants were positively related to each other however, is competitive if the goals are negatively related to each other. In conjunction with Duetsch, another researcher, Tjosvold (1988a, b), believes that it is perceived goal interdependence that leads group members to engage in positive interactive behaviors. Notice that Duetsch and Tjosvold define cooperation in terms of actual or perceived goal relationships rather than behaviors.

The behavior approach to cooperation is the third conception of cooperation. This

approach, based on Barhard's theory, is defined 'as a functional system of activities of

27 two or more persons' (1983: 17). His theory elaborates on how individual actions and efforts are joined and synthesized into cooperative actions and how the inducement, facilitation and maintenance of cooperation constitutes the essence of organizing and managing. Barnhard's theory is quite broad covering almost every functional activity of an organization and is defined in terms of actions. However, individual motives and collective purposes are left out of the theory, both of which are essential factors for the continuation of cooperation. (Chen, et al. 1998)

In order to illustrate these concepts and definitions of cooperation even further, a study was conducted with 39 first-year MBA students from a Midwestern university.

The study emphasized that when people have the requisite skills, knowledge, and inclination to behave in accordance with situational demands, they will do so (Chatman

& Barsade, 1995). It was believed that their behavior would result in the promotion of organizational cooperation. The study concluded that if the subjects (MBA students), and the simulated organizational culture they were placed in were more cooperative than individualistic, then the cooperative subjects were rated by co-workers as behaving more cooperatively. These subjects met and worked with more of their coworkers and emphasized collectivism over individualism. However, when both the person and the situation emphasized fewer cooperatives, lower cooperative behavior emerged for some indicators but not for coworkers' ratings of cooperative behavior. (Chatman and Barsade,

1995).

In contrast to the above distinctions among cooperative behavior, other research

such as the prisoner's dilemma research (Axelrod, 1984) and, social dilemma research

define cooperation as an act that maximizes the interest of the other, whether they are an

28 individual or collectivist. This research also defines defection as an act that maximizes

self-interest. This approach has the advantage of behavioral specificity, which is left out

in Bernhard's theory. However, it does reduce the scope and complexity of cooperative

behavior in real life (Argyle, 1991).

The general and specific dimensions of cooperative behavior have been examined

thus far. It is important to recognize, however, that between this range lies the internal

dimensional approach (see Figure 1).

Those who have researched cooperation within work groups have identified

various dimensions of positive interactions. For example, Argyle (1991: 127)

summarized the pattern of behaviors for successful cooperative work groups as more

coordination, more helping, more communication and more division of labor (Chen, et al.

1998).

Figure 1: The Internal Dimension Approach of Cooperative Behavior

Collectivist Cultures Individualist Cultures

(Internal Dimension)

Scholars of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) have adopted another

dimensional approach to cooperation that corresponds to Argyle's approach. According

to Organ (1988: 4), OCB 'represents individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly

or explicitly recognized by the formal reward systems and, that in the aggregate promotes

the effective functioning of the organization'. Graham (1989) proposed a four-

dimensional model of OCB, 1) interpersonal helping, 2) individual initiative in

to others in the workplace, 3) personal industry in performing specific

29 tasks beyond the call of duty, and 4) loyal boosterism-that is, the promotion of organizational image to outsiders. The OCB dimensions overlap with the interaction dimensions as well as with the behaviors proposed by Argyle. Conceptually, they all emphasize willful behavior (Wagner, 1995), in that they are voluntarily displayed and, with more or less discretion to the level of frequency of such behavior. Generally, they are also considered to be functional to the effectiveness of collective actions (Chen, et al.,

1998). It is obvious that there are a variety of conceptions and definitions related to behavior, social relations, psychological motives and the organizational citizenship approach to cooperation.

When working in an organization, it is essential to know how these cooperation mechanisms and definitions apply across individualist, collectivist, and demographically different cultures. One structure that research has identified is the Contingency Approach.

This approach is based on the belief that human beings have the capacity to cooperate and to not cooperate. This means that cooperation occurs in all societies and that all societies have to work at fostering and sustaining cooperation.

Secondly, the Cultural Contingency Approach suggests that as societies experiment with ways of fostering cooperation those means that are culturally appropriate may be used more often and with more success (Chen, et al., 1998). It is critical therefore to recognize the values and motives of diverse cultures in order to understand what mechanisms will foster communication and cooperation.

According to Chen, Chen and Meindel (1998), cultural values and motives can

affect cooperation in three ways. First, cultural values can directly affect the level of

30 cooperation. For example, collectivists tend to be more cooperative whereas individualists are more competitive (Mead, 1976; Triandis, 1990).

Next, culture can affect cooperation through the mediation of certain cooperation mechanisms. The insertion of cooperation mechanisms, with respect to culture, help explain why collectivists may cooperate more than individualists do.

The third effect culture is believed to have on cooperation focuses on interactions between the culture and its cooperation mechanisms. Cultural variables moderate the effects of various cooperation mechanisms. In other words, a given mechanism can be more or less effective in one culture than in another. Each cooperation mechanism and how it is dealt with, depending on the organizational culture, is presented by Chen, Chen and Meindel (1998) in the Figure 2.

It is important to understand the significance of each cooperation mechanism and how it can be effective in an individualist or collectivist organizational culture. The descriptions of each will be discussed.

Table 2. Cooperation Mechanisms

Cooperation Mechanism Individualist Collectivist

* Superordinate goal Goal interdependence Goal sharing * Group Identity Self enhancement Complementary * Trust based Affect based * Accountability Individual based Group based * Communication Partial channel Full channel * Reward distribution Equity based Equality based

A Superordinate Goal presumes the acceptance of a shared goal of a collectivity consisting of individuals or subunits. Goal interdependencerefers to a relationship in which the goals of each individual or subunit can be achieved only if those of the others

31 also can be achieved. The interdependence presupposes the existence of independently defined individual goals and requires the knowledge of one's own goals as well as others.

An evaluation of the relationship between these goals is also necessary. It is believed that others in the collectivity serve as instruments for achieving individual self-interest. One such way can be as manipulative as defection. The interdependent view therefore is one of enlightened self-interest.

Goal sharing, in contrast, consists of a common goal shared by all members of the given collectivity. Although collectivism does not usually require individuals to conceive goals that are connected to or congruent with collective goals (i.e. contributing to the well being of a work group as a personal goal), the collective rationality requires the subordination of the individual goals to those of the collective.

The cooperation mechanism of Group Identity has been referred to as an effective mechanism for inducing cooperation (Aram, 1993; Dawes, Orbell & van de Kragt, 1988).

However, group identity alone is not sufficient enough to induce cooperation. It must be accompanied by other factors, such as commitment (Kerr & Kaufman-Gilliland, 1994), perception of consensus (Bouas, & Komorita, 1996), or feeling of criticalness (Chen,

1996).

For collectivists, social identities are relatively more important than personal identities. Whereas for individualists, the opposite is true. For individualists, the new group identity should enhance personal identities and the instrumentality to rational self- interest. However, for collectivists group membership should enhance others' social

identities and collective interests. As an example, group membership carries stronger

32 psychological attachment in countries such as Japan and China than it does for individualistic cultures.

A third cooperation mechanism is Trust. Trust is an individual's confidence in the goodwill of others in a relationship. It is also the expectation that others will reciprocate if one is cooperative (Pruitt, 1988, Ring & Van de Ven, 1994). McAllister (1995) further differentiates two broad foundations upon which trust is built in organizational settings; cognition and affect-based. Cognition-basedtrust is built on the knowledge of role performance and includes cues of performance behaviors and accomplishments. Among the most significant are those that convey competence such as professional credentials and performance track record (Brockner & Siegel, 1996; Tyler & Degoey, 1996).

Cognition-based trust suggests professionalism and provides partners with confidence that they will abide by their contract and treat each other equitably. This type of trust emerges as exchange parties faithfully adhere to their respective role responsibilities and share outcomes equitably. Cognition-based trust is valued in collectivist cultures. The in-group relationship is characterized by communal sharing and emotional closeness. Collectivists can be highly motivated for task achievement by their personal loyalty and attachment to significant others which, in turn, leads to cognitive trust.

It is important to note that cognition-based trust alone may not be sufficient for collectivist cooperation for a number of reasons. First, role expectations are not confined to task performance nor are they all formally prescribed in a collectivist culture.

Everyone works toward common goals. Second, others may view expressing and

asserting self-interest in the group as a challenge. This challenge to the collective

33 rationality therefore prescribes the subordination of self-interest to the collective interest.

Thirdly, it is possible in collectivist cultures that emotional trust can precede cognitive trust, whereas in individualist cultures it is rare.

Affect-based trust is built on the emotional bonds between partners (Lewicki &

Bunker, 1995; McAllister, 1995; Shapiro, Sheppard & Cherask, 1992) and indicates that partners have formed a social-emotional bond that goes beyond a regular business or professional relationship. Affective trust is motivated by commitment to a relationship and is a further development of cognitive trust. Goodwill expands to extra-role tasks and other non-task relational activities. This extra role and relational goodwill is displayed for the personal care of, and concern for others rather than for one's own self-interest.

Once formed though, this affective trust can be decoupled from, or even influence, cognitive trust. (Holmes & Rempel, 1989; Johnson-George & Swap, 1982; Zajonc,

1980).

The next cooperation mechanism used among organizational cultures is

Accountability. Researchers typically conceptualize accountability within individual terms. That is, the extent to which an individual's contribution to the group is identifiable. The general finding is that accountability has a positive effect on inducing cooperation and reduces social loafing (free riding). However, there is some evidence indicating that social loafing is less likely to appear among collectivists who are working with in-group members and that individual identification has a significant impact only on those holding individualist values (Earley, 1989; Wagner, 1995).

Individual-basedaccountability is the extent to which each individual is

responsible for his/her own behavior and its consequences. It may enhance the

34 individual's self-image by having an internal locus of control and may reinforce the instrumental motive of working for one's self-interest. Individual-based accountability also reassures individualists that others are not free-riding on their system.

Group-based accountability, on the other hand, is the extent to which an individual is responsible for the group outcome. Group accountability may trigger individual accountability for others' behaviors.

In collectivist cooperative relationships performance outcomes often are assessed at the group level. To enhance accountability, collectivists rely more heavily on social controls, or group norms, to influence individual behavior in order to ensure group outcome. This kind of self- and peer- monitoring enable group members to tune into and adjust to the needs of others in the group and to emulate others' cooperative behaviors.

Therefore, it is concluded that explicit cooperative rules will be more effective in fostering cooperation in an individualist culture, whereas social pressures will be more effective in fostering cooperation in a collectivist culture.

The cooperation mechanism of Communication greatly enhances cooperation among partners (Axelrod, 1984; Braver &Wilson, 1986; Chen and Komorist, 1995;

Dawes, et al, 1997; Lindskold, 1978). Here, the focus lies on one major cultural difference: the extent to which individualists and collectivists prefer partial communication as opposed to face-to-face communication.

Partialcommunication (Chen & Komorita, 1994; Voissem & Sistrunk, 1971,

Whichman, 1970) refers to information exchanged through constrained modalities.

Audio only, visual only or written messages are examples of partial communication..

These constrained modalities, found everyday in print, telephone, or electronic

35 communication, de-contextualizes the situation, leaving out many additional sounds of social meaning, feelings, and intentions that are implicit in face-to-face interactions

(McGrath & Hollingshead, 1994; Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986).

A low-context communication is one in which 'the mass of the information is vested in the explicit code' (Hall, 1976: 79) and is a preference for individualists because they are more concerned with satisfying dissociation (autonomy) needs. Therefore they tend to engage in instrumental styles of verbal communication. Individualists are more concerned with efficiency of communication (i.e. saving time and avoiding hassles) in order to get the job done and, in general are more verbally direct and sender-centered in their communication (Ting-Toomey, 1988). Individualists feel comfortable directly expressing and soliciting information about their desires, concerns, and preferences through mediated channels.

A high-context communication is one which 'most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person. Very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message'. (Hall, 1976, 1983). This method is preferred by collectivists because they are more concerned with satisfying association needs and therefore, tend to engage in affective styles of verbal communication (Ting-Toomey,

1988: 112).

Social cues and their feedback in face-to-face communication are more essential for collectivists than for individualists for a number of reasons. First, collectivists need

more social and emotional cues to build or signify relationships. Secondly, context is

more important for collectivists because they can convey their own meaning and infer

others' meanings. Thirdly, collectivists are less verbal, more indirect, and more receiver-

36 centered. They rely more on nonverbal cues in face-to-face interactions to convey and discern desires, concerns and preferences.

Collectivists' preference for face-to-face communication may also arise from the different nature of "face-work", otherwise known as self-presentation in public.

According to Ting-Toomey (1988) and her colleagues (Ting-Toomey et al, 1991), collectivists care more about mutual face and other face in communication, whereas individualists care more about maintaining their own face. Face-to-face meetings have more binding effects on collectivists than on individualists because of their highly personal nature.

Reward Distribution is another cooperation mechanism used by individualist and collectivist cultures. Examples of reward distribution include judgements of justice and fairness that permeate organizational life such as, comparisons, pay raises, the distribution of scarce budgets, and promotions, all of which affect people's cooperative behaviors.

