USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

The moderating influence of culture on the relationship between role stressors, job satisfaction, and organizational com...

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The moderating influence of culture on the relationship between role stressors, job satisfaction, and organizational committment
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Khoury, Haitham A
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Individualism
Collectivism
Facets
Affective
Work
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to explore the implications of cultural dimensions on the relationship between job satisfaction facets, role stressors, and organizational commitment. Using data from 214 university employees, the moderating influence of individualistic and collectivistic orientations as expressed through four cultural dimensions (responsibility, affiliation, social welfare, and achievement) on those relationships were investigated. Results indicated that role ambiguity had a greater negative influence on affective commitment for those who were more cooperative as opposed to competitive in their achievement orientation; whereas the relationship between coworker and supervision satisfaction and affective commitment was stronger for those who endorsed an individualist achievement orientation.Responsibility was found to moderate the relationship between satisfaction with the nature of work and continuance commitment more strongly and negatively for those who endorsed a collectivist orientation. The prediction that the relationship between role stressors and normative commitment would be more negative for those endorsing a collectivist orientation of affiliation was supported. Support was also found for the more positive influence of a collectivist orientation of affiliation on the relationship between job satisfaction facets (coworkers and supervision) and normative commitment. Finally, support was found for the collectivist orientation of affiliation positively influencing the relationship of satisfaction with the nature of work with normative commitment.Cross-cultural psychology has moved towards the inclusion of cultural dimensions into the study of psychological behavior in the workplace in a two-pronged approach: refining the theory of cross-cultural industrial/organizational psychology and determining the processes by which cultural dimensions are linked to work behaviors. This study aimed to tackle both approaches by extending the empirical research that is ongoing in the area and accelerating the theoretical development.
Thesis:
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Haitham A. Khoury.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 81 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 002021439
oclc - 428439114
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0002569
usfldc handle - e14.2569
System ID:
SFS0026886:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
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 002021439
003 fts
005 20090729113208.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 090729s2008 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002569
035
(OCoLC)428439114
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
BF121 (Online)
1 100
Khoury, Haitham A.
4 245
The moderating influence of culture on the relationship between role stressors, job satisfaction, and organizational committment.
h [electronic resource] /
by Haitham A. Khoury.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
2008.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 81 pages.
Includes vita.
502
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
520
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to explore the implications of cultural dimensions on the relationship between job satisfaction facets, role stressors, and organizational commitment. Using data from 214 university employees, the moderating influence of individualistic and collectivistic orientations as expressed through four cultural dimensions (responsibility, affiliation, social welfare, and achievement) on those relationships were investigated. Results indicated that role ambiguity had a greater negative influence on affective commitment for those who were more cooperative as opposed to competitive in their achievement orientation; whereas the relationship between coworker and supervision satisfaction and affective commitment was stronger for those who endorsed an individualist achievement orientation.Responsibility was found to moderate the relationship between satisfaction with the nature of work and continuance commitment more strongly and negatively for those who endorsed a collectivist orientation. The prediction that the relationship between role stressors and normative commitment would be more negative for those endorsing a collectivist orientation of affiliation was supported. Support was also found for the more positive influence of a collectivist orientation of affiliation on the relationship between job satisfaction facets (coworkers and supervision) and normative commitment. Finally, support was found for the collectivist orientation of affiliation positively influencing the relationship of satisfaction with the nature of work with normative commitment.Cross-cultural psychology has moved towards the inclusion of cultural dimensions into the study of psychological behavior in the workplace in a two-pronged approach: refining the theory of cross-cultural industrial/organizational psychology and determining the processes by which cultural dimensions are linked to work behaviors. This study aimed to tackle both approaches by extending the empirical research that is ongoing in the area and accelerating the theoretical development.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
590
Advisor: Paul E. Spector, Ph.D.
653
Individualism
Collectivism
Facets
Affective
Work
0 690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Psychology
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.2569



PAGE 1

The Moderating Influence of Cultural Dimensions on the Relationship Between Role Stressors, Job Satisf action, and Organizational Commitment by Haitham A. Khoury A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Paul E. Spector, Ph.D. Michael T. Brannick, Ph.D. Russell Johnson, Ph.D. Joseph A. Vandello, Ph.D. Marcia Finklestein, Ph.D. Date of Approval: June 27th, 2008 Keywords: individualism, collectivis m, facets, affective, work Copyright 2008, Haitham A. Khoury

PAGE 2

Acknowledgments This dissertation would not have been po ssible without the guidance and support of several individuals. I want to first thank Dr. Paul Spector, who has been a steady force in my sometime shaky graduate career. His careful guidance, counsel, and deep consideration throughout my years in the pr ogram have helped shape and inform the professional I am today. I would also like to thank my dissertation committee members and chair, Drs. Mike Brannick, Russ J ohnson, Joe Vandello, Marcia Finkelstein, and Robert Dedrick for their suggestions and insights. I want to thank my friends and family both n ear and far who made this process so much easier. It wouldnt have been as fun or engaging without you! Thank you especially to Jessie Handelsman, Greg Schmidt, and Ashl ey Nixon for always being there when I needed it and to Ghadeer Barghouty for th e late night chats from 5000 miles away; I deeply appreciate it. To my brothers Wael and Walid and sister Elena whom I count on to always keep me grounded I couldnt have accomplished th is were it not for your support. Lastly and most importantly, I wouldnt be he re were it not for th e invaluable support, encouragement, patience, and love of my pa rents, Ameed and Gloria, who have given up so much to see me succeed. This has been a long and winding road for me, and I am delighted with where it has led me. Thank you.

PAGE 3

i Table of Contents List of Tables .......................................................................................................................v List of Figures...................................................................................................................vii Abstract....................................................................................................................... .....viii Chapter 1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 1 Individualism and Collectivism: A Brief Review......................................................1 Hofstedes Individualism/Collectivism.......................................................3 Triandis Individualism/Collectivism..........................................................6 Schwartz s Individualism/Collectivism.......................................................8 Huis INDividualism-COLlectivism (INDCOL).......................................10 Matsumoto et al.s (1997) ICIAI...............................................................11 Methodological Concerns........................................................................................12 Dimensions of Individualism-Collectivism.............................................................14 Cross-Cultu ral Organizational Research..................................................................18 Chapter 2 The Current Study..........................................................................................21 Job Satisfaction..................................................................................................... ...22 Hypothesis 1a.............................................................................................23 Hypothesis 1b.............................................................................................23 Role Stressors...........................................................................................................23 Hypothesis 2...............................................................................................24

PAGE 4

ii Organizational Commitment...........................................................................................24 Hypothesis 3a.............................................................................................28 Hypothesis 3b.............................................................................................28 Moderator Hypotheses for Overall IC.................................................................28 Hypothesis 4a.............................................................................................28 Hypothesis 4b.............................................................................................28 Hypothesis 5...............................................................................................28 Moderator Hypotheses for Dimensions of IC......................................................29 Hypothesis 6a.............................................................................................29 Hypothesis 6b.............................................................................................29 Hypothesis 6c.............................................................................................29 Hypothesis 7a.............................................................................................30 Hypothesis 7b.............................................................................................30 Hypothesis 7c.............................................................................................30 Hypothesis 8a.............................................................................................30 Hypothesis 8b.............................................................................................31 Hypothesis 8c.............................................................................................31 Hypothesis 9a.............................................................................................31 Hypothesis 9b.............................................................................................31 Chapter 3 Method...........................................................................................................32 Participants...........................................................................................................32 Measures......................................................................................................... .....33 Role Stressors.............................................................................................33

PAGE 5

iii Job Satisfaction....................................................................................... ...34 Organizational Commitment......................................................................34 Multidimensional Culture Scale................................................................35 Psychological Collectivism........................................................................37 Procedure..............................................................................................................37 Chapter 4 Results............................................................................................................ 38 Relationships Among Variables..........................................................................39 Hypotheses Tests.................................................................................................41 Moderator Results................................................................................................ 43 Moderator Hypotheses for Dimensions of MCS.................................................46 Chapter 5 Discussion......................................................................................................58 General Appraisal of the Relationships between Study Variables......................58 The Appraisal of IC as Moderator.......................................................................61 Limitations...................................................................................................... .....64 Future Directions.................................................................................................65 References..........................................................................................................................68 Appendices.........................................................................................................................74 Appendix A: Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict..................................................75 Appendix B: Job Satisfaction Scale.......................................................................76 Appendix C: Organizational Commitment Scale..................................................77 Appendix D: Multidimensional Culture Scale.......................................................78 Appendix E: Psychological Collectivism..............................................................79 Appendix F: Demographic Questions....................................................................80

PAGE 6

iv Appendix C: Email to Participants........................................................................81 About the Author...................................................................................................End Page

PAGE 7

v List of Tables Table 1 Part icipant Demographics...............................................................................32 Table 2 Descriptive St atistics for Study Variables......................................................38 Table 3 Correlations among Study Variables..............................................................41 Table 4a Moderated Regressions of Affective and Normative Commitment on Supervisor and Coworker Satisfaction.....................................................43 Table 4b Moderated Regr essions of Continuance Commitment on Pay, Promotion, and Nature of Work Satisfaction....................................................................44 Table 4c Moderated Regressions of Affective, Normative, and Continuance Commitment on Role Stressors...............................................................45 Table 5 Moderated Regressions of Affective Comm itment on Role Stressors and Achievement ...........................................................................46 Table 6a Moderated Regressions of Affective Co mmitment on Supervisor and Coworker Satisfaction and Achievement.................................................48 Table 6b Moderated Regr essions of Affective Commitment on Pay, Promotion, Nature of Work Satisfaction and Achievement...................................................49 Table 7 Moderated Regressions of Continuance Co mmitment on Role Stressors and Responsibility ...........................................................................50 Table 8a Moderated Regressions of Continuance Commitment on Supervisor and Coworker Satisfaction and Responsibility...............................................50

PAGE 8

vi Table 8b Moderated Re gressions of Continuance Commitment on Pay, Promotion, Nature of Work Satisfaction and Responsibility.....................................51 Table 9 Moderated Regressions of Normative Comm itment on Role Stressors and Affiliation ............................................................................52 Table 10a Moderated Regre ssions of Normative Commitme nt on Supervisor, Coworker Satisfaction and Affiliation......................................................................54 Table 10b Moderated Regr essions of Normative Comm itment on Pay, Promotion, Nature of Work Satisfaction and Affiliation............................................56 Table 11a Moderated Regressions of Affective Co mmitment on Supervisor and Coworker Satisfaction and Social Welfare..............................................57 Table 11b Moderated Regressi ons of Commitment on Satisfaction.............................57

PAGE 9

vii List of Figures Figure 1 Achievem ent as modera tor of Role Ambiguity and Affective Commitment ........................................................................................47 Figure 2 Achievement as moderator of Supervision Satisfaction and Affective Commitment ........................................................................................48 Figure 3 Responsibility as moderator of Satisfaction with Nature of Work and Continuance Commitment.......................................................................52 Figure 4 Affiliation as moderator of Role Conflict and Normative Commitment ............................................................................53 Figure 5 Affiliation as moderato r of Role Ambiguity and Normative Commitment............................................................................................53 Figure 6 Affiliation as moderator of Supervision Satisfaction and Normative Commitment............................................................................................55 Figure 7 Affiliation as moderator of Coworker Satisfaction and Normative Commitment ........................................................................................55 Figure 8 Affiliation as moderator of Satis faction with Nature of Work and Normative Commitment ...........................................................................56

PAGE 10

viii The Moderating Influence of Culture on the Relationships B etween Role Stressors, Job Satisfaction, and Orga nizational Commitment Haitham A. Khoury ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to explore the implications of cultural dimensions on the relationship between job satisfaction f acets, role stressors, and organizational commitment. Using data from 214 university employees, the moderating influence of individualistic and collectiv istic orientations as expr essed through four cultural dimensions (responsibility, affiliation, social welfare, and achievement) on those relationships were investigated. Results i ndicated that role ambiguity had a greater negative influence on affective commitment for those who were more cooperative as opposed to competitive in their achievement orientation; whereas the relationship between coworker and supervis ion satisfaction and affectiv e commitment was stronger for those who endorsed an individualist achievement orientation. Responsibility was found to moderate the relationship between sa tisfaction with the na ture of work and continuance commitment more strongly and negatively for those who endorsed a collectivist orientation. The pr ediction that the relationship between role stressors and normative commitment would be more ne gative for those endorsing a collectivist orientation of affiliation was supported. S upport was also found for the more positive influence of a collectivist orientation of affiliation on the relationship between job

PAGE 11

ix satisfaction facets (coworkers and superv ision) and normative commitment. Finally, support was found for the collectivist orientati on of affiliation positively influencing the relationship of satisfaction with the nature of work with normative commitment. Cross-cultural psychology has move d towards the inclusion of cultural dimensions into the study of psychological behavior in the wor kplace in a two-pronged approach: refining the theory of cross-cultural industrial/organizational psychology and determining the processes by which cultural di mensions are linked to work behaviors. This study aimed to tackle both approaches by extending the empirical research that is ongoing in the area and accelerating th e theoretical development.

PAGE 12

1 Chapter 1 Introduction Individualism and Collectivism: A B rief Review Culture in its broadest sense is compri sed of the shared values, beliefs, norms, customs, and behaviors that are held by members of a society and is transmitted from generation to generation through learning. As such, the definition of culture is overly broad and does not provide a clear, working co nstruct for researchers who seek to discern how cultures and societies differ and how to or ganize them. The impact of culture as an explanatory variable can be f ound in various social, scientific, and economic arenas, such as social perception, economic development, and the organization of industries and companies (Triandis, 1994). Fundamental to th e debate of culture and its impact is the identification of the dimensions that comp rise it. By identifying and measuring these dimensions, researchers can then organize cultures empirically and develop complex descriptions of various cultures (Triandi s, Bontempo, Betancourt, Bond, Leung, Brenes, Georgas, Hui, Marin, Setiadi, Sinha, Ve rma, Spangenberg, Touzard, & De Montmollin, 1986). Arguably the most researched and studied cultural dimension in cross-cultural psychology is that of individualism/collectiv ism (I/C). Beginning in the 1980s, I/C was identified as one of the major themes in cross-cultural social and organizational psychology (Triandis, Chen, Chan, 1998). Hofs tede (1980) initially used the term

PAGE 13

2 individu alism to refer to societies that placed importance on the individual, the individuals interests, and th e individuals achievement, which prevail over those of the groups. The commonly accepted definition of in dividualism is the tendency to view and treat the self as the most meaningful social unit. Members of indivi dualistic societies are raised with the idea that the development of a unique personality is most important. One is encouraged to develop a differentiated identity, focusing on au tonomy, personal goals, and needs. Individualists tend to view the self as independent, and th erefore the pursuit of personal goals supersedes the goals of the gr oup, particularly when they are incompatible, and persons are motivated by their needs and righ ts. In fact, Triandis (1995) finds that individuals are likely to remove themselves from a group if the pur suit of the individual goal is hampered or inhibited by the group. In contrast, collectivism describes societies that place emphasis and importance on the group and the groups interests and achievements. The group to which people bel ong to makes up the most meaningful social unit, such that the identity that one develops is strongly defined by that group membership. One is encouraged to seek out and maintain group harmony through seeking and prioritizing the groups preferences ove r personal preferences, needs, and goals. Interdependence and aligning personal goals with group goals is essential (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). The US and Europe have been systematically labeled and assumed to be the torch bearers of indi vidualism, whereas East Asian countries China being the quintessential example to be especially low (high) on individualism (collectivism), although systematic tests for this assumption are few and are based on early research by Hofstede (Triandis, 1995; Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier, 2002).

