me, myself or us: w ork preferences and predispositions of ... · me, myself or us, page ualists...

Me, myself or us: w

individualists and collectivists

Abstract:

The work preferences and p

compared using an international dataset.

research (i.e., Americans and Australians as individualists and Japanese and S. Koreans

collectivists). Specifically, the results showed that individualists were less attached to their

current work situation (and more likely to move to a new job); collectivists indicated less

work/family conflict; individualists valued independent work m

deciding work time more; and, collectivists showed less inclination towards self

The implications of the results for international

Keywords: individualism, collectivism

Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies

Me, myself or us, Page

Me, myself or us: work preferences and predispositions of

individualists and collectivists

Mike Knudstrup

Florida Southern College

Larry Ross

Florida Southern College

eferences and predispositions of individualists and collectivists were

compared using an international dataset. Respondents were culturally classified based on

Australians as individualists and Japanese and S. Koreans

the results showed that individualists were less attached to their


work/family conflict; individualists valued independent work more and collectivists valued

collectivists showed less inclination towards self-

for international managers are then discussed.

s: individualism, collectivism, cross-cultural studies, international management


Me, myself or us,

ork preferences and predispositions of

and collectivists were

d based on

Australians as individualists and Japanese and S. Koreans as

the results showed that individualists were less attached to their


ore and collectivists valued

-enhancement.

management

INTRODUCTION

Individualism/collectivism

2007; Triandis 2001), has much influence within the work environment (Hofstede

understanding of this influence could help multinational organizations, their managers, and their

employees, to be more effective.

their perceptions, preferences, and predisposi

LITERATURE REVIEW

Individualism and collectivism

What distinguishes collectivists and individualists, and vice

of interest and debate (Bond, 1994; Brewer and Chen 2007; Oyserman et al., 2002, Zou

2009). Broadly speaking, individualists tend to put the needs and goals of self over those of their

ingroups, ingroups being groups such as family, friends, and coworkers (Hofstede 1997

et al., 1992). Collectivists, in contrast, tend to f

ingroups and to the context to which they belong than to themselves (Triandis,

This paper compares two individualistic countries, Australia and the United States (Hofstede,

1997), with two collectivistic countries, Japan and South Korea (Hofstede, 1997), on several

dimensions related to the construct of individualism/collectivism.

Commitment to self or organization

Because of their greater relative

encumbered by the strictures of the

are more transitory and fluid (Hofstede, 1997

doesn’t fit with their objectives, they feel freer to leave and seek a more desirable situation

(Hofstede, 1997). For individualists, the

meaning and effect as it does to a collectivist (

not in the individualists cultural programming

context, we might expect individualists

staying in their current work situation, as

H1: Individualists will display less attachment towards their current work situations than will

collectivists

Relative value of personal autonomy and self

Hofstede (1980) notes that individualists emphasize personal autonomy and self

fulfillment. Individualists are calculating in their group mem

costs outweigh the benefits (Kim, 1994)

that groups bind and mutually obligate the individual

Collectivists, thus, have a sense of duty to in

et al., 2002; Triandis 2001) and one of the primary



ividualism/collectivism, an important cross-cultural dimension (Brewer & Chen,

2007; Triandis 2001), has much influence within the work environment (Hofstede


This study will examine individualists and collectivists at work:

their perceptions, preferences, and predispositions.

What distinguishes collectivists and individualists, and vice-versa, has long been an issue

of interest and debate (Bond, 1994; Brewer and Chen 2007; Oyserman et al., 2002, Zou


ingroups, ingroups being groups such as family, friends, and coworkers (Hofstede 1997

). Collectivists, in contrast, tend to feel obligated more to the needs and goals of their

ingroups and to the context to which they belong than to themselves (Triandis, 1989,

two individualistic countries, Australia and the United States (Hofstede,

llectivistic countries, Japan and South Korea (Hofstede, 1997), on several

dimensions related to the construct of individualism/collectivism.

Commitment to self or organization

greater relative emphasis on self over group, individualists are less

by the strictures of their groups (Hofstede, 1997; Triandis 2001); their associati

more transitory and fluid (Hofstede, 1997). When a given group or situational context

h their objectives, they feel freer to leave and seek a more desirable situation

). For individualists, then, the pull of the group doesn’t seem to

does to a collectivist (Yamaguchi et al., 1995 in Triandis

not in the individualists cultural programming, as such (Hofstede, 1997). Translating

individualists to have less commitment and predisposition towards

work situation, as hypothesis 1 (H1) notes:

Individualists will display less attachment towards their current work situations than will

Relative value of personal autonomy and self-fulfillment

(1980) notes that individualists emphasize personal autonomy and self

calculating in their group memberships, tending to leave

Kim, 1994). In contrast, underlying collectivism, “is

tually obligate the individual” (Oyserman et al., page 9,

have a sense of duty to ingroup members (Brewer & Chen, 2007;

) and one of the primary ingroups for collectivists is the family


Me, myself or us,

(Brewer & Chen,

2007; Triandis 2001), has much influence within the work environment (Hofstede 1997). An


This study will examine individualists and collectivists at work:

versa, has long been an issue

of interest and debate (Bond, 1994; Brewer and Chen 2007; Oyserman et al., 2002, Zou et al.,


ingroups, ingroups being groups such as family, friends, and coworkers (Hofstede 1997; Leung

eel obligated more to the needs and goals of their

1989, 2001).

two individualistic countries, Australia and the United States (Hofstede,

llectivistic countries, Japan and South Korea (Hofstede, 1997), on several

emphasis on self over group, individualists are less

heir associations

group or situational context

h their objectives, they feel freer to leave and seek a more desirable situation

doesn’t seem to have the same

Triandis, 2001): it is

Translating to a work

to have less commitment and predisposition towards

Individualists will display less attachment towards their current work situations than will

(1980) notes that individualists emphasize personal autonomy and self-

berships, tending to leave when the

“is the assumption

, 2002).

2007; Oyserman

for collectivists is the family

(Hofstede 1997; Lay et al., 1998).

home, we might expect the dual obligations of work and family to cause conflict for the

collectivist. In support of this, Peterson et al. (1995) in a 21

found that collectivism was positively related to role overload, “an individual’s lack of the

personal resources needed to fulfill commitments, obligations, or requirement

cannot, of course, be in two places at the same time

group and the family) at once.

Individualists, in comparison

their ingroup (Triandis 2001). This manifestation comes in

sayings or songs being one case in point

individualistic culture (Hofstede, 1980))

did it my way”. We might naturally expect the individualist’s

ingroup, then, to affect their workplace behavior and aspirations. Specifically, we might

presume that individualists would

relationships (such as family) more

might feel less qualms or conflict over the pursuit of work goals when they conflict with the

goals or needs of the family. Familial obligations,

Chen, 2007), do not have the same salience for the individualist as th

(Hofstede, 1997). When the individualist’s

him or her to be less concerned.

H2: Collectivists will perceive greater work/family conflict than will individualists

Preferences for independence

A core element of individualism is

et al., 2002). The individualist inherently wants

interests (Hofstede 1997; Kagitcibasi, 1994

context and more malleable to the

individualist sees “me”, the collectivist sees “us

willing to change his/her behavior to meet the requirements of t

express him- or herself independently

Although some have examined these cultural differences in terms of their workplace

manifestations (e.g., Hofstede (1980) and his IBM sample),

contexts outside of the workplace, such as students in

Leung et al., 1992; Leung & Bond, 1982

their assertions somewhat more tenuous

sample of mostly working adults. That being the ca

might expect individualists to prefer

natural consequence, we anticipate

H3: Individualists will display greater preference towards independent work arrangements than

will collectivists



). In a modern society, where people generally work away from


In support of this, Peterson et al. (1995) in a 21-nation study of middle managers


personal resources needed to fulfill commitments, obligations, or requirements (page 429)”.

course, be in two places at the same time or serve two different groups (i.e., the work

comparison, tend to emphasize their own prerogatives over those of

This manifestation comes in many shapes and sizes,

being one case in point. For example, in America (generally considered an

istic culture (Hofstede, 1980)) there are the popular phrases “Do your own thi

naturally expect the individualist’s greater emphasis on self

workplace behavior and aspirations. Specifically, we might

would value the pursuit of workplace success over their ingroup

more so than would collectivists. In particular, individualists


amilial obligations, although important for all cultures (Brewer &

not have the same salience for the individualist as they do for the collectivist

the individualist’s work conflicts with his/her family, we might expect

him or her to be less concerned. This leads to hypothesis 2 (H2):


vidualism is the desire for a high level of independence

. The individualist inherently wants the freedom to make choices and pursue self

Kagitcibasi, 1994). The collectivist, in contrast, is more sensitive to

to the group’s interests (Triandis, 1989; Zou et al., 2009

individualist sees “me”, the collectivist sees “us” (Hofstede 1997). The collectivist

willing to change his/her behavior to meet the requirements of the situation and has less desire to

or herself independently (Zou et al., 2009).


manifestations (e.g., Hofstede (1980) and his IBM sample), unfortunately, many have used

contexts outside of the workplace, such as students in a university setting (e.g., Dakhli, 2009

; Leung & Bond, 1982; Zou et al., 2009), which makes the applicability

sertions somewhat more tenuous. The current study benefits from a more applicable

s. That being the case, and considering the discussion

might expect individualists to prefer greater independence at work than would collectivists. As

anticipate the following hypothesis (H3) to hold:

Individualists will display greater preference towards independent work arrangements than