Individualists prefer the equity principle, in which rewards are proportional to individual contribution, because they hold the belief that performance and productivity will increase when participants of a joint endeavor can benefit in proportion to what each contributes (Mowday, 1987). Equity is also believed to be the fairest principle for distributing rewards. This belief of equity is so prevalent and normative in the United

States that sometimes self-sacrificial behaviors are justified in terms of self-interest and, manipulative behaviors are explained in terms of differential contribution (Lerner, Miller

& Holmes, 1976; Miller & Ratner, 1996). This 'fairness as equity' concept may be such

a core belief that it constitutes an important part of an individual's self-image. Being fair

37 means being equitable. Because the equity principle is believed to be consistent with both individual rationale and the self-image of being fair, it can simultaneously satisfy the instrument and the expressive motives of the individual across different kinds of social relations.

Collectivists prefer the equality principle, in which rewards are distributed equally among group members (Bond, Leung, & Wan, 1982; Hui, Triandis, Yee, 1991;

Leung & Bond, 1984). The collective rationality prescribes non-differential principles, such as an equal or need-based reward distribution among members of a close-knit group.

Collectivists fear that increasing differentials in rewards will motivate individuals to work for self-interest at the expense of the collective interest. Furthermore, collectivists feel that differential rewards reinforce and enlarge status differentials among group members (Reis, 1984), which may potentially threaten group harmony (Leung, 1988).

Collectivists use the equality principle in close in-groups, such as among friends and relatives, but the equity principle when dealing with out-groups such as strangers.

The use of these two principles in different group situations illustrates that reward allocation preferences of the collectivists may depend on the nature of the cooperative behaviors. For example, when collectivist interact with strangers with whom they expect no long-term relationship, their most important consideration is to get equity-based fair share. However, when interacting with people with whom they expect to have future long-term interactions with, collectivists are more willing to compromise equity in favor of the other party so as to induce a harmonious relationship and to initiate a cycle of reciprocity. The long-term relationship may be conceived as a "quasi in-group" because

the long-term fate of both parties is intertwined. (Chen, Chen, Meindl, 1998)

38 The cooperation mechanisms defined and illustrated above are important in order to understand and manage cooperation. However, the research on which these mechanisms are based has been conducted mainly by and ,on Westerners with fundamentally individualistic assumptions (Chen, et al, 1998), therefore they are not to be considered absolute.

To further the discussion of cooperation, the Cultural Model of Cooperation is presented. This model defines how cooperative behavior can be fostered and sustained for collective actions as well as how cultural difference shapes the primary motives of cultural members. Thus, cultural differences are responsible for the effectiveness of various cooperation mechanisms.

The Cultural Model of Cooperation considers one way of fostering cooperation is through establishing positive goal relationships among potential or actual participants.

In a culture in which the normative values are individualistic, cooperation mechanisms that appeal to and satisfy individual rationality and individuality will be more effective.

On the other hand, a culture in which the normative values are collectivist, cooperation mechanisms that appeal to and satisfy the collective rationality and sociality will be more effective (Chen, et al., 1998).

Closely related to the attributes and characteristics of individualists and collectivists previously mentioned, there are two important concepts that need to be considered in order to understand this cultural model of cooperation. The first concept is the structure of self-identity. An individual's self-concept, which derives from the knowledge of one's membership of a along with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership, is part of one's social identity (Tajfel, 1978).

39 Social identity theorists (Tajfel, 1982; Turner, 1987) posit that self-identity is composed of two broad types: 1) personal identities, which are based on an individuals' traits, preferences, and attitudes and, 2) social identities that are based on group memberships.

Although both social and personal identities are important for the psychological functioning of all individuals, their relative significance may differ across cultures owing to differences in self-conceptions.

Markus and Kitayama (1991: 226-227) argue that in individual self-concept, identities in terms of internal attributes are the 'primary unit of consciousness' and 'are most significant in regulating behavior and are assumed both by the actor and the observer alike, to be diagnostic of the actor'. Whereas in the collective self-concept, identities in terms of social relationships are in the primary units of consciousness because 'the significant self-representation are those in relationship to specific others'

(Chen et al., 1998).

The second related concept concerning the cultural model of cooperation is the boundaries between the self and others. Psychologically, individualists distinguish the autonomous self from others either as an individual or as groups. Collectivists, on the other hand, typically draw the distinction between those they are personally related to

(in-groups) and those they are not (out-groups).

Triandis (1995) observed that individualists form and move with greater ease in and out of multiple, loosely affiliated groups and associations based on their particular needs and objectives. Collectivists however, are more likely to form and stay in a few, stable, closely-knit groups that satisfy their multiple needs and objectives. As a result, subordinating self-interest, sense of duty, and relationship orientation are only confined

40 to collective in-groups. Collectivists have less problems applying different sets of values

and norms depending on whether they are dealing with in-group or out-group

relationships (Earley, 1989; Leung & Bond, 1984). On the other hand, individualists find

it more desirable to treat all individuals with a universal consistency (Waterman, 1988).

The research collected from Chatman and Meindl (1998) shows that many

challenges still remain for managers in today's workforce. Some of these challenges

include issues such as reduced interaction and reduced willingness to share ideas among

diverse members. Organizations that promote individualistic values may be inadvertently

prohibiting the positive effects that would otherwise arise from having diverse members.

Whereas a collective emphasis may help to increase the effectiveness of diverse people

working together (Chatman, et al., 1998). Given the demographic changes occurring now

and in the near future and, given the strong employment rate, most organizations will

have no choice but to integrate diverse people into their organizations. It is important to

understand the implications of the research presented thus far in order to determine how

an emphasis on a collectivist or individualist organizational culture will determine the

effectiveness of a particular workforce.

41 Chapter III Research Methods

Overview of Study

The concepts of Collectivism and Individualism are based on a variety of studies in the social sciences that began with Lukes (1973). These concepts have been applied to research in values, religion, economic development and social systems (Loden and

Rosener, 1991). Previous research has also shown that no culture is wholly individualistic or collectivist, but the elements of each culture varies greatly.

It is assumed that behavior is understood and interpreted by individualist or collectivist cultures in terms of a person's demographic characteristics. The data collected from this study will determine how a group gives meaning to a person based on their demographic differences as opposed to responding to their individual personality.

The assumption is that personality is determined by the physical characteristics of group members, not how the group member actually is.

This chapter will explain how the research design, the sources of data and the techniques that were used to collect the data.

Research Design

A descriptive study has been used to gather the information necessary to determine if people respond to the cultural background of an ethnically different person in individualist and collectivist organizational cultures. This design is relative to the

problem and research objectives that have been identified because there will be no

manipulation of the variables involved in the study.

42 The data was collected using a questionnaire containing fourteen ordinal scales based on the 16 PF and the Big 5 Personality study. These scales allowed subjective interpretation from the participants. These fourteen continuums helped identify each participant's preference for individualist or collectivist ways of thinking. Participants each were asked to place an "X" along each scale as to where they felt they "fit in" for

character set. The scales were organized so that only the collector of the data could know determine the participants' way of thinking. The participants themselves did not

which characteristic belonged to what type of organizational culture. These measures the (Data Set #1) served as the independent variables and made it possible to identify

culture of the participant as an individualist or collectivist.

A case study was included as the second part of the questionnaire. Each case the study was similar in the fact that the hypothetical situation was consistent in all of of each questionnaires. The determining factor for the variable was the cultural make-up

group and their level of progression. Based on the description of the team, participants

rated its members on the three additional scales (Data Set #2) which were created using

the concepts of the ASCH paradigm. Participants of the study rated the hypothetical

group members on their behavior and "likeability" within the team along as well as

potential future participation. The outcomes of these measures will be the dependent of variables because each workgroup consists of a different cultural make-up and level

progression (Table 3).

43 Table 3: Cultural make-up of work teams within the study

Cultural Progressionof make-up of workgroups Team 1 · All agreeing · Progressing well 7 white male group members 2 member 1 black male group Black group member dissenting * Not progressing well 3 * All agreeing * Progressing well 8 white male group members · I member dissenting * Not progressing well 5 * All agreeing , Progressing well 5 white male group members Progressing well 6 3 Asian male group members * 3 Asian males dissenting * Not progressing well

As a result, the information gained from this part of the study will identify whether or not group members determine competency, personality and other characteristics in terms of another person's demographic background.

The results of the data will come from those in the Stout community who have chosen to participate in the study. Participants will further identify and reinforce the characteristics of individualist and collectivist cultures by placing their own

44 support measurements of evaluation on the scales in the questionnaire. This data should the previous research done in the area of group .

Exhibits 1-6: Questionnaires used for the Study

45 How Individualist and Collectivist Organizational Cultures Influence Work Processes, Outcomes, and Cooperation.

You have been randomly selected from the Stout population to give an opinion on these matters. In order that results will truly represent the thinking of Stout's population, it is important that each questionnaire be completed as accurately as possible and returned.

Please do not place your name anywhere on this questionnaire to be assured of complete confidentiality.

Thank you for your time, assistance and cooperation in supporting this study.

Directions: Put an X that represents where you fit along each continuum below.

Motivated by individual Motivated by social norms, duties beliefs and values and obligations 221 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Self-reliant Reliant on others I1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 Focused on personal Focused on accomplishinggroup accomplishment harmony 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Dedicatedto Dedicated to the collective interest of own self-interests the group 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1(

Not influenced by loyalty to Influenced by loyalty to the group the group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Competitive with other Cooperative with other group group members members 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1l Difficulty conforming to Ability to conform to a group and its groups and organizations environment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Treatment of all group members equally Treat group members according to their group status 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I1

Prefer collective praise Preferindividual praise for for combined tasks tasks accomplished accomplished by the group I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1g Adaptable to change Difficulty accepting change 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN Submissive Assertive I1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1i

Continued on reverse. Uncertain Confient 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Soft-hearted Determined 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Introverted Outgoing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Directions: Please read the following case study and put an X that represents where you fit along the line for each continuum/ situation below.

You are currently working for a major US corporation that has been experiencing increased competition from the global marketplace. In order to stay thriving and to obtain profit, your supervisor has decided to create a global marketing team to address this issue of increased competition. He has asked you to look after the team and to monitor its progress as well as the interpersonal relationships among members.

Traditionally your organization has been dominant in the marketplace and doesn't want to lose significant market share. Therefore focus is directed towards getting a plan created and implemented as quickly as possible. Based on the description of the team, please evaluate how you feel by rating it on the scales provided.

The team is composed of five white males and three Asian American males. It seems as though this group has been reaching decisions very slowly. You have noticed that the three Asian Americans are not contributing much to the decision-making process and have avoided any confrontations within the group. Do you respect this behavior from the group member?

No respectfor Behavior of team member is this behavior at highly respected all highly respected 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 How much do you like this person?

Highly dislike this Like this person person very much —1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Would you want this person in a workgroup that you may be involved in sometime in the future? Would never want this person in a Would definitely want this future workgroup person in a future workgroup 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Thank You! How Individualist and Collectivist Organizational Cultures Influence Work Processes, Outcomes, and Cooperation.

You have been randomly selected from the Stout population to give an opinion on these matters. In order that results will truly represent the thinking of Stout's population, it is important that each questionnaire be completed as accurately as possible and returned.

Please do not place your name anywhere on this questionnaire to be assured of complete confidentiality.

Thank you for your time, assistance and cooperation in supporting this study.

Directions: Put an X that represents where you fit along each continuum below.

Motivated by individual Motivated by social norms, duties beliefs and values and obligations 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Self-reliant Reliant on others 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l1 Focused on personal Focused on accomplishinggroup accomplishment harmony [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1i] Dedicated to Dedicated to the collective interestof own self-interests the group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Not influenced by loyalty to influenced by loyalty to the group the group 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Competitive with other Cooperative with othergroup group members members 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I Difficulty conforming to Ability to conform to a group and its groups and organizations environment 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l

Treatment of all group members equally Treatgroup members according to their group status 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Iq

Prefercollective praise Preferindividual praise for for combined tasks tasks accomplished accomlisedby the group l1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lq

Adaptable to change ______Difficulty accepting change 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1( Submissive Assertive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Iq

Continued on reverse. Uncertain Confident —1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Soft-hearted Determined I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Introverted Outgoing — 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Directions: Please read the following case study and put an X that represents where you fit for each continuum/ situation below.

You are currently working for a major US corporation that has been experiencing increased competition from the global marketplace. In order to stay thriving and to obtain profit, your supervisor has decided to create a global marketing team to address this issue of increased competition. He has asked you to look after the team and to monitor its progress as well as the interpersonal relationships among members.

Traditionally your organization has been dominant in the marketplace and doesn't want to lose significant market share. Therefore focus is directed towards getting a plan created and implemented as quickly as possible. Based on the description of the team, please evaluate how you feel by rating it on the scales provided.

The team is composed of seven white males and one black American. In this particular group, decision- making has been progressing well. However, the black American tends to disagree with most of the members, but has decided to go along with a group decision. He is not real anxious about sharing his arguments and wants to see the plan implemented as quickly as upper management does.

Do you respect this behavior from the group member?

No respectfor Behavior of team member is this behavior at highly respected all highly respected I1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 How much do you like this person?

Highly dislike this Like this person person 2p3467erson very much 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0l Would you want this person in a workgroup that you may be involved in sometime in the future? Would never want this person in a Would definitely want this future workgroup person in afuture workgroup 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Thank You! How Individualist and Collectivist Organizational Cultures Influence Work Processes, Outcomes, and Cooperation.

You have been randomly selected from the Stout population to give an opinion on these matters. In order that results will truly represent the thinking of Stout's population, it is important that each questionnaire be completed as accurately as possible and returned.

Please do not place your name anywhere on this questionnaire to be assured of complete confidentiality.

