® Academy of Management Journa]2002, Vol. 45, No. 5. 905-914.

PARTICIPATIVE DECISION MAKING AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCEIN DIFFERENT CULTURES: THE MODERATING EFFECTS OF

ALLOCENTRISM/IDIOCENTRISM AND EFFICACY

SIMON S. K. LAMUniversity of Hong Kong

XIAO-PING CHENUniversity of Washington

JOHN SCHAUBROECKDrexel University

The relationship between perceived participative decision making and employee per-formance was examined in matched samples of employees from the Hong Kong andU.S. branches of one organization. Self-efficacy in regard to participating in decisionsand idiocentrism moderated the relationship between perceived participative deci-sion-making opportunity and individual performance. Perceptions of the participationefficacy of a work unit and allocentrism moderated the relationship between partici-pative decision-making opportunity cuid group performance. Idiocentrism and allo-centrism appeared to explain regional differences in how participative decision mak-ing and efficacy perceptions interacted to predict performance.

Participative decision making, defined as jointdecision making (Locke & Schweiger, 1979) or in-fluence sharing between hierarchical superiors andtheir subordinates (Mitchell, 1973), has been a fo-cus of organizational research for nearly 50 years.Whereas many researchers have examined relation-ships between participative decision making andemployee outcomes such as task performance, jobsatisfaction, and turnover, only equivocal conclu-sions can be drawn from existing research on therelationship between participative decision makingand job performance. Some quantitative reviewshave reported moderately positive relationships be-tween these variables (e.g.. Cotton, VoUrath, Frog-gatt, Lengnick-Hall, & Jennings, 1988; Miller &Monge, 1986). Other quantitative reviews have notfound these positive effects (e.g., Wagner, 1994;Wagner & Gooding, 1987a, 1987b). Wagner andGooding (1987a) inspected the studies cited byMiller and Monge (1986) and found that 90 percentinvolved percept-percept data collection tech-niques (that is, data collected from the same re-spondents using the same questionnaire at thesame time). Wagner (1994) reanalyzed Cotton andhis coauthors' (1988) data using meta-analysis and

The authors thank Thomas Lee, Terence Mitcheil, andMarilyn Gist for their constructive and thoughtful com-ments on a draft. Part of the results of this study waspresented at the Asia Academy of Management Meetingin Singapore, 2000.

found that the overall effect of employee participa-tive decision making on job performance (and jobsatisfaction) was positive but small, especiallywhen the unisource studies were omitted. Wagnerand his colleagues (1994; Wagner & Gooding,1987a, 1987b) thus argued that the significant per-formance-related findings published in participa-tive decision making research were mainly theproduct of percept-percept artifacts. Althoughthese inferences about the main effects of partici-pative decision making appear sound, the inconsis-tent findings concerning the participation-perfor-mance relationship might also be explained by theabsence (or presence) of other moderating vari-ables. Indeed, Wagner and Gooding (1987b) notedthat the moderating effects of other variables couldhide a few noteworthy multisource relationships.The moderating effects of situational variables(work group size, task complexity, and others) havebeen well documented (Wagner & Gooding, 1987b).Therefore, the present study focused on testing themoderating effects of societal culture and psycho-logical variables on group and individual perfor-mance. In particular, we focus here on individualdifference variables associated with locus of iden-tity and efficacy beliefs about participating as mod-erators of the effects of participative decision mak-ing on individual and group performance. Below,we discuss how these factors interact with partici-pative decision making in influencing individualand group performance.

905

906 Academy of Management Journal October

THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDAllocentrism, Collective Efficacy, andGroup Performance

In the present study, we distinguished betweentwo types of beliefs a person may have about his orher efficacy in participating in work decisions: par-ticipation efficacy (self) and participation efficacy{collective]. Drawing on previous definitions ofself-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) and collective efficacy(Gist, 1987; Earley, 1994; Mischel & Northcraft,1997; Riggs, Warka, Babasa, Betancourt, & Hooker,1994], we define participation efficacy (self] as theextent to which an individual believes that he orshe has the ability and skills to successfully partic-ipate in decision-making processes. Participationefficacy (collective] is the extent to which groupmembers believe that their group has the abilityand skills to successfully participate in decisionmaking. In theory, participative decision making'seffects on performance may stem from how peopleuse it instrumentally to create situations that aremore favorable to their effectiveness (Mitchell,1973]. People who are high on self-efficacy willutilize participative decision making opportunitiesto achieve what they desire, whereas those who arelow on self-efficacy may tend to become distressedwhen presented with such opportunities. Simi-larly, people who have high levels of collectiveefficacy are likely to participate actively when theyhave the opportunity because they are confidentthat, together with their peers, they can effectivelyincrease group performance. On the other hand,persons who have low levels of collective efficacymay tend to view such opportunities as threateningbecause they view their group as being unable tomake decisions effectively. An opportunity fortheir group to participate in decision making maybe seen as surfacing group dysfunctions toward noclear benefit. Thus, the degree to which employeesbelieve that they or their work units are able toparticipate effectively (have participation efficacy]is critical in determining how strongly participa-tive decision making influences performance.