Me, myself or us,

In a modern society, where people generally work away from


nation study of middle managers


s (page 429)”. One

or serve two different groups (i.e., the work

their own prerogatives over those of

many shapes and sizes, popular

. For example, in America (generally considered an

“Do your own thing” or “I

mphasis on self over the

workplace behavior and aspirations. Specifically, we might

over their ingroup

individualists


for all cultures (Brewer &

ey do for the collectivist

we might expect


a high level of independence (Oyserman

and pursue self-

more sensitive to

; Zou et al., 2009). Where the

he collectivist, thereby, is

and has less desire to


many have used

a university setting (e.g., Dakhli, 2009;

makes the applicability of

more applicable

discussion above, we

collectivists. As a

Individualists will display greater preference towards independent work arrangements than

Tendencies to self-inflate or deflate

Markus and Kityama (1991) contrast individ

equivalent terminology of independent self and interdependent self. Independent selves are

Westerners (culturally) who focus

and actions that have an internal origin (Marku

on self-expression, self-image, and a uniqueness of the person in general (Markus & Kitayama,

2003). Self-esteem, personal success and the sense of being a distinctive and valued individual

are more important attributes for the Western, independent self

Triandis, 1995). In contrast, interdependent selves (or collectivists)

view themselves as relatively more connected and less differentiat

2009). They are motivated by fit in, fulfill and create obligations, and be more sensitive to the

context created by those around the person

(1995) note, people in these cultures

themselves; they have a tendency for self

In sum, the independent (or individualistic) self

collectivistic) self, will tend to create and maintain a positive sense of self (Heine

Feeling good about oneself is more important to

(2001) notes that people in individualistic

enhancement. When we go to compare individualists and collectivists,

individualists to manifest this self

and downplaying their negative at

H4: Individualists will rate themselves higher on positive characteristics and lower on negative

characteristics than will collectivists.

METHOD

Dataset: Work Orientations Module III

The dataset for this study was

III). The WOM III (2005) was a

International Social Survey Programme

(ISSP) is an international collaboration of 41 countries

by the Zentralarchiv für Empirische Sozialforschung at the University of Cologne

Faab, 2007).

Special efforts were made to ensure the cross

survey (Scholz and Faab, 2007):

committee and are pre-tested in various countries

countries and expressed in an equivalent manner

developed over a minimum period of two years during which a multi

prepares several questionnaire drafts in accordance with the decisions taken at general assembly

meetings…A final draft version is discussed and signed off at the general assembly meeting prior

to the year of fielding (page 6, Scholz and Faab

In terms of sampling, the “Working Principles” of the ISSP require individual members

to have nationally representative random



inflate or deflate

Markus and Kityama (1991) contrast individualists and collectivists with the


terners (culturally) who focus on themselves as independent entities with thoughts, feelings,

and actions that have an internal origin (Markus and Kityama, 1991). Independent selves

and a uniqueness of the person in general (Markus & Kitayama,

esteem, personal success and the sense of being a distinctive and valued individual

important attributes for the Western, independent self (Oyserman & Markus, 1993

, interdependent selves (or collectivists) are non-Westerners

view themselves as relatively more connected and less differentiated from others

are motivated by fit in, fulfill and create obligations, and be more sensitive to the

created by those around the person (Markus & Kityama, 1991). As Heine and Lehman

) note, people in these cultures don’t generally hold unrealistically positive views of

have a tendency for self-effacement (Kim et al., 2003; Triandis, 1995

, the independent (or individualistic) self, more so than the interdependent

ill tend to create and maintain a positive sense of self (Heine

Feeling good about oneself is more important to the individualist (Triandis, 1995

2001) notes that people in individualistic cultures display a tendency towards greater self

compare individualists and collectivists, then, we might expect

manifest this self-enhancement tendency by amplifying their positive attributes

their negative attributes. Hypothesis 4 (H4) explicates this point:


characteristics than will collectivists.

Dataset: Work Orientations Module III

for this study was garnered from the Work Orientations Module III (WOM

III (2005) was a cross-national study performed under the umbrella of the

tional Social Survey Programme (2011). The International Social Survey Programme

an international collaboration of 41 countries and the country-level data were merged

by the Zentralarchiv für Empirische Sozialforschung at the University of Cologne

made to ensure the cross-national equivalence and validity of the

“The annual topics for the ISSP are developed…

tested in various countries. ISSP questions need to be relevant to all

countries and expressed in an equivalent manner in all languages (page 3)…ISSP modules are

developed over a minimum period of two years during which a multi-national drafting group


sion is discussed and signed off at the general assembly meeting prior

Scholz and Faab, 2007).”


to have nationally representative random samples of the adult population (Internation


Me, myself or us,

ualists and collectivists with the relatively


with thoughts, feelings,

dependent selves focus

and a uniqueness of the person in general (Markus & Kitayama,

esteem, personal success and the sense of being a distinctive and valued individual

& Markus, 1993;

Westerners, and

ed from others (Zou et al.,

are motivated by fit in, fulfill and create obligations, and be more sensitive to the

As Heine and Lehman

don’t generally hold unrealistically positive views of

; Triandis, 1995).

so than the interdependent (or

ill tend to create and maintain a positive sense of self (Heine et al., 1999).

ndividualist (Triandis, 1995). Triandis

a tendency towards greater self-

we might expect

their positive attributes

his point:


the Work Orientations Module III (WOM

the umbrella of the

. The International Social Survey Programme

data were merged

by the Zentralarchiv für Empirische Sozialforschung at the University of Cologne (Scholz &

alence and validity of the

are developed…by a sub-

ISSP questions need to be relevant to all

…ISSP modules are

national drafting group


sion is discussed and signed off at the general assembly meeting prior


International Social

Survey Programme, 2011). Additional details about the principles and conduct of ISSP surveys

can be found at the ISSP home page (

Variables relevant to individualism and

The authors inspected the WOM III questionnaire for items (or variables) relevant to the

research and theories of individualism and collectivism.

follows (with hypothesis number): Individualists will display less attachment towards their

current work situations than will collectivists

work/family conflict than will individualists

preference towards independent work arrangements

individualists will rate themselves higher on positive characteristics and lower on negative

characteristics than will collectiv

Selection of individualistic and collectivistic countries

Once the questions and constructs were selected, countries needed to be selected for

statistical analysis which could be

well as comparable economically

any confounding or alternative explanations for the results.

attachment towards one’s work. If one were to compare economically dissimilar countries then

differences in work attachment might be caused more by income issues than by cultural values,

as economic freedom would probably result in greater work freedom and less

on level of economic development

theorizing on individualism and collectivism, the two individualistic

Australia and the United States and the two collectivis

South Korea. All four of these countries are in the top 15 rankings for highest gross domestic

product in the world (World Bank

In addition, throughout the literature on individualism/collectivism,

Australia are generally considered to be

and East Asian countries such as Japan and Korea are considered

on collectivism (Brewer & Chen, 2007;

2009). Hofstede (1980), using his IBM data, scored the United States and Australia as the two

most individualistic countries in the world, scoring 91 and 90 out of a 100 point scale,

respectively; Japan and South Korea score

respectively, out of the same 100 point scale

statistical analyses and will be referred to

paper.

RESULTS

Hypothesis 1 is supported

The first analyses were conducted on Hypothesis 1: Individualists will display less

attachment than collectivists to their current work situation. The two questions addressing this

issue were “All in all, how likely



Additional details about the principles and conduct of ISSP surveys

can be found at the ISSP home page (www.issp.org).

ables relevant to individualism and collectivism were selected


of individualism and collectivism. Four areas stood out, and they are as

ws (with hypothesis number): Individualists will display less attachment towards their

than will collectivists (Hypothesis 1), collectivists will experience

than will individualists (Hypothesis 2), individualists will display greater

towards independent work arrangements than will collectivists (Hypothesis 3), and

ndividualists will rate themselves higher on positive characteristics and lower on negative

characteristics than will collectivists (Hypothesis 4).

Selection of individualistic and collectivistic countries

Once the questions and constructs were selected, countries needed to be selected for

be clearly identified as either collectivistic or individualistic

well as comparable economically. Economically comparable countries were desired to reduce

any confounding or alternative explanations for the results. For example, hypothesis 1 dealt with

ment towards one’s work. If one were to compare economically dissimilar countries then


as economic freedom would probably result in greater work freedom and less attachment.

level of economic development (i.e., gross domestic product) and prior research and

theorizing on individualism and collectivism, the two individualistic countries selected were

and the two collectivistic countries selected were Japan and

All four of these countries are in the top 15 rankings for highest gross domestic

in the world (World Bank, 2009).

hroughout the literature on individualism/collectivism, America

red to be countries high in individualism and low on collectivism

and East Asian countries such as Japan and Korea are considered low on individualism and

Brewer & Chen, 2007; Kim et al., 2003; Oyserman et al., 2002; Zou et al.,

Hofstede (1980), using his IBM data, scored the United States and Australia as the two


respectively; Japan and South Korea scored much lower in individualism, at 46 and 18,

100 point scale. These countries were grouped together for all the

and will be referred to as individualists and collectivists throughout this

conducted on Hypothesis 1: Individualists will display less

o their current work situation. The two questions addressing this

ow likely is it that you (i.e., the respondent) will try to find a job with


Me, myself or us,

Additional details about the principles and conduct of ISSP surveys


Four areas stood out, and they are as

ws (with hypothesis number): Individualists will display less attachment towards their

ollectivists will experience greater

ndividualists will display greater

(Hypothesis 3), and

ndividualists will rate themselves higher on positive characteristics and lower on negative

Once the questions and constructs were selected, countries needed to be selected for the

identified as either collectivistic or individualistic, as

comparable countries were desired to reduce

For example, hypothesis 1 dealt with

ment towards one’s work. If one were to compare economically dissimilar countries then


attachment. Based

prior research and

countries selected were

tic countries selected were Japan and

All four of these countries are in the top 15 rankings for highest gross domestic

America and

low on collectivism

low on individualism and high

; Zou et al.,

Hofstede (1980), using his IBM data, scored the United States and Australia as the two


, at 46 and 18,

These countries were grouped together for all the

throughout this

conducted on Hypothesis 1: Individualists will display less

o their current work situation. The two questions addressing this

will try to find a job with

another firm or organization with

2 is unlikely, 3 is likely, and 4 is very likely

quite a bit more pay in order to stay with this organization”

neither agree or disagree, 4 is disagree, and 5 is strongly dis

detect differences between individualists and coll

Appendix). The results indicated that individualists were significantly more likely than

collectivists to try to find a new job in the next 12 months with

1.65 (S.D. .933), p<.001 and to accept a higher p

3.26 (S.D. 1.22) versus 2.83 (S.D. 1.37) and p<.001

support was found for Hypothesis 1: Individualists will display less attachment than collectivists

to their current work situation.

