Individualism-collectivism and business context as predictors of behaviors in cross-national work settings: Incidence and outcomes

(1)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

International

Journal

of

Intercultural

Relations

jo u r n al h om ep a ge : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / i j i n t r e l

Individualism–collectivism

and

business

context

as

predictors

of

behaviors

in

cross-national

work

settings:

Incidence

and

outcomes

Peter

B. Smith

a,∗

_,

_Cláudio

_V.

_Torres

b

_,

_Julia

_Hecker

c

_,

_Chei

_Hwee

_Chua

d

_,

_Alena

_Chudzikova

e

_,

Serdar

Degirmencioglu

f

_,

_Francisco

_Donoso-Maluf

g

_,

_Nancy

_Chen

_Yi

_Feng

h

_,

_Charles

_Harb

i

_,

Brad

Jackson

j

_,

_Sigmar

_Malvezzi

k

_,

_Andrew

_Mogaji

l

_,

_Juan

_Carlos

_Pastor

m

_,

Lorena

Perez-Floriano

n

_,

_B.N.

_Srivastava

o

_,

_Günter

_Stahl

p

_,

_Stephanie

_Thomason

q

_,

Vladimir

Yanchuk

r

a_School_of_Psychology,_University_of_Sussex,_Falmer,_Brighton,_UK b_Institute_of_Psychology,_University_of_Brasília,_Brazil

c_Open_University_in_the_North,_Gateshead,_UK d_University_of_Miami,_USA

e_Center_for_Research_into_Ethnicity_and_Culture,_Bratislava,_Slovakia f_Istanbul_Arel_University,_Turkey

g_Universidad_de_La_Serena,_Chile h_Lingnan_University,_Hong_Kong i_American_University_of_Beirut,_Lebanon j_University_of_Auckland,_New_Zealand k_Fundacao_Getulio_Vargas,_Sao_Paulo,_Brazil l_Benue_State_University,_Nigeria

m_IE,_Madrid,_Spain

n_Colegio_de_la_Frontera_Norte,_Mexico o_Indian_Institute_of_Management,_Calcutta,_India

p_Vienna_University_of_Economics_and_Business_and_INSEAD,_France q_University_of_Tampa,_USA

r_Academy_of_Sciences,_Minsk,_Belarus

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory: Accepted24January2011 Keywords: Cross-culturalskills Workinteractions Individualism–collectivism

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Brief descriptionsofcross-nationalproblemeventsby1349organizationalemployees frommanynationswerecontentanalyzed.Contrastsbetweenindividualisticand collec-tivisticbehaviorsweremuchmorestronglypredictedbyvariationsinbusinesscontext (e.g.,languagespokenandhierarchicalrelationsbetweenthepartiesinvolved)thanby ameasureofnation-levelin-groupcollectivismpractices.Respondentsfrom individual-istnationsemphasizedperformancegoalsandtaskfocus,whereasthosefromcollectivist nationsemphasizedpersonalaspectsofworkrelationsmorestrongly.Task-focused behav-ioralresponsestoproblemswereuniformlyassociatedwithpositiveoutcome,whereasthe outcomeofemotionalresponsesinteractedsigniﬁcantlywithindividualism–collectivism practices.Theresultsareinterpretedintermsofcollectivists’greaterattentiontocontext. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

∗ Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+441273678914;fax:+4412738766519.

(2)

1. Introduction

Inrecentdecades,considerableprogresshasbeenachievedindeﬁningthenatureofculturaldifferencesbetweennations.

Researchershaveshownthatnationsdiffersystematicallyintermsofthevalues,beliefsandpersonalitytypesthataremost

prevalent,andthatthesevariationscanbeclassiﬁedalongaseriesofdimensions(Allik&McCrae,2004;Hofstede,1980;

House,Hanges,Javidan,Dorfman,&Gupta,2004;Inglehart,1997;Schwartz,2004).Furthermore,thescoreson

conceptually-relateddimensionscorrelatemoderatelywell,evenwhenderivedfromsurveysdoneatdifferenttimesandwhichhave

sampleddifferentpopulationswithinthenationssurveyed(Hofstede,2001).Dimensionalscoreshavesubsequentlybeen

usedtopredicttheincidenceofavarietyofsocialandorganizationalbehaviorsacrossarangeofnationalcultures(Hofstede,

2001;Kirkman,Lowe,&Gibson,2006;Smith,Bond,&Ka˘gıtc¸ıbas¸ı,2006).Giventhecontrasts(forinstanceincommunication

styles,leadershippreferences,etc.)thathavebeenidentiﬁed,onecanreadilyforeseethatproblemswillariseifmembers

ofonenationcontinuetobehaveinsimilarwayswheninteractingwithmembersofsomeothernation.Consideringthe

rapidlyincreasingfrequencyofsuchcross-nationalinteractions,itisimportanttoexplorethefactorsinﬂuencingindividuals’

behaviorsinsuchsettings.Thisstudyﬁrstbuildsonourunderstandingofindividualism–collectivismbycomparing

nation-levelscoresandthetypesofbusinesscontextsthatareprevalentinindividualisticandcollectivistnationsaspredictors

ofreportedbehaviorsinproblemworksettings.Inthesecondsectionofthepaper,wetestwhethertherelationbetween

respondents’behavioralresponsestoproblemeventsandpositiveoutcomevarieswithculturalpractices.Fig.1givesan

overviewoftherelationshipsbetweenthevariablesthatareexploredinthispaper.

Thepresentstudyfocusesoncross-nationalworkinteractions.Theoutcomeofsuchinteractionsisdependenton

numer-ousfactors,herecharacterizedasdistalorproximal.Researchershavemostfrequentlycharacterizednationsintermsof

culturalvalues.However,nation-levelindicesofculturaldifferencecanprovideonlyaremoteor‘distal’basisforpredicting

thebehaviorofindividualsengagedincross-nationalinteractions.Speciﬁcinteractionswillbemorestronglyaffectedbythe

proximalfactorsthatarerelevanttospeciﬁcworksettings.Someproximalfactorsarelikelytoderivefromdistalfactors,

whileotherswillnot.Forinstance,employeesinindividualistnationsarefrequentlynativeEnglishspeakers,whilethose

fromcollectivistnationsarelessoftenso.Whereaninteractioninvolvingonepersonfromanindividualistnationandone

fromacollectivistnationisconductedinEnglish,theprotagonistswilllikelybeaffectedbothbythecontrastingculturesof

theirnation(adistalcause)andbytheirrelatedﬂuencyinEnglish(aproximalcause).Theseandothercauseswillaffecteach

individualparty’sbehavior.Theﬁnaloutcomeoftheirinteractionwillthenbeaffectedbythewayinwhicheachparty’s

behaviorimpingesuponthatoftheother.

2. Developmentofhypotheses

2.1. Adistalpredictor:individualismandcollectivism

Thecontrastbetweennationalcultures characterizedintermsoftheirdegreeofindividualismandcollectivismhas

providedafruitful basisforunderstandingculturalvariationsinorganizationalbehavior.It isusedheretopredictthe

typesofbehaviortowhichthepartiesinvolvedincross-nationalinteractionswillbepredisposed.Nisbett,Peng,Choi,and

Distal Predictors Proximal Predictors

Respondent’s Business Context Other Party’s Cultural Practices Other Party’s Business Behaviors Respondent’s Business Behaviors Outcomes Respondent’s Cultural Practices Other Party’s Business Context

(3)

