how individualist and collectivst organizational cultures ... · pdf filehow individualist and...
TRANSCRIPT
HOW INDIVIDUALIST AND COLLECTIVST ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURESINFLUENCE WORK PROCESSES, OUTCOMES,
AND COOPERATION
ByFaye Hartung
A Research Paper
Submitted in Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science Degree with aMajor in
Training and Development
Approved: 4 Semester Credits
Mitch Sherman / Investigation Advisor
The Graduate CollegeUniversity of Wisconsin-Stout
May, 2000
The Graduate CollegeUniversity of Wisconsin-Stout
Menomonie, WI 54751
ABSTRACT
Writer: Hartung, Faye M.
Title: How Individualist and Collectivist organizational cultures
influence work process, outcomes, and cooperation.
Graduate Major: Masters of Science in Training and Development
Research Advisor: Mitchell Sherman
Month/Year: May 2000
Style Manual Used: APA
Research generated from a variety of fields predicts that important benefits will
accrue from demographic diversity in organizations by increasing the variance in
perspectives and approaches to work that members of different identity groups can bring
(Tushman, 1977; Donnelion, 1993).
The evolving concept of teamwork in organizations today has had the tendency to
direct members toward working in diverse groups. Diversity is not only concerned with
racial or cultural connotations; it can include a wide variety of characteristics such as
people from another country, a different state or city, another generation, or another
department within an organization. It is important that organizations incorporate practices
into their culture that creates a workforce and organization that utilizes and embraces
workplace diversity.
This study is an attempt to determine whether or not individual behavioris
defined and understood by different organizational cultures based on a person's
demographic characteristics. The assumption is that personality is determined by the
culture and is based on the physical characteristics of its members, not their actual
personality. The research collected will contribute to a better understanding of
homogeneous and heterogeneous workgroups within organizations as well as
individualistic and collectivist organizational cultures, suggesting that each have different
results on work processes and outcomes.
This study will also contribute greatly to all areas of business and industry that arc
involved competitively in the global marketplace as well as those in the domestic
marketplace. As organizations develop a team mentality and, as the concept of diversity
begins to become prominent, research conducted on organizational culture and the effects
it has on its members will be crucial to today's business and educational societies.
Table of Contents
Chapter I: PageIntroduction to Research Problem and Objectives
o Introduction/Background 2o Problem Statement 2L Purpose of the Study 4u Research Objectives 4o Significance of the Study 4o Outline of the Remainder of the Paper 6
Chapter II:Review of Literature
o Workplace Diversity 7o Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Workgroups 12o Organizational Cultures: Individualism and Collectivism 18o Cooperation Among Organizational Cultures 23
Chapter III:Research Methods
L Overview of the Study 42L Research Design 42o Sources of Data 46o Data Collection Techniques 47o Data Processing and Analysis 47o Limitations of the Study 57
Chapter IV:Findings of Analysis and Results
o Findings/Interpretation/Discussion of Group #1 59-61o Findings/Interpretation of Group #2 61-62L Findings/Interpretation of Group #3 63-64L Evaluation of Analysis 65L Summary of Chapter 66
Chapter V:Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
L Summary of Chapters 68L Conclusions 69L Recommendations for Further Research 70
Appendix:
Statistical Analysis of data (database view)
Bibliography 71
List of Tables
1. Misleading Assumptions on a Multicultural World 32. Cooperation Mechanisms Used in Individualist and Collectivist Cultures 313. Cultural make-up of work teams used in this study 444. Statistics of the population 465. Results of teams with 7 white group members and 1 black group member 606. Results of teams with all-white group members 627. Results of teams with 5 white group members and 3 Asian members 638. Proof of Hypothesis 66
List of Figures
1. Internal Dimension Approach of Cooperative Behavior 29
List of Exhibits
1-6. Color-coded questionnaires used in the study 457. Mean scores and Standard Deviation of Participants (by team) 488. T-Test results of Participants (by team) 529. Correlation of Results (by team) 54
Chapter IResearch Problem and Objectives
Introduction/ Background
People frequently use demographic characteristics to categorize others and predict
their likely behaviors. Allport (1954) observed that immediate apparent physical features
such as race and sex are widely used to form impressions of others. This tendency may
be even more pronounced when demographic diversity is historically or normatively
uncommon in a situation. Rather, novel, infrequent, or distinctive stimuli are likely to
increase the importance of the particular category that the stimuli represent (Kanter,
1977; Taylor and Fiske, 1978).
Demographic attributes also tend to be used as a basis for social categorization.
For example, demographically similar people are likely to share similar backgrounds and
experiences, they are more likely to have been treated similarly by others in the past, and
may therefore expect one another to understand and react to situations similarly. As a
result, demographic attributes are often assumed to be associated with underlying
attributes such as values, cognitive styles, or past experiences. This implies that people
will be more likely to use demographic attributes as social categories when they are
different from others in a situation and, when that situation has not been characterized by
demographic heterogeneity in the past (Chatman, Polzer, Barsade, and Neale, 1998).
Problem Statement
As citizens of the United States it is apparent that not only our country but the
whole world is in constant change. The growing issue of diversity and the complexity of
the workforce demands that a person entering the workforce must posses different skills
than in the past. The evolving concept of teamwork will direct members toward diverse
2
workgroups and the increasing global marketplace will be conducive to increased
interaction with foreigners and foreign nationals. One hundred percent of people do
business with Americans who are different from them on a daily basis. Whether people
are from another country, a different state or city, another generation, or another
department ignoring these differences will not make organizational communication any
better.
Table 1: Misleading Assumptions in a Multicultural World
Common and Misleading Less Common and More AppropriateAssumptions Assumptions __
HOMOGENEITY The Melting Pot Myth. We are HETEROGENITY The Image of Cultlural Pluralis. W'all the same are not all the same; there arc many
culturally different groups in societ _SIMILARITY The Myth that they are all just SIMILARITY & They are notjust like me. Many
like me. DIFFERENCE people are culturally different from me. Most people have both culturalsimilarities and differences whencompared to me.
PAROCHIALISM The Only-One-Way Myth. Our EQUIFINALITY Our way is not the onl\ way'. IThercway is the only way. We do not are many culturally distinct waysv orecognize any other way of reaching the same goal, or of livingliving, working or doing things. one's life.
ETHNOCENTRISM The One-Best-Way Myth. Our CULTURAL Our way is one possible way. Thereway is the best way. All other CONTINGENCY are many different and equally goodways are inferior versions of ways to reach the same goal. The bestour way way is contingent on the culture of the
_________________ __________ people involved. _
Source: Nancy J. Adler, "Domestic Multiculturalism: Cross-Cultural Management in the Public Sector." inWilliam Eddy, ed., Handbook of Organization Management (New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1983), pp.481-499
3
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to determine whether or not individual behavior is
defined and understood by different organizational cultures based on a person's
demographic characteristics. This study will also determine what effect organizational
cultures will have on work processes and outcomes.
The research will contribute to a better understanding of homogeneous and
heterogeneous workgroups as well as individualistic and collectivist organizational
cultures, thereby suggesting that each have different results on work processes and
outcomes.
This research will be an attempt to demonstrate that individualist and collectivist
cultures can be the source for understanding and have applicability to organizations
working toward cooperation, especially in a demographically diverse organization.
Research Objectives:
The research will answer the following questions:
1. What are the attributes of individualist and collectivist cultures inorganizations?
2. How can the concepts of individualism and collectivism be applied withinorganizations?
3. How do individual and collective organizational cultures define thecharacteristics of other group members?
4. What kind of mechanisms do individualist and collectivist groups use in orderto deal with change?
Significance of the Study
An organizational culture is defined as the observable norms and values that
characterize the organization and determines which aspect(s)of its operations and its
members become important. Organizational culture also determines how members
4
perceive and interact with one another, approach decisions, and solve problems (Trice
and Beyer, 1993; O'Reilly and Chatman, 1996).
Research generated from a variety of fields predicts that important benefits will
accrue from demographic diversity in organizations thereby increasing the variance in
perspectives and approaches to work that members of different identity groups can bring.
Further, work units composed of different members can tap into broad networks of
contacts making it likely that useful new information will be incorporated into decisions,
which can increase commitment to choices and enhance responsiveness to rapidly
changing organizational environments (Tushman, 1977; Donnelion, 1993).
It is important that organizations incorporate practices into their culture that
creates a workforce and organization that utilizes and embraces workplace diversity. It is
obvious that the culture of an organization will influence which of its members' social
categories are activated and whether they are individualist or collectivist in nature
(Chatman et.al. 1998).
For this particular study is it hypothesized that individualist and collective
organizational cultures will interact and react differently to when there is an attempt to
diversify workgroups. Therefore, it is assumed that people who are more
demographically different from their co-workers will interact with one another
significantly more frequently when the culture of their organization emphasizes
individualism than when it emphasizes collectivism. On the other hand, while members
who are more demographically similar to one another will interact with each another with
the same frequency regardless of the emphasis of their organizational culture. Our
understanding of this connection between culture and interaction, and the implications
5
they have for organizational behavior, is just beginning to develop. Our knowledge
needs to go deeper.
Outline for the Remainder of the Paper
The remainder of this paper will include four additional chapters, each addressing
different components of the research. In chapter two an extensive review of literature
will be examined regarding issues such as the increase and significance of diversity in
today's workplace. Characteristics of homogeneous and heterogeneous workgroups and
the attributes of individualist and collectivist cultures will also be explained. The research
will further explore how cooperation is achieved in different cultures by exploring and
contrasting culturally linked cooperation mechanisms. Doing this generates knowledge
that will be helpful in gaining an understanding of both intra- and intercultural
cooperation (Chen, Chen and Meindl, 1998). The cooperation mechanisms used by each
organizational culture will be illustrated as well. Finally, the impact of demographic
differences of cross-functional teams related to the creativity and productivity of an
organization will be reviewed.
Chapter three will discuss the methodology and procedures used for the data
collection. The population and sample that has been determined, along with their
characteristics, will be provided as well. Chapter three will include samples of the survey
instruments used. Chapter four will discuss and illustrate the findings of the survey as
well as an analysis of the data.
The final chapter of the paper will include the summary of the complete project,
conclusions that refer back to the hypothesis statement and any recommendations for
further research.
6
Chapter IIReview of Literature
This chapter begins by presenting information from a broad scope with regards to
the concept of workplace diversity. Throughout the chapter, the subject matter will be
narrowed down and will focus on the study's specific objectives. First, changes that
have led to an increase in workplace diversity and why the issue of diversity is such a
concern in today's workplace will be identified. The review of literature will then go on
to discuss the definitions and concepts of heterogeneous and homogeneous cultures. The
processes of teamwork and how heterogeneous and homogeneous cultures form and
progress through each stage will also be addressed.
Once the above issues have been defined, a more specific, in-depth approach will
be taken to look at individualist and collectivist organizational cultures. In addition,
attributes of these two cultures will be summarized and defined.
Cross-functional teams make up a large portion of discussion as the chapter
concludes. The cultural model of cooperation, as well as the contingency approach to
cooperation, will be discussed regarding issues of conflict within organizations. To
conclude this chapter, motivation and its influence on work processes, outcomes,
creativity, and productivity within an organizational context will be analyzed.
Workplace Diversity
Thousands of foreign nationals who arrive in the United States to spend a couple
of years working in this country, consider America to be a plum assignment-a chance to
learn how the capitalist leader of the world does things, an opportunity to add some
polish to their ascendant resume. But it's also a place of baffling contradictions that can
leave newcomers reeling with cultural shock (Stamps, 1996). For underrepresented
7
people-minorities, women, seniors and the disabled-the failure by management to
recognize their diversity and to value the differences they bring to the workplace stands
to sabotage not only their success, but also the company's (Alverson, 1998).
The biggest issues facing North American managers in this decade is the increase
in diversity and complexity of the workforce. According to the landmark Hudson
Institute's 1987 Workforce 2000 study, 25 million people will join the American
workforce between the years 1987 and 2000, of those, only 15 percent will be white
males, compared with 47 percent in 1987 (Bloch, 1994). The report also projects that by
2050, 47 percent of all Americans will be nonwhite (Alverson, 1998). Additional
demographic reports give emphasis this new reality as well:
• Women, minorities, and immigrants will make up 80 percent of the workforce by theyear 2000,
* Women alone will compromise two-thirds of labor market growth, or 47 percent ofthe workforce by the turn of the century,
* Native nonwhites and immigrants will equally account for 40 percent of growth bythe 21St century. (Elashmawi & Harris, 1993)
Considering that we are living in the year 2000, diversity in the workforce and in
the marketplace is no longer just theory. It is obvious that age, gender, and race barriers
to employment opportunities are rapidly disintegrating. To compete successfully in an
increasingly interdependent global environment, US businesses will have to identify and
utilize every advantage. Companies that aren't recognizing and educating employees
about diversity stand to lose millions of dollars. This bottom-line incentive, combined
with a shrinking labor pool, has turned diversity initiatives in the direction of leadership
(Alverson, 1998). For example, in general, the Japanese and Germans don't have cultural
diversity within their work environment, nor do the Chinese. These cultures have the
advantage that stems from racial and cultural homogeneity. We [Americans], on the other
8
hand, have to learn to use our diversity as a resource-to stop acting as if our culture is
defined and circumscribed by a white, male middle class, American-born norm (Bloch,
1994).
According to Sunderland (1996), there are five reasons that diversity has become
a primary concern in managing an organization's human resources. The first involves a
shift from a manufacturing to service economy. Not only are workplaces becoming more
diverse, the US population is becoming more diversified as well. Service employees
need to understand their customers and be able to anticipate their needs and be able to
fulfill their expectations.
Second, the globalization of markets has become a concern. As more and more
companies become global in nature they have to get closer and closer to their customers.
Consumers profit more from this globalization because they are being offered products
that are unavailable to them domestically. In the United States, more than 100,000
American companies do business overseas, including 3,500 multinational companies.
(Triandis, Dunnette, and Hough, 1994). It is estimated that one-third of the profits from
US companies is derived from international business, along with one-sixth of the nation's
jobs (Casico, 1989) (Triandis, Dunnette, and Hough, 1994)
Thirdly, new business strategies require teamwork. Company goals are becoming
more complex and are relying on teams to help meet these goals. A 'team [may] mean
diverse workforces, whether as a result of drawing from the most talented or experienced
staff or a deliberate structure of diversity to stimulate creativity (Casico, p.64)
(Sunderland, 1996).
9
Next, mergers and acquisitions that result in organizational downsizing and
massive layoffs are another concern. A substantial number of companies have gone
through processes of mergers, acquisitions, and downsizing. In the US alone, between
1987 and 1989 there were 11,428 mergers, with a total value of $645,396 million (M&A
Demographics of the Decade, 1990) (Triandis et al. 1994). Research has shown that it is
ineffective when one entity simply tries to impose its culture upon another. Rather, it is
more productive to seek cultural synergy between and among the systems involved
(Elashwami & Harris, 1993).
The fifth and final concern is the changing labor market. As the labor market
changes, so will the people that compromise the workforce. In the future, corporations
will be characterized by more cultural diversity. Some examples of this changing labor
market include the unification of Europe as well as the political changes in the former
Soviet republic, both of which have resulted in waves of immigrants across cultural
borders (Triandis, Dunnette and Hough, 1994).
Corporations and business schools have begun scrambling to understand the
implications of diversity. It has been reported that as many as 30 to 50 percent of major
corporations and government agencies have some sort of diversity program on the books
(Bloch, 1994). These numbers may be encouraging however, human resource experts
estimate that in spite of the current growth of the diversity industry, only 3 to 5 percent of
US corporations are diversifying their workforces effectively (Bloch, 1994). Many
companies are suffering because the leadership is confused by similarities among
Affirmative Action, Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and diversity. According to
Billings-Harris, president of Excel Development Systems, Inc., an international
10
Greensboro-based consulting firm, 'organization think they're looking at diversity issues,
but they're really sill looking at hiring and retention. Diversity is more than race and sex'
(Alverson, 1998).
According to The Diversity Advantage, EEO refers to government-mandated
regulations on companies with 15 or more employees, that "engage in industries that
affect commerce". These regulations require employers to provide an equal opportunity
for "protected class" individuals to apply for positions and be promoted. Affirmative
Action requires businesses to create and maintain a work force whose demographics
match those of the community where it is located. If a discrepancy exists, companies
must develop plans to identify what steps will be taken, yearly, to attract
underrepresented people (Alverson, 1998).
The assumption is made with both EEO and Affirmative Action that if enough
"different" people work together on a daily basis prejudice will eventually disappear.
However, this hasn't happened because little or no attention is given to how employees
are treated once they're hired. Once they're hired, workers are expected to assimilate
themselves into the company's norms, values, and behaviors, even at the cost of their
own culture. The problem is that this "melting pot" theory doesn't work anymore
(Alverson, 1998). As employee populations become more diversified, the need to ensure
that the full spectrum of people in the workforce are given the opportunity to contribute
to business goals is essential (Triandis, Dunnette & Hough, 1994).
As more American employers reach out to a culturally diverse labor market
organizations will have an increasing number of individuals in their workforce with
culturally distinct attitudes, behaviors, expectations and demands. Reliance on work
]1
teams to solve complex problems is now common among many organizations. This is a
radical departure from familiar practices in which group members operated within a
single culture. It also requires all group members to enter a learning situation every time
a diverse work group is formed (Smith and Berg, 1997). Managing individuals according
to their own special talent and creating an environment where both the individual and the
organization work together to develop a mutually beneficial relationship (Triandis,
Dunnette & Hough, 1994) can be critical elements when working and communicating in
a diverse environment.
Although we tend to regard language as the main channel of communication,
research reveals that 80 to 90 percent of information is communicated by other means.
(Elashmawi & Harris, 19993). The world of communication is divided into three
elements: words, material things, and behavior. By studying these elements in our own
and other cultural contexts, we can come to understand a vast, unexplored region of
human behavior that exists outside the range of people's conscious awareness-
information. Each cultural world operates according to its own internal dynamics, its
own principles, and its own laws-written and unwritten. Any culture is primarily a
system for sending, storing and processing information. Communication underlies
everything and is essential as we continue to interact within this multicultural resurgence
of diversity (Hall & Hall, 1987).
Heterogeneous/Homogeneous Workgroups
Organizations are composed of individuals who are required to work together. As
people from various cultures enter the workforce, management of cultural diversity
within the organization and, more important within work groups, will assume critical
12
importance (Bettenhausen, 1991; Cox, 1991; Jackson, Stone & Alvarez, 1992). Teams
bring diverse functional skills and expertise to bear on complex problems in an
organization. Teams also bring together a diversity of people (Baugh & Graen, 1997),
and long before this diverse team will be able to function effectively, its members must
learn how to learn from each other (Smith and Berg, 1997).
When a newly formed group is composed of individuals of the same nationality
there are a number of shared cultural assumptions about group life that eases the process
of formation and enables the group to function (Smith and Berg, 1997). However, when
groups are composed of individuals from different cultural and national backgrounds,
assumptions about how the group will function can vary widely making the group's
formation and its continued existence exceedingly difficult (Smith and Berg, 1997).
These heterogeneous workgroups present both opportunities and potential stumbling
blocks not only for the team, but also the organization as a whole. There are no formulas
as to how this learning is to occur, therefore it must be discovered or invented anew each
time (Smith and Berg, 1997).
