Earley, 1994

Self or Group? Cultural Effects of Training on Self-Efficacy and Performance Author(s): P.
Christopher Earley Source: Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Mar., 1994), pp. 89-117 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University 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 support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Inc. and Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Administrative Science Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.78.233.212 on Tue, 27 Aug 2013 21:57:15 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Self or Group?Cultural Effects of Trainingon Self-efficacy and Performance
This paper examines the theoretical and empirical relationship of training and individualism-collectivism to self-efficacy (a person's estimate of his or her ability to perform a task) and performance in studies of managers from Hong Kong, the People's Republic of China, and the United States. A laboratory experiment and a six-month field experiment were used to test hypotheses predicting P. Christopher Earley Irvine that for individualists, self-focused training would have a Universityof California, stronger impact on self-efficacy and performance than would group-focused training and, for collectivists, group-focused training would have a stronger impact on self-efficacy and performance than would individual-focused training. The results show consistent support for the hypotheses at both a cultural and an individual level of analysis. A general model of self-efficacy and culture in an organizational environment is discussed.' While scholars have increasingly emphasized the important role in work performance of a person's cognitive estimate of his or her capability to perform a given task, or his or her self-efficacy (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Wood and Bandura, 1989), scant attention has been paid to how self-efficacy functions across national and cultural work contexts (for exceptions, see Triandis, 1989; Erez and Earley, 1993). In this paper, I study the underlying process through which cultural background influences how individual and group training affects self-efficacy and performance. INTRODUCTION Scholars have proposed several typologies of cultural dimensions that are useful for such a study. One such dimension is individualism and collectivism, or an individual's perceptions and attitudes toward him- or herself and others in social relationships (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961; Triandis, 1989; Hofstede, 1991; Schwartz, 1993). In an individualistic culture, people look to their own actions to understand who they are, and these actions are relatively independent of others. In a collectivistic culture, people base their self-understanding on the reactions of important others around them. A worker from an individualistic culture strives to improve work performance because of the recognition he or she may receive, whereas a worker from a collectivistic culture seeks improvement because of the gains his or her group may receive (Wagner and Moch, 1986; Erez and Earley, 1993). Thus, people's self-concepts are regulated, in part, by their cultural orientation and values (Epstein, 1973; Rokeach, 1973). The Role of Individualism-Collectivism Shaping Self-efficacy in
? 1994 by CornellUniversity. .00. 0001-8392/94/3901-0089/$1

0
The authorgratefully acknowledgesthe comments and suggestions of Elaine Mosakowskiand Anne Tsuion an earlier draftof this paper.Requests for reprints and other correspondenceshould be addressed to the authorat the Graduate of School of Management,University CA92717. The California at Irvine,Irvine, authorwould liketo thankBao Ji Ming, LuoXing-jian, Zou Qiming,and Zhang for theirassistance in collecting Yong-lin data in the People's Republic of Chinaas well as Susan Peterson for her assistance in collectingthe data in the UnitedStates.
Bandura (1986: 391) posited that self-efficacy influences performance primarilythrough increasing a person's effort and persistence. An individual with high self-efficacy works harder and longer than an individual with low self-efficacy (Wood and Bandura, 1989). One way that self-efficacy is shaped is through social influence. Verbal coaching and information that a person receives about performance norms, future expectations, and past performance all
89/AdministrativeScience Quarterly,39 (1994): 89-1 17
influence self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986) by persuading him or her that a given performance level is attainable. Garland and Adkinson (1987) found that self-efficacy was increased by simply telling subjects during the training before a task, "You can do it." Meyer and Gellatly (1988) found that subjects who were presented with normative information before a task on performance levels achieved by other subjects changed their levels of self-efficacy. These studies demonstrate that information, such as task training, a person receives shapes self-efficacy through a variety of influences. For instance, normative information may make cognitively salient certain performance levels over others through a priming or attributional effect (Garland, 1985; Gist and Mitchell, 1992). A person's confidence may be boosted by verbal coaching based on his or her relation to the coach (Hinrichs, 1976). Another effect of normative information on people's efficacy is due to framing and anchoring influences (Bazerman, 1990; Earley and Erez, 1991). What remains unstudied is where people look to get this information and how 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 as a function of national culture. Just as our culture teaches us what 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 individualists and collectivists, categorized by the cultures from which they come, differentially sample their social environment. Triandis (1989) used Baumeister's (1986) distinction among the private, public, and collective selves, in which the public self refers to the self using generalized others, the private self refers to using personal reference points, and the collective self refers to using a specific reference group, or in-group, in an assessment of the self. He argued that the likelihood of sampling a particularself is related to cultural background, such that, for example, in families in which a child is urged to act independently, the private self is likely to be accessed when the child faces new challenges. Consistent with Markus and Kitayama (1991) and Triandis (1989), Erez and Earley (1993) suggested that individualists use privately referenced information (e.g., their own performance) in establishing their self-efficacy, collectivists use in-group-referenced information (e.g., the in-group's performance), and that, other aspects of culture being comparable, both individualists and collectivists sample the public self with equal frequency. By extending this logic to training in a cultural context, I argue that individualism and collectivism partly determine a person's use of the information provided during training and, hence, self-efficacy and task performance. For the individualist, training that emphasizes personal capability (the private self) will tend to be sampled and used. For the collectivist, whose focus is on the collective self, training that emphasizes in-group capability will tend to be sampled and used: Hypothesis la (Hia): People from a collectivisticculturewho are will have higherself-efficacy providedwith group-focusedtraining
90/ASQ, March 1994
Self or Group?
and performbetter than people from a collectivisticculturewho are providedwith individual-focused training. Hypothesis lb (Hib): People from an individualistic culturewho are providedwith individual-focused trainingwill have higher self-efficacy and performbetter than people from an individualistic culturewho are providedwith group-focusedtraining. Memory structures, knowledge, and experiences stored schematically are not solely accessed through a single self; rather, people more easily incorporate information that is provided when it is consistent with their culturally dominant self. As Triandis (1989) suggested, whether they are individualists or collectivists, people sample from all three selves, with the amounts varying by cultural background. This implies that individualists provided with group-focused training or collectivists provided with individual-focused training do not ignore the information they receive; they use it to different degrees in assessing their self-efficacy, provided that it is relevant to a given task. While training consistent with a person's cultural background will be more effective than inconsistent training, training that is inconsistent will still be sampled, and it will provide some benefits. Indirect support for this point is evident in the training literature, which has shown that people respond to both individual and group-based methods (Hinrichs, 1976). Thus, I also hypothesize, Hypothesis ic (Hic): Regardlessof a person's culturalbackground, will increase self-efficacy more than no either type of training trainingat all. Training information and culture may also jointly influence performance. Based on the literature discussed by Bandura and his colleagues (Bandura, 1986; Wood and Bandura, 1989), the logical causal chain is that culture and training influence self-efficacy and effort which, in turn, influence performance. The relationship of self-efficacy and effort to task performance is well documented; people with high self-efficacy work harder and outperform people with low self-efficacy (Gist and Mitchell, 1992). A simplified version of the model described by Gist and Mitchell (1992) illustrates this chain. They argued that self-efficacy and its consequences, such as effort, mediate the influence of experience (e.g., verbal persuasion) on performance. Thus, I further hypothesize, Hypothesis 2 (H2): Self-efficacyand effort will mediate the interactiveeffects of trainingand cultureon performance. To test these hypotheses, two studies were conducted in a highly individualistic culture (United States) and two highly collectivistic cultures (Hong Kong and People's Republic of China). U.S. culture consists of a strong work ethic emphasizing individual achievement and reward, as well as a strong individual goal orientation (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1988). Chinese society, by contrast, has been historically focused on social interests, collective action, and an emphasis on shared responsibility (Li, 1978; Hsu, 1985; Boisot and Child, 1988; Bond, 1988). The cultural heritage shared by Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China has reinforced a number of similarities across the two cultural environments, including an emphasis on in-group
loyaltyand willingness to put group interests ahead of