Norenzayan(2000)proposedthatpersonsfromWesternnationsmorefrequentlyengagedinanalyticcognition,whereas

thosefromAsiannationsmorefrequentlyengagedinholisticcognition.Theydidnotconsiderwhetherthiscontrastwas

alsorelevanttonon-Asiancollectivistnations.Asappliedtoworkbehavior,thiscontrastcanbeexpectedtoshowthat

personsfromindividualistnationswillprioritizeafocusuponthetaskathand,whilethosefromcollectivistnationswill

seetasksasinterconnectedwiththeinterpersonalcontextswithinwhichtheyengaged.Evidencesupportsthisview.For

instance,Smith,Misumi,Tayeb,Peterson,andBond(1989)foundthatcorrelatesofthetaskandmaintenancedimensionsof

supervisorbehaviorwerepositivelyrelatedinJapanandHongKong,butnotintheUSortheUK.Sanchez-Burksetal.(2003)

reportedaseriesofstudiesshowingthatUSrespondentsdiscountedtheindirect,relationalimplicationsofmessageswhen

thesereferredtoworksettings,butnotwhentheyreferredtonon-worksettings.Incontrast,EastAsianstookaccountof

indirectrelationalimplicationsequallyinbothtypesofsettings.OneofthestudiesreportedbySanchez-Burksetalincluded

measuresofindividualistandcollectivistself-construal.Thesemeasureswereshowntomediatetheculturalcontrastthat

hadbeenfound.Thus,taskfocusatworkisshowntobeassociatedwithindividualism.Similarly,amongthedimensionsof

nationalcultureidentiﬁedbyHouseetal.(2004),performanceorientation,whichemphasizestaskaccomplishment,was

signiﬁcantlyopposedtoinstitutionalcollectivismpracticesacross61nations.

Membersofindividualisticculturesarealsofoundtofavordirectnessofcommunication,whilemembersofcollectivistic

cultures tendtocommunicatelessdirectly(Gudykunstetal.,1996;Hall,1966; Park,Hwang,&Harrison,1996).Adair

andBrett(2005)usedacomplexsimulationtocompareintra-culturalnegotiationsinnationalculturesidentiﬁedas

low-context(Germany,Sweden,IsraelandUS)versushigh-context(Russia,Japan,HongKong,andThailand)(Hall,1966).

Low-contextnegotiators(equivalenttoindividualists)communicatedmoredirectlyandemphasizedtaskinformationmorethan

high-contextnegotiatorsdid.Thesedifferencesariseduetothegreateremphasisuponthepreservationofharmonious

interpersonalrelationswithincollectivistcultures.Inaseriesofstudiesofintra-culturalnegotiation,Graham,Mintu,&

Rodgers(1994)comparedintra-culturalbuyer-sellernegotiationsacrosssamplesfrom16nations.NegotiatorsfromNorth

AmericaandEuropewerefoundtobemorecompetitive,whilethosefromelsewhereweremoredisposedtowardjoint

problem-solvingandthusmaintainingharmoniousrelationships.

Thetaskfocusfavoredinindividualistnationscanalsobeexpectedtoencompassapreferenceforreductionofuncertainty

throughadherencetorulesandlaws.Houseetal.(2004)founduncertaintyavoidancepracticestobesigniﬁcantlycorrelated

withbothin-groupcollectivismvaluesandinstitutionalcollectivismvalues.Therangeofﬁndingssampledaboveprovides

abasisfortheﬁrsthypothesis:

Hypothesis1. Respondentsfromindividualisticnationswillemphasizetheirpreferenceforafocusontasks,performance

goals,directcommunicationandrelianceonformalrules,whereasrespondentsfromcollectivisticnationswillemphasize

theirpreferenceforpersonalrelationshipsandlessdirectcommunication.

Incross-nationalsettings,eachpartywillbeawareofthecontrastbetweentheirownbehaviorsandthatoftheotherparty.

Itisthereforepossiblealsotoformulateasecondhypothesisonthebasisofthecontrastsdiscussedabove.Individualists

willtendtoseecollectivistsaspreoccupiedwithrelationshipsandlackingintaskfocus,whilecollectivistswillbeawareof

individualists’lesseremphasisonarelationalfocus,andmayfeelexcluded.

Hypothesis2. Respondentsinteractingwithpersonsfromindividualisticnationswillemphasizefeelingexcludedand

havingtheirculturaldistinctivenessignored,whereasrespondentsinteractingwithpersonsfromcollectivistcultureswill

emphasizetheotherparty’semotionalbehaviors.

2.2. Proximalfactors

Interactionsbetweenpersonsfromnationsthataremoreindividualistandmorecollectivistoccurinawidevariety

ofcircumstances.Manyofthesecircumstancesarelikelytoinﬂuenceinteractionoutcomesinintra-nationalaswellas

cross-national contexts.Forinstance,therelativestatusofthetwopartiesmaybecritical.However,theprobabilityof

occurrenceofparticularcross-nationalcontextsislikelytobeinﬂuencedbytheindividualismandcollectivismofthenations

fromwhichthetwopartiesaredrawn.Individualistnationsaremorewealthythancollectivistnations(Hofstede,2001),

morefrequentlyprovidetheownersofmultinationalbusinessesandmorefrequentlyspeakEnglishasaﬁrstlanguage.

Distalandproximalcausesofdifﬁcultywillthereforeaugmentoneanotherifinherentlydifﬁcultcontextsco-occurwith

individualism-collectivism.

Forinstance,BrewandCairns(2004)foundthatthecontrastbetweenthedirectnessofAustralianexpatriatesandthe

indirectnessofSouth-EastAsianhostnationalswasexacerbatedbythepresenceoftimepressureandwhensuperiorversus

subordinaterelationshipswereinvolved.Drake(2001)foundthatthecross-culturalnegotiationbehaviorofstudentswas

affectedmorebywhethertheywereinthebuyerorthesellerrolethanbytheirendorsementofindividualismorcollectivism.

Consequently,anunderstandingofproblematiceventsrequiresconsiderationbothofrespondents’distalculturalcontext

andoftheproximalcontextswithinwhicheventsoccur.

Noattemptismadeinthepresentstudytopredicttherangeorimpactofproximalcontextualfactorsonreported

behaviors.Itissimplypredictedthatwhentheimpactofthesefactorsiscontrolled,theeffectsofindividualism-collectivism

(4)

Hypothesis3. Aftercontrollingforcontextualfactors,behavioralcontrastsassociatedwithindividualism–collectivismwill

remainsigniﬁcant.

2.3. Behavioralchange

Thecapacitytoadaptone’sbehaviorinculturallydifferentworksettingshasbeenthefocusofresearchers’attention

formanyyears(Brislin,1981),andhasmostrecentlybeenconceptualizedintermsofculturalintelligence(Earley&Ang,

2003;Thomas&Inkson,2004).Themajorityofworkinthisareahasfocusedonattemptingtodeﬁneandmeasuretheskills

thatarenecessaryforeffectivecross-nationalworking.Inthisstudythefocusismoredirectlyuponwhetherindividualists

andcollectivistsreportchangingtheirbehavior,onthetypesofchangethattheymakeandonthereportedeffectivenessof

change.

RaoandHashimoto(1996)examinedtheself-reportedinﬂuencetacticsemployedbyJapanesemanagersworkingin

Canada,eachofwhomhadbothJapaneseandCanadiansubordinates.Theyfoundthatmanagersreportedusingmoredirect

tacticswhentheirsubordinateswereCanadianthantheydidwhentheirsubordinateswerealsoJapanese.Forinstance

theyreportedmoreuseofassertiveness,moreappealstoreasonandmoreuseofthreats.WithJapanesesubordinatesthey

reportedusinglessinﬂuencetactics,relyingmoreontheirsubordinates’intuitiveanticipationoftheirwishesthatwould

betypicalwithinanorganizationinJapan.Interviewswithrespondentsindicatedthatthesecontrastswereonlypartlydue

toaconsciousintentiontoadapt.IntervieweesreportedthattheirlackofcompleteﬂuencyinEnglishledthemtoexpress

themselvesinwaysthatwerelikelytobeperceivedasmoredirectandassertive.

Whilethisstudydidprovidesomeevidenceofbehavioralchange,itdoesnottelluswhytheJapanesemanagersconsidered

thisadaptationnecessary,norwhetheritenhancedtheireffectiveness.ThomasandRavlin(1995)didﬁndevidencefora

favorableresponsetoculturaladaptationbyJapanesemanagers.USemployeesofaJapaneseﬁrmlocatedintheUSresponded

morepositivelytoavideotapeinwhichaJapanesemanagerhadadaptedhisbehaviortotheUScontextthantooneinwhich

hedidnot.Theadaptedmanagerwasperceivedasmoreeffectiveandmoretrustworthy,particularlywhenthebehavior

changewasattributedtointernalcauses.