In the early phases of group development it is hard for members to learn about
their differences (Smith and Berg, 1997). Teams often do not take regular time to
examine how they are working in a synergistic manner or examine individuals'
expectations and their changing perspectives for effective teamwork. Differences in
members' cultural and national backgrounds are often ignored during group formation
and, and as a result, the initial stages of group life become awkward and anxiety filled.
Unless these differences are addressed they will inhibit the group from functioning
(Smith and Berg, 1997).
13
Team managers should be aware that both team and self-dimensions are necessary
for team effectiveness across time. Facilitation of this processing often brings the true
view out from the team (Watson & Johnson; Merritt, 1998).
Team Processing
During the early stages of group processing, culturally diverse teams seem to
perform less effectively than culturally non-diverse teams because of coordination
problems resulting from significantly different backgrounds (Cox, 1993; Watson &
Kumar, 1992; Watson et al., 1993). According to Smith and Berg (1997), in order for a
multi-cultural group to function effectively, it is important for its members to know that
the unique contributions each individual brings will be listened to, understood and
embraced. When addressed directly, this kind of assurance can be created rather quickly.
In research conducted by Hill (1982) and Watson et al. (1991), it was determined
that the type of task is also very important in determining the effectiveness of
homogeneous or heterogeneous workgroups. On complex tasks of longer duration,
culturally diverse teams have reported greater cooperation than non-diverse work groups
(Wagner, 1993). The more culturally diverse teams could immediately recognize their
differences and devote more energy to teaming behaviors due to their awareness. On
tasks of shorter duration however, teams may not have the time to adjust to the basic
differences. As a result, on team tasks that take several hours to complete, culturally
diverse teams will use their background (Watson, Johnson; Merritt, 1998) to complete the
task. This research has led to the presumption that early on culturally diverse teams will
perform more effectively at complex, longer-duration tasks than will culturally non-
diverse teams (Watson, Johnson; Merritt, 1998).
14
To provide evidence for this presumption, a study conducted by Watson, Kumar
& Michaelson (1993) illustrated that variation with respect to race was found to affect
both member-reported team processes and performance on a team project among college
students. Racially heterogeneous teams initially reported poorer team process and
performed not as well as the homogeneous teams. Both types of teams improved over the
duration of the study (17 weeks), but the racially heterogeneous teams improved enough
to catch up with the homogeneous teams by the end of the study (Baugh & Graen, 1997).
Gersick (1998) concluded in his studies that a project team examines their
performance behaviors at critical points in their lifecycles. The study also showed that
when time was provided periodically during the team's lifecycle for sharing feedback and
when guidance was provided for problem solving, the differences in performance
between culturally diverse and culturally non-diverse teams were shown to diminish over
time. (Watson et al., 1993). There is also evidence that periodic, effective
communication of team and self-issues do decrease diversity issues that interfere with
performance.
Although heterogeneous groups have been found to outperform homogeneous
groups on complex problem-solving tasks, a number of studies have found that even
moderate degrees of diversity increases the complexity of group interactions. In the
opinions of Watson, Johnson & Merritt (1998), the short-run for culturally diverse groups
will indicate greater self-orientation and possibly less team-orientation, rather than in the
long-tun. This conclusion is due to the greater variety in viewpoints stemming from
ethnicity and nationality differences.
15
With regards to self-orientation, a consistent assumption is that diverse teams
have greater perspectives to consider and utilize from each member. Therefore, diverse
teams may report greater self-orientation over time rather than in the short-run (Watson
& Johnson; Merritt, 1998). When given time to develop through discussion and feedback
of task performance, as well as interpersonal processes, groups tend to become more
effective over time because members' well-being is tied to group performance (Watson,
et al, 1993). In the later stages, differences between team-orientation and self-orientation
should diminish. The presumption generated from this data concludes that over time,
culturally diverse groups will report team orientation and self-orientations similar to that
of culturally non-diverse groups (Watson & Johnson; Merritt, 1998).
The study from Watson, Johnson and Merritt (1998) concluded that the nature of
a task requirement, as well as team and self-orientations, appear to be important issues
from which work teams can be studied over time. Regardless of their diversity, teams
can learn to communicate better with periodic feedback about their performance and how
to improve interpretive processes, which in turn create an increase in performance.
(Watson, et al., 1998).
Another theoretical model regarding team processes created by Pfeffer (1983)
suggests that demographic heterogeneity negatively influences team processes. This, in
turn influences outcome variables such as performance and turnover. This model fails to
consider the fact that teams are embedded within larger organizations and that the
demographic composition of larger organizations may have some effects on the team.
Thus, minority members are numerical minorities not only on the team but in the larger
organization as well (Baugh & Graen, 1997). Pfeffer concluded that individuals who
16
were in this numeric minority have been found to suffer from increased performance
pressure, isolation from social and professional networks, and stereotypical role
encapsulation (Kanter, 1977; Konrad & Gutek, 1987; Wharton, 1992). Both isolation and
role encapsulation inhibit the development of good working relationships within team
settings. Therefore, relationships with the team leader and team members will suffer due
to the constraints that are placed on role enactment as a result of diversity in team
competition. The difficulty encountered in the development of relationships within the
team may also lead to perceptions of reduced teamwork effectiveness within the team.
When individuals have more difficulty in developing good leadership relationships or
effective working relationships among team members, the team will be viewed as
generally less well integrated and less effective in its teamwork (Baugh, and Graen,
1997).
To better understand diversity and the effect it has on teams, we must realize that
within each of us lie four layers of diversity. These "layers" can be used to take full
advantage of the various cultural populations we encounter daily. The APHIS Council on
Managing Diversity defined the "four layers of diversity" in everyone as the following:
1. Personality: The innate elements that make an individual unique.2. Internal Dimension: Age, gender, ethnicity, physical ability, race, and sexual
orientation.3. External Dimension: income, personal habits, religion, recreational habits,
educational background, work experience, appearance, parental status, marital status,geographic location.
4. Organizational Dimension: Work content/Field, Division/Department/Unit/Group,seniority, work location, union affiliation, management status, functional level/classification.
In order to take full advantage of diversity within teams, we must be aware of our
own diversity lying within each of the four areas. After that, we can become aware of the
17
differences of those whom we work with (www.aphis.usda.gov/mb/wfd/define.html). By
understanding this, we may begin to realize the potential of ourselves and the differences
of others. Thus creating an environment where an organization can work amid the
differences of their employees and maintain profitability.
It has been concluded that differences in the demographic composition of teams
will be especially problematic when those differences are introduced by individuals with
demographic characteristics that are numerically rare in the organization as a whole.
Those with a relatively homogeneous background will serve to highlight those rare
numerically demographic differences that exist (Kanter, 1977; Wharton, 1992; Wiersman
& Bird, 1993). Therefore, it is critical that all group members and leaders understand that
they are entering a learning situation each time a diverse workgroup is created.
Organizational Culture-Individualism and Collectivism
An organization's emphasis on individualism or collectivism typically depends on
factors such as the task environment, history, industry, and the primary nations in which
it operates. However, both ends of the spectrum are considered legitimate and effective
models of organizational functioning (Chatman and Barsade, 1995).
The concepts of Collectivism and Individualism are based on a variety of studies
in the social sciences that began with Lukes (1973) and have been applied to research in
the areas of values, religion, economic development and social systems. It is important to
acknowledge that no culture is wholly individualistic or collectivist, aspects of both occur
in any society. Nonetheless, the degree to which the two elements are emphasized from
culture to culture varies greatly (Victor, 1992). According to Gary Weaver, professor of
intercultural communication at American University, "as a multicultural workforce, it is
18
important to understand both perspectives and become comfortable with them" (Garfield,
1992).
Western European white men, the "founding fathers" of American industry,
government, academe and society, have shaped most US businesses which have resulted
in an institution of many norms, expectations, habits, behaviors, and traditions that make
up contemporary organizational cultures (Loden and Rosener, 1991). Because of these
norms, expectations, habits, behaviors and traditions, we [Americans] tend to undervalue
the "other" and operate under the false assumption that "otherness" is a liability rather
than an asset to an organization (Garfield, 1992). It is a unique feature of the United
States to value individualism. In a majority of other cultures, individualism is considered
a counterproductive force, equated with selfishness, unpatriotic feelings, or disruptive
behavior that undermines harmony with the community (Victor, 1992:101-102).
As the name implies, an individualist culture is one that stresses independence
and is seen in most traditional American organizations today. According to Bing,
"Individuality is not simply an American trait, it is our most distinctive cultural trait. The
idea ingrained into each of us is that, when all is said and done, you're on your own"
(Stamps, 1996).
Loden and Rosener (1991) emphasize that the "rugged individualist myths" of
traditional organizations include the following characteristics:
* Mainstream employees fail to recognize the power of traditional culture inshaping opportunities and expectations.
* Organizations do not recognize how their own success is linked to the norms,habits, biases and traditions of the culture.
* Success is viewed as a result of individual efforts.* The dominant group does not recognize that "otherness" is the central issue.* The infusion of diverse people is seen as a lowering of the performance
standards.
19
It is obvious that individualistic cultures tend to focus on and reward achievement
that can be attributed to a particular person rather than to a collective group. By
emphasizing this, individualism causes people to focus on their own and others' unique
abilities and characteristics-on what differentiates them from others (Chatman, Polzer,
Barsade, and Neal, 1998), rather than what each can contribute.
Individuals maintain their independence from others in an organizational culture
by attending to the self and by discovering and expressing their unique inner attributes
(Markus and Kitayama, 1991:224). Overt connectedness, attending to others, and
harmonious interdependence are neither assumed nor valued in individualistic cultures
(Chatman et.al. 1998). As a result, organizations that promote individualistic values may
be inadvertently prohibiting the positive effects that would otherwise arise from having
diverse members (Chatman et.al. 1998).
Collectivist cultures, on the other hand, have different strategies regarding diverse
work environments. In collectivist cultures, the focus is on shared objectives,
interchangeable interests and commonalties among members. According to Triandis
(1995: 52), members of a collectivist culture are more likely to agree on what constitutes
correct action, behave according to the norms of the culture, and suffer or offer severe
criticism for even slight deviations from the norm (Chatman, Polzer, Barsade, and Neal,
1998). Feelings of similarity and a common fate among members cultivated in
collectivist cultures lead members to consider more of their coworkers to be included as a
part of the "in-group". As a result, organizational membership may be used as a basis for
social categorization. Simply by being a member of an organization, one may qualify as
an "in-group" member (Chatman, et al, 1998).
20
Group relationships in a collectivist culture are usually nurtured over long periods
of time. The outsider has not experienced this and, may not be able to receive access to
them. A web of interrelationships among the group members is formed which may make
it difficult to become part of the collective group (Victor, 1992). However, a collectivist
emphasis may help increase the effectiveness of diverse people working together.
(Chatman, et al., 1998).
To better summarize the differences between individualist and collectivist
cultures, Triandis (1995) condensed four distinct, defining attributes of each (Chen,
Chen, and Meindl, 1998) into the following categories:
1. Conceptions of the self:· Individualists define the self as an autonomous entity independent of groups.
* Collectivists define the self in terms of its connectedness to others in various in-groups (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
2. Goal Relationships:· Personal goals have priority over group goals in an individualistic culture.* Personal goals are subordinated to collective goals in collectivism (Triandis,
1989, Yamaguchi, 1994).
3. Dedicated Interests:· Individuals find it permissible to give priority to self-interest when there are
conflicts.* Collectivists feel obliged to give priority to collective interests (Parsons, 195 1).
4. Relative importance of attitudes and norms:* Attitudes and norms of individuals are more likely to be driven by their own
beliefs, values and attitudes (Bontempo & Rivero, 1992; Davidson, Jaccard,Triandis, Morales, & Diaz-Guerrero, 1976).
* Social behaviors of collectivists are more likely to be driven by social norms,duties and obligations.
5. Emphasis on relationships:* Individualists are more oriented toward task achievement, sometimes at the
expense of their relationships with others.
2 1
Collectivists put more emphasis on harmonious relationships, sometimes at theexpense of task accomplishment (e.g. Kim, Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon,1994; Redding, 1993).
To illustrate further, Hofstede conducted a study in 1984 that surveyed people in 40
countries to assess the relative effect of culture in determining an individualist or
collectivist culture in the workplace. (Victor, 1992: 105). The results of this study were
able to give people interacting in a diverse work environment some organizational norms
prevalent in various cultures. However, it is important not to stereotype people based on
this information. It is general cultural information that should function only as an initial
predictor and starting point for members beginning to understand diversity. It should not
be considered absolute.
Hofstede's study was conducted as follows. Basing his survey on 14 questions
regarding work goals, Hofstede ranked the forty nations according to the survey
respondents' views of six main goals most closely tied to individualism: personal time,
freedom, challenge, use of skills, physical conditions and training. The results of the
study showed the highest amount of individualism in the United States. Significantly,
five of the six nations defining the top of the individualism scale were English-
speaking-Australia ranked second, Britain third, Canada fourth, and New Zealand sixth.
Only the Netherlands, which ranked fifth, was not part of this English-speaking culture
cluster.
Those nations with a low individualism rank consisted of Mexico, Portugal,
Yugoslavia, Hong Kong, Chile, Singapore and Thailand. The five lowest ranked nations
were Taiwan, Peru, Pakistan, Colombia and Venezuela. Typically these cultures are
focused on win-win results that maintain the harmony of the group (Garfield, 1992).
22
It is obvious that cultures have a variety of characteristics that are different from
each other. In order for organizations to be successful, whether they are individualist or
collectivist by nature, they must have some concept of cooperation. In the next section,
cooperation methods of these two distinct cultures will be analyzed.
Cooperation Among Organizational Cultures
It has been recognized that cooperation is crucial to the success of organizations.
Recent restructuring of work and organizations toward cross-disciplinary and cross-
functional teams has made cooperation even more important in work environments. The
increase of inter-organizational and internal collaborations and alliances has made
cooperation more important (Adlerm, 1991; Byrne, 1993; Jackson, 1991; Lawler, 1990;
Manz & Sims, 1987).
Workplace cooperation has been conceptualized as the willful contribution of
employee effort to the successful completion of interdependent organization tasks
(Wagner, 1995: 152). Workplace cooperation is often manifested in members'
willingness to work with others, even when it is not normally demanded, and in
preferences for being rewarded for working alone or in groups. Personality, or one's
tendency to pursue individualistic or collectivist goals can influence both cooperative
behaviors. (Chatman & Barsade, 1995). To illustrate, a person with a high disposition to
cooperate places priority on associating with others for mutual benefit, gaining social
approval, and working together with others toward a common end or purpose. While a
person with a low disposition to cooperate places priority on maximizing his or her own
welfare regardless of others' welfare. Related research suggests that cooperative people
may adjust their behavior more than individualistic people do in order to accommodate
23
the cooperative or individualistic norms emphasized in different social settings. (Chatman
& Barsade, 1995).
It has been found that people tend to be more satisfied when they are in settings
that meet their particular needs or that are congruent with their disposition (Diener,
Larsen, and Emmons, 1984: 582). The degree of similarity, fit, or match between two
conceptually distinct, but comparable, person-and-situation constructs is typically
referred to as person-situation congruence. Congruence theories consider how individual
and situational characteristics combine to influence a person's affective or behavioral
response in a given situation (Chatman & Barsade, 1995).
According to Chatman (1991), the congruence between personal values and
organizational culture has been shown to be a better predictor of performance,
commitment, and length of stay than either characteristic alone (Chatman & Barsade,
1995). Greater person-situation congruence thus increases individuals' effectiveness in a
situation and their tendencies to seek out such situations in the future are increased.
On the other hand, research has shown that demographic differences among group
members can cause in-group/out-group biases (Brewer, 1979). Those who are most
different in terms of various demographic characteristics (out-group members) are
viewed as less cooperative (Tsui, Egan, and O'Reilly, 1992). Cox, Lobel and McLeod
(1991) found greater cooperative behavior among groups from collectivist traditions than
from homogeneous races that emphasized individualism (Chatman and Barsade, 1995).
To illustrate this concept of cooperation among individualist and collectivist
workgroups, Kelley and Stahelski (1970a) conducted two-person prisoner's dilemma
games. The results of their study are as follows: subjects who had self-interested motives
24
behaved individualistically, regardless of whether or not their opponent behaved
individualistically or cooperatively. On the other hand, cooperators differentiated
between their opponents' individualistic or cooperative behavior and responded
accordingly. Those with individualistic motives simply did not consider the possibility
that other people could (or would) behave cooperatively and thus, always behaved and
responded individualistically.
This study suggests that people develop strategies for behaving that are based on
their expectations of what other people will do. This same pattern may be generalized
beyond an individual's expectation of a single opponent's behavior to an individual's
expectations of a coworker's behavior in an organization. Organizational culture, or the
form of social control that clarifies which behaviors and attitudes are more or less
appropriate for members (O'Reilly, & Chatman, 1996), may help individuals anticipate
the likely reactions of others regarding their attitudes and behaviors. (Chatman &
Barsade, 1995).
Research also shows however, that even when people understand the benefits of
cooperation and the detriments of self-interest in interdependent settings, they often
choose to behave individualistically (Chatman & Barsade, 1995). Though this research
seems to be contradictory, it is important to remember that not all cultures are wholly
individualist or collectivist, aspects of each can occur in an organization. Axelrod
(1984) has suggested three ways of promoting and creating cooperation within an
organization. First, changing payoffs to make cooperation more appealing and defection
less attractive can enhance cooperation. For instance, by making individual rewards
contingent on cooperation in teams. Therefore, managers should carefully construct
25
reward schemes in order to demonstrate the cooperative behavior they are hoping to
achieve.
Second, emphasizing the future of the organization and allowing members to use
the threats in order to reduce defection can reinforce cooperation. In other words, if an
employee can't contribute to an organization's goals, then out the door they go! This
illustrates that longer time horizons, specifically manifested in lower employee turnover,
can contribute to cooperative decision making.
Third, teaching people values, facts, and skills that will promote cooperation, such
as the importance of reciprocity and how to recognize social norms can enhance
cooperative orientations. (Chatman & Barsade, 1995). What this research suggests to
managers attempting to encourage cooperation is that they need to realize that
individualists may require greater persuasion than originally planned for and some
employees may never actually adapt to collectivist demands (Chatman & Barsade, 1995).
The understanding of the connection between culture and cooperation-and their
implications for organizational behavior-is just beginning to develop. In order to
deepen the understanding we have, it is essential that we explore how cooperation is
achieved differently in different cultures. Exploring and contrasting culturally linked
cooperation mechanisms will generate knowledge that may be helpful in gaining an
understanding of both intra- and intercultural cooperation (Chen, et al., 1998).
Three distinctive approaches have been identified for the conception and
definition of cooperation. In the tradition of Mead, one approach emphasizes the
psychological motives of the participants. Mead defines cooperation as the 'act of
working together to one end' (1976: 8). She emphasizes the actor's cooperative motives
26
of working toward a common goal rather than them engaging in collective activity (Chen,
Chen Meindel, 1998). Research has suggested that psychological motivators of
individualist cultures would be different from those cultures that emphasize collectivism.
Some of the dominant responses of those socialized and working in individualistic
nations (i.e. the United States) may be self-interest, while the dominant response of those
socialized and working in collectivist nations may be cooperation. This research raises
the question about whether cooperative people are more adaptable than others across a
wide array of situations, or whether results are specific to only the cooperative
dimensions studied. (Chatman & Barsade, 1995).