PAGE 14

3 Hofstede s Individualism/Collectivism Hofstede (1980) is credited with kick-s tarting interest and research in crosscultural psychology by introducing a number of dimensions which he theorized to be culture-relevant. The basic idea is that cult ures can be described according to a set of dimensions that would allow for a bett er, more workable description, allowing researchers to describe and organize those cultures of interest. His work encompassed defining 4 (later to become 7) cultural dimensions, which are: Individualism vs. collectivism, power distance (large vs. sma ll), masculinity vs. femininity, uncertainty avoidance (strong vs. weak), time orientation (long-term vs. short-term) (1997) and more recently indulgence vs. restraint and monume ntalism vs. self-efacement (Hofstede, 1990, 1997, 2008). Large power distance cultures are thos e whose less powerful members (within institutions and organizations ) expect and accept that pow er is distributed unequally. Societies in which social gender roles are clearly distinct are more masculine societies e.g. men are assertive, tough, and focused on material success whereas women are tender and more concerned with the quality of life. In contrast, feminine societies are those were social gender roles overlap. Societies whose members are threaten ed by ambiguous or unknown situations would be categorized as hi gh uncertainty avoidance. Uncertain and unstructured situations are considered intolerable and societies usually attempt to control these situations with strict laws, ru les, and security measures. Short term orientation typically describes societies that cultivate virtues relate d to the past and present, including respect

PAGE 15

4 for tradition, saving face, and fulfilling social obligations. Societies that are oriented toward the long term are those that prom ote adaptation, perseverance, and thrift. Hofstede added to his theory of cultura l dimensions by describing societies that allow free gratification of desires and f eelings, consumption, and sex as indulgent societies in opposition with restra ining societies; those that ha ve controls on gratification and members are less able to enjoy their lives The last cultural dimension introduced is that of monumentalism which defines societ ies that reward their members who achieve greatness by immortalizing them rather than fostering a society th at looks for humility and flexibility (self-effacement). By far the most common dimension res earched has been that of individualismcollectivism. Hofstede defined individualism as the degree to which societies placed importance on the individual, with a focus on individual achievement, attitudes, and interests. Individualistic cultures focus str ongly on individual ri ghts over individual duties to the group; they place a high value on autonomy and self-fulfillment. More specifically, individualism in a particular society is de fined by the ties between individuals in that society. A person is expected primarily to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. Hofstede (1997) describes healt hy individualists as those who are not dependent on a group, who thi nk of themselves in terms of I. Each individuals personal identity is therefore defi ned in terms of individual characteristics. Individualist cultures value speaking ones mind, where expressing truthfully how one feels is highly regarded, even if it leads to confrontation. In e ssence, it is an individuals focus on rights over duties, ones concern fo r oneself and immediate family, ones focus

PAGE 16

5 on autonomy and self-fulfillm ent, and the basing of ones identity on ones personal accomplishments. He contrasted this definition with co llectivism, which describes cultures or societies that emphasize the groups one be longs to, and the focus is on the group achievements and interests over the individuals. In this sense, the focal point of a culture is the group strong cohesion, with strong expe ctations and obligations of performing for the betterment of the group first, and then personal achievement. The overriding concept here is that of group harmony and maintaini ng group harmony, whereby if there is a clash between the individuals need s and the groups, the needs of the individual come second. Individuals learn to think of themselves in terms of w e, such that their personal identities derive security and protection from belongi ng to the we group. Collectivist cultures value the maintenance of harmony th rough a social contact that extends into various aspects of ones life such as school and the workplace. The defining quality of individualismcollectivism according to Hofstede (1994) is that the two are conceptually opposing idea s. In other words, a culture can be either individualistic or collectivistic, but both ca nnot exist within the same culture. According to Hofstede (1994) individualism is defined as the opposite of collectivism that they formed a single continuum. That is to say an individual can either be high on individualism or collect ivism, but not both. This early organization of cultures and countries s purred the development of many hypotheses that involved the relationshi p between culture and various social behaviors and phenomena (Matsumoto, Weissman, Preston, Brown, & Kupperbusch, 1997). Hofstedes I/C construct provided fuel to the cultural psychology field by

PAGE 17

6 presenting a structure an d general theoretica l framework within which the concept of culture could be properly operati onalized. Further, I/C demonstrat ed that it is a coherent construct that is also an em pirically testable dimension of cultural variation (Bond, 1994). The organizing concept of individua lism/collectivism in cross-cultural psychology has become a universal one, with individualism and collectivism describing a bipolar construct. The initial idea was that cultures and societies could (and were) categorized into one of those poles (Ho & Chiu, 1994) and reference thus far to I/C cultures gives the impression that members of a particular so ciety are uniformly individualist or collectivist. Like many ot her psychological constr ucts, individualism and collectivism have been defined and conceptua lized in terms of dichotomies. While this method provides an expedient form of character izing societies and cultu res, it is also an oversimplified way of describing. There is a te ndency to explain complex social realities in simplified terms, glossing over the nuances of cultures in exchange for stereotypical explanations. This can result in the pigeonholi ng of cultures and societies into broad yet simplified categories, and the subtle differe nces and fine distinctions that make up societies are missed. The problem with this concep tualization then is that it has led to an oversimplification of the constructs, and most importantly, of the culture or society being described. The focus of research then shif ts towards simplified fixed impressions of groups rather than a representation of th eir complexities (Sin ha & Tripathi, 1994). Triandis Individualism/Collectivism Several researchers (Triandis, 1994, Si ngh & Tripathi, 1994) find issue with Hofstedes construction in that it is too constrained and simplistic. The lack of empirical evidence that shows that individualism and collectivism are inversely related indicates

PAGE 18

7 that Hof stedes bipolar conceptualization of individualism-collectivism is misguided. Current research (Ayyash-Abdo, 2001, Ho and Chiu, 1994, Khoury, 2006) points toward the multidimensionality of individualism-colle ctivism, and supports the contention that elements of both can exist within the same culture. Triandis built upon the theory of indivi dualism and collectivism by introducing two more dimensions that aim to distinguish between different cultures horizontal and vertical. A horizontal society is one where the emphasis is on equality between members of a society, where members of the society accept th at all are of equal status. It refers to a sense of cohesion among members, that the members are equal within their group, and have a feeling of oneness w ith other members of the gr oup. The horizontal dimension emphasizes that people are similar in status. When the emphasis shifts toward accepting that there are status differences among me mbers of a culture, that shift is more descriptive of vertical societies. Members in these cultures accept more the idea of rank and privileges associated with ones rank/status in society. Vertical refers to having a sense of service to the group, where the memb ers sacrifice for the benefit of the group. The ranking of members in the group has prec edence, and there is an acceptance of inequality and of privileges of those who rank higher. The f our types therefore are: (a) horizontal individualism where the individual is considered of equal status as others, but maintains an autonomous sense of the self (b) horizontal co llectivism where the individual is also considered of equal status, but is also in terdependent the self merges with the members of the in-group and individuals see themselves as being the same as others, (c) vertical individualis m considers an autonomous self coupled with an expected inequality between people, where individuals see each other as different, and (d) vertical

PAGE 19

8 colle ctivism, where the self is defined in terms of the in-group while acknowledging that some members have more status than others, thus group members are different from each other. Triandis (1995) further defined individua lism and collectivism at the individual level as idiocentric and allocentric, versus the society level as individualism and collectivism. Idiocentric refers to individuals who seek personal gain s and interests, while allocentric defines individuals who see thei r interests and goals as aligned with the groups interests and goals. Triandis (1995) review of culture focuses on the specific manifestations of individualism and collectivism; themselv es defined as cultural syndromes, and highlighting their particular characteristics. A cultural syndrome is in essence a collection of beliefs, attitudes, norms, roles, and valu es that are related through a common theme. The themes serve the purpose of organizing th ese characteristics, and are influenced by their geographical location. As su ch, one would find variations in the manifestation of the syndromes with the variation in geog raphical location. Thus, while Triandis conceptualization of I-C is not of a single dimension, he doesnt propose that both can coexist in the same society. Schwartzs Individualism/Collectivism Schwartz (1990) defined individualistic societies as those that focused on centralizing the individual a nd peripheralizing the social group. Individuals belong to narrow groups, with obligations and expecta tions based on that membership focused on achievement of personal status. The emphasis is more on the achievement of ones personal goals and uniqueness. Collectivists according to Schwartz (1990) are

PAGE 20

9 characterized by obligations to the group, ascr ibed statuses, and strong obligations and expectations based on those statuses. The m ain focus or emphasis is on the social units within which individuals belong to that emphasize a common fate, goals, and values. At the individual level, Schwartz (1996) proposed a structure of values consisting of 10 types: power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-dir ection, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, and securit y. In addition, Schwartzs value structure had two features: circularity and value prio rities. The circular feature involves the compatibility of pursuing adjacent values and the incompatibility of pursuing diametrically opposite values, which generates conflict within the individual. Schwartz also emphasizes value prioritie s as meaningful predictors of social behavior, whereby individuals ranking of the re lative importance of one value over the other values allow for robust hypothesis generation. Recent trends in cross-cultural research have focused on exploring the complexity and multidimensionality of I/C. The construct of I/C is seen as two distinct constructs, where one is not reducible simply to the antithesis of the other (Ho & Chiu, 1994, p. 138). It is argued that indivi dualism and collectivism should be conceptualized as two multidimensional constructs, and recent discussion in the literature has noted that individualism and collectivism are likely to be multidimensional rather than polar opposites, with individualist and collectivist te ndencies both coexisting within individuals (Ayyash-Abdo, 2001). It seems clear that within a given culture bot h individualist and collectivist beliefs are likely to be held and rejected. Schwartz (1990) found that individualist or collectivist beliefs within a culture do not necessarily make up a coherent

PAGE 21

10 constellation. That is, within either the individualist or collectivist individual, some of the components can be affirmed while the rest are negated. Huis INDividualism-COLlectivism (INDCOL) Hui (1998) developed the INDCOL scale based on the assumption that peoples values, specifically peoples collectivistic values, were target-specific. The implication is that peoples behaviors would vary depending on the target of interaction in such a way that the closer the target is to the person, the more collectiv istic the behaviors shown are. Hui (1988) originally specified six relevant target groups (c orresponding to six subscales in the INDCOL scale): spouse, parents, kin, neighbors, friends, and colleagues, and these subscales would theoretically distinguish betw een collectivist tendencies. Research into the factor structure of the INDCOL (Hui a nd Yee, 1994) could not support or confirm the six factor solution, but a five factor solution emerged that comprised of the following: Colleagues and friends/supportive exchange (CF): Items loading on this factor referred to issues of intimacy, sharing, a nd interdependence among work colleagues and friends. Items also describe the (un)willingness of individuals to have fun or seek advice from friends. Parents/consultation and sharing (PA): Items loading on this factor tapped into a persons readiness to discuss and consult with parents on personal i ssues, as well as the willingness with which one shares ideas, knowle dge, and material resources with parents. Kin and neighbors/susceptibili ty to influence (KN): Items loading on this factor referred to the influence exerted by relatives, kin and neighbors that influence an individuals attitudes, an d is opposed by a none of your business attitude.

PAGE 22

11 Parents and spouse/distinctivene ss of personal identity (PS): Items loading on this factor looked at the degree of differentiation between the individual and parents, with an emphasis on communal relationships a nd shared honors between the two. Neighbor/social isolation (NE): Items loading on this factor describe the casual relationships (or lack thereof) an individual has with neighbors. Matsumoto et al.s (1997) ICIAI Matsumoto et al. (1997) developed the Individualism-Collectivism Interpersonal Assessment Inventory (ICIAI) based on defining I-C in terms of values that applied to specific relationships and interpersonal inte ractions. Similar in many ways to Huis INDCOL, the ICIAI differs in that the items are not specific to the collective or target rated, but instead could be us ed across social relationships. The four social groups identified by Matsumoto et al. were: famil y, close friends, colleagues, and strangers. The scale includes 25 items that are rated twice by respondents, once as values on a 7-pt. Likert scale, and another time as behaviors in terms of the frequency with which someone engages in each of the behaviors. Although theyve been viewed as opposite s, the literature points to a more accurate view of the two concepts as being worldviews that differ in the issues they make salient. Past literature has moved in the dire ction of a possible synt hesis of individualist and collectivist dimensions. Within one cultu re, both orientations can be valued to varying degrees. That is, one or ientation may dominate or be more characteristic of a group, but not to the point of negating the w eaker of the two. Furthermore, one should underscore how misleading it is at the individual level of an alysis to classify people indiscriminately as individualist or collectivist, and at the cultural le vel to characterize a

PAGE 23

12 society globally as either individualist or collectivist. Rather it seems more appropriate to describe a culture as predominantly individua list or collectivist while specifying further on how the attributes or dimensions a pply to this culture (Ho & Chiu, 1994). Methodological Concerns The debate on the conceptualization of individualism and collectivism is also fueled by the extensive research on i ndividualism and collectivism involving a comparison of US and Asian (predominantly Chinese) samples and the development of scales that are drawn from these societies. This approach does not represent the fullness of the individualism and collectivism construct with respect to facets of it, because it is specific to two cultures that are posited on oppos ite ends. Other cultur es would differ also in a ranking of these facets, and which are more important for that particular society. According to Ayyash-Abdo (2001), since both di mensions are theorized to exist in one society, it seems more appropriate to concep tualize I/C in terms of multiple facets or dimensions, by which cultures or societies can be compared. From a methodological perspective, it appear s that it is necessary to consider the multidimensionality of the I/C construct in cross-cultural research, where the focus should be on recognizing and identifying th e components of this construct and on which construct/facets the differenc es exist (Ho & Chiu, 1994). How the two orientations interact and the conditions need ed for them to come out would provide great insight into the culture itself. What seems to be taking pla ce is the coexistence of distinct elements in one society. The trend appears to be that so cieties/individuals e nd up compartmentalizing different facets of their culture, with diffe rent sets of thoughts and beliefs coexisting alongside one another (S inha & Tripathi, 1994).

