and Collectivism in Organisational Context: Issues of Self, Power and Person- Fit

Louise P. Parkes

Revised Thesis Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of

School of Psychology The University of New South Wales

August, 2000 ii

Abstract

The Individualism-Collectivism (1-C) dimension reflects cultural differences in the degree to which persons form close knit groups, derive their identity from group membership, and give priority to the group's interests over their own. This thesis investigates why differences on 1-C occur, and how 1-C relates to the psychology of self and organisations. On a national level, 1-C correlates highly with wealth. This study investigated whether such resource power may contribute to differences on 1-C at the level. Two alternate theories were tested within the context of organisational power hierarchies: (1) that greater power is related to higher individualism and lower collectivism, and (2) that this relationship is a product of person-organisation fit, such that in collectivist organisations the relationship is inverse. This thesis also further investigated how 1-C relates to differences in self-concept and social identity. Both field and laboratory data were collected. Questionnaire data were obtained from samples of employees in matching organisations in individualistic and collectivistic countries. Quasi-experimental and laboratory data were obtained from culturally diverse student and organisational samples within . Results demonstrated that 1-C was primarily related to the different emphases placed on social versus autonomous self-concepts. Self-concepts that are bounded to particular contexts were not independently associated with any of the country or individual level 1-C measures. The hypothesis regarding power as an antecedent to 1-C was generally supported. Collectivists (measured in terms of self-rated 1-C values and self­ concept) were in occupations with significantly lower prestige and reported less organisational power in both individualistic and collectivistic . As well, participants primed with situations in which they were powerless tended to retrieve a greater proportion of collectivistic self-concepts, compared with those primed with powerful scenarios. The alternative hypothesis of person-culture fit, while not supported for power variables, was partially supported for other employee outcomes. Organisations were able to be differentiated on 1-C values both within and across national cultures. Nevertheless, the fit between employees and their organisation iii

on I-C failed to predict employee outcomes. Instead, the fit between ' values and their national culture predicted greater commitment, longer tenure and higher status in organisations. iv

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the many reviewers and conference participants who provided constructive feedback and encouragement on various components of this research. Early work was presented at the for Australasian Social Psychologists (SASP) conference and the Australian Industrial/Organisational Psychology conference in 1997. Research from Chapter 1, on self-concept and Individualism-Collectivism (1-C), was presented at the SASP conference in 1999, and has been accepted for publication in the Asian Journal ofSocial Psychology. Research reported in Chapter 3 on organisational culture was presented at the International Conference on Work Values in Turkey, 1998, and studies on power and 1-C (Chapter 4) at the International Congress of Cross- in Bellingham USA, 1998. The research on person-culture fit in Chapter 6 has been accepted for publication in Applied Psychology: An International Review. Comments from reviewers have been invaluable in shaping the final version of this thesis.

Thanks to my supervisors, Drs. Sherry Schneider and Stephen Bochner, who have very different backgrounds, areas of expertise and , but who are alike in their long-standing encouragement, support and intellectual challenge. Both of them moved on long before I did - one to retirement and the other to a promotion in another ! Despite the release of their formal responsibilities, both continued to read drafts and provide feedback, and I count them both as great friends and mentors. A very special thanks also goes to Dr. Jacquelyn Cranney, who provided me with invaluable assistance and support to help me over the finish line.

I would like to thank my colleagues and friends in Thailand, Dr. Jintana Unibhand, Yuwadee Luecha and Ampaiwan Pumsrisawat, for their efforts in translation, data and hospitality! There are many partners in all of the organisations that participated in my research, who convinced others of the usefulness of my research and coordinated the collection of questionnaires. I am grateful for their cooperation.

Finally, I want to thank David, my husband, for his patience. This turned out to be a much larger project than we ever anticipated and I would not have completed it without his support. V

Table of Contents

Abstract 11

Acknowledgments lV

List of Tables lX

List of Figures Xll

List of Abbreviations Xlll

Introduction 1

Individualism-Collectivism 2

Etiological Considerations 6

The Present Thesis 12

Part 1 Measurement of Individualism and Collectivism

Chapter 1 Individualism-Collectivism and Self-Concept: Social or Contextual? 17

1-C and the 'social' self-concept 20

1-C and the 'contextual' self-concept 25

The relationship between social and contextual self- concepts 29

The present study and hypotheses 30

Method 32

Results 40

Discussion 47

The social self-concept 48

The contextual self 52

Horizontal and Vertical 1-C 57 vi

Chapter2 Collectivism, Social Identity and at Work: The Impact of In-Group versus Out-Group Targets 60

Measurement issues: Results from Chapter 1 60

Collectivism and social identity 65

The present study 68

Method 70

Results 74

Discussion 76

Chapter 3 Individualism and Collectivism in Organisations 81

1-C and organisational behaviour 82

National versus organisational culture 83

1-C and organisational culture 90

The present study 95

Method 96

Results 99

Discussion 107

Part2 Individualism, Collectivism and Power

Chapter4 The Power of One: Individualism, Collectivism and Power 113

Power as an antecedent of autonomous individualism 116

Powerlessness as an antecedent of collectivism 119

Competitive individualism as an antecedent of power 121

The present study 123

Method 128

Results 137

Discussion 147 vii

Chapter 5 Priming situations of power and powerlessness 154

The present study 156

Method 158

Results 162

Discussion 166

Chapter 6 Person-Culture Fit 176

1-C and Fit 179

1-C and work-related outcomes 180

Method 182

Results 186

Discussion 192

General Discussion 198

1-C and Self 198

1-C and Power 202

1-C in Organisations 206

Method and Measurement 209

Conclusion 217

References 219

Appendices

Appendix JA Differences on the TST according to organisation type 249

Appendix 1 B Sample questionnaire 251

Appendix 1 C Regression of social-contextual components on Hofstede's Individualism Index 258

Appendix ID Correlations between TST scores and Hofstede's Individualism Index for participants' country of birth in each national culture group 259 viii

Appendix 1E Correlations between the TST and Horizontal and Vertical I-C for each national culture group 260

Appendix 2 Correlations between HV-IC and other I-C and demographic variables for each national culture group 262

Appendix JA Item differences for HV-IC in the Thai hospitals sample 263

Appendix 3B Measuring organisational culture in terms of individualism and collectivism 267

Appendix 4A Comparison of population and sample characteristics for the Australian consulting firm 268

Appendix 4B Prestige ratings 269

Appendix 4C Hierarchical regressions of national culture and power variables on HV-IC 270

Appendix 4D Hierarchical regressions of demographic variables and organisational position on HV-IC 275

Appendix 4E Summary of hierarchical regression of status and tenure on VI in the Asian sample 276

Appendix 5A Sample question booklet for priming experiment 277

Appendix 5B Themes occurring in situations recounted following the powerful-independent primes 283

Appendix 5C Powerless situations: lack of knowledge, skills and connections 285

Appendix 5D Powerless situations: dependence on others I domination by others 286

Appendix 5E Powerful-independent situations: group membership 288

Appendix 5F Powerful-independent situations: connections with powerful others 289 ix

List of Tables

I.I. Coding scheme and actual examples 33

1.2. Coding scheme for an example TST response 35

1.3. Distribution of Australian and Asian samples by organisation and sex 36

1.4. Correlations between the TST category scores {n=526) 41

1.5. TST category scores by national culture group 42

1.6. Summary of final regression model for TST scores on Hofstede's Individualism Index 44

1.7. Correlations between TST scores and Horizontal and Vertical 1-C 45

1.8. Summary of final regression model for TST scores on Vertical Collectivism 46

1.9. Summary of final regression model for TST scores on Vertical Individualism 46

2.1. Vertical Individualism items (adapted from Singelis et al., 1995) 62

2.2. Correlations between HV-IC and other 1-C and demographic variables 64

2.3. Predicted correlations between I-C measures for high and low identification with the organisation 70

2.4. Social Identification Items 72

2.5. Correlations between Social identification, organisational commitment and job satisfaction 72

2.6. Factor loadings for social identity and organisational commitment items 73

2.7. Correlations between 1-C measures, Social Identification and Target Condition 74

2.8. Correlations with Vertical Individualism in each of the target conditions 75 X

2.9. Correlations between Vertical Collectivism and Vertical Individualism in conditions of interpersonal versus intergroup competition, and high versus low social identity 76

3 .1. Organisational culture typologies relating to 1-C 94

3.2. Standardised 1-C subscale scores for each national sample 101

3.3. Standardised 1-C subscale scores for each organisational sample 101

3.4. Differences on 1-C subscales between the Thai and other Asian branches of the management consultancy 106

4.1: Australian hospital respondents by occupation and level of position 130

4.2. Thai hospital Respondents identified by occupation and level of position 130

4.3. MC respondents by sex and level of position 131

4.4. Correlations between demographic and power variables 133

4.5. Correlations ofjob position with demographic and other power variables (within each organisation) 135

4.6. Correlates ofl-C factors across national cultures 138

4.7. Summary of hierarchical regression of demographic variables and prestige on VC 142

4.8. Summary of hierarchical regression of demographic variables and perceived power on Horizontal Collectivism 144

4.9. Summary of hierarchical regression of demographic variables and prestige on Vertical Individualism 146

4.10. Summary of hierarchical regression of demographic variables and perceived power on Vertical Individualism 146

5.1. Priming conditions 158

5.2. Factor loadings of power items 163 xi

5.3. Mean ratings of resource and interpersonal power in each of the priming conditions 164

5.4. Means and standard deviations of the number of group pronouns in descriptions 165

5.5. Means and standard deviations of Social Self scores on the TST 165

5.6. Correlations between measures of power and 1-C 166

5.7. "Powerless" situations: participants unable to achieve their own goals 170

6.1. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of study variables 187

6.2. Summary of hierarchical regressions for person and national culture 1-C variables predicting fit outcomes 188

6.3. Summary of hierarchical regressions for person and organisation 1-C variables predicting fit outcomes 191 xii

List of Figures

1.1. Social and contextual categorisation ofTST statements describing the self 31 1.2. The frequency of participants by proportion of social responses 40 1.3. The frequency of participants by proportion of contextual responses 41 1.4. Hofstede's Individualism Index for country of birth for participants in Asian and Australian samples 43 2.1. Models of horizontal and vertical 1-C 63 3.1. National, occupational and organisational levels of culture (adapted from Hofstede et al., 1990, p312) 87 3.2. A model of organisational 1-C differences 91 3.3. Horizontal and Vertical 1-C factors 92 3.4. Standardised scores on 1-C subscales for national culture and organisation type 102 3.5. Positions of organisation means on standardised scores for Vertical Individualism and Vertical Collectivism 104 4.1. Power Items on the questionnaire 137 4.2. Mean 1-C (difference) scores for Occupational Prestige and national culture group 139 4.3. Mean 1-C (difference) scores for national culture and position in the management consultancy 140 4.4. Mean 1-C (difference) scores for perceived power in the organisation and national culture 140 4.5. Mean 1-C (difference) scores according to national culture and perceived status in the organisation 141 4.6. Mean Horizontal Collectivism for national culture and position in hospitals 143 4.7. Mean Vertical Individualism scores by status and national culture 145 5.1. The power continuum 172 6.1. Mean organisational commitment for individualists and collectivists in each national culture 189 6.2. Mean organisational tenure for individualists and collectivists in each national culture 190 xiii

List of Abbreviations

GLOBE' Global Leadership and Organisational Behaviour Effectiveness

GNP Gross National Product

HC Horizontal Collectivism

HI Horizontal Individualism vc Vertical Collectivism

VI Vertical Individualism

HV-IC Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism

I-C Individualism-Collectivism

MC Management Consultancy

PD Prisoners' Dilemma

P-N Fit Person-Nation Fit

P-O Fit Person-Organisation Fit

SIT Social Identity Theory

TST Twenty Statements Test Introduction

In the last two decades research on Individualism-Collectivism (1-C) (Hofstede, 1980) has far outstripped that on any other cross-cultural dimension. At the most recent International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology (IACCP) Congress (1998), 1-C was hailed as one of the issues for current research, and interest in it shows little sign of abating. According to Hofstede (1991), 1-C reflects the degree to which individuals are integrated within their groups. Collectivists see themselves as closely linked parts of one or more groups and their identity is based on their relationships with others. They give priority to the goals of the group and are primarily motivated by norms imposed by the group. In contrast, individualists see themselves as independent, different and distant from the groups in which they belong. They give priority to their own personal goals over the goals of the group and are primarily motivated by their own needs and internal standards.

A large body of literature has developed which investigates the attitudinal and behavioural consequences of 1-C. Much has been made in building up knowledge of exactly what these cultural differences look like. A significant proportion of this research has focussed particularly on organisational behaviour (e.g., Hofstede, 1991; Triandis, 1994), no doubt in response to the growing need for organisations to collaborate, negotiate and work with foreign cultures as they venture into a global market.

Despite the proliferation of this kind of research on 1-C, it is only the beginning of a much broader program of study. In the investigation of a cultural dimension an essential first step is to document and clearly define the parameters of the phenomenon and its measurement. While there is some argument over whether this first step has been satisfactorily accomplished (Liu, 1999), research nevertheless needs to be taken forward to investigate why differences in 1-C occur. This endeavour is important both to avoid using culture as an 'explanation' for behaviour, and to redress the isolation of cross-cultural psychology from broader 'mainstream' psychology. The present thesis continues to refine both the conceptualisation and measurement of 1-C, but also attempts to integrate, or at 2

least reconcile, cross-cultural research on 1-C with a wider framework of social and organisational psychology. This is achieved through an investigation of what has, up to now, been speculations about the antecedents of 1-C, and an analysis of how 1-C relates to the psychology of self and organisations.

The following brief introduction provides an overview of some key components of 1-C, expands upon the need for etiological research and research linking I-C to broader psychology, and outlines each of the empirical chapters.

Individualism-Collectivism

In broad terms, individualism-collectivism (1-C) describes a pattern of cultural differences that reflect the way cultures resolve the :fundamental relationship between the individual and the group. Theoretically, the concepts of individualism and collectivism have quite a long history (e.g., Kluckhohn & Strodbeck, 1961; Parsons & Shils, 1951). However, the voluminous research on I-C in recent years was stimulated by Hofstede's (1980) empirical study of the work values of employees in a multi-national organisation. Of four cultural dimensions, he identified Individualism as a single bipolar dimension on which countries could be ranked. For example, countries high on individualism included the U.S.A., Australia and Britain, and countries low on individualism (and high on collectivism) included Venezuela, Indonesia and Pakistan. According to Hofstede (1991) and other researchers (e.g., Triandis, 1995) collectivistic cultures place the priority of group interests above individual interests. This creates a practical and psychological interdependence between individuals and their groups. Individuals' loyalty to their tight social networks are rewarded by the group's protection. Individualistic cultures place the priority of individual interests above the groups' interests, encouraging independence of individuals from their groups. Individuals look after themselves and their immediate family, and are only loosely tied to others and to groups.

This basic difference in shared cultural beliefs and values is reflected (a) at the institutional and group level in the importance of rules and norms; (b) at the interpersonal level in terms of differing social relationships, and; (c) at the psychological level in terms of the self-concept (Kim, 1995). 3

First, collectivists make a much greater distinction between ingroups and outgroups (Gudykunst, Yoon, & Nishida, 1987; Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). lngroups are those groups with whom they have a sense of belonging and common fate. Collectivists have only a few ingroups and are exceedingly loyal and committed to those groups, whereas individualists might say they are part of many groups, and they change group membership quite often (Triandis, 1995). Triandis, Mccusker and Hui (1990) looked at social behaviour as a function of social distance, that is, how people behave toward one another as a function of how close or distant a relationship they have. Generally, in both individualistic and collectivistic cultures, the closer people were, the more associative behaviours they displayed, for example, helping or supporting. However, in terms of dissociative behaviours, that is, fighting, avoiding or competing with others, individualists remained fairly constant regardless of social distance while collectivists showed more dissociation toward outgroups. The difference was even more dramatic for subordinate behaviours, for example, obeying or asking for help. While individualists' behaviour was insensitive to context, collectivists showed much more submission to ingroup members, and virtually none to outgroup members.

In collectivist cultures, the maintenance of harmony within the ingroup is vitally important, and direct confrontation is considered rude and undesirable. As a result, collectivists are sensitive to strict norms and situational constraints regulating behaviour in groups (Argyle, Henderson, Bond, lizuka, & Contarello, 1986). Collectivists become expert at reading interpersonal behaviour, and they rely on the interpersonal context to understand (Singelis & Brown, 1995). Individualists place a much greater emphasis on explicit communication and on telling the , even if it creates disharmony in groups.

Collectivists tend to have a few intimate relationships, whereas individualists have many relationships of low intimacy. For individualists, relationships are a means to an end and are left if the costs get too high. For example, people will stay in a relationship which makes them happy, or which fulfils their needs, but as soon as it does not achieve these ends, they do not invest themselves in the relationship any longer. For collectivists, relationships are an end in themselves and are maintained even at great cost (Triandis, 1995). 4

Individualism and collectivism influence the way people think about themselves in relation to others. The contrast is between self-concepts that are bounded and separate from others, and those that include others and are determined by one's relationship with them (Bochner, 1994; Kashima et al., 1995). Individualists tend to think of themselves as separate and independent from the groups to which they belong. They describe themselves in terms of internal characteristics, or personality traits, which make them unique and different from others, for example, "I am patient; I am easy-going; I am an intelligent person".

Collectivists are much more likely to think of themselves in terms of the social groups to which they belong. This 'social identity' is gained from belonging to a particular group with whom they share a common fate, or from being in a particular role in relation to others, for example, "I am a daughter; I am a nurse; I am a Thai". Collectivists are not devoid of 'personality', but they tend to link their character traits with the situations or relationships in which they arise.

In collectivist cultures the worth of the self is evaluated in terms of to the group and maintenance of group harmony. Family relationships, religious beliefs, and being law-abiding and honest are important for self-esteem. In individualist cultures the self is evaluated in terms of independence and uniqueness. Self esteem is based on individual talent, personal goals, personal influence and recognition (Watkins et al., 1998; Yamaguchi, 1994).

Cultural versus Individual 1-C

A distinction is sometimes made in the terminology of individualism and collectivism depending on whether 1-C is described at the cultural or individual levels (e.g., Triandis, Leung, Villereal & Clack, 1985). At the individual psychological level, allocentrism corresponds to the cultural dimension of collectivism, and idiocentrism corresponds to individualism. However, the terms individualism and collectivism have continued to be used for research at both cultural and individual levels, and they are used as such in the present thesis.

While conceptualised as a single bipolar dimension at the cultural level, several aspects of 1-C have been identified that distinguish between individuals within cultures. At the individual level, individualism and collectivism are often 5

found to be orthogonal (Freeman, 1996; Gaines, Marelich, Bledsoe, Steers, & et al., 1997; Gelfand, Triandis, & Chan, 1996; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988). Using individuals as the basic unit of analysis rather than national cultures, Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk and Gelfand (1995) developed and validated a four-factor measure of 1-C. The factors contrast an emphasis on equality between self and others (Horizontal Individualism and Collectivism), with an emphasis on status differences (Vertical Individualism and Collectivism). Horizontal Individualism reflects the importance of perceiving the self as unique, separate and independent, while Vertical Individualism reflects a preference for interpersonal competition. Horizontal Collectivism reflects a preference for cooperation and group harmony, while Vertical Collectivism emphasises values of self-sacrifice, and subordination of own goals for group goals. Schwartz (Schwartz, 1994; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990) found similar dimensions in studies of both individual level values and cultural level values, suggesting that they may be strong 'etic' or universal dimensions (Leung & Bond, 1989).

1-C in Organisations

Individualism and collectivism have important implications for behaviour in organisations. Significantly, Hofstede's (1980) pioneering study was of cultural differences in the work-values of employees. Of the dimensions identified, Hofstede found that individualism-collectivism accounted for the greatest variance in employees' work-goal priorities. The implications of these values for practices, attitudes, motivation and behaviour within the workplace include differences in: work motivation (Yu & Yang, 1994); sharing (Triandis, 1967); organisational loyalty (Triandis et al., 1988); organisational citizenship behaviours (Moorman & Blakely, 1995); goals and feedback (Earley, Gibson, & Chen, 1999; Matsui, Kakuyama, & Onglatco, 1987); participation techniques used by managers (Erez, 1986); selection, performance evaluation and rewards (Wang, 1994); leadership (Smith, Peterson, Misumi, & Bond, 1992); entrepreneurship (Morris, Avila, & Allen, 1993); job satisfaction (Hui & Yee, 1999; Hui, Yee, & Eastman, 1995); self-efficacy and performance when working alone or in groups (Earley, 1989; Earley, 1994; Eby & Dobbins, 1997); decision making (Gaenslen, 6

1986); (Elangovan, 1995); and social behaviour toward ingroups and outgroups (Triandis et al., 1990).

Some key themes may be distilled from several excellent reviews of cross­ cultural organisational behaviour focussing on 1-C (Bond & Smith, 1996; Earley & Gibson, 1998; Hofstede, 1991; Hui, 1990; Triandis, 1994; Triandis, 1995). Generally, in organisations with individualistic values the employee-employer relationship (psychological contract) is calculative and tasks are given priority over relationships. Competition is valued and employees are motivated by individual achievement, reflected in a preference for equitable reward distribution. By contrast, in organisations with collectivist values the employee-employer relationship is more moral and paternal, with relationships given priority over tasks. Conformity to group norms, cooperation and group harmony are considered important, with a preference for rewards given to the group to be distributed equally. Employees have a more socially-oriented achievement motivation, whereby they persevere to fulfil expectations of the group and significant others.

Etiological considerations

Cultural dimensions, such as 1-C, are important because they identify what it is about the difference between cultures that has an effect on particular behaviours. However, Hostede's systemisation of cultural differences into a small number of dimensions or syndromes (and similar work by Schwartz and colleagues, 1990; 1994) seems to have lulled researchers into an agenda of using these dimensions as explanatory variables for differences in behaviour and psychological processes between national groups. It needs to be recognised that cultural dimensions have systematised cultural differences but not explained them. Cultural dimensions help us understand a broad range of differences in behaviours by reducing them to a higher conceptual construct, and they are often used as "moderator" variables to explain 'universal' psychological relationships (i.e., this works very well in individualistic cultures, but not so much in collectivist cultures). This research has been extremely valuable and has moved the field forward considerably. However, "researchers have been loathe to grasp the nettle of external-distal constraints" on individual and cultural differences in beliefs, values and behaviour (Bond & 7

Smith, 1996, p. 211). Jahoda (1984) argues that culture cannot be taken to cause behaviour. "In essence the term culture is a descriptive one, embracing a wide range of phenomena . . . hence, seeking to explain any component part in terms of the whole involves circularity" (Jahoda, 1984).1 Useful to the pursuit of the psychology of 'human' behaviour are investigations establishing the universal patterns of environmental conditions that produce these habitual responses in all human beings, rather than simply describing them.

In his 1984 article, Jahoda echoed Le Vine's (1970) concern that any etiological research is hampered by the lack of reliable knowledge about culture differences. His point was that research must first be directed at documenting the variations and improving measurement, before attempting to hypothesise about how and why these behaviours became adaptive (assuming an evolutionary ). These scholars' voices have been heard, and subsequently there has been much research documenting individualism-collectivism dimensions and their measurement. While this process rightly continues (in fact half of this thesis is devoted to it), it is now appropriate to turn to the question of etiology. As Segall (1984) puts it, "Why does a behavioural variable take this here and that value there? What features ... of those places ... both natural and man-made features - account for the particular forms of the behaviour that is associated with them?" (p. 160). He suggests that a framework of adaptiveness provides a promising guideline for specifying theories and hypotheses. This framework reflects a search for universal laws of behaviour.

Without such an endeavour, cross-cultural research is assumed to negate the aim of universality, rather than contribute to it. The following quote is taken from the jacket ofTriandis' (1995) book devoted to 1-C:

"Triandis challenges the view that psychology is universal, offering evidence for culture-specific influences on thought and action. We learn that the cultural patterns represented by individualism and collectivism lead

1 It must be conceded that this view is perhaps borne out of a tendency by psychologists to construe culture in terms of patterns of behaviour, rather than underlying meaning systems as generated by the anthropological tradition. 8

people to view their worlds through different lenses, attaching different meanings to life events."

While universality of Western psychological processes and functions sometimes may have been incautiously and erroneously assumed, it remains a worthwhile goal to establish universally valid psychological laws (Lonner, 1980). Rather than challenging the universal nature of psychology, it is the aim of cross­ cultural psychology to build better universal laws (Kurosawa, 1992). Berry and Dasen (1974) out three goals of cross-cultural psychology: to test psychological knowledge in other cultures (cross-cultural or comparative psychology); to explore new aspects of phenomena in different cultures (cultural or indigenous psychology); and to integrate these first two approaches to achieve a more universal psychology. Segall, Lonner and Berry (Segall, Lonner, & Berry, 1998) argue that this type of universalism assumes that basic human characteristics are common to all and that culture influences the development and display of them ( called 'variform universals' according to Lonner, 1980). However, even as recently as the last IACCP Congress, Jahoda (1998) pointed out that there has been little progress in the area of 'arriving at universal laws'.

One reason for the slow progress has been the daunting logistics required to study long-term environmental factors that affect entire cultures over time. However, now that 1-C is being developed as an individual-level construct, research examining the antecedent conditions contributing to 1-C is long overdue. Thus, Fijneman, Willemsen and Poortinga (1996) argue that a "loose collection of antecedent conditions . . . can be studied in (quasi-) experiments . . . broad environmental antecedents as we have in mind here include formal education, economic wealth and technology" (p384-5). Following these arguments, this program of study, rather than relying on circular "cultural" arguments for explanation, explores one particular theoretical basis of the individualism­ collectivism orientation that is universal. Obviously social phenomena tend to be caused by multiple factors, and while this thesis explores one possible factor, it is not assumed to be the only explanation ofl-C. 9

Power

At the 1998 IACCP Congress, Ype Poortinga chaired a symposium on the present state and future of cross-cultural psychology. In his concluding comments Poortinga asserted that GNP would remain the most important factor contributing to human behaviour differences around the world. Despite this statement, research on issues of power, status and economic wealth were not presented at the Congress. No-one was studying them, and especially not in relation to culture.

Hofstede has consistently maintained that individualism is a consequence of a country's wealth, arguing that access to resources allow citizens to 'do their own thing' (Hofstede, 1980, 1999). Despite preliminary evidence for this, there is some contention over the direction of in such a relationship (Kagitcibasi, 1999), with a tendency for some scholars to attribute a causal importance to I-C in economic affluence.

The independence from others achieved through access to resources is a key concept of power. Power can be defined as the capacity to affect outcomes, or as control over valued resources (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Rather than attempting to study the etiology of entire cultures, a parallel investigation at the psychological level can explore the factors that influence individuals to become more individualistic or more collectivistic. The present study sought to integrate the empirical demographic correlates of individual-level I-C into a cohesive theory involving the antecedent influence of power. It is argued that each of these variables (such as affluence, social class, education, age, and sex) are salient status characteristics indicating a person's position in the power structures of society.

Self

In addition to investigating power as an antecedent to I-C, this thesis also focuses specifically on individualistic and collectivistic self-construals, as this concept is theoretically linked to other areas in psychology, and promises an avenue for integration. A perspective in which culture and the self are seen as interdependent has been a part of cross-cultural psychology for some time (Segall, Lonner & Berry, 1998). Self-concept is important in linking the cultural level and 10

individual level of analysis, and is often perceived as a mediator between national culture and individual behaviour (Erez, 1997). As research has progressed, theories and models of self have evolved from the suggestion of completely different types of self across cultures, to more universal models of the self, with the coexistence of these types of self-concepts differing in development and salience depending on the social context (including culture).

In mainstream psychology, research on concepts of self has increased in recent years, particularly in areas such as social identity theory (SIT) and self­ esteem. As a core component of I-C, differences in personal versus social self­ concepts provide an important link to broader psychological literature and theory. For example, like I-C, SIT is grounded in processes that derive from the distinction between independent or personal self-concepts and social or self-concepts. This is an important area in which I-C theory and research can contribute to universal models of the self and identity processes, and which needs to be reconciled with research on social identity (e.g., Yuki & Brewer, 1998).

Organisational psychology

Finally, the current research is set in the context of organisations and seeks to integrate concepts of organisational and national culture. Only recently, "teams" were hailed as the next wave of organising work, with the introduction of team approaches and an emphasis on making them more effective (e.g., Cohen, 1993). At the same time, a rapidly growing contract workforce suggests that there is a rejection of a traditional employee-employer relationship of commitment and loyalty, in favour of an individualism which focuses on self-development and a temporary contractual relationship with the organisation (e.g., Limerick & Cunnington, 1993). In this changing context, the relationship that employees have with organisations, and their role within them, has been difficult to clearly define. In management theory, concepts similar to individualism and collectivism have been put forward as differentiating employee's values in regard to their relationship with the organisation (e.g., Kabanoff, 1991; Limerick & Cunnington, 1993; Quinn & McGrath, 1985; Schneider, 1994). Bochner and Hesketh (1994) found that differences in individualism-collectivism, predicted on the basis of cross- 11

national data, appeared among groups of culturally diverse employees m an otherwise comparatively homogeneous work setting.

In this thesis, several issues are raised regarding I-C from an organisational perspective. The possibility of characterising organisational cultures in terms of individualism-collectivism is considered, embedded in theoretical hypotheses about the nature of organisational culture. The issue of "levels of analysis" is important because I-Chas been defined and validated both with nations and with individuals as the basic unit of analysis (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, Chan, Bhawuk, Iwao, & Sinha, 1995). However the question remains whether I-C can be validated at the organisational level, with organisations as the basic unit of analysis. The extent to which national culture influences constrain each organisation's values may vary widely. Considering the growing internationalisation of organisations, it is important to consider the implications of the interaction between national values and organisational culture (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998).

Prevalent m current organisational research is the concept of person­ organisation or person-culture fit. Person-culture fit can be described as the congruence or similarity between individual and organisational values and goals. Such fit is argued to arise through processes of (a) individuals' attraction to, and selection into, organisations, (b) organisational turnover, and (c) socialisation. However, there is little consensus regarding which values researchers consider to be important for fit, and which have significant consequences for organisational behaviour (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998). In view of the large body of research demonstrating the consequences of I-C for organisational behaviour, investigating person-culture fit in terms of I-C is of great relevance to researchers and practitioners alike.

The integration of person-organisation fit concepts with national culture dimensions is a fruitful exercise for broader cross-cultural research. Issues surrounding the '' of immigrants and sojourners in foreign cultures continue to be an important area ofresearch (Berry, 1997; Ward, 1996). However, the notion of cultural fit has been little explored. The investigation of outcomes within specific organisational contexts of the fit between individual and national values is particularly important. 12

The Present Thesis

By way of introduction to the following program of studies, in each case an effort has been made to include both within-sample analyses and between­ sample cross-cultural comparisons and replications. While the program follows a logical and theoretically-based format, it is not necessarily chronological. Some of the studies in this thesis (Chapters 1, 3, 4 and 6) utilise the one large field sample spanning several countries and organisations. Altogether, about ten organisations were surveyed at various stages, in eight countries. The data set includes multiple individual and country level measures of 1-C, and measures of organisational constructs such as commitment, job satisfaction, status, power, and demographic details2• Every effort was made to construct a 'theory driven' comparative study (as described by van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). As such, the focus is on testing hypotheses about the meaning and causes of cross-cultural differences with the aid of context variables such as power.

Cultural samples were selected which represented vastly different values on the individualism-collectivism continuum. While the individualistic samples were selected from Australia only, there were a number of collectivistic cultures sampled (including Thailand, Hong Kong, , Malaysia, Taiwan, Singapore and Indonesia). Multiple cultures greatly reduce the number of rival explanations that are possible in bi-cultural comparisons. Finally, a matching strategy was employed in the sampling of subjects residing in each culture, with participants employed either in a single multi-national organisation, or in organisations matched by industry. Participants are similar on most demographic characteristics, and where differences exist, an approach of statistical control is used.

The intention in this thesis is primarily to investigate power as a possible antecedent to 1-C, along with an alternate hypothesis of person-culture fit. That is, in individualistic cultures, individualists may be more likely to achieve and enjoy high status and power. In Australia, any direct relationship between power variables and individualism would be confounded by the relationship between power variables and person-culture fit. Cross-cultural analysis has the potential to investigate variables

2 See Appendix 1B for example questionnaire. 13

ordinarily confounded in a particular culture. In particular, by investigating these relationships in collectivistic, as well as individualistic cultures, we can distinguish between the effects of power and person-culture fit.

In order to begin such an investigation, the difficult issues surrounding the measurement of individualism and collectivism had to be faced. New measures are continually being developed (e.g.,Lay et al., 1998; Matsumoto, Weissman, Preston, Brown, & Kupperbusch, 1997; Triandis, Chen, & Chan, 1998; Triandis & Singelis, 1998). Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk and Gelfand's (1995) measure of horizontal and vertical I-C represented the most sophisticated instrument at the time the questionnaire used in the present study was being designed. However, very little empirical research had been undertaken with this new measure. Understanding the construct meaning behind each particular lower-level scale of I-C became a major task. There was not enough time or resources to develop a measure that specifically targeted the organisational culture level. Several attempts to develop such a measure were aborted in favour of using an aggregate ofI-C measured at the individual level and pursuing the theoretical issues.

Outline

Part 1 deals primarily with conceptual and measurement issues. As a psychological dimension, I-C is very broad and covers multiple concepts. There is only vague consensus regarding essential elements, and measurement of the concept is difficult. This was a major theme at the Third Conference of the Asian Association of (1999). There was some concern that I-C over­ simplifies differences in behaviour, glossing over complex issues (Liu, 1999). However, because of the in-roads the concept has made into mainstream psychology, it seems wise to continue to build on the substantive work that has already been undertaken and to refine the existing .

In the present thesis, these efforts are directed toward the refinement of the theory and measurement of the self-concept as it relates to I-C, and the investigation of I-C as a multi-level variable (i.e., at the national, organisational and individual level). Particular scrutiny was directed at Singelis et al.'s (1995) Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism (HV-IC) scale, which has 14

been received with scepticism by anonymous reviewers. Since Triandis and Gelfand's (1998) work on further validation of the scale had not yet been published, the measures required further investigation. In the first chapter HV-IC is examined in relation to social self-concept as measured on the Twenty Statements Test (TST). This measure looks at spontaneous responses to the question "Who am I?", which are then categorised in various ways. The second chapter looks at relationships between the HV-IC scales, and manipulates item targets to further explore the Vertical Individualism scale in particular. While HV-IC is primarily an individual­ level measure, the third chapter offers some preliminary data on these components of I-C at organisational and national levels.

Each of these endeavours provided an opportunity to investigate some key theoretical issues. Chapter 1 focuses on one core component of the I-C dimension: self-concept. It aims to clarify two distinctions made between types of self­ concepts. Both are referred to in relation to I-C, and are included under the broad terms of independent versus interdependent self-concepts. One distinction opposes autonomous versus social concepts, and the other distinction, abstract versus contextual concepts. This investigation also aims to provide a refinement of the TST measure of self-concept used to indicate differences on I-C.

Chapter 2 continues the focus on self with issues of social identity, and the complexity added to I-C through ingroup-outgroup distinctions. While generally associated with individualism, a competitive orientation toward out-group members is also associated with a strong social identity. The implications of Social Identity Theory (SIT) for behaviour in organisations have only recently been raised, and this chapter examines some possible interactions between I-C and SIT in organisations. Specifically, this study manipulates targets (e.g., other organisations versus other employees) of questionnaire items in a quasi-experimental design to investigate the effect of organisational identification on the relationship between I-C and interpersonal and intergroup competition.

In trying to determine the extent to which organisations may differ on I-C, Chapter 3 considers some interesting questions regarding the nature of organisational cultures. What is the nature, or 'level', of organisational culture: can organisational cultures be defined by differences in values, or only in terms of practises and behavioural norms? The viability of Singelis et al.'s (1995) 15

horizontal and vertical 1-C factors are tested at both national culture and organisational culture levels, and an attempt is made to classify organisational cultures on 1-C for investigations of person-organisation fit on this dimension.

In Part 2 both field and laboratory data are used to explore the relationship between power and 1-C. While primarily testing whether such a relationship exists, the psychological mechanisms connecting power and 1-C are also explored to look at the possibility that social power is a determinant of individual orientations. Three particular mechanisms are proposed for the relationship between individualism, collectivism and power: power as an antecedent of autonomous individualism, powerlessness as an antecedent of collectivism, and competitive individualism as a value orientation promoting the attainment of power. In chapter 4 each of these is investigated within the context of organisational hierarchies of power and status.

Although the pattern of results in the field data may suggest possible mechanisms, establishing the direction of causality in these relationships is difficult with a correlational design, and hampered by methodological concerns such as common method variance. Chapter 5 attempts to resolve these issues, with a manipulated laboratory experiment designed to conceptually replicate results found in the field study. Priming manipulations are used in order to study the effects of situations of power and powerlessness on participants' individualistic and collectivistic orientations. Only a few studies have used priming techniques to elicit more individualistic or collectivistic self-concepts (Trafimow et al., 1991; 1997; Brewer & Gardner, 1989). These have explicitly primed individualistic or collectivistic schemas and achieved significant effects. This research was taken a step further, or rather a step back, to prime antecedent conditions predicted to be associated with individualistic or collectivistic self-schemas.

It was also necessary to test for the possibility of an alternative explanation for relationships found between power and 1-C. It has been generally hypothesised "that a person will gain status and prestige by conforming to the normative expectations of the group" (e.g., by Hollander and by Homans, cited in Ng, 1980, p. 81). That is, people who 'fit' their organisational environment should achieve higher levels of career success than those who do not. In individualistic cultures, 16

such as Australia, individualistic employees may be in positions of higher status and power because of their good 'fit' with organisational and national culture, rather than their individualism per se. To test for the possible effects of fit, it was necessary to include samples of both collectivistic and individualistic cultures. A major advantage of cross-cultural research is its "unconfounding function" (Segall et al., 1998), since potentially important variables are separable only by comparison in another culture. In the present case, power and person-culture fit hypotheses predicts the same empirical outcome in individualistic cultures: a positive relationship between power and individualism. However, in collectivistic organisations, according to person-culture fit, employees demonstrating collectivistic values should be rewarded and reinforced with higher status, position and prestige. Thus, there should be a positive relationship between power and collectivism.

In chapter 6, the concept of person-culture fit is explored further. The effects of congruence on I-C for individual outcomes such as organisational commitment, job satisfaction and tenure, are examined across national cultures (i.e., person-nation fit), and across organisational cultures within countries (i.e., person-organisation fit). It is hypothesised that fit on I-C should have a positive effect on how employees relate to their organisations. Part 1

The Measurement of Individualism and Collectivism 17

Chapter 1 Individualism-collectivism and self-concept: Social or contextual?

This chapter focuses on a theoretical question about one core component of the individualism-collectivism dimension: differences in conceptions of the self. Broadly defined as independent versus interdependent self-concepts (Markus & Kitayama, 1991 ), the use of these terms, their conceptualisation and their measurement vary widely in the cross-cultural literature. In particular, these differences have variously been conceptualised as an autonomous versus a social self-concept, for example, "I am an extrovert" versus "I am a father" (Triandis 1989), and an abstract versus contextual self-concept, for example, "I am patient" versus "I am patient at home" (Shweder & Bourne, 1984; Lalljee & Angelova, 1995). However, very often no distinction is made between the contextual and social self, or the autonomous and abstract self (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991). In his introduction to a special section on Culture and Self in the Journal of Cross­ Cultural Psychology, Kashima (1995) suggested that the conceptualisation of these two distinctions of the self-concept are in urgent need of clarification. In addition, while these concepts are closely intertwined, there are only vague suggestions for how they might be connected (e.g. Shweder & Bourne, 1984), and disagreement as to which concept is of precedence for the dimension of individualism-collectivism. For example, Hamaguchi (1985) argues that Japanese collectivism should actually be called contextualism instead.

The measurement of social and contextual conceptions of the self has been closely linked to use of the "I am" or Twenty Statements Test (TST) (Kuhn & McPartland, 1954), used to generate open-ended descriptions of the self. Coding schemes for the TST have varied widely, providing methodological as well as theoretical ambiguity. The aim of the present study was to shed light on this theoretical issue and to provide a refinement of TST measures of self-concept in relation to individualism and collectivism. In addition to cross-cultural group comparisons, this study provides a direct comparison of the TST measures against I-C measures. A coding scheme was developed that allows separate scores to 18

represent the proportion of social statements (both abstract and contextual), and contextual statements (both social and autonomous) describing the self. If I-C directly influences the salience of social and contextual self-concepts, then the proportion of both of these 'types' of self-concepts in descriptions of self should be significantly and independently correlated with I-C measures.

Culture and Self

What does it mean to talk about different concepts of self? In Western psychological literature typical descriptions and perceptions of the self (and other persons) focus on the inner attributes of a person, which are assumed to remain stable across situations, and that make the person distinct and different from other persons. However, in the last decade psychologists have recognised that this is not the only way of viewing the sel£ In particular, Markus and Kitayama (1991) argued that the Western conception of self is idiosyncratic, not only compared to that of the rest of the world, but also compared to self concepts of women and socially disadvantaged groups in the West. They contrasted the Western 'independent' view of self with an 'interdependent' self which encompassed other labels of self-construal such as "sociocentric, holistic, collective, allocentric, ensembled, constitutive, contextualist, connected and relational" (p. 227). They proposed that the very organisation and cognitive structure of the self may differ across cultures, thus mediating and regulating behaviour, and with consequences for intra-personal and interpersonal processes (Markus & Wurf, 1987; Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

However, other researchers in cross-cultural psychology and social have argued convincingly that the overall structure of self is universal, and that each person has multiple selves (Linville & Carlston, 1994; Singelis & Brown, 1995; Spiro, 1993; Triandis, 1989). Culture is said to influence the development (number and complexity) and salience (accessibility) of the different selves. This research is important because it integrates cross-cultural differences with mainstream psychology through concepts of self.

Despite the recent emphasis on differences in self-concepts, person (self and other) description is overwhelmingly similar across cultures. Spiro (1993) argued that most people predominantly describe themselves in terms of autonomous 19

abstract traits (see also Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999), and studies with cross­ cultural samples have repeatedly shown this to be the case (e.g., Bochner, 1994; Dabul, Bernal, & Knight, 1995; Gorts & Semin, 1998; Watkins et al., 1998b). Evidence from priming studies suggests that the independent self is dominant and chronically accessible, with only collectively primed (and not individually primed) self descriptions differing from control groups (Trafimow, Silverman, Mei-Tai Fan, & Shui Fun Law, 1997; Trafimow, Triandis, & Goto, 1991).

While the independent self is usually dominant, studies demonstrate that independent and interdependent self-concepts can coexist to varying degrees within individuals (Singelis, 1994; Trafimow et al., 1991; Triandis et al., 1985). The literature on social cognition of the self (e.g., Linville & Carlston, 1994; Markus & Wurf, 1987; Niedenthal & Beike, 1997) shows that "most contemporary cognitive approaches assume some form of multiple selves. The debate is now over the nature of these selves and the processes acting on them" (Linville & Carleston, 1994, p 160). There are several cognitive models that have been proposed to represent these different selves (e.g., associative network models, self-schemas, prototype or exemplar models) and the type of connections that may or may not exist between the different self-concepts.

Culture has been highlighted as one of the "processes" which acts on self­ concept. In fact, several theorists have proposed circular models that present self as a mediator of the influence of culture on individual behaviour (Erez, 1997; Singelis, 1994; Singelis & Brown, 1995; Triandis, 1989). In these models, self­ construals are individual-level variables that affect behaviour across cultures, but which are affected nonetheless by culture. "Culture provides the guidance and rewards that systematically shape individual social cognition" (Singelis & Brown, 1995, p356), and sampling of a particular self-definition should increase the likelihood of behaviours that are consistent with it (Triandis, 1989; Markus & Kitayama, 1991 ). Yet culture itself is "constructed, perpetuated, and modified by the actions and beliefs of individuals" (Singelis & Brown, 1995, p356). Thus while concepts of self can form the basis of cultural differences, culture itself is instrumental in influencing definitions of self. 20

1-C and the 'social' self-concept

Most researchers see the primary influence ofl-C on self-concept in terms of the autonomous-social distinction, that is, whether concepts of the self are bounded and separate from others, or whether they include others and are determined by one's relationship with others. Triandis (1995) includes this difference in self-concept as one of four defining attributes of 1-C. While in individualistic the self is defined as autonomous, among collectivists the self is defined according to the specific groups a person belongs to.

How are self-concepts affected by individualistic and collectivistic cultures? It is helpful to note that the distinction between autonomous (private) and social (collective) self-concepts taken up by 1-C theorists is grounded in motivational theory (Greenwald & Pratkanis, 1984). Triandis (1989), Yamaguchi (1994), Brewer and Gardner (1996) and others argue that a person's most salient self­ concepts are those which are important for self-esteem. Through shared values, culture influences what attributes are used to evaluate the self, and who it is important to impress. Thus, in collectivist cultures approval is sought from the group, and the self is evaluated in terms of conformity to the group and maintenance of group harmony. In individualist cultures people are motivated by internal standards and the self is evaluated in terms of independence and uniqueness. This argument is supported empirically by recent research conducted by Watkins et al. (1998a). Subjects were asked to rate how important various sources of self-esteem were for themselves. One factor significantly differentiated groups of individualistic and collectivistic national samples, and was significantly correlated with Hofstede's Individualism Index. Labelled "Family values versus Personal success", positively loading items included the importance of family relationships, religious beliefs, and being law abiding and honest for self-esteem, while negatively loading items referred to self esteem based in individual talent, personal goals, personal influence and recognition.

So integral is this difference in self-construal to 1-C, that items referring to the autonomous or social self are included in respondent measures. For example, Oyserman's (1993) collectivism measure includes the items "If you know what groups I belong to, you know who I am", and "In order to really understand who I am, you must see me with members ofmy group", while Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk 21

and Gelfand's (1995) measure of Individualism has items such as "My personal identity, separate from others, is important to me".

Social cognition literature

This particular distinction between autonomous and social self-concepts has also been investigated at the social cognitive level. Several models of self have been proposed, including a self- model (Trafimow et al., 1991) and a network model (Niedenthal & Beike, 1997). Trafimow et al. (1991) argued that private and collective self-concepts are organised distinctly in memory, as in "two baskets". Cultural differences in the salience of social self-concepts may be mediated by the accessibility, number or complexity of concepts (or all of these). Trafimow et al. ( 1991) demonstrated that it was possible to prime either the private or collective self, and showed that the probability of sampling a social self-concept depends on the type of self-concept previously accessed.

Niedenthal and Beike's (1997) model follows that of Goldstein (1996) in arguing that self-concepts, like other concepts, may be represented with varying degrees of interrelatedness (mental links) with other equally abstract concepts. Concepts are considered related if they require recourse to other concepts for their meaning, thus "perfectly interrelated and isolated self-concepts are probably non­ existent" (p. 109). Niedenthal and Beike translate an interrelated self-concept as one that "derives its meaning through mental connections to the concept of another person" (p. 107, italics mine). In this model, the social self includes any reference to another, including links that differentiate one's self from the other, or ones that identify self with the other in terms of similarity, or a complimentary or particular role relationship. For example, Smith and Henry (1996) found evidence for a direct link between self and in-group using response times of self-descriptive judgements of traits. Subjects had shorter response times for traits on which they matched the perceived characteristic of their in-group. (However, there was no effect for traits mismatching the outgroup, and no difference for traits that differentiated the in-group from the out-group.) 22

Measuring the social self with the TST

In classifications of the TST two types of social responses have been identified. 'Group identity' or 'collective' self refers to descriptions of self in terms of a particular group or demographic category the person belongs to and with whom they share a common fate, for example, "I am a university student", "I am an IBM employee", "I am an Australian". In contrast, a 'public' or 'allocentric' self-concept refers to a generalised other, either explicitly or implicitly, for example, "others see me as a kind person", "I am kind to others", or even "I am kind" (e.g., Bochner, 1994,; Dabul et al., 1995; Trafimow et al., 1991; Triandis, 1989). Trait terms that are supposed to infer others (such as "I am kind") have been included in this category (this will be discussed later in the method section). Similarly, group responses also include terms that infer a social category, for example, "I am a mother" infers the category 'family', as this identity is a role derived from an individual's position within a group.

Another distinction has been drawn by Brewer and Gardner (1996) and Kashima et al. (1995). This discriminates between the self as related to other individuals and the self as belonging to groups, that is, between a relational and collective self. In this model the relational self is defined by interpersonal bonds or attachments in dyads or small groups that are networks of such relationships. A collective self is based on common identity, such that members are interchangeable, and does not require personal relationships among members. Thus, "I am a mother" is a relational term because it reflects the particular relationship between mother and child. "I am a family member" is a collective response because it is based on common identity. This distinction is important and has been helpful in discriminating between culture and gender differences (e.g., Kashima et al., 1995; Watkins et al., 1998a). However, this distinction is derived from a Western conception of "social identity" as based in similarity, and which serves to enhance personal self-esteem when the individual chooses to identify with a successful group (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Markus and Kitayama (1991) and Triandis (1996) claim that this is not what is meant when referring to the interdependent or collective self.

Yuki and Brewer (1998) investigated the differences between so called American "collectivism" (based on social identity theory) and Japanese collectivism. 23

They showed that while loyalty to the group in America was mediated by similarity, in Japan loyalty was related to knowledge of the network of relationships and roles within the group. Collectivism is about defining oneself as part of the group, being subject to the groups' goals, and behaving according to the norms of the group. These norms define how role relationships are conducted within the group, for example, within the family as mother, daughter, father, or uncle, within the as friend, within the community as neighbour, within the work group as team member, supervisor, leader and so on, so that the group phenomenon is inseparable from the relational. This helps to explain some discrepant results in the literature. For example, in an individualistic culture (U.S.) Brewer and Gardner (1996) found that primes using the word "we" increased collective self responses especially if the group was extremely large (e.g., a crowd of sports fans in a stadium). On the other hand, in a more collectivistic sample () Oyserman (1993) found that social identity with large religious and national groups was not related to other measures of collectivism, but was positively related to individualism!

Even if it is possible to separate the relational and group self in individualistic cultures, the TST is not a reliable measure for these distinctions. Clear responses such as "I am a member of my family" (group) or "I am Jenny's mother" (relational) are rare. More often the response is simply "a mother" which may be interpreted as either of the above, and even as a social role category (i.e., in occupational terms "housewife-mother" / "full-time mother"). Similarly, "nurse" may refer to the relational identity of nurse-patient, or the professional occupation group of nurses, as opposed to other health professionals. The present study focuses on identifying self-concepts related to particular others (which may be a group or an individual) and related to others in general.

Evidence for a relationship between 1-C and social self-concepts

Many two-culture comparisons of allocentric (referring to a generalised other) and group responses to the TST have been attributed to country differences on I-C (Altrocchi & Altrocchi, 1995; Dabul et al., 1995; Dhawan, Roseman, Naidu, & Rettek, 1995; Lalljee & Angelova, 1995; Ma & Schoeneman, 1997; Trafimow et al., 1991). Without including specific measures of I-C in these designs, this interpretation of group differences is difficult. However, some studies have included 24

more than two groups, reducing the number of alternate explanations. Bochner (1994) compared a Malaysian sample with two individualistic samples (Australian and British). There were significant differences as predicted on group responses (41 % for Malaysians, 19% and 18% for Australians and Britons), but none for allocentric responses. Similarly, consistent with predictions from 1-C, Triandis McCusker and Hui (1990) found the percentage of group responses in a Greek sample (15%) was lower than that in Hong Kong (20%), which was lower than that in China (52%).

Some studies have made direct comparisons of the percentage of group responses and other 1-C response measures. Significant correlations have been found between group identity and 1-C attitude and value measures within both individualistic and collectivistic cultures (Chan, 1994; Sinha & Verma, 1994; Triandis, Chan, Bhawuk, Iwao, & Sinha, 1995). Triandis et al. (1990) found that within-culture groups of collectivists and individualists, divided on the basis of attitude and value items, were significantly different on mean percentage of TST social group responses. Similarly, Nolan (1996) divided a multi-cultural sample of employees into groups of individualists and collectivists based on Hofstede's Individualism scores for their country of birth and ethnic identity. Collectivists had a significantly higher percentage of allocentric self-concepts than individualists, and also included more group responses (although the difference was not significant).

Further evidence comes from priming studies, in which subjects are primed with individual or group characteristics before completing the TST. Brewer and Gardner (1996) found that reading stories referring to groups as "we" increased both collective-self responses and interpersonal responses. Trafimow and colleagues (Trafimow et al., 1997; Trafimow et al., 1991) also successfully increased group responses by asking participants to (1) think about similarities (rather than differences) between self and family and friends, and (2) read stories that highlighted group (rather than individual) characteristics.

It appears that a core component of 1-C is the emphasis that individuals from different cultures place on either autonomous or social self-concepts. While it is clear that identifying with particular groups is robustly related to 1-C, 25

evidence is mixed with regard to defining the self in relation to others more generally.