Initially, the two variables above were combined to possibly create a single scale.

Although the two variables were

the Cronbach’s alpha was .54 which

1993); therefore, the variables were considered separately.

Job satisfaction was an additional va

satisfied are you in your main job?” in a 7

dissatisfied.) Follow-up analyses were

might have been caused by job satisfaction

words, perhaps job satisfaction was the real causal factor in job

grouping factor’s significant effects

to be related both with intentions to quit and

2008; Scott et al., 2006; Seston et al, 2009

performed with level of job satisfaction as a covari

between subjects variable for both job variables

significant covariate in the ANCOVA analyse

of individualism/collectivism were

significant at p<.001) in predicting both job variables

are not included but will be sent upon request by

Hypothesis 2 is not supported: Results in opposite direction

Next, statistical analyses were performed for Hypothesis 2:

greater work/family conflict than will individualists.

was: “Suppose you could change the way you spend your time, spending more time on some

things and less time on others. (For) time with your family, would you like to spend?” (scale

was 1 to 5 with 1= much more time, 2= a bit more time, 3=same time as now, 4=a bit

and 5=much less time). The second question was

your job interfere with your family life? Would you say…” (scale was 1 to 5 with 1=always,

2=often, 3=sometimes, 4=hardly ever, 5=never).


Although the two variables were

the Cronbach’s alpha was .36 which is

1993); therefore, the variables were considered separately.

T-tests were performed to detect differences between individualists an

Table 2 indicates the results (see Appendix)



another firm or organization within the next 12 months (reverse coded so that 1 is very unlikely,

2 is unlikely, 3 is likely, and 4 is very likely) and “I would turn down another job that o

quite a bit more pay in order to stay with this organization” (1 is strongly agree, 2 is agree, 3 is

neither agree or disagree, 4 is disagree, and 5 is strongly disagree). T-tests were performed to

detect differences between individualists and collectivists. Table 1 displays the results

The results indicated that individualists were significantly more likely than

new job in the next 12 months with a mean of 2.02 (S.D. 1.08) versus

and to accept a higher paying job if it were available with

(S.D. 1.22) versus 2.83 (S.D. 1.37) and p<.001, as indicated in Table 1. Thus



significantly correlated (Pearson’s Correlation = .38

the Cronbach’s alpha was .54 which is below the generally accepted threshold of .7 (Cortina

the variables were considered separately.

Job satisfaction was an additional variable included in the WOM III dataset.

satisfied are you in your main job?” in a 7-point scale from completely satisfied to completely

up analyses were performed to determine if the differences in Table 1

satisfaction and not by individualism/collectivism

words, perhaps job satisfaction was the real causal factor in job-related intentions and the

s significant effects were merely spurious. Research has shown job

elated both with intentions to quit and willingness stay with a job (e.g., Armstrong et al.,

Seston et al, 2009). Analysis of covariances (or ANCOVA

performed with level of job satisfaction as a covariate and individualism/collectivism as a

for both job variables. Although job satisfaction was a

covariate in the ANCOVA analyses of work attachment, the between subject

individualism/collectivism were still greater than the effects of job satisfaction (and still

in predicting both job variables. (For the sake of parsimony, these results

will be sent upon request by the authors.)

Hypothesis 2 is not supported: Results in opposite direction

Next, statistical analyses were performed for Hypothesis 2: Collectivists w

conflict than will individualists. The first question addressing this issue

: “Suppose you could change the way you spend your time, spending more time on some


ime, 2= a bit more time, 3=same time as now, 4=a bit

and 5=much less time). The second question was “How often do you feel that the demands of


3=sometimes, 4=hardly ever, 5=never).


significantly correlated (Pearson’s Correlation = .23

the Cronbach’s alpha was .36 which is below the generally accepted threshold of .7 (Cortina,

the variables were considered separately.

tests were performed to detect differences between individualists and collectivists.

(see Appendix). Contrary to expectations, the results indicated that


Me, myself or us,

so that 1 is very unlikely,

) and “I would turn down another job that offered

(1 is strongly agree, 2 is agree, 3 is

tests were performed to

the results (see

The results indicated that individualists were significantly more likely than

(S.D. 1.08) versus

aying job if it were available with a mean of

. Thus, strong



correlated (Pearson’s Correlation = .38, p<.001),

old of .7 (Cortina

riable included in the WOM III dataset. (“How

point scale from completely satisfied to completely

es in Table 1

and not by individualism/collectivism. In other

related intentions and the

Research has shown job satisfaction

e.g., Armstrong et al.,

ANCOVA’s) were

alism/collectivism as a

. Although job satisfaction was a statistically

between subject effects

still greater than the effects of job satisfaction (and still

. (For the sake of parsimony, these results

Collectivists will experience

The first question addressing this issue

: “Suppose you could change the way you spend your time, spending more time on some


ime, 2= a bit more time, 3=same time as now, 4=a bit less time,

How often do you feel that the demands of



correlated (Pearson’s Correlation = .23, p<.001),

generally accepted threshold of .7 (Cortina,

d collectivists.

he results indicated that

individualists were significantly more likely

collectivists. The mean for the item “More time w/Family” was 1.83 (S.D. .82) for individualists

and 2.38 (S.D. .74) for collectivists

“Job Interferes w/Family” was 3.33 (S.D. 1.04) for individualists and 3.8

collectivists with a t-value of -14.75 and p<.001

Given the counterintuitive results, the authors looked for an alternative explanation. One

possibility considered was that hours

caused the resulting work/family conflict. In other words, perhaps hours worked per week were

the real causal factor in determining work/family conflict and the effects of

individualism/collectivism were spurious. Research has shown hou

significant effect on work/family conflict (

Yildrim & Aycan, 2008). Edwards and Rothbard (2000) us

indicate how elements like time are finite, such that an increase of hours in one domain of life

(e.g., work) takes away from available hours in another domain of life (e.g., home).

ANCOVA’s were performed with hours wo

individualism/collectivism as a between subjects variable for both work/family variables.

Although the covariate (hours worked per week) had

ANCOVA analyses, the between subject effe

than the effects of hours worked (and still significant at p<.001) in predicting both job variables.

(For the sake of parsimony, these results are not included but will be sen

authors.)

Hypothesis 3 receives mixed support

Next, statistical analyses were performed for Hypothesis 3: Individualists will display

greater preference towards independent work arrangements than will collectivists.

questions addressing this issue were: “How important is a job that allows someone to work

independently?” (scale 1 to 5 with 1=very important, 2=important, 3=neither important nor

unimportant, 4=not important, 5=not at all important); and “How important is a job that allows

someone to decide their times or days of work?” (scale 1 to 5 same as previous question).

Initially, the two variables above were combined to possibly create a single scale. Although the

two variables were significantly correlated (Pearson’s Correlation = .32, p<

alpha was .48 which is below the generally accepted threshold of .7 (Cortina, 1993); thus, the

variables were considered separately.



significantly more likely to view working independently

S.D. .82) than were collectivists

indicated in Table 3. Contrary to expectations, however, collectivists were significantly more

likely to view deciding times of days or work as

Hypothesis 4 is supported

Finally, statistical analyses were performed for Hypothesis 4:

themselves higher on positive characteristics and lower on negative characteristics than will

collectivists. Two questions addressing this issue were: “To what extent do you



individualists were significantly more likely to experience work/family conflict than were

The mean for the item “More time w/Family” was 1.83 (S.D. .82) for individualists

and 2.38 (S.D. .74) for collectivists with a t-value of -26.35 and p <.001. The mean for the item

“Job Interferes w/Family” was 3.33 (S.D. 1.04) for individualists and 3.84 (S.D. .99) for

14.75 and p<.001, as indicated in Table 2.


hours worked (reported per week—included in the dataset)


the real causal factor in determining work/family conflict and the effects of

individualism/collectivism were spurious. Research has shown hours worked to have a

mily conflict (e.g., Lingard & Francis, 2005; Ng & Feldman, 2008;

Edwards and Rothbard (2000) use the phrase resource drain to


(e.g., work) takes away from available hours in another domain of life (e.g., home).