PAGE 24

13 Beyond characterizing cultures as being relati vely individualistic or collectivistic, the measurement of individualism and collectiv ism is valuable at the individual level as well. Estimates of the proportion of the population that are characterized as individualistic or collectivistic can be made based on individual measurement (Matsumoto et. al., 1997). Furthermore, empi rical support can be ge nerated in reference to different samples, negating the need fo r assuming that the group composition is only one way or the other. Probably the strongest indication that i ndividualism and collectivism do not form a single, bipolar dimension is the lack of empirical support indicating that they are equally and inversely related to one another. Rather, indi vidualism and collectivism can be multidimensional and non-polar. Ho and Chiu (1994) found that both individualist and collectivist attributes can be displayed on separate dimensions, contradicting the contention of polarity and providing support for the existence of both attributes. The main limitation with any cultural scale has been its reliability and consequent validity where the measures have failed to achieve acceptable levels (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, Gelfand, 1995). Hofstedes VSM 94 yiel ded a .52 mean coefficient alpha across countries (Spector, Cooper, Sparks, Bern in, Bssing, Dewe, Lu, Miller, de Moraes, ODriscoll, Pagon, Pitariu, Poelmans, Ra dhakrishnan, Russinova, Salamatov, Salgado, Sanchez, Shima, Siu, Stora, Teichmann, Th eorell, Vlerick, Westman, Widerszal-Bazyl, Wong, & Yu, 2001) while Hui and Yee (1994) report Cronbach alphas for the INDCOL scale ranging from .38 to .73 for 5 subscales Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier (2002) provided evidence for the importance of having reliable measures of individualism and

PAGE 25

14 collectivism in their meta analysis, where it was shown that effect sizes and differences between countries change dramatically when comparing reliable and unreliable measures. As mentioned earlier, individualism and co llectivism are no longer thought of as a uni-dimensional construct and each occupying an opposite end of the spectrum. Instead, the construction of culture here is construed as being made up of multiple dimensions that are bipolar, with I on one end and C on the other. In other words, culture has many dimensions, and for each dimension one holds a particular worldview or orientation either individualism or collectivism. While individualism and collectivism are help ful in describing the different ways in which cultures differ, as it stands, they are also too broadly de fined and are too often used to explain almost any cultural or cross cultural difference (Oyserman, Kemmerlmeier, & Coon, 2002). Perhaps it is mo re appropriate to think of them as general cultural schemas or abstracted ways of making meaning of the world. It is not enough to describe a culture or region as being individualis tic or collectivistic in orientation one should look into the dimensions that a particular culture is individualistic or collectivisti c in. Societies could be orga nized and distinguished based on these dimensions. The expectation is that each region will respond differently across the factors in terms of individualis tic or collectivistic orientation. Dimensions of Indi vidualism-Collectivism Research in this area, as described earlie r, has shifted from the idea of I/C as a single, bipolar construct towards the noti on of defining I/C as a constellation of dimensions reflecting a worldview or predilection. Culture is a highly complex construct that cannot be condensed into one dime nsion. Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier

PAGE 26

15 (2002) point to the notion that it seems more re asonable to view societ ies as dealing with collective and individual oriented value choices, where a ny given society is likely to have at least some representation of both indi vidualistic and collectivistic worldviews. Both individualistic and collectivistic tendencies have been found to exist in individuals across cultures. Additionally, wi thin each tendency, it has been found that individuals in one culture could rate a part icular facet or dimension differently from another, while both can be desc ribed as being collectivistic (or individualistic). That is, two collectivistic cultures could differ in their ranking on these facets, indicating which facet(s) is (are) more important for that particular society. Vandello and Cohen (1999) found similar patterns within a country. Their study looked at the U.S., which has consistently been characterized as being individualistic, a nd found variations in the way the dimension was expressed depending on the region studied. So by identifying and measuring these dimensions and facets, re searchers can then organize cultures empirically and develop comple x descriptions about them. Khoury (2006) provides further evid ence for the conceptualization of individualism and collectivism as worldviews or orientations, and that cultures would differ in their orientation depending on the pertinent dimension being measured. In other words, there is variation in the expressi on of individualism and collectivism across regions. The study looked at scores on five di mensions of I-C (responsibility, affiliation, social welfare, religion, and achievement), comparing American with several groups of international students, and found that the U.S. sample scored the highest or near highest across only three of five dimensions (res ponsibility, religion, and achievement) indicating a higher individualist orientation.

PAGE 27

16 While the results for the U.S. sample sc oring highest may come as no surprise, the more illuminating data is where the other groups ranked on those factors. For achievement, the East Asian sample scored third highest after the U.S. and African samples, and higher than the West European sample opposing the generalization that eastern cultures are in genera l a collectivistic group. Simila rly, the Middle Eastern/North African sample scored mid-pack on achievem ent. Similar trends were found with the religion dimension, where the African samp le was most individualistic in their orientation, followed by the U.S. sample. Ag ain, East Asian and Middle Easter/North African samples ranked near the middle in terms of individualist/collectivist orientations. When summed, the total scores across geographi cal groups showed an interesting trend in that the U.S. sample overall was most individualist, followed by the Middle Eastern/North African sample, while both th e East and West European samples were more collectivistic. Although these results ar e illuminating and high light the differences between the geographic samples, it should be noted that the subjects in the samples may not be fully representative of their respective geographic lo cations. It is possible that students who make the decision to leave their home country to come to the U.S. may be qualitatively different from those who choose not to. While it is fruitful to organize cultures in meaningful ways, there is considerable debate in the literature regarding how to meas ure individualism-collectivism in ways that would yield consequential results. An importa nt issue that researchers should keep in mind is the issue of whether one is measuring culture at the country-level or the individual-level.

PAGE 28

17 Hofstede maintains that his definitions of individualism-collectivism are intended for countrylevel analyses, and the research he presented is based on differences between countries (his original study looked at ove r 50,000 employees of IBM around the world) and the definitions provided thus far discuss culture at the country-level. In terms of research, the majority of the literature on individualism-collectivism has focused on the individual-level analyses, partly because of the difficulty inherent in sampling a large enough number of different gr oups (countries) to allow fo r proper analyses. At the individual-level, most research aims at showing that the vari ables of interest are varying in ways that are explainable by cross-cultural differences. What occurs more often is the comparison of two or three c ountries (akin to 2 or 3 samp le groups) and comparisons are made between them, and any differences are attr ibuted to culture. Such attributions make sense when culture (individualism-collectivism in this case), at the individual level, is also measured, rather than relying on the de scriptive differences that is differences based on non-psychological characteristics of the countries (language, religion, geography, economy, traditions). The concern here is that many researchers tend to describe this type of resear ch as being cross-cultural, a lthough in essence the data is collected and analyzed at the individual leve l. This concern is not minor in this area, because group-comparisons are more often than not generalized to describe crossnational or cross-cultural differences. Interestingly, Schwartz (1994) and Triand is (1995) provide considerable support for the notion that cultural syndromes in this case individualism and collectivism can be found at the individual level of analysis, and can be conceptualized and measured as individual differences. Matsumoto et. al. ( 1997) points toward the possibility of making

PAGE 29

18 cultural generalizations from individual measurement based on estimating the proportion in the population that can be characterized as either individualistic or collectivistic based on the sample studied. It is argued that ei ther an individualistic perspective or a collectivistic perspective is ac tivated in a given situation. Thus, the values, beliefs and norms comprise independent a nd discrete dimensions of the culture, and an individual would tend to respond to the situations that activate these dimens ions with either individualism or collectivism. Cross-Cultural Organizational Research To the extent that cultural dimensions ar e meaningful and prescribe behavior in a culture, it can also be argued that these dimensions might be meaningful and prescriptive within the context of organiza tions. The fact that organiza tions are embedded within the culture leads one to assume that dimensions deemed important at th e societal level are influential in an organizational context. Cultu re at the societal level and culture at the organizational level share much overlap in th e way each is defined in the literature. In both cases, culture is defined as the shar ing and transmission of values, norms, and beliefs through learning that shape behavior (Robert & Wasti, 2002). There is also need in linking individualism and collectivism to workplace variables, particularly with the ever-changing organizational landscape. Each year, more businesses choose to operate in different cult ures by opening branches of their offices in various countries, and hiring employees from the host culture, while maintaining U.S. senior managers. With this expansion comes th e need to develop and apply measures that make sense in the new culture and can more appropriately assess employees.

PAGE 30

19 Central to the issue of co nducting cross-cultural resear ch, particularly if the interest also extends to work variables, are several questions that should be considered. First and foremost, it is important to question whether a particular construct of interest, for example, job autonomy, exists in the culture under study. The subsequent issue is would a comparison based on this construct be meaningful? That is, is the construct valued the same way, and does it mean the same thing? Much of the literature concerns importa nt work issues like job stressors and strains, job satisfaction, and locus of cont rol (both general and work), as well as organizational commitment, OCB, and justice. Individualism-collectivism has also been studied as a predictor or as a moderator of work outcomes and the research presented covers both individual and ecological-level results. The idea of linking individualismcollectivism to workplace variables is of great interest to industrial/organizational psychologists given the expanding and changing nature of work from a localized, withincountry focus to a more global, across-country nature. As mentioned earlier, there is considerable evidence that suggests that both or ientations can manifest within one culture in the form of individual differences (H ui & Triandis, 1986, Triandis 1995). At the individual level this is disp layed as the degree to which th e attributes of individualism and collectivism are endorsed by people. Natu rally, the differing endorsement of values, beliefs, and attitudes has implications for th e workplace, whether it is employee attitudes or organizational outcomes. Culture influe nces the processing of information and specifies how things are to be evaluated. Als o, it is prescriptive of the appropriate and proper behaviors to be displayed by members of the culture. Extrapolating this influence

PAGE 31

20 to the workplace, cultural values determine, to a degree, an individua ls expectations and attitudes regarding the job. For example, at the indi vidual level, Liu, Spector, & Shi (2007) researched the differences in job stressors between a U.S. a nd Chinese sample of professors and support staff. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected, which a dds to the strength of cross-cultural research. In terms of job autonomy, the U.S. sample reported higher levels of perceived job autonomy, although they also reported higher levels of lack of job control. Interestingly, lack of perceived job autonomy in the Chinese sample did not relate to a higher number of complaints about lack of job control. This underscores what was mentioned earlier about construct equivalence, and whether the constructs of interest are held equally important. At the ecological level, Spect or et. al., (2006) looked at work locus of control and well-being across 24 nations, which allows fo r a stronger cross-cultural comparison, and found that there were differences across na tions, with more individualistic countries indicating more internality as opposed to more collectivistic countries indicating more externality. These results are mirrored at the individual leve l in a study by Narayanan et. al. (1999), who found significant differences in LOC and WLOC between an Indian working sample and an American working sample, with the Indian sample reporting external locus of control (and work LOC). Th is study also looked at job stressors between the two samples, and found that the American sample reported that work overload and lack of control/autonomy as being the highest stressors, while the In dian sample reported that the lack of structure and lack of rewards/recogniti on as being most stressful.

PAGE 32

21 Chapter 2 The Current Study As the discussion thus far suggests, different aspects of job satisfaction may be more salient for individuals who hold diffe rent cultural values. In other words, differences in the cultural values of i ndividualism and collectivism can be argued to influence the relative importance of various facets of job satis faction and role stressors in predicting organizational commitment. Th e differing emphasis on individualism and collectivism has implications for the nature of employee commitment to the organization. Hofstede (1980) proposed that individualists, who are genera lly more independent, would be more task-oriented in an organizational se tting, and establish an exchange relationship with the organization. Further, individualist employees may be more attracted to the job attributes such as the task itself, pay, and promotion. On the other hand, members of collectivist societies generally tend to be people-oriented in an organizational setting, and are more likely to establish a commitment to the organization through establishing strong relationships with their peers, coworkers, and supervisors. The purpose of this current investigation is to explore the implications of these cultural values on the relations hip between job satisfaction facets, role stressors, and the three components of organizational commitme nt. Differential relationships between the facets of job satisfaction (work, supervisor coworker, pay, and promotion opportunities) and role stressors (role conflict and role am biguity) and the compone nts of organizational

PAGE 33

22 commitment (affective, normative, and c ontinuance) will be explored, but more importantly, the moderating influence of indivi dualistic and collectivistic orientations as expressed through four cultural dimensions (res ponsibility, affiliation, social welfare, and achievement) on those relationships will be investigated. A working sample from the U.S. will be targeted for data collection. Job Satisfaction: Job Satisfaction is one of the most studied variables in the field of industrial and organizational psychology. Job sa tisfaction is an attitudinal wo rk variable that describes the extent to which an employee is satisfied with various aspects of the job. The global approach to the study of job sa tisfaction treats job satisfacti on as a single, overall feeling and attitude toward the job. The job facets approach looks at different aspects of the job separately and presents a more nuanced pict ure of employee job satisfaction. The idea is that an employee typically holds different leve ls of satisfaction with the various facets. Hui and Yee (1994, 1999) found that collectiv ism positively related to satisfaction with work, pay, opportunities for promotion, su pervisors, and coworkers. Further, Huis (1984, 1988) study on the relationship between jo b satisfaction and co llectivism indicated that, in general, the more collectivistic employees rated themselves, the higher job satisfaction they reported, supporting the hypothesis that collectivism has a positive relation with job satisfaction. From a cross-cultural perspect ive, collectivism was found to be universally related to job satisfaction in typical individualistic and collectivistic samples (Oyserman et al., 2002; Sun, 2002) although the relati onship was stronger between collectivism and work-related social netw orks than to aspects of the work itself. On the other hand, satisfaction with intrinsic aspects of the job (the work itself) was

