Earley, 1994

7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

1/30

Self or Group? Cultural Effects of Training on Self-Efficacy and PerformanceAuthor(s): P. Christopher EarleySource: Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Mar., 1994), pp. 89-117Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the Johnson Graduate School of Management, CornellUniversity

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393495 .

Accessed: 27/08/2013 21:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. andJohnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University are collaborating

with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAdministrative Science Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.78.233.212 on Tue, 27 Aug 2013 21:57:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cjohnhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cjohnhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2393495?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2393495?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cjohnhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cjohnhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

2/30

Self or Group?CulturalEffects of TrainingonSelf-efficacyand PerformanceP. Christopher EarleyUniversityof California,rvine

? 1994 by CornellUniversity.0001 8392/94/3901-0089/$100.0Theauthorgratefully cknowledgesthecommentsandsuggestions of ElaineMosakowski nd AnneTsui on an earlierdraftof this paper. Requests forreprintsand othercorrespondence hould beaddressedto the authorat the GraduateSchoolof Management,University fCaliforniat Irvine, rvine,CA92717. Theauthorwould like to thankBao Ji Ming,LuoXing-jian, ouQiming,andZhangYong-linortheir assistance incollectingdata inthe People's Republic f Chinaaswell as Susan Petersonfor herassistance incollecting he dataintheUnitedStates.

This paper examines the theoretical and empiricalrelationship of training and individualism-collectivism toself-efficacy (a person's estimate of his or her ability toperform a task) and performance in studies of managersfrom Hong Kong, the People's Republic of China, and theUnited States. A laboratory experiment and a six-monthfield experiment were used to test hypotheses predictingthat for individualists, self-focused training would have astronger impact on self-efficacy and performance thanwould group-focused training and, for collectivists,group-focused training would have a stronger impact onself-efficacy and performance than wouldindividual-focused training. The results show consistentsupport for the hypotheses at both a cultural and anindividual level of analysis. A general model ofself-efficacy and culture in an organizational environmentis discussed.'While scholars have increasingly emphasized the importantrole in work performance of a person's cognitive estimate ofhis or her capability to perform a given task, or his or herself-efficacy (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Wood and Bandura, 1989),scant attention has been paid to how self-efficacy functionsacross national and culturalwork contexts (for exceptions,see Triandis, 1989; Erez and Earley, 1993). In this paper, Istudy the underlying process through which culturalbackground influences how individual and group trainingaffects self-efficacy and performance.INTRODUCTIONScholars have proposed several typologies of culturaldimensions that are useful for such a study. One suchdimension is individualism and collectivism, or an individual'sperceptions and attitudes toward him- or herself and othersin social relationships (Kluckhohnand Strodtbeck, 1961;Triandis, 1989; Hofstede, 1991; Schwartz, 1993). In anindividualisticculture, people look to their own actions tounderstand who they are, and these actions are relativelyindependent of others. In a collectivistic culture, people basetheir self-understanding on the reactions of important othersaround them. A worker from an individualistic culture strivesto improve work performance because of the recognition heor she may receive, whereas a worker from a collectivisticculture seeks improvement because of the gains his or hergroup may receive (Wagner and Moch, 1986; Erez andEarley, 1993). Thus, people's self-concepts are regulated, inpart, by their cultural orientation and values (Epstein, 1973;Rokeach, 1973).The Role of Individualism-Collectivism inShaping Self-efficacyBandura (1986: 391) posited that self-efficacy influencesperformance primarily hrough increasing a person's effortand persistence. An individualwith high self-efficacy worksharder and longer than an individualwith low self-efficacy(Wood and Bandura, 1989). One way that self-efficacy isshaped is through social influence. Verbal coaching andinformation that a person receives about performancenorms, future expectations, and past performance all89/AdministrativeScience Quarterly,39 (1994): 89-1 17

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

3/30

influence self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986) by persuading him orher that a given performance level is attainable. Garland andAdkinson (1987) found that self-efficacy was increased bysimply telling subjects during the training before a task, "Youcan do it." Meyer and Gellatly (1988) found that subjectswho were presented with normative information before atask on performance levels achieved by other subjectschanged their levels of self-efficacy. These studiesdemonstrate that information, such as task training, a personreceives shapes self-efficacy through a variety of influences.For instance, normative information may make cognitivelysalient certain performance levels over others through apriming or attributional effect (Garland,1985; Gist andMitchell, 1992). A person's confidence may be boosted byverbal coaching based on his or her relation to the coach(Hinrichs, 1976). Another effect of normative information onpeople's efficacy is due to framing and anchoring influences(Bazerman, 1990; Earley and Erez, 1991). What remainsunstudied is where people look to get this information andhow this might be related to people's cultural backgrounds.Bandura (1986) suggested that self-efficacy is, in part,socially constructed and that such construction may differ asa function of national culture. Just as our culture teaches uswhat ideals to hold and what beliefs to endorse (Rokeach,1973), it plays a role in how we construct our self-efficacy.Several researchers (Triandis,1989; Markus and Kitayama,1991; Erez and Earley, 1993) have argued that individualistsand collectivists, categorized by the cultures from whichthey come, differentially sample their social environment.Triandis (1989) used Baumeister's (1986) distinction amongthe private, public, and collective selves, in which the publicself refers to the self using generalized others, the privateself refers to using personal reference points, and thecollective self refers to using a specific reference group, orin-group, in an assessment of the self. He argued that thelikelihood of sampling a particularself is related to culturalbackground, such that, for example, in families in which achild is urged to act independently, the private self is likelyto be accessed when the child faces new challenges.Consistent with Markus and Kitayama (1991) and Triandis(1989), Erez and Earley (1993) suggested that individualistsuse privately referenced information (e.g., their ownperformance) in establishing their self-efficacy, collectivistsuse in-group-referenced information (e.g., the in-group'sperformance), and that, other aspects of culture beingcomparable, both individualists and collectivists sample thepublic self with equal frequency.By extending this logic to training in a cultural context, Iargue that individualism and collectivism partly determine aperson's use of the information provided during training and,hence, self-efficacy and task performance. For theindividualist, training that emphasizes personal capability (theprivate self) will tend to be sampled and used. For thecollectivist, whose focus is on the collective self, trainingthat emphasizes in-group capability will tend to be sampledand used:Hypothesis la (Hia): People froma collectivisticculturewho areprovidedwith group-focused rainingwill have higherself-efficacy90/ASQ, March1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

4/30

Self or Group?and performbetter than people froma collectivisticculturewho areprovidedwith individual-focusedraining.Hypothesis lb (Hib): People from an individualisticulturewhoare providedwith individual-focusedrainingwill have higherself-efficacy and performbetter than people from an individualisticculturewho are providedwith group-focused raining.Memory structures, knowledge, and experiences storedschematically are not solely accessed through a single self;rather, people more easily incorporate information that isprovided when it is consistent with their culturally dominantself. As Triandis (1989) suggested, whether they areindividualists or collectivists, people sample from all threeselves, with the amounts varying by cultural background.This implies that individualists provided with group-focusedtraining or collectivists provided with individual-focusedtraining do not ignore the information they receive; they useit to different degrees in assessing their self-efficacy,provided that it is relevant to a given task. While trainingconsistent with a person's cultural background will be moreeffective than inconsistent training, training that isinconsistent will still be sampled, and it will provide somebenefits. Indirect support for this point is evident in thetraining literature, which has shown that people respond toboth individualand group-based methods (Hinrichs, 1976).Thus, I also hypothesize,Hypothesis ic (Hic): Regardlessof a person's culturalbackground,eithertype of trainingwill increaseself-efficacymore than notrainingat all.Training information and culture may also jointly influenceperformance. Based on the literature discussed by Banduraand his colleagues (Bandura, 1986; Wood and Bandura,1989), the logical causal chain is that culture and traininginfluence self-efficacy and effort which, in turn, influenceperformance. The relationship of self-efficacy and effort totask performance is well documented; people with highself-efficacy work harder and outperform people with lowself-efficacy (Gist and Mitchell, 1992). A simplified version ofthe model described by Gist and Mitchell (1992) illustratesthis chain. They argued that self-efficacy and itsconsequences, such as effort, mediate the influence ofexperience (e.g., verbal persuasion) on performance. Thus, Ifurther hypothesize,Hypothesis 2 (H2): Self-efficacyand effortwill mediate theinteractiveeffects of trainingand cultureon performance.To test these hypotheses, two studies were conducted in ahighly individualistic culture (United States) and two highlycollectivistic cultures (Hong Kong and People's Republic ofChina). U.S. culture consists of a strong work ethicemphasizing individualachievement and reward, as well as astrong individualgoal orientation (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis,1988). Chinese society, by contrast, has been historicallyfocused on social interests, collective action, and anemphasis on shared responsibility (Li, 1978; Hsu, 1985;Boisot and Child, 1988; Bond, 1988). The cultural heritageshared by Hong Kong and the People's Republic of Chinahas reinforced a number of similarities across the twocultural environments, including an emphasis on in-grouployaltyand willingness to put group interests ahead of91 ASQ, March 1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

