National Culture and Groups: Volume 9

Japanese and American management is 95 percent the same, but differs in all important respects.Takeo Fujisawa, Co-founder of the Honda Motor Corporation.

We explore how cultural factors at both socio-economic and psychological individual levels affect the present generation's beneficence toward future generations in organizations and society. We examine how socio-economic mechanisms may influence the present generation's focus on the future consequences of their decisions. In addition, we examine how self-construals in different cultures might result in different mechanisms underlying the reduction of psychological distance between generations in different cultures. Implications of our cross-cultural analysis to intergenerational decision making within the context of group research in general are discussed.

Personal agency is often considered the hallmark of the independent self. By contrast, interdependent selves are viewed as fitting into groups, adjusting to situations, and minimally asserting themselves. This characterization of the interdependent self as a “non-agent” assumes that personal and group agency are inimical to one another. We propose that group agency does not simply constrain personal agency, it also substitutes for personal agency, coexists with personal agency, and enhances personal agency. Further, we examine how independent selves experience constraint, a similarly underrepresented theme. These arguments introduce more nuanced conceptions of how independent and interdependent selves exercise agency.

We present a model of how culture affects both the conceptualizations and behavioral consequences of power, focusing in particular on how culture moderates the previously demonstrated positive relationship between power and assertive action. Western cultures tend to be characterized by independence, whereas individuals in East Asian cultures tend to think of themselves as interdependent. As a result, power is conceptualized around influence and entitlement in the West, and Westerners behave assertively to satisfy oneself. In contrast, East Asians conceptualize power around responsibility and tend to consider how their behavior affects others. As a result the experience of power activates a tendency toward restraint. Therefore, power is associated with an increase in assertive action in independent cultures, whereas it leads to restraint of action in interdependent cultures. We discuss a number of moderators of this effect including the type of actions and the groups who are affected by those actions.

[Conquer with inaction] (L. C. Tsu (600 BC) Tao te ching).

In this chapter, I develop a model concerning effects of paternalistic organizational control on group creativity. I develop the model on the basis of a diverse set of literatures, including research on individual and group creativity, paternalistic leadership, self-systems theory, and its implications for impact of choice on intrinsic motivation. According to this model, (a) paternalistic organizational control enhances work group creativity for groups in the East; (b) the impact of paternalistic organizational control on group creativity is mediated by groups’ intrinsic motivation; and (c) national culture (i.e., East versus West) moderates the relationship between organizational control and group intrinsic motivation (and subsequently, group creativity) in such a way that organizational control would enhance intrinsic motivation (and creativity) for groups in the East, but it would inhibit intrinsic motivation (and creativity) for groups in the West.

Interpersonal trust is an important element of Chinese guanxi network. In this chapter, we examine Chinese guanxi network from a trust perspective. We adopt the distinction that trust could be built on either a socio-emotional basis (affect-based trust) or an instrumental basis (cognition-based trust) and use this lens to examine cultural differences in Chinese and Western social networks. Specifically, we will discuss (a) how the two dimensions of trust are related in the Chinese versus American context, and (b) how affect-based trust is associated with different forms of social exchange in Chinese versus American social networks. Because dyadic relationships are embedded within larger social networks, trust between two network actors is also likely to be influenced by the social context that surrounds them. Hence, we also examine how dyadic trust is shaped by higher-level network properties such as density.

This paper discusses national differences in the interpretation of time in mixed motive decision contexts, such as negotiation. Specifically, we consider how members of different national cultures (Portugal, Turkey, and the United States) experience temporality in these situations. We argue that cultural temporality such as polychronicity, future orientation, and uncertainty avoidance form part of a broader national environment. The national environment is also expressed in national stability factors such as legal systems, family ties, and homogeneity of populations. We propose that temporality and stability aspects of national environment determine negotiation paradigms, which subsequently influence temporality in negotiations. We conclude by suggesting that inclusion of complex and interdependent national environment factors in the study of negotiation has the potential to substantially advance our understanding of mixed motive decision situations.

Although social influence plays an important role in organizational groups, past findings regarding culture's impact on social influence have been scarce and inconsistent. Past research has found that people from collectivist cultures are more susceptible to social influence, while other studies have found the opposite or no effect. One major weakness of prior research on social influence is the predominantly cognitive orientation that has underemphasized the role of affect in culture's impact on social influence. We address this weakness by outlining an affective model of social influence, thereby expanding our understanding of social influence in multicultural decision-making groups.

We integrate cross-cultural literature with broader literature in survey methodology, human cognition, and communication. First, we briefly review recent work in cognitive survey methodology that advances our understanding of the processes underlying question comprehension and response. Then, using a process model of cultural influence, we provide a framework for hypothesizing how cross-cultural differences may systematically influence the meaning respondents make of the questions that researchers ask, how memory is organized, and subjective theories about what constitutes an appropriate answer and therefore the answers participants are likely to give.

