WHEN DOES CULTURE MATTER: LOCUS OF CONTROL
AND PERFORMANCE GOAL ORIENTATION AS AMPLIFIERS OF
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIVIDUALISM AND TEAMWORK AVERSION
Master thesis, MSc, International Business and Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
January 15, 2015 HRISTO ALEKSANDROV Student number: S2030306 Esdoornlaan 828 9741MK Groningen tel.: +31 (0) 623835098 e-mail: aleksandrov.career@gmail.com Supervisor
dr. J.A. (Bram) Neuijen
Co-assessor
dr. R.W. (Rudi) de Vries
Word count: 7,690
1
ABSTRACT
2
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ... 1
INTRODUCTION ... 3
THEORY ... 5
Individualism and Teamwork ... 5
Locus of Control and Teamwork ... 8
The moderating effect of LOC ... 10
Performance Goal Orientation and Teamwork ... 11
METHODOLOGY ... 12 Sample ... 13 Measures ... 13 Individualism ... 13 Teamwork aversion ... 15 Locus of control ... 15
Performance goal orientation ... 15
RESULTS ... 16
Hypothesis Testing ... 16
Theoretical and Practical Implications ... 19
Limitations and Future Research ... 20
Limitations ... 20
CONCLUSION ... 21
REFERENCES ... 23
APPENDIX A ... 29
Figure A1: Rotter’s (1966) LOC scale, divided into three dimensions by Smith et al. (1995)... 29
APPENDIX B ... 31
Survey ... 31
APPENDIX C ... 36
3
INTRODUCTION
Team based work is wide spread both in the classroom and in the office. On the other hand due to workforce mobility teams are often composed of people from different national and cultural backgrounds. For example, a third of Europeans consider it more likely to find a job abroad than in their home country, and 17 percent envisage working abroad at some point in their life (Geographical and labour market mobility, 2010). Both of these factors combined create a managerial challenge of a specific nature. With an increased number of variables it becomes more important to understand what has a significant impact on this work structure in order to manage it effectively.
This paper looks at this problem from a cultural perspective on the individual level. As such it is exploring the relationship between the individual and the group in a work setting. Sociology and psychology have taken great interest in the relationship between the individual and the group. This relationship has been called many names (e.g. self-emphasis and collectivity (Parsons, 1949) and agency and community (Bakan, 1966) among others). In more recent times this relationship became known as individualism (IND) and collectivism (COL), or I/C. Through this dimension the intercultural workplace could be better understood by managers. For example I/C have been found to influence people’s commitment and loyalty to a team (Sosik & Jung, 2001; Ramamoorthy & Flood, 2004; Wagner, 1995).
Cultural variables alone do not paint a complete picture of attitude towards teamwork. As Leung et al. (2005) point out in their review, culture almost always matters, but the relationships are often weak and therefore other factors must be considered to explain relationships better (: 368). The potential here is considerable, as various types of factors can exist that magnify or diminish the effect of culture. This is what lies in the heart of this paper. More specifically, it is about IND and its combined effect with certain personality variables on teamwork aversion. Because the moderating effects hypothesized are personality traits, it is important to note that IND here is a phenomenon on the individual level as well.
4 tend to regard justice as more important than relationships and thus resort to more assertive conflict resolution, which leads to friction and in teams and is not in line with their preference for reward systems (Ohbuchi, Fukishama & Tedeshi, 1999; Kirkman & Shapiro, 2000).
The second contribution of this paper has to deal with moderating effects that can potentially enhance culture’s impact. It is likely that culture has an impact on teamwork. However it is yet not clear what circumstances enhance or diminish the effects of culture. There can be several types of variables that moderate the effects of culture on teamwork and thus explain why culture’s impact may be enhanced or diminished depending on the interactions. These variables can be on the individual level (e.g. does the individual identify with the culture?; personal characteristics), group level (e.g. stage of group development) and situational (e.g. uncertainly) (Leung et al., 2005). This paper considers individual level factors, more specifically locus of control (LOC) and performance goal orientation (PGO).
LOC is a fundamental variable that explains behaviors based on expectancy (the degree to which cause is believed to lead to effect) and reinforcement (effect) and (Phares, 1976). As such it is one of the core self-evaluations (Judge, Locke & Durham, 1997). It is not only about the perception of control but also could lead to a preference for control (Kabanoff & O’Brien, 1980). Thus it could have significant implications for individuals in teamwork situations where control is limited and the effort of the individual does not necessarily translate to team success.
Performance goal orientation (PGO) is one of two modes of motivation in achievement goal theory, the other one being mastery goal orientation (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Mastery goal orientation describes the intrinsic drive of self-improvement. PGO prioritizes receiving high evaluations and demonstrating competence compared to colleagues. Naturally this leads to avoiding challenges in order to boost performance. In the context of teamwork, collaborating may be especially challenging for some (e.g. individualistic people), in which case it will not be the preferred mode of work if they desire praise and competition.
5 Thus far the topic was introduced and the literature gap was identified. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. First existing theory pertaining to the variables and relationships is reviewed leading to the development of four hypotheses. After describing the research method and presenting the findings a discussion analyzes the findings and interprets their implications for research and practice.