5/30

self-interests. While the cultural and economic revolutions ofthe 1970s in the People's Republic of China have placedadditional emphasis on equality, contribution to society andgroup welfare, and concern for interpersonal and workrelationships (Lindsay, 1983; Hsu, 1985; Laaksonen, 1988;Earley, 1993), recent research using Hong Kong Chineseparticipants has demonstrated the strong, collective culturalnorms that exist there (e.g., Hofstede, 1980; Bond, Leung,and Giacalone, 1985; Bond, 1988). Although Hong Kong andthe People's Republic of China are not identical cultures,what is important for my studies is the relative position ofHong Kong and the People's Republic of China comparedwith the United States on the culturalvalue ofindividualism-collectivism. Chinese culture's collectiveorientation and high social interest (e.g., social integration,interpersonal responsiveness) suggest that Chinese workersin general are more responsive to group context thanAmericans, and they focus more on social interests,collective action, and shared responsibility.Overview of ExperimentsTwo types of information were provided during training inboth studies: information concerning a person's owncapability to perform a task (individual-focused) andinformation concerning the capability of a person's in-group(reference group) to perform a task (group-focused). In theindividual-focused training condition, participants were giveninformation about their own actions and capability. In thegroup-focused condition, the participants were giveninformation about their group's capability.In the laboratoryexperiment, I focused on the role of trainingand culture on an individual's performance as a result of hisor her self-efficacy and effort. The only difference betweenthe training conditions was the focal point of the information(self versus group). Study 1 illustrates the direct impact ofinformation type on performance through self-efficacy andeffort.I also wanted to examine the effect of an individual's workstrategy, which Wood and Bandura (1989) noted often playsa strong role in determining performance. In Study 2,therefore, I conducted a field experiment to extend thetraining intervention to include task-strategy information inthe form of job-related information concerning how toperform better. This was done both to enhance themundane realism of the field experiment, given that trainingin a real-world context contains work-strategy information aswell as performance expectations, and to expand thesophistication of the intervention in order to determine ifself-efficacy will still have an effect when the job-traininginformation includes task-strategy information.STUDY 1: LABORATORYEXPERIMENTMethodParticipants. Two hundred and fifty-one managers (67 HongKong Chinese, 96 Chinese from the People's Republic ofChina, and 87 Americans) participated in the study on avoluntary basis. The Chinese participants were recruited92/ASQ, March1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

6/30

Self or Group?from management training courses hosted by a university insouthern China and a university in Hong Kong. All of themanagers were natives of the countries in which they wereattending their training. The American participants wererecruited from a management training course that they wereattending on human resources management (HRM).Participants from all three countries were employed infull-time management positions, and they were sponsoredby their organizations for the course. A comparison of thethree groups based on age, education level, gender, andcompany size demonstrated no differences among thegroups. The mean age of participants was 32.3 years, modaleducation level was a bachelor's degree, and company sizewas between 5,001 and 10,000 employees. In addition, 20participants from Hong Kong, 25 from the United States, and24 from the People's Republic of China were women.Design and task. The design used a culturalvariable,individualism-collectivism, and three types of task training,no training, individual-focused training, or group-focusedtraining. The purpose of the training manipulation was todetermine whether or not people derive their efficacyexpectations from different sources (individuallevel versusgroup level versus no training). In the no-training condition,managers were not given any training. In theindividual-focused training condition, managers were giveninformation specific to their own performance potential andactions. In the group-focused training condition, managerswere given information specific to their group's performancepotential and actions. Individualism-collectivism wasmeasured as a continuous variable.The experimental task was to generate alternative daily workschedules of employees based on a three-shift workplaceand 30 employees having various schedule preferences. Themanagers were asked to generate as many alternativeschedules as possible during a 30-minute period, using theconstraints of employees' preferences for shifts and theiravailability.The managers were told that they had toconform to several rules in scheduling: First, they had to useemployees' preferences and availabilityfor shifts; second,no employee could serve on more than a single shift on agiven day; and, third, the schedules could not repeatthemselves. The task was chosen both because it consistedof an activity familiarto all participants in their normal workactivities and because similar scheduling tasks have beenused successfully in other task-performance studies (e.g.,Erez, Earley, and Hulin, 1985). The schedules were scoredas correct if all scheduling rules were followed. Scoring wasdone by two raters, who had a high interrater reliability(r =.97, p < .01). Sets of materials were prepared for thesubjects in their native language. The procedure fordeveloping and translating the materials usedback-translation (Brislin, 1980); the text was simplifiedthrough the use of short sentences and focused on specificrather than general concepts. The back-translation wasperformed by two assistants to the experimenter who arebilingual, and the translated version of the task wasexamined by a Hong Kong Chinese colleague in order toensure that it made sense for the Hong Kongsample.93/ASQ, March1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

7/30

Dependent measures. Performance was measured by thenumber of work schedules correctly completed by aparticipant during the 30-minute performance period.Self-rated effort was measured with two items, using a5-point scale, before subjects began the task: (1) "How hardare you going to try as you work on this task?" (1 = not atall hard and 5 = extremely hard) and (2) "How much effortdo you intend to exert as you complete schedules?" (1 =no effort and 5 = a great deal of effort). These items wereaveraged for a composite effort score, and the items weresignificantly correlated (r = .82, p < .01).Individualism-collectivism was assessed on a 5-point Likertscale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree), usingthe eight-item version of a questionnaire developed byEarley (1993), who adapted previous items in order to focuson the goal, task-performance, and in-group aspects of thiscultural value, individualism-collectivism. Items included (1)"Employees like to work in a group rather than bythemselves"; (2) "If a group is slowing me down, it is betterto leave it and work alone"; (3) "To be superior, a man muststand alone"; (4) "One does better work working alone thanin a group"; (5) "Iwould rather struggle through a personalproblem by myself than discuss it with my friends"; (6) "Anemployee should accept the group's decision even whenpersonally he or she has a different opinion"; (7) "Problemsolving by groups gives better results than problem solvingby individuals"; and (8) "The needs of people close to meshould take priorityover my personal needs." I chose to usethis questionnaire because goals and performance areintegral aspects of self-efficacy (Wood and Bandura, 1989)and because it has been used successfully in the countriesstudied in my research.Responses to the scale were coded so that a high scoreindicated collectivistic values, and a low score indicatedindividualisticvalues; the reliability (Cronbach's alpha) of thescale was .73. A principal-components analysisdemonstrated that the items loaded on a single factor havingan eigenvalue of 4.89, accounting for 49 percent of the totalvariance; factor loadings ranged from .51 to .82.To measure self-efficacy, subjects were asked to rate theirself-efficacy for nine levels of possible performance-completing 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, and 45schedules-using a 100-point certainty scale, where 0 ="certain the performance level cannot be achieved" and100 = "certain the performance level can be achieved." Forsubsequent analyses, the responses to the scale wereaveraged for a composite self-efficacy score that had areliability (Cronbach's alpha) of .75.Procedure. The participants in all samples followed thesame experimental procedure. The managers participated inthe experiment during an HRM executive education course,which I taught, as a normal exercise during their regularlyscheduled program. I introduced the exercise to themanagers as an illustrationof general management planningand work activities; they were asked if they were willing toparticipate in the exercise, and none refused. The managerswere randomly assigned to one of the three training94/ASQ, March 1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

8/30

Self or Group?conditions, and they were given a packet containing variousmaterials, including a questionnaire assessing generaldemographic information, individualism-collectivism, and astatement concerning their willingness to participate in theexercise. After completing the questionnaire, the managersread the task instructions and then worked on sampleschedules for ten minutes, after which they were permittedto ask questions about the task. I then picked up thesematerials, handed out booklets containing the experimentaltask materials, and began the training intervention.The managers were put into three separate areas based onthe number at the top of their task booklets, which had beendistributed on a random basis. In the no-training condition,participants were asked to read some general informationconcerning management practices (an interview with a CEOreported in Academy of Management Executive), which tookapproximately the same amount of time as the trainingintervention in the other two conditions. Pilot testing withthis task demonstrated that people reading this article priorto working on the task did not become more fatigued thanpeople simply instructed to begin immediately working onthe task.In the individual-focused trainingcondition, I gave theparticipants a sheet containing several pieces of traininginformation intended to bolster their individualself-efficacyexpectations about performing the task. First, a formula waspresented into which the managers put their practice trialperformance, years of work experience, job level (based on a3-point classification scheme), and years of education andthen calculated a number that they compared with acategorization scheme of supplied values to extrapolate theirperformance across a 30-minute period. The categorizationscheme was constructed so that all of the managers fell intothe same category, although none of them was aware thatthe outcome was contrived. This was accomplished bysupplying values for the high category that everyone wouldfall into. Second, the managers read three "managerperformance profiles" and were told to choose the one thatmost closely resembled them. They were again referred tothe categorization scheme to see what performance levelthey might expect to achieve. As with the formula, theprofiles were constructed so that the managers would findthemselves in the same category that was indicated by theformula. This was accomplished by constructing the profilessuch that only one profile would fit all the managers. Third,the managers completed two items that captured their"management performance quotient": (1) "Based on yourtypical work performance, would you characterize yourself asan energetic and dedicated employee or someone who isquite distracted and uninvolved in your work?"; and (2)"Are you a performance-oriented person or someone whojust completes the minimum requirements?", where 1 =yes and 0 = no. They were again referred to acategorization scheme to see what performance level theymight expect to achieve. As with the formula, the profileswere constructed so that the managers would findthemselves in the same categorythat was indicatedby the95/ASQ, March1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

