Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6tb edition. 0 I
understand ..... For example, studies have been conducted on the relationship
between.
1 Author: Title:
Low, Siew Shen Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Organizational Commitment in Individualist and Collectivist Cultures The accompanying research report is submitted to the University of Wisconsin-Stout, Graduate School in partial completion of the requirements for the Graduate Degree/ Major: Research Adviser:
Alicia A. Stachowski, Ph.D.
Submission Term/Year: Number of Pages:
MS Applied Psychology
August, 2012
42
Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6tb edition
0 I understand that this research report must be officially approved by the Graduate School and that an electronic copy of the approved version will be made available through the University Library website 0 I attest that the research report is my original work (that any copyrightable materials have been used with the permission of the original authors), and as such, it is automatically protected by the laws, rules, and regulations of the U.S. Copyright Office. STUDENT'S NAME: Siew Shen STUDENT'S SIGNATURE:
--~=~=-------
ADVISER'S NAME: Alicia A. u"'"'""u ADVISER'S SIGNATURE:
~ ----
I}q I I I 2 ~ j; 2._
DATE: I
!!!!!--- - D A T E :
This section for MS Plan A Thesis or EdS Thesis/Field Project papers only Committee members (other than your adviser who is listed in the section above) 1. CMTE MEMBER'S NAME: Sarah Wood, Ph.D. CMTE MEMBER'S SIGNATURE: - - - - - ' 7 " ' - - - - - - DATE: 2. CMTE MEMBER'S NAME: Renee Su CMTE MEMBER'S SIGNATURE:
This section to be completed by the Graduate School This fmal research report has been approved by the Graduate School. Director, Office of Graduate Studies:
DATE:
/"y
2 Low, Siew Shen. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Organizational Commitment in Individualist and Collectivist Cultures Abstract Numerous studies in western, individualist cultures have found commitment to be a determinant of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs). Recent research on eastern, collectivist cultures has demonstrated similar results. Research also suggests that collectivist employees, who are group-goal oriented, show higher commitment in the workplace, which is positively related to OCBs. However, little research has been done to compare the effects of commitment on OCBs across cultures. The current research compared the organizational commitment and OCBs of an individualist (United States) and collectivist (Malaysia). A total of 58 employees in Business and Finance and Nursing departments completed an online survey of their individualist/collectivist attitudes, organizational commitment, and OCBs. Contrary to predictions, the results indicated that there were minimal cultural differences between US and Malaysian participants. Findings indicated that US participants engaged in more OCBs than Malaysian participants, and there were non-significant differences in organizational commitment.
3 Acknowledgments I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts and support of my professor, Dr. Alicia A. Stachowski, family members, and friends in the completion of my thesis project. Dr. Stachowski had guided me academically and supported me psychologically. I thank her for being there all the times when I needed her advice. I would also like to thank my family and friends who were always there to encourage and support me. Thanks to all the organizations that were willing to participate, as well as the participants who were willing to spend their time responding to my survey.
4 Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................2 List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................6 Chapter I: Introduction ....................................................................................................................7 Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................7 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................8 Definition of Terms: Individualism versus Collectivism (IC) .............................................8 Definition of Terms: Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs) ...............................10 Definition of Terms: Organizational Commitment ...........................................................11 Relations among IC, OCBs, and Organizational Commitment ........................................12 Figure 1: Predicted Relationships among Individualism-Collectivism, Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs), and Organizational Commitment …………………..… 14 Chapter II: Methods .......................................................................................................................15 Participants .........................................................................................................................15 Materials: Individualism-Collectivism (IC) Scale .............................................................15 Materials: Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs) Scale .......................................16 Materials: Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) ........................................17 Procedure ...........................................................................................................................17 Chapter III: Results ........................................................................................................................20 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations ..............................................................................21 Hypothesis Testing.............................................................................................................25 Chapter IV: Discussion ..................................................................................................................27 Limitations and Future Directions .....................................................................................30
5 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................32 References ......................................................................................................................................33 Appendix A: Individualism-Collectivism (IC) Scale ....................................................................36 Appendix B: Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs) Scale ...............................................37 Appendix C: Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ).................................................38 Appendix D: Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval Letter ................................................39 Appendix E: Sample of Survey Invitation Letter .........................................................................40 Appendix F: Thank You Message .................................................................................................41 Appendix G: Sample of Survey Reminder Letter ..........................................................................42
6 List of Tables Table 1: Numbers of Participants by Country and Department ……………………….……......20 Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations of Participant Demographics by Country ….…..........21 Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables.………………………………….………….22 Table 4: Intercorrelations among Individualism-Collectivism (IC), Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCBs), and Organizational Commitment scales ……………...………………...…...24
7 Chapter I: Introduction Over the past two decades, research has shown that Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs) have an impact on the effectiveness and productivity of organizations, which is an important factor in organizational success (Chen, Niu, Wang, Yang, & Tsaur, 2009; Felfe & Yan, 2009; Organ, 1990; Turnipseed & Murkison, 2000). Organizational Citizenship Behaviors are not only beneficial to an organization, but also to its employees. For example, Lambert (2000) found a positive correlation between OCBs and employees’ job satisfaction. With the promising benefits to both organizations and employees, researchers have high interest in this area. Statement of the Problem Although several researchers have slightly different definitions of OCBs, Organ’s (1990) definition is the most commonly accepted and used in the field (Chen et al., 2009; Felfe & Yan, 2009; LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002; Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Turnipseed & Murkison, 2000). According to Organ (1990), OCBs are defined as the prosocial behavior of employees in organizations. While beneficial to the organization, employees usually do not get formally rewarded by the organization for demonstrating OCBs. Research showed job satisfaction (Feather & Rauter, 2004), perceived justice (Cohen & Avrahami, 2006), job standardization (Chen et al., 2009), commitment (LePine et al., 2002; Felfe & Yan, 2009), and loyalty (Moorman & Blakely, 1995) have become important for determining OCBs. Among these factors, commitment (Felfe & Yan, 2009; Hsu, 2000) and loyalty (Moorman & Blakely, 1995) were found to be higher in collectivist cultures as compared to those in individualist cultures. Moorman and Blakely (1995) found that collectivist employees tended to display more OCBs than individualist employees.