PAGE 34

23 higher for individualists than for collectivists. In anot her study, Hui and Yee (1999) found that more harmonious work groups produced higher jo b satisfaction among collectivists but lower satis faction among individualists. Th e focus of collectivism on promoting social systems, coll ective interests, and groups has a stronger relationship with job satisfaction facets that have built into th em those ideas namely satisfaction with coworkers and supervisors. The relationship between I-C and job satis faction facets has been established in the literature, and some studi es point to a stronger link between collectivism and the social aspects of work (coworkers and supe rvisors), while stronger relationships between individualism and intrinsic aspe cts of the work itself were found to be stronger. Therefore the following hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 1a: Overall I-C will be negativ ely correlated with satisfaction with supervisor and coworkers. Hypothesis 1b: Overall I-C will be positi vely correlated with satisfaction with pay, promotion, and the nature of work. Role Stressors Role conflict and role ambiguity are the two most popular stressors in the stressor-strain literature. Role conflict is defined as the incompatibility between the communicated expectations of an employ ees job role and those perceived by the employee in that role, as it impinges on role performance (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). Role ambiguity on the other hand is de scribed as the situation in which an employee does not have a clear di rection about the expectations of his or her role in the job or organization (Rizzo et al., 1970). Re search has shown support for the notion that

PAGE 35

24 those who perceive higher levels of role conflict and role ambi guity (identified as stressors) experience lower le vels of job satisfaction. Research also shows that role conflict is negatively associated with pay, coworkers, and supervision facets of job satisfaction, while role ambiguity is nega tively related to promotion and coworker relationships (Fisher and Gite lson, 1983). Also, Yousef (2000) reported that role conflict and role ambiguity independently and nega tively related to job satisfaction using a working sample from the United Arab Emirates. Similarly, Jamal (1997) found significant negative correlation between job stress and job satisfaction, where job stress was operationalized as role conflict and role ambiguity. As noted above, the literature consistently supports a significant negative relationship between role conflict, role ambiguity and job satisfaction. Further, research at the country-level linking individualism a nd collectivism with role stressors found that lower levels of role ambiguity were associated with collectivism (Peterson et al., 1995). This relationship s uggests that the emphasis in collectivistic societies on group harmony and the associated defined roles of members of the group results in lower occurrence of role ambigu ity people know what to do because they have prescribed roles, therefore: Hypothesis 2: Overall I-C w ill be negatively correlated with role ambiguity and role conflict. Organizational Commitment: Organizational commitment is defined as an attitudinal variable that involves the attachment an employee develops to the organization. Allen and Meyer (1990) proposed a three-component model of organizati onal commitment: affective commitment,

PAGE 36

25 normative commitment, and continuance commitment: Affective organizational commitment refers to the emotional attachment an employee develops with the organization. The employee iden tifies strongly with and beco mes deeply involved in the organization. The model proposed by Allen a nd Meyer (1990) predicts that employees with strong affective commitment towards th e organization choose to continue that relationship out of volition. Af fective commitment to the organization is maintained through met employee expectations and j ob conditions. Other employees remain committed to the organization due to the lack of viable alternatives, as well as the costs associated with leaving the organization. An employee who commits to an organization because of a need to do so is drawing on the continuance component of organizational commitment. The employees continuance commitment is driven by the benefits accrued from having worked at the organization (benef its) as well as the availability (or lack thereof) of other jobs. Lastly, normative co mmitment describes employees who feel they ought to remain with the organization out of a sense of obligation. It is value-driven, where the employee believes that he/she owes it to the organization to remain in their employ out of a sense that it is the right thing to do. Meyer and Allen (1990) consider organi zational commitment to be componentbased rather than type-based because of the changing relationship an employee could have with the organization over the course of his/her tenure there, and each component could be more salient over any given period of time based on that relationship. Most research has focused on the role of affective commitment in its relationship with other work variables, and as the most investigated type of commitment, it is considered the

PAGE 37

26 undisputed form of commitment, although more recent studies are looking at the two other components of organizational commitment. Differences between commitment and job sa tisfaction as attitudinal variables can be seen in several ways (Mowday, et al., 1982) As previously state d, job satisfaction is an attitudinal response to a specific job or se veral facets of the job Wiener (1982) states that job satisfaction is an attitude toward work-related conditi ons, facets, or aspects of the job, whereas commitment is a more genera l and global response to the organization. Therefore, commitment suggests more of an attachment to the employing organization as opposed to specific tasks, environmental factors, and the location of where the duties are performed (Mowday, et al., 1982). Framed as such, it seems that commitment may be even more consistent and stable than job satisfaction over time, although there is much evidence to support the temporal stability and consistency of job satisfaction across different jobs and organizations (Staw & Ross, 1985). Perhaps day-to-day events have more of an effect on the level of job satisfa ction of an employee but may not necessarily influence or lead the employee to reconsid er his/her attachment to the organization. (Mowday et al., 1982) One could also argue that those who perceived higher levels of role conflict and role ambiguity as sources of stress would be less committed to the organization. Such an argument finds support in the research by Fish er and Gitelson (1983) who observed that both role conflict and role ambiguity are negatively corr elated with organizational commitment. Research by Agarwal and Ra maswami (1993) found that role ambiguity directly and negatively relate to affectiv e commitment, whereas role conflict had no relationship with affective commitment. Ha rtenian et al. (199 4) reported negative

PAGE 38

27 correlation between role conflic t and organizational commitment and positive correlation between role clarity and organizationa l commitment while King and Sethi (1997) reported negative correlations between role stressors and affective commitment, and positive correlations between role stressors and continuance commit ment. Lastly, in a study on an Arab working population, Y ousef (2002) found a significant negative correlation between role conflict and affective commitment (-.18), normative commitment (-.14), and job satisfaction (-.30) Role ambiguity correlated strongly with affective commitment (-.42), and moderately with normative commitment and job satisfaction in the same sample (-.27 and -.33 respectively). The influence of individualism and collectiv ism in a work setting has implications on the level of attachment an employee deve lops with an organization. Hofstede (1980) proposed that individualists would be more likely to develop an exchange-based relationship with an organization, in reinfor cement of his view that individualists are more task-oriented. On the other hand, Ho fstede proposed that collectivists would develop a relationship with an organization based on moral elements, since collectivists are more people-oriented. The literature presen ts evidence in support of similar ideas in that collectivists were found to develop commitment to an organization based on establishing relationships with colleagues and supervisors, while individualists were more committed to an organization based on the job content and promotional opportunities (Boyacigiller & Adler, 1991). In a sample of Turkish employees, Wasti (2003) found evidence for the moderating role of I/C such that the relationship between work and promotion satisfaction and affective and normative commitment was stronger for those who endorsed an individualist orientation, wh ile those who endorsed a more collectivist

PAGE 39

28 orientation had stronger relati onships between their supervis or satisfaction and affective and continuance commitment, over and above satisfaction with work and promotional opportunities. From this discussion, it follo ws that people who endorse collectivist orientations would develop a relationship with an organization based on moral elements and social norms, therefore: Hypothesis 3a: Overall I-C will be nega tively correlated with affective and normative commitment. On the other hand, people who endorse indi vidualist orientations tend to develop an exchange-based relationship w ith the organization, therefore: Hypothesis 3b: Overall I-C will be po sitively correlated with continuance commitment. Moderator Hypotheses for Overall I-C: Hypothesis 4a: Overall I-C will moderate the relationship between satisfaction (coworker and supervisor) and organizati onal commitment (affe ctive and normative) such that the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment is stronger for collectivist orientation Hypothesis 4b: Overall I-C will moderate the relationship between satisfaction (pay, promotion, and nature of work) and or ganizational commitment (continuance) such that the relationship between job satisfac tion and organizational commitment is stronger for individualist orientation Hypothesis 5: Overall I-C will moderate the relationship between role stressors (ambiguity and conflict) and organizational commitment (affective, normative, and

PAGE 40

29 continuance) such that the relationship between role stressors and organizational commitment is stronger for individualist orientation Moderator Hypotheses for Dimensions of I-C: Triandis et al. (1980) found that member s of individualistic societies value competition over cooperation, and success is meas ured by material gain. Achievement as a cultural dimension focuses on the competitive pursuit of an individuals goals through individual effort (from an individualistic orie ntation) or the coopera tive pursuit of those goals by the members of the group. Thus, extrinsic rewards will generate more commitment for individualists, whereas th e relationship focused collectivists would develop stronger commitment as a result of higher satisfaction with coworkers and supervisor. Therefore: Hypothesis 6a: Achievement will modera te the relationship between role ambiguity and role conflict with affective co mmitment such that the relationship is more negative for collectivist orientation Hypothesis 6b: Achievement will mode rate the relationship between job satisfaction (coworker and supervisor) and or ganizational commitment (affective) such that the relationship between satisfaction and or ganizational commitment is stronger for collectivist orientation Hypothesis 6c: Achievement will moderate the relationship between satisfaction (pay, promotion, and nature of work) and or ganizational commitment (affective) such that the relationship between satisfaction and or ganizational commitment is stronger for individualist orientation

PAGE 41

30 Responsibility for one owns actions, rights, and personal needs are descriptive of individualist societies, and that any continuance relati onship developed would be a calculative one whereas feelings of responsib ility for the groups n eeds is strengthened through developing and maintaini ng relationships. Therefore: Hypothesis 7a: Responsibility will mode rate the relationship between role ambiguity and role conflict with continuan ce commitment such that the relationship is more negative for collectivist orientation Hypothesis 7b: Responsibility will moderate the relationship between satisfaction (coworker and supervisor) and organizational commitment (continuance) such that the relationship is stronger fo r collectivist orientation. Hypothesis 7c: Responsibility will mode rate the relationship between job satisfaction (pay, promo tion, and nature of work) and organizational commitment (continuance) such that the relationship is stronger for individualist orientation Collectivisms focus on group norms, rules, roles and obligations to maintain harmony would influence people to maintain obligatory/normative relationships. Also, the affiliation dimension from a collectivist orientation pertains to developing an identity based on acceptance of ones role in the group, and maintaining securi ty that is gained from being a member of the group. Therefore: Hypothesis 8a: Affiliation will moderate th e relationship between role ambiguity and role conflict with norma tive commitment such that the relationship is more negative for collectivist orientation

PAGE 42

31 Hypothesis 8b: Affiliation will moderate th e relationship between job satisfaction (coworker and supervisor) and organizational commitment (normative) such that the relationship is stronger fo r collectivist orientation Hypothesis 8c: Affiliation will moderate the relationship between job satisfaction (pay, promotion, and nature of work) and or ganizational commitment (normative) such that the relationship is stronger for collectivist orientation The collectivist expression of the social welfare dimension focuses on the group as the source of the individuals well-being, and includes the econom ic well-being of the individual that comes from a shar ing of wealth with the group. Hypothesis 9a: Social welfare will mode rate the relationship between job satisfaction (coworker and supervisor) and or ganizational commitment (affective) such that the relationship is stronger for collectivist orientation Hypothesis 9b: Social welfare will mode rate the relationship between job satisfaction (pay, promo tion, and nature of work) and organizational commitment (affective) such that the relationship is stronger for individualist orientation. Religion contrasts membership and partic ipation in religious institutions with highly personal and private expression of ones religious beliefs. It relates to religious beliefs and the idea of religiosity bei ng group-focused or individual focused. The relationship between religion a nd work variables may not be relevant in a U.S. sample, although Hofstede proposed that religion, and the Muslim faith in particular, demonstrated a significant role in peopl es lives. The relationships between the dimension and work variables wi ll be exploratory in nature.

PAGE 43

32 Chapter 3 Method Participants This study included responses from 214 Un iversity of South Florida employees working a minimum of 20 hours per week. An initial sample of 237 employees returned questionnaires that were screened for missi ng data and questionable responses. A case was eliminated if more than 10% of the items included in a scale were not responded to; 22 cases were eliminated based on this criter ion. One case was deleted because of suspect response pattern. The final tally of 214 em ployees was predominantly female (66.4%), with an age range from 23 to 69 (mean age = 48.3 years, median age = 50). In addition, most of the employees were of White/Angl o or European-American ethnicity (82%). Participants on average worked 45 hours a w eek, had been in their current position an average of 7.8 years, and had been with the organization an average of 12 years. Finally, all participants were full-time employees and over half (54%) descri bed their position as managerial (Table 1). Table 1. Participant Demographics (N = 214) Frequency Percent Gender Male 71 33.6 Female 140 66.4

PAGE 44

33 Table 1. Continued Race/Ethnicity White/Anglo or European-American 173 82 Black/African-American 13 6.2 Middle Easter/Arab 0 0 Asian/Asian-American/Pacific Islander 10 4.7 Hispanic/Latino/Latina 10 4.7 Native American 2 0.9 Bi-Racial/Multi-Racial 3 1.4 Organizational Tenure 0 1 year 4 1.9 2 5 years 57 27.7 6 10 years 54 26.2 11+ years 91 44.2 Job Tenure 0 1 year 22 10.8 2 5 years 77 38.8 6 10 years 56 26.8 11+ years 48 23.6 Job Type Managerial/Professional 115 54.2 Non-managerial/administrative 97 45.8 Measures The employee survey included measures of job stressors (rol e conflict and role ambiguity), job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and indivi dualism-collectivism. Role Stressors: Rizzo et al.s (1970) job stressor scale measures role conflict (8 items) and role ambiguity (6 items). A sample role conflict item is I receive incompatible requests fr om two or more people ; a sample role ambiguity item is I know what my responsibilities are Response options for both scales range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongl y agree), with high scores reflecting high perceptions of

PAGE 45

34 role conflict and ambiguity. Scale coefficient alphas in this study for role conflict and role ambiguity were 0.84 and .80 re spectively (see Appendix A). Job satisfaction: Job satisfaction was measured using Spectors (1985) Job Satisfaction Survey. The survey covers 9 facet s of job satisfaction, only 5 of which were used in this study: pay (e.g. I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do =0.83), promotion (e.g. There is really too little c hance for promotion on my job =0.81), supervision (e.g. My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job =0.88), coworkers (e.g. I like the people I work with =0.73), and nature of work (e.g. I sometimes feel my job is meaningless =0.80). Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongl y agree), with high scores reflecting greater levels of satisfaction (see Appendix B). Organizational Commitment: The three components of organizational commitment were measured using Meyer, Al len, and Smiths (1993) scale. The affective component of organizational commitment is composed of items that refer to the emotional attachment held by the employee to the organization (e.g. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me ). Continuance commitment is reflected by items that refer to the employees need to stay with the organization due to the associated benefits and costs of leaving (e.g. Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided to leave this organization ). The normative commitment items tap into the feelings of obligation held by the employee in order to sustain membership (e.g. Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organization ). Coefficient alphas for the three components were =0.85, 0.85, and 0.83 respectively (see Appendix C).

