Description
Research Study on An Organizational Culture Perspective On Role Emergence And Role Enactment, The term enactment may refer to the whole or part of a piece of legislation or to the whole or part of an instrument made under a piece of legislation. In Wakefield Light Railways Company v Wakefield Corporation
RESEARCH STUDY ON AN ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE PERSPECTIVE ON ROLE EMERGENCE AND ROLE ENACTMENT
Abstract:Organizational culture has received ample attention both in the popular and scholarly press as an important factor predicting organizational effectiveness by inducing employees to behave effectively (Cooke& Rousseau, 1988; Schein, 1985, 1990). The assertion that culture leads to behavior, however, has received only limited empirical support. The purpose of this dissertation is to explicate the impact of organizational culture on employees' roles and subsequent role behaviors. I propose that four types of cultures (clan, entrepreneurial, market and hierarchy) exert different and at times competing pressures, thus, creating distinct role schemas regarding the range of expected employee behaviors, which in turn, guide distinct forms of employee role behavior (e.g. helping, innovation, achievement and compliance). In addition, I examine boundary conditions on the relationships between culture and role perceptions and role perceptions and behavior. I propose that in the process of role emergence, culture strength as an organizational level characteristic,
cognitive self-monitoring, and perceived person-organization (P-O) fit influence the degree to which individuals interpret and incorporate the organizational culture's norms as part of their roles at work. I also suggest that culture strength, behavioral self-monitoring as well as P-O fit have an impact on the extent to which employees enact the expected organizational work roles. Data from about hundred different organizations were collected to test the proposed relationships. The empirical results provide support for most of the proposed relationships between culture and employee roles, thereby validating the role of culture in establishing what is expected and valued at work. In addition, culture strength had moderating effect on the linkages between culture and employee roles for two of the culture dimensions (clan and hierarchical). Surprisingly, selfmonitoring (cognitive) had a significant moderating effect but in a direction different from the predicted. Perceived fit moderated the relationship between market culture and helping role. Innovative role exhibited a negative significant relationship with compliant behavior while market strength intensified the negative relationship between achievement role and helping behavior. Thus, the results lend some support to the overall framework. Implications for theory and practice, as well as directions for future research, are discussed.
AN ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE PERSPECTIVE ON ROLE EMERGENCE AND ROLE ENACTMENT
By
Sophia V. Marinova
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2005
Advisory Committee: Professor Paul E. Tesluk, Chair Professor Paul Hanges Professor Henry P. Sims Professor Cynthia K. Stevens Professor M. Susan Taylor
© Copyright by Sophia V. Marinova 2005
Dedication There are several people who have been an inspiration to me during the challenging times of the Ph.D. program. I'd like to dedicate this dissertation to:
Sophia Iantcheva (my grandmother), who has taught me the value of staying optimistic in the face of great challenges.
Nina Marinova (my mother), for her unswerving belief in me.
Ivan Anastassov (my husband), for his selfless encouragement and support.
Krustio Krustev, for being a great inspiration to me.
ii
Acknowledgements There are a number of people who have provided me with tremendous support throughout my Ph.D. student tenure and with respect to my dissertation. First of all, I'd like to thank all of my dissertation committee members: Paul Tesluk, Hank Sims, Paul Hanges, Cindy Stevens, and Susan Taylor. I am grateful to Paul Tesluk, my dissertation advisor, who has been a source of great support to me and has always constructively challenged me to develop my professional skills. I wish to thank Hank for his moral support and advice throughout the Ph.D. program, for being a great mentor, and for being there for me during difficult times. I also greatly appreciate the support and advice from Paul Hanges, Cindy Stevens, and Susan Taylor. A special thanks to Myeong-Gu Seo for assisting me with the data-collection process for the dissertation. I would also like to thank Henry Moon for his research mentoring. I appreciate the support of several other faculty members as well: Ian Williamson, Kay Bartol, Anil Gupta, Ken Smith, Scott Turner, and Dave Lepak. I'd also like to thank my classmates for their collegiality and for helping me laugh throughout these years. A special thanks to Riki Takeuchi, Qing Cao, Long Jiang, Wei Liu, Lisa Dragoni, Jennifer Marrone, Alice Zhang, Meredith Burnett, Nevena Koukova, Antoaneta Petkova, and Karen Wouters: I consider myself fortunate to have been your colleague and friend. Last but not least, I'd like to thank my husband Ivan Anastassov for his love, tremendous support, encouragement and his great sense of humor; my mother Nina Marinova and father Vladimir Marinov, for their love and advice; to my brothers
iii
Nikolay Marinov, Pavel Marinov, and Krasen Marinov for always being supportive with me. Thank you all!
iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ..................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements...................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents.......................................................................................................... v List of Tables ............................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ............................................................................................................. vii Chapter 1: Problem Statement ...................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Theoretical Concepts................................................................................. 14 Organizational Culture............................................................................................ 14 Roles and Role Theory............................................................................................ 23 Employee Behaviors ............................................................................................... 25 Summary............................................................................................................. 35 Individual differences and attitudes ........................................................................ 36 Chapter 3: Hypotheses Development.......................................................................... 39 Organizational Culture as Antecedent of Work Roles............................................ 39 Roles as Predictors of Behavior.............................................................................. 43 Moderators of The Relationships Between Organizational Culture, Roles, and Behaviors ................................................................................................................ 44 Summary................................................................................................................. 54 Chapter 4: Method Section ......................................................................................... 57 Research Design...................................................................................................... 57 Sample..................................................................................................................... 57 Analysis................................................................................................................... 59 Summary................................................................................................................. 62 Relationships between Culture and Roles............................................................... 81 Relationships between Roles and Behaviors .......................................................... 92 Summary of results ............................................................................................... 113 Chapter 6: Discussion ............................................................................................... 116 Relationships between Culture and Roles............................................................. 116 Relationships between Roles and Behavior.......................................................... 123 Implications........................................................................................................... 125 Limitations ............................................................................................................ 129 Directions for Future Research ............................................................................. 132 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 134 Appendices................................................................................................................ 136 Appendix A: Focal Questionnaire ........................................................................ 136 Appendix B: Coworker Questionnaire.................................................................. 145 Appendix C: Supervisor Questionnaire ................................................................ 152 Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 155
v
List of Tables
Table 1: The OCI Cultural Styles .............................................................................. 17 Table 2: Sources for Primary Analysis ....................................................................... 62 Table 3: Exploratory Factor Analysis of Organizational Culture............................... 63 Table 4:Correlations between Dimensions of Culture from the Coworker and Focal Perspectives......................................................................................................... 67 Table 5: Multi-trait Multi-method Approach to Culture............................................. 68 Table 6: Exploratory Factor Analysis of Role Perceptions of Organizational Expectations........................................................................................................ 72 Table 7: Correlation Table (Roles as Dependent Variable)........................................ 78 Table 8: Regression Analysis of the Relationship between Culture and Roles.......... 82 Table 9: Interaction Results: Culture and Culture Strength on Roles......................... 85 Table 10 (strength as agreement):Interaction Results ................................................ 86 Table 11:Interaction Results: Culture and Self-monitoring on Roles......................... 89 Table 12: Culture and Perceived Person-Organization Fit (P-O Fit) Interaction on Roles ................................................................................................................... 91 Table 13:Correlation Table: Coworker-Rated Behaviors as a Dependent Variable... 93 Table 14: Relationships between Roles and Behaviors (coworker ratings) .............. 96 Table 15: Correlations among behaviors (coworkers and supervisors as sources) .... 98 Table 16: Correlation Table: Supervisor-Rated Behaviors as a Dependent Variable 99 Table 17: Relationships between Roles and Behaviors (supervisor ratings)............ 102 Table 18: Interaction between Culture Strength and Roles on Behaviors (coworker ratings) .............................................................................................................. 104 Table 19: Interactions between Roles and Strength (agreement) on Behaviors (coworker ratings)............................................................................................. 105 Table 20: Interaction between Roles and Culture Strength on Behaviors (supervisor ratings) .............................................................................................................. 106 Table 21: Interactions between Roles and Agreement on Behaviors (supervisor ratings) .............................................................................................................. 107 Table 22: Interaction Results for Roles and Self-monitoring (behavioral) on Behaviors (coworker ratings)............................................................................ 109 Table 23: Interaction Results for Roles and P-O fit on Behaviors (coworker ratings) ........................................................................................................................... 110 Table 24: Interaction Results for Roles and Self-monitoring (behavioral) on Behaviors (supervisor ratings) .......................................................................... 111 Table 25: Interaction Results for Roles and P-O fit on Behaviors (supervisor ratings) ........................................................................................................................... 112 Table 26: Summary of Results.................................................................................. 115
vi
List of Figures Culture Types??????.??????????????????..22 Model of Role Perceptions and Role Enactment???????????.56 Interactions between Culture and Culture Strength???????.???87 Interaction between self-monitoring (cognitive) and entrepreneurial culture????????????????????????..???90 5. Interaction between P-O fit and market culture???????????...92 1. 2. 3. 4.