1-C and the 'contextual' self-concept

Another difference encompassed by the distinction between independent and interdependent self construals (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) is that between 'abstract' and 'contextual' self-concepts. Shweder and Bourne (1984) described contextual concepts of the person as "concrete, undifferentiated, context-specific, or occasion­ bound" (p. 158). These concepts were qualified by considerations of time, place, role and situation. Similar considerations were observed by Miller (1984), who found that Indians made greater reference to contextual factors in explanations of behaviour. She regarded her results as due to cultural differences in conceptions of persons as individualistic, "the separation and independence of the agent from the context", versus holistic, "the openness and interdependence characterising the agent's relations with the surround" (p. 963).

Choi, Nisbett and Norenzayen (Choi, Nisbett, & Norenzayan, 1999) elaborated further on cultural differences in sensitivity to context. They argued that East Asians included more contextual references in person descriptions, reviewing evidence that East Asians tended to report more social, concrete and situational concepts (Choi et al. did not differentiate between these concepts). It is clear that when the 'context' is another person or group, the social and contextual self-concepts are referring to the same phenomenon. However, the social context is only one way of defining the context for self, and it is possible to refer to other dimensions of the context such as time, location or the physical/natural environment.

One particular area in which collectivism has been related to a focus on context is that of communication. Collectivists desire to comply with the needs and wishes of significant others in order to maintain harmonious relations and avoid conflict. As a result, it has generally been argued that collectivists focus on, and have a greater sensitivity to interpersonal context, situational constraints or imperatives, and ingroup norms (Cousins, 1989; Cross & Madson, 1997; Triandis, 1995). In particular, Singelis and Brown (1995) argue that collectivists rely more on context 26

for understanding communication, rather than the explicit part of the message. Thus, "the dependence on context for the regulation of behaviour, its connectedness to others, and the flexible nature of the interdependent self (i.e., it strives to fit in) contribute to the association of interdependence and attributions to context" (p. 362). They found that subjects high on collective interdependence paid greater attention to context in understanding communication presented in scenarios.

Kashima and Kashima (1998) re-examined Hofstede's (1980) original work goal items that loaded highly on the Individualism Index, with regard to contextualism (or 'contextualisation'). They argued that the conceptual focus for positively loading items was the respondent's personal self "such as personal life, one's own approach to the job, and personal sense of accomplishment", whereas in the negatively loading items the focus was on the condition or the context of work, such as physical conditions, skills and training (p. 466). They found that scores on Hofstede's Individualism Index were correlated with a country's pronoun use in language, in particular, dropping the pronouns that referred to self. They argued that "pronoun drops reduce the conceptual differentiation between the person (the self or other) and the context" (p. 465), that is, emphasising context rather than individuals.

Social cognition literature

Again, as for the social self-concept, it is desirable to view this contextualisation of self as a psychological universal which is influenced by culture. One model of social cognition that may relate to individual differences in contextual selves is Linville' s self-complexity model (Linville, 1985; 1987). This model assumes that there are individual differences in the number of contextual or domain-specific self-concepts and in the degree to which these concepts (or representations) are interconnected. Those high in self-complexity have a greater number of discrete self-concepts, and are better able to cope with threats to self­ esteem because negative evaluations are bounded to certain domains and do not 'spread' to other domains of self. Those with fewer contextualised self-concepts and/or more or stronger connections between each contextual self-concept can be considered at the "abstract" or generalised end of the continuum. Thus, the stability or malleability of the self-concept can be framed in terms of the 27

accessibility of different aspects of self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is relatively stable, but malleability comes from the changing activation of the current or 'working' self-concept.

Turner, Oakes, Haslam and McGarty (1994) argue that self-concept is profoundly contextual, but they refer specifically to the social context. They put forward the proposition that there may not be any specific location or organisation of self-concept; but rather a concept becomes a "self-concept" only functionally. Rather than different pre-formed, already stored self-concepts being simply activated by different contexts, they are in fact generated by "an interaction among psychological principles of categorisation, perceiver readiness, background knowledge, and the social context of the perceiver" (p. 459). While theoretically this creates a continual flux in the self-concept, empirically stability comes from, for example, stability in the social context, and stable cultural norms and values.

It is possible that in collectivistic societies the context provides a more salient and stable stimulus for appropriate behaviour and functional definitions of self. These models help to make sense of TST results obtained by Cousins (1989) from American and Japanese samples. As well as the usual TST instructions, Cousins asked subjects to describe themselves in particular situations (home, school, and with close friends). Both groups recognised the constraints of situations on individual expression by using more qualified attributes when confined to a single context, and the constraints of the situation on behaviour by referring more to activities. Fewer social identity responses were also used when context was given, suggesting that the context may indeed define the social role. Aside from these main effects, the influence of culture was also apparent. When context was given, Americans used fewer pure attributes, but Japanese used more. That is, the situation has a greater impact on "personality" or characteristics of self for Japanese, than for Americans.

Measuring the contextual self on the TST

When determining whether self-concepts are "contextual", researchers tend not to discriminate between situational references and concrete references. 28

Shweder and Bourne (1984) saw these categories as two distinct dimensions (although they were modestly correlated). The situational category contrasts general self-descriptions and descriptions qualified by specific others, time or place. For example, "I am competitive" is situation-independent, while "I am competitive on the sports field" is situation-dependent. The concrete category contrasts references to traits with references to concrete behaviours, for example, "I am generous" versus "I give money to charity". In the present study, contextualism is taken to refer to sensitivity to the situation, rather than concreteness. Theoretically, sensitivity to the situation or context should be more strongly related to collectivism, than is the concreteness of descriptions. The link between contextualism and concreteness has been investigated by Schell, Klein and Babey (1996). In a U.S. sample, they found that subjects used memories of specific behaviours for tasks involving their context-dependent self, but not their context-independent self. They argued that while people simultaneously hold multiple representations of themselves which differ in their context dependence (general vs situational) the type of knowledge on which they are based also differs (abstract vs behavioural). This is consistent with Cousins' (1989) finding that subjects used more activity statements when context was given for the TST.

Evidence for a relationship between 1-C and contextual self-concepts

Cousins (1989) compared Japanese and American responses to the TST. Coding was in terms of four levels of abstraction, and responses could be either social or asocial at each level. For example, a qualified attribute (contextual) could be a social reference to specific people, or an asocial reference to time or location. A global (abstract) attribute could be social membership in a universal category (human being) or an asocial reference to uniqueness (me, myself). Japanese individuals had a significantly higher proportion of responses in the contextual categories. Bond and Cheung (1983) similarly found that Japanese responses on the TST included more preferences, aspirations and concrete personal facts, and fewer abstract psychological attributes (traits). They interpreted these results as reflecting Shweder and Bourne's (1984) category of self as situational or context-specific. Bond and Cheung's data did not suggest a 29

general social versus autonomous dichotomy, and there were no significant differences on social role responses.

Despite these cultural differences, the contextual self has not been empirically linked to measures ofl-C, nor have differences been established between multiple national samples that could be attributed to the 1-C dimension. Almost all of the studies that have focused on the "contextual" self were conducted with samples from India and Japan (Bond & Cheung, 1983; Cousins, 1989; Lalljee & Angelova, 1995; Miller, 1984; Shweder & Bourne, 1984)- countries that rank in the middle in terms of Hofstede's (1991) Individualism Index. When studies have included a third, supposedly collectivist sample, for example, Hong Kong (Bond & Cheung, 1983) or Bulgaria (Lalljee & Angelova, 1995), the proportion of contextual TST responses in these collectivist samples were closer to those in America or Britain than to Japan or India. This research suggests there may be cultural factors, in addition to 1-C, that influence the emphasis on context in self­ descriptions. This issue will be taken up again later.

The relationship between social and contextual self-concepts

Researchers who have examined both social and contextual responses to the TST have ignored situational differences in favour of studying the level of concreteness (often referred to as 'specificity') of self-descriptions. For example, in addition to autonomous and group categories, Trafimow et al. (1997) also coded responses for level of concreteness. When this variable was included in analyses as a co-variate results were not altered, suggesting that social and concrete responses are independent.

Rhee, Uleman, Lee and Roman (1995) also found that the percentage of social and concrete responses were discrete in a Korean sample (in their U.S. sample there was a higher correlation due to little inclusion of either social or concrete terms). They also found that Koreans and Americans differed more on the abstract­ concrete dimension than the autonomous-social dimension. However, their social category included situational responses that referred to time or location. Also, the unusually high social identity responses in their U.S. sample may have been due to the fact that this sample completed the TST straight after filling out a personal 30

information questionnaire (these usually require social category responses). Evidence from Trafimow (1997; 1991) shows that the TST is particularly responsive to even subtle priming.

Gorts and Semin (1998) compared Turkish and Dutch descriptions of people, events, and . They anticipated, based on Hofstede (1980) and others, that the Turkish sample would be more collectivistic than the Dutch sample. Actually, of three respondent measures of interdependence, Turks were significantly higher on only one, 'traditional interdependence', which reflects a preference for continuity in a stable social and physical environment. In terms of content analyses, descriptions of people and events were coded as either autonomous or relational (by inferred or explicit reference to others), and emotions coded as socially engaged or disengaged. There were no differences in these types of person-descriptions, events and emotions listed by the two groups. Differences were found, however, in the degree of abstractness or concreteness (not contextualism) of descriptions. Abstractness of descriptions was determined by weighting linguistic categories from nouns or adjectives to action verbs (e.g. from "sad" to "to sadden" to "to cry"). Event and descriptions used by the Dutch were significantly more abstract than those used by Turks. There were no differences for person-descriptions, possibly due to a ceiling effect. Both groups described persons in predominantly abstract linguistic categories.

These studies failed to show any convincing evidence for a link between I­ C and concreteness of self-concepts, and did not test the more important link between I-C and contextual (situational) self-concepts. Although I-C has been simultaneously associated with social and contextual self-concepts, it remains unclear whether I-C is directly related to contextual perceptions of self, and the extent to which social and contextual self-concepts may be connected.

The present study and hypotheses

In addition to cross-cultural group comparisons, this study provides a direct comparison of the TST measures with I-C measures. A questionnaire was distributed in natural work settings with adult employee samples. The majority of TST research has previously been conducted with student samples. Student 31

samples tend to be more individualistic than older, working populations, and often minimise any culture differences because students are subject to (presumed) similar urban, developed, and western-educational influences ( e.g., Ma & Schoeneman, 1997).

Following recommendations from Triandis (1995) the majority of researchers using the TST have used "%S" or social identity as an indicator of 1-C across cultures. As mentioned previously, this category includes responses that refer to membership in groups, demographic categories that infer common fate, or particular social roles. These responses are both social and contextual because they refer to the self as defined by particular social contexts. The present study uses a coding scheme developed by the author which allows the identification of the proportion of social statements (both abstract and contextual) and contextual statements (both social and autonomous) describing the self (see Figure 1.1). The overlap between the constructs is represented methodologically by the category of responses coded as both social and contextual. (A major portion of the social­ contextual responses are those categorised as "%S" responses).

Figure 1.1. Social and contextual categorisation of TST statements describing the self

SOCIAL AUTONOMOUS

CONTEXTUAL Social-contextual Autonomous-contextual

(e.g., I am patient with my children) (e.g., I am patient at home)

ABSTRACT Social-abstract Autonomous-abstract

( e.g., I am patient with others) (e.g., I am patient)

From the brief review of the literature, the essence of individualism­ collectivism can be described as a culture's emphasis on the importance of membership in particular groups and one's network of relationships within them. It follows that self-concept in a collectivist culture should be defined by particular social contexts. Previous (although inconsistent) evidence of cultural differences in allocentric (reference to generalise other) self-concepts suggests that social- 32

abstract self-concepts will also be related to 1-C. However, there have been no definitive tests of the relationship between 1-C and the autonomous-contextual self.

If 1-C directly influences the salience of both social and contextual self­ concepts, then the proportion of both of these types of self-concepts in descriptions of self should be significantly and independently correlated with 1-C measures. That is, not only should social-contextual responses be correlated with 1-C, but also social-abstract responses, and autonomous-contextual responses.

However, the contextual self may be related to 1-C indirectly, because of self-concepts defined by the social context only. That is, while the contextual self may be related to 1-C variables, it is predicted that this relationship will not be significant when social statements are controlled for.

Method

Coding scheme for the TST

There has been some debate in the literature over whether responses to the TST should be weighted in terms of importance (either explicitly by subjects, or implicitly by rank order), and whether 7, 10 or 20 responses should be used (Bochner, 1994; Watkins, Yau, Dahlin, & Wondimu, 1997). However, studies that have used both simple :frequency (percentage of total responses) and weighted scores have consistently found no substantial method effects on the direction or significance of cross-cultural or gender differences (Bochner, 1994; Cousins, 1989; Dabul et al., 1995; Nolan, 1996; Trafimow et al., 1991). If anything, when there are fewer responses or responses are weighted, the percentage of social responses increases in collectivist samples, slightly exaggerating cultural differences (Cousins, 1989; Watkins et al., 1997). For the sake of simplicity, in the present study, subjects were presented with only ten statements to complete, and scores were calculated as unweighted percentages. 33

Table 1.1. Coding scheme and actual examples

Subcategory Autonomous Autonomous Social Social Abstract Contextual Abstract Contextual Traits Kind, friendly Sometimes... , Listen to others A responsible person Reasonably smart, can bea bit... towards my work and a bit shy, family, Attentive to detail, ... at home, A warm person Cynical, reliable committed to my towards my family an extrovert, job andfriends, a perfectionist, A giver to my a hard worker subordinates Social All coded as Social - Contextual: Identities Role-status: employee, manager, head ofa ward, citizen Group: A member ofthe public, part ofsociety, member ofthe Nurses' Association Family: wife, father, single, a family man, married, part ofa family, eldest child Ethnicity: Thai, Australian : Christian, Buddhist Gender: female, a man Age: middle-aged, young Occupation: sales person, nurse, consultant Negation: not a member... , apolitical Self-ascribed: musician, golfer, a vegetarian Attributes Busy, Eager to get the job Interested in other A person depended e.g., Keen to succeed, done, enjoying my people, satisfied by upon by relatives, preferences Earning a good job, more interested seeing others A person with friends aspirations income, in the future than succeed, a person in many professions, activities Hoping to achieve the past, going to who is responsible A person who happiness study Italian next for the sick sometimes needs to year consult others Evaluative Capable ofmore, Open to new ideas, Able to work well My husband's better descriptions Better than that, but need convincing with others, loved, half, a person whom e.g. abilities, a poor speller, ofeffectiveness over persecuted, not friends love and trust, evaluations, a good cook, previous methods, recognised a person who is others' a good worker, Good at my work important to my evaluations good at listening family and unit Physical Cute, short, descriptions 37 years old, e.g. age, unhealthy, Factual Emotional Worried, A person who feels Frustrated by Happy with my states Happy, moody sometimes, incompetent people employer, Feeling frustrated, satisfied with my a person who loves Stressed work her parents Not content Peripheral Owner ofa bull- Feeling ill today, Living with my Immediate terrier Sitting on the bus parents situations or states,posses. Global me, myself, an Ifcompared to the a human being, a individual, name worldjust a tiny person speck

Self-descriptions were first coded as belonging to one of eight general sub­ categories based on classifications by Rhee et al. (1995). In relation to the 1-C distinctions, each statement was then coded as either autonomous or social, and abstract or contextual (see Table 1.1 ). Autonomous self-descriptions are defined as 34

those which are invariant over social context and constitute an internal repertoire of thoughts, feelings, actions, desires, preferences, and abilities. Social self­ descriptions explicitly refer to group membership, social context or to other people. Abstract self-descriptions are invariant over time and context, whereas contextual self-descriptions refer to specific interpersonal contexts, time or specific locations.

In relation to past methods of coding it should be noted that:

• the present social classification only includes responses that explicitly refer to other people, or others' evaluations of self. All pure traits are coded as autonomous (unlike some allocentric coding schemes), as are traits qualified by time or location (whereas Rhee et al. coded these as social).

• the abstract/contextual distinction differs substantially from previous classifications, in that it is based on reference to particular situations rather than specificity/concreteness.

• as per Rhee et al. (1995), all social identities, that is, identification with particular social categories, were coded as social and contextual. The only 'social category' coded as abstract was the global category of 'human beings', or identification with all persons without distinction. Even broad identifications such as 'Buddhist' were coded as contextual because they refer to membership in a particular group of people (in contrast to outgroup members). Social identities may perhaps be better represented on a continuous dimension of abstraction. For example, Turner (1985) places social identities in a hierarchy of categories which become more and more inclusive or abstract, that is, social (sub-group, group, superordinate group), human, animal, etc. However, for the purposes of div1ding responses into dichotomous categories it may be argued that all social category identities are constructed in response to the social context (Turner et al., 1994 ).

Inter-rater reliability for the coding system was computed on a total of 920 statements coded independently by two judges. There was 98% agreement on the social versus autonomous distinction, and 95% agreement on the abstract versus contextual distinction. There was 90% agreement on classification of sub­ categories. The particularly high inter-rater reliability of these coding schemes 35

may be attributable to the explicit nature of the criterion, as compared to systems that require interpretation of responses.

Scores were expressed as the percentage of total responses belonging to that category, such that scores for each category add to a total of 100. An example of a coded TST response is provided in Table 1.2. The percentage score for social­ contextual is 50, social-abstract is 20, autonomous-contextual is 10, and autonomous-abstract is 20 (adds to a total of 100). Thus, the total score on the social dimension is 70, while the score on the contextual dimension is 60.

Table 1.2. Coding scheme for an example TST response I am ... Sub-category Social/ Contextual/ autonomous abstract a human being Global social abstract a working woman Social identity social contextual the youngest in the family social identity social contextual a nurse social identity social contextual a responsible person at home Trait Autonomous contextual and at work a person who likes to help others Attribute social abstract a good-natured person Trait Autonomous abstract loved by my family Evaluation social contextual a Buddhist social identity social contextual short-sighted Physical Autonomous abstract

Participants

Participants were 581 professional employees residing in cultures classified as individualistic (Australia, with Hofstede Individualism Index of 90) and collectivistic (South-East Asia, with Hofstede Individualism Index ranging from 14 to 26). Samples were selected from two organisation types: an international management consultancy firm (MC) and regional public hospitals (see Table 1.3). In the individualistic (Australian) sample employees of the management consultancy were from several branches nation-wide, while the regional hospital was located outside of an Australian capital city. In the 36

collectivistic (Asian) sample employees of the same management consultancy were from branches in Indonesia (n=26), China (n=l 7), Taiwan (n=6), Hong Kong (n=24), Singapore (n=25) and Malaysia (n=24). The hospital sample included three provincial hospitals in the eastern part of Thailand. All of the Thai respondents were native Thais, while 80% of the Asian MC respondents were of Asian origin.

Table 1.3. Distribution of Australian and Asian samples by organisation and sex Organisation Sex Sample N Management Hospital Male Female Consultancy Australia 264 160 104 106 155 Asia 317 122 195 73 242 Total 581 282 299 179 397

There was no difference between the two samples on age or level of education. The mean age bracket was 30-39 years, and over 80% of the total sample held a least a Bachelors degree. The Asian sample included more females (and fewer males) than the Australian sample (t(576) = 4.58, p<.001), and more hospital and fewer MC employees than the Australian sample (t(581) = 5.44, p<.001). While differences on the TST due to organisational membership and sex are interesting in their own right, they are not the focus of this study. There were large differences on the TST according to organisation type (see Appendix lA). When organisational membership was controlled, there were no significant sex differences on any of the TST measures. Therefore, organisational membership was statistically controlled (as a covariate) in the between-group comparisons.

Measures

TST

The TST was placed on the first page of the questionnaire to avoid priming effects (see Appendix 1B). The instructions read "How would you describe yourself? Below are ten lines, each beginning with "/ am". Please 37

complete each ofthe lines with a short phrase. This task might seem a bit odd, but we are simply interested in how you see yourself Just write the first thing that comes to your mind Do not write your name, as we do not want to be able to identify you". These instructions were followed by ten lines beginning with "I am

" l

Individualism-collectivism measures

Each subject was assigned two scores according to Hofstede's Individualism country index (1980, 1991). These scores were allocated for the subjects' country of birth, and their ethnic identity ( "/ regard myself as being ethnically, e.g., Australian, Greek, Chinese"). Since these two scores were highly correlated(!= .95, Q < .001), analyses were conducted with country of birth only.

For a direct measure of I-C at the individual level, on the next page was an adaptation of Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk and Gelfand's (1995) Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism scale, with new items taken from Triandis (1996). This measure is examined in more detail in Chapter 2, and is briefly described here. It is included as an individual-level measure of I-C that can be related to TST scores. The measure has 32 items rated on seven-point Likert scales, ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree". It is designed to assess four distinct constructs (8 items each): vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism. The Horizontal Individualism (HI) items measure the nature of the self as perceived as unique, separate and independent. The Vertical Collectivism (VC) items measure self-sacrifice, and subordination of own goals for group goals, especially with regard to the family. These scales are broad generalised measures of individualism and collectivism, and were prefaced with the instructions "in general...". Vertical Individualism (VI) items reflect a preference for competition, and Horizontal Collectivism (HC) items a preference for cooperation and group harmony. Since competition and cooperation are components of I-C particularly responsive to context (i.e., ingroup vs outgroup), this set of items were prefaced with the instructions "when I am at work. .. " to improve reliability. Also, because completing the questionnaires at work provided an implicit context for the TST, the work context was explicitly specified for these

1 For the Thai hospital sample, only 9 lines were presented, due to an error in reproduction of the translated questionnaire. 38

scales to provide consistency. Target groups for individual items on these scales simply referred to 'others', or were adapted so that they referred to 'coworkers' rather than relative, friend or neighbour.

For analyses across cultures the questionnaire measures of I-C were standardised for cultural differences in acquiescence (see Results, Chapter 3, for more detail on this procedure). Alpha reliabilities for the four sub-scales in the present sample were: VC .72, HI .80, HC .71, and VI .75.

The four sub-scales in this measure enabled an exploratory analysis of the relationship between different types of collectivism and the TST coding schemes. The pattern of results found by Singelis et al (1995) suggested that VC was "the essential element of collectivism" (p. 269), as has been understood in previous literature. Overall, the TST measures should therefore be most strongly correlated with VC.

From convergent validity data presented by Singelis et al. (1995) and Triandis and Gelfand (1998), it was anticipated that both VC and HC would be related to the social self-concept. Both were significantly related to Singelis' (1994) questionnaire measure of interdependent self-construal, and to Triandis and colleagues' (Triandis et al., 1986; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988; Triandis, Leung, Villareal, & Clack, 1985) I-C factor of sociability. Vertical Collectivism was also related to low emotional distance from ingroups, suggesting that VC may be especially related to social-contextual self-concepts.

HI was related to Singelis' independent self-construal and Triandis et al.'s self-reliance factor, suggesting a negative relationship with social self-concepts. On the other hand, VI was not related to either of Singelis' self-construal measures, but rather to factors of competition and hedonism (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). No predictions were made for VI.

In addition to other organisational measures, demographic variables ascertained by the questionnaire included age (in categories), sex, level of education, country of birth and perceived ethnicity. 39

Translation

Because the employees in the management consultancy were bilingual, the same English-language questionnaire was distributed in the Asian branches of the management consultancy as in the Australian branches. For the Thai hospitals, the questionnaire was translated into Thai using the method of back-translation (Brislin, 1980), and was considered to be an acceptable semantic equivalent to the original version2• Responses to the TST were translated into English by a bilingual Thai before being coded by the author. Language has previously been found to affect responses on the TST, with Asian subjects using more idiocentric and less group statements when responding in English than when responding in Chinese (Trafimow et al., 1997; although this is not always the case, see Watkins & Gerong, 1999). Since the primary interest of this program of research was the relationship between variables in the organisational context, questionnaires were completed at work in the language most likely to be used at work (i.e., English in the MC and Thai in the hospitals).

Procedure

Within Australia, questionnaires were distributed by managers at staff meetings, or to each individual member of the organisation via internal mail, and returned via reply-paid envelopes directly to the researcher. For the Asian MC branches, the questionnaires were returned to a non-threatening employee (i.e., not a manager) sealed in the envelope provided, and were forwarded to the researcher in Australia. For the hospitals, colleagues from nursing faculties in Thai universities personally distributed and collected the questionnaires.

Participants were made explicitly aware that the questionnaire was anonymous, confidential and entirely voluntary. The response rate was 43%, within the usual range for a mail survey (Pareek & Rao, 1980).

2 There were some slight differences in the questionnaire items for the Thai sample, as this was an earlier version of the questionnaire. While most of these differences were minor, there were changes to four items of the HI scale, and therefore must be considered when interpreting results. 40

Results

TST responses

The TST may be seen as an odd task to complete in the work context (i.e., it may appear irrelevant), and several participants did not fill out this section of the questionnaire. Other participants provided only a few responses, and it was decided to count responses with less than four statements as missing. In Asia 34 of the 317 participants (10. 7%) did not respond or included less than four responses to the TST. In Australia 21 of the 264 participants (8.0%) also did not provide sufficient responses. It has been suggested that collectivist participants may have trouble coming up with ten responses because they are unused to focusing on the self (Bochner, 1994). However, no significant differences on HV­ IC were found between participants who included less than four items and those who included more than four items on the TST.

Figures 1.2 and 1.3 show the skewed nature of the frequency distribution of scores for the social and contextual categories, with few participants including a large proportion of social or contextual statements. Subsequently, all correlations with TST measures used the Spearman's Rho (rank) coefficient.

Figure 1.2. The frequency of participants by proportion of social responses

90 80 70 >. 60 0 ; 50 5- 40 ~ u. 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % Social Responses 41

Figure 1.3. The frequency of participants by proportion of contextual responses

90 so~=-:, 70 >- 60 g 50 Q) 5- 40 ~ u. 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % Contextual Responses

Social and contextual scores were highly correlated in both Australia and

Asia (r5 = .73 and r5 = .82, p<.001 ). The high correlation was largely due to the fact that self-statements were either autonomous and abstract (mean = 56.3%) or social and contextual (mean= 28.4%). Thus, only 15.3 percent of statements (on average) were either abstract and social, or autonomous and contextual. Scores for these latter categories were only marginally, and negatively, correlated (see Table 1.4).

Table 1.4. Correlations between the TST category scores (n=526)

Socia/­ Socia/­ Autonomous­ Autonomous­ Contextual Abstract Contextual Abstract Social­ -.06 -.20*** -.86*** Contextual Social­ -.09* -.25*** Abstract Autonomous­ -.20*** Contextual *p<.05, ***p<.001 42

Between groups comparison: Asia vs Australia

First, patterns of results were examined for each of the two cultural groups separately, and tested for expected differences between the groups. Replicating previous research, the largest proportion of responses, for both cultures, was in the autonomous-abstract category. However, as expected, participants in the Asian group included a larger proportion of social responses (mean= 46% versus 23%) and contextual responses (mean= 44% versus 28%). When these are broken down into the four sub-categories, results were more revealing (see Table 1.5).

Table 1.5. TST category scores by national culture group

Australia Asia TST Category Mean (SD) Median Mean (SD) Median F(J,526r Social- 17.86 (21.78) 10 37.41 (28.87) 33 48.14*** Contextual Social- 5.42 (7.88) 0 8.52 (11.39) 0 7.28** Abstract Autonomous- 10.08 (13.04) 10 6.69 (11.02) 0 6.46* Contextual Autonomous- 66.65 (24.18) 70 47.41 (29.22) 45 41.40*** Abstract a. Separate ANCOV As were conducted for each category, controlling for organisation type. MAN OVA was not appropriate due to the ipsative nature of the data. * p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

The average proportion of social-contextual statements in the Australian sample (18%) is consistent with sample means for collective responses reported by Triandis (1989) in North American and European samples (15-19%). Similarly, mean responses for the present Asian sample (3 7%) appear to be in the middle of the range reported for Asian cultures (20-52%). Only the autonomous­ contextual category was not significantly different between groups at the p<.0 1 level. The Asian sample included more of both types of social responses (abstract and contextual) than the Australian sample. However, while the proportion of social-contextual responses was higher in the Asian sample, there were more autonomous-contextual responses in Australia. 43

Test of Hypotheses

Country level I-C

To allow a direct evaluation of the TST measures in relation to country­ level 1-C, scores were examined in relation to Hofstede's Individualism Index for participants' country of birth. Altogether there were 24 different countries of origin. There were a large number of participants from countries ranked either very high (U.S., Australia and Great Britain) or very low (Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Hong Kong) and few ranking in the middle (e.g., Japan, India, Spain) (see Figure 1.4).

Figure 1.4. Hofstede's Individualism Index for country of birth for participants in Asian and Australian samples

250 p a 200 r t i 150 C i p 100 a n t 50 s

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Hofstede's Individualism Index

----- Aust -er Asia

The social and contextual TST scores were both negatively correlated with Hofstede's Individualism Index (rs = -.47 and -.35, p<.001). When each of the four sub-categories were examined, the social-abstract and social-contextual scores were negatively related to Individualism (rs = -.22 and rs = -.43, p<.001), 44

however, the autonomous-contextual score was positively related to Individualism

(rs = .15, p<.01).3

The social-contextual category scores had the strongest (negative) relationship with Individualism. To test whether social and contextual self­ concepts were independently related to 1-C, social-abstract and autonomous­ contextual response scores were entered into regression analyses on Hofstede' s Index, together with the social-contextual response score (see Table 1.6). A forward stepwise procedure was used, whereby a single variable is entered at each step if it meets the set criteria (p of F to enter <= .05, p of F to remove >=.10). Social-contextual self-concept accounted for 16% of the variance on Hofstede's Index, while social-abstract responses independently accounted for a further 4%. The autonomous-contextual score did not meet the criteria, and was therefore excluded from the model. That is, social self-descriptions were significantly related to Individualism independently of contextualism, but contextual responses were not related to Individualism independently of social self-descriptions.

Table 1.6. Summary of final regression model for TST scores on Hofstede's Individualism Index

Variable B Std. Error Beta R2Change Social-Contextual -.50 .05 -.41 *** .16*** Social-Abstract -.68 .13 -.20*** .04*** Note: Because of the ipsative nature of the categories, the autonomous-abstract score is redundant and not included in the analysis. Excluded variable: Autonomous-Contextual ***p<.001

It was also desirable to test whether the social-contextual category defined by the present TST coding scheme was any more predictive of 1-C than the traditional %Sor social identity score (rs = -.40 with Hofstede's Index). That is, were responses coded as social and contextual in subcategories other than social identities ( e.g., traits, attributes, evaluative descriptions, emotional states, etc) also related to I-C?

3 One concern was that these results might have been driven by a two-group comparison between the Thai and Australian data, simply replicating the between group analysis. However, analyses within the Asian cultures only (see Figure 1.4 for distribution of scores on Hofstede's Index) replicated the results found in the combined sample. See Appendix 1D. 45

Regressions were conducted with the social identity score entered first, followed by the score for the remaining social-contextual responses. The non-(social identity) category responses added significantly to the variance explained (+3%, see Appendix 1C), indicating the usefulness of the present coding scheme in placing social identity within the broader social-contextual framework.

Individual level 1-C

The relationships between the TST and the questionnaire measures of 1-C were investigated across cultures (pan-culturally)4. Correlations between the standardised 1-C measures and the TST scores for the combined sample are presented in Table 1.7.

Table 1.7. Correlations between TST scores and Horizontal and Vertical 1-C

Autonomous Autonomous Social- Social- -abstract -contextual Abstract contextual Vertical Collectivism -.23*** -.11 * .08 .26*** Horizontal Collectivism -.07 .00 -.01 .05 Vertical Individualism .16*** .11 * -.12** -.14** Horizontal Individualism .02 -.05 -.05 .02 * p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

The TST scores were significantly correlated with the vertical 1-C scales only. Vertical Individualism was correlated with each of the TST category scores, while Vertical Collectivism was primarily correlated with the social-contextual and abstract-autonomous categories. These relationships were examined further in regression analyses, where the independent contribution of each TST score could be assessed.

As for Hofstede's Individualism Index, forward stepwise regressions were conducted on VC and VI. Table 1.8 shows that while Vertical Collectivism could be significantly predicted by social-contextual scores, neither social-abstract scores nor autonomous-contextual scores could account for any additional

4 Similar results were obtained within each national culture group, although correlations were smaller in the Australian sample where there was a ceiling effect, see Appendix lE. 46

independent vanance. That is, those who included a greater proportion of responses on the TST that were both social and contextual were higher on Vertical Collectivism, but social and contextual responses were not independently significant predictors.

Table 1.8. Summary of final regression model for TST scores on Vertical Collectivism

Variable B Std Error Beta R Change Social-Contextual .01 .00 .23*** .06*** Note: Because of the ipsative nature of the categories, the autonomous-abstract score is redundant and not included in the analysis. Excluded variables: Social-Abstract; Autonomous-Contextual. ***p<.001

In the regression on Vertical Individualism (Table 1.9), both abstract social scores and contextual social scores were significant independent predictors. Those who included a greater percentage of social responses on the TST were lower on Vertical Individualism, independent of contextualism. Autonomous­ contextual responses were not independently related to Vertical Individualism.

Table 1.9. Summary of final regression model for TST scores on Vertical Individualism

Variable B Std Error Beta R2Change Social-Contextual -.01 .00 -.16*** .02** Social-Abstract -.03 .01 -.15*** .02*** Note: Because of the ipsative nature of the categories, the autonomous-abstract score is redundant and not included in the analysis. Excluded variable: Autonomous-Contextual **p<.01, ***p<.001 47

Discussion

It has been argued that collectivists, more than individualists, have concepts of self that are derived from ingroup identity and relationships with others, and that are inextricably linked to particular situations or contexts. Generally, the literature has not made a distinction between self-concepts related to others and those related to situations when referring to the 'interdependent self. However, coding systems for the TST measure and subsequent research results have variously emphasised either social or contextual differences in relation to I­ C. Regardless of these differences, the present study confirmed that the 'Western' conception of self as autonomous and abstract is not peculiar, at least as measured by spontaneous responses on the TST. Even in the collectivist sample approximately half the participants described themselves with predominantly abstract and autonomous statements. This suggests, once again, that the structure of self­ concepts is universal, and the salience or development of inter-related self-concepts (with others or context) differs only in extent.

The present study aimed to investigate the extent to which social and contextual self-concepts were connected, and especially whether 1-C was directly related to contextual perceptions of self. In the present sample, social and contextual self-concepts were highly correlated, primarily due to the fact that most social statements were also contextual and vice-versa. As hypothesised, this social-contextual self-concept was a significant predictor of Hofstede's Individualism Index, and of Vertical Collectivism, the measure which most reflects collectivism as it has been previously understood. This scale tapped participants' willingness to subordinate themselves and make sacrifices for their ingroup, particularly their family. Social-contextual self-concepts were also negatively related to Vertical Individualism, which measures a preference for interpersonal competition. The social-contextual category as defined by the present coding scheme was also able to predict country-level 1-C better than the traditional social identity (%S) score.

The coding system also enabled social and contextual responses to be distinguished, with results indicating individualism-collectivism was primarily related to the distinction between social and autonomous self-concepts (whether they were contextual or abstract). Controlling for social self scores, contextual self- 48

concepts were not independently associated with any of the 1-C measures. This suggests that the contextual self is not directly influenced by cultural 1-C, but may possibly be related to other cultural factors.

The social self-concept

Comparisons across cultures showed that, in addition to more social­ contextual statements, the collectivist sample included more social-abstract self­ concepts, which were independently associated with Hofstede's Individualism Index. On the individual level, social-abstract self-concepts were related to lower Vertical Individualism. These results replicate those found by Nolan (1996), with Hofstede's Index for participants' country of birth, but contrast with studies (e.g., Bochner, 1994) which have not found a relationship between 'allocentric' self­ concepts and 1-C. The discrepancy may be attributable to differences in the coding scheme used: Nolan and the present author only counted statements with explicit reference to others as social, rather than including trait terms interpreted to be socially oriented as allocentric.

One particular social-abstract concept of self that was repeatedly found in the collectivistic sample was "an ordinary person". This stood in stark contrast to individualistic responses, and reflected the 'global' category of statements which are highly abstract, yet social in terms of their insistence of being completely interchangeable with others, of being just like everybody else: "a person", "an ordinary citizen", "a human like others", "a normal being'~ "a living person", "a person in this worlcf', "nobody", "anybody". Many descriptions were more elaborate, referring to factors perceived as universal, for example, "a person who has life, flesh, blood and spirit" and "a normal being who feels love, desire, anger and weakness". This is a concept of person completely opposite to the individualistic notion of self as unique, special and different from others. The predominance of these responses in the Asian sample is consistent with previous studies (Cousins, 1989; Rhee et al., 1995; Watkins & Gerong, 1997) which have found that collectivist samples use the universal global category significantly more often than individualists. 49

From the present data it appears that the most appropriate method of coding the TST in relation to 1-C is to include all types of responses that refer to social factors (both abstract and contextual). The proportion of all social responses accounted for a fifth of the variance in national culture 1-C. Although the results in the present study are consistent with 1-C theory and previous cultural group comparisons, other researchers using the TST to distinguish between relational and group categories, or between statements that are implicitly social or autonomous, have failed to find these expected relationships between TST scores and country level 1-C (Watkins et al., 1998b), or the HV-IC scale (E. Kashima, personal communication, September, 1998). In contrast to the present study, these researchers used student samples (Watkins et al.), rather than older, working adults, or an individualistic sample only, which produces a floor effect in social responses (E. Kashima). To some extent, these limitations were also evident in the current sample of management consultancy branches in Asia. Working in a multinational firm, the employees had greater exposure to urban, developed and Western influences than in other organisations. This was compounded by testing the employees in the work context, and in English. These influences were evident in the lower level of social and contextual self-concepts compared to the Thai hospital samples. The generality of the conclusions presented here clearly needs to be demonstrated with a wider sample of national and organisational cultures. Triandis (1995) suggested that self-concept as measured on the TST is appropriate for cross-cultural comparisons of 1-C only, because of the restriction of range within cultures. Results from the present study suggest that this really applies to individualistic cultures only, where the range is restricted due to a ceiling effect. Although relationships were found between questionnaire measures of 1-C and self­ concept on the TST in a pan-cultural sample, significant correlations were also obtained within collectivist cultures.

Relational versus group identity

Different components of 1-C were differentially related to the abstract and contextual social self-concepts, lending validity to the distinction. The extent to which the social-contextual self-concept can be further divided into relational or 50

group identities is open to speculation. The present study was not designed to test these finer distinctions.

In rare cases it was possible to infer from participants' statements whether their social identity was derived from their relationship with particular others, or their sense of belonging and typicality in their ingroup. The following is one example in which many of the collectivist's character traits are considered within particular roles or complimentary relationships.

Jam ... a caring and devoted daughter a good wife a mother who loves her children a nurse who is considerate towards the patients a good citizen a person depended upon by relatives a.friend to my children and husband a loyal friend a supervisor who likes her subordinates

On the other hand, some responses clearly demonstrated belonging to a group consistent with the traditional idea of social identity. For example, "a family member", "a member of the hospital in *", "a member of a group offriends", "a member ofthe nurses association", "a Buddhist", "a Thai", "a member ofsociety", "a good citizen", etc.

Future research needs to further delineate these relational and group constructs in individualistic and collectivistic cultures separately. However, the TST is not an appropriate assessment tool for such an exploration, as responses like the above are rare. Kashima, Kashima and Hardie (1998) have recently developed a questionnaire measure of individualistic, collectivistic and relational self-concepts that may prove fruitful in this area. Investigations may also be aided by the inclusion of a questionnaire measure of social identity such the one devised by Hogg, Schneider and Foddy (personal communication, 1997), which explicitly tests 51

whether participants feel like they are 'typical' members of their group, and their sense of 'belonging' in the group.

Use of Metaphors

One interesting phenomenon observed when coding the data, was the prevalent use of metaphors in the Thai sample. Discussions with native Thais shed some light on the meaning of these metaphors, which were not included in the quantitative analysis. Some of the metaphors referred to personality type descriptions, for example "/ am a duclc', which is supposed to refer to a person who is very talkative, or "/ am a dense buffalo" which means someone who is stupid. Others were more relational, for example"/ am a Botree", which usually means 'I am stable and dependable to those who are in need'. Many metaphors reflected the common theme of being a tiny part of something much larger: "a small screw in a machine", "a small bird'', "a flower by the side ofthe road''. Some more explicitly referred to status, particularly low status in comparison to others, for example, "/ am like dust", which means, 'I am low, valueless, and nothing in comparison to others'.

These metaphors are apparently common for person description m everyday life in Thailand. According to a nation-wide survey of values m Thailand, Thais place supreme importance on preserving one another's 'ego' through face-saving, avoidance of criticism and taking every measure not to cause discomfort or inconvenience to another person (Komin, 1990). These values, together with an emphasis on smooth, pleasant, conflict-free interpersonal interactions, mean that the use of metaphors allows a more subtle form of describing someone when direct language is socially inappropriate. This linguistic technique reflects the more general communication differences observed between individualists and collectivists. Individualists focus on task constraints - getting the message across clearly and efficiently, and collectivists on social constraints - avoiding hurt or loss of face to the hearer (Kim, Sharkey, & Singelis, 1994).

While significant effort has been made by researchers in quantifying particular categories of responses, it should not be at the expense of the rich qualitative data produced by the TST. The specific content of the self-concepts 52

(either individualistic or collective) will reflect the language, values and availability of mythological constructs of each culture (Triandis, 1989), and may provide a desirable etic-emic balance when reporting (cross) cultural research.

The contextual self

Since Shweder and Bourne (1984) and Miller's (1984) seminal works identifying contextualisation of self-concepts, the contextual self has been subsumed under the banner of individualism-collectivism. In the present study, contextual scores were not related to I-C independent of the social self-concept. That is, while the contextual self was related to I-C variables, this relationship was entirely due to social-contextual statements. Between-group differences in autonomous-contextual statements showed that collectivists actually included fewer autonomous-contextual self-descriptions. These results suggest that I-C influences the self-in-context only in as much as that context is social.

The failure to find a direct relationship between contextualism and I-C may reflect the limited sphere in which contextualism was assessed, that is, self­ concept as measured on the TST. More reliable measures of the contextual self­ concept need to be developed, and other social-cognitive domains need to be investigated. For example, sensitivity to context within some East Asian countries has been demonstrated in explanations for behaviour (Choi et al., 1999). Nevertheless, cultural differences in attributions have simply been described as an "East-West Split" (Choi et al, 1999, p. 48), and have yet to be explicitly and empirically linked to dimensions such as collectivism.

Future research investigating the contextual self also needs to clearly distinguish between the concreteness of responses (whether they refer more to behaviours rather than traits) and the contextualisation of responses (whether they refer more to situation-bound rather than general traits). While the two are related, with individuals referring to behaviours more when describing the situation-bound self, they are conceptually different. The present study explored the contextual/situation-bound self only, because of its theoretical link to I-C.

The collectivist samples in this study were chosen for their position on the extreme ends of Hofstede's Country Index. They did not include countries in 53

which contextualism had previously appeared to be the defining attribute of self, such as India or Japan. However, it has been independently argued that these countries have been erroneously labelled collectivistic, and are instead primarily contextual. Hamaguchi (1985) compares an emphasis on "the objectification of self only" to ''the objectification of relationships between self (actor) and objects (including other actors)". He delineates four properties of the context, cited from Murakami, Kumon and Sato (1979). They bear repeating, as they elucidate the impact this paradigm has on self-concept:

(1) Each context has its own boundary. The homogeneity/heterogeneity that any two persons feel when they meet depends on whether the context to which each of them belongs is the same or different. (2) Each person can belong to different contexts simultaneously. However, a sense of identity is particularly strongly associated with certain contexts. (3) Each context has its own unique "mind" (will and emotion) that restrains the behaviour of those who belong to it and that is perceived by them as the ki (pneuma) or kuki (atmosphere) of the context. Each context also owns and utilises its own means. (4) Each context contains various bun (situs shares) which are distributed among its members. (p. 313)

Thus the Japanese self contains multiple self-concepts connected with certain contexts (property 2), these contexts determine to a large extent who is considered to be the ingroup (property 1) and how members of the ingroup relate according to the roles defined by the context (properties 3 & 4). Clearly according to Hamaguchi, contextualism precedes collectivism in Japan.

Sinha and Tripathi (1994) similarly argue that Indian culture is primarily contextual. They argue that contextualism allows the boundaries of mental structures to be "constantly shifting and variable" (p. 136), resulting in the coexistence of opposites that is integral to Indian culture. Rather than the self and in-group being separate or fused, they have variable boundaries. Thus Indian culture is both collectivistic and individualistic, depending on the context. This is evident in the in-group/out-group distinction, where values and behaviour are 54

different and even in opposition, depending on the situation. This tolerance of contradiction is as much individualistic as collectivistic. For example, individualistic aspects of Hinduism are seen to promote a pluralistic view of truth, values and behaviour - not only do these depend on the situation, but they are also a matter of individual preferences for beliefs and ethical conduct.

While not related to 1-C in the present study, it is clear that in some Asian cultures there is a greater emphasis on self-concepts that are connected to particular contexts. It may be useful to investigate the extent to which perceiving the self in terms of the surrounding context may rather be linked with the cultural dimension of universalism versus particularism (Parsons & Shils, 1951 ). This dimension opposes two types of value orientations which guide behaviour: abstract principles which must be applied across all situations (universalism), or specific rules which apply in particular situations (particularism). Parsons and Shils (1951) saw this dimension as distinct from 1-C, which they referred to as a self versus collective value orientation.

Universalism-particularism is echoed to some extent by the tightness­ looseness dimension of culture (Pelto, 1968; Triandis, 1995). In tight cultures there are strong norms which dictate correct behaviour for specific situations, and which are more important than any generalised universal principle. Tightness refers to the extent members of a culture "agree about what constitutes a correct action" (i.e., whether there is one or many acceptable behaviours in a situation), and must strictly conform to those norms (Triandis, 1995, p52). Shweder and Bourne (1984) argued that the contextual concept of the person was found in societies where people are "regulated by strict rules of interdependence that are context-specific and particularistic, rules governing exchanges of services, rules governing behaviour to kinsmen, rules governing marriage, etc" (p. 190).

Smith et al. (1996) and Triandis (1989, 1995) argue that there is some association between the two culture dimensions, but not a total overlap. According to Triandis (1995) factors such as homogeneity and complexity of culture affect both tightness/looseness and 1-C. Homogeneity makes it easier to agree on norms that must be imposed, and more beliefs, values, and attitudes are shared. This predisposes a culture toward collectivism. Hence, Triandis (1995) has included the extent to which ingroup norms dictate behaviour, as opposed to 55

individual attitudes, as a component ofl-C. Shweder and Bourne (1984) argue that a holistic world view (where unit-parts change their essential properties when isolated from the unit wholes) promotes both contextualisation of all things and a sociocentric view of the relationship between the individual and the collective. It seems plausible that contextual or concrete thinking in general would precede, or influence, contextual thinking in the social realm. However, Shweder and Bourne suggest that in holistic, sociocentric societies the social order might be a guide to thinking about the physical world, rather than the physical world being the model of social understanding, as it is in the West. Either way, both orientations are seen to originate in a holistic .

Even in the present study, there was evidence, at least in one example, of the impact of particularism on self-concept. In this case, the Thai preoccupation with the concept of "saving face" revealed that in the social context at least, the duties incumbent in one's social position became embedded within the self-concept.

Jam ... a daughter who must be responsible for her parents in their dotage an eldest in the family who has to help the younger ones when necessary a person who has to help her parents decide when there is trouble a neighbour to people in the community and sometimes has to help her neighbours when they are sick a person who likes to perform her duties to the best of her ability and likes to be independent a generous person to the needy a merciful person (especially to domestic animals) a person who likes to behave properly as an example to others in the unit a disciplined person following rules and regulations expected of a official 56

Note the participant's emphasis on being 'responsible', one who 'has to help', her 'duties', behaving 'properly' and 'following rules and regulations expected' of a particular role. This description from a Thai woman demonstrates a contextual view of self influenced by a particularistic or tight culture. She has internalised the duties that she must perform in each of her roles into her self­ concept. Despite the rigidity of conformity to social roles, this person did not see this as a constraint on horizontal individualism (she "likes to be independent").

This example highlights one concern with the present study. Perhaps contextualism was artificially separated from the social realm by the present , so that a-social contexts may not actually be meaningful. This issue can be partially addressed by an analysis of the statements coded as autonomous­ contextual. Four main categories of responses were revealed. The first type were those showing a recognition of the variability in the expression of personality traits, emotions and abilities across time, with frequent use of words such as "occasionally", "usually", "at times", and "sometimes". While these acknowledge context-dependency in self-concepts, they do not explicitly define which contexts are influential. A second type of response involved the use of particular personal or environmental qualifiers, for example, "when I've slept well", "when I'm under pressure", "when not under stress", or "in new environments". The third type were peripheral statements that referred to immediate activities or situations, for example, "wearing a black suit", "surrounded by chatter", "in Melbourne", "going on holiday tomorrow", "moving this wee It'. By referring to immediate activities these statements are almost completely contextual, and obscure the individual. It is clear that these terms also fit into the concrete or behavioural category, as well as being situational.

The final type of autonomous-contextual self-concepts explicitly referred to a particular domain. These almost exclusively referred to the work context, and to a lesser extent non-work contexts, such as home and the sporting field. Statements included evaluations of home and work spheres (e.g., "happy with my job", "dissatisfied in my work environment", "happy with home life"), domain-specific activities and abilities (e.g., "efficient in my worlt', "not so disciplined outside of worlt', "a pioneer of new things in the office"), and attitudes or traits (e.g., ''fairly laidback in a work environment", "interested in life outside ofworlt', "serious in my worlt'). 57

Many statements that did not explicitly refer to the work environment had work-related content (trait terms such as efficient, hardworking, smart, diligent, responsible etc), undoubtedly reflecting the fact that the TST was filled out in the work context. This domain-specificity supports Linville (1985) and Turner et al.'s (1994) cognitive models in which self-concepts are activated or generated by perception of the immediate context.

References to time and/or to environmental qualifiers are clearly contextual and not social, and were coded appropriately as autonomous­ contextual. Therefore, the results reported here are not simply a result of a coding scheme which guarantees an overlap between contextual and social responses. However, the question still remains whether specific contexts such as work, home, and sporting field are inherently social or autonomous contexts. Especially in relation to particularism, is the situation primary, or does the social relationship lay down the parameters for behaviour and self-definition? One way to test the priority of particular relationships versus particular situations might be to examine the interaction of these in situations where the same relationships cross contexts, and different relationships exist in the same context. For example, are there different expectations for behaviour in the relationship between two family members at home and at work? Are there different expectations when relating to different family members in the home? Perhaps there is an interaction, such that the self is defined in terms of particular others depending on the situation. When on the job, the self-in­ relation to coworkers may be primed, whereas at home, the self-in-relation to family may be primed. This is clearly a question for future research.

Horizontal and Vertical 1-C

The HV-IC scale is a fairly recently developed scale that requires further validation across cultures. In the present study, the vertical dimensions of 1-C appeared to be the critical factors related to the identification of self with others. In keeping with Singelis et al.'s (1995) assessment ofVC as the closest of the four sub­ scales to the traditional notion of collectivism, VC was uniquely related to the social­ contextual category of self-concept. Horizontal collectivism showed a similar, but weaker, relationship with self-concept in the collectivist sample only. 58

Horizontal Individualism is supposed to reflect a notion of the self as independent and autonomous, with items such as "My personal identity, separate from others, is important to me". However, this was the only scale that was not significantly related to any of the TST measures of self-concept! Perhaps it is not this sense of uniqueness, but its opposite, a profound sense of oneness and sameness with others, that differentiates collectivists from individualists. While participants in the individualistic sample rarely used the universal global category of self, participants in the collectivistic sample often listed "myself' (individuating) and "a human being" (universal) one after the other.

Interestingly, the pattern of correlations between Vertical Individualism and each of the TST scores reflected a broad autonomous-social distinction. 'Competitive' individualism was in direct opposition to a social self-concept (both in particular contexts and in general). This was particularly the case in the Asian sample. This result was unexpected, as previous research with the VI scale showed no relationship with self-concept (Singelis et al, 1995). In assessing the convergent validity of the HV-IC scales, Triandis and Gelfand (1998) found that VI was not related to any 1-C scales developed by other researchers. Perhaps the lack of discriminant validity shown by relationships between VI and both abstract and contextual social self-concepts (unlike VC) demonstrates a negative relationship between competition and a more general social orientation, rather than 'collectivism'.

Further research clearly needs to focus on understanding HV-IC, and the next two chapters will focus more specifically on this measure. In the light of other conflicting results, the relationships found in the present study between HV-IC and TST responses need to be replicated in other samples.

Summary

In the present cross-cultural sample, social and contextual self-concepts were highly correlated, primarily due to the fact that most social statements were also contextual and vice-versa. This social-contextual self-concept was strongly associated with Hofstede's Individualism Index and the 'traditional' measure of Vertical Collectivism, as predicted. Nevertheless, the present coding system 59

enabled social and contextual responses to be distinguished, with the clear result that individualism-collectivism was primarily related to the distinction between social and autonomous self-concepts (whether they were contextual or abstract). Controlling for social self scores, contextual self-concepts were not independently associated with any of the country or individual level 1-C measures. This suggests that the contextual self is not directly influenced by cultural 1-C, but may possibly be related to the universalistic-particularistic dimension instead. 60

Chapter 2 Collectivism, social identity and competition at work: The impact of in-group versus out-group target

The purpose of this brief chapter is to further elucidate the nature of the horizontal and vertical scales of individualism and collectivism (HV-IC) devised by Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk and Gelfand (1995). In particular, the construct of Vertical Individualism requires further analysis because of its unclear relationship with the other HV-IC scales. As currently construed, Vertical Individualism basically measures competitiveness. While generally associated with individualism, a competitive orientation toward out-group members can also be related to collectivism. This phenomenon is consistent with psychological processes described by Social Identity Theory (SIT), and highlights the need for an integration of 1-C with the SIT perspective. Once again, the illumination of measurement issues is paralleled by the need for some conceptual and theoretical refinements. Specifically, this study aimed to investigate the effect of organisational identification on the relationship between collectivism and interpersonal and intergroup competition.