ANCOVA’s were performed with hours worked per week as a covariate and

alism/collectivism as a between subjects variable for both work/family variables.

Although the covariate (hours worked per week) had statistically significant effects in the

ANCOVA analyses, the between subject effects of individualism/collectivism were still greater


(For the sake of parsimony, these results are not included but will be sent upon request by the

support


greater preference towards independent work arrangements than will collectivists.

were: “How important is a job that allows someone to work



ecide their times or days of work?” (scale 1 to 5 same as previous question).


two variables were significantly correlated (Pearson’s Correlation = .32, p<.001), the Cronbach’s

below the generally accepted threshold of .7 (Cortina, 1993); thus, the

variables were considered separately.


(see Appendix). The results show that individualists were

view working independently as personally important

(mean 2.40, S.D. 1.01) with a t-value of -18.43 and p<

Contrary to expectations, however, collectivists were significantly more

likely to view deciding times of days or work as more important than were individualists.

statistical analyses were performed for Hypothesis 4: Individualists will rate


. Two questions addressing this issue were: “To what extent do you


Me, myself or us,

to experience work/family conflict than were

The mean for the item “More time w/Family” was 1.83 (S.D. .82) for individualists

. The mean for the item

4 (S.D. .99) for


d in the dataset)


rs worked to have a

Ng & Feldman, 2008;

the phrase resource drain to


(e.g., work) takes away from available hours in another domain of life (e.g., home). Thus,

alism/collectivism as a between subjects variable for both work/family variables.

significant effects in the

cts of individualism/collectivism were still greater


t upon request by the


greater preference towards independent work arrangements than will collectivists. The two

were: “How important is a job that allows someone to work



ecide their times or days of work?” (scale 1 to 5 same as previous question).


.001), the Cronbach’s

below the generally accepted threshold of .7 (Cortina, 1993); thus, the

d collectivists.

that individualists were

as personally important (mean 1.96,

18.43 and p<.001, as

Contrary to expectations, however, collectivists were significantly more

important than were individualists.

Individualists will rate


. Two questions addressing this issue were: “To what extent do you agree or

disagree with the following statement: I see myself as someone who does a thorough job

(scaled 1 to 5 with 1=strongly agree, 2=agree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=disagree,

5=strongly disagree); and “To what extent do you agree or disagree wi

I see myself as someone who tends to be lazy

Initially, the two variables above were combined to possibly create a single scale (with

the “I see myself as someone who tends to be l

were significantly correlated (Pearson’s Correlation = .33, p<.001), the Cronbach’s

which is below the generally accepted threshold of .7 (Cortina, 1993); thus, the variables were

considered separately.



the results indicated that individualists

view themselves as thorough than were collectivists

20.75 and p<.001. Also as expected, individualists

themselves as lazy than were collectivists

p<.001, as indicated in Table 4.

A summary of the study’s resu

Hypothesis 1: Individualists will display less attachment towards their current work situations

than will collectivists.

Item one: All in all, how likely is it that you will try to find a job with another firm or

organization within the next 12 months? Result: Individualists were more likely than

collectivists to find a new job.

Item two: I would turn down another job that offered quite a bit more pay in order to stay with

this organization. Result: Individualists were less likely than collectivists to turn down another

job.

Hypothesis 2: Collectivists will perceive greater work/family conflict

Item one: Suppose you could change the way you spend your time, spending more time on some

things and less time on others. (For) time with your family, would you like to spend more or less

time? Result: Individualists wanted to

Item two: How often do you feel that the demands of your job interfere with your family life?

Result: Individualists were more likely than collectivists to feel demands of job interfere with

family life.

Hypothesis 3: Individualists will display greater preference towards independent work

arrangements than will collectivists

Item one: How important is a job that allows someone to work independently? Result:

Collectivists were less likely than in



disagree with the following statement: I see myself as someone who does a thorough job


5=strongly disagree); and “To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

I see myself as someone who tends to be lazy” (same 1 to 5 scale as the previous question).


the “I see myself as someone who tends to be lazy” reverse scored). Although the two variables

were significantly correlated (Pearson’s Correlation = .33, p<.001), the Cronbach’s

below the generally accepted threshold of .7 (Cortina, 1993); thus, the variables were


(see Appendix). Both results confirmed hypothesis 4. As expected,

he results indicated that individualists (mean 1.55, S.D. .58) were significantly more likely

themselves as thorough than were collectivists (mean 2.12, S.D. .97) with a t

. Also as expected, individualists (mean 4.09, S.D. .92) were less likely to view

ves as lazy than were collectivists (mean 3.56, S.D. 1.12) with a t-value of 14.91 and

A summary of the study’s results




urn down another job that offered quite a bit more pay in order to stay with


Hypothesis 2: Collectivists will perceive greater work/family conflict than will individualists



time? Result: Individualists wanted to spend more time with family than did collectivists.




arrangements than will collectivists


Collectivists were less likely than individualists to value a job with independent work.


Me, myself or us,

disagree with the following statement: I see myself as someone who does a thorough job”


th the following statement:

(same 1 to 5 scale as the previous question).


azy” reverse scored). Although the two variables

were significantly correlated (Pearson’s Correlation = .33, p<.001), the Cronbach’s alpha was .48

below the generally accepted threshold of .7 (Cortina, 1993); thus, the variables were

d collectivists.

Both results confirmed hypothesis 4. As expected,

were significantly more likely to

(mean 2.12, S.D. .97) with a t-value of -

were less likely to view

value of 14.91 and




urn down another job that offered quite a bit more pay in order to stay with


than will individualists



spend more time with family than did collectivists.





dividualists to value a job with independent work.

Item two: How important is a job that allows someone to decide their times or days of work?

Result: Collectivists believed deciding times of work was more important than did

individualists.

Hypothesis 4: Individualists will rate themselves higher on positive characteristics and lower on

negative characteristics than will collectivists.

Item one: I see myself as someone who does a thorough job. Result: Collectivists were less

likely than individualists to see themselves as doing a thorough job.

Item two: I see myself as someone who tends to be lazy. Result: Collectivists were more likely

than individualists to see themselves as lazy.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Companies with individualistic workers should increase retention efforts

Individualists and collectivists were significantly different on a

in this study. These results seem to have

cross-cultural environment. First, individualists displayed less attachment to their current work

situations than did collectivists (Hypothesis 1)

seek a new job and would also be more willing to accept a new pos

significantly higher. This indicates that companies operating in more individualistic

environments may need to work harder at retaining workers.

advocating just such methods for keeping employees.

(2008), for example, found in an Australian context that

development were significantly related to intentions to stay with an organization.

(2005), found that pay satisfaction led to lower intentions to quit.

a less orthodox approach to employee turnover: Accepting

departed employees through cooperative relationships (if they move on to organizations such

customers or suppliers) and having an alumni network of ex

to these and other studies to address issues related

resources of those workers who do leave.

Create more flexible work arrangements for individualistic workers

The result for hypothesis 2

than collectivists, was surprising. Although this result contrasts with our stereotypical

definitions of collectivism, it does confirm

belonging to ingroups is just as important to individualists as it is to collectivists. In fact,

Oyserman et al. argue that relationality may be a component of individualism as

choose to be close to their family but not obligated to them. The distinguishing factor

(Oyserman et al., 2002) is that collectivists feel a greater sense of duty to their ingroups and a

greater willingness to promote group harmony than do indi

This result (i.e., greater work/family conflict

direction of hypothesis 2) may also

lower work attachment (hypothesis 1





s 4: Individualists will rate themselves higher on positive characteristics and lower on

negative characteristics than will collectivists.


individualists to see themselves as doing a thorough job.


themselves as lazy.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

individualistic workers should increase retention efforts

Individualists and collectivists were significantly different on all the variables examined

ese results seem to have implications for organizations that operate within a

tural environment. First, individualists displayed less attachment to their current work

situations than did collectivists (Hypothesis 1). Individualists indicated they were more likely to

seek a new job and would also be more willing to accept a new position if the pay was

This indicates that companies operating in more individualistic

work harder at retaining workers. There is a body of literature

methods for keeping employees. To name just a few, Chew and Chan

found in an Australian context that pay, recognition, training and career

development were significantly related to intentions to stay with an organization.

sfaction led to lower intentions to quit. Somaya et al. (2008) advocate

a less orthodox approach to employee turnover: Accepting this fact and taking advantage of

departed employees through cooperative relationships (if they move on to organizations such

customers or suppliers) and having an alumni network of ex-employees. The reader is directed

address issues related to retaining workers and capitalizing upon the

who do leave.

flexible work arrangements for individualistic workers

ypothesis 2, with individualists indicating greater work/family conflict

surprising. Although this result contrasts with our stereotypical

ectivism, it does confirm Oyserman et al’s. (2002) observation that a sense


Oyserman et al. argue that relationality may be a component of individualism as



greater willingness to promote group harmony than do individualists.

work/family conflict reported by individualists—

also imply at least a partial solution to increase the individualists’

(hypothesis 1 results). Certainly, there has been much positive press


Me, myself or us,



s 4: Individualists will rate themselves higher on positive characteristics and lower on



the variables examined

implications for organizations that operate within a

tural environment. First, individualists displayed less attachment to their current work

indicated they were more likely to

ition if the pay was

This indicates that companies operating in more individualistic

body of literature

Chew and Chan

pay, recognition, training and career

development were significantly related to intentions to stay with an organization. Currall et al.,

Somaya et al. (2008) advocate

this fact and taking advantage of

departed employees through cooperative relationships (if they move on to organizations such as

The reader is directed

capitalizing upon the

with individualists indicating greater work/family conflict

surprising. Although this result contrasts with our stereotypical

s. (2002) observation that a sense of


Americans



—opposite

the individualists’

there has been much positive press

given to flexible work arrangements (Shockley & Allen, 2007) and

making efforts at family friendly practices

Hypothesis two’s result reinforce

individualistic countries to take even greater strides

between their work and family lives. Flextime, job sharing, compressed work weeks, and

telecommuting are all methods of doing so and

even greater extent to reduce work/family conflict

Give individualists work independence and collectivists time flexibility

Tests for hypothesis 3 showed individualists reporting

independently than collectivists (this was the first of two items relating to this hypothesis)

result lends support to theories such as Hackman and Oldham

Model’s core job dimension of autonomy

discretion and independence in a job (Hackman & Oldham, 1980)

independence more than collectivists,

theories, such as Hackman and Oldham’s job design model are culture bound and not necessarily

applicable to other cultures (Boyacigiller & Adler 1991)

Tests of the second item con

greater ability to decide their time of work.

interpret. In looking more closely at the results, we can see

closer for this variable than any of the other variables. (The

the collectivists mean was 2.33 with a difference of .15 or around 1/6 of a standard deviation.)

