Upload
whitney-benson
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Methodological Issues in Cross-Cultural Methodological Issues in Cross-Cultural Research: Lessons from a Review of the Research: Lessons from a Review of the
Organizational Commitment LiteratureOrganizational Commitment Literature
S. Arzu WastiS. Arzu Wasti
Sabanci University, IstanbulSabanci University, Istanbul
Tilburg University, NL (Visiting)Tilburg University, NL (Visiting)
Cetin OnderCetin Onder
Sabanci University, IstanbulSabanci University, Istanbul
Employee Commitment in the Employee Commitment in the Western ContextWestern Context
• Affective commitment (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979): Desire to stay with an organization
• Continuance commitment (Becker, 1960; Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972): Need to stay with an organization
• Normative commitment (Weiner & Vardi, 1980): Obligation to stay with an organization
• In 1990, Allen and Meyer offered a three component model of organizational commitment
Cross-Cultural Research on Cross-Cultural Research on Organizational CommitmentOrganizational Commitment
• More than two decades’ of research– Testing the generalizability of antecedents and
consequences of commitment– Comparing of overall levels of commitment in different
cultures
• Methodological problems blur the understanding of the influence of culture on commitment– Randall (1993)
• 27 articles published between 1971-1990
– Redding, Norman & Schlander (1994)• Summary of the OC literature in East Asian settings
Article SamplingArticle Sampling
• Timeframe– January 1991-December 2001
• Journals– English language academic journals currently indexed
in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)• Social Psychology, Applied Psychology, Management,
and Industrial Relations
• Articles– “Cross-cultural” organizational commitment articles
that empirically investigated the construct itself, its antecedents, and/or outcomes
– Final sample: 56 articles
Cross-Cultural Research DesignCross-Cultural Research Design• Generalizability
– Exploratory pseudo-etic study with
no explicit or ex post treatment of culture
• One-way– Pseudo-etic study advancing theoretical hypotheses based on
culture theories
• N-way– Study by a multicultural team in an attempt to incorporate both etic
(universal) and emic (culture-specific) perspectives
• Indigenization from without (Derived etic)– Study adapting imported theories, concepts, and methods to better
suit the local context
• Indigenization from within (Emic)– Study that draws on indigenous theories and methods
Pseudo-etic:Pseudo-etic: Emic constructs and measures assumed to be etic
SamplingSampling• Sampling of Culture/Country
– Purposive versus convenience sampling
• Alignment/description of macro- and meso-institutional contexts– Broad politico-economic and industrial/organizational
environments
• Equivalence of sample characteristics and/or statistical control for sample differences– Demographics, occupational characteristics and
hierarchical status
• Description of sample characteristics
InstrumentationInstrumentation• Translation
– Translation only, committee approach to translation, translation-backtranslation, ensuring semantic equivalence (adaptation)
• Reliability
• Validation– Reference to validation in the original source
language, reference to validation in the local language, report of study-specific validation analyses
• Measurement Equivalence– Covariance structure analysis
• Pilot testing
Data CollectionData Collection
• Alignment/description of administration procedure– Alignment/description of administration of the
research instrument (data collection procedure)
• Familiarity with stimuli– Participants’ familiarity with the research
instrument administered
Validation of the Validation of the CodingCoding • Pilot test on 13 articles in Randall’s (1993)
sample, published in SSCI journals
• Satisfactory interrater reliability (73%-100%) for all but two coding measures
• Further validation of the cross-cultural research design coding by the reference information in the articles– Whether research design relates to the extent to
which articles draw on• research in disciplines such as sociology,
• previous comparative research on organizational commitment,
• relevant publications in the local language
Cross-Cultural Research DesignCross-Cultural Research Design
Research Design
Pre-1991 1991-1995 1996-2001 Total
No context 5 4 13 22
(39%) (33%) (29%) (32%)
Generalizability 7 6 21 34
(54%) (50%) (48%) (49%)
One-way 2 6 8
(17%) (14%) (12%)
Indigenization from without 1 2 3
(8%) (5%) (4%)
N-way 2 2
(5%) (3%)
Total 13 12 44 69
100% 100% 100% 100%
Number of Articles
(%)
Methodological Practices of Comparative StudiesMethodological Practices of Comparative Studies::Sampling and Data CollectionSampling and Data Collection
n %
Sampling of culture/country
Purposive sampling 6 86
Sample equivalence
Matched macro-institutional contexts 2 29
Matched meso-institutional contexts 6 86
Matched micro-level sample characteristics 4 57
Statistical control for sample differences 2 29
Description of sample characteristics 7 100
Data Collection
Procedure equivalence established 2 29
Mention of familiarity with stimuli 0 0
(N = 7)
Methodological Practices of Comparative StudiesMethodological Practices of Comparative Studies::InstrumentationInstrumentation
n %
Scale translated only 2 29
Scale translated and back-translated 1 14
Scale administered to bilingual subjects in original source language 3 43
Scale adapted & semantic equivalence established 1 14
Pilot test information provided 1 14
Satisfactory reliability reported 4 57
Conceptual equivalence (Measurement equivalence investigated) 5 71
(N = 7)
Methodological Practices of Methodological Practices of “No-Context” Studies:“No-Context” Studies:Sampling and Data CollectionSampling and Data Collection
n %
Sampling of culture/country
Purposive sampling 0 0
Sample
Macro-institutional context described 1 6
Meso-institutional context described 6 35
Sample characteristics described 13 77