9/30

formula. In this category, a response of yes to eitherquestion placed them in a high-performance ategory.Finally, told the managers to calculate an overallperformance-potentialcore fromthe number of times thatthey categorized themselves in the "high-performance"category (a maximumof three times, using the threesections of the materials),and they were told to evaluatetheir potentialbased on a final categorization cheme at theend of the materials: ow performance-i 5-25 schedules;average performance-25-35 schedules; or highperformance-over 35 schedules. A post-hoc analysisof themanagers' classificationdemonstrated that they all correctlyclassified themselves in the high-performance ategory,which demonstratesthat the manipulationwas successful.In the group-focused training ondition,Igave the managersan information heet similar o the one used in theindividual-focusedonditionexcept that the various itemswere adjustedto reflect the potentialperformance evel ofothers whom they viewed as importanto them. Theinstructionsspecificallydirected them to thinkabout four orfive of their closest friendsand/orfamilywho worked. Ichose to include referent members from both family andfriends,rather han limit he categorizationo coworkers,because previousresearchon group membershipandcollectivismhas shown the importanceof familialconnections to in-group omposition (e.g., Triandis,1989).Managerswere asked to write the initialsof these people atthe top of their sheet and to keep thinkingof them as theyworked throughthe items. The first item was a formula nwhich the managers put in the average number of years ofworkexperience that their referentfriends/familymembershad accumulated, average job level (based on a 3-pointclassificationscheme), and average degree acquired.Themanagersthen calculateda numberthat they comparedwitha categorization cheme of supplied values to extrapolatetheir group's performancecapability cross a 30-minuteperiod.As in the individual-focusedondition, hecategorization cheme was constructedso that all of themanagersfell intothe same category, althoughnone ofthem was aware that the outcome was contrived.Second,the managers readthree "managerperformanceprofiles"and were told to choose the one that most closelyresembledtheir chosen family/friends.Theywere againreferred o the categorization cheme to see whatperformance evel they might expect to achieve. The profileswere constructed so that the managerswould inevitablypickthe same categoryas indicatedby the formula.Third, hemanagers completed two items that captured heir"management performancequotient": (1) "Based on yourtypicalwork performance,would you characterizeyourchosen familymembers/friendsas energetic and dedicatedor individualswho are quite distractedand uninvolved ntheirwork?";and (2) "Areyourchosen familymembers/friendsperformance-orientedr people who justcomplete the minimumof what is requiredof them?" Again,these items were constructed so that the managerswouldanswer consistentlywith one another,andthey weredirected to evaluate the responses with the supplied96/ASQ, March 1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

10/30

1IthankElaineMosakowski orhersuggestions concerning his analysisofcultureand individualifferencescharacteristics.

Self or Group?categorization scheme. Finally,the managers were told tocalculate an overall performance potential score for thesereferent others from the number of times that theycategorized their family/friends in the "high-performance"category (a maximum of three times, using the threesections of the materials), then to categorize theperformance potential of their referent choices based on afinal categorization scheme at the end of the materials: lowperformance- 15-25 schedules; average performance-25-35 schedules; high performance-over 35 schedules. Apost-hoc analysis of the classification used by the managersdemonstrated that all of the managers correctly classifiedtheir referent group in the high-performance category, whichdemonstrates that the manipulation was effective. I thengave the managers a short questionnaire assessing theirintended effort level and self-efficacy expectations.In each group, after the questionnaire was completed andcollected, the managers were instructed to begin working onthe task with the booklet of materials provided. At the endof the 30-minute performance period, I collected thematerials, debriefed the managers concerning the purpose ofthe experiment, and answered any remaining questions theyhad. Finally, I discussed the relationship of the experiment toprocesses of work motivation and performance inorganizations across various cultural settings.Analysis. My method of analysis consisted of regressingperformance on the predictor variables (effort, efficacy,individualism-collectivism, training condition), followed bycountry of origin, which was captured using two dummyvariables contrasting Hong Kong with other countries(dummy 1) and the United States with the other countries(dummy 2). Inasmuch as Iwas interested in the relationshipof individualism-collectivism and its interaction with trainingas mediating variables, I analyzed the data using a regressionmodel rather than using an ANOVAapproach.Given that the hypotheses concern the relationship oftraining condition and individualism-collectivism toperformance, I created two predictor variables that capturethe cultural-level and individual-levelaspects ofindividualism-collectivism.1 The general logic of thisprocedure is to separate the "shared" (or cultural-level)aspect of the assessed values and beliefs (individualism andcollectivism) from that aspect of the values and beliefs thathas been uniquely shaped by an individual's experiences (anindividual-levelcharacteristic). Separating collectivism-individualfrom collectivism-group allows me to estimate theunique contribution of each level of this construct (sharedvalue versus individualdifferences characteristic). Thehypotheses concerning individualism and collectivism weretherefore tested comparably at the cultural level and theindividual level, using collectivism-group (cultural-level)andcollectivism-individual (individual-level),with collectivism-individualfunctioning as a psychological variable andcollectivism-group functioning as a cultural variable.I calculated the mean individualism-collectivism score foreach countryand assigned this score to each participant97/ASQ, March1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

11/30

7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

12/30

7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

13/30

Table 2Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Performance for Study 1, Testingfor Moderating Effect of Individualism-Collectivism

Step R2 AR2 Beta t (for beta)Age 1 .03 .03 .11 1.75Education .13 1.95Company size .11 1.73Gender .02 .31Collectivism-individual 2 .45 .42 -.08 -1.72Collectivism-group .10 2.05-Training condition .62 12.65wCollectivism-individual x training 3 .53 .08 .43 5.76wCollectivism-group x training .33 1.95-Country dummy 1 (HKvs. US, PRC) 4 .53 0 .04 .92Country dummy 2 (US vs. HK, PRC) .00 .00Dummy 1 x training 5 .53 0 -.03 -.38Dummy 2 x training .01 .00*p < .05; s-p < .01.that within each collectivism-group country),ndividualistsrespondedmore positivelyto individual-focusedraining hangroup-focusedtraining,whereas collectivists respondedmore positivelyto group-focusedtraining han individual-focused training-a patternthat is repeatedfor all threecountries.Table 3Post-hoc Analyses of Performance Using Country (Cultural Group),Training Condition, and a Median Split for Individualism-CollectivismValues*

Training ConditionIndividualism- No Individual- Group- FCountry collectivism training focused focused (d.f.)

United Low 21.04 40.42 28.12 119.92-States (2.35) (2.87) (5.91) (2,66)High 20.90 28.93 41.01 26.41-(2.51) (4.72) (5.79) (2,16)Hong Kong Low 21.83 36.94 33.10 65.44-(2.75) (3.64) (4.17) (2,36)High 21.16 29.33 39.70 59.28-

(3.32) (3.72) (4.76) (2,25)People's Low 24.00 35.94 32.89 21.39-Republic (5.40) (4.53) (4.03) (2,43)of China High 20.83 26.89 40.47 106.89-(1.59) (5.40) (3.00) (2,47)*p < .01.* Standard eviationsare in parentheses.Post-hoc ests of performance onductedforeach countrywithin each level of individualism-collectivismlow, high)demonstratedthat each trainingmeansignificantlyp < .05)differed rom each other mean withinagiven level (e.g., the no-training,ndividual, nd group-focused raining onditionsdif-fered pairwise rom one anotherwithin he Hong Kongcollectivism-groupample).

