xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001505497
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 050201s2004 flua sbm s000|0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0000586
OCB through cultural lenses
h [electronic resource] :
exploring the relations among personality, OCB and cultural values /
by Xian Xu.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2004.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 68 pages.
ABSTRACT: The present study attempted to explore the role cultural values play on the relations between personality variables and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Specifically, Schwartz' cultural values of hierarchy and egalitarianism and the personality predictors of conscientiousness and agreeableness were examined. It was hypothesized that hierarchy and egalitarianism would moderate the relationship between conscientiousness, agreeableness and OCB. Specific hypotheses concerning the direction of the influence on particular dimensions of OCB were tested. Data were collected from multiple organizations resulting in a sample of 62 pairs of employee-supervisor dyads from the U.S. and 64 pairs from China. Results indicated that agreeableness correlated significantly with OCB toward individuals and that hierarchy moderated the relationship between conscientiousness and OCB toward the organization. The other hypotheses were not supported.Limitations of the study and implications for future research were also discussed.
Co-adviser: Spector, Paul E.
Co-adviser: Borman, Walter C.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior.
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
1 OCB Through Cultural Lenses: Exploring the Relations Among Personality, OCB and Cultural Values by Xian Xu A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida CoMajor Professor: Paul E. Spector, Ph.D. CoMajor Professor: Walter C. Borman, Ph.D. Marcia A. Finkelstein, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 7, 2004 Keywords: conscientiousness, agreeableness, hierarchy, egalitarianism, culture, organizational citizenship behavior Copyright 2004, Xian Xu
2 Dedication To my father, for all the unconditional love that you have given me, for taking care of me through the sunshine and rain, through the happy and hard times, and through everything I have been through. You are always there for me and I love you very much.
3 Life isnÂ’t a matter of milestones, but of moments -Rose Kennedy And this is a moment that would not have been possible for me without the help of many individuals that are with me along this journey. First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis committee members Dr. Wally Borman, Dr. Paul Spector, and Dr. Marcia Finkelstein who supported me wholeheartedly with their knowledge, wisdom and kind encouragement. Their interest in my ideas and directions for research greatly improved the quality of this study. Specifically, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Wally Borman, who has been a great mentor to me since I entered this program. He has led me into the field of I/O and is always ready to help me in my professional growth. I would also like to sincerely thank all my participants and everyone that helped me in the arduous process of data collection. Without them, this project would have been impossible. Next, I would like to thank my fellow colleagues, the professors and staff in the I/O program at USF. Their suggestions for research, their help with administrative procedures, and their care for me have always been a wonderful source of energy. Last but not least, I would like to thank my family on the other side of the ocean who has always been there for me. My dear father who gave me everything I need has been a great example for me and always will be. My dear mother who brought me to this world will always be in my heart. I would also like to thank the rest of my family without whom I will never be able to get this far both physically and professionally.
i Table of Contents List of Tables ii List of Figures iii Abstract iv Chapter One: Introduction 1 General Introduction 1 Background on Organizational Citizenship Behavior 3 Personality and Organizational Citizenship Behavior 6 Cultural Values and Organizational Citizenship Behavior 8 Cultural Values, Personality and Organizational Citizenship Behavior 11 Variable Selection 13 Hypotheses 15 Chapter Two: Method 21 Participants 21 Measures 22 Analyses 25 Chapter Three: Results 27 Descriptive Statistics 27 Hypotheses Testing 29 Additional Analyses 36 Chapter Four: Discussion 41 Conclusions 41 Implications 43 Future Research 44 References 46 Appendices 52 Appendix A: Survey Materials 53
ii List of Tables Table 1 Individual-level Means and Standard Deviations 27 Table 2 Comparison between Country Means and Standard Deviations 28 Table 3a Correlations for U.S./China combined 30 Table 3b Correlations for the U.S. Sample 31 Table 3c Correlations for the Chinese Sample 32 Table 4. Moderated Regression of OCB-O/Voice on Conscientiousness 33 and Hierarchy Table 5. Moderated Regression of OCB-O/Voice on Conscientiousness 33 and Egalitarianism Table 6. Moderated Regression of OCB-O/Voice on Agreeableness 35 and Hierarchy Table 7. Moderated Regression of OCB-O/Voice on Agreeableness 35 and Egalitarianism Table 8. Moderated Regression of OCB/Voice on Conscientiousness 36 and Culture Table 9. Moderated Regression of OCB-O/Voice on Agreeableness 37 and Culture Table 10. Moderated Regression of OCB-O/Voice on Conscientiousness, 39 Hierarchy and Culture Table 11. Moderated Regression of Voice on Agreeableness, Hierarchy 40 and Culture
iii List of Figures Figure 1. Moderating Effect of Hierarchy on Conscientiousness and OCB-O 34 Figure 2. Moderating Effect of Country on Conscientiousness and OCB-O 37 Figure 3. Moderating Effect of Country on Conscientiousness and Voice 38 Figure 4. Moderating Effect of Country on Agreeableness and Voice 38
i OCB through Cultural Lenses: Exploring the Relations among Personality, OCB and Cultural Values Xian Xu ABSTRACT The present study attempted to explore the role cultural values play on the relations between personality variables and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Specifically, SchwartzÂ’ cultural values of hierarchy and egalitarianism and the personality predictors of conscientiousness and agreeableness were examined. It was hypothesized that hierarchy and egalitarianism would moderate the relationship between conscientiousness, agreeableness and OCB. Specific hypotheses concerning the direction of the influence on particular dimensions of OCB were tested. Data were collected from multiple organizations resulting in a sample of 62 pairs of employee-supervisor dyads from the U.S. and 64 pairs from China. Results indicated that agreeableness correlated significantly with OCB toward individuals and that hierarchy moderated the relationship between conscientiousness and OCB toward the organization. The other hypotheses were not supported. Limitations of the study and implications for future research were also discussed.
1 Chapter One Introduction The concept of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has been extensively explored over the past two decades (Smith, Organ & Near, 1983; Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ & Konovsky, 1989; Organ, 1988, 1994; Organ & Lingl, 1995; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). Much research has been devoted to studying the antecedents of OCB as well as its various dimensions. The largest portion of this research has examined attitudinal and dispositional predictors of different constructs of OCB (Organ & Paine, 1999). Among dispositional factors, OCB has been found to relate to personality variables, such as conscientiousness, agreeableness (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Kickul & Neuman, 1998; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996; Miller, Griffin and Hart, 1999), and Â‘prosocial personality orientationÂ’ (Midili and Penner, 1995). As most studies on OCB were conducted in the U.S. or English-speaking countries, it remains interesting to see whether such relationships will transfer across nations, and whether the magnitude or direction of the relations may be affected by cultural values. Specifically, will certain cultural values enhance the personality-OCB linkage while others restrict it? The present study examined the role cultural values play on the relations between personality predictors and OCB. It was hypothesized that a greater amount of OCB may be performed by individuals who are low on the value of hierarchy or are high on egalitarianism, and that these two cultural values moderate the correlations of the dispositional variables of conscientiousness and agreeableness with OCB. Specific
2 hypotheses linking cultural values, personality and different dimensions of OCB were tested within the general research question. The study was intended to contribute to the literature in the following ways: First, it extended OCB research across cultures. Although there have been many studies on OCB, few have applied the concept in research outside North American nations (Paine & Organ, 2000; Smith, Peterson and Schwartz, 2002). On the other hand, few of the existing studies on cultural values examined the frequency of specific behaviors, or compared the relationships between cultural values and behaviors in different cultures (Smith et al., 2002). This study, however, may provide preliminary evidence on the impact of cultural values on OCB. Second, the study furthered research on the potential moderators of the association between personality and OCB. Moderators identified in previous research include work settings and subject characteristics (Organ & Ryan, 1995), and different rewards (i.e. approval and acceptance or status) for OCB (Hogan, Rybicki, Motowidlo & Borman, 1997). If characteristics of an individua l, a job, or an organization can moderate the personality-OCB relation, it is intuitive to th ink that influences from a larger context, namely, culture may be an important m oderator as well. Although personality is relatively stable over time on ce developed, the expression in to actual behaviors may vary when different cultural values are endorsed. Redding, Norman and Schlander (1994) indeed suggested that p ersonal dispositions, such as predispositions to cooperate are affected by values formed within the cultural context (as cited in Paine & Organ, 2000, pp.47). In addition, the weak correlations found between many personality variables and OCB in most North American studies (Organ & Ryan, 1995) also justify the need to explore whether certain cultural values place some restriction on the relationship.