Measurement Issues: Results from Chapter 1

While research on the cross-cultural dimension of individualism­ collectivism has been profuse, the broad scope of the concept has created difficulties for the development of adequate and reliable measurement instruments. Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk and Gelfand (1995) attempted to measure individualism and collectivism at a level that was specific enough to be reliable, and yet broad enough to provide useful predictive information. They argued that the constructs of individualism and collectivism were too broad, which is why coefficient alphas never reached satisfactory levels. On the other hand, with more specific constructs, such as the seven factors identified by Triandis, Chan, Bhawuk, lwao, and Sinha (1995), there is a greater possibility that factors unrelated to the construct can influence responses. Singelis et al. (1995) suggested that a four-factor measure was 61

more reliable, as well as theoretically more useful, than either the more abstract or more specific measures.

The factors Singelis et al. (1995) describe derive from Triandis' (1995) distinction between horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism, and are comparable to the patterns of social relationships described by Fiske (1992). The horizontal dimensions emphasise equality between self and others, while the vertical dimensions emphasise an acceptance of inequality. According to these definitions the distinction is also very much like Hofstede's (1980) dimension.

While Hofstede kept Power Distance and Individualism theoretically distinct, they are generally highly correlated (Hofstede, 1980). Researchers have argued that for the sake of parsimony and empirical usefulness the two factors may be considered together as one construct (e.g., Bochner & Hesketh, 1994). In fact, in much of the literature which compares cultures classified as individualistic or collectivistic (according to Hofstede's Individualism Index), the research may be regarded as 'confounded' by differences on the Power Distance dimension. The collective, high power distance orientation is captured by Singelis et al.'s (1995) Vertical Collectivism (VC) scale, with items measuring self-sacrifice and subordination of own goals for group goals, especially with regard to the family. The individualistic, low power-distance orientation is measured by the Horizontal Individualism (HI) scale, with items reflecting the nature of the self as perceived as unique, separate and independent. These scales were strongly related to the independent and interdependent self-construals of Singelis's (1994) Self-Construal Scale.

The other two scales developed by Singelis et al (1995) reflect an attempt to capture the less common occurrence (at least at the level of national culture) of individualism with high power distance, and collectivism with low power distance. Items in the Vertical Individualism (VI) scale are particularly focussed on the preference for interpersonal competition. Hsu (1983) emphasised the link between individualism and competition, and research in America found that "self reliance with competition" was the highest loading factor on individualism in that culture (Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988). The items for the VI scale 62

(see Table 2.1) seem to have perfect face validity according to the definition of interpersonal competition "as the desire to do better than others, the desire to win in interpersonal situations, the enjoyment of interpersonal competition" (Griflin­ Pierson, 1990, p108). In both Vertical Individualism and Vertical Collectivism, according to Singelis et al. (1995), the shared 'vertical' element is a view of the self as different in status to others and an acceptance of inequality. As Griffin-Pierson ( 1990) points out, interpersonal competition has a "focus on differentiating self from others by virtue of a superior performance" (p. 108).

Table 2.1. Vertical Individualism items (adapted from Singelis et al., 1995)

Winning is everything. It annoys me when other people perform better than I do. It is important to me that I do my job better than others. I enjoy working in situations involving competition with others. Competition is the law ofnature. When another person does better than I do, I get tense and unsettled. Without competition it is not possible to have a good society. Some people emphasise winning; I am not one ofthem. (reversed)

In contrast, the Horizontal Collectivism (HC) scale appears to measure a general affiliation with others, and a preference for cooperation and group harmony. Cooperation has been clearly shown to be empirically related to collectivism (Wagner, 1995), and in studies of organisational behaviour cooperation has been used as a personality correlate of collectivist culture (Chatman & Barsade, 1995).

While they are clearly linked to individualism and collectivism, these new scales may not represent defining elements of individualism and collectivism, but simply emic attributes (i.e., identifiable in within some cultures only) which may be associated with them. In an in depth cross-cultural factor analysis of 1-C items, Triandis et al. (1993) found etic factors (i.e., valid across cultures) of Separation from In-groups, Independence, and Personal Competence, both at the individual and 63

cultural levels. Results suggested that competition and cooperation were emic factors. They were constructs that were only sometimes correlated with the key elements of individualism and collectivism.

Chen, Meindl and Hunt (1997) also proposed a distinction between horizontal and vertical collectivism. According to their model, VC represents the self-collectivity relationship of subordination to the ingroup, and HC represents the self-other relationship of affiliation with peers (similar to the group and relational distinctions made by Brewer & Gardner, 1996; and Kashima et al., 1995). As measured by Chen et al. (1997) VC and HC were correlated but distinct. In contrast to Triandis (1995) and Singelis et al.'s (1995) model, Chen et al suggest that there is only one factor or dimension of individualism, which is placed at one common end of the two collectivism dimensions (low concern for collectivity and ingroup others, see Figure 2.1 ).

Figure 2.1. Models of horizontal and vertical 1-C

High Power Distance Vertical Collectivism Vertical Vertical Individualism Collectivism

Indiv·------+------Coll.

Horizontal Horizontal Individualism Collectivism

Low Power Distance Individualism Horizontal Collectivism

Triandis' Model Chen et al.'s Model

From the data in Chapter 1 (see Chapter 1 for sample details), it was possible to explore how the 'traditional' scales of Horizontal Individualism and Vertical Collectivism related to the more narrow concepts of Vertical Individualism and 64

Horizontal Collectivism. The relationships between these scales, the other 1-C measures (Hofstede's Individualism Index for participants' country of birth, and social self-concept) and other demographic variables are presented in Table 2.2 (separate correlation tables for each of the samples in Asia and Australia are presented in Appendix 2). A behavioural measure was also included (participants' subjective rating of the proportion of their work spent cooperating with others to complete tasks). It was expected that Horizontal Collectivism would correlate with Vertical Collectivism, and Vertical Individualism with Horizontal Individualism.

Table 2.2. Correlations between HV-IC and other 1-C and demographic variables

Traditional Measures 'New' measures Vertical Horizontal Horizontal Vertical Collectivism Individualism Collectivism Individualism vc (.72) .08 .29*** .16*** HI (.80) .15*** .02 HC (.71) -.00 VI (.75) Hofstede's Index -.41 *** .07 .07 .06 Social Self-concept .24*** .02 .06 -.19*** Cooperation at work .07 -.04 .10* -.06 Sexa -.11** -.02 -.11 ** .27*** Age .08 -.05 .02 -.10* Note: Alpha reliabilities presented in brackets on the diagonal. a. Female= 1, Male= 2. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

In terms of validation of the Singelis et al. measures of 1-C, results suggested that Vertical Collectivism is tapping into the traditional concept of 1-C. Vertical Collectivism was significantly correlated with both social self-concept on the TST, and Hofstede's Individualism Index for country of birth. VC has also recently been shown to be more strongly correlated with subjective ratings of 65

collectivism than each of the other subscales (Triandis & Singelis, 1998). VC was significantly correlated with Horizontal Collectivism. These results are as expected.

Horizontal Individualism failed to correlate with the other 1-C measures, and was only related to Horizontal Collectivism. Schwartz (1994) has argued that the constructs of HI and HC are necessarily found together in individualistic cultures, and they are again related at the organisational culture level in the next chapter, where this relationship is discussed in more detail. There was no correlation between the two individualism scales (in Triandis & Gelfand, 1998, HI was even negatively correlated with VI as measured by multiple choice scenarios).

Some indications of the nature of the more specific Vertical Individualism and Horizontal Collectivism scales were also revealed. HC was more strongly correlated with the other collectivism scale VC, than with the other horizontal scale, HI. HC was also significantly correlated with self-reported cooperation on tasks at work, confirming its validity as a measure of cooperativeness.

While HC was primarily associated with collectivism, VI was not correlated with individualism at all (see Table 2.2). Instead, as in the Singelis et al. (1995) sample, Vertical Individualism was correlated positively with Vertical Collectivism. This may indicate that the vertical element of the VI dimension is much stronger than the individualism element. Men scored higher on Vertical Individualism than women, as also reported by Singelis et al. (1995). This result is consistent with fairly robust sex differences found in studies on interpersonal competition ( e.g. Gladue & Bailey, 1995; Griffin-Pierson, 1990; Lucas & Stone, 1994), and further confirms VI as a measure of competitiveness.

Collectivism and Social Identity

An alternative interpretation of the relationship between VC and VI is that collectivism may be related to VI through a direct relationship with competition. In dealing with in-group members, the associations between individualism and competition and between collectivism and cooperation are fairly consistent. However, collectivists make a much greater distinction between ingroups and 66

outgroups than individualists (Gudykunst, Yoon, & Nishida, 1987; Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). In other words, whether or not one considers a particular group to be a salient social identity will have a greater effect on the behaviour of collectivists than of individualists. There is some evidence that collectivists can be even more competitive than individualists when dealing with outgroups (Bond & Smith, 1996; Espino.za & Garza, 1985; Triandis et al., 1988). Thus, Triandis (1989) argues that while individualism is associated with interpersonal competition, collectivism is associated with intergroup competition. For example, in individualistic cultures conflict can frequently be found within family relationships, while in collectivistic cultures conflict is more likely to be between families (Katakis, 1978, cited in Triandis, 1989). Chen et al. (1997) propose that it is particularly the vertical collectivism construct which is likely to be related to intergroup cooperation/competition (whereas HC is more appropriate for studying and helping behaviours within the in-group).

This phenomenon associated with collectivism (ie, in-group/out-group bias) highlights the relevance of Social Identity Theory (SIT) in understanding the underlying psychological processes related to collectivistic behaviour, and may shed some light on the current results. According to social identity theory (SIT), 'social identity' is conceptualised as that aspect of a person's self-concept that is derived from their membership in a particular group. It defines the individual in terms of their shared similarities with other members of the group or social category, in contrast to other social categories. The salience of various social identities depends on the relative accessibility of a particular self-category (an individual variable of 'perceiver readiness') and the fit between a particular category and (a situational variable) (e.g., Turner, 1999). It is easy to see how collectivism at both the individual level (ie a tendency to perceive oneself in terms of group membership) and the cultural level (the importance of groups and group membership for social interactions) could increase salience of social identity processes for collectivists.

SIT postulates that people have a need for positive social identity, expressed as the desire for positive distinctiveness of one's in-group compared to out-groups (Tajfel, 1979; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). That is, simply belonging to a 67

group (e.g., a work organisation) can provoke competition and conflict with out­ groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Although Turner (1999) argues that it is not a straightforward link, most researchers have drawn out the implication that there should be a positive correlation between the strength of people's group identification and the degree of in-group bias they will display (e.g., Hinkle & Brown, 1990; Kelly, 1993).

Despite the apparent commonalities between collectivism and social identity, there has only been one serious attempt to integrate these two spheres of research. Crossing the social theories of SIT and an individual differences approach to 1-C, Brown and colleagues (Brown et al., 1992; Hinkle & Brown, 1990) proposed that many of the basic hypotheses derived from social identity theory should be most readily observed among collectivists rather than among individualists. That is, the psychological processes of SIT can vary across different types of groups and group members. Although some SIT theorists insist "that it is important on principle not to see group identification as a static or stable individual difference variable" (Spears, Doojse, & Ellemers, 1999, p. 61), this type of interactive approach promises fruitful advances for both SIT and 1-C theory.

To distinguish relevant differences between groups and group members, Hinkle and Brown (1990) proposed a two-dimensional taxonomy which closely resembles the HV-IC factors. They cross the 1-C dimension with what they call an "autonomous-relational" dimension (originally labelled 'comparative-non­ comparative'). A relational orientation refers to an interest in intergroup comparison, and is concerned with the competitive evaluation of the in-group in relation to other groups. In contrast, the autonomous orientation makes such assessments in relation to some abstract standard. This conceptualisation has many parallels with the Vertical-Horizontal dimension of Triandis (1995) and Singelis et al. (1995). Hinkle and Brown (1990) hypothesised that SIT processes, in particular in-group/out-group bias, would most likely be manifested by collectivists with a relational orientation (ie Vertical Collectivists), and least likely by individualists with an autonomous orientation (ie Horizontal Individualists). In three separate studies, using multiple measures of in-group identification and 1-C, 68

Brown et al. (1992) found a strong, significant relationship between in-group identification and in-group bias for collectivists with a relational orientation, and a virtually zero correlation for individualists with an autonomous orientation. Participants in the other two categories, relational individualists (similar to VI) and autonomous collectivists (similar to HC), showed moderate correlations. However, in one study the relational individualists showed the highest correlation between in-group identification and in-group bias. In-group bias was measured by comparing in-group and out-group evaluative ratings. These results are consistent with the greater out-group competitiveness shown by collectivists in cross-cultural research, and may help explain the positive relationship between VC and VI.

The present study In the current program of research, one problem with the VI scale is that it may not be accurately assessing interpersonal competition. Because of the ambiguous nature of the targets in the VI scale (see Table 2.1 ), participants could have answered the items as referring to either their co workers (ingroup) or to others from competing firms (outgroups). If this is the case, then both collectivism and individualism could be related to VI, depending on the participants' interpretation of the items.

A second problem lies in the nature of the relationships between coworkers. It is possible that some collectivists may not have thought of their coworkers as members of their 'ingroup', and may have instead considered them as outgroup members. Collectivistic behaviour is not universally applied to all others, and "one may be a collectivist in relation to one ingroup, but not in relation to other groups" (Hui, 1988; see also Hui & Triandis, 1986; Triandis et al., 1988, p. 333). That is, the current participants may have been collectivists with regard to the family domain, but at the same time been "organisational individualists" (Chen et al., 1997, p. 64). Because of this, it is necessary to determine if the organisation provides a strong social identity for participants. Ashforth and Mael (1989) define social identification as "the perception of oneness with or to" the organisation (p. 21). According to SIT, for both individualists and collectivists, social identification 69

affects within-group cohesion and cooperation, and reinforces the salience of, and competition with, outgroups.

To investigate these effects of interpersonal versus intergroup targets, and social identification with the organisation, the HV-IC measure was again given to a sample of adults in full-time employment. The VI scale was manipulated so that in approximately half of the questionnaires, items targeted employees in the participants' own organisation, and in the other half VI items targeted other organisations. A direct measure of participants' social identification with the organisation was also included.

The chief hypotheses concerned the relationships between the independent variables; collectivism (VC), social identification, and target condition (intergroup versus interpersonal competition), and the dependent variable; Vertical (or competitive) Individualism (VI).

Hypotheses Main effects Hypothesis 1. Collectivism (VC) should be positively related to VI (as found previously). Hypothesis 2. VI should be greater when targeted towards out-group organisations than members of one's own organisation (congruent with social identity theory).

2-Way Interactions Hypothesis 3. a) Competition (VI) should be positively correlated with collectivism (VC) in the intergroup target condition only, and; b) Competition (VI) should be associated with individualism (}Il) in the interpersonal target condition only. Hypothesis 4. Social identification with the organisation should be positively related to competition (VI) in the intergroup condition, and negatively related to VI in the interpersonal condition. 70

3-Way Interaction Hypothesis 5. Social identification with the organisation should moderate the relationship between collectivism (VC) and competition (VI), such that collectivists who have high social identification with the organisation will display less competitiveness toward organisational members and more competitiveness toward other organisations. Collectivists with low social identification with the organisation should be more competitive toward organisational members (see Table 2.3).

Table 2.3. Predicted correlations between 1-C measures for high and low identification with the organisation

Collectivism (VC) Low Social Identification High Social Identification Vertical Individualism - + Interpersonal Competition Vertical Individualism - 0 + Intergroup Competition

Method

Design

This study had a quasi-experimental between-subjects design. There were three independent variables: collectivism (VC), social identification with the organisation, and target of competition (intergroup versus interpersonal). The dependent variable was Vertical Individualism.

Subjects

Participants were employees in local branches of a major Australian bank (n=52), and part-time post-graduate students in the School of Marketing at the University of NSW who were in full-time paid employment (n=26). The bank sample was diverse: 36 respondents were identified as female, 15 as male; ages ranged from 18 to over 59, with a mean age bracket of 30-39; level of education 71

ranged from primary school to university graduate degree, with a mean level of education at diploma/certificate; two thirds of the sample were born in Australia, and one third were born in countries ranging on Hofstede's Individualism Index from 14 to 89. Demographic details were not available for the university student sample.

Bonferroni adjusted T-tests showed that the samples were not significantly different on measures of VI, social identification and the proportion of subjects in each manipulated condition. There was a significant difference between the two samples on Vertical Collectivism (t(76)=2.58, p<.0125). Employees in the bank (M=4.7, SD=.78) were more collectivistic than the students (M=4.1, SD=l.00).

Materials

Two alternate questionnaires were developed containing the Singelis et al. (1995) measure. Vertical Individualism was replaced with two separate versions of the VI scale. One version included items that explicitly target people within the work group, for example, "I enjoy working in situations involving competition with other employees" (previously "others"). The other scale had items that targeted rival groups, for example, "I enjoy working in situations involving competition with other organisations". These two versions were labelled Vertical Individualism - interpersonal (VI-P) and Vertical Individualism - intergroup (VI­ G), respectively.

Social identification with the organisation was measured using Hogg, Schneider and Foddy's (personal communication, 1997) 6-item scale, adapted for organisational targets (see Table 2.4). Each item was answered on a seven-point Likert scale with anchors as shown. The scale demonstrated acceptable reliability with a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .77 obtained on this sample (N=76).

This scale has been validated in laboratory settings, but not in field studies. Measures of organisational commitment and global job satisfaction (Kunin, 1955) were included in the questionnaires in order to establish convergent and divergent validity. Organisational commitment has been defined by Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979) as the individual's identification with a particular 72

organisation and its goals. A nine-item short-form version of Porter, Crampon, and Smith's (1976) 15-item measure of organisational commitment was used in this study. Social identification was related to organisational commitment, and less strongly to job satisfaction. Correlations between these measures are shown in Table 2.5.

Table 2.4. Social Identification Items

I. Generally speaking, how typical a member ofyour Not very organisation do you feel you are? typical - very typical 2. Generally speaking, how well do you fit in with other Not atall­ people in the organisation? fit in very well 3. How much ofa sense of belonging do you feel you have None-a lot with other people in your organisation? 4. With respect to your general attitudes and opinions, how Very dissimilar similar do you feel you are to other members of your - very similar organisation? 5. Generally speaking, how much do you like the other Not at all­ people in your organisation? very much 6. How much do you feel you identify with your Not at all­ organisation? very much

Table 2.5. Correlations between Social identification, organisational commitment and job satisfaction

Social Identification Org. Commitment Job Satisfaction Social Identification .43*** .27* Org. Commitment .51*** Job Satisfaction

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

A factor analysis was conducted on the items from the social identity scale, organisational commitment and job satisfaction. Using the principal components method, four factors were extracted. These were basically two commitment and two social identity factors (see Table 2.6). The social identity 73

factors could be described as Belonging and Typicality ( similar to those found by Mael & Tetrick, 1992). When constrained to two factors, the commitment and social identity items loaded neatly on their respective scales, except for item 6 of the social identity scale which had a higher loading on the commitment scale.

Table 2.6. Factor loadings for social identity and organisational commitment items Rotated Factor Matrix: Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 (Belonging) (Typicality) COMMl .14 -.02 .89 -.08 COMM2 .34 .23 .76 -.16 COMM3 .71 -.12 -.03 .35 COMM4 .74 .02 .33 . 01 COMM5 .67 .24 .50 -.13 COMM6 .73 .26 .25 -.10 COMM7 .75 .40 .25 -.14 COMM8 .35 .08 .74 .12 COMM9 .82 . 26 .23 -.01 SOCIDl .20 .18 -.33 .74 SOCID2 -.10 .84 .16 .29 SOCID3 .34 .79 -.04 .12 SOCID4 -.07 .23 .15 .86 SOCID5 .42 .72 .01 .25 SOCID6 .65 .39 . 18 .12 SATIS .29 .60 .26 -.41

Thus it may be concluded that social identification with the organisation is correlated with, but a distinct construct from, organisational commitment.

Procedure

In the bank, management randomly allocated the two different questionnaires to employees, and these were returned via reply-paid envelopes directly to the researcher. Of 145 questionnaires distributed, 52 were returned (response rate of 36%). Post-graduate students were also randomly allocated the questionnaires, and 26 were completed and returned in class. Overall, 32 questionnaires in the VI-Interpersonal condition, and 46 in the VI-intergroup condition, were returned. A cover letter ( attached to the questionnaire) informed participants that the questionnaire was part of a research project in organisational 74

culture and diversity, specifically investigating the way people interact with each other and preferences for the way work was done. Participants were made explicitly aware that the questionnaire was anonymous, confidential and entirely voluntary.

Results

Main Effects

Correlations between the 1-C variables, social identity and experimental condition ( employee versus organisational target) for the total sample are presented in Table 2.7. First, in contrast to Study 1, Vertical Collectivism was not significantly correlated with Vertical Individualism (Hypothesis 1). This was possibly due to the more explicit nature of the target for participants in the interpersonal condition, and will be tested as an interaction between VC and Target Condition. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, Vertical Individualism was significantly correlated with Target Condition, such that participants were more competitive toward other organisations (M=4.41, SD=.87) than other employees (M=3.79, SD=.82). AT-test of differences in Vertical Individualism between the two conditions also confirmed the significance of this result (t(76) = 3.17, p<.01).

Table 2.7. Correlations between 1-C measures, Social Identification and Target Condition

1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Vertical Collectivism .10 .38** .09 .12 -.05 2. Horizontal Individualism .15 .16 -.02 -.01 3. Horizontal Collectivism .14 .18 .05 4. Vertical Individualism .02 .34** 5. Social Identification -.19 6. Target Conditiona a. VI-P = 1, VI-G = 2. **p<.01 75

2-Way Interactions The first interaction tested was between Vertical Collectivism and Target Condition. According to Hypothesis 3a, Vertical Individualism should be related to Vertical Collectivism only in the intergroup condition, when the target is other organisations. Correlations between VC and VI for each condition are shown in Table 2.8 (none were significant).

Table 2.8. Correlations with Vertical Individualism in each of the target conditions

Vertical Individualism - Vertical Individualism - interpersonal (n=32) intergroup (n=46) Collectivism (VC) .00 .20 Individualism (HI) .32 .07 Social Identification -.08 .20

A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted with the two independent variables entered first (VC and Target Condition), followed by the interaction term (VC * Target Condition). In the first step, only Target Condition was a significant predictor of VI. Although results were in the expected direction, the interaction did not add significantly to the equation. Similarly, although the correlation between HI and VI was higher in the interpersonal condition (Hypothesis 3b ), the difference was not significant.

The second interaction tested was between Social Identification and target of competition. According to Hypotheses 4, social identification with the organisation should be positively related to Vertical Individualism, or competitiveness, only when the target is other organisations, and possibly even negatively related to VI when the target is other employees within the organisation. The correlations between social identification and VI for each target condition are shown in Table 2.8. Again, although in the predicted direction, in a hierarchical regression analysis, the interaction term was not significant. 76

3-Way Interaction The three-way interaction between VC, Social Identification and Target Condition was tested by entering the interaction variable into the regression analysis after the main and two-way interaction variables. It was hypothesised (Hypothesis 5) that in the organisational target condition, the relationship between VC and VI would be moderated by Social Identification, such that the relationship would be stronger with greater identification with the organisation. That is, collectivists would be more competitive toward out-groups the more they identified with their organisation. This interaction was not significant (see Table 2.9).

Table 2.9. Correlations between Vertical Collectivism and Vertical Individualism in conditions of interpersonal versus intergroup competition, and high versus low social identity

Collectivism (VC) Low Social Identity High Social Identity VI - interpersonal .06 -.06 (n=8) (n=12) VI - intergroup .51 -.18 (n=15) (n=lO) Note: For the purposes of this table, high and low groups for social identification with the organisation were those scoring in the top and bottom third of the sample.

Discussion

This brief study was designed to investigate the nature of the Vertical Individualism scale in relation to the other HV-IC scales. It was suggested that Vertical Individualism might too narrowly measure only an emic element of I-C, competition, which is sensitive to the social context. Competitiveness can vary largely according to the targeted 'other', especially among collectivists, for whom the ingroup/outgroup distinction is more salient. This investigation was necessary to validly interpret results from research using the HV-IC scales. Overall, most 77

results from the present study were in the predicted direction, but were not significant. This may largely have been due to the small sample.

Social identity The change m target of the Vertical Individualism scale from interpersonal to intergroup did make a significant difference to how participants rated the items. As predicted by social identity theory, participants were more competitive toward other organisations than toward employees in their own organisation. That is, both individualists and collectivists were more competitive toward outgroups than toward members of their own groups.

Consistent with these results, participants who identified strongly with their organisation tended to be more competitive toward other organisations and less competitive toward fellow employees, than those with weaker organisational identification. Lack of statistical significance may have been due to the small sample size. The bank, in particular, had a fairly low response rate, and employees who did return the questionnaire may have had a higher social identification with the organisation than other employees.

Expected results for an interaction between collectivism and social identity were not forthcoming. For interpersonal competition within the in-group, results were in the predicted direction. That is, when social identification with the organisation was high, collectivism was negatively associated with interpersonal competition. When social identification was low, collectivism tended to be positively associated with interpersonal competition. For the intergroup competition, results were not in the expected direction. That is, collectivists who had a strong social identification with their organisation were not more competitive toward other organisations.

There are some situations in which collectivism is not always associated with competitiveness toward other groups. For example, in laboratory experiments utilising the Prisoners' Dilemma (PD), Probst, Carnevale and Triandis ( 1999) examined differences in the behaviour of participants according to Singelis et al.'s (1995) HV-IC scale. The PD is an example of a social dilemma 78

where people are interdependent and face a choice between acting in cooperative (collective) interests and competitive (individualistic) interests. They predicted, and found, that vertical individualism was most strongly associated with the maximisation of individual gains, and resulted in a competitive strategy aimed to 'beat' the opposition at both interpersonal and intergroup levels. Vertical collectivists sought to maximise joint gain at both interpersonal and intergroup levels, as they did not feel closer to members of their three-person group than to the other three-person group in the intergroup condition. That is, they identified their group as the entire six participants in that experimental session. It would be interesting to investigate whether vertical collectivists became more competitive in the intergroup condition if the strength of their identification with this group was experimentally manipulated.

Contrary to Brown et al. (1992) and the reasoning presented in the current chapter, van Knippenberg (in press) suggested that the relationship between group identification and group behaviours (e.g., task performance in a group or organisational citizenship behaviours) should be greater for individualists, rather than collectivists. He argues that for individualists, identification would bridge the gap between self-interests and the group's interests, whereas for collectivists the interests of the group prevail anyway. Although he has preliminary evidence for this view, it is not clear how the collectivistic distinction between in-groups and out-groups affects these relationships.

While social identity appears to be a key mechanism of collectivist cognition and behaviour, further research is clearly needed to directly assess the relationship between social identity and I-C.

Individualism, collectivism and competition Unlike the larger sample from Chapter 1, in the present sample, Vertical Collectivism was not significantly correlated with Vertical Individualism. This lack of a significant relationship was probably due both to the change in target for the questionnaires, and the lack of power afforded by the smaller sample. As predicted, collectivism was positively correlated with VI only when the target of 79

competition was other organisations, although this result did not reach significance.

The general lack of correlation between the individualism scales may be particular to the current sample, especially since Australia is known for its egalitarian values. Individualistic samples with higher power distance may show a closer relationship between individualism and competition (as in the USA). However, even in the present study, there was a trend toward a stronger relationship between the individualism scales when the item target was clearly interpersonal. This suggests that VI may still be a useful individualism measure, as long as items clearly assess interpersonal competition or differentiation rather than intergroup differentiation.

Since this study was completed, Triandis and Gelfand (1998) conducted a thorough analysis of the divergent and convergent validity of the HV-IC scales with other I-C instruments and factors. As found in the present study, both of the collectivism scales were correlated with each other, but the individualism scales were not. The collectivism scales were differentiated by the emphasis of VC on family integrity and low distance from ingroups, and by the emphasis of HC on interdependence. This is consistent with Chen et al.'s (1997) conceptions of VC and HC.

While Hl was related to self-reliance, independent self-construal and other I­ C measures, VI was only related to factors of competition and hedonism (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Triandis and Singelis (1998) also recently reported that VI was the only subscale that was not significantly related to students' subjective ratings of individualism and collectivism. However, the vertical individualism concept of differentiating the self from others need not be limited to competition. For example, ideas of individuating status encompass being distinguished, individually recognised, standing out from the crowd, being a leader, and being powerful or superior. In fact, when VI was expressed using these different ideas in scenarios, Triandis, Chen and Chan ( 1998) found that their individualistic US sample was consistently higher on VI than their collectivistic Hong Kong sample. However, for one item, participants had to choose which word they would use to describe themselves. The options 80

included unique (HI), competitive (VI), cooperative (HC), and dutiful (VC). The 'competitive' response was twice as frequent in the Hong Kong sample as in the US. Clearly, as Triandis and Gelfand concluded, "new items should be developed to expand the content of VI because the present items are too narrowly linked to competition" (1998, p126).

The horizontal and vertical I-C factors are individual-level constructs, yet to be validated at the cultural level. Triandis and Gelfand ( 1998) acknowledge that there is a need for research to demonstrate the viability of these factors at multiple levels of analysis. In the next chapter, these factors are examined at the national and organisational level of analysis within a matched sample. 81

Chapter 3

Individualism and Collectivism in Organisations

In this chapter, the possibility of characterising organisational cultures in terms of individualism-collectivism is considered. This endeavour is undertaken for several reasons. First, it provides empirical evidence to test theoretical hypotheses about the nature, or 'level', of organisational culture: whether organisational culture can be defined by differences in values, or only in terms of practises, behavioural norms and expectations. Second, it continues the investigation of Singelis et al.' s horizontal and vertical 1-C measure, by testing the viability of its four factors at multiple levels of analysis: national culture and organisational culture levels1• Finally, it provides the necessary classification of organisational culture differences on 1-C for later investigations of person­ organisation fit on this dimension.

An organisation's 1-C 'culture' is regarded in this section as an aggregate of the employees' orientations within each organisation (Schneider, 1987b). Several attempts were made to measure organisational culture, apart from simply using an aggregate of individual orientations. These included employees' perceptions of the organisational culture - describing "people in this organisation", or rating "values of this organisation", and employees' ratings of particular organisational structures and practices. Most of these measures were piloted in only one or two samples, and tested for internal reliability and meaningful factor structure. Only one measure (adapted from Wagner & Moch, 1986), was considered acceptable by these criteria, and it was included for each of the subsequent samples. However, an analysis of the measure across organisations showed that it was not particularly helpful in discriminating between organisations, and it was closely aligned with the Horizontal Collectivism scale. That is, it differed significantly according to each employee's own orientation on

1 The issue of"levels of analysis" will be repeatedly referred to in this chapter. 1-C is a 'cultural' dimension in the sense that it has been defined and validated with nations as the basic unit of analysis (Hofstede, 1980). It has also been validated (using different items) with individuals as the basic unit of analysis, ie at the psychological or individual level [Triandis, 1995 #45]. The question addressed here is whether 1-C can be validated at the organisational level, ie with organisations as the basic unit of analysis. 82

Horizontal Collectivism, rather than objectively measuring an organisation as a whole. It is possible that some of the other measures piloted would still be useful measuring 1-C at an organisational level, and may have acceptable factor structure when assessed with the organisation as the unit of analysis, rather than the individual. Unfortunately, testing this requires a large number of participating organisations - which was beyond the resources and scope of this thesis. Pilot studies of these measures are included in Appendix 3A, and where useful, Wagner and Moch's scale measuring perceptions of organisational culture is included to help interpret results.

1-C and Organisational Behaviour

1-C has been studied largely in the context of organisations, and conceptualised as cross-cultural differences in organisational values, attitudes and behaviour. Significantly, the classic work that reintroduced the term collectivism and spurred interest in the concept, was a study of the work values of employees in a multi-national organisation (Hofstede, 1980). Several reviews of cross­ cultural organisational psychology have focussed on the implications of I-C for a variety of work practices, attitudes, motivation and behaviour (Bond & Smith, 1996; Hui, 1990; Triandis, 1994; 1995).

There is a large literature on the empirical consequences of I-C for organisational behaviour, and Hofstede ( 1991) identified what he considers to be the most significant impacts of I-C in the workplace. In individualistic cultures the employee-employer relationship (psychological contract) is calculative, tasks are given priority over relationships, competition is more important than group harmony, and family is separated from work. In collectivistic cultures the employee-employer relationship is moral, relationships are given priority over tasks, group harmony is more important than interpersonal competition, and nepotism is acceptable, since an employee's membership in ingroups is important.

It is natural, given the important implications of I-C in organisations, to leap to the conclusion that organisations themselves can be characterised in terms of the extent to which their structure, practices and 'culture' reflect individualistic or collectivistic values. This has been the subject of considerable debate, and is 83

grounded in a larger issue: are organisational cultures the same 'animal' as national cultures? This larger issue will be addressed first.

National versus Organisational Culture

The concept of culture

Most theorists argue that the concept of 'culture' can be applied to any social group with a shared history, be it family, social club, work organisation, or national culture. It is a normative pattern of relating which has been found to be adaptive to the external environment, and conducive of harmonious internal relations amongst members (Schein, 1985). It also includes the notion of shared meaning, for example, "a set of shared by members of a social unit" (O'Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991, p. 491). Several observable levels of culture have been identified which arise from these invisible and preconscious assumptions. The first of these, values, can be considered as priorities assigned to certain states or outcomes. These values then determine the other elements of culture such as behavioural norms, patterns of activity reflected in institutional structures, and material artifacts (Rousseau, 1990).

The concept of culture has traditionally come from fields such as anthropology and , and has only relatively recently been applied to organisations. Reviews and texts devoted to the topic of organisational culture draw together disparate research which reflects a range of theoretical and methodological views (Bhagat & McQuaid, 1982; Brown, 1995; Ouchi & Wilkins, 1985; Schein, 1990; Schein, 1985; Schneider, 1990; Smircich, 1983; Trice & Beyer, 1993). The question of whether the concept is applicable to organisations is apparent in the diversity of definitions of culture, and the ways that it can relate to organisations. Smircich ( 1983) provides an interesting comparison of the different ways of conceiving 'organisation' and 'culture'. Her view of organisational culture is that of a 'metaphor' to describe what an organisation 'is' (as opposed to 'has') in the same way that other metaphors can be used to describe organisations e.g., 'theatre' or 'political arena'. This is opposed to two other more common conceptions of culture used in the literature. 84

The first conception is of culture as an external or independent variable impacting on organisations. The effects of culture are imported into the organisation through its membership, and revealed in attitudes of organisation members. Thus, in literature on comparative management (e.g., Bhagat & McQuaid, 1982) culture is part of the environment and seen as a determining or imprinting force.

The second conception is of culture as an internal or dependent variable, in that it is the product of the organisation (eg culture as structure, size, technology, leadership patterns, rituals, legends, ceremonies). This is based on a systems theory framework, in which organisational culture is developed in response to its environment. This concept is used in the literature on organisational development (e.g., Schein, 1985), which is concerned with the adaptive ability of the organisation.

In fact, these two conceptions converge in Schneider's approach to organisational culture, whereby the 'people make the place' (Schneider, 1987b). Not only does culture reside in the 'mental programmes' of individuals (Hofstede, 1991), but the aggregate of individuals' cognitions comprise the organisational culture. So culture is imported through organisational membership, bringing elements of societal, industrial and occupational values, but these values combine so that the "averaged values of societal members, no less than folktales or textbooks, can point to cultural values" (Schwartz, 1994, p. 92). Furthermore, according to Schneider, "structure, process and culture are the outcome of the people in an organisation, not the cause of the behaviour in the organisation" (Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995, p. 751).

Different kinds of culture

With this definition m mind, we now tum to Hofstede's emphatic contention that national and organisational cultures are different 'kinds' of culture (Hofstede, 1986; Hofstede, Bond, & Luc, 1993; Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990; Hofstede & Spangenberg, 1986). He argues that "organisational 'cultures' are a phenomenon per se, different in many respects from national cultures. An organisation is a social system of a different nature than a nation" (1991, p. 18), and "using the term 'cultures' for both is, in fact, somewhat misleading" (Hofstede et al., 1990). The difference lies in the 'level' of culture at 85

which each is represented. Hofstede claims that whereas shared values represent the core of national culture, shared perceptions of daily practices (or norms) are at the core of corporate or organisational culture. While the concept of culture is an aggregate of the minds of individuals, culture must also be "the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category ofpeople from another" Hofstede (1991 p. 5, italics mine). Thus, while national culture differences reside mostly in values, he contends that organisational cultures are distinguished mostly by practices. Hofstede bases this claim in an unpredicted difference found in an empirical study of 20 units in 10 organisations within two similar countries. Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv and Sanders (1990) administered a survey with around 60 questions about values from Hofstede's earlier cross-national study, and about 75 additional questions regarding perceptions of daily practices that were developed from interviews in the organisations. Questions dealing with practices produced a much wider range of answers across organisations, and organisational membership accounted for almost twice as much variance in practices than in values. Results showed that employees' values differed more according to the demographic criteria of nationality, age and education than according to membership in the organisation. Practice questions loaded onto six factors, which together explained 73% of the variance between organisations. Hofstede concluded that shared perceptions of practices (including symbols, rituals and heroes), were the core of an organisation's culture.

This view of organisations reflects the considerable literature on organisational climate, a construct which seems to have gone out of vogue with the introduction of the 'culture' concept to organisations. It has been argued that organisational climate and culture differ in their focus, such that climate refers to the more 'superficial' and visible levels of culture such as practices, while culture refers to the 'deeper' unconscious values and beliefs (Schneider, 1985). Hofstede argues that organisations are superficial social systems based on shared acceptance of appropriate norms and practices irrespective of members' underlying values and beliefs. However, this may also reflect the different methodology used by climate versus culture researchers. As in Hofstede's research, climate has been studied primarily through surveys using quantitative measurement of members' perceptions 86

of organisational policies and practices, whereas many studies of culture have used a more qualitative, ethnographic analysis (Reichers & Schneider, 1990).

Possibilities for Convergence

Despite Hofstede's empirical evidence, there is a general perception in the literature that values do form an important part of organisational culture. Several authors base their definitions of organisational culture in values (for a review of definitions see Brown, 1995), and values are used as valid indicators of organisational culture (Chatman & Jehn, 1994; O'Reilly et al., 1991; Zammuto & Krakower, 1991). O'Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell (1991) actually identified similar value dimensions to Hofstede's practice dimensions in a sample of United States firms (innovative, stable, respect of people, outcome oriented, detail oriented, team oriented, and aggressive). However, their findings were based on samples of managers and partners. Hofstede defends his theory against the frequent presentation of organisational culture as values, by distinguishing between research conducted with organisation founders and leaders, and ordinary staff members. He acknowledges that the values of founders/leaders are an influential source of values on the organisational culture, but argues that this does not extend to ordinary members- "Founders-leaders' values become members' practices" (1990, p183).

Nevertheless, Schwartz (1994) argues that there are theoretical reasons to expect culture-level value dimensions to be related conceptually to dimensions on other levels (individual, organisational). First, individual members may internalise a 's, or organisation's, values through the process of socialisation. Second, in an opposite or complimentary process, Schwartz also suggests that social institutions must accommodate the psychological dynamics of their members in order for individuals to function effectively within them. That is ( as Schneider suggests), structure, process and culture are a result of the people within the institution. A third reason is that individuals will be affected through the experience of conflict or compatibility of their values with social reinforcement contingencies created by cultural priorities. In an organisation, as individuals experience clashes of values, processes of organisational entry and exit cause their values, as a group, to converge. 87

Socialisation

Organisational socialisation or acculturation is the process by which an individual undergoes a role transition to become an accepted and functional member of a work group. It is generally perceived as a process by which new members learn and appreciate various aspects of the organisational environment such as task characteristics, language, values, expected behaviours and social knowledge (Levine & Moreland, 1991; Louis, 1980; Louis, 1990). However, theorists have voiced considerable doubts about the influence of organisational socialisation on an employee's values.

According to Hofstede ( 1990), socialisation of values occurs early in life, inculcated by family and school. He argues that individuals enter organisations with most of their values firmly in place, and are socialised only in terms of practices within that organisation (see Figure 3.1 ).

Figure 3.1. National, occupational and organisational levels of culture (adapted from Hofstede et al., 1990, p312)

Level Place of Socialisation

Nation Family Values

Occupation School

Practices Organisation Workplace

An analogous framework is provided by Bhagat and McQuaid (1982), relegating socialisation in organisations to norms and customs, but socialisation of cognitive style and values to wider culture. Triandis (1994) holds a similar position, asserting that organisational socialisation can change an individual's 'peripheral' but not 'core' values (Lachman, 1983). Likewise, Jabes and Gruere (1986) argue that the 88

kinds of shared visions that exist in organisations are "not as pervasive as values and norms found in the nation state's culture", and any modifications "due to being socialised into or influenced by their organisation's prerogatives cannot result in an abstraction akin to national culture unless we use the term as nothing more than a metaphor" (p. 54).

Two empirical, longitudinal studies have looked extensively at the process and content of organisational socialisation (including values), but report somewhat conflicting results.

Chatman ( 1991) investigated the role of socialisation in the process of person-organisation (P-O) fit (defined as "the congruence between patterns of organisational values and patterns of individual values" p. 459). Socialisation was measured in terms of both formal and informal practices. Chatman found that only the measures of informal socialisation, such as the number of firm-related social events attended by new recruits and time spent with a mentor, contributed significantly to changes in person-organisation values congruence over recruits' first year. Socialisation actually accounted for greater variance in P-O fit and P-O fit change than selection, and Chatman concluded that situations (in this case the organisational culture) have powerful effects on values and value change.

In the another study, Chao, O'Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein and Gardner (1994) investigated both the content and consequences of organisational socialisation. Organisational values and goals were identified as one of six content dimensions (other dimensions were performance on tasks involved in the job, work relationships, , language and history). Items on this dimension measured an individual's knowledge of, and fit with, organisational values and goals. Of all the dimensions, higher scores in this domain showed the strongest relationship with career effectiveness. Also, changes on this dimension were significant predictors of changes m career effectiveness criteria of career involvement and job satisfaction.

Chao et al. (1994) were able to compare stable job incumbents, job changers (within an organisation) and organisation changers over two years. Although stable job incumbents showed modest gains over time in four of the six socialisation content domains (as identified above), there was no significant change in knowledge of values. Prior to leaving their positions, job changers and 89

organisation changers scored lower on the organisational values and goals dimension than stable job incumbents. Upon entering a new organisation, scores for all of the socialisation content domains, except values, decreased significantly, signifying a need for re-socialisation. In contrast, knowledge of, and fit with, organisational values and goals significantly increased with a change in job, and even more so for a change in organisation. Scores on this dimension after the change were increased to a level comparable with the stable job incumbents.

This evidence suggests that socialisation of values is more difficult than socialisation of other content domains. However, fit with an organisation's values is very important for career effectiveness, and so is achieved through the process of physically moving job positions and organisations.

The ASA Model

While Hofstede chiefly considered the role of socialisation in shaping an organisation's culture, Schneider emphasises the roles of attraction, selection and attrition (ASA) (Schneider, 1987a; 1987b; Schneider et al., 1995). He purports that people are attracted to organisations because they perceive them to have values similar to their own, while organisations are biased in their selection of employees who are similar to those already in the organisation. This process was labelled by Kanter (1977) as a "homosocial reproduction system". Those who fit stay, contribute, and are subsequently rewarded by the organisation. Those who do not fit leave. Thus, if organisations are limited in the extent to which they socialise their members into their culture, they can select members into a particular culture through the process of organisational fit. Both employees and organisations can 'choose' one another on the basis of congruent values, leading to an increasingly homogenous organisation. There is considerable empirical evidence to support the ASA model (see Schneider et al., 1995), including evidence for congruence of values for both managers and non-managers (Chatman, 1991; O'Reilly et al., 1991; Posner, 1992; Posner, Kouzes, & Schmidt, 1985). In fact, Hofstede himself cites a study conducted in the Netherlands, in which there is evidence of self-selection of employees into accounting firms according to the national values dominant in the firm they were entering (Soeters 90

& Schreuder, 1986, cited in Hofstede, 1991 ). In support of his theory, there was no socialisation to the firm's values after entry.

Clearly there are several processes by which values may constitute a defining element of organisational culture. While the chief question here is whether values can differentiate between organisations, the extent to which socialisation or attraction and selection processes play significant roles may also be explored by looking at members' values according to tenure. Direct measures of socialisation can account for much more variance in career effectiveness than the indirect measure of tenure, nevertheless, employees with longer tenure are assumed to be better socialised than employees with less tenure. If socialisation occurs, then employees with longer tenure should have a closer match between their own and their organisation's values. If attraction and selection are more integral in the formation of organisational culture, then employees' values should match the organisation's values at the time of recruitment.

1-C and Organisational Culture

While the argument so far has been framed in general terms of organisational culture, the question specifically of interest here is whether Individualism-Collectivism can be empirically identified as an organisational culture dimension. As conceptualised by Hofstede, the I-C values could not be empirically validated at the organisational culture level (Hofstede et al., 1990; Hofstede & Spangenberg, 1986). That is, those same questionnaire items that discriminated between national cultures did not discriminate between individuals grouped according to organisational membership.

However, given Schwartz's arguments, organisational value differences may exist within the framework of the following model (see Figure 3.2). 91

Figure 3.2. A model of organisational 1-C differences

Nation 1 Nation 2

First, as Jabes and Gruere (1986) argue, an organisation's members will hold values which tend to be, on average, synonymous with those of the nation's culture. "People either display their national culture within the organisation or, they display variations of it" (p. 54). Since the I-C dimension is primarily associated with national level differences, then organisations should differ within the bounds of national culture. This may be because organisations can import cultural elements through their members and through the ideas they acquire from outside the organisation's boundaries (Trice & Beyer, 1993), or because the organisation has adaptively evolved in response to the surrounding national environment. Triandis (1994) has called for further research into the proposition that organisational cultures must be tailored to fit a specific national culture. Factors such as national, industrial or occupational environments may all be significant in shaping or constraining an organisation's culture. For example, Gordon (1991) argued for a strong influence of industry in constraining organisational culture. Chatman and Jehn (1994) investigated differences in organisational values across industries, and while significant differences were found between organisations within the same industry, larger differences in organisational values were found between industries.

There is some empirical research that supports this hierarchy of influences for I-C. Singh (1990) has investigated managerial in India using I-C values derived from Hofstede's research. While he found large differences according to functional areas, the majority of scores fell within a band of about 10-15 points, indicating the "cultural boundaries" within which most influences operate, or the "modal inherent culture" (p. 93). Similarly, in their study of flight crews, Merritt and Helmreich (1996) found that on three factor dimensions combining IC and power distance, national culture took precedence over organisational distinctions. Despite 92

being employed by a U.S. airline, attitudes of Asian crew members were aligned with their national counterparts, rather than their organisational counterparts.

While national culture may be dominant, significant organisational differences in 1-C values may also exist. Other conceptualisations of 1-C (i.e., using different items) may capture differences at the organisational level. This has been the case for individual-level values which have been identified within-culture (i.e., using individuals as the basic unit of analysis rather than national cultures). Based on extensive research at the individual level (Triandis, Chan, Bhawuk, Iwao, & Sinha, 1995), Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk and Gelfand (1995) developed and validated a four-factor measure ofl-C (see Figure 3.3). As outlined in the previous chapter, the factors followed Triandis' (1995) distinction between horizontal and vertical 1-C, which opposes an emphasis on equality between self and others, with an acceptance of inequality (similar to Hofstede's (1980) Power Distance dimension, see Figure 3.3). Horizontal Individualism (HI) reflects the importance of perceiving the self as unique, separate and independent. Vertical Collectivism (VC) emphasises values of self-sacrifice, and subordination of own goals for group goals. Vertical Individualism (VI) reflects a preference for interpersonal competition, and Horizontal Collectivism (HC) a preference for cooperation and group harmony. Despite the lack of research on these particular measures, Schwartz (Schwartz, 1994; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990) found similar dimensions in studies of both individual level values, and cultural level values (see Figure 3.3), suggesting that these may be strong 'etic' or universal constructs (Leung & Bond, 1989).

Figure 3.3. Horizontal and Vertical 1-C factors (Schwartz's corresponding value dimensions are included in italics)

Power Distance Vertical Horizontal Emphasis on status Egalitarian emphasis Individualism VI m Competition Independence Mastery Autonomy Collectivism vc HC Subordination Cooperation I Hierarchy Egalitarian Commitment I Harmony 93

In the management literature, several typologies have been suggested to account for differences in corporate cultures. Of note is the typology identified by Quinn and McGrath (1985), and the almost identical one identified by W. Schneider (1994), which appear to parallel the horizontal and vertical I-C dimensions (see Table 3.1). These culture types are based on the nature of the transactions associated with information exchange in organisations, which in turn reflect dominant /value clusters (McDonald & Gandz, 1992).

Kabonoff ( 1991) has proposed a similar theoretical model of four culture types which also varies along the dimension of power distance. The other dimension is based on distributive rules of equity (individualistic) versus equality (collectivistic ). Kabanoff (1993) used cluster analyses of organisational values (identified in computer-aided content analysis of mostly management­ generated documents) to provide some empirical support for these culture-types. The types have also been linked to organisational change themes in organisations (Kabanoff, Waldersee, & Cohen, 1995).

Finally, in an investigation of the factor structure of several popular organisational culture surveys and inventories, Xenikou and Furnham (1996) found five underlying culture constructs, three of which relate conceptually to the

I-C factors2• The first factor appeared to be a combination of the two horizontal scales, while the other two factors reflected Vertical Individualism and Vertical Collectivism separately. However, while this research shows evidence of the convergent validity of these factors (that is, several culture measures tap into the same factors), it does not show evidence of construct validity - that these measures actually tap salient features of organisational culture. The resulting factors are a comment on the similarity of the culture measures, rather than actual organisational values and behavioural norms. Nevertheless, their independent identification and classification suggest that I-C is an important dimension in organisational culture (see Table 3.1).

2 These were factors found at the individual level of analysis - employees from only two organisations were assessed; ideally the analysis should be conducted with the organisation as the unit of analysis. The three factors were composed primarily of subscales in the Organisational Culture Inventory (Cooke & Lafferty, 1989). 94

Table 3.1. Organisational culture typologies relating to 1-C

1-C Measure Management Typologies Culture Survey Factors Singelis et al. Quinn and McGrath Kabanoff Xenikou & Furnham Vertical The 'Market' 'Elite' 'Negativism and Individualism A rational culture designed to Power, resources and resistance to new Indicates a preference pursue objectives using rewards concentrated ideas' for interpersonal productivity and efficiency as at the apex; Negativism towards the competition the primary criteria of instrumental values ideas of others and performance. Underlying values dominate rough competition are of aggressiveness, diligence and used by organisation initiative members to maintain or gain power

Horizontal The 'Adhocracy' 'Meritocratic' 'Openness to change Individualism An ideological culture that can Rewards for in a cooperative Reflects the nature of support broad purposes with its performance, culture' the self as perceived performance criteria of external emphasis on equity behavioural norms and as unique, separate support, growth and resource values values "which and independent acquisition. Underlying values encourage cooperation are adaptability, autonomy and and reward supportive creativity relations among the co- workers while at the Horizontal The 'Clan' 'Collegial' same time enhancing Collectivism A consensual culture with the Even distribution of innovation and change" Measures a purpose of group maintenance, power, rewards etc, preference for and performance criteria of the emphasis on cooperation and facilitation of cohesion and commitment, group harmony morale. Dominant values and include courtesy, fairness, moral participation integrity and social equity

Vertical Collectivism The 'Hierarchy' 'Leader Focused' 'The human factor in Measures self A hierarchical culture that exists Unequal distribution a bureaucratic culture' sacrifice and to execute regulations while of power, emphasis conventionality and subordination of own remaining stable and controlled. on loyalty rather than centralised decision- goals for group goals Associated values are formality, equality making, restrictive of logic, obedience and orderliness personal freedom

Despite these compelling theoretical distinctions, empirical evidence for strong organisational culture differences on 1-C is scant. One study that may provide some evidence is a large international research program called GLOBE (House, 1998). It involves the assessment of nine cultural dimensions, including collectivism, across hundreds of organisations in over 60 countries. Data collection and analysis is still not complete (as more countries are continually added), however, interesting results are emerging regarding the difference between dimensions based on practices, and dimensions based on values. In their questionnaires to middle managers, the GLOBE researchers asked parallel sets of 95

questions. In one the items referred to perceptions of the organisation "as is" (practices), while the other referred to judgements of how the organisation "should be" (values). In a component part of the larger study, Komad (1998) investigated the differences in organisational practices and values between and within industries in Slovenia. No clear pattern emerged for all of the dimensions, but rather patterns of relationships were particular to each dimension. For example, on the dimension of power distance significant differences for both values and practices emerged between industries, but not between organisations within industries. On the collectivism dimension there were significant differences between and within industries on the value level, but not at the practice level (contrary to Hofstede's findings).