Ithen added a step to the regression reported n Table 2 totest for the mediatingeffect of the individualism-collectivismconstruct(collectivism-group,ollectivism-individual)n therelationship f the countrydummyvariables o performance.Iadded in the countrydummyvariablesand then added theirinteractionwith the training ondition n an additional tep. Ialso conducted a parallelanalysisinwhich the order of entry100/ASQ, March 1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

14/30

Self or Group?for training,collectivism-group nd collectivism-individual,trainingx collectivism-group,ollectivism-individualersusthe countrydummy variablesand theirinteractionwithtrainingwere reversed, so that Icould compare the varianceaccounted for in performanceby country before and aftercontrollingor collectivism-group nd collectivism-individualand theirinteractionswith training.Finally, examinedthecorrelationbetween the training onditionby countrydummyvariable nteractionsand performance.If a mediatingapproach s to be supported, the countrydummy variables(and theirinteractionwith training ondition) hould not berelatedsignificantlyo performanceafteraccounting forvarianceattributableo collectivism-groupndcollectivism-individual,raining ondition,and theirinteraction,but they should account for a significantamountof varianceprior o controllingor these othervariables.Theresults of this analysis supportthe assertion thatcollectivism-group nd collectivism-individualnd theirinteractionwith training onditionexplainthecountry-of-originnfluence. Prior o controlling orcollectivism-group nd collectivism-individual,rainingcondition,and theirinteraction,he countrydummy variablesand theirinteractionwith training onditionaccounted for 39percentof the variance n performance,but after controllingfor these othervariables, he countrydummyvariablesandtheir interactionwith trainingaccountedfor no additionalvariance in performance.Inaddition, he countrydummyvariablesand their interactionwith trainingwere significantlycorrelatedwith performance r = .14, .12, .31, and .36 fordummy 1, dummy 2, dummy 1 x training,and dummy2 xtraining,respectively; p < .05).Takentogether, these resultsillustrate hat collectivism-groupnd collectivism-individualand their interactionwith training xplainthe influence ofcountry-onperformance nthis study.To test hypothesis 2, that effort and self-efficacy wouldmediate the effect of the collectivism-group,collectivism-individualy training nteractionsonperformance,mediatedregressionanalysiswas conducted.Performancewas regressed on the demographicvariables(step 1), effort and self-efficacy(step 2), followed bycollectivism-group,ollectivism-individual,nd trainingcondition(step 3), followed by collectivism-group,collectivism-individual training step 4). A secondregression equationwas constructed inwhich effort andself-efficacywere entered intothe equationafter enteringthe othervariables,and Iexamined the Pearsoncorrelationsof effort and self-efficacywith performance.The results,presented inTable4, show a strong mediatingeffect foreffortand self-efficacy, althoughthey do not completelymediate the relationship.Afteraccountingfor the varianceindemographicvariables(step 1) and effortand self-efficacy(step 2), collectivism-groupnd collectivism-individual,training ondition,and the collectivism-group,collectivism-individualy training nteractions step 3)accounted for a significantamount of variance nperformance(7 percent).The primary ariablesdriving hissignificantrelationship re training onditionandcollectivism-individualy training.Prior o entering effortandself-efficacy, collectivism-group nd collectivism-individual,1O1/ASQ,March 1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

15/30

training ondition,and collectivism-group, ollectivism-individual y training nteractionswere significantly elated toperformance,accountingfor 42 percentof the variance.These results demonstrate that effort andself-efficacypartiallymediate the relationship f the collectivism-group,collectivism-individualy training nteractionsonperformance.Incontrast,the hypothesized mediators (effortand self-efficacy)accounted for 66 percent of the variance inperformanceprior o controllingor collectivism-group ndcollectivism-individual,raining ondition,andcollectivism-group,ollectivism-individualy trainingcondition,whereas effort and self-efficacystillaccounted for23 percent of the variance n performanceaftercontrollingfor collectivism-group nd collectivism-individual,rainingcondition,and their interactions.Table 4Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Performance for Study 1, Testingfor Mediating Effect of Individualism-Collectivism

Step R2 AR2 Beta t (for beta)Panel AAge 1 .03 .03 .11 1.75Education .13 1.95-Company size .11 1.73Gender .02 .31Effort 2 .69 .66 .42 9.83--Self-efficacy .53 12.62--Collectivism-individual 3 .74 .05 .01 .03Collectivism-group .02 .58Training condition .27 6.94--Collectivism-individual x training 4 .76 .02 .21 3.88--Collectivism-group x training - .12 - .79Panel BAge 1 .03 .03 .11 1.75Education .13 1.95-Company size .11 1.73Gender .02 .31Collectivism-individual 2 .45 .42 -.08 - 1.72Collectivism-group .10 2.05-Trainingcondition .62 12.65--Collectivism-individual x training 3 .53 .08 .43 5.76--Collectivism-group x training .33 1.95-Effort 4 .76 .23 .30 7.49--Self-efficacy .43 10.25--*p < .05; -p < .01.

A final set of analyses was conducted on self-efficacyandeffort, using the least-significant-differencesest (seesuperscriptsinTable1, above, for results).The resultsdemonstrate that self-efficacyand effort were significantlyhigherin the individual-focusedrainingconditionthan in theother training onditions for U.S. managers,whereasself-efficacyand effort were significantlyhigherin thegroup-focusedtraining ondition han in the other trainingconditions for managersfrom the People's RepublicofChina.Finally, elf-efficacy and effort were significantly102/ASQ, March1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

16/30

Self or Group?higherin the individualnd group-focusedtrainingconditionsthan in the no-trainingonditions.DiscussionThis study shows that efficacytrainingdifferentially hapes aperson's performancedependingon the relationshipof thetrainingmethod to his or her individualism-collectivismorientation.People who were highon collectivism-group ndcollectivism-individualcollectivists)responded best togroup-focusedtraining nformation,whereas people whowere low in collectivism-group nd collectivism-individual(individualists) esponded best to individual-focusedraininginformation. naddition, rainingnformationhat wasincongruentwith a person's collectivism-group ndcollectivism-individualrientationwas still more effective inenhancing performance han no trainingat all.To test this model of self-efficacy, effort, and performancefurther,a field experiment was done, in which U.S. andChinese (People's Republicof Chinaonly)servicerepresentativeswere trainedusing individual ndgroup-focusedtrainingmethods in the context of ongoingjob trainingby the companies participatingn the study.While this second study represents a conceptual replicationof Study 1, it also includeda longitudinal ssessment ofseveral key variablesover a six-monthperiod.STUDY2: FIELDEXPERIMENTMethodParticipants.One hundredand eight service representatives(62 Americanand46 Chinese)fromsimilarcommunicationcompanies in the UnitedStates and People's RepublicofChinaparticipatedn the experiment.As in Study 1, Iattemptedto matchthe samples, althoughthe constraints ofthe field settings precludeda perfect match.The participantswere comparedon a numberof characteristics, ncludingage, gender, years of service with theircompany,andeducation. A comparisonof the two groups based on age,educationlevel, gender, andjob tenure demonstrated nodifferences between the groups.The mean age ofparticipantswas 28.6 years, modaleducation level was abachelor'sdegree, and mean job tenure was 2-5 years. Inaddition,19 participantsrom the U.S. and 20 from thePeople's Republicof Chinawere women.Work sites. The U.S. companyis located in the Midwest,has over 20,000 employees, and has a centralizedstructure.Itproducestelecommunicationsequipmentand otherdiversifiedproductsand providescommunicationservices.The Chinese companyis located in the northeasternpartofmainlandChina,has over 20,000 employees, and it has acentralizedstructure. Itproducestelecommunicationsequipmentand providessome communication ervices. Bothcompanies produce directly or the marketand act ascontractors or the government.The U.S. company,however, has a more geographicallydispersed operationthan the Chinese company.103/ASQ, March 1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

17/30

Bothcompanies use a simple performancemonitoringbythe representative'ssupervisor hat I could use to assessthe training nterventions.Inboth companies, the supervisorassesses a representative'sperformanceevery threemonths fromobservationsmade while accompanyinghim orherduringa normalworkdayseveral times during heperformanceperiod.At both companies, it is the practiceofthe employees' supervisors to evaluate theirsubordinatesevery three months using a single-page assessment ofperformanceand for them to do a more completeevaluation,with narrative escriptions, every twelve monthsafter an in-depthdiscussion with the employee about his orher workobjectives and self-reportedperformance.Thecompanies evaluated a group'sperformanceevery threemonths by poolingthe evaluationsof individualmembers ofthe groupas well as assessing the overallsynergyof thegroup based on members' ability o coordinateandcooperate.Dependent measures. Before the training ntervention,Iobtaineda baseline performance or each of the employeesfrompersonnelfiles by using their overallperformanceratingfrom the prior hree-monthperiod.The variablesofperformance,self-efficacy,and self-rated effort wereassessed at two times: three months (Time 1) and sixmonths (Time2) after the trainingntervention.Performancewas measured using each company's standardappraisal ystem. Because the training nterventionshad thepotentialto affect employees' actual work performance,Ikept the performanceevaluations confidential.Ichose to usethe standardevaluationprovidedby a servicerepresentative'ssupervisor,which consists of an interviewand field observations,so as to avoid introducing dditionalbiases into the study. To assure comparabilitycrossnational amples, two general performance tems rated on a9-pointscale were selected from theirevaluationinstruments:(1) "Overall,how would you judge the qualityof this employee's work performance?"and (2) "Pleaseevaluate the service providedby this employee" (1 =extremely poor, 5 = average, and 9 = outstanding). Thecorrelationof these items was .89 (p < .01).Self-ratedeffortwas measured using two items: (1) "Howhardare you going to tryas you work on yourjob?" (1 =not at all hardand 5 = extremely hard);and (2) "How mucheffort do you intend to exert as you performyour job dutiesas a service representative?" 1 = no effort and 5 = a greatdeal of effort).These items were averagedfor a compositeeffort score, and the items were significantly orrelated(r =.73, p < .01).Individualism-collectivism,ge, education, gender, andjobtenure were assessed prior o the experimental nterventionsusing a single-pagequestionnairepresented to eachparticipant y a personnel representative.As with Study 1,all materialswere back-translatednto Chinese with the helpof the personnel departmentrepresentative.104/ASQ,March 1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