3 Third, this study linked cultural values and personality to specific dimensions of OCB. Van Dyne and LePine (1996) cautioned that most research has focused on OCB as a global construct and ignored its multidimensionality. Borman, Penner, Allen and Motowidlo (2001) in their review of the personality predictors of OCB also underlined the importance of examining specific criterion domains of interest when using personality as predictors. Different forms of OCB may have different relations with the antecedents and moderators, especially in different cultural contexts. In this research, the specific dimensions of OCB toward individuals and OCB toward the organization were examined, as well as the more challenging voice behavior. Finally, by using SchwartzÂ’s values of hierarchy and egalitarianism (Schwartz, 1994), this study also extended current literature that typically employs HofstedeÂ’s culture value dimensions (Hofstede, 1980). Although significant correlations were found between Hofstede and SchwartzÂ’ value types i n a study that examined sources of support for middle managers across cultures (Smith et al., 2002), SchwartzÂ’ cultural values seem to exhibit certain advantages that will be explicated later. Background on Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) As discussed by Borman et al. (2001), the idea of separating in-role and extra-role behaviors that are beneficial to the organization can be traced back to some early efforts by Barnard (1938) and Katz (1964). While Smith et al. (1983) identified the construct of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), Borman and Motowidlo (1993) introduced a similar concept of contextual performance (CP). In his effort to clean up the construct of OCB, Organ (1997) indicated his preference for the task/contextual distinction and suggested that OCB could be considered synonymous with CP. The essence of both OCB
4 and CP refers to behaviors that contribute to the overall organizational effectiveness through shaping the social, psychological and organizational environment that supports the technical core (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, 1997). In contrast, task performance contributes directly to the technical core, which includes transforming raw materials into products or providing materials or services for this process. OCB is an important concept within the performance domain because an organization that evolves solely around task activities can be a fragile system (Katz, 1964, p.132). Among the limited research on the impact of OCB on organizational effectiveness, Podsakoff and MacKenzine (1997) provided both theoretical explanations and empirical evidence that OCB contributes to organizational effectiveness in terms of such criteria as unit-level performance, customer satisfaction, and the quantity and quality of products. Being an important organizational variable, OCB is also multidimensional as mentioned earlier. Smith et al. (1983) found two separate dimensions of OCB: altruism, helping specific persons; and generalized compliance, a more impersonal form of citizenship. Williams, Podsakoff and Huber (1986), on the other hand, identified an additional OCB dimension of attendance (as cited in Organ, 1988). Other factors of OCB proposed in the literature include, sportsmanship (Bateman & Organ, 1983), civic virtue (Graham, 1986), courtesy (Organ, 1988), and helping and voice behavior (Van Dyne & LePine, 1996). Despite findings of various factor structures, the most consistent and meaningful distinction is between Â‘personalÂ’ and Â‘impersonalÂ’ forms of OCB (Organ & Paine, 1999). This coincides with the Coleman and Borman (2000) taxonomy of citizenship performance, which includes personal support and organizational support, as well as
5 conscientious initiative. Personal support refers to helping, cooperating, courtesy and motivating others, the personal form of OCB. Organizational support, the impersonal form of OCB, includes the sub-dimensions of loyalty, compliance, and representing the organization favorably. Furthermore, this distinction between OCB directed toward other individuals (OCB-I) and OCB toward the organization (OCB-O) seems to be of particular significance for cross-cultural research (Organ & Paine, 1999). Organ and Paine (1997) conducted an exploratory study with small samples from 26 countries, and provided some evidence for the importance of defining OCB in terms of OCB-I and OCB-O for the purpose of studying OCB cross-nationally (Organ & Paine, 1999). Through interviews, participants expressed strong feelings about exhibiting OCB for coworkers versus the formal organization. One participant from Israel, for example, indicated that workers are more likely to demonstrate OCB Â“for the benefit of his or her colleague, not for the organizationÂ” (Organ & Paine, 1997). Based on previous research, it seems reasonable to adopt the Â‘IÂ’ and Â‘OÂ’ dimensions of OCB in this cross-cultural study. Although OCB toward supervisors or managers is usually included in OCB-I as in Williams and AndersonÂ’s (1991) scale, it may be considered OCB-O in a cultural context. Organ and Paine (2000) point out that employees may differ in demonstrating OCB toward their peers versus for supervisors or the organization. Supervisors, who are higher in the hierarchy, may be seen more as representatives of the formal organizational system rather than colleagues. Therefore, the OCB-I and OCB-O distinction meaningful to the differentiation of cultures might view supervisors together with the organization. One may argue that the unequal status between supervisors and subordinates can be more severe in some cultures than others and that whether OCB-supervisors belong to the
6 OCB-I or the OCB-O camp may in itself reflect certain cultural differences. This study, therefore, included the assisting-supervisors item in the organization part of the OCB scale to explore the influence of hierarchy and egalitarianism on the personality-OCB relations. Personality and OCB Personality may be construed as a collection of oneÂ’s traits (Murphy, 1932, p.386), which refer to consistent patterns of behavior that are intercorrelated (Winter, John, Stewart, Klohnen & Duncan, 1998, pp. 232-233). Based on this definition of personality, it seems intuitive to link personality to OCB. Sustained OCBs are over long periods of employment and therefore, differ from one-time helping behaviors studied in social psychology (Organ, 1994). Whereas the latter seems to be predicted by mood state (Isen & Baron, 1991), relatively stable personal dispositions may be better predictors of OCB. Furthermore, the relationship between personality and OCB helps to distinguish it from task performance. Motowidlo, Borman and Schmit (1997) developed a theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance, here considered the same as, OCB. They maintain that task performance, which contributes to the technical core of an organization, is better predicted by task-related knowledge, skills and abilities. OCB, however, contributes to the social and psychological environment and is better predicted by dispositional factors. Despite the theoretical reasoning, empirical studies sometimes do not find strong associations between dispositional variables and OCB. Organ and RyanÂ’s (1995) metaanalysis found that dispositional predictors were not as robust as attitudinal predictors except for conscientiousness, which had significant correlation with generalized
7 compliance (sample-weighted mean r= .21). More recently, Borman et al. (2001) included research that appeared after 1995, and their review seems to provide somewhat stronger support for the predictive power of personality variables. Recent research offers more evidence on the relatively strong correlation between conscientiousness and citizenship performance (r= .42, Miller et al., 1999), and OrganÂ’s (1988) five types of OCB (rs= .20-.41, Kickul & Neuman, 1998). Agreeableness, on the other hand, although having a small but significant correlation with OCB, seems to have a Â‘bi-directionalÂ’ effect in that it correlates positively with cooperative behavior and negatively with voice behavior (LePine and Van Dyne, 2001). Other significant personality predictors of OCB included in the Borman et al. review are positive/negative affectivity, extroversion, locus of control, other-oriented empathy, and collectivism. Dimensions of prosocial behaviors have also been found to correlate with OCB (Midili and Penner, 1995). In addition, another interesting personality variable, self-monitoring seems to have significant correlations with OCB as well (Eisenberg, 2000; Caliguri and Day, 2000). To sum up, although the correlations between personality factors and OCB are generally rather weak, it has been found to be stronger than the relationship between personality and task performance (Borman at al., 2001). This study examined conscientiousness, the most robust personality predictor of OCB as well as agreeableness, which may potentially have interesting differential effects on different dimensions of OCB.
8 Cultural Values and OCB The fairly weak association between personality and OCB also leads to the possibility that these associations are restricted by certain characteristics of the relatively similar countries where most OCB studies were conducted. Culture can be considered as a form of context, which usually refers to environmental or organizational characteristics at a higher level of analysis that affect a behavior of interest (George & Jones, 1997). One study by Karambayya (1990) examined six contextual predictors of OCB using GrahamÂ’s (1989) four dimensions of personal industry, individual initiative, interpersonal helping, and loyal boosterism. Organizational culture was one of the contextual factors as well as work unit size, work unit homogeneity, work unit stability, task interdependence, and interaction within the work unit. Although only security culture was significantly correlated with the personal industry dimension of OCB, the contextual predictors together explained 27-42% of the variance in the four dimensions of OCB. Furthermore, George and Jones (1997) explored the contextual factors for organizational spontaneity, a concept similar to OCB, and highlighted the importance of studying the context in which behaviors occur. Specifically, they examined contextual influences at individual, group, organizational, and interorganizational level of analysis, and postulated that under different conditions, context may have direct, indirect, or moderating effect on organizational behaviors, or it may even play the three roles at the same time. Although culture was not included in George and JonesÂ’ article, it follows from their conceptualization that culture, which is one level higher than interorganizational factor, may also provide either opportunities for or constraints on OCB.
9 As a result, cultural differences need to be examined in relation to OCB and its linkage with personality. A key to understanding cultural differences, as Smith et al. (2002) pointed out, is Â“a broadly shared framework that conceptualizes the values that underlie the functioning of cultural units.Â” Such framework of cultural values also marks the major development in cross-cultural psychology, and has been the focus of the bulk of research on the impact of cultural differences. Therefore, this research studied cultural values in particular. According to Williams (1970), cultural values refer to basic abstract ideas people share about what is good, right, and desirable in a society. These ideas can be explicit or implicit. It is intuitive to think that as cultural values are generally shared by people in a society, their influence will also carry over into organizations. Being embedded in a culture, organizations may even become an artifact of that culture (Redding et al., 1994, as cited in Paine & Organ, 2000, pp.47). Research indeed indicates that cultural values have important implications for different aspects of work, such as work centrality, societal norms about working, and work values (Schwartz, 1999). Despite its potential contributions to organizational effectiveness the desirability of OCB may vary in different cultural contexts. Cultural values, ascribing what is good, right, and desirable in a society, may affect the amount of OCB and the particular dimensions of OCB desirable in organizations in different cultures. Paine and Organ (2000) in their effort to explore the cultural matrix of OCB state that contextual factors, originating from various sources including culture, can affect the likelihood of employees demonstrating OCB. On the other hand, values are also considered by Schwartz (1999) as the vocabulary of socially approved goals that can be used to motivate behaviors. In this
10 sense, different cultural values may motivate different dimensions of OCB in different ways. For example, cultural norms may encourage employees to help each other or motivate them to mind their own business (Paine & Organ, 2000). Among the several studies on cultural values and OCB, Chaves (2001) examined the impact of individual values and individual-organization value congruence on OCB, task performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. She did not find significant relations between OCB and HofstedeÂ’s values of social, power and goal orientations, nor did she find significant influence of value congruence on OCB. However, two other studies that focused on OCB and individualism-collectivism had significant findings, although the latter was studied as within-culture differences. Moorman and Blakely (1995) found that individuals with collectivistic values would be more likely to engage in OCB. Results from Sun (2001) also indicated a significant and positive correlation between collectivism and self-reported OCB, although his Chinese employees reported an unexpected lower level of collectivism than the American sample. The moderating effect of cultural values on OCB and its antecedents was illustrated in a study by Begley, Lee, Fang and Li (2002) who examined the impact of power distance on the relationship between justice perception and OCB with a Chinese sample. They found that for employees high on power distance, procedural justice was positively related to OCB but for those low on power distance, distributive justice was positively related to OCB. All this serves as preliminary evidence that the cultural values employees adopt may have an impact on the amount and type of OCB they perform. This study will further this line of research by examining the cultural values of hierarchy-egalitarianism and their relations to OCB and personality.