A second conception of cooperation can be defined in terms of social relations
and situations. Deutsch (1949a) pioneered this approach and elaborates and transforms
Mead's cultural conception of cooperation by focusing on the nature of relationships that
exist between the goals of social actors in any given social situation. Deutsch
differentiated these situations as "cooperative and competitive" depending on how
participants' goals were related to each other. A situation was considered cooperative if
the goals of the participants were positively related to each other however, is competitive
if the goals are negatively related to each other. In conjunction with Duetsch, another
researcher, Tjosvold (1988a, b), believes that it is perceived goal interdependence that
leads group members to engage in positive interactive behaviors. Notice that Duetsch
and Tjosvold define cooperation in terms of actual or perceived goal relationships rather
than behaviors.
The behavior approach to cooperation is the third conception of cooperation. This
approach, based on Barhard's theory, is defined 'as a functional system of activities of
27
two or more persons' (1983: 17). His theory elaborates on how individual actions and
efforts are joined and synthesized into cooperative actions and how the inducement,
facilitation and maintenance of cooperation constitutes the essence of organizing and
managing. Barnhard's theory is quite broad covering almost every functional activity of
an organization and is defined in terms of actions. However, individual motives and
collective purposes are left out of the theory, both of which are essential factors for the
continuation of cooperation. (Chen, et al. 1998)
In order to illustrate these concepts and definitions of cooperation even further, a
study was conducted with 39 first-year MBA students from a Midwestern university.
The study emphasized that when people have the requisite skills, knowledge, and
inclination to behave in accordance with situational demands, they will do so (Chatman
& Barsade, 1995). It was believed that their behavior would result in the promotion of
organizational cooperation. The study concluded that if the subjects (MBA students), and
the simulated organizational culture they were placed in were more cooperative than
individualistic, then the cooperative subjects were rated by co-workers as behaving more
cooperatively. These subjects met and worked with more of their coworkers and
emphasized collectivism over individualism. However, when both the person and the
situation emphasized fewer cooperatives, lower cooperative behavior emerged for some
indicators but not for coworkers' ratings of cooperative behavior. (Chatman and Barsade,
1995).
In contrast to the above distinctions among cooperative behavior, other research
such as the prisoner's dilemma research (Axelrod, 1984) and, social dilemma research
define cooperation as an act that maximizes the interest of the other, whether they are an
28
individual or collectivist. This research also defines defection as an act that maximizes
self-interest. This approach has the advantage of behavioral specificity, which is left out
in Bernhard's theory. However, it does reduce the scope and complexity of cooperative
behavior in real life (Argyle, 1991).
The general and specific dimensions of cooperative behavior have been examined
thus far. It is important to recognize, however, that between this range lies the internal
dimensional approach (see Figure 1).
Those who have researched cooperation within work groups have identified
various dimensions of positive interactions. For example, Argyle (1991: 127)
summarized the pattern of behaviors for successful cooperative work groups as more
coordination, more helping, more communication and more division of labor (Chen, et al.
1998).
Figure 1: The Internal Dimension Approach of Cooperative Behavior
Collectivist Cultures Individualist Cultures
(Internal Dimension)
Scholars of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) have adopted another
dimensional approach to cooperation that corresponds to Argyle's approach. According
to Organ (1988: 4), OCB 'represents individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly
or explicitly recognized by the formal reward systems and, that in the aggregate promotes
the effective functioning of the organization'. Graham (1989) proposed a four-
dimensional model of OCB, 1) interpersonal helping, 2) individual initiative in
communications to others in the workplace, 3) personal industry in performing specific
29
tasks beyond the call of duty, and 4) loyal boosterism-that is, the promotion of
organizational image to outsiders. The OCB dimensions overlap with the interaction
dimensions as well as with the behaviors proposed by Argyle. Conceptually, they all
emphasize willful behavior (Wagner, 1995), in that they are voluntarily displayed and,
with more or less discretion to the level of frequency of such behavior. Generally, they
are also considered to be functional to the effectiveness of collective actions (Chen, et al.,
1998). It is obvious that there are a variety of conceptions and definitions related to
behavior, social relations, psychological motives and the organizational citizenship
approach to cooperation.
When working in an organization, it is essential to know how these cooperation
mechanisms and definitions apply across individualist, collectivist, and demographically
different cultures. One structure that research has identified is the Contingency Approach.
This approach is based on the belief that human beings have the capacity to cooperate
and to not cooperate. This means that cooperation occurs in all societies and that all
societies have to work at fostering and sustaining cooperation.
Secondly, the Cultural Contingency Approach suggests that as societies
experiment with ways of fostering cooperation those means that are culturally appropriate
may be used more often and with more success (Chen, et al., 1998). It is critical
therefore to recognize the values and motives of diverse cultures in order to understand
what mechanisms will foster communication and cooperation.
According to Chen, Chen and Meindel (1998), cultural values and motives can
affect cooperation in three ways. First, cultural values can directly affect the level of
30
cooperation. For example, collectivists tend to be more cooperative whereas
individualists are more competitive (Mead, 1976; Triandis, 1990).
Next, culture can affect cooperation through the mediation of certain cooperation
mechanisms. The insertion of cooperation mechanisms, with respect to culture, help
explain why collectivists may cooperate more than individualists do.
The third effect culture is believed to have on cooperation focuses on interactions
between the culture and its cooperation mechanisms. Cultural variables moderate the
effects of various cooperation mechanisms. In other words, a given mechanism can be
more or less effective in one culture than in another. Each cooperation mechanism and
how it is dealt with, depending on the organizational culture, is presented by Chen, Chen
and Meindel (1998) in the Figure 2.
It is important to understand the significance of each cooperation mechanism and
how it can be effective in an individualist or collectivist organizational culture. The
descriptions of each will be discussed.
Table 2. Cooperation Mechanisms
Cooperation Mechanism Individualist Collectivist
* Superordinate goal Goal interdependence Goal sharing* Group Identity Self enhancement Complementary* Trust Cognition based Affect based* Accountability Individual based Group based* Communication Partial channel Full channel* Reward distribution Equity based Equality based
A Superordinate Goal presumes the acceptance of a shared goal of a collectivity
consisting of individuals or subunits. Goal interdependence refers to a relationship in
which the goals of each individual or subunit can be achieved only if those of the others
31
also can be achieved. The interdependence presupposes the existence of independently
defined individual goals and requires the knowledge of one's own goals as well as others.
An evaluation of the relationship between these goals is also necessary. It is believed that
others in the collectivity serve as instruments for achieving individual self-interest. One
such way can be as manipulative as defection. The interdependent view therefore is one
of enlightened self-interest.
Goal sharing, in contrast, consists of a common goal shared by all members of the
given collectivity. Although collectivism does not usually require individuals to conceive
goals that are connected to or congruent with collective goals (i.e. contributing to the well
being of a work group as a personal goal), the collective rationality requires the
subordination of the individual goals to those of the collective.
The cooperation mechanism of Group Identity has been referred to as an effective
mechanism for inducing cooperation (Aram, 1993; Dawes, Orbell & van de Kragt, 1988).
However, group identity alone is not sufficient enough to induce cooperation. It must be
accompanied by other factors, such as commitment (Kerr & Kaufman-Gilliland, 1994),
perception of consensus (Bouas, & Komorita, 1996), or feeling of criticalness (Chen,
1996).
For collectivists, social identities are relatively more important than personal
identities. Whereas for individualists, the opposite is true. For individualists, the new
group identity should enhance personal identities and the instrumentality to rational self-
interest. However, for collectivists group membership should enhance others' social
identities and collective interests. As an example, group membership carries stronger
32
psychological attachment in countries such as Japan and China than it does for
individualistic cultures.
A third cooperation mechanism is Trust. Trust is an individual's confidence in the
goodwill of others in a relationship. It is also the expectation that others will reciprocate
if one is cooperative (Pruitt, 1988, Ring & Van de Ven, 1994). McAllister (1995) further
differentiates two broad foundations upon which trust is built in organizational settings;
cognition and affect-based. Cognition-based trust is built on the knowledge of role
performance and includes cues of performance behaviors and accomplishments. Among
the most significant are those that convey competence such as professional credentials
and performance track record (Brockner & Siegel, 1996; Tyler & Degoey, 1996).
Cognition-based trust suggests professionalism and provides partners with
confidence that they will abide by their contract and treat each other equitably. This type
of trust emerges as exchange parties faithfully adhere to their respective role
responsibilities and share outcomes equitably. Cognition-based trust is valued in
collectivist cultures. The in-group relationship is characterized by communal sharing and
emotional closeness. Collectivists can be highly motivated for task achievement by their
personal loyalty and attachment to significant others which, in turn, leads to cognitive
trust.
It is important to note that cognition-based trust alone may not be sufficient for
collectivist cooperation for a number of reasons. First, role expectations are not confined
to task performance nor are they all formally prescribed in a collectivist culture.
Everyone works toward common goals. Second, others may view expressing and
asserting self-interest in the group as a challenge. This challenge to the collective
33
rationality therefore prescribes the subordination of self-interest to the collective interest.
Thirdly, it is possible in collectivist cultures that emotional trust can precede cognitive
trust, whereas in individualist cultures it is rare.
Affect-based trust is built on the emotional bonds between partners (Lewicki &
Bunker, 1995; McAllister, 1995; Shapiro, Sheppard & Cherask, 1992) and indicates that
partners have formed a social-emotional bond that goes beyond a regular business or
professional relationship. Affective trust is motivated by commitment to a relationship
and is a further development of cognitive trust. Goodwill expands to extra-role tasks and
other non-task relational activities. This extra role and relational goodwill is displayed
for the personal care of, and concern for others rather than for one's own self-interest.
Once formed though, this affective trust can be decoupled from, or even influence,
cognitive trust. (Holmes & Rempel, 1989; Johnson-George & Swap, 1982; Zajonc,
1980).
The next cooperation mechanism used among organizational cultures is
Accountability. Researchers typically conceptualize accountability within individual
terms. That is, the extent to which an individual's contribution to the group is
identifiable. The general finding is that accountability has a positive effect on inducing
cooperation and reduces social loafing (free riding). However, there is some evidence
indicating that social loafing is less likely to appear among collectivists who are working
with in-group members and that individual identification has a significant impact only on
those holding individualist values (Earley, 1989; Wagner, 1995).
Individual-based accountability is the extent to which each individual is
responsible for his/her own behavior and its consequences. It may enhance the
34
individual's self-image by having an internal locus of control and may reinforce the
instrumental motive of working for one's self-interest. Individual-based accountability
also reassures individualists that others are not free-riding on their system.
Group-based accountability, on the other hand, is the extent to which an
individual is responsible for the group outcome. Group accountability may trigger
individual accountability for others' behaviors.
In collectivist cooperative relationships performance outcomes often are assessed
at the group level. To enhance accountability, collectivists rely more heavily on social
controls, or group norms, to influence individual behavior in order to ensure group
outcome. This kind of self- and peer- monitoring enable group members to tune into and
adjust to the needs of others in the group and to emulate others' cooperative behaviors.
Therefore, it is concluded that explicit cooperative rules will be more effective in
fostering cooperation in an individualist culture, whereas social pressures will be more
effective in fostering cooperation in a collectivist culture.
The cooperation mechanism of Communication greatly enhances cooperation
among partners (Axelrod, 1984; Braver &Wilson, 1986; Chen and Komorist, 1995;
Dawes, et al, 1997; Lindskold, 1978). Here, the focus lies on one major cultural
difference: the extent to which individualists and collectivists prefer partial
communication as opposed to face-to-face communication.
Partial communication (Chen & Komorita, 1994; Voissem & Sistrunk, 1971,
Whichman, 1970) refers to information exchanged through constrained modalities.
Audio only, visual only or written messages are examples of partial communication..
These constrained modalities, found everyday in print, telephone, or electronic
35
communication, de-contextualizes the situation, leaving out many additional sounds of
social meaning, feelings, and intentions that are implicit in face-to-face interactions
(McGrath & Hollingshead, 1994; Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986).
A low-context communication is one in which 'the mass of the information is
vested in the explicit code' (Hall, 1976: 79) and is a preference for individualists because
they are more concerned with satisfying dissociation (autonomy) needs. Therefore they
tend to engage in instrumental styles of verbal communication. Individualists are more
concerned with efficiency of communication (i.e. saving time and avoiding hassles) in
order to get the job done and, in general are more verbally direct and sender-centered in
their communication (Ting-Toomey, 1988). Individualists feel comfortable directly
expressing and soliciting information about their desires, concerns, and preferences
through mediated channels.
A high-context communication is one which 'most of the information is either in
the physical context or internalized in the person. Very little is in the coded, explicit,
transmitted part of the message'. (Hall, 1976, 1983). This method is preferred by
collectivists because they are more concerned with satisfying association needs and
therefore, tend to engage in affective styles of verbal communication (Ting-Toomey,
1988: 112).
Social cues and their feedback in face-to-face communication are more essential
for collectivists than for individualists for a number of reasons. First, collectivists need
more social and emotional cues to build or signify relationships. Secondly, context is
more important for collectivists because they can convey their own meaning and infer
others' meanings. Thirdly, collectivists are less verbal, more indirect, and more receiver-
36
centered. They rely more on nonverbal cues in face-to-face interactions to convey and
discern desires, concerns and preferences.
Collectivists' preference for face-to-face communication may also arise from the
different nature of "face-work", otherwise known as self-presentation in public.
According to Ting-Toomey (1988) and her colleagues (Ting-Toomey et al, 1991),
collectivists care more about mutual face and other face in communication, whereas
individualists care more about maintaining their own face. Face-to-face meetings have
more binding effects on collectivists than on individualists because of their highly
personal nature.
Reward Distribution is another cooperation mechanism used by individualist and
collectivist cultures. Examples of reward distribution include judgements of justice and
fairness that permeate organizational life such as, comparisons, pay raises, the
distribution of scarce budgets, and promotions, all of which affect people's cooperative
behaviors.
Individualists prefer the equity principle, in which rewards are proportional to
individual contribution, because they hold the belief that performance and productivity
will increase when participants of a joint endeavor can benefit in proportion to what each
contributes (Mowday, 1987). Equity is also believed to be the fairest principle for
distributing rewards. This belief of equity is so prevalent and normative in the United
States that sometimes self-sacrificial behaviors are justified in terms of self-interest and,
manipulative behaviors are explained in terms of differential contribution (Lerner, Miller
& Holmes, 1976; Miller & Ratner, 1996). This 'fairness as equity' concept may be such
a core belief that it constitutes an important part of an individual's self-image. Being fair
37
means being equitable. Because the equity principle is believed to be consistent with both
individual rationale and the self-image of being fair, it can simultaneously satisfy the
instrument and the expressive motives of the individual across different kinds of social
relations.
Collectivists prefer the equality principle, in which rewards are distributed
equally among group members (Bond, Leung, & Wan, 1982; Hui, Triandis, Yee, 1991;
Leung & Bond, 1984). The collective rationality prescribes non-differential principles,
such as an equal or need-based reward distribution among members of a close-knit group.
Collectivists fear that increasing differentials in rewards will motivate individuals to
work for self-interest at the expense of the collective interest. Furthermore, collectivists
feel that differential rewards reinforce and enlarge status differentials among group
members (Reis, 1984), which may potentially threaten group harmony (Leung, 1988).
Collectivists use the equality principle in close in-groups, such as among friends
and relatives, but the equity principle when dealing with out-groups such as strangers.
The use of these two principles in different group situations illustrates that reward
allocation preferences of the collectivists may depend on the nature of the cooperative
behaviors. For example, when collectivist interact with strangers with whom they expect
no long-term relationship, their most important consideration is to get equity-based fair
share. However, when interacting with people with whom they expect to have future
long-term interactions with, collectivists are more willing to compromise equity in favor
of the other party so as to induce a harmonious relationship and to initiate a cycle of
reciprocity. The long-term relationship may be conceived as a "quasi in-group" because
the long-term fate of both parties is intertwined. (Chen, Chen, Meindl, 1998)
38
The cooperation mechanisms defined and illustrated above are important in order
to understand and manage cooperation. However, the research on which these
mechanisms are based has been conducted mainly by and ,on Westerners with
fundamentally individualistic assumptions (Chen, et al, 1998), therefore they are not to be
considered absolute.
To further the discussion of cooperation, the Cultural Model of Cooperation is
presented. This model defines how cooperative behavior can be fostered and sustained
for collective actions as well as how cultural difference shapes the primary motives of
cultural members. Thus, cultural differences are responsible for the effectiveness of
various cooperation mechanisms.
The Cultural Model of Cooperation considers one way of fostering cooperation is
through establishing positive goal relationships among potential or actual participants.
In a culture in which the normative values are individualistic, cooperation mechanisms
that appeal to and satisfy individual rationality and individuality will be more effective.
On the other hand, a culture in which the normative values are collectivist, cooperation
mechanisms that appeal to and satisfy the collective rationality and sociality will be more
effective (Chen, et al., 1998).
Closely related to the attributes and characteristics of individualists and
collectivists previously mentioned, there are two important concepts that need to be
considered in order to understand this cultural model of cooperation. The first concept is
the structure of self-identity. An individual's self-concept, which derives from the
knowledge of one's membership of a social group along with the value and emotional
significance attached to that membership, is part of one's social identity (Tajfel, 1978).
39
Social identity theorists (Tajfel, 1982; Turner, 1987) posit that self-identity is composed
of two broad types: 1) personal identities, which are based on an individuals' traits,
preferences, and attitudes and, 2) social identities that are based on group memberships.
Although both social and personal identities are important for the psychological
functioning of all individuals, their relative significance may differ across cultures owing
to differences in self-conceptions.
Markus and Kitayama (1991: 226-227) argue that in individual self-concept,
identities in terms of internal attributes are the 'primary unit of consciousness' and 'are
most significant in regulating behavior and are assumed both by the actor and the
observer alike, to be diagnostic of the actor'. Whereas in the collective self-concept,
identities in terms of social relationships are in the primary units of consciousness
because 'the significant self-representation are those in relationship to specific others'
(Chen et al., 1998).
The second related concept concerning the cultural model of cooperation is the
boundaries between the self and others. Psychologically, individualists distinguish the
autonomous self from others either as an individual or as groups. Collectivists, on the
other hand, typically draw the distinction between those they are personally related to
(in-groups) and those they are not (out-groups).
Triandis (1995) observed that individualists form and move with greater ease in
and out of multiple, loosely affiliated groups and associations based on their particular
needs and objectives. Collectivists however, are more likely to form and stay in a few,
stable, closely-knit groups that satisfy their multiple needs and objectives. As a result,
subordinating self-interest, sense of duty, and relationship orientation are only confined
40
to collective in-groups. Collectivists have less problems applying different sets of values
and norms depending on whether they are dealing with in-group or out-group
relationships (Earley, 1989; Leung & Bond, 1984). On the other hand, individualists find
it more desirable to treat all individuals with a universal consistency (Waterman, 1988).
The research collected from Chatman and Meindl (1998) shows that many
challenges still remain for managers in today's workforce. Some of these challenges
include issues such as reduced interaction and reduced willingness to share ideas among
diverse members. Organizations that promote individualistic values may be inadvertently
prohibiting the positive effects that would otherwise arise from having diverse members.
Whereas a collective emphasis may help to increase the effectiveness of diverse people
working together (Chatman, et al., 1998). Given the demographic changes occurring now
and in the near future and, given the strong employment rate, most organizations will
have no choice but to integrate diverse people into their organizations. It is important to
understand the implications of the research presented thus far in order to determine how
an emphasis on a collectivist or individualist organizational culture will determine the
effectiveness of a particular workforce.