Whereas individualism and collectivism repre-sent the general attributes of a given culture, theterms "idiocentrism" and "allocentrism" have beenused to measure the individual-level orientationsthat reflect these cultural values (Triandis, 1989].Triandis suggested using idiocentrism and allocen-trism to capture within-culture variation in person-ality attributes. Idiocentrics view the self as beingseparate from others, are concerned with achieve-ment, and give priority to personal goals over thegoals of collectives. Conversely, persons scoringhigh on allocentrism view the self as inseparable

from the others in an in-group. They are so con-cerned with interpersonal harmony that, when theydo distinguish between personal and collectivegoals, they subordinate their personal goals to thecollective goals. From the individual perspective,according to Triandis, idiocentrism and allocen-trism are distinct constructs measurable along anormal distribution. Common societal influencestend to make one of these two dimensions higheron the average in any particular societal culture;however, individuals often differ from theirsociety's trends.

The developing literatures on shared mentalmodels (e.g., Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas, &Cannon-Bowers, 2000] and "transactive memory"in groups (e.g., Liang, Moreland, & Argote, 1995]suggest that group members develop shared imagesof their groups. According to both these frame-works, shared experiences lead group members todevelop interrelated knowledge structures that fa-cilitate (or hinder] group process. For example.Cannon and Edmondson (2001] found that groupperformance was associated with members' sharedbeliefs about how to learn from failure. The identi-ties of allocentric individuals tend to be groundedin goals that they share with other members of theirgroups (Chen, Chen, & Meindl, 1998]. When thesepeople have little confidence in a group's ability toeffectively confront challenges, they may see influ-ence opportunities as debilitating rather than salu-tary for performance because they could create newconditions for group failure. Moreover, because al-locentric persons' perceptions of collective efficacyhave primacy over their perceptions of self-effi-cacy, personal influence opportunities may lead toperson-role conflicts if they do not see a group asworking together effectively. Thus, groups whosemembers are predominantly highly allocentric can beexpected to respond effectively when they have op-portunities to participate in decisions, but only whenthey share high participation efficacy (collective].

There has been limited cross-cultural research onself-efficacy and collective efficacy (see Earley,1994; Gibson, 1999; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Xie,2000]. Schaubroeck and his coauthors (2000] didnot examine performance outcomes, but they foundthat having more job-related discretion (job control]enhanced stress-coping facility among allocentricpersons only when they also reported high collec-tive efficacy. Job control and participative decisionmaking opportunity are similar in that both reflectan employee's level of influence at work, and bothjob performance and stress coping reflect how ef-fectively a person is using influence opportunities.Thus, their study suggests that, at least at the indi-vidual level, "allocentrics"' confidence in their work

2002 Lam, Chen, and Schaubroeck 907

groups may determine how effectively they use influ-ence opportunities in group contexts.

In view of the existing research and theory, wepredict that, among work unit members with highallocentrism, collective efficacy cognitions con-cerning the use of influence will determine howsuccessfully their work units use opportunities toparticipate in decision making to enhance groupperformance.

Hypothesis la. Perceptions of an opportunityfor participative decision making will have apositive effect on the performance of a groupwhen the group (a) is high on allocentrism and(b) has high participation efficacy.

Hypothesis lb. Perceptions of an opportunityfor participative decision making will have anegative effect on the performance of a groupwhen the group is (a) high on allocentrism and(b) has low participation efficacy.