vii
Chapter 1: Problem Statement The notion that employees are crucial for organizational effectiveness has come to be viewed as a truism in the management literature (Barnard, 1938; Coff, 1997; Deal & Kennedy, 1988; Katz, 1964; Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall, 2003). From a resourcebased theory perspective, human capital is considered as valuable, hard-to-imitate, and socially complex and therefore (Coff, 1997), can serve as a source of competitive advantage for organizations. As a result, the process through which employees contribute to organizational effectiveness has received a great deal of attention. One important area of research examining human capital is the literature exploring the work performance domain and its various forms and manifestations in the workplace (Barnard, 1938; Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Katz, 1964; Organ, 1988). It has been established that satisfying the specific job requirements on a day-today basis through on-the-job task performance is not the only important component of employee effectiveness (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Organ, 1988; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). Rooted in earlier notions that organizations need to ensure that employees engage in beneficial behaviors beyond their immediate technical job requirements (Barnard, 1938; Katz & Kahn, 1978), extensive research has been devoted to fleshing out behavioral constructs that go beyond the specific technical requirements of a job and add value to employee effectiveness and which ultimately contribute to group and organizational effectiveness (Katz, 1964; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1994; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). While task behaviors directly concern the technical core of the organization by serving to transform raw materials into products and distributing, and providing service for products, non-task behaviors "do not
1
support the technical core itself as much as they support the broader organizational, social, and psychological environment, in which the technical core must function" (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994, p.476). Terms such as organizational citizenship behavior (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983), organizational spontaneity (George & Brief, 1992), contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994) and prosocial behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986) have been used as labels for these valuable non-task employee behaviors. The proliferation of terms to describe the broad domain of employee behaviors has been accompanied by a sustained interest in identifying the antecedents and performance implications of these behaviors. Some studies have examined individual differences such as personality in relation to citizenship behaviors, but the predictive validity of personality has been found to be limited for the most part to the trait of conscientiousness (Organ & Ryan, 1995). Considerable research has been conducted on the premises of the social exchange perspective (Blau, 1964), according to which employees engage in beneficial behaviors to reciprocate favorable treatment by the organization (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000; Zellars & Tepper, 2003). Antecedents such as perceived organizational support (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), fairness (Ball, Trevino, & Sims, 1984; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000), and leader-member exchange (Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996) have been explored from a social exchange theoretical perspective. As critical as a social exchange framework might be, factors at the organizational level, notably organizational culture, may also serve as a fundamental mechanism for
2
eliciting these important non-task behaviors (Schein, 1985). At the same time, relatively little research to date has sought to directly investigate the relationships that might exist between organizational culture and employee behavior. This is perhaps surprising since the literature linking organizational culture and organizational effectiveness has stressed a behavioral explanation by arguing that cultures elicit, encourage and reinforce certain critical behaviors by employees to facilitate organizational effectiveness (Denison & Mishra, 1995; Kotter & Heskett, 1992). In other words, the implicit assumption is that organizational culture provides a blueprint for eliciting and supporting the types of employee behaviors which the organization has developed to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983; Schein, 1985). This important assumption, that culture drives employee behaviors, however, has received only limited direct empirical attention (Tesluk, Hofmann, & Quigley, 2002). Recent events in the business world nevertheless suggest that understanding organizational culture and its impact on human behavior in organizations may be of critical importance. Enron, for instance, is an exemplar of how having the wrong organizational culture precipitates business failure. Enron's high achievement oriented, entrepreneurial employees reinforced the competitive "survival-of-the-fittest" culture of the company (Byrne, 2002). Because of the unreasonably high performance expectations, competitive behavior taken to an unethical level became the norm for many Enron managers and employees. The Enron leadership sustained this aggressive culture by enriching themselves possibly unethically. By comparison, companies prominent for their innovation competencies like 3M and Apple effectively reinforce innovative employee behavior by sustaining a culture for creativity and innovation (Tesluk, Farr & Klein,
3
1997). Companies pursuing internal stability such as large government bureaucracies are likely to seek to instill respect for order and rule following as appropriate behaviors in their employees in order to facilitate functioning on complex tasks (Leavitt, 2003; Thompson & Wildavsky, 1986). Ouchi (1981) juxtaposed the traditional American and Japanese organizational culture styles and suggested that management through commitment and cohesiveness seems to be the success formula in Japan. In the US, on the other hand, tragic events such as September 11th have demonstrated that the courage, cooperation and cohesiveness of the rescuer teams of firefighters and police officers was key for the successful management of this emergency situation. These examples reinforce the idea that fostering a specific culture is likely to be crucial for eliciting a variety of employee behaviors ranging from high individual achievement to cooperation and help, and from strict rule observance to innovation. Organizational culture provides a meaning system (Cooke & Rousseau, 1988; Martin, 1992; Parker, 2001; Schein, 1985) for employees who are making sense of their environment (Weick, 1995). As such, organizational culture serves as a vehicle of the organizational influence on the individual's identity and behavior (Parker, 2000) by socializing individuals into specific norms and patterns of behavior (Louis, 1980) and by providing socially shared perceptions, which create predictability in the organizational environment (Cooke & Rousseau, 1988). Only a limited number of studies have examined the impact of organizational culture on employee behavior, and those have specifically been restricted to studying collectivistic and individualistic organizational cultural norms as predictors of cooperative employee behavior (Chatman & Barsade, 1995; Chatman, Polzer, Barsade & Neale, 1998). Consequently, there has been a relative
4
paucity of research examining the impact of a wider range of organizational culture norms on employee behaviors. Culture encompasses elements of the organization such as artifacts, values, and symbols, which permeate the organizational environment and provide blueprints for employees of what is expected in their work environment (Chatman & Barsade, 1995; Chatman et al., 1998; Hatch, 1993; Schein, 1985). Assumptions and values are a major component of organizational culture and this determines its largely preconscious nature (Ashforth, 1985). I propose that roles provide the perceptual link between culture and behaviors. As Katz & Kahn (1978) in their treatise on the formulation and enactment of roles suggested: "The concept of role is proposed as the major means for linking the individual and organizational levels of research and theory: it is at once the building block of social systems and the summation of the requirements with which such systems confront their members as individuals" (p. 219-220). A role theory perspective provides the bridging mechanism between organizational culture and behaviors. Research on national culture supports the importance of roles by demonstrating that culture influences the cognitive processes of individuals by intensifying the retrieval of perceptions consistent with the overall cultural values (Trafimow, Triandis, & Goto, 1991; Triandis, 1989). Organizational culture consists of ambient stimuli that are likely to prime role cognitions coherent with their content and direction (Katz & Kahn, 1978). In the business world, cultures such as that of Dell might initiate employees' developing achievement role perceptions, which in turn drive high individual achievement behavior, while at 3M or Apple employees might espouse an innovative role orientation consistent with the organizational culture of innovation. Thus, I propose that different
5
organizational cultures create different patterns of role perceptions and subsequent behavioral responses. One of the most prominent definitions of organizational culture comes from the work of Edgar Schein who proffered that " Organizational culture is the pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, and that have worked well enough to be considered valid, and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems" (1984: p. 3). Two basic dimensions along which cultures may be expected to differ and which emerge as important in Schein's (1985) definition are the external and internal focus of organizations. Moreover, Schein (1985) suggested that organizations are concerned with their adaptation (flexibility) and integration (stability) at the same time. Specifically, as Schein (1985) puts it: "All group and organizational theories distinguish two major sets of problems that all groups, no matter what their size, must deal with: (1) survival, growth, and adaptation in their environment and (2) internal integration that permits daily functioning and the ability to adapt" (p. 11).
It can therefore be inferred that organizational culture is concerned with adaptation in its internal environment and with respect with its external environment but at the same time seeks to establish internal integration and stability. A specific framework, which approaches cultures as reflecting how organizations cope with the competing tensions of internal and external focus and the need to sustain
6
flexibility and stability, describes organizational cultures as falling under one of four general culture types: clan, adhocracy (here I will refer to it as entrepreneurial), hierarchy and market culture types (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Denison & Mishra, 1995; Ouchi, 1979; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). These four culture types capture the stable patterns of norms that organizations develop to cope with their environment by focusing primarily on either their internal or their external environment and by choosing either to pursue stability or to develop their adaptability (Denison & Mishra, 1995; Tesluk et al., 2002). According to the Cameron and Quinn (1999) framework, based on earlier empirical work by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983), some organizations choose to focus on their external environment for achieving competitive advantage (e.g. Dell), while the effectiveness of other organizations is predicated upon sustaining their internal organizational focus through stable internal systems (e.g. bureaucratic systems). In addition, using a clustering technique, Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) showed that another continuum along which organizations differ is the stability-adaptability continuum (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967), with some organizations defining effectiveness along the lines of protecting the stability of the organizational functioning, while others emphasizing quick adaptability as the basis of their effectiveness. Furthermore, according to Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983), organizations choose different means of organizing depending on the ends they pursue. For instance, the clan culture type has an internal organizational focus and emphasizes adaptability through encouraging cohesion, morale and cooperation among employees (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Ouchi, 1979; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983); the bureaucracy type of culture also has an internal focus, but achieves this instead with an emphasis on organizational stability
7
through the use of rules and regulations (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Ouchi, 1979; Zammuto, Giffort, & Goodman, 2000). The market culture can be characterized with a strong external market orientation and concern with external competitiveness and stability through efficiency control. Finally, like a market culture, an entrepreneurial culture is externally oriented, but norms in the entrepreneurial culture emphasize individual creativity and the ability to deal with external challenges by coming up with innovative solutions (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983; Zammuto et al., 2000). I propose that these four culture types prime cognitive role perceptions, which in turn lead to employee behaviors. Research in organizations has examined role perceptions as a predictor of employee behaviors within an organizational context (Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003; Morrison, 1994; Tepper, Lockhart, & Hoobler, 2001). From a role theory perspective, organizations must communicate what roles are expected of employees, thereby enabling individuals to make sense of their environment and enact the communicated roles (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Weick, 1993). In support of the predictive validity of role perceptions, a number of studies have confirmed a positive relationship between perceiving helpful organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) to be part of one's role at work and the incidence of citizenship behaviors (Hofmann et al., 2003; Morrison, 1994; Tepper et al., 2001). Perceived roles provide a socially constructed cognitive environment that guides the thinking and acting patterns of people in the organization (Cooke & Rousseau, 1988; Weick, 1981). Organizational culture provides a salient system of meaning, which creates specific cognitive role perceptions (scripts) as to what
8
is expected in the workplace. Those cognitive role perceptions are among the proximal factors leading to behaviors (Hofmann et al., 2003; Morrison, 1994; Tepper et al., 2001). I propose that different organizational cultures create different role expectations, which are functional for the respective culture (Katz & Kahn, 1978). For instance, the clan culture would create the expectation that individuals should cooperate and collaborate on tasks; the bureaucracy culture, on the other hand, primes cognitions that strict rule observation of established procedures is anticipated in the organization; the market culture type suggests an achievement role to achieve maximum efficiency and finally, the entrepreneurial culture type creates innovative role cognitions (Zammuto et al., 2000). I also propose that these role cognitions lead to behaviors ranging from cooperation to competition and from rule observance to creativity. Even though some of these behaviors might be construed as part of or closely interrelated with the task performance of specific jobs (e.g. being innovative in a R&D unit or being strict in observing the existing rules in the military), each behavior may occur in any occupation and is not limited to a job type. Examining the link between culture and behavior through the lens of role perceptions in itself explicates the mechanism through which culture translates into observable behaviors. Furthermore, to shed light on the boundary factors, which may play a role in the process, I consider additional individual and organizational level factors. I suggest that self-monitoring (Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 2001; Snyder, 1986) and culture strength (Payne, 1996), for instance, are two factors, which may impact the strength of the proposed relationships between culture types and cognitive role perceptions. Self-monitoring is an individual difference variable that describes an
9
individual's tendency to perceive, interpret, and incorporate into their cognitive role perceptions even subtle situational cues (Snyder, 1974; 1986; Turnley & Bolino, 2001). High self-monitors tend to adapt their styles to the environment, which helps them gain higher centrality in organizational networks as well as higher performance ratings (Mehra et al., 2001). Environmental stimuli are more likely to enter the cognitive attention span of individuals high on self-monitoring (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). I propose that selfmonitoring moderates the relationships between organizational culture and work role perceptions (Fiske & Taylor, 1991) as well as between work role perceptions and behaviors, such that high self-monitors are more likely to incorporate organizational culture stimuli into their cognitive schema of role perceptions and enact them in order to suit the environmental demands (Snyder, 1974; 86; Chatman, 1991). In addition, I propose that culture strength is an organizational level factor, which reinforces the relationship between culture and cognitive perceptions, and cognitive perceptions and behaviors. Martin (1992) discussed three different perspectives on culture: integration, differentiation, and fragmentation. From an integration standpoint, organizational members maintain consensus regarding the organizational culture. The differentiation perspective on the other hand suggests the formation of different subcultures in organizations that prevents a singular view on the organization's culture. Finally, a fragmentation perspective suggests that there is ambiguity (action, symbolic and ideological) in the culture that renders the process of meaning creation equivocal and open to individual interpretation. The three different perspectives imply that culture is not always homogenous; thus, considering culture strength is warranted.