PAGE 46

35 Multidimensional Culture Scale (MCS): The scale consisted of the following dimensions: responsibility, affiliation, social welfare, religion, and achievement (see Appendix D). The scale was developed by Khoury (2006) based on Ho and Chius (1994) content analysis of over 2,000 Chinese proverb s to determine the degree to which they affirmed or negated the basic ideas of individualism and collectivism. More specifically, sayings that expressed prescrip tive or proscriptive beliefs we re selected. The idea is that such beliefs promote actions and behaviors th at are acceptable and prohibits actions and behaviors that are considered undesirable. The scale items were generated by 13 psychology doctoral students of various national backgrounds: Barbados, China, Germany, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, the United States, and Venezuela. Each stude nt was provided with clear and precise conceptual definition of each dimension, a general definition of individualism and collectivism to provide direction, and was asked to write items that re flect that definition. Based on later item analyses and qualitativ e evaluation, the final 30-item, 5-dimension scale was developed. The first dimension concerns issues of responsibility. Specifica lly, it pertains to who is held responsible for a members ac tions as well as who is affected by the members actions. For example, I think people should be held responsible for their own actions and I must pay for the consequences of my actions illustrate this dimension. Alpha for the responsibility dimension in this study was 0.88. The affiliation dimension encompasses three related ideas that are influenced by the degree of affiliation one has to the group a nd how that influences the formation of an

PAGE 47

36 identity, contrasting the focus of the iden tity between the individual and the group: security, identity, and value of the individual/group. Security is gained from either the individual or from the group, ones identity is dictated either by personal attributes or group membership, and the individual or the group is given precedence and intrinsic value over the other. For instance, The group I belong to is a significant part of who I am and I feel it is important to belong to a social group exemplify this idea. Alpha for the affiliation dimension in this study was 0.85. The social welfare dimension is primar ily focused on the idea of whether the group or the individual is the primary source of social welfare. The onus of an individuals well-being and we lfare lies either in his/he r hands or falls under the obligation of society. It encompasses noti ons of well-being and economic sharing; contrasting that with the notion of private ownership. For example, Society is obligated to help those who can not help themselves and I think members of a group should care for each others welfare Alpha for the social welfare dimension in this study was 0.80. Religion contrasts membership and particip ation in religious institutions with highly personal and private expression of ones religious beliefs. It relates to religious beliefs and the idea of religiosity being groupfocused or individual focused, as illustrated by Religious beliefs and practices are private and My religion concerns only me Alpha for the religion dimension in this study was 0.87. The Achievement dimension focuses on th e individuals initiative, effort, and effectiveness in the pursuit and attainment of goals, contrasting individual effort with collective effort in that pursuit. It concerns the idea of achievement or accomplishment. For example, It is more efficient to work alone than to work in a group and I do

PAGE 48

37 things best when I work alone. Alpha for the achievement dimension in this study was 0.80. This scale consists of 30 items across the 5 dimensions, scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to s trongly agree. Although the scale has near equal number of individualismand collectivism-directed items, collectivism items were reverse scored and the final scores on the factors were calculated in the direction of individualism. Psychological Collectivism (PC): Eleven items from Hui and Yees (1994) Psychological Collectivism scale was used to measure the level of ove rall I-C in the study sample Participants indicated their ag reement or disagreement on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. A sample item is I have never chatted with my coworker about the political future of this place. Alpha for the PC scale in this study was 0.56 (see Appendix E). Procedure All responses were collected online vi a SurveyMonkey.com. Participants were first contacted by phone to solicit participa tion, after which an email was sent that included a short description of the study, the time required to complete the survey (i.e., approximately 15 minutes); assurance that each of their responses would be held confidential; the survey web-li nk, and contact information for the primary researcher (see Appendix F). Six hundred and fifty-one USF em ployees out of an in itial 1,516 contacted to solicit participati on agreed to participate. Of thes e, 237 responded to the survey (36% response rate). Participation in the survey was completely vo luntary and individuals were not given anything in excha nge for their participation.

PAGE 49

38 Chapter 4 Results Means, standard deviations, range, and coe fficient alpha for each of the measures included in this study are displayed in Tabl e (2). All measures with the exception for Psychological Collectivism ( =.56) attained good internal consistency ranging from 0.73 (JSS Coworkers) to 0.88 (JSS Supervision and MCS Responsibility). Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables Mean SD Range Alpha Pay (JSP) 10.43 3.83 16 0.83 Promotion (JSPR) 10.17 3.67 16 0.81 Supervision (JSS) 15.92 3.89 16 0.88 Coworkers (JSC) 15.00 3.08 15 0.73 Nature of work (JSW) 16.13 2.93 16 0.80 Role Conflict (RC) 19.31 5.79 30 0.80 Role Ambiguity (RA) 17.96 5.24 24 0.84 Affective Commitment (OCA) 20.53 5.13 22 0.85 Continuance Commitment (OCC) 19.05 5.51 24 0.85 Normative Commitment (OCN) 18.35 5.11 24 0.83 Responsibility (MCR) 25.99 2.88 12 0.88 Affiliation (MCAF) 21.11 4.82 29 0.85 Social Welfare (MCSW) 16.51 4.11 24 0.80 Religion (MCRG) 18.05 4.11 20 0.87 Achievement (MCAC) 11.32 2.88 16 0.80 Psychological Collectivism (PC) 30.78 4.19 26 0.56

PAGE 50

39 Relationships Among Variables Table (3) presents the correlations amongst all the study variables. A number of significant relationships were observed between the variable s included in this study. Job satisfaction facets were all significantly pos itively correlated with each other. These correlations ranged from r = .25 ( p < .01) between pay and coworker satisfaction to r = .69 ( p <.01) between pay and promotion satisfact ion. All job satisfacti on facets correlated significantly, positively, and strongly w ith overall job satisfaction (.66 < r < .76). In keeping with previous research, significant negative relationships were observed between overall job satisfaction and job satisfaction facets (pay, promoti on, nature of work, supervisor, and coworker) on the one hand and role stressors (rol e conflict and role ambiguity) on the other. Positive relationships were observed between affective and normative commitment with all job satisfaction facets; continuance commitment was negatively correlated with job satisfaction (ove rall and facets). Interestingly, continuance commitment did not correlate significan tly with either affective or normative commitment ( r = .04 and .12 respectively, p > .05). Further, results did not find a relationship between continuance commitment and role ambiguity ( r = .13, p > .05); continuance commitment was positively correlated with role conflict ( r = .17, p < .01). A significant correlation was found between responsibility and satisfaction with the nature of work and overall job satisfaction (r = .24 and .16 respectively, p < .05); responsibility significantly corr elated with role conflict ( r = -.16); a significant positive relationship was found betw een responsibility and bot h affective and normative commitment ( r = .25 and .15 respectively, p < .05).

PAGE 51

40 With regard to affiliation, significant ne gative relationships were found with pay, coworker, nature of work, and overall job satisfaction (r = -.18, -.25, -.18, and -.22 respectively, p < .01) and with affective and normative commitment (r = -.31 and -.33 respectively, p < .01). In contrast, a positive relati onship was observed between affiliation and role conflict ( r = .14, p < .05). A similar pattern of significant negative relationships was observed between achievement, satisfaction (pay, r = -.18; coworker, r = -.19; nature of work, r = -.16, overall job satisfaction, r = .21) and commitment (affective, r = -.20; normative, r = -.20). Interestingly, observed results failed to show significant re lationships between social welfare and religion with overall job satisfaction and any of the job satisfaction facets. A significant negative correlation wa s observed between social welfare and role ambiguity ( r = -.20, p < .01) while a positive relationship existed between religion and role conflict ( r = .18, p < .05) and with continuance commitment ( r = .22, p < .01). All dimensions of the MCS significantly and positiv ely correlated with the overall score on the scale (.22 < r < .73). IC as measured by the Ps ychological Collectivism scale (PC) significantly correlated with affiliation, achieve ment, and social welfare dimensions of the MCS ( r = .34, .42, and .36 respectively). Lastly, PC significantly correlated with s upervisor, coworker, and nature of work satisfaction (r = -.20, -.24, and -.17 respectively) and with affective and normative commitment ( r = -.19 and -.16 respectively, p < .01).

PAGE 52

Table 3 Correlations amongst Study Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. JSP 2. JSPR .69** 3. JSS .26** .29** 4. JSC .25** .27** .48** 5. JSW .29** .40** .45** .46** 6. JST .73** .76** .70** .66** .70** 7. RC -.21** -.35** -.50** .40** -.48** -.54** 8. RA -.19** -.18** -.35** -.44** -.33** -.41** .57** 9. AC .40** .42** .41** .48** .65** .65** -.32** -.20** 10 CC -.17** -.20** -.17** -.12** -.06 -.21** .17* .13 .04 11. NC .41** .39** .34** .33** .42** .53** -.26** -.15* .60** .12 12. MCR .02 .13 .11 .10 .24* .16* -.16* -.01 .25** -.12 .15* 13. MCAF -.18** -.07 -.12 -.25** -.18** -.22** -.14* .06 -.31** -.02 -.33** -.10 14. MCSW -.03 -.05 -.03 -.07 .01 -.05 -.05 -.20** -.01 -.04 -.03 .05 .35** 15. MCRG -.04 .05 .03 .04 -.04 .01 -.18* 10 .04 .22** -.01 -.04 .19** .01 16. MCAC -.18** -.13 -.08 -.19** -.16* -.21** .07 .11 -.20** -.01 -.20** -.01 .40** .24** .12 17. PC -.10 -.13 -.20** -.24** -.17* -.23** .03 -.12 -.19** .05 -.16** .01 .34 .36** .11 .42** Note. JSP = Pay satisfaction; JSPR = Promotio n satisfaction; JSS = Supervision satisfacti on; JSC = Coworker satisfaction; JSW = wor k satisfaction; JST = overall job satisfaction; RC = Role conflict; RA = Role ambi guity; AC = Affective commitment; CC = Continuance commitment; NC = Normative commitment; MCR = Responsibility; MCAF = Affiliation; MCSW = Social Welfare; MCRG = Religion; MCAC = Achievement; PC = Psycholo gical collectivism p < .05, ** p < .01. N = 214 41

PAGE 53

42 Hypotheses Tests Hypothesis 1a: IC will b e negatively correla ted with satisfaction with supervisor and coworkers. To test this hypothesis, zero-order co rrelations between the variables were examined and the results provided support fo r the negative relationship between overall IC and both supervisor and cowo rker satisfaction (Table 3). Hypothesis 1b: IC will be positively co rrelated with satisfaction with pay, promotion, and the nature of work. In contrast, hypothesis 1b predicted that overall IC would correla te positively with pay, promotion, and nature of work satisfaction but the results failed to support this hypothesis; on the contrary, the relationship between IC and nature of work satisfaction was negative and significant while the relatio nship with pay and promotion satisfaction was non-significant. Hypothesis 2: IC will be negatively co rrelated with role ambiguity and role conflict. Hypothesis 2, which predicted a negative relationship between overall IC and both role conflict and role ambiguity, was not supported. Hypothesis 3a: IC will be negatively correlated with af fective and normative commitment. Hypothesis 3b: IC will be positively co rrelated with continuance commitment. The results supported the negative relations hip between IC and both affective and normative commitment; the results failed to s upport the positive rela tionship between IC and continuance commitment.

PAGE 54

43 Moderator Results: To test for moderation, the dependent va riable (organizational comm itment) was regressed onto: (1) the independent variable (either job sa tisfaction facet or role stressor), (2) the predicted moderator (c ulture), and (3) th e product of these two variables (job satisfaction and culture or role stressor and culture). Eviden ce of moderation is indicated when the beta-weight associated with the product term is significant, while controlling for the individual effects of the independent and moderator variables (job and organizational tenure were controlled for a ll moderated regression analyses). The results did not support the moderating relationships described in hypothesis 4a; the moderating influence of overall IC on the relationship between coworker satisfaction and either affective or normative commitment, nor the re lationship between supe rvisor satisfaction and either affective or normative commitment (Table 4a). Hypothesis 4a: IC will moderate the rela tionship between satisfaction (coworker and supervisor) and organizational commitment (affective and normative) such that the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment is stronger for collectivist orientation Table 4a. Moderated Regressions of Affective and Normative Commitment on Supervisor and Coworker Satisfaction B R2 R2 Criterion: Affective Commitment JSS .501 .381** .169 .169** IC -.120 -.098 .181 .012 JSS x IC .024 .089 .189 .008 JSC .761 .457** .227 .227** IC -.094 -.077 .233 .006 JSC x IC .002 .005 .233 .000

PAGE 55

44 Table 4a. C ontinued Criterion: Normative Commitment JSS .423 .322** .117 .117** IC -.106 -.087 .125 .008 JSS x IC .006 .024 .126 .001 JSC .504 .304** .109 .109** IC -.097 -.080 .115 .006 JSC x IC .014 .042 .117 .002 Note. B = Unstandardized Coefficient, = Standardized Coefficient; JSS = supervisor satisfaction; JSC = coworker satisfaction; IC = individualism/collectivism = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 200 Hypothesis 4b did not find support in the da ta across all moderating relationships (Table 4b). Hypothesis 4b: IC will moderate the re lationship between satisfaction (pay, promotion, and nature of work) and organization al commitment (continuance) such that the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment is stronger for individualist orientation Table 4b. Moderated Regressions of Continuanc e Commitment on Pay, Promotion, and Nature of Work Satisfaction B R2 R2 Criterion: Continuance Commitment JSP -.246 .171* .027 .027* IC -.080 -.061 .031 .004 JSP x IC .000 .001 .031 .000 JSPR -.311 -.207** .040 .040** IC -.092 -.070 .045 .005 JSPR x IC .008 .024 .045 .001 JSW -.152 -.081 .004 .004 IC -.085 -.065 .007 .003 JSW x IC .031 .068 .011 .005 Note. B = Unstandardized Coefficient, = Standardized Coefficient; JSP = pay satisfaction; JSPR = promotion satisfaction; JSW = work satisfaction; IC = individualism/collectivism = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 200

PAGE 56

45 Sim ilarly, the results did not support the moderating influence of overall IC on the relationship between role conflict and normative commitment (Table 4c). Hypothesis 5: IC will moderate the relati onship between role stressors (ambiguity and conflict) and organizational commitment (affective, normative, and continuance) such that the relationship between role stressors and organizational commitment is stronger for indivi dualist orientation Table 4c. Moderated Regressions of Affective, Normative, and Continuance Commitment on Role Stressors B R2 R2 Criterion: Affective Commitment RC -.286 -.323** .100 .100** IC -.223 -.183** .133 .032** Table 4c. Continued RC x IC .007 .035 .134 .001 RA -.229 -.234** .041 .041** IC -.266 -.218** .087 .046** RA x IC .009 .015 .089 .002 Criterion: Normative Commitment RC -.242 -.274** .066 .066** IC -.188 -.154* .088 .022* RC x IC .014 .067 .092 .004 RA -.161 -.166* .021 .021* IC -.213 -.175* .051 .030** RA x IC -.001 -.006 .051 .001 Criterion: Continuance Commitment RC .189 .199** .030 .030** IC -.055 -.042 .032 .002 RC x IC -.017 .080 .038 .006 RA .130 .124 .017 .017* IC -.040 -.030 .018 .001 RA x IC .009 .040 .020 .002 Note. B = Unstandardized Coefficient, = Standardized Coefficient; RC = role conflict; RA = role ambiguity; IC = individualism/collectivism = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 200