THEORY Individualism and Teamwork
Hofstede (1980) in his landmark cross cultural study of IBM employees from 40 countries refined the I/C concept and turned into recognizable dimension that it is today and also uncovered other cultural dimensions. Hofstede defines culture as the programming of the mind (Hofstede, 2001). In this sense the values and beliefs held determine “how things are done” and “how things should to be done” (House et al., 2004). This reflects how fundamental culture is to human beings. The subject of this paper is an individual’s attitude towards teamwork. As such it is exploring the relationship between the individual and the group in a work setting. I/C has been established as a very influential dimension of cross cultural research over the years (Hofstede, 1980; House et al., 2004; Schwartz, 1994; Triandis, 1988; Triandis, 1990; Ramamoorthy & Caroll, 1998).
Hofstede describes I/C as follows:
“Individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose; everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. Collectivism as its opposite pertains to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong cohesive in-groups,
which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning” loyalty
(Hofstede, 1980: 51).
6 a concern for oneself and immediate family, an emphasis on personal autonomy and self-fulfillment, and the basing of one’s identity on one’s personal accomplishments” (Oyserman, Coon & Kemmelmeier, 2002: 4). This definition tries to capture beliefs about fundamental relationship between the individual and the group held by an individual. It is broad, but inclusive, and such is the nature of I/C. Note that IND in this research is meant to be on the individual level, even though Hofstede’s research is not.
Research on I/C and teamwork on the individual level is scarce. Kirkman & Shapiro (2000) found that COL is positively related to receptivity to team-based rewards. They adopt Hofstede’s (1980) definition of COL, but their measures are focused on teamwork and how it should be structured. Eby & Dobbins (1997) report findings that the belief on an individual that he or she is capable of dealing with teamwork (self-efficacy for teamwork) is positively related to COL. However in their research the authors assume that COL is the same as preference for teamwork. Bochner & Hesketh (1994) carried out a study to verify if Hofstede’s I/C dimension still holds many years after it was conceived. Their research of employees at a bank showed support for the relevance of I/C and also revealed that, of all the variables included, COL had its strongest relationship with preference for teamwork.
There is reason to believe that IND and teamwork aversion are related. It has been shown that collectivistic cultures seek harmony and engage in pro-social behaviors, whereas individualistic cultures consider justice more important than harmony and thus are prone to enter into conflicts in teams (Moorman & Blakely, 1995). Furthermore, I/C has been shown to influence people’s commitment and loyalty to a team (Sosik & Jung, 2001; Ramamoorthy & Flood, 2004; Wagner, 1995). IND emphasize personal goals, achievement and self-fulfillment, thus the personal is more important than the collective (Hofstede, 1980). Bochner & Hesketh (1994) show that COL and preference for teamwork are related. Therefore, people with high IND should have more uncomfortable experiences with teamwork than COL people, since COL is more compatible with teamwork than IND. This should in turn mean that IND leads to teamwork aversion. Following Hofstede (2001) it is assumed that IND and COL lay on the opposite sides of the same spectrum. Then the preceding discussion findings should be indicative that while COL leads to teamwork preference, IND should lead to teamwork aversion. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H1: Individualism has a positive relationship with teamwork aversion on the individual level.
7 culture from the cultural properties of the society in which the organization exists. As such it pertains to members’ shared beliefs and assumptions. Finally, research on the individual level focuses on intracultural differences that are derived from individual differences. The proposed project hypothesizes that there are amplifiers of the effect of culture on the individual level.
Measuring IND as defined by Hofstede on the individual level to make a generalized inference about the collective creates a problem known as ecological fallacy (EF). EF refers to a variety of wrong assumptions that correlations at the group level also hold on the individual level (King, Rosen & Tanner, 2004). EF has been thoroughly examined in the context of cultural studies (specifically Hofstede, 2001 and House et al. 2004) by Brewer & Venaik’s (2014) in their recent work. They show that the relationship between items measuring construct, in this case culture, is not isomorphic across other levels (e.g. organizational; individual) (Brewer & Venaik, 2014). Thus a different set of items is needed for other levels. Consequently one should be careful when measuring and defining culture, and levels of analysis and measuring tools should be selected with this in mind.
8
Figure 1: Three levels of human programming
Source: Hofstede, 2001: 3
Locus of Control and Teamwork
Locus of control (LOC) is a personality trait that is well researched by psychology scholars over the years. It is one of the core self-evaluations that individuals hold about themselves (Judge, Locke & Durham, 1997). It pertains to the extent to which individuals believe that there is causality between their actions and the outcomes they are experiencing and results in the belief of control over life or the absence thereof(Judge et al., 1997; Judge & Bono, 2001). There are two orientations that LOC predicts. People with internal LOC (internals) believe that they have control and power over the events and outcomes in their lives and people with external LOC (externals) believe that these events and outcomes are beyond their control (Judge & Bono, 2001). In the organizational context internals tend to attribute the obtaining their current job to their own actions (Roark, 1978) and they also perceive their career paths as a function of their own actions (Hammer & Vardi, 1981).