10
The literature on social comparison and conformity (Ashforth, 1985; Festinger, 1954; Janis, 1972) also provides a theoretical perspective that explicates the mechanism through which culture strength acts as a moderator. Social conformity suggests that in the presence of social agreement individuals are less likely to deviate from the social norms. I propose that culture strength, which denotes the level of agreement (integration) among organizational members (Martin, 1992), moderates the relationship between organizational culture and role perceptions, as well as between role perceptions and behaviors such that when the culture strength is higher indicating higher consensus regarding the organizational culture, the relationships between culture and cognitive role perceptions, and between role perceptions and respective behaviors, would be stronger due to the increased pressure for social conformity. Additionally, I examine person-organization fit (Chatman, 1989; O'Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991) as a moderator of the relationships between culture and cognitive role perceptions, and between roles and exhibited behaviors. P-O fit is a concept associated with the degree to which individuals feel that their values and personality fit those of their current organization. P-O fit specifically captures the extent to which there is a match between organizational culture and the individual preferences for culture type. Consequently, it has been proposed that individuals who experience higher degree of fit with their organization are more likely to engage behaviors that are prescribed by the organizational context (Chatman, 1989). Here I propose that fit will enhance the convergence between culture and perceived roles such that individual who experience high fit will perceive roles more consonant with the context. In addition, from an enactment perspective (Abolafia &
11
Kilduff, 1988; Weick, 1981; 1995), individuals are not only passive sensemakers but are also active creators of their environment. Here, I propose that a high degree of fit will enhance the relationship between cognitive role perceptions and expected behaviors since individuals with greater fit will actively try to reinforce their existing environments. Employees experiencing low fit with their organizations may try to resist or actively change their environment by withholding expected behaviors and possibly approaching their work in alternative ways. In sum, the research questions that I present are as follows: How does organizational culture influence cognitive role perceptions and what is the role of individual and contextual factors in this process? While the virtues of self-monitoring have been traditionally extolled, it is possible that for dysfunctional organizational cultures such as the one which seemed to permeate Enron's environment, low selfmonitors would be more likely to oppose traditional ways of thinking. The strength of an organizational culture might also have important implications in determining the extent to which it culture translates into observable behaviors. Another research question I am posing concerns the relationship between culture, cognitive role perceptions and behaviors, and the role that P-O fit might have in this process. Here, it could be argued that even though individuals with high fit and organizational identification sustain existing organizational cultures, individuals who experience low levels of fit and commitment would be more adept at organizational change and in some extreme examples, those individuals might go the extra mile of reporting dysfunctional organizational activities (Watkins, 2003).
12
In conclusion, while examining organizational culture has much promise, according to Weick (1981) "People in organizations repeatedly impose that which they later claim imposes on them" (p.269). Weick's (1981) perspective emphasizes the role of the individual as an active creator of the environment by engaging in specific actions, which create knowledge and meaning. To the extent to which "people? create many of their own environments" (p. 279), at times it might be difficult to tell if culture has a predominant impact on eliciting behaviors via roles or it is the individual's behaviors, which impose the environment itself and trigger a self-fulfilling cycle of perceiving organizational roles as consistent with individual actions. From that perspective, organizational culture may be reinforced through the actions and cognitions of individuals even in periods when the organizational leadership is attempting to change the cultural environment of the organization. Here, I propose some specific factors such as culture strength and person-organization fit, which might increase the tendency of the culture phenomenon to persist in organizations. But more research is needed to explore the causality of actions and interpretations taking into account the dynamic nature of sensemaking both through perceiving the environment and through actions and behaviors, which create the environment.
13
Chapter 2: Theoretical Concepts Organizational Culture
Defining organizational culture. The term culture, as defined by the school of cognitive anthropology, consists of the psychological structures, which guide individuals' and groups' behavior. For instance, Goodenough who is representative of that school of thought, pointed out that the culture of society: "consists of whatever it is one to know or believe in order to operate in a manner acceptable to its members" (In Geertz, 1973, p.11). The term organizational culture has a similar meaning, only, it is applied to the concept of organization instead of society. For instance, Eliot Jaques provides the following description of the culture of a factory: "The culture of the factory is its customary and traditional way of thinking and of doing things, which is shared to a greater or lesser extent by all its members, and which new members must learn, and at least partially accept? Culture is part of the second nature of those who have been with the firm for a long time." (1951: 251). Culture, thus, consists of the set of assumptions, values, norms, symbols and artifacts within the organization, which convey meaning to employees regarding what is expected and shape individual and group behavior (Enz, 1988; Hatch, 1993; O'Reilly et al, 1991; Rousseau, 1990). Schein (1985) defined culture as, "A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to these problems." (p.12). Martin and Siehl (1983) viewed culture as the glue, which holds
14
the organization together via patterns of shared meaning, while Swartz and Jordon (1980) suggested that culture is the composition of expectations and beliefs about behavior shared in the organization. Therefore, organizational culture is expected to have an important bearing on behavior (Cooke & Szumal, 2000; Chatman & Barsade, 1995; Martin & Siehl, 1983; Schein, 1985). There are some natural drawbacks to attempts to empirically measure culture due to its inherent subjectivity (Geertz, 1973; Rousseau, 1990). Culture is a socially constructed phenomenon and as such may be difficult to capture and quantify (Denison, 1996). Geertz (1973), in an attempt to emphasize the subjective nature of culture cites Goodenaugh, who believed that culture was embedded in the minds and hearts of people. Therefore, it could be maintained that culture has infinite forms such as is the number of possible subjective interpretations. Such a conclusion precludes the quantifiable measurement of organizational culture. A debate making the culture literature even more complicated has revolved around the methods of culture measurement (Denison, 1996; Denison & Mishra, 1995). In the emic measurement tradition, researchers have advocated qualitative methods of measurement capturing the native point of view (Denison, 1996), while the etic perspective, which allows for quantitative measurement with instruments theoretically developed by the culture researcher has been applied more consistently to the measurement of climate rather than culture. In spite of the ongoing disagreements over the nature and measurement of culture, a number of quantitative instruments have been developed through a combination of methods that allow for the quantifiable measurement of culture.
15
Measurement of organizational culture. The person-organization fit literature represents one identifiable stream of culture research that has attempted to measure organizational culture and individual preferences for organizational culture (Chatman, 1989, 1991;Kristoff, 1996; O'Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). O'Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991), have made considerable progress in identifying key measurable dimensions of organizational culture along with individual culture preferences. They provided a comprehensive literature review in order to identify a wide-ranging list of categories that are relevant to individual culture preferences and organizational cultures. Their research was prompted by a willingness to appropriately study quantitatively organizational culture in a way that allows for meaningful comparisons between the values of individuals and organizations. To that end, O'Reilly and colleagues (1991) developed the organizational culture profile (OCP), which consists of 54 statements describing both the organization and the individual in terms of enduring values and characteristics. A central focus of the P-O fit literature has been to discover the effects of good and poor person-organization fit on these values on important proximal outcomes such as employee performance, satisfaction, commitment and turnover (Chatman, 1989, 1991; Kristof, 1996; Saks, 1997). Other organizational typologies have also been developed to assess organizational culture apart from the P-O fit stream of research. For instance, the organizational culture inventory (OCI) developed by Cooke & Lafferty (1986) has been used to test relationships between antecedents and culture as well as between culture and outcomes of interest (Klein, Masi, & Weidner, 1995). This culture inventory is based on a circumplex notion of personality that taps interpersonal and task-related styles (Cooke & Rousseau,
16
1988; Wiggins, 1991). The OCI consists of 12 specific styles that are placed on a circle. Examples of the OCI styles include humanistic-helpful, affiliative, conventional, competitive, and achievement. Although the OCI presents 12 main cultural styles or norms, the latter cluster in three more general types: constructive, passive/defensive, and aggressive/defensive (Cooke & Rousseau, 1988; Cooke & Szumal, 2000). In the constructive culture type, cooperation, enjoyment of the task and creativity are valued. The passive-defensive culture type is characterized by traditional authority, norms of conformity and compliance, and top-down authority. Finally, aggressive-defensive cultures exhibit some negative dynamics such as competition and opposition that could be detrimental for the organization in the long-term. Therefore, the OCI typology incorporates elements of the four behavioral patterns of helping, innovation, rule observance, and competition on the level of organizational culture. Table 1 provides a summary of the specific culture norms and culture types as they are defined by the OCI circumplex. Table 1: The OCI Cultural Styles 1 Cultural Norms Culture Type Cluster to Which the Style Belongs The organization is managed in a Constructive Culture person-oriented manner; members are expected to be helpful and supportive with each other. The organization places high Constructive Culture priority on interpersonal harmony. In this type of culture, setting Constructive Culture and achievement of challenging goals is central to the work Characteristics
Humanistic-Helpful Norms
Affiliative Norms
Achievement Norms
1
This table is based on the work of Cooke & Lafferty (1986), Cooke & Rousseau (1988) and Cooke & Szumal (2000).
17
Self-Actualization Norms
Approval Norms
Conventional Norms Dependent Norms
Avoidance Norms
Oppositional Norms
Power Norms
Competitive Norms
Competence/Perfectionist Norms
concept. Creativity, quality over quantity, and employee development and self-actualization are central to this type of culture. Conflict is avoided at any cost for the sake of preserving good relationships. The organizational culture is conservative. Found in hierarchical organizations, where the decision-making is centralized. Organizational culture in which success is not recognized but failure and mistakes are punished. Characterized by people shifting responsibilities to others so that they don't take the blame for mistakes. Confrontation and negativism are strong forces at work. Status and influence are the main goals of organizational members. Authority is inherent in the power position of individuals. Hierarchical pattern of decisionmaking and structuring of activities. In this type of culture, members are rewarded for outperforming each other. Winning is central to the organization and a "winlose" framework defines work relationships. This exists in organizations in which hard work and perfectionism on specific objectives are especially important aspects of performance.
Constructive Culture
Passive/Defensive Culture Passive/Defensive Culture Passive/Defensive Culture Passive/Defensive Culture
Aggressive/Defensive Culture
Aggressive/Defensive Culture
Aggressive/Defensive Culture
Aggressive/Defensive Culture
Another stream of research has examined culture traits and a model of effectiveness is the competing values framework (Denison & Mishra, 1995; Quinn &
18
Rohrbaugh, 1983; Tesluk et al., 2002). According to this approach, organizations are constantly involved in reconciling multiple forces pulling the organization in opposite directions (Denison & Mishra, 1995; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983; Tesluk et al. 2002). The two main pairs of opposites rooted in Shein's (1985) definition of culture that organizations have to reconcile are the need for internal integration and external adaptation and the need to be stable and yet, at the same time ready and able to change (Tesluk et al., 2002). Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) found support for a four-dimensional model of organizational effectiveness that represents the multiple objectives that organizations pursue. The specific outcomes were maintaining cohesion/ morale, maintaining flexibility, efficiency/productivity, and stability of the organizational statusquo (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). Denison and Mishra (1995) proposed a model of organizational culture traits, which lead to dimensions of organizational performance, situated along the same dimensions as the model of organizational effectiveness (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983), namely external adaptation versus internal integration and change versus stability. Each of the discussed research streams on culture measurement has its strong points. The P-O fit research (Chatman, 1989; O'Reilly et al., 1991), for instance, is most suitable for research, the focus of which is mostly on the precise measurement of fit between a finite number of cultures and individual preferences. The OCI profile attempts at deriving a comprehensive typology of culture norms, which are not necessarily associated with specific individual values and preferences. Finally, the competing value framework presents a paradoxical perspective on the forces that shape culture such that there are contradictory ends, which different cultures pursue (Cameron & Quinn, 1999).
