Organizational psychology Globalization… · When applying cross-cultural research to organizational issues: ... depradations of willful and selfish individuals, ... (Christie &

“…The importance of cross-cultural research cannot be underestimated; cross-cultural research is critical to making the science of psychology universally

applicable and to helping organizations manage cultural differences as they continue to globalize.”

Organizational psychology Globalization…

(Gelfand et al., 2006)

Copyright Jan Aylsworth 2011

Presenter

Presentation Notes

jaylopez

The world needs cross-cultural research


Organizational psychology

“… we do not think it is hyperbole to suggest that the future of our planet depends on better understanding and acceptance among peoples of different cultures.”

(Javidan, 2006)

Organizations need cross-cultural psychology Ghoshal and Westney have called for a bridging of

organization theory and international management" (2005) in Siegel et al 2007).

Presenter

Presentation Notes

1058428_91488745

When applying cross-cultural research to organizational issues:

Be on guard against assumptions

▪ Theory: If we are taking an academic approach, we identify relevant constructs from relevant theories and evidence (e.g. House, 2004).

▪ We do not interchange levels of analysis; we avoid isomorphism (Fischer et al., 2010), the ecological fallacy and reverse ecological fallacy (Hofstede, 2002).

▪ Paradigms: We recognize our assumptions about the truth. Is it really “out there” waiting to be discovered? Or do we need to allow for the possibility that it is socially constructed and can never really be known? (e.g. Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Alvesson & Deetz, 1996, 2000)

▪ Personal experience: Remember that it’s subject to all sorts of attribution errors (e.g. Ross et al., 1977).



Presenter

Presentation Notes

727845_60689230 Meercat

▪ Individuals (managers) are influenced by their culture of origin…. Laurent (1986).

▪ … and some individuals are bi- or multi-cultural.

▪ “Frame-switching” is common among bi-cultural individuals. (Triandis & Suh, 2002)


▪ Organizations do reflect their societal cultures (House et al., 2004; Porter (1990), and “within” culture variation is relevant here as well.

▪ … but individuals are not miniature versions of their cultures (Taras, 2010). ▪ Would be stereotypic to suggest that they are. (Ecological fallacy)

▪ Just as individuals are not mini versions of their societies, societies are not “king-sized individuals.” (Hofstede, 1983) (Reverse ecological fallacy)

▪ In fact, psychological variation “within” cultures can be at least as great as “between” cultures (Treven, 2003) .

Beware the ecological fallacy

Organizations

Societies


Individuals

Recognize that our own culture is a lens


The “frogpond effect”(Smith, 2006)

"Most people live their entire lives within a single societal culture – they become immersed in that culture and may in many ways forget that other cultures perceive and experience the world differently. In the language of cognitive psychology, they develop "shared schemas" or “common patterns of thinking, responding, and interpreting stimuli they encounter" (House et al, 2004).


Presenter

Presentation Notes

1057708_15009453 sxu

The United States of America… … in the context of cross-cultural research




Organizational psychology U.S. Lens & U.S. OP/OB Hegemony

Hegemony defined 1) A preponderant influence over others: domination 2) the social, cultural, ideological or economic influence exerted by a dominant group. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hegemony • “… many Americans believe in a historical necessity for the rest of the world to eventually become like

them.” (Hofstede, 1999) • “Not everybody is a North American. Even an introverted American feels like he is talking too loudly and

is too animated in Japan or England.” (Sorrentino et al., 2005). • “The United States … constitutes the contrasting culture against which most cross-cultural comparisons

are made.” (Bond, 2002) • To many living outside Europe and North America, globalization “looks uncomfortably like

Westernization – or, perhaps, Americanization, since the US is now the sole superpower, with a dominant economic, cultural and military position in the global order.” (Giddens, 2003)

• “Many authors have noted that cross-cultural management research is needed more than ever because it

can no longer be assumed that American concepts and theories transcend culture and national boundaries.” (Spector et al., 2002)

• “To date, more than 90% of the organizational behavior literature reflects US.-based research and theory.

Hopefully, GLOBE will be able to liberate organizational behavior from the U.S. hegemony.” (House et al., 2004).




How organizations can apply cross-cultural psychology?