8 Purpose of the Study Previous research has only studied the effects of OCBs within either collectivist or individualist cultures. For example, studies have been conducted on the relationship between commitment and OCBs in a purely collectivistic culture (e.g., Hsu’s [2002] research in China) and another on individual differences of individualism-collectivism in a purely individualistic culture (e.g., Moorman & Blakely’s [1995] research in United States). However, little research has been done to compare the effects of commitment on OCBs across individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Therefore, the current research aims to (1) study the relationship between OCBs and organizational commitment in individualistic and collectivistic cultures (i.e., United States and Malaysia), and (2) explore specifically how commitment influences the relationship between individualism-collectivism and OCBs. The paper is organized by chapter. The relationships among individualism-collectivism, OCBs, and organizational commitment are described, and hypotheses offered. Detailed methodology is presented in Chapter II, followed by results in Chapter III. Lastly, the discussion and limitations of the current research are discussed in Chapter IV. Definition of Terms Individualism versus Collectivism (IC). Unlike individualist cultures that promote individual goals and rights, collectivist cultures emphasizes group (cooperating) achievements (Moorman & Blakely, 1995). According to Hofstede (2001), the degree of focus on individual or collective achievements and interpersonal relationships are different in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. In collectivist cultures, people tend to focus more on collective achievement (group welfare and goals) and emphasize interpersonal relationships. On the other hand, people in individualistic cultures focus more on individual achievement (self-interest and
9 goals) and place less emphasis on interpersonal relationships compared to collectivistic cultures. Hofstede (2001) also suggested that individuals in Asian societies are more aware of collectivistic characteristics than individuals in Western societies. To support Hofstede’s point of view, Farh, Zhong, and Organ (2000) suggested social welfare participation, as well as interpersonal harmony, are more important in the collectivistic culture than in the individualistic culture. Emphasis on group welfare and interpersonal harmony were two of a few factors related to OCBs (De León & Finkelstein, 2011; Farh et al., 2000; Moorman & Blakely, 1995; LePine et al., 2002). Similarly, researchers have also explored the relation between IC and organizational commitment. Recently, Felfe and Yan (2009) found that collectivistic cultures had higher levels of commitment as compared to individualistic cultures. Collectivist employees tended to form close relationships with the organization by maintaining their collectivistic beliefs and norms. This close relationship encouraged more commitment to the organization. On the other hand, individualist employees, who focused more on self-interest than interpersonal harmony, placed less emphasis on having a close relationship with the organization as compared to collectivist employees, and hence showed lower commitment to their organizations. Their findings indicated that the level of commitment differed depending on the cultural context (i.e., individualistic or collectivistic). Although previous research found a similar relationship between cultural context (i.e., IC) and OCBs or commitment, the focus of cultural context was different in these studies. In general, the research focused on either group level or individual differences of cultural context. Researchers typically studied group level of cultural context by comparing two countries – for instance, Felfe and Yan’s (2009) research on Germany (individualism) and China (collectivism).
10 On the other hand, instead of studying a group’s cultural context, some researchers focused on studying individual differences. For example, Moorman and Blakely (1995) studied cultural context as an individual difference variable by comparing individualist or collectivist employees in an organization of United States. The current research aims to study cultural context by comparing two countries (group level). Specifically, the US was selected as an individualistic culture, and Malaysia was selected as a collectivistic culture. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs). Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs) are the primary outcome of interest in the current research. Researchers have utilized Organ’s works on OCBs as the basis for a large number of empirical studies (LePine et al., 2002). To reiterate, OCBs are defined as the prosocial behavior of employees in the organization, which are voluntarily behaviors not listed in their job descriptions (Organ, 1990). Organ (1990) proposed five dimensions of OCB, which were (a) altruism, in which employees help colleagues to solve work-related problems or issues, (b) conscientiousness, in which the employees go beyond their required job responsibilities in the organization, (c) sportsmanship, in which employees are tolerant and refrain from complaining about the organization even when they do not agree with the organization, (d) courtesy, in which employees try to avoid or prevent workplace conflicts with colleagues, and lastly (e) civic virtue, in which employees express deep concern for the organization and are actively involved. There are a number of meaningful predictors of OCBs. In 2002, LePine and colleagues did a meta-analysis of the predictors of OCBs (from 1983 to 1999). They found that job satisfaction, organizational commitment, fairness, trait conscientiousness, and leader support predicted OCBs. In addition to these, numerous studies have shown that organizational