19
The different measures of culture indicate that there is a growing agreement that culture can be measured. Here, I choose to maintain a four-dimensional conceptualization of culture that integrates aspects of both the circumplex perspective on culture (OCI: Cooke & Rousseau, 1988; Cooke & Szumal, 2000) and the four-dimensional conceptualization of culture and effectiveness defined by the axes of external-internal and flexibility -stability foci. The reason why I choose this model over the P-O fit conceptualization, for instance, is that it provides a parsimonious but comprehensive view on the dimensions of culture (Van Vianen, 2000). The three main factors of the OCI, for example, suggest the presence of innovativeness, cooperation, competition and rule observance (Cooke & Szumal, 2000). The constructive culture type, for instance, instills norms for cooperation and creative behavior, which are two roles that I am examining. Moreover, one characteristic of the passive/defensive culture is that it entails conservatism and centralized decision-making, which implies existing norms for ruleobservance. This type of culture corresponds to a compliant role orientation whereby employees strive to sustain order. Finally, in the aggressive/defensive culture confrontation and negativism are strong forces at work. Due to the aggressive nature of the aggressive/defensive culture, an aggressive role orientation would be the norm. The culture-effectiveness model maintains four specific outcomes of culture: cohesion/ morale, maintaining flexibility, efficiency/productivity, and stability of the organizational status quo (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). The culture traits established by Denison and Mishra (1995) are situated along the same dimensions as the effectiveness model, namely external adaptation versus internal integration and change versus stability. Cameron and Quinn (1999) have developed a specific questionnaire that taps four types
20
of culture, which can also be situated on the model defined by the stability-adaptability and internal-external axes. The four culture types are as follows: clan (cooperative), adhocracy (entrepreneurial/innovative), market (competitive), and hierarchy (conservative). Cohesion/morale as an outcome of culture (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983) can be construed as an outcome of the clan culture. This type of culture emphasizes cooperation and positive interpersonal interactions, and has, thus, been labeled "clan" culture (Cameron and Quinn, 1999). Cameron and Quinn (1999) characterize the adhocracy (innovative) culture as a place where entrepreneurship and creativity would be valued employee behavior. Cultures where optimum efficiency is the norm may create high-achievement, competitive orientations on the part of employees because of the high performance goals. Cameron and Quinn (1999) labeled this type of culture as "market culture" and pointed out that because market organizations are exclusively focused on bottom-line results (Ouchi, 1979), people are expected to become goal-oriented and competitive. The outcomes of a market culture resemble the efficiency/productivity dimension of effectiveness (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). Finally, in the "hierarchy" culture, stability is valued at all costs, and as a result, employees are encouraged maintain the stability of the organization by carefully observing and following organizational rules and procedures (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). Figure 1 presents graphically the culture types in accordance with Cameron & Quinn's (1999) initial conceptualization.
21
Figure 1: Culture Types
Culture Types E xt e rna l
M a rke t C ul t ure (Outcome: Efficiency/ Productivity) Stability
E nt re pre ne uri a l C ul t ure (Outcome: Flexibility)
Flexibility
Hierarchy Culture (Outcome: Stability)
C l a n C ul t ure (Out c om e : Cohesion/Morale)
Culture strength as an attribute of culture. According to Payne (1996), culture has three important attributes: strength, direction, and pervasiveness. Strength denotes the degree to which the culture is intense and strong. If a culture is strong, then the underlying assumptions, the upheld norms, and the existing artifacts and symbols should express a clear, singular message, thereby providing a more convincing and clear set of expectations to employees. Individuals within the organization are more likely to understand and comply with the culture norms if they are clear and strong (Payne, 1996; Schein, 1984; 1985).
22
Martin (1992) also emphasized the importance of understanding culture strength by describing three perspectives on culture: integration, differentiation, and fragmentation. In the integration perspective, culture has a strong impact on perceptions and behavior because people in the organization agree on the content and direction of culture. The fragmentation and differentiation perspectives suggest that when culture is not strong and shared cohesively, symbols and values become ambiguous and open to interpretation (fragmentation) and different subcultures may emerge (differentiation).
Roles and Role Theory Role theory is concerned with studying human behavior in context by defining the expectations and rewards associated with certain forms of behavior (Biddle, 1979). Social position is a central concept associated with roles. Social position refers to the identity that stratifies people in different social groups such as, for example, teacher, mother, and manager. From a role behavior standpoint, each position has a characteristic role associated with it. In addition, according to the predictions of role theory, roles are induced through shared expectations of behavior (Biddle, 1979). The pragmatic view on roles suggests that expectations are instilled in the individual during socialization and individuals who are assimilated into groups conform to their expected roles. Another important defining characteristic of roles, especially from a structural role theory perspective, is their functionality for the social systems in which they are embedded (Biddle, 1979; Stryker, 2002). For instance, if a player in a football team is being too competitive with his own teammates, his behavior is not likely to be functional for the overall performance of the team. In the same way, in a larger organization,
23
communicated roles should be functional for their respective context. For instance, coming up with creative ideas in a largely bureaucratic context is probably not going to be viewed favorably. By the same token, overly strict rule observation in a company that heavily depends and innovative and creativity would not qualify as a functional role. These examples illustrate how the functionality of a specific role depends on the context. From a social cognitive perspective, organizational roles are not only the product of the person but are also a function of the social environment and, as a result, are inextricably bound to the social context (Biddle, 1979; Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991; Van Dyne, Cummings, Parks, 1995). Roles are the organizing structures of knowledge and information about the appropriate role behaviors in social situations and prompt the individual to act in a relatively automatic manner (Biddle, 1979; Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Therefore, it seems warranted to understand what factors in the social environment create specific roles. Here, I focus on roles from a social cognitive perspective, proposing that the social context has an important bearing on the received role (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Work by Ilgen and Hollenbeck (1991) has elaborated on the distinction between formal job descriptions and roles in order to illustrate why and how roles in the workplace are different from jobs. Ilgen and Hollenbeck pointed out that their "interest is in the dynamic interaction between characteristics of the physical and social environments of individuals with the persons themselves and with the behavioral and attitudinal consequences of such interactions." (1991: 166). The environment in which jobs exist is subjective, interpersonal, and dynamic, which brings up the issue of emergent task elements (task elements added to the job of the incumbent through a variety of social
24
sources). The latter task elements differentiate a role from a job. A work role is more dynamic and more fluid than a job description and is more likely to contain elements communicated to the employee or negotiated by the employee by means of the social system (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Welbourne, Johnson, and Erez, 1998). According to Turner (2002), for instance, incumbents use information from the social system (such as their peers or organizational culture) to develop their roles. Graen (1976) described an interdependent role-systems model according to which role demands are generated via the organizational/situational demands, social or role-set demands, and personal/personality demands. Hence, research suggests that roles emerge from the social context and situational demands. Organizational culture may be one such potent situational factor, which defines the social context and provides information about expected roles. Employee Behaviors Increasingly, researchers and practitioners examining the employee performance domain have started to recognize the importance of a number of competencies and behaviors such as interpersonal cooperation and innovation that go beyond the confines of the formal job description requirements (Goleman, 1998; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). For instance, Goleman (1998) emphasized the importance of a range of competencies above and beyond technical expertise that contribute to employee effectiveness through the performance of behaviors such as cooperation. Relying on individual knowledge a decade ago seemed to have been sufficient for job performance; relying on the group mind for information, however, has
25
already become a norm in many jobs (Goleman, 1998). Collaboration and cooperation, thus, have become essential performance behaviors. Research on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and contextual performance has examined dimensions of performance above pure task behaviors (Organ, 1988; Kiker & Motowidlo, 1999; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). This stream of research has placed the importance on facets of performance such as helping and interpersonal facilitation (Kiker & Motowidlo, 1999), conscientiousness (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990) and innovative behavior (Morrison & Phelps, 1999) that are not direct components of task performance. The argument for the importance of these behaviors has followed a similar logic to Goleman's (1998) work on emotional intelligence: managing the technical requirements of a job alone does not lead to superior performance. Behaviors that sustain the interpersonal context and other aspects of the organizational effectiveness (Organ, 1988; Kiker & Motowidlo, 1999; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) are also crucial for individual as well as organizational success (Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). In sum, progress has been made towards fleshing out behavioral constructs that contribute to work performance beyond the formal requirements of a job (Johnson, 2001; Kiker & Motowidlo, 1999; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991; Podsakoff et al., 1990). And while the labels and number of constructs have proliferated, the question of whether the latter are distinct in any substantive ways has remained equivocal (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002). I invoke role theory and the circumplex notion of human behavior to create a theoretical framework of expected work roles that lead to employee behaviors in order to address the lack of consensus on what constitutes performance
26
dimensions. I use roles to denominate a broader domain of employee performance, which encompasses differing definitions of employee effectiveness. Peterson & Smith (2000), in an attempt to explicate the process of meaning creation in the workplace, conclude that roles are a primary source of meaning concerning expected role behaviors. It is important to note that according to these authors explicit assignment to formal roles affects the thoughts and actions of that individual but this is "not a conclusion that wholly determines actual role relationships." (Peterson & Smith, 2000: p.105). It is, thus, essential for both scholars and practitioners to be able to understand the substantive content as well as the nomological network of predictors and outcomes of roles in organizations in order to gain a better understanding of the full range of performance dimensions. Organizational initiatives such as job enrichment, total quality management, and employee involvement programs have been instituted with the purpose of enhancing organizational competitiveness through the proactive employee engagement in the work process (Lawler, 1992; Welbourne, Johnson, and Erez, 1998). This trend in management practices has been paralleled by growing interest on the part of researchers in taking a broader view of work performance and examining the notion of roles in the workplace (Parker, 1998; Parker, 2000; Welbourne et al., 1998). Parker (1998; 2000) has considered proactive role orientation and role breath self-efficacy as the ability of individuals to expand their job domains (Graen, 1976). Welbourne, Johnson, and Erez have (1998) advocated a broader view on performance as well. They have derived role-based performance scales (RBPS) for measuring roles in the workplace based on role and identity theory as theoretical frameworks.
27
Their role-based performance scale consists of five dimensions of roles relevant in the workplace. The dimensions Welbourne and colleagues (1998) have identified as important are job, career, innovator, team and organization roles. The job role has been specifically related to the task behaviors expected of an individual (e.g. "quality of work output"), the career role is descriptive of the individual's ability to make a successful career (e.g. "seeking out career opportunities"), the innovator role assesses an employee's creative potential (e.g. "coming up with new ideas"), the team role concerns the ability of an individual to cooperate with others given the increasingly group-based nature of many jobs (e.g. "working as part of a team/work group"), and organization role that reflects the willingness of an employee to engage in beneficial acts for the company (e.g. "doing good things for the company") (Welbourne et al., 1998: p.554-p.555). In order to accomplish the purpose of this dissertation to delineate a broad repertoire of role sets that employees engage in and identify the antecedents and outcomes associated with role schemas, I review the literature on roles and organize it in a theoretical framework. First, I derive a set of roles based on a comprehensive literature review in order to identify the core dimensions of role behaviors. In order to accomplish this, I draw on several research streams: organizational citizenship behavior (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990), contextual performance (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996), personal initiative (Frese, Kring, Soose & Zempel, 1996; Frese & Fay, 2001), creativity (Oldham & Cumming, 1996; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993), cooperation and competition in a negotiation context (Chen & Tjosvold, 2002; Deutsch, 2001; De Dreu, Weingart, & Kwon, 2000).