PAGE 57

46 Moderator Hypotheses for Dimensions of MCS: The m oderating effect of culture on the relationship between job satisfaction (and role stressors) and organi zational commitment was tested using moderated regression analysis. It was assumed that the effect of job satisfaction (or role stressor) on organizational commitment would change lin early with respect to the moderator. Hypothesis 6 predicted that achieveme nt would moderate the relationship between role stressors (role conflict and role ambiguity), job satisfaction facets (pay, promotion, work, supervision, and cowo rker), and organizational commitment (affective). Significant interactions were gr aphed by using values 1 standard deviation above and below the mean. Figure 1 displays the significant inte raction found between achievement and role ambiguity (Table 5) ( = .127, p < .05 = .001, n.s. ). Role ambiguity more negatively impacts affective commitment for those who are collectivist in achievement (low achievement). Hypothesis 6a: Achievement will modera te the relationship between role ambiguity and role conflict with affective co mmitment such that the relationship is more negative for collectivist orientation Table 5. Moderated Regressions of Affectiv e Commitment on Role Stressors and Achievement B R2 R2 Criterion: Affective Commitment RC -.274 -.309** .100 .100** MCAC -.306 -.172** .131 .031** RC x MCAC .010 .039 .132 .001

PAGE 58

Table 5. Continued RA -.180 -.184* .041 .041** MCAC -.323 -.181* .072 .031** RA x MCAC .045 .127* .088 .016* Note. B = Unstandardized Coefficient, = Standardized Coefficient; RC = role conflict; RA = role ambiguity; MCAC = achievement = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 200 Figure 1. Achievement as moderator of Ro le Ambiguity and Affective Commitment -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 lowmedhighRole Ambiguity Affective Commitment Achievement high low Achievement orientation moderated the relationship between supervisor job satisfaction and affective commitment (Table 6a, Figure 2) but not the relationship between coworker satisfaction and affective commitment ( = .141, p < .05; = .001, n.s.). The pattern of data in Figure 2 illustrates that when achievement was more individualist (high achievement) oriented the line depicting the relationship between satisfaction with supervision and affective commitment had a steeper positive slope than when achievement was more collectiv ist (low achievement) oriented. Hypothesis 6b: Achievement will mode rate the relationship between job satisfaction (coworker and supervisor) and or ganizational commitment (affective) such 47

PAGE 59

that the relationship between satisfaction and or ganizational commitment is stronger for colle ctivist orientation Table 6a. Moderated Regressions of Affective Commitment on Supervisor and Coworker Satisfaction and Achievement B R2 R2 Criterion: Affective Commitment JSS .527 .400** .169 .169** MCAC -.334 -.188** .196 .027** JSS x MCAC .059 .141* .215 .019* JSC .758 .456** .227 .227** MCAC -.195 -.110 .239 .012 JSC x MCAC -.008 -.013 .240 .001 Note. B = Unstandardized Coefficient, = Standardized Coefficient; JSS = supervisor satisfaction; JSC = coworker satisfaction; MCAC = achievement = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 200 Figure 2. Achievement as moderator of Supervision Satisfaction and Affective Commitment -4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 lowmedhighSupervision SatisfactionAffective Commitment Achievement high low 48 No significant interaction effects were found between pay, promotion, and nature of work satisfaction and a ffective commitment when achievement orientation was the moderator (Table 6b), ( = .050, n.s.; = -.060, n.s.; = -.064, n.s.respectively).

PAGE 60

49 Hypothesis 6c: Achie vement will moderate the relationship between satisfaction (pay, promotion, and nature of work) and or ganizational commitment (affective) such that the relationship between satisfaction and or ganizational commitment is stronger for individualist orientation Table 6b. Moderated Regressions of Affective Co mmitment on Pay, Promotion, Nature of Work Satisfaction and Achievement B R2 R2 Criterion: Affective Commitment JSP .499 .372** .156 .156** MCAC -.240 -.135 .173 .017 JSP x MCAC -.021 .050 .175 .002 JSPR .562 .402** .177 .177** MCAC -.264 -.148* .195 .021* JSPR x MCAC .024 -.060 .199 .004 JSW 1.112 .635** .417 .417** MCAC -.173 -.097 .426 .009 JSW x MCAC -.035 -.064 .430 .004 Note. B = Unstandardized Coefficient, = Standardized Coefficient; JSP = pay satisfaction; JSPR = promotion satisfaction; JSW = work satisfaction; MCAC = achievement = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 200 Hypothesis 7a predicted that the relations hip between role stressors (conflict and ambiguity) and continuance commitment would be more negative for individuals who endorsed a collectivist responsibility orientat ion. The results (Table 7) did not support either moderating hypothesis ( = .023, n.s.; = -.001, n.s.). Hypothesis 7a: Responsibility will mode rate the relationship between role ambiguity and role conflict with continuan ce commitment such that the relationship is more negative for collectivist orientation

PAGE 61

50 Table 7. Moderated Regressions of Conti nuance Commitment on Role Stressors and Responsibility B R2 R2 Criterion: Continuance Commitment RC .148 .155* .030 .030* MCR -.179 -.094 .039 .009 RC x MCR .007 .023 .040 .001 RA .138 .131* .017 .017* MCR -.227 -.119 .031 .014 RA x MCR .000 -.001 .032 .001 Note. B = Unstandardized Coefficient, = Standardized Coefficient; RC = role conflict; RA = role ambiguity; MCR = responsibility = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 200 Also, the relationship between superv ision and coworker satisfaction and continuance commitment (Table 8a) was predic ted to be stronger for individuals with a collectivist responsibility orientat ion. This hypothesis was not supported. Hypothesis 7b: Responsibility will moderate the relationship between satisfaction (coworker and supervisor) and organizational commitment (continuance) such that the relationship is stronger fo r collectivist orientation Table 8a. Moderated Regressions of Con tinuance Commitment on Supervisor and Coworker Satisfaction and Responsibility B R2 R2 Criterion: Continuance Commitment JSS -.224 -.158* .027 .027* Table 8a. Continued MCR -.198 -.103 .037 .010* JSS x MCR .010 .022 .037 .000 JSC -.175 -.098 .013 .013 MCR -.216 -.113 .025 .012 JSC x MCR -.012 -.021 .025 .000 Note. B = Unstandardized Coefficient, = Standardized Coefficient; JSS = supervisor satisfaction; JSC = coworker satisfaction; MCR = responsibility = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 200

PAGE 62

51 Finally, it w as predicted that the relati onship between pay, promotion, and work satisfaction and continuance commitment w ould be stronger for i ndividuals with an individualist responsibility orientation. Those who were more collectivist in their responsibility (low responsibility) had a negative relationshi p between their satisfaction with the nature of work and continuance commitment. In other words, when someone is dissatisfied with the type of work they do, they tend to commit to the organization based on lack of alternative prospects, as well as the threat of losing accrued pay and benefits. As satisfaction with ones work increases, the need to continue committing decreases; whereas the relationship remained unchanged fo r those with an indi vidualist orientation in responsibility as indicated by th e small slope (Table 8b, Figure 3), ( = .120, p < .05). Hypothesis 7c: Responsibility will mode rate the relationship between job satisfaction (pay, promo tion, and nature of work) and organizational commitment (continuance) such that the relationship is stronger for individualist orientation Table 8b. Moderated Regressions of Conti nuance Commitment on Pay, Promotion, Nature of Work Satisfaction and Responsibility B R2 R2 Criterion: Continuance Commitment JSP -.228 -.158** .027 .027* MCR -.220 -.115 .040 .013 JSP x MCR -.011 -.023 .041 .001 JSPR -.300 -.200* .040 .040* MCR -.190 -.099 .049 .009 JSPR x MCR .026 .054 .052 .003 JSW -.217 -.118* .100 .100* MCR -.246 -.129* .118 .018* JSW x MCR .075 .120* .132 .014* Note. B = Unstandardized Coefficient, = Standardized Coefficient; JSP = pay satisfaction; JSPR = promotion satisfaction; JSW = work satisfaction; MCR = responsibility = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 200

PAGE 63

Figure 3. Responsibility as m oderator of Satisfaction with Nature of Work and Continuance Commitment 22.00 22.50 23.00 23.50 24.00 24.50 25.00 25.50 26.00 26.50 27.00 lowmedhighSatisfaction with Nature of Work Continuance Commitme Responsibility high low The data (Table 9) supported the mo derating influence of affiliation on the relationship between role ambiguity and ro le conflict with normative commitment ( = .161, p < .01 = .123, p < .05). Figure 4 and 5 illustrate the steeper negative slope for collectivist orientation of affiliation (low a ffiliation) in comparison to an individualist orientation. Hypothesis 8a: Affiliation will moderate th e relationship between role ambiguity and role conflict with norma tive commitment such that the relationship is more negative for collectivist orientation Table 9. Moderated Regressions of Norma tive Commitment on Role Stressors and Affiliation B R2 R2 Criterion: Normative Commitment RC -.188 -.213** .066 .066** MCAF -.300 -.283** .151 .085** RC x MCAF .030 .161** .177 .026** 52

PAGE 64

Table 9. Continued RA -.105 -.108* .021 .021* MCAF -.338 -.319** .122 .101** RA x MCAF .024 .123* .137 .015* Note. B = Unstandardized Coefficient, = Standardized Coefficient; RC = role conflict; RA = role ambiguity; MCR = responsibility = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 200 Figure 4. Affiliation as moderator of Role Conflict and Normative Commitment -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 lowmedhighRole Conflict Normative Commitment Affiliation high low Figure 5. Affiliation as moderator of Role Ambiguity and Normative Commitment -2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 lowmedhighRole Ambiguity Normative Commitment Affiliation high low 53

PAGE 65

54 The results (Table 10a, F igure 6 & 7) suppor ted the prediction that the relationship between satisfaction with s upervision and coworker and normative commitment is moderated by a collectivist affilia tion orientation (low affiliation) ( = -.109, p < .05; = -.131, p < .05, respectively). Hypothesis 8b: Affiliation will moderate th e relationship between job satisfaction (coworker and supervisor) and organizational commitment (normative) such that the relationship is stronger fo r collectivist orientation Table 10a. Moderated Regressions of Norm ative Commitment on Supervisor and Coworker Satisfaction and Affiliation B R2 R2 Criterion: Normative Commitment JSS .401 .305** .117 .117** MCAF -.301 -.284** .200 .083** JSS x MCAF -.027 -.109* .212 .012* JSC .408 .246** .109 .109** MCAF -.298 -.282** .172 .063** JSC x MCAF -.043 -.131* .188 .016* Note. B = Unstandardized Coefficient, = Standardized Coefficient; JSS = supervisor satisfaction; JSC = coworker satisfaction; MCAF = affilitation = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 200

PAGE 66

Figure 6. Af filiation as moderator of Supervis or Satisfaction and Normative Commitment -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 lowmedhighSupervision SatisfactionNormative Commitment Affiliation high low Figure 7. Affiliation as moderator of Coworker Satisfaction and Normative Commitment -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 lowmedhighCoworker SatisfactionNormative Commitment Affiliation high low The results (Table 10b) failed to support a moderator prediction w ith regard to the relationship for pay and promotion satisfac tion with normative commitment; on the other hand, the results supported the moderated relationship between nature of work satisfaction and normative commitment ( = -.123, p < .05). 55

PAGE 67

Hypothesis 8c: Affiliatio n will moderate the relationship between job satisfaction (pay, promotion, and nature of work) and or ganizational commitment (normative) such that the relationship is stronger for collectivist orientation Table 10b. Moderated Regressions of Normative Commitment on Pay, Promotion, Nature of Work Satisfaction and Affiliation B R2 R2 Criterion: Normative Commitment JSP .478 .358** .165 .165** MCAF -.278 -.263** .232 .067** JSP x MCAF -.005 .021 .232 .000 JSPR .514 .369** .149 .149** MCAF -.308 -.291** .239 .090** JSPR x MCAF -.018 -.072 .244 .005 JSW .653 .374** .178 .178** MCAF -.269 -.254** .244 .065** JSW x MCAF -.043 -.123* .259 .015* Note. B = Unstandardized Coefficient, = Standardized Coefficient; JSP = pay satisfaction; JSPR = promotion satisfaction; JSW = work satisfaction; MCAF = affiliation = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 200 Figure 8. Affiliation as moderator of Satisfaction with Nature of Work and Normative Commitment -4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 lowmedhighNature of Work SatisNormative Commitment Affiliation high low 56

PAGE 68

57 Results did not support either Hypothesis 9a or Hypothesis 9b. Hypothesis 9a: Social welfare will mode rate the relationship between job satisfaction (coworker and supervisor) and or ganizational commitment (affective) such that the relationship is stronger for collectivist orientation) Hypothesis 9b: Social welfare will mode rate the relationship between job satisfaction (pay, promo tion, and nature of work) and organizational commitment (affective) such that the relationship is stronger for individualist orientation Table 11a. Moderated Regressions of Affecti ve Commitment on Supervisor, Coworker, and Social Welfare B R2 R2 Criterion: Affective Commitment JSS .534 .405** .169 .169** MCSW .023 .018 .169 .000 JSS x MCSW .028 .094 .178 .009 JSC .800 .481** .227 .227** MCSW .053 .042 .229 .002 JSC x MCSW .021 .054 .232 .003 Note. B = Unstandardized Coefficient, = Standardized Coefficient; JSS = supervisor satisfaction; JSC = coworker satisfaction; MCSW = social welfare = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 200 Table 11b. Moderated Regressions of Affective Commitment on Pay, Promotion, Work Satisfaction and Social Welfare B R2 R2 Criterion: Affective Commitment JSP .533 .398** .156 .156** MCSW .023 .019 .156 .000 JSP x MCSW -.011 -.036 .157 .001 JSPR .585 .419** .177 .177** MCSW .031 .025 .178 .001 JSPR x MCSW .021 .064 .182 .004 JSW 1.128 .644** .417 .417** MCSW .004 .003 .417 .000 JSW x MCSW -.013 -.029 .418 .001 Note. B = Unstandardized Coefficient, = Standardized Coefficient; JSP = pay satisfaction; JSPR = promotion satisfaction; JSW = work satisfaction; MCSW = social welfare = p < .05, ** = p < .01; N = 200