Idiocentrism, Self-Efficacy, and IndividualPerformance

Idiocentric persons are less motivated to cooper-ate with other group members outside the contextof their individual roles, and thus, collective effi-cacy cognitions have little primacy. Because theyvalue individual achievement and autonomy, how-ever, "idiocentrics" can be expected to use influ-ence opportunities as a means of pursuing therewards associated with effective individual per-formance. In the study by Schaubroeck and hiscolleagues cited above (Schaubroeck et al., 2000],among more idiocentric persons with high job con-trol, collective efficacy did not enhance coping as itdid among allocentrics; rather, self-efficacy on thejob played the crucial moderating role. Similarly,whether idiocentric workers use influence oppor-tunities effectively or ineffectively to achieve theirpersonal performance goals may depend on theirdomain-specific self-efficacy. Specifically, whenidiocentric workers lack confidence in their ownability to participate in decision making, they maybe less inclined to involve themselves in decisionswhen opportunities to participate arise. They mayhold back because having more influence opportu-nities creates conditions in which they expect tofail. Moreover, persons scoring high on idiocen-trism place high credence in individual differencesin merit in various domains. Therefore, those wholack confidence in their participative decision-making abilities may fear embarrassment or ridi-cule if they offer their views and opinions. Inaddition, unlike people high on allocentrism, idio-centrics may be less inclined to view participative

decision making as a group responsibility in whichtheir own identity and limitations are submerged ina collective effort. For these reasons, the individualperformance of idiocentrics who have low partici-pation efficacy (self] is not likely to benefit fromparticipative decision making opportunities. Onthe other hand, because of their emphasis on per-sonal achievement, idiocentric people who havehigh participation efficacy (self] may readily seekto obtain the individual performance rewards thatparticipating can facilitate through such mecha-nisms as helping individuals clarify and negotiaterole expectations, enhancing their performance ex-pectancies, and removing performance barriers(Mitchell, 1973; Schuler, 1980].

Hypothesis 2a. Perceptions of an opportunityfor participative decision making will have apositive effect on the performance of an indi-vidual when the individual is high on (a) idio-centrism and (b) participation efficacy (self).

Hypothesis 2b. Perceptions of an opportunityfor participative decision making will have anegative effect on the performance of an indi-vidual when the individual (a) is high on idio-centrism and (b) has low participation efficacy(self).

METHODSSample and Procedures

An important methodological issue in conduct-ing cross-cultural research is the comparabilityof different samples on dimensions that are notcentral to the investigation (Brislin, Lonner, &Thorndike, 1973]. In the present study, our sampleswere matched in terms of organization, job, andnumerous demographic characteristics. The re-spondents were junior workers in the Hong Kongand U.S. branches of a large multinational bank. Allthe branches were divided into either four- or five-member units, each of which reported to a singlesupervisor, who in turn reported to an operatingsupervisor. These two national samples did notdiffer significantly in age, gender, education, ortenure. Age ranged from 20 to 38, with the meanage being 25.4 years; 82 percent were women; 94percent had at least high school educations; and 8percent had undergracluate degrees. The respon-dents had been employed in their present positionsfrom 1 to 7 years, with the mean tenure being 2.7years.

Questionnaires were sent to potential partici-pants through the company's internal mail system.Respondents were guaranteed anonymity and pro-

908 Academy of Management Journal October

vided with stamped envelopes preaddressed to theresearchers. We asked respondents to provide theiremployee numbers so that we could match re-sponses with job performance data. They were as-sured that these numbers would be used strictly forresearch purposes and would not be associatedwith their names. To maintain confidentiality ofthe responses, we processed the data off-site andreported only aggregated data to the organization.

Questionnaires were sent to 338 junior workersin Hong Kong, and 265 (78%) returned them. Fiveworkers did not provide their employee identifica-tion numbers, and supervisor performance ratingswere missing for seven workers. They were ex-cluded from the analysis. Questionnaires were sentto 358 junior workers in the United States, and 288(80%) were returned. We excluded 6 U.S. workerswho did not provide their identification numbersand 9 for whom supervisor performance ratingswere absent. To determine the representativenessof the sample, we compared data from the respon-dents with company data measuring (1) the totalemployee population of junior workers of the or-ganization and (2) the employees who received themailing in each country. There were no significantdifferences between the respondents and thosewho did not respond in terms of age, gender, edu-cation, and tenure. Also, the respondents did notdiffer significantly from the total junior workerpopulation of the organization on any demographicvariable in either sample. All Hong Kong partici-pants were of Chinese ethnic origin. The ethnicheritage of the U.S. participants, obtained from ar-chival records, is as follows: 72.8 percent Cauca-sian-American, 11.5 percent Asian-American, 9.7percent Hispanic-American, 5.2 percent African-American, and 0.8 percent Native American.