This discrepancy may be related to the different definitions and assessment of organisational values and practices. Hofstede used different content domains for value and practice items, whereas the GLOBE study differentiates values and practices through 'ideal' and 'actual' organisational structures, practices, leadership traits etc. Also, the GLOBE study is based on values of managers rather than staff, and may not reflect the organisation as a whole.

The Present Study

This chapter sought to investigate the question of whether I-C value dimensions can differentiate organisational cultures. An adaptation of Singelis et al.'s I-C measure was given to employees in two matching organisations in individualist and collectivist cultures, and comparisons were made of organisational versus national culture differences.

Of the four factors, VC and HI are closest to Hofstede's conceptualisation of I-C (see Chapter 2). Since national samples were chosen on the basis of Hofstede's Individualism Index, VC and HI were hypothesised to show large differences at a national level. In the present study, Asian organisations were expected to be more collectivistic and less individualistic than Australian organisations. Australia has been cited as an example of a high HI culture, because of its political system and general egalitarian reputation (Triandis, Chen, & Chan, 1998; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). In contrast, the East Asian cultures are 96

generally distinguished by their emphasis on both status inequality and collectivism (VC) (Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1994 ).

HC and VI are concepts more akin to cooperation and competition, which are likely to vary with each organisation's unique occupational influences and industry environment. Adapted measures were expected to show large differences at the organisation level. For this study, public hospital samples were expected to be more cooperative and less competitive than branches of an international management consultancy.

There were three additional exploratory analyses conducted. First, to examine organisational differences further, and especially interactions, two additional samples from Australian organisations were included to provide a broader context for comparison. Related to this, a second analysis provided a comparison of the Asian Management Consultancy (MC) branches with a Thai branch of the MC (surveyed at a later date). This helped to discern whether organisational differences within Asia were attributable to the different national samples (i.e., hospitals in Thailand versus MC branches in other Asian countries).

Third, it was possible to investigate the I-C orientations of employees according to tenure in their organisation. If organisations can be differentiated on I-C value dimensions, is this more likely to be through the process of socialisation of members, or processes of attraction, selection and attrition on the basis of values? While socialisation was not directly measured, it is possible to use tenure as an indirect measure of socialisation. If socialisation occurs, then employees with longer tenure should have a closer match between their own and the organisation's values.

Method

Design

The study was a 2 x 2 (organisation type x national culture) design, with hospitals and management consultancies as the organisation types, and Australia and South East Asia as the national culture groups. 97

Sample

Participants were employees from matched organisations within the service industry in Australia and South-East Asia (N=581 ).

Management Consultancy

As described in Chapter 1, one organisation type comprised branches of an international management consultancy firm (MC) in Australia (n=160), Indonesia, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia (n=122). There were no significant differences between the Asian MC branches on any of the I-C measures, and they were therefore combined for analysis. In terms of the degree to which these groups were matched, there was no significant difference between the groups on employee age, sex composition or education level. There were more employees in higher positions in the Australian sample than the Asian sample, and mean organisational tenure was slightly greater in the Australian sample. These differences reflect the more recent introduction of the company into Asia than Australia.

Hospitals

The other organisation type included three "provincial" hospitals in Thailand (n=l95) and a regional hospital in Australia (n=104). There were no significant differences between the Thai hospitals on any of the I-C measures, and they were therefore combined for analysis. The hospitals were matched in terms of their location outside of major cities, and the age, position level, and education of employees. There were more males in the Australian sample than the Asian sample, although there were few in both samples (6% in Asia, 20% in Australia). This also reflects the larger proportion of doctors and allied health staff in the Australian sample (57%) compared to the Thai sample (10%). Finally, employees in the Thai sample had a much greater mean organisational tenure than employees in the Australian sample.

A 2x2 (national culture x organisation type) MANOVA was conducted to check whether there were any significant differences between the samples on demographic composition or the amount of cooperation required to complete tasks at work. There were no significant differences for age or cooperative demands of work 98

tasks. There were significant differences in sex composition between both organisation types (F = 125.08, df= 1, p<.001) and national cultures (F = 7.16, df= 1, p<.01). While there was an approximately even distribution of men and women in the MC (47% female), most of the hospital employees were women (89%). There were also a greater number of women in the Asian sample (77%) than the Australian sample (59%). Since sex was significantly related to 1-C (see below), it was included as a covariate in analyses as appropriate. There was also a small, but significant, difference in education level between organisation types (F = 5.78, df = 1, p<.05), with employees of the MC reporting higher educational qualifications (education was not included as a covariate).

Participants were from all levels in the organisations, not just managers and leaders. Approximately one third of the total sample were managers, directors etc (27% of hospital employees were classified as managers, while 32% of the MC sample were managers, directors or partners).

Additional samples

For the supplementary analyses, two additional Australian organisational samples were included. One included employees in a bank (N = 52, see Chapter 2), and the other employees in a large insurance company (N = 116). All staff in Sydney branches of the insurance company were given the opportunity to participate. Their positions ranged from customer contacts or administrators to branch managers. There was a 47% response rate, with 69 participants identified as female and 43 as male.

Due to limited access, the Thai MC branch was surveyed 9 months after the other branches (this sample was not included in the overall South-East Asian MC sample). Of the 75 questionnaires, 37 were returned (49% response rate). There were 26 females (70%) and 11 males (30%).

Materials An adaptation of Singelis et al.'s (1995) Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism scale was included in a questionnaire which assessed other organisational variables and demographic data (see Chapters 1 and 2). An introduction to the items read: "The following statements are about what is 99

important to you in life and at work". Given the hypotheses, the set of Vertical Collectivism (VC) and Horizontal Individualism (HI) items were prefaced with the instructions "in general". The set of Vertical Individualism (VI) and Horizontal Collectivism (HC) items were prefaced with the instructions "when I am at work ... ".

As employees in the MC were bilingual, the same English-language questionnaire was distributed in the Asian branches of the MC as in the Australian branches. For the Thai hospitals, the questionnaire was translated into Thai using the method of back-translation (Brislin, 1980), and was considered to be an acceptable semantic equivalent to the original version3.

Procedure

Within Australia, managers distributed questionnaires at staff meetings, or to each individual member of the organisation via internal mail. They were returned via reply-paid envelopes directly to the researcher. For the Asian MC branches, the questionnaires were returned to a non-threatening employee (i.e., not a manager) sealed in the envelope provided, and were forwarded to Australia. For the hospitals, colleagues from nursing faculties in Thai universities personally distributed and collected the questionnaires.

Participants were made explicitly aware that the questionnaire was anonymous, confidential and entirely voluntary. The response rate was 43%, within the usual range for a mail survey (Pareek & Rao, 1980).

Results

It was regarded as desirable to control for cross-cultural differences in response styles on the Likert scales, in particular, for acquiescence or use of extreme values (Chen, Lee, & Stevenson, 1995; Hui & Triandis, 1989). Hofstede (1980) found that employees in collectivistic cultures tended to acquiesce (agree with all the value items) more than employees in individualistic cultures. This

3 There were some slight differences in the questionnaire items for the Thai sample, as this was an earlier version of the questionnaire. While most of these differences were minor, there were changes to four items of the HI scale, and therefore must be considered when interpreting results (see Appendix 3B). 100

bias can be controlled by standardising scores for each cultural group. However, such standardisation is only justified if the average score is presumed to be equal across cultures (van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). As a result, the procedure has been used with items related to work values or goals which are supposed to represent a comprehensive set (Chinese Culture Connection, 1987; e.g., Hofstede, 1980; and Schwartz, 1994). The four horizontal and vertical I-C subscales may be regarded in this way. Since items on each of the four subscales were worded positively, the overall average score for all items in the total measure literally represents a response style. A 2x2 ANOVA (national culture x organisational culture) on this Response Mean showed a significant main effect for national culture only (F=68.83, df=579, p<.001). Consistent with Hofstede (1980) employees in the Asian sample (m=4.92, sd=.50) tended to acquiesce more than employees in the Australian sample (m=4.58, sd=.47). Within-country standardisation of subscale scores was achieved by subtracting the country's response mean from each participants' subscale mean and dividing by the standard deviation (as recommended by van de Vijver and Leung, 1997). The resulting scores represent the relative importance given to each I-C factor within national samples, and is a more accurate representation of values.

To assess whether the I-C dimensions varied more between or within national cultures, multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were conducted. The multivariate tests showed significant main effects for both national culture (F(4,561) = 26.81, p<.001) and organisation type (F(4,561) = 45.07, p<.001). The comparative contribution of national and organisational membership to each I-C subscale was estimated by a measure of effect size 4, rather than simply comparing the size of the F-value (e.g. as used by Chatman & Jehn, 1994; Marshall, 1997; and Hofstede et al., 1990). National culture accounted for 17% of the variance on these dimensions, while organisational membership accounted for 24% of the variance. The overall test for interactions was also significant (F(4,561) = 2.41, p<.05), but these had a relatively small effect, accounting for less than 2% of the variance on the I-C subscales. Mean scores for national and organisational samples are presented in Tables 3.2 and 3.3 respectively.

4 Eta squared is interpreted as the proportion of the total variability in the dependent variable that is accounted for by variation in the independent variable. It is the ratio of the between group sums of squares to the total sums of squares. 101

Table 3.2. Standardised I-C subscale scores for each national sample

Australia Asia F(l ,564) value vc Mean -.97 .12 47.53*** (Subordination) Std. Deviation 1.77 1.51 HI Mean 1.46 1.09 11.98** (Independence) Std. Deviation 1.79 1.60 HC Mean 1.41 .96 19.82*** (Cooperation) Std. Deviation 1.44 1.52 VI Mean -1.91 -1.99 1.28 (Competition) Std. Deviation 2.22 2.02 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Table 3.3. Standardised I-C subscale scores for each organisational sample

Hospitals MC F(l ,564) value vc Mean -.02 -.79 16.54*** (Subordination) Std. Deviation 1.65 1.71 HI Mean 1.48 1.01 14.48*** (Independence) Std. Deviation 1.56 1.81 HC Mean 1.28 1.03 7.36* (Cooperation) Std. Deviation 1.49 1.50 VI Mean -2.79 -1.19 106.99*** (Competition) Std. Deviation 1.88 1.83 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Although organisation types differed slightly on education level of employees, education was not significantly associated with any of the 1-C dimensions and will not be included in the analyses. However, sex was correlated with both of the collectivism subscales (r = .14, p<.01, and r = .16, p<.001, for VC and HC respectively) and Vertical Individualism (r = -.24, p<.001). Women were more collectivistic and less individualistic than men. To test if differences could be attributed to sex composition of the samples, separate MANOV As were conducted with sex as a covariate, and are reported where relevant below.

Figure 3.4 shows standardised scores for each sample on the four 1-C subscales. The overall pattern of results, with HI and HC rated the highest, 102

followed by VC and VI, is consistent with those found by Singelis et al. (1995) and Triandis, Chen and Chan (1998) across cultures.

Figure 3.4. Standardised scores on 1-C subscales for national culture and organisation type

ID Aust Hosp • Aust MC El Asia Hosp • Asia MC I

vc HI HC VI Subordination Independence Cooperation Competition

For Vertical Collectivism (subordination), both national and organisational effects were significant (see Tables 3.2 and 3.3). National culture was the dominant influence, accounting for 8% of the variance in VC, while organisational culture accounted for only 3%. As expected, the Asian organisations were more collectivistic than the Australian organisations. The hospitals were more collectivistic than the MC branches on this measure. There was a small but significant interaction (F(l,564)=4.25, p<.05) such that the difference between organisation types was slightly greater in Asia than Australia. 103

None of these differences on Vertical Collectivism could be accounted for by sex composition.

For Horizontal Individualism (independence), agam both national and organisational differences were significant, however, effects were quite small. National culture accounted for 2% of the variance, and organisational culture 3% of the variance in HI. Although in the predicted direction, the national culture difference was not dominant. Australian organisations were more individualistic than the Asian organisations. The hospitals were more, rather than less, individualistic than the MC branches. Again, there was a significant interaction (F(l,564) = 4.33, p<.05), such that the difference between organisation types was greater in the Asian sample than the Australian sample.

For Horizontal Collectivism (cooperation), only national culture differences were significant when controlling for sex, accounting for 3% of the variance in HC. The Australian sample was actually higher on HC than the Asian sample. Thus, national culture differences were dominant for HC.

For Vertical Individualism (competition), as predicted, there was a large difference between organisation types, however, the national difference was not significant. Organisational culture accounted for 10% of the variance in VI, independent of sex differences. The MC branches were more individualistic than the hospitals.

In sum, three of the four 1-C value dimensions (VC, HI and VI) significantly discriminated between organisational cultures. Scores on both the collectivism scales varied more between national cultures than between organisations within each culture. On the two individualism scales, organisational differences were of equal or greater magnitude to national differences.

Broader organisational context

To gain a better picture of these differences, organisations were placed along a continuum for each subscale. Also included in this analysis were two additional Australian samples: employees in an insurance company, and in 104

branches of a bank5. A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to test for differences amongst the six organisational samples (see Figure 3.5). Differences were significant at p<.001 for each of the subscales (for VC, F(5, 738) = 18.30; for HI, F(5, 735) = 6.26; for HC, F(5, 739) = 6.59; for VI, F(5, 740) = 19.62).

Post-hoe Tu.key HSD comparisons showed that the hospital samples were significantly lower on Vertical Individualism than each of the other organisations. The management consultancies did not differ significantly from the bank, perhaps suggesting that this reflects a broader industry or occupational type dimension. The distribution of organisations along the Vertical Collectivism dimension was less discrete, showing overlapping national sets of organisations, with the bank actually falling in between the two Asian organisations (see Figure 3.5).

Figure 3.5. Positions of organisation means on standardised scores for Vertical Individualism and Vertical Collectivism (A indicates Asian sample)

Vertical Individualism (Competition) (organisation type differences dominating) -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 Ill- l 1 : : : : : n· . Hosp.a A-Hosp.a MCbc A-MCC

Vertical Collectivism (Subordination) (national culture differences dominating)

-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 : : : I._0.5 - ' l' l 1 1 11 l MC8 Hospab Insbc A-MCbc A-Hospd

Organisations that do not share superscripts have means that differ at p<.05 in Tukey HSD comparisons.

5 Subscale 1-C scores for these additional organisations were standardised using the Australian Response Mean obtained from the previous analysis (ie from hospital and MC samples). Data analysis based on scores standardised with the complete Australian sample showed virtually identical results. 105

The distribution of organisations on Horizontal Individualism and Horizontal Collectivism are not shown, as the differences between organisations were relatively small. Only the Asian management consultancy was significantly different on HI (independence), shedding some light on the significant interaction found in the previous analysis. It was less individualistic than all the other organisations except the bank. For HC (cooperation), none of the Australian organisations were significantly different to each other. The Asian organisations were less collectivistic than each of the Australian organisations, although not all these differences were significant. This is consistent with the findings in the previous analysis of a small but significant national culture difference, with no significant organisation type difference.

Thai MC branch

Organisation type differences were greater within the Asian sample than the Australian sample for VC and HI (those scales supposed to be related to national culture). While comparisons of the organisations within Australia clearly control for national culture, organisations within the Asian sample do not. The hospitals were all located in Thailand, while management consultancy branches were in Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, China, Indonesia and Taiwan. These countries are all relatively collectivistic compared to Australia (according to Hofstede (1980), Country Individualism Index: Australia, 90; SE Asia, 14-26), however, the national cultures are not equivalent. It is possible that differences between the organisation types in Asia may have been partially due to national culture differences. For example, contrary to Hofstede's (1980) findings, Thailand has also been described as a comparatively individualistic society, where individualism is expressed as 'affective autonomy' (Komin, 1990; Schwartz, 1994). This may have contributed to the higher HI reported for employees in hospitals compared to the MC branches in the Asian sample.

Subsequent to these analyses, permission was granted to survey a sample of employees from the management consultancy branch in Thailand. A one-way ANOV A was conducted to assess whether the Thai branch was significantly different on the I-C subscales to the other Asian MC branches. Simple contrast 106

coding was used such that the Thai branch ( +6) was compared to all of the other branches (-1 each).

The Thai sample of the MC was not significantly different to the other Asian samples on VC, and was significantly lower on HI (see Table 3.4), suggesting that the greater organisation type differences on these dimensions in Asia were not confounded by national culture differences (since the Thai hospital sample was higher than the MC on HI). While there was a significant difference on VI, it is unlikely that the difference between the hospitals and the MC was confounded with national culture given the large difference between organisations on this dimension within Australia also (see Figure 3.5).

Table 3.4. Differences on 1-C subscales between the Thai and other Asian branches of the management consultancy

1-C Subscale Mean t (df= 151)

Thai Sample Asian Samples (n=37) (range: n=6 to 25) VC (subordination) 4.66 4.33-5.10 0.72 HI (independence) 4.64 5.02-5.88 2.94* HC (cooperation) 5.64 4.92-5.65 2.20 VI (competition) 3.54 3.63 -4.82 4.86*

* A Bonferroni adjustment was made to the critical significance level for the number of dependent variables in the equation (k=4, at cx=.05, p<.0125).

Tenure Organisations in the current sample could be particularly differentiated on the Vertical Individualism value dimension. In an effort to explore the likelihood of socialisation and selection processes being involved in forming such homogenous cultures, employees' individual orientations on this dimension were analysed in relation to their tenure in the organisation. The hospital samples were used for this analysis, since they were significantly different on VI to each of the other four organisations. Also, Triandis (1996) argues that items (or dimensions) can be considered culturally salient if over 90% of that cultural sample respond on the same side of the neutral point of a scale. For the standardised VI measure, 95% of the 107

employees in the hospitals had a negative score, indicating that the hospital culture was identified by low Vertical Individualism (the MC was not distinctive according to Triandis' criteria). If socialisation processes were at work, it could be expected that employees with longer tenure would be increasingly less individualistic on VI. Both Australian and Asian hospitals were included in the analysis, as there were no national culture differences on VI6•

Contrary to the socialisation hypotheses, VI was not significantly correlated with tenure (r = -.01; partial r = .03, controlling for age). Although hospitals were characterised by low Vertical Individualism, the length of time employees worked in the hospitals was not related to their individual orientation onVI7.

Discussion

Conceptualised in terms of horizontal and vertical factors, three of the four individualism-collectivism value dimensions (VI, HI, VC) were useful in discriminating between organisational cultures. While differences on one of these, Vertical Collectivism, appeared to be constrained by national culture, two other factors, Horizontal Individualism and Vertical Individualism, showed organisational differences of equal or greater magnitude than national differences. These value dimensions reflected the values of employees at all levels in the organisations, not just leaders and managers. However, it did not appear that these shared values were brought about through the process of organisational socialisation, but were more likely formed through Schneider's (1995) ASA processes.

While significant differences were found between organisations on Vertical Collectivism (subordination), larger differences were found between national cultures, as predicted. Using scenarios for the measurement of HV-IC, Triandis et al

6 Since there was greater variability in the tenure of Australian hospital employees (almost 70% of Thai employees had been in the organisation for more than I Oyears), the analysis was also conducted with Australian data alone. Results were the same. 7 The hypothesis that employee orientations would converge toward the organisation mean with greater years in the organisation was also tested. A one-way ANOVA showed no significant differences between tenure categories on absolute difference scores (VI - organisation mean), and no significant correlation between years and absolute difference scores on standardised VI. 108

(1998) also found that VC was the only scale on which their samples from the US and Hong Kong were really different. VC corresponded most closely with Schwartz's (1994) national value dimensions of 'Conservatism' and 'Hierarchy', on both of which Australia was ranked lower than all the South East Asian countries included in the current sample. This suggests that VC is primarily a national culture construct, which is consistent with other results in the current research program ( e.g., VC was the only factor that significantly correlated with an individual's country of birth as rated on Hofstede's Individualism Index, see Chapter 2).

It also seems that this particular factor of 1-C follows the organisational pattern suggested by Hofstede (1990) and Jabes and Gruere (1986), whereby the 1-C values of employees reflect a variation of their national culture. Even though this was dominantly a national culture variable, the hospitals and the management consultancy branches differed systematically on Vertical Collectivism within each national culture. The hospitals were higher on Vertical Collectivism than the MC branches. The VC items expressed sacrifice of one's own goals for one's group, and the management typologies place this sacrifice in the context of hierarchy and control. Adherence to rules, orderliness and formality are valued for their contribution to a stable and controlled environment. This is clearly a more critical objective for a hospital culture.

The opposite pattern of results was observed for Vertical Individualism (competition). For this 1-C value dimension larger differences were found between organisation types than between national cultures, as predicted. Employees' values were not bound by national culture, but varied to a large extent according to organisational membership. As hypothesised, the management consultancy branches were higher on Vertical Individualism than the hospitals. This lends strong empirical support to at least one of the four management typologies or culture factors, the 'market' or 'competence culture'. The Vertical Individualism items expressed a preference for competition at work, and the corresponding culture factors emphasise values of aggressiveness, diligence and initiative, with goals of personal power and organisational productivity and efficiency. Other researchers have also found consultancy firms to be distinguished by higher (Chatman & Jehn, 1994).

Rather unexpectedly, the national samples showed no significant difference on Vertical Individualism at all. One explanation for this finding is that VI has 109

departed from the traditional concept of individualism-collectivism, and is not a discriminating dimension of national culture. It is possible that Vertical Individualism is a rather narrow concept of competition that does not adequately represent a defining factor of individualism (see previous chapter). If this is the case, then VI is an important value dimension of organisations, but it does not reflect 1-C values.

However, this result could simply be due to the limited sample of only two national culture groups, with the combination of several South East Asian nations together into one group. Schwartz (1994) identified a similar national culture dimension labelled 'Mastery', comprised of values which "promote active efforts to modify one's surroundings and get ahead of other people". On this dimension Australia was positioned in between several South East Asian nations: below China, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Taiwan, and above Singapore and Thailand. This would suggest that rather than failing to capture national culture, VI simply did not discriminate between the particular national cultures in this sample.

It was predicted that Horizontal Individualism (independence), like Vertical Collectivism, would chiefly differentiate national cultures. Results showed that national culture differences, while significant, were quite small, and that organisational culture differences were of equal magnitude. There was also a significant interaction between national and organisational culture. Post hoe tests with two additional Australian organisations showed that none of the organisations were significantly different except the Asian management consultancy, which was lower on Horizontal Individualism than all of the other organisations. This did appear to be an organisational, rather than national, difference - the Thai management consultancy branch reported the lowest score for HI of all the Asian branches. Items on this scale expressed a perception of the self as unique, separate and independent from others. One possible explanation for this anomalous result is the large proportion of new employees in the Asian MC branches (43% had been in the organisation less than a year, compared to 27% in the Australian sample). Many expressed the need for support and training, and perhaps felt that they were not yet 'independently' competent.

From Hofstede's data (1980) it was expected that Australian employees would place greater importance on Horizontal Individualism values than South East 110

Asians; however, results showed that the difference was not as great as the difference for Vertical Collectivism. This reinforces the idea that these subscales are not opposite ends of the same pole, but independent value dimensions (as demonstrated by Gelfand, Triandis, & Chan, 1996). The dimension parallel to HI on Schwartz's culture-level value dimensions is Autonomy, which is divided into two factors: 'affective' and 'intellectual' Autonomy. Australia's mean Autonomy score was higher than most other East Asian nations, however, Thailand was higher on Affective Autonomy and China on Intellectual Autonomy.

Finally, Horizontal Collectivism (cooperation) discriminated between national, but not organisational cultures, and this national difference was in a direction opposite to hypotheses. The lack of organisational differences could be due to the limited sample, however, within-culture differences were not significant even in the larger sample of four Australian organisations. It is probable that the national culture difference reflects the 'horizontal' nature of this subscale, rather than collectivism. Again, Australia is ranked higher than the East Asian nations on Schwartz's similar culture dimension of 'Egalitarian Commitment', which constitutes "values that emphasise emotional attachment to and active concern for the welfare of others in close interaction and in wider groups" (1994, p105). The Egalitarian Commitment dimension was negatively correlated with Schwartz's dimension of Conservatism (similar to VC) and positively correlated with the Autonomy dimensions (similar to HI). Schwartz argues that in individualistic cultures it is necessary to emphasise the Horizontal Collectivism values in order to socialise and encourage contributions to the collective good. Consistent with this logic, Xenikou and Furnham (1996) found that these dimensions loaded onto the one organisational culture factor. In an exploratory correlational analysis at the organisational level (including the four Australian and two Asian organisations), Horizontal Collectivism and Horizontal Individualism were the only two dimensions that were significantly correlated (r = .88, p<.05).

In what way, if any, can these results be attributed to the adaptations made to the subscales, i.e., the different stems of "in general' and "when I am at work", and changing the HC subscale to target work colleagues only? Since organisational differences were obtained under both stems, it does not appear that they made a significant impact on the results (aside from increasing the reliability 111

of the HC and VI scales). Similarly, despite the target of work colleagues, HC did not differ between organisations, but only national cultures.

This study set out to investigate firstly whether organisations, like nations, can be said to have cultures in which values play an integral role. Clearly this is the case. While not all dimensions were useful in discriminating between organisations, Vertical Individualism (preference for competition), in particular, showed stark differences between organisation types, while the same types of organisations were extraordinarily similar even across national cultures. The source of these value differences may arguably lie in occupational differences or nature of the industries, e.g., health versus finance, or public versus private, or the competitiveness of the industry. Regardless of their source, the homogeneity of employees' values found within each organisation confirmed values as a defining element of organisational cultures.

A second aim of the study was to investigate whether the dimension of individualism-collectivism could be used to discriminate between organisational cultures. It might possibly be argued that Vertical Individualism is not an integral component of 1-C, especially since national culture differences were not found on this dimension. However, Vertical Collectivism (subordination to the group) reflects the 'traditional' conception of 1-C, and theoretically-based hypotheses regarding national culture differences on VC were supported. Significantly, organisation types also systematically differed on VC.

It is clear that while some differences were found between the organisations in this sample on 1-C value dimensions, further research is necessary with a much larger sample of organisation types and national cultures. In addition to addressing the limitations of this study, such a sample would enable the investigation of correlates of the 1-C value dimensions at the organisational level of analysis. This would test the validity of these dimensions at the organisational level, by investigating their relationship with other organisational variables such as performance, size, industry type, structure, hiring practices, union membership, and soon.

In addition, further research needs to be directed toward the processes by which organisations may develop distinctive organisational cultures. As argued by many theorists, in the present study employees did not appear to be socialised to 112

adjust to salient organisational values. This was evidenced by a lack of change in values according to tenure, although tenure is a disputable indicator of socialisation. Of course, this is by no means a definitive test of these processes, but is simply a beginning to exploring this interesting question. Further longitudinal research is necessary to tease apart the socialisation and ASA processes. Such research would have to start by assessing participants prior to employment, in order to test the extent to which attraction and selection play a significant role in creating and maintaining homogeneous organisational cultures.

This study specifically looked at the possibility of differences between organisations on factors of one particular national culture dimension - 1-C. While perhaps not representing the defining elements of organisational culture, such analysis assists in the application of comparative management research, which generally prescribes organisational development interventions according to national culture differences regardless of organisational differences. It would be helpful for practitioners to know which aspects of 1-C are fairly stable across organisations within a culture, and which are affected by organisational and industry characteristics. Part2

Individualism, Collectivism and Power 113

Chapter 4

The power of one: Individualism, collectivism and power

This chapter investigates the relationship between power and individualism­ collectivism. While primarily testing whether such a relationship exists, the psychological mechanisms connecting power and I-Care also explored in an attempt to look at the possibility that social power is a determinant of individual orientations. Is individualism a result of independence achieved through power? Is collectivism a strategy of empowerment for powerless individuals? Or perhaps the striving for power is simply a by-product of competitive individualism?

While research on individualism-collectivism has burgeoned, efforts have broadly been confined to explorations of the consequences of I-C rather than its antecedents. The current state of research in the area was summarised by Singelis and Kim (1998) at the recent Silver Jubilee Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology. They asserted that while current research tells us that differences exist between groups, it does not explain how those differences arose. As argued in the Introduction, especially now that I-C is being developed as an individual-level construct, research examining the antecedent social psychological conditions of I-C is long overdue.

Both Triandis (1995; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988; Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990) and Hofstede (1980; 1991) have presented some of the possible antecedents of I-C, and offered educated guesses as to the critical variables involved. At the national culture level, a number of factors appear to be related to I-C, including geographical latitude, population growth, family structure, social mobility and heterogeneity (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1995). However, both scholars have suggested that wealth and urbanisation (or 'cultural complexity') are the primary determinants of I-C. This claim has been based on the close statistical relationship between a country's rank on I-C and its national income. Hofstede (1980) found a striking .82 correlation between individualism and wealth (1970 GNP per capita) in his sample of 40 countries. Considering the large error margins for measures of both individualism and GNP, Hofstede described this amount of shared variance as "remarkable". This strong relationship appears not to have diminished over time (Hofstede, 1997) and has been replicated in other samples 114

using both Hofstede's original Individualism Index and more recent estimates of country-level 1-C (Diener & Diener, 1995; Punnett, Singh, & Williams, 1994).

The direction of causality is difficult to determine. Does increasing wealth foster an individualistic culture, or does an individualistic culture foster wealth through economic theories based on self interest (e.g., Hofstede, 1983)? Triandis and Hofstede have primarily suggested the former, arguing that with increasing wealth, individuals have access to resources enabling them to 'do their own thing' (Hofstede, 1991 ). This hypothesis begs the question of what factors influence individuals to become more individualistic or more collectivistic. The leap from culture-level correlations to individual-level correlations may be intuitively logical or reasonable, but there is no statistical reason why they should be the same. This is, of course, an example of the ecological fallacy, where group level data are used to infer individual level consequences. Hofstede, Bond and Luc (1993) have provided examples where relationships between variables have even been found in exactly the opposite direction at group and individual levels.

As at the cultural level, the explanation at the individual level is obviously not a single variable, but some combination of demographic and situational variables. Such factors include age, sex, social class, child-rearing, travel, education, occupation, the 1-C orientation of others the individual is interacting with, the salience of collectivist norms, an emphasis on membership in the same collective, and the level of cooperation required by the task at hand (Triandis, 1995). Of these factors, Triandis proposed that social class and affluence may be the most important variables distinguishing individualists and collectivists.

From studies that have included demographic characteristics, there is emerging evidence that those likely to be more individualistic and less collectivistic are men, young people, those more highly educated, those in managerial and professional occupations, and those earning higher incomes (Cha, 1994; Daab, 1991, cited in Triandis, 1993; Freeman, 1997; Hui & Yee, 1994; Kashima et al., 1995; Lykes, 1985; Marshall, 1997; Merritt & Helmreich, 1996; Mishra, 1994; Reykowski, 1994; Topalova, 1997; Triandis, Chan, Bhawuk, Iwao, & Sinha, 1995; Watkins et al., 1998). In social psychological terms these demographic variables all have one thing in common - they are key variables that indicate a person's status and power in society (Berger, Rosenholtz, & Zelditch, 1980; Daniel, 1983). For example, 115

these correlates of 1-C follow exactly the same pattern for perceived personal control, both within and across cultures. Sastry and Ross ( 1998) found the strongest correlates were higher income and education, with younger people and men also reporting more perceived control.

Along with the differential possession of valued resources, status is seen as one way of explaining how power is distributed in society (Ng, 1980). Through the activation of expectations of rewarding behaviour for the group ( e.g., performance, Driskell & Mullen, 1990), status affects certain activities and relationships with others. Research on 'status organising processes' has shown that groups whose members differ in status characteristics ascribed in the larger society maintain these external status differences inside the group. The kind of status differentiating the group does not particularly matter, and social interactions are affected even when the particular status characteristic is irrelevant to the goal or task of the group (Berger et al., 1980; Webster & Driskell, 1978).

While the emerging statistical relationships with demographic variables suggest that 1-C is related to power, the psychological mechanisms involved in such a relationship have not been explored. The aim of this chapter is to empirically investigate the relationship between power and 1-C. Using multiple measures of both power and 1-C, this primarily entailed testing the existence of such a relationship, and inferring possible causal mechanisms from hypothesised patterns of relationships between these multiple factors. Ragins and Sundstrom (1989) found that the resources for the development of power are synergistic, that is, power begets power. It is most likely that causality between power and 1-C flows in both directions, with powerful people becoming more individualistic, and as they become so, seeking more power. Three particular relationships have been proposed between individualism, collectivism and power: power as an antecedent of autonomous individualism, powerlessness as an antecedent of collectivism, and competitive individualism as a value orientation promoting the attainment of power. These will now be described in more detail. 116

Power as an antecedent of autonomous individualism

Triandis (Triandis, 1994; 1995; 1996) has consistently noted the importance of affluence as a determinant of individualism, arguing that as people become affluent, they become financially independent from their ingroups (Triandis et al., 1990). This means that individuals can decide how to use their resources without consultation with ingroup members. In fact, the demographic variables associated with I-C, such as being male or highly educated, all give an individual more choices in life, and thus emphasise the individual's role in making decisions for themselves and directing their own path. Diener and Diener (1995) have also used this reasoning to explain why they found individualism to be a significant predictor of subjective well-being (along with income, human and equality). They suggested that each of these components adds to individuals' sense of freedom, autonomy and possible achievement of a wide variety of desired goals. Similarly, Markus and Kitayama (1994) argued that "those with power and privilege are those most likely to ... 'naturally' experience themselves as autonomous individuals" while research suggested that "women, members of the nondominant ethnic groups, the poor, the unschooled, and the elderly" possessed more interdependent self-concepts (p. 575).

According to these theories, the concept of power as related to individualism is centred around an independence of others achieved through access to resources. It is a broad concept of power as the capacity to affect outcomes, or as the control over valued resources (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). In the organisational context, Mintzberg (1983) follows the definitions of ( 193 8) and Kanter ( 1977) in defining such power as "the capacity to effect (or affect) organisational outcomes" (p. 4). In addition to money, an individual's resources can include actual materials, equipment, technical skill, information, political knowledge, expertise, and even personal qualities such as charm and charisma (French & Raven, 1959; Mechanic, 1962; Mintzberg, 1983; Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989; Raven, 1992; Raven, 1993). For many of the resource bases, commonality lies in the fact that the individual has something that the organisation wants. This is often the individual's ability to control dependencies that the organisation finds most problematic, an "uncertainty" that the organisation faces (Crozier, 1964; Jacobs, 1974). 117

The link between autonomy and power is closely aligned with ideas of control, competence, efficacy and mastery over self and one's environment in order to achieve one's goals. Autonomy is also related to power in such concepts as locus of control (Rotter, 1966), and at the opposite end of the spectrum, powerlessness and learned helplessness (Seligman, 1990).

Empirically, Hofstede (1980) tried to elucidate the direction of the relationship between individualism and wealth at the national culture level. When he examined changes over time, out of 20 countries that had been surveyed in both 1968 and 1972, 19 had become richer and 1 poorer. All of the countries that became richer shifted toward greater individualism, while the country that had become poorer shifted slightly toward collectivism (Hofstede, 1991). In addition, among the wealthier countries he found that individualism was related to slower economic growth. He suggests that this "shows that at least over the 1960-1970 period, wealth preceded individualism, and not the other way around" (1980, p. 256).

At the individual level, while there is no evidence for a direct causal link between resource power and 1-C, theoretical and empirical links have been made with established behavioural consequences ofl-C. For example, there is a substantial literature indicating that individualists are more likely to use equity (in proportion to input or performance) and collectivists to use equality or need as the rule for the distribution of resources (Berman, Murphy-Berman, & Singh, 1985; Hui, 1989; Leung & lwawaki, 1988; Triandis, Leung, Villareal, & Clack, 1985)1 . Ng (1980) summarises Lenski' s (1966) theory that these classic distribution rules are related to a group's wealth or combined resource power:

When the economic product of a society remains at the subsistence level, men will divide it amongst themselves not according to the power which they can wield, but according to their respective needs in order to insure the survival and continuing productivity of those others whose labour is necessary or beneficial to themselves. When there is a surplus of material rewards (i.e., privilege), its distribution will be determined primarily by power. (p. 82)

1 The parallel with gender differences is quite striking (e.g., Brockner & Adsit, 1986; Major & Adams, 1983; Major & Deaux, 1982). 118

Consistent with this, Chen, Meindl and Hunt (1997) recently showed that in Chinese organisations, those higher in the organisational hierarchy preferred differential, or equity, rules.

As another example, individualists tend to be less attentive and sensitive to others than collectivists (e.g., Gudykunst, Gao, Nishida, Nadamitsu, & Sakai, 1992). Fiske (1993) proposed that people in positions of power "do not need to pay attention, they cannot easily pay attention, and they may not be personally motivated to pay attention" to others (p. 621). In experimental studies, Harris, Lightner and Manolis (1998) showed that people in positions of power paid less attention to the actual behaviour of subordinates, and instead relied on prior expectations to make judgements. Their results suggested that "high-power people are less motivated to attend to subordinates", and that power has a corrupting effect that "leads the powerful person to feel that the needs and wants of the subordinate are unimportant relative to one's own" (p. 228). Derber (1979) similarly demonstrated a clear relation between power and the giving of attention in naturalistic settings.

The idea that power 'corrupts' can be traced back to Alfred Adler (Ng, 1980), and has since been pursued in historical analysis (Sorokin & Lunden, 1959), and notably in Zimbardo and colleagues' (Zimbardo, Ebbesen, & Maslach, 1977) mock prison experiments. Kipnis (1974) described the "metamorphic effects of power", and showed that the use of resources to influence others primarily affected the psychological distance between powerholders and others, changing the powerholder' s views of their own worth, values and standards, and their views of the worth of the less powerful. Mitchell, Hopper, Daniels, George Falvy and Ferris (1998) reviewed evidence for the corrupting nature of power in organisations. They suggested that when people are given more power they tend to behave in self-serving and distancing ways, and that such attitudes and behaviours, once acquired, are difficult to remove. In a naturalistic field study Kabanoff and Nesbit (1997) related the power of organisations' chief executive officer and chairman, measured through demographic characteristics, to the values expressed in organisational documents, for example, mission statements. These variables were associated, and (although results were not straight forward) broadly conformed to predictions derived from Kipnis' theory. It is possible that the characteristics of 119

autonomous individualists, too, may be a result of the 'metamorphic' effects of resource power.

Powerlessness as an antecedent of collectivism

Lykes (1985; 1989) described a notion of the self termed social individuality, similar to collectivism, which stands in contrast to individualism. She argued that the social individuality orientation was "grounded in an experience of social relations characterised by inequalities of power" (1985, p. 356), and that relatedness came from a need to be unified in the face of oppression. Lykes argued that individuals in less powerful groups experience "group or some sense of the 'givenness' of 'being-in relation', for their survival as a group may seem possible only in relationship" (1985, p. 364). She viewed these notions of self as deriving from social both at the group level ( e.g., as a member of a social group with low status) and at the individual level (e.g., experiences in collective activities for social change). Triandis (1995) also argued that "those subgroups who experience discrimination and whose advancement is blocked will become more collectivist and use collective means of status improvement" (p. 101 ). This reflects Hui and Triandis's (1986) definition of collectivism as "the recognition that the basic unit of survival is a group ... and not the individual" (p. 231).

According to this view, not only is collectivism associated with powerlessness (in terms of concrete resources), but it is assumed to function as a means of empowerment that reflects interpersonal sources of power. This type of power base derives mainly from access to people who can rely on the other bases of power (Mechanic, 1962; Mintzberg, 1983), and may be seen as a compensatory mechanism for deficiencies in other power bases. Rather than dependency on more powerful people, this base reflects a reciprocity whereby favours can be traded, or resources cooperatively combined to achieve interdependent goals. These interpersonal sources of power can be upward ( access to superiors), downward (access to subordinates) or horizontal (access to peers) (Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989). From qualitative analyses of critical incidents in organisational settings, Tjosvold (1990) found that the most frequently mentioned resources valued in others were information-knowledge, effort-assistance, emotional support and authority. An 120

important factor in this type of power is personal identification, which corresponds in some ways with French and Raven's (1959) 'referent power'. Friends and partners grant each other influence over their respective activities, and can be said to "have the ear" of those with position or resource power (Mintzberg, 1983).

Lykes (1985) investigated the effect of occupational status on perceptions of self in relation to others. Four intercorrelated indices were used to measure social individuality in various components of cognitive functioning: cognitive-perceptual styles (the tendency to perceive integrated wholes); social apperception (the tendency to perceive the self as embedded in a particular social context); (on social policy issues); and reasoning about hypothetical moral dilemmas (scored for social responsibility). Lykes' results showed that while women were more likely than men to perceive the inter-relation between self and others, this was particularly true for women working at the lower end of the occupational ladder. Similarly, Miller, Bersoff and Harwood (1990) found evidence that socioeconomic status may have contributed to the differences in collectivism (measured as orientations towards social responsibilities) observed among Indian and American subjects. Not only were lower-class Indians more collectivist than middle-class Indians, but American children's responses were more similar to those of Indians than to responses of American adults. They suggested that the experience of dependency may account for these commonalities.

Lykes' argument that a collectivist orientation results from an experience of social relations characterised by inequalities of power fits well with the high correlation between culture-level collectivism and Hofstede's (1980) dimension of Power Distance. Power Distance is defined as emotional dependence on more powerful people whereas collectivism refers to emotional dependence on groups, organisations, or other (Hofstede, 1980). However, Hofstede argued that this correlation is caused by a third variable - economic development. He claimed that if economic development is held constant, by comparing only wealthy or only poor countries, the relationship disappears. Thus it appears that powerlessness, or lack of resources, may encourage dependence on both more powerful people and on groups.

Behavioural differences attributed to 1-C can also be related to powerlessness. Lin (1997) argues that the ambiguous or indirect communication 121

credited to Chinese and other collectivists (e.g., Gudykunst, 1998) is a consequence of historical evolution and reflects power. Traditionally power was hierarchically distributed in a few persons, rather than in laws. Chinese people learned to be ambiguous (especially in offering constructive criticism) in order to appear respectful and avoid retribution from extremely powerful others. This communication style eventually became a standard sign of politeness. Like Lin, Komin (Komin, 1990) argues that in Thai organisations the careful preservation of social relationships occurs primarily because of the absolute power held by senior personnel, and the necessity of maintaining the 'face' of these superiors (Ting­ Toomey, 1998).

In a more psychological sense, McClelland (1975) proposed that in order to feel powerful, people can identify with a powerful source outside themselves, for example, with a group or other people through organisational membership. This notion reflects the social identity literature (see Chapter 2), in which individuals gain self-esteem by identifying with an ingroup or others who are higher in social comparison to themselves (e.g., Brewer & Weber, 1994; Sedikides & Gaertner, In Press). In a Bulgarian sample, Topalova (1997) found that although empirically individualists had higher education and income, collectivists felt more strongly connected to others, and identified themselves more often with groups of rich people whose standing in the social hierarchy was high and who were "connected with the structures of power" (p. 61 ). Thus collectivism may be an empowering strategy (through connection with others) in response to a lack of other resources for power.

Competitive individualism as an antecedent of power

According to this hypothesis, individualistic and collectivistic values and norms affect how power is conceptualised and have implications for the individual attainment of power. Sastry and Ross (1998) argued that the emphasis on selfless subordination to family and community in collectivist cultures may mean that high levels of personal power or control violate these strong norms. Individuals who strive to meet their personal goals may be punished, decreasing personal autonomy. In Western cultures a lack of personal control has consistently 122

been related to psychological distress. However, collectivists are rewarded for rigidly adhering to their prescribed social roles, and therefore the distress associated with a lack of control may not be so great. Consistent with predictions, Sastry and Ross found that both within the US, and across national cultures, Asians reported significantly lower levels of perceived personal control than non­ Asians (even controlling for socio-demographics). The relationship between a lack of personal control and psychological distress was attenuated among Asians (but still significant).

Adler (Adler, 1956) equated the concept of striving for power with the striving for competitively-based superiority. This striving for power was supposed to conflict with social cooperation and result only in antagonism, opposition and violence. He argued that "the striving for personal power is a disastrous delusion and poisons man's living together. Whoever desires the human community must renounce the striving for power over others" (Adler, 1966, cited in Ng, 1980, p. 169). Komin (1990) found that while Americans rate ambition as one of their most important values, Thais consistently place it as the least important value. He points out that the Thai word for 'ambition' has a negative connotation, and the concept of 'achievement' is not even translatable (as in many non-English speaking cultures). At the individual level, Hui and Yee (1994) demonstrated that Chinese employees' orientations on collectivist factors such as ingroup solidarity and social obligation were negatively related to the work goal of having "opportunity for advancement to higher level jobs", but positively related to wanting to "work in a prestigious, successful company or organisation" (p. 420-1 ). Thus while collectivists may not pursue advancement for themselves, their achievement motivation is more 'socially-oriented' (Yu & Yang, 1994).

In contrast, personal influence, recognition and success are valued highly and rated as important sources of self esteem in individualistic cultures (Watkins et al., 1998). In a factor analysis these values fell in bipolar opposition to an emphasis on values of family relationships, being law abiding and honest (Watkins et al. found that these sources of self-esteem were significantly correlated with a country's wealth, as well as with Hofstede's Individualism Index). Similarly, in a within­ culture analysis, Gerganov, Dilova, Petkova and Paspalanova (1996) found subjects with an individualistic orientation had lower respect for social norms. 123

They valued power, wealth and status more highly than justice, social order, security and interpersonal relationships.

The idea that power is in opposition to a collective ideology assumes a competitive, rather than autonomous, concept of power that is often found in the political dialogue about power in organisations (Pfeffer, 1981). These different types of power are analogous to McClelland' s categories of power orientation (McClelland, 1975). Power can be directed at self, in the sense of control or autonomy, or it can be directed towards others, in the sense of influence. McClelland proposes that there are particular behaviours that exist to satisfy each of these power motives. The first category is supposed to be associated with accumulating possessions and independence, and the second with competition. This second conception of power is a relative concept which is dependent on the context and the individual's relationship to others. Power is defined not in terms of independence but dependence - an individual's capacity to change the behaviour of others (against their will), through their dependence on the powerholder for desired rewards (Dahl, 1957; Emerson, 1962). The idea of overcoming resistance implicitly assumes that power occurs in competition (Tjosvold, Andrews, & Struthers, 1991). Resources, then, are not considered important as means to a desired outcome, but important to the extent that others want them, and they can be used to manipulate others' behaviour. This manipulation itself can become the desired outcome - a desire for power for its own sake (Mintzberg, 1983). Thus, because individual power is more positively valued by individualists, they may legitimately strive for power (Swanson, 1996), and achieve positions of greater influence over people and resources.

The Present Study

Work organisations are particularly appropriate contexts within which to study the effects of status and power, and were chosen for the present investigation. While there have been several different bases of power identified (French & Raven, 1959; Jacobs, 1974; Mechanic, 1962; Mintzberg, 1983; Pfeffer & Selancik, 1978), they can be divided into three main sources: position power, individual resources, and interpersonal relationships (Mechanic, 1962; Mintzberg, 1983; Ragins & 124

Sundstrom, 1989). Position power is the most prevalent type of power base within organisations (Yuki, 1981), being embedded in their very structure. The exercise of authority inherent in these positions is expected and desired (Pfeffer, 1981 ), providing a basis for French and Raven's (1959) legitimate power, and also reward and coercive power. In addition, persons with this authority tend to have access to the two other types of power base: resources and people. A person's organisational position is also a strong status characteristic in other domains. Outside of organisations, the prestige of a person's occupation is recognised as one of the most important indicators of societal-level power (Daniel, 1983; Mechanic, 1962).

Status is often referred to interchangeably with power. However, they are slightly different constructs. Status is "the worth of a person as estimated by a group or class of persons" (Secord & Backman, 1964, p. 294), and reflects characteristics that are deemed important in a particular group. Persons may be ranked on power, but other personal qualities, activities and attributes also determine status, depending on the extent to which they are perceived to contribute to and reflect the shared values and needs of the group. The close relationship between status and power is demonstrated in its circular causality - while a person's power may be a source of status, status itself lends a person referent power, with others seeking to gain status through association with the person (Secord & Backman, 1964).

The present study had two aims. The first aim was to establish whether a significant relationship between power and 1-C exists at the individual level.

Hypothesis 1: Power. That individuals' power and status are correlated with overall 1-C, such that greater power is associated with higher individualism and lower collectivism.

The second aim was to investigate the direction of causality. A longitudinal study would have been the ideal design for such research. However, both of the variables under question, power and 1-C, are generally fairly stable characteristics, with changes only after significant life experiences or after many years. The present study investigated the possible mechanisms underlying this relationship by analysing 1-C as four factors, not one or two2• At the national

2 To my knowledge, there was no other research that had investigated this issue at the time of conducting the present study. Since this study, Freeman (1997) has reported research which 125

level, 1-C is a single, bipolar dimension identified in the broad context of other values (e.g., Hofstede, 1980). However, when studied in more detail at the individual or within-culture level, individualism and collectivism do not necessarily vary together, and are often orthogonal, unipolar dimensions (e.g. Freeman, 1996; Gaines, Marelich, Bledsoe, Steers, & et al., 1997; Gelfand, Triandis, & Chan, 1996; Schwartz, 1990; Triandis et al., 1988).

Triandis (1995) has defined two individualism and two collectivism factors, referred to in earlier chapters as horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism, respectively. Consistent with Triandis and colleagues (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998), it was shown in Chapters 1-3 that not only were the individualism and collectivism measures independent, but there were two distinct individualism factors reflecting separate components of autonomous and competitive individualism. Because these different facets of 1-C reflect the possible psychological mechanisms involved in its relationship with power, differential hypotheses could be derived from this model.3

Horizontal Individualism (HI) reflects the importance of perceiving the self as unique, separate and independent. It is related to self-reliance (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998), with items that specifically refer to the importance of not depending on others, and relying only on oneself. Autonomy and freedom of choice is expressed in items such as "J often 'do my own thing"' and "What happens is my own doing".

Hypthosis 2a: Autonomous Individualism. If individualism follows from the independence achieved through a personal command of resources, then HI should be positively correlated with position and power variables, especially sources of power based in access to resources.

investigated the relationship between demographic variables and individualism and collectivism as two separate constructs in a Sri Lankan sample. His results are pertinent to the power-1-C hypotheses and will be discussed later in relation to the present results. 3 The only study to have examined these HV-IC scales in relation to status variables is Singelis et al. ( 1995), who included one question asking subjects to report their socio-economic bracket. There was a small, but significant, correlation between VI and SES. However, further investigations are warranted given the inadequate measurement of power in that study. 126

In contrast, Vertical Collectivism (VC) emphasises values of self-sacrifice, and subordination of own goals for group goals, for example, "/ usually sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group". Horizontal Collectivism (HC) emphasises interdependence, preference for cooperation and group harmony, for example, "If a coworker gets a prize I wouldfeel proud'.

Hypothesis lb: Collectivism. If collectivism arises from a need for unity in the face of powerlessness, then we would expect VC and HC to be negatively correlated with position power (ie a situation lacking power), but positively correlated with interpersonal sources of power.

Vertical Individualism (VI) reflects a preference for interpersonal competition (see Chapter 2) and achievement over others, for example, "It is important for me to do my job better than others".

Hypothesis le: Competitive Individualism. If the attainment and maintenance of power arises out of a competitive individualistic orientation, VI should be positively correlated with position and power variables.

It was also necessary to test for the possibility of an alternative explanation for relationships found between power and I-C. It has been generally hypothesised "that a person will gain status and prestige by conforming to the normative expectations of the group" (e.g., by Hollander and by Homans, cited in Ng, 1980, p. 81). More particularly, Bretz and Judge (1994) argued that people who 'fit' their organisational environment should achieve higher levels of career success than those who do not. They reasoned that the favourable work attitudes resulting from a good fit, such as organisational commitment and motivation (Kristof, 1996), would lead to better performance and hence indirectly to greater rewards and reinforcements from the organisation. Consistent with their hypotheses, they found that employees whose perceptions of the organisation's reinforcement systems and structures matched their own values and needs were more satisfied with their jobs, were in higher level job positions and received higher salaries.

Andrews (1967) and Schneider (e.g., see Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995) have been more explicit in suggesting a direct relationship between an employees' good fit with organisational values, and their favourable evaluation, 127

selection and promotion by higher level organisational members. Andrews (1967) investigated the effect of the congruence between executives' motive patterns and organisational values on career advancement. Two Mexican organisations were chosen on the basis of their differing core values and organisational culture. Descriptions of the firms indicated polarisation on what would now be recognised as individualistic versus traditional collectivistic work values. The individualistic firm was an American subsidiary, run by an American president. In this firm, "talent and effort" (p. 164) were rewarded. Rigorous psychological and performance evaluations were conducted on individual staff members, which were used without hesitation to promote, transfer or fire employees, regardless of age or seniority. Andrews found that employees' need for achievement, assessed two years earlier, was positively correlated with current job status level (and also number of promotions and raises) in this individualistic organisation. In contrast, the second firm was a paternalistic all-Mexican firm, "rather like a fuedalistic hacienda" in which the president played "the grand patron" (p. 165). A moral psychological contract prevailed, with the firm continuing to employ even incompetent employees, and subordinates giving face to superiors by not being too 'conspicuously productive'. Feedback about the quality of work was sparse, so as to avoid criticism. In this collectivistic organisation, employees' need for achievement was negatively correlated with their job status. Instead, a positive relationship was found between job status and need for power, reflecting the vertical collectivism values of "dominance and dependence" (p. 165). Andrews concluded that these patterns of organisational advancement were the outcome of the congruence between individuals' motivational concerns and the firms' organisational values.