9 the individual desires them, compared to other reinforcements (Phares, 1976). Expectancy is the degree to which an individual believes that certain behavior will lead to reinforcement. With the terminology clarified the logic of social theory is intuitive. The more an individual desires an outcome and the more he or she believes that a certain behavior will lead to the attainment of this outcome – the more likely it is for the individual to engage in this behavior.
In the workplace LOC has been linked to three cognitive processes: self-evaluation, motivation and behavioral orientation (Thomas, Sorensen & Eby, 2006). Self-evaluation is a continuous process where the individual’s self-assessment is ongoing in the sense that one’s self worth is being constantly reevaluated. The evaluation depends on LOC (Judge & Bono, 2001). Internals perceive a direct effect between effort and outcome, and this perception of control leads to a positive evaluation of self-worth. On the other hand externals have a more negative evaluation of self-worth because they do not perceive control over their faith (Judge & Bono, 2001; Bono & Judge, 2003; Judge et al. 1998). In short, the belief of control is internally satisfying (Fusilier, 1989). This leads to mental well-being, life satisfaction and physical health – variables that lead to general well-being and positive workplace affective reactions (e.g. global job satisfaction; satisfaction with pay, promotion, supervisors; commitment; no turnover intention; hours worked and attendance) (Thomas, Sorensen & Eby, 2006).
As already explained, internals perceive a strong link between effort and result. This perception is fundamental to many positive work related positive motivational outcomes. It should lead to perception of more opportunities (Ganster & Fusilier, 1989), and to psychological empowerment, because internals are willing to exert more effort because they believe that this will lead to job related success (Koberg, Boss, Senjem, & Goodman, 1999; Spretizer, 1995). These findings suggest that internal LOC is linked to intrinsic motivation. The implications for the workplace are task motivation, job involvement, self-efficacy and to higher task performance and career success (Thomas, Sorensen & Eby, 2006).
10 attitude towards teamwork if compared to the alternative of individual work, because they recognize that control on their behalf in teams is less possible and because they feel capable of handling the task by themselves. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H2: An individual’s internal LOC is positively related to teamwork aversion. The moderating effect of LOC
Introducing internal LOC to the relationship in H1 could result in magnification of the culture’s effect. H1 proposed that IND leads to teamwork aversion. Internals on the other hand prefer and also seek situations in which they control can be exercised (Kabanoff & O’Brien, 1980). An external LOC is expected to diminish the effect of culture, because external LOC has been found to lead to preference for teamwork, and IND is expected to have the opposite effect (Vancouver & Ilgen (1989). However in the case of internal LOC both culture and LOC should lead to teamwork aversion, which means that internal LOC should in this case amplify the effect of culture. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H3: Internal LOC has a positive effect on the relationship between IND and teamwork aversion, such that internal LOC strengthens the positive relationship between IND and teamwork aversion.
It could be argued that LOC is linked to IND as a cultural dimension. It has been found that individualistic cultures value autonomy more and also perceive more autonomy (Lundberg & Peterson, 1994; Smith, Trompenaars & Dugan, 1995). Furthermore, Eastern nations that are more collectivistic have been shown to have more external locus of control than other western societies that are relatively more individualistic (Hamid, 1994;). Despite these findings, some researchers have argued that a direct relationship between IND and LOC would be an overgeneralization about LOC (Smith et al., 1995; Spector et al., 2001).
LOC is a broad dimension and it is partially, but not entirely correlated with IND. Spector et al. (2001) split LOC into three sub categories and tested their individual correlation with IND (IND was in turn taken from Scwartz (1994)). To arrive at the sub categories they used the items in the Rotter’s (1966) internal-external (I-E) scale (See Appendix A, Fig. A1). Most research, including this one, uses this scale to measure LOC (Spector, 1982). Of the three dimensions only the second one, labeled Individual-Social dimension was positively correlated with IND (.70). Dimension one, labeled Personal Political and dimension three, labeled Luck were both not significantly correlated with IND (r = .23 and r = -.06 respectively).
11 al. (2001) for example used only work related LOC in their study of IND and locus of control and their relation to well-being. For the proposed research, the Personal Political dimension should be used. The items that compose it are broader and encompass more than one’s attitude towards luck and chance, which is what the dimension Luck is limited to.
Performance Goal Orientation and Teamwork
The achievement goal construct is a main branch of the achievement literature. It represents a person’s purpose for engaging in behaviour in an achievement situation (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Several studies by Dweck and colleagues (e.g. Dweck 1975; Dweck & Reppucci, 1973) initiated research in this domain by demonstrating that children with the same abilities showed different reactions to failure in achievement situations. Some children exhibited persistence after failing and attributed their failure to lack of effort, and sought additional challenge. Others did not persist and attributed their failure to lack of ability, and did not seek subsequent challenge. The achievement goal construct was adopted as an explanatory variable for these initial findings (Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Elliott, 1983).