41
Chapter IIIResearch Methods
Overview of Study
The concepts of Collectivism and Individualism are based on a variety of studies
in the social sciences that began with Lukes (1973). These concepts have been applied to
research in values, religion, economic development and social systems (Loden and
Rosener, 1991). Previous research has also shown that no culture is wholly individualistic
or collectivist, but the elements of each culture varies greatly.
It is assumed that behavior is understood and interpreted by individualist or
collectivist cultures in terms of a person's demographic characteristics. The data
collected from this study will determine how a group gives meaning to a person based on
their demographic differences as opposed to responding to their individual personality.
The assumption is that personality is determined by the physical characteristics of group
members, not how the group member actually is.
This chapter will explain how the research design, the sources of data and the
techniques that were used to collect the data.
Research Design
A descriptive study has been used to gather the information necessary to
determine if people respond to the cultural background of an ethnically different person
in individualist and collectivist organizational cultures. This design is relative to the
problem and research objectives that have been identified because there will be no
manipulation of the variables involved in the study.
42
The data was collected using a questionnaire containing fourteen ordinal scales
based on the 16 PF and the Big 5 Personality study. These scales allowed subjective
interpretation from the participants. These fourteen continuums helped identify each
participant's preference for individualist or collectivist ways of thinking. Participants
were asked to place an "X" along each scale as to where they felt they "fit in" for each
character set. The scales were organized so that only the collector of the data could
determine the participants' way of thinking. The participants themselves did not know
which characteristic belonged to what type of organizational culture. These measures
(Data Set #1) served as the independent variables and made it possible to identify the
culture of the participant as an individualist or collectivist.
A case study was included as the second part of the questionnaire. Each case
study was similar in the fact that the hypothetical situation was consistent in all of the
questionnaires. The determining factor for the variable was the cultural make-up of each
group and their level of progression. Based on the description of the team, participants
rated its members on the three additional scales (Data Set #2) which were created using
the concepts of the ASCH paradigm. Participants of the study rated the hypothetical
group members on their behavior and "likeability" within the team along as well as
potential future participation. The outcomes of these measures will be the dependent
variables because each workgroup consists of a different cultural make-up and level of
progression (Table 3).
43
Table 3: Cultural make-up of work teams within the study
Cultural Progression of
make-up of workgroups Team
1· All agreeing· Progressing well
7 white male group members
21 black male group member Black group member dissenting
* Not progressing well
3
* All agreeing* Progressing well
8 white male group members
· I member dissenting* Not progressing well
5
* All agreeing, Progressing well
5 white male group members Progressing well
63 Asian male group members * 3 Asian males dissenting
* Not progressing well
As a result, the information gained from this part of the study will identify
whether or not group members determine competency, personality and other
characteristics in terms of another person's demographic background.
The results of the data will come from those in the Stout community who have
chosen to participate in the study. Participants will further identify and reinforce the
characteristics of individualist and collectivist cultures by placing their own
44
measurements of evaluation on the scales in the questionnaire. This data should support
the previous research done in the area of group conformity.
Exhibits 1-6: Questionnaires used for the Study
45
How Individualist and Collectivist Organizational Cultures Influence Work Processes,Outcomes, and Cooperation.
You have been randomly selected from the Stout population to give an opinion on these matters. In order thatresults will truly represent the thinking of Stout's population, it is important that each questionnaire becompleted as accurately as possible and returned.
Please do not place your name anywhere on this questionnaire to be assured of complete confidentiality.
Thank you for your time, assistance and cooperation in supporting this study.
Directions: Put an X that represents where you fit along each continuum below.
Motivated by individual Motivated by social norms, dutiesbeliefs and values and obligations
21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Self-reliant Reliant on othersI1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14Focused on personal Focused on accomplishing groupaccomplishment harmony11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1Dedicated to Dedicated to the collective interest ofown self-interests the group11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1(
Not influenced by loyalty to Influenced by loyalty to the groupthe group1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1Competitive with other Cooperative with other group
group members members11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1lDifficulty conforming to Ability to conform to a group and itsgroups and organizations environment
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Treatment of all group members equally Treat group membersaccording to their group status
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I1
Prefer collective praisePrefer individual praise for for combined taskstasks accomplished accomplished by the groupI 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1g
Adaptable to change Difficulty accepting change11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN
Submissive AssertiveI1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1i
Continued on reverse.
Uncertain Confient1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Soft-hearted Determined1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Introverted Outgoing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Directions: Please read the following case study and put an X that represents where you fit along the linefor each continuum/ situation below.
You are currently working for a major US corporation that has been experiencing increased competitionfrom the global marketplace. In order to stay thriving and to obtain profit, your supervisor has decided tocreate a global marketing team to address this issue of increased competition. He has asked you to lookafter the team and to monitor its progress as well as the interpersonal relationships among members.
Traditionally your organization has been dominant in the marketplace and doesn't want to lose significantmarket share. Therefore focus is directed towards getting a plan created and implemented as quickly aspossible. Based on the description of the team, please evaluate how you feel by rating it on the scalesprovided.
The team is composed of five white males and three Asian American males. It seems as though this grouphas been reaching decisions very slowly. You have noticed that the three Asian Americans are notcontributing much to the decision-making process and have avoided any confrontations within the group.
Do you respect this behavior from the group member?
No respect for Behavior of team member isthis behavior at highly respectedall highly respected1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
How much do you like this person?
Highly dislike this Like this personperson very much
—1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Would you want this person in a workgroup that you may be involved in sometime in the future?
Would never wantthis person in a Would definitely want thisfuture workgroup person in a future workgroup11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Thank You!
How Individualist and Collectivist Organizational Cultures Influence Work Processes,Outcomes, and Cooperation.
You have been randomly selected from the Stout population to give an opinion on these matters. In order thatresults will truly represent the thinking of Stout's population, it is important that each questionnaire becompleted as accurately as possible and returned.
Please do not place your name anywhere on this questionnaire to be assured of complete confidentiality.
Thank you for your time, assistance and cooperation in supporting this study.
Directions: Put an X that represents where you fit along each continuum below.
Motivated by individual Motivated by social norms, dutiesbeliefs and values and obligations11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Self-reliant Reliant on others11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l1Focused on personal Focused on accomplishing groupaccomplishment harmony[1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1i]Dedicated to Dedicated to the collective interest ofown self-interests the group1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Not influenced by loyalty to influenced by loyalty to the groupthe group11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1Competitive with other Cooperative with other groupgroup members members11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I
Difficulty conforming to Ability to conform to a group and itsgroups and organizations environment
2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l
Treatment of all group members equally Treat group membersaccording to their group status
11 2 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 Iq
Prefer collective praisePrefer individual praise for for combined taskstasks accomplished accomlised by the groupl1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lq
Adaptable to change _______Difficulty accepting change11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1(
Submissive Assertive
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Iq
Continued on reverse.
UncertainConfident
—1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Soft-hearted DeterminedI 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Introverted Outgoing
— 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Directions: Please read the following case study and put an X that represents where you fit for eachcontinuum/ situation below.
You are currently working for a major US corporation that has been experiencing increased competitionfrom the global marketplace. In order to stay thriving and to obtain profit, your supervisor has decided tocreate a global marketing team to address this issue of increased competition. He has asked you to lookafter the team and to monitor its progress as well as the interpersonal relationships among members.
Traditionally your organization has been dominant in the marketplace and doesn't want to lose significantmarket share. Therefore focus is directed towards getting a plan created and implemented as quickly aspossible. Based on the description of the team, please evaluate how you feel by rating it on the scalesprovided.
The team is composed of seven white males and one black American. In this particular group, decision-making has been progressing well. However, the black American tends to disagree with most of themembers, but has decided to go along with a group decision. He is not real anxious about sharing hisarguments and wants to see the plan implemented as quickly as upper management does.
Do you respect this behavior from the group member?
No respect for Behavior of team member isthis behavior at highly respectedall highly respectedI1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
How much do you like this person?
Highly dislike this Like this personperson2p3467erson very much
11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0l
Would you want this person in a workgroup that you may be involved in sometime in the future?
Would never wantthis person in a Would definitely want thisfuture workgroup person in afuture workgroup1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Thank You!
How Individualist and Collectivist Organizational Cultures Influence Work Processes,Outcomes, and Cooperation.
You have been randomly selected from the Stout population to give an opinion on these matters. In order thatresults will truly represent the thinking of Stout's population, it is important that each questionnaire becompleted as accurately as possible and returned.
Please do not place your name anywhere on this questionnaire to be assured of complete confidentiality.
Thank you for your time, assistance and cooperation in supporting this study.
Directions: Put an X that represents where you fit along each continuum below.
Motivated by individual Motivated by social norms, dutiesbeliefs and values and obligatiosI1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Self-reliant Reliant on others1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 iQ Focused on personal Focused on accomplishing groupaccomplishment 6 harmonv(II _______ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Dedicated to Dedicated to the collective interest ofown self-interests the group1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
Not influenced by loyalty to Influenced by loyalty to the groupthe groupI1I2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Competitive with other Cooperative with other groupgroup members members[ __ _ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Difficulty conforming to Ability to conform to a group and itsgroups and organizations environment
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lo
Treatment of all group members equally Treat group membersaccording to their group status
11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Id
Prefer collective praisePrefer individual praise for for combined taskstasks accomplished accomplished by the group_1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Adaptable to change Difficuly accepting changeIl 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I1Submissive AssertiveEI 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Continued on reverse.
Uncertain Confident
I1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Soft-hearted Determined11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Introverted Outgoing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1l
Directions: Please read the following case study and put an X that represents where you fit along the linefor each continuum/ situation below.
You are currently working for a major US corporation that has been experiencing increased competitionfrom the global marketplace. In order to stay thriving and to obtain profit, your supervisor has decided tocreate a global marketing team to address this issue of increased competition. He has asked you to lookafter the team and to monitor its progress as well as the interpersonal relationships among members.
Traditionally your organization has been dominant in the marketplace and doesn't want to lose significantmarket share. Therefore focus is directed towards getting a plan created and implemented as quickly aspossible. Based on the description of the team, please evaluate how you feel by rating it on the scalesprovided.
The team is composed of seven white males and one black American. In this particular group, decision-making has not been progressing as well. The black American tends to disagree with most of the members,and is having a hard time deciding to go along with a group decision. He is not real anxious about sharinghis arguments and wants everyone to see "where he is coming from". Management is anxiously awaiting adecision.
Do you respect this behavior from the group member?
No respect for Behavior of team member isthis behavior at highly respectedall
1 2 3 4 5 F6 7 8 9 1
How much do you like this person?
Highly dislike this Like this personperson very much11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Would you want this person in a workgroup that you may be involved in sometime in the future?
Would never wantthis person in a Would definitely want thisfuture workgroup person in a future workgroup1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1i
Thank You!
How Individualist and Collectivist Organizational Cultures Influence Work Processes,Outcomes, and Cooperation.
You have been randomly selected from the Stout population to give an opinion on these matters. In order thatresults will truly represent the thinking of Stout's population, it is important that each questionnaire becompleted as accurately as possible and returned.
Please do not place your name anywhere on this questionnaire to be assured of complete confidentiality.
Thank you for your time, assistance and cooperation in supporting this study.
Directions: Put an X that represents where you fit along each continuum below.
Motivated by individual Motivated by social norms, dutiesbeliefs and values and obligations1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i
Self-reliant 6 Reliant on otherse lia nt2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Focused on personal Focused on accomplishing groupaccomplishment harmony11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1Dedicated to Dedicated to the collective interest ofown sef-interests the group[1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1Not influenced by loyalty to Influenced by loyalty to the groupthe group
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ICompetitive with other Cooperative with other groupgroup members members11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1Difficulty conforming to Ability to conform to a group and itsgroups and organizations environment
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Treatment of all group members equally Treat group membersr, — .. ____________according to their group status
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1q
Prefer collective praisePrefer individualpraise for for combined taskstasks accomplished accomplished by the group1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1q
Adaptable to change Difficulty accepting change11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 ISubmissive Assertive1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Continued on reverse.
Uncertain Confident
I1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Soft-hearted Determined1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Introverted Outgoing
.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Directions: Please read the following case study and put an X that represents where you fit along the linefor each continuum/ situation below.
You are currently working for a major US corporation that has been experiencing increased competitionfrom the global marketplace. In order to stay thriving and to obtain profit, your supervisor has decided tocreate a global marketing team to address this issue of increased competition. He has asked you to lookafter the team and to monitor its progress as well as the interpersonal relationships among members.
Traditionally your organization has been dominant in the marketplace and doesn't want to lose significantmarket share. Therefore focus is directed towards getting a plan created and implemented as quickly aspossible. Based on the description of the team, please evaluate how you feel by rating it on the scalesprovided.
The team is composed of eight white males. Decision-making is moving along quite progressively.However, when the time comes to reach a final decision on a marketing plan to be implemented, one of theteam members pipes up and makes arguments completely against the consensus of the group. Throughoutthe whole team process this member has been very cooperative and has gotten along with all the members,except for now.
Do you respect this behavior from the group member?
No respect for Behavior of team member isthis behavior at highly respectedall1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
How much do you like this person?
Highly dislike this Like this personperson very muchH1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Would you want this person in a workgroup that you may be involved in sometime in the future?
Would never wantthis person in a Would definitely want thisfuture workgroupn_____ iaperson in afuture workgroupfuture workgroup1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Thank You!
How Individualist and Collectivist Organizational Cultures Influence Work Processes,Outcomes, and Cooperation.
You have been randomly selected from the Stout population to give an opinion on these matters. In order thatresults will truly represent the thinking of Stout's population, it is important that each questionnaire becompleted as accurately as possible and returned.
Please do not place your name anywhere on this questionnaire to be assured of complete confidentiality.
Thank you for your time, assistance and cooperation in supporting this study.
Directions: Put an X that represents where you fit along each continuum below.
Motivated by individual Motivated by social norms, dutiesbeliefs and values and obligations11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Self-reliant Reliant on others11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14Focused on personal Focused on accomplishing groupaccomplishment harmony11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1Dedicated to Dedicated to the collective interest ofown self-interests the group11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Not influenced by loyalty to Influenced by loyalty to the groupthe group1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ICompetitive with other Cooperative with other groupgroup members members11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Difficulty conforming to Ability to conform to a group and itsgroups and organizations environment
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Treatment of all group members equally Treat group membersaccording to their group status
11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1I
Prefer collective praisePrefer individual praise for for combined taskstasks accomplished accomplished by the group11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Adaptable to change Difficulty accepting changl1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ISubmissive Assertive
I1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1i
Continued on reverse.
Uncertain ConfidentConfident
-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Soft-hearted Determined
11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Introverted Outgoing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Directions: Please read the following case study and put an X that represents where you fit along eachcontinuum/ situation below.
You are currently working for a major US corporation that has been experiencing increased competitionfrom the global marketplace. In order to stay thriving and to obtain profit, your supervisor has decided tocreate a global marketing team to address this issue of increased competition. He has asked you to lookafter the team and to monitor its progress as well as the interpersonal relationships among members.
Traditionally your organization has been dominant in the marketplace and doesn't want to lose significantmarket share. Therefore focus is directed towards getting a plan created and implemented as quickly aspossible. Based on the description of the team, please evaluate how you feel by rating it on the scalesprovided.
The team is composed of eight white males. Decision-making is moving along quite slowly. And, when thetime comes to reach a final decision on a marketing plan to be implemented, one of the team memberspipes up and makes arguments completely against the consensus of the group. Throughout the whole teamprocess this member hasn't been very cooperative and has had difficulty getting along with all themembers.
Do you respect this behavior from the group member?
No respect for Behavior of team member isthis behavior at highly respectedall1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
How much do you like this person?
Highly dislike this Like this personperson very much1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Would you want this person in a workgroup that you may be involved in sometime in the future?
Would never wantthis person Would defin a o initely want thisfuture workgroup person in a future workgroup1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Thank You!
How Individualist and Collectivist Organizational Cultures Influence Work Processes,Outcomes, and Cooperation.
You have been randomly selected from the Stout population to give an opinion on these matters. In order thatresults will truly represent the thinking of Stout's population, it is important that each questionnaire becompleted as accurately as possible and returned.
Please do not place your name anywhere on this questionnaire to be assured of complete confidentiality.
Thank you for your time, assistance and cooperation in supporting this study.
Directions: Put an X that represents where you fit along each continuum below.
Motivated by individual Motivated by social norms, dutiesbeliefs and values and obligationsi_ 2 3 4 5 7 8 9
Self-reliant : Reliant on otherser1 22 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 idFocused onpersonal Focusedon accomplishing groupaccomplishment harmonyL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1Dedicatcated oicatedto the collective interest ofown self-interests the group[1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 q
Not influenced by loyalty to Influenced by loyalty to the groupthe group1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1Competitive with other Cooperative with othergroupgroup members members_1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1l
Dfficulty conforming to Abty to conform toa group and itsgroups and organizations environment
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Treatment of al group members equally Treat group members|' ' '_:::_ ·; acconfm ; _4according to their group status
1i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l:
Prefer collective praisePrefer individual praise for for combined taskstasks accomplished _ : _ __ : ::: :accomplished by the grouh1 2. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ol
Adaptable to change Dffculty accepting change1i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l1
Submissive : : Assertive1I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1o
Continued on reverse.
Uncertain ConfidentConfident
1 _ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Soft-hearted Determined[1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Introverted utgoing2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Directions: Please read the following case study and put an X where you fit along the line for eachcontinuum/ situation below.
You are currently working for a major US corporation that has been experiencing increased competitionfrom the global marketplace. In order to stay thriving and to obtain profit, your supervisor has decided tocreate a global marketing team to address this issue of increased competition. He has asked you to lookafter the team and to monitor its progress as well as the interpersonal relationships among members.
Traditionally your organization has been dominant in the marketplace and doesn't want to lose significantmarket share. Therefore focus is directed towards getting a plan created and implemented as quickly aspossible. Based on the description of the team, please evaluate how you feel by rating it on the scalesprovided.
The team is composed of five white males and three Asian American males. It seems as though this grouphas been reaching decisions very quickly. However, you have noticed that the three Asian Americans arenot contributing much to the decision-making process and have avoided any confrontations within thegroup.
Do you respect this behavior from the group member?
No respect for Behavior of team member isthis behavior at highly respectedall1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l
How much do you like this person?
Highly dislike this Like this personperson __very much11 2 3 53 4 5 6 7 8 9 14
Would you want this person in a workgroup that you may be involved in sometime in the future?
Would never wantthis person in a Would definitely want thisfuture workgroup_ person in a future workgroup1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1l
Thank You!
Sources of Data
Population
The population of the study is comprised of the entire UW-Stout educational
community, which consists of more than 7,600 students, as well as 1,114 faculty and staff
members (Office of Institutional Research, UW-Stout, Fall 1998). The Stout community
is a diverse population in itself (Table 4). Offering undergraduate programs in
manufacturing and engineering, art, business and industrial management, technology,
natural, physical and social sciences, and human development and interpersonal
relationships illustrates this diversity. The Stout population can be justified for this study
because various ethnic and cultural competencies are acknowledged. It is assumed that
the larger the organization, the greater diversity.
Table 4: Statistics of the population:
Total Enrollment (1998) Ethnic Representation (1998)6,965 Undergraduate .5% American Indian
639 Graduate .6% Hispanic American7,604 Total 1.0% African AmericanGender Representation (1998) 1.7% Asian American51.5% male 1.7% International48.5% female Degrees Awarded (1997-1998)
1,054 Bachelor's256 Master's
Sample
A sample consisting of Stout students, faculty and staff can be justified because
there are many people with a variety of backgrounds contained within the population.
