Idea Transcript
MATCH OR MISMATCH? Influences of self-construal, relationships and culture on job satisfaction
14 June 2011
Author: D.L.C. Kho Student no: 296551
Supervisor: S.R. Giessner Co-reader: M.J. Greeven
MSc Chinese Economy & Business Erasmus University Rotterdam
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011
Preface This is it! After many months of work I can finally present you this master thesis, which should conclude my academic career. I can honestly say that the MSc Chinese Economy & Business programme and the write-up of this paper have been a rollercoaster ride. Looking back all I can say is that it was a great year. I will never forget the experience from my internship in China! This master thesis is dedicated to my family and friends. I especially want to thank Helen Kho and Chee-ho Wan. Their continued advice and support throughout the years have brought me to where I stand today. This thesis could not have reached its final stage without the guidance and support of my supervisor dr. S.R. Giessner, and co-reader dr. M.J. Greeven. Though there were times that my co-reader’s feedback would drive me crazy, his remarks were always spot-on. Last but not least, it is thanks to the efforts of Anil Fatingan and David Go in reviewing this paper that enabled me to further improve and finalise this master thesis. Thank you all!
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The copyright for this paper rests with me, the author. I am responsible for its contents. RSM is only responsible for the educational coaching and cannot be held liable.
i
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011
Executive Summary The happiness of employees within an organisation can be regarded as one of the many factors that can contribute to the successes of any organisation. The underlying reasoning is that as organisations depend on their employees, higher levels of satisfaction among such employees can lead to more and better contributions, thereby enabling an organisation to increase its performance. With the increased presence of organisations across borders, researchers have found that attainment of this goal differs in approach by culture. Although much research has been conducted on the topic of job satisfaction across cultures, these studies have primarily focussed on differences between countries/cultures. Relatively less studies exist on the impact that cultural differences have on job satisfaction within countries. The increased presence of multicultural societies raises the question what effects such cultural differences can have in the workplace. The question of interest is whether individuals who are at cultural opposite ends of each other require different approaches by leaders within organisations in order to attain high job satisfaction levels. This should not be possible when a mismatch exists between a leader’s approach to interactions and an employee’s. This study assumes that cultural differences within a country do matter, because of its impact on an individual’s view of how interactions with others should be approached. The focus is on the clear cultural differences (i.e. according to the characteristics of both cultures) that exist between Chinese and (native) Dutch individuals that live and work within The Netherlands. The goal is to provide insights on the extent to which these assumed differences influence the way Chinese and Dutch individuals prefer dissimilar approaches for their interactions with others, and how this influences their job satisfaction. The starting point for these assumptions is the view that differences in culture can result in different development paths for individuals. Whereas Asian (Chinese) culture is often characterised by an emphasis on the collective and caring for others, within Western (Dutch) culture the emphasis is often placed on uniqueness of the individual. Although these classifications can be regarded superficial they do provide some means to differentiate both cultures. In a similar way, the most common practiced leadership styles within a country should reflect the characteristics of the country’s culture. China and The Netherlands are also found to differ in their practiced leadership styles. Where Chinese leadership styles emphasise traits such as obedience, loyalty, and an authoritative approach, Western leadership styles promote care and attention to the development of individuals.
ii
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011 Although both Chinese and Dutch individuals from The Netherlands are compared within this study, the characteristics of Chinese and Dutch culture are not simply compared. This is because the characteristics found in the literature represent those of the respective countries (i.e. China and The Netherlands). However, it can be assumed that Chinese individuals raised in The Netherlands are influenced at least to some extent by the characteristics of their cultural background. Therefore an individual’s cultural background should have influence on the way they develop their individual self, and the way they perceive themselves in relationship to others. This relational self-construal means that individuals can develop to see themselves as independent from or interdependent of others. In the latter scenario individuals will actively seek relationships and connectedness. The approach individuals use when relating to others is unique and different to each person. All those unique approaches can be traced back to four relational models that can be seen as the base scenarios of any interaction between individuals. Since the most common accepted leadership style in The Netherlands will reflect the characteristics of Dutch culture, I expect leaders to align with the Dutch individuals in their approach to interactions. I also believe that the Chinese individuals will prefer a different approach, which will result in a mismatch between leader and follower. The consequence is that the job satisfaction of Chinese individuals will be at suboptimal levels. In order to test these assumptions, data was gathered through an online survey. Since the focus is on employees, only participants with working experience were eligible. The result was a response of 50 Dutch and 45 Chinese individuals. After reviewing the results of this study I discovered that a mistake had been made in its design. Due to the absence of data regarding a participant’s preferred relationship approach in an ideal situation, I am only able to provide insights for the status quo (i.e. the interaction approach of Chinese and Dutch employees with their leaders as currently used). Because of this I am unable to provide statistical support for my initial research question. Despite this shortcoming, some interesting results regarding the current approach of Chinese and Dutch employees were found. When it comes to their job satisfaction, Chinese and Dutch individuals appear to show no difference in preference for the relationship approach used in their interactions with their leaders. However, the Chinese individuals were found to have strong tendencies for another relationship approach. An explanation for these findings is that Chinese individuals are raised to participate in Dutch society. Therefore it can be expected (and should have been anticipated by me) that assimilation takes place. Although cultural characteristics shape an individual’s identity, this influence is exceeded by that of society. Perceptions of how relationships with others (e.g. in the workplace) should be approached are aligned with society’s norm. In the end it can be concluded that – based on the current findings –
iii
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011 differences in cultural background do not result in a mismatch in relationship approach between leader and follower, nor in suboptimal job satisfaction levels.