The scaling for this variable demonstrates that this element of work, perhaps, was not

exceptionally important for either gro

Perhaps the strongest conclusion one could draw was that deciding hours of what was somewhat

important for both individualists and collectivists, but not critical in importance for either group.

Future research could investigate this phenomenon more closely

work time decisions, such as the ability to telecommute or the availability of transportation to

and from work.

Deflate individualists’ claims and inflate

Hypothesis 4 (i.e., individualists will rate themselves higher on positive characteristics

and lower on negative characteristics than

tend to self-enhance more and self

with prior research and provide additional confirmation, since previous studies used students in

their methods (see, for example, Kim et al., 2003)

cultural managers. Firstly, during the interview and selection phase, interviewers can be

of this tendency. They can be careful to interpret claims being made by individualists and

collectivists. Since individualists seemingly tend to overstate their positive and downplay their

negative characteristics, interviewers could be careful about attenuating or, at a minimum,

carefully validating the accuracy of assertions made by individualists. Vice

collectivists seemingly tend to downplay their positive and overstate their negative

characteristics, interviewers might carefully amplify the positive and attenuate the negative

claims made by collectivists. This perceptual handicapping of individualists and co



given to flexible work arrangements (Shockley & Allen, 2007) and organizations are

making efforts at family friendly practices such as telecommuting (Golden et al., 2006

reinforces those efforts and perhaps encourages organizations in

to take even greater strides to help employees manage the intersection


methods of doing so and strategies such as these could be embraced to an

uce work/family conflict.

Give individualists work independence and collectivists time flexibility

showed individualists reporting greater desire to work

ently than collectivists (this was the first of two items relating to this hypothesis)

lends support to theories such as Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) Job Characteristics

ore job dimension of autonomy. Autonomy is the degree to which one has freedom,

discretion and independence in a job (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). That individualists valued

independence more than collectivists, however, also seems to support claims that man


Boyacigiller & Adler 1991).

second item connected to hypothesis 3 showed that collectivists desired

decide their time of work. The authors find this result somewhat difficult to

In looking more closely at the results, we can see that the means for the

closer for this variable than any of the other variables. (The individualists mean was 2.48 and



exceptionally important for either group, as a response of 2 meant important and



Future research could investigate this phenomenon more closely as many factors might affect


Deflate individualists’ claims and inflate collectivists’ claims

ndividualists will rate themselves higher on positive characteristics

and lower on negative characteristics than will collectivists) was confirmed: individualists did

enhance more and self-deprecate less than collectivists. These results are consistent


their methods (see, for example, Kim et al., 2003). This also has clear implications for cross

cultural managers. Firstly, during the interview and selection phase, interviewers can be


sts seemingly tend to overstate their positive and downplay their


carefully validating the accuracy of assertions made by individualists. Vice-versa, since

ivists seemingly tend to downplay their positive and overstate their negative

might carefully amplify the positive and attenuate the negative

claims made by collectivists. This perceptual handicapping of individualists and co


Me, myself or us,

organizations are definitely

(Golden et al., 2006).

organizations in

to help employees manage the intersection


be embraced to an

greater desire to work

ently than collectivists (this was the first of two items relating to this hypothesis). This

Job Characteristics

Autonomy is the degree to which one has freedom,

. That individualists valued

seems to support claims that many of our


that collectivists desired

The authors find this result somewhat difficult to

that the means for the two groups are

individualists mean was 2.48 and



as a response of 2 meant important and 3 meant neutral.



as many factors might affect


ndividualists will rate themselves higher on positive characteristics

will collectivists) was confirmed: individualists did

less than collectivists. These results are consistent


has clear implications for cross-

cultural managers. Firstly, during the interview and selection phase, interviewers can be aware


sts seemingly tend to overstate their positive and downplay their


versa, since

ivists seemingly tend to downplay their positive and overstate their negative

might carefully amplify the positive and attenuate the negative

claims made by collectivists. This perceptual handicapping of individualists and collectivists

should lead to more accurate selection decisions. Awareness of

highly important for cross-cultural interviewers.

Secondly, awareness of these self

(by collectivists) tendencies is prob

no secret that managers are affected by what is said by employees as well as what is

done (e.g., see the impression managemen

to be careful not to be unduly affected by claims or assertions of what has been done or

will be accomplished—particularly in cross

enhance and collectivists might self

be done so that, for example, the best employees get selected for the right projects, or,

example, employees get performance appraisals that are based upon their actual

accomplishments and not upon embellishments or lack thereof.

LIMITATIONS

Single-item measures

The use of single-item measures in this study could be considered a limitation in

interpreting the results. Some organizational researchers believe that single item measures

should not be used and are inappropriate for at least a couple of reasons

2002). First, single-item measures don’t allow for testing the inter

calculating the related statistics such as coefficient alphas

scales leading higher reliabilities (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994)

have some breadth, a single item may not fully measure the whole construct (

Rossiter, 2007). For example, job satisfacti

with pay, supervision, working conditions, or opportunities for advancement. A single measure

such as “I am satisfied with my job” may be insufficient to encompass all of those areas.

Single-item measures are, however

& Reichers, 1996). Single-item measures tend to hav

more easily see the linkage between

et al., 1998). Surveys with many items are sometimes viewed as redundant, monotonous and are

also more likely to result in the respondent either not completing the survey or not giving full

attention to each item (Dollinger & Malmquist, 2009; Gardner et al

Single-item measures are also easier to develop and facilitate survey implementation in large

scale survey operations (Dollinger & Malmquist, 2009

Module III) used in this paper. Single ite

contexts (Nagy, 2002; Oshagbemi, 1999

complete survey instrument unwieldy for both the respondents and those who imple

survey; there are many more questions and much more data to be store

manipulated (Berkvist & Rossiter, 2007;

In addition to their relative economy

better measurement in certain instances. Multiple

caused by common response patterns

2007; Robins et al., 2001). Multiple questions with similar required responses, such as groups of

Likert-scaled responses, can lead to respondents answering each

(Williams et al., 1989). Thus, high inter



lead to more accurate selection decisions. Awareness of these tendencies

cultural interviewers.

Secondly, awareness of these self-enhancement (by individualists) and self

ts) tendencies is probably also critical for day-to-day cross-cultural managers. It is

no secret that managers are affected by what is said by employees as well as what is

see the impression management literature such as Harris et al., 2009). Managers need

to be careful not to be unduly affected by claims or assertions of what has been done or

particularly in cross-cultural settings. Since individualists might self

enhance and collectivists might self-deprecate, concomitant adjustments in perceptions

so that, for example, the best employees get selected for the right projects, or,

employees get performance appraisals that are based upon their actual

embellishments or lack thereof.

item measures in this study could be considered a limitation in


be used and are inappropriate for at least a couple of reasons (Diener, 1984; Loo,

measures don’t allow for testing the inter-item correlations of items and

related statistics such as coefficient alphas (Jordan & Turner, 2008

scales leading higher reliabilities (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Secondly, for constructs that

have some breadth, a single item may not fully measure the whole construct (Berkvist &

). For example, job satisfaction may have several elements, such as satisfaction



s are, however, legitimate for several reasons (Nagy, 2002;

item measures tend to have high face validity as respondents can

more easily see the linkage between the items and the topics of the survey (Nagy, 2002;

). Surveys with many items are sometimes viewed as redundant, monotonous and are


Dollinger & Malmquist, 2009; Gardner et al., 1998; Wanous et al., 1997

item measures are also easier to develop and facilitate survey implementation in large

(Dollinger & Malmquist, 2009), such as the data (i.e., Work Orientations

Single items are easier to translate in different populations

Oshagbemi, 1999). Further, constructs with many items can make a

complete survey instrument unwieldy for both the respondents and those who imple

many more questions and much more data to be stored, entered and

Berkvist & Rossiter, 2007; Wanous et al., 1997).