11 commitment is correlated with job-related behaviors such as OCBs (Feather & Rauter, 2004), absenteeism and turnover intention (Felfe & Yan, 2009), and turnover rate (Tett & Meyer, 1993). Organizational Commitment. Besides Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs), organizational commitment is also an outcome of interest in the current study. According to Meyer and Allen (1991), organizational commitment is the linkage of employees to organizations. They introduced a three-component model of commitment: (a) affective commitment, in which employees stay in the organization because they want to, (b) continuance commitment, in which employees stay in the organization because they need to, either economically or socially, and (c) normative commitment, in which employees stay in the organization because they have to out of personal obligation. More specifically, affective commitment involves employees who stay in the organization because of their positive emotional attachment to the organization (personal values and satisfaction with the aims of organization). Employees with continuance commitment stay in the organization because of the high cost of leaving, including costs such as salary (economic costs) and friendship with colleagues (social costs). Employees with normative commitment stay in the organization because they feel obligated to remain with the company. In fact, sharing the similar norms and values makes them feel guilty for leaving the organization. Prior studies have often found a relationship between commitment and OCBs. For instance, Feather and Rauter (2004) studied the relationship between organizational commitment and OCBS in a group of school teachers in Australia and found a positive relationship between them. Interestingly, cultural differences played a role in determining one’s commitment level. Hofstede (2001) stated that collectivists, who stressed group welfare, normally shared common values, norms, and behaviors within the group. These general preferences for the group built
12 close relationships between group members, and hence increased their commitment level to their group. In support Hofstede’s idea, Felfe and Yan’s (2009) studied the impact of commitment on OCBs in Germany and China. The Chinese participants (collectivist cultures) showed higher commitment and displayed more OCBs than German participants (individualist cultures). Relations among IC, OCBs, and Organizational Commitment The aim of current research was to study the relationships among IndividualismCollectivism (IC), Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs), and organizational commitment. Predicted relationships between variables are discussed below, along with the rationale for each hypothesis. Collectivists, who emphasize group welfare and goals, logically relate to prosocial behaviors that benefit others (group members) such as OCBs. Given that a collectivist culture emphasizes a group-goal orientation, people in this culture should be more likely to perform OCBs as compared to people in individualistic cultures (Moorman & Blakely, 1995), and should show higher organizational commitment (Felfe & Yan, 2009). Moorman and Blakely (1995) studied individual differences in individualism-collectivism as a predictor to OCBs in US participants and suggested that individuals with collectivistic values and norms were more likely to show OCBs. Similarly, Cohen and Avrahami (2006) studied nurses in Israel and found that nurses who were high in collectivistic values were more likely to perform OCBs. De León and Finkelstein (2011) indicated collectivism was a significant predictor of OCBs in their study of Spanish employees. These studies showed similar results on the relationship between IC and OCBs. However, instead of using group level of cultural context as a proxy for individualismcollectivism (i.e., country membership), they studied individual differences in individualismcollectivism solely on participants in US (Moorman & Blakely’s) or Israel (Cohen &
13 Avrahami’s). In other words, both of the studies focused on studying individualism-collectivism by comparing individualist or collectivist employees within a country. The first hypothesis is intended to study, more directly, the group level of cultural dimensions on OCBs (see Figure 1). H1: Employees from a collectivist culture (Malaysia) will report higher levels of OCBs in all four dimensions (interpersonal helping, individual initiative, personal industry, and loyal boosterism) compared to employees from an individualist culture (United States). Committing oneself to the group is also a collectivistic norm. Felfe and Yan (2009) studied the commitment of Chinese (collectivist) and German (individualist) participants and found that both affective and continuance commitment were higher in collectivistic cultures, whereas continuance commitment was higher in the individualistic culture. Moreover, commitment was negatively correlated with turnover and positively correlated with performance, and these relationships were stronger in collectivistic cultures as compared to individualistic cultures (Felfe & Yan, 2009). Relatedly, Hsu (2002) studied the relationship between organizational commitment and turnover intention in the Internet industry in China and found that organizational commitment was negatively correlated with turnover rate. Based on these findings, the following prediction was made: H2: Employees from the collectivist culture (i.e., Malaysia) will have higher levels of affective and normative organizational commitment, but lower level of continuance organizational commitment compared to employees from the individualist culture (i.e., United States). Given that a collectivistic culture puts more emphasis on group-oriented goals and welfare, the employees in this culture are expected to hold the same values and attitudes in the workplace as a group. By holding the same values and attitudes, employees should show a higher
14 level of commitment to their groups and organizations. In support of this idea, Cohen (2007) found a strong relationship between cultural values (individualism or collectivism), commitment, and OCBs in his study on a group of teachers from northern Israel. Felfe and Yan (2009) suggested that the employees in collectivistic cultures, who stress group welfare and achievement, have a stronger sense of belonging and obligation to stay in their organizations, and hence exhibit more OCBs. On the other hand, the individualistic culture places more value on personal achievements and task independence, and stress the personal cost of leaving an organization rather than attachment and obligation to the organization. Thus, they exhibit fewer OCBs. Therefore, I hypothesized: H3: The relationship between individualism-collectivism and OCBs will strengthen as organizational commitment increases, specifically in collectivist cultures (i.e., Malaysia). Figure 1. Predicted Relationships among Individualism-Collectivism, Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs), and Organizational Commitment.