91/ASQ, March 1994
self-interests. While the cultural and economic revolutions of the 1970s in the People's Republic of China have placed additional emphasis on equality, contribution to society and group welfare, and concern for interpersonal and work relationships (Lindsay, 1983; Hsu, 1985; Laaksonen, 1988; Earley, 1993), recent research using Hong Kong Chinese participants has demonstrated the strong, collective cultural norms that exist there (e.g., Hofstede, 1980; Bond, Leung, and Giacalone, 1985; Bond, 1988). Although Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China are not identical cultures, what is important for my studies is the relative position of Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China compared with the United States on the cultural value of individualism-collectivism. Chinese culture's collective orientation and high social interest (e.g., social integration, interpersonal responsiveness) suggest that Chinese workers in general are more responsive to group context than Americans, and they focus more on social interests, collective action, and shared responsibility. Overview of Experiments Two types of information were provided during training in both studies: information concerning a person's own capability to perform a task (individual-focused) and information concerning the capability of a person's in-group (reference group) to perform a task (group-focused). In the individual-focused training condition, participants were given information about their own actions and capability. In the group-focused condition, the participants were given information about their group's capability. In the laboratory experiment, I focused on the role of training and culture on an individual's performance as a result of his or her self-efficacy and effort. The only difference between the training conditions was the focal point of the information (self versus group). Study 1 illustrates the direct impact of information type on performance through self-efficacy and effort. I also wanted to examine the effect of an individual's work strategy, which Wood and Bandura (1989) noted often plays a strong role in determining performance. In Study 2, therefore, I conducted a field experiment to extend the training intervention to include task-strategy information in the form of job-related information concerning how to perform better. This was done both to enhance the mundane realism of the field experiment, given that training in a real-world context contains work-strategy information as well as performance expectations, and to expand the sophistication of the intervention in order to determine if self-efficacy will still have an effect when the job-training information includes task-strategy information. STUDY 1: LABORATORYEXPERIMENT Method Participants. Two hundred and fifty-one managers (67 Hong Kong Chinese, 96 Chinese from the People's Republic of China, and 87 Americans) participated in the study on a voluntary basis. The Chinese participants were recruited
92/ASQ, March 1994
Self or Group?
from management training courses hosted by a university in southern China and a university in Hong Kong. All of the managers were natives of the countries in which they were attending their training. The American participants were recruited from a management training course that they were attending on human resources management (HRM). Participants from all three countries were employed in full-time management positions, and they were sponsored by their organizations for the course. A comparison of the three groups based on age, education level, gender, and company size demonstrated no differences among the groups. The mean age of participants was 32.3 years, modal education level was a bachelor's degree, and company size was between 5,001 and 10,000 employees. In addition, 20 participants from Hong Kong, 25 from the United States, and 24 from the People's Republic of China were women. Design and task. The design used a cultural variable, individualism-collectivism, and three types of task training, no training, individual-focused training, or group-focused training. The purpose of the training manipulation was to determine whether or not people derive their efficacy expectations from different sources (individual level versus group level versus no training). In the no-training condition, managers were not given any training. In the individual-focused training condition, managers were given information specific to their own performance potential and actions. In the group-focused training condition, managers were given information specific to their group's performance potential and actions. Individualism-collectivism was measured as a continuous variable. The experimental task was to generate alternative daily work schedules of employees based on a three-shift workplace and 30 employees having various schedule preferences. The managers were asked to generate as many alternative schedules as possible during a 30-minute period, using the constraints of employees' preferences for shifts and their availability. The managers were told that they had to conform to several rules in scheduling: First, they had to use employees' preferences and availability for shifts; second, no employee could serve on more than a single shift on a given day; and, third, the schedules could not repeat themselves. The task was chosen both because it consisted of an activity familiar to all participants in their normal work activities and because similar scheduling tasks have been used successfully in other task-performance studies (e.g., Erez, Earley, and Hulin, 1985). The schedules were scored as correct if all scheduling rules were followed. Scoring was done by two raters, who had a high interrater reliability (r = .97, p < .01). Sets of materials were prepared for the subjects in their native language. The procedure for developing and translating the materials used back-translation (Brislin, 1980); the text was simplified through the use of short sentences and focused on specific rather than general concepts. The back-translation was performed by two assistants to the experimenter who are bilingual, and the translated version of the task was examined by a Hong Kong Chinese colleague in order to
ensure that it made sense for the Hong Kongsample.

93/ASQ, March 1994
Dependent measures. Performance was measured by the number of work schedules correctly completed by a participant during the 30-minute performance period. Self-rated effort was measured with two items, using a 5-point scale, before subjects began the task: (1) "How hard are you going to try as you work on this task?" (1 = not at all hard and 5 = extremely hard) and (2) "How much effort do you intend to exert as you complete schedules?" (1 = no effort and 5 = a great deal of effort). These items were averaged for a composite effort score, and the items were significantly correlated (r = .82, p < .01). Individualism-collectivism was assessed on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree), using the eight-item version of a questionnaire developed by Earley (1993), who adapted previous items in order to focus on the goal, task-performance, and in-group aspects of this cultural value, individualism-collectivism. Items included (1) "Employees like to work in a group rather than by themselves"; (2) "If a group is slowing me down, it is better to leave it and work alone"; (3) "To be superior, a man must stand alone"; (4) "One does better work working alone than in a group"; (5) "I would rather struggle through a personal problem by myself than discuss it with my friends"; (6) "An employee should accept the group's decision even when personally he or she has a different opinion"; (7) "Problem solving by groups gives better results than problem solving by individuals"; and (8) "The needs of people close to me should take priorityover my personal needs." I chose to use this questionnaire because goals and performance are integral aspects of self-efficacy (Wood and Bandura, 1989) and because it has been used successfully in the countries studied in my research. Responses to the scale were coded so that a high score indicated collectivistic values, and a low score indicated individualistic values; the reliability (Cronbach's alpha) of the scale was .73. A principal-components analysis demonstrated that the items loaded on a single factor having an eigenvalue of 4.89, accounting for 49 percent of the total variance; factor loadings ranged from .51 to .82. To measure self-efficacy, subjects were asked to rate their self-efficacy for nine levels of possible performancecompleting 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, and 45 a 100-point certainty scale, where 0 = schedules-using "certain the performance level cannot be achieved" and 100 = "certain the performance level can be achieved." For subsequent analyses, the responses to the scale were averaged for a composite self-efficacy score that had a reliability (Cronbach's alpha) of .75. Procedure. The participants in all samples followed the same experimental procedure. The managers participated in the experiment during an HRM executive education course, which I taught, as a normal exercise during their regularly scheduled program. I introduced the exercise to the managers as an illustration of general management planning and work activities; they were asked if they were willing to participate in the exercise, and none refused. The managers were randomly assigned to one of the three training
94/ASQ, March 1994
Self or Group?
conditions, and they were given a packet containing various materials, including a questionnaire assessing general demographic information, individualism-collectivism, and a statement concerning their willingness to participate in the exercise. After completing the questionnaire, the managers read the task instructions and then worked on sample schedules for ten minutes, after which they were permitted to ask questions about the task. I then picked up these materials, handed out booklets containing the experimental task materials, and began the training intervention. The managers were put into three separate areas based on the number at the top of their task booklets, which had been distributed on a random basis. In the no-training condition, participants were asked to read some general information concerning management practices (an interview with a CEO reported in Academy of Management Executive), which took approximately the same amount of time as the training intervention in the other two conditions. Pilot testing with this task demonstrated that people reading this article prior to working on the task did not become more fatigued than people simply instructed to begin immediately working on the task. In the individual-focused training condition, I gave the participants a sheet containing several pieces of training information intended to bolster their individual self-efficacy expectations about performing the task. First, a formula was presented into which the managers put their practice trial performance, years of work experience, job level (based on a 3-point classification scheme), and years of education and then calculated a number that they compared with a categorization scheme of supplied values to extrapolate their performance across a 30-minute period. The categorization scheme was constructed so that all of the managers fell into the same category, although none of them was aware that the outcome was contrived. This was accomplished by supplying values for the high category that everyone would fall into. Second, the managers read three "manager performance profiles" and were told to choose the one that most closely resembled them. They were again referred to the categorization scheme to see what performance level they might expect to achieve. As with the formula, the profiles were constructed so that the managers would find themselves in the same category that was indicated by the formula. This was accomplished by constructing the profiles such that only one profile would fit all the managers. Third, the managers completed two items that captured their "management performance quotient": (1) "Based on your typical work performance, would you characterize yourself as an energetic and dedicated employee or someone who is quite distracted and uninvolved in your work?"; and (2) "Are you a performance-oriented person or someone who just completes the minimum requirements?", where 1 = yes and 0 = no. They were again referred to a categorization scheme to see what performance level they might expect to achieve. As with the formula, the profiles were constructed so that the managers would find
themselves in the same category that was indicatedby the

