Search results

This review article focuses on the factors that affect the selection and implementation of three principles of distributive justice (i.e., equity, equality, and need) to reward systems in group and organizational settings. After presenting an overview of the assumptions, goals, and possible consequences associated with each of the three perspectives, the article then describes the moderating factors influencing distribution rule preferences across four levels of analysis: (1) the interorganizational, (2) the intraorganizational, (3) the work group, and (4) the individual. Some of the variables discussed include cross‐cultural differences, reward system implementation, task interdependency, work group climate, and individual characteristics. This material is then summarized through the use of a new conceptual model for describing allocation rule preferences. The article concludes with suggestions for future research.

Japanese and American management is 95 percent the same, but differs in all important respects.Takeo Fujisawa, Co-founder of the Honda Motor Corporation.

We explore how cultural factors at both socio-economic and psychological individual levels affect the present generation's beneficence toward future generations in organizations and society. We examine how socio-economic mechanisms may influence the present generation's focus on the future consequences of their decisions. In addition, we examine how self-construals in different cultures might result in different mechanisms underlying the reduction of psychological distance between generations in different cultures. Implications of our cross-cultural analysis to intergenerational decision making within the context of group research in general are discussed.

This chapter examines the underlying concerns people have for relative status within their group (i.e., intragroup status) and their group's relative status to that of other groups (i.e., intergroup status). I adopt a deductive approach using arguments and evidence in the cross-cultural research and literature. I begin by reviewing the basic findings in social psychology and organizational behavior literatures, which suggest that both intragroup status and intergroup status will have positive impact on important group outcomes such as people's evaluation of, and commitment to, the group. Moreover, consistent with the notion of the fishpond phenomenon, past findings also suggest that those with high-intragroup status and low-intergroup status show more group-oriented reactions than those with low-intragroup status and high-intergroup status (i.e., people prefer to be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big pond). Next, I provide both psychological and structural reasoning to argue that the fishpond phenomenon will be less likely to emerge in collectivistic than individualistic cultures. I close by considering the implications from the cross-cultural analysis to the broader conceptual understanding of mechanisms underlying people's concerns for intragroup status vs. intergroup status in work groups and organizations.

Drawing from findings in sociology and anthropology on time as a symbol of status, this paper examines the role that status differentials affect how group members internally align the pace of their activities over time (group synchronization). We examine the psychological process of group synchronization from the perspective of the individual, the nature of status differentials in work groups, and how one’s status within a group affects a person’s willingness to adjust the timing of his/her activities to match other people’s timing. We then identify three types of status structures within work groups and analyze how each affects the group’s ability to synchronize. We close by considering the implications of our approach for better understanding temporal dynamics in work groups.

Purpose – Existing research in organizational behavior and social psychology focuses on comparisons in behaviors and attitudes across national groups, instead of studies on interactions among individuals with different national cultural backgrounds. In this chapter, we hope to motivate efforts within cross-national literatures to address some largely unexamined questions regarding dynamics in multicultural diverse teams.

Design/approach – Through a review of the prior perspectives on multicultural teams and a summary of findings in a recent meta-analysis study on multicultural teams in both single nation and multinational settings, we critique the limitations of the current perspectives and propose a new theoretical framework that draws on status perspectives in sociological and ethological research.

Findings – Drawing from status literatures, we explore how the status construction process and the status differential hierarchy of the team may affect trust, psychological safety, and creative problem solving of complex tasks in multicultural teams.

Originality/value – We propose a new theoretical angle of status for future research on interaction dynamics in multicultural teams, and diverse teams in general.

Interpersonal trust is an important element of Chinese guanxi network. In this chapter, we examine Chinese guanxi network from a trust perspective. We adopt the distinction that trust could be built on either a socio-emotional basis (affect-based trust) or an instrumental basis (cognition-based trust) and use this lens to examine cultural differences in Chinese and Western social networks. Specifically, we will discuss (a) how the two dimensions of trust are related in the Chinese versus American context, and (b) how affect-based trust is associated with different forms of social exchange in Chinese versus American social networks. Because dyadic relationships are embedded within larger social networks, trust between two network actors is also likely to be influenced by the social context that surrounds them. Hence, we also examine how dyadic trust is shaped by higher-level network properties such as density.

We present a model of how culture affects both the conceptualizations and behavioral consequences of power, focusing in particular on how culture moderates the previously demonstrated positive relationship between power and assertive action. Western cultures tend to be characterized by independence, whereas individuals in East Asian cultures tend to think of themselves as interdependent. As a result, power is conceptualized around influence and entitlement in the West, and Westerners behave assertively to satisfy oneself. In contrast, East Asians conceptualize power around responsibility and tend to consider how their behavior affects others. As a result the experience of power activates a tendency toward restraint. Therefore, power is associated with an increase in assertive action in independent cultures, whereas it leads to restraint of action in interdependent cultures. We discuss a number of moderators of this effect including the type of actions and the groups who are affected by those actions.

[Conquer with inaction] (L. C. Tsu (600 BC) Tao te ching).

Throughout this volume, the authors have clearly taken as their task assessing how management theory and practice can be improved by understanding cultural differences in cognition, emotion, and interpersonal processes. And, as noted above, they have been generally successful in demonstrating that findings from cultural research have significant implications for management theory. But I would like to look at the products of this volume from a slightly different perspective and ask how thinking about culture in terms of management issues might impact research and theory on cultural differences. In particular, I will consider how the chapters in this volume might help us go beyond some traditional understandings of the nature of cultural differences.