28
Organizational citizenship behavior and contextual performance. Although OCBs have attained a life of their own as an important organizational behavior construct in the past decade through the work of many organizational scientists (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988; Smith et al., 1983; Williams & Anderson, 1991), they have developed from earlier notions of organizational efficiency (Barnard, 1938; Katz, 1964; Katz & Kahn, 1978). The interest in extra-role behaviors has been first advocated by Barnard (1938) and later on promoted by Katz (1964). It is worth noting early on that even though extrarole has been used consistently to describe behaviors above and beyond the formal duties (Organ, 1988), the approach I take is that behaviors outside of the job description are not extra-role. As the distinction drawn by Ilgen & Hollenbeck (1991) suggests, roles can be different and broader than job descriptions. As a result, a behavior, which goes beyond formal duties and task requirements, is not necessarily extra-role (Morrison, 1994; Tepper, et al., 2001). According to Barnard (1938), for example, it is crucial for executives to ensure that employees in their organizations engage in discretionary cooperative behaviors. Katz (1964) has also elaborated on what constitutes important employee behaviors beyond the formal task duties. Innovative and spontaneous behaviors, cooperation, protection, providing constructive ideas, self-developing oneself, as well as holding favorable attitudes toward the organization all represent important behavioral tenets of organizational efficiency (Katz, 1964). In addition, it is worth noting that the term OCB has not been used consistently for the description of non-prescribed behaviors. Some of the most prominent extant conceptualizations different from and yet similar to OCB include organizational
29
spontaneity (George & Brief, 1992), contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996), and prosocial organizational behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; George & Brief, 1992). Although the existing definitions diverge somewhat, theoretically they share a common focus on non-task employee behaviors that in the aggregate provide firms with competitive advantage (George & Brief, 1992; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). However, in spite of the compelling conceptual similarities between the "extrarole" behaviors that different organizational behavior scholars have identified, no consistent attempts have been made at using similar labels for similar behaviors. Therefore, a brief literature review follows that compares the different conceptualizations of non-prescribed behaviors. One of the earliest definitions of prosocial behaviors comes from Katz' s work (1964). He identifies helping, protecting the organization, making constructive suggestions, developing oneself, and spreading goodwill as important employee behaviors. Organizational spontaneity (George & Brief, 1992) is a construct, which encompasses the types of behaviors that have been put forward by Katz (1964). However, George & Brief (1992) have not examined empirically the existence of the five categories in an organizational context. The early empirical work that has focused on both theoretical specification and empirical analysis of the dimensionality of OCB has essentially started with the work of Smith et al. (1983) and Bateman & Organ (1983). Their studies have generated two important aspects of "extra-role"2 performance: compliance and altruism (Bateman, &
2
The term "extra-role" has been consistently used to describe beneficial behaviors such as OCB. In this dissertation, I take a different approach that allows for a role to be broader and incorporate behaviors such as OCB. This view is currently supported and viewed as valid by OCB scholars (Organ, 1997). In the interest of authenticity, however, I use the term extra-role if it has been used in the work I am citing.
30
Organ, 1983; Smith et al., 1983). Compliance can essentially be described as exemplary rule following and conscientiousness. Altruism stands for helping behaviors and overall cooperation. Others prompted by Organ's (1988) seminal book on OCBs have found empirical support for a five-dimensional structure of the organizational citizenship behaviors construct consisting of altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993; Podsakoff et al., 1990). Altruism and conscientiousness correspond to altruism and generalized compliance respectively as defined by Smith et al. (1983). The three added dimensions, hence, consist of sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue. Sportsmanship, for instance, represents benevolent employee behaviors such as refraining from complaining in the face of adversity. Courtesy, on the other hand, consists of interpersonal gestures that prevent potential problems. Finally, the added dimension of civic virtue according to Organ (1988) "implies a sense of involvement in what policies are adopted and which candidates are supported" (p. 13). Furthermore, Organ (1988) goes on to describe different forms of civic virtue behaviors such as attending meetings, reading the mail, personal time, and speaking up. Contextual performance scholars (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) have advocated a set of behaviors that are similar to OCBs. The two main types of behaviors that are examined in the contextual performance literature are labeled interpersonal facilitation and job dedication. The interpersonal facilitation domain combined aspects of the altruism, courtesy, and sportsmanship dimensions (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). The job dedication
31
aspect resembled Smith et al. (1983) compliance factor and Organ's (1988) conscientiousness dimension. In spite of the subtle differences (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) between contextual performance and OCB, substantially it encompasses behaviors that have already been identified by Organ (1988). Innovation, Personal initiative and Creativity. The work of Morrison & Phelps (1999) was probably one of the few empirical attempts at extending the OCB (or contextual performance) domain to include change-oriented and creative behaviors identified earlier by Katz (1964). Morrison and Phelps (1999) maintained that the OCB literature had often neglected an important change-oriented extra-role behavior—taking charge. Most of the OCB and contextual performance literature has examined beneficial behaviors such as helping and compliance but has not focused as much on the active change-oriented efforts that employee undertake on their job (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). The construct of taking charge in contrast consisted of active attempts to improve the organization through innovation endeavors and for that reason it was clearly distinct from the other forms of OCB that had been consistently explored in the OCB literature (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Innovation may be construed as a type of personal initiative at work. Personal employee initiative has become crucial for organizational effectiveness in the context of constant competition (Lawler, 1992; Milkovich & Boudreau, 1997; Van Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch, 1994; Welbourne et al., 1998). Frese & Fay (2001) draw an important distinction between OCB-compliance and personal initiative (PI). According to them, conscientiousness/ compliance is a passive form of behavior wherein the employee shows outstanding adherence to rules and norms. However, as they pointed out "the concept of
32
PI often implies ignoring or even being somewhat rebellious toward existing rules and regulations" (Frese & Fay, 2001: p.166). Therefore, PI can be viewed as a distinct from compliance (a typical OCB dimension) facet of employee discretionary behavior that is essential for organizational effectiveness. Creativity is a similar to personal initiative construct in that it is change-oriented and it stands for spontaneous employee behaviors (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Tierney & Farmer, 2002; Woodman et al., 1993). According to Ford (1996) "Researchers and laypersons seem to agree that creativity refers to something that is both novel and in some sense valuable" (p.1114). Oldham and Cummings (1996) proffered "When employees perform creatively, they suggest novel and useful products, ideas, or procedures that provide an organizational with important raw material for subsequent development and possible implementation?" (p.607). Morrison and Phelps (1999) suggested that scholars should define personal initiative or what they called innovation as an important aspect of performance that goes beyond the formal job description. The construct of innovation that they examined was constructive ideas and suggestions for improving the workflow that employees provided. In sum, personal creativity at work in its various has attracted significant attention as an important aspect of performance. Cooperative and competitive (achievement) behavior. In the OCB and contextual performance tradition, help and cooperation are oftentimes considered as the central core of non-prescribed employee behaviors and roles (Organ, 1988; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). Interest towards a construct somewhat opposite to that of cooperation, competition as an employee role behavior, however, has been somewhat lacking from the organizational behavior management literature. Competition and competitive dynamics
33
as a macro phenomenon on the firm and industry level, conversely, has been studied extensively in the strategic management literature (Gnyawali & Madhavan, 2001; Hambrick, Cho, & Chen, 1996; Haveman & Nonnemaker, 2000). Therefore, it is somewhat surprising that competitiveness, as a micro level phenomenon has not been addressed as much. The extant literature on competition has been mainly focused on individual decision-making, negotiation, and group performance in experimental settings. This literature builds upon the theory of cooperation and competition (Deutsch, 1949; Deutsch, 1973) and identifies three social motives: individualistic, competitive, and prosocial (De Dreu & Van Lange, 1995; De Dreu et al., 2000). According to De Dreu et al.'s (2000) comprehensive meta-analysis, social motives can be rooted in stable individual differences or in the situation. From an individual difference perspective, people possessing an individualistic social value have the propensity to maximize their own outcomes (De Dreu & Van Lange, 1995; McClintock & Liebrand, 1988). Competitive orientation is characterized by willingness to maximize one's own outcomes at the expense of others (De Dreu & Van Lange, 1995; McClintock & Liebrand, 1988). Finally, those who have prosocial values are similar to altruists inasmuch as they want to maximize the joint gain in negotiations (De Dreu & Van Lange, 1995). Certain aspects of the situation such as the task structure (McClintock & Liebrand, 1988) have been found to affect the relationship between social value orientation and negotiation behavior as well. The early experiments on cooperation and competition (Deutsch, 1949) suggest that incentives may influence the incidence of cooperative, individualistic, and
34
competitive behavior in groups. If important individual outcomes are tied in with competitive behavior, members exhibit more competitive behavior and vice versa; if incentives are based on cooperative behavior, individuals behave more cooperatively with each other (Deutsch, 1949). The overall results of these experiments suggest that groups with cooperative incentives have better group process and higher productivity than groups with competitive incentives (Deutsch, 1949). I examine achievement behavior as a mixture of competitive and individualistic behavior, and achievement role orientation as a type of non-task behavior and role, which has received somewhat scant attention in the organizational behavior literature. Summary A large body of literature has accumulated, which suggests that roles go beyond the formal job description. The existing empirical research has focused on several specific role behaviors as particularly important. The OCB and contextual performance research draw attention to help /cooperative behavior and compliance/conscientiousness/ rule observance. Most of the OCB and contextual performance literature has examined beneficial behaviors such as helping and compliance but has not focused as much on the active change-oriented efforts that employee undertake on their job (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). The literature on creativity and PI has addressed this shortcoming by considering innovative behavior an important component of employee performance. Finally, the theory of cooperation and competition has been concerned with identifying antecedents of cooperative, individualistic, and competitive behavior as two opposing forms of roles and behaviors. Here, I focus on four types of behaviors (and respective roles), which have a recurring role in the extant literature. Specifically, I am examining help, innovative,
35
achievement-oriented, and compliant aspects of behavior. I relied on the existing empirical research to put together a comprehensive set of behaviors and performance roles that may go beyond the job description. Individual differences and attitudes
Self-monitoring. Individual differences also play a prominent role in schema use and construction (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). For example, self-monitoring is an individual difference that might be particularly relevant in an organizational culture context. Snyder (1974) succinctly described self-monitoring as "An acute sensitivity to the cues in a situation which indicate what expression or self-presentation is appropriate and what is not is a corollary ability to self-monitoring." (p.527). High self-monitors are concerned with presenting a public self that is in line with the expectations of the situation and the people involved in a certain situation (Snyder, 1987). They are more adaptable and more likely to change their behavior to suit what is socially accepted and socially desirable. High self-monitors are prone to give higher performance evaluations and to be less accurate because they want to be socially desirable (Jawahar, 2001). Individuals with higher levels of self-monitoring have also been found to occupy more central positions in their organizational networks due to their ability to adapt to the situation (Mehra et al., 2001). High self-monitors are also more adept at using impression management tactics so that they are seen as likable when using impression-management (Turnley & Bolino, 2001) and are viewed more favorably even when they are demographically different (Flynn, Chatman, & Spataro, 2001). Low self-monitors, on the other hand, are viewed unfavorably when they use impression management (Turnley & Bolino, 2001). These
36
findings are in line with earlier research by Snyder (1974), showing that high selfmonitors are better at enacting emotions when instructed to do so. Moreover, Snyder (1974) found that the mean score of professional actors on self-monitoring is higher that the mean score of a sample of non-actors. In addition, high self-monitors obtain more favorable network positions in part due to their better interpersonal skills and higher adaptability (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000; Mehra et al., 2001). According to Lennox & Wolfe's (1984) conceptualization of self-monitoring, it consists of a cognitive and behavioral component. They refer to the cognitive component as "sensitivity to the expressive behavior of others". This component reflects the tendency of high self-monitors to be sensitive, and aware of environmental stimuli such as the emotions of others. The behavioral component, which they label "ability to modify self-presentation" is concerned with the extent to which individuals are capable of adapting to the situation.