Organizational Commitment H H2
H3
Individualism/ Collectivism (United States) (Malaysia) H1
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB)
15 Chapter II: Methods Participants Fifty-eight employees (27.23%) responded the online survey: 33 (of 98) participants were US employees and 25 (of 115) were from Malaysia. The response rates were 33.67% of the US employees and 21.73% of the Malaysian employees. These employees worked mainly in two different departments: (1) the Business and Finance department of an academic setting located in the Midwest of the US, or a manufacturing organization located in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, or (2) the Nursing department of two private hospitals located in southern US or Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. As discussed in the Chapter I, the current research makes comparisons between the United States and Malaysia, using Moorman and Blakely’s (1995) conceptualization of individualism and collectivism. The overall reliability of OCBs and IC scales were above .70, and correlations support the relationship between OCBs and IC scales (rs = -.04 to .49; Moorman & Niehoff, 1998; Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Wagner, 1986). Materials Individualism-collectivism (IC). Individualism-Collectivism was measured using Wagner and Moch’s (1986) 10-item scale, which was adapted from Moorman and Blakely’s study (1995). There are three dimensions in this scale, which are beliefs (3 items), values (2 items), and norms (5 items; See Appendix A). Reverse coding was used in both beliefs and values dimensions, but was not necessary for the norms dimension. The reliabilities for this scale were all above .75, as stated in Wagner’s (1986), but the reliability of values dimension was slightly below .75 in Moorman and Blakely’s (1995) study (beliefs = .84, values = .67, and norms = .80). The beliefs dimension measures respondents’ perceptions on connecting the
16 group’s productivity to its members’ collectivism. A sample item for the beliefs dimension includes, “My work group is more productive when its members do what they want to do rather than what the group wants them to do.” The values dimension measures respondents’ preference on working in a more collectivistic or individualistic environment. A values item includes, “I prefer to work with others in my work group rather than work alone.” Finally, the norms dimension was meant to identify respondents’ perception on their group members’ working behavior which leans more toward collectivistic or individualistic. A sample item for the norms dimension includes, “People in my group should recognize that they are not always going to get what they want.” The scale ranges from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (completely true). A higher IC score indicates a tendency towards collectivism, whereas a lower score indicates a tendency towards individualism. See Appendix A for a full list of items. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs). Moorman and Blakely’s (1995) measure was used to measure OCBs. This scale has 20 items, with five items in each of four dimensions: interpersonal helping, individual initiative, personal industry, and loyal boosterism based on Organ’s (1990) dimensions of OCBs. The reliabilities for each dimension are as follows: interpersonal helping ( = .74), individual initiative ( = .76), personal industry ( = .61), and loyal boosterism ( = .86; Moorman & Blakely, 1995). Interpersonal helping (i.e., provide in-job help to co-workers when needed) is measured by items such as, “Voluntarily helps new employees settle into job.” Individual initiative (i.e., communicate with people in the workplace to enhance one’s own or group performance) is measured by items such as, “Often motivates others to express their ideas and opinions.” Personal industry describes one’s performance beyond specific tasks or duties. A personal industry item is, “Always meets or beats deadlines for completing work.” Lastly, loyal boosterism focuses on promoting one’s own
17 organization to outsiders. A loyal boosterism item is, “Defend the organization when outsiders criticize it.” The response scale ranges from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (completely true). The selfreported scores on each dimension were averaged for an overall OCB score in which higher scores indicate greater OCBs. A full list of items can be found in Appendix B. Organizational commitment. Organizational commitment was measured using the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), which was adapted from Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993). The OCQ is a self-report scale that measures three commitment dimensions (i.e., affective, continuance, and normative) with six items in each dimension. See Appendix C. There are two parts in the scale: occupational and organizational commitment. As the current research focused only on organizational commitment, only the questions in the three dimensions of organizational commitment were adapted for use in the current research. The reliability of each dimension was reported as follows: affective organizational commitment ( = .85), continuance organizational commitment ( =.83), and normative organizational commitment ( = .77; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993). Affective commitment is measured by items such as, “This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.” Continuance commitment is measured by items such as, “I would not leave my organization right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it.” Lastly, a normative commitment item is, “I would feel guilty if I left my organization now.” The scale ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The self-reported score on each dimension was averaged for an overall OCQ score in which higher scores indicate greater organizational commitment. Procedure According to Hofstede (2001), the United States is the country with the highest level of individualism, whereas Malaysia was the one of the five highest in collectivism. Therefore, data
18 were collected from organizations in the United States and Malaysia from two different organizations in each country. Through the researcher’s professional and personal networks, organizations were contacted regarding the willingness to participate in December, 2011. Of these, a Nursing department in a private hospital in the southern US, and a Business and Finance department of a manufacturing organization in Malaysia expressed interest. To keep consistency of job characteristics, similar departments were contacted in the other country for both industries (a Nursing department in Malaysia and a Business and Finance department in the US). This research was approved by the IRB at the University of Wisconsin – Stout. The approval letter can be found in Appendix D. Online survey invitations were sent to the potential participants through electronic mail using the Qualtrics system, or posted on the intranet of the organizations between mid (Nursing department) and late (Business and Finance office) January, 2012 (see Appendix E for sample survey invitation letter). The Qualtrics system was chosen to be the primary tool for sending invitations, and employees in the Business and Finance departments received them through this system initially. However, the directors of both Nursing departments in the US and Malaysia reflected that using their hospitals’ intranet would be better trusted than receiving electronic mails from an unfamiliar system. As such, the survey invitations were also posted on their respective intranets. The purpose of the research was stated in the electronic message. Participants were informed that participation was voluntarily and that confidentiality of responses would be ensured. A random drawing for a Starbucks gift card ($15 in US or RM 35, or equivalent) was offered as an incentive. A link that allowed participants to access the online survey directly was provided in the message. Upon completion of the questionnaires, a short message appeared to thank participants (see Appendix F). A reminder was sent to all potential participants two weeks
19 after the initial survey invitation, and additional reminders were sent two to three weeks after the first reminder (see Appendix G for a sample of survey reminder letter). The online survey was closed in mid-March, 2012, and 2 Starbucks gift cards were sent to two randomly selected participants in each country by mid-April, 2012.