Afurtherﬁeldinwhichculturaladaptationsmayoftenberequiredisthatofcross-culturalnegotiation.PekertiandThomas

(2003)showedthatwhenCaucasianNewZealandstudentsnegotiatedwithEastAsianstudents,thecontrastbetweenthe

partiesbecamemoreextremethanwhennegotiatingintra-culturally.NewZealandersincreasedtheiremphasisontask

issues,whiletheEastAsiansincreasedtheirfrequencyofharmonizingbehaviors.Thesechangeswereassociatedwithtwo

negativeoutcomes:increasedunwillingnesstochangepositionandincreasedtimetoachieveagreement.Intheirstudy

discussedearlier,AdairandBrett(2005)alsoincludeddyadsthatpittedahigh-contextnegotiatoragainstalow-context

negotiator.Thehigh-contextnegotiatorswerefromJapanandHongKong.Theywerefoundtobecomemoredirectintheir

communicationwhilethelow-contextUSnegotiatorsshowednochange.Despitethisadaptationthenegotiationoutcomes

werelessgoodthanforeithertypeofmonoculturaldyad.

Theexistingliteraturethusindicatesthatbehavioraladaptationsoccursometimesbutnotalways,andthatadaptation

maybemorefrequentamongthosefromcollectivistcultures.Thisiswhatmightbeexpected,givencollectivists’greater

attentiontocontext.

Hypothesis4. Ratedbehaviorchangewillbegreateramongcollectivists.

2.4. Behaviorchangeandoutcome

Furtherhypothesesthereforefocusontherelationbetweenbehaviorchangeandpositiveoutcome.Theliteratureon

cross-culturalskillsindicatestheskillsthattrainersseektoenhanceinmaximizingcross-culturaleffectiveness.Thomasand

Fitzsimmons(2008)differentiateinformationskills,interpersonalskills,actionskillsandanalyticskillsandsuggestthateach

ofthesecouldcontributetotaskachievement,relationshipdevelopmentandpersonaladjustment.Thegeneralliteratureon

stressandcoping(Lazarus,1999)hasyieldedsubstantialevidencethatactiveattemptstocopewithproblematicworkevents

havegreaterprobabilityofachievingpositiveoutcomes,whereasthosethatarecharacterizedbypassivity,withdrawalor

negativeemotionalitywouldhinderoutcome.However,thedeterminantsofworkstrainarefoundtodifferincollectivist

cultures(Spector,Cooper,Sanchez,O’Driscoll,&Sparks,2001),andtherearesomeindicationsthatinthesecontexts

emotion-focusedresponsesmaycontributemorestronglytopositiveoutcomeatwork(Bhagatetal.,2010).O’ConnorandShimuzu

(2002)foundthatproblem-focusedcopingwaseffectiveamongbothJapaneseandBritishstudents,butthatemotion-focused

copingwasalsoimportantfortheJapanese.However,noneofthesestudiesprovidesdirectguidanceastoeffectiveresponses

incross-nationalcontexts.Hypothesis5focusesonculture-generaleffectsofbehaviorchange.

Hypothesis5. Positiveoutcomewillbeassociatedpositivelywithuseofproblem-focusedbehaviorsandnegativelywith

useofemotionalbehaviors.

Theuseofculturalintelligencerequirestheselectionofbehaviorchangesthatareappropriatetotheproblemthathas

arisen.Forinstance,wherelanguageproblemsarise,sometypeoflanguageadjustmentwouldbeappropriate.Thiscould

entailspeakingmoreslowly,usingsimpliﬁedvocabulary,checkingforunderstanding,switchingtoanotherlanguageor

(5)

establishinganadequaterelationshipbasisforworktoproceed.Whererulesandproceduresbecomeapriority,taskfocuswill

likelyberequiredforinstanceinmakingclearthenatureofcross-nationaldifferencesinrequiredprocedures.Asdiscussed

earlier,membersofcollectivistculturestendtogivemoreattentiontothecontextwithinwhichinteractionsoccur(Nisbett

etal.,2000).Thisimpliesthatwheninteractingwithsomeonefromanindividualistnationwithataskfocus,collectivistswill

accommodatebyalsoadoptingataskfocus,aswehavenoted(Adair&Brett,2005;Rao&Hashimoto,1996).SinceHypothesis

5alreadypredictsamaineffectoftaskfocusonpositiveoutcome,thereislessreasontopredictaninteractionbetweentask

focusandcollectivism.Conversely,ifamemberofanindividualistculturefailstoaccommodatetotherelationalneedsof

someonefromacollectivistnation,outcomewillbeimpaired.Aninteractioneffectshouldbefound.

Hypothesis6. Positiveoutcomewillbehigherwhenproblem-focusedbehaviorsareusedinrelationtootherpartiesfrom

individualistnationsandwhenharmonizingbehaviorsareusedinrelationtootherpartiesfromcollectivistnations.

3. Method

3.1. Surveydesign

Respondentswereaskedtodescribeinafewsentencesadifﬁcultythattheyhadexperiencedwhenworkingwithsomeone

fromanationotherthantheirown.Itwasspeciﬁedthatthiscouldrelateeithertoapersonwithinone’sownorganization,

orinbuyer-sellerrelationsorothertypesofrelationshipwithotherparties.Theywereaskedtoreportwhathappenedand

tostate‘whatwerethereasonsthatmadeyoufeelthatitwasdifﬁculttoworkwiththeperson(s)comparedtoworking

withsomeonefromyourownculture/nationality’.Inasubsequentquestion,theywereaskedtoindicatewhatchangesin

theirnormalbehaviortheynoticedinthissituation.Thesurveyalsoincluded24checkboxitemsdescribingthecontextof

theinteractionandthreeﬁve-pointratingscales.Theseaskedforratingsofwhethertheywouldhavebehavedinthesame

waywithsomeoneoftheirownnationality(Entirelythesame/Entirelydifferent),whatwastheoutcome(Allaspectsbad/All

aspectsgood),andhowimportantwastheoutcometotherespondent(Notimportant/Criticallyimportant).Respondents

alsogavedetailsoftheirage,gender,jobroleandnationality,aswellastheoneormorenationalitiesoftheotherparties

involved.MostsurveyswerecompletedinEnglish(58%),followedbySpanish(19%),andPortuguese(13%),Turkish(3%),

MandarinChinese(2%),GermanandFrench(bothlessthan1%).EventdescriptionsweretranslatedintoEnglishbycompetent

bilingualsbeforecoding.

3.2. Participants

Respondentswererecruitedinavarietyofways,includingattendanceatmanagementtrainingworkshops,internal

companydistributionbye-mail,andpersonalapproachinpublicplacessuchasairportsandcommutertrains.Noestimate

ofresponserateisavailable.Mostoftherespondentswereemployeesoforganizationsintheirowncountries,occupying

variouspositions,predominantlyatthemanageriallevel.1270codableresponseswerereceived.Approximately30ofthese

respondentsdescribedtwoseparateevents,whereeachoftheotherpartieswasfromadifferentnation.Somerespondents

alsodescribedeventsinwaysthatrequiredmorethanonecodeusingthecategoriesdescribedbelow.Totalproblemevent

descriptionswere1497.Detailsoftherespondents(R)whodescribedeacheventandtheotherparties(OP)withwhomthey

interactedaresummarizedbynationinTable1.Amongthe10regionalclustersidentiﬁedbyHouseetal.(2004),onlythe

Nordicclusterisnotsampled.Respondentsweredrawnfromawiderangeoforganizationalfunctions.Theywerenotasked

toprovideadditionaldetailsoftheircross-nationalexperience,becausethefocusofthestudywasonthenatureofproblems

thatariseandhowtheseproblemsareaddressed,ratherthanondifferentiatingskilledfromunskilledpractitioners.Since

respondentswerepermittedtochoosewhichproblemepisodetodescribe,thedistributionoftheotherparty’snationdiffers

fromthatoftherespondents.