Data Collection
Administration procedure described 11 65
Familiarity with stimuli mentioned 2 12
(N = 17)
Methodological Practices of Methodological Practices of “No-Context” Studies: “No-Context” Studies: InstrumentaInstrumentationtion
n %
Translation
Translation information not relevant 13 77
No translation information provided 3 18
Previous translation referred to 1 6
Pilot test information provided 1 6
Satisfactory reliability reported 9 53
Validation
No validation information provided 5 29
Validation in original source language referred to 2 12
Previous validation in local language referred to 2 12
Satisfactory validation information reported 6 35
(N = 17)
Methodological Practices of Methodological Practices of GeneralizabilityGeneralizability Studies Studies::Sampling and Data CollectionSampling and Data Collection
n %
Sampling of culture/country
Purposive sampling 12 48Sample
Macro-institutional context described 11 44Meso-institutional context described 11 44Sample characteristics described 22 88
Data Collection
Administration procedure described 14 56Familiarity with stimuli mentioned 0 0
(N = 25)
Methodological Practices of Methodological Practices of GeneralizabilityGeneralizability Studies Studies::TranslationTranslation
n %
Translation information not relevant 6 24No translation information provided 8 32Scale translated or applied to bilingual subjects 3 12Committee translation done 1 4Scale translated and back -translated 6 24Previous translation referred to 1 4
(N = 25)
Methodological Practices of Methodological Practices of GeneralizabilityGeneralizability Studies Studies::ValidationValidation
n %
Pilot test information provided 3 12Satisfactory reliability reported 13 52Validation
No validation information provided 9 36Validation in original source language referred to 1 4Previous validation in local language referred to 1 4Satisfactory validation information reported 11 44
(N = 25)
Methodological Practices of Methodological Practices of One-WayOne-Way Studies Studies::Sampling and Data CollectionSampling and Data Collection
n %
Sampling of culture/country
Purposive sampling 4 100
Sample
Macro-institutional context described 3 75
Meso-institutional context described 3 75
Sample characteristics described 4 100
Data Collection
Administration procedure described 3 75
Familiarity with stimuli mentioned 0 0
(N = 4)
Methodological Practices of Methodological Practices of One-WayOne-Way Studies Studies::InstrumentationInstrumentation
n %
Translation
Scale translated and back -translated 4 100
Pilot test information provided 0 0
Satisfactory reliability reported 2 50
Validation
No validation information provided 1 25
Validation in original source language referred to 1 25
Satisfactory validation information reported 2 50
(N = 4)
Methodological Practices of Methodological Practices of Indigenization from Indigenization from Without and N - WayWithout and N - Way Studies Studies::Sampling and Data CollectionSampling and Data Collection
n %
Sampling of culture/country
Purposive sampling 3 100
Sample
Macro-institutional context described 2 67
Meso-institutional context described 1 33
Sample characteristics described 3 100
Data Collection
Administration procedure described 1 33
Familiarity with stimuli mentioned 0 0
(N = 3)
Methodological Practices of Methodological Practices of Indigenization from Indigenization from Without and N - WayWithout and N - Way Studies Studies ::
InstrumentationInstrumentation
n %
No translation information provided 1 33
Scale translated and back -translated 1 33
Previous translation referred to 1 33
Pilot test information provided 1 33
Satisfactory reliability reported 3 100
Validation
Previous validation in local language referred to 1 33
Satisfactory validation information reported 2 67
(N = 3)
Translation
DiscussionDiscussion• A more theoretically informed approach to the
inclusion of culture is emerging
– The majority of the studies still exploratory
• The pseudo-etic approach is dominant
– The validity of extant (typically North American) knowledge is assumed
• Some cross-cultural work appears to be opportunistic
• Overestimations of similarity despite failures to account for economical, legal (e.g., labor mobility) or organizational (e.g., prevalence of family firms) differences
DiscussionDiscussion
• One-way studies also suffer from errors of omission
– Only dealing with constructs found to be important in the North American context (e.g., affective commitment)
• Future comparative research can benefit from
– N-way research designs
• More active involvement of international collaborators (e.g., decentering research instruments)
– Undertaking multi-method designs
DiscussionDiscussion
• Single-country studies should use the opportunity to build indigenous theory
– More qualitative inquiry
• To identify emic constructs and as a check on “underinclusive” instruments
– Greater consultation of other disciplines such as sociology, history
• e.g., kin vs. non-kin collectivism (Redding et al., 1994); affective, instrumental, mixed relationships (Hwang, 1987)
DiscussionDiscussion
• Researchers should not indulge in “cosmetic indigenization”
– How culture-specific are the proposed constructs
– How meaningful are they in understanding behavior in contemporary society
– Do indigenous measures truly improve on imported measures in predicting relevant criteria
• The value of indigenous work also derives from its potential to confirm universals
My Dissertation ResearchMy Dissertation Research
• To test the generalizability of Meyer and Allen’s (1990) three-component model of organizational commitment in a non-Western context
• To identify and measure emic antecedents, expressions of commitment as well as exploring its relation to various job-related outcomes in the Turkish context
• To investigate the influence of individual differences in individualism and collectivism on the development and consequences of organizational commitment
Overall Research DesignOverall Research Design
• Study 1: Conducted in-depth interviews with 83 Turkish employees.