We offer a conceptualization of third culture in intercultural interactions and describe its different forms as well as its antecedents and consequences. Third culture is a multicultural team's shared schema that contains not only team and task knowledge, but also a shared set of beliefs, values, and norms grounded in the national cultures of the team members. We develop a typology to distinguish third culture schema form on two dimensions: third culture strength and third culture content. We then propose both team process and team composition variables that influence the emergence of these different forms. Furthermore, we use social identity formation and sensemaking mechanisms to propose the effects of these third culture forms on team performance.

There are two broad approaches in the literature to studying challenges faced in multicultural teams. One approach is to examine the effects of demographic differences among individual team members (e.g., gender, ethnicity, age) on group process. This literature supports the notion that compositional heterogeneity can be both positive and negative in terms of successful group process (Ely & Thomas, 2001). On one hand, heterogeneity increases the chances that a group will bring a wide range of experiences and consider multiple perspectives in solving problems (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Jehn et al., 1999). On the other, heterogeneity makes it more difficult for groups to establish effective group process. For example, it is more difficult for heterogeneous groups to communicate and to develop work norms (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985). They are also more prone to conflict (Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Jehn et al., 1999). So, although the theoretical benefits of diversity to pool unique perspectives and resources exist, they are more difficult to attain and sustain in practice.

Emotional appraisal is an act of sense making: What does a particular event mean for me? It is not the event itself – but rather an individual's subjective evaluation of the event – that elicits and shapes emotions (Scherer, 1997b). Thus, appraisal is the crucial first step in the emotion process, and describes how we attend, interpret and ascribe meaning to a given event or stimulus. First, emotional appraisal requires attention; given cognitive limits, we must prioritize which events are even worthy of our notice. Second, we must code the event, interpreting its meaning, and in particular its implications for the self (Mesquita & Frijda, 1992). If another person in a team environment is being rude, how one interprets the personal significance of this behavior may change significantly the emotional response – for example, whether the rude individual is a teammate, a customer, a supplier, or a competitor, and whether the rude behavior is directed at an innocent bystander or an instigator. Likewise, a bear approaching a campsite may elicit fear, but the same bear in a zoo could result in delight. Often the cognitive evaluation of stimuli associated with emotional appraisal occurs so quickly and automatically, before our conscious awareness, that we may be unaware of this individual component of the unfolding process. However, even in such cases, we can see the role of appraisal processes by examining, for example, how emotional reactions change over time and vary from person to person. An event that may have caused great embarrassment during youth might in adulthood leave one unfazed, and an event that makes one person angry might make another person sad. Indeed, it can be the lack of conscious awareness of the appraisal process – and the sense that appraisal is clear and lacking a subjective interpretive lens – that prevents individuals from questioning and evaluating it. This results in a particular challenge to reconciling colleagues’ often vastly differing emotional appraisals.

In this chapter, we explore the interrelationships between team member cultural intelligence (CQ) and multinational team functioning and performance. We argue that CQ, an individual's capability to adapt to different cultural contexts, can be enhanced through experience working in a multinational team, suggesting that CQ is not simply a stable individual difference. We propose a conceptual framework, and demonstrate empirical support through a longitudinal study, that links the effectiveness of team experience to shared norms and positive performance feedback. Additionally, we present evidence that mean level of team member CQ predicts intragroup trust, cohesion, and performance for the multinational team.

As part of the globalizing work environment, new forms of organizations have emerged, ranging from international to multinational and transnational organizations. These forms of organizations require high levels of cross-national interdependence, and often the formation of multicultural teams (MCTs), nested within multinational organizations. Employees who operate in the global multinational context should share common meanings, values, and codes of behaviors in order to effectively communicate with each other and coordinate their activities. What helps global multicultural team members create the social glue that connects them to each other, above and beyond the national cultures to which they belong? We propose that a more macro-level meaning system of a global work culture, which is the shared understanding of the visible rules, regulations, and behaviors, and the deeper values and ethics of the global work context, that is formed outside of the level of national cultures, binds members of MCTs. At the individual level, the representation of these global work values in the self leads to the emergence of a global identity, which is an individual's sense of belonging to and identification with groups (such as MCTs), operating in the global work environment of multinational organizations. The chapter focuses on the potential influence of a global work culture, and of a global identity on the effectiveness of MCTs.

Throughout this volume, the authors have clearly taken as their task assessing how management theory and practice can be improved by understanding cultural differences in cognition, emotion, and interpersonal processes. And, as noted above, they have been generally successful in demonstrating that findings from cultural research have significant implications for management theory. But I would like to look at the products of this volume from a slightly different perspective and ask how thinking about culture in terms of management issues might impact research and theory on cultural differences. In particular, I will consider how the chapters in this volume might help us go beyond some traditional understandings of the nature of cultural differences.