Thank you for your time, assistance and cooperation in supporting this study.

Directions: Put an X that represents where you fit along each continuum below.

Motivated by individual Motivated by social norms, duties beliefs and values and obligatios I1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Self-reliant Reliant on others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 iQ Focused on personal Focused on accomplishinggroup accomplishment 6 harmonv (II ______2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Dedicated to Dedicated to the collective interest of own self-interests the group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

Not influenced by loyalty to Influenced by loyalty to the group the group I1I2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Competitive with other Cooperative with other group group members members [ ___ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Difficulty conforming to Ability to conform to a group and its groups and organizations environment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lo

Treatment of all group members equally Treat group members according to their group status 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Id

Prefer collective praise Prefer individual praise for for combined tasks tasks accomplished accomplished by the group _1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Adaptable to change Difficuly accepting change Il 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I1 Submissive Assertive EI 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Continued on reverse. Uncertain Confident I1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Soft-hearted Determined 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Introverted Outgoing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1l

Directions: Please read the following case study and put an X that represents where you fit along the line for each continuum/ situation below.

You are currently working for a major US corporation that has been experiencing increased competition from the global marketplace. In order to stay thriving and to obtain profit, your supervisor has decided to create a global marketing team to address this issue of increased competition. He has asked you to look after the team and to monitor its progress as well as the interpersonal relationships among members.

Traditionally your organization has been dominant in the marketplace and doesn't want to lose significant market share. Therefore focus is directed towards getting a plan created and implemented as quickly as possible. Based on the description of the team, please evaluate how you feel by rating it on the scales provided.

The team is composed of seven white males and one black American. In this particular group, decision- making has not been progressing as well. The black American tends to disagree with most of the members, and is having a hard time deciding to go along with a group decision. He is not real anxious about sharing his arguments and wants everyone to see "where he is coming from". Management is anxiously awaiting a decision.

Do you respect this behavior from the group member?

No respectfor Behavior of team member is this behavior at highly respected all 1 2 3 4 5 F6 7 8 9 1 How much do you like this person?

Highly dislike this Like this person person very much 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Would you want this person in a workgroup that you may be involved in sometime in the future? Would never want this person in a Would definitely want this future workgroup person in afuture workgroup 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1i

Thank You! How Individualist and Collectivist Organizational Cultures Influence Work Processes, Outcomes, and Cooperation.

You have been randomly selected from the Stout population to give an opinion on these matters. In order that results will truly represent the thinking of Stout's population, it is important that each questionnaire be completed as accurately as possible and returned.

Please do not place your name anywhere on this questionnaire to be assured of complete confidentiality.

Thank you for your time, assistance and cooperation in supporting this study.

Directions: Put an X that represents where you fit along each continuum below.

Motivated by individual Motivated by social norms, duties beliefs and values and obligations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i

Self-reliant 6 Reliant on others 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9e lia nt 1 Focused on personal Focused on accomplishing group accomplishment harmony 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Dedicated to Dedicated to the collective interest of own sef-interests the group [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Not influenced by loyalty to Influenced by loyalty to the group the group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I Competitive with other Cooperative with other group group members members 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Difficulty conforming to Ability to conform to a group and its groups and organizations environment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Treatment of all group members equally Treat group members r, —.. ______according to their group status 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1q

Prefer collective praise Prefer individualpraise for for combined tasks tasks accomplished accomplished by the group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1q

Adaptable to change Difficulty accepting change 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 I Submissive Assertive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Continued on reverse. Uncertain Confident 1 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Soft-hearted Determined 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Introverted Outgoing

.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Directions: Please read the following case study and put an X that represents where you fit along the line for each continuum/ situation below.

You are currently working for a major US corporation that has been experiencing increased competition from the global marketplace. In order to stay thriving and to obtain profit, your supervisor has decided to create a global marketing team to address this issue of increased competition. He has asked you to look after the team and to monitor its progress as well as the interpersonal relationships among members.

Traditionally your organization has been dominant in the marketplace and doesn't want to lose significant market share. Therefore focus is directed towards getting a plan created and implemented as quickly as possible. Based on the description of the team, please evaluate how you feel by rating it on the scales provided.

The team is composed of eight white males. Decision-making is moving along quite progressively. However, when the time comes to reach a final decision on a marketing plan to be implemented, one of the team members pipes up and makes arguments completely against the consensus of the group. Throughout the whole team process this member has been very cooperative and has gotten along with all the members, except for now.

Do you respect this behavior from the group member?

No respectfor Behavior of team member is this behavior at highly respected all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

How much do you like this person?

Highly dislike this Like this person person very much H1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Would you want this person in a workgroup that you may be involved in sometime in the future?

Would never want this person in a Would definitely want this futurefuture workgroupworkgroupn_____iaperson in afuture workgroup 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Thank You! How Individualist and Collectivist Organizational Cultures Influence Work Processes, Outcomes, and Cooperation.

You have been randomly selected from the Stout population to give an opinion on these matters. In order that results will truly represent the thinking of Stout's population, it is important that each questionnaire be completed as accurately as possible and returned.

Please do not place your name anywhere on this questionnaire to be assured of complete confidentiality.

Thank you for your time, assistance and cooperation in supporting this study.

Directions: Put an X that represents where you fit along each continuum below.

Motivated by individual Motivated by social norms, duties beliefs and values and obligations 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Self-reliant Reliant on others 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 Focused on personal Focused on accomplishing group accomplishment harmony 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Dedicatedto Dedicated to the collective interest of own self-interests the group 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Not influenced by loyalty to Influenced by loyalty to the group the group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I Competitive with other Cooperative with othergroup group members members 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Difficulty conforming to Ability to conform to a group and its groups and organizations environment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Treatment of all group members equally Treat group members according to their group status 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1I

Prefer collective praise Prefer individual praise for for combined tasks tasks accomplished accomplished by the group 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Adaptable to change Difficulty accepting chang l1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I Submissive Assertive I1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1i

Continued on reverse. Uncertain Confident Confident 2-1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Soft-hearted Determined 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Introverted Outgoing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Directions: Please read the following case study and put an X that represents where you fit along each continuum/ situation below.

You are currently working for a major US corporation that has been experiencing increased competition from the global marketplace. In order to stay thriving and to obtain profit, your supervisor has decided to create a global marketing team to address this issue of increased competition. He has asked you to look after the team and to monitor its progress as well as the interpersonal relationships among members.

Traditionally your organization has been dominant in the marketplace and doesn't want to lose significant market share. Therefore focus is directed towards getting a plan created and implemented as quickly as possible. Based on the description of the team, please evaluate how you feel by rating it on the scales provided.

The team is composed of eight white males. Decision-making is moving along quite slowly. And, when the time comes to reach a final decision on a marketing plan to be implemented, one of the team members pipes up and makes arguments completely against the consensus of the group. Throughout the whole team process this member hasn't been very cooperative and has had difficulty getting along with all the members.

Do you respect this behavior from the group member?

No respectfor Behavior of team member is this behavior at highly respected all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 How much do you like this person?

Highly dislike this Like this person person very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Would you want this person in a workgroup that you may be involved in sometime in the future? Would never want this person a Wouldo defininitely want this future workgroup person in a future workgroup 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Thank You! How Individualist and Collectivist Organizational Cultures Influence Work Processes, Outcomes, and Cooperation.

You have been randomly selected from the Stout population to give an opinion on these matters. In order that results will truly represent the thinking of Stout's population, it is important that each questionnaire be completed as accurately as possible and returned.

Please do not place your name anywhere on this questionnaire to be assured of complete confidentiality.

Thank you for your time, assistance and cooperation in supporting this study.

Directions: Put an X that represents where you fit along each continuum below.

Motivated by individual Motivated by social norms, duties beliefs and values and obligations i_ 2 3 4 5 7 8 9

Self-reliant : Reliant on others er 1 22 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 id Focused onpersonal Focusedonaccomplishing group accomplishment harmony L 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Dedicatcated oicatedto the collective interest of own self-interests the group [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1q

Not influenced by loyalty to Influenced by loyalty to the group the group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Competitive with other Cooperative with othergroup group members members _1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1l Dfficulty conforming to Abty to conform toa groupand its groups and organizations environment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Treatment of al group members equally Treat group members |''_:::_ '; ; _4according · acconfm to their group status 1i 2 3 4 5 6 7 l: 8 9

Prefer collective praise Prefer individualpraise for for combined tasks tasks accomplished : : _ ::: ___ :accomplished by the grou h1 2. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9ol

Adaptable to change Dffculty accepting change 1i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l1 Submissive : : Assertive 1I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1o

Continued on reverse. Uncertain Confident Confident 1 _ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Soft-hearted Determined [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Introverted utgoing 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Directions: Please read the following case study and put an X where you fit along the line for each continuum/ situation below.

You are currently working for a major US corporation that has been experiencing increased competition from the global marketplace. In order to stay thriving and to obtain profit, your supervisor has decided to create a global marketing team to address this issue of increased competition. He has asked you to look after the team and to monitor its progress as well as the interpersonal relationships among members.

Traditionally your organization has been dominant in the marketplace and doesn't want to lose significant market share. Therefore focus is directed towards getting a plan created and implemented as quickly as possible. Based on the description of the team, please evaluate how you feel by rating it on the scales provided.

The team is composed of five white males and three Asian American males. It seems as though this group has been reaching decisions very quickly. However, you have noticed that the three Asian Americans are not contributing much to the decision-making process and have avoided any confrontations within the group.

Do you respect this behavior from the group member?

No respectfor Behavior of team member is this behavior at highly respected all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l How much do you like this person?

Highly dislike this Like this person person __very much 11 2 3 4 535 6 7 8 9 14

Would you want this person in a workgroup that you may be involved in sometime in the future? Would never want this person in a Would definitely want this future workgroup_ person in a future workgroup 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1l

Thank You! Sources of Data

Population

The population of the study is comprised of the entire UW-Stout educational community, which consists of more than 7,600 students, as well as 1,114 faculty and staff members (Office of Institutional Research, UW-Stout, Fall 1998). The Stout community is a diverse population in itself (Table 4). Offering undergraduate programs in manufacturing and engineering, art, business and industrial management, technology, natural, physical and social sciences, and human development and interpersonal relationships illustrates this diversity. The Stout population can be justified for this study because various ethnic and cultural competencies are acknowledged. It is assumed that the larger the organization, the greater diversity.

Table 4: Statistics of the population:

Total Enrollment (1998) Ethnic Representation (1998) 6,965 Undergraduate .5% American Indian 639 Graduate .6% Hispanic American 7,604 Total 1.0% African American Gender Representation (1998) 1.7% Asian American 51.5% male 1.7% International 48.5% female Degrees Awarded (1997-1998) 1,054 Bachelor's 256 Master's

Sample

A sample consisting of Stout students, faculty and staff can be justified because

there are many people with a variety of backgrounds contained within the population.

Gathering information from the population's sample will save time and allow an

opportunity to draw inferences about the population as a whole.

46 Data Collection Techniques

A sample was chosen by randomly distributing questionnaires to various classrooms and offices for students, faculty and staff to fill out. Questionnaires were also distributed to members of the Stout community at random in the Memorial Student

Center located on campus. As mentioned before, the characteristics of the sample and population will vary. Ethnic and cultural background will play a role in the comparison as they did previously within the whole population.

Data Processing and Analysis

Because of the layout of this particular questionnaire participants will be able to solicit their own opinions, the data will be in no way manipulated, and the answers from the participants will not be altered.

The first step for analyzing this large amount of data was to enter it into a manageable database (Microsoft Excel was used in this case). The questionnaires were color-coded based on the cultural make-up and progression of the group in the case studies therefore, making the data more feasible to manage.

Six charts were created conducive to each case study and 25 questionnaires were selected for each color-coded group as the sample size. Once the data for all 25 participants was collected, the total scores for each data set were computed, as well as the mean and standard deviation for each data set. The means from data set #1 and data set

#2 were used to determine whether participants could be labeled as individualists or collectivists. Any scores less than the mean score identified those of a collective nature

and scores greater than the mean identified those considered to be individualists. Scores

47 for each participant were then shaded and identified as to whether a participant was

individualist or collectivist.

Exhibit 7: Mean Scores and Stand Deviations of Participants (Grouped by team)

7 Whit.Mals; 1 blackmal—PragrsasinBWell. \ ";;;/;; S'-

'..'•''• ' . • ; . : : •• -' • Total ; o. i: Total!S o o ol ScPartleipan\..3..: t • :2:: P :,arici .nt. 2 :1 : 3:4.• 4 •: 5 • 6 .-. 7'•.:.•:83 •'3 9:8 10. 11 12 . 13'. 14 : S Ot•I.2 3 at: 12 3 2 A 5 6 82 7 8 7 4 6i7?7]

•2 ^;\3 . 4:.:.•2 :4 ~ 4 4.58•' ;":53 4.64 ^ : 31^:' 34.: 47 6:6: 49: .-9- 59 Ii:::I:::c7 ::i:i: 3 13 2 '5: 4 6 77 •788 256 8;: 48 62 "11 739 '4' : Sg 8"^ .s:,::.s16c 4:_ 646 : ' 5 . 2/22!:- : ' 2 .'::99 2 2: ::2::2 !:':'i::: l: !ii4 !! 8:8'e:8l:'; i:: 487i•"••- i:::7^•:;•^2^•: • . :: 62 c 5 :: 5: 12 c

2: 2 5 :28 7 :2 5 :8 3 7 69 c :: :5 i: 7;:;: M,~'~ 234 44 8 5 6 3 4: 9 7 7: 96 ______14 : ^:6 •: 3 1• :.::5' 5 .: 3 :1 : ' 8: : 6'5 : 8 : 2i ::9:' :::: :'5:9:: :: i:: i::::::::::::5:::: 14 c ,~:,~ 9•...... !:::3....g9 ¢¢ B 7 6• 5 4 2 7 8 2 8 9 8 7 4 .7•O•:•:. 7 3 14.