iv
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011
Table of Contents Preface...................................................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................ii 1
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1
2
Theoretical framework .................................................................................................................... 4 2.1
The importance of job satisfaction and its role in this study .................................................. 4
2.2
Differences in culture and ways of measurement .................................................................. 5
2.2.1
Cultural differences of countries by measurable dimensions ......................................... 6
2.2.2
Common accepted leadership theories in Western society ........................................... 9
2.2.3
Common accepted leadership theories in Asian society .............................................. 11
2.2.4
West versus East............................................................................................................ 12
2.3
The role of self and construals .............................................................................................. 12
2.3.1
Definition of self ............................................................................................................ 13
2.3.2
Relational self-construal ................................................................................................ 14
2.4
The pivotal role of relationships ............................................................................................ 16
2.5
Roundup of the discussed theories ....................................................................................... 18
3
Conceptual Model ......................................................................................................................... 20
4
Method .......................................................................................................................................... 23 4.1
Sample ................................................................................................................................... 23
4.2
Procedure .............................................................................................................................. 23
4.3
Measures ............................................................................................................................... 23
5
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 25
6
Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 30
7
Limitations ..................................................................................................................................... 34
8
Recommendations for future research ......................................................................................... 35
References ............................................................................................................................................. 37 Appendix................................................................................................................................................ 46 Appendix I: Final items of the self-construal scale (Singelis, 1991) .................................................. 46 Appendix II: An index of job satisfaction (Brayfield and Rothe, 1951).............................................. 47 Appendix III: Relational Models Theory scales (Haslam and Fiske, 1992) ........................................ 48 Appendix IV: SPSS regression analysis results for H1a ...................................................................... 49 Appendix V: SPSS regression analysis results for H1b....................................................................... 50 Appendix VI: SPSS regression analysis results for H2a ...................................................................... 51 Appendix VII: SPSS regression analysis results for H2b..................................................................... 52
v
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011
1 Introduction Job satisfaction has been a topic of much interest, which has been linked to many areas of research. Throughout the decades, many researchers have attempted to discover the antecedents and consequences of such satisfaction among employees. In an effort to better understand how higher job satisfaction levels can be achieved, the relationship with factors such as the characteristics of the individual, and characteristics of the job have gained much attention (see Kalleberg, 1977). Similarly, research into the possible differences of job satisfaction levels across cultures has triggered the interest of many scholars, due to the increased presence of organisations across borders (Clugston, Howell and Dorfman, 2000; Kanungo and Wright, 1983; Lincoln and Kalleberg, 1985). Studies have also found that cultural differences do matter for job satisfaction because of the differences in emphasised values and norms (e.g. Dorfman and Howell, 1988; Palich, Hom and Griffeth, 1995). Examples include a positive relationship between collectivism and job satisfaction (Hui, Yee and Eastman, 1995), and findings by Kirkman and Shapiro (2001) that suggested “employees do resist management initiatives when these clash with their cultural values.” However, the majority of such studies have focussed on differences between countries/cultures, whereas relatively less researchers have done so for differences within countries. What about the many countries that can be characterised as multicultural? Does a diversity of cultures present within one country not indicate that differences can also exist within a country? And to what extent are such differences salient? Even though the majority of employees from different cultural backgrounds can be assumed to have adapted to a country’s customs, the question remains whether this means that the leadership approach maintained in organisations within that country is able to utilise these employees in the most effective way. This becomes of special interest when the investigated cultures are at opposite ends of each other. The importance of job satisfaction, and the stimulation and maintenance of high levels thereof are quite straightforward from a performance perspective, as it can be assumed that satisfied employees will perform better for an organisation as opposed to dissatisfied employees who are expected to perform worse (see Judge et al., 2001). In line with this view, Locke (1969) defined job satisfaction as “the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one’s job values,” and job dissatisfaction as “the unpleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as frustrating or blocking the attainment of one’s job values or as entailing disvalues.” Although no significant relationship between job satisfaction and job performance were reported in initial reviews on the matter (e.g. Brayfield and Crockett, 1955),
1
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011 positive correlations have consistently been found in many (meta-analytical) reviews that followed (e.g. Petty, McGee and Cavender, 1984; Iaffaldano and Muchinsky, 1985). Despite the fact that those with different cultural backgrounds are born and raised within one and the same country, it cannot be taken for granted that no differences in values and norms exist. In situations where employees are at (cultural) opposite ends of each other, it may well be the case that an organisation’s leadership approach as deemed most appropriate within the country is unable to take full advantage of the workforce. The reason for this occurrence could be due to a vested difference in view that exists regarding relationships the individual has with others, which is caused by a difference in values and norms emphasised within the respective cultures. Consequently, the ideal relational approach between leader and follower for employees from different cultural backgrounds might contrast the approach taken by the leader. The result is that an organisation is unable to achieve high levels of effectiveness due to suboptimal job satisfaction levels, caused by a mismatch between the relationship approach of leaders and the approach preferred by their followers. As such, this study focuses on the possible and expected differences that exist between employees who can be grouped by cultural background (i.e. Dutch versus Chinese), but who share a similar nationality (i.e. the Dutch nationality). The assumption is that differences between native Dutch (hereafter Dutch) and Chinese Dutch (hereafter Chinese) employees who live and work within The Netherlands do exist in terms of what they perceive to be the optimal relationship between themselves and others, despite the fact that they have been raised, living and working within one and the same country. Differences in preferred relationship approach between Dutch and Chinese employees could result in suboptimal job satisfaction levels, since the interaction approach of leaders is likely to match with only one of both groups. These differences can be expected due to the cultural backgrounds, which results in differences in attitudes (i.e. values and norms), preferred relationships with other individuals, and consequently with regard to follower-leader interactions. The aim of this research is therefore to establish what differences exist between these two cultural groups regarding relationship approaches of the individual with others in general, and in relation to their leaders within an organisation. The implications that these findings may have on the enhancement of job satisfaction levels can then be highlighted in order to provide management with further insights. If the results are in line of the expectations, this study will provide useful insights that can contribute to a better understanding and anticipation on the dynamics of the multicultural workplace. Should the assumptions be supported by the results of this study, it becomes important
2
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011 that management is not only made aware of cross-cultural differences across borders, but of those within a single country and organisation as well.
3
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011
2 Theoretical framework In order to attain the insights on the effects that differences in an individual’s cultural background can eventually have on job satisfaction levels, several aspects involved in the problem need to be highlighted. As I will outline hereafter, a multitude of facets are influenced by cultural differences in in a ‘chain reaction’-like manner. As norms and values vested in culture shape the individual, the way individuals interact with other individuals is also established. When the foundation of an individual’s perspective regarding relationships with others is established, the individual develops a tendency towards a specific relational self-construal. Depending on the differences in culture this can lead to differences in preferences for relationships between the individual and other individuals. Consequently, these factors influence the individual’s view of leader-follower relationships in the workplace, and how these should look like in an ideal situation. The ideal situation refers to a match of relationship approach between the individual’s preference and the approach taken by the leader. This can result in the achievement of optimal job satisfaction levels. Thus, it can be predicted that individuals from different cultural backgrounds will prefer different approaches to relationships, and that it depends on the extent to which a match exists between this preference and the reality in order to achieve optimal job satisfaction levels.
2.1 The importance of job satisfaction and its role in this study The importance of job satisfaction becomes apparent when going over the literature, as it is amongst the three most researched topics in organisational behaviour (Robbins, Judge and Campbell, 2010). Job satisfaction is the “positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences,” and can be regarded as a chief determinant for employee performance (Locke, 1969). The importance of this concept lies in the fact that high levels of satisfaction are in the interest of both the employee and the organisation, since satisfied employees can be assumed to be of higher value for the organisation because of an increased job performance. This link has been confirmed by many researchers who found a consistent relationship between job satisfaction and job performance (e.g. Petty, McGee and Cavender, 1984; Iaffaldano and Muchinsky, 1985). The many studies on the predictors of job satisfaction have mainly focussed on three approaches that investigated the characteristics of the job task being performed, the organisational environment, or the individual (Glisson and Durick, 1988). Since the first two approaches have received most attention from researchers, and are said to be the best predictors of satisfaction (e.g. Glisson and Durick, 1988), the discussion hereafter will be limited to these two perspectives.