18/30

Self or Group?Individualism-collectivismas assessed using the scaledescribed in Study 1. Responses to the scales were codedso that a highscore indicatedcollectivisticvalues and a lowscore indicated ndividualisticalues; the reliability(Cronbach's lpha)of the scale was .71. A principal-components analysisdemonstrated that the items loaded ona single factorhavingan eigenvalueof 5.12, accountingfor51 percent of the total variance(factor oadingsrangedfrom.48 to .85).To measure self-efficacy, participantswere asked to ratetheirself-efficacyfor seven levels of overallperformanceratings-achieving a 3,4,5,6,7,8, and 9 for himself orherself-using a 100-pointcertaintyscale on which 0 ="certain he performance evel cannotbe achieved" and100 = "certain he performance evel can be achieved." Forsubsequent analyses, the responses to the scale wereaveragedfor a composite self-efficacyscore havingareliabilityCronbach's lpha)of .77. The Pearsoncorrelationsfor the variables n Study 2 are in the Appendix.Procedure. Aftermakingan initial ontact with thecompanies in each of the countries, Iworkedwith eachcompany's personnel representative o determine the bestjob categoryfromwhich to obtainparticipantsor thetrainingntervention.The participants hosen for this studywere service representativeswhose task it is to contactcorporatecustomers and provide hem with technicalassistance for their equipment.A great deal of this contact ismade in person, and it involvesmeeting with corporatecustomers and servicingtheirexisting equipment,followingup initial alls or visits, maintaining ngoing relationships,and providing general service contact for the companies.People in this jobwere chosen for the study because the jobis quite similar n content across the two countriesdespitesuch obvious differences as politicaland economic systems.The next step was to obtainemployees' consent toparticipaten the training ffort. The programwas introducedto the employees as a personal improvementseminar forservice representatives.As confidentiality oncerningperformanceoutcomes associated with the programwasassured, no one refused to participate.A total of 120employees were initiallyontacted for the study, butapproximately10 percentfailedto complete the studybecause they were transferred, eft theirjob, or their datawere incomplete, resulting n a finalsample of 108 servicerepresentatives.Withineach country,the servicerepresentativeswere randomlyassigned to one of the twotraining onditions,the only constraintbeing that individualsfrom the same work unitwere put intothe same trainingcondition o avoid cross-conditioncontaminationand so thatno employee was at a disadvantagecomparedwith anothermember of his or her work unit. Thisconstraintdid notseem to introducea strong bias to the randomassignmentprocedure, however, as in both companies, only a maximumof five employees came from the same work unit.The procedureused inthe study was similar n each country,and a personnel representativeworkingwith me conducted105/ASQ, March 1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

19/30

the training essions. In the individual-focusedrainingcondition, he service representativeswere brought n fortheir training n a large group meeting, andthe traininginterventionwas providedby the personnelrepresentative.The training onsisted of normative raining nformation swell as specific tactical information bout how to performtheir work better.The trainingprovidedemployees withperformance nformationbased on their own priorperformancewith the company (normative), nd they weregiven a booklet containing nformation bout the job ofservice representativeand how one mightimprove obperformance roma service and qualityperspective (tacticalor strategic).Inaddition,a personnel representativediscussed materialspresented in a three-hour rainingsession that includeda general lecture and a series of dyadicinteractions employee with personnelrepresentative) oclarifymaterialpresented in the packet.Allof the discussionfocused on the employee him- or herself and how theemployee's past performancemight be used to generatefuture successes.Inthe group-focused training ondition, he servicerepresentativeswere also brought n for theirtraining n alarge group and the trainingnterventionwas also providedby the personnel representative.As in the individual-focusedtraining, he intervention onsisted of normative nformation,priorperformance,and specific tacticalinformation,but all ofit was adaptedso that an employee's workgroupwas nowthe unitof consideration.Priorperformance hus consistedof telling employees how theirrespectivework units (andfellow service representatives)had performedand how theirunitmight performbetter as a group. By focusing thisinformation n the referencegroup, performancewasframedin terms of the group's past performanceand futurecapability.The tactical information oncerninghow toperforma job more effectively (e.g., improving lientsatisfactionthroughan open approach o assessing theproblemswith the phone system) was posed in terms ofhow the work unitmight performbetter.Thus,the contentof the tactics that might be used was held constant acrossthe two trainingconditions,while the reference point(individualersus group)changed.Aftercompletingthe training ntervention, he employeesreturned o their normalworkactivities. The companies'normalevaluationprocedures (reporting mployeeperformanceat the individual nd grouplevel)were used inassessing each representative'sperformance,and afollow-uptraining ession identical o the firstone wasconductedby the personnel representativeafter the firstevaluationoccurred(atthe end of three months).Thetrainingwas conducteda second time because thepersonnel departmentswanted to reinforce he trainingintervention.Finally, t the end of the second performanceperiod (aftersix months),the personnel representativeand Ibroughtthe employees in for a generaldebriefingon thevarioustrainingproceduresused in the study, and they wereprovidedwith the alternatetrainingapproach,not used intheir experimentalcondition.Additionally,he employees106/ASQ, March 1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

20/30

Self or Group?were assured that theirperformanceduring his trainingassessment would not be used in theirgeneral personnelrecords.Resu ItsDescriptive statistics. Table5 presents the means andstandarddeviations for performance,effort, efficacy, andindividualism nd collectivism (collectivism-groupndcollectivism-individual)cross the two trainingconditions(coded as 0, 1 for the individual-nd group-trainingconditions, respectively),and countries(coded 0, 1 for theUnited States and the People's Republicof China,respectively).Table 5Descriptive Statistics for Variables across Training Conditions andCountry of Origin*

People's RepublicUnited States of ChinaIndividual- Group- Individual- Group-Variable focused focused focused focused

PerformanceBaselineMean 5.06a 5.11a 4.88a 5.27aS.D. (.82) (.80) (.90) (.98)Time 1Mean 6.66b 6.74b 5.88c 7.21S.D. (1.56) (1.24) (1.45) (1.41)Time 2Mean 6.94d 6.54d 5.75e 7.18 dS.D. (1.45) (1.28) (1.39) (1.61)EffortTime 1Mean 4.03f 3.429 3.639 4.12fS.D. (.78) (.69) (.71) (.78)EffortTime 2Mean 4.06 3.58 3.59' 4.03S.D. (.71) (.84) (.81) (.85)Self-efficacyTime 1Mean 85.13i 79.92k 78.91k 86.45iS.D. (11.35) (11.80) (12.32) (9.89)Self-efficacyTime 2Mean 86.151 80.31m 79.79m 86.81'S.D. (10.95) (11.05) (11.87) (10.68)Individualism-collectivismMean 2.72n 2.58n 3.580 3.270S.D. (1.22) (1.26) (.97) (1.20)* Means within each dependent variable having different superscripts are sig-nificantly different at p < .05.