11 Cultural Values, Personality, and OCB Whereas the association between personality predictors and OCB has been extensively explored in North America, there has been relatively little crosscultural/cross-national research on this topic. One cannot help but wonder if such a link exists across different countries and if it is altered through the colored lens of culture values. This is in response to Paine and OrganÂ’s (2000) postulation that cultural context may encourage or inhibit OCB, and thus attenuate the relations between established OCB antecedents found in North American studies. They went on to point out that culture may have a potential moderating effect on antecedents that in the U.S. have been found to have direct effects on OCB. Organ and Lingl (1995) conducted a study with samples from both the U.S. and United Kingdom. Although no differences were found between the two countries (which are similar on many culture values), the authors maintain that we cannot rule out the possibility that national culture moderates the relationships among satisfaction, personality, and OCB. Therefore, studying cultural valuesÂ’ moderating effect on personality and OCB may increase our understanding of the personality-OCB linkage. As one example, higher conscientiousness may lead to more OCB, but its relationship may be attenuated if the type of OCB is not desirable according to the relevant cultural values. In contrast, for individuals low on conscientiousness, although they are not likely to perform much OCB in general, they may be motivated to do so if OCB is the desirable behavior ascribed by their cultural values. As a result, cultural values may either enhance or restrict the correlations between certain personality factors and OCB.
12 Although research effort devoted to this area is very limited, several studies were identified that examined the personality-OCB relationship in a country other than the U.S. Nikolaou and Robertson (2001) conducted one study in Greece using OCB as a criterion variable in validating the five-factor model of personality. They did not find significant relations between the big-five factors and OCB. One explanation lies in the ambiguity of the distinction between extra-role and in-role behaviors. Many of the Greek supervisors commented that some OCB items describe what they consider as in-role behaviors. This seems to support the avoidance of the in-role/extra-role distinction in defining OCB especially in a cultural context. Another study by Tang and Ibrahim (1998) compared a U.S. sample with a Middle East sample (Egypt and Saudi Arabia) on antecedents of OCB including, organization-based self-esteem, self-esteem (global), need for achievement, and the Protestant work ethic. Results indicated that organization-based self-esteem was a significant predictor of OCB-altruism and OCB-compliance for both samples, but it explained more variance in the Mideastern sample (Altruism: 38%; Compliance: 28%) than in the American sample (Altruism: 24%; Compliance: 5%). Self-esteem, however, was a predictor of altruism and compliance only for the Mideastern sample. Hence, the relations between certain dispositional variables and OCB seem to differ in regions with different cultures, such as the U.S. and the Middle East in this study. Therefore, linking together personality, OCB, and cultural values seems to be a fruitful area that may help enhance the understanding of the construct of OCB. This research focused on examining the moderating effect of cultural values on the relationship between personality and OCB. The main objective was to determine whether the manifestation of certain personality factors may be enhanced or restricted by the
13 prevailing cultural values, resulting in increased or decreased OCB. In addition, this moderating effect may influence certain dimensions of OCB more than others. This possibility has led to several specific hypotheses. Variable Selection OCB Dimensions. OCB dimensions of OCB-I, OCB-O (including OCB toward supervisor) were examined as well as the more challenging voice behavior. OCB-I refers to helping behaviors toward other employees, such as helping others with work and listening to othersÂ’ worries. OCB-O, on the other hand, includes behaviors such as assisting the manager, protecting company property, and representing the organization favorably. Voice behavior refers to promotive and constructive behaviors that are intended to improve organizational practices rather than merely criticize (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). It includes making innovative suggestions for change and expressing true opinions despite othersÂ’ disagreement. Van Dyne and LePine (1998) categorize contextual performance according to promotive-prohibitive and challenging-affiliative, resulting in a typology with four categories. As voice behavior belongs to the promotive and challenging type, it is expected that tolerance of such behaviors may vary for people with different cultural values, which may also influence the relationship between personality variables and voice behavior. Personality Predictors. The personality variables of interest in this study include conscientiousness and agreeableness. Conscientiousness entails qualities such as reliability, dependability, neatness, punctuality, and discipline (Organ, 1994). It is selected because its correlation with OCB seems to be the most robust among all personality predictors studied. Agreeableness, on the other hand, refers to how well one
14 gets along with other people, or how good-natured one is in terms of interpersonal relations (Organ, 1994). LePine and Van Dyne (2001) revealed an interesting Â‘double bladeÂ’ effect for agreeableness. They found that agreeableness correlated positively with cooperating behaviors and negatively with voice behavior. It is reasonable to think that its relationship with OCB might be different depending on whether the cultural values promote cooperation or competition. Cultural Values Researchers have constructed several value systems to compare different cultures. The most well known and widely applied is the four values proposed by Hofstede (1980). The four value dimensions are individualism-collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity. A fifth value of long-term orientation was later added (Hofstede, 1991). According to Smith et al. (2002), HofstedeÂ’s (1980, 1991) ranking of 39 countries on the four values is one of the two largest data sets of cultural values. The other one comes from Schwartz and his colleaguesÂ’ (1994, 1995) ranking of 86 samples from 36 nations on seven value types, including conservatism, intellectual autonomy, affective autonomy, hierarchy, egalitarianism, mastery, and harmony. This study used SchwartzÂ’ cultural values for the following reasons: First, SchwartzÂ’ values were developed more recently than HofstedeÂ’s and therefore, may be more applicable to the current cultural context. Second, HofstedeÂ’s scales seem to have low reliability when they have been applied in other studies (Spector et al., 2002). Finally, the most heavily studied value dimensions of individualism-collectivism from Hofstede appear to be clouded by the confusion of various definitions of the concept ( Smith et al., 2002).
15 Among SchwartzÂ’ seven value types, the value set of hierarchy-egalitarianism seems to be most relevant for the OCB-I and OCB-O distinction. Hierarchy and egalitarianism are defined by Schwartz (1999) as: Hierarchy : a cultural emphasis on the legitimacy of an unequal distribution of power, roles, and resources (social power, authority, humility, wealth). Egalitarianism : a cultural emphasis on transcendence of self-interests in favor of voluntary commitment to promoting the welfare of others (equality, social justice, freedom, responsibility, honesty). Hierarchy and egalitarianism reflect the order and structure of power in an organization, and have been found to correlate with HofstedeÂ’s power distance (Hierarchy: r= .41, p< .01; Smith et al., 2002) These two values may influence the relationship between individuals at different organizational levels as well as employeesÂ’ attitude toward the organization. In this sense, hierarchy and egalitarianism seem to be the most interesting potential moderators and are therefore, the two value types examined in this study. Although hierarchy and egalitarianism seem to represent valuing a vertical and horizontal structure respectively, one cannot conclude with confidence that they are two ends of a continuum. Referring to SchwartzÂ’ (1994) country ratings, there are some countries that score low on hierarchy and egalitarianism. As a result, the two value types were examined individually. Hypotheses As mentioned earlier, there is some empirical evidence for the relationship between personality variables and OCB. Although the correlations are generally modest,
16 they were found to be stronger than the relationship between personality and task performance (Borman at al., 2001). The most robust personality predictor so far is conscientiousness, which had significant correlation with generalized compliance (sample-weighted mean r= .21) according to Organ and Ryan (1995). Generalized compliance is the more Â‘impersonalÂ’ form of OCB and is similar to OCB toward the organization. This is also in accordance with the meaning of conscientiousness in the sense that a dependable and responsible person may put in extra effort for the organization. Therefore, it was hypothesized that: Hypothesis 1a: Conscientiousness will relate positively to OCB-O. Agreeableness, however, may be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, highly agreeable people may be more willing to help others. On the other hand, they may be too agreeable to voice their different opinions. Indeed, LePine and Van Dyne (2001) found that agreeableness correlates positively with cooperative behavior and negatively with voice behavior. Therefore, it was hypothesized that: Hypothesis 1b: Agreeableness will relate positively to OCB-I; and Hypothesis 1c: Agreeableness will relate negatively to voice behavior. In addition to the influence of personality, the cultural values endorsed may also enhance or restrict the citizenship behaviors that are usually more discretionary than task performance. As the definition of egalitarianism denotes, it is a cultural value that emphasizes promoting other peopleÂ’s welfare. Thus, for employees high on egalitarianism, it may be a norm to help co-workers or to go above and beyond oneÂ’s own duty for the common good of the organization. For those low on egalitarianism
17 or high on hierarchy, however, they put strong emphasis on the distribution of roles and power. As Paine and Organ (2000) pointed out, a rigid, mechanistic structure may constrain spontaneous citizenship behaviors. Specifically, when people endorse hierarchical values, they may frequently consult their superiors (Smith et al., 2002), being afraid that uninvited behaviors may be seen as challenge to authority (Paine & Organ, 2000). Such effect of hierarchy may be more pronounced for OCB, because OCB refers to behaviors whose contribution to organizational effectiveness can be appreciated by management (Organ, 1994). Turnipseed and Murkison (2000) provide indirect empirical evidence with their study on OCB in both the U.S. and Romania. They found a lower level of OCB in Romania, which has been historically the most vertically structured and authoritative in Eastern Europe (Samli, 1986; as cited in Turnipseed & Murkison, 2000). More specifically, employees high on hierarchy may be more likely to show OCB toward other employees than to their mangers or the organization as a whole. As Paine and Organ reasoned (2000), being at the same level on the hierarchy, peers might be perceived as Â“in-groupÂ”, whereas managers and the organization is the Â“out-group.Â” OCB toward the supervisor or the organization may not only be considered non-obligatory, but might even be perceived as traitorous (Paine & Organ, 2000). In addition, employees with hierarchical values may feel less identified with leaders and feel less obliged to perform OCB than those with high egalitarian value. Similarly reasoning applies to voice behavior. Due to its challenging nature, voice behavior may be less tolerable when hierarchical value is endorsed. According to its definition, hierarchy refers to an emphasis on the legitimacy of distribution of power.
