Week 15, Culture of IO, Slides Flashcards
1
Q
Background
A
- To compete effectively, organizations have established facilities overseas (countries invite FDI)
- Immigration (in high tech fields) and joint international ventures
- Global economies are intricately tied together
- Cultural values directly impact the success of management initiatives
- Can be a source of misunderstanding and resistance
- I/O psychology has until recently relied on western views
- Attempting to resolve management issues by using traditional North American methods will not be adequate.
- We need more cultural competency when conducting research and practice
- Research designs are extremely challenging in CC settings
2
Q
What is Culture?
A
- At ICCM, we define culture as the shared values, norms, beliefs, assumptions, and systems of meaning held by members of any social collective.
- These collectives exist at many levels beyond nation and can be demographic (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender), geographic (e.g., national, regional), or associative (e.g., political, organizational, disciplinary) in nature.
- Individual cultural identity is multifaceted and composed of many assigned and chosen demographic, geographic, and associative elements that intersect in meaningful ways.
3
Q
Culture
A
- Culture affects people in a variety of basic psychological domains:
** Self-concept
** Attribution and reasoning
** Interpersonal communication
** Negotiation
** Intergroup relations
4
Q
Convergence vs. Divergence
A
- Given the growth of communication technology, some have posited that cultures will converge
- Data suggests that at a macro level that might be true
** Organizations are becoming more similar - However at an individual level, we may actually see more divergence
** People are resisting, and embracing their culture
5
Q
Cultural Dimensions Adler (1991)
A
- What is the nature of people? (Mixture of good and evil and change is possible vs. good and evil and change is impossible)
- What is a person’s relationship to nature? (People dominant over nature vs. harmony or subjection to nature)
- What is a person’s relationship to other people? (Individualistic vs. group (hierarchical or lateral).
6
Q
Cultural Dimensions (cont.)
A
- What is the primary mode of activity? (Doing i.e. employee works hard to achieve goals) vs. being (i.e. employee works only as much as needed to be able to live)
- What is the conception of space? (Private vs. public.)
- What is a person’s temporal orientation? (Future/present vs. past/present)
7
Q
Hofstede’s (1980)
Dimensions
A
- Power Distance - “the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally”
- Low and High Power Distance
8
Q
Low PD
A
- Bypass their boss frequently in order to get their work done
- Have little concern for titles, status, and formality
- Comfortable accepting higher levels of responsibility and autonomy
9
Q
High PD
A
- Expect managers to lead
- Become uncomfortable with both the delegation and discretionary decisions
- Dislike role ambiguity
- Consider any bypassing of bosses to be insubordination
10
Q
PD Continuum
A
Low
* Israel
* Denmark
* U.S.
High
* Philippines
* Venezuela
* India
11
Q
Individualism/Collectivism
A
- Collectivists tend to put aside their own self-interests in deference to the interests of their group
- Identity is based in the social system
- Disregard individual performance differences when determining employee rewards
12
Q
Individualism
A
- Promote their own welfare
- United States - a highly individualistic culture
- Prefer reward distributions that are based on individual performance
- Individuals from individualistic cultures will resist teams
13
Q
I/C Continuum
A
Individualistic
* Australia
* United States
* Great Britain
Collectivist
* Japan
* Pakistan
* Colombia
14
Q
I/O examples
A
- How do we motivate employees with rewards ?
- Merit raises would be effective in individualistic cultures
- Gain-sharing is more likely to be effective in countries that are more collectivist
15
Q
Uncertainty Avoidance
A
- When uncertainty avoidance is strong, a culture tends to perceive unknown situations as threatening so that people tend to avoid them
- Ex. South Korea, Japan, and Latin America
16
Q
Weak Uncertainty Avoidance
A
- People feel less threatened by unknown situations
- Tend to be more open to innovations, risk, etc
- Ex. - US, the Netherlands, Singapore
17
Q
I/O example
A
- Self Directed Work Teams
- Autonomy is a trait that is seen as desirable in countries with weak uncertainty avoidance
- Participatory management style would be valued here
- Not so in countries with Strong Uncertainty Avoidance
- interesting example of interaction Japan has strong uncertainty avoidance, but
is high on collectivism. Being a member of a group can decrease uncertainty
18
Q
Femininity vs. Masculinity
Feminine cultures tend to value:
A
- Good working relationship with their supervisors
- Working with people who cooperate well with one another
- Having the security that they will be able to work for their company as long as they want
19
Q
Femininity versus
Masculinity
Masculine cultures tend to value:
A
- High opportunity for earnings
- Getting the recognition they deserve when doing a good job
- Having an opportunity for advancement to a higher-level job
- Challenging work / a sense of accomplishment
20
Q
Femininity
versus
Masculinity countries
A
Feminine
* Sweden
* France
* Israel
Masculine
* Japan
* Hong Kong
* Italy
21
Q
Ecological fallacy
A
- Must be careful not to stereotype
- Just because a person comes from a culture does not mean they will be representative of the culture’s norms and values
- Variance on a construct can occur at multiple levels of analysis
** Cultural
** Individual
** Etc.
22
Q
Hall’s Dimensions
A
- Proxemics, Touch & Eye Contact
- High vs. Low Context
- Monochronic vs. Polychronic
23
Q
Etic vs. Emic
A
Etic – Research from the outside looking in
* Interested in comparisons
Emic – study from within the system
* Look at one culture longitudinally, discovery the key…
24
Q
Imposed Etic
A
- Take assessments validated in Western cultures and directly apply them to more than one culture.