. 53 1 6.1 3 7 : 26:7.: ': 10":l_10 :5' 9 106 5 : 4 5 4"65 '53 ' 7 6 3::6 4 : . 6. .: "S .:.r10:' 2 :: :5 ' 4 :4: : : :.~:":3::.3:..9 :4:::: ::8:::2 7 2 9 : " :::::::"::

614 3616 ...... 5 9 •9•2:::2 ' 8 ::: ::: 14 c 1 .4 13 . - :.3 :: . ::: 3 ::;ii:iiiii: 8 : ' :1 8;i.5i:.:ii ii:i i : 6. 49 8 7 5 5 7 5 .2 66 7 4 . 6 K 7 7 '5' "S I _ .283 8 8 7 7 7 3 7 4 5 4 4 : 4 . 2 3 5 6 6 4 6 6 4 5. 5•X:•B g 'IS4 15. 4: ::5 :7 75 : 4 5 6 6 6x 4 . 15 c 26 3 2 5 6.1 5 7- I6:illi;-j5 7Ii 8 l-8 8·i::::3 i~'79A~~"; ''jV3 3. 11:5.. "'113 ' 1 4 5 1 .3 1 8 1_7-1 ::4: 8 _3 _ 8 8 1_8:1::1-:::6 ',l 5 3 13 c 224 5 : 4 5 7 8 : : 6::::::6 6 6 6 ::::::.:65' 15 23 3 4 3 6 8 8 7 ::7:. :::5-.. : 3 4 3 4'3 68 ::::::::::::: : c::::::

ofS• c vO

Day. 0 cv. 7o Set1 SOt ..7-1 .7.'O :: : .:48 i3

48 7 White Males; 1 black male-NOT Prognrsing Well

Total Score of Total Score of Scale( Particpants Participants Participa~nt ParticipantI 2 3 4 5 6 7 __gJ.nJ.38 9 10 11 12 13 ____j~^__14 ((Set ___ g_ J^ #2) 77gsl 77 —4 3 3 7 7 6 6 4 5 2 7 7 7 9 5 4 4 13 " 2 4 2 3 2 6 7 3 5 4 3 7 6 7 4 63 c 8 7 9 ; j g —:22 6 6 9 9 9 3 6 6 8 8 68 8 6 7 7 3 3 7 7 9 9 9 3 3 2 8 8 5 8 l 5 4 ,5 4 2 5 4 5 e 7 3 3 5 4 6 7 2 es c 5 5 5 g g— 8 8 6~~~~~8' 8 8 3 8 3- 8- 8- 8-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5 8 5 5 ~w v-l-~:i 7 4 6 6 4 6 6 8 7 5 5 5 6 3 4 76 5 5 5 8 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 70 c 5 5 5 9 2 3 2 2 2 6 5 3 2 6 9 9 9 68 c 6 3 3c 10 3 ~~~~~~~O~~~'4 10 2 8 10 1 5 5 3 3 1 8 8 8 10 1041 71 c - 2 2 2-g2 : — — —8 4 6 3 8 9 9 2 8' 3 4 7 4 4 4 2 4 0 c iiiiiiii4 6 4 7 3 5 4 5 26 5 7 4 5 4 13 S 6 7 3 5 4 2 7 6 2 -8 9 8a 7. 4- 3 2 3 .1 6 c '"14 4 4 2 2 5 5 4 7 1 4 9-- 9 9 10 : 75: 3 1 i 5 c 15 3 3 2 6 6 6 3 3 1 3 9 8 8 9 70 e 3 2 —6 cl *»»¹ —4 6 6 5 ~3 6 5 7 7 6 4 8 7 - 332 31 7 c c —5—5 1 2 3 8 3 4 1 10 3 10 A10 10 10 II 4 4 4 12 " 18 3 2 2 4 5 8 8 6 5 3 5 8_ 9 3 :8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~71 c5 6 3. 6.6 7c66: . =l;=.:9 ' 19 2 6 2 1 2 a 8 8 4 3 3 5 8 8 66 73 c 5 5 5. 2a!i!¹ —5——5 6 5 5 6 6 7 3 5 3 6 7 7 9 5 5 5:1 ""g'"21 4 6 2 1 ~5 5 9 I'• 1 4 9_5 8 3 66 c 10 10 : 10 = 22 3 4 5 5 7 6 8 5 4 4 6 5 5 8 75 5 5 7. 23 2 3 5 4 3 3 3 2 5 2 7 5 3 7 4 c 6 4 5 i w —5 3 3 5 7 8 ~a5 6 5 6 7 7 5 7 ia5 5 4 ' 25 3 3— — — 3— 6— 6— 8 7 3 - 4 4 7 ' 7 6• "~~~~~~~~~~~~~Maan:.7 :"M\74'-; c 6 :"'"6 • "'••' • ofSet: ot #1 76 _2_ _l _

:Std;- Std. Div. Dov. Of Ofse Set#tl1 9 2 6

65 70 c 103102MIM 14 5 64 —g—75 73 I

68 —1 — 73 —«—S- 13~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 13 14 8 gag£S 18~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5I 12 c

-••"'„„•••• -wcm.5s-^•:7 -M «• .M•^,..•..i WA cc~~~i~~ 12 22

25

49 ______~8 White Males-NOT pro risin well : :

Scale/^^ ' . . ' —- ' ' .^••"^ Totalpcorso WotalSooreof a Partiiat cipns I::P rticipant Particiant ^,1^ 2. . 3-", ^4^ -5 . 6:8 __7_ 8 9: :1011 121^3 ^i14-lll ill tI l g111 ¹21 1 31- jiS12:

2 4 . 3 • 4 8 ; 2 4: : 5 86 -4 76 c 1 6 c 3 3 :: 5 7: 1 9 9 i9 11 9 3 3:S 8 i ! 9: :8- 411::iJ1 ' 7 7l Ip 4 5 3 4 : : i5: 65 5: ::; :: :: : 6::: . 6 7 73 c 514::'l:l t!: i 'S 1i3l,: : :!:-i'!~;i;:: !ii!;i : ;::2S:' 2:6•;:!: • z:i91::4:l:; ! ll:!I 81 119:11::4:!»ii.i6ia,7i7i::ii:SI::!:::!: 6 •.:5.::::• 4 6•1:5:!::::: 4i::::: :'5:.! • 17'l ;:i51: :!5 5 5Sl:;51.1::S 77 5 7• 77 5 68 0c 11 i i!: i li:i2!i::: l 6•:^•':^'!•:•• .:52;~: '.•:4: '3'':• ^::: : ::: : ::=i::~:.: /.::l 5 •:2~:;::':~1511: ::n:18:sii :!:::~:'1::: :5:!"• ~ 5::1!:;1: i::: .:: i '1ii: ! ::..:;.1i^^ i :i~..11 1 8'"11 11 ::19;!i!i~:ii:;:;:.! 1:1:1:: i ^ ^ ^ 1! 83 2 7 7 5 2 8 1 10 1 10 9 9i~q:::10 7' 9:, • • .9:::122:8:11^ ::i6:l:. •:• l•6 11 l-il:4: 71118 I 118119:111 . 121 '8 19118 1 i'll0 6:::61• c0 866iS I: I 11411 I P IIIS6 ~10^-:5:,.~5^~SW••.~~ 4^.^' ~8 ~ 5I :i5^~ : l~51~~5'~>l~4^~ 5lI~:i 5^ :i51 .51 5::i: 69 .c 51:3l:;4:: 1151 1': 1 :! i 11 4 5 8 6~~~7: ~~4 17~~~~~ 5 : 3 2 8.: 90: 6 1 1. 12 :::::':: :::=4 :4 :c:4::!;82::::: i:. 11 84.24 il: 2 1 25 : : :' ' 1 : 1 . 3 5 8 8 9 9 3 8 :2l 7 8e909 1O] 5''i l :Ij6 :l14 ""' 4 " :::~' '•54 :: 46:: !:":i ":i ::;:":::5i! ;63 i":'" i !!:1 7 iii'":::l" !::/::4i3 '"1 6 :i ::::'1:":i 5:::::::'" " ':':'K ':;: ::;:5"l 8 :'"'5l7 .::"l81""•l9.:: ! iii76 iiii~ III~0 Ii l i l 5'1 i "ii'i 5 "::ii:ii S- il iii:":::1':"".1 4 iii c

1261- : 3::8::;;ii::~::.5 :::5 •:: 7 ll:: 7:8 l 19l7 j:81 3:6'8'::: £ l 1:.98 "' '668:: : ::::::" .::::: ':::: ii"'::7:,:::::7:i:.:: i:.'::.:.::i'"8.'.•:': :::4:.:.1 iii::B"'::""'6::; ::i'" :: 1::::J41: ::i:"4l:':3iii{:ii;i:2'l 2::::i ""I I .... ':96 c :r3ljll •!!:4•":.] 5::8 ""S': ~ l::: llal;:: II~i 16 5 ~~ ~~4 ~~5 i~~5 1 110 0 1 7; 5: 8 8 ' IA 4 c 1 : ::::: ::9:-'. : ::. :::.1:: : :::: :3 :::: :5 1 . 7:.: :: 6c c 14...... : . : 4 :::":::'gl::i:": ::4"i:•:: ::::.8.:iii:::.3:izi :4;i ::[:'S:IS.: :::::!4:'":i"": ii6: :::;:3l:8 ""a';'":3i::I: :"::"":::':: : ::::1:81"'.1161"'"::: 72 c Bg'l" l!:lj'•' l::l11"l": 5 18 88 7 8: 7:: 10 8 1 8 2 2 4 3 2 76 4 4' 22 """"~~ ~iii."31":'"";::"" "1 :4":':1 0161:'"l'4:::~ii """1 : 1141":"i4:" :"7"" 1" ""'1 ag:7" 'i".:ilj I ' ::: 7 ci;i':::g:~ l 11211,: , ,, 111 3 :::[:5:l:9!::::: !0 ; 1. 1119.1::1Iil5;!.51.i::!^ .11[ i;0::^:::::1::.i::9 11 16 ' 1111 15 20 3 4 2 6 7 5 4 6 ;7i::3 345::j:i:11 1l 7 71 :1 ::!58 :::::i 67201 !liiiilS['^ lllIII~iii 0311^1'i :l :'l""!:'J::2.:: 18 '7~21'7 3 8 8 8~9 9 93::~ 9 4fA~q~8: 3 4 90 "i''3 5 22 13 . 4 l 4 I 115'4 7 14:1 711 8 73 c 1 2. 2l 6 e ~~~~~~~~~~~~~...... ~::::: : il ii. ii!]ii!...... !! ii: ;ii I ..1.78..2'. Day~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ii:~iiii!~iO!!S ,,! 12. i

192~;::;"i !: :"": !3"l' :':~i: : ::' :l"l !1::ll:ii i. i: '1 6 :.!ii i:t m "1wh le ; 3 Aslia m:es""1 raii:31 n 11il 5e

20•:i.i3:::. ••::.:i:::i•i:':^:^ :6::::Bi::i .::::^:;:::H :::.a:^;:2:: ii::ii:^O;::ii:w:::::::~i:::3:¥ i~~ew i :72ii:i:a:::~i:^::; :::e;i:lv:Si: wlys::::wi:::iii::'i™ : c^wff>¹:;i::^:l:w" i 5 ifii;:ii2:iii:.iii25 11111:111'iIcB I :/:g'1 3111!i iiii4131 '3'"".iB'j6j'4l :s:isiii:.i8"7"~ ai ' """"3 1 '"50 1 1a:. 2 81:ii :"3': 14 c a:igiiJii'12'" 2""a 3'''S 7t IMi:giii 5 111 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6i iiii ii~i :81n': iiii i 63i$ii! ci:~iSii iiiii ~!i:i.:i:ii~~ iiii 22i~i::3iiii:i::3::. :: ==:::i::.,~:ii i:=i~iii :i:::[ ii:[1i: :::::ii::g: :iii :7i= i:i::i::ij : :i:i::::: ,i::i: :s := ii:~ 7o ::i:: c

:757 iiiiiiiiiii~~iiiii iiii~iil:1:i1iii~lliii.i~i:iiiii :ii~iliii !~ l~.tii~iil;i~ < ~i79iriiii:iiii~i:i: ':

: : ..''.^:.":..:.:•':::..'.•...:..•ll:;^:;.. :".:'.: ______::I~~w:ilten ae»! A~l.i...nal..pog... l.lM.i...ll.....l.l.:: 11 11.....ll 'll..i..¹ ... .I'; 25iiiii~iiiiiliiiftfiiiiiiii~iaii~iii::: :::: iiii~li gis :aiiiii;i~i~11ii~i i;!i7ii i iiiSiiiii;ii siiisii: iiiiii :;iii~iiia 6 cii!112fii iiii:~iii iiii2!!i 1 11117ll111i-!'l MII810S:6:0 l'SI& m~il 18 Ig7 6311i~ c 0 II:111111i":O.t'l:l 6 c