20 Chapter III: Results Table 1 provides details of the number of participants in each country by department. Note that two US participants and 16 Malaysian participants completed the first part of the survey (OCBs scale) and dropped out in the second (IC scale) or third part (OCQ scale) of the survey. Table 1 Numbers of Participants by Country and Department (N = 58) United States
Malaysia
Business & Finance department
13
19
Nursing department
20
6
Total (N = 58)
33
25
Note. Numbers above included participants who completed one or more individual surveys. Forty participants completed the demographic questions (US = 31, Malaysia = 9). There were 8 males and 32 females in total: 6 males and 25 females from the US and two males and seven females from Malaysia. Overall, the US participants were older (M = 47.06, SD = 8.79) than Malaysian participants (M = 26.78, SD = 4.32). They had been working in their current position (M = 4.96 years, SD = 5.02 years) longer than Malaysian participants (M = 1.69 years, SD = 1.49 years), and in their current organizations longer (US: M = 11.89 years, SD = 10 years; Malaysia: M = 3.42 years, SD = 4.80 years).
21 Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations of Participants’ Demographics by Country (N = 40) Total
US (N = 31)
Malaysia (N =9)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
42.50
11.70
47.06
8.79
26.78
4.32
Time in current position
4.12
4.60
4.96
5.02
1.69
1.49
Time in current organization
9.55
9.59
11.89 10.00
3.42
4.80
Age (in years)
Note. For time working in current position N = 31 (US N = 23; Malaysia N = 8). For time working in current organization, N = 29 (US N = 21; Malaysia N = 8). Descriptive statistics and correlations Data were analyzed using SPSS 16.0 for MAC. Descriptive statistics and correlations between each dimension can be found in Tables 3 and 4. As discussed in the first chapter, the primary purpose of this research was on studying differences in OCBs and organizational commitment between individualistic and collectivistic cultures. The IC scale was included in the online survey to verify the indirect measure of differences in cultural context. Surprisingly, US participants showed higher mean scores in all three dimensions (beliefs: M = 4.73, SD = 1.26; values: M = 4.13, SD = 1.32; norms: M = 5.75, SD = 0.79) as compared to Malaysian participants (beliefs: M = 4.05, SD = 1.47; values: M = 4.00, SD = 1.53; norms: M = 5.50, SD = 0.81). Although the mean scores in IC scale were not as expected, there were some significant correlations found among dimensions in three scales (see Table 4). Considering IC, beliefs was significantly correlated with values, and norms showed significant relation to interpersonal helping and personal industry. Both beliefs and values were negatively correlated with continuance commitment.
22 Concerning Organizational Citizenship Behaviors, the four OCBs dimensions were significantly correlated: interpersonal helping was highly correlated with individual initiative, personal industry, and loyal boosterism. The relationship between individual initiative and personal industry was strong. Interestingly, the correlations among the four OCB dimensions were higher than those reported in Moorman and Blakely’s (1995) study. The affective and normative commitment were significantly correlated. In addition, affective commitment was also associated with individual initiative, personal industry, and loyal boosterism. Note that approximately 64% of the Malaysian participants (N = 16) did not complete the commitment scale, which affected the analyses using this variable. Details will be discussed in the next chapter. Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables (N = 58) Variable
US
Malaysia
M
SD
M
SD
1. IC - Beliefs
4.73
1.26
4.05
1.47
2. IC - Values
4.13
1.32
4.00
1.53
3. IC - Norms
5.75
0.79
5.50
0.81
4. OCBs - Interpersonal Helping
6.14
0.51
5.45
0.70
5. OCBs - Individual Initiative
5.99
0.54
5.35
0.97
6. OCBs - Personal Industry
6.32
0.56
5.65
0.61
7. OCBs - Loyal Boosterism
5.70
0.79
5.58
0.88
8. OCQ - Affective Commitment
3.43
0.79
3.48
0.83
9. OCQ - Continuance Commitment
3.10
0.88
3.43
0.72
23 10. OCQ - Normative Commitment
3.10
0.83
2.90
0.85
Note. IC scale N = 56 (US: N = 31; Malaysia: N = 25) and OCQ scale N = 40 (US: N = 31; Malaysia: N = 9). Total N = 58 (US: N = 33; Malaysia: N = 25). *p < .05, **p < .01.
24 Table 4 Intercorrelations among Individualism-Collectivism, Organizational Citizenship Behaviors, and Organizational Commitment (N = 58) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Variable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. IC - Beliefs 2. IC - Values 3. IC - Norms 4. OCBs - Interpersonal Helping 5. OCBs - Individual Initiative 6. OCBs - Personal Industry 7. OCBs - Loyal Boosterism 8. OCQ - Affective Commitment 9. OCQ - Continuance Commitment 10. OCQ - Normative Commitment
-
.47**
.13
.16
.07
.12
.01
-.00
-.50** -.11
-
-.09
.11
-.05
-.06
-.11
.20
-.27*
.23
-
.31*
.25
.26*
.17
.24
.05
.14
.70** .62** .55** .23
-.18
-.03
-.07
.01
-.06
-.03
.54** -.00
.07
-
-
.53** .38** .33* -
.36* -
.11* -
.20
.36*
-
.25 -
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Note. For IC scale N = 56 (US: N = 31; Malaysia: N = 25), OCQ scale N = 40 (US: N = 31; Malaysia: N = 9). Total N = 58 (US: N = 33; Malaysia: N = 25). *p < .05, **p < .01.