MeasuresThe questionnaire distributed in Hong Kong was

written in Chinese. The conventional method ofback-translation (Brislin et al., 1973) was used totranslate the measures from English to Chinese.The translators were professionals in this practicewith college education in translation. The trans-lated version was pretested with several juniorworkers in the organization who were asked tocomment on any item that they found ambiguous ordifficult to understand. These queries did not re-veal any major changes that needed to be made toany of the items.^

^ We conducted a confirmative factor analysis to en-sure the equality of factor structure across the two na-

Participative decision making opportunity. Par-ticipative decision making opportunity was mea-sured with the five-item scale adopted from Siegeland Ruh (1973). The items essentially ask individ-uals to indicate the degree of participation theyhave in decisions affecting their jobs (for example,"In this organization, I have high degree of influ-ence in company decisions," "In this organization,I often participate in decisions regarding my job,""In this organization, I have high degree of influ-ence in the decisions affecting me," "In this organ-ization, I can participate in setting new companypolicies," and "In this organization, my views havea real influence in company decisions"). The re-sponse categories ranged from 1 ("strongly dis-agree") to 5 ("strongly agree"). The Cronbach alphafor this scale was .95.

Participation efficacy. The participation effi-cacy (self) scale was adapted from the PersonalEfficacy Beliefs Scale developed by Riggs et al.(1994) and contained five items (for example, "Ihave confidence in my ability to participate effec-tively" and "I have excellent participation skills").Participation efficacy (collective) was adapted fromthe Collective Efficacy Beliefs Scale (Riggs et al.,1994). The scale consists of five items (for example,"The unit I work with has above-average ability toparticipate effectively" and "The members of thisunit have excellent participation skills"). Both scaleswere based on a five-point scale ranging from 1 ("veryinaccinrate") to 5 ("very accurate"). The alphas forthese two scales were .90 and .90, respectively.

Individual and group performance. The imme-diate unit supervisors were asked to provide a per-formance rating for each individual employee. Weadapted three items from an instrument developedby Heilman, Block, and Lucas (1992): "This em-ployee is very competent," "This employee gets hisor her work done very effectively," and "This em-ployee has performed his/her job well." The super-visors returned these ratings directly to us. Theyalso provided performance ratings for each wholeunit they supervised, using three items, againadapted from Heilman et al. (1992): "This unit isvery competent," "This unit gets the work donevery effectively," and "This unit has performed thejob well." The alphas for these two scales were .94and .95, respectively.

tions, examining each instrument separately usingLISREL 8 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993). The results indi-cated that a factor structure specifying the unidimension-ality of all constructs was consistent with the data forboth countries. Details concerning these analyses areavailable from the first author.

2002 Lam, Chen, and Schaubroeck 909

Allocentrism and idiocentrism. Two separateeight-item scales developed by Triandis and Gel-fand (1998) were used to measure allocentrism (forexample, "I feel good when I cooperate with oth-ers" and "If a co-worker gets a prize, I would feelproud") and idiocentrism (for example, "My per-sonal identity, independent of others, is importantto me" and "I would rather depend on myself thanothers"). The reliabilities for allocentrism and idio-centrism were .92 and .91, respectively.

Aggregation TestsTesting for group-level effects requires opportu-

nity for participative decision making, allocen-trism, and participation efficacy (collective) to beaggregated by taking the average of group members'scores. To test the suitability of such aggregation,both between-group differences and within-groupagreement on these measures had to be examined(Goodman, Ravlin, & Schminke, 1990). We esti-mated within-group agreement (r^g) using amethod developed by James, Demaree, and Wolf(1993), which assesses the consistency within agroup with respect to ratings of a common scale.The average r^g coefficients for the Hong Kong andU.S. samples respectively were .90 and .87. Everygroup's coefficient was above .85, demonstratingwithin-group agreement. To verify between-groupsdifferences, we conducted a within and betweenanalysis (WABA; Dansereau, Alutto, and Yam-marino, 1984). In this test, a statistic, eta, obtainedbetween groups is compared to that obtainedwithin a group in terms of a value called the E ratio,a test of practical significance. The E ratio for theHong Kong sample was 1.5, and for U.S. sample itwas 1.3. That these ratios were greater than 1.0indicated that the variation between groups wassignificantly greater than the variation withingroups. We computed corrected F-tests for eachmeasure, and all results were statistically signifi-cant. Together, these results indicate that it isappropriate to infer group-level constructs foreach work unit's average individual scores on eachvariable.