18 Therefore, employees may be afraid to give innovative suggestions or different opinions that may be perceived as uninvited challenges to authority. If egalitarianism is endorsed, however, employees may be more concerned with promoting the good of the organization, and are willing to speak up with suggestions. As a result, it is hypothesized that: Hypothesis 2a: The cultural value of hierarchy will relate negatively to OCBO/voice. Hypothesis 2b: The cultural value of egalitarianism will relate positively to OCBO/voice. Cultural valuesÂ’ moderating effect was also examined beyond its direct relation with OCB. As discussed previously, conscientiousness has been found to be the most robust personality predictor of OCB. People who are more conscientious are more likely to exhibit behaviors such as coming to work early and doing extra work. This relationship, however, may be attenuated by hierarchical values which may lead to accepting orders as given and being intimidated about presenting oneÂ’s own ideas or offering suggestions. In particular, conscientious employees with hierarchical values may be less willing to challenge the rules and the existing structure. They may choose to devote their effort toward task performance instead of doing extra work that may be underappreciated. It would be the opposite for those high on egalitarianism, because they may direct their conscientiousness toward promoting the welfare of the organization as a whole. In line with previous reasoning, hierarchical values may inhibit friendship or feelings of closeness between employees and supervisors. Therefore, even highly conscientious employees may be less willing to assist their supervisors voluntarily or do
19 extra work for the benefit of the organization. In contrast with conditions of egalitarianism, employees perceive supervisors more as equals and are more willing to share their ideas. Therefore, it is hypothesized that: Hypothesis 3: Hierarchy/egalitarianism will moderate the relationship between conscientiousness and OCB-O such that the positive correlation is stronger when hierarchy is low or when egalitarianism is high Similarly, hierarchy may attenuate the relationship between conscientiousness and voice behavior. First of all, LePine and Van Dyne (2001) reported that conscientiousness is indeed related to voice behavior. On the other hand, Organ and Lingl (1995) found that conscientiousness was a significant negative predictor of satisfaction, and provided a post hoc rationale that conscientious people may demand much of others and are thus very critical of other people. When hierarchy is high, however, their expression of dissatisfaction may be restricted by their tendency to follow the rules, which require them to listen to people higher in the organization. With highly egalitarian value, however, people are more likely to present different opinions and suggestions. Hypothesis 4: Hierarchy/egalitarianism will moderate the relationship between conscientiousness and voice behavior such that the relationship will be positive when hierarchy is low or egalitarianism is high and negative when hierarchy is high or egalitarianism is low. Due to the double-blade effect found by LePine and Van Dyne (2001), predictions were hypothesized for the relationship between agreeableness and voice behavior, agreeableness and OCB-O separately. When hierarchical values are endorsed, employees
20 may perceive greater distance from supervisors, and consider helping managers or doing extra work as ingratiation or impression management. Thus, employees may only mind their own business. In addition, agreeable people may be afraid to stand out and deviate from their peers, and may be unwilling to disagree with their co-workers who could create pressure to conform. If egalitarianism is high, however, agreeable employees may feel free to help supervisors and the organization. Hypothesis 5: Hierarchy/egalitarianism will moderate the correlation between agreeableness and OCB-O such that the relationship will be more positive when hierarchy is low or when egalitarianism is high. As reasoned previously, voice behavior, by definition, is challenging and promotive, and such challenging behaviors may not be appreciated or welcomed when people are high on the value of hierarchy. While agreeable employees may refrain from helping others under a hierarchical culture, they would be even less willing to speak up or give innovative suggestions. Therefore, it is hypothesized that: Hypothesis 6: Hierarchy/egalitarianism will moderate the correlation between agreeableness and voice behavior such that the negative correlation is stronger when hierarchy is high or when egalitarianism is low. In summary, it is expected that the cultural value of hierarchy may discourage employees from exhibiting OCB and attenuate the relationship between the two personality variables and the different dimensions of OCB. Opposite effect is expected of the value of egalitarianism.
21 Chapter Two Method Participants In order to test the effect of cultural values on the relationship between personality and OCB, participants were needed from countries that stand rather differently on the values of hierarchy and egalitarianism. China and the U.S. were chosen not only for convenience but also because of their difference in hierarchy and egalitarianism according to SchwartzÂ’s (1994) validation study. The study obtained individual ratings on the importance of the values with a -1-7 Likert scale (-1= value is against the participantÂ’s principles; 7= extremely important to the participant), and the mean rating was used to represent country rating after controlling for scale use. China has the highest rating on hierarchy (3.70; highest= 3.70), and a relatively low rating on egalitarianism (4.49; lowest= 4.34); and the U.S. is medium on hierarchy (2.39; lowest=1.69) and rather high on egalitarianism (5.03; highest=5.62). The sample was collected from multiple organizations in the U.S. and China in a wide range of industries including financial services, healthcare, manufacturing, and business education. Participants included 62 pairs of employee-supervisor dyads from the U.S. and 64 pairs from China. Age was measured with 1-8 (1= 20-24, 2= 25-29, 3= 30-34, 4= 35-39, 5= 40-44, 6= 45-49, 7= 50-54, and 8= 55 and above) and the mean age for the overall sample is 3.26. For gender, 35.6% were males and 59.8% were females with 6 missing cases. This is also a highly educated sample with about 69% of the participants having at least a college degree. The item about race is only relevant to the U.S. sample
22 with 69% Caucasian, 16% African American, 4.8% Hispanic, 4.8% Asian, 1 Native American and 1 other race. On the other hand, the years of English education is specific to the Chinese sample. As can be expected from the high level of education, 47% of the Chinese participants have had studied English for 10 years or more, 14% had English for 79 years and 30% had English for 4-6 years. Measures The OCB measures and personality measures were both translated into Mandarin Chinese by the author for the Chinese sample. As an effort to achieve linguistic equivalence, another native Mandarin speaker who is also proficient in English and had previous translation experience translated the Mandarin version back to English. Finally, a native English speaker reviewed the back-translation in comparison to the original English version of the scales and some retranslation was performed accordingly The Mandarin version of the Schwartz Value Survey was obtained from Dr. Schwartz through personal e-mail communication. Organizational Citizenship Behavior A modified version of existing OCB scales were used to measure OCB dimensions of OCB-I and OCB-O, and voice behavior. All items were rated by the supervisors on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ). Organizational and personal support items are mostly from the OCB scale developed by Williams and Anderson (1991), which differentiates between OCB-I and OCB-O. Assisting supervisors, which is originally an OCB-I item in their scale was moved to the OCB-O part of the scale for reasons stated earlier. CronbachÂ’s was .86 for OCB-I and .81 for OCB-O, which is reasonable comparing to previous studies using the
23 scale (OCBI: range from .61 to .88; OCB-O: range from .70 to .75). Two items were added to OCB-O from Moorman and BlakelyÂ’s (1995) loyal boosterism items. One item is Â“Defends the organization when other employees criticize itÂ” and the other item is Â“Actively promotes the organizationÂ’s products and services to potential users.Â” Item analysis indicated that the two items had fairly high item-total correlations (r= .66 and r= .60 respectively) and would decrease if these items were deleted therefore justifying the addition. Other sample items are Â“Helps others who have heavy work loads,Â” and Â“Conserves and protects organizational property.Â” The five items on task performance from the Williams and Anderson scale were also included except for the two reverse coded items, and the coefficient is .89. Voice behavior was measured with a revised version of the six items from the Helping and Voice Behavior scale by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). The phrase Â“this particular co-workerÂ” at the beginning of each statement was taken out as OCB was rated by the supervisors, and Â“in this work groupÂ” was changed to Â“in this organizationÂ” as participants may not be involved in particular work groups. The voice scale showed a respectable reliability of = .89. Sample items include Â“Speaks up with ideas for new projects or changes in proceduresÂ” and Â“Develops and makes recommendations concerning issues that affect this organization.Â” Conscientiousness and Agreeableness. These two personality variables were measured by the Big-five factor markers developed from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP), a personality inventory that measures the facets of several five-factor models (Goldberg, 1999). The participants were asked to rate how accurately the statements describe their behaviors on a 5-point scale from 1 ( very inaccurate ) to 5 ( very
24 accurate ). To control for survey length, the 50-item shorter version (the longer version contains 100 items) of the Big-five factor markers, which has 10 items for each factor were used. Besides items on conscientiousness and agreeableness, extraversion was included to make it less obvious to the test takers what constructs were being measured in order to reduce social desirability effect. Extraversion was selected instead of neuroticism or openness to experience because it was found to have a stronger relationship with OCB than the latter two factors (r= .29, McManus & Kelly, 1999). Yet no hypotheses were formed for extraversion as it is not the main focus of the present study. The coefficient alpha was .69 for the 10 conscientiousness items, .64 for the 10 agreeableness items, and .75 for the 10 extraversion items. Sample items include Â“Follow a scheduleÂ” and Â“Am always preparedÂ” for conscientiousness; Â“Have a soft heartÂ” and Â“Take time out for othersÂ” for agreeableness; and Â“DonÂ’t talk a lotÂ” and Â“Keep in the backgroundÂ” (reverse coded) for extraversion. Hierarchy and Egalitarianism. Following the suggestion from Schaffer and Riordan (2003) to measure value dimensions directly instead of using an existing country value index, the cultural values were measured in this specific research context. The Schwartz Value Survey (SVS; Schwartz, 1992) was used to measure hierarchy and egalitarianism. Participants were asked to rate 57 value items Â“as a guiding principle in MY lifeÂ” on a 9point scale from -1 ( opposed to my values ) and 0 ( not important ) to 7 ( of supreme importance ). Schwartz (1999) conducted separate multidimensional scaling analyses of the value items in 66 nations, and found that 45 of the items had reasonably equivalent meanings in each nation, which was further confirmed by a nested multigroup confirmatory factor analysis in 21 nations (Spini, 2003). Therefore, only these 45 value
25 items are included in the analyses of the seven cultural dimensions. Out of the 45, five items measure hierarchy, and they are Â“social power,Â” Â“authority,Â” Â“humble,Â” Â“influentialÂ” and Â“wealth.Â” The six items for egalitarianism, on the other hand, are Â“equality,Â” Â“loyal,Â” Â“honest,Â” Â“helpful,Â” Â“responsibleÂ” and Â“social justice.Â” The internal reliability coefficient alpha for the individual-level values ranged from .70 to .90 as found by Schmitt, Schwartz, Steyer and Schmitt (1993; as cited in Schwartz, Verkasalo, Antonovsky & Sagiv, 1997, pp.11). In the present study, CronbachÂ’s alpha was .63 for hierarchy and .84 for egalitarianism. Reliabilities for the country-level values are not available at this point, as each country sample only constitutes a single observation. However, validation data for the theory of cultural value orientations has been obtained from close to 200 samples from 67 nations (Schwartz, in press, 2003). Analysis Multilevel analysis is an important issue for cross-cultural research. There are at least two levels possible, that is, the individual-level and the culture-level (Van de Vijver and Leung, 1997). According to Huang and Van de Vliert (2003), a common characteristic of research that examined the moderating effect of national contextual variables is that the variables were mostly tested at the individual level. This can be done in several ways. Using the cultural value of power distance as an example, one way is to assign a score of power distance to each subject, and the second way is to measure power distance at the individual level within a single country. Third, the moderating effect of power distance could be inferred by trying to explain the observed differences among relations found across cultures. Fourth, the moderating effect of power distance could be
26 tested statistically at the individual level in more than one country as illustrated by the work of Earley and his associates (Earley and Stubblebine, 1989; Earley, 1989). Finally, Huang and Van de Vliert (2003) proposed that the best approach to this type of research is to use multilevel modeling, which requires a minimum of 25 countries. As the present study examined two countries, the best and applicable method seems to be the fourth approach. Therefore, the effect of hierarchy and egalitarianism were tested at the individual level as hypothesized and additional analyses were conducted to explore the country level effect. Specifically, to test the first two hypotheses on the direct relations, correlations were obtained for the relations between employee personality and cultural value scores and their scores on the facets of OCB. In addition, to gather some preliminary evidence on the influence of cultural values at the country level, independent t-tests were conducted to determine if there were significant differences between the two countries on the two cultural values and the OCB ratings. To test Hypotheses 3 to 6, moderated regression was performed using hierarchy and egalitarianism scores separately to test if the two values moderate the relationship between conscientiousness, agreeableness, and OCB dimensions in different fashions. The independent variables and their interaction terms were entered as the first and second step. Additional analyses were also conducted where country was analyzed as a dummy coded variable. The effect of the country variable relative to the individual level values was also examined.