0 ~9 8~ "7 ai 7117814 j'"04 '111' 7'i ai'~ '8ig"" MI 4 7 8 >6 ~3 "7 7 3 4 3 3 ~ 77...~ ~ §~3#'IO6 c

11 4ii si i '11 g2 g i 79 cF7igsi i

••.: ::'.•••:•'„::::10 ::•.'' :•:;":,::::.:::.':•":'::::::: :"::..:.::::"':.':::'3iii '! ::i::3:::: ::?:::::•::s 7'1111'¶'.' :.:::::;::.: :: :: :::: S;$::wiiii :::Sm::''•::" e' :':':::o:"::ir' 2.-.-...::::i'.':::'r~ ::oe:^:::'3 :S::: ' r::^:::' :^:" l :l^" ..-...... 7611 i ^ 5 :1 ;:l l l~... l~ ~S^ S: Sl 137: s " l :":::

12 77 13 c 13 '4II 13iai: 11MBi III7ill 7.2 "S8jjl IIII 1111Igll79 ii iig c I III i i 8 ~i7 169 Ic 11 3lll 4I III 14'3I 25 lgig""3 "'3'"" 79 ~ cS 7,S.,7A." 14 11'01 20: i .gii~isn ill ~lii iiii'i'isi~ii~ i~ iiii 71 ca;

24UR21 :l:a::11: ..... • .,' ~. ~. ~:1311174V64~ ~ ~ ,';,'ii,,!?i;i•:. 8c8 ii::•^:.:.••;.:;l .. 39 "'"'~8'?'~3~ 5.';i!:• 1:•;>3. ..1" .?6 i"11 • ::::.•. 8, 1 'III.:::::.::8 ii:i:..:8 iiii:i:$''755,'''1ii 7"?*:. .:::.:.:._1K~7"?&~ŽI, "5 ' 4 1496 'c 60 9 '9 ~ ~ ~ 8 3 5'''tQ'X''555,±?'8'~~~~~~,'i~~ '3 '~~"'~'3 9 c

20 4 8 3c'3 8 3'5''3' 1 0"'"6 61K 21 2 7 8 3? 6742~24 o" '8 414 '22 8 8 5 6 ~8'2~'8W 5 5 3 8 ''8<~'?'R5'5K"'4' .5 2 9 23 3 2 1 3i;:"i'5 2 '8A '1'~"4 8 9 7' "55"`' 58 0 12 : 24. . .6 7 0' 7 c3'2"37". 25 2 9 71 o3 3 41

' ., • • ..... , .,..,... ,...... ::•:.: .::: ~:~a,~,; •'.v.

50 5 m X X1~ ~ ~ ~" W w w S ii lg65 gC 2 71 c II m E} I " 3 16 ~!~:.~'~:~~:~3vwiS 72 76 c

I 6 7S767 c 8

13 ja~ -L 77 c j98SiSMj II1 3 i_

16 111VI'M VW M es68, c 04 3 c

II I Sim v S a II Me 6 g1 66 Ic~E= jj _ _ -

g F =am ^!mIN 70 o The next step in the data analysis was to conduct a T-test. Participants of the

sample group were identified as individualist or collectivist and the total score from data

set #2 (the case studies) was given for each. The results of this particular analysis shows

whether group members defined and interacted with someone because of their

demographic background and differences, or if these didn't matter in a group situation.

Exhibit 8: T-test Results of participants (Grouped by team)

—.iTTest(Team#1)

:•5 : :;:: .. _____.. T-Test (Team #2)______: 11-1:m:·:.:·:-:·.: :: . a 1:I 0

18 C0 CY 2 17 18 8 :1 4 12 . 7 14 I 2 I g g 5 17 14._ 2 24 13 11 18 24 5 15 22 8 15 17 13 15 15 9 12 16 14 14 | 22 10 6 "i 10 13 15 19 19 —I15 6 23 15 j 17 19 15 _ 7 24 19 17 21 30 12 23 15 15 25 15 15 r 25 15 14

_111___ 11 Mean = 13 1 15 13 •15 :.2. T-Test : : : :::E10.181594071

1 16 1 1 16 if i : E:1.i T-Tst 0.38647666

52 ...... i . . s iii- :: 61 :

6 14 1 12 is1 2 13 21 E 4 3 15sg 24 51 —— — —T14 0 6 12 7 15• ———18 9 14 7.S.f. f...... 18 13 25 8 25 12 10 12 22_2 9— 24 9 12 — — — ——14 191 14 13 8 14 13 18 1_4 18 1—4 1is 19 6 4— 20 22 12 62 66 20

9 7 _ 11_ 22 4 19 25 70.01912194

______0.14847925301

18. 1 ......

21 194 1 7

5:~z;2 I 1 20 11

'6 1213 _04__7 17'—3 —— 128 17 9173.1913531 164 235 ——1 13 15 23 20

11 is Is 08 17 14 4

0.059455817 Finally a correlation was conducted between the data sets #1 and #2 to determine

how great an effect, if any, demographic differences had on how the group functioned.

Exhibit 9: Correlation of Results by Team

.. .-.Correlation:(team #1)

. :. Correlation (Team #2) ::Total. oreloof. ! Tota rScore: of .. .Part::c ipaiaeti: Participants :PanrtC:ipant ^ ^#1).(Set:Total ·#2) Score of Total Score of :.:::_::1:"---::: : :1::::1::.79^. :• .:: '':: 19 '•: . Participants (Set Participants 2'^:. . :! !::2-: ^ :::!:::::gd i :': l:'.59::: '17 Participant #1) (Set #2) ...... 1 77 13

:::: .:. :-:: :::::.:: ::::::-:::: : 2 3 90 22 :::'3.' . .I: :i. :ii : ::: ?!:. !i6. : : It iii !!:i 1: '' :. 24 16R^4 5" ^::17569 : 0 84 17 —^—.. —~——:: : :.7:.:.:1 :: 5 65065 15

7...... ll'lc~111-l 88147 75 15

::.::::::.::::::..:.:8 ...... 80^^8^':··:-:^^^··:...... 8 70 15 ~~.: .·:::· ..::. ....: ·...... :i19 68 12 ...... · •...... :...... 2 .. 9 68:7: 74':- 24 10 71 125 : . .:I:i: .··: :: . .:..:::... . 4 : 011 1 7879 110 0 .:. :.: ...:: :: ::..: :::: .::::: :- :::::::::::: 1. 7. 13 ""i1166 18^ 12 76 13 .1... . .:R . .. 1380 76 .1:: .: :.. ::782 14 75 6 :.::...... ::::::::.. : I....: ;0 i:: :: - :3 77 7 :::::::...... -::-1651...... 4...:... :::::::...... ;:-.::::::: ::: ...... 1178 717280 12 i . :!iiii. :::i.::i:: ::.'::i : i:.ii:: i65.. .: : .::15 : 65...... 1:::19 :::: ~: ::. 18 71 18 ::::::: :i1:::.: : :-:: ; .:: :•:".::::::i:i !i16e::•••:^: '[18i:: ^ :::::!i::: ^'•'81"::::9:: 1"~9•'::-. '::: :.:: 1 19 773 15 156 1•^7 ^^ :-: :-79"" .- "— - 17W—.... : i20 80 15 : -:::—:::-::::::::::::::::::-::::-:::: ::::::::: 21 66 30 18::ii.1:8:: i:iii:-: Ii::i :::i:: :::i i:.i i1 : ::::::: 22 76 17 ::1' 74 ...... 23 64 15

20:::::-:::::::::::: — 79 — 11—:^—:1::::::::: 25: 74 15

::::: :;: :22 :;: :;: ;.:;:;:: :;:: .78: :::: ::: :-.: ::::: ::: :.:.:1.50f: ..E~id I:

..... 25_:... .:. .0.. 70...... -7. 1

______01:::0.13 3: :54 :0.010132093' :: 54 Total.Score.of.TotalScoreof TE ts .- or of $tA;i O0 V ;; :... Pa7. t c p n s...(. Part- ci nts ;;&j~i z~i!l" Pattflpant. (Sst #ta n Paflidl nt #1 Set #2 mX~j~i~t a: ,...... 14

4 3 #5-::1.:ii,, ,vh.. 21 Ewmg. Wg N ...... wg 13.

~ _:-t4:s~v~ L',,' , .0.8.....,,:, $,.-',f,5,. 1.

!gl··:al:·ll!!!l!!!llll!— . —^:·:-·:-— m ^-:il .:. ...**d &.4A.:rb.{g,,. . 14 a...... 7.815 ···~~~—1— ^ .>-._ g:@B ,B s;M:: :.. a | ~.tg .<.' ... 1 0.. j . -- ..

55 ...... ^:'".g· ·. :.~.i~.'.ii' ^ • :~.~.~f ~ ::...:' 11 (1.. llff ^^,,gilll iisiidmg:::~:illl il: ::::liliiiii mii::1

!..... : 1...... 8:j::::,''...... ;.::

.^ii fI S3^^^i ij ^ ;;A^•

?.:·:.:·:i:·:·:·::·::::: ,~~'::::...... R:::::::.·:sr::i2 igg:..:: :: 0::::::: ::":::',::'::.':::.::::::::.. .:¢::...:

ai : a .::.:..'..::.....;l: ¹ 1 " :::::::: 1:': .::.::: . - :. - -:...... :.::;:.;::

Iil,,li!is~ ;'i:: iii 1ij^i^;~;~ ::.;~:e~:~:~^ ::6

...... :...... $:: : g |. Limitations of the Study

This study does have some limitations. Identifying a representative and demographically diverse sample of the population and receiving adequate response rates in order to provide accurate data results are just two limitations of the study. As mentioned previously, only 25 participants were identified for each of the six sample groups. Granted, that means that 150 people participated in the study however, the sample size for each group was fairly small.

Another limitation is the cultural diversity of those who participated in the study.

Because of the demographic at UW-Stout, the majority of responses came from people of a Caucasian background. Greater cultural diversity and a larger sample size would probably illustrate a greater significance in the results.

Having larger sample sizes would also lead to the use of better statistical analysis techniques such as ANOVA. ANOVA is a program that would be able to analyze the overall results of the data and determine if there were differences among collectivists and individualists as a whole rather than by individual sample sizes.

Another limitation of the study may be the accuracy of the survey design. It is difficult to get the data from a questionnaire because participants may not necessarily answer according to their true feelings and others may not even understand their own behavior to accurately rate their responses.

When the case studies for this research were created, boundaries as to the number of minorities in the workgroups were made as well. For this study, out of convenience, the number eight was used to form workgroups and three broadcultural backgrounds

57 were chosen. Because there are so many interpretations of racial diversity and culture, the results of the data is broad as well.

58 Chapter IV Findings of Analysis

Findings

Remembering that the hypothesis of this study was - collectivists and individualist organizationalcultures will interact and react differently with one another when there is an attempt to diversify the work group - we are able to further analyze the data and make some conclusions. The results should be able to prove the objectives of how individualism and collectivism is applied within organizations and how each of these cultures define the characteristics of other group members mentioned at the beginning of this paper. Therefore, the results should show that individualists would have a higher mean rating overall when there is more cultural diversity in the work group, proving that they are more accepting and comfortable interacting with a person of a different racial background. Collectivists, on the other hand, are expected to rate lower, illustrating their resistance to interact with someone who is culturally diverse. Their resistance might be a result of the beliefs they hold regarding group norms (i.e. accepting someone "new" into an already close-knit group).

How do Individualist and Collective Organizational cultures define the characteristics of other group members?

To demonstrate the findings, each of the hypothetical workgroups in the case studies has been separated according to their cultural make up.

Findings of Group #1:

The first group consists of seven white group members and one black group

member (Table 5).

59 Table 5: Results of group made up of 7 white members and 1 black member

Cultural Progression of Mean of Mean of T-Score make-up of Team collectivists Individualists workgroups

1 - 0.386 w All agreeing 16 16 '7 white male . - (\\\ 7 white male Progressing well (hi) (hi) group members 2 0.181 1 black male *. Black group member 15 131 group member dissenting (hi) (med.) * Not progressing well _

Overall the mean for both situations - whether the team was progressing well or not progressing well - was on average high. The mean of the individualist group was high when the workgroup was in agreement and progressing well, which illustrates that the group was accepting of the black male. However, the medium score in the situation where the group is not progressing well, illustrates that there is some acknowledgement of the difference.

Interpretations of Group #1:

Because of the higher scores, our interpretation would be to say that in general, collectivists would be accepting of the black person despite the obvious cultural difference. However, it is interesting to see that the difference isn't more of a problem for the collective group when the black person disagrees because he is "upsetting the

apple cart". Having the white males in the majority may have something to do with this.

The medium score shown in the individualist group is not to say that

individualists dislike the black person, it may suggest however that they don't want to

admit that the racial difference may be the deciding factor of why they aren't progressing

60 well. White males probably consider themselves to be fairly liberal. However, this medium score may show that they are not as liberal as they think because they have a subtle prejudice against the black male.

Discussion of Group #1:

This first group is congruent with and proves the hypothesis because interaction among similar people should be fairly high in collective cultures. There is only one team member that is different yet, in both cases, the collective group was accepting of the difference and didn't use it to determine the black man's personality. I don't think they would acknowledge to the group what they're really thinking or, let their prejudices out for fear of "rocking the boat". White American males, who are typically individualists, seem to be more accepting of blacks in their work place because of EEO, Affirmative

Action, and equal rights that are stressed in today's businesses. That does not mean

Americans think about the racial differences rather, they might not necessarily understand their own behavior or realize that they are judging a person's ability based on their skin color. In other words, they may not be as accepting as they think they are. After all, they are individualists and are concerned about self-interests rather than the collective interest of the group.