- Intentions were to find cross-cultural differences (Smith & Bond, 1993).
- Questionable assumption - the test have the same meaning to the new participants as they did to those in the original
25
Q
Emic Research
A
- Berry proposed that researchers should construct and validate indigenous test instruments for each culture.
- These efforts should be independent of each other and would be conceptualized as “parallel” emic studies.
- Once these assessments had been validated for their respective cultures, cross-cultural comparisons would be completed.
26
Q
Etic-Emic Distinction
A
- An etic analysis focuses on the universal aspects of human behavior (e.g. the fact that all humans eat…)
- An emic analysis of these behaviors focuses on the different and varied ways these activities are expressed within any specific culture (e.g. what specific food each culture prefers to eat)
- Should not be conceptualized as opposite ends of a continuum.
- Both views provide important information to understand what cultural elements are shared, and which are unique. Need both for a complete picture.
27
Q
Either/Or Fallacy
A
- All of these approaches have strengths and weaknesses
- Can often be used in a complementary fashion
- Leads to more sophisticated models, and cross validation
28
Q
Conceptual Equivalence
A
- A construct has conceptual equivalence when :
** It can be meaningfully discussed across 2 cultures
** Similar (not necessarily exact) meaning - Are we measuring the same thing?
- Appropriate translation is necessary but not sufficient
29
Q
Conceptual Equivalence
Image
A
Image
30
Q
Conceptual Equivalence Example
A
- Response distortion (faking) has been a long standing concern in the U.S.
- Japanese organizations also utilize personality measures during their personnel selection process
- Particularly important as an assessment of “fit” or proclivity to “fit in”
- However, emphasis or research interest on applicant faking behavior is non-existent in Japan
31
Q
CC examination of faking
A
- Concepts may be very different across cultures
- In the U.S. faking is often equated with deception - we have strong societal norms regarding deception
** Lying is “wrong” - But…the U.S. is highly individualistic
- Studies have found that Americans consistently self-enhance (Kitayama, Marcus, Matsumoto & Norasakkkunkit, 1997)
- Roughly 30% of applicants evidence elevated scores on personality tests
- Best predictors are dispositional
32
Q
“Faking” in Japan
A
- Stereotypes of Japan suggest that it is a self effacing culture
** Often seen in collectivist cultures - True in some contexts
- However, there is the issue of “saving face”, that deserves closer attention.
- Triandis and Suh (2002) suggested in order to save face or to help the in-group, deception is a more acceptable behavior or even “correct behavior” in collective cultures
- Distinction between tatemae and honne (public and private feelings) - Duality
- Things can be ‘true” and “false” at the same time
- In Asian cultures behavior is viewed more as a function of situational pressures rather than the product of dispositional factors (high context)
- Most Japanese self bias research was not conducted in an applicant context (very competitive)
- Japanese educational system – highly competitive, and “encourages” a culture of academic dishonesty
- Preparation for employment testing is actively taught in universities in Japan - “Cram schools”
- Expectations from Japanese Organizations – “company man”
33
Q
Faking?
A
- In both cultures applicants elevate their scores on personality tests
- Are they engaging in the same behavior?
- Does it mean the same thing?
- Can it be “compared” ?
34
Q
Structural Equivalence
A
- Refers to the relationships of the model being compared
- Do we get similar parameters in the model?
- Structural equivalence gives further support to conceptual equivalence
- Cool either way…similarities and differences both can be revealing
35
Q
Structural Equivalence
Image
A
Image
36
Q
Measurement Invariance
A
- When we compare scale scores across different groups, we make an assumption that the scale measures the same construct in all of the groups
- If that assumption is true, comparisons and analyses of those scores are valid, and subsequent interpretations are meaningful
- However, if that assumption does not hold, such comparisons do not produce meaningful results
- Meaningful comparisons of statistics (e.g. mean level differences) can only be made under conditions of invariance
37
Q
Functional Equivalence
A
- Exists when constructs have the same empirical relationship with an outcome variable
- Does not require conceptual equivalence or structural equivalence
** Similar to “Dustbowl empiricism” and empirical keying - Different behaviors can lead to the same outcome
38
Q
Functional Equivalence
Culture “A” Image
A
Image
39
Q
Functional Equivalence
Culture “B” Image
A
Image
40
Q
Confirmation
A
- Need to make sure your data fit your model
- Difficult to do because of multiple levels of theory, and analyses
- Need for clean models
- SEM, Hierarchical Linear Analyses are tools that help
41
Q
Frog Pond Effects
A
- Levels of construct can be confounded by the culture the person resides in.
- Frog can be big or little depending on the size of the pond
- Ex item.
- I am a family oriented person
** Me vs. Zeeshan
42
Q
I am a family oriented person
Image
A
Image
43
Q
Broad Research Base
Image
A
Image
44
Q
Cold Cognition?
A
Encountering “different” can arouse:
* Feelings of anxiety (Moraitis, 1991)
* Perceptions of danger (Bronson, 1968)
* Pre-conscious threat to survival (Öhman, Lundqvist, & Esteves, 2001)
* Lower trust (Brewer, 1979)
* Decreased interpersonal comfort (Allen, Day, & Lentz, 2005).
45
Q
In sum:
A
- Encountering the boundary of different has reliable non-trivial effects on affect, behavior, and cognition
- The experience is extremely robust, ingrained, and may have evolutionary roots
- Common dynamics operating despite apparently distinct domains?
46
Q
Dealing with Different?
Implications?
A
- Broad issue
- Scientific progress
- More robust, scalable solutions
- Efficient on front end & back end
- Simplicity for the customer