PAGE 69

58 Chapter 5 Discussion The goal of this study was to investigate the influence of cultural values on the processes that link job satisfaction and role stressors with organizational commitment. Specifically, differential relationships between job satisfaction facets (work, supervision, coworker, pay, and promotion opportunities), ro le stressors (role conflict and role ambiguity) and the components of organizati onal commitment (affective, normative, and continuance) were examined. Further, th e moderating impact of individualistic and collectivistic orientations as expressed through four cultural dimensions (responsibility, affiliation, social welfare, and achievement) on those relationships was examined. General Appraisal of the Relati onships between Study Variables The results regarding the pattern of re lationships among the study variables were fairly consistent with previous research, wh ich showed that overal l job satisfaction and job satisfaction facets correlated positively and significantly with each other; job satisfaction facets were also negatively related to role am biguity and role conflict. Dejonge and Schaufeli (1998) found negative associations between overall job satisfaction and role ambiguity, while rese arch Fisher and Gitelson (1983) found role conflict is negatively associated with pay, coworkers, and supervision facets of job satisfaction while role ambiguity is nega tively related to promotion and coworker

PAGE 70

59 relationships. Jamal (1997) and Yousef (2000) found significant ne gative relationships between role conflict and am biguity and job satisfaction. Research has shown a positive relationship between organizational commitment components and job satisfaction facets, and this was reflected for the most part in the results, where, predictably, affective a nd normative commitment positively correlated with all job satisfaction facet s while continuance commitment negatively correlated with job satisfaction (overall and facets). The result s indicated that role conflict and role ambiguity were also negatively related to affective and normative commitment, and role conflict, surprisingly, was positively related to continuance commitment. A review of the literature provides some support for these findings where research by Agarwal and Ramaswami (1993), King and Sethi (1997), and Hartenian et al, (1994) found a negative relationship between role ambiguity, role c onflict, and affective commitment, while King and Sethi (1997) found support for a positive re lationship between role stressors and continuance commitment. Overall IC, as measured by the Psyc hological Collectivism scale (PC), was expected to negatively relate to supervis ion and coworker satisfaction and positively relate to satisfaction with pay, promotion, and nature of work. These hypotheses were partially supported in that overall IC did relate negatively to supervision and coworker satisfaction, in addition to being negatively re lated to nature of work satisfaction and overall job satisfaction. In general, this finding supports previous research that addressed the relationship between collectivism and job satisfac tion (Sun, 2000). That is, collectivism was found to have a positive associ ation with job satisfaction, particularly, satisfaction with supervision and coworkers. Hui and Yee (1999) report higher perceived

PAGE 71

60 satisfaction am ong collectivists than among indivi dualists with respect to extrinsic aspect of the job. In other words, although both i ndividualists and colle ctivists experience positive job satisfaction, it appears that the extrinsic job charac teristics are more strongly associated with job satisfaction among collectivists. The third hypothesis dealing with the relationships between overall I-C and organizational commitment components was shown to be significant. As predicted, overall I-C was negatively correlated with both affective and normative commitment. In accordance with research by Wasti (2003), affective and normative organizational commitment were more strongly associated with collectiv ism. Wasti (2003) found that satisfaction with supervision was the stronge st predictor of orga nizational commitment (affective) among collectivists, whereas satisfaction with both work and promotion opportunities were important predictors of organizational commitment among individualists. This falls neatly with the di scussion on collectivism; people who are more collectivist tend to be motivated by the welf are of the group the organization in this case and are driven to identify with the organization, develop emotional attachments to their organization, and consider the gr oups norms (Johnson & Chang, 2006; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Prior to discussing the moderating influence of culture on the job variables in this study, it is worth highlighting the support for a multidimensional approach to measuring culture with reference to indi vidualism and collectivism as or ientations expressed within the same culture. The correlations among the di mensions of MCS scale underscore this proposal. Specifically, the dimens ions moderately relate to one another, indicating that they are measuring fairly different component s. Further, the relationships between the

PAGE 72

61 dim ensions and study criteria across the other scales are, for the most part, significant and in the hypothesized direction. The advantage of utilizing a multidimensional culture scale is made all the more clear when the pattern of correlations described above are compared to an established scale like the PCS, illustra ting stronger correlations than the overall I-C scale. The Appraisal of IC as Moderator While the above discussion highlights the overall relationships between the variables, a more nuanced look into the relationships between job satisf action facets, role stressors, and organizational commitment comp onents vis--vis cultural dimensions is necessary to provide a more accurate and co mplete description of the relationships between the variables. This study predicted that the relationship between role stressors, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment would be moderated by the dimensions of culture (achievement, responsibility, affiliation, and soci al welfare). In the case of Hypothesis 6a, it was predicted that a collectivist orient ation on achievement would moderate the relationship between both role ambiguity a nd conflict with affective commitment. As evidenced in Figure 1, role ambiguity had a greater nega tive influence on affective commitment for those who were more cooperative as opposed to competitive in their achievement orientation; that is, the impact of role ambigu ity on the development of an emotional relationship with ones organization appears to be more negative for those who prefer to work with others. This impact is intensified when the confusion and ambiguity over what an employee is supposed to be doing at work is coupled with the inclination to work with others. Similar predictions (Hypot hesis 6b) were made for the relationship

PAGE 73

62 between coworker and supervis ion satisfaction and affective comm itment, and the results were supportive for those with a collectivist orient ation of achievement. In other words, an individual who is satisfied with his/her coworkers and supervisors will develop an emotional bond with his/her organization that is made stronger by favoring cooperative work and having a congenial work group. Ho wever, stronger evidence was found for those who endorsed an individua list achievement orientation; that is, satisfaction with ones coworkers and supervisors produced stronger affective commitment for those who favored an individualist achievement orientation. Triandis et al. (1990) presented the idea that individualist tendencies manifest themselves in people who endorse the value of individual effort in the pursuit of succe ss as measured by personal gain. By the same token, Stata (1992, in Triandis, 1995) argue d that cooperation is not necessarily incompatible with individualism and suggests that people who tend to endorse individualist orientations are likely to cooperate insofar as it brings them benefits; that is, they take cooperation as a means to fulfilling their personal needs. It was expected that achievement orientation would moderate the relationship between ex trinsic facets of job satisfaction (pay, promotion, and work) and affective commitment though the hypothesis was not supported. A possible e xplanation lies in the likely incompatibility between the 3 variables, whereby affective commitment and achievement orientation are driven by an intrinsic component whereas th e job satisfaction facets are ex trinsic in their nature and could possibly relate to a di fferent, extrinsic component of commitment more strongly e.g. continuance commitment (Johnson & Chang, 2006). Responsibility was found to moderate the re lationship between satisfaction with the nature of work and continuance commitment more strongly and ne gatively for those who

PAGE 74

63 endorsed a collectivist orie ntation. Those who were m o re collectivist in their responsibility had a ne gative relationship betw een their satisfaction with the nature of work and continuance commitment. In other words, when someone is dissatisfied with the type of work they do, they tend to commit to the organization based on lack of alternative prospects, as we ll as the threat of losing accrued pay and benefits. As satisfaction with ones work increases, th e need to continue committing decreases; Interestingly, while the pattern is clear fo r collectivists and mirrors the relationship usually found for satisfacti on and continuance commitment, there is no relationship between satisfaction with work and con tinuance commitment for those with an individualist orientation on responsibility. Perhaps other aspects of commitment come into play for those who are collectivist in th eir responsibility for their actions possibly the tendency to look to the group first estab lishes an affective/normative commitment that works in opposition to continuance commit ment. The groups role in absorbing the responsibility for the individuals actions may e xplain the relationship in that it acts as a safeguard the group takes responsibility for the individuals actions at work, and thus increases his/her satisfaction and reduces the impact on continuance commitment. The prediction that the relationship between role stressors and normative commitment would be more negative for t hose endorsing a collectiv ist orientation of affiliation was supported; it appears that bel onging to a group may create competing rules for behavior outside of those prescribed by the role that exacerbate existing role conflict and ambiguity. That is, the stressors of exis ting role conflict and ambiguity and related negative consequences are aggravated by the need for having clear rules and roles, and maintaining ones prescribed role in th e group. Support was also found for the more

PAGE 75

64 positiv e influence of a collectivist orientation of affiliation on the relationship between job satisfaction facets (coworkers and supervision) and normative commitment; it seems that those who look for group belonging a nd identification may find that in their relationships with their coworkers and supervisors on the one hand and in the organization they belong to on the other. The endorsement of a collect ivist orientation of affiliation further motivates them to maintain those relationships and associated normative behaviors. Hypothesis 8c was pa rtially supported in that a collectivist orientation of affiliation positively influenced the relationship of satisfaction with the nature of work with normative commitment but not the relationship between pay and promotion satisfaction on the one hand a nd normative commitment on the other. A possible explanation is that people may develop and maintain an identity via the type of work they do but not the pay and promoti onal opportunities that are afforded by the particular work. The lack of support for hypothese s 9a and 9b is surprising given that the social welfare dimension focuses on both th e social and economic well-being of an individual, which could reasona bly derive from various soci al and economic aspects of the job as well as commitment to the organization. A potential explanation is that the moderator (social welf are) may be confounded with the dimension of affiliation, although previous factor analysis re search on the dimensionality of the MCS (Khoury, 2006) found the two dimensions to be distinct. Limitations As with all studies that are cross-sectiona l in nature, it is difficult to make causal inferences regarding the relationships betw een role stressors, j ob satisfaction, cultural dimensions, and organizational commitment; in corporating a longitudinal design in future

PAGE 76

65 studies could better illustrate the potential causal relationships am ong the variables of interest. An additional limitation to this st udy is that due to th e number of moderated regression analyses that were conducted, the probability of type-I error is potentially inflated. Finally, a potential shortcoming of this st udy was that the data was collected from a U.S. university working sample only which lim its generalizability to both country and work environment. The challenge of studying culture is access to samples from several countries to allow more insight and bette r assess the possible differential impact of culture. Future Directions The direction psychology has been taking is towards the inclusion of culture dimensions into the study of psychological be havior in the workplace. This inclusion entails a two-pronged approach: refi ning the theory of cross-cultural industrial/organizational psychology and dete rmining the processes by which cultural dimensions are linked to work behaviors. A common end product of these two lines would be illuminating further various areas of applicability and research. This study aimed to tackle both approaches by extending the empirical research that is ongoing in the area and accelerating the th eoretical development. A significant issue facing cross-cultural psychology is that the theory is developing at a faster rate than the research carried out to support it. In terms of organizational cross-cultural re search, a critical question that needs further research is how people manage their cultural differences for the purpose of increasing positive outcomes for themselves, others at the organiza tion, and the organization itself. It is also

PAGE 77

66 critical, in this age of in creased globalization and inte rconnectedness, for developing theories and research to look into understan ding and explaining further the im pact of culture at several levels individual, organizational, and na tional level. Specifically, are there individual characteristics (e.g. cultural intelligence) that facilitate cultural adaptation, perception, and performance (G elfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007; Earley & Ang, 2003). Looking ahead at understanding organiza tional behavior and managing cultural difference, further research can look to self-i dentity literature to provide a roadmap for understanding if and how global identities deve lop and the factors th at facilitate their development (Erez & Gati, 2004). At the or ganizational and nationa l level, research could focus on what alternative cultural valu es to individualism a nd collectivism are at play, how they differ across multinational orga nizations, and the interplay between those values and the national culture in which the organization resides. A review of cross-cultural research over the years reveals evidence for the demonstration and relevance of a number of Western organizational constructs in nonWestern samples as well as evidence for the i rrelevance of other Western constructs in those samples. Additionally, evidence exists for a number of general work principles holding well across cultures while other relationships may vary depending on the cultural context. The distillation of thes e results point toward the need for research to look further into both emic and etic perspectives underp inning organizational behavior, advancing theory and overall literature, and delinea ting more appropriate strategies promoting human resource development (Marsden, 1991). Mo re often than not cultural differences and cross-cultural organizational behavior are explained thro ugh individualism and

PAGE 78

67 collectivism, and future efforts should move toward discovering othe r pertinent cultural values to help explain variance in organizational behavior. At a time when nations and organizati ons are facing opposing forces of global opportunities and associated global threats, th e drive and need to better understand and manage cultural differences is all the more sali ent, and the fast grow ing research in this area faces the challenge of developing theori es and conducting research that would best capture the complexity inherent in cr oss-cultural organi zational psychology.

PAGE 79

68 References Agarwal, S, & Ramaswami, S.N (1993). Affective organizational commitment of salespeople: an expanded model. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 13, 49-70. Allen, N.J, & Meyer, J.P (1990). The meas urement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative comm itment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology 63,.1-18. Ayyash-Abdo, H. (2001). Individualism a nd collectivism: The case of Lebanon. Social Behavior and Personality, 29 503-518. Bond, M. H. (1994). Into the heart of collectivism: A personal and scientific journey. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, K itiba i, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Th eory, Method, and Applications (pp. 66-76). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient of alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16 297-334. Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psyc hological testing (5th ed.). New York: HarperCollins. Davidson, A. R., Jaccard, J. J., Triandis, H. C., Morales, M. L., & Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1976). Cross-cultural model testing: Toward a solution of the etic-emic dilemma. International Journal of Psychology, 11, 1-13. Earley, P.C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions Across Cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic multi-level model of culture: From the microlevel of the individual to the m acro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology, 53, 583-598. Fisher, C.D., & Gitelson, R. (1983). A meta-ana lysis of the correlates of role conflict and ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 320-333. Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007) Cross-cultural orga nizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 479-514.