Gathering information from the population's sample will save time and allow an
opportunity to draw inferences about the population as a whole.
46
Data Collection Techniques
A sample was chosen by randomly distributing questionnaires to various
classrooms and offices for students, faculty and staff to fill out. Questionnaires were also
distributed to members of the Stout community at random in the Memorial Student
Center located on campus. As mentioned before, the characteristics of the sample and
population will vary. Ethnic and cultural background will play a role in the comparison as
they did previously within the whole population.
Data Processing and Analysis
Because of the layout of this particular questionnaire participants will be able to
solicit their own opinions, the data will be in no way manipulated, and the answers from
the participants will not be altered.
The first step for analyzing this large amount of data was to enter it into a
manageable database (Microsoft Excel was used in this case). The questionnaires were
color-coded based on the cultural make-up and progression of the group in the case
studies therefore, making the data more feasible to manage.
Six charts were created conducive to each case study and 25 questionnaires were
selected for each color-coded group as the sample size. Once the data for all 25
participants was collected, the total scores for each data set were computed, as well as the
mean and standard deviation for each data set. The means from data set #1 and data set
#2 were used to determine whether participants could be labeled as individualists or
collectivists. Any scores less than the mean score identified those of a collective nature
and scores greater than the mean identified those considered to be individualists. Scores
47
for each participant were then shaded and identified as to whether a participant was
individualist or collectivist.
Exhibit 7: Mean Scores and Stand Deviations of Participants(Grouped by team)
7 Whit.Mals; 1 blackmal— PragrsasinBWell. \ ";;;/;; S'-
'. ' . • . : .'•''• ; : •• -' • Total ; i: o. Total!S o o l o
ScPartleipan t 2:: \..3..: • :P :,arici .nt . :1 2 : 3:4 .• 4 •: 5 6 7'•.:.• • .-. :83 •'3 :8 9 10. 11 12 13'. . 14 S : Ot•I.2 3 at:
12 3 2 A 5 6 82 7 8 7 4 6i7?7]
_ 4: 6 : ' 5 . 2!:- : ' 2 .'::9 : ::2:: !:':'i:: l: !ii !! 'e:8l:'; i:: - • .i•"•• 62 c i:::7^•:;•^2^•: ::
• 2 3 4:.:.• ^;\ . 2 :4 ~ 4 4.5 4 3 34.: 8•' ;":5 4. 6 : ^ 31^ :' 6:6: 47 49 59 c7 : .-9- Ii:::I::: ::i:i: 13 3 2 '5: 4 6 7 8 256 7 •78 8;: 48 62 739 '4' 8"^ "11 : Sg .s:,::.s16 c
4 6 5 2/2 9 2 2 2 : 4 8:8 487 62 :: 5 5: 12 c
,~:,~ .... ...9•.. !:::3.... ¢¢ g9 B 7
2: 2 5 8 7 :2 :2 5 8 3 : 7 69 c 5 :: 7;:;: i: : M,~'~ 44 234 8 5 6 3 4: 9 7 7: 96
_________ 14 : ^:6 •: 3 1 • :.::5 3 : : ' . :1 ' 5 : : : 8 6'5 8 : 2i 9:' 5:9:: :: i:: :::: :' :: i::::::::::::5:::: 14 c
6• 5 4 2 7 8 2 8 9 8 7 4 .7•O•:•: . 7 3 14.
. 5 3 1 6.1 3 7 26:7 : .: 10" ': :5' :l_10 9 106 5
: 4 5 5 3 7 6 3::6 4 4"6 '5 ' . 6. .: : "S
.:.r10:' : 2 : :5 ' 4 :4: .: .9 : ::8: :3::.3: :4:::: 7 2 9 : " :.~:" ::2 :: :::::"::
614 36 16 ......5 9 •9•2:::2 ::: ' 8 ::: 14 c
1 .4 13 . - 3 :. .:: ::: ::;ii:iiiii: .5i:.: : 3 :1 8 : ' 8;i 6. ii ii:i i
49 8 7 5 5 7 5 .2 66 7 .4 6 K 7 7 '5' "S I
_ .283 8 8 7 7 7 3 7 4 5 4 4 : 4 .
2 3 5 6 6 4 6 6 4 5. 5•X:•B g
'IS 4 15. 4: 5 7 :: 5 :7 4 5 6 6 6x 4 : . 15 c
2 6 3 2 5 6.1 5 7- I6:illi;-j 5 i 7I 8 l-8 8 ·i::::3 i~'79A~~"; ''jV3 3. 11:5..
"'11 ' 3 1 4 5 1 .3 1 8 1_7-1 ::4: _ 8 _ 3 8 8 1_8:1::1- :::6 ',l 5 3 13 c
22 4 5 : 4 5 :6 7 8 : 6::::: : 6 6 6 ::::::.:6 5' 15
of S• c vO
23 3 4 3 6 8 8 7 ::7:. :::5-.. : 3 4 3 4'3 68 c:::::: ::::::::::::: :
Day. 0 cv. 7oSet1 SOt
-1 7 3.. .7.' O :: .: i : 48
48
7 White Males; 1 black male-NOT Prognrsing Well
Total Score of Total Score of
Scale( Particpants Participants
Participa~nt I 2 3 4 5 6 7 __gJ.nJ.3 ____j~^__ ___ g_ J^ )Participant 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ((Set #277gsl 77 —4 3 3 7 7 6 6 4 5 2 7 7 7 9 5 4 4 13 "
2 4 2 3 2 6 7 3 5 4 3 7 6 7 4 63 c 8 7 9; j g —:2 2 6 6 9 9 9 3 6 6 8 8 6 8 8 6 7 7
3 3 7 7 9 9 9 3 3 2 8 8 5 8 l 5 4,5 4 2 5 4 5 e 7 3 3 5 4 6 7 2 es c 5 5 5
g g— 8 8 8' 8 8 3 8 3 8 8 8 8 56~~~~~ - - - - 8 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5 5 5 ~w v-l-~:i7 4 6 6 4 6 6 8 7 5 5 5 6 3 4 76 5 5 58 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 70 c 5 5 59 2 3 2 2 2 6 5 3 2 6 9 9 9 68 c 6 3 3c
10 3 4 2 1 5 5 3 3 1 8 8 8 10 10 71 - g 2 2- — —~~~~~~~O~~~' 8 4 10 10 41 c 2 2 : —8 4 6 3 8 9 9 2 8' 3 4 7 4 4 4 2 4 0 c
iiiiiiii 4 6 4 7 5 3 5 4 5 26 5 7 4 5 4 13 S6 7 3 5 4 2 7 6 2 -8 9 8a 7. 4- 3 2 3 .1 6 c
'"14 4 4 2 2 5 5 4 7 1 4 9-- 9 9 10 : 75: 3 1 i 5 c
15 3 3 2 6 6 6 3 3 1 3 9 8 8 9 70 e 3 2 — 6 cl*»»¹ —4 6 6 5 6 ~3 5 7 7 6 4 8 7 3 5 7 - 32 31 7 c
c—5—5 1 2 3 8 3 4 1 10 3 10 A10 10 10 II 4 4 4 12 "
18 3 2 2 4 5 8 8 6 5 3 5 8_ 9 3 71 c5 6 6 6: :8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :9 3. 7c6 6. . =l;=. '19 2 6 2 2 1 a 8 8 4 3 3 5 8 8 66 73 c 5 5 5.2a!i!¹ —5——5 6 5 5 6 6 7 3 5 3 6 7 7 9 5 5 5:1""g'"21 4 6 2 1 ~5 5 9 I'• 1 4 9_5 8 3 66 c 10 10 : 10 =
22 3 4 5 5 7 6 8 5 4 4 6 5 5 8 75 5 5 7.23 2 3 5 4 3 3 3 2 5 2 7 5 3 7 4 c 6 4 5
i w —5 3 3 5 7 8 a5 ~ 6 5 6 7 7 5 7 ia5 5 4 '
25 3 3 3 6 6 8 7 3 4 4 7 7 6 .7 74 c 6 6 •— — — — — — - ' • "~~~~~~~~~~~~~Maan: :"M\ '-; :"'" "'••' •ofSet : ot
#1 76 _2_ _l _
:Std;-
Std. Div.Dov. Of OfseSet #tl1 9 2 6
65
70 c 103102MIM 14 5
64—g—75
73 I
68 — 1 —
73 —«—S-
13~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 13
14 18~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5gag£S I 8
12 c
-••"'„„•••• -wcm.5s-^•:7 -M «• .M•^,..•..iWA 12 cc~~~i~~
22
25
49
________ ________________ ______ ~8 White Males-NOT pro risin well : :
Scale/^^ ' . . ' — - ' ' .^••"^ Totalpcorso WotalSooreof
a Partiiat cipns I::P rticipantParticiant ^,1^ 2. . 3-", ^4^ -5 . 6:8 __7_ 8 9: :1011 121^3 ^i14-lll ill tI l g111 ¹21 1 31- jiS12:
2 4 . 3 • 4 8 2 4: ; : 5 86 -4 76 c 1 6 c3 3 : : 5 7: 1 9 9 i9 11 9 3 3:S i 8 ! 9: :8- 41 1 ::iJ1 ' 7 7l Ip4 5 3 4 : i5: : :: :: :: 5: 65 : 6::: . 6 ; 7 73 c l:l t!: i 514::' 'S : 1i3l, :
:!:-i '!~;i;:: !ii!;i : ;::2S: 2:6•;:!: ' ! • ::4:l:; z:i91 ll:!I 81 119:11::4:!» ii.i6ia,7i7i::ii:SI::!:::!:6 •.:5.::::• 4 6•1:5:!::::: 4i::::: :'5:.! • 17'l ;:i51: 5 5 5 :!5 77 7• Sl:;51.1::S 77 5 68 0c 11 i i!: i 2!i::: li:i l6•:^•':^ '!•:•• .:52 ;~: '.•:4: '3'':• ̂ ::: : :: : =i::~:.: : /.::l 5 :: ~:;::': ~1511: •:2 : :n:18:sii :!:::~:'1::: :5:!" • ~ 5::1 i::: !:;1: .:: i ii : ::..:;.1 '1 ! i^^ i :i~ .. 11 1 8'"11 11 ::19;!i!i~: ii:;:;:.! 1:1:1:: i ^ ^ ^ 1!
8 2 3 7 7 5 2 8 1 10 1 10 9 9i~q:: :10 7' 9:,• .9:: • :12 ::i6:l:. •:• l•6 11 l-il: 2:8:11^ I 118119: 111 8 4: 7111 . 121 '8 19118 1 0 6:::61• 0 866i c S I: I 11411 i'll I P IIIS6~10 5^~SW••.~ ~ ^-:5:,.~ 4^.^' ~ 8 ~ 5I :i5^~ : ~5'~ l~51~ >l~4^~ 5lI~:i 5^ :i51 .51 5::i: 69 .c 51:3 ': :;4:: l 1151 1 1 : ! i
11 4 5 8 6~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ 7: 4 17 5 3 2 8.: 90 6 1 1. 12 :::::':: :::= i:. 4 :4 84.24 2 25 :c:4::!;82::::: il: 11 : :1 : : :' ' 1 :1 . 3 5 8 8 9 9 3 8 :2l 7 9 8e90 1O] 5''i
14 4 4 4 3 7 3 6 8 7 9. 76 0 5 5 S- .1
16 5 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~5 4 5 i 1 110 0 1 7; 5: 8 IA 8 ' 4 c
1- 5 5 7 7:8 9l7 3:6'8'::: 8 8:: 5::8 ::: •:: .::::: ':::: ll:: '66 l 1 j:81 £ l 1:.9 "' ::: : ::::::" i
18 8 7 8 8 : 7:: 10 8 1 8 2 2 4 3 2 76 4 4'
1 : ::::: ::9:-'. .: ::. :: :.1:: : :::: :3 5 1 7:.: :::: : :: 6c c
l :I j6 :l ""' " :::~ ' :: '•5 6:: ! i i! ;6 i i !! iii !::/::4i :":i ": i i ::;:":::5 ":'" :1 '":::l" '"1 : ::::'1:": :::::::'" 5 " ':':'K ':;: ::;:5"l :'"'5l :: ! .::"l81""•l iii iiii~ III ~ Ii l l '1 i "ii i 'i ":: :ii ii il iii:":::1':"" 4 iii c
20 3 4 2 6 7 5 4 6 3 4 7 7 8 672 03 18 '7~21' 8 8 9 9 9 9 7 3 8~ 3::~ 4fA~q~ 8: 3 4 90 "i''3 5
126 : ~::. 3::8::;;ii:: ii"'::7:,: i:.'::.:.::i'"8.'.•:': iii::B"':: ::::7:i:.:: :::4:.:.1 ""'6::; :::J41: :: ::i'" :ii;i:2'l 1: 2::::i ::i:"4l:':3iii{ ""I I ':9 .... 6 c :r 3ljll •!!:4•":.] ""S': l llal;:: II~ ~
22 13 . l 4 I 4 115' 4 7 14:1 711 8 73 c 1 2. 2l 6 e
..1.78. .2'. 12.
14.......... : . : 4 : iii:::.3:izi ::4"i:•:: :::":::'gl::i:" ::::.8.: : ii6: :4;i :3i::I ::[:'S:IS. : 8 : : : :: :::::!4:'":i"" :::;:3l: ""a';'" :"::"":::': ::::1:81"'.1161"'": 72 c Bg'l" l!:lj'•' l::l11"l": 5
22 """"~ ~ ~iii."31": ;::"" '"" "1 :4":':1 0161:' "l'4:::~ii """1 : 1141": "i4:" :"7"" 1" "" '1 :7" ag 'i". :ilj I ' 7 ci;i ':::g:~ : l::: 11211,: , ,,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~........ . . . ~::::: : .........il ii. ii!]ii! !! ii: ;ii
11 1 3 1 :::[:5:l:9!: ; :::: ;!.51.i::!^ !0 [ i;0::^:::::1::.i:: ;7i:: 5::j:i:11 1. 1119.1::1Iil5 .11 9 11 16 ' 1111 15 3 1l 1 :1 ::!5 :::::i 01 !liiiilS['^ lllIII~iii 11^1' i :l :'l""!: 'J::2.::
Day~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ii:~iiii!~i Ii ,,! O!!S
192 ;:: : :"" !3"l ~ ;"i ! : ' :': : :: ' :l" ~i: .:ii l !1::ll i i: '1 6 :.!i i "1wh i:t m le ; 3 Aslia m:es" "1 raii:3 1 11i n 5e l
25 11111:111'iIcB I '1 3111 4131 '3'"".iB'j i8" ' """" '"5 6j'4l 7"~ 8 :"3': 3 1 0 1 1 2 1 14 c '12'" 2""a 3'''S 7t
: : ..' :".:'.: '.^:.":..:.:•':::..'.•...:..•ll:;^:;.. ________ ::I~~w:ilten ae»! A~l.i...nal..pog... l.lM.i...ll.....l.l.:: 11 11.....ll ...'ll..i..¹ .I';
1 MII :6:0 810S 11117ll111i-!'l l'SI& m~il 6311i~ 18 Ig7 c 0 II:111111 i":O.t'l:l 6 c
20•:i.i3::: . i::i .::::^:;: :2:: ••::.:i:::i •i:':^:^ :6::::B ii::ii:^O;: :: H :::.a:^; i~~ew i :ii:w:::::::~i ::: 3:¥ i:i:a:::~i:^::; i:lv:Si: ::::wi:::iii::'i™ :72i c^ :::e; wlys : i wff>¹:;i::^:l:w" 5 ifii;:ii2:iii:.iii iii:. ai :/:g :s:is !i a:. iiii :ii a:igiiJii IMi:giii
5 111 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6 i iiii ii~i n': :81 iiii i 63i ci:~iS $ii! ii iiiii ~!i:i.:i:ii~~ iiii
0 ~9 8~ "7 7117814 ai 7'i j'"04 '111' '8ig"" ai'~ MI
22i~i::3iiii :i::3::. :: ==:::i::.,~:ii i:=i~iii :i:::[ ii:[1 i: ::::: ii::g: :iii :7i= j i:i::i::i : :i:i:::: : ,i:: i: :s ii:~ := 7o c ::i::
4 77...~ 7 8 >6 ~3 "7 7 3 4 3 3 ~ ~ §~3#'IO6 c
11 si i 4ii '11 g2 g i 79 cF7 igsi i
12 77 13 c
:757 79iriiii:iiii~i:i: iiiiiiiiiii~~iiiii iiii~iil:1:i1iii~lliii.i~i:iiiii :ii~iliii !~ l~.tii~iil;i~ < ~i ':
13 '4II 11MB III7 "S8 1111 IIII Igll79 c III 16 I
10 3iii iiii 7'1111'¶'.' ' ..-.......2.-.-... '.' '3 ' ' " " 7611 ... 137
11 3lll III 14 4I lgig""3 '3I 25 cS 11'01 "'3'"" 79 ~ 7,S.,7A." 14
13iai: i ill jjl iig ii I i i 8 ~ i7 7.2 9 c
25iiiii~iiiiil iiiftfiiiiiiii~iaii~iii::: :::: iiii~li gis :aiiiii;i~i~11 ii~i i;!i7ii i iiiSiii ii;ii siiisii: iiiiii :;iii~iiia 6 ci i!112fii iiii2!!i iiii:~iii
20: .gi ill i i~isn ~lii iiii'i'i si~ii~ i~ iiii 71 ca;
21 64 8c8 9 "'"'~8'?'~3~ >3. 6 8, 8 8 ''755,'' 7"? 1K~7"?&~ŽI, "5 ' 4 14 cUR 74V 3 5. 24 :l:a::11 :13111 '1ii 1 1" i"11 1 'III 96 6 9 0 '9 ~ ~ ~ 8 3 5'''tQ'X''555,±?'8'~~~~~~,'i~~ '3 '~~"'~'3 9 c
20 4 8 3c'3 8 3'5''3' 1 0"'"6 61K21 2 6742~2 7 8 3? 4 o" '8 414
'22 8 8 5 6 ~8'2~'8 5 5 3 8 ''8<~'?'R5'5K"'4' W .5 2 9 23 3 2 1 3 '8A '1'~"4 2 8 9 7' "55"`' 58 0 i;:"i'5 1 2 :
24. . .6 7 c3'2" 0' 7 37".25 9 2 71 o3 3 41
••. : ::'.•••:•'„:::: ::• .'' :•:;":,::: :.:::.':•":'::::::: :"::..:.::::"':.':::' ! ' ::i::3:::: ::?:::: :•::s :.: ::::;::.: :: : :::: : S;$::w :::S ::''•::" :':':::o:"::ir m e' ::::i :::'r~ e:^::: ::o :S::: r::^:: : : :^ l l^ : i ^ 5 :1 ;:l l l~ l~ ~S^ S : S l : s " l :":::
: ... ...• ,' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,';,'ii,,!?i;i . . •:. ii::•^:.: .•• ;.: ;l .. ii:i:..: ';i!:• iiii:i:$ * :. .:::.:.:._ :•; .. .? • ::::.•. .:::::.:: '
' ., • • ..... , .,..,... ,....... ~:~a,~,; ::•:.: .::: •'.v.