Perceived fit. Studying the influence of organizational culture and individual values on important organizational outcomes has been an area of considerable research in the past decade in the field of organizational behavior (Chatman, 1989; Chatman, 1991; Judge & Cable, 1997; O'Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). The general assumption that drives the recurring interest in understanding the direct and interactive effects of organizational culture and individual values is that both individual values and organizational (situational) characteristics influence actual behaviors (Chatman, 1989; Ekehammar, 1974). A large body of literature on organizational culture has focused on personorganization fit (Cable & Judge, 1996; Chatman, 1989; Kristof, 1996; O'Reilly et al.,
37
1991), also informing other streams of research examining perceived fit in other important dimensions such as personal and team goals (Kristof-Brown & Stevens, 2001). The assumptions underlying research on P-O fit are that a) individuals hold specific values and beliefs and b) organizations have specific value systems (culture) (Chatman, 1989). Therefore, it is conceivable that combining individuals' value systems and organizational culture can result either in a good fit or a poorer fit, which in turn affect important outcomes such as performance, satisfaction, commitment and turnover (Chatman, 1989; Chatman, 1991; Kristof, 1996; Saks, 1997).
38
Chapter 3: Hypotheses Development Organizational Culture as Antecedent of Work Roles According to the interdependent role-systems model (Graen, 1976), organizational culture is among the organizational factors that determine the set of role demands placed on a specific individual. Katz & Kahn (1978) also emphasized the importance of organizational factors in determining roles and argued that roles are the cognitive linking mechanisms between organizational stimuli and individuals because they "confront" organizational members with the system's expectations (1978: 220). Organizational culture research specifically suggests that organizational culture establishes shared norms and expectations throughout the organization (Cooke & Lafferty, 1986; Cooke & Szumal, 2000; Denison & Mishra, 1995; Schein, 1985) and the sensemaking literature suggests that people construct their perceptions of the world by making sense of a socially-constructed environment (Weick, 1995). Organizational culture permeates and defines the organizational environment, providing a means for the organization and its leadership to communicate its expectations to organizational members (Ashforth, 1985). An important assumption of the organizational culture literature examining the link between culture and effectiveness is that culture motivates and guides employee behaviors by establishing norms and expectations. To date no research has empirically examined the process through which culture may influence behaviors. Applying a role theory and sensemaking perspective on behaviors in a social context, I propose that culture provides the system of meaning, which informs the roles that individuals in the 39
organization perceive as expected and appropriate (Ashforth, 1985; Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978; Weick, 1995). Research on individualism-collectivism suggests that when primed subjects retrieve cognitive responses attuned to the specific type of priming (Trafimow et al., 1991). Research on national culture also suggests that subjects from different cultures emphasize different aspects of the self (Triandis, 1989), have different cognitions, emotions, and motivations (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), form distinct representations of conflict depending on their cultural background (Gelfand et al., 2001) as well as work differently in work groups depending on their level of individualism-collectivism (Earley, 1993). Similarly, organizational culture has an impact on individual behavior, patterns of social interaction and performance outcomes (Chatman & Barsade, 1995;Chatman et al., 1998; Schein, 1985). As Schein (1985) put it: "To function as a group, the individuals who come together must establish a system of communication and a language that permits interpretation of what is going on. The human organism cannot tolerate too much uncertainty and/or stimulus overload. Categories of meaning that organize perceptions and thought, thereby filtering out what is unimportant while focusing on what is important, become not only a major means of reducing overload and anxiety but also a necessary precondition for any coordinated action." (p. 71). In line with Schein's predictions, Chatman and colleagues proposed: "Members of collectivistic organizational cultures will view organizational membership as a more salient category than will members of individualistic organizations" (1998: 751), thereby
40
suggesting a cognitive perspective on the mechanism via which organizational culture influences processes and behavior. Gioa and Sims also emphasized the importance of cognition as an antecedent to action: "They [people in organizations] are unique in that they do not just do, they also think. More accurately, perhaps, they often take action as a result of their thinking. In a related vein, organizations themselves do not "behave" independently of the people who construct and manage them." (1986: 1). Given the importance cognition has been given in the literature, it seems surprising that the impact of culture on the cognitive roles as bridging mechanisms and process variables, which link the organization and the individual has not been explored. I use a role theory perspective to propose that organizational cultures create cognitive roles functional for the specific organizational environment, which reduce ambiguity by suggesting that specific patterns of behavior are appropriate and expected in the organization (Biddle, 1979; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Schein, 1985). Therefore, I am examining the impact of specific dimensions of organizational culture on individual role perceptions. The culture typology based on the competing values framework defines organizations as reconciling multiple demands, resulting in four different strategies for managing organizational processes- by focusing on internal stability, internal flexibility, external stability, or external flexibility. Building on the predictions of the competing values framework that organizations with different cultures pursue different ends (Cameron & Quinn, 1999) such as cohesion in the clan culture, external competitiveness in the market culture, adaptation through innovativeness in the entrepreneurial culture, and preserving the status-quo through strict observance of the existing rules in the hierarchy culture, I propose both positive and negative relationships
41
between culture and roles in accordance with the competing values framework (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Tesluk et al., 2002). Specifically, in the competing value model, entrepreneurial, and hierarchy cultures are expected to convey opposing objectives. In a similar vein, the clan and market dimensions emphasize differing aspects, namely internal flexibility via interpersonal harmony versus external efficiency through aggressiveness. While Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) acknowledge that organizations may need to pursue more than one end at the same time, they also suggest that there is an inherent contradiction between the competing objectives situated on opposite poles. Therefore, I expect that culture and role perceptions will be related in the following way:
Hypothesis 1. a) A clan type of organizational culture will be positively related to individuals' adoption of a helping role and b) negatively related to the adoption of an achievement role. Hypothesis 1. c) A market type of organizational culture will be positively related to individuals' adoption of an achievement role and d) negatively related to the adoption of a helping role. Hypothesis 1. e) An entrepreneurial type of organizational culture will be positively related to individuals' adoption of innovative role and f) negatively related to the adoption of a compliant role. Hypothesis 1. g) A hierarchy type of organizational culture will be positively related to individuals' adoption of a compliant role and h) negatively related to the adoption of an innovative role.
42
Roles as Predictors of Behavior Why is it important to understand the social cognitive nature of work role behavior? One important reason for investigating this is to gain the ability to understand what leads to positive and negative work outcomes and to be able to steer the process in the right direction. Roles are organized schemas that initiate behavior in social situations (Biddle, 1979; Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Therefore, roles are the scripts that guide behaviors. For instance, the extent to which an individual endorses OCBs as part of a work-role is likely to lead to actual OCB (Hofmann et al., 2003; Morrison, 1994; Tepper et al., 2001). I am examining a broader domain of role perceptions and based on the predictions of cognitive role theories (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Lord & Foti, 1986) I make similar predictions regarding the outcomes of roles. Role perceptions act like schemas to provide a system for organizing knowledge (Freeman, Romney, & Freeman, 1987) and lead to relatively automatic processing of information and behavior (Lord & Foti, 1986). From a role theory perspective (Biddle, 1979; Katz & Kahn, 1978), roles convey organizational expectations. Therefore, I predict that employees' work roles will be positively related to the respective expected behaviors and negatively related to the behaviors that are dysfunctional.
Hypothesis 2 a). A helping role will be positively related to helping behavior and b) negatively related to achievement behavior. Hypothesis 2 c). An achievement role will be positively related to achievement behavior and negatively related to d) helping behavior.
43
Hypothesis 2. e) An innovative role will be positively related to innovative behavior and f) negatively related to compliant behavior. Hypothesis 2. g). A compliant role will be positively related to compliant behavior and h) negatively related to innovative behavior.
Moderators of The Relationships Between Organizational Culture, Roles, and Behaviors
Culture strength as a moderator. From a role theory perspective as well consensus is an important attribute of roles and expectations. As Biddle (1979) suggested: "? role theorists should avoid the concept of shared expectation? unless the actual condition of consensus can be established" (p. 195). Consensus denotes the extent to which people in a situation hold convergent expectations of each other roles and expected behaviors, thus, facilitating the uninterrupted functioning of social systems (such as organizational systems). In the presence of consensual beliefs, social stability and behavior conformity is likely to occur (Biddle, 1979). Research on work climate has examined climate strength (Klein, Conn, Smith, & Sorra, 2001; Schneider, Salvaggio, & Subiratis, 2002). For instance, Schneider and colleagues (2002) found that high climate strength boosted the relationship between aspects of climate for service and customer satisfaction, while Gonzales-Roma, Peiro, & Tordera (2002) found that high climate strength intensifies the links between type of climate and outcome variables such as commitment and satisfaction. Mischel's (1976) perspective on the influence of situational strength on attitudes and behavior provides one theoretical avenue, which has been explored in the climate research (Schneider et al.,
44
2002). Schneider and colleagues (2002), for instance, have built on Mischel's work to suggest that strong climates induce more uniform patterns of behavior consistent with the group climate as compared to weak climates. More recently, human resource management scholars have also emphasized the importance of strength of the HRM system in inducing appropriate and uniform employee perceptions and behaviors (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). Building on the literature on culture and existing empirical research on climate strength, I also expect that strength of culture will modify the relationships between culture types and outcome variables. For instance, a strong culture also is likely to reflect the presence of strong normative beliefs regarding what is acceptable in the organization, which would in turn induce uniform expectations in line with the propositions of the situational strength research (Mischel, 1976). In addition, when the culture is stronger, individuals are more likely to perceive their roles in ways consonant with the organizational culture, due to the higher clarity of the organizational system (Martin, 1992). Therefore, I propose that culture strength acts as a moderator of the relationships presented in Hypotheses 1a-1h such that when the culture strength is higher, suggesting a higher level of consensus, culture would have a stronger impact on employees' cognitive role perceptions.
Hypothesis 3 .a) Culture strength moderates the positive relationship between a clan type of organizational culture and helping role and b) the negative relationship between a clan type and achievement role such that when culture strength is high, the
45
proposed relationships will be stronger and when culture strength is low the proposed relationships will be weaker. Hypothesis 3. c) Culture strength moderates the positive relationship between market type of organizational culture and achievement role and d) the negative relationship between market type of organizational culture and helping role s such that when culture strength is high, the proposed relationships will be stronger and when culture strength is low the proposed relationships will be weaker. Hypothesis 3. e) Culture strength moderates the positive relationship between entrepreneurial type of organizational culture and innovative role and f) the negative relationship between entrepreneurial type of organizational culture and compliant role perceptions such that when culture strength is high, the proposed relationships will be stronger, and when culture strength is low the proposed relationships will be weaker. Hypothesis 3. g) Culture strength moderates the positive relationship between hierarchy type of organizational culture and compliant role and h) the negative relationship between hierarchy type of culture and innovative role perceptions such that when culture strength is high, the proposed relationships will be stronger and when culture strength is low the proposed relationships will be weaker.
Moreover, applying a social conformity (Janis, 1972, 1982) perspective helps explicate the influence of culture strength on behavioral outcomes of interest. A persistent finding of the literature on social conformity, also labeled "groupthink," is that individuals in groups tend to publicly agree with the opinion of the majority even when they hold a divergent view. One reason for this effect is that social conformity sometimes seems to elicit personal benefits; for instance, socially conforming individuals tend to
46
become promoted in bureaucratic organizations (Coates & Pellegrin, 1957). Moreover, exhibiting social conformity is an easier way to get by without "rocking the boat" or being stereotyped as a deviant individual. Individuals in groups exhibit social conformity for a variety of reasons including normative pressure or due to distortion of perception or judgment (Asch, 1958; Hackman, 1992). High culture strength indicates cohesion and agreement; thus, a strong culture may signify the existence of pressures for social conformity. Therefore, I expect that in the presence of high culture strength, role perceptions would also elicit stronger behavioral outcomes.