25 Hypothesis testing The first hypothesis was intended to study the differences in OCBs between collectivistic (Malaysia) and individualistic (United States) cultures. H1: Employees from a collectivist culture (Malaysia) will report higher levels of OCBs in all four dimensions (interpersonal helping, individual initiative, and loyal boosterism) compared to employees from an individualist culture (United States). Prior to testing H1, three independent sample t-tests were conducted to explore the mean differences between countries for the three IC dimensions (Beliefs, Values, and Norms). The aim was to confirm the expectation that US employees would be more individualistic, whereas Malaysian employees would be more collectivistic. Results showed that there were no significant differences between the two countries [Beliefs: t(54) = 1.86, p > .05; Values: t(54) = .34, p > .05; Norms: t(54) = 1.20, p > .05], which indicated the cultural differences between US participants and Malaysian participants were minimal. In fact, as can be seen in Table 3, US participants had higher mean scores in each OCBs dimension compared to Malaysian participants. An independent samples t-test was conducted to test the first hypothesis. Prior running the t-test, participants’ scores on the OCB dimensions were summed to obtain an overall OCBs score given the high correlations among the dimensions. Results showed a significant difference between the US and Malaysia [t(40) = 3.51, p < .01]. However, as mentioned above, US participants showed higher mean scores in overall OCBs as compared to Malaysian participants, so this result is not supportive of H1. The second hypothesis aimed to explore differences in the organizational commitment between collectivist and individualist cultures.
26 H2: Employees from a collectivist culture will have higher levels of affective and normative organizational commitment, but lower level of continuance organizational commitment compared to employees from an individualist culture. To test this hypothesis, three independent samples t-tests were conducted (one for each commitment dimension). Note that this test is limited in that only nine of the Malaysian participants completed the entire scale, as compared to 31 US participants. The tests revealed non-significant differences in all three dimensions of organizational commitment countries [affective commitment: t(53) = -0.20, p > .05; continuance commitment: t(53) = -1.50, p > .05; normative commitment: t(53) = 0.85, p > .05]. Thus, the results did not support H2. The third hypothesis focused on studying whether commitment might moderate the relationship between IC and OCBs. H3: The relationship between individualism-collectivism and OCBs will strengthen as organizational commitment increases, specifically in collectivist cultures (i.e., Malaysia). Given the low response rate for this scale, a hierarchical regression analysis was not feasible. As such, this hypothesis could not be tested with the current data. This limitation will be discussed further in the next section.
27 Chapter IV: Discussion The aim of this research was to understand the relationships between organizational commitment and OCBs in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Extending the work of previous researchers (i.e., Cohen & Avrahami, 2006; Felfe & Yan, 2009; Moorman & Blakely, 1995), the current research focused on exploring the relationships between organizational commitment and OCBs in the US and Malaysia. Previous research focused on studying OCBs with samples of one cultural context (i.e., Moorman & Blakely [1995] study in the US, or Cohen & Avrahami [2006] in Israel), or focused on organizational commitment in China and Germany (i.e., Felfe & Yan, 2009). However, there is little research focused on studying organizational commitment and OCBs across individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Therefore, the purpose of current research was to explore the relationships of organizational commitment and OCBs across these two cultures. Cultural differences between the US (individualistic) and Malaysia (collectivistic) were critical in the current research. With Hofstede’s (2001) point of view on eastern countries are more towards collectivist culture whereas western countries tend to be more individualistic, samples from the US and Malaysia were selected. Interestingly, the results showed that US participants exhibited approximately similar levels of collectivism as the Malaysian participants. This finding is in contrast with much of the research on this topic (De León & Finkelstein, 2011; Felfe & Yan, 2009; Farh et al., 2000; Hofstede, 2001; Moorman & Blakely, 1995). Unfortunately, this makes comparisons between the two groups of participants less meaningful, as well as the results of three hypotheses in the present study. Also, the correlations between IC and OCBs scale were not statistically significant, which is contradictory with previous studies (Cohen & Avrahami, 2006; De León & Finkelstein, 2011; Felfe & Yan, 2009; Farh et al., 2000;
28 Hofstede, 2001; Moorman & Blakely, 1995). This may be due to the small sample size, and the large demographic differences between two participant groups. Although the hypotheses were not supported, there were some important findings in terms of the correlations among the dimensions in the three scales. Firstly, the correlations between the OCBs dimensions were statistically significant, which, as expected, aligned with Moorman and Blakely’s (1995) findings. According to Moorman and Blakely, dimensions should be related, and thus, the significant correlations between the four dimensions showed that the scale worked as expected. Also, the correlation between affective and normative commitment was statistically significant. This confirms the finding in the Meyer and Allen (1991) and Felfe and Yan’s (2009) studies. Employees stay in their current organizations for different reasons, which lead to different forms of commitment to an organization. Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky (2002) discussed the relationships between three components of organizational commitment with employees’ performance and attitudes. Among the three types of commitment, they indicated that employees who have high affective and normative commitment tended to have higher performance and express more positive attitudes than those lower in these forms of commitment. On the other hand, employees who had higher continuance commitment tended to have more negative attitudes and were less likely to express desirable behavior. Results showed that affective commitment was positively correlated with normative commitment, which indicated that employees who felt positive emotional attachment also had higher personal obligation to their organizations. Another way of stating this is, as affective commitment increases, so does normative commitment. Affective commitment was also related to promoting their organization’s image, focusing
29 on communications to improve their own and group performance, and going beyond their job duties. These correlations can be linked to Meyer et al.’s (2002) study in that the relationships between employees’ affective commitment with their positive attitudes (in this case, OCBs) are beneficial to employees’ performance. Among the three dimensions, the correlation between affective commitment and loyal boosterism was the strongest. It makes sense that those employees who have higher affective commitment tended to be more loyal to the organization than those lower in affective commitment. Since affective and normative commitment, as well as performing OCBs, are beneficial to an organization’s performance, employers should note these relationships and to put effort toward increasing the two type of commitments. As can be seen in Table 4, normative commitment was negatively correlated with most of the IC and OCB dimensions. Although the non-significant correlations might be due to small sample size, the consistent pattern of negative correlations between normative commitment and OCBs aligned with Meyer and colleagues’ (2002) study, which concluded that employees higher in continuance commitment had negative attitudes and were less likely to engage desirable behaviors at work. Also, beliefs and values dimensions were negatively correlated with continuance commitment. Wagner and Moch (1986) designed the IC scale to explore one’s focus on self- versus group-interest in a group context. Perhaps employees with higher continuance commitment would be less likely to relate group productivity with their group members (beliefs) and prefer to work in more individualistic environments (values). In other words, as employees’ continuance commitment to the organization increases, their focus on group interests likely decreases. Although employees with continuance commitment are still committed to their organization, this type of commitment might lead to less positive outcomes as compared to affective and normative commitment.