RESULTS

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations,and correlations among the variables for the twosamples. The Hong Kong means were significantlyhigher than the U.S. means on individual perfor-mance [t = 2.23, p < .05), participation efficacy(collective) [t = 4.18, p < .0001), and allocentrism[t = 4.36, p < .0001), whereas the U.S. means werehigher than the Hong Kong means on participation

efficacy (self) [t = -3.62, p < .001) and idiocen-trism [t = -6.32, p < .0001).

Hypotheses la and lb predict that allocentrismand participation efficacy (collective) will moder-ate the relationship between participative decisionmaking opportunity perceptions and group perfor-mance. As Table 2 shows, the three-way interaction(participative decision making X participation effi-cacy [collective] X allocentrism) was significant(Afl = .12, Fi,io2 = 12.35, p < .001), providingsupport for the first set of hypotheses. Specifically,we foimd that within the group of participants scor-ing high on allocentrism, strong positive relation-ships between an opportunity to participate in de-cisions and group performance were present, butonly among participants reporting high participa-tion efficacy (Hypothesis la). We also found thatwithin the subgroup with low participation effi-cacy (collective), participative decision making op-portunity was negatively related to group perfor-mance (Hypothesis lb). Moreover, in the groupsscoring low on allocentrism, there was no relation-ship between participative decision making oppor-tunity and group performance. We then used thehierarchical linear cross-level modeling procedurerecommended by Hofmann (1997) to test whetherthe group-level effects still held when individualeffects were controlled. Results of these analysesrevealed that the group-level effects on group-levelperformance were significant (p < .001) even afterwe controlled for both the effects of individual-level performance and the effects of idiocentrismand individual efficacy [p < .001).

Hypotheses 2a and 2b predict that idiocentrismand participation efficacy (self) will moderate therelationship between participative decision makingopportunity perceptions and individual perfor-mance. As shown in Table 2, we found that thethree-way interaction between participative deci-sion making opportunity, participation efficacy(self), and idiocentrism was significant (AR^ = .13,^1,515 = 13.44, p < .001). In particular, for thosewho scored high on both idiocentrism and partici-pation efficacy (self), there was a strong, positiverelationship between participative decision makingopportunity and individual performance (Hypoth-esis 2 a). The same relationship was negative amongthose who reported low participation efficacy andhigh idiocentrism (Hypothesis 2b). Furthermore,among those who scored low on idiocentrism, re-gardless of participation efficacy (self) levels, therewas no relationship between participative decisionmaking opportunity and performance. These re-sults support the second set of hypotheses.

We performed further analyses to examine (1)whether the U.S. and Hong Kong samples, which

o

IOu-a

Cfl

cd

I

.;!< CM O) CO t o

o o o o o

.»< i n i n ro CDo o o o o

I I

O) C^ CM iHO O O5 CO

cj) CO i n CO t vo o o o o

CO in CO o inO O O CM O5

.06

<ts

.02

CO

o

-.04

rHO

.06

in

o

.05

CO

o

.02

o

-.04

CO

o

.09

CO

oth

ose

and

"cc1^

CO mO O

I I

T-H O m rHrH rH O O

CO CO CM CO IN.CD CO ' ^ i n i n

T-5 d o d o

rH CO COo CO in

CM rH O CDin in CO CO

CD • * CO COCO CO CO CO

CO inin c^in CO

ininin

rHin

COCO

CM O O O O

O CD inCO CO CO

s

"3 ••3

o o o o

rH r t rH CDCO q r-H qCO CO CO ' ^ '

ca cdCJ CJ

. llii•« 13 iain. ft fi

•> .2-a -R

\ s §. o' a: (x <;t; -e .2 .2^ i^ "^ T-l

COXi

0)

fttoVi00co00ao

I

3s

IIo 3

•rH en

5 sc3|

CO o

• 2?c/3 . 2

55 c V VII ° a. a.