These studies suggest that in individualistic cultures, such as Australia, individualistic employees may be in positions of higher status and power because of their good 'fit' with organisational and national culture, rather than their individualism per se. To test for the possible effects of fit, it was necessary to include samples of both collectivistic and individualistic cultures. The power hypothesis predicts the same empirical outcome in individualistic and collectivistic cultures: a positive relationship between power and individualism. However, according to the theory of person-culture fit, in collectivistic 128

organisations, employees demonstrating collectivistic values should be rewarded and reinforced with higher status, position and prestige. There is preliminary evidence that this may be the case. For example, Chen et al.(1997) found that in some Chinese organisations collectivistic employees were in jobs at higher levels and had more seniority.

Alternative hypothesis: Person-culture fit. There should be an interaction between culture and individual-level I-C, such that employees who are more individualistic should have higher status, position and power in individualistic cultures only. In collectivistic cultures, employees who are more collectivistic should have higher status, position and power.

The effects of person-culture fit are examined in greater detail in Chapter 6.

Method

Overview

This is a field study which used regression analysis to establish the pattern of relationships between multiple indicators of participants' power and their orientation on four I-C scales. Effects of occupational prestige, self-rated organisational power and status were examined across the entire sample, while effect of position in the organisational hierarchy was examined within each organisation type. Interaction effects between national culture and power variables were also investigated (since person-culture fit hypotheses predict a significant interaction, but power hypotheses do not).

Controls for possible task effects were included in the design of the study. A microstructural level approach suggests that rather than a direct causal relationship with power, 1-C orientations may be affected by the task requirements at different levels of occupational status. For example, Merrit and Helmreich (1996) found that within the same airline organisation and same national culture, pilots were much more individualistic and less collectivistic than flight attendants. The authors suggest that these results were due to status differences. However, the higher status of pilots was confounded with the greater task-focus (rather than person-focus) of their work 129

roles. Because such task characteristics are often associated with occupational status, the present study included participants employed in the same occupation at different hierarchical positions within their organisation.

It also possible that while the nature of the tasks are the same within occupations, the amount of individual versus team work may change with higher positions. In the present study employees' ratings of the amount of cooperation required in the tasks they performed at work were included as a covariate in order to statistically control for team work.

Sample

Participants were the 581 professional employees described in Chapters 1 and 3. They were employed in an international management consultancy firm and regional public hospitals in national cultures classified as individualistic (Australia) and collectivistic (South-East Asia). In addition to their divergent cultures, these companies were chosen because of their organisation of staff along clear hierarchical structures.

Hospitals

For the hospitals, three major occupational groups were included in the study: Nurses, Doctors, and Allied Health staff. Most of the sample (89%) were females.

In Australia, each occupation could be categorised into three levels of position in the organisational hierarchy. Nurses were divided into ( 1) Enrolled and Registered Nurses, (2) Unit Managers and Clinical Nurse Specialists, and (3) Senior Managers and Clinical Nurse Consultants. Doctors were divided into (1) Interns, (2) Registered Medical Officers, and (3) Registrars. Allied Health included speech pathologists, clinical psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, podiatrists and social workers. They were divided into (1) staff, (2) senior staff, and (3) managers. The number of responses from each of these categories can be seen in Table 4.1 below. 130

Table 4.1: Australian hospital respondents by occupation and level of position

Occupation Position Category

1 2 3 Total

Nurses 24 11 7 42

Allied Health 26 9 6 41

Doctors 5 5 5 15

Total 57 25 18 100

Only two position levels could be identified from the Thai responses. Approximately one-third of the respondents were placed in the broad category of "managers" and the rest categorised as "staff'. Managers included top administrators, directors, supervisors and head nurses. The number of responses identified in each of these categories can be seen in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2. Thai hospital Respondents identified by occupation and level of position

Occupation Position Category

Staff Managers Total

Nurses 109 54 163

Allied Health 10 2 12

Doctors 5 2 7

Total 124 58 182

Management Consultancy

The majority of respondents in the management consultancy branches were consultants, some accountants (with comparable position classifications) and support staff such as secretaries and administrative assistants. While there were 131

approximately equal nwnbers of males and females (53% males), their distribution according to job position was disproportionate, with more females represented in lower positions, and more males in higher positions (see Table 4.3).

Population statistics for the organisations were only available for the Australian management consultancy. A comparison of these with the sample characteristics for sex and position level showed a remarkably representative sample (See Appendix 4A).

Table 4.3. MC respondents by sex and level of position

Position Australia Asia Male Female Total Male Female Total Partner I Director 29 6 35 5 0 5 Managing Consultant 26 5 31 11 5 16 Senior Consultant 17 19 36 15 11 26 Consultant 10 8 18 19 19 38 Assistant Consultant 3 8 11 5 8 13 Support Staff 0 27 27 0 12 12 Total 85 73 158 55 55 110

Measures

The procedure for distribution and completion of the questionnaires is described in Chapters 1 and 3 (see Appendix lB for an example questionnaire). Demographic variables included organisational tenure (seniority), age, sex, and level of education. I-C was measured using Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk and Gelfand's (1995) Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism scales, and self­ concept on the TST (see below). Power variables included a societal measure of occupational prestige, hierarchical position within each of the organisations, self­ reported access to power in the organisation, and self-reported status within the organisation. Each of these is described further below.

Individualism-Collectivism

HV-IC. Singelis et al.'s HV-IC scales were adapted for use in the workplace, and standardised within each national culture (see Chapters 2 and 3). In the present 132

sample, as reported by Singelis et al. ( 1995), the collectivism scales were significantly correlated, but the individualism scales were not (see Chapter 2).

/-C. The four component scales were also collapsed into one broad scale in order to determine an overall predominant orientation. The collectivism items were reverse-scored, resulting in an "1-C" scale with a midpoint of 0, and a higher score indicating greater individualism. The alpha reliability of this differential scale was .77 (.74 and .79 in the Australian and Asian samples, respectively). This score is not adequate to test Hypotheses 2a, 2b and 2c (as these refer to the different components of 1-C), but has been included to provide an overall picture of results pertaining to Hypothesis 1 and 3: power versus person-culture fit.

Social self-concept. It is generally recommended that multiple measures ofl­ C be used in organisational research, or when researching antecedents of 1-C (e.g., Earley & Gibson, 1998; Wagner, 1995). To check the robustness of results using a different measure, participants' scores on an operant measure of 1-C were also investigated. This consisted of the proportion of social self-concept statements participants included on the TST (see Chapter 1 for description of coding and scoring).

Power Measures

Three main sources of power were measured: position power, individual resources, and interpersonal relationships (Mechanic, 1962; Mintzberg, 1982; Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989). Position power was objectively measured at the societal and organisational levels, and participants subjectively reported their access to resource and interpersonal power within their organisations. Participants' perceptions of their status within their organisations was also included. These multiple measures are described below, and inter-correlations between these measures and demographic variables for each national culture are presented in Table 4.4. 133

Table 4.4. Correlations between demographic and power variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Australia 1. Age 2. Sex a .26*** 3. Education -.01 .27*** level 4. Organisational .52*** -.05 -.14* Tenure 5. Occupational .25*** .49*** .38*** .10 Prestige b 6. Resource .09 .18** .10 .08 .29*** Power 7. Interpersonal .06 .15* .05 .14* .26*** .59*** Power 8. Status .42*** .25*** .10 .34*** .46*** .45*** .49*** Asia 1. Age 2. Sex a .05 3. Education -.07 .24*** level 4. Organisational .23*** -.30*** -.14* Tenure 5. Occupational .01 .47*** .39*** -.09 Prestige b 6. Resource .07 .19** .07 -.06 .17** Power 7. Interpersonal .12 .27*** .11 -.01 .18** .62*** Power 8. Status .23*** -.06 -.02 .51 *** .09 .25*** .24*** Note: Organisational position was not included as this was unique to each organisation. Cooperation required to complete tasks at work was not significantly correlated with hierarchical position or power variables in either sample, and is not shown. a. 1 = female, 2 = male b. For ease of understanding, because prestige is greater the smaller the assigned score, direction of coefficients has been reversed. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 134

Occupational Prestige. Position in the more general structure of social power was measured using Daniel's (1983) scale of Occupational Prestige. Generally, there is a strong correlation between prestige and income and between prestige and education. However, Daniel argues that prestige incorporates the community's awareness of a diverse assortment of signs and symbols of power which are not simply reducible to income and/or education. Occupational status has proved to be a valid measure in many studies of the effect of power (e.g., Eagly & Wood, 1982; Fox & Firebaugh, 1992; Hyuck, 1991; Lykes, 1985; Reid, Roberts, & Ozbek, 1990). Daniel's scale is based on a national survey of the status of occupations in Australia. Over 1600 people rated 162 occupations on a scale from 1 (highest) to 7 (lowest). With this prestige hierarchy as a framework, other occupations were placed in relation to these according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics classification of occupations. The final scale of ratings for occupational prestige extends from 1.0 to 6.9. For example, a Judge rates at 1.2, a Speech Therapist at 3.5 and a Prostitute at 6.9. Within each occupation small adjustments were made for position level such that the prestige score is a reflection of organisational position, as well as occupation. (See Appendix 4B for a list of example scores for occupational titles).

While this scale is valid for an Australian sample, occupational prestige may be perceived differently in Asian countries. Treiman (1977) has investigated the cross-cultural similarities and differences in occupational prestige hierarchies in a study of sixty countries. He showed that there was general agreement throughout the world in the hierarchical ordering of occupations, with an average correlation between pairs of countries of about .8. With regard to the countries sampled in the present study, Treiman found correlations between Australian and Thai rankings of .90 (55 matching occupations), Indonesia .93 (22 occupations), and Taiwan .87 (24 occupations). Education and income accounted for at least two-thirds of the variance in prestige, with education having a substantially stronger influence. In the present sample, correlations between occupational prestige and sex and education were equally as strong in Asia as in Australia (see Table 4.4). In addition, the cross-cultural differences Treiman did find in prestige rankings were not systematic, but idiosyncratic to particular occupations. The 135

intersocietal agreement with respect to the prestige ordering of nonmanual occupations (as in the present study) was stronger than that of manual occupations. It was therefore considered appropriate to use Daniel's Prestige scale in the Asian, as well as the Australian, sample.

Organisational Position. Level in the organisational hierarchy was ascertained from each companies' graded position classifications (see sample details). For the management consultancies, there were six hierarchical position classifications matched for the two national samples. Classifying employees by their position categories was more difficult in the hospitals. The smaller number of position levels meant position did not correlate as strongly with demographic and power variables as position in the MC (see Table 4.5). Also, correlations for the Australian data were based on position categories which were not necessarily equivalent across occupations.

Table 4.5. Correlations of job position with demographic and other power variables (within each organisation)

Australia Asia Hosp MC Hosp MC (n) (100) (158) (163) (110) Age .23* .59*** .23** .08 Sex .15 .57*** .41*** Education .12 .38*** .34*** .38** Tenure .27** .44*** .34*** .33** Resource Power .25* .32*** .15* .22* Interpersonal Power .27** .30*** .24** .27** Status .38*** .63*** .24** .48*** *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.

To test the hypotheses in relation to organisational position within the hospitals, comparisons were not made across occupations but were confined to the largest occupational sample: nurses. However, the sample of nurses in Australia

(n = 42) was smaller than the Thai sample (n = 163). In addition, only two 136

position levels were comparable across countries: general (n = 133) versus managerial and supervisory staff (n = 72). While still valid, the crudeness of the hospital position categories restricted the power of tests using this measure.

Resource and Interpersonal Power. Participants' perceived power within their organisation was assessed by four items (see Figure 4.1) adapted from Fagenson (1990) (alpha reliability coefficient = .79). Individuals' perceptions of their own power are arguably more important than 'objective' power in having implications for other psychological variables. In addition, managers and employees have previously shown that they are able to accurately perceive and report their relative power (Tjosvold et al., 1991). The items in the present study were chosen because they either showed a reliance on self for power (resource power) or a reliance on others for power (interpersonal power). Two items measured access to important people (alpha coefficient = .82) and two items measured access to important resources (alpha coefficient= .54)4. The items were introduced with the statement: "The following items ask you to indicate how often you find you have access to people and resources that are valued by your organisation and enable you to achieve desired outcomes in your work." Participants rated the items on Likert scales anchored with "not at all" (1) to "very often" (7). As suggested by Ragins and Sundstrom (1989), access to each of the power bases was related - interpersonal and resource power were significantly correlated (see Table 4.4).

4 In the last organisation to be tested (Asian MC), 2 additional items were added to the scale (one to each sub-scale). This improved the reliability of the resource power scale (from .52 to .68 in that sample), although reliability of the interpersonal power scale was unchanged (.82 for both). Nevertheless, the correlation between the 2 and 3 item resource power scales was .95 (p<.001). This suggests that we may tentatively make conclusions based on the 2 item resource power scale. 137

Figure 4.1. Power Items on the Questionnaire

(1) I have access to people with significant influence in the organisation. (2) I have access to people who would be valuable to my boss or people at higher levels. (3) I have access to special information or resources that would be valuable to my boss or people at higher levels. (4) My boss is dependent on me.

The power items showed convergent validity with the objective measures of position power, significantly correlating with occupational prestige, and hierarchical position within each organisation (see Tables 4.4 and 4.5). Divergent validity was demonstrated in the differential pattern of correlates for perceived status. Status was significantly correlated with age and organisational tenure, while power was not (see Table 4.4).

Status. Participants were asked to describe the status of their position within the organisation on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from "very low" to "very high". Status may be judged from the extent to which a person is recipient of things valued by the group (e.g., particular organisational symbols, such as office size, position, furniture and car parking, Monk, 1999), their capacity to reward others, and their investments in the group, such as seniority (Homans, 1951 ). Status was strongly correlated with actual position in the organisation (see Table 4.5). In Australia, status was connected to a number of factors including age, sex, tenure, occupational prestige and power (see Table 4.4). In Asia, status was primarily related to tenure, and had smaller correlations with age and power. It was not significantly related to sex or occupational prestige.

Results

Correlations between 1-C, demographic and power variables are presented in Table 4.6. Replicating previous studies, the overall measure of 1-C showed that males, younger people and those more highly educated were more individualistic. Required cooperation on work tasks was not related to any of the power or position variables and so was not investigated further. 138

Consistent with Hypothesis 1 (that greater power is associated with higher individualism and lower collectivism), higher individualism (on the overall measure of I-C) was significantly correlated with higher occupational prestige, higher job position in the management consultancy hierarchy, and greater perceived organisational power. However, this was not the case for job position in the hospital hierarchy, or for perceived organisational status.

Table 4.6. Correlates of 1-C factors across national cultures

1-C Measures

Vertical Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Collectivism Collectivism Individualism Individualism 1-C (subordination) (cooperation) ( competition) (independence) Age -.13** .08 .02 -.10* -.05

Sex a .27*** -.10* -.10* .29*** -.02

Education .12** -.07 -.07 .05 .06

Prestigeb .19*** -.17*** -.05 .16*** -.02

Position in MC c .16* -.16* -.10 .04 .04

Position in Hosp d -.12 .01 .26*** -.03 .07

Powere .08* -.01 .11 * .21 *** .03

Status -.06 .04 -.01 -.07 .01 a. 1 = female, 2 = male b. for ease of understanding, because prestige is greater the smaller the assigned score, direction of coefficients has been reversed. c. MC sample only (n=268) d. Hospital nursing sample only (n=205) e. Resource and Interpersonal Power combined *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Analyses with the alternate I-C measure, social self-concept, partially replicated these results, with significant negative relationships between the proportion of social self-concepts and occupational prestige (rs = -.21, p<.001) and perceived organisational power (rs = -.12, p<.01). However, social self­ concept was positively related to position in the MC (rs = .15, p<.05). 139

To compare the power and person-culture fit hypotheses (1 and 3), a senes of hierarchical regressions were conducted predicting the overall 1-C measure, with national culture entered along with each of the power variables

(see Appendix 4C, Table 4C.l) 5 • An interaction term (power x culture) was entered in the second step of each regression. According to the power hypothesis ( 1), higher power should predict greater individualism regardless of culture. According to the person-culture fit hypothesis, culture and power should interact, such that higher power predicts greater individualism in Australia, but less individualism (and therefore greater collectivism) in Asia.

There was no significant interaction between national culture and occupational prestige, job position in the MC, or perceived organisational power. That is, as predicted by the power hypothesis, these power variables were associated with higher individualism in both Australia and Asia (see Figures 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4; a higher, more positive score represents higher individualism).

Figure 4.2. Mean 1-C scores for Occupational Prestige and national culture group

Occupational Prestige 0 -0.1 Low Middle

-0.2 )I / / / -0.3 / / / 0 -0.4 / ..!. / / / -0.5 / / -+-Australia -0.6 - -Asia ------· -0.7 .. -- -0.8

5 Because the planned hypotheses are tested in separate regression analyses for each of the five variables tapping the construct of social power, there is a greater chance of making Type I errors. According to Bonferroni tests the acceptable alph~ level should be adjusted to .01. However, results at .05 level of significance will be reported, because the critical issue here is the replication of results across variables and across different samples. 140

Figure 4.3. Mean 1-C scores for national culture and organisational position in the management consultancy

0.4 Organisational Position 0.2

0 Low 0 -0.2 -I -0.4 • Australia - -11- ·Asia -0.6

-0.8

Figure 4.4. Mean 1-C scores for perceived power in the organisation and national culture group

Perceived Power 0 Low Middle High -0.1

-0.2

0 -0.3 ..!. -0.4 -0.5 ------0.6

• Australia - -II- · Asia I 141

However, consistent with the person-culture fit hypothesis, the interaction between national culture and perceived status was significant (R2change = .007, p<.05) (see Figure 4.5). In Asia, employees with higher status were more collectivistic, while in Australia, they were generally more individualistic. This result was also replicated with the measure of Social Self-concept (R2change for interaction= .04, p<.001). In Asia, employees reporting higher status had a higher proportion of social self-concepts, while in Australia, they included less social self-concepts.

Figure 4.5. Mean 1-C scores according to national culture and status in the organisation

Status 0 Low Middle High -0.1

-0.2

-0.3

0 -0.4 -I --- -0.5 --- ..... ---- ...... -0.6 ...... • Australia ...... -0.7 ..... -•-·Asia ..... -0.8

Hypothesis 2a: Horizontal Individualism (Independence)

In order to test Hypotheses 2, each of the horizontal and vertical I-C scales were analysed separately. As shown previously in Table 4.6, HI was not significantly correlated with any of the power variables (or any of the other demographic variables). Hierarchical regressions with national culture also 142 revealed no significant main or interaction effects of power variables on HI (see Appendix 4C, Table 4C.2).

Hypothesis 2b: Vertical Collectivism (Subordination) and Horizontal Collectivism (Cooperation)

VC was significantly associated with lower occupational prestige and lower job position in the management consultancy, independent of national culture (see Table 4.6 and Appendix 4C, Table 4C.3). However, there were no main effects (or interactions with national culture) of perceived power and status, or position in the hospitals on VC.

Hierarchical regression analyses were again performed with demographic variables entered first, to assess whether age, sex, or education mediated the effects of prestige and position on VC. Both prestige and position (see Appendix 4D, Table 4D.l) were independent significant predictors ofVC. Prestige actually appeared to account for the relationship between sex and VC (sex was not an independent predictor of VC when prestige was also in the equation, see Table 4. 7). That is, women were not higher than men on vertical collectivism when controlling for the prestige of their occupations.

Table 4. 7. Summary of hierarchical regression of demographic variables and prestige on VC

Step R2 Change Variables in Equation B Std Error Beta

1 .02** Age .10 .05 .09* Sex -.35 .16 -.10* Education -.07 .08 -.04

2 .02*** Age .11 .05 .10* Sex -.09 .18 -.03 Education .01 .08 .00 Prestige -.42 .13 -.16** a. 1 = female, 2 = male. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. 143

As was the case for VC, relationships between Horizontal Collectivism and occupational prestige and job position in the MC were negative (although not significant). However, contrary to Hypothesis 2b, HC was positively correlated with position in the hospitals (see Table 4.6). Managers and supervisors were higher on HC than staff members (see Figure 4.6). There was no significant interaction with national culture (see Appendix 4C, Table 4C.4). Horizontal collectivism was an independent predictor of position level in the hospitals (R2change = .04, p<.01), even controlling for age, sex and education (see Appendix 4D, Table 4D.2).

Figure 4.6. Mean Horizontal Collectivism for national culture and position in hospitals

I• Australia D Asia I 2.5 E tn 2 > ~ (.) Cl) 1.5 0 (.) ...CU 1 C: 0 N 'i: 0.5 0 :I: 0 Staff Managers Organisational Position

To investigate if HC was differentially related to resource and interpersonal power as predicted, the two sub-scales of power were entered into a regression equation together. Consistent with hypotheses, only interpersonal power predicted HC (see Table 4.8), even controlling for demographic variables. 144

Employees with greater access to powerful others were higher on Horizontal Collectivism.

Table 4.8. Summary of hierarchical regression of demographic variables and perceived power on Horizontal Collectivism

Step R2 Change Variables in Equation B Std Error Beta

1 .02* Age .02 .04 .02 Sex -.34 .14 -.10* Education -.08 .07 -.05

2 .03*** Age .01 .04 .01 Sex -.44 .14 -.14** Education -.08 .07 -.05 Resource Power -.01 .06 -.01 Interpersonal Power .17 .05 .17** a. 1 = female, 2 = male. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.

Hypothesis 2c: Vertical Individualism (Competition)

Vertical Individualism was significantly related to higher occupational prestige, but not position within either of the organisations. It was also positively correlated with higher perceived power (see Table 4.6). While the positive relationships with prestige and power were consistent across national cultures (see Appendix 4C, Table 4C.5), there was a significant interaction between national culture and status, such that employees with higher status were more individualistic in Australia, but less individualistic in Asia (see Figure 4.7). This interaction was highly significant (p<.001), and obviously substantially contributed to the interaction between status and national culture for the overall measure ofl-C. 145

Figure 4.7. Mean Vertical Individualism scores by status and national culture

Status 0 Low Middle High -0.5 E .!? ::sCG -1 • :2 • Australia -~"O -1.5 C -•- -Asia ea u -2 ' :e ..... CD • ..... > -2.5 ...... -3

While Vertical Individualism was positively related to power in both Asia and Australia, it was also positively related to status in Australia, but negatively related to status in Asia. Recall that in Asia, status was less strongly related to power and more strongly related to tenure than in Australia (see Table 4.4). When tenure was controlled, status was not a significant independent predictor of VI in Asia (see Appendix 4E). That is, employees of longer standing in the organisations were less competitively individualistic and also had higher status. This suggests that the relationship between VI and status was due to person­ culture fit mechanisms, rather than power.

Hierarchical regressions were conducted to test if demographic variables could account for the relationships of occupational prestige and power with VI. Higher occupational prestige was not an independently significant predictor of VI, but appeared to be indirectly related to VI through sex (see Table 4.9). That is, men were higher on VI, and were in positions of higher prestige (recall Table 4.4). (Age was not a mediator - older people were in occupations of higher prestige, but were lower on VI). 146

Table 4.9. Summary of hierarchical regression of demographic variables and prestige on Vertical Individualism

Step R2 Change Variables in Equation B Std. Error Beta

1 .11 *** Age -.18 .06 -.13** Sex 1.38 .19 .32*** Education -.09 .09 -.04

2 .00 Age -.19 .06 -.14** Sex 1.31 .21 .30*** Education -.11 .10 .05 Prestige .12 .16 .04 a. 1 = female, 2 = male. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.

As for HC, resource and interpersonal power sub-scales were entered into a regression together. Interestingly, in an opposite pattern to that for HC, only resource power significantly predicted VI ( even controlling for demographic variables, see Table 4.10).

Table 4.10. Summary of hierarchical regression of demographic variables and perceived power on Vertical Individualism

Step R2 Change Variables in Equation B Std. Error Beta

1 .09*** Age -.18 .06 -.13** Sex 1.27 .18 .29*** Education -.08 .09 -.04

2 .03*** Age -.19 .06 -.14** Sex 1.12 .18 .26*** Education -.09 .09 -.04 Resource Power .22 .08 .14** Interpersonal Power .05 .07 .04 a. 1 = female, 2 = male. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. 147

Discussion

The present study sought to integrate the empirical demographic correlates of individual-level I-C into a cohesive theory involving the antecedent influence of power. Social class and affiuence have been hailed as probably the most influential antecedents of I-C (Triandis, 1995), along with education, sex, and age. It was argued that each of these variables are salient status characteristics which cue expectations about behaviour consistent with one's position in the power structures of society.

Results showed that I-C was related to demographic variables as found in previous studies. Men, younger people and those with a higher level of education were more individualistic. More importantly, as predicted by the power hypothesis, I-C was also significantly related to occupational prestige ( an indicator of broad social power), and perceived organisational power in both individualistic and collectivistic cultures. These relationships were significant for measures of explicit I-C values (Singelis et al.'s HV-IC scale) and self-construal (social self-concept on the TST).

Individualists were also m higher job positions within one of the participating organisations (the management consultancy). However, this relationship was not replicated for social self-concept, and in the second organisation (the hospitals) individualists were actually in lower job positions, opposite to predictions according to the power theories. In addition, the relationship between I-C and status was moderated by culture (for both questionnaire and TST measures of I-C), and matched predicted outcomes for a person-culture fit hypothesis, rather than power theories. This pattern of results suggest that both power and person-culture fit mechanisms affect individual orientations on I-C, leading to a particularly complex pattern of results in collectivist cultures where they work in opposite directions.

There were three particular psychological processes reviewed in the literature which could account for a relationship between power and I-C. These were investigated by analysing the pattern of power relationships with each of the independent I-C factors: autonomous individualism, collectivism, and competitive individualism. 148

Power: an antecedent of autonomous individualism

First, most theorists have assumed that the relationship between individualism and affluence was derived from an independence achieved through the personal command of valued resources. This financial independence, or power, was supposed to generalise to an emotional and psychological independence from ingroups (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1995). This concept of 'autonomous individualism' was captured by Singelis et al.'s (1995) Horizontal Individualism scale, which has previously predicted self-reliance (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998), and which has considerable face validity as a measure of autonomy and freedom of choice. According to these theories, HI should be related to greater access to important resources and positions of power which afford such access. The theory that power is an antecedent of autonomous individualism was not supported. HI (independence from others) was not significantly predicted by any of the position or power variables.

This was a surprising result, especially given the theoretical support from Triandis and Hofstede. It is possible that the measure of HI used here was poor. In the present samples, it was not significantly related to self-concept as measured by the TST, nor Hofstede's Individualism Index for participants' country of birth. However, this scale did not even show trends in the predicted direction.

In addition, recent research by Freeman (1997) is consistent with the present results. Within a Sri Lankan sample, Freeman investigated the demographic correlates of independent measures of individualism and collectivism. While not measuring power directly, Freeman included socioeconomic status (based on household income and possessions) as a measure of affluence, and occupational status. He found that the strongest (positive) correlate of individualism was urban residence, and when controlling for urban residence, affluence and occupational status were not significant predictors of higher individualism.

However, if individualism is linked to urban residence, it is strange that of the two collectivist samples in the present study, the rural Thai hospitals were 149 higher on HI than the management consultancies, which were located in city centres. Again, this throws into question the validity of the HI scale used here.

Powerlessness: an antecedent of collectivism

An alternate hypothesis was presented by Lykes (1985). In response to a lack of other resources for power, people may seek vicarious power through relationships with powerful others, and through empowering collective action. The theory that powerlessness is an antecedent of collectivism was partially supported. Social position and organisational position (in the MC) predicted lower Vertical Collectivism (with a trend toward lower Horizontal Collectivism also). Collectivists were in less powerful positions in both individualistic and collectivistic cultures. This is consistent with Freeman's (1997) results in Sri Lanka, which also showed that occupational status was a predictor of lower collectivism, along with socioeconomic status. Both relationships between VC and occupational prestige, and VC and position in the MC, were not mediated by sex, education or age. However, contrary to predictions, HC was actually positively related to position in the hospitals.

Horizontal Collectivism (cooperation) was positively associated with interpersonal power but not resource power, as predicted. That is, collectivists more often had access to influential people and people valuable to their organisations. Those who made it their priority to promote group harmony and good social relations with others were more likely to have access to important people. Unlike HC, VC was not related to perceived power (although social self­ concept was related to lower perceived power).

The differential relationships with the power variables for Horizontal and Vertical Collectivism may reflect the slightly different emphases of the constructs. Triandis and Gelfand (1998) found HC to be more closely aligned with interdependent self-concept and VC with authoritarianism6 and collective identity. Thus the link between HC and interpersonal power most closely resembles social identification with particular others to feel powerful and for

6 This emphasises the nature ofVC as subordinating own goals and interests to the wishes of one's group, often represented by a particular authority. 150 access to power bases. The link between VC and the lack of societal power more closely represents the hypothesis of collectivism as looking to the group as a means for survival in response to powerlessness.

While these results are consistent with the idea that powerlessness leads to greater collectivism, it is also possible to interpret the results in terms of collectivists' values restricting their attainment of power. Along this vein, one possible explanation for the relationship between VC and organisational position is that employees high on VC may place higher importance on family than work (given the nature of the VC item targets). Collectivists tend to have a social rather than individually oriented motivation, and want jobs that allow them to spend more time taking care of their families, although they also want higher salaries for the same reason (Yu & Yang, 1994). However, if collectivists did place family before work commitments, those high on VC should also show less commitment to the organisation than others - this was not the case (as shown in Chapter 6). VC was also negatively correlated with broader social position, which is unlikely to be explained by a family-first hypothesis. Also, if collectivism did preclude the attainment of power, it would not be associated even with interpersonal sources of power (as was the case for HC).

The link between power and collectivism, rather than autonomous individualism, sits well with research that has often found people from collectivist cultures to be just as high on measures of individualism as people from individualistic cultures (Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999; Gaines et al., 1997; Triandis et al., 1986; Triandis et al., 1988). Sedikides and Gaertner (in press) suggest that individualism is invariant across cultures, with the individual self­ concept motivationally primary for all people. Instead, cultural norms appear to only affect the level of collectivism.

However, those in power often interpret events for others, creating meanings that everyone is expected to share (Levine & Moreland, 1991). For example, where a dominant mode of thought is a consequence of colonial status or other form of cultural dependency (e.g., multinational organisations), everyone will become educated in it, whereas only those for whom the alternative model is culturally salient will be educated, probably informally, in it (Haste & Baddeley, 1991). It is possible that this has been the case for 151 individualism and collectivism, as those occupying positions of power have expected less powerful groups to accept their individualistic worldview. (This is also consistent with Hofstede's data on a national level, whereby those countries showing higher individualism than would be predicted by wealth were mostly English-speaking British ex-colonies).

The unexpected finding that managers m the hospitals were more collectivistic on HC than regular staff members suggests that in certain contexts other, more proximal, antecedents may play a greater role (e.g. culture fit, task activities) than distal antecedents like social power.

Competitive individualism and power

The third hypothesis postulated that the importance individualists place on personal influence, recognition and success would facilitate their attainment and maintenance of power. Vertical Individualism measured participants' emphasis on competitively-based superiority, and should be strongly related to power according to this reasoning.

There was partial support for this hypothesis. Vertical Individualism was significantly related to perceived organisational power, especially access to important resources, in both individualistic and collectivistic cultures. It was also positively related to occupational prestige, although this could be attributed to the higher prestige of men's occupations (who were more competitive than women). VI was not significantly related to position in either of the organisations. Thus, Vertical Individualism appeared to be primarily related to subjective measures of power, rather than 'objective' measures of position power.

Regardless of organisational position, people who were more competitively individualistic reported more power. Such a pattern of results (ie., correlations among self-reported measures only) suggests the possibility of common method variance. Method variance is an artifact of measurement that can bias results when constructs are measured in the same way (Spector, 1987), for example, due to halo effects or response sets in self-report ratings. However, this is unlikely given the opposite pattern of results found for the status item in Asia (where VI was positively correlated with reported power, but negatively correlated with reported 152 status). Also, Sastry and Ross (1998) reported similar results for objective versus perceived personal control. Within the United States, Asians were in higher income and education brackets, and were more likely to be employed than non­ Asians, but they still reported lower perceived personal control, and were significantly less distressed by lower control. That is, individualists, more than collectivists, may have a tendency to perceive greater personal power and control, irrespective of the 'objective' reality.

One limitation of the present study is that it does not rule out the possibility that access to resources (power) actually influences competitive individualism (rather than the other way around). A closer examination of the literature concerned with the 'corrupting' effect of power indicated that the type of power concerned was power 'over others', and that the exercise of this power was the transforming mechanism, rather than simply the 'potential' power inherent in access to resources for independence. In the present study, competitive individualism was particularly related to resource power. While one item specifically referred to access to resources, the other item was "My boss is dependent on me". This implies a wielding of resources valuable to the organisation or important others, and incorporates the notion of power as control over others through their dependence on the powerholder. Cooke and Rousseau (1988) also suggest the direction of causality may be from power to competitive individualism. In their study of organisational cultures and sub-cultures, they found different behavioural norms across organisational levels. Oppositional, power, competitive and competence­ perfectionist norms generally increased across levels, "perhaps because of the opportunity and pressure to use the power of one's position to compete with others" (p. 265).

Alternative: Person-culture fit

Although employees high on competitive individualism (VI) reported greater power in both cultures, culture interacted with status such that employees high on VI had higher status in Australia, but lower status in Asia.

When constructing the hypotheses for this chapter, power and status were treated almost interchangeably. Certainly in Australia, power and status were 153 closely aligned, reflecting the positive value placed on power in this individualistic culture. The relationship was much weaker in the Asian samples. A more important indicator of status in the Asian samples was a person's seniority within the organisation. In fact, this organisational tenure or seniority was negatively related to competitive individualism as measured by VI, and entirely accounted for the relationship between status and VI in Asia.

Lovaglia (1995) argued that power and status, while closely correlated in society, differed in their derivation. Power is determined by an individual's position in the social structure and independent of the intentions and expectations of others. The capacity to acquire resources is minimally affected by the expectations of self and others. Status, on the other hand, is conferred on a member by the group as a whole. It emerges from the expectations of group members and requires a consensus of group members to operate. Because of this, status is much more likely than power to be affected by the norms of a group, and result from a good fit between the person and their cultural group. The greater the extent that cultures (both national and organisational) reflect collectivistic norms, the more we can expect a relationship between power and individualism to be countered by the need for high status members to conform closely to the collectivist norms of the group. In this sense culture can be seen as a moderator of the individual-level I-C - power relationship.

In summary, in the present study, while results at the individual level were not as striking as Hofstede' s country level data, they mirrored the basic relationship between per capita GNP and I-C. In addition, the use of multiple measures enabled the revelation of a much richer pattern of relationships between the various factors of I-C, and the complex construct of individual power. The next chapter attempts to tease out the direction of causality in these relationships through a laboratory experiment; while in Chapter 6, the effects of person-culture fit are investigated further. 154

Chapter 5 Priming situations of power and powerlessness

In the previous field study participants with greater social and organisational power generally expressed less collectivistic values and self­ concepts. While there appears to be a fairly reliable link between power and I-C, what is the direction of causality in this relationship? Did powerlessness lead to collectivism, or did collectivism preclude the attainment of power? Although the pattern of results among the different HV-IC scales suggested possible mechanisms, establishing the direction of causality in these relationships was not possible given the correlational design.

Also, although relationships were established with objective and independently measured indicators of power (such as occupational prestige and organisational position), correlations found between perceived power and I-C (especially on the HV-IC scale) may have been affected by common method variance. That is, correlations may have been due to items being completed on the same types of scales, in the same questionnaire at the same time of testing.

In an attempt to deal with these issues, the present study aimed to conceptually replicate results found in the field study in a laboratory experiment. An experiment was developed that manipulated situations of power and powerlessness in order to study the effects on participants' individualistic and collectivistic orientations. Triandis (1995) has suggested that the immediate situation can affect whether a person focuses on individualistic or collectivistic values and goals. However, such values are also assumed to be fairly stable and enduring. Similarly, the processes and experiences of power and powerlessness described in the previous chapter occur over a long period of time and are fairly significant influences in people's lives.

Rather than trying to create these situations in the laboratory, it was possible to utilise participants' own meaningful real-life experiences. This technique relied on the sensitivity of the TST measure of self-concepts to participants' most recent cognitions. For example, Cousins' (1989) research on abstract versus specific self-concepts showed that the types of self-concepts 155

elicited by the TST could be affected by the immediate instructions, such as asking participants to describe themselves in particular contexts, versus in general.

Trafimow, Triandis and Goto, (1991) argued that just as culture affects the number, salience and accessibility of individualistic or collectivistic self-concepts, these types of self-concepts may be made more accessible by priming. They believe that priming works because self-concepts may be organised into individualistic and collectivistic "baskets". Trafimow et al. did find that two different methods of priming affected the accessibility of collectivistic self­ concepts. In the first study, participants were asked to spend two minutes thinking about what they had in common with family and friends (collective self-prime), or alternately, thinking about what made them different (private self-prime). In the second study, participants read a story about a ruler who chose a personal representative. In one version of the story, the person was chosen for their talent, resulting in personal rewards for the ruler (private self-prime). In the alternative version, the person was a member of the ruler's family, resulting in increased prestige and power for his family (collective self-prime). In both experiments, the collective self-prime resulted in a greater proportion of group responses on the TST than the private self-prime. In addition, the probability of a group response was greater if the previous response to the TST was also a group response, indicating the stronger link between similar, rather than dissimilar, self-concepts.

Note that these primes included both experimenter-controlled content (the stories) and prompts concerning the participants' thoughts of their own lives.

Research by Brewer and Gardner (1996) provides further evidence that the accessibility of different kinds of self-representations can be affected by priming collective identities. Manipulations of the pronoun "we" in word search tasks completed immediately prior to the TST significantly affected the number of social responses produced by participants (i.e., references to particular others, groups or social identities). This was especially the case when "we" referred to a large-group context, rather than a small-group context.

It may be argued that in addition to other individualistic or collectivistic concepts, social self-concepts may also have associations with the antecedent conditions under which they were developed. For example, Trafimow et al. (1997) argue that self-concepts may be linked to the language cues present when self- 156

concepts were being formed - simply through temporal contiguity. Consistent with this argument, they found that bilingual participants from Hong Kong retrieved more idiocentric self-concepts and fewer group self-concepts when completing the TST in English rather than Chinese. Alternately, there may simply be more idiocentric self-concept terms in English rather than Chinese.

In relation to the present study, two possible mechanisms were proposed by which priming situations of high or low power could affect the proportion of social self-concepts retrieved by participants. First, by remembering and describing a particular experience, self-concepts related to that experience may be accessed and processed at a deep level. If these self-concepts are social, or collective, then similar types of self-concepts are more likely to be subsequently retrieved (Trafimow et al., 1991 ). The second mechanism is through a similar, but more explicit process. That is, it is possible that in describing situations of power and powerlessness, the social structure of the situations may dictate fewer, or more, references to social identities, evidenced by the number of pronouns such as "we", "us" or "our". From Brewer and Gardner's (1989) results we know that such terms can elicit greater access to social self-concepts.

The Present Study

In the present study, primes were manipulated along two dimensions: power and independence. In a 2x2 ANOV A design, participants were asked to recall a situation in which they were either powerful or powerless, and either independent or interdependent with others. 'Independent' situations focused on the participant's access to valuable information, resources, skill, knowledge or expertise. On the other hand, 'interdependent' situations focused on the participant's access to people with significant influence, a network of peers, or others who were valuable.

Hypotheses

First, Trafimow et al. (1991) and other research suggest that there should be a main effect for independent versus interdependent primes. As in the story 157

manipulation used by Trafimow et al. (1991), it was predicted that priming thoughts about reliance on particular others, rather than independence, would result in more social descriptions of self on the TST.

HJ. A greater proportion of social self-concepts will be retrieved after interdependent primes, than after independent primes.

Both theories of power as an antecedent of individualism, and powerlessness as an antecedent of collectivism (together with results from the field study) suggest that there should be a main effect for power. That is, participants primed with a powerless situation should retrieve a greater proportion of social descriptions of self than those primed with a powerful situation. Thus:

H2. A greater proportion of social self-concepts will be retrieved after powerless primes, than after powerful primes.

Based on the different theories of power, subtle interactions are also predicted in addition to the two main effects. If individualism is a result of the autonomy and independence achieved through control over powerful resources, then we might expect an interaction between the two manipulated conditions. That is, even controlling for main effects, the powerful-independent condition should elicit the most individualistic responses (and hence smallest proportion of social self-concepts) than all other conditions, since the interdependent-powerful condition implies dependence on others for power. In contrast, if powerlessness is an antecedent of collectivism then only a main effect is expected.

H3. If individualism is a result of powerful independence then the proportion ofsocial self-concepts retrieved after the powerful-independent prime will be significantly smaller than after all other primes.

In addition to these primary hypotheses, the inclusion of the HV-IC scale enabled a chance to replicate the relationship between VI and perceived power. This was important to test whether VI may be related to the power measure simply through method variance, or alternately, some tendency for individuals high on VI to report high power regardless of their actual power wielded in the 158

situation. Unlike the field study, in the present study participants' actual power is manipulated independently of the self-report measure of power. Thus manipulated and reported power can be analysed in relation to each other and to VI. If there is no relationship between the power primes (i.e., the situation) and VI, but a relationship is shown between perceived power and VI (as in the field study), then it may be that both field and experimental results are caused by common method variance or perceiver bias.

Method Design

The design of this study was a 2 (powerful / powerless) x 2 (independent / interdependent) between groups comparison (see Table 5.1), where these independent variables were manipulated through a priming task.

Table 5.1. Priming conditions

Independence Power Powerful Powerless

Independent High Access to Resources Low Access to Resources Interdependent High Access to People Low Access to People

The dependent variable was the proportion of social descriptions of self included in responses to the TST. Horizontal and vertical I-C were also measured on Singelis et al.'s (1995) questionnaire.

Sample

Participants were 80 first year psychology students at the University of New South Wales. Participation was voluntary, and partially fulfilled course requirements. In order to increase variability in base-line social self descriptions sign-up sheet especially encouraged Asian and International students to participate. Fifty-one of the participants were born in countries other than 159

Australia. 1 The mean age was 21 years, with a range from 17 to 54 years old. There were 64 females and 16 males.

Sex and country of birth, in particular, have previously been shown to affect the type of self-concepts retrieved. As a check on the random allocation of participants to each condition, a multivariate analysis of variance confirmed that there were no significant differences between participants in the four experimental conditions on sex composition, age or Hofstede's Individualism Index for participants' country of birth. Thus, any effects of manipulations on self-concepts are unlikely to be due to pre-existing group differences.

Procedure

Upon arrival participants were asked to sign a form explaining that the study involved two separate writing tasks and a short questionnaire. Participants were simply told that the purpose of the study was to investigate "the way people from different cultures describe their experiences". Participants were given a booklet to complete individually in partitioned cubicles (see Appendix 5A). The priming manipulation ("TASK 1") was on the first page. The second page contained a self-report measure of perceived power as a manipulation check. The TST ("TASK 2") was on page three. The fourth page contained a questionnaire measuring HV-IC, and the final page held demographic questions. Each of these tasks is described in more detail below.

The experimenter read through the instructions for "TASK 1" with the participant, and asked if they had any questions before beginning. Each participant was told they had about 10 minutes to complete Task 1, after which time the experimenter would indicate they could continue on to the next task. They were instructed not to tum the page until directed to do so by the experimenter.

The priming task required participants to remember and describe a situation they had experienced. Asking participants to write down their

1 These countries included China, Indonesia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Sweden, Israel, Argentina, Sri-Lanka, England, France, Lebanon, Trinidad, Malaysia, Taiwan, The Netherlands, India, , Macedonia, Vietnam and Fiji. 160

recollections of the situation served a number of purposes. It required participants to process the memories/thoughts at a deeper level by having to express themselves in writing, and enabled observation and control of the time each person spent on the priming task. It served as a source of qualitative data about what kinds of situations participants actually associated with power and powerlessness. It also enabled the recording of the number of group pronouns generated by participants, which are a possible mediator in the experimental manipulation (Brewer & Gardner, 1989).

Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions:

Powerful-independent prime: "Try to remember a situation in which you were powerful because you had information, skill, knowledge, expertise or other resources that were valuable in that situation";

Powerful-interdependent prime: "Try to remember a situation in which you were powerful because you had access to people with significant influence, a network of peers, or other people who were valuable in that situation";

Powerless-independent prime: "Try to remember a situation in which you were powerless because you did not have information, skill, knowledge, expertise or other resources that were valuable in that situation"; and

Powerless-interdependent prime: "Try to remember a situation in which you were powerless because you did not have access to people with significant influence, a network of peers, or other people who were valuable in that situation".

Each of the primes was followed with the instructions "Please describe the situation as fully as possible, including how you felt and your thoughts at the time".

Extensive pilot testing indicated that most participants completed the priming task in about seven minutes. Thus, after seven minutes each participant was told to finish the sentence they were writing and to continue on to the next task. Participants who indicated they were finished before this time were encouraged to spend a few more minutes on the task. 161

Altogether, the tasks took approximately 30 minutes to complete. Participants were debriefed immediately following completion of the tasks. None of the participants suspected that the first task was a priming task. The aims of the study were explained in terms of cross-cultural differences on individualism and collectivism. Participants were shown how the TST is coded, and were able to interpret their own responses. There was ample time for questions, comments and discussion. The majority of participants indicated that they found the experiment interesting and were able to relate the 1-C concepts to their inter-cultural experiences. Some of the participants required extensive debriefing following their recall of distressing memories ( in the case of powerless primes).

Measures

Perceived Power

To assess the effectiveness of the manipulation, participants were asked to "indicate the extent to which you had access to people and resources that were valuable in the situation you just described" on six items with a seven-point Likert scale. This scale included the four items used in the field study, with the addition of two items to improve reliability (see Appendix 5A and Table 5.2). These items were generated from theory and research on the different types of resource and interpersonal power (Tjosvold, 1990; Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989; Raven, 1992; 1993).

Social Self: TST

As in Chapter 1, participants were asked to describe themselves on ten lines beginning with "I am ... ". Answers were coded according to the scheme devised in Chapter 1, however, only scores for the proportion of "social" responses will be presented here. Social responses are definitions of self that refer to membership in groups, for example, social identities, or that explicitly refer to other people (both specific others and others in general). In Chapter 1, the proportion of social self-descriptions had the highest correlation with measures of 1-C. 162

The author coded all responses. Booklets were opened to the page containing the TST, and sorted into a random order to ensure the author was 'blind' with regard to the priming condition for each response.

Horizontal and Vertical 1-C

The Singelis et al. (1995) measure was included to test whether the relationships between self-reported power and VI persisted when controlling for manipulated power. It was also included to explore whether any effects of priming on the TST extended to a more stable measure like the HV-IC questionnaire.

All the items in this measure were presented randomly under the same instructions (unlike in the field study, where there were separate instructions of "in general" and "at work").

Demographic Items

Participants also completed demographic items including their sex, age, country of birth, ethnicity and language spoken at home and at university.

Results

Manipulation Check: Perceived power in each condition

A principal components factor analysis on the 6 items of the power scale extracted two factors with eigenvalues greater than one, consistent with resource and interpersonal sources of power. The two factors explained 66% of the total variance in the items. Item loadings on the rotated factors are shown in Table 5.2. Coefficient alpha for the combined six-item Power measure was .77, for the three Resource Power questions, a = .76, and for the three Interpersonal Power questions, a= .68. 163

Table 5.2. Factor loadings of power items

Items Factor

1 2 special information or resources .82 .32 unique skill, knowledge or expertise .87 .17 key people / decision-makers were dependent on me .70 .07 access to people with significant influence .19 .85 access to people who were valuable to the decision-makers / .06 .88 key players access to a network of peers who provided me with .33 .51 information and support

At-test between the powerful and powerless prime groups (t(79) = 9.84, p < .001) confirmed that participants in the powerful prime condition rated their power much greater (M = 4.77, SD = 1.00) than participants in the powerless prime condition (M = 2.61, SD = .96).

A 2 x 2 x 2 ANOV A was conducted with two between-subjects factors (power prime and independence prime) and one within-subjects factor (power source: resource verses interpersonal power). Means in each cell are shown in Table 5.3. The only significant main effect was for the power prime, F(l, 79) = 97.30, p < .001. As predicted, ratings of power were higher after the powerful primes than the powerless primes. Ratings of power did not differ after the independent versus interdependent primes, F(l, 79) = 2.19, p = .14, and did not differ between the two power sources, F(l, 79) = 1.08, p = .30. There was a significant two-way interaction between the power source and independence prime, F(l, 79) = 7.35, p < .01. After the independent prime, resource power was rated higher than interpersonal power, and after the interdependent prime, interpersonal power was rated higher than resource power. A significant three­ way interaction showed that this was moderated by the power prime, F(l, 79) = 11.18, p < .01, such that the differences were significant in the powerful 164

conditions only. Thus, it may be concluded that the priming manipulation was successful.

Table 5.3. Mean ratings of resource and interpersonal power in each of the priming conditions

Resource Power Interpersonal Power Powerful Primes Independent 5.55 4.32 Interdependent 4.12 5.12 Powerless Primes Independent 2.47 3.08 Interdependent 2.25 2.63

Content analysis of participant generated situations

The content of situations described by participants was analysed, and will be described later in reference to the particular power theories. Although the participants were all students, in the powerful-independent condition many recalled situations that occurred at work (40%). These were often formal positions of authority, or positions of seniority, especially when training or helping junior colleagues, confirming the appropriate use of the organisational setting for the previous field research. It is appears that the status hierarchies in organisations are one of the few legitimate structures of power inequalities.

Group pronouns

Table 5.4 shows the mean number of group pronouns (including "we", "our" and "us") in participants' descriptions. Although it appeared that there was greater use of group pronouns after the interdependent primes than the independent primes, a 2x2 ANOV A for priming manipulations showed this difference was not significant, F(l, 79) = 2.69, p = .11. 165

Table 5.4. Means and standard deviations of the number of group pronouns in descriptions

Powerful Prime Powerless Prime

Independent Prime 0.75 (1.25) 1.05 (2.35)

Interdependent Prime 2.20 (3.44) 1.45 (2.54)

Test of Hypotheses

Social self-concepts

Only one response to the TST contained less than four statements. This response was excluded from analysis.

The means for the proportion of social self-statements on the TST in each priming condition are presented in Table 5.5. A 2 x 2 ANOV A revealed that, contrary to predictions (HJ), there was no significant difference between social self-scores obtained after independent and interdependent primes, F(l, 78) = .06, p = .81. The main effect for power (H2) was marginally significant, F(l, 78) = 3.52, p = .06. The interaction term (HJ) was not significant, F(l, 78) = .03, p = .87. That is, in support of Hypothesis 2, retrieval of social self-concepts was greater after priming situations of powerlessness (both independent and interdependent) than situations of power (both independent and interdependent).

Table 5.5. Means and standard deviations of Social Self-scores on the TST

Powerful Prime Powerless Prime

Independent Prime 18. 79 (14.49) 25.10 (17.60)

Interdependent Prime 19.05 (16.56) 26.60 (16.72)

HV-IC

Overall multivariate tests in a 2x2 MANOV A revealed no significant effects of priming conditions on the four I-C sub-scales: VI, VC, HI and HC. In 166

particular, Vertical Individualism was not higher after the powerful prime. VI was lower, F(l, 79) = 5.43, p < .05, after the powerful primes (M = 3.57, SD = .84) than after the powerless primes (M = 4.09, SD = 1.10).

Table 5.6 below shows the correlations between the ratings of perceived power, social self-concept scores and HV-IC scales. Note that neither VI nor HC were significantly positively correlated with the power scales. This suggests that the significant relationships found in the field study were not a result of common method variance.

Only the negative correlation between social self-concept and Resource Power was of interest (p < .10). Participants reporting less access to resources tended to have a greater proportion of social self-concepts on the TST.

Table 5.6. Correlations between measures of power and 1-C

Resource Power Interpersonal Power Power (overall)

% Social Self -.19 -.09 -.17 vc .06 -.05 .01

HC .17 .09 .16

VI -.16 -.12 -.17

HI .04 .00 .02

Discussion

The present study has many limitations, but shows potential. Only a few studies have used priming techniques to elicit more individualistic or collectivistic self-concepts (Brewer & Gardner, 1989; Trafimow et al., 1991; 1997). Previous research explicitly primed individualistic or collectivistic scenarios and terms. The present research took a step further, or rather a step back, to prime antecedent conditions (namely, power and independence) that were predicted to be associated with individualistic or collectivistic self-schemas. 167

Priming participants to remember and describe situations in which they were powerless resulted in their retrieval of a greater proportion of social self­ concepts than those who remembered powerful situations. Although this effect was only marginally significant, it is consistent with the field study results that also showed participants with lower social power (occupational prestige), and lower perceived power, described themselves with a higher proportion of social self-concepts. Building on the field study results, the present study demonstrated one likely mechanism at work in the power-1-C relationship, that is, power as an antecedent ofl-C.