30 The findings provide employers with a piece of information to understand the type of commitment that will be of most benefit to the organization. Since both affective and normative commitment were correlated with positive attitudes and performance of employees, employers will want their employees to have positive attachment (affective commitment) and personal obligation (normative commitment) to remain in the organization. For the organizations that emphasize more group or teamwork, continuance commitment (focusing more on self than group interest) might be deemphasized. Limitations and Future Directions There are a few likely limitations that should be addressed in future research. First, the sample size was a major limitation in current research. Only 31 US participants and 25 Malaysian participants responded the questionnaire. Of those, 64% of Malaysian participants (N = 16) did not complete the entire questionnaire. The end of the questionnaire contained the organizational commitment measure. These data were critical to the current research, and hypothesis testing was limited, especially for H2 and H3 that explored the relationship between OCBs and organizational commitment. Given the small sample size, the contradictory findings might be due to lack of statistical power. According to Cohen (1992), a minimum of 96 to 97 participants were needed for sufficient power. Therefore, there is a chance that the nonsignificant differences in individualism-collectivism between US and Malaysian participants is a result of an insufficient number of participants. To examine this issue, future research should be done using a larger sample. An alternative explanation for the lack of cultural differences might be the unexpected changes in Malaysian cultural perceptions. Although most Asian countries are considered collectivistic (Hostede, 2001; Felfe & Yan, 2006), the infusion of concepts and ideas between
31 countries and cultures might have caused changes in cultural perceptions. In fact, Noordin, Williams, and Zimmer (2002) conducted a study on career commitment in Malaysia and Australia (individualistic) and found Malaysian managers were more vertically individualistic than Australian managers. They went on to discuss the development of Malaysia’s economy, and the role it has played, resulting in a shift from collectivism to individualism. However, they also pointed out that this change might only be temporary while adapting to the economic development and social change. With the different point of view regarding the cultural context of Malaysia, future research is recommended to follow-up on this issue. Thirdly, there was a lot of variance between two groups of participants in regard to demographics (i.e., age and time working in the current position or organization). This calls into question the comparability of the two samples. The US participants were generally older (M = 47.06) and had been working in their current position (M = 4.96) or organization (M = 11.89) three to eight years longer than Malaysian participants (age, M = 26.78; current position, M = 1.69; current organization, M = 3.42). Moreover, the items in the IC scale were highly related to participants’ perceptions of their co-workers (beliefs and norms) and working environment (values). Given that the smaller number of working years in their current position or organization, it makes sense to question the familiarity of Malaysian participants with their coworkers and working environment as compared to the US participants, which might affect their responses on the IC scale. Similarly, the OCBs and OCQ scales have items related to co-workers and working environments, and the differences might have affected the responses of Malaysian participants. Although the hypotheses were not supported, the relationships between organizational commitment and OCBs were a highlight in current research, which were consistent with the
32 findings of previous research. Previous studies (e.g., Felfe & Yan, 2009; Meyer et al., 2002; Moorman & Blakely, 1995) also indicated that both organizational commitment and OCBs were correlated with employees’ work attitudes and their performance. Future research is encouraged to provide further recommendations to employers for improving employees’ performance, and hence a better working environment for both parties. Conclusion In sum, although the findings of the current research did not support the initial hypotheses, there were some meaningful findings to help understanding the relationships among individualism-collectivism, OCBs, and organizational commitment. Future research is recommended to explore the relationship between organizational commitment and OCBs with employees’ performance. In addition, the cultural context of Malaysia needs to be further studied to identify whether the country is permanently becoming more individualistic or collectivistic in culture.