3.3. Predictorvariables

Thein-groupcollectivismsocietalpracticesscoresprovidedbyHouseetal.(2004)wereusedforhypothesistesting.The

practicesmeasurewaspreferredtothevaluesmeasurebecausethefocusofthisstudyisonreportedbehaviors,noton

desiredstates.Thesocietalmeasureswereusedbecausethefocusofthisstudyisoncross-nationalcontrasts.Eachproblem

eventdescriptionwasassignedthein-groupcollectivismscorefortherespondent’snationandfortheotherparty’snation.In

thesampleasawholethemeancollectivismscorefortherespondent’snationwas5.07(SD.71),whilethatforotherparty’s

nationwas4.76(SD.69).Theindividual-levelcorrelationbetweenthesescoreswas–0.13(p<.001,n=1106).Thus,the

samplehadasmallpredominanceofrespondentsfromcollectivistnations,includinginteractionsthatpairedindividualists

andcollectivists, butalsoincludinginteractionsthatpaireddifferentindividualistnations aswellasothersthatpaired

differentcollectivistnations.

Responsestothe24checkboxitemswereusedtospecifythecontextswithinwhichthedescribedeventsoccurred.Table2

showsthatscoreson13oftheseitemsweresigniﬁcantlycorrelatedattheindividuallevelofanalysiswiththecollectivism

(6)

Table1

Problemeventreportsbytherespondent’snationandbythenationofotherparty.

NationofR N MeanAge %Male RCOLL NationofOP N MeanAge %Male OPCOLL

Brazil 238 35.5 50 5.16 US 179 35.5 61 5.27 UK 135 39.2 51 4.08 Germany 88 34.0 62 5.05 Chile 107 43.3 71 – UK 81 36.3 68 5.24 Lebanon 94 38.5 63 – France 80 37.4 52 4.96 Singapore 88 37.2 49 5.49 Japan 66 39.0 69 5.28 Mexico 79 31.5 67 5.62 China 61 37.4 67 4.77 India 59 36.9 91 5.81 India 59 36.6 57 4.72 Nigeria 54 37.3 93 5.34 Italy 50 37.6 59 5.04 Turkey 48 34.8 59 5.79 Spain 38 38.8 40 4.91 China 47 27.9 47 5.86 Australia 30 39.0 59 5.28 Spain 44 32.9 86 5.53 Argentina 27 35.3 58 5.71 US 43 36.9 58 4.22 Colombia 27 37.7 67 5.39

NewZealand 41 39.7 56 3.58 S.Korea 23 35.3 70 5.53

Netherlands 32 37.7 87 3.79 Netherlands 20 40.2 79 4.96

Colombia 23 33.7 73 5.59 Canada 16 38.7 47 5.47

Germany 18 36.6 76 4.16 Sweden 16 38.5 75 4.58

AllOthers 130 34.5 56 4.99 AllOthers 250 36.0 62 4.92

Total 1270 36.5 62 5.07 Total 1111 36.3 63 4.78

Notes:COLL=In-GroupCollectivismpracticesscoresfromHouseetal.(2004).Scoresforlessfrequentnationsnotlisted.R=Respondent,OP=OtherParty. Meansforcollectivismforthesamenationdifferinthetwocolumns,becausethelefthandmeanreferstoR’snationwhiletherighthandmeanrefersto thenationsofthepersonswithwhomOPwasinteracting.

Table2

Businesscontextssigniﬁcantlyassociatedwithresponsesfrommoreindividualistandmorecollectivistnations.

Responsescorrelatedwithindividualism r Responsescorrelatedwithcollectivism r

Wewereinthesameteam .10*** _I_was_seeking_to_buy _.16***

Thesituationrecurredrepeatedly .16*** _I_was_meeting_the_OP_for_the_ﬁrst_time _.07**

TheOPwasajuniorinmyorganization .22*** _The_OP_was_a_superior_in_my_organization _.14**

Weweremeetingfacetoface .14*** _We_were_{communicating}_{electronically} _.11***

WespokeinEnglish .13*** _My_own_nationals_were_also_involved _.07*

Wewerespeakingmyﬁrstlanguage .36*** _Three_or_more_{nationalities}_were_involved _.06*

WewerespeakingOP’sﬁrstlanguage .09*

*_p_<_.05. **_p_<_.01. ***_p_<_.001.

3.4. Designofbehaviorindices

Giventheabsenceofanypre-existingcategorizationofworkproblemsexperiencedincross-culturalsettings,the

cat-egoriestobeusedincodingproblemeventsandthereportedbehaviorchangesweredevelopedinductively,basedpartly

ontheﬁrst50surveystobereceivedandpartlybyusingasaguidelinethoseculturaldimensionsidentiﬁedbyHouseetal.

(2004)thatextendoramplifyHofstede’s(1980)earlierdimensions.Adetailedcodingmanualcomprising29eventcategories

wasdeveloped.2

Beforecoding,theeventdescriptionswerescannedtodeterminewhethertheycontainedasufﬁcientlyadequate

descrip-tiontopermitcoding.Responsesinwhichverygeneraldescriptionswereprovided,forexamplethosethatattributedthe

problemto‘culturaldifferences’or‘differencesofviewpoint’werediscarded.Theremaining1497casesweretranscribed

inarandomisedsequence,withthenationalitiesoftherespondentandtheotherpartydeleted.Wherearesponsereferred

toproblemsencounteredwithpersonsfromtwoormorenations,separatecaseswerecreatedforeachofthenationalities

involved,withseparatecodesbeingassignedinthoseinstanceswhererespondentsindicatedthattheirbehaviortoward

differentpartieswasnotthesame.Manyoftheresponsesdescribedcomplexsequencesofactionsandreactions.To

repre-sentthisdataadequately,coderswerealsopermittedtoassignmorethanonecodetoaneventwherethedescriptionwas

sufﬁcientlyrich.44%ofeventsreceivedtwoagreedcodesand18%receivedthreeagreedcodes(independentofwhether

thesecodeswereinitiallyagreedornot).Theseproceduresraisedthenumberofcodesassignedinthedatabaseto2018.

Alleventswerecodedindependentlybytwooftheauthorsofthispaper,whoareofdifferentnationalityandwerenot

directlyinvolvedinthedatacollection.Cohen’skappaforinitialcodeswas.64.Thecodersdiscussedalleventsonwhich

therewasnotinitialagreementuntil100%agreementwasachieved.

(7)

Table3

FactoranalysisofbehaviorsthatareI–Crelevantandrespondent-focused.

Factor1:performanceoriented Factor2:taskfocus Factor3:ruleoriented

Runiversalistic .74 Rperformanceoriented .77 Rassertive .53 Rtask-oriented .43 Rperson-oriented −.74 Rfavorsrules −.81 Rfavorsﬂexibility .55

Eigenvalue/(%varianceexplained) 1.24(18) 1.10(16) 1.04(15)

Table4

FactoranalysisofbehaviorsthatareI–Crelevantandother-party-focused.

Factor1:OPuniversalistic Factor2:OPexcludesme Factor3:OPemotional

OPuniversalistic .70 OPassertive .61 OPpassive −.46 OPexcludesme −.82 OPisindirect .48 −.56 OPisemotional .78

Eigenvalue/(%varianceexplained) 1.19(20) 1.06(18) 1.02(17) Note:Inhypothesistests,thesignofFactor2wasreversedtoreﬂectthefactthattheitemmoststronglydeﬁningthefactorloadsnegatively.