Contrary to hypotheses, participants primed with independent situations and interdependent situations did not differ in the percentage of social self­ concepts that they reported. While this result contradicts Trafimow et al. (1991), Trafimow et al. (1997) reported that their primes did not work successfully with all samples, in particular, with a Chinese sample that completed the TST in the Chinese language. They argued that the Chinese language itself had a priming effect, and therefore the collective self-primes used were priming information that had already been made accessible. In the present study, if the powerless primes were sufficiently strong, the interdependent prime may not have added to the self­ concepts already primed. Before accepting this possibility, it is important to investigate the more likely proposition that the priming technique itself may have been unsuccessful in eliciting independent versus interdependent concepts.

Although there was a trend toward the right direction, there was no significant difference between the independent and interdependent conditions on the number of group pronouns produced in the situations recounted by participants. Some indications why this difference was not apparent can be found in a closer analysis of the content of situations recounted by participants, described below. These suggest that (especially in the powerful condition) even independent primes prompted memories of situations involving other people.

1-C: Result of power or powerlessness?

While the present results provide tentative initial evidence for a causal connection between power and 1-C, they also suggest that the link is between 168

powerlessness and collectivism, rather than power and individualism. It has been logically argued that affluence, or the control over valued resources, leads to a greater emphasis on the individual's role in making decisions for themselves and directing their own path, and their sense of freedom and autonomy. Resource power is linked to ideas of control, competence, efficacy and mastery over self and one's environment in order to achieve a wide variety of desired goals.

According this reasoning, it was expected that there would be a significant interaction between power and independence, such that the powerful-independent condition would elicit the least number of social self-concepts. No such difference was found - situations of interpersonal power elicited the same proportion of social self-concepts. This is consistent with results from the field study, which failed to find a relationship between HI (Independence) and power measures.

However, the failure to find a significant interaction between power and independence may also be due to the type of scenarios presented by participants. It was anticipated that the prompt for recollections of situations where "you were powerful because you had information, skill, knowledge, expertise or other resources that were valuable in that situation" would stimulate examples of independence and the participants' ability to achieve their own goals. However, priming resource power did not lead to scenarios of independence. Instead, of the situations recalled by the 20 participants in this condition, 18 focussed on the participant's position in relation to another (see Appendix 5B). Resources were not valuable because they provided the means to a desired outcome, but because others wanted or needed them, or because they enabled participants to assert their superiority. Participants reported that the control of valued resources gave them status, and was used to help and/or influence others. The participants only perceived themselves as powerful in relation to others, and this power was highlighted, not by independence, but by the context of others' dependence on the power-holder (Dahl, 1957; Emerson, 1962). The following typical account includes many of these themes:

''A situation I remember was working at McDonalds. I had been working there for 2 years and felt powerful because of my knowledge, skills and expertise in working and doing my job the best. I felt powerful, as ifI had achieved something great in my life. The reason I felt so powerful was 169

because there were other employees whom I had to train. So, I would train these new employees and felt very powerful in that I was the one who showed them how to conduct themselves in the store. I thought these people were below me and when while we were working they would get orders mixed up or did mistakes they would come to me with their problem and due to my 'superiority' and skills and expertise I was able to solve their ... problems." (69)

Only two participants recalled situations in which they were independent, or able to achieve their own goals.

"/ think I was powerful at that time as I have learnt how to be independent and organise the things by myself I am glad that I have such a chance to stay in a foreign country and overcome all the problems and troubles by using my knowledge and skill" (53).

However, even this participant referred to her valuable knowledge in contrast to her grandmother, who did not possess these skills and depended on her granddaughter. Another stated:

"Due to the fact that the other passenger was a lawyer and she was saying what he was trying to do was illegal ... I felt ''powerful" in ringing up the company and complaining quite strongly ... I also felt ''powerful" because due to me complaining once before I was able to have someone fired from their job (the desired outcome) so at the time I felt positive something similar could happen" (73).

Again, while this example shows the participant had the resources to achieve her "desired outcome", that outcome involved control over another's fate. Thus, in the present study, participants overwhelmingly interpreted 'powerful' as 'power-over' rather than 'power-to'.

In contrast to responses in the powerful condition, scenarios recalled after the powerless primes did contain themes of a lack of independence or instrumentality. Participants expressed their inability to achieve their goals due to a lack of valuable resources. Participants reported feelings of a lack of control, lack of competence, and lack of efficacy and mastery over self and one's environment (see Table 5.7). 170

Table 5.7. "Powerless" situations: participants unable to achieve their own goals (participant # in brackets; Ind = Independent prime, Int = Interdependent prime).

"I was having a piano examination ... the sight-reading short song is really difficult for me ... I knew its wrong ... feeling that how stupid am I and very guilty because I can't play the song" (23-Ind)

"... I was withdrawn from the subject since I was taking too much time to complete the first unit" (43-Ind)

"I ... wanted desperately to transfer. I had no idea of how to do this or if it could be done" (71-Ind)

"I had actually failed some subjects and was under threat at being excluded from the university. At this time I felt completely powerless, as there was nothing else I could do" (75-lnd)

"Situation: Trying to find casual employment ... it feels very depressing not to be able to find work because this restricts my finances ... without a job, without connections, without money, its almost impossible to choose the life you want to live" (36-Int)

"When I brought my first child home from hospital (newborn ... I felt that I had failed in being able to feed him myself ... I felt very alone as there wasn't a single family member in Sydney to come and help, my husband was at work and at this early stage I didn't have a network of other mothers for support ... I really wasn't sure what I was doing, what other options there were. So it was a time ofpowerlessness . .. at that specific moment I did feel quite isolated and powerless" (80-Int)

This theme was particularly evident in situations describing a lack of mastery over one's immediate environment because of a lack of cultural knowledge, skills, and language. This may have reflected the high proportion of new immigrants in the present sample, however these themes also emerged for 171

travellers in foreign countries, and participants encountering new social environments such as a school, university or courtroom. All expressed their inability to function effectively within that social environment, and their inability to achieve their goals. This was perceived both in terms of a lack of personal resources, and a lack of access to others in that environment who could help them cross the cultural boundaries. In some examples, the new environment highlighted the network of family, peers or other important others that they had left behind. Some typical accounts are presented below (for others, see Appendix 5C):

"It was when I was in Year 7 ... new environment, new friends and another new place I had to settle in since it was only the 3rd year since I had migrated to Australia from Korea ... not enough to absorb the culture, history, (acceptable) communication skills with the typical teenagers ... I felt so powerless because for the first time, I didn't know how I could win this battle" (35-Ind).

"I was in Israel, a foreign country to me, with very little knowledge of the language, culture and nature of the people ... powerless in that I couldn't get to my desired destination cause of lack of understanding of the language and lack ofknowledge ofthe way the bus timetable worked" (19- Ind).

In summary, a number of participants did equate powerlessness with a lack of 'power-to' - independence and an ability to effect (or affect) their own goals. However, powerful scenarios were rarely regarded in this way. It appears that power, as understood by participants in the current sample, may be represented on a continuum (see Figure 5.1 ). 172

Figure 5.1. The power continuum

powerless (self dependent on others) ,,

Independence ,,, powerful ( others dependent on self)

It may be that individualism is associated with independence (or mastery of self and environment), but not power (over others). However, in the present study, it is clear that any effect on social self-concepts was not due to an autonomous individualism brought about through resource independence.

Powerless conditions

In addition to the above themes, some situations of powerlessness that were recalled mirrored the powerful situations, whereby the participant was influenced by more powerful person(s) on whom they were dependent, or was in some way subject to others' power and dominance (see Appendix 5D). The following example includes several of the themes picked up in other scenarios - lack of resources to achieve one's goals, being dominated by others' power over self, and lack of cultural knowledge and resources.

"I came to Australia in 1980 to meet my husband, later married him. At this time, my first goal was to learn the English language and to do further studying. My husband's father did not allowed me to do any studying and later my husband agree with him. So I stayed at home. At this time I did not know anyone would help me and I did not know where to go to get this sort ofhelp" (12-Int) 173

Some examples were also similar to those in the powerful category where participants felt powerful through being able to help others, although in this case participants recalled situations where they did not have the personal or material resources, or access to influential others, to help another. For example:

"My best.friend ... confessed she was raped three years ago ... she was so drunk she couldn't even sit up properly and was vomiting every 1/2 hour. I didn't know what to say ... I didn't know what else to do" (3-lnd)

"One situation of which I felt powerless was when my mother's family residing in Vietnam asked us for money ... the feeling ofpowerless grew as you realised that you have someone closely connected to you being neglected by social environment ... its very hard to help permanently, but occasionally we would send money over" (67-lnd)

"I couldn't do anything because I knew that the parents were very strict ... I really felt frustrated about this situation because I thought that I could have help the child but the parents were between us" (8-Jnt)

Although the content of these scenarios suggests possible mechanisms for the effect of powerlessness on I-C, this study is limited in its ability to discriminate between the effects of powerful versus powerless situations, without results from a control condition. It would be helpful to determine which particular manipulation, powerful or powerless, or both, produces a deviation from the control condition. However, such an endeavour may not be possible, considering the fairly small difference that was obtained in the present sample between the two extreme positions.

Collectivism as a strategy for empowerment

Triandis (1995) and Lykes' (1985; 1989) arguments that collective self­ concepts arise out of social experiences as a member of a social group with low status, and in collective activities for status improvement, was not reflected in the present sample. In the powerful-interdependent condition, there were only a few 174

participants who referred to group membership as enabling achievement of a group task or goal, or even simply being part of a group as an empowering experience (see Appendix SE). One example highlights the power gained from one participant's cultural knowledge and skills, and her embeddedness within her social network.

"When I was living in India, I had a secure network offriends, the support ofmy family and growing popularity with people at work ... My popularity gave me a sense ofpower and confidence as I was in contact with many influential people ... /felt I was invincible at this time" (46-/nt)

Some of the responses were very similar to those in the resource power condition. Although in these situations the resource was another person(s), power was perceived as power over others. In these situations, access to others particularly referred to powerful others, or 'connections', whom the participants used as a means to achieve their own ends (see Appendix SF). For example:

"When I was looking for a job ... I had a greater advantage over my friends due to the help of my parents. They both held high positions in well-known companies and had connections with a large circle of influential people" (26)

Topalova (1997) found that collectivists felt more strongly connected to others, and identified themselves more often with groups of rich people whose standing in the social hierarchy was high and who were "connected with the structures of power" (p. 61). Although scenarios were consistent with this research, collective and interpersonal strategies for attaining power did not result in greater retrieval of social self-concepts. This may suggest that such strategies for attaining power flow from a collective orientation, rather than the other way around.

In summary, participants did retrieve a greater proportion of collectivistic self-concepts after remembering and describing situations of powerlessness. These situations were characterised by a lack of resources for independence (including cultural knowledge and skills), and being dominated by others. Why would these characteristics be associated with more social self-concepts? Perhaps one reason was that in these situations, participants were powerless because they 175

particularly lacked social resources, rather than physical or material resources, for power. Even in the 'independent' condition, many of skills and abilities that participants described they lacked were socio-cultural. Highlighting these needs was enough to cause participants to focus on self-concepts that tended to be more social in nature, perhaps in compensation.

The priming effects found in the present study were marginal at best, possibly reflecting the transitory nature of the situational cues. The processes outlined in this thesis of the influence of power on 1-C are much longer term, and 1-C itself is generally perceived as a stable trait changed only with profound socialisation across generations. This study provided some insight into temporary situations affecting the accessibility of individualistic or collectivistic self­ concepts, with the hope of extrapolating such situations to more stable socio­ economic conditions.

While there were significant associations found in organisations between perceived power and the 1-C subscales of VI and HC, these were not replicated in the lab study. Vertical Individualism, rather than being higher following the powerful primes, tended to be lower. In light of this, the significant positive relationship between power and VI in the field study may best be interpreted as competitive individualism promoting the attainment of power, rather than power 'corrupting' the individual. However, these conclusions are drawn with caution - VI and HC were presented under slightly different instructions in each of these studies: under specifications of the work context in the field study, and no special instructions in the lab study. It is possible (however unlikely) that these slight differences may have affected the focus of responses.

In addition, self-report measures of resource and interpersonal power were unrelated to VI and HC (even when measured on only the items included in the field study). This suggests that field study results were not due to common method vanance. 176

Chapter 6 Person-Culture Fit

In the context of organisational research, person-culture fit can be described as the congruence or similarity between individual and organisational values and goals (Cable & Judge, 1996; 1997; Chatman, 1991; for a recent review see Meglino & Ravlin, 1998; O'Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). Often referred to as 'person-organisation fit' (Kristof, 1996), it is a form of supplementary congruence whereby a person fits into some environmental context because they possess characteristics which are similar to other individuals in the environment (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987).

Such fit is argued to arise through processes of organisational entry and socialisation. Consistent with Schneider's 'Attraction-Selection-Attrition' model (1987; 1995; see Chapter 3) research by Cable and Judge (Cable & Judge, 1996; Cable & Judge, 1997; Judge & Bretz, 1992; Judge & Cable, 1997) has shown that job-seekers are attracted to organisations they perceive to have values similar to their own, and interviewers are more likely to recommend hiring applicants with values congruent with those of the organisation. The fit of new organisational members can also be significantly improved through informal socialisation, such as the number of firm-related social events that new recruits attend and the amount of time spent with their mentor (Chatman, 1991).

Chapter 4 investigated the possibility that these mechanisms of person­ culture fit may account for an association between 1-C and power. That is, a good match between an individual's values and the culture of the organisation on 1-C may result in greater status, power and prestige awarded to that individual. While fit did not appear to affect employees' reported organisational power, there were indications of person-culture fit mechanisms at work. In Australia, employees higher on Vertical Individualism reported they enjoyed higher status within their organisation, but in Asia, the opposite was the case. Similarly, managers in the hospitals were higher on Horizontal Collectivism than lower level staff members, yet there was an opposite trend in the management consultancy. 177

Considering these suggestive results, it was desirable to test the effects of person-culture fit on I-C for consequences more consistently associated with fit in previous research. Work attitudes such as job satisfaction and organisational commitment, and tenure (intent to stay, actual length of stay and organisational turnover) have been associated with both perceived fit (Cable & Judge, 1996; Chao, O'Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardner, 1994) and actual fit between separately measured individual and organisational values (Chatman, 1991; O'Reilly et al., 1991). Similar outcomes have been predicted by the congruence between individual and supervisors' or other organisational members' values and goals (Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1989; Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1992; Vancouver & Schmitt, 1991).

In most of this research, fit has been measured using individuals' profiles on a large number of values on the one hand, and an organisation's particular value profile on the other (e.g., Organisational Culture Profile, O'Reilly et al., 1991). This multidimensional approach has a limited capacity to generalise to other organisations, and ignores that some dimensions may be more important for overall fit, or may affect some particular outcomes more than others (Harris & Mossholder, 1996; Hesketh & Myors, 1997). For these reasons, Edwards (1993) has recommended that researchers should only examine specific dimensions of fit rather than entire profiles.

In part the profile-matching approach has persisted because research trying to identify replicable dimensions of organisational culture has not progressed very far (Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990; O'Reilly et al., 1991). There is little consensus regarding which values researchers consider to be important for fit, and which have significant consequences for organisational behaviour (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998). On the other hand, in view of the large body of research demonstrating the consequences of I-C for organisational behaviour, investigating person-culture fit on this one dimension is of great relevance to researchers and practitioners alike. This chapter explores how congruence on I-C affects individual outcomes such as organisational commitment, job satisfaction and tenure, across national cultures (i.e., person-nation or P-N fit), and across organisational cultures within countries (i.e., P-O fit). Specifically, P-N and P-O 178

fit on I-C should have similar effects to P-O fit on other dimensions, that is, it should have a positive effect on how employees relate to their organisations.

As shown in Chapter 3, while organisations often strive to create their own unique cultures, systematic national, occupational and industry influences all affect organisational values, because they are imported through their members, and because organisations adapt to their surrounding environment (Schein, 1985; Trice & Beyer, 1993). On established cultural values, such as I-C, between­ country differences should be larger than within countries. Nevertheless, there may be differences in values between organisations within each country, and the extent to which national culture influences constrain each organisation's values will vary widely. Considering the growing internationalisation of organisations, it is important to consider the implications of an interaction between national values and organisational culture for person-culture fit (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998).

The integration of P-O fit concepts with national culture dimensions is a fruitful exercise not only for extending P-O fit research, but also for broader cross-cultural research. There has been extensive research into the 'acculturation' of immigrants and sojourners in foreign cultures (Berry, 1997; Ward, 1996). However, the notion of cultural fit has been little explored (for an exception see Ward & Chang, 1997). Conceptually, the closest research has investigated 'cultural distance', measured as an individual's perception of differences between their own background and experiences in their host country. Cultural distance is an important factor in predicting sociocultural adjustment in a new country (Ward & Kennedy, 1992; Ward & Kennedy, 1993a; Ward & Kennedy, 1993b; Ward & Searle, 1991). Despite suggestions that value differences are a prime source of sojourners' adjustment difficulties (Furnham & Bochner, 1986), very few studies have investigated the actual discrepancy between individuals' values and those of the new host country. One exception is Ward and Searle (1991) who, utilising a single profile score for multiple value dimensions (rather than one specific dimension), failed to find any significant effects of values fit.

In addition, in multicultural societies, the cultural values of individuals already residing within a country may vary substantially, and may also be reflected within work groups (Bochner & Hesketh, 1994). The effects of fit 179

between individual and national values is yet to be explored, and the investigation of outcomes within specific organisational contexts is particularly important.

1-C and Fit

The commensurate patterns of individualistic and collectivistic values found at the cultural and individual levels provides a sound basis for measuring person and culture congruence (Chinese Culture Connection, 1987; Hofstede, 1980; 1991; Hofstede & Bond, 1984; Oishi, Schimmack, Diener, & Suh, 1998; Schwartz, 1990; 1994; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990; Smith, Dugan, & Trompenaars, 1996). This means that instead of comparing individuals on culture of origin (e.g., Japanese versus Americans, Lincoln, Hanada, & Olsen, 1981 ), individuals' orientations on 1-C can be directly measured. There has been very little published research investigating the effects of cultural congruence with regard to 1-C. Yet, in the same way that personality traits have been empirically linked with preferences for particular organisational culture dimensions (Judge & Cable, 1997), 1-C orientations are also related to preferences for particular organisational and human resource management practices (Ramamoorthy & Carroll, 1998). Such practices are part of an organisation's culture, and flow from the organisation's values (Rousseau, 1990). Test-based selection systems, formal individual performance appraisal, individual reward distribution (equity versus equality), majority vote versus consensus decision-making, job security, and merit versus seniority based promotion, have all been related to employees' 1-C orientations as predicted from theory (Ramamoorthy & Carroll, 1998; Smith et al., 1996).

Some suggestive results have also emerged from business simulations. For example, Earley (1989; 1993; 1994) found that individualists performed better when working alone, with low shared responsibility and high accountability. Collectivists performed better working in an ingroup context, and with high shared responsibility. Chatman and Barsade (1995) also found some evidence of fit, with cooperative subjects in simulated collectivistic cultures, rather than individualistic cultures, being rated as the most cooperative, and working with the greatest number of people. 180

Finally, although they did not explicitly measure 1-C values, Lincoln, Hanada and Olsen (1981) found positive effects on outcomes for Japanese and Japanese-Americans in organisational structures congruent with their cultural values. Consistent with hypotheses, Japanese preferred organisations that were more paternalistic, and were more satisfied with and socially integrated in organisations with steep hierarchical structures, and little horizontal (functional) differentiation. These organisational structure variables had no impact on the satisfaction or personal ties of American employees. These results suggest that the interaction between employees' orientations and organisational cultures on individualism-collectivism should have significant effect on individuals' work­ related outcomes.

1-C and work-related outcomes

An important question for P-O fit theory is whether the complexities involved in assessing fit add explanatory power beyond the direct relations accounted for by person or organisation variables alone (Hesketh & Gardner, 1993). One concern with investigating fit on 1-C values is that both individual and culture differences on 1-C are likely to have a direct impact on the traditional fit outcomes (organizational commitment, job satisfaction and tenure). One goal of this research is to empirically examine the consequences of 1-C fit for organisational commitment, tenure and job satisfaction.

Organisational Commitment

Empirical research on the relationship between 1-C and commitment has been limited. On an individual level, collectivism has been associated with loyalty and organisational citizenship behaviours (Moorman & Blakely, 1995). However, a review of commitment across national cultures failed to find a link between collectivism and commitment (Randall, 1993).

Nevertheless, theory and logic suggest such a link should exist. One of the defining elements of collectivist cultures is a more familial relationship between employee and employer, with protection and long-term job security provided in return for loyalty, trust and organisational commitment (Kao & Sek Hong, 1993). Because this implicit contract is between individuals and organisations, collectivism 181

at both these levels should contribute to employees' greater commitment and longer stay in an organisation. The following hypothesis formally states the expected relationship.

Hypothesis 1. There should be a direct relationship between 1-C and organisational commitment such that collectivism measured at individual, organisational and national levels will predict greater commitment.

Organisational Tenure

Consistent with the preceding logic, the combination of long-term security and employee loyalty suggest that collectivism at the individual and organisational levels should result in longer tenure and lower overall turnover. Sheridan (1992) showed that organisations with interpersonal orientations, as opposed to work task cultures, were characterised by lower turnover rates for all employees.

Hypothesis 2. There should be a direct relationship between 1-C and organisational tenure such that collectivism measured at individual, organisational and national levels predict longer tenure.

Job Satisfaction

Cross- of job satisfaction have found that employees in collectivistic countries, especially Japan, report lower overall job satisfaction (de Boer, 1978; Griffith & Hom, 1987; Lincoln et al., 1981; Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1985; for an exception see Hui, Yee & Eastman, 1995). Lincoln et al. (1981) argued that this may be due to collectivists having higher expectations from their employment relationships with their companies and superiors, but which are less likely to be met. In individual level studies, however, Hui and colleagues (Hui & Yee, 1994; Hui, Yee, & Eastman, 1995) found that collectivists in several Hong Kong organisations had higher job satisfaction than their individualistic counterparts. While they argued that there was a direct relationship between collectivism and job satisfaction, without replication of their results in individualistic organisations, it may be that collectivists are only more satisfied in cultures with values congruent with their own. Given the conflicting empirical findings for job satisfaction, a direct relationship between 1-C and job satisfaction was not predicted. 182

Outcomes and Interactions between Organisational and Cultural Fit

According to person-culture fit theory, individualistic employees m individualistic organisations, and collectivistic employees m collectivist organisations should demonstrate greater job satisfaction, organisational commitment and tenure. However, both individual and culture-level collectivism is expected to be associated with greater commitment and tenure. It is therefore necessary to test the significance of the interaction between 1-C and culture, above and beyond these direct effects. In the present study, two sets of analyses were conducted: the interaction between individual 1-C and national culture, and the interaction between individual 1-C and organisational culture.

Hypothesis 3. There should be significant interactions between individual-level 1-C and national culture such that collectivistic employees report greater commitment, longer tenure and more job satisfaction in collectivistic societies than in individualistic societies.

Hypothesis 4. There should be significant interactions between individual-level 1-C and within-country such that collectivistic employees report greater commitment, longer tenure and more job satisfaction in collectivistic organizations than in individualistic organizations.

Hypothesis 5. Finally, 3-way interactions between individual, organizational and national level 1-C may be explored for each outcome variable. It is hypothesised that fit between all three levels, that is, collectivistic employees in collectivistic organizations, in collectivistic societies, should predict greater employee' commitment, tenure and satisfaction.

Method Participants As described in Chapters 1 and 3, participants were volunteers employed in two matched organisations in Australia and South East Asia (N=581), national cultures empirically identified as being extremely high on individualism and collectivism, respectively. 183

Measures

Person-Culture Fit

The aim of this chapter was to examine the effects of person-culture fit on a particular value dimension. It was therefore not appropriate to simply ask respondents to estimate the extent of their perceived congruence with their organisations, because it is impossible to ensure that the participants are considering the same dimension. Such direct measurement confounds the constructs of person and culture (Edwards, 1991) and ignores evidence that individuals' values affect their perceptions of their organisation (Hofstede, Bond, & Luc, 1993).

One indirect method for measuring actual person-culture fit is through the use of hierarchical regression, which can test the significance of the interaction between person and environment variables over and above any main effects (Kristof, 1996). This method explicitly compares separately rated person and organisation characteristics, and calculates a product term that reflects the moderating effect of culture on the relationship between person and outcome variables. It is better than using a single index of fit, such as a difference score (Edwards, 1991; Hesketh & Gardner, 1993; Hesketh & Myors, 1997).

Person

At the person level, individuals' own values were measured (as in Judge & Cable, 1997) rather than preferences for ideal organisational values ( e.g., Chatman, 1991; Harris & Mossholder, 1996). The 32-item measure of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism was adapted from Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk and Gelfand (1995), as described in earlier chapters. These factors show convergence with other 1-C measures (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998) and are systematically related to Schwartz and Bilsky's (1987; 1990) individual-level values (Oishi et al., 1998). This measure yielded an overall 1-C score (calculated by reverse scoring the collectivistic items) and four sub-scales scores standardised within each national culture group. 184

Culture

The organisations in the present study were chosen in terms of their location within national cultures empirically identified on the extreme ends of the 1-C dimension (Hofstede, 1980). Out of 53 cultures (Hofstede, 1991), Australia was second highest on individualism, while the South-East Asian countries in the present sample ranged from 36th to 49th. Similarly, organisations within each national culture were chosen because of their potential differences on 1-C. The management consultancies were expected to be more individualistic, and the hospitals more collectivistic (see Chapter 3).

To avoid the ecological fallacy (in this case, the assumption that these particular organisations necessarily reflect the 1-C values of their national cultures) individual members' 1-C values were aggregated and tested for between versus within group differences. Measuring the aggregate values of an organisational unit is often done indirectly using the perceptions of managers or gate-keepers of the organisation, who are supposed to be expert informants (e.g., Chatman, 1991), or using content analysis of organisational documents (e.g., Kabanoff, Waldersee, & Cohen, 1995). However, "organisations do not really possess values apart from the values of their members" (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998, p. 357). When investigating the effects of actual P-O fit, the aggregation of members shared values avoids measuring espoused values that are not really enacted or 'lived' by the organisational members as a whole (Argyris & Schon, 1978).

In addition, the narrower HV-IC sub-scales could be examined in a secondary analysis. Any factors that particularly discriminated between either national or organisational cultures could also be used in analyses of P-N or P-O fit to further confirm results with the overall 1-C measure. That is, if fit on 1-C at the national or organisational level has significant effects, then these effects should be replicated for the most salient HV-IC factors that differentiate cultures at each level.

Organisational Commitment A nine-item short-form version of Porter, Crampon, and Smith's (1976) measure of organisational commitment was used (see questionnaire in Appendix 1B). These items measure the individual's identification with, and feelings ofloyalty 185

towards, their particular organisation and its goals. For evidence of the construct validity of this scale see Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979). This measure had high internal reliability (coefficient alpha= .89).

Job Satisfaction Global job satisfaction was measured by Kunin's (1955) Faces Scale, in which the scale points are six human faces which display varying degrees of emotional expressiveness. It has one item in which respondents are asked to "tick the box under the face which expresses how you feel about your job in general, including the work, the pay, the supervision, the opportunities for promotion, and the people you work with". 1

Tenure The number of years respondents had been employed by their organisations was measured in terms of five categories: less than 1 year; 1 to 3 years; 4 to 6 years; 7 to 9 years; and 10 or more years.

Control Variables Past research has shown that women, older, and less educated persons tend to be more collectivistic and less individualistic (Freeman, 1997; Hui & Yee, 1994; Kashima et al., 1995; Mishra, 1994; Reykowski, 1994; Triandis, Chan, Bhawuk, lwao, & Sinha, 1995; Watkins et al., 1998). Country of birth, sex, age (in six 10-year categories), and attained educational level (six levels from primary school to post-graduate qualifications) were included in the questionnaire.

Procedure

The above measures were included in the same questionnaire distributed to staff within the participating organisations (see Chapters 1 and 3).

1 This job satisfaction item was actually cut off the page in reproduction of 89 Thai questionnaires. Results for job satisfaction were based on 106 rather than 195 Thai respondents. 186

Results Culture As predicted (see Chapter 3), the Australian sample was more individualistic than the Asian sample, and the management consultancy branches were more individualistic than the hospitals on overall I-C.

The largest difference between the national cultures was on the Vertical Collectivism (subordination to groups) subscale, with Asia being significantly more collectivistic. National culture accounted for 8% of the variance on VC. While some of the other subscales showed statistically significant differences across national culture, the variance accounted for was 3% or less. In terms of organisational culture differences, the management consultancy branches were much higher on Vertical Individualism (competition) than the hospitals. Organisation type accounted for 16% of the variance on VI (a mean difference of nearly one standard deviation). Again, while the other subscales were statistically different, variance accounted for by organisational type was 3% or less.

The means, standard deviations, and correlations among all the person, culture and outcome variables are presented in Table 6.1. The correlations between I-C and national and organisational culture reflect the between-groups analysis. Consistent with past research, younger, male and more highly educated employees were more individualistic. At the individual level, collectivism was positively correlated with organisational commitment and tenure, as predicted, but not with job satisfaction. Employees in the Asian organisations showed higher commitment and tenure than in the Australian organisations, but were less satisfied with their jobs. Similarly, employees in the hospitals had longer tenure but lower job satisfaction. Table 6.1. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of study variables Mean so I-C vc VI National Org. Commit Satisfact Tenure Age Sex Educ Culture Type I-C -.38 .81 - vc -.37 1.72 -.51 *** - VI -1.99 2.02 .53*** .16*** - National 1.55 .50 -.18*** .32*** -.04 - Culture a Organisation 1.49 .50 .32*** -.23*** .39*** -.22*** - Type b Organisational 4.65 1.17 -.22*** .35*** .16*** .16*** .03 - Commitment Job 4.00 1.22 -.03 -.05 .04 -.22*** .14** .45*** - Satisfaction Tenure" 3.00 1.56 -.26*** .22*** -.22*** .26*** -.51 *** .13** -.11 * - Ageu 3.05 .96 -.18*** .17*** -.11 * .04 -.18*** .14** .01 .52*** - Sex" 1.31 .46 .27*** -.11 ** .27*** -.19*** .46*** -.05 .06 -.23*** .12** - Education' 4.97 .91 .12** -.07 .05 -.01 .10* -.12** -.11 * -.13** -.07 .25*** - a Australia = 1, Asia = 2 b Hospitals = 1, Management consultancies = 2 c Less than 1 year= 1, -3 years= 2, 4- 6 years= 3, 7 - 10 years= 4, 10 or more years= 5 d Under 18 = I, 18-29 = 2, 30-39 = 3, 40-49 = 4, 50- 59 = 5, over 59 = 6 e female= 1, male= 2 f Primary school= 1, school certificate/ secondary school= 2, higher school certificate/ post-secondary school= 3, diploma or certificate= 4, university Bachelors degree = 5, university graduate degree = 6. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 188

Person-Nation Fit In a series of hierarchical regression analyses predicting organisational commitment, job satisfaction and tenure, individual 1-C and a national culture dummy variable (Australia= 1, Asia= 2) were entered in the first step, and then the interaction term (1-C x culture) entered in the next step (see Table 6.2).

Table 6.2. Summary of hierarchical regressions for person and national culture 1-C variables predicting fit outcomes Outcome Variables Entered B Std. Error Beta Commitment Step 1 (R = .06***) (N = 565) National Culture .30 .10 .13** 1-C -.28 .06 -.20*** Step 2 (R2change = .01 * ) Nat.Culture x 1-C -.27 .12 -.31 *

Satisfaction Step 1 (R2 = .06***) (N =469) National Culture -.58 .11 -.24*** 1-C -.10 .07 -.07 Step 2 (R2change = .00) Nat.Culture x 1-C .22 .13 .24

Tenure Step 1 (R2 = .12***) (N = 564) National Culture .70 .13 .22*** 1-C -.42 .08 -.22*** Step 2 (R2change = .01 *) Nat.Culture x 1-C -.37 .15 -.31 * *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.

Commitment

Both individual 1-C and national culture independently contributed to organisational commitment. Collectivists were more committed than individualists, and employees in Asian organisations were more committed than employees in Australian organisations. Even when these direct relationships were controlled, there was a significant interaction between culture and 1-C (see Figure 6.1 ). Collectivists were more committed in the Asian organisations (r = -.30, p<.001), but not in the Australian organisations (r = -.10, N.S.). 189

Figure 6.1. Mean organisational commitment for individualists and collectivists in each national culture

7

6 • Individualists 5 (lowest third Commitment 4 on 1-C)

3 D Collectivists (highest third 2 on 1-C)

1 Australia Asia National Culture

As predicted, a similar regression conducted with the Vertical Collectivism subscale also showed a significant interaction between culture and VC (R2change=.02, p<.01). Although collectivists on this scale were also more committed in Australian organisations (r = .19, p<.01), the relationship was much stronger in Asian organisations (r = .47, p<.001).

Satisfaction There was a significant effect of national culture on job satisfaction. Employees in the Australian sample were generally more satisfied with their jobs than employees in the Asian sample. 1-C was not related to job satisfaction, and interactions between 1-C and national culture (and VC and national culture) were not significant for job satisfaction.

Tenure There were significant independent contributions of both individual 1-C and national culture to employee tenure. Collectivists had been in their organisations longer than individualists2, and employees in Asian organisations

2 1-C was not a significant predictor of tenure when controlling age, sex and education of employees. Older employees and females had been in their organisations longer, and were also more collectivistic. 190

had longer tenure than employees in Australian organisations. Even when these direct relationships were controlled, there was a significant interaction between culture and 1-C (see Figure 6.2). That is, collectivism was more strongly related to tenure in Asia (r = -28, p<.001) than Australia (r = -16, p<.05).

Figure 6.2. Mean organisational tenure for individualists and collectivists in each national culture

5

4 a Individualists Tenure (lowest third 3 on 1-C)

D Collectivists 2 (highest third on 1-C)

1 Australia Asia National Culture

This interaction was also significant for the Vertical Collectivism subscale (R2change=.02, p<.001). Collectivists had longer tenure in Asian organisations (r = .26, p<.001), but not Australian organisations (r = .00, N.S.)

The effects of all these interaction terms remained significant when controlling for age, sex and education (entered in a first step before the 1-C variables).

Person-Organisation Fit

A second set of hierarchical regression analyses predicting commitment, satisfaction and tenure, were conducted with individual 1-C and an organisation 191

dummy variable (hospitals = 1, management consultancy = 2) entered in the first step, and then the interaction term (1-C x organisation type) entered in the next step (see Table 6.3).

Table 6.3. Summary of hierarchical regressions for person and organisation 1-C variables predicting fit outcomes Outcome Variables Entered B Std. Error Beta Commitment Step 1 (R = .06***) (N = 565) Organisation Type .26 .10 .11* 1-C -.36 .06 -.25*** Step 2 (R2change = .00) Org.Type x 1-C -. 08 .12 -.09

Satisfaction Step 1 (R2 = .03***) (N = 469) Organisation Type .42 .12 .17*** 1-C -.12 .07 -.08 Step 2 (R2change = .01 *) Org.Type x 1-C -.36 .14 -.40*

Tenure Step 1 (R2 = .28***) (N= 564) Organisation Type -1.51 .12 -.48*** 1-C -.20 .07 -.11 ** Step 2 (R2change = .00) Org.Type x 1-C .27 .14 .22 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.

Commitment There was a small main effect of organisation type on employee commitment. Controlling for individual 1-C, greater commitment was expressed by management consultancy employees. There were no significant interactions between the 1-C score and organisational culture (or Vertical Individualism and organisational culture) for organisational commitment. That is, the relationship between 1-C and organisational commitment was stable across organisation types

(hospitals: r = -.22, p<.001; MC: r = -.26, p<.001).

Satisfaction Employees in the management consultancy were significantly more satisfied with their jobs than employees in the hospitals. When controlling this direct relationship, there was a significant interaction between individual 1-C and 192

organisation type. Contrary to expectations, individualists were less satisfied than collectivists in the management consultancy (r = -.18, p<.01), rather than the hospitals (r = .07, N.S.). Hierarchical regression investigating fit on the Vertical Individualism subscale revealed that this interaction of organisation type with the broader 1-C score was not replicated with VI (R2change=.003, N.S.). There was no relationship between VI and satisfaction in either organisation (hospitals: r = .00, N.S.; MC: r = .03, N.S.).

Tenure Independent of individual 1-C, hospital employees reported considerably longer tenure than employees in the management consultancy. Consistent with the results for commitment, there were no significant person by organisation interactions on 1-C for tenure.

The significance of these interaction results were not affected when sex, age and education were included in the regressions.

Three-way interaction When all main effects and two-way interactions were entered into a hierarchical regression analysis, the three-way interaction (1-C x organization type x national culture) did not account for any additional variance in any of the outcome variables (commitment: R2~= .001, satisfaction: R2~= .003, tenure: R2~= .000, all N.S.)

Discussion The present study investigated the effects of individual fit with organisational and national culture values across two industries and two cultures on the opposite poles of the individualism-collectivism continuum. Instead of a "values profile" approach, fit was assessed on a single value dimension (1-C), which was chosen for its theoretical and practical importance to organisations.

While cross-cultural research is fraught with logistical difficulties and compromises (and this research is no exception), a real strength of this study is the ability to make meaningful comparisons across cultures due to sample. The 193

sample was a large, multi-national, and matched organisation type across cultures (consultancies and hospitals). The sample also allowed us to assess multiple levels of fit across the I-C domain. Assessment of the organisational outcomes of individuals' fit with both the organisational culture and national culture were possible, as well as the extent to which organisations differed on I-C within national culture. In each case, it was hypothesised that congruence on I-C values between person and culture should be associated with greater levels of job satisfaction, organisational commitment and tenure.

Results partially supported these hypotheses. As predicted, employees in the management consultancy placed greater emphasis on the importance of interpersonal competition and status (the VI dimension) than employees in the hospital. However, Person-Organisation Fit on I-C did not predict employee outcomes. Person-Nation (P-N) Fit, on the other hand, did predict greater commitment and longer tenure in the organisation. As expected, in collectivist cultures, collectivist orientation was associated with greater commitment and longer tenure, but not in individualistic cultures. Job satisfaction was not intrinsically related to either individualism or collectivism, and thus may not have been sensitive to the fit between person and cultural I-C values. Finally, no effects were found for predicted three-way interactions between individual values, organisational and national cultures. A more in-depth analysis of implications of the results for Person-Nation and Person-Organisation Fit and implications for future research are given below.

Person-Nation Fit Consistent with expectations, on average, employees in organisations located in South East Asia endorsed more collectivistic and less individualistic values than employees in Australia. These national culture groups were particularly differentiated by values of Vertical Collectivism, that is, the importance of subordinating own interests and goals to group interests and goals. Employees who were more collectivistic on both the overall measure of I-C (and the VC subscale) showed greater commitment and tenure in the Asian organisations. Although positive relationships were also found in Australia, culture significantly moderated the relationships of collectivism with 194

organisational commitment and tenure, such that the associations were much weaker in Australia.

As core components of the psychological contract between employee and employer, organisational commitment and tenure are directly salient to I-C. In the present study, collectivists were more committed to, and stayed longer in, their organisations than individualists. At the same time, Asian organisations fostered stronger commitment in employees than Australian organisations. The effects of person-nation interaction on these variables were generally consistent with Chatman and Barsade's (1995) results for cooperation. That is, employees' orientations on I-C did not affect commitment and tenure in individualistic cultures, but only in collectivistic cultures, which have strong norms supporting such attitudes and behaviours.

It is not entirely clear why these results were not replicated for job satisfaction. Hui et al.'s (1995) contention that satisfaction is directly related to collectivism was not supported. No significant relationship was found between job satisfaction and individual-level I-C in either culture. As suggested earlier, it may be that fit on particular value dimensions, in this case I-C, is related to only some outcomes and not others. Past research supporting congruence effects has measured outcomes particularly relevant to I-C, for example, cooperation (Chatman & Barsade, 1995) and performance in groups (Earley, 1989; 1993). In the present study, job satisfaction was not intrinsically related to either individualism or collectivism, and thus may not have been sensitive to the fit between person and cultural I-C values.

Alternatively, the job satisfaction measure in the present study asked respondents to think about organisational referents such as supervision and coworkers along with the job itself, pay and so on. Different results might have been obtained using a measure of satisfaction that allowed separate ratings of each component of the job, rather than a general rating. That is, satisfaction with internal aspects of the job, such as task content, variety and challenge may have been pertinent for individualists, whereas satisfaction with coworkers, management and job security may have been more salient for collectivists (Hui et al., 1995; Yu & Yang, 1994). 195

Finally, it is possible that the discrepancy in the present results between satisfaction and commitment was due to the different targets for affective evaluation. For organisational commitment, the referent is the organisation, whereas satisfaction in this study referred to multiple dimensions of the job such as adequacy of the pay, the supervision, and the work itself. When person­ organisation fit is being measured, organisational commitment may be a more appropriate outcome, while job satisfaction may be more sensitive to measures of person-job fit (Cable & Judge, 1996; Saks & Ashforth, 1997).

Person-Organisation Fit As discussed in Chapter 3, the difference between organisations on the I-C values of their members was greater within culture than across cultures. However, this was primarily driven by differences on values of Vertical Individualism (rather than VC), on which there were no significant national culture differences. VI measures the importance of interpersonal competition and the differentiation of self from others through status. As predicted, employees in the management consultancy placed higher emphasis on VI on than employees in the hospital.

Despite the large difference between organisational cultures, there were no significant interaction effects between person and organisational values on organisational commitment and tenure. There was a significant interaction for job satisfaction. However, it was in the opposite direction to that predicted by fit. Individualists were less satisfied than collectivists in the management consultancies, but not in the hospitals. It is not clear how this finding should be interpreted. It seems likely that the interaction was due to some characteristic of the organisation other than I-C, since the effect was not significant for the VI subscale.

In the present sample of professional employees, respondents may have strongly identified with their vocation, for example, nursing or accounting, thus lessening the importance of P-O fit with any particular organisation in their field (Kristof, 1996). This is especially plausible if VI reflected between-industry rather within-industry differences (Chatman & Jehn, 1994). In the present samples, organisational value differences were 'confounded' by industry differences. That is, public health institutions were compared with private management 196

consultancies. It is possible that there is little variation between different hospitals or between management consulting firms on 1-C. Nevertheless, person­ organisation fit effects have been found even between similar accounting firms (Chatman, 1991).

Another possible explanation (based on Schneider's ASA model) is that people might self-select into organisations that have similar 1-C values to their own, but they have less control over what country they live in. Therefore, there are more instances of misfit in the case of P-N fit, creating a stronger interaction. However, a cursory examination of the variability of 1-C scores within national and organisational samples showed just as much variability on 1-C orientations within each organisation as in each national culture.

Again, these research findings highlight that while 1-C is a salient value dimension that differentiates national cultures, it has not been identified as an important dimension that differentiates between organisations within industry, or even between industries (except for the VI dimension). The present study demonstrated that organisations' values can reflect their national culture, with person-culture congruence effects evident within organisations across national cultures. However, the 1-C dimension is yet to be firmly established at the organisational culture level.

Limitations and future directions One of the strengths of this study, its sample, is also one of its limitations. Only a small number of organisations were surveyed which could only be crudely categorised a-priori as individualistic or collectivistic according to theory and past empirical work. While these categorisations were confirmed by aggregates of members' values, including more organisations would have been desirable.

Caution must also be taken in interpretation of the results. P-N fit on 1-C was associated with greater commitment and longer tenure, but the direction of causality probably flows both ways. Past research has established that person­ culture congruence does predict affective outcomes and turnover intentions, but also that socialisation can lead to greater fit with an organisation (Chatman, 1991; O'Reilly et al., 1991). 197

Finally, there were three embedded levels of values in the present study which may interact to affect outcomes: individual, organisational and national culture. Since this study focussed on outcomes at the individual level, the interactions between person and organisation, and person and national culture were investigated. While some significant effects were found, they were small and it is therefore not surprising that the interaction between the three levels was not significant. However, the congruence between these levels may not be as important for individual-level outcomes. Further research is recommended that pursues an investigation of the effects of interactions between organisational and national values on organisational level outcomes, such as organisational effectiveness and customer perceptions and satisfaction.

A second avenue for future research is suggested by the relationship between a person's fit with national culture and organisational outcomes. This research can be extended to examine the broader effects of P-N fit on individuals in areas of their lives outside of work. 198

General Discussion

Each of the chapters in this thesis investigated quite distinct and theoretically interesting research questions related to individualism and collectivism. Yet, there are some strong themes that unite all of them, thus contributing to a deeper understanding of 1-C within cross-cultural, social and organisational psychology. Continuing in the tradition of 1-C research, this thesis isolated some areas of measurement and theory that required further clarification to enable fruitful progress. These included refining the parameters of differences in self-concept in relation to 1-C; building greater understanding of measures of horizontal and vertical 1-C, and; investigating the validity of 1-C concepts when describing organisational cultures.

This thesis also moved beyond refining existing measures and concepts, by integrating 1-C with social psychological themes of self in relation to others, and investigating social-contextual variables that may contribute to differences in 1-C at the individual level. Finally, the interaction between individuals' 1-C orientations and that of their culture was investigated within an organisational context. Each of these themes is addressed below.

1-C and Self

While the 1-C dimension is undeniably linked to individuals' conceptions of self in relation to others, there has been a tendency to rely on 1-C to explain a broad range of differences in self-concept between the East and the West. Some researchers see the primary influence of 1-C on self-concept in terms of the autonomous-social distinction, that is, whether concepts of the self are bounded and separate from others, or whether they include, and are determined by, one's relationship with others. Alternately, different emphases on 'abstract' and 'contextual' self-concepts (Shweder & Bourne, 1984) have also been regarded as components of 1-C. These oppose self-concepts as abstracted from any particular context, with self-concepts qualified by considerations of time, place, role and situation. 199

Through a coding system explicitly designed to tease apart these different distinctions, Chapter 1 demonstrated that individualism-collectivism was primarily related to the different emphases placed on social versus autonomous self-concepts (regardless of whether they were contextual or abstract). A greater proportion of social self-concepts was found in responses from members of collectivistic cultures, and social self-concept was significantly related to Vertical Collectivism and (negatively related to) Hofstede's Individualism Index for individuals' country of birth. However, when the proportion of social self-concepts was statistically controlled, contextual self-concepts were not independently associated with any of the country or individual level 1-C measures. Thus, while clearly evident in some Eastern cultures, contextualisation of self did not appear to be related directly to I­ C in the present samples from Australia and South-East Asia. These findings suggest that research that employs other cultural dimensions in addition to 1-C to explain behaviour, for example, Universalism-Particularism, may be of greater predictive value for differences in self-concept.

The suggestion that 1-C primarily reflects differences in individuals' identification with others and with groups, highlights its relevance to Social Identity Theory (SIT). SIT is the study of social processes that derive both in and from a person's identification of themselves as a member of a particular group. Some studies have found that a collective orientation is empirically associated with a stronger identification with in-groups (e.g., Brown et al., 1992; Jackson & Smith, 1999). As shown in Chapter 1, it appears that collectivists do have a greater "readiness" to perceive themselves in terms of social identity, that is, their membership in particular groups. In defining themselves on the TST, collectivists were more likely to spontaneously identify themselves using social identity categories. However, this is by no means always the case. For example, no significant correlation was found between individuals' collective orientation and social identification with their organisation in the present research (see Chapter 2).

Abrams [, 1999 #?] has attempted to analyse self-structure models, such as the autonomous versus collective self-concepts, from a social identity or social categorisation theory perspective. For example, Trafimow et al.'s (1991) model is an explicit structural model of self, in that cognitions about the self are supposedly organised into two 'baskets' - or two independent locations in memory. Despite the 200

apparent similarities between Trafimow et al.'s (1991) private and collective selves and SIT's personal and social identities, Abrams suggests that self­ categorisation theory proposes different processes for self-description, and different organisation of self-concepts. According to Abrams, different collective selves should not be connected with one-another (as argued by Trafimow et al., 1991), but rather each should be most strongly associated with the attributes for that particular categorisation. For example, the category 'employee' should be more likely to elicit attributes such as professional, hardworking, responsible, punctual, etc., rather than another category such as 'Australian'. In others words, he argues that the largest number of associative linkages should be vertical, from category to category features, rather than horizontal, from one category to another. Thus, in similar priming manipulations to that of Trafimow et al. (1991), Abrams, Au, Waterman, Garst and Mallett (in preparation) found that having people consider inter-group differences resulted in the generation of more trait-level self­ descriptions (relevant to the groups contrasted) than the private prime condition. Rather than highlighting a difference between the two approaches, Abrams et al.'s results may be linked to that of Cousins, in which collectivists produced more trait responses when a particular social identity was made salient (e.g., family). This confirms the tendency of collectivists to think of themselves first in terms of group category features.

This discussion leads to another difference Abrams perceives between the two perspectives. In structure models the self is represented as an interrelated set of categories and attributes, whereas the process model, consistent with SIT, allows only one level of categorisation to be functionally salient at any one time (Abrams, 1999). Abrams assumes that self-knowledge has a great deal of te),llporal stability with well-established links between features because of the stability of the self-environment. Yet, like the Turner et al. (1994) social constructionist view, the self combines general stability of content with flexibility of meaning in relation to changing contexts. In structural models a self-concept is defined a priori as collective or private on the basis of content alone. However, Abrams argues that the meaning, level and content of self-categorisations are determined not by the self-category label but by the comparison categories in the particular context. That is, the category of nurse may be subjectively defined at 201

the collective level, as a member of the Nurses Association, or at the relational level of nurse-patient, depending on the immediate context. Contextual cues may be particularly salient in determining whether a particular self-concept is an attribute or a category, for example, 'athletic' versus 'an athlete', 'artistic' versus 'an artist', 'feminine' versus 'a female'. This complexity of the interplay between contextual cues and types of social identities (or even whether a social category or an attribute is evoked) highlights the necessarily simplified treatment of the social/contextual distinction in the current thesis. Research that experimentally manipulates context cues may need to be conducted at a 'micro' level to further our understanding of these processes. With respect to SIT, the 'context' nearly always refers to the social context, and it again raises the question of how self can be defined in relation to a-social contexts (see Chapter 1). This is promises to be an exciting avenue for future research.

Researchers wishing to point out the differences between 1-C and SIT perspectives of self do not only come from the SIT camp. According to SIT, social identity is based on similarity and made salient through intergroup comparison. Yet, many cross-cultural researchers argue that collectivists perceive group identity in terms of a network of relationships within the ingroup (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1996; Yuki & Brewer, 1998). From data in Chapter 1, at least in particular contexts, social identity categories did refer to the typicality and belonging associated with membership in particular groups (among both individualists and collectivists). However, there were also examples where these identities were derived from particular role-relationships within the ingroup, rather than from intergroup comparisons. Similarity or typicality is clearly only one aspect of social identity, and some inroads may be made by focussing on a few, more specific dimensions of social identity, rather than limiting its definition to one broad concept. For example, Jackson and Smith (1999) propose that social identity itself is better conceptualised as four components or dimensions including perception of the intergroup context, in-group attraction, interdependency beliefs and depersonalisation. In this context they also examine whether individual-level collectivism (or allocentrism) can be differentiated from social identity. They see collectivism as particularly linked to interdependency or common fate (not similarity or depersonalisation). This is consistent with Triandis and Gelfand's 202

(1998) confirmation that Vertical and Horizontal Collectivism measure family integrity, closeness to ingroups and interdependence. Jackson and Smith (1999) also distinguish between secure social identity, which is associated with a low degree of intergroup bias, and insecure social identity, which is associated with high intergroup bias.

Using Hui's (1988) Ind-Col Scale and Triandis et al.'s (1990) Allocentrism scale, Jackson and Smith (1999) found that while measures of collectivism loaded on a separate factor to the social identity items in factor analysis, they were generally significantly related to the social identity measures. They also found that measures of social identity were correlated with the collective self as measured on the TST.

Although only touched upon in the present thesis, a greater understanding of SIT in relation to I-C affords the prospect of theoretical integration in cross­ cultural research and other social science disciplines, and is an important area for future research.

1-C and power

The dimensions of individualism and collectivism have been in their systemisation of cultural differences, but why these differences occur has not been explained. This thesis attempted to explore one possible factor that may contribute to the development of differences on I-C. Many cross-cultural differences are argued to be a direct consequence of the economic and socioeconomic conditions under which people live [Kagitcibasi, 2000]. Access to resources as provided by a country's wealth has been highlighted by Hofstede (1980) as a key driver of culture-level individualism, allowing citizens to 'do their own thing'. Rather than attempting to study the etiology of entire cultures, this study focused on investigating the factors that influence individuals to become more individualistic or more collectivistic. The independence from others achieved through access to resources is a key concept of power, and is consistent with the empirical demographic correlates of individual-level I-C. The status characteristics of social class, affluence, education, sex, and age cue expectations about behaviour consistent with one's position in the power structures of society. 203

position in the power structures of society. As found in previous studies, results in Chapter 4 showed that men, younger people and those with a higher level of education were more individualistic. More importantly, I-C was also significantly related to occupational prestige (an indicator of broad social power), and perceived organisational power in both individualistic and collectivistic cultures. These relationships were significant for measures of self-rated I-C values (Singelis et al.'s HV-IC scale) and self-construal (social self-concept on the TST). While results at the individual level were not as striking as Hofstede's country level data ( correlations of about .2 instead of .8), they mirrored the basic relationship between GDP and cultural I-C. 1 Also, priming participants to remember and describe situations in which they were powerless tended to result in their retrieval of a greater proportion of social self-concepts than those who remembered powerful situations. This suggests that one causal pathway in the power-I-C relationship at least includes powerlessness as an antecedent ofl-C.