Findings of Group #2:

As we look at the second group of all white members (Table 6), we see a contrast from the group we examined first.

61 Table 6: Results of all white groups

Cultural Progression of Mean of Mean ofT make-up of Team collectivists Individualists -scoe workgroups 3 0.148 · All agreeing 16 14 · Progressing well (hi) (hi) 8 white male group members 4 (.(19 * 1 member dissenting 10 15 · Not progressing well (lo) (hi)

When the group was progressing well, collectivists were satisfied with everyone in the group because they were all working towards a collective goal. In this case, all members were of the same race and gender, again showing proof that interaction among people in collective groups tends to be higher when group members are similar.

On the other hand, when the collectivists were not progressing well and the mean score dropped, group members didn't tolerate the decision of the white male who strayed from the group.

Interpretations of Group #2:

In this situation, the collective group found the white male's disagreement to be a threat to the group, which is a case of reverse discrimination from the first group's findings. This finding is congruent with the previous research done on collectivist groups and their norm of creating group harmony because the one white male who dissented from the group was not adding to the harmony of the group. Therefore, he wasn't accepted.

62 The high scores in the individualist group illustrates that most everyone has the focus of task-accomplishment and group harmony is not really an issue. Everyone in an individualist group is entitled to their difference of opinion. Having your own individual thoughts and sacrificing group harmony is common in the American school-of-thought.

As in the first scenario, differences by individuals will be acknowledged, respected, and not really made an issue.

Findings of Group #3:

As we take a look at the third and final group (Table 7) composed of five white group members and three Asian group members we see even more differences and some unexpected results.

Table 7: Results of group with 5 white members and 3 Asian members

CulturaluCultural Progression of Mean of Mean of r-Score make-up of Team collectivists Individualists workgroups 5 0.059 5 white male * All agreeing 17 14 5 white male i/\ (hi.) group members * Progressing well (hi) 6 0_.161I 3 Asian male 1 8 * 3 Asian males dissenting 11 8 group membersgo ( \ · Not progressing well (med.) (lo)

The higher score in the collectivist group illustrates their norm of group harmony

when the group is performing well. As we look at the third group from an individualist

point-of-view notice again that when the group is progressing well, everyone is

comfortable with the group and the decision-making process. The high mean score of this

group proves the hypothesis that interaction among different people should be higher in

63 individualist cultures. However, the drastic drop in the mean scores disproves the hypothesis when the Asians disagree with the white males and progression is not well.

This disproves the hypothesis because it was assumed that interaction among ethnically different group members would be greater in an individualist culture. This was not the case however because Asians come from a collective cultural background and tend to place more emphasis on harmonious relationships even if it is at the expense of task accomplishment.

Interpretationsof Group #3:

In each situation, everyone seems to be comfortable with the racial differences as long the group goals are being met and, there is no disagreement. However, the mean score takes a drop when the three Asian males raise their voices in disagreement with the already collective group. Here, the low score may illustrate that the group has lost its collective focus. Therefore, racial differences or the number of Asians in the group may be used to blame for the delayed decision-making.

When there is conflict, individualists tend to have self-interests in mind, whereas collectivists feel obligated to the cooperation and collaboration of the group. Because of previous research that I have done, I feel that this scenario is congruent with the values of the Asian culture. The Asian culture is one that emphasizes serving the best interest of the group. Though the Asian males are only three out of the eight in the group, they still have a sense of connection and want to see that the best interest of the group is considered and gives priority to the collective interest.

This situation also illustrates that the white males have collective ideas as well, but obviously ones that are different from what the Asians are thinking. I think the lower

64 mean rating illustrates that two collective groups are not able to work together because they both have different goals in mind, rather than a common one. This fragmentation can be a threat to the breakdown of the group. The five white males may be more oriented to their task and are willing to place less priority on relationships with others.

The low mean score proves the individualists' frustration when the Asians are unable to make decisions independently of one another.

Evaluation of Analysis

Each of the sample groups was examined separately by their cultural make-up.

The first group proved the hypothesis because there was only one team member that was of a different demographic background. The rest of the group was homogeneous.

In the second group, it was found that the hypothesis was proven correct as well because all of the group members were of the same race and gender. However, an unexpected result was found when a member of the collective group disagreed and the rest of the group wasn't tolerant of their behavior. This disagreement still showed that there was interaction among the group, but the interaction was a threat to the uniformity of the collectivist culture. The high scores represented by the individualists proves the research by defining individualism as America's most distinct cultural trait.

The third and final group came with some unexpected results as well. The high score of the collectivist culture that is progressing well proves the hypothesis because value is placed on group harmony. The unexpected result came when the mean score of the individualists dropped when the group was not progressing well. Here, the low score illustrates that the group has lost its collective focus at the expense of task

accomplishment. The low score disproved the hypothesis because the case was one that

65 individuals were NOT respected because of their individuality and there were fewer interactions among group members.

Table 8: Proof of Hypothesis

CulturalCultural Progression of Mean of Mean of make-up of Team collectivists Individualists workgroups 1 16 16 All agreeing (hi) (hi) 7 white male Progressing well PROOF MODERATE group members SIGNIFICANCE.SIGNIFICANCE 2 15 13 1 black male * Black group member (hi) (med.) group member dissenting PROOF MODERATE _ Not progressing well SIGNIFICANCE 3 16 14 · All agreeing (hi) (hi) · Progressing well PROOF NOT 8 white male SIGNIFICANT group members 4 10 15 * 1 member dissenting (lo) (hi) * Not progressing well UNEXPECTED NOT SIGNIFICANT 5 17 14 * All agreeing (hi) (hi) 5 white male * Progressing well PROOF PROOF group members 6 11 8 3 Asian male * 3 Asian males dissenting (med.) (lo) group members * Not progressing well NOT NOT CONGRUENT CONGRUENT

Summary of Chapter

This study was an attempt to determine how a group gives meaning to a person based on their demographic differences, rather than responding to their actual personality.

The assumption was made that individual behavior in an organization is determined by

the culture and is based upon the characteristics of its members, not how the person really

66 is. It was hypothesized that collective and individualist organizational cultures will interact and react to each other differently when there is an attempt to diversity a work group. Chapter IV demonstrated the findings and interpretations of the results taken from this study. In some, but not all cases presented was the hypothesis proven to be true.

Some of the results were unexpected yet fascinating to find.

67 Chapter V

Summary, Conclusions, Recommendations

Summary

In chapter I, the growing issue of diversity in our workplaces was introduced and discussed. The information presented led to the explanation for the purpose of the study and the effect organizational culture has on the workplace. The research objectives and a hypothesis statement were established in this chapter as well. The chapter concluded with a detailed description of the significance for the study.

In chapter II, an extensive review of literature was examined regarding issues such as the increase and significance of diversity in today's workplace. Throughout the literature review, subject matter was narrowed down in order to focus on the specific objectives stated in Chapter I. Changes in the workplace that influenced diversity within organizations were discussed along with homogeneous and heterogeneous work groups.

A more in-depth focus was presented regarding the characteristics of individualist and collectivist organizational cultures. The attributes of these two cultures were summarized and defined as to how they influence cooperation within an organization. To conclude chapter II, cooperation mechanisms used by each organizational culture were summarized and to what effect they had on the creativity and productivity of an organization.

Chapter III discussed the methodology and procedures used to gather the data.

The characteristics of the population and sample were identified as well as the research

design. The research design was very complex, detailed, and required gathering an

extreme amount of data in order for the results to be accurate. A database was created and

68 maintained to house the data and to make statistical calculations. Overall the study was very effective and the data well managed. The data processing and analysis made up most of this chapter and concluded with a discussion of limitations for the study.

In chapter IV, the results of the collected data were presented to illustrate if the hypothesis stated for the study was accurate. Recall that it was hypothesized that interaction among demographically dissimilar people should be higher in individualist cultures than in collectivist cultures. Looking at the results from the data continuums, it was obvious that those who rated higher on the scales were more likely to accept a culturally different person into their workgroup. Therefore, those that rated lower were more likely NOT to accept the cultural differences.

Based on the hypothesis, the results should show that individualists will have a higher mean rating overall when there is more cultural diversity. These high scores proved the hypothesis statement. On the other hand, collectivists were expected to rate lower, proving the resistance to interact with someone who is culturally different.

Conclusions

I believe research gathered in this study will contribute greatly to all areas of business and industry that are competitively involved in the domestic marketplace as well as the global marketplace. As Lewis Griggs, a San Francisco-based filmmaker and diversity consultant once said, "only 10% of us do business with foreigners, but 100% of us do business with Americans who are different from ourselves. Americans who are of

Asian descent, or African-Americans, or Hispanics, or whatever...we all have cultural

differences right here at home, the ignorance of which gets us into trouble as it does

overseas". The concept of diversity has become such a prominent issue in today's

69 workplace, which will allow this research to be used. This study can help clarify how organizational culture affects how a person of another may "fit in" with the culture already established in the organization.

Recommendations for Further Research

The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not a person's behavior is defined and understood by individualist and collectivist organizational cultures based on their physical appearance and how a group reacts when there is an attempt to diversity a workgroup. From the results of the data it is obvious that physical appearance may have something to do with behavior and decision-making within workgroups, but the research can't stop here. It is important to understand the implications of the research presented thus far and, it is also important to realize that there are numerous implications for further research. In this last section of the paper, you will find the recommendations I feel would be most beneficial and important to continue on with this study.

The first recommendation I have includes using a variety of cultural backgrounds for the study and participants. Because of the demographics at UW-Stout, the majority of responses came from people of a Caucasian background. It would be interesting to demonstrate the findings of this study with a variety of cultural backgrounds represented

and with larger sample sizes to illustrate a greater significance among the groups.

Along with this larger sample and more diverse population, I would recommend

that the outcome variables (i.e. the case studies) be observed rather than found out by

simply questioning participants. I feel that observation of participants in a real, working

group environment would create more accurate results. With questionnaires, there is a

70 tendency for participants to "psych out" the survey by answering according to how they might be expected to, rather than how they truly feel.

As mentioned previously, when the case studies for this research were created, boundaries as to the number of minorities in each work were made as well. There were a defined number of majority and minority members in the groups, the majority members always outnumbered the minorities and, all the groups were made up of entirely males.

The results showed that when a group was fairly homogeneous the number of minorities didn't really make a difference. How accurate is that information?

In the groups where there was more cultural diversity among members, the data showed that these cultural differences might have been an issue within the group. If we were to leave the studies as-is and continue research further, some of the following questions related to the existent workgroups might be answered. Why does the collectivist group accept the black person even though he is dissenting from the group and going against the cultural norm of group harmony? It is difficult to reject someone without accepting him or her in the first place. Therefore, the data begs the question if the black member was even accepted in the first place

In the second sample, the white male group member was rejected for disagreeing with the collective group. What then will he have to do to get a higher rating with the all- white collective group? Will he ever be accepted into the group again? Further research may imply that the all-white group is more prejudice than they think they are.

And finally, in the third sample, the low scores illustrate that the whites are non-

accepting of the Asian group members' behavior. Why is it that two collective groups

have difficulty reaching a decision? These results can justify further research regarding

71 the number of minorities and majority members in the workgroup. For this study the number eight was used out of convenience. The dynamics of larger or smaller culturally diverse workgroups would be interesting to investigate as well. There were also only three broad cultural categories represented. Because of the many interpretations of racial diversity and culture, the results of the data magnify the broadness of the study. One may want to narrow down the minority groups to more specific cultures (i.e. Chinese as opposed to Asian) so results may be more accurate for that particular group. It would be interesting to see, in any of these cases, the results of a minority dominated work group with little majority representation (i.e. a workgroup made of 7 Asians and 1 white) and/or two minority workgroups (i.e. 5 Asians and 3 blacks) as well.

Further research for organizations attempting to diversify their work groups would be beneficial too because it is obvious that there are implications for training.

Diversity training is a hot topic in many organizations today. However, until an organization is fully committed to accepting and diversifying their workforce, efforts for diversity training may be useless. It would be interesting to conduct further research on work groups having one as a control group provided with diversity training. And, to have another as a non-control group without training. This research could make a case for an

organization attempting to diversify their workforce by illustrating how ready and willing

organizations are to become completely diversified.

Given the demographic changes occurring now and in the near future, most

organizations will have no choice but to integrate minorities into their workforces.

However, many companies are only giving "lip service" to cultural diversity. Hopefully

72 the research presented in this paper will help those facing the decision to integrate and realize the potential of diversity in the workplace.

73 ; 7 Whtli 4719t.. 1 lbMk mro[.-4gbo«ilng W8l

Total St~Br» TrdltbSi ...... l ...... f ...... *...... §...... 9...... 3...... 2 ....:...... ----- .--.-. ...6...... olMa l";...... I ...... ?...... 8 ...... oWl ...... !?c 37w 7 2 .4 7 $ 2 9 9 i 111213 14 (~lrso*4 I 2 3 (9o.4o34nc ?•'"!S»?"'..:...... 3 ......