Thus nowadays in the achievement goal theory (Elliot & McGregor, 2001), there are mainly two types of goals distinguished, namely mastery goals (MGO) and performance goals (PGO). People who pursue mastery goals ultimately aim to develop their competence through task mastery (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Such people are “characterized by challenge seeking and high, effective persistence in the face of obstacles” (Dweck, 1986: 1040). Performance goals in contrast are concerned with performance measures. For people who pursue performance goals it is important to demonstrate to others how competent they are. Thus challenge seeking is lower and persistence in the face of obstacles is unlikely. It is important to mention that performance and mastery goals do not lie on the two ends of the same spectrum, but are separate constructs and therefore they are not mutually exclusive (Eison, Pollio & Milton 1986). In other words, it is possible for a person to be motivated by both mastery goals and performance goals. For example, an individual may want to engage in learning and enhance his or her expertise and at the same time he or she can also be concerned about performance measures and showing competence.
12 PGO trait to this individual would provide an additional incentive to avoid teamwork, because since he or she is individualistic, PGO would create the perception that teamwork is the more challenging mode of work. This is expected to enhance teamwork aversion. Therefore PGO is hypothesized to amplify the positive relationship between IND and teamwork aversion. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H4: PGO has a positive effect on the relationship between IND and teamwork aversion, such that PGO strengthens the positive relationship between IND and teamwork aversion.
It has to be noted that unlike LOC and teamwork aversion, a direct relationship between PGO and teamwork aversion is not expected. The goal orientation of an individual alone does not infer anything about teamwork preference. Considering the property of challenge avoidance, there has to be a reason for the individual to perceive teamwork as more challenging to draw inference about PGO and attitude towards teamwork. That is, PGO will predict a teamwork aversion when teamwork is more challenging than working alone.
All four hypotheses are presented graphically in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Conceptual model of the four hypotheses
METHODOLOGY
13
Sample
The sample used to gather data consists of university students, primarily from the University of Groningen, and of professionals experienced with teamwork. The online survey was started by 95 respondents. Of those, 20 (21 percent) respondents only answered the first few control questions about nationality, age, gender and education and did not move on to the main part of the questionnaire. Out of the remaining 75 respondents four reported that they did not have “experience with teamwork in a work or study related setting, such that you and your teammates were evaluated as a unit and held responsible
for the outcomes of your work together and not as separate individuals?”. This is deemed crucial for
obtaining reliable results since the questions in the survey are closely related to such an experience. These four responses were therefore omitted. The final dataset consisted of 72 respondents.
The respondents were presented with an electronic survey that measures the variables. Students are heavily involved in teamwork and are expected to have built up experience during their studies. Teamwork is a core element of education in the western world. Students from all over the world experience teamwork in similar conditions when they study at the University of Groningen as exchange or full time students. The survey provides the respondents with the following definition of teamwork: “group work in a work or study related setting, such that you and your teammates were evaluated as a
unit and held responsible for the outcomes of your work together and not as separate individuals”,
and asks them if they have experience with such working conditions. The reason is that it is necessary to ensure that respondents have experience with teamwork in a setting that puts emphasis on the team as an entity and not on the individual. This sample included 53 percent male and 47 percent female respondents. The most represented nationalities were Bulgarian (34 percent), Mexican (13 percent), German (11 percent) and Dutch (10 percent). The mean age was 26.
Measures
Individualism
IND was originally intended to be a dichotomy (Hofstede, 1980). Hofstede considers IND and COL as parts of the same spectrum and in this sense COL is very low IND. Overall, a plethora of methods have been used to measure IND. As a result comparing results is difficult and no universal or common measure IND has emerged to date (Oyserman, et al., 2002).
14 of the same spectrum. Erez & Earley’s (1987) scale was slightly modified. One of the items was removed, because it specifically pertains to attitude towards teamwork which would inevitably lead to correlation between the independent and dependent variables. This item was substituted with another one concerning independence. This item is considered one of the fundamental ones when measuring IND (Oyserman et al., 2002; Kluckholn and Strodbeck, 1961). Thus the survey included the following items: 1) Only those
who depend on themselves get ahead in life; 2) One should live one's life independent of others as much as possible; 3) In society people are born into extended families or clans who protect them in shred necessity for loyalty (subsequently recoded); and the new addition 4) I tend to do my own thing, and others in my family do the same. Erez & Early, (1984) derived the first three items from Hofstede (1984).
However, they do not explain how their items are based on Hofstede. Hofstede (2001), which is the next edition of Hofstede’s (1984) “Culture’s consequences” lists questionnaire items for IND/COL and they are not similar to Erez & Early’s (1987). The content of Erez & Early’s (1987) items (e.g. extended clans in question three) hints that the items are perhaps based on Hofstede’s definition. The reliability for the four items as measured by Cronbach’s alpha was α = .33. By omitting the third recoded item the reliability becomes α = .67. This item is therefore omitted and not included in the data analysis.
15
Teamwork aversion
A three item Likert scale set of questions developed by Campion et al. (1993) will be used to measure an individual’s attitude towards teamwork. The questions ask if the respondent 1) prefers to
work in a team as opposed to working alone, 2) they are more effective when they work in a team and 3) have a general preference to work in teams. Cronbach’s alpha for this construct is α = .87.