27 Chapter Three Results Descriptives An overview of the means and standard deviations for the U.S. and China combined sample is presented in Table 1. In addition, an independent t-test was conducted to test the differences between the U.S and China on the key variables and several demographic variables (Table 2). Table 2 also reported the variance accounted for in these variables by the country variable (U.S.= 0; China= 1). Results indicated that for this particular sample, the U.S. had significantly higher means for agreeableness, conscientiousness, egalitarianism, OCB-I, and task performance. As expected, the American participants on average were higher on egalitarianism and lower on hierarchy than the Chinese participants, although the former was significant (p< .01) but the latter just approached significance (p= .07). Also, on average, the U.S. sample was significantly older, has been in their professions longer, and has been supervised longer by the supervisors who completed the performance ratings. Table 1. Individual-level Means and Standard Deviations N Mean Std. Deviation 1. Extraversion 126 3.23 .58989 2. Agreeableness 124 3.96 .49363 3. Conscientiousness 123 3.84 .51082 4. Hierarchy 125 3.34 1.06910 5. Egalitarianism 124 5.08 1.04061 6. OCB-I 126 5.63 .94556 7. OCB-O 124 5.53 .84250 8. Voice Behavior 126 5.27 1.03703 9. Task Performance 116 5.93 .92822
28 Table 2. Comparison between Country Means and Standard Deviations Country N Mean Std. Deviation Sig. (2tailed) R2* Extraversion U.S. 62 3.31 0.65 0.1329 .018 China 64 3.15 0.51 Agreeableness U.S. 61 4.19 0.46 0.0000 .211 China 63 3.74 0.42 Conscientious -ness U.S. 59 4.02 0.45 0.0002 .112 China 64 3.68 0.52 Hierarchy U.S. 62 3.16 1.09 0.0697 .026 China 63 3.51 1.03 Egalitarianism U.S. 61 5.46 0.90 0.0000 .131 China 63 4.71 1.04 OCB-I U.S. 62 5.83 0.95 0.0175 .045 China 64 5.43 0.91 OCB-O U.S. 62 5.60 0.98 0.3727 .007 China 62 5.46 0.68 VOIC Behavior U.S. 62 5.36 1.17 0.3596 .007 China 64 5.19 0.90 Task Performance U.S. 62 6.12 1.03 0.0155 .050 China 54 5.70 0.74 Age U.S. 62 4.19 2.04 0.0000 .242 China 62 2.32 1.18 Education U.S. 58 3.88 0.68 0.0000 .295 China 64 4.78 0.72 Tenure U.S. 61 65.31 65.52 0.1189 .020 China 63 48.38 54.16 Profession U.S. 61 144.49 115.58 0.0001 .121 China 63 73.75 72.07 Supervision U.S. 62 29.53 28.57 0.0007 .091 China 61 15.61 12.94 NOTE: The significance is assuming equal variances. R2 refers to variance accounted for by the country variable.
29 Hypotheses 1 & 2 To test the first two hypotheses correlations were obtained as shown in Table 3a. It was hypothesized that individuals higher on the value of hierarchy will perform less OCB-O and voice and vice versa for those higher on egalitarianism. Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 1c looked at the relationship between personality variables and OCB. Hypothesis 1a was not supported, as the correlation between conscientiousness and OCB-O was not significant (r= .12, p= .188). Hypothesis 1b, however, was supported with a significant correlation between agreeableness and OCB toward other individuals (r= .23, p< .05). It is interesting to note that between agreeableness and conscientiousness, the former seemed to be a stronger predictor for OCB toward individuals and the latter a stronger predictor for OCB toward the organization. In addition, the correlation between agreeableness and voice behavior was not significant and was not in the expected direction and therefore, Hypothesis 1c was not supported. Results also indicated there were negative but nonsignificant correlations between hierarchy and OCB-O and hierarchy and voice. Therefore, Hypothesis 2a was not supported. Similarly, the association between egalitarianism and OCB-O and voice were positive but not significant failing to support Hypothesis 2b.
30 Table 3a. Correlations for U.S./China combined NOTE: Tenure is the number of months with the organization and profession is the number of months in this profession, and supervision refers to months of supervisor as reported by the supervisor. Numbers in the diagonal refer to CronbachÂ’s alpha for the corresponding scales. p< .05. ** p< .01 The correlations obtained separately within the U.S. sample and the Chinese sample are provided in Table 3b and 3c. Results seemed to indicate quite different correlation patterns for the U.S. and China. First, the correlations among the three personality variables are higher for the Chinese sample. Agreeableness was significantly related to extraversion (r= .265, p< .05) and conscientiousness (r= .512, p< .01) for China but not the U.S. Similarly, the correlation between hierarchy and egalitarianism was nonsignificant in the U.S. but was .615 (p< .01) in China. However, the relations among the performance dimensions were relatively stronger for the U.S. sample. Specifically, the correlation between OCB-I and voice behavior was .559 (p< .01) for the U.S. but nonsignificant in the Chinese sample. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Extraversion (.75) 2. Agreeableness .226* (.64) 3. Conscientiousness .067 .429** (.69) 4. Hierarchy .166 .060 -.027 (.63) 5. Egalitarianism .187* .469** .317** .273** (.84) 6. OCB-I .030 .226* .193* -.067 .013 (.86) 7. OCB-O -.167 -.051 .121 -.063 .038 .494** (.81) 8. Voice Behavior .056 .075 .087 -.079 .070 .423** .625** (.89) 9. Task Performance .007 .186* .196* -.078 .150 .593** .629** .536** (.89) 10. Gender .015 .121 -.027 -.155 .015 .112 .109 .110 .204* 11. Age -.090 .078 .052 -.103 .180* .074 .175 .209* .084 12. Education -.058 -.133 -.135 .079 -.289** .029 .029 -.022 -.012 13. Tenure -.047 -.023 -.067 -.124 .157 -.016 .129 .258** .044 14. Profession .024 .074 .069 -.104 .158 .029 .147 .156 .129 15. Supervision -.110 .055 .085 -.049 .191* .183* .286** .295** .276**
31 Second, there were also differences on the personality-OCB relationship between the two samples. Whereas the correlations between agreeableness and OCB-I were similar, its relations to OCB-O and Voice were more negative for the Chinese sample. On the other hand, the correlations between conscientiousness and OCB-I were also comparable between the two samples. ConscientiousnessÂ’ relationship with OCB-O and voice, however, were positive in the U.S. (significant for OCB-O: r= .313, P< .05; r= .256, p> .05) but negative in China (r= -.135; r= -.131, p> .05). Table 3b. Correlations for the U.S. Sample NOTE: Tenure is the number of months with the organization and profession is the number of months in this profession, and supervision refers to months of supervisor as reported by the supervisor. Numbers in the diagonal refer to p< .05. ** p< .01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Extraversion 1 2. Agreeableness .125 1 3. Conscientiousness -.103 .125 1 4. Hierarchy .148 -.094 -.201 1 5. Egalitarianism .076 .295* .140 .083 1 6. OCB-I -.110 .140 .111 -.115 .048 1 7. OCB-O -.182 -.008 .313* -.071 .070 .605** 1 8. Voice Behavior -.044 .199 .256 -.129 .047 .559** .678** 1 9. Task Performance -.081 .117 .225 -.032 .141 .569** .678** .666** 1 10. Gender .137 .324* .084 .112 .203 .250 .184 .195 .201 11. Age -.224 -.129 -.087 -.014 .073 .137 .082 .116 .070 12. Education .055 .082 -.198 -.046 -.319* .091 .121 .143 .051 13. Tenure -.110 .043 .035 -.182 .260* .149 .017 .238 .099 14. Profession .001 .014 .074 -.102 .095 .134 .056 .042 .183 15. Supervision -.188 -.016 .028 .050 .135 .288* .261* .326** .301*
32 Table 3c. Correlations for the Chinese Sample NOTE: Tenure is the number of months with the organization and profession is the number of months in this profession, and supervision refers to months of supervisor as reported by the supervisor. Numbers in the diagonal refer to CronbachÂ’s alpha for the corresponding scales. p< .05. ** p< .01 Hypotheses 3 to 6 Moderated regression was performed to test Hypotheses 3 to 6 to determine if cultural values moderate the relationship between personality and OCB. For Hypothesis 3, the predictor variables of conscientiousness and hierarchy were entered in Step 1 and their product term was entered in Step 2. Hypothesis 3 was supported for the value of hierarchy in which the relationship between conscientiousness and OCB-O was stronger when hierarchy was low (Table 4). This effect is also illustrated in Figure 1 below. Then egalitarianism was entered instead of hierarchy and the result was in the expected positive direction but not significant (Table 5). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Extraversion 1 2. Agreeableness .265* 1 3. Conscientiousness .154 .512** 1 4. Hierarchy .250* .419** .230 1 5. Egalitarianism .242 .424** .285* .615** 1 6. OCB-I .146 .165 .162 .054 -.164 1 7. OCB-O -.178 -.235 -.135 -.018 -.069 .334** 1 8. Voice Behavior .190 -.184 -.131 .013 .046 .233 .524** 1 9. Task Performance .085 .025 .021 -.068 -.010 .607** .549** .275* 1 10. Gender -.165 -.170 -.188 -.375** -.224 -.069 -.011 -.009 .162 11. Age -.095 -.290* -.197 -.036 -.084 -.363** .325* .357** -.297* 12. Education -.019 .212 .237 .015 .017 .275* .089 -.083 .229 13. Tenure -.004 -.296* -.262* -.001 -.039 -.288* .292* .269* -.115 14. Profession -.076 -.300* -.225 .037 -.030 -.351** .287* .328** -.226 15. Supervision -.100 -.328* -.066 -.132 .025 -.225 .334** .198 -.003
33 Table 4. Moderated Regression of OCB-O/Voice on Conscientiousness and Hierarchy OCB-O Voice Independent Variables R2 R2 F # t R2 R2 F # t Step 1: Predictors .017 .017 1.007 .010 .010 .627 Conscientiou sness (CON) .739 2.43* .248 .805 Hierarchy (HY) 1.471 2.05* .376 .508 Step 2: Interaction term .054 .037 4.598* .014 .003 ..377 CON X HY -1.649 -2.14* -.485-.614 NOTE: p< .05. ** p< .01. N= 126. Table 5. Moderated Regression of OCB-O/Voice on Conscientiousness and Egalitarianism OCB-O Voice Independent Variables R2 R2 F # t R2 R2 F # t Step 1: Predictors .012 .012 .697 .007 .007 .435 Conscientiou sness (CON) -.011 -.034 -.223 -.691 Egalitarianis m (EG) -.211 -.432 -.359 -.729 Step 2: Interaction term .013 .001 .160 .014 .006 .755 CON X EG .263 .400 .570 .869 NOTE: p< .05. ** p< .01. N= 126.