As in Study 1, the method of analysisconsisted ofregressing performanceon the predictorvariables(effort,self-efficacy,collectivism-group nd collectivism-individual,and training ondition).Again,I partitionedndividualism-collectivism into the country-level collectivism-group) nd107/ASQ, March 1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

21/30

individual-levelcollectivism-individual)omponents. In thistwo-countrysample of Study 2, this means thatcollectivism-group nd countryare both dichotomousvariablesand, therefore, completely redundant, n contrast toStudy 1, which had three countries and the partitionedcollectivism-group ariableassumed three values. Thus, themethod of analysisused in Study 1, examiningresidualvarianceattributable o country,could not be used in Study2. Instead,Itested the hypotheses using collectivism-groupand collectivism-individual.To test for the mediatingrole of training onditionbyindividualism nd collectivisminteraction n the relationshipof country by training nteraction o performance,Iconducted a regressionusing the procedureoutlinedinEarley 1989). I regressed performanceat Time 1 and Time 2hierarchicallyn the demographicvariablesof age, educationlevel, gender, company size, and baseline performance(step1), training, ndividualism-collectivismstep 2), trainingbyindividualism-collectivismnteraction step 3), and countryand country-by-trainingnteraction step 4). The results ofthis analysis (availablerom the author)demonstratesupportfor the mediatingeffect. As with Study 1, it appears thatindividualism-collectivismapturesthe effect of countryandtrainingon performance.Tests of hypotheses. To test the hypotheses that trainingconditionand collectivism-group,ollectivism-individualinteract n predictingperformance H1a,H1b), performanceat Time 1 and Time2 was regressed hierarchicallyn thedemographicvariablesof age, educationlevel, gender,company size, and baseline performance step 1), training,collectivism-group nd collectivism-individualstep 2), andthe trainingby collectivism-group,ollectivism-individualinteractions step 3). The results of this analysis arepresented inTable6, panels A and B, and there appearstobe clearsupportfor the hypothesizedinteractions.Aftercontrollingor the maineffects, the interaction ermsaccountedfor a significant nfluence on performance(change-R2= .35 at Time 1, .38 at Time 2, p < .01).To understandbetter the nature of the interactions, hemeans for performancewere examined for highand lowlevels of individualism-collectivismbased on a mediansplitwithineach country)across training onditions. These datawere analyzedusing one-way ANOVAswithineachcollectivism-group hence, within each country)across thetraining onditions. The results, shown inTable7,demonstratesignificantmaineffects for trainingconditionforthe People's Republicof China F(1,53)= 19.13, 26.02, forTime 1 and Time 2, respectively]but no significanteffectsforthe United States. These results demonstrate thattrainingwas differentiallyffective in the People's Republicof China group-focusedbeing superior o individual-focused)but not in the United States. These results supporthypothesis la but not hypothesis lb.To understandbetter individualism-collectivismt theindividualevel, Iexaminedperformancewithinlevels ofindividualism-collectivismlow, high)across the training108/ASQ, March1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

22/30

Self or Group?Table 6HierarchicalRegression Analysis of Performancefor Study 2, Testingfor Moderating Effects of Individualism-Collectivism

Step R2 AR2 Beta t (for beta)Panel A: Performance, Time 1Age 1 .16 .16 .04 .38Education -.17 -1.88Tenure .21 2.27-Gender .24 2.60wBaseline performance .14 1.45Collectivism-individual 2 .21 .06 -.08 -.81Collectivism-group - .01Training ondition .21 2.25-Collectivism-individualtraining 3 .56 .35 .88 8.47"Collectivism-group training 1.51 2.50Panel B: Performance,Time 2Age 1 .13 .13 .01 .14Education -.10 -1.05Tenure .17 1.78Gender .21 2.28-Baseline performance .19 1.92Collectivism-individual 2 .17 .04 - .02 - .23Collectivism-group -.09 -.92Training ondition .18 1.87Collectivism-individualtraining 3 .55 .38 .89 8.50"Collectivism-group training 2.07 3.38--*p < .05; s-p < .01.

Table7Post-hoc Analyses of Performance(Time 1 and Time 2) Using Country,Median Split of Individualism-Collectivism,and Trainingfor Study 2*

Individualism- TrainingCondition FPerformance collectivism Individual Group (d.f.)Time 1

UnitedStates Low 8.07 6.10 25.15(.92) (.99) (1,22)High 5.55 7.44 21.69-(.92) (1.13) (1,25)People's Republic Low 6.58 6.42 .11of China (1.38) (1.26) (1,29)High 5.17 8.28 66.98-(1.19) (.72) (1,24)

Time2UnitedStates Low 8.14 5.90 38.85(.86) (.88) (1,22)High 6.00 7.67 14.88(1.08) (1.00) (1,25)People's Republic Low 6.42 6.32 .04of China (1.24) (1.24) (1,29)High 5.08 8.36 68.87(1.24) (.75) (1,24)

*p < .01.* F tests for independentsamples within each level of countryand level ofindividualism-collectivism;tandarddeviationsare in parentheses.109/ASQ,March 1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

23/30

conditionsfor each collectivism-groupample. These meanswere analyzedusing one-way ANOVAsparallel o those usedin the analysis at the collectivism-groupevel Ijustdiscussed. The results, shown in Table 7, demonstrate thatwithin each collectivism-groupcountry),ndividualistsrespondedmore positivelyto individual-focusedraining hangroup-focusedtraining,whereas collectivists respondedmore positivelyto group-focusedtraining hanindividual-focusedraining.The single exception to thispattern s for the Chinese participants,who were low inindividualism-collectivism.orthese people, performancedidnot significantlydiffer as a functionof training ondition.Thus, the analyses at the individualevel generallysupporthypotheses la and lb.To test the hypothesis (H2) hat effortand self-efficacywould mediate the effect of the collectivism-group,collectivism-individualy training nteractionsonperformance,Iconducted mediated regression analysis.Performancewas regressed on the demographicvariables(step 1), effort and self-efficacy (step 2), collectivism-group,collectivism-individual,nd training ondition(step 3), andcollectivism-group, ollectivism-individual training step 4).A second regressionequationwas constructed in whicheffortand self-efficacywere entered intothe equationafterenteringthe other variables.Inaddition,I examinedthePearson correlationsof effortand self-efficacywithperformance.The results of the analysisare presented inTable8 (panelsA and B for Time 1; panels C and D for Time2). The analyses demonstratea strong mediatingeffect foreffort and self-efficacy, althoughtraining ontinued to have amodest, direct effect on performance.Afteraccountingforthe variance n demographicvariables(step 1) and effort andself-efficacy (step 2), collectivism-group nd collectivism-individual,raining ondition,and the collectivism-group,collectivism-individualy training nteractions step 3)accountedfor a significantamountof variance inperformance 4 percent).The variabledriving his significantrelationships training ondition.Prior o enteringeffort andself-efficacy,collectivism-group nd collectivism-individual,training ondition,and collectivism-group, ollectivism-individual y training nteractionswere significantly elated toperformance,accountingfor 35 percentof the variance.These results demonstratethat effortand self-efficacypartiallymediate the relationship f the collectivism-group,collectivism-individualy training nteractionsonperformance.Incontrast,the hypothesizedmediators (effortand self-efficacy)accountedfor 47 percentof the variance nperformanceprior o controllingor collectivism-group ndcollectivism-individual,raining ondition,andcollectivism-group, ollectivism-individualy trainingcondition,and effort and self-efficacystill accounted for 12percentof the variance n performanceaftercontrolling orcollectivism-group nd collectivism-individual,rainingcondition,and their interactions.A final set of analyses were conducted on self-efficacyandeffort using the least-significant-differencesest. The resultsreported n Table5 show that self-efficacyand effortwere11O/ASQ,March1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

24/30

Self or Group?

Table 8HierarchicalRegression Analysis of Performance for Study 2, Testingfor Mediating Effectof Effortand Self-efficacy

Step R2 AR2 Beta t (for beta)Panel A: Performance, Time 1Age 1 .16 .16 .04 .38Education -.17 -1.88Tenure .21 2.27-Gender .24 2.60"-Baseline performance .14 1.45Effort (time 1) 2 .63 .47 - .03 - .38Self-efficacy time 1) .73 8.62--Collectivism-individual 3 .67 .04 -.05 -.82Collectivism-group - .03 - .47Training ondition .19 3.08--Collectivism-individualtraining 4 .68 .01 .29 1.81Collectivism-group training .28 .78Panel B: Performance,Time 1Age 1 .16 .16 .04 .38Education -.17 -1.88Company ize .21 2.27-Gender .24 2.60--Baselineperformance .14 1.45Collectivism-individual 2 .21 .05 -.08 -.81Collectivism-group .01 .01Trainingondition .20 2.12-Collectivism-individualtraining 3 .56 .35 .88 8.47--Collectivism-group training 1.51 2.50--Effort time 1) 4 .68 .12 .47 .64Self-efficacy time 1) .53 4.60--Panel C: Performance, Time 2Age 1 .13 .13 .01 .14Education -.10 -1.05Tenure .17 1.78Gender .21 2.28-Baseline performance .19 1.92Effort time 2) 2 .68 .55 .22 2.64--Self-efficacy time2) .60 7.20--Collectivism-individual 3 .72 .04 -.06 -1.05Collectivism-group -.11 -1.90Training ondition .18 3.10-Collectivism-individualtraining 4 .72 .01 .20 1.57Collectivism-group training .39 .74Panel D: Performance,Time 2Age 1 .13 .13 .01 .14Education -.10 -1.05Tenure .17 1.78Gender .21 2.28-Baselineperformance .19 1.92Collectivism-individual 2 .17 .04 - .02 - .23Collectivism-group - .09 - .91Trainingondition .18 1.87Collectivism-individualtraining 3 .55 .38 .89 8.50--Collectivism-group training 2.07 3.38--Effort time 2) 4 .73 .18 .24 2.97"-Self-efficacy time2) .48 4.64"-*p < .05; *p < .01.