Hypothesis 4. Culture strength will moderate the relationships between roles and behaviors such that a) the positive relationship between helping role and helping as behavior and b) the negative relationship between helping role and achievement behavior, will be more pronounced in the presence of higher culture strength Hypothesis 4. Culture strength will moderate the relationships between roles and behaviors such that c) the positive relationship between achievement role and achievement behavior and d) the negative relationship between achievement role and helping as behavior, will be more pronounced in the presence of higher culture strength. Hypothesis 4. Culture strength will moderate the relationships between roles and behaviors such that e) the positive relationship between an innovative role and innovative behavior and f) the negative relationship between compliant role and
47
compliant behavior, will be more pronounced in the presence of higher culture strength. Hypothesis 4. Culture strength will moderate the relationships between roles and behaviors such that g) the positive relationship between a compliant role and compliant behavior and h) the negative relationship between compliant role and innovative behavior, will be more pronounced in the presence of higher culture strength.
Self-monitoring as a moderator. The literature on self-monitoring suggests that high self-monitors are adept at deciphering situational cues, they are skilled at acting appropriately, and using impression management to enhance their images. Based on the literature on self-monitoring, Chatman (1991) proposed that self-monitoring would lead to higher P-O fit one year after entry because high self-monitors are more socializable. The statistical results did not reach significance but they were in the predicted positive direction. High self-monitors are motivated to read the situation while low self-monitors are either not motivated or not adept at sensing situation cues (Snyder, 1986). Therefore, I expect that self-monitoring will affect the degree to which organizational culture has an effect on the individual's role perceptions. High selfmonitors can be expected to incorporate situational stimuli more in their cognitive schemas. In line with Lennox & Wolfe's (1984), two-component conceptualization of self-monitoring, high self-monitors are sensitive to the expressive behavior of others on a cognitive level (cognitive self-monitoring) as well as they are more capable of adapting behaviorally to a specific situation (behavioral self-monitoring). Therefore, one argument
48
concerns the ability of high self-monitors, due to their sensitivity in observing and decoding situations more so than low self-monitors, to incorporate more of the organizational culture stimuli into their own role perceptions.
Hypothesis 5. The relationships between clan type of organizational culture and a) helping (positive) and b) achievement (negative) role will be moderated by level of self-monitoring (cognitive) such that when self-monitoring is higher, the proposed relationships will be enhanced. Hypothesis 5. The relationships between market type of organizational culture and c) achievement (positive) and d) helping (negative) role will be moderated by level of self-monitoring (cognitive) such that when self-monitoring is higher, the proposed relationships will be enhanced. Hypothesis 5. The relationships between entrepreneurial type of organizational culture and e) innovative (positive) and f) compliant (negative) role will be moderated by level of self-monitoring (cognitive) such that when self-monitoring is higher, the proposed relationships will be enhanced. Hypothesis 5. The relationships between the hierarchy type of organizational culture and g) compliant (positive) and h) innovative (negative) role will be moderated by level of self-monitoring (cognitive) such that when self-monitoring is higher, the proposed relationships will be enhanced.
In addition, the ability and willingness of high self-monitors to adapt to the situation at hand is another aspect of self-monitoring (Chatman, 1991; Lennox & Wolfe,
49
1984; Mehra et al., 1991). High self-monitors, therefore, can be expected to enact their organizational roles more so than low self-monitors. This leads to the next set of propositions outlined in hypothesis 6:
Hypothesis 6. Self-monitoring (behavioral) will moderate the relationships between roles and behaviors such that a) the positive relationship between helping role and helping as behavior and b) the negative relationship between helping role and achievement behavior, c) The positive relationship between achievement role and achievement behavior and d) the negative relationship between achievement role and helping as behavior, e) The positive relationship between an innovative role and innovative behavior and f) the negative relationship between compliant role and compliant behavior, g) The positive relationship between a compliant role and compliant behavior and h) the negative relationship between compliant role and innovative behavior, will be more pronounced when self-monitoring (behavioral) is higher.
P-O fit as a moderator. The extent to which an applicant feels he/she fits with the organization is also likely to influence the frequency of his/her extra-role behaviors (Chatman, 1989). Subjective fit has been shown to mediate the relationship between objective fit and organizational attractiveness (Judge & Cable, 1997). This suggests that perceived fit with an organization is a fairly accurate reflection of objective fit between individual values and cultural preferences. Furthermore, the way that individuals perceive their fit with an organization before working in it carries a lot of importance for their
50
organizational choice later (Judge & Cable, 1997). In addition, perceived fit with an organization has a positive relationship with work attitudes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment and a negative association with intentions to turnover (Cable & Judge, 1996). Further advocating the importance of person-organization fit, Chatman (1989) argued that high person-organization fit increases the probability that individuals will engage in specific behaviors such as cooperation if they feel that what the organization values is congruent with their own values. Socialization research suggests that newcomers are more willing to take on roles compatible with their personal values (Chatman, 1991; Fisher, 1986; Schein, 1978). The degree of person-organization fit (P-O fit), thus, is an important motivational aspect that fosters the acceptance of organizationally endorsed values (Chatman, 1989; Saks, 1997). Building on the extant literature, the congruence between individuals' preferences and organizational values can be expected to lead to stronger adoption of the organizational values. Individuals who are feel that they are fitting well with the organizational environment may also be more likely to accurately perceive and interpret the organizational expectations communicated through the culture. This leads to my next hypothesis:
Hypothesis 7 .a) P-O fit moderates the positive relationship between a clan type of organizational culture and helping role and b) the negative relationship between a clan type and achievement role such that when P-O fit is high, the proposed relationships will be stronger.
51
Hypothesis 7. c) P-O fit moderates the positive relationship between market type of organizational culture and achievement role and d) the negative relationship between market type of organizational culture and helping role s such that when P-O fit is high, the proposed relationships will be stronger. Hypothesis 7. e) P-O fit moderates the positive relationship between entrepreneurial type of organizational culture and innovative role and f) the negative relationship between entrepreneurial type of organizational culture and compliant role perceptions such that when P-O fit is high, the proposed relationships will be stronger. Hypothesis 7. g) P-O fit moderates the positive relationship between hierarchy type of organizational culture and compliant role and h) the negative relationship between hierarchy type of culture and innovative role such that when P-O fit is high, the proposed relationships will be stronger.
Moreover, using an enactment perspective, individual action is driven by personal motives and individuals are active creators of their environment and are not just passive recipients (Abolafia & Kilduff, 1988; Weick, 1981). And while task performance usually has a direct impact on performance evaluations, acting in accordance with the existing culture norms may not be as readily and easy to observe and reward or punish. Therefore, due to the expected higher discretion that roles allow, P-O fit may play an especially prominent role in the process of role enactment. Consistent with the logic of enactment, individuals with high fit are, for instance, more likely to seek to sustain the existing environment by engaging in behaviors consistent with the expectations. Individuals who experience low fit, however, might
52
engage less in these behaviors prescribed by the organizational culture context in an attempt to resist or change the existing environment. I propose that P-O fit will moderate the relationship between roles and behaviors. When the degree of perceived fit with the organization is high for the employee, then he/she is more likely to engage in a roleprescribed behavior than when it is low.
Hypothesis 8. a) The positive relationship between helping role and helping behavior and the negative relationship between helping role, and b) achievement behavior will be moderated by the degree of P-O fit so that when P-O fit is high the proposed relationships will be stronger. Hypothesis 8. c) The positive relationship between achievement role and achievement behavior and the d) negative relationships between achievement role and helping behavior will be moderated by P-O fit so that when P-O fit is high the proposed relationships will be stronger. Hypothesis 8. e) The positive relationship between innovative role and innovative behavior and f) the negative relationship between innovative role and compliant behavior will be moderated by the degree of P-O fit so that when P-O fit is high the proposed relationships will be stronger. Hypothesis 8. g) The positive relationship between compliant role and compliant behavior and h) the negative relationship between compliant role and innovative behavior will be moderated by P-O fit so that when P-O fit is high the proposed relationships will be stronger.
53
Summary Research on organizational culture suggests that culture is a potent predictor of employee behaviors because culture defines the norms of accepted behaviors. The emic and etic perspectives on culture have recommended different methods for measuring culture. Here, I adopt an etic perspective in that I adapt an existing instrument of culture and apply it to multiple organizational settings to generate results that could be generalized irrespective of the specific organization. The specific dimensions that I examine are based on existing measures and conceptualizations of culture and they correspond to four role types that I explore. In particular, I explore market, entrepreneurial, hierarchy and clan cultures in line with Denison and Mishra's (1995) and Cameron and Quinn's (1999) model of culture and effectiveness. I propose direct relationships between culture and role perceptions such that entrepreneurial type of culture is positively related to innovative role perceptions and negatively related to compliant role. I also expect a direct positive link between clan type of culture and helping role perceptions and a negative link between clan culture and achievement role perceptions. In addition, I propose a positive relationship between the hierarchy type of culture and compliant role and a negative relationship between hierarchy culture and innovative role. I also propose a positive relationship between a market type of culture and achievement role perceptions as well as a negative relationship between market culture and helping role. I also hypothesize positive and negative relationship between roles and respective behaviors (e.g. innovative role and innovative behavior).
54
I propose several moderators of the direct relationships: culture strength, selfmonitoring, and P-O fit based on the literature review. Culture strength describes the degree to which the culture is unequivocal and socially shared, thus, reducing uncertainty about expected behaviors (Schein, 1985). I propose that when the organizational culture's strength is high, the relationships between culture dimensions and respective role perceptions would be stronger. In addition, I posit that culture strength will also induce more uniform relationships between roles and behaviors building on the logic of social conformity theory. Self-monitoring is an individual difference that describes the degree to which an individual is adept at deciphering situational cues and is also likely to comply with situation cues. I propose that higher levels of self-monitoring will strengthen the relationships between organizational culture, and roles, and roles and behaviors. Finally, the level of fit with the organization will have an impact on the extent to which, individuals perceived roles consistent with the cultural norms of the organization, as well the degree to which cognitive roles lead to actual behaviors. From an enactment perspective individuals are not only passive observers of their environment but active creators. Therefore, individuals who are high on P-O fit are more likely to comply with the organizational role expectations; while employees with lower P-O fit might be less willing to engage in organizationally expected roles. Figure 2 displays the proposed relationships.
55
Figure 2: Model of Role Perceptions and Role Enactment
ROLE EMERGENCE Culture Strength P-O Fit
ROLE ENACTMENT
ORGANIZATIONAL H3 & H7 CULTURE
ROLE PERCEPTIONS H4 & H8 H2
BEHAVIORS
• • • •
H1 Clan Entrepreneurial H5 Hierarchy Market SelfMonitoring (Cognitive)
• • • •
Helping Innovative Compliant Achievement
• •
H6
Help Innovation Compliance Achievement
SelfMonitoring (Behavioral)
• •
56
Chapter 4: Method Section Research Design The data were collected in the fall semester of 2004. The research project was designed to minimize potential common method bias caused by collecting data from a single source. Specifically, responses were collected from students enrolled in four core part-time MBA classes at a large Mid-Atlantic public university as well as from their coworkers and supervisors. First, focal employees (i.e., part-time MBAs) were asked to provide their ratings of their organization's culture, role perceptions, self-monitoring, fit, and culture strength. In addition, students solicited the participation of their coworkers and supervisors to respond to surveys regarding organizational culture (coworkers) and the focal MBA students' behaviors (coworkers and supervisors). In exchange, students received a detailed developmental feedback report regarding their teamwork and leadership capabilities. The surveys were collected electronically, by sending emails directing the students and their colleagues to websites containing the respective surveys. The participants had unique user names and passwords known only by them individually and by the student investigator. This ensured the confidentiality of the survey collection process. Moreover, only aggregate scores were used for the coworker/supervisor-based portion of the student feedback in order to guarantee that their individual responses would remain anonymous and confidential. Sample
57
Initial focal MBA sample. I collected data from 206 participants, working in organizations and studying as part-time MBA students. The average age of respondents was between 26-35 years (71.8%), female participants accounted for 24.80% of all respondents, 98.50% of the participants were employed full-time during the data collection period in a variety of occupations as follows: 21% in financial services/banking companies, 16% in consulting/government relations companies, another 16% in high tech companies, 10.50% in the government in defense contractor companies, (the remainder were employed in various types of companies, each accounting for less that 10% of the sample). Respondents had average company tenure of 3.31 years (SD=2.70) and average job tenure of 2.45 years (SD=1.88), 33% reported that they worked less than 50% of their time as part of a work team. The majority of respondents categorized themselves as White/Caucasian (58.30%), followed by Indian Subcontinental/Pacific Islander (14.60%), Asian (14.10%), African American (6%), Hispanic/Latino (6.50%), and Native American (.5%). Coworker/supervisor sample. A total of 792 coworkers responded to the coworker portion of the survey regarding work behaviors of 202 of the MBA student participants (98% of the focal participants). A total of 358 supervisors responded to the supervisor part of the survey for 193 MBA participants (94% of the focal participants). I did not collect any demographic data from the supervisors and coworkers because they were only providing ratings regarding the focal MBA or the organizational culture (coworkers). There was no theoretical reason to believe that demographic data would influence these particular ratings.