In addition to their relative economy (Nagy, 2002), single-item surveys may also provide

stances. Multiple-item surveys can have spurious correlation

caused by common response patterns on the part of survey respondents (Berkvist & Rossiter,

Multiple questions with similar required responses, such as groups of

scaled responses, can lead to respondents answering each question in a simil

). Thus, high inter-item correlations can be caused more by common


Me, myself or us,

these tendencies would seem

enhancement (by individualists) and self-deprecatory

cultural managers. It is

no secret that managers are affected by what is said by employees as well as what is actually

). Managers need

to be careful not to be unduly affected by claims or assertions of what has been done or of what

cultural settings. Since individualists might self-

recate, concomitant adjustments in perceptions need to

so that, for example, the best employees get selected for the right projects, or, for

employees get performance appraisals that are based upon their actual

item measures in this study could be considered a limitation in


(Diener, 1984; Loo,

item correlations of items and

2008), with longer

. Secondly, for constructs that

Berkvist &

on may have several elements, such as satisfaction



Nagy, 2002; Wanous

as respondents can

Nagy, 2002; Gardner

). Surveys with many items are sometimes viewed as redundant, monotonous and are


Wanous et al., 1997).

item measures are also easier to develop and facilitate survey implementation in large

(i.e., Work Orientations

populations and

items can make a

complete survey instrument unwieldy for both the respondents and those who implement the

d, entered and

item surveys may also provide

item surveys can have spurious correlations

Berkvist & Rossiter,

Multiple questions with similar required responses, such as groups of

question in a similar way

item correlations can be caused more by common

method variance than by the actual correlations with one another

Single-item responses may also better measure global constructs

2002). Take job satisfaction, for instance, which

satisfaction with pay, supervision, working conditions, or opportunities for advancement. A

typical multiple-item measure would garner information about all of the different facets, with

responses to each item being weighed equally. The respondent, however, may not value each

facet equally and may, in fact, be relatively unconcerned about some facets and very

about others (Jordan & Turner, 2008; Nagy, 2

item measure does not take this into account

Turner, 2008). A single-item, measure, however, allows the respondent to choose w

facet is most salient to him/her in responding to the single

This seems to be a real strength of single

Indeed, there seem to be very good reasons for

consider their use as legitimate, given the var

respondents’ time and motivation and the researchers objective

support of this point, researchers studying this issue have

reliabilities of single-items to be generally

Dollinger & Malmquist, 2009; Wanous et al., 1997

Country as culture

This study, similar to many previous studi

al., 1997) did not specifically measure culture but assigned respo

their location: i.e., respondents from Australia and the United States were assigned to the

individualistic culture and respondents from Japan and South

collectivistic culture. A weakness of this method is that it

were sufficiently distant on the culture factor of interest...to cause the observed differences in the

dependent variable (Sivakumar & Nakata, 2001, page 556).

as culture” or “country as surrogate for culture” problem (Cavusgil & Das, 1991; Nasif et al.,

1991; Samiee & Jeong 1994). Of course, there is merit to this point. Even if

assigned to the correct cultural category, t

be collectivists in individualistic countries and individualists in collectivistic countries. These

mismatches might attenuate or even eliminate

variables of interest. There could also be unspecified variables that confound the results.

method also, perhaps, leads to greater stereotyping among researchers and

Kirkman et al., (2009) posited, managers also need to know their individual employee’s cultural

values. It is probably inappropriate for managers in a collectivistic culture to treat all employees

as collectivistic and vice-versa for managers in individualistic

In spite of this country as culture issue, there was good basis for the assignment of the

focal countries to the two different cultures.

researchers and research have categorized Australia and the Unit

South Korea and Japan as collectivistic (Brewer & Chen, 2007; Hofstede 1980; Oyserman et al.,

2002; Zou et al., 2009). Secondly

difficult to operationalize at the i

problematic with measurement issues (Bond, 200



method variance than by the actual correlations with one another (Jordan & Turn

better measure global constructs (Jordan & Turner, 2008

. Take job satisfaction, for instance, which, as noted above, has several facets such as


item measure would garner information about all of the different facets, with

eing weighed equally. The respondent, however, may not value each

facet equally and may, in fact, be relatively unconcerned about some facets and very

(Jordan & Turner, 2008; Nagy, 2002; Scarpello & Campbell, 1983)

measure does not take this into account as each item tends to be weighted equally (Jordan &

item, measure, however, allows the respondent to choose w

to him/her in responding to the single-item at hand (Jordan & Turner 2008)

This seems to be a real strength of single-item measures.

very good reasons for using single-item measures, and

consider their use as legitimate, given the various trade-offs noted above relating to the

respondents’ time and motivation and the researchers objectives for his/her study. As further

esearchers studying this issue have found estimated and test

items to be generally high and also valid in their predictive validity (e.g.,

; Wanous et al., 1997).

This study, similar to many previous studies (e.g., Heine & Lehman, 1997;

al., 1997) did not specifically measure culture but assigned respondents to a culture

: i.e., respondents from Australia and the United States were assigned to the

individualistic culture and respondents from Japan and South Korea were assigned to the

A weakness of this method is that it “is difficult to say that the…countries


kumar & Nakata, 2001, page 556). This is also known as the “country


Of course, there is merit to this point. Even if the countries

assigned to the correct cultural category, there are bound to be persons who do not fit: there will

collectivists in individualistic countries and individualists in collectivistic countries. These

mismatches might attenuate or even eliminate the hypothesized relationships between the

There could also be unspecified variables that confound the results.

leads to greater stereotyping among researchers and even managers.

et al., (2009) posited, managers also need to know their individual employee’s cultural

It is probably inappropriate for managers in a collectivistic culture to treat all employees

versa for managers in individualistic countries.


focal countries to the two different cultures. As noted in the methods section, previous

researchers and research have categorized Australia and the United States as individualistic and


Secondly, the construct of individualism/collectivism is sometimes

erationalize at the individual level. Many individualism/collectivism

measurement issues (Bond, 2002) and low reliabilities (Fiske, 2002;


Me, myself or us,

(Jordan & Turner, 2008).

(Jordan & Turner, 2008; Nagy,

as noted above, has several facets such as


item measure would garner information about all of the different facets, with

eing weighed equally. The respondent, however, may not value each

facet equally and may, in fact, be relatively unconcerned about some facets and very concerned

Campbell, 1983). A multiple-

equally (Jordan &

item, measure, however, allows the respondent to choose whichever

(Jordan & Turner 2008).

item measures, and to

above relating to the

s for his/her study. As further

test-retest

predictive validity (e.g.,

es (e.g., Heine & Lehman, 1997; Kityama et

to a culture based upon

: i.e., respondents from Australia and the United States were assigned to the

Korea were assigned to the

“is difficult to say that the…countries


This is also known as the “country


the countries were

not fit: there will

collectivists in individualistic countries and individualists in collectivistic countries. These

relationships between the

There could also be unspecified variables that confound the results. This

even managers. As

et al., (2009) posited, managers also need to know their individual employee’s cultural

It is probably inappropriate for managers in a collectivistic culture to treat all employees


As noted in the methods section, previous

ed States as individualistic and


, the construct of individualism/collectivism is sometimes

Many individualism/collectivism scales are

Fiske, 2002;

Oyserman et al., 2002). Earley and Gibson (1998) addindividualism/collectivism construct does not measurement, whether that method be surveys or some other methodpractitioner point of view, global managers firstthan at individuals (e.g., the managerial procedeciding on a global strategy and where to expand (see Ghoshal For researchers to specify countries as most helpful to global practitionersresearcher and the practitioner. Work Orientations Module III (as described above) consistsmany countries. Adding several others) adds to the costs of scale development (e.g., translation/backtranslationrecommended by Brislin, 1980and leads to respondent issues issues and concerns, the assignment of counacceptable.

AppendixAppendixAppendixAppendix

T-Tests for Significant Differences Relating to Hypothesis 1

Individualists

Variable Mean (S.D., N)

Find new job 2.02 (1.08, 2130)

Turn down job 3.26 (1.22, 2113)

T-Tests for Significant Differences Relating

Individualists

Variable Mean (S.D.

More Time w/Family 1.83 (.82, 3380)

Job Interferes w/Family 3.33 (1.04, 2172)


Individualists

Variable Mean (S.D.

Work Independently 1.96 (.82, 3405)



. Earley and Gibson (1998) add that the individualism/collectivism construct does not lend itself to clear and consistent

, whether that method be surveys or some other method. Thirdly, from a w, global managers first look at macro, societal factors

(e.g., the managerial processes and systems in a society)on a global strategy and where to expand (see Ghoshal 1987, for

countries as belonging to one culture or another is probablymost helpful to global practitioners—as the level of analysis is the same for the researcher and the practitioner. Finally, large-scale, multi-country research, such as the Work Orientations Module III (as described above) consists of dozens of items used in

Adding several scales (such as an individualism/collectivism scale or scale development (e.g., translation/backtranslation

recommended by Brislin, 1980), survey implementation (e.g., paper and data storage), respondent issues (e.g., boredom, incomplete surveys). Given the above

issues and concerns, the assignment of countries to different cultures seems

Table 1

Tests for Significant Differences Relating to Hypothesis 1

Individualists Collectivists

Mean (S.D., N) Mean (S.D., N) T

2.02 (1.08, 2130) 1.65 (.933, 1402) 10.66

3.26 (1.22, 2113) 2.83 (1.37, 1348) 9.64

Table 2



Mean (S.D., N) Mean (S.D., N) T-Value

1.83 (.82, 3380) 2.38 (.74, 2407) -26.35

3.33 (1.04, 2172) 3.84 (.99, 1444) -14.75

Table 3



Mean (S.D., N) Mean (S.D., N) T-Value

1.96 (.82, 3405) 2.40 (1.01, 2398) -18.43


Me, myself or us,

consistent Thirdly, from a

look at macro, societal factors rather sses and systems in a society) when

1987, for example). belonging to one culture or another is probably

as the level of analysis is the same for the country research, such as the

of dozens of items used in scales (such as an individualism/collectivism scale or

scale development (e.g., translation/backtranslation as ), survey implementation (e.g., paper and data storage),

. Given the above seems

-Value p

10.66 <.001

9.64 <.001

Value p

26.35 <.001

14.75 <.001

Value p

18.43 <.001

Decide Time of Work 2.48 (1.00, 3381)


Individualists

Variable Mean (S.D.