111 ASQ, March 1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

25/30

significantlyhigher in the individual-focusedrainingconditionthan in the group-focusedtraining onditionfor U.S.managers, whereas self-efficacy and effort were significantlyhigher in the group-focused raining ondition han in theindividual-focusedraining onditionfor managers from thePeople's Republicof China.DiscussionPeople who were high in collectivism-groupChineseservicerepresentatives)respondedbest to group-basedtraininginformation,whereas people who were low in collectivism-group (American ervice representatives)responded similarlyto individual-focusednd group-focusedtrainingnformation.At the individualevel of analysis, people highonindividualism-collectivismespondedbetter to group-focusedthan individual-focusedraining.Americanemployees low onindividualism-collectivismespondedbetter to individual-focused thangroup-focusedtraining,whereas Chineseemployees low on individualism-collectivismespondedsimilarlyo the two forms of training.Regardlessofnationality,people highon individualism-collectivismrespondedbetter to group-focusedthan individual-focusedjob training.GENERALDISCUSSIONThisstudy focused on self-efficacyand its relationshipotraining.Morespecifically,Icomparedthe impactofindividual ersus group-focusedtrainingon self-efficacy,effort,and task performance ntwo interculturaltudiesconductedacross the culturaldimension of individualism ndcollectivism.The results show that an employee's culturalorientationnfluences his or her use of trainingnformation.Forthe collectivist, training ocused on individual-leveluesand informationwas less effective in enhancinghis or herefficacy expectations, effort,and performance han wastrainingbased on group-level nformation.An individualistsbest trainedby targetingthat employee's personalactionsand potential.Finally, foundsupportfor a mediatingmodelof effortand self-efficacyin predicting he effects ofindividualism nd collectivism, training,and their interactionon performance.Perhapsthe most significant indingfrom these studies isthat individualism-collectivisms relevant in understandinghow trainingnfluences self-efficacy.AlthoughBandura(1986) posited that efficacy is shaped throughmaturationand socializationexperiences, little direct evidence existsconnectingcultural alues to self-efficacy.Consistent withthe efficacy literaturee.g., Lockeet al., 1984; Gist, 1987;Gist,Schwoerer,and Rosen, 1989), I found that a person'sself-efficacyconcerningwork performancewas influencedby task training.Whatwas unclearprior o these studies isthat culturalvalues moderatethe impactof trainingonperformance.Ifoundthat individualists erformedbestwhen exposed to training ocused at an individualevel,whereas collectivistsperformedbest when exposed totraining ocused at a grouplevel. Also, Ifoundthat traininginformationprovidedat either a groupor individualevel wasbetter than no trainingat all for everyone. This suggests112/ASQ, March1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

26/30

2I would like to thank one of thereviewers for this suggestion.

Self or Group?that self-efficacy is establishedand maintained hroughmultiplesources, consistent with Triandis's 1989)probability-samplingrgument concerningthe public,private,and collective selves.There is another possible interpretation f these findings.2Inthe People's Republicof China,workersare often assignedto their work units (danwe,) shortly after receivingtheirformaleducation,andthey remain n these unitsfor a longtime. These units play a significantrole in a worker's life,both duringand after normalwork hours,and a worker'srewards are often tied to the work unit's achievements. Inaddition,alternativeemployment opportunitiesare unusual,despite economic reforms(Laaksonen,1988), voluntary obturnover s low, and while employees may requestreassignmentfrom theircompanyto another one, suchreassignments are not typical.Workers' ong-termrewardsare thus linkedclosely to theirdanwei's successes. This isnot at all characteristicof the Americanworkplace. Thus,Chinese employees may have respondedwell togroup-focusedtrainingbecause theirdanwei is the source oftheir rewards andsuccesses, and managersweremaximizingheirpotentialrewardsinthe existing incentivestructures. Thissuggests that people's specific knowledgeof how their danwei relates to rewardallocationwasresponsible for the observed interactionof trainingwithindividualism-collectivism.hereare two limits to thisexplanation:First, he results fromStudy 1 for samples fromHong Kongand the People's Republicof Chinawere similareven thoughthe samples differedgreatlyfrom one anotherin organizationalewardpracticesand economic systems;and, second, the results at the individual nd cultural evelswere similar.Thissuggests that the results are not merelyan artifactof the differentwork and rewardstructures.Withineach culturalgroup,individuals esponded better totrainingcongruentwith their level of individualism-collectivism. If the findingsfrom MainlandChinawere simplyattributable o anticipatedrewards fromone's danwe', Iwould not expect to see the differences reported n Tables 3and 7 for low and highlevels of individualism-collectivismwithin each country.This alternativeexplanationmeritsfurtherexploration,however, given that Study 1 revealedstrongerdifferences as a functionof trainingconditionbetween managersfrom the People's Republicof Chinaandthose from Hong Kong.Inthis paper,I introduceda methodologicalrefinementtoseparate the cultural-levelrom the individual-levelspects ofa culturaldimension.I separatedthe individualism-collectivism variable nto two components, with the firstrepresentinga sharedvalue, or mean level, representing"culture."Thispartitioning rocedure s not merelythecreation of a dummy-coded,countryvariable except in thetwo-sample case), as it capturesthe relativedistancesamong countries on a given culturaldimension.Thisprocedureuses a specific culturaldimension(rather hanusing countryas a surrogatefor culture),and it helps usscale the relativemagnitudeof a sample's "culture."Theoretically,however, this approachraises a number ofissues. For instance, this approachuses country of origin-as113/ASQ, March1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

27/30

a definingcharacteristic f a culturalgrouping,defining aculturalgroup by a mean score for a value based on arespondent'snationality. nthe definitionsof culture oftencited by researchers(Hofstede, 1991; Erez and Earley,1993;Triandis,1994), culturerefers to "sharedvalues and meaningsystems." Thissuggests that researchers need to considerwhat constitutes a culturalgrouping.Forexample, mustmembers in the group be in direct contact with one another?Are there constraintson how "shared"values are shared?and Can a nationaldesignationcapture a culturalgrouping?Also, simply using a mean score to represent each culturalgroupmay mask the variabilityhat one might expect toobserve when crossing froman individualistico acollectivisticculture(Earleyand Mosakowski, 1995). Futureworkshould be directed at defining the boundariesandmembershipof a culturalgroupas well as the most effectiveway to representa culturalgroup's "values."Triandis 1989) explicitlydistinguishedbetween the societaland the individualevel of analysis.At the individualevel, hedescribed the counterpartsof individualism nd collectivismas idiocentrismandallocentrism,respectively.He arguedthatwithinany society, people varyin their beliefs about aculturaldimension,so that a memberof a collectivisticculturemay endorse individualistic alues and beliefs. Thisdistinctionamong levels is captured n Hofstede's discussionof an "ecological,"or country-levelanalysis,as well as in thework of other researcherswho deal with multiple evels ofanalysis (House and Rousseau, 1990). Inmy studies, thedifferences between the culturaland individualevels wereneither consistent norstrong, suggesting that the dualassessment of individualism-collectivismapped parallelconstructs.Whilethe individual-levelssessment appearedto have the strongest relationshipo self-efficacyandperformance, his may simplyreflect its proximityo thedependent variables(same level of analysisandmeasurement).The findingshave a numberof importantmplications or amanagerial ontext. The most obvious is that training houldbe congruentwith a person's culturalbackgroundas well aswith individualxperiences. This does not mean that amanagermust relyon a person's culturalbackgroundalone;rather, t requiresa managerto recognizeintraculturalvariationas well. Withinany given nationalboundary, hereare manysubcultures and manyindividual eviationswithin agiven subculture.The managerial hallengearises fromgetting to know each employee's values and beliefs as theyare shaped by cultureand by individualxperiences.Another mportantmplication f these studies that has beenstated by others (e.g., Wagnerand Moch, 1986; Boyacigiller,andAdler, 1991; Hofstede, 1991) is that ourtheories havesignificantcultural imitsthat must be understood.AlthoughBandura's elf-efficacyidea was supportedin these studies,the impactof trainingand self-efficacywas neitheruniformnorsimple. Self-efficacy s influencedby different sources ofinformationhat are more or less persuasivedependingon aperson's culturalvalues. These findingssuggest that acultural ontingency approach s needed for subsequentresearch on self-efficacy.114/ASQ,March 1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

28/30

Self or Group?The results of these studies clearly show that organizationaltraining hat is culturallymisdirectedis also misguided. Acollectivist's self-efficacyis based on information hat he orshe gets about a work group,whereas an individualist'sself-efficacy comes from self-referencedcues. Theimplicationsof this researchdo not simply end with nationalor cultural ociotypes, however; individual ariationwithin asocial system leads to very different implications or thegeneral approach hat a manageradopts for training n anorganization.This means that it is no longer meaningful otalk about comparativeanalyses and prescriptions ormanagerialactions, because this approachblursthe uniquedifferences among individualswithin a given culture.Likewise, ethnographically rich"descriptionsof culturalgroups are somewhat misguided,since they also blurindividual atterns by falsely assuming that the depth ofinquiry upplantsthe shallowness of a more positivistanalysis.The key pointis that to understandmanaging n anintercultural ontext requiresa depth of understandingatboth the culturaland individualevels.