2002 Lam, Chen, and Schaubroeck 911

TABLE 2Results of Regression Analyses"

Variable Coefficient Test

Individual performanceStep 1

AgeSexEducation

AF(3, 522)Step 2

Participative decision making opportunity

^F(1, 521)

Step 3Participation efficacy (self)Idiocentrism

AF(2, 519)Step 4

Participative decision making X participation efficacy (self)Participative decision making x idiocentrismParticipation efficacy (self) X idiocentrism

AflAF(1, 516)Step 5

Participative decision making X participation efficacy (self) X idiocentrismAfl2AF(1, 515)Overall model

F(10, 515)Group performance

Step 1AgeSexEducation

AF(3, 109)Step 2

Participative decision making opportunity

AF(1, 108)Step 3

Participation efficacy (collective)Allocentrism

AF(2, 106)Step 4

Participative decision making X participation efficacy (collective)Participative decision making X allocentrismParticipation efficacy (collective) X allocentrism

Afl 'AF(1, 103)Step 5

Participative decision making X participation efficacy (collective) X allocentrismAflAF(1, 102)

Overall modelR^F(10, 102)

-0.01-0.20

0.20

0.20*

0.13*-0.05

-0.27**

0.85*

0.20-0.200.20

0.24*

0.14*-0.03

-0.31*

0.83*

.000.47

.0410.02*

.022.33

.036.11*

.1313.44**

.2312.27**

.000.44

.0511.37*

.033.33*

.036.50*

.1212.35*

.2413.41*

° Coefficients are unstandardized. Intercepts are omitted. Participative decision making, participation efficacy (self and collective),idiocentrism, and allocentrism were mean-centered.

* p < .05** p < .01

*** p < .001

912 Academy of Management fournal October

differed significantly on idiocentrism and allocen-trism, also differed significantly regarding the ef-fects of participative decision making opportunityon individual and group performance and (2)whether the effects of idiocentrism and allocen-trism mediated the geographic differences. At thegroup level of analysis, the three-way interactionbetween participation efficacy (collective), partici-pative decision making opportunity, and U.S.-Hong Kong sample were no longer significant pre-dictors of group performance after we controlledfor allocentrism and its two-way and three-wayinteractions with participation efficacy (collective)and participative decision making opportunity(AR^ = .00, F^ gg = 1.37, n.s.). Similarly, the inter-action between participation efficacy (self), partic-ipative decision making opportunity, and samplewas no longer significant in predicting individualperformance after we controlled these variables[AR^ = .00, Fj, 511 = 1.22, n.s.). These findings suggestthat allocentrism and idiocentrism mediate societaldifferences in the effects of participative decisionmaking and efficacy beliefs on performance.

DISCUSSIONThe results of the present study suggest that in

studying the participation-performance relation-ship, researchers should look beyond situationaland methodological moderators and examine psy-chological predispositions. We found that individ-ual self-construal (as reflected by allocentrism andidiocentrism) and domain-specific efficacy percep-tions significantly determined the magnitude ofparticipative decision making effects. We alsoobserved that allocentrism (aggregated to a work-group level) and idiocentrism mediated the rela-tionships between the societal difference repre-sented in our two samples (from Hong Kong andthe United States) and group and individual per-formance, respectively. These findings suggest thatallocentrism and idiocentrism are powerful indi-vidual differences that, although cultivated differ-ently in particular societies, also have meaningfulinfluences on behavior irrespective of societalboundaries. That is to say, even in the UnitedStates, where individualism is predominant, allo-centric values may influence the effect of partici-pative decision making opportunities on howmuch employees contribute to their work groups'performance. Similarly, for Hong Kong employeeswho are more idiocentric, the effect of participativedecision making opportunities on individual per-formance will likely be influenced by their individ-ual self-efficacy. Individual belief structures suchas allocentrism aid in identifying aggregate (group.

organization, and society) propensities, and theyalso facilitate understanding why certain normsand stereotypes imputed to a culture often do notrepresent particular individuals within that cul-ture. Moreover, when organizational or societalcultures are in transition, conceptualizations of be-liefs at the individual level and their correspondingmeasures may better reflect the subtle nature ofchanges in belief structures.

LimitationsGiven the cross-sectional data used here, our in-

terpretations of causality need to be based on (1)theoretical grounds and (2) complex patterns ofinteraction and covariation. Previous studies (e.g.,Mitchell, 1973) support the notion that having theopportunity to participate in decisions causeshigher performance. In addition, it seems unlikelythat the complex and yet interpretable interactionswe captured represent response set artifacts. On theother hand, longitudinal data may better allow fortesting these relationships because levels of partic-ipative decision making and efficacy may be some-what unstable, and their influences on performancemay require time to materialize. We believe thatcommon method variance had little influence onthe findings because the study had multisourcedata (supervisory ratings of performance matchedwith individuals' self-reports). However, futurestudies could improve on the present one by incor-porating some form of participative decisionmaking manipulation (with a corresponding con-trol group) and bracketing changes in individualand group performance over time. Using a singleoccupation for this study ensured a strong matchbetween the samples across cultures, but it likelyled to less variation on some of the variables thanwould be observed in more occupationally hetero-geneous data.