95/ASQ, March 1994
formula.Inthis category, a response of yes to either question placed them in a high-performance category. Finally,I told the managers to calculate an overall performance-potential score from the numberof times that they categorizedthemselves in the "high-performance" category (a maximumof three times, using the three sections of the materials),and they were told to evaluate their potentialbased on a final categorizationscheme at the end of the materials:low performance-i 5-25 schedules; average performance-25-35 schedules; or high performance-over 35 schedules. A post-hoc analysis of the managers' classificationdemonstrated that they all correctly classified themselves in the high-performance category, which demonstrates that the manipulation was successful. Inthe group-focused trainingcondition,I gave the managers an information sheet similarto the one used in the conditionexcept that the various items individual-focused were adjusted to reflect the potentialperformancelevel of others whom they viewed as importantto them. The instructionsspecificallydirected them to thinkabout four or five of their closest friends and/orfamilywho worked. I chose to include referent members from both familyand friends, ratherthan limitthe categorizationto coworkers, because previous research on group membership and collectivism has shown the importanceof familial connections to in-groupcomposition (e.g., Triandis,1989). Managerswere asked to write the initialsof these people at the top of their sheet and to keep thinkingof them as they worked throughthe items. The first item was a formulain which the managers put in the average numberof years of work experience that their referent friends/family members had accumulated,average job level (based on a 3-point classificationscheme), and average degree acquired.The managers then calculateda numberthat they compared with a categorizationscheme of supplied values to extrapolate across a 30-minute their group's performancecapability period.As in the individual-focused condition,the categorizationscheme was constructed so that all of the managers fell into the same category, although none of them was aware that the outcome was contrived.Second, the managers read three "managerperformanceprofiles" and were told to choose the one that most closely resembled their chosen family/friends. They were again referredto the categorizationscheme to see what performancelevel they might expect to achieve. The profiles were constructed so that the managers would inevitablypick the same category as indicatedby the formula.Third,the managers completed two items that capturedtheir "management performancequotient": (1) "Based on your typicalwork performance,would you characterizeyour chosen family members/friendsas energetic and dedicated who are quite distractedand uninvolvedin or individuals their work?"; and (2) "Areyour chosen family or people who just members/friendsperformance-oriented complete the minimumof what is requiredof them?" Again, these items were constructed so that the managers would answer consistently with one another, and they were directed to evaluate the responses with the supplied
96/ASQ, March 1994
Self or Group?
categorization scheme. Finally, the managers were told to calculate an overall performance potential score for these referent others from the number of times that they categorized their family/friends in the "high-performance" category (a maximum of three times, using the three sections of the materials), then to categorize the performance potential of their referent choices based on a final categorization scheme at the end of the materials: low performance- 15-25 schedules; average performance-2535 schedules; high performance-over 35 schedules. A post-hoc analysis of the classification used by the managers demonstrated that all of the managers correctly classified their referent group in the high-performance category, which demonstrates that the manipulation was effective. I then gave the managers a short questionnaire assessing their intended effort level and self-efficacy expectations. In each group, after the questionnaire was completed and collected, the managers were instructed to begin working on the task with the booklet of materials provided. At the end of the 30-minute performance period, I collected the materials, debriefed the managers concerning the purpose of the experiment, and answered any remaining questions they had. Finally, I discussed the relationship of the experiment to processes of work motivation and performance in organizations across various cultural settings. Analysis. My method of analysis consisted of regressing performance on the predictor variables (effort, efficacy, individualism-collectivism, training condition), followed by country of origin, which was captured using two dummy variables contrasting Hong Kong with other countries (dummy 1) and the United States with the other countries (dummy 2). Inasmuch as I was interested in the relationship of individualism-collectivism and its interaction with training as mediating variables, I analyzed the data using a regression model rather than using an ANOVA approach. Given that the hypotheses concern the relationship of training condition and individualism-collectivism to performance, I created two predictor variables that capture the cultural-level and individual-level aspects of individualism-collectivism.1 The general logic of this procedure is to separate the "shared" (or cultural-level) aspect of the assessed values and beliefs (individualism and collectivism) from that aspect of the values and beliefs that has been uniquely shaped by an individual's experiences (an individual-level characteristic). Separating collectivismindividual from collectivism-group allows me to estimate the unique contribution of each level of this construct (shared value versus individual differences characteristic). The hypotheses concerning individualism and collectivism were therefore tested comparably at the cultural level and the individual level, using collectivism-group (cultural-level) and collectivism-individual (individual-level),with collectivismindividual functioning as a psychological variable and collectivism-group functioning as a cultural variable. I calculated the mean individualism-collectivism score for
I thankElaineMosakowskifor her suggestions concerningthis analysisof differences cultureand individual characteristics.
each countryand assigned this score to each participant

97/ASQ, March 1994
from that country (labeled collectivism-group). I then calculated a difference score by subtracting each person's individualism-collectivism mean score for the 8-item scale from his or her country score (labeled collectivism-individual) after removing that person's own score from the overall mean. Collectivism-group represents a country (or the "culture") score, while collectivism-individual represents an individual's deviation from the country score. Thus, the former variable represents the general culture shared within a given nation, and the latter variable represents an individual-differences characteristic. The use of a difference score is not without problems. In particular,difference scores are subject to low reliability (Cohen and Cohen, 1975: 375-382), particularlywhen calculating differences using change scores, which attenuates the magnitude of the relationship between the deviation score and other variables. This unreliability becomes increasingly problematic as the component reliabilities of the variables used to calculate the difference score become increasingly intercorrelated and unreliable themselves. In my studies, the correlation between collectivism-group and the individualism-collectivism score was moderate (.50 and .31 for studies 1 and 2, respectively), and the component scale reliabilities were in excess of .80, which yields an acceptable estimated reliability (.68 and .72 for studies 1 and 2, respectively) for the differences scores (Cohen and Cohen, 1975: 64). I aggregated the samples for the analysis and examined the residual influences of country of origin in predicting performance after accounting for the collectivism-individual and collectivism-group variables. The general logic of this approach is that individualism-collectivism (partitioned into collectivism-individual and collectivism-group components), rather than country of origin, drives the hypothesized interaction. After accounting for variance attributable to collectivism-individual, collectivism-group, training, collectivism-group x training, and collectivism-individual x training, the two dummy variables for country and their interaction with training should not explain additional variance in performance. Further, I would anticipate that both collectivism-individual and collectivism-group (and their interactions with training) would significantly predict performance both before and after entering the two dummy variables for country and their interaction with training. Resu Its The means and standard deviations for performance, effort, efficacy, and individualism-collectivism are presented in Table 1 for the three training conditions and three countries. The Pearson correlations for all the variables are in the Appendix. To test the hypotheses that people from individualistic and collectivistic cultures would respond differentially to individual-focused and group-focused training (H1a, Hib, HMc),I regressed performance hierarchically on the demographic variables of age, education level, gender, and company size (step 1), training, collectivism-group and
98/ASQ, March 1994
Self or Group?
collectivism-individual (step 2), the trainingby collectivism-group, collectivism-individual interactions(step 3), the two countrydummy variables(step 4), and the dummy variablesby traininginteractions(step 5). The results of this analysis are presented in Table 2, and there appears to be clear supportfor the hypothesized interactions.After controllingfor the main effects, the interactionterms were significantlyrelatedto performance(change in R2 = .08,
p < .01).
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Variables across Training Conditions and Country of Origin* United States (US) Training condition No training
Performance
Hong Kong (HK) Training condition No training