...... ? ...... *~3*~ ~3~ 4 7~ 44 9 41 4 .. ..79 . cI $ s 47f4 45 8 4 ;3 6 6~49 4 ...... --.------..--..---..--..--...... 6.-.-.... --...... ? ...... '*...... S...... §„...... sl....l ll^ ...„„ „ ...„. ...6...... S...... „.. ..«.. .. „ ..«. .<„ „. l l l l .<...... 5. ... H ... ^^...... ^ ...... 7 :...... A24 ...... 2§...... *...9 ..:..?...2 I../..2 ...... 7 I ..... 9..9 ..... ?...... 1 „ .^^^..... 7...... 9..... 4 ...... ¶.... 2 4 3 8 a.499 939.4912

...... -.-.--3..--- -.------..- A ..-...... 1...... 1 1 ^ 5 ^.:..!<.:...... *.:. ?:.. ..*... :..«...6fSa.0. ..».. ^.. ..3.. .<„ ..?.. .«...... 1 1.117...... 9?...... 7.....a...... : 11! 4 42 4 4 5 9 4

9111.93i - :1 1 a 8 9 7 44 3 3 144

l•.I...... 3 ...... ---.-- - -..--...... 7--- ...... i 13 21·-- 40.4...... 9.." ··-7 ··- 91:-i:- 4·····li:-:· i ·.4_111· · 8.12lllal 9 .3::::":::::::7 4 7 9 7 3 9 38 $ 33 ..1 . :1...... ^ ^..... i^^ ...... -...3...1...... :.ri..<.. „...... S...... ?.a..iI....i. :...... l....:i.i.?...l..3.,l» ...... i._.1.. .. .3....s..3...... a4...... 5.. § ...3....4....4...... 8 ...... S...... S3.. ...„ ..:.:...... ^ )...... 1...... :...... i ...... -.-...... S ... ..-.-.. -----. ------..--. --ft -.. §--- 1 --- 8------1 ...---. .... S...... s ...... „. ...is ......

...... 23 ..... 3..... „ „...... 3...... 6 ...... 3 ...4...... 6 ...... <......

..... i...... > ...... ?..------:.------. -.-...: ..... I. .... »..<...... 10.. ¹ .... C I ....:.... 8 . S i Sl ::t ...... ~~~~~~~. ~ It...... » ..:...... S..... Z~~~~i-iiih·-·i-li-i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i-~~~~~·_-i~~~~~~~~li~~~...... ------.....5 ...... :...... $...... s .A ...... ------.S.. ------. ..---. .------...... ---...... 71::1: 111.·5!.111_1_hlllllll~l._lllllb. 7 9 5111_19 .31111s~.l 9. 7. .9 .4...... 7. . . 234 3 9 9 9 l9 1 2 3 4 P133a .4 3 99 4U .1 1 3 1 9 4 9 4 4 & 9 V.. 9. 1« .7.7.~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 7 9~~A~ ~ 9 79~ 9 6A i ...... " . .? ...... 1.4^8^ .2J^7J.. ~ ~ 3 ~ 9 ~ 9 ~ .94or-t 73 1 •••I • •••n29 119 7--

&ov. 4)49 o:098~~~~~~o.of Pjfxifari~ ...... ~~ ~~ ~ ~3.. ~ ~ ~ ~... ~S... ~ ~... ~9...... ~~ ~~ ~~~~~- ..9. ------.1..1. ... r.....S---I------~..------«.- 1.- ...... 3... .(St )

...... i...... ^ J. ...."...... '...... i...... 3...------<{. ------C4 -'------^l ^ : ------'9 ---- To4 9908 294841sto39 s~~) i i I f I I 1 I I )~~crpnir I I I 1PgrofO 1 •...... ------..... ------. -----.....--...... 4 3 ----7 ...AS9...... 645a.. ..3... ..a... .327~~~~~~~~~~~~9 .„ 8...... a.. r----- :: :-:: :. .: :. -----1 98 1 -- 9 8 (40 ii 12 43 14 (944 I 943 r77.1x1I . 4. . 9 9 2 ...... &...... 5..a l..i. ... 5.7. 6. 7.7l. ^ 7^^. . .. !»...i...... 6 ' .'t . . . . i^i ~i~:iS~;il----~...^ : 1' 4...... 31...... 3 ...... 3a9 3 . . I . .

...1·_·1·1·X.1.4 ·....1··...... 4...... 4 ...... S...... 46... ..4.. ..."...... 9.. . . 0 . . [..?. 9..

..«g...... <...... '...... 8 . ..--..--...-..-..-.. 2 ..----.-. 8.-.. .-.- 8.. ..g .---...... -..-...----- .-.-.. 31.-... :..-...... - : 9 ------7• . . 9...... 9 9...... 9 99. ^ ...9....3 3 ...... 2 9 ..... i...... 3...... 1...... 6.. ...8.. ...6...... 3.. ...3. ...1... 3. '-. '------..------?.'.1. --..-. " ...... 6. .. . ::.: 6:. . 96 ...... ! ...... f ...... 2 .3 3...... 9 .. ..9. ...14 8 ..4 . 4.. 1 .. ------. 1..: -. -!l-l: 9 4 1 7 4 9 9 9 9 9 9 J . .. 7 -- 4--- .....a ...... ?..A~l.».....~ ...~S...... 1 ~ ~3 ~.. ~. ~.... ~~~~A~ ...... A ..A ...... 7 •:•^•":: : 14..3...... ?...4 .. 4 a7..4..4 9.3 3 4. 9. 4...9 ...... ? ...... 79:·jl,::::i': 4 9 9 1 57 t 69 23 a5 1 7 1 7169 4 9 1 7 I 3 3 i I4:7 7 3 7 il '~I ^l .... 8...... 3...... 7...... i.....a..... '... '...... l l:ll ^...... 9...... 1......

4' _. . .7. .7..A.7 7...... 7 9_4..'.. 3._1.,3 R _8 _1_8 9So 231 Sol ...... 7. .. 7 ...... ------9 ------...... ------...... 9.1 3 3... 7.1 8 . .89 . 4. . 9 . 1. .. 2i 3 3 9 1 9. 7 . . . 1 1 3 44 I"·~~~~~i~~i~~~-i:V~~~~~~····6---~~~~~M Oov...... 6..~~~~~~~~~~# ...... -19 ...... 949 9 .. . 3 5 4 3 3 3 2 8 4 :XInl

8m 1 Doy. 088. 1 Io 04 ...... wo . *

4 ..------....1..~ I ~1$..... ~ ~ ~ ~ 1...~ ~"1' ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~~~Pslcpol9 ;* 1 ? 7 ' r14*1¶4'

$B'SSSsS•!Sfc4 ^^$ *S7 •r~i7 ^4!^ 1 ^7 '.i.SS $^ 6? S^ ^"•?10^•SS 4'?K? 7B^' 9 .*0.T li4 ?^l ^^ 1^ ^* ^*^ 4941^ ^^ 'j' '1 '74"^"""^17 ^ 9. ;;^•'• 9i ••l 9 *7 74($9 7 *0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~*9~...... :...... i 1*^ ^Ii Il 14111 9 1.9. 44. 5i749 $9 71 .^» 84^ 1^'~ 9 1 ^s^1 4 7 3 8 6 ...... iiiii 7~ 1911$ 77i 1~ '*4 ii 14i ilii^^iiw77 jic7 6 8i 4 6 87467804 6 *6 6 7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6014 16111411^ 4li6l~ll 111171.1^1 *7 II fel9. 1* 4 sl III81? 67147 II6jl8 911^. 9166 i*l19. IIIll -4 I9wllT II 141131.. i4l~~l lt.l *71 4s4::: l *4...... 9. 1.1.. 1..! 1 1--1------. .1' . l*7l 141111 14* II 1116877 II II llIl1^1 8I *I16llll'l

14I 4lil II 111 III 118 724 4(7Wi 1III 144I *111121.jA. 4i *4 *8il III II 7 6II 4I 4* 4~ * I'l 7 1*1 . Ili 1141111I*•••••••4 f ^ 4•••••••4"^ ••••••••^••••••^

79.2 4 9~~~~~~~~~~~...... 9 8 9 *

SS•:•:•:S:S •:•::••::•::••::::?:••••::• :^^: BS•H•••• :SS ::::B S:S;::•?:• ::S..•:•::::.B:I'll.- -:;:•::::: •::•:I :ti:i m " " f S •::SS::•SS:S: im :S::B: :S :S:H ...•<^ . ....11 ..... ll :1.111 1111111...... 1:.11...... 1:1. 1

11111111:11... ~ ... l 11 11 III 111111 11111 III 111 ii .I ..... l.lll~...... l111.. ...11 •ll I ...... 9 W 7~ 0 f 4 S 41 1

.::. ; ...... ; .;: .:. ....:...... :...... :. :;.... :.::. : ...:. ::. :.. :. : ..... :... :...... :...... :.:...... :....: ...... :..:.:..:...... iT ff -...... 9. . . .9. . . .9. .9

-—-—...... "-; ";H 5":-- — ;;s H - -'^ ------: ------...... 1484 4 8 la 4 io74 9 9. .Y.O.9. 4 9 1 7 86...... 6...... $...... 7...... 19...... 9 9. 9 1

*0 8 8 4 9 8 8 846:8 6 8 64 3o 6 8: 47 ..*.44 4..... : .;...... :...... 2...... 9* ...... ~ 9. ~ . ...7 I

*7 3 4 4 7f47 4 47.94 . 8 4 8 *7 17~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~74...$...... 1 <>»....9 ... ;.. 8; .s .: .1 .....

11111Hll Hll IIllil II II II'III HI 111 HI' 1111 II 11111111111111111*11 11111111111*1111131 lllllol_____ I I lo lf_111l__ 1

7...... 9..I...... 7...... 1.....1 ......

o.*4SOS*n ...... 0 1614 2 ...... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~......

T 4 4 1 44 g~aW^ PAMikipaOi?, paIptsUfI I. ?.?.....1..:.._.3 < .P...)KI» 6 7 j_.8 ? M . 1.1...1?. .- .2 . 1 .). . 1 ...... 1.. )...... I j 4 4 < 7$? 6 4. 4 74 . . ..6.1 *7^""$ » a i6 1 6 ¶ ------.. -...... 1 ...... 1... ^...... ^ ...... ^...... ^...... - ...... A...:...... I...... ------...... : :. / 4 7' 4 4 A4 5. / I -4 S- 8._ $.., .4.. ..^....?.. . j. 3.... A. ...<...... :...... 8...... :...... 110 10 6 ~ A~I ....^..^.^..."'.. •'...... ^...... ^...... -...... ^ ^ , ,,,, , ,,8,,. ,,9I„. ------...8...liy]o : .: . J:.^.- ..J..?.5...... S . ..? ...... ?. „...^...... ^...... ^...... ^ .....-...... : C.I.^ __.B...... :i:::<:: :::...... ------i 10------8 1' 6 4_8-_I:l_:10 14.41.:..4._1.6 ...... 2 1.§.__I~~J_. 88.?.. 4 44 ?...... 4...... 4...... I20(14 4. 4...... 4 6 ~ .....4 ~~4 7 • ~~~~~~4.....6.4' "i"7443. ~~446. 7 .... ZP" ....14 .S...... 6 :..6 ....:..P.:.....66 1 ...... -...... 4. 4 770 I 6 . 4A6 .. .4.6.... -...4 ...... - 4444^...... 4 .- . . 44 11 ...... 1 ..... ••"is .."".1. :...... :.i.. ... i .:.... i .':...... : '.'... .^ '''...l»....? &... '...... a...\... ---.j : ...... „«.. .; .a..„ :...... :.^ . $.: 3 . 9 .... .4 ..3.8. .9.... ?...... 65...... --- C... ..S..?.._ 2».;;...... 2 .4. ... 4.. 1. 100 .. .'S - S4 ...... 2...... f 4...3. » ...... 5 2...... 6. 7. . .73 7..... 14.4 ...... I*...... l.... .^.... 5 143 . 144 6 4 6 4 5 4 6 4 4 6 44 47 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l.14. ].AA3 I.--: - ^-...... ^26 . . . . .4^ . .^ . .:_....1^.: *^ . 4 L:.P i : : > 5 16 . 6.; . . .14. . . . "iiii3i-- :'-:'"""5"""" •"s••••• •7•'t ^i ^ ^ " IJ ^ ^ ^ • ^ :l l ::::i : :1_5;:; il ^_v .•:1:7 . ::«: .:. .. ::::_"llG:. ;.:.:.:.:: j -:------s_- __g ------. l 7' f... 4 § ------...... ;. :: „...... ?.. : ....:. : . .84.14....3 .... c .:.!...... » .... 3... :. .: ...... ;...... 1 ...... 4-.... : '« :; „ : . 21 ) 6 4-----..--.--6----6 4 .... 1.~ .... . 2462.. 6....*7.6 4..6 6t 6 .,76 6 S . ... 6 6 .... 2.4 ...... 6...... ::...... 6...... :...... -.. .-..- :-..-...... -...... :.:.. ..:--.. : .1 ...... f...... 6...... 66.^. . ..1. ...] .i. 7.».Jl ...... ilU> S ll9 ....i l ..l.. .. :: : :. 3.... : :. 4: : :; :: •:" ^ ::: .: ...:^. :.

I 1111~~~~~~~/414/411,1, 1 76sg.s - -s -:5a~;£:-6 . 14.^ :^ gg;;•s5:•:;•--j; g -s •:s ^:s :;::•:s sl;6• S K;

Ofgot 441

I i ijii I iil~~~~~~~~i 4 •••••.... -.. . ..• ...... !...... g ...... g . •^...... a g • .. . ::6i, ^ „ -..^4.„ .: ......