In investigating these alternate pathways or possible mechanisms, the use of multiple measures enabled the revelation of a much richer pattern of relationships between the various factors of I-C, and the complex construct of individual power. Most theorists have assumed that the relationship between individualism and affiuence was derived from an independence achieved through the personal command of valued resources. According to these theories, independence from others, as measured by Horizontal Individualism, should be related to greater access to important resources and higher positions of power which afford such access. The theory that power is an antecedent of autonomous individualism was not supported. HI was not significantly predicted by any of the position or power variables. In addition, it was expected that priming situations of independent power would elicit the least number of social self-concepts. However, situations of interpersonal power elicited the same small proportion of social self-concepts. Participants revealed that they perceived individual resources to be valuable not because they provided independence, but because others wanted or needed them and they enabled participants to assert superior status. Participants reported that the control of valued resources was used to help and/or influence

1 Hofstede (1980) points out that within-group correlations are not likely to have the same magnitude as between group correlations due to smaller variance on societal values such as 1-C. 204

others. The presence of this social context for power seemed to indicate that the appearance of fewer social self-concepts after powerful primes was not due to an autonomous individualism brought about through resource independence.

The second mechanism proposed to account for the relationship between power variables and I-C was that powerlessness is an antecedent of collectivism. In response to a lack of other resources for power, people may seek vicarious power through relationships with powerful others, and through empowering collective action. Results partially supported this hypothesis. Social position in general, and hierarchical position in one multinational organisation, significantly predicted Vertical Collectivism (subordination to groups). Participants were more likely to be collectivistic if they were in less powerful positions in both individualistic and collectivistic cultures. In addition, powerless scenarios recalled by participants in the priming study contained themes of a lack of independence and an inability to achieve their goals. They reported feelings of a lack of control, lack of competence, and lack of efficacy and mastery over one's self and one's environment. After such powerless primes, participants tended to include more social self-concepts.

Horizontal Collectivism (cooperation) was positively associated with interpersonal power but not resource power, as predicted. That is, collectivists more often had access to influential people and people valuable to their organisations. The link between HC and interpersonal power most closely resembles social identification with particular others to feel powerful and for access to power bases. In the priming study, access to powerful others, or 'connections', was used by participants as a means to achieve their own ends. These interpersonal strategies for attaining power (elicited in the interdependent­ powerful condition) did not result in greater retrieval of social self-concepts. This suggests that such strategies for attaining power flow from a collective orientation, rather than the other way around. Those who made it their priority to promote group harmony and good social relations with others were more likely to have access to important people.

The third mechanism rested on the importance individualists place on personal influence, recognition and success. It was postulated that such an emphasis on competitively-based superiority, as measured by Vertical 205

Individualism, would facilitate the attainment and maintenance of power. There was partial support for this hypothesis. At the cultural level, it was clear that the legitimacy of power was perceived differently in each culture. For example, the strong relationship between power and status found in Australia was not replicated to the same extent in Asia, where seniority was a more important factor contributing to perceived status. In addition, while VI was associated with higher status in Australia, it predicted lower status in Asia.

In both of these cultural contexts, those higher on VI reported significantly greater organisational power, especially access to important resources, and were in occupations with higher prestige. Despite their report of more power, people who were more competitively individualistic were not in higher organisational positions. In the priming study, self-report measures of resource and interpersonal power were unrelated to VI, negating the idea that individualists, more than collectivists, may have a tendency to perceive greater personal power and control, irrespective of the 'objective' reality. It is more likely that competitive individualists chose to enter occupations affording them more prestige, and despite the limitations of organisational hierarchies, were able to obtain greater access to important resources than their peers. Consistent with this, in the priming study, Vertical Individualism tended to be lower following the powerful primes rather than higher. Thus, the significant positive relationship between power and VI in the field study may best be interpreted as competitive individualism promoting the attainment of power.

In summary, there did appear to be a significant relationship between 1-C and socio-economic variables such as social and organisational power. However, at least at the individual level, this relationship was not derived from the mechanisms previously assumed by various theorists, that is, that individualism results from resource-independence. Instead, there were clear indications that a lack of resources, or powerlessness, encouraged participants to be more collectivistic, subordinating themselves to groups. It appears that collectivists were also more likely to use relationships with powerful others as a strategy for attaining power, while individualists promoted their own superior status through choice of occupation and gaining access to resources for power. 206

In line with aims spelt out in the Introduction, these results begin to take current theorising in cross-cultural psychology beyond descriptive analyses of behavioural differences associated with I-C. Yet this is a very small step in a potentially wider program of study. The research begun in the present thesis needs to be continued in at least two directions. First, the small correlations found in the current results suggest that there are many other factors that contribute to variance in I-C at the individual level. Early developmental processes and socialisation experiences (Kagitcibasi, 1996; Keller & Greenfield, 2000) are clearly an important base from which to understand how differences in self, and values, come about. A broader question is why these different kinds of socialisation patterns occur (Kagitcibasi & Poortinga, 2000), and this raises the second avenue for future research. That is, etiological investigations need to be extended to the wider cultural level, to examine the influence of factors such as technological, socio-economic and ecological context.

1-C in Organisations

Within organisational psychology, practitioners regularly refer to the culture of an organisation as a meaningful phenomenon, and many employees would attest to the reality of such an organisational system of beliefs, values and norms. Not only are these cultures said to exist, they are assumed to interact with employees' values resulting in serious consequences for employee satisfaction, commitment, loyalty and even productivity within an organisation. Yet core organisational culture dimensions, such as those found at the national level, have not been empirically identified, and there has been enough scepticism surrounding the nature of organisational cultures that they have been described as "nothing more than a metaphor" (Jabes & Gruere, 1986).

The present thesis investigated whether the cultural dimensions of individualism and collectivism were able to validly describe organisational cultures, in the same way that they have been applied to national culture and to individual values. Such a demonstration requires not only sufficient agreement within an organisation on I-C values ( an aggregate of the minds of individuals), but also a significant difference between organisations, such that members of one 207

organisation may be distinguished from another within the same national context. Further, if organisational cultures do vary on I-C, how does the congruence between individual and organisational I-C values affect employee outcomes such as organisational commitment, job satisfaction and tenure, across national cultures, and across organisational cultures within countries?

The field study reported in Chapter 3 primarily included a sample of only two broad national culture groups, and two main types of organisation. Yet in even this limited sample, three of the four individualism-collectivism value dimensions were able to significantly discriminate between organisational cultures. Vertical Individualism, in particular, showed large differences between hospitals and management consulting firms, while very similar values were held between employees within each organisation type even across national cultures. This variation in emphasis on interpersonal competition and status matched subjective observations of what it would be like to work in these industries. Employees' values were not bound by national culture, but varied to a large extent according to organisational membership. Despite this, the degree of fit between employees and their organisation on VI was not able to predict employee outcomes.

In a contrasting pattern, variation on Vertical Collectivism was consistent with the traditional notion of I-C. While there were small differences between organisation types, these differences were in the context of larger national culture differences. Even though this was dominantly a national culture variable, the hospitals and the management consultancy branches differed systematically on Vertical Collectivism within each national culture. On I-C overall, and particularly on VC, the fit between individuals' values and their national culture predicted greater commitment and longer tenure in organisations. As expected, in collectivistic cultures, employees' collectivistic orientation was associated with greater commitment and longer tenure, but not in individualistic cultures. This organisation-level impact of the fit between individual and national values is consistent with evidence of self-selection of employees into organisations according to the national values dominant in the firm they were entering (Soeters & Schreuder, 1986, cited in Hofstede, 1991). Perhaps future research can be 208

extended to examine the effects of P-N fit on individuals in areas of their lives outside of work.

It must be acknowledged that the design and sample for this particular empirical study was rather inadequate for such an ambitious research question. It is clear that while some differences were found between the organisations in this sample on 1-C value dimensions, our understanding of organisational culture on a global scale is still at a primitive stage. A major objective for future research is to investigate universal dimensions of organisational culture with a much larger sample of organisation types and national cultures. In fact, the present data may be interpreted in the light of more extensive studies currently being conducted.

Of particular note is the GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organisational Behaviour Effectiveness) research project, which is a cross-cultural study of leadership, societal culture and organisational culture spanning more than 60 countries and 700 organisations. It is a collaborative project between about 170 researchers in 61 cultures, lead by Robert House and associates. Among other cultural dimensions, two 1-C scales were developed for this project, based on Hofstede's conceptualisation. 'Individualism-Collectivism' measures the degree to which a culture focuses on individual versus group accomplishment, reward and action. 'Family/organisational collectivism' measures the degree to which individuals take pride in being associated with their groups, and express loyalty and cohesiveness (Dickson, Aditya, & Chhokar, 1999).

One of the central research issues in GLOBE is the examination of organisational cultures across societal cultures. As in the present thesis, one of its main goals is to isolate the differences attributable to organisational culture from differences attributable to societal culture. They too presume that societal culture will have a main effect on organisational culture, and to help understand this influence they attempt to demonstrate that factors developed at the societal level are in fact meaningful at the organisational level. With their large number of participating organisations, the GLOBE team has been able to investigate the factor structure of their scales with the organisation as the unit of analysis, rather than the individual. Of their nine dimensions GLOBE found that the first factor to emerge in organisation-level analysis was 'Organisational Collectivism'. 'Individualism-collectivism' was another factor that replicated at the 209

organisational level. These results lend some validity to the present findings and suggest that some dimensions of culture at the societal level of analysis, such as I­ C, can be meaningful at the organisational level.

With regard to person-culture fit, and effects on status in particular, the GLOBE studies identified leadership dimensions which were significantly correlated with societal and organisational culture dimensions. They argue that cultural differences strongly influence norms concerning the status, influence and privileges granted to leaders (e.g., House, 1998). Results in the present thesis support this claim, with the relationship between I-C and status significantly moderated by culture (for both questionnaire and TST measures of I-C), matching predicted outcomes for a person-culture fit hypothesis. More individualistic employees had higher status in Australia, but lower status in Asia. The greater the extent that cultures (both national and organisational) reflect individualistic or collectivistic norms, the more we may expect a need for high status members to conform closely to the norms of the group.

Finally, one of the most promising avenues for future research is more in­ depth investigation of the effects of the interaction between individual, organisational and national values at multiple levels of analysis. In the current study, no effects were found for predicted three-way interactions between individual values, organisational and national cultures. As discussed, the impact of the interaction among different levels of values on some individual-level outcomes may be minimal, while organisational-level outcomes such as organisational effectiveness or customer satisfaction may be greatly affected. Further research may investigate the proposition that organisational cultures must be tailored to fit a specific national culture, and multi-level analysis of both values and outcomes will be a valuable addition to the literature.

Method and Measurement

Design

While the majority of the research conducted in this thesis was field research, and therefore correlational in nature, it has been balanced by some quasi-experimental and controlled laboratory data. This field research is regarded 210

as a strength, rather than a weakness in this research program. Organisations provide a salient context for power and status cues, and provide variation in individual context variables such as sex, age, and education that are often not available in samples of university students. They also provide an actual group context for participants that is immediately relevant to the 1-C dimension. What may be lost in scientific control of the phenomenon is gained by the enhanced ecological validity of the present findings.

Nevertheless, field research utilising questionnaire data is subject to particular methodological pitfalls. One problem often encountered is that of common method variance. This occurs when both independent and (multiple) dependent measures are included in the same questionnaire (Spector, 1987), and can bias results, for example, due to halo effects or response sets in self-report ratings. Two precautions reduced the likelihood of method variance. One was the measurement ofl-C using both a response measure, the HV-IC scale, and an operant measure, the TST. Any biases due to response sets on Likert scales were not applicable to the TST, which required spontaneously generated responses. Consistent significant results were observed with both methods of measurement. The use of multiple measures of 1-C, in addition to addressing method bias, is generally recommended by cross-cultural researchers, given the proliferation of measures and the different aspects of 1-C they cover (Wagner, 1995). This also enables the investigation of varying 1-C components with variables of interest, especially when researching antecedents ofl-C.

Participants also completed similar questionnaires measuring the dependent variables while independent variables were controlled in the laboratory: the laboratory study, reported in Chapter 5, specifically examined the issue of contamination by method variance. Finally, the nature of some of the results obtained precluded method variance as an explanatory factor. For example, ratings of Vertical Individualism and perceived status (as rated on the same Likert-type scale) were positively correlated in one culture, yet negatively related in another. 211

Sample

In studies where the primary aim is to look for universality (in this case, a common antecedent to individualism-collectivism orientations), it is informative to include cultures that are as different as possible (van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). Systematic sampling was used to select cultures that are far apart on 1-C. However, highly dissimilar cultures are likely to be different in many other aspects as well, increasing the number of alternative explanations that need to be ruled out. The use of several cultures counters this problem, as observed differences across cultures can be validly attributed to 1-C. In the present thesis, several collectivistic cultures were sampled from a number of different Asian countries. They were grouped together on the basis that they were all more collectivistic than Australia, and differences between them on collectivism were relatively small (according to Hofstede's Individualism Index). However, they do not 'naturally' form a cluster of countries, and objections may be raised as to the differences such an amalgamation obscures. In GLOBE's study of over 60 nations, they found 8 clusters of nations based on 9 cultural dimensions (2 of which were collectivism dimensions). Australia was grouped in the "anglo' cluster together with USA, England Ireland, and Canada. The Asian countries were divided into 3 clusters. Of the samples in this study Singapore and Hong Kong fell into the same cluster (which valued a high performance orientation); Malaysia and Indonesia were together, and Taiwan and Thailand were together. The latter two clusters both emphasised humane and family collectivism, but differed on uncertainty avoidance, and power distance (House, 1998). This suggests that the heterogeneity between these national cultures is not due to differences in 1-C, but to other cultural dimensions, and actually strengthens the validity of results relating to collectivism.

Of course, this also highlights a parallel limitation of the sample, in that only one individualistic culture was included. While Australia is clearly one of the more individualistic countries in the world, it still differs systematically from similar cultures (e.g., the USA and the UK). Caution must therefore be taken in generalising any results to these other individualistic cultures.

Another strength of the current sample was the matching of participating organisations, reducing variation in occupational and other demographic influences 212

across cultures, while at the same time sampling for variance in participant age, sex, education, tenure and position level.

Measurement of Individualism-Collectivism

Despite the sheer number of instruments used to assess I-C, there still remains no consistent or preferred method for capturing the construct( s) (Earley & Gibson, 1998). Measurement has been difficult due to the immense richness of 1-C. Fuzziness of its domain and definition has contributed especially to low reliabilities (Singelis et al., 1995). There seems to be a general consensus that continued effort needs to be made in improving the measurement of I-C if research using the construct is to move forward.

In the struggle to reliably capture I-C, measures have tended to include a number of narrower constructs, either in content or domain. Measurement of individual-level I-C started out as target specific (Hui, 1988), and then moved toward measurement of a more context-free I-C which was applicable to most interpersonal relationships, but represented by a small number of distinct factors (e.g., Hui & Yee, 1994; Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988). However, more recent measures are again returning to a target specific construct (e.g., Lay et al., 1998; Matsumoto, Weissman, Preston, Brown, & Kupperbusch, 1997), in response to evidence that different cultural subgroups have different patterns of collectivism. One group can be highly collectivistic in one domain of social relations and on the average level in some other domain (e.g., Realo, Allik, & Vadi, 1997). These measures are particularly useful if the aim of the research is to predict behaviour in a particular social context.

The present research tried to combine both of these approaches using the distinct factors of the HV-IC scale, and specifying the target for the less reliable and context-sensitive sub-scales (HC and VI). This compromise reflected the broad aims of the present research. However, future research could be enhanced by a more careful selection of the (now available) scales to suit narrower and distinct research questions. 213

Horizontal and Vertical Individualism-Collectivism

While more evidence is slowly emerging regarding the reliability and validity of the HV-IC constructs and measures, there was considerable scepticism surrounding these four categories when this research began (e.g., Earley & Gibson, 1998). In addition, although there is some concern that an East Asian variant of collectivism may be gaining a disproportionate scientific ascendancy (Bond & Smith, 1996), the present studies have provided a fresh perspective and a more rounded data set from the South-East. Samples from Australia and South-East Asian countries, such as Thailand and Indonesia, provide an alternative to the usual American versus Japanese dichotomy, and add global validity to the HV-IC dimensions.

In relating the HV-IC scales to other 1-C measures and concepts, the present results were able to shed some light on the meaning and validity of each of the scales. In confirmation of Singelis et al.'s (1995) findings, it seems that Vertical Collectivism does assess the 'traditional' national culture concept of 1-C, that of subordination of the individual to the group. Vertical Collectivism was significantly correlated with both social self-concept on the TST, and Hofstede's Individualism Index for country of birth. The pattern of Vertical Collectivism within and between cultures was also consistent with the traditional notion of 1-C. While there were small differences between organisation types, these differences were in the context of larger national culture differences.

Horizontal Collectivism was correlated with the other collectivism scale VC, but had a greater link with interdependence and cooperation within the group. For example, individuals with higher HC scores reported greater cooperation on tasks at work. They also reported greater membership in networks of relationships in their organisations, with greater access to influential people and people valuable to their organisations. Yet, despite their association with VC, HC items were actually endorsed more by Australians than participants in the South East Asian samples. This result, combined with the positive correlation between HC and HI, points to the strength of the 'horizontal' nature of this scale, and likens it to dimensions such as Schwartz's 'Egalitarian Commitment'. Australians tend to endorse such status­ minimising values more than other individualistic nations. 214

The two individualism scales, HI and VI, were not significantly correlated with each other and appeared to be independent factors. Horizontal Individualism also failed to correlate with VC and the TST. Yet, HI was positively related to Horizontal Collectivism at both individual and organisational levels. Schwartz (1994) has argued that in individualistic cultures it is necessary to emphasise the Horizontal Collectivism values in order to socialise and encourage contributions to the collective good. Additional research needs to be conducted with this measure especially, perhaps focussing on the behavioural correlates of this scale to further establish its validity as a core component ofl-C.

While independent from HI, as in the Singelis et al. (1995) sample, Vertical Individualism was correlated positively with Vertical Collectivism. Men scored higher on Vertical Individualism than women, consistent with sex differences found in studies on interpersonal competition. There was a trend toward a stronger relationship between the individualism scales when the target of competition was clearly interpersonal. This suggests VI items need to be clearly worded to assess interpersonal competition or differentiation rather than intergroup differentiation.

Also, the vertical individualism concept of differentiating the self from others need not be limited to competition. In the present thesis, Vertical Individualism was significantly related to one's perceived power in both individualistic and collectivistic cultures. This measure needs to include the concept of status inequality more explicitly, including being distinguished, individually recognised, standing out from the crowd, being a leader, and being powerful or superior. Parallel concepts in organisational culture typologies couple competition with power, for example, Kabanoffs (1991) 'Elite' and Xenekou and Furnham's (1996) 'Negativism and resistance to new ideas', in which rough competition is used by organisation members to maintain or gain power (see Chapter 3). Consistent with this, while Vertical Individualism did not discriminate between the particular national cultures in this sample, it proved to be an important dimension for organisational differences. 215

Threats to measurement equivalence in cross-cultural studies

Cross-cultural research is fraught with particular pitfalls of sampling, measurement, data analysis and interpretation. Several issues that are relevant to the studies conducted in the present thesis are discussed below.

Response styles

Differences across cultures in the way participants respond to measurement scales is termed response bias, and includes such phenomena as acquiescence, extremity ratings, and social desirability. Such response bias usually affects scores at the level of the whole instrument (van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). It can be identified in data as a significant main effect of cultural group in an analysis of variance, as was the case in the present sample. To control for such bias, standardisation procedures may be employed. However, cross­ cultural differences in average scores may not be exclusively due to response sets, but may reflect valid differences and therefore any standardisation requires justification. In the present case, the HV-IC scale may be considered as a value survey, and the overall average rating that people give to all the value items should be similar across individuals and cultures (Hofstede, 1980).

One concern is that individualism and collectivism are often found to be orthogonal at the individual level (Freeman, 1996; Gelfand, Triandis, & Chan, 1996). Specifically, while differences are found for collectivism, there is often little variance on individualism, with collectivists also scoring high on individualism (Gaines, Marelich, Bledsoe, Steers, & et al., 1997; Sedikides & Gaertner, In Press; Triandis et al., 1986; Triandis et al., 1988). This has important implications for standardisation. That is, collectivists may be quite legitimately high on both Individualism and Collectivism, however this is interpreted as higher acquiescence on the part of collectivists (as on the questionnaire used in this study, where only one of the 16 items was reversed). Thus standardisation actually forces a polarisation of preferences, by looking only at the relative endorsement of each value to the other. This may have contributed to the lack of significant findings relating to HI within national cultures. Yet, there is evidence that even when differences in response styles exist cross-culturally, they may not alter cross-cultural comparisons of item or sub-scale means (Chen, Lee, & Stevenson, 1995). Certainly the effects in the present data were minimal. 216

One solution to this problem involves careful design of questionnaires so that at least half the items are reversed, or better still, have scales that are anchored at each end by equally desirable values. Respondents are then required to choose between values, rather than simply agreeing.

Frame of Reference Effects

A related threat to the equivalence of self-report scales measuring abstract values is that individuals may rate themselves relative to the reference point of the norm in their culture. Similarly, respondents on organisational culture measures tend to base their ratings against the backdrop of other organisations within their own country. That is, a lack of cultural differences may indicate a natural standardisation process whereby individuals rate themselves against their cultural norm. This is less likely to occur with more specific value or belief dimensions, and with behaviourally anchored scale items. The HV-IC scales seem to fall somewhere in the middle, and may be susceptible to this problem. Including the TST for comparative purposes has distinct advantages here.

Translation

According to the options presented by van de Vijver and Leung (1997), the procedure used in the current research can be termed application, whereby a literal translation was taken to be linguistically and psychologically appropriate to all the cultural groups in the study. Great care was taken to preserve the meaning of each item through back-translation, in order to best preserve the possibility of a high level of equivalence, and allow for direct comparison with results by others using the HV-IC scale. While the semantics are preserved in back-translation, less attention may be paid to connotations, naturalness and comprehensibility. While these factors may have been less than optimal, indigenous translators did not find any particular instances where these issues caused a problem.

What may have been more of an issue was the fact that some of the Asian sample completed the questionnaire in English, rather than their native language. Responses to English versions have been found on some occasions to be more individualistic and less collectivistic than responses in a native language (Ralston, Cuniff & Gustafson, 1995). Any effects of language in the present Asian sample would have resulted in a conservative estimation of cultural differences between 217

these and the Australian sample. Yet, if English is the official language spoken within these organisations, one may wonder whether any effects on questionnaire responses may also reflect real behaviour in the 'Western' work setting.

Researcher Bias

Western bias is generally reflected in the methods used, the theoretical orientations adopted, and even the topic chosen for study (van de Vijver & Leung, 2000). No doubt the present research is no exception. Often the constructs chosen might not be similarly defined in each culture; for example, status and power may have different connotations and involve different behaviours in each cultural group. The importance of first-hand knowledge and experience with the cultures one is gathering data from was highlighted in my research. Interpretation, for example, of Thai responses to the TST required the cooperation of indigenous researchers. It is recommended that any cross-cultural research be based in a cooperative enterprise of a cross-cultural research team (Graen, Hui, Wakabayashi, & Wang, 1997). While this is generally not possible for a doctoral thesis, one solution may be to include indigenous scholars on the supervisory panel.

Conclusion

Individualism-collectivism continues to be a focus for a large portion of cross-cultural research, and is beginning to be included in mainstream studies as well. 1-C deals directly with differences in the way cultures, and individuals, resolve the tension between group and individual interests, and as such will have a key place in social psychology. However, 1-C is in danger of perishing under its own success, being used as a catch-cry for any number of observed differences between cultural groups. Despite the frustrations of the seemingly elusive attainment of clear definitions and measurement, it is important that research on 1-C not be abandoned. In the last few years researchers have used more sophisticated methods that have contributed to significant improvements. For example, including actual measures of 1-C in research, rather using it as a post-hoe explanation, and encouraging research conducted by cross-cultural teams in multiple countries (as opposed to 2-culture comparisons), heightens the usefulness of the 1-C paradigm. 218

One key reason for continuing research with I-C will be to "better delineate the psychological consequences of economic development" (van de Vijver & Leung, 2000, p. 38). At the cultural level the relationship between GNP and I-C must not be ignored, and the present thesis has endeavoured to tease out some of the psychological mechanisms that may be involved in linking individual I-C with such resource power. The present research has demonstrated that the links are certainly not straight forward, and do not even appear to be those previously assumed. What is clear is that a lack of resources, or powerlessness, was associated with greater collectivism across cultures. At the same time, collectivists and individualists appear to use different power bases for achieving desired goals (including power itself).

The link between I-C and self-concept is integral to any research with I-C, and provides a common language for bridging cross-cultural with other fields of psychology. In the present samples from Australia and South-East Asia, individualism-collectivism was primarily related to the different emphases placed on social versus autonomous self-concepts (regardless of whether they were contextual or abstract). Further refinements will be fruitful, for example, by focussing on a few more specific dimensions of social identity, and establishing their differential links with collectivism.

In addition to these rather theoretical approaches, advances may also be made in the application of I-C within organisations. The pressures of global operations, and the dynamics within the organisation as a 'group', drive the need for a better understanding of I-C at individual, organisational and cultural levels. While there are many indications of the behavioural consequences of I-C within organisations, the present study has investigated the more complex interactions between the I-C of individuals and organisations, and organisations and national cultures. 219

References

Abrams, D. (1999). Social identity, social cognition, and the self: The flexibility and stability of self-categorization. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social Identity and Social Cognition. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.

Adler, A. (1956). The Individual Psychology of Alfred Alder. New york: Harper & Row.

Adler, A. (1966). The psychology of power. Journal of Individual Psychology, 22( 166-172).

Altrocchi, J., & Altrocchi, L. (1995). Polyfaceted psychological acculturation in Cook Islanders. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 26(4), 426-440.

Andrews, J. D. W. (1967). The achievement motive and advancement in two types of organizations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6(2), 163-168.

Argyle, M., Henderson, M., Bond, M., Iizuka, Y., & Contarello, A. (1986). Cross-cultural variations in relationship rules. International Journal of Psychology, 21, 287-315.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organisation. Academy ofManagement Review, 14( 1), 20-39.

Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, J., M. (1980). Status organising processes. Annual Review ofSociology, 6, 479-508.

Berman, J. J., Murphy-Berman, V., & Singh, P. (1985). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in perceptions of fairness. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 16, 55-67.

Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1), 5-34. 220

Bhagat, R. S., & McQuaid, S. J. (1982). Role of subjective culture in organizations: A review and directions for future research. Journal-of-Applied­ Psychology, 67(5), 653-685.

Bochner, S. (1994). Cross-cultural differences in the self concept: A test of Hofstede's individualism/collectivism distinction. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25(2), 273-283.

Bochner, S., & Hesketh, B. (1994). Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job-related attitudes in a culturally diverse work group. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 25(2), 233-257.

Bond, M. H., & Cheung, T.-s. (1983). College students' spontaneous self­ concept: The effect of culture among respondents in Hong Kong, Japan, and the United States. Journal ofCross Cultural Psychology, 14(2), 153-171.

Bond, M. H., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Cross-cultural social and organisational psychology. Annual Review ofPsychology, 47, 205-235.

Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person-organization fit and the Theory of Work Adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44(1), 32-54.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this "We"? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83-93.

Brewer, M. B., & Weber, J. G. (1994). Self-evaluation effects of interpersonal versus intergroup social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 268-275.

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. Triandis, C. & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Methodology (Vol. 2, pp. 389-444). Sydney: Allyn and Bacon.

Brockner, J., & Adsit, L. (1986). The moderating impact of sex on the equity-satisfaction relationship: a field study. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 71, 585-590.

Brown, A. D. (1995). Organisational Culture. London: Pitman Publishing. 221

Brown, R., Hinkle, S., Ely, P. G., Fox-Cardemone, L., Maras, P., & Taylor, L. A. (1992). Recognising group diversity: Individualist-collectivist and autonomous-relational social orientations and their implications for intergroup processes. British Journal ofSocial Psychology, 31, 327-342.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 294-311.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers' perceptions of person­ organization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 546-561.

Cha, J.-H. (1994). Aspects of individualism and collectivism in Korea. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Methods and Applications (Vol. 18, pp. 157-174). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Chan, D. K.-S. (1994). COLINDEX: A refinement of three collectivism measures. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, K. C., S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Methods and Applications (Vol. 18, pp. 200-210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Chao, G. T., O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organisational Socialisation: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 730-743.

Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organisations: Selection and socialisation in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459-484.

Chatman, J. A., & Barsade, S. G. (1995). Personality, organisational culture, and cooperation: Evidence from a business simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 423-443.

Chatman, J. A., & Jehn, K. A. (1994). Assessing the relationship between industry characteristics and organizational culture: How different can you be? Academy ofManagement Journal, 37(3), 522-553. 222

Chen, C. C., Meindl, J. R., & Hunt, R., G. (1997). Testing the effects of vertical and horizontal collectivism: A study of reward allocation preferences in China. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 28(1), 44-70.

Chen, C., Lee, S., & Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Response style and cross­ cultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychological Science, 6(3), 170-175.

Chinese Culture Connection. (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18(2), 143-164.

Choi, I., Nisbett, R. E., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and Universality. Psychological Bulletin, 125(1), 47-63.

Cohen, S. G. (1993). New approaches to teams and teamwork. In J. R. Galbraith, E. E. Lawler, & Associates (Eds.), Organisation for the future: The new logic for managing complex organisations . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cooke, R. A., & Lafferty, J. C. (1989). Organisational Culture Inventory, Human Synergistics . Plymouth, Ml.

Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1988). Behavioural Norms and Expectations. Group and Organisation Studies, 13(3), 245-273.

Cousins, S. D. (1989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the United States. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 56(1 ), 124-131.

Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological-Bulletin, 122(1 ), 45-50.

Crozier, M. (1964). The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. London: Tavistock.

Daab, W. Z. (1991, July). Changing perspectives on individualism. Paper presented at the International Society for Political Psychology, University of Helsinky.

Dabul, A. J., Bernal, M. E., & Knight, G. P. (1995). Allocentric and idiocentric self-description and academic achievement among Mexican American and Anglo American adolescents. Journal ofSocial Psychology, 135(5), 621-630. 223

Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioural Science, 2, 201- 215.

Daniel, A. (1983). Power, Privilege and Prestige. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire Pty Ltd.

de Boer, C. (1978). The polls: Attitudes toward work. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 414-423.

Derber, C. (1979). The pursuit of Attention: Power and Individualism in Everyday Life. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman.

Dhawan, N., Roseman, I. J., Naidu, R. K., & Rettek, S. I. (1995). Self­ concepts across two cultures: India and the United States. Special Section: Culture and self. Journal a/Cross Cultural Psychology, 26(6), 606-621.

Dickson, M. W., Aditya, R. N., & Chhokar, J. S. (1999). Definition and interpretation in cross-cultural organisational culture research: Some pointers from the GLOBE research program. In N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Draft manuscript prepared for the Handbook of Organisational Culture and Climate . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.

Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Factors predicting the subjective well­ being of nations. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 851-864.

Driskell, J. E., & Mullen, B. (1990). Status, expectations, and behaviour: A meta-analytic review and test of the theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(3), 541-553.

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1982). Inferred sex differences in status as a determinant of gender about . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 915-928.

Earley, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the People's Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(4), 565-581.

Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets west meets mideast: Further explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36(2), 319-348. 224

Earley, P. C. (1994). Self or group? Cultural effects of training on self­ efficacy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1), 89-117.

Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B. (1998). Taking stock in our progress on individualism-collectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community. Journal of Management, 24(3), 265-304.

Earley, P. C., Gibson, C. B., & Chen, C. C. (1999). "How did I do" versus "How did we do?" Cultural contrasts of performance feedback use and self­ efficacy. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 30(5), 594-619.

Eby, L. T., & Dobbins, G. H. (1997). Collectivistic orientation in teams: An individual and group-level analysis. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 18(3), 275-295.

Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In C. C. L. & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organisational Psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 283-357). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Edwards, J. R. (1993). Problems with the use of profile similarity indices in the study of congruence in organizational research. Personnel Psychology, 46, 641-665.

Elangovan, A. R. (1995). Managerial conflict intervention m organisations: Traversing the . International Journal of Conflict Management, 6(2), 124-146.

Emerson, R. H. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31-41.

Erez, M. (1986). The congruence of goal setting strategies with sociocultural values and its effects on performance. Journal of Management, 12, 83-90.

Erez, M. (1997). A culture-based model of work motivation. In P. C. Earley & M. Erez (Eds.), New Perspectives on International Industrial/Organisational Psychology . San Francisco: The New Lexington Press/Jossey-Bass Inc. 225

Espinoza, J. A., & Garza, R. T. (1985). Social group salience and interethnic cooperation. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 21, 380-392.

Fagenson, E. A. (1990). Perceived masculine and feminine attributes examined as a function of individual's sex and level in the organisational power hierarchy: A test of four theoretical perspectives. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 75, 204-211.

Fijneman, Y. A., Willemsen, M. E., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1996). Individualism-collectivism: An empirical study of a conceptual issue. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 27(4), 381-402.

Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of : Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99( 4 ), 689-723.

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621-628.

Fox, M. F., & Firebaugh, G. (1992). Confidence in science: The gender gap. Social Science Quarterly, 73, 101-113.

Freeman, M. A. (1996). Factorial structure of individualism-collectivism in Sri Lanka. Psychological-Reports, 78(3, Pt 1), 907-914.

Freeman, M. A. (1997). Demographic correlates of individualism and collectivism: A study of social values in Sri Lanka. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(3), 321-341.

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Research Centre for Group Dynamics, Institute of Social Research.

Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1986). : Psychological reactions to unfamiliar environments. London: Methuen.

Gaenslen, F. (1986). Culture and decision making in China, Japan, Russia, and the United States. World Politics, 39, 78-103.

Gaertner, L., Sedikides, C., & Graetz, K. (1999). In search of self­ definition: Motivational primacy of the individual self, motivational primacy of 226

the collective self, or contextual primacy? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 5-18.

Gaines, S. 0., Jr., Marelich, W. D., Bledsoe, K. L., Steers, W. N., & et al. (1997). Links between race/ethnicity and cultural values as mediated by racial/ethnic identity and moderated by gender. Journal-of-Personality-and­ Social-Psychology, 72(6), 1460-1476.

Gelfand, M. J., Triandis, H. C., & Chan, D. K.-S. (1996). Individualism versus collectivism or versus ? European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 397-410.

Gerganov, E.-N., Dilova, M.-L., Petkova, K.-G., & Paspalanova, E.-P. (1996). Culture-specific approach to the study of individualism/collectivism. European-Journal-of-Social-Psychology, 26(2), 277-297.

Gladue, B. A., & Bailey, J. M. (1995). Aggressiveness, competitiveness, and human sexual orientation. Psycholneuroendocrinology, 20(5), 475-485.

Gordon, G. G. (1991). Industry determinants of organizational culture. Academy ofManagement Review, 16(2), 396-415.

Gorts, C. A., & Semin, G. R. (1998, August 3-8). Describing persons, events, and emotions: A cultural perspective. Paper presented at the 14th Congress of the International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Bellingham, WA.

Greenwald, A. G., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1984). The self. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook ofsocial cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 129-178). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Griffin-Pierson, S. (1990). The competitiveness questionnaire: A measure of two components of competitiveness. Measurement and Evaluation in Counselling and Development, 23, 108-115.

Griffith, R. W., & Hom, P. W. (1987). Some multivariate comparisons of multinational managers. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 22, 173-191.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1998). Individualistic and collectivistic perspectives on communication: An introduction. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 22(2), 107-134. 227

Gudykunst, W. B., Gao, G., Nishida, T., Nadamitsu, Y., & Sakai, J. (1992). Self-monitoring in Japan and the United States. In S. Iwawaki, Y. Kashima, & K. Leung (Eds.), Innovations in Cross-Cultural Psychology (pp. 185- 198). Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Gudykunst, W. B., Yoon, Y. C., & Nishida, T. (1987). The influence of individualism-collectivism on perceptions of communication in ingroup and outgroup relationships. Communication Monographs, 54(3), 295-306.

Hamaguchi E. (1985). A contextual model of the Japanese: Toward a methodological innovation in Japan studies. Journal of Japanese Studies, 11(2), 289-321.

Harris, M. J., Lightner, R. M., & Manolis, C. (1998). Awareness of power as a moderator of expectancy confirmation: Who's the boss around here? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20(3), 220-229.

Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1996). The affective implications of perceived congruence with culture dimensions during organizational transformation. Journal ofManagement, 22(4), 527-547.

Hesketh, B., & Gardner, D. (1993). Person-environment fit models: A reconceptualisation and empirical test. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 42, 315- 332.

Hesketh, B., & Myors, B. (1997). How should we measure fit in organisational psychology- Or should we? Australian Psychologist, 32(1), 71-76.

Hinkle, S., & Brown, R. (1990). Intergroup comparisons and social identity: Some links and lacunae. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances (pp. 48-70). New York: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organisational practices and theories. Journal ofIntercultural Business Studies, 14, 75-89.

Hofstede, G. (1986). Editorial: The usefulness of the 'organisational culture' concept. Journal ofManagement Studies, 23(3), 253-257. 228

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill International (UK) Ltd.

Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind. (Revised ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede's culture dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach's Value Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15(4), 417-433.

Hofstede, G., & Spangenberg, J. (1986, 1987, July 6-10). Measuring individualism and collectivism at occupational and organisational levels. Paper presented at the Growth and Progress in Cross-Cultural Psychology: Selected papers from the 8th International Conference of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Istanbul, Turkey.

Hofstede, G., Bond, M. H., & Luc, C. L. (1993). Individual perceptions of organisational cultures: A methodological treatise on levels of analysis. Organisation Studies, 14(4), 483-503.

Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organisational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 286-316.

Hogg, M.A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(4), 255-269.

House, R. (1998, August 9-14, 1998). Culture, leadership and organisational practices: A 60-nation study. Paper presented at the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology, San Fransisco, CA.

Hsu, F. L. (1983). Rugged Individualism Reconsidered. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Hui, C. H. (1988). Measurement of individualism-collectivism. Journal of Research in Personality, 22(1), 17-36.

Hui, C. H. (1989). Psychological collectivism: Self-sacrifice or sharing? In J. P. Forgas & J. M. Innes (Eds.), Recent advances in social psychology: An 229

international perspective. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.

Hui, C. H. (1990). Work attitudes, leadership styles, and managerial behaviours in different cultures. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied Cross-Cultural Psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 186-208). Newbury Park: Sage.

Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 17(2), 225- 248.

Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1989). Effects of culture and response format on extreme response style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 296- 309.

Hui, C. H., & Yee, C. (1994). The shortened Individualism-Collectivism Scale: Its relationship to demographic and work-related variables. Journal of Research in Personality, 28(4), 409-424.

Hui, C. H., & Yee, C. (1999). The impact of psychological collectivism and workgroup atmosphere on Chinese Employees' Job Satisfaction. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(2), 175-185.

Hui, C. H., Yee, C., & Eastman, K. L. (1995). The relationship between individualism-collectivism and job satisfaction. Applied Psychology An International Review, 44(3), 276-282.

Hyuck, M. H. (1991). Gender-linked self-attributes and mental health among middle-aged parents. Journal ofAging Studies, 5, 111-123.

Jabes, J., & Gruere, J. P. (1986, 1987). Organisations under siege: The onslaught ofcultural explanations oforganisational behaviour. Paper presented at the Growth and Progress in Cross-Cultural Psychology: Selected papers from the 8th International Conference of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Istanbul, Turkey, July 6-10.

Jackson, J. W., & Smith, E. R. (1999). Conceptualising social identity: A new framework and evidence for the impact of different dimensions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 120-135. 230

Jacobs, D. (1974). Dependency and vulnerability: An exchange approach to the control of organisations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19( 1), 45-59.

Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 77(261-271).

Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 359-394.

Kabanoff, B. (1991). Equity, equality, power, and conflict. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 416-441.

Kabanoff, B. (1993). An exploration of espoused culture in Australian organisations (with a closer look at the banking sector). Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 31(3), 1-29.

Kabanoff, B., & Nesbit, P. (1997). Metamorphic effects of power as relected in espoused organisational values: Implications for corporate governance. Australian Psychologist, 32(1), 62-70.

Kabanoff, B., Waldersee, R., & Cohen, M. (1995). Espoused values and organizational change themes. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 1075- 1104.

Kagitcibasi, C. (1996). Family and human development across cultures: A view from the other side. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kagitcibasi, C., & Poortinga, Y. H. (2000). Cross-cultural psychology: Issues and overarching themes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 129- 147.

Kanter, R. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Kao, H. S., & Sek Hong, N. (1993). Organisational commitment: From trust to at work. Psychology and Developing Societies, 5(1), 43-60.

Kashima, E. S., & Kashima, Y. (1998). Culture and language: The case of cultural dimensions and personal pronoun use. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(3), 461-486. 231

Kashima, E., Kashima, Y., & Hardie, E. (1998, August 3-8). Individual, relational, and collective selves across cultures. Paper presented at the 14th International Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Bellingham, WA.

Kashima, Y. (1995). Introduction to the special section on culture and self. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 26(6), 603-605.

Kashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Choi, S.-C., Gelfand, M. J., & Yuki, M. (1995). Culture, gender, and self: A perspective from individualism­ collectivism research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 925- 937.

Katakis, C. D. (1978). On the transaction of social change processes and the perception of self in relation to others. Mental Health and Society, 5, 275-283.

Keller, H., & Greenfield, P. M. (2000). History and future of development in cross-cultural psychology. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 52-62.

Kelly, C. (1993). Group identification, intergroup perceptions and collective action. European Review ofSocial Psychology, 4, 59-83.

Kim, M.-S., Sharkey, W. F., & Singelis, T. M. (1994). The relationship between individuals' self-construals and perceived importance of interactive constraints. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 18(1), 117-140.

Kim, U. (1995). Individualism and collectivism: A psychological, cultural and ecological analysis. (Vol. 21). Copenhagen: NIAS Publications.

Kipnis, D. (1974). The Powerholder. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Perspectives on Social Power . Chicago: Aldine.

Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson & Co.

Komin, S. (1990). Culture and work-related values in Thai organisations. International Journal ofPsychology, 25, 681-704.

Konrad, E., Brenk, K., & Sabadin, A. (1998, July 12-15). Differences in organisational practices and values among industries. Paper presented at the 6th 232

International Conference on Work Values and Behaviour: "Cross-cultural perspectives on work values and behaviour: East meets West", Istanbul, Turkey.

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1 ), 1-49.

Kuhn, M. H., & McPartland, R. (1954). An empirical investigation of self­ attitudes. American Sociological Review, 19, 68-76.

Kunin, T. (1955). The construction of a new type of attitude measure. Personnel Psychology, 8, 65-77.

Lachman, R. (1983). Modernity change of core and periphery values of factory workers. Human Relations, 36, 563-580.

Lalljee, M., & Angelova, R. (1995). Person description in India, Britain, and Bulgaria. Journal ofCross Cultural Psychology, 26(6), 645-657.

Lay, C., Fairlie, P., jackson, S., Ricci, T., Eisenberg, J., Sato, T., Teeaar, A., & Melamud, A. (1998). Domain-specific allocentrism-idiocentrism: A measure of family connectedness. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(3), 434-460.

Lenski, G. E. (1966). Power and privelege: A theory of social stratification. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (1989). On the empirical identification of dimensions for cross-cultural comparisons. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 20(2), 133-151.

Leung, K., & lwawaki, S. (1988). Cultural collectivism and distributive behaviour. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 19(1), 35-49.

Levine, J.M., & Moreland, R. L. (1991). Culture and socialisation in work groups. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington, D.C.: APA.

Limerick, D., & Cunnington, B. (1993). Managing the New Organisation. Chatswood, Australia: Business and Professional Publishing. 233

Lin, Z. (1997). Ambiguity with a purpose: The shadow of power in communication. In P. C. Earley & M. Erez (Eds.), New Perspectives on International Industrial/Organisational Psychology . San Francisco: The New Lexington Press/Jossey-Bass Inc.

Lincoln , J. R., & Kalleberg, A. L. (1985). Work organization and workforce commitment: A study of plants and employees in the U.S. and Japan. American Sociological Review, 50, 738-760.

Lincoln, J. R., Hanada, M., & Olsen, J. (1981). Cultural orientations and individual reactions to organisations: A study of employees of Japanese-owned firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 93-115.

Linville, P. W. (1985). Self-complexity and affective extremity: Don't put all your eggs in one cognitive basket. Social Cognition, 3, 94-120.

Linville, P. W. (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against stress-related illness and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 663-676.

Linville, P. W., & Carlston, D. E. (1994). Social cognition of the self. In P. G. Devine, D. L. Hamilton, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Social Cognition: Impact on social psychology . Sydney: Academic Press.

Liu, J. H. (1999). Report on the Third Conference of the Asian Association of Social Psychology in Taipei, Taiwan. Society of Australiasian Social psychologists Newsletter, 5(2), 4-7.

Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organisational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226-251.

Louis, M. R. (1990). Acculturation in the workplace: Newcomers as lay ethnographers. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organisational Climate and Culture . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lovaglia, M. J. (1995). Power and status: Exchange, attribution, and expectation states. Small Group Research, 26(3), 400-426. 234

Lucas, J. R., & Stone, G. L. (1994). Acculturation and competition among Mexican -Americans: A reconceptualisation. Hispanic Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 16(2), 129-142.

Lykes, M. B. (1985). Gender and individualistic vs. collectivistic bases for notions about the self. Journal ofPersonality, 53, 356-383.

Lykes, M. B. (1989). The caring self: Social experiences of power and powerlessness. In M. M. Brabeck (Ed.), Who Cares? Theory, Research, and Educational Implications ofthe Ethic ofCare. New York: Praeger.

Ma, V., & Schoeneman, T. J. (1997). Individualism versus collectivism: A comparison of Kenyan and American self-concepts. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19(2), 261-273.

Mael, F. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1992). Identifying organisational indentification. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 813-824.

Major, B., & Adams, J. B. (1983). Role of gender, interpersonal orientation, and self-presentation in distributive-justice behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 598-608.

Major, B., & Deaux, K. (1982). Individual differences in justice behaviour. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behaviour . New York: Academic Press.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1994). A collective fear of the collective: Implications for selves and theories of selves. Special Issue: The self and the collective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 568-579.

Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review ofPsychology, 38, 299-337.

Marshall, R. (1997). Variances in levels of individualism across two cultures and three social classes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28( 4), 490-495. 235

Matsui, T., Kakuyama, T., & Onglatco, M. L. (1987). Effects of goals and feedback on performance in groups. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 72, 407-415.

Matsumoto, D., Weissman, M. D., Preston, K., Brown, B. R., & Kupperbusch, C. (1997). Context-specific measurement of individualism­ collectivism on the individual level: The Individualism-Collectivism Interpersonal Assessment Inventory. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 28(6), 743-767.

McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington.

McDonald, P., & Gandz, J. (1992). Getting value from shared values. Organisational Dynamics, Winter, 64-77.

Mechanic, D. (1962). Sources of power of lower participants in complex organisations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 7, 349-364.

Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24(3), 351-389.

Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach to corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 74, 424-432.

Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1992). The measurement of work value congruence: A field study comparison. Journal ofManagement, 18, 33-43.

Merritt, A. C., & Helmreich, R. L. (1996). Human factors on the flight deck: The influence of national culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(1 ), 5-24.

Miller, J. G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 46(5), 961-978.

Miller, J. G., Bersoff, D. M., & Harwood, R. L. (1990). Perceptions of social responsibilities in India and in the United States: Moral imperatives or personal decisions? Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 58(1), 33-47. 236

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around Organisations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Mishra, R. C. (1994). Individualist and collectivist orientations across generations. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Methods and Applications (Vol. 18, pp. 225-238). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Mitchell, T. R., Hopper, H., Daniels, D., Falvy, J. G., & Ferris, G. R. (1998). Power, accountability, and inappropriate actions. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47(4), 497-517.

Monk, R. (1999). HR's secret tools. HRMonthly, February, 12-13.

Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 16(2), 127-142.

Morris, M. H., Avila, R. A., & Allen, J. (1993). Individualism and the modem corporation: Implications for innovation and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 19(3), 595-612.

Mowday, R., Steers, R., & Porter, L. (1979). The measurement of organisational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 14, 224-247.

Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 31, 268-277.

Murakami Yasusuke, Kumon Shumpei, & Sato Seizaburo. (1979). Bunmei to shite no ie-shakai (i.e., Society as a civilisation). Tokyo: Chuokoron-sha.

Ng, S. H. (1980). The social psychology of power. (Vol. 21). Sydney: Academic Press.

Niedenthal, P. M., & Beike, D. R. (1997). Interrelated and isolated self­ concepts. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(2), 106-128.

Nolan, J. (1996). Examining cultural differences in work-related values: A test of the individualism-collectivism dimension. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 237

Oishi, S., Schimmack, U., Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1998). The measurement of values and individualism-collectivism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(11), 1177-1189.

O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person­ organization fit. Academy ofManagement Journal, 34(3), 487-516.

Ouchi, W.-G., & Wilkins, A.-L. (1985). Organizational culture. Annual Review ofSociology, 11, 457-483.

Oyserman, D. (1993). The lens of personhood: Viewing the self and others in a multicultural society. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 993-1009.

Pareek, U., & Rao, T.V. (1980). Cross-cultural surveys and interviewing. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology (Vol. 2, ). Sydney: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.

Parsons, T., & Shils, E. A. (1951 ). Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Pelto, P. J. (1968). The difference between "tight" and "loose" societies. Transaction, April, 37-40.

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organisations. Boston: Pitman.

Pfeffer, J., & Selancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organisations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

Porter, L., Crampon, W., & Smith, F. (1976). Organisational commitment and managerial turnover: A longitudinal study. Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, 15, 87-98.

Posner, B. Z. (1992). Person-organisation values congruence: No support for individual differences as a moderating influence. Human Relations, 45, 351- 361.

Posner, B. Z., Kouzes, J. M., & Schmidt, W. H. (1985). Shared values make a difference: An empirical test of corporate culture. Human Resource Management, 24, 293-309. 238

Probst, T. M., Carnevale, P. J., & Triandis, H. C. (1999). Cultural values in intergroup and single-group social dilemmas. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 77, 171-191.

Punnett, B. J., Singh, J. B., & Williams, G. (1994). The relative influence of economic development and Anglo heritage on expressed values: Empirical evidence from a Caribbean country. International Journal of lntercultural Relations, 18(1), 99-115.

Quinn, R. E., & McGrath, M. R. (1985). The transformation of organisational cultures: A competing values perspective. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organisational Culture (pp. 315-334). Newbury Park, California: Sage.

Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in organisations: A longitudinal perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 105(1), 51-88.

Ramamoorthy, N., & Carroll, S. J. (1998). Individualism/collectivism orientations and reactions toward alternative human resource management practices. Human Relations, 51(5), 571-588.

Raven, B. H. (1992). A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven thirty years later. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7(2), 217-244.

Raven, B. H. (1993). The bases of power: Origins and recent developments. Journal ofSocial Issues, 49(4), 227-251.

Realo, A., Allik, J., & Vadi, M. (1997). The hierarchical structure of collectivism. Journal-of-Research-in-Personality, 31 ( 1), 93-116.

Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organisational Climate and Culture (pp. 5-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Reid, P. T., Roberts, C., & Ozbek, I. N. (1990). Occupational status and gender-role orientation among university women. Psychological Reports, 67, 1064-1066.

Reykowski, J. (1994). Collectivism and individualism as dimensions of social change. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon 239

(Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Methods and Applications (Vol. 18, pp. 276-292). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Rhee, E., Uleman, J. S., Lee, H. K., & Roman, R. J. (1995). Spontaneous self-descriptions and ethnic identities in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 69(1), 142-152.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature ofhuman values. New York: Free Press.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalised expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psy~hological Monographs, 80(whole no. 609).

Rousseau, D. M. (1990). Assessing organisational culture: The case for multiple methods. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organisational Climate and Culture . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Russell, B. (1938). Power: A New Social Analysis. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between job information sources, applicant perceptions of fit, and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 395-426.

Sastry, J., & Ross, C. E. (1998). Asian ethnicity and the sense of personal control. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(2), 101-120.

Schein, E. H. (1985). Organisational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Schein, E.-H. (1990). Organizational culture. Special Issue: Organizational psychology. American-Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119.

Schell, T. L., Klein, S. B., & Babey, S. H. (1996). Testing a hierarchical model of self-knowledge. Psychological Science, 7(3), 170-173.

Schneider, B. (1985). Organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 573-611.

Schneider, B. (1987a). E = f(P,B): The road to a radical approach to person-environment fit. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 31, 353-361.

Schneider, B. (1987b). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453. 240

Schneider, B. (Ed.). (1990). Organisational Climate and Culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 747-773.