4
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011 In the first approach, researchers paid most attention to variables such as role ambiguity, and skill variety (Glisson and Durick, 1988). Within the vast amount of literature available on the subject, job satisfaction is regarded as “complex emotional reactions to the job,” and “a function of the perceived relationship between what one wants from one’s job and what one perceives it as offering or entailing” (Locke, 1969). Similarities can be found with the path-goal theory of motivation, which posits that individuals will be motivated to pursue goals when a high probability exists that their efforts will result in outcomes that they value (Georgopoulos, Mahoney and Jones, 1957; Lawler and Porter, 1967). This is in line with the assumption that values attributed to achievements, rather than expectations determine satisfaction (Locke, 1967). Job satisfaction as “the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one’s job values” (Locke, 1969) implies that it is the result of perceived job characteristics (“the amount of satisfaction available from particular dimensions of work”), and work values (“the meanings that individuals attach to these perceived job characteristics”; Kalleberg, 1977). Where perceived job characteristics could be measured by asking employees about their job, Kalleberg (1977) developed a framework for the identification of work values, which consisted of six dimensions (intrinsic, convenience, financial, relationships with coworkers, career, and resource adequacy) that had “independent and significant effects on job satisfaction” (see Kelleberg, 1977). The second approach looks at the organisational environment where individuals perform their tasks. Mowday, Porter and Steers (1982) have indicated that job satisfaction can be seen as the result of how specific job tasks are experienced, shifting the determinant to the environment wherein tasks are performed by the employee. Glisson and Durick (1988) have indicated that although job characteristics are the best predictors of satisfaction, this is followed “by the examinations of organizational determinants such as leadership.” The variables to have received most attention within this approach are said to be leadership and supervision (Glisson and Durick, 1988). In the next section I intend to further elaborate on the importance of leadership in influencing an employee’s job satisfaction levels.
2.2 Differences in culture and ways of measurement The consensus is that higher job satisfaction of employees will result in higher job performance. Although many organisations around the globe will strive for attainment of high job satisfaction levels, the way this is achieved may vary widely due to the diversity of cultures that exist.
5
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011 The impact of differences in cultural background on job satisfaction are of interest because it can be seen as one of the main factors that influence the outcome of differences in preferences for interactions that individuals may have. Since the leader forms the most direct form of interaction and involvement with an employee within any organisation, the type of leadership and the extent to which a match in approach to interactions between the leader and the employee exists plays a vital role in steering the levels of satisfaction. It is important to understand that Western and Asian countries differ from each other in culture, and thereby also in values, norms, and their preferred ways of interaction in relationships. As a result, what works and what does not work with individuals from such countries can differ significantly between these societies. This also applies to approaches toward leadership styles and leaderfollower relationships that are commonly accepted. Works by Hofstede (1980) among others, have attempted to translate these differences between cultures into a framework of measurable characteristics. 2.2.1
Cultural differences of countries by measurable dimensions
Hofstede (1980) did not believe in the notion that sound management was based on the same principles, according to a single standard. Instead, he reasoned that nationality matters for management because of differences in political (i.e. differences in institutions between nations), sociological (i.e. differences in identity between civilians of nations), and psychological (i.e. the impact of differences in culture) aspects. Through his research at IBM he was able to compare the survey results of various nations and develop a framework that consisted of four cultural dimensions alongside which countries could be classified and differentiated from each other. These four cultural dimensions are individualism-collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinityfemininity, and formed his attempt at measuring culture. In a later publication Hofstede (2001) added long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation as a fifth dimension to the existing framework. Hofstede (1983) explains that individuals can be categorised as having either individualistic or collectivistic tendencies, depending on the extent to which an individual relates with other individuals within their direct environment; whether ties between individuals are loose (individualism) or tight (collectivism). This is what the individualism-collectivism dimension refers to. Individualists think of their selves in the first place, want to be different from others, wish to attain accomplishments, and be recognised as a unique person. Collectivists however, will put others within their ingroup first and strive towards looking after the interests of such ingroups. Societies are known to differ from each other in the amount of equality that exists among individuals and the degree to which power is distributed within a society. This is explained by the power distance
6
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011 dimension. Where on one hand of the dimension a country can be categorised as having a high power distance (i.e. higher inequality between individuals, resulting in more concentration and separation of power between those in leadership positions from those working for these leaders), countries can also be characterised as having low power distance (i.e. power is not so much concentrated and limited to those in leadership positions). The uncertainty avoidance dimension refers to the extent that people’s attitudes are risk-averse or risk-seeking with regard to the uncertainty that the future brings. Hofstede (1983) mentions “weak uncertainty avoidance” societies as those that embrace the fact that the future is uncertain and of which members are more risk seeking than their “strong uncertainty avoidance” counterparts who try to avoid risks as much as possible, through means such as “institutions that try to create security.” The masculinity-femininity dimension can be described as the social role division between men and women, where both parties are classified as being better in taking on certain roles (e.g. men should work, women should stay at home). Societies that are typified as masculine are referred to when this division of roles is high. Within such societies traits associated with masculinity, such as an emphasis on the self, uniqueness, performance, and achievement are evident. In contrast, societies characterised as feminine do not have that much division of roles between men and women. The traits associated with such societies come from a more feminine perspective, with characteristics such as helping others, putting relationships first, and not emphasising the self as guidelines. The long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation dimension refers to whether a tendency exists for a focus on the future (e.g. saving, persistence, etc.) or on the present and past (e.g. respect for traditions, fulfilling social obligations, etc.) respectively (Hofstede, 1993). It was added after additional studies had indicated that this dimension was missing in the original study, and was said to have been added in order to establish a more sound framework for the measurement of differences in cultures (Hofstede, 1991; 2006). CRITIQUES ON HOFSTEDE’S CULTURAL DIMENSIONS Although Hofstede’s framework can be considered as a very important contribution to better understand differences in culture and its influence on organisations wanting to operate across borders, this framework has also received much critique (e.g., Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001; McSweeney, 2002; Schwartz, 1994; Smith, 2002; Smith and Bond, 1999). Among the critiques is the fact that Hofstede presents an overly simplistic dimensional conceptualization of culture, as his work was based on a sample from IBM. Rather than specifying constructs prior to data collection, he extracted them from the already collected data. Because of this, the proposed dimensions are said to pose culture as something static, which does not change over time. More importantly, it ignores the