Locus of control
Most researchers use Rotter’s (1966) internal-external (I-E) scale (Spector, 1982). It has 23 items and 6 filler items, and each item presents two statements to the respondent, each statement corresponding to an external or internal orientation. The score can vary between 0 and 23 and is calculated based on the number of answers that correspond to internal orientation. That is, the higher the score – the more internally oriented the respondent. As already described in the theory section, there is correlation between LOC and IND. However, Smith et al. (1995) show that the scale can be divided into three dimensions, only one of which is correlated with IND. Therefore here LOC was measured using dimension one - the Personal Political dimension (Appendix A, Fig. A1).
Performance goal orientation
16
RESULTS
Table 1 shows the correlations and descriptive statistics of the variables, including the control variables. The significant correlations are presented briefly. Age and education are significantly and positively correlated which is to be expected. A negative relationship is observed between IND and education, LOC and age, and LOC and education. Remember high score on the LOC items means internal LOC. In sum there are fewer correlations found than expected.
Hypothesis Testing
The results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 2. The hypotheses and the corresponding statistics are presented. All variables except the dependent were standardized prior to the regression analysis
17 The following discussion will analyze the results in comparison with the hypotheses and explanation for the discrepancies will be suggested. Theoretical and practical implications as well as limitations and suggestions for future research are found in this section.
The argument that lead to H1 (IND has a positive relationship with teamwork aversion) revolved around working environment and goals. COL individuals are likely to engage in citizenship and helping behaviors in organizations, which in turn improves morale, team spirit and cohesiveness (Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). These are more compatible with teamwork and, which in turn was expected to make teamwork more compatible with COL. The priorities of IND people - personal goals, achievement and self-fulfillment are less compatible with teamwork and thus they were expected to avoid teamwork.
18 The findings are not in line with the prediction of H1.The reason could be in the environment that the sample was taken from. Most respondents were from the University of Groningen, which is a multicultural environment. Team composition is in most cases imposed on students and the result is multicultural teams. The specificity of a multi-cultural university environment is a very likely culprit for the findings. It could be that students find it enjoyable to work with foreign nationals. This specific environment could be diminishing the effect of culture. Furthermore, universities are social institutions dominated by young people, and this demographic could be more willing to collaborate. It has been shown that openness to new experiences decreases with age (Jackson et al., 2012). It is possible that the generally positive attitude towards teamwork in the sample is due to the young age of respondents (mean 25.94).
It could also be the case that people are becoming increasingly receptive to team-based work structure. Universities and firms strive to reap the benefits of collaboration and teamwork is becoming increasingly common and sought after. Thus individuals may have become more receptive to team-based structures because they recognize them as the norm.
PGO was hypothesized to amplify the relationship between IND and teamwork aversion (H4). It was proposed that PGO would lead to more teamwork aversion in IND people and to less in COL people, because PGO implies avoidance of risk and difficulty in order to demonstrate competence and get higher evaluations. This reasoning is based on the assumption of H1 that for IND people teamwork would be the more challenging option. The findings did not support this.
The reasons for not finding support for this hypothesis may be several. The more obvious one is grounded in the environmental influence like in H1. Since the hypotheses share the assumption that IND and teamwork are less compatible than COL and teamwork, and since this assumption was shown unlikely to hold in the university context, it could also affect H2. That is, there is no risk and difficulty perceived by individualistic PGO people and thus they do not avoid teamwork. To avoid teamwork PGO people need to associate it with risk of lower performance and showing incompetence. It could be that they do not make such associations for the same reasons IND people did not avoid teamwork in H1- it could be the specificity of the student demographic.
team-19 based assessment and even resort to freeriding behavior. In this case it would be understandable that PGO was not observed to interact in a meaningful way with the relationship between IND and teamwork.
An interesting possibility is the idea that teamwork itself could affect the goal orientation of the individual. It has been found that an individual may adjust their goal orientation depending on the social situation (Ames, 1992). This takes time, but group members take notice of the climate in the team and could adjust their goal orientations accordingly (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003). Although this was not factored in the testing for this paper, it could explain why goal orientation did not explain teamwork aversion.
LOC was found to be inversely and significantly related to age (r = -.26, p = .03). This finding is supported by existing literature. For example Lachman (1986) found that older people are more externally oriented than younger people. However no significant relationship was found between LOC and IND in the current study (H2).
It could be that internals are just indifferent to the way work is structured. Thus the interpretation of the data may be that internals perceive that they are under control when working in a team just as much as in individual assignments. Both forces may still be at work – preference for control and self-efficacy. If the latter is dominant the way in which work is structured should be irrelevant to preference. If this is the case there is no reason why this effect should not carry on to the moderating effect of LOC (H3) as well.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
20 Research in cross cultural studies, and more specifically on IND cannot make progress on the individual level until suitable measures of culture on this level are developed. Such a measure does not exist to date and this is preventing future research from leaning on reliable and consistent literature.
Limitations and Future Research
Leung et al. (2005) proposed three types of variables that might amplify or weaken the effect of culture. This paper explored variables on the individual level; however it found no evidence that personality factors significantly affect the effects of culture. Group level variables and situational variables are yet to be researched for their moderating effects on culture (for details see Leung et al., 2005; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997).