21 .50a
People's Republic of China (PRC) Training condition No training

22.34a
Individualfocused
37.52b
Groupfocused
28.96c
Individualfocused
34.96b
Groupfocused
36.40b
Individualfocused
31.02c
Groupfocused
36.68b
Mean S.D.
Effort
Mean
21.00a 2.36
2.00d
6.21
4.04e
6.65
3.1 5f
3.01
2.33d
4.95
3.47ef
5.52
385 e
4.14
2,00d
6.74
3.23f
5.40
4.23e
S.D.
Self-efficacy
Mean
1.08
72.00g
1.51
90.88h
1.05
74.92g9'
1.46
70.41g
1.12
86.47hJi
1.14
92.95h
.90
74.21g
1.37
81.45i
1.28
90.79h
S.D.
Individualismcollectivism
Mean
8.21
12.15
8.43
7.53
13.31
6.52
7.15
11.45
10.91
2.14i
2.32i
1,79i
3.75k
2.96k
3.60k
3.56k
3.52k
3.59k
S.D.
1.00
1.46
.84
1.15
.98
.94
.84
1.04
.90
* Means within each dependent variable having different superscripts are significantly different at p < .05.
To better understandthe interactions,the means for performancewere examined for high and low levels of based on a median split within individualism-collectivism, each country,across trainingconditions.These data were analyzed using one-way ANOVAswithin each collectivism group (country),across the trainingconditions.The results demonstrate a significantmain effect for trainingcondition within each collectivism-group sample [F(2,83) = 74.63, F(2,64) = 72.74, F(2,93) = 45.66, for the United States, Hong Kong,and People's Republicof China,respectively].A post-hoc least significantdifferences test demonstrates that than in the performancewas higher in the individual-focused group-focusedtrainingconditionin the United States, whereas the opposite was true for Hong Kongand the People's Republicof China.In all three samples, the conditionresulted in lower performancethan no-training either of the other trainingconditions.These results support Hypotheses 1a-1c. To furtherunderstandindividualism-collectivism at the individual level, I examined performancewithin levels of individualism-collectivism (low, high)across the training conditionsfor each collectivism-group sample. These means, shown in Table 3, were analyzed using one-way ANOVAs parallelto those used in the analysis at the collectivismgroup level. The overalleffects are presented in Table 3, along with the results of post-hoc contrasts using the least-significance-difference test. The results demonstrate
99/ASQ, March 1994
Table 2 Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Performance for Study 1, Testing for Moderating Effect of Individualism-Collectivism Step Age Education Company size Gender Collectivism-individual Collectivism-group Training condition Collectivism-individual x training Collectivism-group x training Country dummy 1 (HKvs. US, PRC) Country dummy 2 (US vs. HK, PRC) Dummy 1 x training Dummy 2 x training *p < .05; s-p < .01. 1 R2 .03 AR2 .03 Beta .11 .13 .11 .02 -.08 .10 .62 .43 .33 .04 .00 -.03 .01 t (for beta) 1.75 1.95 1.73 .31 -1.72 2.0512.65w 5.76w 1.95.92 .00 -.38 .00
.45
.42
3 4 5
.53 .53 .53 0 0
.08
that within each collectivism-group (country),individualists responded more positivelyto individual-focused trainingthan group-focusedtraining,whereas collectivists responded more positivelyto group-focusedtrainingthan individualfocused training-a patternthat is repeated for all three countries.
Table 3 Post-hoc Analyses of Performance Using Country (Cultural Group), Training Condition, and a Median Split for Individualism-Collectivism Values* Training Condition Country United States Individualismcollectivism Low High Hong Kong Low High People's Republic of China
*p < .01.
*
No training 21.04 (2.35) 20.90 (2.51) 21.83 (2.75) 21.16 (3.32) 24.00 (5.40) 20.83 (1.59)
Individualfocused 40.42 (2.87) 28.93 (4.72) 36.94 (3.64) 29.33 (3.72) 35.94 (4.53) 26.89 (5.40)
Groupfocused 28.12 (5.91) 41.01 (5.79) 33.10 (4.17) 39.70 (4.76) 32.89 (4.03) 40.47 (3.00)
F (d.f.) 119.92(2,66) 26.41(2,16) 65.44(2,36) 59.28(2,25) 21.39(2,43) 106.89(2,47)
Low High
Standard deviationsare in parentheses. Post-hoctests of performance conducted for each countrywithin each level of individualism-collectivism (low, high)demonstrated that each training mean significantly (p < .05) differedfrom each other mean withina and group-focused given level (e.g., the no-training, individual, trainingconditionsdiffered pairwisefromone anotherwithinthe Hong Kongcollectivism-group sample).
I then added a step to the regression reportedin Table 2 to test for the mediatingeffect of the individualism-collectivism construct (collectivism-group, in the collectivism-individual) of the countrydummy variablesto performance. relationship I added in the countrydummy variablesand then added their interactionwith the trainingconditionin an additionalstep. I also conducted a parallelanalysis in which the order of entry
100/ASQ, March 1994
Self or Group?
for training,collectivism-group and collectivism-individual, trainingx collectivism-group, collectivism-individual versus the countrydummy variablesand their interactionwith trainingwere reversed, so that I could compare the variance accounted for in performanceby countrybefore and after controllingfor collectivism-group and collectivism-individual and their interactionswith training.Finally,I examined the correlationbetween the trainingconditionby countrydummy variableinteractionsand performance.If a mediating approachis to be supported,the countrydummy variables (and their interactionwith trainingcondition)should not be related significantly to performanceafter accountingfor to collectivism-group varianceattributable and collectivism-individual, trainingcondition,and their interaction,but they should account for a significantamount of variancepriorto controlling for these other variables.The results of this analysis supportthe assertion that and collectivism-individual collectivism-group and their interactionwith trainingconditionexplainthe influence. Priorto controllingfor country-of-origin and collectivism-individual, collectivism-group training condition,and their interaction,the countrydummy variables and their interactionwith trainingconditionaccounted for 39 percent of the variancein performance,but after controlling for these other variables,the countrydummy variablesand their interactionwith trainingaccounted for no additional variancein performance.In addition,the countrydummy variablesand their interactionwith trainingwere significantly correlatedwith performance(r = .14, .12, .31, and .36 for dummy 1, dummy 2, dummy 1 x training,and dummy 2 x training,respectively;p < .05). Takentogether, these results illustratethat collectivism-group and collectivism-individual and their interactionwith trainingexplainthe influence of country-onperformancein this study. To test hypothesis 2, that effort and self-efficacy would mediate the effect of the collectivism-group, collectivism-individual by traininginteractionson performance,mediated regression analysis was conducted. Performancewas regressed on the demographicvariables (step 1), effort and self-efficacy (step 2), followed by and training collectivism-group, collectivism-individual, condition(step 3), followed by collectivism-group, x training(step 4). A second collectivism-individual regression equationwas constructed in which effort and self-efficacy were entered into the equation after entering the other variables,and I examined the Pearson correlations of effort and self-efficacy with performance.The results, presented in Table 4, show a strong mediatingeffect for effort and self-efficacy, althoughthey do not completely mediate the relationship. After accountingfor the variance in demographicvariables(step 1) and effort and self-efficacy and collectivism-individual, (step 2), collectivism-group trainingcondition,and the collectivism-group, collectivism-individual by traininginteractions(step 3) accounted for a significantamount of variancein variablesdrivingthis performance(7 percent).The primary are trainingconditionand significantrelationship collectivism-individual by training.Priorto entering effort and self-efficacy, collectivism-group and collectivism-individual,
1O1/ASQ,March 1994
trainingcondition,and collectivism-group, collectivismindividual by traininginteractionswere significantlyrelated to performance,accountingfor 42 percent of the variance. These results demonstrate that effort and self-efficacy partially mediate the relationship of the collectivism-group, collectivism-individual by traininginteractionson performance.In contrast, the hypothesized mediators (effort and self-efficacy)accounted for 66 percent of the variance in for collectivism-group performancepriorto controlling and collectivism-individual, trainingcondition,and collectivism-individual collectivism-group, by training condition,whereas effort and self-efficacy still accounted for 23 percent of the variancein performanceafter controlling for collectivism-group and collectivism-individual, training condition,and their interactions.
Table 4 Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Performance for Study 1, Testing for Mediating Effect of Individualism-Collectivism Step Panel A Age Education Company size Gender Effort Self-efficacy Collectivism-individual Collectivism-group Training condition Collectivism-individual x training Collectivism-group x training Panel B Age Education Company size Gender Collectivism-individual Collectivism-group Training condition Collectivism-individual x training Collectivism-group x training Effort Self-efficacy *p < .05; -p < .01. 1 .03 .03 .11 .13 .11 .02 -.08 .10 .62 .43 .33 .30 .43 1.75 1.951.73 .31 - 1.72 2.0512.65-5.76-1.957.49-10.25-1 .03 .03 .11 .13 .11 .02 .42 .53 .01 .02 .27 .21 - .12 1.75 1.951.73 .31 9.83-12.62-.03 .58 6.94-3.88-- .79 R2 AR2 Beta t (for beta)
2 3
.69 .74
.66 .05
.76
.02
.45
.42
3 4
.53 .76
.08 .23
A final set of analyses was conducted on self-efficacy and test (see effort, using the least-significant-differences superscripts in Table 1, above, for results). The results demonstrate that self-efficacy and effort were significantly higher in the individual-focused trainingconditionthan in the other trainingconditionsfor U.S. managers, whereas self-efficacy and effort were significantlyhigher in the group-focusedtrainingconditionthan in the other training conditionsfor managers from the People's Republicof China.Finally, self-efficacy and effort were significantly
102/ASQ, March 1994
Self or Group?
higherin the individualand group-focusedtrainingconditions than in the no-training conditions. Discussion This study shows that efficacy trainingdifferentially shapes a person's performancedepending on the relationshipof the trainingmethod to his or her individualism-collectivism orientation.People who were high on collectivism-group and collectivism-individual (collectivists)responded best to group-focusedtraininginformation, whereas people who were low in collectivism-group and collectivism-individual (individualists) responded best to individual-focused training that was information.In addition,traininginformation and incongruentwith a person's collectivism-group orientationwas still more effective in collectivism-individual enhancing performancethan no trainingat all. To test this model of self-efficacy, effort, and performance further,a field experimentwas done, in which U.S. and Chinese (People's Republicof Chinaonly) service and representativeswere trainedusing individual group-focusedtrainingmethods in the context of ongoing in the study. job trainingby the companies participating While this second study represents a conceptual replication of Study 1, it also includeda longitudinal assessment of several key variablesover a six-monthperiod. EXPERIMENT STUDY 2: FIELD Method Participants. One hundredand eight service representatives (62 Americanand 46 Chinese) from similarcommunication companies in the United States and People's Republicof Chinaparticipated in the experiment.As in Study 1, I attempted to match the samples, althoughthe constraints of the field settings precludeda perfect match. The participants were compared on a numberof characteristics,including age, gender, years of service with their company, and education.A comparisonof the two groups based on age, education level, gender, and job tenure demonstrated no differences between the groups. The mean age of was 28.6 years, modal education level was a participants bachelor'sdegree, and mean job tenure was 2-5 years. In from the U.S. and 20 from the addition,19 participants People's Republicof Chinawere women. Work sites. The U.S. company is located in the Midwest, has over 20,000 employees, and has a centralizedstructure. It produces telecommunicationsequipment and other diversifiedproductsand provides communicationservices. The Chinese company is located in the northeasternpartof mainlandChina,has over 20,000 employees, and it has a centralizedstructure.It produces telecommunications equipment and provides some communicationservices. Both companies produce directlyfor the marketand act as contractorsfor the government. The U.S. company, however, has a more geographically dispersed operation than the Chinese company.
103/ASQ, March 1994
Both companies use a simple performancemonitoringby the representative'ssupervisorthat I could use to assess the traininginterventions.In both companies, the supervisor assesses a representative'sperformanceevery three months from observations made while accompanyinghim or her duringa normalworkdayseveral times duringthe performanceperiod.At both companies, it is the practiceof the employees' supervisorsto evaluate their subordinates every three months using a single-page assessment of performanceand for them to do a more complete evaluation,with narrative descriptions,every twelve months after an in-depthdiscussion with the employee about his or her work objectives and self-reportedperformance.The companies evaluated a group's performanceevery three months by poolingthe evaluationsof individual members of the group as well as assessing the overallsynergy of the group based on members' abilityto coordinateand cooperate. Dependent measures. Before the trainingintervention,I obtained a baseline performancefor each of the employees from personnel files by using their overallperformancerating from the priorthree-monthperiod.The variablesof performance,self-efficacy, and self-rated effort were assessed at two times: three months (Time 1) and six months (Time2) after the trainingintervention. Performancewas measured using each company's standard appraisalsystem. Because the traininginterventionshad the potentialto affect employees' actual work performance,I kept the performanceevaluationsconfidential.I chose to use the standardevaluationprovidedby a service representative'ssupervisor,which consists of an interview and field observations, so as to avoid introducing additional biases into the study. To assure comparability across nationalsamples, two general performanceitems rated on a 9-point scale were selected from their evaluation instruments: (1) "Overall,how would you judge the quality of this employee's work performance?"and (2) "Please evaluate the service providedby this employee" (1 =
extremely poor, 5 = average, and 9 = outstanding). The
correlationof these items was .89 (p < .01). Self-ratedeffort was measured using two items: (1) "How hardare you going to try as you work on your job?" (1 = not at all hardand 5 = extremely hard);and (2) "How much effort do you intend to exert as you performyour job duties as a service representative?"(1 = no effort and 5 = a great deal of effort).These items were averaged for a composite effort score, and the items were significantlycorrelated(r = .73, p < .01). Individualism-collectivism, age, education, gender, and job tenure were assessed priorto the experimentalinterventions using a single-page questionnairepresented to each participant by a personnel representative.As with Study 1, all materialswere back-translated into Chinese with the help of the personnel department representative.
104/ASQ, March 1994
Self or Group?
Individualism-collectivism was assessed using the scale described in Study 1. Responses to the scales were coded so that a high score indicatedcollectivisticvalues and a low score indicatedindividualistic values; the reliability (Cronbach's alpha)of the scale was .71. A principalcomponents analysis demonstrated that the items loaded on a single factor havingan eigenvalue of 5.12, accounting for 51 percent of the total variance(factorloadings ranged from .48 to .85). To measure self-efficacy, participants were asked to rate their self-efficacy for seven levels of overallperformance ratings-achieving a 3,4,5,6,7,8, and 9 for himself or herself-using a 100-pointcertaintyscale on which 0 = "certainthe performancelevel cannot be achieved" and 100 = "certainthe performancelevel can be achieved." For subsequent analyses, the responses to the scale were averaged for a composite self-efficacy score havinga reliability (Cronbach's alpha)of .77. The Pearson correlations for the variablesin Study 2 are in the Appendix. Procedure. After makingan initialcontact with the companies in each of the countries, I worked with each company's personnel representativeto determine the best for the job category from which to obtain participants chosen for this study trainingintervention.The participants were service representativeswhose task it is to contact corporatecustomers and providethem with technical assistance for their equipment. A great deal of this contact is made in person, and it involves meeting with corporate customers and servicingtheir existing equipment, following up initialcalls or visits, maintaining ongoing relationships, a general service contact for the companies. and providing People in this job were chosen for the study because the job is quite similarin content across the two countries despite such obvious differences as politicaland economic systems. The next step was to obtain employees' consent to participatein the trainingeffort. The programwas introduced to the employees as a personal improvementseminar for service representatives.As confidentiality concerning performanceoutcomes associated with the programwas A total of 120 assured, no one refused to participate. contacted for the study, but employees were initially approximately10 percent failed to complete the study because they were transferred,left their job, or their data were incomplete, resultingin a final sample of 108 service representatives.Withineach country,the service representativeswere randomlyassigned to one of the two trainingconditions,the only constraintbeing that individuals from the same work unit were put into the same training conditionto avoid cross-conditioncontaminationand so that no employee was at a disadvantagecomparedwith another member of his or her work unit. This constraintdid not seem to introducea strong bias to the randomassignment procedure,however, as in both companies, only a maximum of five employees came from the same work unit. The procedureused in the study was similarin each country, and a personnel representativeworkingwith me conducted
105/ASQ, March 1994
the trainingsessions. In the individual-focused training condition,the service representativeswere broughtin for their trainingin a large group meeting, and the training interventionwas providedby the personnel representative. The trainingconsisted of normativetraininginformation as well as specific tactical information about how to perform their work better. The trainingprovidedemployees with performanceinformation based on their own prior performancewith the company (normative), and they were given a booklet containinginformation about the job of service representativeand how one might improvejob performancefrom a service and qualityperspective (tactical or strategic). In addition,a personnel representative discussed materialspresented in a three-hourtraining session that includeda general lecture and a series of dyadic interactions(employee with personnel representative)to clarifymaterialpresented in the packet. All of the discussion focused on the employee him- or herself and how the employee's past performancemight be used to generate future successes. In the group-focused trainingcondition,the service representativeswere also broughtin for their trainingin a large group and the traininginterventionwas also provided by the personnel representative.As in the individual-focused training,the interventionconsisted of normativeinformation, but all of priorperformance,and specific tactical information, it was adapted so that an employee's work group was now the unit of consideration.Priorperformancethus consisted of telling employees how their respective work units (and fellow service representatives)had performedand how their unit might performbetter as a group. By focusing this information on the reference group, performancewas framed in terms of the group's past performanceand future The tactical information capability. concerning how to performa job more effectively (e.g., improvingclient satisfaction throughan open approachto assessing the problems with the phone system) was posed in terms of how the work unit might performbetter. Thus, the content of the tactics that might be used was held constant across the two trainingconditions,while the reference point versus group)changed. (individual After completing the trainingintervention,the employees returnedto their normalwork activities. The companies' normalevaluationprocedures (reporting employee and group level) were used in performanceat the individual assessing each representative'sperformance,and a follow-uptrainingsession identicalto the first one was conducted by the personnel representativeafter the first evaluationoccurred (at the end of three months). The trainingwas conducted a second time because the personnel departmentswanted to reinforcethe training at the end of the second performance intervention.Finally, period (aftersix months), the personnel representativeand I broughtthe employees in for a general debriefingon the varioustrainingprocedures used in the study, and they were providedwith the alternatetrainingapproach,not used in their experimentalcondition.Additionally, the employees
106/ASQ, March 1994
Self or Group?
were assured that their performanceduringthis training assessment would not be used in their general personnel records. ResuIts Descriptive statistics. Table 5 presents the means and standarddeviationsfor performance,effort, efficacy, and and individualism and collectivism (collectivism-group across the two trainingconditions collectivism-individual) and group-training (coded as 0, 1 for the individualconditions, respectively),and countries (coded 0, 1 for the United States and the People's Republicof China, respectively).
Table 5 Descriptive Statistics for Variables across Training Conditions and Country of Origin* United States Variable Performance Baseline Individualfocused Groupfocused People's Republic of China Individualfocused Groupfocused
Mean S.D.
Time 1 Mean
5.06a (.82)
6.66b
5.11a
4.88a
5.27a
(.80)
6.74b
(.90)
5.88c
(.98)
7.21b
(1.41)
7.18 d
S.D.
Time 2
Mean
(1.56)
6.94d
(1.24)
6.54d
(1.45)
5.75e
S.D.
Effort Time 1
(1.45)
(1.28)
(1.39)
(1.61)
Mean S.D.
Effort Time 2
4.03f (.78)
3.429 (.69)
3.639 (.71)
4.1 2f (.78)
Mean S.D.
Self-efficacy Time 1
Mean
4.06 (.71)
3.58 (.84)
3.59' (.81)
4.03 (.85)
85.13i
79.92k
78.91k
86.45i
S.D.
Self-efficacy Time 2
(11.35)
(11.80) 80.31m (11.05)