Amongthe29categoriesintheoverallcodingscheme,13wereconsideredrelevanttoindividualism-collectivism.Seven

oftheserefertotherespondent’s(R)emphasisontheirpreferredornon-preferredbehaviors(e.g.,Rassertive),whilesix

othersrefertoR’sviewoftheotherparty(OP)(e.g.,OPexcludesme).Separatefactoranalyseswereconductedinorderto

createscoresrelevanttoindividualism-collectivismfortheeventsthatreceivedanRcodeandforeventsthatreceivedan

OPcode.AtleastoneofthesevencodesreferringtoR’sbehaviorwaspresentfor471events.Briefdescriptionsofthenature

ofthesecodesareshowninTable3,alongwiththeresultsofafactoranalysisofthesecases,usingvarimaxrotation.Three

factorsaccountingfor49%variancewereextracted,identiﬁedas‘performanceorientation’,‘taskfocus’and‘ruleorientation’.

Inasimilarway,codesfor566eventsreferringtoOP’sbehaviorwerefactoranalyzed,againusingvarimaxrotation,asshown

inTable4.Threefactorsaccountingfor56%variancewereextracted,identiﬁedas‘OPuniversalistic’,‘Iamexcluded’and

‘OPemotional’.EventscodedasOPuniversalisticwerethoseinwhichOPisperceivedastakingnoaccountofcultural

differences.Amongtheremainingcasesnotincludedintheseanalyses,codesfor535eventsreferredtoaspectsoflanguage

difﬁcultiesandafurther446codesreferredtoawidevarietyofotherproblemevents,ofwhichthemostfrequentwas

ageneralreferencetocommunicationdifﬁculties.Theselattercaseswereincludedonlyinthetestingofthehypotheses

concerningoutcome.Thenumberofcodesexceedsthenumberofcasesbecauseofmultiplecodinginsomeinstances.

Responsestotheopen-endedbehaviorchangequestionwerecodedbythesametwocoders.Sixbehaviorchangeindices

werecreatedandlabelledas‘taskinitiative’(forinstance,initiating,beingmoreassertive,directorrational),‘harmony

initiative’(forinstance,empathizing,consulting,socializing,beingopen-mindedandpatient),‘adjustlanguage’,‘adaptto

otherparty’sbehavior’,‘defensivewithdrawal’(forinstance,expressingcaution,defensiveness,frustration,helplessnessor

withdrawal),and‘nochange’.Initialagreementonbehaviorchangecodeswas85%.

4. Results

Resultswereanalysedthroughtheuseofindividual-levelcorrelationsandregressions.Table5givescorrelationsbetween

thevariousindices.Theupperdiagonalofthetablereferstothe471casesforwhichtheassignedcodewasoneoftheseven

codesthatfocusontherespondentandweredeemedtoberelevanttoindividualism-collectivism(seeTable3).Thelower

diagonalreferstothe566casesforwhichtheassignedcodewasoneofthesixcodesthatfocusonperceptionsoftheother

partyandwerealsodeemedrelevanttoindividualism-collectivism(seeTable4).ThevaluesofNvarybecausethescores

derivedfromHouseetal.(2004)arenotavailableforallnationssampled.

4.1. Hypothesistests

Hypotheses1–3weretestedthroughtheuseofthestepwiseregressionsshowninTables6and7.Eachofthesetables

showstworegressions.Inallregressions,thedemographicfactorsofageandgenderwereenteredatStep1,withpredictors

thenenteredatSteps2and3.InEquation1inTable6,thepredictorsspeciﬁedinHypothesis1areenteredatStep2.A

signiﬁcantincreaseinR2_is_found._Respondents_from_{individualist}_nations_give_more_emphasis_to_performance_orientation

andtotaskfocus,butthereisnoeffectforrulesfocus.Inasimilarway,inEquation1inTable7,thepredictorsspeciﬁedin

Hypothesis2areenteredatStep2.AsigniﬁcantincreaseinR2_is_again_found._More_collectivist_respondents_perceive_the_other

(8)

Table5

Correlationsforpredictorsanddependentmeasures.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.Rcollectivism – −.13* _−.20*** _−.20*** _.03 _.26*** _−.08 _−.02 _.00 _−.19*** _.00 _.06 _.12* _−.11* 2.OPcollectivism −.13* _– _.10 _.04 _−.09 _−.09 _.02 _−.02 _.02 _−.04 _−.08 _.03 _.10 _.12* 3.Rperformanceoriented −.08 .12** _– _−.01 _.00 _−.13* _−.01 _.00 _−.01 _.12* _−.15** _.07 _.00 _−.08 4.Rtaskfocus .05 −.07 −.07 – .00 .01 .21*** _−.03 _−.07 _−.11* _.11* _−.09 _.09 _.06 5.Rruleoriented .04 −.07 −.08 .09 – .15** _.12* _.01 _.08 _.08 _−.07 _−.05 _.11* _−.03 6.OPuniversalistic .11* _−.11* _−.13* _.00 _.14** _– _−.06 _−.05 _.06 _.03 _.05 _−.13* _.22*** _−.05 7.OPexcludesme −.11* _.15** _.01 _.13* _.08 _−.04 _– _−.01 _−.03 _−.07 _−.12* _−.17** _.04 _.05 8.OPemotional −.14** _−.03 _−.04 _−.03 _.00 _−.02 _−.01 _– _−.05 _.14** _.01 _−.08 _−.03 _−.09 9.Ratedchange −.04 .03 .01 .00 .03 .01 .00 −.10* _– _.01 _.03 _.06 _.08 _.04 10.CH:Emotionalfocus −.09 −.13** _−.03 _−.10* _.06 _−.03 _−.09 _.15** _.06 _– _−.28*** _−.29*** _−.15** _−.15** 11.CH:Taskfocus .07 −.02 −.12* _.16*** _−.10* _.04 _−.09 _.00 _.08 _−.25*** _– _−.27*** _−.16** _−.10* 12.CH:Harmony −.09 .10* _−.16*** _.04 _−.10* _−.03 _.09 _−.10* _.11* _−.41*** _−.21*** _– _−.17*** _−.15** 13.CH:Adaptbehavior .10 .08 −.03 .02 .11* _.08 _.09 _−.01 _.085 _−.21*** _−.11* _−.18*** _– _−.09 14.CH:Adjustlanguage .04 .14** _−.04 _.07 _.02 _−.01 _.01 _−.11* _−.11* _−.16*** _−.09 _−.14** _−.07 _–

Note:R=Respondent.OP=OtherParty.CH=Codesforbehaviorchange.ValuesabovethediagonalrefertocasesthatareI–CrelevantandR-focused, n=335–405.ValuesbelowthediagonalrefertocasesthatareI–CrelevantandOP-focused,n=419–535.Variationinnisprincipallyduetoabsenceof collectivismscoresforsomenations.

*_p_<_.05. **_p_<_.01. ***_p_<_.001.

4.2. Hypothesis3

AsaﬁrststepintestingHypothesis3,itwasnecessarytodeterminetherelationbetweentheproximalfactorsand

culturalvalues.TheassociationofbusinesscontextwithvalueswasdeterminedthroughtheregressionsshownasEquation

2inTable6andinTable7.Sincenopredictionwasmadeastowhichaspectsofbusinesscontextmightberelatedtothe

dependentmeasure,forwardentrywasusedtodeterminewhichofthe24availableindiceshadasigniﬁcanteffect.

InTable6,14aspectsofcontextenteredtheequationatStep2.Respondentsfromindividualisticnationsweremore

frequentlyspeakingtheirownlanguage,morefrequentlyspeakingEnglish,moreseniortotheotherparty,moreoften

inface-to-facecontact,andinsituationsthatwereeitherrepeatedornovel.Conversely,respondentsfromcollectivistic

nationsweremoreoftenequalorjuniortotheotherparty,meetingthemfortheﬁrsttime,seekingtosellratherthanbuy,

Table6

RegressionofrespondentbehaviorsoncollectivismofR’snation,withandwithoutcontrolforbusinesscontexts.