• Study 2: Administered the emic antecedent and commitment items as well the three-component OC Scale developed by Meyer et al. (1993) to 351 Turkish public sector employees.
• Study 3: Administered a revised survey to 916 Turkish private sector employees from 46 organizations.
Results of Study I and IIResults of Study I and II
• Generated several emic organizational commitment items
• Identified several emic organizational commitment antecedents and developed scales for:– Influence of family
– Informal recruitment
– Organizational collectivism
– Generalized norms for loyalty
– Investments in relationships
Study I and II -- CFA ResultsStudy I and II -- CFA ResultsOverall Fit Indexes for the Three Commitment Scales
Original Scales Revised Scales
Model
2 df GFI CFI RMSEA SRMR 2 df GFI CFI RMSEA SRMR
Null model
1498.13 153 na na na na 2249.97 276 na na na na
One-factor
514.62 135 0.82 0.72 0.094 0.09 943 252 0.75 0.65 0.094 0.093
Two-factor
oblique
454.71 134 0.85 0.76 0.087 0.10 748.06 251 0.81 0.75 0.08 0.078
Three-factor
oblique
393.65 132 0.88 0.81 0.079 0.097 553.33 249 0.87 0.85 0.062 0.065
Four-factor
oblique
340.32 129 0.89 0.84 0.072 0.081 525.43 246 0.88 0.86 0.06 0.063
Study III: Exploring Study III: Exploring Affective-Continuance CommitmentAffective-Continuance Commitment
• Affective attachment: identification with and involvement in the organization (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1979)
• Calculative attachment: recognition of costs associated with leaving; side-bets (Becker, 1960)
Culturally Varying Nature of Side-betsCulturally Varying Nature of Side-bets
“A person sometimes finds he has made side-bets constraining his present activity because the existence of generalized cultural expectations provides penalties for those who violate them. One such expectation operates in the area of work. People feel that a man ought not to change his job too often and that one who does is erratic and untrustworthy.”
Becker (1960. p.36)
Becker’s (1960) Side-bet TheoryBecker’s (1960) Side-bet Theory
Impersonalbureaucratic
arrangements
Individual’sadjustments tosocial positions
Generalizedcultural norms
Self-presentation,social image
concerns
ContinuancecommitmentContinuancecommitment
Affectivecommitment
Satisfactionwith life
Citizenship behaviors
Turnover intentionsTurnover
intentions
Satisfaction with work
Norms for loyalty
Norms for loyalty
Lack of alternatives
Informal recruitment
Informal recruitment
Investments
Workwithdrawal
Continuancecommitment
Organizational collectivism
Antecedents and Consequences of Antecedents and Consequences of Affective and Continuance CommitmentAffective and Continuance Commitment
Ingroupinfluence
Satisfactionwith life Satisfaction
with work
Affectivecommitment
Continuancecommitment
Organizational collectivism
Workwithdrawal
Satisfactionwith life
Work withdrawal
Citizenship
Turnoverintentions
.38*(.05)
.55*(.05)
-.07* (.04)
.43*(.05)
-.35*(.05)
.46*(.05)
-.64*(.05)
-.06 (.05)
-.05 (.05).03 (.05)
-.16*(.04)
Informal recruitment
Norms
Ingroup influence
Investments
.29*(.09)
.39*(.07)
.30*(.05)
.37*(
.07)
Lack ofalternatives
Turnover intentions
Citizenship
Note. * p < .05 (one-tailed)
Low allocentrics (n=319)
High allocentrics (n=329)
.34*(.08)
.08 (.07)
The moderating influence of culture on antecedents of continuance The moderating influence of culture on antecedents of continuance commitmentcommitment
Some Supporting EvidenceSome Supporting Evidence
• Currently, mainstream turnover research is being criticized for lack of universal applicability (e.g., Maertz et al., 2003)– Neglected antecedents such as normative expectations,
relationships with coworkers and leaders
– Assumption that turnover decisions are the result of individual choice behavior
• The construct of continuance commitment is also under scrutiny (e.g., Gellatly and Meyer, 2004)– Its relation to normative commitment
– Its “calculative” nature