7
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011 existence of within-country cultural heterogeneity and assumes countries to have one specific culture (Sivakumar & Nakata, 2001). Of the dimensions in Hofstede’s framework, the masculinityfemininity dimension received the most critiques for not being specific enough and including too many different topics (Dickson, Den Hartog and Mitchelson, 2003). THE GLOBE PROJECT: ALTERNATIVE FOR HOFSTEDE’S CULTURAL DIMENSIONS The Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Project (GLOBE) sought to address these issues and developed their own framework without basing their approach on Hofstede’s. GLOBE is a long-term, multiphase, and multi-method project which is directed toward the development of systematic knowledge on leadership and organisational practices by looking at how these are influenced by societal and organisational cultures (House et al., 1999). This was achieved through several phases, starting with the development of research instruments and ending with data collection from various countries (House et al., 2004). Based on various existing works of culture (e.g. Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; McClelland, 1985), GLOBE was able to develop a framework that consisted of nine measures: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, in-group collectivism, institutional collectivism, gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, humane orientation, performance orientation, future orientation (House et al., 1999; 2004). What is more important is that the developed framework addresses several critiques on Hofstede’s framework. Among the addressed criticism is the fact that the construct definitions identified in GLOBE’s framework were developed prior to item development rather than taken from an existing item set as in the case of Hofstede’s (1980) work. The number of dimensions were expanded from Hofstede’s framework by making them more specific (House et al., 2004). PRACTICALITY OF HOFSTEDE’S RESULTS FOR THE CURRENT STUDY Despite the flaws that exist in Hofstede’s framework, it cannot be denied that his works set the foundations for many other studies and frameworks such as GLOBE. Also, it cannot be said that his dimensions are completely wrong, rather they were incomplete. This is clearly illustrated by the inclusion of his dimensions (to certain extents) in other frameworks such as GLOBE. For practical reasons, I will refer to the results from Hofstede’s framework within this study, as I intend to mainly use these dimensions as a reference point for the differences that exist between Chinese and Dutch culture. Further comparisons and discussions of both frameworks are also beyond the scope of this study. The results of interest from Hofstede’s (1983) study are on the individualism-collectivism and powerdistance dimensions. After studying these results it becomes evident that China and The Netherlands can be found on opposite ends of the individualism-collectivism dimension, while the power distance
8
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011 dimension is lower for The Netherlands in comparison with China, indicating a higher importance
of
hierarchy
in
China
(see
Illustration 1). Comparable results were found in the GLOBE study, where China (Fu, Wu and Yang, 2004) scored high on power distance (score: 5,04) and in-group collectivism (score: 5,80). The Netherlands (Thierry et al., 2004) were found to be lower on power distance (score: 4,11) than China, and low on in-group collectivism (score: 3,70). Illustration 1: A power distance x individualism-collectivism plot for 50 countries & 3 regions (Hofstede, 1983).
Hofstede (1983) outlined that these findings indicate the importance of adapting leadership
styles accordingly to the country and culture where an organisation operates. This implies that the established leadership styles within a country will be based upon the characteristics of the country’s culture. As researchers have stated that “attributes defining a specified culture are predictive of leadership styles and organizational practices in that culture,” (Javidan et al., 2006) a closer inspection of the more commonly accepted leadership styles within The Netherlands and China serves as a meaningful method to further differentiate both cultures from each other, since they reflect the norms, values, and habits salient in the respective countries. 2.2.2
Common accepted leadership theories in Western society
The literature on leadership reveals that the more common accepted leadership theories found in Western countries such as The Netherlands do not emphasise strict hierarchical distances. According to the authors of Organizational Behaviour (Robbins, Judge and Campbell, 2010) the more inspirational approaches to leadership can be found in those styles where the emphasis lies on “the leader as a communicator” who is able to inspire their followers, as opposed to the more traditional leadership styles that do not take this into account. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP Among the existing popular styles is that of transformational leadership, which builds further upon transactional leadership. Where the latter is characterised (Burns, 1978) as leaders and followers having interactions in a purely economic (transactional) manner, transformational leaders are described as being able to motivate their employees in such ways that they will go further than merely achieving their individual goals, through aspects such as consideration for the individual, and
9
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011 stimulation of an individual’s development in order to increase an employee’s involvement (see Table 1 for a detailed overview). Table 1: Characteristics of transformational and transactional leaders (Bass, 1990).
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADER Charisma: Provides vision and sense of mission, instills, pride, gains respect and trust. Inspiration: Communicates high expectations, uses symbols to focus efforts, expresses important purposes in simple ways. Intellectual Stimulation: Promotes intelligence, rationality, and careful problem solving. Individualized Consideration: Gives personal attention, treats each employee individually, coaches, advises. TRANSACTIONAL LEADER Contingent Reward: Contracts exchange of rewards for effort, promises rewards for good performance, recognizes accomplishments. Management by Exception (active): Watches and searches for deviations from rules and standards, takes corrective action. Management by Exception (passive): Intervenes only if standards are not met. Laissez-Faire: Abdicates responsibilities, avoids making decisions.
CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP Another style that has received much attention is charismatic leadership, where a person is able to achieve greater heights through the use of charisma (House, 1977). What is seen as main characteristics of such leaders is their ability to inspire others to believe in a certain mission and to achieve even better results, through the use of their personality. Research by Willner (1984) indicated that relationships matter more than personality or context, since “it is not what the leader is but what people see the leader as that counts in generating the charismatic relationship.” ETHICAL LEADERSHIP An aspect that is often overlooked concerns the leader’s integrity. As a result, “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making,” found in ethical leadership has gained much attention from scholars (Brown, Treviño and Harrison, 2005). According to the social learning theory perspective (Bandura, 1977; 1986; Brown and Treviño, 2006), followers will replicate the ethical leader’s example (Kohlberg, 1969; Treviño, 1986). It is therefore crucial for such leaders to be credible and display role model behaviour (Bandura, 1986; Brown, Treviño and Harrison, 2005).