Equation1 Equation2

R2 _F_change _ˇ _R2 _F_change _ˇ

Step1:Demographics .050 31.70*** _.049 _30.53***

Age −.15*** _−.15***

Gender .04 .04

Step2:BusinessPractices .318 19.21***

Wespokemyﬁrstlanguage −.35***

WespokeinEnglish −.22***

Situationoccurredrepeatedly −.15***

OPjuniortomeinmyorganization −.15***

Iwasseekingtobuy .11***

OPsuperiortomeinmyorganization .09***

Threeormorenationalitiespresent .09***

Myownnationalsalsoinvolved .09***

MeetingOPfortheﬁrsttime .09***

SpeakingOP’sﬁrstlanguage .08**

Singleoccasion −.08*

Communicatingelectronically .07*

Communicatingfacetoface −.07*

OPwasatsamelevel .06*

Step3:BehaviorFactors .075 11.00*** _.332 _5.96***

PerformanceOrientation −.12*** _−.07**

TaskFocus −.11*** _−.08***

RulesFocus .00 −.01

Notes:Tenadditionalaspectsofbusinesscontextsthatdidnotenterequation2atstep2arenotshown. *_p_<_.05.

**_p_<_.01. ***_p_<_.001.

(9)

Table7

RegressionofR’sperceptionofOP’sbehaviorsoncollectivismofOP’snation,withandwithoutcontrolforbusinesscontexts.

Equation1 Equation2

Step1:Demographics .000 0.26 .001 0.40

Age .02 .00

Gender .00 .02

Step2:BusinessPractices .049 10.74***

WespokeinOP’sﬁrstlanguage −.15***

WespokeinEnglish −.13***

OPwasasuperiorinmyorganization −.07**

OPwasjuniorinmyorganization .06*

Eventoccurredrepeatedly .06*

Iwasseekingtosell −.06*

Step3:FactorsforOP’sPerceivedBehavior .013 5.18** _.059 _4.27**

OPuniversalistic −.07* _−.06*

OPexcludesme −.08** _−.08**

OPemotional −.02 −.02

Notes:17additionalaspectsofbusinesscontextsthatdidnotenterequation2atstep2arenotshown. *_p_<_.05.

**_p_<_.01. ***_p_<_.001.

speakingtheotherparty’slanguageandcommunicatingelectronically.Cumulatively,theseproximalpredictorsaccounted

forasubstantiallygreateramountofvariancethanthedistalpredictors.Nonetheless,whenthedistalpredictorswereentered

atStep3,theyaccountedforsigniﬁcantadditionalvariance.ThevarianceexplainedbythedistalpredictorsinEquation2is

.014,comparedto.025inEquation1.

Equation2inTable7showsthatsixaspectsofbusinesscontextweresigniﬁcantlyrelatedtoindividualism-collectivism.

Wheretheotherpartywasfromanindividualistnation,theexchangewasmorelikelytobewithasuperiorandtobein

English,whichisnottherespondent’sﬁrstlanguage.Conversely,whentheotherpartywasfromacollectivistnation,the

exchangewasmorelikelytobeonethatrecurredandtobewithamorejuniorperson.Theseproximalpredictorsagain

accountedformorevariancethatthedistalpredictors,butinthiscasealsoadditionalsigniﬁcantvariancewasexplained

whenthedistalpredictorswereenteredatStep3.Varianceexplaineddeclinedfrom.013to.010.

Having determinedthatboththedistalandtheproximalpredictors areassociatedwithnation-level

individualism-collectivism,itbecomespossibletotestHypothesis3,whichdetermineswhetheranation’sculturalpracticespredictthe

occurrenceofindividualisticandcollectivisticbehaviorsafterproximalcontextualfactorshavebeendiscounted.Further

regressions(notshown)wereconducted.Anindexrecordingtheoccurrenceofanyoneoftherespondent’sindividualistic

behaviorslistedinTable3wasusedasthedependentmeasure.Afterdemographicsandthecontextualfactorsfoundin

Table6tobepredictiveofindividualism-collectivismhadbeenenteredatStep1,entryofthecollectivismscoreofR’snation

didnotaddsigniﬁcantlytovarianceexplained.Inthesameway,withanindexrecordingtherespondent’sperceptionof

anyoneofOP’sbehaviorslistedinTable4asthedependentmeasure,noadditionalvarianceisexplainedbyenteringthe

collectivismscoreofOP’snationafterdemographicsandcontextfactorshavebeenentered.Hypothesis3isnotsupported:

distalfactorswhollymediatetherelationbetweenindividualism–collectivismpracticesandtheoccurrenceofcollectivistic

andindividualisticbehaviors.

4.3. Hypothesis4

Hypothesis4concernsbehavioralchangeamongrespondentsfromcollectivistcultures.Twomeasuresofchangewere

available.Thenumericalratingofamountofperceivedchangefromhowonewouldhavebehaved witha co-national

correlatedmodestlybutsigniﬁcantlywiththebehaviorcodefornochangeat−.24(n=1479;p<.001).Thehypothesiswas

testedusingpartialcorrelations.Inthetotalsample,theratedmagnitudeofbehaviorchangecorrelatedwiththecollectivism

scoreofrespondent’snationat.04(df=1343;ns),aftercontrollingforageandgender.Inasimilarway,episodesforwhich

therewasnoreportedpresenceofbehaviorchangecorrelatedwithcollectivismofrespondents’nationat.03(df=1343;ns).

Hypothesis4isnotsupported.

4.4. Hypotheses5and6

Themeanratingofoutcomewas3.31(SD.87)onthe5-pointscale.Thus,thesamplecomprisedeventsforwhichthe

outcomewasreportedasmoderatelypositive.However,theratingoftheimportanceoftheoutcomewaslowerat2.44(SD

.90).Theratingsforoutcomeandimportancecorrelatedat0.11(n=1463;p<.001),suggestingthatthedatabasetendsto

(10)

Table8

Regressionofcollectivismandbehaviorchangesonreportedoutcome.

Equation1Respondent’sculture Equation2Otherparty’sculture

Step1:Demographics .003 1.49 .00 0.10

Age −.01 .00

Gender −.04 .01

Step2:CulturalValues .007 5.93* _.00 _0.01

Collectivism .06* _−.01

Step3:BehavioralResponse .066 14.92*** _.052 _15.33***

Defensivewithdrawal −.16*** _−.16*** TaskFocus .08* _.09** Harmony .06 .04 AdaptBehavior .03 .03 AdjustLanguage .09** _.08* Step4:Interactions .072 1.45 .062 3.51** IC×Defensivewithdrawal .02 .11*** IC×TaskFocus .00 .05 IC× Harmony −.03 .12*** IC×AdaptBehavior .07 .07* IC× AdjustLanguage .01 .03 *_p_<_.05. **_p_<_.01. ***_p_<_.001.

ofbehaviorchangewas2.69(SD1.20),somewhatbelowthescalemidpoint,suggestingthatmostchangeswereperceived

asrelativelymodest.Partialcorrelationscontrollingforageandgendershowedthatpositiveoutcomewasassociatedwith

ratedamountofbehaviorchangeat−.09(n=1343;p<.001),butwithepisodesforwhichsomeformofbehaviorchange

wascodedat.00(n=1421;ns).Thus,thereissomesuggestionthatnegativelyevaluatedbehaviorchangeswererather

moresubstantialthanpositiveones.Theremaininghypothesestestwhetheritispossibletopredicttheoccurrenceofthose

changesthatwereevaluatedpositively.

Hypotheses5and6weretestedthroughtwofurtherregressionsthatareshowninTable8.Thedependentmeasurewas

respondent’sratingofthepositiveoutcomeoftheeventthattheyhaddescribed.Attheﬁrststep,demographiccontrols

wereentered.InEquation1ontheleftofthetable,thecollectivismscoreoftherespondent’snationwasentered,followed

bythecodesforthedifferenttypesofrespondent’sbehaviorchangeatStep3,andinteractiontermsbetweencollectivism

andbehaviorchangeatStep4.Thevariableswerecentredbeforecomputationofinteractionterms.Thesigniﬁcantincrease

ofvarianceexplainedatStep2indicatesthatalthoughtherewasnoevidenceforgreaterchangebyrespondentsfrom

collectivistnations,theyweresigniﬁcantlymorepositiveaboutthechangesthattheydidmake.Thefurtherincreasein

varianceexplainedatStep3providessupportforHypothesis5.Positiveoutcomewasassociatedwithbehaviorchangethat

wastaskfocusedorinvolvedadjustmentoflanguage.Itwasnegativelyassociatedwithdefensivewithdrawal.Therewere

nosigniﬁcantinteractioneffectsatStep4.