Moderating effects aside, the cultural aspect was not observed to be a predictor of teamwork aversion. Future research may attempt to investigate the same level, but perhaps with a sample of professionals and a different measure of IND. Alternatively, it is quite possible that the university environment diminishes the effect of culture. In the beginning of this paper it was explained that literature has not focused on what situation amplify or otherwise affect the effect of culture. The discussion of H1 identified a specific combination of environment and demographics which could weaken the effect of culture. Future research might find it worthwhile to analyze IND in specific types of organizations and age groups and it could potentially be the case that a combination of multinational setting and young people diminishes the effect of culture on teamwork. Moderator types may also be combined – for example variables on the individual level with situational variables. Depending on the situation people may seek or avoid working with similar people.
Limitations
This research uses self-reported scales to measure the constructs of interest. Such measurement tools rely on the honesty of respondents. The choice of self-reported scales is a consequence of measuring variables pertaining to values beliefs and perceptions. Participants were informed that the survey is anonymous in an attempt to reduce self-report bias.
21 Another limitation stems from the fact that only one category of moderators was investigated in isolation of other categories. Leung et al. (2005) list three broad categories of likely moderators: situational, individual characteristics and task properties. There is no reason to believe that they occur separately. A more inclusive approach with an experimental design could be a superior design.
Finally, it is important to note a limitation that is plaguing research on IND: the lack of a consistent and agreed upon measurement scale. It can be argued that research on IND on the individual level is using questionable measurement scales (e.g. Maznevski and DiStefano, 1993; Kirkman & Shapiro, 2000; Eby and Dobbins, 1997). Similar research joins teamwork and IND together and thus renders IND an almost meaningless variable. This paper considers IND as a phenomenon separate form teamwork preference, and tries to measure the construct as a fundamental one that is a cause of teamwork aversion, and not just a necessary companion. Unfortunately the lack of an established measurement tool to lean on makes the choice of scale in this and other research seem more or less arbitrary. Until a consensus is arrived at similar debates will hinder the progress in the field.
CONCLUSION
The idea that personality traits act as amplifiers for cultural effects is the core of this research. It was hypothesized that internal LOC and PGO would moderate and enhance the relationship between IND and teamwork aversion on the individual level. The sample of students used to empirically test this theory provided no support for any of the four hypotheses that were formulated. Previous research on the main relationship between culture and teamwork gave confidence that this relationship did indeed exist in the empirical world (Kirkman & Shapiro, 2000; Eby & Dobbins, 1997). Surprisingly, this research did not confirm these findings. The reason is most likely in the different measurement tools used. Other research relies on measuring culture and teamwork in ways that are viewed by this research as dangerously similar. Approaching this measurement issue differently is considered a deficiency in cross cultural research by this paper and in turn one of the goals of this paper was to try and amend it. By using a measure of culture that is based on fundamental values and beliefs that are distinct from teamwork preferences, this research found no relationship between IND and teamwork aversion. This could be due to the specificities of the sample demographic, or simply because the empirical world does not reflect the rationale used to build the hypothesis.
22
23
REFERENCES
Bakan, D. 1996. The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Bochner, S., & Hesketh, B. 1994. Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job-related attitudes in a culturally diverse work group. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 25(2): 233-257.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. 2003. Core self-evaluations: A review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance. European Journal of Personality. 17: 5–18.
Brett, J. & Okumura, T. 1998. Inter- and intracultural negotiation: US and Japanese negotiators.
Academy of Management Journal. 41: 495-510.
Brewer, P., & Venaik, S. 2014. The Ecological Fallacy in National Culture Research. Organization
Studies. 0170840613517602.
Bunderson, J. S. & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2003. Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 88: 552–560.
Campion, M., Medsker, G. & Higgs, A. 1993. Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology. 46: 823-850.
Dweck, C. S. 1975. The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessness.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 31: 674-685.
Dweck, C. S. 1986. Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist. 21(10): 1040-1048.
Dweck, C. S., & Elliott, E. S. 1983. Achievement motivation. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Socialization, personality, and social development. New York: Wiley.
Dweck, C. S. & Leggett, E. L. 1988. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review. 95: 256–273.
Dweck, C. S., & Reppucci, N. D. 1973. Learned helplessness and reinforcement responsibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 25, 109-116.
24 Eison, J., Pollio, H., & Milton, O. 1986. Educational and personal characteristics of four
different types of learning- and grade-oriented students. Contemporary Educational
Psychology. 11: 54-67.
Elliot, A., & McGregor, H. 2001. A 2 X 2 Achievement framework. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 80(3): 501-519.
Elliot, J., & Dweck, C. S. eds. Handbook of competence and motivation. Guilford Publications, 2013.
Erez, M. & Early, C. 1987. Comparitive analysis of goal setting strategies across cultures. Journal of
Applied Psychology. 72(4): 658-665.
European Commission. 2010. Geographical and labour market mobility. Accessed on 13.01.2015. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_337_sum_en.pdf
Fusilier, M. R., Ganster, D. C., & Mayes, B. T. 1987. Effects of social psychology, role stress, and locus of control on health. Journal of Management. 13: 517–528.
Fiske, A. 2002. Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures – a critique of the validity and measurement of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al., 2002. Psychological
Bulleting. 128(1): 78-88.