10
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011 SERVANT LEADERSHIP Rather than focussing on the self, servant leadership goes a step further in placing employees at the centre. It can be regarded as a style wherein the leader acts correspondingly to the needs of their followers, in an effort to develop their followers in the interest of the organisation (Greenleaf, 1991). Servant leaders are attributed to possess characteristics such as listening, empathy, awareness, and stewardship (Spears, 2004). In doing so, such leaders are able to influence followers by providing vision, and through gained credibility and trust (Farling, Stone and Winston, 1999). Though a vast majority of leadership styles exists and can be discussed, this short overview of popular leadership styles already shows that in present day Western society, the emphasis can be ascribed to a focus on caring and interest for the follower, through which it is believed that the greatest successes can be attained. This tendency towards more equality among individuals is also in line with the findings by Hofstede (1983) on his dimension of power-distance. 2.2.3
Common accepted leadership theories in Asian society
Contrasting Western countries, Hofstede (1980; 1983) characterises Asian society as having tendencies towards collectivism and maintenance of high power-distance. More specifically, the Chinese have been found to not only be high on collectivism, but on paternalism as well (Dorfman and Howell, 1988). Extensive research has shown (e.g. Dorfman et al., 1997) that Chinese employees prefer leaders who “maintain a harmonious considerate relationship with followers while being directive” (Hsu, 1982) and that Chinese leaders are generally more authoritarian than their Western counterparts (Redding and Casey, 1976). PATERNALISTIC LEADERSHIP This paternalistic style of leadership which can be found in most of the Asian-Pacific (Farh et al., 2006), is derived from the notion that a focus on the employee rather than on the mechanic production, will result in more satisfaction and productivity among those employees (Follett, 1933; Munsterberg, 1913). Cheng and colleagues (2004) found that paternalistic leadership as a leadership style is currently still prevalent within Chinese organizations, as “the care, support, and protection provided by paternalistic leaders may address employees’ need for frequent contact and close personal relationships” (Gelfand, Erez and Aycan, 2007). More recent researchers have defined paternalistic leadership as “a style that combines strong discipline and authority with fatherly benevolence,” consisting of a authoritarianism (where a leader has absolute authority over employees and demands absolute obedience from them), benevolence (where a leader shows individualised concern for employees and their well-being), and moral
11
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011 leadership (where a leaders shows role model behaviour, demonstrating such things as self-discipline and unselfishness) component (Farh and Cheng, 2000). Characteristics of paternalism and the paternalistic leadership style include a personal interest of leaders in an employee’s private life, where the leader attempts to improve an employee’s personal welfare at the same time (Gelfand, Erez and Aycan, 2007). This is done under the assumption that it is a leader’s obligation to take care of their employees, and that by doing so a leader will gain their employee’s loyalty and obedience in return (Aycan, Kanungo and Sinha, 1999; James, Chen and Cropanzano, 1996). Since in traditional societies the role of a father figure is presumed to consist of aspects such as being “nurturant, caring, and dependable but also authoritative, demanding, and a strict disciplinarian” (Sinha, 1990), the result is that leaders guide their employees in a way that resembles how a parent would (Gelfand, Erez and Aycan, 2007). 2.2.4
West versus East
Compared to the characteristics of popular Western leadership styles as determined previously, both similarities and differences can be found with this paternalistic approach to leadership. The most obvious difference that exists is the strong emphasis on authority in Asian countries compared to Western countries, which is supported by the high power-distance that Asian countries can be typified with. From a similarity point of view, both societies seem to agree on the importance of caring for the follower, indicating a shared view between Western and Asian practices, though to a different degree. Further, this short overview and comparison of common leadership styles for countries such as The Netherlands and China has shown the differences that can exist between the two cultures when it comes to the different manners of interaction within organisations. Where the emphasis lies on personal attention and development of the individual in countries such as The Netherlands, obedience, hierarchy, and respect for authority are among the key elements in countries such as China. These leadership approaches embody the ways of doing that are common for the respective countries, and provide an example of culture’s impact on an individual’s thinking. It also shows why differences in preference for relationship approaches are to be expected.
2.3 The role of self and construals Leadership styles and the interaction approaches taken by leaders form one aspect in the link between individuals and their job satisfaction levels. The other aspect can be found with the individual. More specifically, everything is connected to the way that individuals develop their definition of self. The development of this self forms such an important link because of the consequences it has on an individual’s inward and outward orientation. Depending on the 12
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011 environment the individual is raised in, and the culture specific characteristics that are valued and emphasised, individuals from different cultures will develop differently from each other. Although the studies by Hofstede (1980) and GLOBE (House et al., 1999) provide the means to differentiate among cultures, I must note that within this study a simple comparison of Chinese and Dutch culture is unrealistic. The participants within this study live and work in Dutch society, but the mentioned differences apply to those living in China and The Netherlands. Nonetheless, it can be argued that the mentioned distinct differences do at least influence the way that individuals with different cultural backgrounds develop the individual self. One of the aspects that they can develop differently in is their relationship orientation towards others (i.e. relational self-construal), and the characteristics of their interaction approach. Because of such differences in development of individuals, preferred relationship approaches can differ from the approach applied by leaders to such an extent that this mismatch in approach will result in suboptimal levels of job satisfaction. For a better understanding of how culture influences an individual’s development, and how in turn this development of the self influences the relational self-construal with others, it is important to further investigate these phenomena. 2.3.1
Definition of self
There have been many studies that focussed on the self, of which the fundaments were established with Triandis’ (1989) research. At its core, Triandis (1989) ascribed any individual to possess three distinguishable aspects of the self: the private self (characteristics of the individual), the public self (characteristics of the individual as perceived by others), and the collective self (characteristics of the individual as derived from the collective). Depending on the individual’s environment, factors such as the complexity of relationships, level of individualism, and looseness of the culture in terms of ingroup salience, can influence the orientation towards either of the three mentioned selves that an individual develops (see Illustration 2). As many researchers (e.g. Singelis, 1994; Cross and Markus, 1991) regarded the public and collective self to share a similar (allocentric) view in comparison with the private self (idiocentric), further simplifications of Triandis’ work resulted in the classification of the independent (private self) and interdependent (public and collective self) individual.
13
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011
Private self Complexity
Level of Individualism
Looseness of culture
Public self
Collective self
Illustration 2: Graphical representation of the effects of the environment on development of a salient self.
2.3.2
Relational self-construal
As individuals develop their selves into a certain direction under the influence of the environment (e.g. individualist or collectivist), their tendencies for specific relationship approaches also become apparent. The way they develop the self impacts how they view (i.e. construe) themselves in relation with other individuals. This relational self-construal implies that individuals can have divergent views about their relationships with others, and differences exist in the level of importance that is attributed to such relationships (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). The constructs were developed by looking at the various characteristics involved in an individual’s behaviour with regard to relationships, and provide further insights into the effects that an individual’s cultural background can have on perceptions towards relationships with other individuals in general. INDEPENDENT SELF-CONSTRUAL As mentioned earlier, works of Hofstede (1980; 1983) and others have shown that much of Western society can be classified as individualistic in nature, rather than collectivistic. As a result of this view, an emphasis tends to be made on the individual and the aspects that differentiate any individual from others, stressing the discovery and expression of the individual’s unique attributes (Johnson, 1985; Marsella, De Vos and Hsu, 1985; Miller, 1988; Shweder and Bourne, 1984). Building further on this, Markus and Kitayama (1991)
explain
that
a
person
with
an
independent self-construal can be seen as someone who believes in the uniqueness of each person, and views oneself in such a manner. Geertz (1975) stated that such an Illustration 3: Graphical representation of the independent self-construal (Markus and Kitayama, 1961).