Self-view Thorough 1.55 (.58, 1514

Self-view Lazy 4.09 (.92, 1515aThe Australian questionnaire omitted these variables.

REFERENCES

Amstrong, A.J., Hawley, C.E., Lewis, A.N., Bl

Relationship between employment setting and job satisfaction among CRC personnel.

Journal of Vocational Rehabilitatio

Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R., 2007

measures of the same constructs.

Bond, M. H., 1994. Into the heart of collectivism: A personal and

H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, &

collectivism: Theory, method, and

Bond, M. H., 2002. Reclaiming the individual from Hofstede’s ecological

odyssey: Comment on Oyserman et al.

Brewer, M.B, & Chen, Y., 2007. Where (Who) Are Collectives in Collectivism? Toward

Conceptual Clarification of Individualism and Collectivism. Psychological Review, 114,

1, 133-151.

Brislin, R. W., 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C.

Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.),

vol. 2: 389–444. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Boyacigiller, N., & Adler, N.J., 1991

context, Academy of Management Review, v

Cavusgil, S.T. & Das, A., 1997.

survey of the management literature and a framework. Ma

Review, 37, 1, 71- 96.

Chew, J, & Chan, C., 2008. Human resource practices, organizational commitment and intention

to stay. International Journal of Manpower, 29, 6, p. 503

Cortina, J. M., 1993. What is coefficient alpha?

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98

Currall, C., Towler, A., Judge, T.,

outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58, 3, 613

Dakhli, M. (2009). Investigating the effects of individualism

cooperation. Psychology Journal, 6, 3, 90

Diener, E., 1984. Subjective well



2.48 (1.00, 3381) 2.33 (.96, 2431) 5.59

Table 4



S.D., N) Mean (S.D., N) T-Value

1.55 (.58, 1514a) 2.12 (.97, 2494) -20.75

4.09 (.92, 1515a) 3.56 (1.12, 2498) 14.91

The Australian questionnaire omitted these variables.

Amstrong, A.J., Hawley, C.E., Lewis, A.N., Blankenship, C., & Pugsley, R.A., 2008


Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 28, 41-51.

t, L., & Rossiter, J. R., 2007. The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single

measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 175

. Into the heart of collectivism: A personal and scientific journey. In U. Kim,

Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and

method, and applications, pp. 66–76. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

. Reclaiming the individual from Hofstede’s ecological analysis

Oyserman et al. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 73–77.

. Where (Who) Are Collectives in Collectivism? Toward


. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C.

Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology

444. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Adler, N.J., 1991, A parochial dinosaur: organizational science in a global

Academy of Management Review, vol. 16, pp. 262-90.

. Methodological issues in empirical cross-cultural research: a

survey of the management literature and a framework. Management International

. Human resource practices, organizational commitment and intention

to stay. International Journal of Manpower, 29, 6, p. 503-522.

. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and application.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.

Currall, C., Towler, A., Judge, T., & Kohn, L. (2005). Pay satisfaction and organizational

outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58, 3, 613-640.

ating the effects of individualism-collectivism on trust and

cooperation. Psychology Journal, 6, 3, 90-99.

. Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.


Me, myself or us,

5.59 <.001

Value p

20.75 <.001

14.91 <.001

R.A., 2008.


item versus single-item

175–184.

scientific journey. In U. Kim,

Individualism and

. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

analysis—A 20-year

77.

. Where (Who) Are Collectives in Collectivism? Toward


. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C.

cultural psychology: Methodology,

nal science in a global

cultural research: a

ent International

. Human resource practices, organizational commitment and intention

An examination of theory and application.

Kohn, L. (2005). Pay satisfaction and organizational

collectivism on trust and

Dollinger S.J. & Malmquist, D., 2009

Special Relevance to College Students’ Alcohol Use, Religiosity, Study, and Social Life.

The Journal of General Psychology

Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B., 1998

collectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community.

304.

Edwards, J.R., & Rothbard, N.P., 2000.

relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of

178–89.

Fiske, A. P., 2002. Using individualism and collectivism to compare

validity and measurement of the constructs:

Bulletin, 128, 78–88.

Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L.,

multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison

Psychological Measurement, 58

Ghoshal, S., 1987. Global strategy: An organizing framework. Strategic

8, 5, 425-440.

Golden, T.D., Veiga, J.F. & Simsek, Z., 2006.

family conflict: Is there no place like home? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 6,

1340–1350.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R., 1980.

Publishing Company.

Harris, K.J., Kacmar, K.M., Zivnuska, S., & Shaw, J., 2009

impression management effectiveness.

Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R., 1995

feel more invulnerable than the East?

595–607.

Heine, S. J. & Lehman, D. R., 1997

examination of group-serving biases.

1268–1283.

Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S., 1999

positive self-regard? Psychological Review

Hofstede, G., 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in

work-related values, Beverly Hills, CA:

Hofstede, G., 1997. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw

York, N.Y.

International Social Survey Programme (2011).

page last viewed on May 6, 2011.

Jordan, J.S. & Turner, B.A., 2008

justice. Measurement in Physical Education, 12,

Kagitcibasi, C., 1994. A critical appraisal of

formulation. In U.Kim, H. C.Triandis, C.Kagitcibasi, S.

Individualism and collectivism

Oaks, CA: Sage.



lmquist, D., 2009. Reliability and Validity of Single-Item Self


The Journal of General Psychology, 2009, 136, 3, 231–241.

B., 1998. Taking stock in our progress on individualism

collectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community. Journal of Management

Rothbard, N.P., 2000. Mechanisms linking work and family: clarifying the

work and family constructs. Academy of Management

. Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures–A critique of the

validity and measurement of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al.

gs, L. L., Dunham, R. B., & Pierce, J. L., 1998. Single-item versus

item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educational and

Measurement, 58, 898–915.

. Global strategy: An organizing framework. Strategic Management Journal,

T.D., Veiga, J.F. & Simsek, Z., 2006. Telecommuting’s differential impact on work


and Oldham, G.R., 1980. Work Redesign, Massachusetts, Addison

Zivnuska, S., & Shaw, J., 2009. The impact of political skill on

impression management effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1, 278

Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R., 1995. Cultural variation in unrealistic optimism: Does the West

vulnerable than the East? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

ne, S. J. & Lehman, D. R., 1997. The cultural construction of self-enhancement: An

serving biases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S., 1999. Is there a universal need for

Psychological Review, 106, 766–794.

Culture’s consequences: International differences in

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw

International Social Survey Programme (2011). Retrieved from: http://www.issp.org/

t viewed on May 6, 2011.

J.S. & Turner, B.A., 2008. The feasibility of single-item measures for organizational

justice. Measurement in Physical Education, 12, 2237-257.

. A critical appraisal of individualism and collectivism: Toward a new

formulation. In U.Kim, H. C.Triandis, C.Kagitcibasi, S.-C.Choi, & G.Yoon (Eds.),

collectivism: Theory, method, and applications pp. 52


Me, myself or us,

Item Self-Reports: With


individualism–

Journal of Management, 24, 265–

linking work and family: clarifying the

Management Review, 25,

A critique of the

Comment on Oyserman et al. Psychological

item versus

Educational and

Management Journal,

Telecommuting’s differential impact on work–


Addison‐Wesley

The impact of political skill on

Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1, 278-285.

. Cultural variation in unrealistic optimism: Does the West

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,

enhancement: An

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 6,

. Is there a universal need for

. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill: New

Retrieved from: http://www.issp.org/. Web

item measures for organizational

: Toward a new

C.Choi, & G.Yoon (Eds.),

pp. 52–65. Thousand

Kim, U., 1994. Individualism and

U.Kim, H. C.Triandis, C.Kagitcibasi, S.Choi, & G.Yoon (Eds.),

collectivism: Theory, method, and applications

Kim, J., Kim, M., Kam, K. Y., & Shin, H., 2003

of different self-presentation styles in Korea. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 89

101.

Kirkman, B.L., Chen, G., Farh, J., Chen, Z.X., &

orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross

cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal,

Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Mat

collective processes in the construction of the self: Self

and self-criticism in Japan.

Lay, C., Fairlie, P., Jackson, S., Ricci, T.,

allocentrism–idiocentrism: A measure of family connectedness.

Psychology, 29, 434–460.

Leung, K., & Bond, M. H., 1982

contributions: A preliminary study. Psychologia: An International Journal of

Psychological Sciences, 25, 1, 32

Leung, K., Yuk-Fai, A, Fernandez

conflict processing in two col

2, 195-209.

Lingard, H. & Francis, V., 2005. Does work

job schedule demands and burnout in male construction professionals and managers?

Construction Management

Loo, R., 2002. A caveat on using single

Psychology, 17, 68–75.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S., 1991

and motivation. Psychological Review

Markus, H.R.; Kitayama, S., 2003.