▪ Critical incident management ▪ Market-entry evaluation ▪ Branding & marketing research ▪ Employee communications ▪ Human resources issues ▪ Ex-patriate assignment preparation ▪ Compensation, rewards, recognition


Presenter

Presentation Notes

Ilker

The Frameworks



Dimension Definition

Power-distance (PD Hi PD: Society endorses inequality and accepts and expects unequal distribution of power.

Uncertainty avoidance (UA) Hi UA: Cultures are uncomfortable with unusual circumstances and lack of structure. Low UA: Better able to tolerate new or ambiguous circumstances.

Individualism-Collectivism (IDV) IDV: Inclination to look primarily after themselves and their immediate families. COLL: Generally positioned as opposite of IDV. Less concerned with themselves as individuals and more concerned with their important group allegiances, such as their extended family and their employer.

Masculine-Feminine (MAS) MAS: A gendered and a competitive orientation. FEM: A more modest and caring attitude toward others.

Long-term orientation (LTO) LTO: Encompasses valuing thrift in the short-term as an investment in future sustainability.

Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions: A research-based theory of cultural differences among nations. International Studies of Management and Organization, 23, 46-74. Hofstede, G, Hofstede, G, Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Lisbon, London, Madrid, Mexico City, Milan, New Dehli, San Juan, Seoul, Singapore, Sydney, Toronto: McGraw Hill.

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions






Leading Cross-cultural Frameworks Today

Conceptually based ▪ Hall’s context, proxemics and M-time vs. P-time Comparative metrics available ▪ Schwartz’s societal values* ▪ Bond’s social axioms* ▪ Gelfand’s tightness-looseness ▪ Project GLOBE’s practices and values

* Provide both culture-level and individual-level variants.

Schwartz (2006)

Individuals are encouraged to pursue their own ideas and intellectual directions independently. Important values: broadmindedness, curiosity, creativity.





Schwartz’s Societal-level Values (Opposites are a feature)

People are viewed as entities embedded in the collective. Important values: Social order, respect for tradition, security, obedience, wisdom. Meaning of life comes from honoring social relationships, identifying with the group and participating in its shared way of life, striving toward its shared goals, maintaining the status quo, restraint against disruption of in-group solidarity or the traditional order.

People are socialized to accept unequal distribution of power, roles and resources. Important values: Social power, authority, humility, wealth.

People are encouraged to master, direct and change their social and natural environment to meet personal or group goals. Important values: ambition, success, daring, competence.

Individuals are encouraged to pursue experiences that are positive for them. Important values: pleasure, excitement, variety.

People are socialized to internalize cooperation and concern for others. Important values: Equality, social justice, responsibility, help, honesty.

People are socialized to accept, appreciate and understand the world as is, to try fit in and not change, direct or exploit.

Important values: World peace, unity with nature/the environment.

Intellectual Autonomy

Harmony

Embeddedness

Hierarchy

Mastery

Affective Autonomy

Egalitarianism

Societal Cynicism ▪ “Citizens believe that they are surrounded by ‘a nature red in tooth and

claw.’ and are suppressed by powerful others and subjected to depradations of willful and selfish individuals, groups, and institutions.”

▪ Citizenry believes that the “world produces malignant outcomes” and is, “on average, distrustful, unhappy and dissatisfied with life.”

▪ Reminiscent of Machiavellianism (Christie & Geis, 1970), “the belief that being manipulative is an effective general strategy for getting ahead of others.” (Leung & Bond, 2002).

Social axioms are people’s beliefs about how the

world functions… They may

“augment the predictive power

of values.” (Bond & Leung, 2004).

▪ Suggests “proaction in the face of external constraints.” ▪ An “outward-oriented, simplistic grappling with external forces that are

construed to include fate and a supreme being.” ▪ Social systems are engaged, and citizens are mobilized “psychologically

to confront environmental difficulties and expected to succeed.” ▪ Consistent with a values profile that includes collectivism, hierarchy and

conservatism (embeddedness). ▪ Citizens focus on the survival tasks of life in an environment of high

unemployment, low freedom, low human rights observance, and a low percentage of GDP spent on health.


Bond’s Social Axioms (Societal level)


Dynamic Externality

Tight cultures… … have strong norms and a low tolerance for deviant behavior.

Loose cultures… … have weak norms and a high tolerance for deviant behavior. (Gelfand, 2011)



Gelfand’s Tightness-Looseness

Documents

Organizational psychology Globalization… · When applying cross-cultural research to organizational issues: ... depradations of willful and selfish individuals, ... (Christie &