ConclusionsCompared to the Hong Kong participants, the

U.S. participants scored higher on idiocentrismand reported higher participation efficacy (self),whereas the Hong Kong participants scored higheron allocentrism and reported higher participationefficacy (collective) than their U.S. counterparts.Just as societal and local culture teaches peoplewhat ideals to hold and what beliefs to endorse, itplays a role in how people construct efficacy ex-pectations (Bandura, 1997). In societies that en-courage individualistic values, people pay moreattention to themselves, know more about them-selves than about others, and are more likely to

2002 Lam, Chen, and Schaubroeck 913

change situations to fit their own desires ratherthan change themselves to fit situations. Conse-quently, Americans and other members of individ-ualistic societies may tend to have more confidencein their own abilities, and self-efficacy has moreprimacy as an influence on behavior in these soci-eties than does collective efficacy. In contrast, theChinese culture emphasizes collectivist values, sopeople pay more attention to others and tend todescribe themselves in terms that reflect their col-lective self (for a review, see Triandis [1989,1994]).As a result, Chinese people tend to have more con-fidence in their groups' capabilities, and this col-lective efficacy more readily guides their behaviorwithin group contexts than does self-efficacy. Be-cause judgments of efficacy have a significant in-fluence on employee job performance, especiallywhen the type of efficacy (individual or collective)corresponds to culture-driven personality traits (forexample, allocentrism and idiocentrism) and perti-nent performance criteria, it is important to includecultural variables in efficacy-performance studies.

As organizations increasingly introduce pro-grams oriented toward participative decision mak-ing in order to facilitate reengineering, enrich jobs,and develop high-commitment workplaces, thecultural values and efficacy beliefs held by employ-ees may have unexpected effects. For example, par-ticipative goal setting between a supervisor and asubordinate on a one-on-one basis with an empha-sis on individual performance may be less success-ful if the subordinate has strong allocentric beliefs.If it is done on a team basis and the emphasis is onteam performance, its effect may not be significantif the subordinates hold individualistic values.Civen the concern for and emphasis on diversity inthe U.S. workplace, managers must identify indi-vidual differences that may influence the desiredoutcomes of participative decision making and tar-get training programs accordingly, rather than ex-hort employees to conform to a desired vision ofparticipative decision making or select new em-ployees on the basis of such conformity. Participa-tive decision making interventions will be moresuccessful to the extent that program developersmatch them to the values of target recipients andtrain them in ways that increase their most relevantefficacy cognitions (collective efficacy or self-efficacy).

From a research perspective, our findings showthat participative decision making can have signif-icant positive or negative effects on employee per-formance that are not attributable to methodologi-cal artifacts. Whereas Wagner (1994), and othershave argued that employee participation likely hasat best weak effects on individual and group per-

formance, the moderators identified in this studysuggest conditions under which higher participa-tive decision making effects may be generally ob-served. To our knowledge none of the studies re-viewed in the meta-analyses measured self orcollective participation efficacy, and very few ifany participative decision making studies havemeasured individualism and collectivism. Thus, itis plausible that very strong effects, like those weobserved in particular subgroups within our study,might also have been present (but not measured) inprior participative decision making studies. Organ-izations can act to increase or decrease the levels ofthese moderator variables within their workforcesand potentially amplify the positive performanceeffects of employee participation.

REFERENCESBandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.

New York: Freeman.Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W., & Thorndike, R. M. 1973.

Cross-cultural research methods. New York: Wiley.Cannon, M. D., & Edmondson, A. C. 2001. Confronting

failure: Antecedents and consequences of shared be-liefs about failtire in organizational work groups.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 161-177.

Chen, C. C, Chen, X. P., & Meindl, J. R. 1998. How cancooperation be fostered? The cultural effects of indi-vidualism-collectivism. Academy of ManagementReview, 23: 285-304.

Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Jennings, K. R. 1988. Employee partic-ipation: Diverse forms and different outcomes.Academy of Management Review, 13: 8-22.

Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A., & Yammarino, F. J. 1984.Theory testing in organizational behavior: Thevariant approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Earley, P. C. 1994. Self or group? Cultural effects oftraining on self-efficacy and performance. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 39: 89-117.