Inquiry, 14, 277–283

Nagy, M. S., 2002. Using a single

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75

Nasif, E.G., Al-Daeaj, H., Ebrahimi, B. & Thibodeaux, M.S., 1991

Cross-cultural research: An Updated Review, Management Int

91.

Ng, T. W., & Feldman D. C., 2008

analysis data. Journal of Organizational Behavio

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994).

Hill.

Oshagbemi, T., 1999. Overall job satisfaction: How good are the single versus the multiple

measures? Journal of Managerial

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M., 2002

collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions

Bulletin, 128, 3–72.

Oyserman, D., & Markus, H. R., 1993

perspective (pp. 187–220). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.



and collectivism: Conceptual clarification and elaboration. In

U.Kim, H. C.Triandis, C.Kagitcibasi, S.Choi, & G.Yoon (Eds.), Individualism

: Theory, method, and applications pp. 19–40. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

., Kam, K. Y., & Shin, H., 2003. Influence of self-construals on the perception

presentation styles in Korea. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 89

arh, J., Chen, Z.X., & Lowe, K.B., 2009. Individual power distance

orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross

cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 4, 744–764.

Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Matsumoto, H. & Norasakkunkit, V., 1997. Individual and

processes in the construction of the self: Self-enhancement in the United States

in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,

, P., Jackson, S., Ricci, T., Eisenberg, J., & Sato, T., 1998. Domain

idiocentrism: A measure of family connectedness. Journal of Cross

460.

Leung, K., & Bond, M. H., 1982. How Chinese and Americans reward task-related


Psychological Sciences, 25, 1, 32-39.

dez-Dols, J. M., & Iwawaki, S., 1992. Preferences for methods of

conflict processing in two collectivistic cultures. International Journal of Psychology, 27,

. Does work-family conflict mediate the relationship between


truction Management and Economics, 23, 733–745.

. A caveat on using single-item versus multiple-item scales. Journal of Managerial

Kitayama, S., 1991. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,

Psychological Review, 20, 568–579.

Markus, H.R.; Kitayama, S., 2003. Culture, Self, and the Reality of the Social.

. Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction.

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 77–86.

Ebrahimi, B. & Thibodeaux, M.S., 1991. Methodological Problems in

cultural research: An Updated Review, Management International Review; 31,

& Feldman D. C., 2008. Long work hours: A social identity perspective on meta

analysis data. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 7, 853-880.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw

. Overall job satisfaction: How good are the single versus the multiple

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 5, 388–403.

Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M., 2002. Rethinking individualism and

collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological

, D., & Markus, H. R., 1993. The sociocultural self. In J.Suls (Ed.), The self in social

220). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.


Me, myself or us,

: Conceptual clarification and elaboration. In

Individualism and

. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

construals on the perception

presentation styles in Korea. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 89-

. Individual power distance

level, cross-

764.

. Individual and

enhancement in the United States

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1245–1267.

. Domain-specific

Journal of Cross-Cultural

related


. Preferences for methods of

lectivistic cultures. International Journal of Psychology, 27,

family conflict mediate the relationship between


Journal of Managerial

. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,

Psychological

item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. Journal of

Methodological Problems in

ernational Review; 31, 79-

. Long work hours: A social identity perspective on meta-

(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-

. Overall job satisfaction: How good are the single versus the multiple-item

individualism and

Psychological

The self in social

Peterson, M.F., Smith, P.B., Akande, A., Ayestaran, S., Bochner, S., Callan, V., Cho, N.G., Iscte,

J., D’Amorim, M., Francois, P., Hofmann, K.,

Mortazavi, S., Munene, J., Radford, M., Ropo, A., Setiadi, B., Sinah, T.N., Sorenson, R.,

& Viedge, C., 1995. Role conflict, ambiguity, and overload: A 21

of Management Journal, 38, 2, 429

Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H., 2001

Construct validation of a single

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,

Samiee, S. & Jeong. I., 1994. Cross

Methodologies. Journal of the Academy o

Scarpello, V. & Campbell, J. P., 1983

Psychology. 36. 577-600.

Scholz, E. & Faab, T., 2007. ISSP 2005 Germany Work Orientations III: Zuma report on the

German Study. ZUMA: Mannheim, Germany.

http://www.gesis.org/publikationen/archiv/zuma

viewed on May 6, 2011.

Scott, A., Gravelle, H., Simoens, S., Bojke, C., & Sibbald, B., 2006

intentions: A structural model of British gen

Industrial Relations, 44, 3, 519

Seston, E., Hassell, K., Ferguson, J., & Hann,

pharmacists’ job satisfaction, intention to quit the profession, and actual quitting.

Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 5, 2, 121

Shockley, K.M. & Allen, T.D., 2007

flexible work arrangements and

71, 3, 479-493.

Sivakumar, K. & Nakata, C., 2001

sample design pit in cross

32, 3, 555-574.

Somaya, D., Williamson, I., & Lorinkova, N., 2008

performance impacts of employee mobility between cooperators versus competitors.

Academy of Management

Triandis, H. C., 1989. The self and social

Review, 96, 506–520.

Triandis, H. C., 1995. Individualism

Triandis, H.C., 2001. Individualism

907-924.

Wanous, J. P., & Reichers, A. E., 1996

Psychological Reports, 78

Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J., 1997

single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology

Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R., 1989

affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact?

462–468.

Work Orientations Module III (2005). Retrieved from

http://zacat.gesis.org/webview/index.jsp?object=http://zacat.gesis.org/obj/fStudy/ZA4350

Web page last viewed on May 6, 2011.




J., D’Amorim, M., Francois, P., Hofmann, K., Koopman, P.L., Leung, K., Lim, T.K.,


& Viedge, C., 1995. Role conflict, ambiguity, and overload: A 21-nation study.

38, 2, 429-452.

M., & Trzesniewski, K. H., 2001. Measuring global selfesteem:

Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151–161.

Cross-Cultural Research in Advertising: An Assessment of

Methodologies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22, 3, pp. 205

Campbell, J. P., 1983. Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there? Personnel

.

. ISSP 2005 Germany Work Orientations III: Zuma report on the

German Study. ZUMA: Mannheim, Germany. Retrieved from:

http://www.gesis.org/publikationen/archiv/zuma-methodenberichte/2007/

, S., Bojke, C., & Sibbald, B., 2006. Job satisfaction and quitting

intentions: A structural model of British general practitioners. British Journal of

Industrial Relations, 44, 3, 519-540.

Seston, E., Hassell, K., Ferguson, J., & Hann, M., 2009. Exploring the relationship between


Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 5, 2, 121-132.

Shockley, K.M. & Allen, T.D., 2007. When flexibility helps: Another look at the availability of

arrangements and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

., 2001. The stampede toward Hofstede’s framework: Avoiding the

sample design pit in cross-cultural research. Journal of International Business Studies,

illiamson, I., & Lorinkova, N., 2008. Gone but not lost: The different


Academy of Management Journal, 51, 5, 936-953.

. The self and social-behavior in differing cultural contexts.

Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

. Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69, 6,

E., 1996. Estimating the reliability of a single-item measure.

, 78, 631–634.

Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J., 1997. Overall job satisfaction: How good are the

Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252.

, J. A., & Buckley, M. R., 1989. Lack of method variance in self

and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology

Orientations Module III (2005). Retrieved from:


Web page last viewed on May 6, 2011.


Me, myself or us,


Koopman, P.L., Leung, K., Lim, T.K.,


nation study. Academy

. Measuring global selfesteem:

Esteem scale.

Cultural Research in Advertising: An Assessment of

, pp. 205-217.

Personnel

. ISSP 2005 Germany Work Orientations III: Zuma report on the

methodenberichte/2007/. Web page last

. Job satisfaction and quitting

eral practitioners. British Journal of

. Exploring the relationship between


. When flexibility helps: Another look at the availability of

Journal of Vocational Behavior,

. The stampede toward Hofstede’s framework: Avoiding the

cultural research. Journal of International Business Studies,

Gone but not lost: The different


contexts. Psychological

. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69, 6,

item measure.

. Overall job satisfaction: How good are the

. Lack of method variance in self-reported

Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,


World Bank, 2009. World Developme

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf

last viewed on May 6, 2011.

Yamaguchi, S., Kuhlman, D. M., & Sugimori, S., 1995

tendencies in individualist and collectivist cultures. Journal of Cross

Psychology, 26, 658-672.

Yildrim, D., & Aycan, Z., 2008. Nurses’ work demands and work

questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 9, 1366

Zou, X., Tam, K., Morris, M.W., Lee, S., Lau, I.Y.,

Sense: Perceived Consensus Versus Personal Beliefs

Influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 4,



Development Indicators Database. Retrieved from:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf

last viewed on May 6, 2011.

an, D. M., & Sugimori, S., 1995. Personality correlates of allocentric

tendencies in individualist and collectivist cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural

672.

. Nurses’ work demands and work-family conflict: A

questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 9, 1366

Zou, X., Tam, K., Morris, M.W., Lee, S., Lau, I.Y., & Chiu, C., 2009. Culture as Common

Sense: Perceived Consensus Versus Personal Beliefs as Mechanisms of Cultural

Influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 4, 281-304,


Me, myself or us,

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf . Web page

. Personality correlates of allocentric

Cultural

flict: A

questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 9, 1366-1378.

. Culture as Common

as Mechanisms of Cultural

304, 579-597.

me, myself or us: w ork preferences and predispositions of ... · me, myself or us, page ualists...

Documents