Galbraitb, J. 1973. Designing complex organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ganster, D. C., & Fusilier, M. R. 1989. Control in the workplace. In C. L. Cooper, & I. Robertson (Eds.),
International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 235–280). New York:
Wiley.
Gibson, C.1999. Do they do what they believe they can? Group-efficacy beliefs and group
performance across tasks and cultures. Academy of Management Journal. 42(2): 138-152.
Gibson, C., Maznevski, M. and Kirkman, B. 2009. When Does Culture Matter? inEmerging Research in International Business, MacMillan Press: New York.
Hamid, P. 1994. Self-monitoring, locus of control, and social encounters of Chinese and New Zealand students. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology. 25: 353-368.
25 Hofstede, G.1980. Culture's Consequences: International differences in work related values. Sage:
Newbury Park, C A.
Hofstede, G. 1984. Culture's consequences: International differences in work related values (abridged). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequence: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and
organizations across nations. Sage.
Hofstede, G. & Peterson, M. 2000. Culture: national values and organizational practices. In N Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom & M. Petersen (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Culture and
Climate. (pp. 401-415. Thousand oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R. et al. 2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage publications.
Judge, T., Locke, E., & Durham, C. 1997. The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior. 19: 151-188.
Judge, T. & Bono, J. 2001. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self -efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: a meta analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 86(1): 80-92.
Kabanoff, B. & O'Brien, G. 1980. Work and leisure: A task-attributes analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 65: 596-609.
King, G., Rosen, O., & Tanner, M. (2004). Information in ecological inference: An introduction. In G. King, O. Rosen, & M. Tanner (Eds.), Ecological inference: New methodological strategies (pp. 1–12). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. 2000. Understanding Why Team Members Won’t Share An
Examination of Factors Related to Employee Receptivity to Team-Based Rewards. Small Group
Research. 31(2): 175-209.
Kluckhohn, F. & Strodtbeck, F. 1961. Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Koberg, C. S., Boss, R.W., Senjem, J. C.,&Goodman, E. A. 1999. Antecedents and outcomes of empowerment: Empirical evidence from the health care industry. Group and Organization
26 Leung, K., Bhagat, R. & Buchan, N. 2005. Culture and International Business: Recent Advances and
Their Implications for FutureResearch. Journal of International Business Studies. 36(4): 357-378.
Loher, B. T., Vancouver, J. B. & Czajka, J. (1994). `Preferences and reactions to teams'. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nashville,TN.
Lundberg, C. & Peterson, M. 1994. The meaning of working in U.S. and Japanese local governments at three hierarchical levels. Human Relations. 47: 1459-1487.
Maslow, H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review. 50(4): 370.
Matveev, A. V. (2002). The advantages of employing quantitative and qualitative methods in intercultural research: Practical implications from the study of the perceptions of intercultural communication competence by American and Russian managers. Theory of Communication and Applied
Communication. 1: 59-67.
Maznevski, M. & DiStefano, J. 1995. Measuring culture in international management: The cultural
perspectives questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript. University of Virginia.
Moorman, R. & Blakely, G. 1995. Individualism–collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 16: 127-142.
Ohbuchi, K., Fukishama, O. & Tedeshi, J. 1999. Cultural values in conflict management: Goal orientation, goal commitment, and tactical decision. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 30: 51–71.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. & Kemmelmeier, M. 2002. Rethinking Individualism and Collectivism: Evaluation of Theoretical Assumptions and Meta-Analyses. Psychological Bulletin. 128(1): 3-72.
Parson, T. 1949. Essays in sociological theory: Pure and applied. New York: Free Press.
Phares, E. J. (1976). Locus of control in personality. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
27 Ramamoorthy, N. & Flood, P. 2004. Individualism/collectivism, perceived task interdependence and
teamwork attitudes among Irish blue-collar employees: A test of the main and moderating effects. Human Relations. 57(3): 347-366.
Roark, M. 1978. The relationship of perception of chance in finding jobs to locus of control and to job search variables on the part of human resource agency personnel. Dissertation Abstracts
International.38, 2070A. (University Microfilms No. 78-18558)
Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs. 80.
Ryan, R. & Deci, E. 2000. Self determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychological Association. 55(1): 68-78.
Schwartz, S. 1990. Individualism–collectivism: Critique and proposed refinements. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology. 21: 139–157.
Schwartz, S. 1994. Beyond individualism and collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and
collectivism: Theory, method and applications (pp. 85-122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Smith, P., Trompenaars, F. & Dugan, S. 1995. The Rotter locus of control scale in 43 countries: a test of cultural relativity. International Journal of Psychology. 30(3): 377-400.
Sosik, J. & Jung, J. 2001. Workgroup characteristics and performance in collectivistic and individualistic cultures. The Journal of Social Psychology. 142(1): 5-23.
Spector, P. 1982. Behavior in organization as a function of employee’s locus of control. Psychological
Bulletin. 91(3): 482-497.
Spector, E., et al. 2001. Do national levels of individualism and internal locus of control relate to well‐ being: an ecological level international study. Journal of Organizational Behavior.22(8): 815 -832.
Spretizer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal. 38: 1442–1465.