34 Figure 1. Moderating Effect of Hierarchy on Conscientiousness and OCB-O. M oderating effect of Hierarchy on Conscientiousness and O CB-O 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 12 ConscientiousnessO CBO Hierarchy Low Hierarchy High Next, hypothesis 4 was tested by changing the dependent variable to voice behavior. It was not supported as the moderating effect was not significant although in the expected direction (Table 4 & 5). In addition, hypotheses 5 and 6 examined the personality variable of agreeableness. Results indicated that the two values did not exert significant moderating effect on the relationship between agreeableness and OCB-O nor agreeableness and voice (Table 6 & 7).
35 Table 6. Moderated Regression of OCB-O/Voice on Agreeableness and Hierarchy OCB-O Voice Independent Variables R2 R2 F # t R2 R2 F # t Step 1: Predictors .006 .006 .333 .013 .013 .773 Agreeablenes s (AGR) .299 1.024 .362 1.257 Hierarchy (HY) .855 1.171 .670 .915 Step 2: Interaction term .019 .013 .1.575 .022 .009 1.087 AGR X HY -.997 -1.255 -.830 -1.043 NOTE: p< .05. ** p< .01. N= 126. Table 7. Moderated Regression of OCB-O/Voice on Agreeableness and Egalitarianism OCB-O Voice Independent Variables R2 R2 F # t R2 R2 F # t Step 1: Predictors .010 .010 .576 .007 .007 .403 Agreeablenes s (AGR) .081 .156 -.258 -.504 Egalitarianis m (EG) .372 .471 -.418 -.524 Step 2: Interaction term .011 .001 .132 .010 .003 .357 AGR X EG -.407 -.363 .669 .597 NOTE: p< .05. ** p< .01. N= 126.
36 Additional Analyses To explore the effect at the country-level, the two countries were dummy coded (U.S.= 0 and China= 1). In moderated regressions, the personality variables and the country code were entered in Step 1 and the product term was entered in Step 2. As indicated in Table 8 and 9, the country variable seemed to moderate the relations between conscientiousness and OCB-O, conscientiousness and voice, and agreeableness and voice. This moderating effect of country is also illustrated in the figures below. Table 8. Moderated Regression of OCB-O and Voice on Conscientiousness and Culture OCB-O Voice Independent Variables R2 R2 F # t R2 R2 F # t Step 1: Predictors .015 .015 .920 .010 .010 .606 Conscientious ness (CON) .424 2.872** .332 2.237* Culture (CUL) 1.978 2.701** 1.637 2.212* Step 2: Interaction term .076 .060 7.64 7 .052 .042 5.30 1 CON X CUL -1.940 -2.765** -1.634 -2.302* NOTE: p< .05. ** p< .01. N= 126.
37 Table 9. Moderated Regression of OCB-O/Voice on Agreeableness and Culture OCB-O Voice Independent Variables R2 R2 F # t R2 R2 F # t Step 1: Predictors .015 .015 .915 .010 .010 .588 Agreeableness (AGR) -.011 -.076 .243 1.760 Culture (CUL) .719 .868 1.645 2.019* Step 2: Interaction term .024 .009 1.060 .045 .036 4.509 AGR X CUL -.809 -1.030 -1.645 -2.123* NOTE: p< .05. ** p< .01. N= 126. Figure 2. Country, Conscientiousness and OCB-O Moderating Effect of Country on Conscientiousness and OCB-O4.8 5.1 5.4 5.7 6 LowHigh ConscientiousnessOCB-O U.S (Hierarchy Lower) China (Hierarchy Higher)
38 Figure 3. Country, Conscientiousness and Voice Moderating Effect of Country on Conscientiousness and Voice4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 LowHigh ConscientiousnessVoice Behavio r U.S (Hierarchy Low) China (Hierarchy High) Figure 4. Country, Agreeableness and Voice Moderating Effect of Country on Agreeableness and Voice4 4.5 5 5.5 6 LowHigh AgreeablenessVoice Behavio r U.S (Hierarchy Low) China (Hierarchy High) In addition, the moderating effect of country was brought against the effect of the individual level values. The personality, value and country variables were entered in Step 1 as predictors. In Step 2, the product term of personality and value and the product term of personality and country were entered simultaneously. In this case, the culture variable seemed to have a stronger effect. Table 11 and 12 show that the interaction between culture and conscientiousness remained significant for OCB-O and voice while the interaction between culture and agreeableness approached significance. The interaction
39 between value and personality, however, became nonsignificant except for conscientiousness and OCB-O. Table 10. Moderated Regression of OCB-O/Voice on Conscientiousness, Hierarchy and Culture OCB-O Voice Independent Variables R2 R2 F t R2 R2 F t Step 1: Predictors .017 .017 .679 .012 .012 .465 Conscientiousn ess (CON) 1.073 3.243** .496 1.467 Hierarchy (HY) 1.562 2.188* .395 .532 Culture (CUL) 2.066 2.774** 1.749 2.286* Step 2: Interaction term .114 .097 6.245 .059 .047 2.894 CON X HY -1.690 -2.202* -.450 -.566 CON X CUL -1.986 -2.765** -1.728 -2.341* NOTE: p< .05. ** p< .01. N= 126.
40 Table 11. Moderated Regression of Voice on Agreeableness, Hierarchy and Culture Voice Independent Variables R2 R2 F t Step 1: Predictors .014 .014 .570 Agreeableness (AGR) .458 1.470 Hierarchy (HY) .540 .730 Culture (CUL) 1.527 1.804 Step 2: Interaction term .050 .036 2.190 AGR X HY -.631 -.778 AGR X CUL -1.500 -1.846 (p=.067) In sum, significant moderating effect was found for hierarchy such that the relationship between conscientiousness and OCB-O is stronger when hierarchy is low. The other hypotheses on the moderating effect were not supported but all in the expected direction except for one.
41 Chapter Four Discussions The present study examined the direct relationship between personality variables and OCB, cultural values and OCB and the moderating effect of cultural values. Results provided some support for the hypotheses. Specifically, agreeableness was found to have a significant relationship with OCB toward individuals and the value of hierarchy moderated the relationship between conscientiousness and OCB toward the organization. Results for the other hypotheses were not significant but were all in the expected direction except for the moderating effect of egalitarianism on the relation between agreeableness and OCB-O. Additional exploratory analyses revealed that it may be the cultural context (country) rather than the individual differences in the value of hierarchy or egalitarianism that interacted with personality to influence employeesÂ’ OCB. Several general conclusions may be drawn from the results. First, this study provided further evidence for the relationship between certain personality variables and OCB. Both agreeableness and conscientiousness were significantly related to OCB-I and the latter also had a significant correlation with OCB-O in the U.S. sample. Different personality factors may relate differently to the OCB dimensions. According to its definition, agreeableness is about how good-natured one is in terms of interpersonal relations (Organ, 1994). Therefore, it may have a stronger relationship with the more interpersonal dimension of OCB, OCB-I. For conscientiousness, however, being responsible and dependable may be more likely to result in making extra effort and contribution to work than helping others. Results lent partial support for this in the sense
42 that OCB-O had a higher correlation with conscientiousness (r= .121, p> .05) than agreeableness (r= -.051, p> .05). Second, the relationship between personality and OCB may be moderated by cultural values and moreover, the moderating effect may differ for different personality variables. Moderated regression indicated that the relationship between conscientiousness and OCB-O was stronger when hierarchy was low. When the U.S. sample and Chinese sample were examined separately, it was found that the pattern of correlations between personality and OCB was quite different for conscientiousness (e.g. for OCB-O, U.S.: r= .313, p< .05; China: -.135, p> .05) but was rather similar for agreeableness. Therefore, it seems that for agreeable individuals, whether they hold hierarchical or egalitarian values may not have much impact on their OCB. For conscientious employees, however, whether they have high or low hierarchical values influences their OCB toward the organization. Third, this study showed that the cultural value of hierarchy and egalitarianism are not necessarily two ends of a continuum. In fact, for this sample, there was a significant positive correlation between the two (r= .273, p<.01). Interestingly, the correlation was not significant for the U.S. sample (r= .083, p> .05) but highly significant for the Chinese sample (r= .615, p< .01). Item analysis revealed that one item on the Â“HierarchyÂ” scale, that is, Â“HumbleÂ” had a very low item-total correlation (r= .11). It is possible that the Chinese and the U.S. participants interpreted this item differently. For Chinese, being Â“humbleÂ” may be more related to being Â“helpfulÂ” and Â“loyalÂ” (which are items for egalitarianism), but for the Americans, Â“humbleÂ” may mean subjecting to authority and power and therefore may constitute the value of Â“Hierarchy.Â”
43 The additional analyses also yielded interesting results that the country effect seemed to be stronger than the value effect. Brockner et al. (2001) employed similar methods for their four studies on the influence of power distance on reactions to voice. Their results indicated that it was cultural differences in power distance rather than culture itself that moderated the relationship between voice and organizational commitment. Although the present study found the opposite that the effect of culture is stronger it seems to make sense as the dependent variable of organizational commitment in their study may be more internal than OCB in this study which may be more externally exhibited and therefore, context dependent. Implications This study may have important implications concerning organizational culture and the selection and training of employees with various cultural backgrounds. Results indicated that when high hierarchical value is endorsed, the relationship between conscientiousness and OCB toward the organization may be restricted. In that case, selecting for conscientious employees should be accompanied by extra effort to create a more egalitarian organizational culture to offset the general cultural value orientations. Such culture should also be supported by effective implementation of egalitarian organizational structures and systems. Especially for multinational companies (MNCs) that operate in different countries with diverse cultural values, special care needs to be taken to achieve a balance of the company and local culture. MNCs need to take into consideration the cultural values of their local employees and try to orient them in the optimal direction.