Equation2inTable8showstheresultsofasecondregression,inwhichthecollectivismofOP’snationisenteredatStep

2.Thisshowsnomaineffectforcollectivism,andreplicatestheeffectsfortypesofbehaviorchangeatStep3.However,there

isnowasigniﬁcanteffectatStep4.WhereOPisfromacollectivistnation,harmonybehaviors,behavioraladaptationand

defensivewithdrawalareallratedmorepositively.Inthecaseofdefensivewithdrawal,sincethereisamaineffectwitha

negativesign,theinteractiontermindicatesthatdefensivewithdrawalbehaviorsareratedlessnegativelywhenOPisfrom

acollectivistnationthanfromanindividualistnation.Hypothesis6issupported.

5. Discussion

Thecentralthemeofthispaperhasbeenuponthegreatertendencyofpersonsfromcollectivistnationstofocustheir

atten-tionuponthecontextwithinwhichinteractionsoccur.Itwasexpectedthatthisemphasiswouldbeassociatedwithdifferent

patternsofbehavior,differencesinwillingnesstochangebehavioraccordingtocircumstanceanddifferentrequirements

forpositiveoutcomesofcross-nationalinteractions.

Thestudyhassurveyedactualtypesofproblemepisodethatbusinessemployeesreportwhenworkingcross-nationally,

andrelatedtheincidenceandhandlingoftheseproblemstoakeydimensionofculturalvariation.Nation-levelscores

forindividualism–collectivismpracticesdidpredictreportsofindividualisticandcollectivisticbehaviorsbyrespondents.

However,thesesameeffectsweremuchmorestronglypredictedbythemoreproximalcontextualfactorscharacterizingthe

circumstanceswithinwhichtheeventstookplace.Thecontextualfactorsarenotindependentofindividualism-collectivism.

(11)

thatHofstede(1980)ﬁrstidentiﬁedintermsofvalues.Heandothershavesubsequentlynotedthatcontrastsbetween

individualismandcollectivismarealsoconfoundedwithdifferencesinnationalwealth.Itmaybethatifthepresentstudy

hadincludedmeasuresofthevaluesofindividualrespondentsthesecouldhaveaccountedforasmuchvarianceasdid

thecontextualfactors.Particularlyindatafromnationsthatappearedinfrequentlyinthepresentsample,nation-level

meansmaybeinadequatelyrepresentative.However,errorsduetounrepresentativenessofthiskindwouldfavorthenull

hypothesis.Furthermore,culturalcontrastsintheliteraturefromHofstede(1980)toHouseetal.(2004)havebeenderived

fromcontrastsinnation-levelscoresforvaluesandpractices,notfromindividualscores.Astrikingaspectofthepresent

ﬁndingsisthatcontrastsinbehaviorscharacterizedasindividualistorcollectivistcanbestbepredictedbyproximalaspects

ofcontextsuchasthelanguagespokenandtherelativestatusofthepartiesinvolved,ratherthanbyprevailingcultural

practices.

Testingforlinksbetweendimensionsofnationalcultureandtheincidenceofworkproblemsisachallengingassignment,

sincetheremaybeconsiderablevariabilityinboththesettingsandtheindividualsengagedincross-culturalinteractions.The

majorityofcross-culturalinteractionsmayindeedbeproblemfree.However,respondentswereaskedtoreportproblems

andhadnodifﬁcultyinidentifyingthem.Perhapsbecauseofthediversityofthevarioustypesofproblemssurveyed,the

associationsidentiﬁedbetweenthemeasureofcollectivismandtypesofreportedproblemachievedonlymodestlevelsof

signiﬁcance.

ThehypothesistestsconductedthroughanalysisofR’sperspectiveonOP’sbehavioramplifytheseresults.TheOPanalyses

refertoadifferentrangeofnations,andplacetogethertheperceptionsofsetsofpersonsfromavarietyofcultureswhohave

incommononlythattheywereallinteractingwithpersonsfromasinglespeciﬁcnation.Despitethesemajordifferencesin

perspective,theassociationsfoundbetweenproblemtypeandcollectivismarecompatiblewiththeresultsobtainedfrom

therespondent’sownperspective.

IntheanalysesusingR’sperspectiveonlytwoofthreepredictedbehaviorpatternswerefound.Respondentsfrom

indi-vidualistnationsdidnotmorefrequentlyfavorfollowingrulesoverﬂexibility.Thefailureofthispredictionmayhavebeen

becauseofratherfrequentreferencestotheinﬂexibilityandincompatibilityofrulesconcerningimportandexportbetween

collectivistnationssuchasBrazilandTurkeyandothernations.ThepreferenceforrulesidentiﬁedbyHouseetalisfocused

moreuponpreferenceforfollowingestablishedrulesandprocedureswithinone’snation.

IntheanalysesreferringtoOP,itwasagainthecasethatonlytwoofthethreepredictionsweresupported.OPsfrom

individualistnationswerenotmorefrequentlyseenasemotional.Thefailureofthispredictionwasmostprobablybecause

whenoneparty becomesstronglyemotional,theotherparty tendstofollow suit.Therewereasubstantialnumber of

episodesofthistypewithinthedatabase.

While theresultsof this studyconﬁrm the continuingexistence of approaches to cross-culturalinteractions that

are contrasting and predictable from cultural dimensions and their correlates, it is the nature and effectiveness of

behavior changesthatareofstrongest interest.Nosupportwasfoundforthepredictionthatcollectivistswould more

frequentlyreportthattheyhadchangedtheirbehavior.Furtheranalysesindicatedthattheratingofchangewas

corre-latedbothwiththeincidenceof changesassociatedwithpositiveoutcome(forinstance,r=.08,n=1479,p<.001with

harmonyfocus)andwithchangesassociatedwithnegativeoutcome(r=.09,n=1479,p<.001withemotionalfocus).The

changeratingwasthereforeinsufﬁcientlyprecisetodetectwhethercollectivistsdoinfactmakeadaptivechangesmore

frequently.

Defensivewithdrawalwasfoundtobeassociatedwithpoorratedoutcome,whiletheotherfourindicesofbehavioral

changewereallsigniﬁcantlylinkedwithoneormorepositiveoutcomes.Thegeneralityoftheseeffectsprovidessome

supporttotheviewpointofthosewhoendorseaculture-generalmodelofculturalintelligence(Earley&Ang,2003;Thomas

&Inkson,2004).Thesuccessofthepredictedinteractionsbetweenthecollectivismoftheotherpartyandadaptivechanges

alsosupportstheutilityofcontext-speciﬁcformsofadaptation.Anillustrativeexampleselectedfromthedatabaseshows

arespondentfromanindividualistnationadaptinghisapproachtothemorerelationalperspectiveoftheotherpartyfrom

amorecollectivistnation:

Problem:TheotherpartyhadproposedaninvestmentwhichIhadtoevaluate.Aftertryingtoworkbye-mail,Idecided

togotoMadridtoworkfacetoface.Ihadtocoachtheotherpartyinhowtopreparetheproposal,inthecourseof

whichwebothcametorealisethattherewasabettersolutionthanhisoriginal.

BehaviorChange:Itooklongerthannormaltogothroughthereviewandspenttimesocialisingwithmycounterpart.

5.1. Limitations

Thisstudysoughttobridgethegapbetweentheliteratureoncross-culturalskillsandculturaldimensions.Todoso

effectively,alargesampleofrespondentswasrequired.Thedataarebasedonrelativelybriefself-reportsandthereisno

independentdataderivedfromtheotherpartiesinvolvedinthesameinteractionsastohowtheyperceivedwhatoccurred.

