S. Arzu Wasti Sabanci University, Istanbul Tilburg University, NL (Visiting) Cetin Onder

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 %



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



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 %


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 %



Sample




Data Collection



(N = 4)

Methodological Practices of Methodological Practices of One-WayOne-Way Studies Studies::InstrumentationInstrumentation

n %

Translation

Scale translated and back -translated 4 100



Validation

No validation information provided 1 25

Validation in original source language referred to 1 25


(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 %



Sample




Data Collection



(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



Validation

Previous validation in local language referred to 1 33


(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


• 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)


• 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


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)


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

Documents

S. Arzu Wasti Sabanci University, Istanbul Tilburg University, NL (Visiting) Cetin Onder