Schneider, W. E. (1994). The Reengineering Alternative. New York: Irwin.

Schwartz, S. H. (1990). Individualism-collectivism: Critique and proposed refinements. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 21(2), 139-157.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Methods and Applications (Vol. 18, pp. 85-122). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Methods and Applications (Vol. 18, pp. 85-122). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a psychological structure of human values. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 878-891.

Secord, P. F., & Backman, C. W. (1964). Social Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill.

Sedikides, C., & Gaertner, L. (In Press). The social self: The quest for self­ definition and the motivational primacy of the individual self. In J. P. Forgas, K. D. Williams, & L. Wheeler (Eds.), The social mind: Cognitive and motivational aspects ofinterpersonal behaviour .

Segall, M. H., Lonner, W. J., & Berry, J. W. (1998). Cross-cultural psychology as a scholarly discipline: On the flowering of culture in behavioural research. American Psychologist, 53(10), 1101-1110. 241

Seligman, M. E. P. (1990). Learned Optimism. Sydney: Random House.

Sheridan, J. E. (1992). Organisational culture and employee retention. Academy ofManagement Journal, 35, 1036-1056.

Shweder, R. A., & Bourne, E. J. (Eds.). (1984). Does the concept of the person vary cross-culturally? Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Special Issue: The self and the collective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580-591.

Singelis, T. M., & Brown, W. J. (1995). Culture, self, and collectivist communication: Linking culture to individual behaviour. Human Communication Research, 21(3), 354-389.

Singelis, T. M., & Kim, U. (1998, August 3-8). Cross-cultural analysis of social behaviour. Paper presented at the 14th International Congress of the International Associaltion for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Bellingham, WA.

Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29(3), 240- 275.

Singh, J. P. (1990). Managerial culture and work-related values in India. Organization Studies, 11(1), 75-101.

Sinha, D., & Tripathi, R. C. (1994). Individualism in a collectivist culture: A case of coexistence of opposites. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, K. C., S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Methods and Applications (Vol. 18, pp. 123-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sinha, J.B. P., & Verma, J. (1994). Social support as a moderator of the relationship between allocentrism and psychological well-being. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, K. C., S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Methods and Applications (Vol. 18, pp. 267-275). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative-Science-Quarterly, 28(3), 339-358. 242

Smith, E. R., & Henry, S. (1996). An in-group becomes part of the self: Response time evidence. Personality-and-Social-Psychology-Bulletin, 22(6), 635- 642.

Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National culture and the values of organisational employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 27(2), 231-264.

Smith, P. B., Peterson, M., Misumi, J., & Bond, M. (1992). A cross­ cultural test of the Japanese PM leadership theory. Applied Psychology An International Review, 41 (1 ), 5-19.

Soeters, J., & Schreuder, H. (1986). Nationale en organisatieculturen in accountantskantoren. Sociologische Gids, 33(2), 100-121.

Sorokin, P. A., & Lunden, W. A. (1959). Power and : Who shall guard the guardians? Boston: Porter Sargent.

Spears, R., Doojse, B., & Ellemers, N. (1999). Commitment and the context of social perception. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social Identity: Context, Commitment, Content (pp. 59-83). Oxford: Blackwell.

Spiro, M. E. (1993). Is the Western conception of the self "peculiar" within the context of world cultures? Ethos, 21(2), 107-153.

Swanson, D. L. (1996). Neoclassical economic theory, executive control, and organisational outcomes. Human Relations, 49(6), 735-756.

Tajfel, H. (1979). Individuals and groups in social psychology. British Journal ofSocial and Clinical Pscyhology, 18, 183-190.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey: Brooks-Cole.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. W. W. G. Austin (Ed.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations . Chicago: Nelson Hall.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley. 243

Ting-Toomey, S. (1998, August 3-8). Cross- styles: Current status and future directions. Paper presented at the 14th International Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Bellingham, WA.

Tjosvold, D. (1990). Power in cooperative and competitive organisational contexts. Journal ofSocial Psychology, 130(2), 249-258.

Tjosvold, D., Andrews, I. R., & Struthers, J. T. (1991). Power and interdependence in work groups: Views of managers and employees. Group & Organisation Studies, 16(3), 285-299.

Topal ova, V. (1997). Individualism/collectivism and social identity. Journal ofCommunity and Applied Social Psychology, 7(1 ), 53-64.

Trafimow, D., Silverman, E., S., Mei-Tai Fan, R., & Shui Fun Law, J. (1997). The effects of language and priming on the relative accessibility of the private self and the collective self. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(1), 107-123.

Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 649-655.

Treiman, D., J. (1977). Occupational Prestige in Comparative Perspective. New York: Academic Press.

Triandis, H. C. (1967). Interpersonal relationships in international organisations. Journal of Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, 2, 26-55.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behaviour in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3), 506-520.

Triandis, H. C. (1993). Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes. Cross Cultural Research The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 27(3-4), 155-180.

Triandis, H. C. (1994). Cross-cultural industrial and organisational psychology. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook 244

of Industrial and Organisational Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 103-172). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American Psychologist, 51, 407-415.

Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118-128.

Triandis, H. C., & Singelis, T. M. (1998). Training to recognise individual differences in collectivism and individualism within culture. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 22(1), 35-47.

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Betancourt, H., Bond, M., Leung, K., Brenes, A., Georgas, J., Hui, C. H., Marin, G., Setiadi, B., Sinha, J. B. P., Verma, J., Spangenberg, J., Touzard, H., & de Montmollin, G. (1986). The measurement of the etic aspects of individualism and collectivism across cultures. Special Issue: Contributions to cross-cultural psychology. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38(3), 257-267.

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self­ ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 323- 338.

Triandis, H. C., Chan, D. K. S., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Iwao, S., & Sinha, J.B. P. (1995). Multimethod probes of allocentrism and idiocentrism. International Journal ofPsychology, 30(4), 461-480.

Triandis, H. C., Chen, X. P., & Chan, D. K.-S. (1998). Scenarios for the measurement of collectivism and individualism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(2), 275-289.

Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M. J., & Clack, F. L. (1985). Allocentric versus idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 19, 395-415. 245

Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 1006-1020.

Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., Betancourt, H., lwao, S., Leung, K., Salazar, J.M., Setiadi, B., Sinha, J.B. P., Touzard, H., & Zaleski, Z. (1993). An etic-emic analysis of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 24(3), 366-383.

Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The Cultures of Work Organisations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorisation and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behaviour. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in Group Processes (Vol. 2, pp. 77-122). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.

Turner, J.C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorisation theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social Identity: Context, Commitment, Content (pp. 6-34). Oxford: Blackwell.

Turner, J.C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 454-463.

van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (2000). Methodological issues in psychological research on culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 33- 51.

van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research. (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

van Knippenberg, D. (in press). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review.

Vancouver, J.B., & Schmitt, N. W. (1991). An exploratory examination of person-organization fit: Organizational goal congruence. Personnel Psychology, 44(2), 333-352.

Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. Special Issue: Intra- and Interorganizational Cooperation. Academy ofManagement Journal, 38(1 ), 152-172. 246

Wagner, J. A., & Moch, M. K. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: Concept and measure. Group and Organization Studies, 11(3), 280-304.

Wang, Z.-M. (1994). Culture, economic reform and the role of industrial/organisational psychology in China. In H. C. Triandis, M. Dunnete, & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organisational Psychology (pp. 689-726). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Ward, C. (1996). Acculturation. In D. Landis & R. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook ofintercultural training (2nd ed., ). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ward, C., & Chang, W. C. (1997). "Cultural fit": A new perspective on personality and sojourner adjustment. International Journal of lntercultural Relations, 21(4), 525-533.

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1992). Locus of control, mood disturbance and social difficulty during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of lntercultural Relations, 16, 175-194.

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993a). Psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions: A comparison of secondary students overseas and at home. International Journal ofPsychology, 28, 129-147.

Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993b). Where's the "culture" in cross-cultural transition? Comparative studies of sojourner adjustment. Journal of Cross­ Cultural Psychology, 24, 221-249.

Ward, C., & Searle, W. (1991). The impact of value discrepancies and on psychological and sociocultural adjustment of sojourners. International Journal oflntercultural Relations, 15, 209-225.

Watkins, D., & Gerong, A. (1997). Culture and spontaneous self-concept among Filipino college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 13 7( 4 ), 480- 488.

Watkins, D., & Gerong, A. (1999). Language of response and the spontaneous self-concept: A test of the cultural accommodation hypothesis. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 30(1), 115-121.

Watkins, D., Adair, J., Akande, A., Cheng, C., Fleming, J., Gerong, A., Ismail, M., Mcinerney, D., Lefner, K., Mpofu, E., Regmi, M., Singh-Sengupta, S., 247

Watson, S., Wondimu, H., & Yu, J. (1998). Cultural dimensions, gender, and the nature of self-concept: A fourteen-country study. International Journal of Psychology, 33(1), 17-31.

Watkins, D., Adair, J., Akande, A., Gerong, A., Mclnerney, D., Sunar, D., Watson, S., Wen, Q., & Wondimu, H. (1998b). Individualism-collectivism, gender, and the self-concept: A nine culture investigation. Psychologia: An International Journal ofPsychology in the Orient, 41(4), 259-271.

Watkins, D., Yau, J., Dahlin, B., & Wondimu, H. (1997). The twenty statements test: Some measurement issues. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(5), 626-633.

Webster, J., M., & Driskell, J., J. E. (1978). Status generalisation: A review and some new data. American Sociological Review, 43, 220-236.

Xenikou, A., & Furnham, A. (1996). A correlational and factor analytic study of four questionnaire measures of organizational culture. Human-Relations, 49(3), 349-371.

Yamaguchi, S. (1994). Collectivism among the Japanese: A perspective from the self. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (Vol. 18, pp. 175-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Yu, A. B., & Yang, K. S. (1994). The nature of achievement motivation in collectivist societies. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, method and applications (Vol. 18, ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Yuki, M., & Brewer, M. B. (1998, August 3-8). Group representation and self-concept: Japanese distinct-networked self vs. American collective self. Paper presented at the 14th International Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Bellingham, WA.

Yuki, G. A. (1981). Leadership in Organisations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 248

Zammuto, R. F., & Krakower, J. Y. (1991). Quantitative and qualitative studies of organisational culture. Research in Organisational Change and Development, 5, 83-114.

Zimbardo, P. G., Ebbesen, E. B., & Maslach, C. (1977). Influencing attitudes and changing behaviour: An introduction to method, theory, and applications ofsocial control and personal power. Mass: Addison-Wesley. 249

Appendix lA

Differences on the TST according to organisation type

Four 2x2 ANOVAs were conducted for each of the TST response categories. In each case, both main effects and the interaction term were significant. Looking at the means for each organisation (see Table lA.l), the most outstanding result is that participants in the Thai hospitals included more social responses, especially social­ contextual responses, and less autonomous responses than all other groups. The hospital in Australia was also higher on social-contextual responses than the management consultancy. Responses from participants in the Asian management consultancy branches were very similar to those from the Australian branches.

Table lA.1. Mean percentage of response types on the TST for each sample Australia Asia Response Type MC Hospital MC Hospital Autonomous- 68.16 64.36 70.42 33.63 Abstract Autonomous- 10.27 9.78 9.89 4.78 Contextual Social- 6.10 4.39 3.82 11.33 Abstract Social- 15.46 21.46 15.88 50.31 Contextual

It was possible that the number of non-native participants in both the Australian samples and the Asian management consultancy reduced the extremity of mean responses. However, when only native participants were included in each sample, results were not significantly different.

There are several possible reasons why the Thai sample showed such a different response. First, it could be that employees in the management consultancy branches in Asia were more highly educated, English speaking and individualistic than the rest of the populations in those countries. That is, it is unusual that these participants did NOT include more social responses to the TST. However, these participants responded to the TST in English, unlike participants in the Thai sample, who 250 responded in Thai. While this was no doubt an influencing factor, it is improbable that this caused such a large difference. It could also be argued that provincial Thailand is much less urbanised than coastal NSW (where the hospitals were situated), a factor which can strongly affect responses on the TST (e.g., Ma & Schoeneman, 1997). Finally, it is possible that the results are due to the of Thai culture as compared to the rest of Asia. 251

Appendix 1B

Sample Questionnaire

Measure Page

Cover Letter 252 TST (I am ... ) 253 HV-IC 254 Wagner & Moch Organisational I-C 255 Social Identity Scale 256 Organisational Commitment 256 Job Satisfaction 257 Demographic Items 257 Status and Power Items 257 252 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH PROJECT ON WORK PREFERENCES

Dear Staff Member,

You are invited to participate in a research project in organisational culture and diversity being conducted at the University of New South Wales, Australia. We hope to learn more about the way people interact with each other and preferences for the way work is done. This study is being conducted with employees in your organisation and in a number of other organisations (both in Australia and overseas). It will be used to investigate the complex link between national values, individual work preferences, organisational cultures and attitudes towards organisations.

The questionnaire takes 15 minutes to complete, and has four sections: 1. Your own values and work preferences 2. One aspect of your organisation's culture 3. How you feel about your organisation and your job 4. General questions about you and your position within the organisation. It is important that you answer all of the items.

The questionnaire is anonymous and completely confidential. Your managers will not have access to your individual questionnaire. Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your relations with the University or your organisation. Your help in this work is entirely voluntary. We value your opinion and would greatly appreciate your assistance in completing the attached questionnaire.

After we have completed the study, we will send you a brief report of the highlights of the findings. Results from individual questionnaires will be combined in order to summarise findings. In any publication, information will be provided in such a way that you and your organisation cannot be identified. This research will only be useful if you understand what the questions are asking. If at any time you have questions or comments please talk to Ms. Louise Parkes from the University of New South Wales, or contact your Human Resources Manager.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION

If you have any complaints, these may be directed to the Secretariat, University of New South Wales, SYDNEY 2052 AUSTRALIA (phone 6129385 4234, fax 6129385 6648, email [email protected]). 253 SECTION 1: How would you describe yourself? Below are ten lines, each beginning with "I am". Please complete each of the lines with a short phrase. This task might seem a bit odd, but we are simply interested in how you see yourself. Just write the first thing that comes to your mind. Do not write your name, as we do not want to be able to identify you.

lam ------

lam ------

lam ------

lam ------

lam ------

lam ------

lam ------

lam ------

lam ------

lam ------254 The following statements are about what is important to you in life and at work. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement by circling one number from 1 to 7 on the following scales: strongly disagree strongly agree 1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------5 ------6 ------7 IN GENERAL ... 1. I am a unique person, separate from others. l---2---3---4---5---6---7 2. I would do what pleases my family, even ifl detested that activity. l---2---3---4---5---6---7 3. I'd rather depend on myself than on others. l---2---3---4---5---6---7 4. What happens is my own doing. l---2---3---4---5---6---7 5. I usually sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group. l---2---3---4---5---6---7 6. We should keep our aging parents with us at home. l---2---3---4---5---6---7 7. I enjoy being unique and different from others in many ways. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 8. Children should feel honoured if their parents receive a distinguished award. l---2---3---4---5---6---7 9. I often "do my own thing". l---2---3---4---5---6---7 10. Being a unique individual is important to me. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 11. I would sacrifice an activity I enjoy very much if my family did not approve of it. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 12. My personal identity, independent from others, is very important to me. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 13. Children should be taught to place duty before pleasure. l---2---3---4---5---6---7 14. Self-sacrifice is a virtue. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 15. It is important to me that I respect the decisions made by my family and friends. l---2---3---4---5---6---7 16. I rely on myself most of the time, I rarely rely on others. l---2---3---4---5---6---7

WHEN I AM AT WORK ... 1. It is important to consult co-workers and get their ideas before making a decision. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 2. Winning is everything. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 3. It annoys me when other people perform better than I do. l---2---3---4---5---6---7 4. It is important for me to maintain harmony within my group. l---2---3---4---5---6---7 5. It is important to me that I do my job better than others. l---2---3---4---5---6---7 6. I like sharing small things with my co-workers. l---2---3---4---5---6---7 7. I enjoy working in situations involving competition with others. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 8. The well being of my co-workers is important to me. l---2---3---4---5---6---7 9. If a co-worker were in financial difficulty, I would help within my means. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 10. Competition is the law of nature. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 11. If a co-worker gets a prize I would feel proud. l---2---3---4---5---6---7 12. To me, pleasure is spending time with others. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 13. When another person does better than I do, I get tense and unsettled. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 14. Without competition it is not possible to have a good society. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 15. I feel good when I cooperate with others. l---2---3---4---5---6---7 16. Some people emphasise winning; I am not one of them. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 SECTION 2: The following questions ask you to describe your organisation. Try to think about the people in your workplace as you rate each statement. Sometimes it may be best when people make personal sacrifices for the sake of the work group. Other times it may be best when people concentrate on their own interests and concerns. How well do the following statements describe your organisation? Please circle one number from 1 to 7 on the following scales: not at all true true 1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------5 ------6 ------7

(How many people are in your workgroup? _____ ) 1. My work group produces more when its members do what they want to do rather than what the group wants them to do. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7

2. My work group gets the job done with the least amount of time and effort when its members do what the group wants them to do, rather than what they think is best. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7

3. My work group produces more when its members follow their own interests and concerns. l---2---3---4---5---6---7

4. Most people in my workplace prefer to work with others in work groups rather than work alone. l---2---3---4---5---6---7

5. Given the choice, most people in my workplace would rather do a job where they can work alone rather than a job where they have to work with others in work groups. l---2---3---4---5---6---7

6. Most people in my workplace like it when members of work groups do things on their own, rather than working with others all the time. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7

7. People in my work group are willing to make sacrifices for the sake of the work group (such as working late now and then; going out of their way to help, etc.). 1---2---3---4---5---6---7

8. People in my work group realise that they sometimes are going to have to make sacrifices for the work group as a whole. l---2---3---4---5---6---7

9. People in my work group recognise that they are not always going to get what they want. l---2---3---4---5---6---7

10.People are made aware that if they are going to be part of the work group, they are sometimes going to have to do things they don't want to do. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7

I I .People in my work group try to work things out on their own instead of doing their best to cooperate with each other. l---2---3---4---5---6---7 SECTION 3: The following questions ask about your feelings toward your organisation. Please indicate your response by circling one number between 1 and 7.

I !.) Generally speaking, how typical a member of your organisation do you feel you are? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not very typical very typical 2.) Generally speaking, how well do you fit in with the other people in your organisation? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all fit in very well 3.) How much of a sense of belonging do you feel you have with other people in your organisation? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 none a lot 4.) With respect to your general attitudes and opinions, how similar do you feel you are to other members of your organisation? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very dissimilar very similar 5.) Generally speaking how much do you like the other people in your organisation? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all very much 6.) How much do you feel you identify with your organisation? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all very much

For the following statements, please indicate your response by circling one number between 1 and 7 on the scale: strongly disagree strongly agree 1 ----- 2 ----- 3 ----- 4 ----- 5 ----- 6 ----- 7 l. I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally

expected in order to help this organisation be successful. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 2. I promote this organisation to my friends as a great organisation to be

associated with. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 3. I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep

working for this organisation. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 4. I find that my values and the organisation's values are very similar. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 5. I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organisation. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 6. This organisation really inspires the very best in me in the way of job

performance. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 7. I am extremely glad that I chose this organisation to work for, over

others I was considering at the time I joined. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 8. I really care about the fate of this organisation. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 9. For me this is the best of all possible organisations for which to work. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 257

Tick the box under the face which expresses how you feel about your job in general, including the work, the pay, the supervision, the opportunities for promotion, and the people you work with.

SECTION 4: The following questions aim to obtain some general information about you. Please answer each question honestly. Remember, your responses will remain completely confidential. Please tick the appropriate box, or answer in the space provided: Age: Occupation: under 18 D 18 -29 D 30-39 D Position Title: 40-49 D 50- 59 D over 59 D Number of years with organisation: Less than 1 year D Country of birth: ------1 to 3 years D Number of years in Australia: ______4 to 6 years D I regard myself as being ethnically: 7 to 9 years D 10 or more years D For the following questions please circle one Highest level of education attained: number from 1 to 7. Primary School D How would you describe the status of your School Certificate D position within your organisation? Higher School Certificate D very low very high Diploma or Certificate at T AFE D 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 University Bachelors Degree D University Graduate Degree D I find that I have access to people with significant influence in the organisation. What percentage of your work requires the not at all very often cooperation of others in order to complete tasks? 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 0-20% D 21-40% D I find that I have access to people who would be 41-60% D valuable to my boss. 61 - 80% D not at all very often 81 -100% D 1---2---3---4---5---6---7

What percentage of your work is actually spent I find that I have special information or access cooperating with others to complete tasks? to a resource that would be valuable to my boss 0-20% D or people at higher levels. 21-40% D not at all very often 41 -60% D 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 61- 80% D 81 -100% D I find that my boss is dependent on me. not at all very often Sex: 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 Female D Male D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION 258

Appendix lC

Regression of components of the social-contextual score on Hofstede's Individualism Index.

Step R2Change Variable B Std. Error Beta 1 .13*** Social Identity -.47 .05 -.37*** 2 .03** Non- (Social Identity) -.57 .14 -.17*** ** p<.01, ***p<.001 259

Appendix 1D

Correlations between TST scores and Hofstede's Individualism Index for participants' country of birth in each national culture group.

TST category Autonomous- Autonomous- Social- Socia/­ Sample abstract contextual Abstract contextual Asia .35*** .10 -.25*** -.34*** Australia .05 .01 -.05 -.06 **p<.01, ***p<.001 260

Appendix lE

Correlations between the TST and Horizontal and Vertical 1-C for each national culture group

An inspection of the correlations between the TST and 1-C questionnaire measures for Australia and Asia suggested that the results may be culture-specific (see Table IE.l). It appeared that VI was positively associated with the autonomous self scores, and negatively associated with the social self scores in Asia, but not Australia. Similarly, both the collectivism scales were correlated positively with social­ contextual scores and negatively with the autonomous-abstract scores in the Asian sample.

Table lE.1. Correlations between TST scores and Horizontal and Vertical 1-C for Australia and Asia Autonomous- Autonomous- Social- Social- abstract contextual Abstract contextual Asia Vertical Collectivism -.17** -.08 -.02 .23*** Horizontal Collectivism -.17** -.08 -.03 .21 *** Vertical Individualism .26*** .19** -.25*** -.24*** Horizontal Individualism -.05 -.02 -.04 .10 Aust Vertical Collectivism -.06 -.04 .05 .06 Horizontal Collectivism -.08 .04 .04 .03 Vertical Individualism .02 .03 .04 -.01 Horizontal Individualism .05 -.10 -.06 -.00 **p<.01, ***p<.001

To test if these correlations were significantly different between the culture groups, the interaction terms between culture and TST scores were entered (after the main effects) into four hierarchical regression analyses on each of the 1-C measures. There was only one significant interaction (R2change=.01, p<.05), which indicated that the correlation between abstract-social scores and the VI measure was 261 significantly different for each cultural group. That is, the abstract-social self concept score was negatively related to VI in Asia, but not in Australia. Although the other interaction terms did not reach significance, correlations between VI and TST scores in the combined sample were smaller (see Table 10), and obviously driven by the responses in the Asian sample.

In contrast, none of the interactions for VC were significant, and the correlations in the combined sample were slightly larger. It is probable that the smaller correlations in the Australian sample were due to the skewed nature of the TST data. For example, 84% of the Australian sample had at least half of their TST responses as autonomous-abstract statements, as compared to 48% of the Asian sample. 262

Appendix 2

Correlations between HV-IC and other 1-C and demographic variables for each national culture group

Vertical Horizontal Horizontal Vertical Collectivism Individualism Collectivism Individualism Australia vc (.67) -.01 .22*** .24*** HI (.80) .00 .07 HC (.69) -.12 VI (.81) Hofstede's Index -.15* -.04 -.09 -.07 Social Self-concept .05 .03 .04 -.08 Cooperation at work .07 -.04 .09 -.03

Sex8 .04 -.01 -.18** .33*** Age .13* -.08 .00 -.07 Asia vc (.65) .26*** .48*** .11 HI (.80)b .24*** -.05 HC (.74) .09 VI (.71) Hofstede's Index -.34*** -.05 -.14* .13* Social Self-concept .20** .08 .19** -.30*** Cooperation at work .07 -.03 .13 -.17

Sex8 -.17** -.08 -.12* .20*** Age .03 -.03 .04 -.12* Note: Alpha reliability coefficient for each scale presented in brackets a. Female= 1, Male= 2. b. Based on MC sample only. Questionnaire for the Thai sample was an earlier version including only 7 items for Ill, with 3 slightly different items (see Appendix 3A). Alpha reliability on this scale was .59. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 263

Appendix 3A

Measuring Organisational Culture in terms of Individualism and Collectivism

Several pilot studies were undertaken in an attempt to adapt measures of individualism-collectivism appropriate for the organisational level of culture.

Pilot Study 1 Wagner & Moch's (1986) Beliefs, Values and Norms scale measures three distinct factors: beliefs (about whether groups or individuals are more productive), values (preferences for working alone or in a group) and norms (whether employees are expected to make sacrifices for the work group). This scale was administered to a sample of 18 Indonesian midwives, first as an individual measure, and then a second time, with instructions to respond according to how much "you think most people in your workplace would agree or disagree with the following statements". The items were identical.

The individual measure had a reliability alpha coefficient of .67, while the reliability of the organisational measure was .73. Factor analysis showed that the organisational measure more strongly reflected the factor structure of Wagner & Moch's beliefs, values and norms (Wagner, 1995; Wagner & Moch, 1986). However, feedback from subjects indicated that they had some trouble understanding the difference between the two administrations of the measure. To avoid confusion, each item was altered to target the organisation, and tested among university students (n = 30). Reliability for this sample was .74, and while not perfect, items generally loaded on their specified sub-scale.

Pilot Study 2 The second pilot study was designed chiefly to assess the appropriateness of other organisational measures of 1-C. The following were adapted from cultural or individual measures. Subjects were 37 employees in the training department of a major bank. Results are reported for each measure separately. 264

Values Rating: Schwartz and Bilsky (1990) examined data on Rokeach's (1973) values survey from Australia, Finland, Hong Kong, Spain and the United States, and divided the values according to whose interests the attainment of each value serves (individual vs. collective). In the present pilot test, subjects were asked to rate the values on a seven point scale (as in Triandis, Mccusker & Hui, 1990) in terms of how important the values were as a guiding principle in their organisation. Factor analysis revealed eight factors, some of which reflected those found by Schwartz and Bilsky (1990), however, overall individualistic and collectivistic values did not load onto two separate factors. When restricted to two factors, the analysis appeared to show values loading onto a work-related factor and a work-irrelevant factor (e.g., values such as love, forgiveness, salvation, world ). When the work-irrelevant factors were taken out of the analysis, the factor structure remained the same.

Earley's group vs individual interests: This scale measures the subordination of individual to group goals (Earley, 1989; Morris, Avila & Allen, 1993), and was adapted to describe the organisation, rather than the individual. Reliability (Cronbach's alpha) for Earley's scale has been reported to be between .76 and .88 (Morris et al., 1993). In this pilot test Earley's items revealed a reliability coefficient of .09. (Recently Earley recommended "that other measures of individualism­ collectivism be used given the weak performance of this measure", Earley & Gibson, 1998).

Coworker Subscale: Nine of the eleven items in the Co-worker subscale of the INDCOL measure (Hui, 1988) were adapted to describe the organisation. Analysis revealed a reliability coefficient of .35 (Cronbach's Alpha), which is similar to the reliability found for the original subscale.

There were no significant correlations found between any of the measures. Of these measures the adapted Wagner and Moch scale was selected for inclusion in subsequent questionnaires because of its stable and useful factor structure and its acceptable reliability. However, analysis of responses to the measure in the larger samples suggested that it was still not a completely valid measure of organisational culture. In an Australian sample including the Management Consultancy (n= 160), an 265

Insurance company (n = 117) and an Australian public sector department (n=40), subjective ratings of power, horizontal collectivism, cooperation, commitment, satisfaction, and organisational culture were all correlated at p<0.01. This high correlation with individual-level variables suggests that participants were unable to separate their own orientations from that of their organisation. Also, when each of the HV-IC scales were included in a factor analysis with the organisational culture measure, each of them formed discrete factors except for Horizontal Collectivism, which loaded together with Organisational Culture onto one factor.

Another factor analysis was conducted in order to investigate the possibility that the variables of cooperation, commitment, collectivism etc, were not separate, but confounded measures of some underlying construct, e.g., organisational citizenship. When items in these correlated measures were entered into the analysis, examination of the scree plot suggested a five factor solution (see Table 3B.l).

The first factor was Commitment, consisting of all the commitment items plus global satisfaction. The second factor was Horizontal Collectivism (minus two items from the measure). The third was power, with each of the four items loading on this factor. The fourth factor may be labelled Cooperation, and consisted of ratings of both required and actual cooperation on work tasks, one HC item (importance of consulting co workers before making decisions), and the beliefs factor of the organisational measure (cooperating with group is productive and efficient). The fifth factor was comprised of the other two sections of the organisational measure, values and norms, and one HC item (preference for spending time with others).

From this analysis it appeared that the norms and values subscales did represent distinct (albeit subjective) ratings of culture. The beliefs subscale appeared to be related to an individual orientation towards cooperation. However, in subsequent analyses the Wagner and Moch measure did not perform very differently from HC, and both measures showed minimal differences between organisations. Wagner and Moch's adapted scale was therefore not included as a separate culture measure. 266

Table 3B.1. Factor loadings of Horizontal Collectivism items, Organisational Commitment items, Organisational Culture subscales, Subjective Power items, Global Satisfaction, and required and actual cooperation ratings on five factors

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Commitment Collectivism Power Cooperation Org.Culture Horizontal Collectivism l .01896 . 34 94 9 .02179 .38747 * .15236 4 .11153 .67595 * -.10847 .09423 .11851 6 . 02972 .60077 * .05055 .19192 .05499 8 .09531 .73626 * .14468 .07928 . 09713 9 .18047 .43359 * .24773 -.23735 -.11890 11 .16714 . 62943 * .13217 .07904 .03307 12 .02505 .19905 * .04011 -.02031 .41396 * 15 .10810 .57686 * -.01466 .04129 .18193 Organisational Culture ORGB .16688 .19340 -.12485 .42843 * .22699 ORGN .20235 .11862 . 1124 7 .06403 .73748 * ORGV .19003 .03654 .12648 .20523 .69580 * Commitment COMMl .51757 * .15924 .21421 .17506 .04209 COMM2 .82385 * .15830 .14343 .08230 .13156 COMM3 .68296 * .04108 .07439 -.03401 .05058 COMM4 .76348 * .14915 .14191 .03650 .10751 COMM5 .80773 * .14270 .13602 .11839 .08398 COMM6 .79722 * .12857 .14156 .13807 .12949 COMM7 .81799 * .00680 .03331 .06270 .09305 COMM8 . 72411 * .15150 .09161 .06214 -.05270 COMM9 .84978 * .06123 -.02362 .06273 .05758 Job Satisfaction .67776 * . 03113 .17404 .02587 .16736 Required Cooperation .11887 .04460 .23527 .84850 * .02910 Actual Cooperation .14694 .12902 .26062 .80677 * -.01514 Power PEOPLEl .26207 .03673 .74161 * .10032 .19254 PEOPLE2 .14308 .11916 .79812 * .12978 .16558 RESOURCl . 07222 .03497 . 81968 * -.01375 .05559 RESOURC2 .19133 .06971 .53870 * .17021 -.04833

The relationship between HC and Wagner and Moch's measure contrasts with Chen et al.'s (1997) conception of this measure as synonymous with vertical collectivism. While conceptually the items refer to subordination of own goals to work-group goals, empirically it was related to HC. This may have been partially due to the fact that HC items targeted to the work context, and both scales may have been measuring standard norms for work collectivism in Australia. 267

Appendix 3B

Item differences for HV-IC in the Thai hospitals sample

Item General Version Version for Thai hospitals sample vc (14) Self-sacrifice is a virtue. I hate to disagree with others in my group. vc (15) It is important to me that I respect Before travel on a major trip, I consult most the decisions made by my family of my family members and friends. and friends. HI (1) I am a unique person, separate When I talk to people I prefer to be direct and from others. straightforward. HI (3) I'd rather depend on myself than One should live one's life independently from on others. others. HI (12) My personal identity, independent I like . from others, is very important to me. HI (16) I rely on myself most of the time, Not included I rarely rely on others. HC (1) It is important to consult co- My happiness depends very much on other workers and get their ideas before people's happiness. making a decision. 268

Appendix 4A

Comparison of population and sample characteristics for the Australian management consulting firm. % Population % Sample Sex Male 59 54 Female 41 46 Position Partners 8 8 Directors 16 15 Managing Consultants 22 20 Senior Consultants 20 23 Consultants 13 11 Assistant Consultants 9 7 Support Staff 12 17 269

Appendix 4B

Prestige ratings (based on Daniel, 1983)

Hospitals Nurse 3.8 Management Consultancy Enrolled Nurse 3.9 Assistant Consultant 3 .4 Clinical Nurse Specialist = Double Management Consultant 3 .2 certificate = 3. 7 Senior Consultant 3.0 Nurse Unit Manager (supervisor) Managing Consultant 2.8 3.4 Director 2.1 Senior Manger 3 .2 Partner 1.8 Director 2.8 Analyst 3.4 Average 3.1 Actuary 2.5 Midwife 3.6 Accountant 2.9 Doctor 1.9 Senior Accountant 2. 7 Registrar 1. 7 Secretary (Receptionist) 4.6 Intern 2.8 Senior receptionist ( office manager Health Professional ( average of assistant) 4.4 below)= 3.5 Production supervisor (production social worker 3 .5 manager, junior) 3.8 occupational therapist 3.6 psychologist 2. 7 physiotherapist 3 .2 speech pathologist 3 .5 270

Appendix 4C

Hierarchical regressions of national culture and power variables on HV-IC

Table 4C.1. Summary of hierarchical regressions of national culture and power variables on Individualism-Collectivism. Variables Entered B Std. Error Beta Prestige (N=530) Step 1 (R2 = .06***)

National Culture3 -.27 .07 -.17*** Prestige .19 .06 .15** Step 2 (R2change = .00) Culture x Prestige .02 .11 .05

Power (N=572) Step 1 (R2 = .03***) National Culture -.41 .12 -.14** Power .12 .05 .10* Step 2 (R2change = .00) Culture x Power .01 .10 .05

Position in MC Step 1 (R2 = .04**) National Culture -.20 .11 -.12 Position .07 .03 .14* Step 2 (R2change = .005) Culture x Position .08 .07 .25

Position in Hosp Step 1 (R2 = .07**) National Culture -.38 .11 -.23** Position -.19 .10 -.14* Step 2 (R2 = .00) Culture x Position -.14 .23 -.21

Status (N=563) Step 1 (R2 = .03***) National Culture -.29 .07 -.17 Status -.03 .03 -.04 Step 2 (R2change = .007*) Culture x Status -.10 .05 -.39* a. 1 = Asia, 2 = Australia *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. 271

Table 4C.2. Summary of hierarchical regressions of national culture and power variables on Horizontal Individualism.

Variables Entered B Std. Error Beta Prestige (N=535) Step 1 (R = .01 *)

National Culture8 -.41 .15 -.12** Prestige -.13 .11 -.05 Step 2 (R2change = .00) Culture x Prestige .23 .23 .28

Power (N=568) Step 1 (R2 = .01 *) National Culture -.35 .14 -.10* Power .02 .06 .02 Step 2 (R2change = .00) Culture x Power -.06 .12 -.10

Position in MC Step 1 (R2 = .04**) (N=261) National Culture -.70 .22 -.20** Position -.00 .07 -.00 Step 2 (R2change = .01) Culture x Position .27 .15 .40

Position in Hosp Step 1 (R2 = .03) (N=205) National Culture -.59 .26 -.16* Position .19 .22 .06 Step 2 (R2 = .00) Culture x Position .36 .54 .24

Status (N=568) Step 1 (R2 = .01 *) National Culture -.34 .14 -.10* Status .03 .05 .02 Step 2 (R2change = .004) Culture x Status .17 .11 .31 a. 1 = Asia, 2 = Australia *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. 272

Table 4C.3. Summary of hierarchical regressions of national culture and power variables on Vertical Collectivism.

Variables Entered B Std. Error Beta Prestige (N=538) Step 1 (R2 = .11 ***) National Culturea .97 .14 .29*** Prestige -.26 .11 -.10* Step 2 (R2change = .00) Culture x Prestige -.12 .23 -.28

Power (N=571) Step 1 (R2 = .10***) National Culture 1.10 .14 .32*** Power .03 .06 .02 Step 2 (R2change = .00) Culture x Power .06 .11 .10

Position in MC Step 1 (R2 = .06***) (N=264) National Culture .64 .20 .19** Position -.13 .06 -.12* Step 2 (R2change = .00) Culture x Position -.11 .14 -.17

Position in Hosp Step 1 (R2 = .15) (N=205) National Culture 1.53 .26 .38*** Position .13 .22 .04 Step 2 (R2 = .00) Culture x Position .68 .53 .43

Status (N=571) Step 1 (R2 = .09***) National Culture 1.01 .14 .30*** Status .02 .05 .02 Step 2 (R2change = .00) Culture x Status .09 .10 .17 a. 1 = Asia, 2 = Australia *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. 273

Table 4C.4. Summary of hierarchical regressions of national culture and power variables on Horizontal Collectivism.

Variables Entered B Std. Error Beta Prestige (N=539) Step 1 (R2 = .03**) National Culturea -.40 .13 -.16*** Prestige -.20 .10 -.09* Step 2 (R2change = .00) Culture x Prestige -.05 .20 -.07

Power (N=572) Step 1 (R2 = .03***) National Culture -.44 .44 -.15** Power .12 .05 .10* Step 2 (R2change = .00) Culture x Power .01 .10 .01

Position in MC Step 1 (R2 = .04**) (N=265) National Culture -.49 .18 -.17** Position -.13 .06 -.14* Step 2 (R2change = .007) Culture x Position -.18 .12 -.31

Position in Hosp Step 1 (R2 = .08***) (N=205) National Culture -.41 .24 -.12 Position .73 .20 .25*** Step 2 (R2 = .00) Culture x Position .08 .49 .06

Status (N=572) Step 1 (R2 = .02**) National Culture -.44 .12 -.15*** Status .01 .05 .01 Step 2 (R2change = .00) Culture x Status -.01 .10 -.02 a. 1 = Asia, 2 = Australia *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. 274

Table 4C.5. Summary of hierarchical regressions of national culture and power variables on Vertical Individualism.

Variables Entered B Std. Error Beta Prestige (N=540) Step 1 (R2 = .03***) National Culturea -.22 .18 -.05 Prestige .47 .14 .15** Step 2 (R2change = .00) Culture x Prestige -.25 .28 -.26

Power (N=573) Step 1 (R2 = .05***) National Culture -.19 .17 -.05 Power .35 .07 .22*** Step 2 (R2change = .00) Culture x Power -.04 .14 -.05

Position in MC Step 1 (R2 = .00) (N=266) National Culture .03 .23 .01 Position .05 .07 .04 Step 2 (R2change = .01) Culture x Position -.29 .16 -.40

Position in Hosp Step 1 (R2 = .07**) National Culture Position Step 2 (R2 = .00) Culture x Position

Status (N=573) Step 1 (R2 = .01) National Culture -.28 .17 -.07 Status -.10 .06 -.07 Step 2 (R2change = .03***) Culture x Status -.53 .13 -.82*** a. 1 = Asia, 2 = Australia *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. 275

Appendix 4D

Hierarchical regressions of demographic variables and organisational position on Horizontal and Vertical Collectivism

Table 4D.1. Summary of hierarchical regression of demographic variables and position in the management consultancy on Vertical Collectivism. Step R2 Change Variables in Equation B Std Error Beta 1 .003 Age -.02 .06 -.02 Sex a .19 .22 .06 Education .01 .10 .00

2 .05*** Age .02 .06 .02 Sex .59 .24 .17* Education .12 .11 .08 Position -.30 .08 -.28*** a. 1 = female, 2 = male. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.

Table 4D.2. Summary of hierarchical regression of demographic variables and position in the hospitals on Horizontal Collectivism. Step R2 Change Variables in Equation B Std. Error Beta 1 .06** Age .36 .11 .23** Sex -.13 .58 -.02 Education -.06 .13 -.03

2 .04** Age .25 .11 .16* Sex -.18 .57 -.02 Education -.12 .13 -.06 Position .65 .21 .22** a. 1 = female, 2 = male. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. 276

Appendix 4E

Summary of hierarchical regression of status and tenure on Vertical Individualism in the Asian sample

Step R2 Change Variables in Equation B Std. Error Beta 1 .05*** Status -.17 .04 -.23***

2 .05*** Status -.08 .05 -.11 Tenure -.14 .04 -.25*** *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. 277

Appendix 5A

Sample question booklet for priming experiment 278

TASKl

Try to remember a situation in which you were powerful because you had access to people with significant influence, a network of peers, or other people who were valuable in that situation.

Please describe the situation as fully as possible, including how you felt and your thoughts at that time:

Please do not turn over the page until directed to by the experimenter. 279

The following items ask you to indicate the extent to which you had access to people and resources that were valuable in the situation you just described. Please circle one number from 1 to 7 on the following scales:

1. I had access to people with significant influence in that situation. not at all true true 1 ---- 2 ---- 3 ---- 4 ---- 5 ---- 6 ---- 7

2. I had special information or resources that were valuable in that situation. not at all true true 1 ---- 2 ---- 3 ---- 4 ---- 5 ---- 6 ---- 7

3. I had access to people who were valuable to the decision-makers/ key players in that situation. not at all true true 1 ---- 2 ---- 3 ---- 4 ---- 5 ---- 6 ---- 7

4. I had unique skill, knowledge or expertise that was valuable in that situation. not at all true true 1 ---- 2 ---- 3 ---- 4 ---- 5 ---- 6 ---- 7

5. I had access to a network of peers who provided me with information and support in that situation. not at all true true 1 ---- 2 ---- 3 ---- 4 ---- 5 ---- 6 ---- 7

6. The key people / decision-makers were dependent on me in that situation. not at all true true 1 ---- 2 ---- 3 ---- 4 ---- 5 ---- 6 ---- 7 280

TASK2

How would you describe yourself? Below are ten lines, each beginning with "I am". Please complete each of the lines with a short phrase. Don't spend too long on this task, just write the first thing that comes to your mind. Do not write your name, as we do not want to be able to identify you.

lam ------

lam ------

I am ------

lam ------

lam ------

lam

lam

lam

lam ------

I am ------281 The following statements are about what is important to you. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement by circling one number from 1 to 7 on the following scales: strongly disagree strongly agree 1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------5 ------6 ------7

1. I am a unique person, separate from others. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 2. It is important to consult close friends and get their ideas before making a decision. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 3. I would do what pleases my family, even ifl detested that activity. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 4. Winning is everything. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 5. I'd rather depend on myself than on others. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 6. What happens is my own doing. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 7. I usually sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 8. It annoys me when other people perform better than I do. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 9. It is important for me to maintain harmony within my group. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 10. It is important to me that I do my job better than others. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 11. I like sharing little things with my neighbours. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 12. I enjoy working in situations involving competition with others. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 13. We should keep our aging parents with us at home. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 14. The well being ofmy co-workers is important to me. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 15. I enjoy being unique and different from others in many ways. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 16. If a relative were in financial difficulty, I would help within my means. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 17. Children should feel honoured if their parents receive a distinguished award. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 18. I often "do my own thing". 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 19. Competition is the law of nature. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 20. If a co-worker gets a prize I would feel proud. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 21. Being a unique individual is important to me. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 22. To me, pleasure is spending time with others. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 23. When another person does better than I do, I get tense and unsettled. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 24. I would sacrifice an activity I enjoy very much if my family did not approve of it. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 25. My personal identity, independent from others, is very important to me. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 26. Without competition it is not possible to have a good society. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 27. Children should be taught to place duty before pleasure. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 28. I feel good when I cooperate with others. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 29. Self-sacrifice is a virtue. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 30. Some people emphasise winning; I am not one of them. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 31. It is important to me that I respect the decisions made by my family and friends. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 32. I rely on myself most of the time, I rarely rely on others. 1---2---3---4---5---6---7 282

Some general questions about you - remember these are anonymous and confidential (their relevance will be explained during debriefing):

1. Your sex? Female / Male

2. Yourage? _____

3. Were you born in Australia? Yes /No If 'No': Where were you born? ______How long have you been in Australia? ______

4. I regard myself as being ethnically ( e.g. Chinese, Australian, Greek): ______

5. What language are you most likely to speak: at university ______at home ------283

Appendix 5B

Themes occurring in situations recounted following the Powerful­ Independent Prime. (Participant # in brackets)

Resources were valuable because others wanted/needed them

"I was in charge, it was me who had all the knowledge, felt pretty good" (5)

"I had inside knowledge . . .knowledge that they want . . .it gives you power in the sense that you know something people want or need to know" (21)

"I was in a position ofsharing this information and the paper with peers" (25)

"I felt very important ... that I was needed for my knowledge of an aircraft ... my language skills and I was needed when all the passengers were confused" (41)

"I felt powerful when I was helping to train a new girl at work, because I knew how to do everything ... I liked being the one with power, and being able to share that knowledge" (45)

Status / superiority over others

"right now it was me who was number 1 ... I was 'above' them" (5)

"I felt powerful because my knowledge .. . was better than her(s) . .. I had the knowledge and customer assistance skills that solved the problem she was having" (9)

"teaching her how to use the computer made me feel good about myselfbecause I knew something that she didn't know" (29)

"!felt like a pseudo-manager or something, training a young recruit" (9)

"the teacher announced that I got the highest mark in the class" (13)

"I believed I had an advantage over most ofthe players ... I could easily win ... because ofmy age ... I was able to accomplish something that I never thought I could" (49) 284

Responsibility to help others

"I came upon a very upset and lost group of (little) year seven students ... I took it as my responsibility to get them back to school... I was powerful and able to help someone in need"(])

"it made me feel powerful and maybe in a way special but the main feeling was a strong responsibility" (21)

"Since I speak German and had been doing a lot of travelling during the 3 previous years, I was the one who had to take care ofher" (3 7)

"I needed to communicate with the English people using English and also took care ofmy grandmother as she spoke no English" (53)

"I used knowledge and expertise to calm my mother and put (her) foot back in place, then call ambulance. I felt very much in control, without panic, that gave me the power and I've saved my mother's foot from more damage" (61)

"I was helping a friend do an assignment in a subject which he had no idea about and one in which I was quite knowledgable" (65)

"Power over" others / influencing others

"I was given the task ofplatoon leader to 20 new recruits . .. this involved all basic training ... I was the one in charge, the teacher, the leader ... All 20 of them standing in attention just waiting for me to tell them what to do ... I felt very powerful because whatever I'd say, they would do it" (5)

"!felt so influen[tial] and important, especially to them ... I know I can change them" (17)

"I did feel quite powerful then because I had to direct her to do certain things on the computer because I had the knowledge and lots ofexperience" (29) 285

Appendix SC

Powerless situations: lack of cultural knowledge, skills and connections

"when I started going to school in Australia ... the reason I felt powerless was because I had not been to primary school here, I had the skill and expertise to deal with bullies in India but I did not have the expertise to tackle these new different bigger and harsher bullies ... I also feel that if I knew the language well then perhaps I could have made better comebacks" (A 7)

"I first arrived in Australia in 1986 and could not speak any English .. . I didn't have any friends who could speak English either ... as a result I got into trouble without a chance to explain myself' (B56)

"When Mum and I moved from Western suburbs Sydney to Eastern Suburbs when I was 12 I had great difficulty readjusting to a new school and social environment ... /felt vulnerable, lost and alienated" (A63)

"I travelled Europe ... I broke out in a sweat, so nervous that we would be "stuck in the middle of nowhere" - with no-one to speak English and help us through" (B52)

"/ had never been in a court before ... I did not know what the court 'etiquette' was ... I felt powerless during the morning because I didn't have the knowledge or information" (A55)

"First coming to university, I felt powerless in the sense that everything was new; the people, place, environment .. . a sense of having the control over nothing ... my old set ofpeers from thigh school were gone" (B72)

"/ this point I realised I was on my own. I was on holiday by myself, in an unusual country, injured, and there was no-one to help me" (B76) 286

Appendix 5D

Powerless situations: dependence on others / domination by others

"It was my first car crash ... he got out ofhis car in a very intimidating manner and aggressive tone and told me it was my fault ... I was so nervous and shocked I had lost all control and didn't know how to handle the situation" (57- Ind)

"I felt totally humiliated and intimidated ... I felt like he'd used his power (because I knew he was a member of council) to yell at a young person ... He seriously scared me, I thought he was going to hit me. If my dad or brother was outside I honestly don't think he would have done" (20-Int)

"during group work in our English class ... I was put in a group ofgirls and I was the odd one out ... they tried to isolate me ... I felt compelled to just take it all and stay quiet ... they ... did not really do their part of the group work ... I felt ... forced to let them have their ways" (24-Int)

"In yr 8 I was bashed up by a girl in her early 20's whom I did not know ... I was alone at the time and felt powerless because I was alone and had no-one to help me" (60-Int)

"it was my Father's wedding day and I was with my mum ... but on that day I didn't even know that it was his wedding day - no-one told me ... I didn't understand why my own Mum wouldn't let me attend my fathers wedding day, I felt sad and lonely" (27-Ind)

"I wanted to go to the same school as my friends but my family (mother and brothers) didn't agree ... I cannot do anything about it because after all, they were the one who financed my life ... they were making the decision for me, not myself' (39-Ind)

"You lack the power to determine your life ifyou're economically dependent on someone other than yourself For example, ifyou have afight with your parents or a disagreement there's no viable option - so you give in" (36-Int) 287

"I suffered a mild depression and was taken to hospital for treatment. They kept me there for a few months and would not allow me to make any kinds of decisions at all .. . I could not talk to any of my friends, family members and other people with significant influence e.g. doctors, counsellors, social worker, psychologist etc. I felt really powerless, helpless, frustrated ... I felt totally out ofcontrol ... I remember myselffeeling hopeless and helpless" (28-Int)

"in a basketball game . . .we were losing badly . . .there wasn't too much I could do ... all I could do was watch the margin of the score become wider and wider" (15-Ind)

"I was at a pretty big tournament, and I was going well, until I basically hit a win-or-lose situation ... I eventually reached a point where I was powerless to do anything but lose" (47-Ind) 288

Appendix 5E

Powerful-Interdependent situations: group membership

"we had to devise a group performance ... we suddenly threw all these amazing ideas at each other ... I felt extremely powerful and in control, yet still able to yield and accept that I was part ofa group" (2)

"I didn't actually have any power over anyone but I had many friends and a lot of confidence within myself It was due to these friends that I felt wanted and needed, thus very confident and also extremely powerful, like I could do anything in the world" (6)

"the first day ofuniversity ... I met people I knew from last year ... this gave me a sense ofpower ... I had a network ofpeers who would help me out" (66)

"a situation when I felt powerful or more to the point empowered was in a support group ... with people like myself ... they had valuable information to talk with us about ... we all had information to convey" (70) 289

Appendix 5F

Powerful-Interdependent situations: Connections with powerful others

to achieve the participant's goals

"/ kept trying really hard to get in (to university) ... however I was rejected every time because my TER was ... too low. Luckily for me one of my future lecturers was a friend from way back of my parents. He wrote a letter recommending me and I was finally allowed in" (30)

"My dad's business partners are quite ''powerful" and prominent because they used to work for the Chinese government .. . so they have all sorts of "connections" which grant them easy assess to nearly whatever they want even when they're doing business now. Because I'm the daughter of their Hong Kong partner ... whenever I just suggested I was thinking of doing or needing something, these people would immediately try every possible way to do it for me" (22)

"/ was PA to a Prof who looked after entire building, thus I had power to discuss changes for all PAs and secretarial staff . .. and direct access to Director to request better conditions ... " (7 4)

as a resource for power over others

"/ was invited to a well known figure within the community's house for dinner ... the whole night ended up being revolved around me ... ifI wanted something ... I had 10 people reaching for it all at once ... I was so overwhelmed with the attention at the same time as feeling that I had control" (62)

"I've been in this group for almost 6 years. Due to this, I knew a lot of influential people ... I knew that with my friends (backing me up) I would not be afraid ... /felt ''powerful" in a way that I need not be afraid ofmy actions" [of punishing a new group member] (38) 290

"Because I have good connections with the teachers and staff, I was ... voted as a class representative which made me become powerful over my friends in that class" (JO)

"we formed ourselves into groups ... since the rest of the group had no-one to interview, I suggested the person, whom I know and everyone was kind of relying on me ... (he) agreed for an interview because he knew me ... (Also, the) teacher is quite hard to get. Fortunately, my dad knows the brother of this teacher and ... managed to get some time out of her ... I was quite powerful at that time as everyone was relying on me and I knew I had the power to make or break it. I felt very much like a conductor in an orchestra, with people 'obeying' my stick as I wave to and fro" (14)

"Despite complaints by other shop owners .. . I continued to do this job as a result of ... my boss's intervention ... I was given the power to argue with shop owners by my employer" (42)

"throughout the day they continually had to ask me questions about certain matters, as I had the connection with the hosts" (54)

"With the people I knew who had previous computing experience, my parents continued to ask my advice and /felt powerful in this situation" (78)