Thesampleincludedrespondentsfromawiderangeofnationalcultures,spanningnineofHouseetal.’s(2004)tenregional

clusters.Personsfromlesswealthynationswereoverrepresentedasrespondentsandtheirreportstendedtobefocused

oninteractionswiththosefrommorewealthynations.Thestudyalsolacksindicationsfromrespondentsastotheextent

towhichtheyendorsethemostcharacteristicpracticesoftheirnation,sothatthehypotheseswillhavebeenmostvalidly

(12)

ofwhatwasfound,butleaveintacttheindicationsthatitisvaluabletofocusstudiesontheefﬁcacyofcontext-speciﬁc

behaviorchangeinenhancingcross-culturaleffectiveness.

5.2. Conclusions

Theresultsindicatethatthetypesofworkproblemthatariseincross-nationalinteractionscanbeunderstoodintermsof

theculturalcontrastspreviouslyidentiﬁedusingintra-nationaldata.Howevertheseeffectsarenotsimplytheconsequence

ofcontrastingculturalpractices.Theycanbebetterunderstoodintermsoftheconsequencesofassociatedglobaldifferences

inwealth,powerandlinguisticskills.Theresultsconcerningtheoutcomesofinteractionsprovideabasisformoreeffective

trainingincross-culturalskills.Trainingthatfocusessolelyonbrieﬁngsabouttheotherparty’sculturalcontextisunlikely

toelicitawarenessofone’sownroleinthecreationofproblemepisodes.Outcomesareenhancedwherepersonsfrommore

collectivistnationsareabletoaccommodateindividualists’focusontaskissues,andwherepersonsfrommoreindividualistic

nationscangiverespecttocollectivists’awarenessofrelationalcontext.Trainingthatgivesdirectandsystematicattention

tothesetypesofreciprocaleffectscanyieldenhancedvalue.Designsbuiltonthisbasiscanunifytheworkbothofthosewho

deﬁneculturalintelligenceinaculture-generalwayandofthosewhobelievethatculturalskillsaremoresituation-speciﬁc.

References

Adair,W.L.,&Brett,J.M.(2005).Thenegotiationdance:Time,culture,andbehavioralsequencesinnegotiation.OrganizationalScience,16(1),33–51. Allik,J.,&McCrae,R.R.(2004).Towardageographyofpersonalitytraits:Patternsofproﬁlesacross36cultures.JournalofCross-CulturalPsychology,34,

13–28.

Bhagat,R.S.,Krishnan,B.,Nelson,T.A.,Leonard,L.M.,Ford,D.L.,&Billing,T.K.(2010).Organizationalstress,psychologicalstrain,andworkoutcomes insixnationalcontexts:Acloserlookatthemoderatinginﬂuencesofcopingstylesanddecisionlatitude.Cross-CulturalManagement:AnInternational Journal,17,10–29.

Brislin,R.(1981).Cross-culturalencounters:Face-to-faceinteraction.Elmsford,NY:PergamonPress.

Brew,F.,&Cairns,D.R.(2004).Docultureorsituationalconstraintsdeterminechoiceofdirectorindirectstylesininterculturalworkplaceconﬂicts? InternationalJournalofInterculturalRelations,28,331–352.

Drake,L.(2001).Theculture-negotiationlink:Integrativeanddistributivebargainingthroughaninterculturalcommunicationslens.HumanCommunication Research,27,317–349.

Earley,P.C.,&Ang,S.(2003).Culturalintelligence:Individualinteractionsacrosscultures.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

Graham,J.L.,Mintu,A.T.,&Rodgers,W.(1994).Explorationsofnegotiationbehaviorsintenforeigncultures,usingamodeldevelopedintheUnitedStates. ManagementScience,40,72–95.

Gudykunst,W.B.,Matsumoto,Y.,Ting-Toomey,S.,Nishida,T.,Kim,K.,&Heyman,S.(1996).Theinﬂuenceofculturalindividualism-collectivism, self-construalsandindividualvaluesoncommunicationstylesacrosscultures.HumanCommunicationResearch,22,510–543.

Hall,E.T.(1966).Thehiddendimension.NewYork:Doubleday.

Hofstede,G.(1980).Cultureˇısconsequences:Internationaldifferencesinworkrelatedvalues.BeverlyHills,CA:Sage.

Hofstede,G.(2001).Culture’sconsequences:Comparingvalues,behaviorsinstitutionsandorganizationsacrossnations(2nded.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage. House,R.J.,Hanges,P.J.,Javidan,M.,Dorfman,P.W.,&Gupta,V.(Eds.).(2004).Leadership,culture,andorganizations:TheGLOBEstudyof62societies.

ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Inglehart,R.(1997).Modernizationandpostmodernization:Cultural,economicandpoliticalchangein43societies.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress. Kirkman,B.L.,Lowe,K.B.,&Gibson,C.B.(2006).AquartercenturyofCulture’sConsequences:AreviewofempiricalresearchincorporatingHofstede’s

culturalvaluesframework.JournalofInternationalBusinessStudies,37,285–320. Lazarus,R.S.(1999).Stressandemotion:Anewsynthesis.NewYork:Springer.

Nisbett,R.,Peng,K.P.,Choi,I.,&Norenzayan,A.(2000).Cultureandsystemsofthought:Holisticversusanalyticcognition.PsychologicalReview,108, 291–310.

O’Connor,D.B.,&Shimuzu,M.(2002).Senseofpersonalcontrol,stressandcopingstyle:Across-culturalstudy.StressandHealth,18,173–183. Park,H.,Hwang,S.D.,&Harrison,J.K.(1996).Sourcesandconsequencesofcommunicationproblemsinforeignsubsidiaries:ThecaseofUnitedStates

ﬁrmsinSouthKorea.InternationalJournalofInterculturalRelations,5,79–98.

Pekerti,A.A.,&Thomas,D.C.(2003).Communicationininterculturalinteraction:Anempiricalinvestigationofidiocentricandsociocentriccommunication styles.JournalofCross-CulturalPsychology,34,139–154.

Rao,A.,&Hashimoto,K.(1996).Interculturalinﬂuence:AstudyofJapaneseexpatriatemanagersinCanada.JournalofInternationalBusinessStudies,27, 443–466.

Sanchez-Burks,J.,Lee,F.,Choi,I.,Nisbett,R.,Zhao,S.,&Koo,J.(2003).Conversingacrosscultures:East-Westcommunicationstylesinworkandnon-work settings.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,85,363–372.

Schwartz,S.H.(2004).Mappingandinterpretingculturaldifferencesaroundtheworld.InH.Vinken,J.Soeters,&P.Ester(Eds.),Comparingcultures: Dimensionsofcultureinacomparativeperspective(pp.43–73).Leiden,TheNetherlands:Brill.

Smith,P.B.,Bond,M.H.,&Ka˘gıtc¸ıbas¸ı,C.(2006).Understandingsocialpsychologyacrosscultures:Livingandworkinginachangingworld.London:Sage. Smith,P.B.,Misumi,J.,Tayeb,M.,Peterson,M.,&Bond,M.H.(1989).Onthegeneralityofleadershipstylesacrosscultures.JournalofOccupationalPsychology,

62,97–109.

Spector,P.,Cooper,C.L.,Sanchez,J.L.,O’Driscoll,M.,Sparks,K.,etal.(2001).Donationallevelsofindividualismandinternallocusofcontrolrelateto well-being:Anecological-levelinternationalstudy.JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,22,815–832.

Thomas,D.C.,&Fitzsimmons,S.R.(2008).Cross-culturalskillsandabilities:Fromcommunicationcompetencetoculturalintelligence.InP.B.Smith,M.F. Peterson,&D.C.Thomas(Eds.),Handbookofcross-culturalmanagementresearch(pp.201–215).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Thomas,D.C.,&Inkson,K.(2004).Culturalintelligence:Peopleskillsforglobalbusiness.SanFrancisco:Berrett-Koehler.