2.58n
(12.32)
(9.89)
Mean S.D.
Individualism-collectivism Mean
86.151 (10.95)
2.72n
79.79m (11.87)
3.580
86.81' (10.68)
3.270
S.D.
nificantly different at p < .05.
(1.22)
(1.26)
(.97)
(1.20)
* Means within each dependent variable having different superscripts are sig-
As in Study 1, the method of analysis consisted of regressing performanceon the predictorvariables(effort, and collectivism-individual, self-efficacy, collectivism-group and trainingcondition).Again, I partitioned individualismcollectivism into the country-level(collectivism-group) and
107/ASQ, March 1994
individual-level (collectivism-individual) components. In this two-countrysample of Study 2, this means that collectivism-group and countryare both dichotomous variablesand, therefore, completely redundant,in contrast to Study 1, which had three countries and the partitioned collectivism-group variableassumed three values. Thus, the method of analysis used in Study 1, examiningresidual varianceattributable to country,could not be used in Study 2. Instead, I tested the hypotheses using collectivism-group and collectivism-individual. To test for the mediatingrole of trainingconditionby individualism and collectivism interactionin the relationship of countryby traininginteractionto performance,I conducted a regression using the procedureoutlined in Earley(1989). I regressed performanceat Time 1 and Time 2 on the demographicvariablesof age, education hierarchically level, gender, company size, and baseline performance(step 1), training,individualism-collectivism (step 2), trainingby individualism-collectivism interaction(step 3), and country and country-by-training interaction(step 4). The results of this analysis (available from the author)demonstrate support for the mediatingeffect. As with Study 1, it appears that individualism-collectivism captures the effect of countryand trainingon performance. Tests of hypotheses. To test the hypotheses that training conditionand collectivism-group, collectivism-individual interactin predictingperformance(H1a, H1b), performance at Time 1 and Time 2 was regressed hierarchically on the demographicvariablesof age, education level, gender, company size, and baseline performance(step 1), training, and collectivism-individual collectivism-group (step 2), and the trainingby collectivism-group, collectivism-individual interactions(step 3). The results of this analysis are presented in Table 6, panels A and B, and there appears to be clear supportfor the hypothesized interactions.After controllingfor the main effects, the interactionterms accounted for a significantinfluence on performance (change-R2= .35 at Time 1, .38 at Time 2, p < .01). To understandbetter the natureof the interactions,the means for performancewere examined for high and low levels of individualism-collectivism (based on a median split within each country)across trainingconditions.These data were analyzed using one-way ANOVAswithin each collectivism-group (hence, within each country)across the trainingconditions.The results, shown in Table 7, demonstrate significantmain effects for trainingconditionfor the People's Republicof China[F(1,53) = 19.13, 26.02, for Time 1 and Time 2, respectively]but no significanteffects for the United States. These results demonstrate that effective in the People's Republic trainingwas differentially of China(group-focusedbeing superiorto individual-focused) but not in the United States. These results support hypothesis la but not hypothesis lb. To understandbetter individualism-collectivism at the individual level, I examined performancewithin levels of individualism-collectivism (low, high)across the training
108/ASQ, March 1994
Self or Group? Table6 HierarchicalRegression Analysis of Performance for Study 2, Testing for Moderating Effects of Individualism-Collectivism Step Panel A: Performance, Time 1 Age Education Tenure Gender Baseline performance
Collectivism-individual Collectivism-group
R2
AR2
Beta
t (for beta)
.16
.16
.04 -.17 .21 .24 .14