44 Implications of the study for selection lie in the possibility that personality such as conscientiousness may be a more useful selection tool in a more egalitarian culture where there are fewer restraints on the influence of personality. Furthermore, mentoring programs may be adopted as an attempt to diffuse the hierarchy within an organization. Whereas employee training needs to address issues such as effective communication with the supervisor, exhibiting voice behavior and taking initiatives, manager training can target subordinate mentoring. For expatriate managers in particular, they need to understand the different cultural values of their local employees and initiate whatever changes needed. Future Research This study has several shortcomings. First, the sample size is rather small. As most of the moderating effect was in the expected direction, future research may employ a larger sample to be able to have sufficient power to statistically detect them. Second, the sample was collected from multiple organizations, which helps with generalizability but may have hurt sample equivalence. Future studies may use single organizations and try to match samples from different countries on relevant variables. Furthermore, as indicated earlier, this sample is highly educated and therefore, may not be representative of the general population. Particularly for the Chinese sample, high education and knowledge of English may have impact on their value systems. In this sense, the cultural differences between the U.S. and Chinese samples collected may be underestimated. In addition, the present study examined only two types of cultural values, namely, hierarchy and egalitarianism. Future research needs to expand to other important cultural value sets, such as mastery-harmony and conservatism-autonomy. Also, there are more
45 personality variables that can be explored, including locus of control and self-monitoring. Existing literature suggests a possible link with OCB as mentioned previously (Eisenberg, 2000; Caliguri and Day, 2000). Self-monitoring seems especially promising because it denotes sensitivity to environmental cues and social norms and therefore, may affect the degree to which one is subject to the influence of cultural values. Another interesting line of research may lie in the moderating effect of personality on the relationship between cultural values and OCB. For example, it may be argued that in a highly hierarchical culture, extraversion or need for achievement may increase the likelihood of engaging in OCB, and thus reducing the negative correlation between hierarchy and OCB. Interestingly, correlations between extraversion and OCB dimensions did appear to be higher in China than in the U.S. Furthermore, cultural values can interact with each other and form value relations as suggested by Schwartz (1999). Certain values generally go together, such as hierarchy and conservatism. Therefore, it may be interesting to see how a combination of values affects personality and OCB. In other words, a nationÂ’s value profile rather than its standing on a single value may be examined to determine its influence on OCB. Future research may also continue to explore the dimensionality of the OCB construct in various cultural contexts. In conclusion, this study needs to be further refined, and as it only examined a small aspect of the relationship among cultural values, personality and OCB, it should be expanded to include other cultural values and personality predictors. Despite its limitations, this research serves as one step toward further globalization of the important construct of organizational citizenship behavior.
46 References Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bateman, T. S., Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee Â‘citizenship.Â’ Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595. Begley, T. M., Lee, C., Fang, Y. Q., Li, J. F. (2002). Power distance as a moderator of the relationship between justice and employee outcomes in a sample of Chinese employees. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(8), 692-711. Borman, W. C., Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schimitt and W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Borman W. C., Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: the meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99-109. Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment Vol. 9, No. , 52-69. Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M., et al. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 300-315. Caligiuri, P. M., Day, D. V. (2000). Effects of self-monitoring on technical, contextual, and assignment-specific performance: A study of cross-national work performance ratings. Group and Organization Management, 25(2) 154-174. Chaves, W. V. (2001). An empirical analysis of the effect of work-related values and value congruence on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, task performance, and organizational citizenship behavior Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa. Coleman, V. I., Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the underlying structure of the citizenship performance domain. Human Resource Management Review 10 2544.
47 Earley, P.C. (1989). Social Loafing and Collectivism: A Comparison of the United States and the PeopleÂ’s Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly 34 565Â– 81. Earley, P.C., Stubblebine, P. (1989). Intercultural assessment of performance feedback. Group and Organization Studies, 14(2), 161Â–81. Eisenberg, A. P. (2000). The search for integrity: A leadership impact study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. DePaul University, Chicago. Fields, D. L. (2002). Taking the measure of work: A guide to validated scales for organizational research and diagnosis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models, In I. Mervielde, I. J. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds .), Personality Psychology in Europe, ( 7), Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press, pp. 7-28. Graham, J. W. (1986). Organizational citizenship informed by political theory. Paper presented at Academy of Management meetings, Chicago. Hofstede, G. (1980). CultureÂ’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1991). Empirical models of cultural differences. In Bleichrodt, N., Drenth, P. J. D. (Eds.) Contemporary Issues in Cross-cultural Psychology (p 4-20) Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Hogan, J., Rybicki, S. L., Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C. (1997). Relations between contextual performance, personality, and occupational advancement. Human Performance, 11(2/3), 189-207. Huang, X., Van de Vliert, E. (2003). Comparing work behaviors across cultures: A crosslevel approach using multilevel modeling. International Journal of CrossCultural Management, 3(2), 167-182. Isen, A. M., Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior. In Cummnings, L. L. & Staw, B. M. (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol.13, pp. 1-53). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Karambayya, R. (1990). Contextual predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Proceedings of the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, San Francisco, 221-225. Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science 9 131-46.
48 Kickul, J. R., Neuman, George A. (1998). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Achievement orientation and personality. Journal of Business & Psychology 13 (2), 263-279. LePine, J. A., Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with Big Five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 326-336. Midili, A. R. and Penner, L. A. (1995). Dispositional and environmental influences on organizational citizenship behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York, NY. Miller, R. L., Griffin, M. A., Hart, P. M. (1999). Personality and organizational health: The role of conscientiousness. Work and Stress 13 7-19. Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-Collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior Mar, 16(2), 127-142. Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., Schmit M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10(2) 71-83. Murphy, G. (1932). An historical introduction to modern psychology (4th rev. ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace. Nikolaou, I., Robertson, I. T. (2001). The Five-Factor model of personality and work behavior in Greece. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology 10(2), 161-186. Oishi, S., Schimmack, U., Diener, E., Suh, E. M. (1998). The measurement of values and Individualism-Collectivism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(11), 1177-1189. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: the good soldier syndrome Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior and the good soldier. Personnel selection and classification. 53-67. Organ, D. W., Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 157164. Organ, D. W., Lingl, A. (1995). Personality, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 135(3) 339350.
49 Organ, D. W., Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48 775802. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: ItÂ’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2) 85-97. Organ, D. W., Paine, J. B. (1999). A new kind of performance for industrial and organizational psychology: Recent contributions to the study of organizational citizenship behavior. In Cooper, C. L., Robertson, I. T. (Eds.). International review of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 14. (pp. 337-368). New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Paine, J. B., Organ, D. W. (2000). The cultural matrix of organizational citizenship behavior: some preliminary conceptual and empirical observations. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1) 44-59. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance, 10(2), 133-151. Schaffer, B. S., Riordan, C. M. (2003). A review of cross-cultural methodologies for organizational research: A best-practices approach. Organizational Research Methods, (6), 169-215. Schnake, M. (1991). Organizational citizenship: A review, proposed model, and research agenda. Human Relations, 44(7) 735-757. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Teoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.25, pp. 1-65). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism-collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications (pp. 85-119). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Schwartz, S. H., & Ros, M. (1995). Values in the West: A theoretical and empirical challenge to the individualism-collectivism cultural dimension. World Psychology 1 91-122. Schwartz, S. H., Verkasalo, M., Antonovsky, A., Sagiv, L. (1997). Value priorities, and social desirability: Much substance, some style. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36 3-18.
50 Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 23-47. Schwartz, S. H. (in press, 2003). Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around the world. In H. Vinken, J. Soeters, & P Ester (Eds.), Comparing cultures, Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology 68(4), 653-663. Smith, P. B., Peterson, M. F., Schwartz, S. H. (2002). Cultural values, sources of guidance, and their relevance to managerial behavior: a 47-nation study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(2) 188-208. Spector et al. (2002). Locus of control and well-being at work: How generalizable are western findings? Academy of Management Journal. 45 2, 453-466. Spini, D. (2003). Structural equivalence of value types across twenty-one countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 3-23. Sun, S. (2001). Predicting job satisfaction and organi zational citizenship behavior with individualism-collectivism in P.R. China and the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of South Florida, Tampa. Tang, T. L-P., Ibrahim, A. H. S. (1998). Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior revisited: public personnel in the United States and in the Middle East. Public Personnel Management, 27(4) 529-549. Turnipseed, D. L., Murkison, E. (2000). A bi-cultural comparison of organization citizenship behavior: does the OCB phenomenon transcend national culture? The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 8(2) 200-222. Van de Vijver, F., Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Van Dyne, L., LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108119. Van Scotter, J. R., Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 525-531. Williams, L. J., Anderson, S.E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3) 601-617.