REFERENCESBandura, Albert1986 SocialFoundations fThoughtsand Action: A SocialCognitiveTheory.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.Baumeister, RichardF.1986 Identity:CulturalChangeand

the Struggle or Self. NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Bazerman, Max H.1990 Judgmentin ManagerialDecisionMaking,2d ed. NewYork:Wiley.Boisot, Max, and John Child1988 "The iron aw of fiefs:Bureaucraticailureand theproblemof governancein theChineseeconomic reforms."Administrative cienceQuarterly, 3: 507-527.Bond, Michael H.1988 "Invitationo a wedding:Chinese values and globaleconomic growth."In P.Sinhaand H. Kao(eds.), SocialValues and Development:197-209. New Delhi: Sage.Bond, Michael H., K.Wan, KwokLeung, and R.A. Giacalone1985 "How are responses to verbalinsult relatedto culturalcollectivismand powerdistance?"JournalofCross-Culturalsychology,16:111-127.Boyacigiller, Nakiye, and Nancy J.Adler1991 "Theparochialdinosaur:Organizationalcience in aglobalcontext."AcademyofManagementReview, 16:262-290.

Brislin, Richard W.1980 "Translationand contentanalysis of oral and writtenmaterials." In H. C. Triandisand J. W. Berry (eds.),Handbook of Cross-CulturalPsychology: 398-444. Boston:Allyn and Bacon.Cohen, Jacob, and Patricia Cohen1975 Applied MultipleRegression/Correlation Analysisfor the Behavioral Sciences.Hillsdale, NJ: Wiley.Earley, P. Christopher1989 "Social loafing andcollectivism: A comparison ofthe United States and thePeople's Republic of China."Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 34: 565-581.1993 "East meets West meets

Mideast: Further explorationsof collectivistic andindividualisticwork groups."Academy of ManagementJournal, 36: 319-348.Earley, P. Christopher, and MiriamErez1991 "Time dependency effects ofgoals and norms: Anexamination of alternativemethods to influenceperformance." Journal ofApplied Psychology,76: 717-724.

Earley, P. Christopher, and ElaineMosakowski1995 "A framework forunderstanding experimentalresearch in an internationaland intercultural context." InB. J. Punnett and 0. Shenkar(eds.), Handbook ofInternational ManagementResearch. London: Blackwell(forthcoming).

Epstein, Seymour1973 "The self-concept revisited, ora theory of a theory."American Psychologist, 28:408-416.Erez, Miriam, and P. ChristopherEarley1993 Culture, Self-identity, andWork. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.Erez, Miriam, P. ChristopherEarley, and Charles L. Hulin1985 "The impact of participationon goal acceptance andperformance: A two-stepmodel." Academy ofManagement Journal, 28:50-66.Garland, Howard1985 "A cognitive mediation theoryof task goals and humanperformance." Motivation andEmotion, 9: 345-367.Garland, Howard, and John H.Adkinson1987 "Standards, persuasion, andperformance." Group andOrganization Studies, 12:208-220.

115/ASQ, March 1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

29/30

Gist, Marilyn E.1987 "Self-efficacy: Implications fororganizational behavior andhuman resourcemanagement." Academy ofManagement Review, 12:472-485.Gist, Marilyn E., and Terence R.Mitchell1992 "Self-efficacy: A theoreticalanalysis of its determinantsand malleability." Academy ofManagement Review,17: 183-211.Gist, Marilyn E., CatherineSchwoerer, and Benson Rosen1989 "Effects of alternative trainingmethods on self-efficacy andperformance in computersoftware training." Journal ofApplied Psychology, 74:884-891.Hinrichs, John R.1976 "Personnel training." In M. D.Dunnette (ed.), Handbook ofIndustrial and OrganizationalPsychology: 829-861.Chicago: Rand McNally.Hofstede, Geert1980 Culture's Consequences:International Differences inWork Related Values.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.1991 Culture and Organizations:Software of the Mind.

London: McGraw-Hill.House, Robert J., and DeniseRousseau1990 "On the bifurcation of OB or ifit ain't meso it ain't OB."Working paper, the WhartonSchool, University ofPennsylvania.Hsu, Francis L. K.1985 "The self in cross-culturalperspective." In A. Marsella,G. DeVos, and F. L. K. Hsu(eds.), Culture and Self: Asian

and Western Perspectives:24-55. New York: Tavistock.

Kluckhohn, Florence, andFrederick Strodtbeck1961 Variations in Value Orientation.Westport, CT: GreenwoodPress.Laaksonen, Oiva1988 Management in China: Duringand after Mao. Berlin: de

Gruyter.Li, D. J.1978 The Ageless Chinese. NewYork: Scribner's.Lindsay, Cindy P.1983 "China: Motivational systemsin flux." In Richard M. Steersand Lyman W. Porter (eds.),Motivation and WorkBehavior: 623-634. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.Locke, Edwin A., ElizabethFrederick, Cynthia Lee, and PhilipBobko1984 "Effects of self-efficacy,goals, and task strategies ontask performance." Journal ofApplied Psychology, 69:241-251.Markus, Hazel, and S. Kitayama1991 "Culture and the self:Implications for cognition,emotion, and motivation."Psychological Review,98: 224-253.Meyer, John P., and Ian R.Gellatly1988 "Perceived performance normas a mediator in the effect ofassigned goal on personalgoal and task performance."Journal of Applied Psychology,73: 410-420.Rokeach, M.1973 The Nature of Human Values.New York: Free Press.

Schwartz, Shalom H.1993 "Cultural imensions ofvalues:Towardanunderstanding f nationaldifferences."Unpublishedpaper, DepartmentofPsychology,HebrewUniversity.Triandis, HarryC.1988 "Collectivism s.individualism:reconceptualizationf a basicconcept incross-cultural ocialpsychology."InG. K.VermaandC. Bagley(eds.),Cross-Culturaltudies ofPersonality,AttitudesandCognition:60-95. New York:St. Martin's.1989 "Theself and social behaviorindiffering ultural ontexts."PsychologicalReview, 96:

506-520.1994 "Culture:Theoretical ndmethodologicalssues." InM. D. Dunnetteand L. Hough(eds.), Handbook f Industrialand OrganizationalPsychology,2d ed., vol. 4.PaloAlto, CA:ConsultingPsychologistsPress(forthcoming).Wagner,John A., Ill,and MichaelK.Moch1986 "Individualism-collectivism:Concept and measure."Group

and Organization tudies,11: 280-304.Wood, RobertE., and AlbertBandura1989 "Socialcognitivetheoryoforganizationalmanagement."Academyof ManagementReview,14: 361-384.

APPENDIX:CorrelationsTable A.1Pearson Correlationsfor Study 1Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Age -.21* -.12 -.07 .07 .07 .10 -.03 .07 .052. Education - -.01 .06 .10 .09 .03 -.02 .04 -.213. Company ize - .13- .09 .02 .11 .07 -.12 .074. Gender - .07 .15- .07 -.02 -.01 -.015. Performance - .70- .75- -.01 .63- .13-6. Effort - .53- -.03 .48- .097. Self-efficacy - -.04 .46- .14-8. Individualism-collectivism - -.01 .48-9. Training - .1110. Country

*p < .05.116/ASQ,March 1994


7/27/2019 Earley, 1994

30/30

Self or Group?Table A.2Pearson Correlations for Study 2Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. Age -.10 -.15 .05 .23- .06 .05 -.12 -.07 .05 .04 - .24 -.08 -.022. Education - .12 -.02 -.17 -.18 -.12 -.06 -.06 -.13 -.10 .06 -.19 -.013. Tenure - -.01 .04 .19 .16 .13 .15 .16 .16 -.29- .03 -.124. Gender - .15 .26- .24- .15 .22- .11 .13 .02 -.05 -.135. Baseline performance - .22- .24 .14 .10 .18 .16 - .07 .13 .026. Performance time 1) - .83- .51 .62- .76- .75- -.14 .24- -.017. Performance time 2) - .52- .68- .76- .79- -.1 1 .19 -.098. Effort time 1) - .62- .67- .65- .07 .01 .079. Effort time 2) - .69- .72- .07 .01 -.0210. Self-efficacy time 1) - .90- -.08 .06 .0111. Self-efficacy time 2) - .03 .05 -.0112. Individualism-collectivism - -.03 .30013. Training - .2114. Country

* p < .05.

Earley, 1994

Documents

Transcript of Earley, 1994