-.08
.38 -1.88 2.272.60w 1.45

-.81 - .01
.21
.06
Training condition x training Collectivism-individual x training Collectivism-group Panel B: Performance, Time 2 Age Education Tenure Gender Baseline performance
Collectivism-individual
.56
.35
.21 .88 1.51
2.258.47" 2.50
.13
.13
.01 -.10 .17 .21 .19

- .02
.14 -1.05 1.78 2.281.92

- .23
.17
.04
Collectivism-group Training condition x training Collectivism-individual x training Collectivism-group

*p < .05; s-p < .01.
.55
.38
-.09 .18 .89 2.07
-.92 1.87 8.50" 3.38--
Table7 Post-hoc Analyses of Performance (Time 1 and Time 2) Using Country, Median Split of Individualism-Collectivism,and Trainingfor Study 2* Individualismcollectivism Low High People's Republic of China Low High Time 2 UnitedStates Training Condition Individual Group 8.07 (.92) 5.55 (.92) 6.58 (1.38) 5.17 (1.19) 8.14 (.86) 6.00 (1.08) 6.42 (1.24) 5.08 (1.24) 6.10 (.99) 7.44 (1.13) 6.42 (1.26) 8.28 (.72) 5.90 (.88) 7.67 (1.00) 6.32 (1.24) 8.36 (.75) F (d.f.) 25.15 (1,22) 21.69(1,25) .11 (1,29) 66.98(1,24) 38.85 (1,22) 14.88 (1,25) .04 (1,29) 68.87 (1,24)
Performance Time 1 UnitedStates
Low High
People's Republic of China
Low High
*p < .01.
*
F tests for independentsamples within each level of countryand level of individualism-collectivism; standarddeviationsare in parentheses.
109/ASQ, March 1994
sample. These means conditionsfor each collectivism-group were analyzedusing one-way ANOVAsparallelto those used level I just in the analysis at the collectivism-group discussed. The results, shown in Table 7, demonstrate that (country),individualists within each collectivism-group trainingthan responded more positivelyto individual-focused group-focusedtraining,whereas collectivists responded more positivelyto group-focusedtrainingthan training.The single exception to this individual-focused who were low in patternis for the Chinese participants, Forthese people, performancedid individualism-collectivism. not significantlydifferas a function of trainingcondition. level generallysupport Thus, the analyses at the individual hypotheses la and lb. To test the hypothesis (H2)that effort and self-efficacy would mediate the effect of the collectivism-group, collectivism-individual by traininginteractionson performance,I conducted mediated regression analysis. Performancewas regressed on the demographicvariables (step 1), effort and self-efficacy (step 2), collectivism-group, and trainingcondition(step 3), and collectivism-individual, x training(step 4). collectivism-individual collectivism-group, A second regression equationwas constructed in which effort and self-efficacy were entered into the equation after entering the other variables.In addition,I examined the Pearson correlationsof effort and self-efficacy with performance.The results of the analysis are presented in Table 8 (panels A and B for Time 1; panels C and D for Time 2). The analyses demonstrate a strong mediatingeffect for effort and self-efficacy, althoughtrainingcontinued to have a modest, direct effect on performance.After accountingfor the variancein demographicvariables(step 1) and effort and and collectivismself-efficacy (step 2), collectivism-group individual, trainingcondition,and the collectivism-group, collectivism-individual by traininginteractions(step 3) accounted for a significantamount of variancein performance(4 percent).The variabledrivingthis significant relationshipis trainingcondition.Priorto entering effort and and collectivism-individual, self-efficacy, collectivism-group collectivismtrainingcondition,and collectivism-group, individual by traininginteractionswere significantlyrelated to performance,accountingfor 35 percent of the variance. These results demonstrate that effort and self-efficacy of the collectivism-group, mediate the relationship partially collectivism-individual by traininginteractionson performance.In contrast, the hypothesized mediators (effort and self-efficacy)accounted for 47 percent of the variancein for collectivism-group and performancepriorto controlling collectivism-individual, trainingcondition,and collectivism-individual by training collectivism-group, condition,and effort and self-efficacy still accounted for 12 percent of the variancein performanceafter controllingfor and collectivism-individual, training collectivism-group condition,and their interactions. A final set of analyses were conducted on self-efficacy and test. The results effort using the least-significant-differences reportedin Table 5 show that self-efficacy and effort were
11O/ASQ,March1994
Self or Group?
Table8 HierarchicalRegression Analysis of Performance for Study 2, Testing for Mediating Effect of Effortand Self-efficacy Step Panel A: Performance, Time 1 Age Education Tenure Gender Baseline performance
Effort (time 1)
R2
AR2
Beta
t (for beta)
.16
.16
.04 -.17 .21 .24 .14

- .03
.38 -1.88 2.272.60"1.45

- .38
2 3
.63 .67
.47 .04
Self-efficacy(time 1)
.73
-.05 - .03
8.62--.82 - .47
Training condition x training Collectivism-individual x training Collectivism-group Panel B: Performance, Time 1 Age Education Companysize Gender Baseline performance
Collectivism-individual
.68
.01
.19 .29 .28
3.08-1.81 .78
.16
.16
.04 -.17 .21 .24 .14

-.08
.38 -1.88 2.272.60-1.45

-.81
.21
.05
Collectivism-group condition Training x training Collectivism-individual x training Collectivism-group Effort(time 1) Self-efficacy(time 1) Panel C: Performance, Time 2 Age Education Tenure Gender Baseline performance Effort(time 2) Self-efficacy(time 2) Collectivism-individual Collectivism-group Training condition x training Collectivism-individual x training Collectivism-group Panel D: Performance, Time 2 Age Education Tenure Gender Baseline performance
3 4
.56 .68
.35 .12
.01 .20 .88 1.51 .47 .53
.01 2.128.47-2.50-.64 4.60--
.13
.13
2 3 4
.68 .72 .72
.55 .04 .01
.01 -.10 .17 .21 .19 .22 .60 -.06 -.11 .18 .20 .39
.14 -1.05 1.78 2.281.92 2.64-7.20--1.05 -1.90 3.101.57 .74
.13
.13
.01 -.10 .17 .21 .19