50
5 m X X1 ~ ~ ~ ~" W w w S i i lg65 gC2 71 c II3 I " m E}
16 ~!~:.~'~:~~:~3vwiS 72 6 7 c
6 7S c 87 67 c I
13 ja~ -L 77 c j98SiSMj II13 i_
16 68, 111VI'M VW M es c 04 3 c
II I Sim v S
a Me 6 II
g1 66 Ic~E= jj _ _ -
g F =am ^!mIN 70 o
The next step in the data analysis was to conduct a T-test. Participants of the
sample group were identified as individualist or collectivist and the total score from data
set #2 (the case studies) was given for each. The results of this particular analysis shows
whether group members defined and interacted with someone because of their
demographic background and differences, or if these didn't matter in a group situation.
Exhibit 8: T-test Results of participants(Grouped by team)
—.iTTest(Team#1)
: : •5 :;:: .. _____.. T-Test (Team #2)______:
11-1:m:·: :·:-:·. . : 1:I :: . 0 a
18 CY C 0
2 17 18 8 :14 12 . 7 14 I 2 I g g
5 17 14._ 2 24 13
11 18 24 5 15 228 15 17
13 15 15 9 12 16
14 14 | 22 10 6 "i 10
15 19 19 15 6 —I 13
23 15 j 17 19 15 _ 7
24 19 17 21 30 1223 15 15
25 15 15 r 25 15 14
_111___ 11 Mean =
13 1 15 13
•15 :.2. T-Test: : : :::E10.181594071
1 16 1 1 16
if i : E :1.i T-Tst
0.38647666
52
. . s ...... ........ ............i iii - :: : 61
1 12 is 1 2 6 14
3 15s g E 24 4 13 21
—— — —T14 0 6 12 51
7 15 • ———18 9 14 7.S.f . f.......... 18
8 25 12 10 13 25
9 — 24 9 12 12 22_2
— — — ——14 19 14 1 14
13 8 14 13 18 1_4
18 1—4 1is 19 6 4—
22 12 62 20 66 20
_ 11_ 22 4 9 7
19 25 70.01912194
__________0.14847925301
15 23 20 —— 1 13
18 . 1 ..... .. .
21 194 1 7
235 128 17 1 164
5 I 1 :~z;2 20 11
12 13 '6_04__7 17 —— '—3
9173.191353
11 is Is 08
17 14 4
0.059455817
Finally a correlation was conducted between the data sets #1 and #2 to determine
how great an effect, if any, demographic differences had on how the group functioned.
Exhibit 9: Correlation of Results by Team
.. .-.Correlation: (team #1)
. :. Correlation (Team #2): :Total. orel o of. ! Tota rScore: of
.. .Part:: c ipaiaeti: Participants:PanrtC:ipant ^ ^#1). (Set #2) ·:Total Score of Total Score of
:.:::_::1:"---::: : :1::::1::.79^. :• .:: '':: '• 19 : . Participants (Set Participants2'^: . ! ^ !::2- . : gd : :::!::::: i l:'.59: :: :': '17 Participant #1) (Set #2)
. ... . . . . . ... 1 77 13
:::: .:. :-:: :::::.:: :: ::::::-:: : 2 3 90 22.' :::'3 :i :ii : . ::: ?!: !i : : .I: It iii !!:i 1: '' :. . . 6. 241 5 " 69 ^::175 0 : 6R^4 84 17—^— —~——:: .. : :.7:.:.: 1 :: 650 5 65 15
7......ll'lc~111- l 88147 75 158 80^^8^':··:-:^^^··:... 8 70 15::.::::::.::::::..:.: ..................... .....
~~.: .·:::· ..::. . : ... ·. ...... :i19 68 12............. . •..... ·.. . ..:.. ...... ........ 2 .. 9 68: 7: 1274':- 24 10 71 5: . .:I:i: .·· : :: . .:..::: 4 . ... : 1 78 1 0: . .:. : ... :: :: . .: :: :::: ::::: :- :::::::::::: . 1. 7. 13
0 11 79 10""i11 66 18^ 12 76 13
.1... . .:R . .. 1380 76.1 :: .: :.. 2 ::78 14 75 6
:.::. . :::::::: .. : : ;0 i:: :: - :3 ........ I.... 77 71651..........4...:... ..... ; 17 80 12:::::::. -::- :::::::. ............... . . ...... :-.::::::: . . .::: 1 8 7172
. .i :::i.: :!iiii i:: : ::.'::i i i65. : : :.ii:: : .:: : .1::: :::: : : :. . 18 . 1815 65 .....19 ~ 18 71 18::::::: :.: :i1:: : :-:: .:: ; :::: ::i:i '[18i:: !i :::::!i ::: ::::9:: ': :: :.:: 7 15:•:". 16e::•••:^: ^'•'81" ^ 1"~9•'::-. 1 19 73 156
1•^7 ^^ :-: :-79"" .- "— W—.... - 17 : i20 80 15: -:::—::: -::::::::::::::::::-::::-:::: ::::::::: 21 66 30
i 18::i .1:8:: i: iii:-: Ii::i :::i:: :::i i:. i i1 ::::: : :: 22 76 171' :: 74 . ....... . 23 64 15
20 — 79 — 11—:^—:1::::::: :::::-:::::::::::: :: : 25 74 15
::: :: :22 :;: :;: :;: ;. :;:;:: :;:: .78: :::: ::: :-.: ::::: ::: :.:.:1.50f: ..E~id I:
... .. 25_:.. . .:. ..... ..0. . -7 .70 . 1
___ ___________01: ::0.13 3: :54: 0.010132093' :: 54
;;& j~i z~ i!l" -n
Total.Score.of.TotalScoreofTE ts .- or of $tA O0 V ;; ;i : 7. Pa t c p n ... s...(. Part c i nts
Pattflpant. (Sst #ta Paflidl nt #1 Set #2
mX~j~i~ t a: ....,..... 14
4 Ewmg. :ii,, ,vh.. 3 #5-::1. 21g W N w g . ..................... 13.
~ _:-t4:s~v~ L',,' $,.-',f,5,. , .0.8.... 1. .,,:,
.:. ...**d &.4A.:rb.{g,,. . a ............. 14 7.815
.>-._ s;M:: g:@B ,B | g : ..a ~.t .<.' ... 1 0.. j . -- ..
55
!gl··:al :·ll!!!l!!!llll!— . —^:·:-·:-— m ^-: il
···~~~—1— ^
............. ............
!..... 1......8:j::: :,''... .. ....;.:: :
llff ^^,,gilll iisii il: dmg:::~:illl :: ::liliiiii mii::1
?.:·:.:·:i:·:·:·: ·,~~' ::::. : ::::: ................. 0::::: R:::::::.·:sr::i 2 igg:..:: :: .:¢::...: :: ::":::',::'::.':::.::::::::..
^:'".g · ^ ·. ~ :.~.i~.'.ii' • ::...:' :~.~.~f 11 (1..
ai : a ¹ 1 " 1:' .::.:..'..::.....;l: :. :::::::: .: :.::: : . - - -:......:.::;:.;::
......... :...
.^ii S3^^^i ;;A^ ^ fI ij •
$:: : g |.
Iil,,li!is'::~ ;i 1iii ij^i^ ^ ;~;~ ::.;~:e~:~:~ ::6
..............
Limitations of the Study
This study does have some limitations. Identifying a representative and
demographically diverse sample of the population and receiving adequate response rates
in order to provide accurate data results are just two limitations of the study. As
mentioned previously, only 25 participants were identified for each of the six sample
groups. Granted, that means that 150 people participated in the study however, the
sample size for each group was fairly small.
Another limitation is the cultural diversity of those who participated in the study.
Because of the demographic at UW-Stout, the majority of responses came from people of
a Caucasian background. Greater cultural diversity and a larger sample size would
probably illustrate a greater significance in the results.
Having larger sample sizes would also lead to the use of better statistical analysis
techniques such as ANOVA. ANOVA is a program that would be able to analyze the
overall results of the data and determine if there were differences among collectivists and
individualists as a whole rather than by individual sample sizes.
Another limitation of the study may be the accuracy of the survey design. It is
difficult to get the data from a questionnaire because participants may not necessarily
answer according to their true feelings and others may not even understand their own
behavior to accurately rate their responses.
When the case studies for this research were created, boundaries as to the number
of minorities in the workgroups were made as well. For this study, out of convenience,
the number eight was used to form workgroups and three broad cultural backgrounds
57
were chosen. Because there are so many interpretations of racial diversity and culture,
the results of the data is broad as well.
58
Chapter IVFindings of Analysis
Findings
Remembering that the hypothesis of this study was - collectivists and
individualist organizational cultures will interact and react differently with one another
when there is an attempt to diversify the work group - we are able to further analyze the
data and make some conclusions. The results should be able to prove the objectives of
how individualism and collectivism is applied within organizations and how each of these
cultures define the characteristics of other group members mentioned at the beginning of
this paper. Therefore, the results should show that individualists would have a higher
mean rating overall when there is more cultural diversity in the work group, proving that
they are more accepting and comfortable interacting with a person of a different racial
background. Collectivists, on the other hand, are expected to rate lower, illustrating their
resistance to interact with someone who is culturally diverse. Their resistance might be a
result of the beliefs they hold regarding group norms (i.e. accepting someone "new" into
an already close-knit group).
How do Individualist and Collective Organizational cultures define the
characteristics of other group members?
To demonstrate the findings, each of the hypothetical workgroups in the case
studies has been separated according to their cultural make up.
Findings of Group #1:
The first group consists of seven white group members and one black group
member (Table 5).
59
Table 5: Results of group made up of 7 white members and 1 black member
Cultural Progression of Mean of Mean of T-Scoremake-up of Team collectivists Individualistsworkgroups
1 - 0.386
w All agreeing 16 16'7 white male . - (\\\
7 white male Progressing well (hi) (hi)group members
2 0.1811 black male 1 * black male . Black group member 15 13
group member dissenting (hi) (med.)* Not progressing well _
Overall the mean for both situations - whether the team was progressing well or
not progressing well - was on average high. The mean of the individualist group was high
when the workgroup was in agreement and progressing well, which illustrates that the
group was accepting of the black male. However, the medium score in the situation
where the group is not progressing well, illustrates that there is some acknowledgement
of the difference.
Interpretations of Group #1:
Because of the higher scores, our interpretation would be to say that in general,
collectivists would be accepting of the black person despite the obvious cultural
difference. However, it is interesting to see that the difference isn't more of a problem
for the collective group when the black person disagrees because he is "upsetting the
apple cart". Having the white males in the majority may have something to do with this.
The medium score shown in the individualist group is not to say that
individualists dislike the black person, it may suggest however that they don't want to
admit that the racial difference may be the deciding factor of why they aren't progressing
60
well. White males probably consider themselves to be fairly liberal. However, this
medium score may show that they are not as liberal as they think because they have a
subtle prejudice against the black male.
Discussion of Group #1:
This first group is congruent with and proves the hypothesis because interaction
among similar people should be fairly high in collective cultures. There is only one team
member that is different yet, in both cases, the collective group was accepting of the
difference and didn't use it to determine the black man's personality. I don't think they
would acknowledge to the group what they're really thinking or, let their prejudices out
for fear of "rocking the boat". White American males, who are typically individualists,
seem to be more accepting of blacks in their work place because of EEO, Affirmative
Action, and equal rights that are stressed in today's businesses. That does not mean
Americans think about the racial differences rather, they might not necessarily understand
their own behavior or realize that they are judging a person's ability based on their skin
color. In other words, they may not be as accepting as they think they are. After all, they
are individualists and are concerned about self-interests rather than the collective interest
of the group.
Findings of Group #2:
As we look at the second group of all white members (Table 6), we see a contrast
from the group we examined first.
61
Table 6: Results of all white groups
Cultural Progression of Mean of Mean of Tmake-up of Team collectivists Individualists -scoeworkgroups
3 0.148· All agreeing 16 14· Progressing well (hi) (hi)
8 white malegroup members 4 (.(19
* 1 member dissenting 10 15· Not progressing well (lo) (hi)
When the group was progressing well, collectivists were satisfied with everyone
in the group because they were all working towards a collective goal. In this case, all
members were of the same race and gender, again showing proof that interaction among
people in collective groups tends to be higher when group members are similar.
On the other hand, when the collectivists were not progressing well and the mean
score dropped, group members didn't tolerate the decision of the white male who strayed
from the group.
Interpretations of Group #2:
In this situation, the collective group found the white male's disagreement to be a
threat to the group, which is a case of reverse discrimination from the first group's
findings. This finding is congruent with the previous research done on collectivist groups
and their norm of creating group harmony because the one white male who dissented
from the group was not adding to the harmony of the group. Therefore, he wasn't
accepted.
62
The high scores in the individualist group illustrates that most everyone has the
focus of task-accomplishment and group harmony is not really an issue. Everyone in an
individualist group is entitled to their difference of opinion. Having your own individual
thoughts and sacrificing group harmony is common in the American school-of-thought.
As in the first scenario, differences by individuals will be acknowledged, respected, and
not really made an issue.
Findings of Group #3:
As we take a look at the third and final group (Table 7) composed of five white
group members and three Asian group members we see even more differences and some
unexpected results.
Table 7: Results of group with 5 white members and 3 Asian members
Cultural Culturalu Progression of Mean of Mean of r-Scoremake-up of Team collectivists Individualistsworkgroups
5 0.059
5 white male * All agreeing 17 145 white male i/\
* Progressing well (hi) (hi.)group members
6 0_.161 I3 Asian male 1 8
go * 3 Asian males dissenting 11 8group members ( \
· Not progressing well (med.) (lo)
The higher score in the collectivist group illustrates their norm of group harmony
when the group is performing well. As we look at the third group from an individualist
point-of-view notice again that when the group is progressing well, everyone is
comfortable with the group and the decision-making process. The high mean score of this
group proves the hypothesis that interaction among different people should be higher in
63
individualist cultures. However, the drastic drop in the mean scores disproves the
hypothesis when the Asians disagree with the white males and progression is not well.
This disproves the hypothesis because it was assumed that interaction among ethnically
different group members would be greater in an individualist culture. This was not the
case however because Asians come from a collective cultural background and tend to
place more emphasis on harmonious relationships even if it is at the expense of task
accomplishment.
Interpretations of Group #3:
In each situation, everyone seems to be comfortable with the racial differences as
long the group goals are being met and, there is no disagreement. However, the mean
score takes a drop when the three Asian males raise their voices in disagreement with the
already collective group. Here, the low score may illustrate that the group has lost its
collective focus. Therefore, racial differences or the number of Asians in the group may
be used to blame for the delayed decision-making.
When there is conflict, individualists tend to have self-interests in mind, whereas
collectivists feel obligated to the cooperation and collaboration of the group. Because of
previous research that I have done, I feel that this scenario is congruent with the values of
the Asian culture. The Asian culture is one that emphasizes serving the best interest of the
group. Though the Asian males are only three out of the eight in the group, they still
have a sense of connection and want to see that the best interest of the group is
considered and gives priority to the collective interest.
This situation also illustrates that the white males have collective ideas as well,
but obviously ones that are different from what the Asians are thinking. I think the lower
64
mean rating illustrates that two collective groups are not able to work together because
they both have different goals in mind, rather than a common one. This fragmentation
can be a threat to the breakdown of the group. The five white males may be more
oriented to their task and are willing to place less priority on relationships with others.
The low mean score proves the individualists' frustration when the Asians are unable to
make decisions independently of one another.
Evaluation of Analysis
Each of the sample groups was examined separately by their cultural make-up.
The first group proved the hypothesis because there was only one team member that was
of a different demographic background. The rest of the group was homogeneous.
In the second group, it was found that the hypothesis was proven correct as well
because all of the group members were of the same race and gender. However, an
unexpected result was found when a member of the collective group disagreed and the
rest of the group wasn't tolerant of their behavior. This disagreement still showed that
there was interaction among the group, but the interaction was a threat to the uniformity
of the collectivist culture. The high scores represented by the individualists proves the
research by defining individualism as America's most distinct cultural trait.
The third and final group came with some unexpected results as well. The high
score of the collectivist culture that is progressing well proves the hypothesis because
value is placed on group harmony. The unexpected result came when the mean score of
the individualists dropped when the group was not progressing well. Here, the low score
illustrates that the group has lost its collective focus at the expense of task
accomplishment. The low score disproved the hypothesis because the case was one that
65
individuals were NOT respected because of their individuality and there were fewer
interactions among group members.
Table 8: Proof of Hypothesis
CulturalCultural Progression of Mean of Mean ofmake-up of Team collectivists Individualistsworkgroups
1 16 16
All agreeing (hi) (hi)7 white male Progressing well PROOF MODERATE
group members SIGNIFICANCESIGNIFICANCE.
2 15 131 black male * Black group member (hi) (med.)
group member dissenting PROOF MODERATE
_ Not progressing well SIGNIFICANCE3 16 14
· All agreeing (hi) (hi)
· Progressing well PROOF NOT8 white male SIGNIFICANT
group members 4 10 15
* 1 member dissenting (lo) (hi)* Not progressing well UNEXPECTED NOT
SIGNIFICANT
5 17 14* All agreeing (hi) (hi)
5 white male * Progressing well PROOF PROOFgroup members
6 11 83 Asian male * 3 Asian males dissenting (med.) (lo)
group members * Not progressing well NOT NOTCONGRUENT CONGRUENT
Summary of Chapter
This study was an attempt to determine how a group gives meaning to a person
based on their demographic differences, rather than responding to their actual personality.
The assumption was made that individual behavior in an organization is determined by
the culture and is based upon the characteristics of its members, not how the person really
66
is. It was hypothesized that collective and individualist organizational cultures will
interact and react to each other differently when there is an attempt to diversity a work
group. Chapter IV demonstrated the findings and interpretations of the results taken from
this study. In some, but not all cases presented was the hypothesis proven to be true.
Some of the results were unexpected yet fascinating to find.
67
Chapter V
Summary, Conclusions, Recommendations
Summary
In chapter I, the growing issue of diversity in our workplaces was introduced and
discussed. The information presented led to the explanation for the purpose of the study
and the effect organizational culture has on the workplace. The research objectives and a
hypothesis statement were established in this chapter as well. The chapter concluded with
a detailed description of the significance for the study.
In chapter II, an extensive review of literature was examined regarding issues
such as the increase and significance of diversity in today's workplace. Throughout the
literature review, subject matter was narrowed down in order to focus on the specific
objectives stated in Chapter I. Changes in the workplace that influenced diversity within
organizations were discussed along with homogeneous and heterogeneous work groups.
A more in-depth focus was presented regarding the characteristics of individualist and
collectivist organizational cultures. The attributes of these two cultures were summarized
and defined as to how they influence cooperation within an organization. To conclude
chapter II, cooperation mechanisms used by each organizational culture were
summarized and to what effect they had on the creativity and productivity of an
organization.
Chapter III discussed the methodology and procedures used to gather the data.
The characteristics of the population and sample were identified as well as the research
design. The research design was very complex, detailed, and required gathering an
extreme amount of data in order for the results to be accurate. A database was created and
68
maintained to house the data and to make statistical calculations. Overall the study was
very effective and the data well managed. The data processing and analysis made up
most of this chapter and concluded with a discussion of limitations for the study.
In chapter IV, the results of the collected data were presented to illustrate if the
hypothesis stated for the study was accurate. Recall that it was hypothesized that
interaction among demographically dissimilar people should be higher in individualist
cultures than in collectivist cultures. Looking at the results from the data continuums, it
was obvious that those who rated higher on the scales were more likely to accept a
culturally different person into their workgroup. Therefore, those that rated lower were
more likely NOT to accept the cultural differences.