"" " ;;;:•: "•:S " ": '.l:;: "^ • ^-:] ^;: ::;:S •: ^ :•: •:;.! ::;: ^: S : : ::Y ..::::1 :: » :: . ::^ ;:: .:::; -:: 7.: j : .: 4 - ; -::: 71:::::::-i :e;:<: : .')'„:-„ »: -:.B :-: : : »-::V:.:.:.: S : ' : """7 . . .7lll ...... (661 ------4....617 --- ...... : ^...... :....:.....------:;:Pi:-: ...... •.'„.i-8;;:.. , ;---:--:? ;..... <; :.::-78..::::a ^ • ^ ::^;... ..: .» .:^ :i. 6 46.4 6 6 . . 4... 1 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...... •g;•S:^;•;^?S^ ?£^m ^ ^ ^ ^ -6 60 11114 :^4 a i;;;6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~::::::::~:::::::S•Kg i>::'6,;:::: ;,.e::;.g:j:::::: ::»;. .:;:•S:::1 g:^ £:7»$3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---lljlilji-iiI11111111 ;:;?Hj::1l: •:.:4;.:;(•:•:::^.:.::::: 15:. ::: ; :.:.: 2 .~l~.-"..ji:.-~;-::: j: :::::------i-lji'j::i'I_:4P A ---I :2iI. (gol~ 4 6 16 4 4 6------K;S:-0;;'^ m: 'ff::":<"H::-^ ::-T• B:5•:;S :5••9 :;1:• l:•:i -;4^ ;3;•::::::i:::W t ; ••« :;:S-i>:" ;::;:•:- «: B- 1 ->•.:;:;; „?: .... 8..... -- .... i.6 a .^... ; ...... 1-1--:--:----:-- ...... : --- 6 . .... --.. - .-l:il '^ ••1^^g f•^ ;^'";^; ; :^:;;'^ ; t ^ ^^ ^ ^ ;';. ^,;g ;;l; ;;^a...... ^ a . ... :: ::l :::::...... ;...... 3...... II6_:_::::::-:6-: -4 : :-•----I:.S :-..^ H ^a ^ ^fl:S ; y^.Hg-i-l:j 6 - :8i-

6------4 6-6 5 ,1 6 3 1 2

..•••„•••-...... :.:.:....: .:...... 7 „...... :_:__-.!La-- l: --~l_:a's^ i 74:::::L:::i:I:.::::^ 3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--.z; ~s•::-:-i s • : : .:».;...;...».:'tl:::ii:::?-: ...... : ------:-:-...... : s.....:8:j:1:j0 ...... v ...... -::::: ::1::~:-::::::::------::::-: ----.. -::-. l. ••.•...... S w • 6 ..... I----Sf --- ::::::1'11:::::1 III::: :l- lilllll ~~~~~~~~'---~-:. III:)~~ 1-:1:1------:..' :···:·:::::·-·-::::rj: I...... ::j:. ·· ··. ----···:: :...... ::··: -:---1-:1------P:i 6 6.::; ::::; :::::;6-::63: :::4::::: : : ::: a : . ------:::::: ------:::::::::::::::i: i::::::':l-:~:::::::::::...... :: . .'::''':::'ia · illllliiii lililjillll i- i-:- ::::::::i : :. i -:,i,------i-i: : - -i : .1--i 1:1::::::-: - :5:::;: :::::i ------: ...... £.i...:.i::.:;: . ...:..ii ....:~...... ------::::i:::::::::::::: ::::::::: :::-::-i~s::-::::--:-::::: ...... ------:::::~~~~~~~~~. I::::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ...... :-:;::.::2i:.::lg I~i._:::.:.::" :_:.::5:s:;:l -;::.:.:ig:::B:.:::: li~j-.-l.5 : g:::;::::.! .::l :i;5:-7:B::;::::-:;•:.:..:;::: ;:i-lli'1-:_l•:g -:•i~ d•- :;:- :ss:g - ;:;:» :.K w -- ::- - :!-

:;::B:si:• :::•~--:":; S:::::a::;iK:l:ll::s-j :-::: »:::::d::4 ::-4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -:.: ::^.s:::-:- 6m;~~.- -•:- :. -- s i::: !:si ;.;•:;::--;.; ...... I --I ------~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :::-::B-i i~i-l-~i~i------...... ------

~:::::::::::::::::::::::::: :·::::::: : :::! :::::::::: : ::::::::4 ------...... : ...... T|.No...... ll:!...... e4) ...... Di o...con::lallon 4l»--1)

a 1^ .< 1 Pa Zk:!l-lol» P«»l6llt1

------...... -...... -I...... ------... it.!.. ...----...... ) ...... I I 1 l 14 2 $ 4

...... ::i::': ':''f'':T.....::, , , .., ,2,4,,,, !...... 4 ...... M ...... ,,,,,,,4,,,,,,',...-.'... ,,,,,...... 1 I 2,.'... ' ....'.. .'.... ' .... .'.... ,,...... I.!....13<: IS :::6...... , ...... ,,,s...... J 1 :...... 1...... 7 9. .:...6...!... .:...... :...... :..1... . :.:,..4...... -..: ..... I. .:. , S,-1..9.., ,.., ...... ----.-...... ::... -----' - - -.1.-. ... : 4 ......

' ...... ' ...... -...... -...... I''''''',t.'., ' '.: ,,.,''9'''..'...... ' 1...... 18 I...1 ....

...... 7...... (...... 1412 ...... 7?...... I...... ?14 ......

i. ape 16 13;;.

...... ,,,,,,

21 16 1$

------...... ---. -. ,- -..., , , ., , Q38,,6:6,,,,,,,,,,,...... ------...... ------...... - ...-?...... - ....--...... S

) ·...... 1 ...... IS ..... 16------1~,,, .------,,,.,,,,,,4, ..11 I I, 3 I I 1 ...... 18...... <» ...... , 14.4 .. (S l..I ...... 1 6...... §16~~~I»l .1.4 . ... ¶--I------7-- 4 .S-

12156 ll I .8..IS...... ------10 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.--.-l0...... 6161' :•:>(11:?; ...... 16 164...... t...X.....4... 2 ...... IS 41 60 12 161 IS :. I

:...... 15

I6 13 16

...... - - .- .-...... T-Test earm 13) FigureD15. Co relaton (Team 3)

:"•"?• 0 .' :' "09 : • . . S d 0s TotalScore o TotalScoreof : - Iw; aParticipants3i Participants .0 125.. ._S I-.. Participant (Set#i) (Set42) 1 12 i. ..;f .l1 19 1 I: :68 12 3 15 :J .S f-I 24 2 79: 19 5 14 1 . 3. . 65 15 7 15 1 . 4 _ 85 24 8 25 i' :112 .5 70 14 9 24 i 9 6. : 80 11 11 19 .'::a1 :S,:iJ13 7. .64. 15 13 14 S 13 .:. :: 75 : . 25 18 14 15 9 73 24 22 12 5 l,10 . 81 18 25 13 .. 20: 12 . 1 68 19 :..;2d . _-__gS11 I :_12 80 12 ___233. _ . ? 19 13 :. 73. 14 4 1 I9 146 0 Meanl 15: 86 : 13 161 _ 14 i:16 79 13 . :3.- : T-Tes . 17 93 15 0.148479253 18 : 58 14 19 :88 5 .20 : 92 . 12 21 .79 : 11 22 70 12 :23 . 92 19 : 24 83 16 25 63 .13

-0.047479691

T-Tet (team #4) FigureD1 6. Correlation (Team 4)

o g Total Score Total Score o 5ml I, 3-Participants Participants S3 - 3S di Participant (Set #1) (Set #2) 2 6 __:S-::: :: 14 1 87 14 4 13 S . 21 2 76 6 6 12 ' ::': . 12 3 85 21 9 14 18 4 73 13 10 13 iS 25 5 83 12 12 12 I.Sl1 . i 22 6 68 12 14 15 :S 3 14 7 96 18 18 14 ,S5 -:- 9 8 84 25 19 6 16 4 9 66 14 20 5 7-': 3 20 10 69 13 22 6 - 13 11 81 22 ,' l: -! 24 9 I: '2:: S 7 12 59 12 25 7 1 13 90 14 Mean 14 76 15 I1O I I 15 15 80 9 4. T-Test 16 86 4 0,019121948 17 90 20 18 76 14 19 63 6 20 72 5 21 90 13 22 73 6 23 99 7 24 55 9 25 75 7

0.305671193 T-Test(Team 5) FigureD17. Correlatlon (Tam )

•o )5 3 E Total Scoreof Total Score of a Paricipnt ParticantPartipants o t- _S 0 Participant (Set#1) (Set#2) 1 19 : ._'2: .- 15 1 74 19 5 18 = '33.: ' 1'918 2 82 15 10 13 :. 18 3 94 18 11 18 .- 6 ' 15 4 101 18 12 13 10 5 63 18 13 19 . '-:'8 16 6 87 15 15 23 ;:.:'.-:: 20 7 82 10 16 20 1,j4'i 14 8 87 16 20 15s 1': 9 9 94 20 21 14 'I'Ž1 ' 9 10 76 13 23 12 1.: : ' 17 11 79 18 24 16 ':"22 - 9 12 77 13 25 15 13 79 19 Mean= 14 91 14 17 14 15 101 23 5. T-Test 16 65 20 0.059455817 17 82 9 18 92 9 19 81 17 20 71 15 21 54 14 22 85 9 23 55 12 24 76 16 25 71 15

0.153084381

IT-Teatfl ^^iqureIi9aBSl--- C7tellt Tibnam#6

•g3 .;:!:.:£- :T1':" i~i?:i~fr' F'•ia::;:P:nicIpante:' .:Participanta ,

1 11 11 6 .f:14' ,: 6': ' s.. 2 20 11 1 3 72 - 6 14 20 - :. ' 4^, : 7 17 3 'S35

1i3 1o 3 - g 1 - 16 3 i - i65 21 7 :5 5 " 9 - 72._-'S 7 ,_, 24 9 0t , 12 lt> 14 0i 20

5 611' 8 04Ba i 95a^ 3E

0.161386971 66 E

~i9:- ---- '.~sb - ;'"- f ZEC76,

ZJ205 ,841_ 123 i

.:.s24-. ':'ag-i f70 g9 2.-:.i BibliouraPhv

APHIS Council on Managing Diversity. The "Four" Layers of Diversity In Everyone (On-line). Available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/mb/wfd/define.html

Adams, Susan M. (1999, February). Settling cross-cultural disagreements begins with 'where' not 'how'. The Academy of Management Executive, v13 n13 i l pp. 109-1 10.

Adler, Nancy J. (1986) International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. Boston, MA: PWS Kent Publishing Company. pp.89.

Alverson, M. (1998, July/August). The Call to Manage Diversity. Women in Business, pp. 34-35.

Baugn S.G. & Graen, G.B. (1997, September). Effects of team gender and racial composition on perceptions of team performance in cross-functional teams. Group and Organization Management, v22 n3 pp.36 6 -3 84 .

Bloch, Julia Chang. (1994, October). Diversity in the Workplace, remarks delivered as part of an International Forum of the Institute of International Education (IIE). (On-linc). Available at http://www.exceed.com/diverse.html

Chatman, J., & Barsade, S. (1995, September). Personality, organizational culture, and cooperation: evidence from a business simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, v40 n3 pp. 423-444.

Chatman, J., Polzer, J., Barsade, S., Neale, M. (1998) Being different yet feeling similar: the influence of demographic composition and organizational culture of work processes 9 752 and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, v43 i4 pp.74 - .

Chen, C., Chen, X., Meindl, J. (1998 April) How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural effects of individualism-collectivism. Academy of Management Review, v23 n2 pp. 28 5-3 0 5.

Cox Jr., Taylor (1993) Cultural Diversity in Organizations-Theorv. Research and Practice. Barrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Elashmawi, F. & Harris, P.R. (1993). Multicultural Management-New Skills for Global Success. Houston, London, Paris, Zurich, Tokyo: Gulf Publishing Company.

Garfield, Charles. (1992) Embracing Employee Diversity in Charles Garfield Group eds. Second to None.

74 Loder, M., Rosener, J. Ph.D., Workforce America! Managing employee diversity as a vital resource. (1991). Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin.

Smith K., & Berg, D. (1997). Cross-Cultural Groups at Work. International Journal of , v21 pp.8-14.

Stamps, David (1996, November). Welcome to America. Watch Out for . Training, pp. 22-30.

Sunderland, Tyler (1996, April). Diversity in the Workplace. (On-line). Available at http://cctr.umkc.edu/wicc/wdpaper.html

Triandis, H., Kurkowski, L., Gelfand, M. (1994a). Workplace Diversity in Triandis Dunnette, and Hough, eds. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, v4, 2"d edition. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Triandis, H., Kurkowski, L., Gelfand, M. (1994b). Toward a Model of Cross-Cultural Industrial and Organizational Psychology in Triandis, Dunnette, and Hough eds. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, v4, 2nd edition. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Triandis, Harry C. (1977). Interpersonal Behavior. Monterey, CA: Books/Cole Publishing Company.

UW-Stout Facts. (On-line). Available at http://www.uwstout.edu/geninfo/facts.html

Watson, W., Johnson, L., & Merritt, D. (1998 June). Team orientation, self-orientation, and diversity in task groups: their connection to team performance over time. Group and 9 Organization Management, v23 n 2 pp.161-1 8 .

Work, John W. (1993) What Every CEO Already Knows About Managing Diversity. Highland City, FL: Rainbow Books, Inc

75