Collectivistic orientation in teams: an individual and group-level analysis

Abstract

SummaryWith the increasing use of work teams in U.S. industry, understanding team members' collectivistic orientation toward group goals and activities is critical for developing cooperative and productive teams. Using the research on expectancy theory, selfecacy, locus of control, and individualism±collectivism, collectivism is examined as both an individual dierence variable and a group composition variable. One hundred and forty-eight individuals (comprising 33 groups) working on a complex and interdependent task comprised the research sample. Results indicated that individual dierence variables of self-ecacy for teamwork, need for social approval, and positive past experience working in teams were related to self-report collectivism. Additionally, team collectivistic orientation was examined as a group composition variable and found to be related to cooperative team behaviors. In turn, these cooperative team behaviors acted as a mediator of the relationship between team collectivistic orientation and team performance. Results are discussed in terms of theory building and applied research.

A quarter century of Culture's Consequences: a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values framework

“…Oetzel (1998) found that individualistic European-American groups had a greater number of conflicts, fewer cooperating tactics, and more competing tactics than collectivistic Japanese-American groups. In two studies also discussed in the individual level section, Pillai and Meindl (1998) found that COL was positively related to charismatic leadership emergence in a field study of 101 work groups; and Eby and Dobbins (1997) found that team collectivistic orientation was positively related to team cooperation, and team cooperation mediated the relationship between team collectivistic orientation and team performance in a study of 33 student teams. Kirkman and Shapiro (2001b) found that COL was negatively related to the level of team member resistance to the team-related aspects of SMWTs, and that resistance mediated the relationships COL had with team cooperation, empowerment, and productivity.…”

“…Cultural distance on COL (i.e., how different, on average, each individual is from other group members) was negatively related to group receptiveness. In a sample of US undergraduates, COL was positively related to selfefficacy for teamwork, need for social approval, and positive past experience working in teams (Eby and Dobbins, 1997). In support of their theoretical model (Kirkman and Shapiro, 1997), found that COL was positively related to receptivity to team-based rewards using employee surveys in a US insurance company.…”

“…Regarding similarities, COL was associated with more cooperation and positive attitudes toward teams at the individual (Bennett, 1999;Eby et al, 2000;Shapiro, 2000, 2001a;Steensma et al, 2000a;Wade-Benzoni et al, 2002), group/organization (Chatman and Barsade, 1995;Eby and Dobbins, 1997;Kirkman and Shapiro, 2001b), and country levels (Schuler and Rogovsky, 1998;Steensma et al, 2000b). Similarly, IND was associated with increased conflict at the individual (Gabrielidis et al, 1997) and group/organization levels (Cox et al, 1991;Chatman et al, 1998;Oeztzel, 1998, and handling such conflict using personal experience or training rather than formal rules at the country level .…”

“…Cultural distance on UA had disruptive effects across levels, as it was associated with both increased conflict in TMTs (Elron, 1997) and the dissolution of IJVs at the country level . These similar findings across levels aside, we note that the substantiation of cross-level similarities is actually quite rare in the Hofstede-inspired research, not necessarily because they do not exist but because researchers seldom use a cross-level approach in a single study (exceptions included Eby and Dobbins, 1997;Pillai and Meindl, 1998;Lam et al, 2002a). As discussed below, we view such studies as promising, because they address multiple rival explanations for consistency across levels.…”

Exploring how inter-organizational relational benefits affect information sharing in supply chains

“…The average estimates of IRR were 0.912 for relational benefit, 0.901 for relational risk, and 0.912 for information sharing, respectively. All estimates exceeded the recommended cut-off value of 0.7 [50], indicating the response consistency between the two groups.…”