14
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011 independent individual can be seen as “a bounded, unique, more or less integrated motivational and cognitive universe, a dynamic centre of awareness, emotion, judgement, and action organised into a distinctive whole and set contrastively both against other such wholes and against a social and natural background.” Individuals with an independent self-construal find satisfaction in relating their behaviours and outcomes as being a result of the individual’s “internal repertoire of thoughts, feelings, and action, rather than by reference to the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others” (Markus and Kitayama, 1991), as they believe that the internal attributes of each person consists of unique compositions (Johnson, 1985; Sampson, 1985; 1988; 1989; Waterman, 1981). Markus and Kitayama (1991) provided further insights into the independent self-construal by illustrating (see Illustration 3) how the individual can be perceived in relation with others. What becomes evident is that for independent individuals the personal attributes are considered to be the most important determinant in defining the self. Although relationships between the individual and others do exist, they do not serve the purpose of defining the individual. Rather, the relationships provide the individual with the ability of reflection. Through interactions with others, the individual is able to determine which methods can be deployed in order to optimize the expression of personal traits and internal attributes. In doing so, others serve the purpose of verification for the independent individual and confirmation of the individual as a unique person (Markus and Kitayama, 1961). INTERDEPENDENT SELF-CONSTRUAL On the other side of the medal, the interdependent self-construal sharply contrasts the independent self-construal. Individuals with an interdependent self-construal can be seen as persons seeking relationships and connectedness with surrounding others (Kondo, 1982), which are mostly to be found in Asian countries as these can generally be classified to be collectivistic in nature (Hofstede 1980). Being interdependent entails feeling connected to others and being part of a larger whole, and this is exemplified by the fact that an individual’s “behaviour is determined, contingent on, and, to a large extent organised by what the actor perceives to be the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others in the relationship” (Markus and Kitayama, 1961). The orientation in such cases becomes outward (others) instead of inward (self) driven. Rather than a need to stand out from others (such as in the case of an independent self-construal), individuals seek conformity and belonging to others. As a result, the individual’s behaviour is formed by the environment of interaction.
15
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011 This importance of others in defining the individual rather than merely traits of the self can be seen in Illustration 4, where the emphasis in defining the individual is placed on the interactions with others. In addition, these interactions provide the individuals with traits to which they wish to conform, prevailing over the internal (unique) attributes. However, this does not mean that interdependent individuals can be defined as merely possessing traits of those being
interacted
with.
Moreover,
interdependent individuals adapt what defines Illustration 4: Graphical representation of the interdependent
their self, depending on the variation in social
self-construal (Markus and Kitayama, 1961).
context and interaction with either of the
others. As Markus and Kitayama (1961) state: “Within each particular social situation, the self can be differently instantiated.” Interdependent individuals thus become unique in the sense that they are able to change the definition of their selves. In line with individuals that have an independent selfconstrual, the relationships serve as a means to reflect and verify the self. The difference, however, can be found in the fact that the individual becomes integrated with others, and is defined through the interactions with, and traits of, these others. The independent self-construal can often be linked with individuals from countries that are more focussed on the independent individual, while the interdependent self-construal can often be linked with individuals from countries more focussed on the collective individual. However, this does not mean that all individuals in countries typified as collectivistic or individualistic have an interdependent or independent self-construal respectively. Although the majority of individuals within a country can be typified as either of both, it is well possible for individuals to be individualistic in a country categorised as collectivistic, and vice versa.
2.4 The pivotal role of relationships Reflecting on the definitions of the two relational self-construal forms, it can be said that independent and interdependent individuals both perceive relationships with others in a different way. This is further influenced by the difference in characteristics emphasised in both cultures. In order to better clarify and predict what the specific differences in preferred approaches for Chinese and Dutch individuals are, the concept of relationships requires further inspection. Relational models theory is able to provide a better specification of the different relationship approaches that exist.
16
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011 THE FOUR RELATIONAL MODELS Fiske (1991) developed his relational models theory through inductive inference of existing “classical social theory and contemporary evidence” (e.g. Stevens, 1946; 1951; 1958) in an effort to better understand what drives social interaction among individuals. In essence, relationships are established through the interaction between individuals, and “can be structured with respect to (1) what people have in common, (2) ordered differences, (3) additive imbalances, or (4) ratios” (Fiske, 2004). According to relational models theory these interactions between individuals can manifest in four basic ways: Communal Sharing, Authority Ranking, Equality Matching, and Market Pricing. The relational models were developed by recognizing that “people are fundamentally sociable – that they generally organize their social life in terms of their relations with other people,” rather than being asocial oriented as has been the assumption of many past researchers in the domains of social cognition, and many others (Fiske, 1992). The notion of Communal Sharing (CS) in interaction between individuals assumes that actors “have something in common” (Fiske, 2004), and emphasizes equality in the social interaction between them. This form of interaction is supplemented by other variables that enable this social equality to become salient. This equality can be enforced through similarities such as “being followers of the same leader, nationality, birthplace, or culturally defined ‘ethnicity’,” etc. (Fiske, 2004). Contrary to CS, within the Authority Ranking (AR) model “asymmetrical differences” and inequalities dominate the social interactions between individuals. In such cases a linear ordering is applicable, and people can be ordered by ranking them. Depending on the situation, this ranking is defined by including additional variables such as “age, gender, caste, seniority, promotion system,” etc. (Fiske, 2004). The combination between the AR approach and the additional dimensions of ranking enable the ability of applying it in various contexts. Of a complete different order in comparison with AR, but with quite some similarities to CS, the Equality Matching (EM) model emphasizes that individuals construct their social interactions by keeping in mind to achieve an even balance between the involved actors. Although some similarities can be found with CS with regard to equality of the involved actors in such social interactions, the emphasis is not placed on equality. Rather, the model views interaction between actors from a more balanced view, where the equality principle leads to the desire to establish balance with regard to their position within the social interaction. Reciprocity thus plays an important role. This balancing can be achieved through additional variables that define such interactions (e.g. “turn-taking, lottery or coin-flip, voting, eye-for-an-eye or tooth-for-a-tooth vengeance, […]”; Fiske, 2004). What it comes
17
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011 down to is that when person A does person B a favour, their relationship is unbalanced until the moment that person B returns a favour to person A. Whenever individuals interact on the premise of “ratios or rates,” (Fiske, 2004) they are making use of the Market Pricing (MP) model. The basics underlying MP are a focus on purely economic outcomes. Actors interacting with each other according to the MP model make deliberate choices by evaluating the extent to which their provided input will result in a certain output, and whether the expected outcomes outweigh the amount of invested effort sufficiently. In order for such a relational model to be useful, it is important to have defined what ratios are used (e.g. “prices, wages, rents, interests,” etc.) and what “the measures for the numerator and denumerator” (i.e. how to measure and determine the value of that what is discussed in the interactions between actors) will be (Fiske, 2004). Although the theory focuses on merely four relational models, these models can be seen as the basic fundamental types that are able to develop into a wide variety of unique approaches through the added influence of context-specific variables such as cultural environment. The power of this theory lies in the fact that the combination between any of the four relational models with any contextspecific rule results in an approach to social interaction between individuals that is unique to the context of application, yet at the same time can be retraced back to containing either of the four relational models as their fundamental base. The context-specific variables thus further coordinate the direction of the interactions within either of the relational models.