51 Williams, R. M. Jr. (1970). American Society: A sociological interpretation. (3rd Ed.). New York: Knopf. Winter, D. G., John, O. P., Stewart, A. J., Klohnen, E. C., & Duncan, L. E. (1998). Traits and motives: toward an integration of two traditions in personality research. Psychological Review, 105, 230-250.
1 Appendix A: Survey Materials International Personality Item Pool On the following pages, there are phrases describing peopleÂ’s behaviors. Please use the rating scale below to describe how accurately each statement describes you Describe yourself as you generally are now, not as you wish to be in the future. Describe yourself as you honestly see yourself, in relation to other people you know of the same sex as you are, and roughly your same age. So that you can describe yourself in an honest manner, your responses will be kept in absolute confidence. Please read each statement carefully, and then circle the number on the scale. Thank you! Response Options: 1 : Very Inaccurate (VA) 2 : Moderately Inaccurate (MI) 3 : Neither Inaccurate nor Accurate (NIA) 4 : Moderately Accurate (MA) 5 : Very Accurate (VA) VI MI NIA MA VA 1 Am the life of the party. 1 2 3 4 5 2 Feel little concern for others. 1 2 3 4 5 3 Am always prepared. 1 2 3 4 5 4 DonÂ’t talk a lot. 1 2 3 4 5 5 Am interested in people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Leave my belongings around. 1 2 3 4 5 7 Feel comfortable around people. 1 2 3 4 5 8 Insult people. 1 2 3 4 5 9 Pay attention to details. 1 2 3 4 5 10 Keep in the background. 1 2 3 4 5 11 Sympathize with othersÂ’ feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 12 Make a mess of things. 1 2 3 4 5 13 Start conversations. 1 2 3 4 5 14 Am not interested in other peopleÂ’s problems. 1 2 3 4 5 15 Get chores done right away. 1 2 3 4 5 16 Have little to say. 1 2 3 4 5 17 Have a soft heart. 1 2 3 4 5 18 Often forget to put things back in their proper place. 1 2 3 4 5 19 Talk to a lot of different people at parties. 1 2 3 4 5 20 Am not really interested in others. 1 2 3 4 5 21 Like order. 1 2 3 4 5 22 DonÂ’t like to draw attention to myself. 1 2 3 4 5 23 Take time out for others. 1 2 3 4 5 24 Shirk my duties. 1 2 3 4 5 25 DonÂ’t mind being the center of attention. 1 2 3 4 5 26 Feel othersÂ’ emotions. 1 2 3 4 5 27 Follow a schedule. 1 2 3 4 5
2 28 Am quiet around strangers. 1 2 3 4 5 29 Make people feel at ease. 1 2 3 4 5 30 Am exacting in my work. 1 2 3 4 5
3 Appendix A: (Continued) Organizational Citizenship Behavior On the following pages, there are some statements describing peopleÂ’s behaviors at work. Please use the seven-point rating scale below to indicate how much you agree that each statement describes this particular subordinate of yours. Thank you! Response Options: 1: Strongly Disagree (SD) 2: Disagree (D) 3: Moderately Disagree (MD) 4: Neither disagree nor agree (N) 5: Moderately Agree (MA) 6: Agree (A) 7: Strongly Agree (SA) OCB-I SD D MD N MA A S A 1 Helps others who have been absent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 Helps others who have heavy work loads. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 Takes time to listen to co-workersÂ’ problems and worries. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 Goes out of way to help new employees. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 Takes a personal interest in other employees. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 Passes along information to co-workers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 OCBO SD D MD N MA A S A 7 Assists supervisor with his/her work (when not asked). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Attendance at work is above the norm. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 Gives advance notice when unable to come to work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 Takes undeserved work breaks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11 Great deal of time spent with personal phone conversations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 Complains about insignificant things at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 Conserves and protects organizational property. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 14 Adheres to informal rules devised to maintain order. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15 Defends the organization when other employees or outsiders criticize it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16 Actively promotes the organizationÂ’s products and services to potential users. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Voice SD D MD N MA A S A 17 Develops and makes recommendations concerning issues that affect this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18 Speaks up and encourages others to get involved in issues that affect this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19 Communicates his/her opinions about work issues to others even if his/her opinion is different and others disagree with him/her. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20 Keeps well informed about issues where his/her opinion might be useful to this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21 Gets involved with issues that affect the quality of life here in this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22 Speaks up with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IRB SD D MD N MA A S A 23 Adequately completes assigned duties. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24 Fulfills responsibilities specified in job description. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25 Perform tasks that are expected of him/her. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26 Meets formal performance requirements of the job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27 Engages in activities that will directly affect his/her performance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 Appendix A: (Continued) VALUE SURVEY In this questionnaire you are to ask yourself: "What values are important to ME as guiding principles in MY life, and what values are less important to me?" There are two lists of values on the following pages. These values come from different cultures. In the parentheses following each value is an explanation that may help you to understand its meaning. Your task is to rate how important each value is for you as a guiding principle in your life Use the rating scale below: 0--means the value is not at all important, it is not relevant as a guiding principle for you. 3--means the value is important. 6--means the value is very important. The higher the number (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), the more important the value is as a guiding principle in YOUR life. -1 is for rating any values opposed to the principles that guide you. 7 is for rating a value of supreme importance as a guiding principle in your life; ordinarily there are no more than two such values. In the space before each value, write the number (-1,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) that indicates the importance of that value for you, personally. Try to distinguish as much as possible between the values by using all the numbers. You will, of course, need to use numbers more than once. AS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN MY LIFE, this value is: opposed of to my not very supreme values important important important importance -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Before you begin, read the values in List I, choose the one that is most important to you and rate its importance. Next, choose the value that is most opposed to your values and rate it -1. If there is no such value, choose the value least important to you and rate it 0 or 1, according to its importance. Then rate the rest of the values in List I. VALUES LIST I 1 EQUALITY (equal opportunity for all) 2 INNER HARMONY (at peace with myself) 3 SOCIAL POWER (control over others, dominance) 4 PLEASURE (gratification of desires) 5 FREEDOM (freedom of action and thought) 6 A SPIRITUAL LIFE (emphasis on spiritual not material matters) 7 SENSE OF BELONGING (feeling that others care about me)
6 AS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN MY LIFE, this value is: opposed of to my not very supreme values important important important importance -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SOCIAL ORDER (stability of society) 9 AN EXCITING LIFE (stimulating experiences) 10 MEANING IN LIFE (a purpose in life) 11 POLITENESS (courtesy, good manners) 12 WEALTH (material possessions, money) 13 NATIONAL SECURITY (protection of my nation from enemies) 14 SELF RESPECT (belief in one's own worth) 15____RECIPROCATION OF FAVORS (avoidance of indebtedness) 16____CREATIVITY (uniqueness, imagination) 17____A WORLD AT PEACE (free of war and conflict) 18____RESPECT FOR TRADITION (preservation of time-honored customs) 19____MATURE LOVE (deep emotional & spiritual intimacy) 20____SELF-DISCIPLINE (self-restraint, resistance to temptation) 21____PRIVACY (the right to have a private sphere) 22____FAMILY SECURITY (safety for loved ones) 23____SOCIAL RECOGNITION (respect, approval by others) 24____UNITY WITH NATURE (fitting into nature) 25____A VARIED LIFE (filled with challenge, novelty and change) 26____WISDOM (a mature understanding of life) 27____AUTHORITY (the right to lead or command) 28____TRUE FRIENDSHIP (close, supportive friends) 29____A WORLD OF BEAUTY (beauty of nature and the arts) 30____SOCIAL JUSTICE (correcting injustice, care for the weak) * *
7 VALUES LIST II Now rate how important each of the following values is for you as a guiding principle in YOUR life These values are phrased as ways of acting that may be more or less important for you. Once again, try to distinguish as much as possible between the values by using all the numbers. Before you begin, read the values in List II, choose the one that is most important to you and rate its importance. Next, choose the value that is most opposed to your values, or--if there is no such value--choose the value least important to you, and rate it -1, 0, or 1, according to its importance. Then rate the rest of the values. AS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN MY LIFE, this value is: opposed of to my not very supreme values important important important importance -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31 INDEPENDENT (self-reliant, self-sufficient) 32 MODERATE (avoiding extremes of feeling & action) 33____LOYAL (faithful to my friends, group) 34____AMBITIOUS (hard-working, aspiring) 35____BROADMINDED (tolerant of different ideas and beliefs) 36____HUMBLE (modest, self-effacing) 37____DARING (seeking adventure, risk) 38____PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT (preserving nature) 39____INFLUENTIAL (having an impact on people and events) 40____HONORING OF PARENTS AND ELDERS (showing respect) 41____CHOOSING OWN GOALS (selecting own purposes) 42____HEALTHY (not being sick physically or mentally) 43____CAPABLE (competent, effective, efficient) 44____ACCEPTING MY PORTION IN LIFE (submitting to life's circumstances) 45____HONEST (genuine, sincere) 46____PRESERVING MY PUBLIC IMAGE (protecting my "face") 47____OBEDIENT (dutiful, meeting obligations) 48____INTELLIGENT (logical, thinking) 49____HELPFUL (working for the welfare of others)
8 50____ENJOYING LIFE (enjoying food, sex, leisure, etc.) 51____DEVOUT (holding to religious faith & belief) 52____RESPONSIBLE (dependable, reliable) 53____CURIOUS (interested in everything, exploring) 54____FORGIVING (willing to pardon others) 55____SUCCESSFUL (achieving goals) 56____CLEAN (neat, tidy) 57____SELF-INDULGENT (doing pleasant things)
9 Appendix A: (Continued) Demographics Your sex (circle): 1. Male 2. Female Your age (circle the age group you belong): 1. 20-24 2. 25-29 3. 30-34 4. 35-39 5. 40-44 6. 45-49 7. 50-54 8. 55 and above Your country of origin: Country you currently work in: Your highest level of Education: 1. Elementary 2. High school 3. College 4. Graduate school and above 5. Other______ Years of English education received: 1. < 1yr 2. 1-3 yrs 3. 4-6 yrs 4. 7-9 yrs 5. >=10 yrs 6. Native language What is your current job title in this company? How long have you been with this organization (in months)? How long is your professional experience in months (including previous organizations you worked for)? Are you a supervisor rating a subordinate? If yes, continue with next question. 1. Yes 2. No. How long have you been supervising this employee (in months)?