Based on the hypothesis, the results should show that individualists will have a
higher mean rating overall when there is more cultural diversity. These high scores
proved the hypothesis statement. On the other hand, collectivists were expected to rate
lower, proving the resistance to interact with someone who is culturally different.
Conclusions
I believe research gathered in this study will contribute greatly to all areas of
business and industry that are competitively involved in the domestic marketplace as well
as the global marketplace. As Lewis Griggs, a San Francisco-based filmmaker and
diversity consultant once said, "only 10% of us do business with foreigners, but 100% of
us do business with Americans who are different from ourselves. Americans who are of
Asian descent, or African-Americans, or Hispanics, or whatever...we all have cultural
differences right here at home, the ignorance of which gets us into trouble as it does
overseas". The concept of diversity has become such a prominent issue in today's
69
workplace, which will allow this research to be used. This study can help clarify how
organizational culture affects how a person of another cultural heritage may "fit in" with
the culture already established in the organization.
Recommendations for Further Research
The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not a person's behavior is
defined and understood by individualist and collectivist organizational cultures based on
their physical appearance and how a group reacts when there is an attempt to diversity a
workgroup. From the results of the data it is obvious that physical appearance may have
something to do with behavior and decision-making within workgroups, but the research
can't stop here. It is important to understand the implications of the research presented
thus far and, it is also important to realize that there are numerous implications for further
research. In this last section of the paper, you will find the recommendations I feel would
be most beneficial and important to continue on with this study.
The first recommendation I have includes using a variety of cultural backgrounds
for the study and participants. Because of the demographics at UW-Stout, the majority of
responses came from people of a Caucasian background. It would be interesting to
demonstrate the findings of this study with a variety of cultural backgrounds represented
and with larger sample sizes to illustrate a greater significance among the groups.
Along with this larger sample and more diverse population, I would recommend
that the outcome variables (i.e. the case studies) be observed rather than found out by
simply questioning participants. I feel that observation of participants in a real, working
group environment would create more accurate results. With questionnaires, there is a
70
tendency for participants to "psych out" the survey by answering according to how they
might be expected to, rather than how they truly feel.
As mentioned previously, when the case studies for this research were created,
boundaries as to the number of minorities in each work were made as well. There were a
defined number of majority and minority members in the groups, the majority members
always outnumbered the minorities and, all the groups were made up of entirely males.
The results showed that when a group was fairly homogeneous the number of minorities
didn't really make a difference. How accurate is that information?
In the groups where there was more cultural diversity among members, the data
showed that these cultural differences might have been an issue within the group. If we
were to leave the studies as-is and continue research further, some of the following
questions related to the existent workgroups might be answered. Why does the
collectivist group accept the black person even though he is dissenting from the group
and going against the cultural norm of group harmony? It is difficult to reject someone
without accepting him or her in the first place. Therefore, the data begs the question if
the black member was even accepted in the first place
In the second sample, the white male group member was rejected for disagreeing
with the collective group. What then will he have to do to get a higher rating with the all-
white collective group? Will he ever be accepted into the group again? Further research
may imply that the all-white group is more prejudice than they think they are.
And finally, in the third sample, the low scores illustrate that the whites are non-
accepting of the Asian group members' behavior. Why is it that two collective groups
have difficulty reaching a decision? These results can justify further research regarding
71
the number of minorities and majority members in the workgroup. For this study the
number eight was used out of convenience. The dynamics of larger or smaller culturally
diverse workgroups would be interesting to investigate as well. There were also only
three broad cultural categories represented. Because of the many interpretations of racial
diversity and culture, the results of the data magnify the broadness of the study. One may
want to narrow down the minority groups to more specific cultures (i.e. Chinese as
opposed to Asian) so results may be more accurate for that particular group. It would be
interesting to see, in any of these cases, the results of a minority dominated work group
with little majority representation (i.e. a workgroup made of 7 Asians and 1 white) and/or
two minority workgroups (i.e. 5 Asians and 3 blacks) as well.
Further research for organizations attempting to diversify their work groups
would be beneficial too because it is obvious that there are implications for training.
Diversity training is a hot topic in many organizations today. However, until an
organization is fully committed to accepting and diversifying their workforce, efforts for
diversity training may be useless. It would be interesting to conduct further research on
work groups having one as a control group provided with diversity training. And, to have
another as a non-control group without training. This research could make a case for an
organization attempting to diversify their workforce by illustrating how ready and willing
organizations are to become completely diversified.
Given the demographic changes occurring now and in the near future, most
organizations will have no choice but to integrate minorities into their workforces.
However, many companies are only giving "lip service" to cultural diversity. Hopefully
72
the research presented in this paper will help those facing the decision to integrate and
realize the potential of diversity in the workplace.
73
; 7 Whtli 4719t.. 1 lbMk mro[.-4gbo«ilng W8l
Total St~B r» TrdltbSiol Ma l"; I oWl
!?c 37w 7 2 .4 7 $ 2 9 9 i 111213 14 (~lrso *4 I 2 3 (9o.4o34nc?•'"!S»?"'. .:. .. . . . . . . . . . .... . 3 . .. . . ... ........... ......... . ......................
................l ...... ..... .. .f ...... .....*..... ..... ... ...§.... ...9.... ...... ..3... ...2 . ...:... ...... ----- .-- .- . ...6..... ........ ......... .. ... .... ? ... ....8 .. .. .. .. .. .. . ..
*~ *~ ~ ~ 4 7~ 4 3 3 4 9 41 4 79 cI $ s 47f4.......? .... ........ ............... .. .. .......... . ----..--..---..--..--... .--.---- . ....... . .. .. ........... ....... ..... ...... .......6.-.-.... --........? ... ........ ...'*......S ... ...§„.................
sl l ll^ „„ „ „. ... .... .... „.. .... ... ...6......S.. ..«.. .. „ ..«. .<„ „<i„ „ . ..?.. ..9.... 1 ^ 1 1 1 „8.. „..»......6...1 ii«.ll ..
45 8 4 ;3 6 6~49 4
11 1 11----............ ...3.... ...:.<...... ...!..... ........ ........ . ..........1.. ...... ... .. . .. ..... » .. >. l l l l .<... .... 5. ... H ... ^^ ̂ ............. .........:.......A .......... §..... ....*... ..:..?... I../.. ...... .. ...9.. .. ...?... ........ .^^^ „ .. ...7.. .... .......... ..
....... . ....... . . .... .. ... .... ... .... 3.. . .. .---------------- ..- - -..A .... . . .... .. .... . .....
7 24 2 9 2 2 7 I 9 1............... 9..... 4 ..... .... ¶....
2 4 3 8 9 939.4912 a.49
1 1 1 ̂ ̂ .:..!<.:. ....?:.. ......... ...*.:. ..*... :..«... ..».. ^.. ..3.. .<„ ..?.. .«............... 1 1.11 .....?.........7..... ......a.. ......... :
^ ̂ i^ ̂ .. ... . -...3... ......:.ri.. ... ?.a..iI .i. l....:i.i.?...l..3.,l i._.1.. s..3.. ..4.. .5.. ..4....4.. .... .... ..3 . .: .. ...... . ..^ ... .........
9111.93i - :1 1 a 8 9 7 44 3 3 144
5 6fSa.0. 7. 9
11! 4 42 4 4 5 9 4
·--21 40 7 91: ··-" ··- 4·····li: -i:- -:· · · ·i .4_111 8.12lllal 9 .3::::"::::::: 3 4 7 9 7 9 38 33I.. l•. ..... 3 . .. . ........ ...... ... .. ... 7-- ---. ----..- - - .. ... . . . .. . . .. . ... .. ... ... 1 3 .i
..1 . :1.. .... ..... .... 1..... .... <.. „..... ....S...... ...:. ......» ......... .. .... . .. .3.... ....a .. ....§ ...3.... ....8 .. .......S .... . ..... .. .. .. .. ....S .. „ ..:. ..).. .. . .1....... ... ... .. ... :....... ....i ... ... .. . .-.-... ...S ... ----- ..-.-.. ------ -- -. . --- --- --- --- ..--. ---.ft . § 1 8 1 ... .... S ....... s „. ...... ...is ...... . .
.......2 3 ..... 3..... „ „... ... ... .3 .... . .6 . ......... . . . .. . . .. .... 3 . ..4..... .... . ..... . . ...6 ....... ... ...... ...<.... ...... ................. ..
.4.............9.. 7 4 $
..... i.. ....... > ......... .... ?..-------:. --- -------- . -.-... : ..... I. .... »..<... ..... ... ... 10.. ...... ¹ .... C I .:.... ... 8 . S i Sl ::t
............... ...... ..... ....» ..:.. ......S ..... .....5 .... .... .... ..:... ... ...$.... ..... ......s .A .. .. .. . .S.. . . . . . .. ........ .--- ------ -------- -----------------.......---Z~~~~i-iiih·-·i-li-i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i-~~~~~·_-i~~~~~~~~li~~~.........----------------
.1 1 3 1 9 4 9 4 4 & 9 V.. 9. 1«
............~ ~~~~~~. ~ It.....
71:: 1: 111.·5! .111_1_hlllllll~l._lllllb. 7 9 5111_1 9 .3 1111s~.l .9 9. ... .. 7. .4... . .7.
&ov. o:0
.......... ............ ......... .. ....................... . . . . . . . ............ ............ ..." . .? .. ....... .. .. .. ....... ... .
23 4 3 9 9 9 1 2 3 4 a 3 .4 3 99 l9 4U P13
Pjfxifari ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~- ............. .......... 3.. ------. ...S... ...9.. ---I------ ------ ..9. -«. - - ...1..1. ... r.....S ~.. ...1. .. ... ...3 .(St )
..... 1 .2J^ 7J.. .4^8^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r- . t 3 9 9 1 •••I • ••• 9 19 7--
.7. 7.~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 7 9~~A~ 9 79~ ~ 9 6A i
94o 73 n2 1
.......... ....i...... ^ J. ............. ...."..... .... '... ...i.... ...... ..3... ------ <{. ------ ----- ----- ------ ^l ^ : '9 -- C4 -'---------- ------ ----
4)49 98~~~~~~o. of
1 •..... ... ..... --------- ...... ------. -----.....-- ---- ...9.... ..a.. ..3... ..a... .3 .„ 8.. .... a.. -----r----- --:: :-:: :. .: :. 1 8 1
To4 9908 294841 sto39
s~~ ) i i I f I I 1 I I ) ~~crpnir I I I 1Pgrof O4 3 7 AS 645 27~~~~~~~~~~~~9 9
r77.1x1 I . 4. . 9 9 2 9 8 ( 40 ii 12 43 14 (944 I 943
......... .& . ....... .. .5.. .. . a ...5.7. 6. 7.7l. 7^^ ^ . . .. !»...i.. ....l..i. .. . 6 ' .'t . . . .
i^i ^ 1' : ~i~:iS~;il----~... .. ... . ........... ... ....... ... ...... . . .
..«g ... ... ....<...... ....'..... .... 8 . ..--..--...-..-..-.. 2 ..----.-. 8 .-.. .-.- 8.. ..g .---.... ..-..-...----- .-.-.. 31.-... :..-... ... .... .. -
4 31 .3 3a9 3 I ....1·_ ·1·1·X ·1··.. .1 .4 .... . .....4 ..... 9.. .4 .... . ... [..? .... . 9.. ...S .. . ...46. .. ..4 ... .." .. . . . . . . 0 . . .
......... ..... i.... .. ..3..... .... 1.......6.. ...8.. ...6... ...3.. ...3. ...1. .. 3. '-. --'--- ---------- ---.. ------------ --..-.?.'.1. ": 9 - - - ----- - -- - 7• . . 9 .. ... ...... .. 9 .. 9. ..... ... .. . ......... . ^ ...9 99 ....9... 3 .3 . .2 9
......l.».....~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~A~ .. ?..A A A ....... S... . 7 •:•^•"::
.. ...... . . ..... .......... .. . . .6. .. . ::.: 6: . . 96
...........! .. .......... 3.. .. ....... f ........... 9 9. .2 8 .3 4.. 1 ...... .. .. . ..14 ------ ..4 . -. 1.. .. -. -!l-l: :9 4 1 7 4 9 9 9 9 9 9 J . .. 7 -- 4---
.....a . .......... 1 ... ...... 3 .... ..... . . .. .. . .. ... :14..3..... ... ... .. ?...4 .. a7..4.. 9.3 4. 3 4 4 9. 9 4... ........? ......
79:·jl,::::i': 4 9 9 7 9 1 5 t 6 3 5 a 1 7 1 716 9 4 9 7 1 I 3 3 i I4:7 7 3 2 7
il '~I ^l .... 8.... ....3.... ......... ........ ...7... ......... ... ...... . i.....a... ..'... ..'... .. ..... .. l l:ll ^.. ... ... . .............. ..... ...... .... ....... .... ..... 9........1..... ....... ..................... ..........
I"·~~~~~i~~i~~~-i:V~~~~~~····6--- ~~~~~M Oov.
7 .7 7 9_ 4..'.. 3._1., R 3 _8 _1_8 9 9 231 So Sol. . . . 9. . 1 3 . 3... . . . .7.1 8 89 4. .9 .1 ..
4' A.7 . .7. .7.. _. 7... .......
2i 3 3 9 1 9. 7 . . . 1 1 3 44
... ... .... ... . ... .. . . ... .. . . .. ... .. .. .. .. ... ... .. ... .. ... . --- ----- ---- -- --- --- -- -- . ... ... -- -- -- --- --- -- -- -- -- --- ---- -
8m 1 Doy.088. 04 1 Io
6..~~~~~~~~~~# 9 949 9 -1.. .. .. . .. ... . . ... ... ... .... ........ .. .. .. . .. ... . .. .. .3 5 4 3 3 3 2 8 4 : XInl
. .. ....... wo . *---------------- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~Pslcpol r14*1¶44 .. .... I ..... 1... 1.. 1$ 1 9 "1' ; * 1 ? 7 ' '
9 * 7 74( $9 7 *0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~*9~ .. .... :....... .... i
$B'SSSsS•!Sfc 4 ^^ $ *S 7 •r~i 7 ^ 4!^ 1 ^ 7 S '.i.S $^ 6? S^ ̂ "•?10^•SS 4' ?K? 7B^' 9
4 7 3 ......8 6 .............
6 8 6 7467804 *6 6 7 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6014
.*0.T li4 ?^l ^^ 1^ ^* ^*^ 494 1^ ^^ 17 'j' 9. '1 9i '74"^"""^ ^ ;;^•'• ••l
1*^ ^Ii Il 14111 1. 9 .9. 44 5i 749 $9 71 84^ .^» 1^ '~ 9 1 ^s^1
iiiii 7~ 77i 1~ 1911$ 14i 77 jic7 6 8i '*4 4 ii ilii^^iiw
1411^ 6l~ll 171.1^1 7 fel 9. 4 sl III 147 911^. 91 -4 19. Ill I9wllT .. II 141131 4::: 11611 4li 111 * II 1* 67 81? II6jl8 66 i*l II 4l~~l *7 4s i lt.l
l *4.. ....9. 1.1.. .1..! 1 .1' .1--1-------l*7l 141111 6877 14* II 111 II II 8I *I1 6llll'l llIl1^1
14I 4lil II 111 III 118 724 4(7 144 A. 4i *4 Wi 1III I *111121.j*8il III 7 II 6II 4I 4* 4~ * 7 .I'l 1*1 114 Ili 1111I*•••••••4 4•••••••4 f ^ "^ ••••••••^••••••^
79. 2 4 9~~~~~~~~~~~.. .. .... ...... 9 8 9 *
SS•:•: S:S :^^: •: •:•::••::•::••::::?:••••::• BS•H•••• :SS ::::B S:S ;::•?:• ::S..•:•::::.B:I'll. - •::•:I -:;:•::::: :ti:i m " " f S •::SS::•SS:S: im :S::B: :S :S:H
...•<^ . 11 .... .... . ll ...:1.111 1111111 .. . ..1:.11 ..... 1:1. 1 <l :..•ll m••: .:::..l: .... :; ...... ^^ s£ ........~m•K~g::^::: .....si~l .... ..... 1111- lil-' III" 'III III III ll'l 11 III II Hill 1111111 II III ill f•<^M ssilll I...B:S:SS:•: ........ :;:•S :: • • :S : :::: :•::S : S :;•:: ;:•• :::::S ff • ™ f f¹ S : :S :. .... .... .•- ss;a•• •?••• s •a ™ f a s5a aa•-"ss * 77a4•
11111111: 11 ... ~ l 11 11 ... III 111111 11111 .I ..... ...... III 111 ..ii ...l.lll~ l111 11 •ll I
.............. 9 W ....... 7 ~ 0 f 4 S 41 1
.. ..... 9. . . .9. . . .9. .9
.:: . ; ... ...; .;: .:. ....:... . ....... ..:.... .. .:. . :;.... :. ::. : ... :. ::. :.. :. : ..... :... :. ........ :..........:.:..........:....: ........:..:.:..:..... ................... iT ..ff -.
......... ................ 1484 4
8 la 4 io74 9
-—-— ....... "-; ";H 5":-- — ;;s H - -'^ -- ------------- : -- ---- ----- ------ --------- .....
9. .Y.O.9 . 4 9 1 7 86..... ..... 6......$...... 7..... ..... .............. ... ...... .. ...... 19...... 9 9. 9 1
*0 8 8 4 9 8 8 846:8 6 8 64 3o 6 8: 47 ..4 4... .... .. 2............ ... 9* ...... .... 9. ~ ~ 7 I*.4 .. : .;.... ..... ..:.... .............. .. . ...
*7 4 4 3 f47 7 4 47.94 . 8 4 8 *7
17~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 4...$.............1<>»....9 ... .s ;.. .: .1 8; .....
1 9....... .A9.. 9.92 .i---- ........ ............ 7.. .......................
*8 7 7 6 7 7 *7 ~ . . .. 7 :4
*4 4*0 ~A . ... --- -- ---- --- .. 1...4
* s 8 9.9 . 9. 9. 92. 9..9.7 1 .~~~~~~~f s
7...... ......... ... ..... ..... . .........9..I. 7.. .. ......... .1 .....1 .......... .... ..........
o.*4 SOS*n
11111 Hll llil Hll II II II II'III HI 111 HI' 1111 II 11111111111111111*1111111111111*111113 lllllol _____ I I lo lf_111l__ 1<l111161 4*lle IIlil" 6*..'' • 111llllI IIIIlil. l1.11.
......................................... 0 16 14 2 .... ..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. .. .. ... ............ ...
T<oUl 44Ws Total So«>
g~aW^ PAMikipaOi?, paIptsUfI
4 4 1 44
.P...)KI I. ?.?.....1..:.._. j_. 3 < » 6 7 8 ? M . 1.1. -..1?. . .2 . 1 .). . 1 ........... ... ...1.. )....... ....I j 4 4 < 7$? 6 4. 74 4 . . ..6.1
. ............ ... . . . .. .. ........ ....... 1 .......1.../ 4 4 A4 4 7'
*7^"" » a $ 1 6 i6 ¶--- ---- --.. -.. .... ^... .... ^ ... ...̂ ... ...... .-^.... ...... ...... .. .... A...:...... .----------------I. ... ..... ... ... . : :.
1 10 10 6 ~ A~I5. / I -4 S- 8._ $.., .4. . ..̂....?.. j. . 3.... A. ...<........:. ..................... ...... 8....... ....... .. :... ....