33 References Chen, L., Niu, H., Wang, Y., Yang, C., & Tsaur, S. (2009). Does job standardization increase organizational citizenship behavior? Public Personnel Management, 38(3), 39-49. Cohen, A. (2007). One nation, many cultures: A cross-cultural study of the relationship between personal cultural values and commitment in the workplace to in-role performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal Of Comparative Social Science, 42(3), 273-300. Cohen, A., & Avrahami, A. (2006). The relationship between individualism, collectivism, the perception of justice, demographic characteristics and organisational citizenship behaviour. Service Industries Journal, 26(8), 889-901. doi:10.1080/02642060601011707 Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions In Psychological Science (WileyBlackwell), 1(3), 98-101. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783 De León, M., & Finkelstein, M. A. (2011). Individualism/collectivism and organizational citizenship behavior. Psicothema, 23(3), 401-406. Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in the people's republic of china. Organization Science, 15(2), 241-253. doi:10.1287/orsc.1030.0051 Feather, N. T., & Rauter, K. A. (2004). Organizational citizenship behaviours in relation to job status, job insecurity, organizational commitment and identification, job satisfaction and work values. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 81. Felfe, J., & Yan, W. H. (2009). The impact of workgroup commitment on organizational citizenship behaviour, absenteeism and turnover intention: The case of germany and china. Asia Pacific Business Review, 15(3), 433-450. doi:10.1080/13602380802667411
34 Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing, values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. (2nd ed.). CA: Sage Publications. Hsu, J. C. (2002). Does organizational commitment affect turnover in china's internet industry? Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 63(2). (2002-95015-129) Lambert, S. J. (2000). Added benefits: The link between work-life benefits and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 801-815. LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 52-65. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.52 Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538-551. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538 Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative Commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior 61, 20-52. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842 Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(2), 127-142. doi:10.1002/job.4030160204 Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational support
35
mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 351-357. Noordin, F., Williams, T., & Zimmer, C. (2002). Career commitment in collectivist and individualist cultures: a comparative study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 13(1), 35-54. doi: 10.1080/09585190110092785 Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 43. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22(2), 259. Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46(2), 259-293. Turnipseed, D. L., & Murkison, E. (2000). A bi-cultural comparison of organization citizenship behavior: Does the OCB phenomenon transcend national culture? The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 8(2), 200-222. doi:10.1108/eb028917 Wagner, J. A., & Moch, M. K. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: Concept and measure. Group & Organization Studies, 11(3), 280-304.
36 Appendix A: Individualism-Collectivism (IC) Scale Item Beliefs
Values
Norms
My work group is more productive when its members do what they want to do rather than what the group wants them to do (R) My work group is most efficient when its members do what they think is best rather than what the group wants them to do (R) My work group is most productive when its members follow their own interests and concerns (R) Given the choice, I would rather do a job where I can work alone rather than do a job where I have to work with others in my work group (R) I like it when members of my work group do things on their own, rather than working with others all the time (R)
People in my work group should be willing to make scarifies for the sake of the work group (such as working late now and then, going out of their way to help, etc.) People in my work group should realize that they sometimes are going to have to make scarifies for the sake of the work group as a whole People in my work group should recognize that they are not always going to get what they want People should be made aware that if they are going to be part of a work group, they are sometimes going to have to do things they don’t want to do People in my work group should do their best to cooperate with each other instead of trying to work things out on their own ______________________________________________________________________________
37 Appendix B: Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs) Scale Item Interpersonal helping Go out of my way to help co-workers with work-related problems Voluntarily help new employees settle into the job Frequently adjusts my work schedule to accommodate other employees’ requests for time-off Always go out of the way to make newer employees feel welcome in the work group Show genuine concern and courtesy toward co-workers, even under the most trying business or personal situations Individual initiative For issues that may have serious consequences, expresses opinions honestly even when others may disagree Often motivates others to express their ideas and opinions Encourages others to try new and more effective ways of doing their job Encourages hesitant or quiet co-workers to voice their opinions when they otherwise might not speak-up Frequently communicates to co-workers suggestions on how the group can improve Personal industry Rarely misses work even when he/she has a legitimate reason for doing so Performs his/her duties with unusually few errors Performs his/her job duties with extra-special care Always meets or beats deadlines for completing work Loyal boosterism Defends the organization when other employees criticize it Encourages friends and family to utilize organization products Defends the organization when outsiders criticize it Shows pride when representing the organization in public Actively promotes the organization’s products and services to potential users ______________________________________________________________________________
38 Appendix C: Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) Item Affective commitment I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own I do not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to my organization (R) I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this organization (R) I do not feel “part of the family” at my organization (R) This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me Continuance commitment Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization now I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization If I had not already put so much of myself into this organization, I might consider working elsewhere One of the few negative consequences of leaving this organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives Normative commitment I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current employer (R) Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organization now I would feel guilty if I left my organization now This organization deserves my loyalty I would not leave my organization right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it I owe a great deal to my organizations ______________________________________________________________________________
39 Appendix D: Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subject in Research (IRB) Approval Letter
~~
STOUT QIMJ!Irl'f#~
lii'IMit'iiii)O!'A~K~!>INI
P.O t!of 190 M.,.....ltJ!Ioll Wl r>-47~J-07'Xi 71sr.n;'- H:;(ICI
't!Y.I:U.J1¥.1 (tnt
December J5, 20 1 I
!!!1!1
"_"..,'"A odu.n.
S iew S hcn Low
Psychology Department UW..SIOUI
Title: ..OrgMiZ:ltlonal Citjzensbip Behavior: OrganiZ!ltional Commitment in Individualists and Collectivists Cutrurcs" Subjoct: Protection of Human S ubjects Ocar Sic w Shen,
In accordam:.c •,•lith f'cderal R..:gulatic:ms. your project. " Org