Thomas. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., & Eby, L. T. 2006. Locus of control at work: a meta‐analysis. Journal
28 Triandis, H. 1988. Collectivism v. individualism: a reconceptualization of a basic concept in cross
cultural social psychology. In G. K. Cerma & C. Bagley (Eds.), Cross cultural studies of
personality and cognition (pp. 60-95). London: Macmillan.
Triandis, H. 1990. Cross cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In J. Berman (Ed.),
Nebraska symposium on Motivation 1989 (pp. 41-133). Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Vancouver, J. B. & Ilgen, D. R. 1989. Effects of interpersonal orientation and the sex-type of the task on choosing to work alone or in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology. 74: 927-934.
Wagner, J. 1995. Studies of individualism–collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of
Management Journal. 38: 152-172.
Wagner, J.& Moch, M. 1986. Individualism-collectivism: Concept and measure. Group and
Organization Studies. 11: 280-304.
Waterman, A. 1984. The psychology of individualism. New York: Praeger.
Workman, M. 2001. Collectivism, individualism, and cohesion in team-based occupation. Journal of
29
APPENDIX A
Figure A1: Rotter’s (1966) LOC scale, divided into three dimensions by Smith et al. (1995)
31
APPENDIX B Survey
This Appendix contains the survey presented to respondents. The text annotated with a [*] is there to provide extra information to the reader of this thesis. This text was not in the actual questionnaire.
Dear Respondent,
Thank you for participating in this study about culture, personality and teamwork. This survey is in English and it will take you approximately 15 minutes to complete. This survey is a part of the data collection process for a master thesis for International Business & Management at the University of Groningen. This survey is completely anonymous and you can withdraw at any time.
Hristo Aleksandrov,
Master student, University of Groningen, IB&M
1. What is your nationality? (In case of multiple nationalities, please indicate the nationality that you believe shaped your values and beliefs) [*textbox; respondents enter text]
2. What is your gender?
Male
Female
3. How old are you? [*textbox; respondents enter text]
4. What is the highest level of education that you have completed?
High school
Bachelor degree
Master degree
32 5. Do you have experience with teamwork in a work or study related setting, such that you and your teammates wereevaluated as a unit and held responsible for the outcomes of your work together and not as separate individuals?
Yes
No
The rest of the survey is about your personal values and beliefs. There are no right or wrong responses, so please be open and honest. If in doubt, you should rely on the first answer that comes to mind.
6. The following set of statements evaluates Individualism and Collectivism. For each statement, please indicate how true each statement is of you.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Only those who depend on
themselves get ahead in life. One should live one's life
independent of others as much as
possible.
In society people are born into extended families or clans who protect them in shred necessity for loyalty.
I tend to do my own thing, and others in my family do the same.
33 7. The next question will evaluate your attitude towards teamwork. For each statement, please indicate the degree to which the statement is true of you. Teamwork is defined as group work in a work or study related setting, such that you and your teammates were evaluated as a unit and held responsible for the
outcomes of your work together and not as separate individuals.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree If given a choice I would prefer to work as a part of a team rather than alone. I find that working as a member of a team increases my ability to perform effectively. I generally prefer to work as a part of a team.
8. The following statements represent a part of Rotter's (1996) Internal/External control of
reinforcement questionnaire. Each line is represented by two statements (a and b). For each line, please
choose the statement that most accurately represents the beliefs that you hold about the nature of the world.
(a) One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don't take
enough interest in politics.
(b) There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent them.
(a) In the long run people get the
respect that they deserve in this world.
(b) Unfortunately an individual's worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard he tries.
(a) There is a direct connection between how hard I studied and the
grades I achieved.
(b) Sometimes I couldn't understand how teachers arrived at the grades they gave. (a) Getting people to do the right thing
depends upon ability, luck has little or
34
nothing to do with it. (a) In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely, if ever, such a
thing as an unfair test.
(b) Often exam questions tend to be so unrelated to coursework that studying becomes really useless.
(a) People who can't get other to like them don't understand how to get
along with others.
(b) No matter how hard you try some people just don't like you.
(a) In the long run people are
responsible for bad government.
(b) Most of the time I can't understand why politicians behave the way they do.
9. The following statements measure Goal Orientation and are about what you find important in your work. Please, indicate how true each statement is of you.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree My aim is to perform better in my
work than I have done in the past. In my work I am striving to do well relative to how well I have
done in the past.
My goal in my work is to do better
than I typically do.
My aim is to avoid doing worse in my work than I normally do. In my work I am striving to avoid performing poorly compared to my typical level of performance. My goal in my work is to avoid doing worse than I have done
before.
My aim is to outperform other
colleagues in my work.
In my work I am striving to do well compared to other colleagues. In my work my goal is to do better
than my colleagues.
My aim is to avoid doing worse than other colleagues in my work. In my work I am striving to avoid doing poorly in comparison to
other colleagues.
My goal in my work is to avoid performing poorly relative to my
35 This is the end of the survey. Please proceed to the next screen to finalize the results. Thank you for completing it. Your participation is highly appreciated.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this survey, or if you are interested in the results of the study, please e-mail me at h.aleksandrov@student.rug.nl.
Kind Regards,
36
APPENDIX C Figure B1: Distribution of teamwork aversion.