PAGE 80

Hartenian, L.S., Hadaway, F.J., & Badovick, G.J. (1994). Antecedents of role perceptions: a path-analytic approach. Journal of Applied Business Research 10, 40-50. Ho, D. Y-F., & Chiu, C-Y. (1994). Com ponent ideas of individualism, collectivism, and social organization: An app lication in the study of Chinese culture. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, K itiba i, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications (pp. 137-156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1984). The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. Academy of Management Review, 9, 389-398. Hofstede, G. (1994). Values survey module 1994 questionnaire: English version Retrieved November 14, 2004, from Un iversiteit van Tilburg Web site: http://feweb.uvt.nl/cente r/hofstede/english.html Hofstede, G. 1994. Values Survey Module 1994 Manual Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation: M aastrict, The Netherlands. Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Hui, C. H. (1988). Measurement of individualism-collectivism. Journal of Research in Personality, 22 17-36. Hui, C. H., & Yee, C. (1994). The shorte ned individualism-colle ctivism scale: Its relationship to demographic and work-related variables. Journal of Research in Personality, 28 409-424. Hui, C. H., & Yee, C. (1999). The impact of psychological collec tivism and work-group atmosphere on Chinese employees job satisfaction. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 175-185. Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). I ndividualism-collectivism: A study of crosscultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17 225-248. Jamal, M. (1999). Job Stress, Type-A Be havior, and Well-Being: A Cross-Cultural Examination. International Journal of Stress Management, 6, 57-67. 69

PAGE 81

70 Johnson, R. E., & Chang, C-H. (2006). I is to continuance as W e is to affective: the relevance of the self-concept for organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 549-570. Kashima, Y., Siegel, M., Tanaka, K., & Ka shima, E. S. (1992). Do people believe behaviors are consistent with attitu des? Towards a cultural psychology of attribution processes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 111-114. Khoury, H. A. (2006). Measuring Culture: The Development of a Multidimensional Culture Scale. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA. Kim, U. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Conceptual clarific ation and elaboration. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, Kitiba i, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Th eory, Method, and Applications (pp. 19-40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kim, Triandis, K itiba i, Choi, and Yoon (1994). Introdutcion. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, K itiba i, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications (pp. 1-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. King, R.C., & Sethi, V. (1997). The moderati ng effects of organizational commitment on burn-out in information systems professionals. European Journal of Information Systems, 6,.86-96. Liu, C., Spector, P.E., & Shi, L. (2007). Cr oss-national job stress: A quantitative and qualitative study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 209-239. Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. Marsden, D. (1991). Indigenous management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2, 21-38. Matsumoto, D., Weissman, M. D., Preston, K ., Brown, B. R., & Kupperbusch, C. (1997). Context-specific measurement of individualism-collectivism on the individual level: The individualism-collectivism interpersonal assessment inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28 743-767. Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Co mmitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299-326.

PAGE 82

71 Mowday, R.T, Porter, L.W, & Steers, R.M (1982). Employee-Organizatio n Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover. Academic Press, New York, NY Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinki ng individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72. Reykowski, J. (1994). Collectivis m and individualism as dimens ions of social change. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 276-292). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J., & Lirtzman, S.I. ( 1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 15, 150-63. Robert, C. A., & Wasti, S. A. (2002) Orga nizational individualism and collectivism: Theoretical development and an empirical test of a model. Journal of Management, 28, 544-566. Schwartz, S. H. (1990). Individualism-collec tivism. Critique and proposed refinements. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 139-157. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/c ollectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, K itiba i, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Th eory, Method, and Applications (pp. 85-122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applyi ng a theory of integrated value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The Psychology of Values: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 8, pp. 1-24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualis m and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29 240-275. Sinha, D., & Tripathi, R. C. (1994). Individua lism in a collectivisti c culture: A case of coexistence of opposites. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, K itiba i, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications (pp. 123-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

PAGE 83

72 Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Sparks, K ., Bernin, P., Bssing, A., Dewe, P., Lu, L., Miller, K., de Moraes, L. R., ODriscoll, M., Pagon, M., Pitariu, H., Poelm ans, S., Radhakrishnan, P., Russinova, V., Salamat ov, V., Salgado, J., Sanchez, J. I., Shima, S., Siu, O. L., Stora, J. B., Teichmann, M., Theorell, T., Vlerick, P., Westman, M., Widerszal-Bazyl, M., Wong, P., & Yu, S. (2001). An international study of the psychometric pr operties of the Hofstede values survey module (1994): A comparison of individual and country/provin ce level results. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50 269-281. Spector, P. E., Sanchez, J. I., Siu, O. L., Salgado, J., Ma, J. (2004). Eastern versus western control beliefs at work: An investigation of secondary control, socioinstrumental control, and work locus of control in China and the US. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53 38-60. Staw, B.M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in th e midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 469-480. Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cult ures: emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 482-493. Sun, S. (2000). Predicting job satisfaction and organiza tional citizenship behavior with individualism-collectivism in P. R. China and the United States (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, 2000). Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Betancourt, H., Bond, M., Leung, K., Brenes, A., Georgas, J., Hui, C. H., Marin, G., Setiadi, B., Sinha, J. B. P., Verma, J., Spangenberg, J., Touzard, H., & De Montmollin, G. (1986). The measurement of the etic aspects of individualism and collectivism across cultures. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38 257-267. Triandis, H. C. (1994). Theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of collectivism and individualism. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, K itiba i, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications (pp. 41-51). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism and collec tivism: Past, present, and future. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The Handbook of Culture & Psychology (pp. 35-50). Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press. Triandis, H. C., Chen, X. P., Chan, D. KS. (1998). Scenarios for the measurement of collectivism and individualism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29 275289.

PAGE 84

73 Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging m easurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118-128. Vandello, J. A., & Cohen, D. (1999). Pattern s of individualism and collectivism across the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 279-292. Wasti, S. A. (2003). The influence of cultu ral values on antecede nts of organizational commitment: An individual-level analysis. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52, 533-554. Yousef, D.A. (2000). Organizational commitme nt: a mediator of the relationships of leadership behavior with job satisf action and performance in a non-western country. Journal of Managerial Psychology 15, 6-24. Yousef, D.A. (2000). The interactive effects of role conflic t and role ambiguity on job satisfaction and attitudes toward organizational change: a moderated multiple regression approach. International Journal of Stress Management, 7, 289-303.

PAGE 85

74 Appendices

PAGE 86

75 Appendix A: Role Am biguity and Role Conflict Please think about your current job and indicate the exte nt to which you Agree or Disagree with each of the following statements. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1. I know exactly what is expected of me 1 2 3 4 5 2. I know that I have divided my time properly 1 2 3 4 5 3. Explanation is clear of what has to be done 1 2 3 4 5 4. I feel certain about how much authority I have 1 2 3 4 5 5. I know what my responsibilities are 1 2 3 4 5 6. Clear, planned goals/objectives exist for my job 1 2 3 4 5 7. I have to do things that should be done differently 1 2 3 4 5 8. I have to buck a rule of a policy in order to carry out an assignment 1 2 3 4 5 9. I receive incompatible requests from two or more people 1 2 3 4 5 10. I do things that are apt to be accepted by one person and not accepted by others 1 2 3 4 5 11. I work on unnecessary things 1 2 3 4 5 12. I work with two or more groups who operate quite differently 1 2 3 4 5 13. I receive assignments without the manpower to complete them 1 2 3 4 5 14. I receive assignments without adequate resources and materials to execute them 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 87

76 Appendix B: Job Satisfaction Scale Please think about your current job and indicate the exte nt to which you Agree or Disagree with each of th e following statements. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1. I feel I am being paid a fair amount fo r the work I do. 1 2 3 4 5 2. There is really too little chance for promotion on my job. 1 2 3 4 5 3. My supervisor is quite competent in doi ng his/her job. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I like the people I work with. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I sometimes feel my job is meaningless. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Raises are too few and far between. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted. 1 2 3 4 5 8. My supervisor is unfair to me. 1 2 3 4 5 9. I find I have to work harder at my job because of the incompetence of people I work with. 1 2 3 4 5 10. I like doing the things I do at work. 1 2 3 4 5 11. I feel unappreciated by the organi zation when I think about what they pay me. 1 2 3 4 5 12. People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places. 1 2 3 4 5 13. My supervisor shows too little in terest in the feelings of subordinates. 1 2 3 4 5 14. I enjoy my coworkers. 1 2 3 4 5 15. I feel a sense of pride in doing my job. 1 2 3 4 5 16. I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases. 1 2 3 4 5 17. I like my supervisor. 1 2 3 4 5 18. I am satisfied with my chances for promotion. 1 2 3 4 5 19. There is too much bickering and fighting at work. 1 2 3 4 5 20. My job is enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 88

77 Appendix C: Organizational Comm itment Scale Please think about your current job and indicate the exte nt to which you Agree or Disagree with each of the following statements. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1. I would be happy to spend the rest of my career with my current organization 1 2 3 4 5 2. I really feel as if my or ganizations problems are my own 1 2 3 4 5 3. I do not feel like part of th e family at my organization 1 2 3 4 5 4. I do not feel emotionally a ttached to my organization 1 2 3 4 5 5. My organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me 1 2 3 4 5 6. I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization 1 2 3 4 5 7. It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to 1 2 3 4 5 8. Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided to leave my organization now 1 2 3 4 5 9. Right now staying with my organi zation is a matter of necessity as much as desire 1 2 3 4 5 10. I feel that I have too few op tions to consider leaving my organization 1 2 3 4 5 11. One of the few serious consequen ces of leaving my organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives 1 2 3 4 5 12. One of the major reasons I continue to work for my organization is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice another organization may not match the overall benefits that I have here 1 2 3 4 5 13. I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current employer 1 2 3 4 5 14. Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organization now 1 2 3 4 5 15. I would feel guilty if I left my organization now 1 2 3 4 5 16. This organization deserves my loyalty 1 2 3 4 5 17. I would not leave my organizati on right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it 1 2 3 4 5 18. I owe a great deal to this organization 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 89

78 Appendix D: Multidim ensional Culture Scale Please think about your culture and values a nd indicate the extent to which you Agree or Disagree with each of the following statements. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agre e nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1. I am responsible if I do something wrong 1 2 3 4 5 2. I think people should be held responsible for their own actions 1 2 3 4 5 3. The individual is responsible fo r the consequences of his/her actions 1 2 3 4 5 4. We are affected by our own actions 1 2 3 4 5 5. I must pay for the consequences of my actions 1 2 3 4 5 6. My own development makes me feel strong and secure 1 2 3 4 5 7. My group is important to me 1 2 3 4 5 8. The group I belong to is a signi ficant part of who I am 1 2 3 4 5 9. I always keep in contact with my group 1 2 3 4 5 10. I feel it is important to belong to a social group 1 2 3 4 5 11. Being part of a group makes me happy 1 2 3 4 5 12. I prefer being with other people 1 2 3 4 5 13. I gain a sense of security by associating with a strong group 1 2 3 4 5 14. I derive a sense of security from myself 1 2 3 4 5 15. Poverty is the result of th e failure of society as whole 1 2 3 4 5 16. Mutual help within my group means much for my well-being 1 2 3 4 5 17. Society is obligated to help those who cant help themselves 1 2 3 4 5 18. It is important to share wea lth and property for the common good 1 2 3 4 5 19. Sharing ones wealth is better than keepi ng it for oneself 1 2 3 4 5 20. The fortunate members of society shou ld help benefit the less fortunate 1 2 3 4 5 21. I think members of a group should care for each others welfare 1 2 3 4 5 22. Established religion strives to control the individual 1 2 3 4 5 23. I do not share my prayers with others, th ey are personal 1 2 3 4 5 24. Religion is ultimately a highly private matter 1 2 3 4 5 25. Religious beliefs and practices are private 1 2 3 4 5 26. My religion concerns only me 1 2 3 4 5 27. Things get done better when I work with others 1 2 3 4 5 28. It is more effective to work alone than it is to work in a group 1 2 3 4 5 29. I do things best when I work alone 1 2 3 4 5 30. It is more efficient to work in a group than to work alone 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 90

79 Appendix E: Psychological Collectivism Please think about your culture and values a nd indicate the extent to which you Agree or Disagree with each of the following statements. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agre e nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1. It is inappropriate for a supervis or to ask subordinates about their personal life 1 2 3 4 5 2. When I am among my colleagues, I do my own thing without minding about them 1 2 3 4 5 3. If a colleague lends a helping hand, one needs to return the favor. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I have never loaned a personal item to my coworker 1 2 3 4 5 5. We ought to develop independence among workers, so that they do not rely upon others to get their work done 1 2 3 4 5 6. There is everything to gain and nothing to lose for coworkers to help each other. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Coworkers assistance is indisp ensable to good performance at work 1 2 3 4 5 8. I would help if a colleague at wo rk told me that he/she needed money to pay utility bills 1 2 3 4 5 9. In most cases, to cooperate with someone whose ability is lower than ones own is not as desi rable as doing the thing alone. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Do you agree with the proverb Too many cooks spoil the broth? 1 2 3 4 5 11. Going along with others decisions is th e better choice 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 91

80 Appendix F: De mographic Questions Thank you for completing the questionnaires. Please take a moment to complete the following personal information: 1. Sex: M F 2. Age 3. What is your racial/ethnic heritage? 1. White/Anglo or European American 2. Black/African American 3. Middle Eastern/Arab 4. Asian, Asian American, Pacific Islander 5. Hispanic/Latino(a) 6. Native American 7. Bi-racial or multi-racial 8. Other ________________ 4. What is your religion? _____________________ 5. Are you a U.S. citizen? Yes No 6. Job Status: Full-time Part-time 7. Job type: Managerial Non-managerial 8. Job title: ________________________ 9. How long have you been working at this position? _________________________ 10. How long have you been working at this organization? _____________________ 11. How many hours do you work per week? ________________________________

PAGE 92

81 Appendix G: Email to Participants Dear Employee, I am a Ph.D. graduate student at USF conducting a research study on American university employees (IRB# 105902E) Specifically, I am interested in studying culture and its impact on peoples reactions to their jobs. The information yo u provide in this survey will help me complete my education as well as advance the study of the workplace. Let me assure you that your responses to the survey will remain anonymous and confidential and cannot be tracked back to you in any way. The survey should take less than 15 minutes of your time. You can also complete the survey in stages just click on th e survey link in your email and you will return to where you left off. The link to the survey is: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=C3LI7RPox819QSz5kLIGMQ_3d_3d If the link does not open when you click on it, please copy an d paste it into the address line of a new browser window. Thank you again for agreeing to participat e! Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Haitham A. Khoury, M.A. Department of Psychology University of South Florida hkhoury@mail.usf.edu PCD 4118G

PAGE 93

About the Author Haitham Khoury received his Bachelo rs Degree in Psychology from the American University of Beirut, Lebanon in 1999. In 2001 he was awarded the Fulbright Foreign Student Scholarship and a year late r, enrolled in the graduate program in Industrial and Organizational ps ychology at the University of South Florida (USF) in Tampa. While in the Ph.D. program at USF, Mr. Khoury was active in the Psychology department as Vice President and Treasur er of the Psycholog y Graduate Student Organization and the Psychology Student Dive rsity Committee, as well as Graduate Student representative for the Psychology De partment Executive Committee. He also has made several paper presentations at national meetings of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.