...̂..^.^... .....^... -.... ........̂ .... ............ .... ------------------ - ..5... ..... .... .... "'. •'....... . ^ ^ , ,,,, , ,,8,,. ,,9I„. o ...8...liy] : .: . J:.^ . J..?. ..S . ..? . ..... ?.„...^....... .... ^.........^.... .........^ .....-........ C.I.^ : __.B ... .... . . . . . . . . ... :i:::<:: :::..... .... . . ... .------- i
10----------8 10 1.6 2 88.?.. ................ ?......... ..4................ .......4......................I201' ~ ~~ 6 4_8-_I:l_: 14.41.:..4._ 1.§.__I~~J_. 4 44 14 4. (4..... ... ..... 4.....6. 7 • ZP 3. .... " .... .S. ..........:.. . 1 ....:..P.:.....4 6 4 4 7 ~~~~~~ ~~446 4' "i"744 14 6 6 66
..... ... -...... ... ...... ... . ....... .... .... ... .. . .. 4... .4.6.... ... ....... ^.... ...... .- .- - . 44 11 .. .......... .1 ....••"is "" :.... .. .1. ......... . .:.i .. ...i .: ....i .': : ...... '.'... .^ '''...l»....? & ... '..... ......a...\... .j : ---
4 4444 4 . 0 I 4 77 6 4 . A6
........ ..... ...... ...... ..... „«.. .; .a..„ ..3.8. .9.... ?.......... --- 65....... C... ..S..?.._ ».;;....:... :.^ . . . . $. 3 : . 9 .... .4 2 .
"iiii 3i-- :'-: '"""5"""" •"s••••• •7 • 't ^i ^ ^ " IJ ̂ ^ ^ • ^ :l l ::::i : :1_5;:; il _v ^ .•: 1:7 . ::«: .:. .. ::::_"llG: . ;.:.:.:.:: j'S S4 f » 5 3. 4... . 7. . .73 .... .. ..... 4. ....... I*... .........7 4.. .. .. .l.... .^.. .. I.-- : - -.^ ... 2 ...5 . .. .^ .6 . . . .4 ̂ . .^ . *^ .:_... . 4 L: .P i .1^.: : : 5 1 > 6 . 6 .; . . . . . . .14
.2 .4 . ... 4.. 1. 100.. . - 2......... .......... . ..... . . 1 2............6 ............... .. .. ... .....
14 3 14 4 . 6 4 6 4 5 4 6 4 4 6 44 47 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l.14 . ].AA3
-:------ ---- ----. -s_- __g l
.......... ;. :: „...... ..? : :. : . .8 .. ..c .:.!... .. .. .» .... .. ... 3... .. .... :. .: . ...... .. .. .;..... ...1 .... ... .... : '« :; „ : .
............. ........... .......... . ....... ...:... ....... . ...... ... .... . .. .... . ..... .. .-.. .-..- :-..-.. ....-....... ... ....... .:.:.. ..:--.. : .1 . . . .
24 6 6....*7 4..6 .... 6 6 S .---- - -- ----------. 4.14....3 7' f... 4 §
21 ) 6 4-----..--.--6----6 4-.... 2.. . .6 6t 6 .,7 6 ...6 4 .... 1.~
2. .......... . . ..... ...... .4 .... .... .. 6.............::..... 6.f 6 66 7. ... ..... 3.... .... 4.... ..... ........ ..... ^ ...... ......1 ] i » Jl .. . .. il U > S ll 9 i l ..l .... : : : :. : :. ...: : :; :: •: " ̂ :: : : .:^. :.
I 1111~~~~~~~/41 4/411,1, 176sg .s - -s -:5a~;£:- ^ :^ gg;;•s5:•:;•--j; g -s •:s ^:s :;::•:s 6 . 14. 6• sl; S K;
Of got 441
I i ijii I iil~~~~~~~~i 4
" " " ;; " " " ' " ̂ ̂ ̂ ::;:S ;:•: •:S : .l:;: • -:] ;: •: ̂ : •: •:; .! ::;: ^ : S : : ::Y ..::::1 : : » :: .:: ̂ ;:: :::::::-i .:::; :e;: -: : 7 .: j : .: 4 -; -::: 7 1 <: : .')' „:-„ »: -: .B :-: : -::V : » :.:.:.: S : ' :
•••••.. .. -.. . .. ..• ... ... . .. ... .. ... .......!.......g ..g . •^........ ...... ...... ..... ..... .. a g • -.. .. 4.„ . ::6i, ^ „ ^ .: . .. . . . . .
•g;•S:^;•;^ ?£^ ?S ^ m ^ ^ ^ ^ - 0 :^ a i;;;6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~::::::::~:::::::S •K g i> ::'6,;:::: ;,.e::;.g:j:::::: ::» .; .:;:•S::: g :^ £:7» ;:;?Hj::1l: •:.:4;.:;(•:•:::^.:.::: :: 15 :. ::: ; :.:.: """7 .7lll . . .. ..... ..... ... (661 4.... ........... 617 ------------------------ ---
..............: ^....... ..:....:..... :;:Pi:-: ---------- •.'„.i-8;;: , ;---:--:? ....... ;..... <; .. :.::-78..::::a ^ • ̂ ::^;... ..: .» .:^ :i.
K;S:-0;; : 'ff '^ m ::":<"H::-^ ::-T• B:5•: ;S :5•• 9 :;1:• l:•:i -;4^ ;3;•:::::: i:::W t ; ••« :;:S -i>:" ;::;:•:- «: B- 1 ->•.:;:;; „?: .... 8.....
6 6 11114 4 1 $3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---lljlilji-iiI111111116 4 6 6 6.4 . . 4... 1 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........
2 .~l~.-"..ji:.-~;-::: j: :::::--------- P A ---I i-lji'j::i'I_:4 :2iI. (gol~
4 6 16 4 4 6 --- -------
'^ ••1^ ;^'"; '^ ; t I:.S ̂ H ^a ^ ^fl:S ; y^.Hg-i-l:j - i-<f :8 ^ -^ ̂::• : lA • " ; S o ' -; » -'^.•^.^S.:: :- :i : /M•..^. :l.-- .... .^ ...i.6 a .. ..... ......; --- 1-1--:--:----:-- -- .: -6 -l:il . .... .. .
II6_:_:::: ::-:6-: ---- -4 : :-• :-.. . . . .. . ::.::::::.:::::::: :: ::::: 6 ::7 ^ g f•^ ^; ; :^:;; ^ ^^ ^ ^ ;'; .^,;g ;;l; ;;^a......... ^ a . ... :: ::l :::::......;... ....... 3........
::::I:'^ • •;-:: -»iii_3....::-: 8:^1:;:::^ .;:»::J:_•:; • :::;:l-: 8- :;»:-;: 8.: :l-::sa::. :a ::a:;.:<.IH .::::.::: :.:i:-:l,.?:::::::::»:.:.::.:.i :.:: ............... »a
^5(0^!9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .6 ?-' ' l 1:•;:: 9 i:1::4 :: ::: :: 7 4416llllllli~ l~l-lllil~llli~l~l lll-l lllljl 7-l-l~l-l-l-l-:i i II::-i~-i- 4 1 4 7i-·~iii-- 6----- 611.... - -- -- . ....... I.--
16 : 647 3 .6 .4
------- .. .... ... .. ... .. .. .. .
6--- -------- ---------- 4 6-6 5 ,1 6 3 1 2
...... ....... · :I·· -i-···i ..... . J...
..•••„•••- .......:.:.:....: .:.. . . ....... 7 „........:_:__-.!La --l: --~l_:a 's^ ^ z; i -.:::::L:::i:I:.:::: ~s •::-:-i s • : : .: ».;...;...».:'tl:::ii:::?-: : ------- :-:-.......: s..... .. . l.
••.•.. .... ..... ........ 6 ..... I---- ---S Sf w •::::::1'11:::::1 III::: :l- lilllll III:)~~ ~~~~~~~~'---~ -:. -:---1-:1----- 1-:1:1-------: I................
:-:;::.::2 i:.::l g I~i._:::.:.::" :_:.:: 5:s:;:l -;:: .: .:ig:::B:.:::: li~j-.-l.5 : g:::;::::. ! .::l :i;5:-7:B: :;::::-:; •:.:..:;::: ;:i-lli'1-:_l•:g -: •i~ d•- :;:- :ss:g - ;:;:» :.K w -- ::- - :!-
6 6.:: ; ::::; :::::;6-::63: :::4::::: : : a ::: : .
:;::B :si:• :::•~--:":; S:::::a::; iK:l:ll::s-j :-::: »:::::d:: ::- : -:. ::^.s:::-:- 6m;~~.- -•:- :. -- s i::: !:si ;. ;•:;::--;.;
i-:- ::::::::i :. : ,----------i-i: i : :,i i : i ::::::-: 1:1 :5:::;: :::::i - - - .1-- - --------- : ---- ...... .:;: £.i...:.i:: .
74 3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- ------------......... . ....... v ........ :8:j:1:j0 ---- -::- -::::: ::1::~:-::::::::- ::::-:
..' ·:::::·-·-::::rj: ···:: ::··: :···: ::j:. ····. ---- :............ ------------ -- P:i
------------- --- --- ---- ------ ... .........:::::: :::::::::::::::i: i::::::':l-:~::::::::::: :: . .'::''':::'ia · illllliiii lililjillll i-
...:..ii ....:~........ ........ ........ ------ ........ -------::::i:::::::::::::: ::::::::: :::-::-i~s::-::::--:-:::::
:::::~~~~~~~~~ . I::::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...............
4 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
::::::::::::::: : ~: :::::::::: :·::::::: :::! ::::::::: : : ::::::::4 ---- ------
... ........ I --I -- ------- -------- ---- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :::-::B-i i~i-l-~i~i-------- - ..... .. ... .. . . .. .. .. . . ..- -----------
.... : ......... T|. No. . Di con::lallon 4l»--1)........ . .. e4) ....... ........... ll:!. ..... o...
I I 1 l 14 2 $ 4
a 1^ .< 1 Pa Zk:!l-lol» P«»l6llt1
-----------.......... . . .... - -I.... ....... .-------- ... .. ... ..it.! ) ..... ----...... . ...
,,,,,,,4,,,,,, ,,,,, 1 2,.'... '.. ',...-.'... ...... I ' .... .... ' .... .'.... ,, ..... ..'. ....... ... ......... . .... .
......I.!.... .......... 1 7 .1 .. 1... .6...!... . . I. . ...-. ..
.......::i::' ':''f'':T :: : , , , , ,2,4,,,, !............ ..... .. . 4 ......... M .......
13 IS < : :::6......., ,,,s.... .. ...... J :...... ..... .:.. .:... . :.. .. ..:.. . : .: .:,..4... ...9.
:. S . , -1..9.. , , , ----.-...... ::... ,.. -----' - - - -. ...... .. .1. . : ......4
14 I 14
i. ape 16 13;;.
............ ....... ...... : .. ......... 18 1' ' - - I''''''' ''9'''..'........ ............... ,t.'. , ,,., '. ' ' ....1... ................. ........... I... ....
21 16 1$
............... 7. .. ............ ....(... .... 12 ...... .......7?...... .......... ? ........
............... ......... .. ...... ,,,,,,
---------------------------------------- ........... ----------------..... .. - -?.... ... .. ... ... - --... .... .. .. .... .. S---- --- ---......-- - - - -... .. . , , , , , , Q38,,6:6,,,,,,,,,,,................. .... . .... ... .......... ...............
) ·...... . ..... ..... 1 ..... ....... .... IS .....
1~,,, ,,,.,,,,,,4 ..116 ------ ------ .------ , 1 I
I, I I 3 1
§16~~~ I»l .1.4 . ¶--I------- 7-- 4 .S- ...
12 156 I ll
................ .. .... , 14. ... 4 .. 6..... (S l..I ....... .1 .......
.8..IS . ............... ............ --------------- --------
10 6161' :•:>(11:?; 16 16 IS
41 60 12
....... 18..... ............ . . ... ... ...... ........ ........ . .........<» ........
16 IS :. I 1
I6 13 16
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.--.-l0.............. ... 4......t...X.....4... ... 2 .................
:.......... ............ .... 15
. . ........ .- - - .-. .............................
T-Test earm 13) FigureD15. Co relaton (Team 3)
:"•"?• 0 .' :' 9 "0 • : .. S 0 s d TotalScore o TotalScoreof: - 3i w; I aParticipants Participants
.0 125.. ._S -..I Participant (Set#i) (Set42)1 12 i. ..;f .l1 19 1 I: :68 123 15 f-I :J .S 24 2 79: 195 14 1 . 3. . 65 157 15 .1 4 _ 85 248 25 i' :112 .5 70 149 24 i 9 6. : 80 1111 19 .'::a1 :S,:iJ 13 7. .64. 1513 14 S 13 .:. :: 75 : . 2518 14 15 9 73 2422 12 l, 5 10 . 81 1825 13 .. 20: 12 . 1 68 19
:..;2d _-__gS . 11 I :_12 80 12___ _ .233. ? 19 13 :. 73. 14
4 1 146 0 I9Meanl 15: 86 : 13
16 1 _ 14 16 i: 79 13. : :3.- T-Tes . 17 93 15
0.148479253 18 : 58 1419 :88 5
.20 : 92 . 1221 .79 : 1122 70 12:23 . 92 19
: 24 83 1625 63 .13
-0.047479691
T-Tet (team #4) Figure D1 6. Correlation (Team 4)
o g Total Score Total Score oml I 5 , 3-Participants Participants
S 3 - 3 S di Participant (Set #1) (Set #2)2 6 :S-::: __ :: 14 1 87 144 13 S . 21 2 76 66 12 ' ::': . 12 3 85 219 14 18 4 73 1310 13 iS 25 5 83 1212 12 I.Sl1 . i 22 6 68 1214 15 :S 3 14 7 96 1818 14 ,S5 -:- 9 8 84 2519 6 16 4 9 66 1420 5 7-': 3 20 10 69 1322 6 , - l: -! 13 11 81 2224 9 I: S '2::
'7 12 59 12
25 7 1 13 90 14Mean 14 76 15
I1O I I 15 15 80 94. T-Test 16 86 40,019121948 17 90 20
18 76 1419 63 620 72 521 90 1322 73 623 99 724 55 925 75 7
0.305671193
T-Test (Team 5) Figure D17. Correlatlon (Tam )
• )5 o 3 E Total Score of Total Score ofa Paricipnt Particant Partipants
o t- _S 0 Participant (Set #1) (Set #2)1 19 : ._'2: .- 15 1 74 195 18 1'9 = '33.: ' 18 2 82 15
10 13 :. 18 3 94 1811 18 .- ' 6 15 4 101 1812 13 10 5 63 1813 19 . '-:'8 16 6 87 1515 23 : '.-: ;:.: 20 7 82 1016 20 1,j4'i 14 8 87 1620 15 1': s 9 9 94 2021 14 'I'Ž1 ' 9 10 76 1323 12 .: ' 1 17 1 1 79 1824 16 ':"22
:- 9 12 77 13
25 15 13 79 19Mean = 14 91 14
17 14 15 101 235. T-Test 16 65 200.059455817 17 82 9
18 92 919 81 1720 71 1521 54 1422 85 923 55 1224 76 1625 71 15
0.153084381
IT-Teatfl aBSl-- -^^iqureIi9 C7tellt Tibnam#6
•g3 .;:!: .:£- :T1':" F'•ia::; i~i?:i~fr' :P:nicIpante:' .:Participanta ,
1 11 11 .f:14' 6 ,: 6': ' s. .2 20 11 1 3 72 -6 14 20 - :. ' 4^, :7 17 3 'S35
1i3 1o 3 - g 1 -16 3 i i6 - 521 7 :5 5 9 " 72._ - -'S 7 ,_,24 9 0t , 12 lt>
14 0i 20
5 611' 8 04Ba i 95a^ 3E
0.161386971 E 66
~i9:- ---- '.~sb - ;'"- f ZEC76,
ZJ20 5 1_ ,84 123 i
.:.s24-. ':'ag-i f70 g9 2.-:.i
BibliouraPhv
APHIS Council on Managing Diversity. The "Four" Layers of Diversity
In Everyone (On-line). Available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/mb/wfd/define.html
Adams, Susan M. (1999, February). Settling cross-cultural disagreements begins with
'where' not 'how'. The Academy of Management Executive, v13 n13 i l pp. 109-1 10.
Adler, Nancy J. (1986) International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. Boston,
MA: PWS Kent Publishing Company. pp.89.
Alverson, M. (1998, July/August). The Call to Manage Diversity. Women in Business,
pp. 34-35.
Baugn S.G. & Graen, G.B. (1997, September). Effects of team gender and racial
composition on perceptions of team performance in cross-functional teams. Group and
Organization Management, v22 n3 pp.36 6 -3 84 .
Bloch, Julia Chang. (1994, October). Diversity in the Workplace, remarks delivered as
part of an International Forum of the Institute of International Education (IIE). (On-linc).
Available at http://www.exceed.com/diverse.html
Chatman, J., & Barsade, S. (1995, September). Personality, organizational culture, and
cooperation: evidence from a business simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, v40
n3 pp. 423-444.
Chatman, J., Polzer, J., Barsade, S., Neale, M. (1998) Being different yet feeling similar:
the influence of demographic composition and organizational culture of work processes
and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, v43 i4 pp.749 - 752 .
Chen, C., Chen, X., Meindl, J. (1998 April) How can cooperation be fostered? The
cultural effects of individualism-collectivism. Academy of Management Review, v23 n2
pp. 28 5-3 0 5.
Cox Jr., Taylor (1993) Cultural Diversity in Organizations-Theorv. Research and
Practice. Barrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Elashmawi, F. & Harris, P.R. (1993). Multicultural Management-New Skills for Global
Success. Houston, London, Paris, Zurich, Tokyo: Gulf Publishing Company.
Garfield, Charles. (1992) Embracing Employee Diversity in Charles Garfield Group eds.
Second to None.
74
Loder, M., Rosener, J. Ph.D., Workforce America! Managing employee diversity as a
vital resource. (1991). Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin.
Smith K., & Berg, D. (1997). Cross-Cultural Groups at Work. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, v21 pp.8-14.
Stamps, David (1996, November). Welcome to America. Watch Out for Culture Shock.
Training, pp. 22-30.
Sunderland, Tyler (1996, April). Diversity in the Workplace. (On-line). Available at
http://cctr.umkc.edu/wicc/wdpaper.html
Triandis, H., Kurkowski, L., Gelfand, M. (1994a). Workplace Diversity in Triandis
Dunnette, and Hough, eds. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, v4,
2"d edition. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Triandis, H., Kurkowski, L., Gelfand, M. (1994b). Toward a Model of Cross-Cultural
Industrial and Organizational Psychology in Triandis, Dunnette, and Hough eds.
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, v4, 2nd edition. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Triandis, Harry C. (1977). Interpersonal Behavior. Monterey, CA: Books/Cole
Publishing Company.
UW-Stout Facts. (On-line). Available at http://www.uwstout.edu/geninfo/facts.html
Watson, W., Johnson, L., & Merritt, D. (1998 June). Team orientation, self-orientation,
and diversity in task groups: their connection to team performance over time. Group and
Organization Management, v23 n 2 pp.161-1 8 9.
Work, John W. (1993) What Every CEO Already Knows About Managing Diversity.
Highland City, FL: Rainbow Books, Inc
75