- .02 - .09
.14 -1.05 1.78 2.281.92

- .23 - .91
.17
.04
condition Training x training Collectivism-individual x training Collectivism-group Effort(time 2) Self-efficacy(time 2) *p < .05; *p < .01.
3 4
.55 .73
.38 .18
.18 .89 2.07 .24 .48
1.87 8.50-3.38-2.97"4.64"-
111/ASQ, March 1994
trainingcondition significantlyhigher in the individual-focused than in the group-focusedtrainingconditionfor U.S. managers, whereas self-efficacy and effort were significantly higher in the group-focusedtrainingconditionthan in the trainingconditionfor managers from the individual-focused People's Republicof China. Discussion (Chinese service People who were high in collectivism-group representatives)responded best to group-basedtraining whereas people who were low in collectivisminformation, group (Americanservice representatives)responded similarly and group-focusedtraininginformation. to individual-focused level of analysis, people high on At the individual responded better to group-focused individualism-collectivism training.Americanemployees low on than individual-focused responded better to individualindividualism-collectivism focused than group-focusedtraining,whereas Chinese responded employees low on individualism-collectivism to the two forms of training.Regardless of similarly nationality, people high on individualism-collectivism responded better to group-focusedthan individual-focused job training. DISCUSSION GENERAL to This study focused on self-efficacy and its relationship training.More specifically,I compared the impact of versus group-focusedtrainingon self-efficacy, individual studies effort, and task performancein two intercultural and conducted across the culturaldimension of individualism collectivism.The results show that an employee's cultural orientationinfluences his or her use of traininginformation. cues Forthe collectivist,trainingfocused on individual-level was less effective in enhancing his or her and information efficacy expectations, effort, and performancethan was An individualist is trainingbased on group-levelinformation. best trainedby targetingthat employee's personal actions and potential. Finally,I found supportfor a mediating model of effort and self-efficacy in predictingthe effects of individualism and collectivism,training,and their interaction on performance. Perhapsthe most significantfindingfrom these studies is is relevant in understanding that individualism-collectivism how traininginfluences self-efficacy. AlthoughBandura (1986) posited that efficacy is shaped through maturation and socializationexperiences, little direct evidence exists values to self-efficacy. Consistent with connecting cultural the efficacy literature(e.g., Locke et al., 1984; Gist, 1987; Gist, Schwoerer, and Rosen, 1989), I found that a person's self-efficacy concerningwork performancewas influenced by task training.What was unclearpriorto these studies is that culturalvalues moderate the impact of trainingon performedbest performance.I found that individualists level, when exposed to trainingfocused at an individual whereas collectivists performedbest when exposed to trainingfocused at a group level. Also, I found that training level was information providedat either a group or individual better than no trainingat all for everyone. This suggests
112/ASQ, March 1994
Self or Group?
that self-efficacy is established and maintainedthrough multiplesources, consistent with Triandis's(1989) probability-sampling argumentconcerningthe public,private, and collective selves. There is another possible interpretation of these findings.2In the People's Republicof China,workers are often assigned to their work units (danwe,)shortlyafter receivingtheir formaleducation, and they remainin these units for a long time. These units play a significantrole in a worker's life, both duringand after normalwork hours, and a worker's rewards are often tied to the work unit's achievements. In addition,alternativeemployment opportunitiesare unusual, despite economic reforms (Laaksonen,1988), voluntaryjob turnoveris low, and while employees may request reassignment from their company to another one, such reassignments are not typical.Workers'long-termrewards are thus linkedclosely to their danwei's successes. This is not at all characteristicof the Americanworkplace.Thus, Chinese employees may have responded well to group-focusedtrainingbecause their danwei is the source of their rewards and successes, and managers were their potentialrewards in the existing incentive maximizing structures.This suggests that people's specific knowledge of how their danwei relates to rewardallocationwas responsible for the observed interactionof trainingwith There are two limits to this individualism-collectivism. explanation:First,the results from Study 1 for samples from Hong Kongand the People's Republicof Chinawere similar even though the samples differed greatlyfrom one another in organizational rewardpractices and economic systems; and culturallevels and, second, the results at the individual were similar.This suggests that the results are not merely an artifactof the differentwork and rewardstructures. Withineach culturalgroup, individuals responded better to trainingcongruentwith their level of individualismcollectivism. If the findingsfrom Mainland Chinawere simply attributable to anticipatedrewards from one's danwe', I would not expect to see the differences reportedin Tables 3 and 7 for low and high levels of individualism-collectivism within each country.This alternativeexplanationmerits furtherexploration,however, given that Study 1 revealed stronger differences as a function of trainingcondition between managers from the People's Republicof Chinaand those from Hong Kong. Inthis paper, I introduceda methodologicalrefinement to from the individual-level separate the cultural-level aspects of a culturaldimension. I separated the individualismcollectivismvariableinto two components, with the first representinga shared value, or mean level, representing "culture."This partitioning procedureis not merely the creationof a dummy-coded,countryvariable(except in the two-sample case), as it captures the relativedistances among countries on a given culturaldimension. This procedureuses a specific culturaldimension (ratherthan using countryas a surrogatefor culture),and it helps us scale the relativemagnitudeof a sample's "culture." Theoretically,however, this approachraises a number of issues. For instance, this approachuses countryof origin-as
113/ASQ, March 1994
I would like to thank one of the reviewers for this suggestion.
a defining characteristic of a culturalgrouping,defining a culturalgroup by a mean score for a value based on a respondent's nationality.In the definitionsof culture often cited by researchers (Hofstede, 1991; Erezand Earley,1993; Triandis,1994), culture refers to "sharedvalues and meaning systems." This suggests that researchers need to consider what constitutes a culturalgrouping.Forexample, must members in the group be in direct contact with one another? Are there constraintson how "shared"values are shared? and Can a nationaldesignation capture a culturalgrouping? Also, simply using a mean score to represent each cultural group may mask the variability that one might expect to observe when crossing from an individualistic to a collectivisticculture (Earleyand Mosakowski, 1995). Future work should be directed at definingthe boundariesand membershipof a culturalgroup as well as the most effective way to represent a culturalgroup's "values." Triandis(1989) explicitlydistinguishedbetween the societal and the individual level of analysis. At the individual level, he described the counterpartsof individualism and collectivism as idiocentrismand allocentrism,respectively. He argued that within any society, people vary in their beliefs about a culturaldimension, so that a member of a collectivistic culture may endorse individualistic values and beliefs. This distinctionamong levels is capturedin Hofstede's discussion of an "ecological,"or country-levelanalysis, as well as in the work of other researchers who deal with multiplelevels of analysis (House and Rousseau, 1990). In my studies, the differences between the culturaland individual levels were neither consistent nor strong, suggesting that the dual assessment of individualism-collectivism tapped parallel constructs. While the individual-level assessment appeared to have the strongest relationship to self-efficacy and performance,this may simply reflect its proximityto the dependent variables(same level of analysis and measurement). The findings have a numberof importantimplicationsfor a managerialcontext. The most obvious is that trainingshould be congruentwith a person's culturalbackgroundas well as with individual experiences. This does not mean that a manager must rely on a person's culturalbackgroundalone; rather,it requiresa managerto recognize intracultural variationas well. Withinany given nationalboundary,there are many subculturesand many individual deviations within a given subculture.The managerialchallenge arises from getting to know each employee's values and beliefs as they are shaped by cultureand by individual experiences. Anotherimportantimplication of these studies that has been stated by others (e.g., Wagner and Moch, 1986; Boyacigiller, and Adler, 1991; Hofstede, 1991) is that our theories have significantculturallimits that must be understood. Although Bandura'sself-efficacy idea was supported in these studies, the impact of trainingand self-efficacy was neither uniform nor simple. Self-efficacyis influencedby differentsources of that are more or less persuasive depending on a information person's culturalvalues. These findings suggest that a culturalcontingency approachis needed for subsequent research on self-efficacy.
114/ASQ, March 1994
Self or Group?
The results of these studies clearlyshow that organizational trainingthat is culturally misdirected is also misguided. A that he or collectivist's self-efficacy is based on information she gets about a work group, whereas an individualist's self-efficacy comes from self-referenced cues. The implicationsof this research do not simply end with national variation within a or culturalsociotypes, however; individual social system leads to very different implicationsfor the general approachthat a manager adopts for trainingin an This means that it is no longer meaningfulto organization. talk about comparativeanalyses and prescriptionsfor managerialactions, because this approachblursthe unique within a given culture. differences among individuals "rich"descriptions of cultural Likewise, ethnographically groups are somewhat misguided, since they also blur individual patterns by falsely assuming that the depth of inquiry supplants the shallowness of a more positivist analysis. The key point is that to understandmanagingin an intercultural context requiresa depth of understandingat levels. both the culturaland individual
REFERENCES Bandura,Albert of 1986 Social Foundations Thoughtsand Action:A Social CognitiveTheory.Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall. Baumeister, Richard F. Changeand 1986 Identity:Cultural the Strugglefor Self. New York:OxfordUniversityPress. Bazerman, Max H. 1990 Judgment in Managerial Decision Making,2d ed. New York:Wiley. Boisot, Max, and John Child 1988 "The ironlaw of fiefs: failureand the Bureaucratic problemof governance in the Chinese economic reforms." Science Administrative 33: 507-527. Quarterly, Bond, Michael H. to a wedding: 1988 "Invitation Chinese values and global economic growth." In P. Sinhaand H. Kao(eds.), Social Values and Development: 197-209. New Delhi: Sage. Bond, Michael H., K. Wan, Kwok Leung, and R. A. Giacalone 1985 "How are responses to verbal insult relatedto cultural collectivismand power distance?"Journalof Psychology, 16: Cross-Cultural 111-127. Boyacigiller, Nakiye, and Nancy J. Adler dinosaur: 1991 "Theparochial science in a Organizational globalcontext." Academy of ManagementReview, 16: 262-290.
Brislin, Richard W. 1980 "Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials." In H. C. Triandis and J. W. Berry (eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: 398-444. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Cohen, Jacob, and Patricia Cohen 1975 Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Wiley. Earley, P. Christopher 1989 "Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the People's Republic of China." Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 565-581. 1993 "East meets West meets Mideast: Further explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work groups." Academy of Management Journal, 36: 319-348. Earley, P. Christopher, and Miriam Erez 1991 "Time dependency effects of goals and norms: An examination of alternative methods to influence performance." Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 717-724. Earley, P. Christopher, and Elaine Mosakowski 1995 "A framework for understanding experimental research in an international and intercultural context." In B. J. Punnett and 0. Shenkar (eds.), Handbook of International Management Research. London: Blackwell (forthcoming). Epstein, Seymour 1973 "The self-concept revisited, or a theory of a theory." American Psychologist, 28: 408-416. Erez, Miriam, and P. Christopher Earley 1993 Culture, Self-identity, and Work. New York: Oxford University Press. Erez, Miriam, P. Christopher Earley, and Charles L. Hulin 1985 "The impact of participation on goal acceptance and performance: A two-step model." Academy of Management Journal, 28: 50-66. Garland, Howard 1985 "A cognitive mediation theory of task goals and human performance." Motivation and Emotion, 9: 345-367. Garland, Howard, and John H. Adkinson 1987 "Standards, persuasion, and performance." Group and Organization Studies, 12: 208-220.
115/ASQ, March 1994
Gist, Marilyn E. 1987 "Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management." Academy of Management Review, 12: 472-485. Gist, Marilyn E., and Terence R. Mitchell 1992 "Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability." Academy of Management Review, 17: 183-211. Gist, Marilyn E., Catherine Schwoerer, and Benson Rosen 1989 "Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and performance in computer software training." Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 884-891. Hinrichs, John R. 1976 "Personnel training." In M. D. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: 829-861. Chicago: Rand McNally. Hofstede, Geert 1980 Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 1991 Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill. House, Robert J., and Denise Rousseau 1990 "On the bifurcation of OB or if it ain't meso it ain't OB." Working paper, the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Hsu, Francis L. K. 1985 "The self in cross-cultural perspective." 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, and Frederick Strodtbeck 1961 Variations in Value Orientation. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Laaksonen, Oiva 1988 Management in China: During and after Mao. Berlin: de Gruyter. Li, D. J. 1978 The Ageless Chinese. New York: Scribner's. Lindsay, Cindy P. 1983 "China: Motivational systems in flux." In Richard M. Steers and Lyman W. Porter (eds.), Motivation and Work Behavior: 623-634. New York: McGraw-Hill. Locke, Edwin A., Elizabeth Frederick, Cynthia Lee, and Philip Bobko 1984 "Effects of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance." Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 241-251. Markus, Hazel, and S. Kitayama 1991 "Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation." Psychological Review, 98: 224-253. Meyer, John P., and Ian R. Gellatly 1988 "Perceived performance norm as a mediator in the effect of assigned goal on personal goal 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 dimensions of values: Towardan understanding of national differences." Unpublished paper, Departmentof Psychology,Hebrew University. Triandis, HarryC. 1988 "Collectivism vs. A individualism: reconceptualization of a basic concept in cross-cultural social psychology."In G. K.Verma and C. Bagley (eds.), Studies of Cross-Cultural Personality, Attitudesand Cognition:60-95. New York: St. Martin's. 1989 "Theself and social behavior in differingcultural contexts." PsychologicalReview, 96: 506-520. 1994 "Culture: Theoreticaland methodologicalissues." In M. D. Dunnetteand L. Hough of Industrial (eds.), Handbook and Organizational Psychology,2d ed., vol. 4. PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press (forthcoming). Wagner, John A., Ill, and Michael K. Moch 1986 "Individualism-collectivism: Conceptand measure." Group and Organization Studies, 11: 280-304. Wood, Robert E., and Albert Bandura 1989 "Socialcognitivetheory of organizational management." Academyof Management Review, 14: 361-384.
APPENDIX: Correlations
Table A.1
Pearson Correlations for Study 1 Variable 2 3