2.5 Roundup of the discussed theories Looking back at the framework that has been discussed, it can be assumed that an individual’s cultural background (and the differences that exist between individuals from distinct dissimilar cultures to be more precise) stands at the roots of other interrelated aspects that form and guide that individual throughout life. This is because the way a person perceives the self and others, and the type of approach that is taken towards relationships between the individual and the environment, can be presumed to be the result of the individual’s starting point as defined by the emphasised characteristics of his/her cultural background. In the case of Dutch employees, being part of Western society and culture implies a tendency towards a self-perception of individualism. Consequently the individual is likely to develop an independent-self construal, favouring certain approaches to relationships (i.e. relational models) over others due to a match of characteristics with the individual. At the other end, as Chinese employees come from an Asian background and Chinese culture – which implies a tendency towards
18
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011 collectivism as self-perception – individuals are more likely to develop an interdependent selfconstrual, and as such could prefer approaches towards relationships (i.e. relational models) that differ from their Dutch counterparts. However, this does not mean that Dutch individuals are not able to develop tendencies for interdependence at all, nor does it mean that Chinese individuals do not develop tendencies for independence. The result of these differences in relational self-construal is that different relational models can be assumed to be preferred by the cultural groups. What this means is that if Chinese individuals prefer approach A, this approach can be expected to result in the best outcomes (i.e. levels of job satisfaction) for leader-follower relationships within organisations. In the case that Chinese individuals prefer approach A, but organisations decide to implement approach B, this mismatch in approach could lead to suboptimal outcomes (i.e. levels of job satisfaction). With the outlined framework it now becomes crucial to find out whether and to what extent it can be stated that individuals from dissimilar cultural backgrounds prefer different approaches for their relationships. The next step is to explore whether differences in cultural background have an impact on the preferred relationship approach in relation to an individual’s levels of job satisfaction, by investigating to what extent dissimilarities are found between an individual’s preferred approach and the approach carried out by the leader within an organisation.
19
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011
3
Conceptual Model
The previously mentioned ideas and concepts imply that any level of job satisfaction becomes influenced by an individual’s relational self-construal. This influence can be explained by the extent that a match or mismatch exists between the individual’s relationship approach of preference, and the approach carried out by the leader. Whenever a mismatch in approach by both parties exists, an employee’s job satisfaction cannot be assumed to be at optimal levels. An individual’s cultural background plays an important role in the establishment of possible differences in relationship approach, as it can steer the individual’s orientation towards approaches that show similarities with certain characteristics that the individual values more over others. The differences that exist between Chinese and Dutch culture and the various established leadership styles in the respective countries have illustrated that no similarities in relationship approach are to be expected. Preferences for specific relationship approaches depend on an individual’s relational self-construal. These preferences are influenced by the individual’s cultural background, and the relational selfconstrual that becomes salient as a result of the cultural characteristics. The participants are expected to show a preference for those relational models that best match the characteristics of their cultural background.
Cultural Background (moderating)
*
* Relational self-construal (independent)
*
Differences in relationship approach
*
Job satisfaction (dependent)
(mediating)
Illustration 5: Visualisation of the variables in focus for this study.
Although I stated that individuals with different relational self-construals will prefer different relational models for their interactions with others, it has been noted earlier that those with an independent self-construal will not actively seek relationships and connectedness. Therefore such individuals are not expected to specifically prefer any of the relational models, nor is a significant effect on the job satisfaction levels of such employees expected. The focus within this study will thus be on participants with an interdependent self-construal.
20
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011 Of the four relational models, the CS approach can be identified as the best match for Dutch individuals. This is because the approach shows the most similarities in characteristics with the established leadership styles in The Netherlands, which include equal treatment between follower and leader, and concern for the individual. The same can be said for the characteristics of Chinese culture and the established leadership styles in China, which has a best match with the AR approach. Among the characteristics that match is the emphasis on an authoritative (hierarchic) interaction between the actors involved in the relationship. The EM and MP relational models can be regarded as more economic approaches to interactions and show less similarities in characteristics with the Chinese and Dutch individuals than the CS and AR approach. For these reasons, the focus of the predictions in this study will be on the CS and AR approach. One of the relationship approaches of interest within this study is that of the CS relational model, since it shows the most similarities with the classifications of The Netherlands as provided by researchers such as Hofstede (1983). Given the similarities that exist between the CS approach and the characteristics of the common leadership styles within The Netherlands, I would therefore expect Dutch individuals to prefer the CS approach for interactions between themselves and others. Among these similarities is the shared emphasis on caring for the individual by their leaders. However, given the similarities in characteristics (at least some) that were found between leadership styles deemed common for The Netherlands and China (e.g. caring for the follower), I also expect the Chinese participants to prefer a CS approach to interactions. This should even more so be the case because the Chinese participants in this study live and work within The Netherlands, and should therefore be aware of and accustomed to the standards as characterised by a CS-like approach. Thus, H1a can be formulated as: H1a: Chinese and Dutch employees with an interdependent self-construal should show a preference for the Communal Sharing relational model. Another relational model of interest is the AR approach, because of the many parallels that can be found with Hofstede’s (1983) categorisation of China (e.g. high power distance). Based on the characteristics of Chinese culture, and the emphasis on features such as obedience, hierarchy, and authority – which are also reflected in China’s established leadership styles – it can be assumed that Chinese participants will prefer the AR approach for relationships between the individual and others. The fact that The Netherlands scored low on the power distance scale (Hofstede, 1983) makes it less probable that Dutch participants will show a preference for the AR approach. Therefore, H1b can be formulated as:
21
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011 H1b: Chinese employees with an interdependent self-construal should prefer an Authority Ranking relational model more than Dutch employees. The previous predictions have provided an indication of how differences in cultural background can result in different compositions of Chinese and Dutch individuals regarding preferences for relationship approaches. For reasons mentioned earlier, I predicted that Chinese and Dutch individuals would both have a preference for the CS approach, and that Chinese participants would prefer an AR approach more than Dutch participants. These are preferences for approaches between the individual and other individuals. However, when the shift is made to the workplace, interactions will take place between the individual and others within the organisation. The most common interaction will be between follower and leader, which could result in different preferences for relational approaches because of this context. In relation to the levels of job satisfaction, I do not expect both groups of participants to prefer the CS approach. I expect that the Chinese participants will prefer the AR approach more than the Dutch, while the Dutch participants will prefer a CS approach more than the Chinese when it comes to the impact it can have on their job satisfaction levels. This is because of the resemblance in characteristics between the CS approach and the leadership approaches within The Netherlands. H2a can be formulated as: H2a: The Communal Sharing relationship is more important for employees with a Dutch background than for employees with a Chinese background as a determinant for increased job satisfaction. The main reason for the prediction of the Chinese participants is that the AR approach shows a closer resemblance to characteristics such as obedience and authority, as emphasised in Chinese culture and China’s prevalent leadership style. Despite the possible existence of a preference for the CS approach in interactions between the individual and others in the general sense, when it comes to relationships at the workplace I expect the existing tendency of Chinese individuals towards AR to prevail over the CS approach. This is caused by the familiarity that the individuals will have (e.g. from how they were raised) with such approaches in interactions between the individual and others that are in higher, more authoritative positions such as leaders within an organisation. Thus, H2b is formulated as: H2b: The Authority Ranking relationship is more important for employees with a Chinese background than for employees with a Dutch background as a determinant for increased job satisfaction.