Cibson, C. B. 1999. Do they do what they believe theycan? Croup-efficacy beliefs and group performanceacross tasks and cultures. Academy of ManagementJournal, 42: 138-152.

Gist, M. E. 1987. Self-efficacy: Implications for organiza-tional behavior and human resource management.Academy of Management Review, 12: 472-485.

Coodman, P. S., Raviin, E. C, & Schminke, M. 1990.Understanding groups in organizations. In L. L.Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Leadership, partic-ipation, and group behavior: 323-385. Creenwich,CT: JAI Press.

Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Lucas, J. A. 1992. Pre-

914 Academy of Management Journal October

sumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmativeaction efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77:536-544.

Hofmann, D. A. 1997. An overview of the logic andrationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal ofManagement, 23: 723-744.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1993. R^gi Anassessment of within-group interrater agreement.Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 306-309.

Joreskog, K. G. & Sorbom, D. 1993. LISREL 8: Structuralequation modeling with the SIMPLIS commandlanguage. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

Liang, D. W., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. 1995. Groupversus individual training and group performance:The mediating role of transactive memory. Person-ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21: 384-393.

Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. 1979. Participation indecision-making: One more look. In B. M. Staw (Ed.),New directions in organizational hehavior, vol. 1:265-339, Greenwich, GT: JAI Press.

Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., &Gannon-Bowers, J. A. 2000. The influence of sharedmental models on team process and performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 273-283.

Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. 1986. Participation, satisfac-tion, and productivity: A meta-analytic review.Academy of Management Journal, 29: 727-753.

Mischel, L. J., & Northcraft, G. B. 1997. "I think we can, Ithink we can . . . " The role of efficacy beliefs ingroup and team effectiveness. In B. Markovsky et al.(Eds.), Advances in group processes: 177-197.Greenwich, GT: JAI Press.

Mitchell, T. R. 1973. Motivation and participation: Anintegration. Academy of Management Journal, 16:670-679.

Riggs, M. L., Warka, J., Babasa, B., Betancourt, R., &Hooker, S. 1994. Development and validation of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy scales for job-related applications. Educational and Psychologi-cal Measurement, 54: 793-802.

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Xie, J. L. 2000. Gollectiveversus individual self-efficacy in coping responsesto stressors and control: A cross-cultural study. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 85: 512-525.

Schuler, R. S. 1980. A role and expectancy model ofparticipation in decision making. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 23: 331-340.

Siegel, A. L., & Ruh, R. A. 1973. Job involvement, partic-

ipation in decision making, personal background,and job behavior. Organizational Behavior and Hu-man Performance, 9: 318-327.

Triandis, H. G. 1989. Self and social behavior in differingsocial contexts. Psychological Beview, 96: 269-289.

Triandis, H. G. 1994. Culture and social behavior. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Triandis, H. G., & Gelfand, M. J. 1998. Gonverging mea-surement of horizontal and vertical individualismand collectivism. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 74: 118-128.

Wagner, J. A. 1994. Participation's effects on perfor-mance and satisfaction: A reconsideration of re-search evidence. Academy of Management Be-view, 19: 312-330.

Wagner, J. A., & Gooding, R. Z. 1987a. Effects of societaltrends on participation research. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 32: 241-262.

Wagner, J. A., & Gooding, R. Z. 1987b. Shared influenceand organizational behavior: A meta-analysis of sit-uational variables expected to moderate participa-tion-outcome relationships. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 30: 524-541.

^

Simon S. K. Lam (simonlam@business.hku.hk) receivedhis Ph.D. from Australian National University. He is anassociate professor of management at the School of Busi-ness, University of Hong Kong. His research focuses onquality management, work-related commitments, andcross-cultural human resource management.

Xiao-Ping Ghen received her Ph.D. from the University ofIllinois at Urbana-Ghampaign. She is an associate profes-sor in the Department of Management and Organizationat the University of Washington. Her current research in-terests include group dynamics, decision making, conflictmanagement, leadership, organizational citizenship behav-ior, employee turnover, and cross-cultural management.

John Schaubrpeck is currently a professor of manage-ment and the head of the Department of Management,LeBow Gollege of Business, Drexel University. He re-ceived a Ph.D. in organizational behavior and humanresource management from Purdue University. His re-search interests include work stress and coping andcross-cultural issues in organizational behavior.

AA