-.12
-.01
4
-.07 .06 .13-
5
.07 .10 .09 .07 -
6
.07 .09 .02 .15.70-
7
.10 .03 .11 .07 .75.53-
8
-.03 -.02 .07 -.02 -.01 -.03 -.04 -
9
.07 .04 -.12 -.01 .63.48.46-.01 -
10
.05 -.21 .07 -.01 .13.09 .14.48.11
1. Age -.21* 2. Education 3. Companysize 4. Gender 5. Performance 6. Effort 7. Self-efficacy 8. Individualismcollectivism 9. Training 10. Country * p < .05.
116/ASQ, March 1994
Self or Group?
Table A.2
Pearson Correlations for Study 2

Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - .24 .06 -.29.02 - .07 -.14 -.1 1 .07 .07 -.08 .03 13 -.08 -.19 .03 -.05 .13 .24.19 .01 .01 .06 .05 -.03
-
14 -.02 -.01 -.12 -.13 .02 -.01 -.09 .07 -.02 .01 -.01
.300 .21
1. Age -.10 2. Education 3. Tenure 4. Gender 5. Baseline performance 6. Performance (time 1) 7. Performance (time 2) 8. Effort(time 1) 9. Effort(time 2) 10. Self-efficacy(time 1) 11. Self-efficacy(time 2) 12. Individualism-collectivism
13. Training
.06 .05 -.12 -.07 .05 .04 -.15 .05 .23.12 -.02 -.17 -.12 -.18 -.06 -.06 -.13 -.10 .04 .19 .16 .13 .15 .16 .16 -.01 .15 .15 .11 .13 .26.24.22.14 .24 .10 .18 .16 .22.51 .83.62.76.75.52.68.76.79.62.67.65.69.72.90-
14. Country
* p < .05.
117/ASQ, March 1994

Earley, 1994

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Earley, 1994

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Self or Group? Cultural Effects of Training on Self-Efficacy and Performance Author(s): P.

Self or Group?Cultural Effects of Trainingon Self-efficacy and Performance

? 1994 by CornellUniversity. .00. 0001-8392/94/3901-0089/$1

loyaltyand willingness to put group interests ahead of

ensure that it made sense for the Hong Kongsample.

themselves in the same category that was indicatedby the

I thankElaineMosakowskifor her suggestions concerningthis analysisof differences cultureand individual characteristics.

each countryand assigned this score to each participant

Hong Kong (HK) Training condition No training

People's Republic of China (PRC) Training condition No training

.53 .53 .53 0 0

F (d.f.) 119.92(2,66) 26.41(2,16) 65.44(2,36) 59.28(2,25) 21.39(2,43) 106.89(2,47)

(11.80) 80.31m (11.05)

.04 -.17 .21 .24 .14

.38 -1.88 2.272.60w 1.45

.21 .88 1.51

.01 -.10 .17 .21 .19

.14 -1.05 1.78 2.281.92

Collectivism-group Training condition x training Collectivism-individual x training Collectivism-group

-.09 .18 .89 2.07

-.92 1.87 8.50" 3.38--

Performance Time 1 UnitedStates

People's Republic of China

109/ASQ, March 1994

.04 -.17 .21 .24 .14

.38 -1.88 2.272.60"1.45

.19 .29 .28

.04 -.17 .21 .24 .14

.38 -1.88 2.272.60-1.45

.01 .20 .88 1.51 .47 .53

.01 2.128.47-2.50-.64 4.60--

.68 .72 .72

.55 .04 .01

.14 -1.05 1.78 2.281.92 2.64-7.20--1.05 -1.90 3.101.57 .74

.01 -.10 .17 .21 .19

.14 -1.05 1.78 2.281.92

.18 .89 2.07 .24 .48

111/ASQ, March 1994

I would like to thank one of the reviewers for this suggestion.

115/ASQ, March 1994

Pearson Correlations for Study 1 Variable 2 3

116/ASQ, March 1994

Pearson Correlations for Study 2

117/ASQ, March 1994

Вам также может понравиться