22
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011
4 Method 4.1 Sample In order to test these hypotheses, Dutch and Chinese employees living and working in The Netherlands were asked to fill out an online survey. The sample consisted of 103 respondents, of which 50 were identified as having a Dutch cultural background, 45 were identified as having a Chinese cultural background, and 8 came from a cultural background that differed from those being targeted in this research. After excluding the 8 respondents that had a different cultural background, the complete dataset consisted of 95 respondents. This group of 95 respondents consisted of 48 male (51%) and 47 female (49%) participants and ranged in age from 16 to 60 years, with an average age of 29 years.
4.2 Procedure The data for this research were collected by distributing a survey through an online webpage, after which friends and relatives were addressed with the request to fill out the survey and pass along the webpage to their acquaintances. The communicated criteria were that participants had to be Dutch (native) or Chinese (Dutch) employees who work and live in The Netherlands. Those without current employment, but with previous working experience were also kindly requested to participate, with the added instruction to keep their previous job in mind while filling out the survey. Over a period of approximately one month, data from 103 respondents were gathered. After analysing the data, 8 respondents were removed from the dataset. Among these respondents were those that came from a mixed cultural background (e.g. half-Dutch, half- Chinese). The resulting final dataset consisted of 95 respondents, upon which the statistical analyses were performed.
4.3 Measures The independent variables in this research are the independent and interdependent self-construal, both part of the relational self-construal. Singelis’ (1994) scales were used to measure the extent to which a person relates more to either of both relational types (see Appendix I). These scales consisted of 12 items for each type – totalling 24 questions – and were measured using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Singelis (1994) developed these scales by building further upon existing work from researchers who focussed on the measurement of “the cultural construct individualism-collectivism” (e.g. Hui, 1988; Triandis et al., 1986; Triandis, McClusker and Hui, 1990), “the psychological counterparts of
23
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011 individualism (idiocentrism) and collectivism (allocentrism)” (Triandis et al., 1985; Yamaguchi, Kuhlman and Sugimori, 1992), and “the constructs of independent and interdependent selfconstruals” (e.g. Cross and Markus, 1991). From these scales the most relevant items were extracted and rewritten “to focus on the individual’s self-construal” (Singelis, 1994), resulting in an initial scale that included 45 items, and a final scale consisting of 12 items each for both the independent and interdependent self-construal (post-analysis). The dependent variable is the respondents’ job satisfaction. As many different scales exist for the measurement of job satisfaction, Price’s “Handbook of organizational measurement” (1997) was consulted to gain a better overview and insight into the differences that exist between the various scales. Out of the discussed scales, Brayfield and Rothe’s (1951) 18-item scale (see Appendix II) was chosen to be used in this research to measure respondents’ levels of job satisfaction, as it showed the best fit (i.e. questionnaire style, Likert scale measurement), and was reported as one of the most used scales. The scale was measured using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The mediator variable in this model is reflected by differences in preferences for either of Fiske’s (1992) relational models. Respondents were presented with several scenarios developed by Haslam and Fiske (1992). The four scenarios each represented one of the four relationship types distinguished by Fiske (1992), and participants were asked to indicate to what degree they related to each of these relationships (see Appendix III). The scenarios were measured using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (fully). In addition to evaluating these scenarios, respondents were asked to specifically choose which of the four scenarios they related to most. The moderator variable is the respondents’ cultural background and served the purpose of providing the insights in possible differences between Dutch and Chinese employees that this research aims to find. Respondents were asked about their cultural background and had three options: Dutch (native), Chinese (Dutch), and Other. Those respondents that had chosen Other were obliged to enter their cultural background in an open field next to the question on the form. The reason for adding the Other category was to add an extra measure that could prevent the dataset from being contaminated beyond my control. As respondents’ data from this Other category were removed from the dataset, the final moderator variable became qualitative of type.
24
MATCH OR MISMATCH? | 14 JUNE 2011
5 Results After the negatively phrased questions had been recoded, the reliability scale analysis showed good Cronbach’s α results for the job satisfaction (α=0,902), independent self-construal (α=0,764), and interdependent self-construal (α=0,728) scales (see Table 2 for an overview of statistics). Table 2: Mean, standard deviation, Cronbach’s alpha, and correlations for the variables in focus of the overall sample.
N = 95
M
SD
(1) Independent self
4,703
0,803
0,764
(2) Interdependent self
4,742
0,774
0,728
-0,088
(3) Job satisfaction
4,643
0,875
0,902
0,135
(4) Communal Sharing (5) Authority Ranking
3,684 4,705
α
1,864
-
1,847
(1)
(2)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0,080
*
0,259 0,043
*
-
(3)
-0,020 0,252
(4)
***
0,382
*
0,253
(5)
0,039 **
(6) Equality Matching
4,305
1,544
-
0,115
-0,083
0,171
0,270
-0,072
(7) Market Pricing
4,000
1,516
-
0,152
-0,085
-0,168
-0,124
-0,094
*
**
p < .05 p< .01
***
(6)
**
0,295
p