58
Analysis For the actual analysis of the proposed relationships, sub-sets of the initial samples of respondents were used such that they were selected based on theoretical reasons to allow analyzing the proposed relationships between constructs of interests. For purposes of clarity, this section is organized in two parts: the first section describes the sample utilized for the analysis of relationships between culture and roles. And the second section provides details about the sample used in the analysis of the relationships between roles and behaviors. Section one: relationship between culture and role perceptions. For the analysis of the first part of the model examining the relationships between culture and role perceptions of organizational expectations, a theoretically derived subset of the initial sample of coworkers was used. I focused on coworkers for capturing culture because I wanted to capture the shared perceptions of culture rather than an individual's single perception (Rentsch, 1990). This approach is consistent with the climate literature, wherein a distinction is drawn between organizational, and psychological climate. Specifically, the former refers to the shared, aggregated perceptions of multiple individuals, while the latter is reserved for an individual's unique perception of the climate (Gavin & Howe, 1975; Glick, 1985; Jones & James, 1979; Parker et al., 2003). In addition, some more considerations were made in selecting the specific set of coworkers for reporting organizational culture. First, only the responses of individuals currently working in the same organization as the focal were used since they were expected to report the relevant organizational culture of the respective participant (which reduced the initial sample to N=160 focal employees). In addition, the research questions
59
focus on organizational culture. Therefore, the survey included some screening items regarding the level at which the respondents were reporting. In particular, respondents were prompted to report what level they referred to as they were completing the questionnaire (e.g. organization, group, department). Only the respondents who reported organizational level were retained to maintain the focus on the organization as the relevant entity of interest. This procedure was employed to exclude individuals reporting on different levels because their perceptions were likely to be the result of an organizational subculture rather than the overall culture that organizational leaders maintain (Martin, 1992). The resulting sample had 98 focal individual observations and 257 coworker responses (Average N=2.62 per focal). In the resulting sample, the predominant percentage of focal respondents were between 26-35 years (73.5%), female participants accounted for 26.50% of focal respondents, 99% of the participants were employed full-time during the data collection period in a variety of occupations as follows: 18.2% in financial services/banking companies, 14.3% in consulting/government relations companies, another 16.9% in high tech companies, 10.40% in government, 10.4% in manufacturing (the remainder were employed in various types of companies, each accounting for less that 10% of the sample). Respondents had average company tenure of 3.71 years (SD=3.40) and average job tenure of 2.30 years (SD=1.73), 37% reported that they worked less than 50% of their time as part of a work team. The majority of respondents categorized themselves as White/Caucasian (61.7%), followed by Asian (11.70%), Indian Subcontinental/Pacific Islander (10.60%), African American (10.6%), Hispanic/Latino (5.30%). The
60
characteristics of this sample were, thus, very similar to the characteristics of the larger sample of focal working individuals. Moreover, I compared the means of the selected sample with the excluded sample on the four culture dimensions to check If there were systematic differences between the initial set of respondents, and the selected respondents. The differences between three of the four culture dimensions were not significant. Only the means for market culture differed significantly for both samples such that individuals used in the analysis reported slightly higher values on market culture (F= .63, p< .05). This difference may suggest that on average respondents in organizations higher on market culture perceive the organizational level as more salient, thus, reporting culture on the organizational level. The means of the other measures did not differ in the two samples. Section two: relationships between roles and behaviors. For the second set of analyses, the focus was on roles and behaviors. There were two sources used to measure focal employee behaviors: coworkers and supervisors. Here a different procedure was employed to select the most theoretically viable sample. For instance, for the coworker sample, the focus was on retaining those coworkers who are familiar with the focal individual behaviors such that their report would be most informed. The sample resulted in 107 focal observations and 325 coworkers (average N=3 respondents per focal). In this sample, the focal characteristics were very similar to the ones described in the previous samples. The sample for supervisors was selected using a similar method by focusing only on those supervisors who have reported knowing the person's work well or very well. This resulted in a sample of 143 supervisors responding for 89 focal individuals (average N=1.66 per focal).
61
Summary To summarize, I used coworker ratings for the evaluation of culture. My use of coworkers as a source of rating culture was based on the premise that there is an objective, shared reality underlying the culture phenomenon (Gavin & Howe, 1975; Glick, 1985;Parker et al., 2003). In addition, using coworker rating for culture allowed me to triangulate the rating sources of roles and culture. On the other hand, I used the focal employee's rating of roles, perceived fit, self-monitoring, and culture strength. Given the nature of the scales (e.g. how an individual perceives their fit with the organization), the use of self-report seemed warranted. The ultimate outcome of interest was employee behaviors, which were captured both from the coworkers' and supervisors' perspectives. I expected that coworkers would provide more informed ratings than supervisors. Moreover, I did not use self-report for behaviors due to the potential for social desirability as well as common method bias. Table 2 shows the relationship between sources and measurement scales.
Table 2: Sources for Primary Analysis Scale/Source Organizational culture Culture Strength Self-monitoring P-O fit Role Perceptions Behaviors Focal X X X X X X Coworker(s) X Supervisor(s)
Measures Organizational culture. I adapted an existing measure originally developed by Cameron & Quinn (1999) to measure organizational culture. The measure captures four
62
dimensions of organizational culture- clan (cooperative), adhocracy (entpreneurial/innovative), hierarchy (compliant), and market (competitive) types. Here, I refer to clan culture as clan or cooperative culture; adhocracy culture as entrepreneurial or innovative; hierarchy culture as hierarchy or hierarchical, and market culture as market or market-oriented culture culture. The initial questionnaire contained 20 questions (5 per culture type) divided in four sections describing different aspects of the organizational culture (e.g. sample item from clan reads: "This organization is a very personal place. It is like an extended family. People seem to feel comfortable sharing their personal situations with colleagues."). Respondents were instructed to rate the degree to which each statement is characteristic of the culture that they experience it. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with principal axis factoring was conducted on the coworker responses, specifying four factors. The factor structure revealed that two of the items from the entrepreneurial culture had high cross-loadings, thus, were dropped from further analysis. The results of the EFA are presented in table 3. Table 3: Exploratory Factor Analysis of Organizational Culture Items 1. This organization is a very personal place. It is like an extended family. People seem to feel comfortable sharing their personal situations with colleagues. 2. The management style in this organization is characterized by teamwork, consensus, and participation. 3. The glue that holds this organization together is loyalty and mutual trust. Commitment to this organization runs high. 4. This organization emphasizes personal and
3
Scale3 1 C .50
Factor 2 .05 .06 3 4 .12
C
.79
.01
-.04
.08
C
.87
.03
-.18
-.09
C
.87
.02
.01
-.08
C refers to clan culture; E- entrepreneurial culture; M- market culture; H- hierarchy culture.
63
professional development. There is a strong focus on developing skills and providing interesting work opportunities. 5. This organization defines success on the basis of the development of human resources, teamwork, employee commitment and concern for people. 6. This organization is a very controlled & structured place. Formal procedures generally govern what people do. 7. The management style of this organization is characterized by security of employment, conformity, predictability, and stability 8. The glue that holds this organization together is formal rules and policies. Maintaining a smooth-running organization is important. 9. This organization emphasizes permanence and stability. Efficiency, control, and smooth operations are important. 10. This organization defines success of the basis of efficiency. Dependable delivery, smooth scheduling, and low-cost production are critical. 11. This organization is very results oriented. A major concern is with getting the job done. People are very competitive and achievement oriented. 12. The management style in this organization is characterized by hard-driving competitiveness, high demands, and achievement. 13. The glue that holds this organization together is the emphasis on achievement and goal accomplishment. Aggressiveness and winning are common themes. 14.This organization emphasizes competitive actions and achievement. Hitting stretch targets and winning in the marketplace are dominant. 15. This organization defines success on the basis of winning in the marketplace and outpacing the competition. Competitive market leadership is key. 16. This organization is a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place. People are willing to
C
.82
.09
-.03
.06
E
-.07
.82
-.17
-.16
E
.15
.77
.04
.01
E
.02
.90
.15
-.04
E
.13
.87
.07
.01
E
-.10
.61
-.14
.11
M
-.03
.06
-.78
.08
M
.15
-.06
-.89
-.19
M
.12
-.04
-.81
-.05
M
.04
.07
-.84
.04
M
-.16
.07
-.66
.25
H
.52
-.18
-.25
.33
64
stick their necks out and take risks. 17. The management style of this organization is characterized by individual risk-taking, innovation, freedom and uniqueness. 18. The glue that holds this organization together is commitment to innovation and development. There is an emphasis on being on the cutting edge. 19. This organization emphasizes acquiring new resources and creating new challenges. Trying new things and prospecting for opportunities are valued. 20. This organization defines success on the basis of having the most unique or newest products. It is a product/service leader and innovator. Eigenvalues
H
.43
-.17
-.04
.47
H
.26
.02
.06
.77
H
.33
-.12
-.09
.58
H
.03
.01
-.28
.57
5.83
3.42
4.70
4.72
Note. N=98 (aggregate of 257 coworkers). This table is based on the results of a prinicipal axis factoring analysis with oblique rotation (four factors). A key phrase from each item is used to represent each item.
A confirmatory factor analysis using the focal responses to the culture items was performed as an additional test providing evidence for the generalizability of the fourfactor structure across different samples of respondents (Bentler, 1990; Bentler & Bonnett, 1980). The CFA results suggest that the 18 items provide good fit for a fourfactor model (CFI= .96; RMSEA= .06; SRMR= .08), that all of the items load significantly on their intended factors, and that the factors have sufficient discriminant validity (the highest inter-correlation is at .59, between entrepreneurial and clan culture). To limit the potential influence of common method bias in examining the relationship between organizational culture and role perceptions, I use the average of coworkers' ratings of the organizational culture in examining the relationship between
65
culture and roles. The reliability of the clan culture measure is .90. The reliability of the entrepreneurial culture measure equals .85. The market-oriented culture measure also exhibited a high degree of reliability of .91. Finally, the hierarchy culture measure has a reliability of .89. Therefore, all of the culture dimensions measures exhibited acceptable reliabilities. In addition, I measured organizational culture perceptions from the focal participant's perspective. The standardized reliability estimates in the focal sample are as follows: .80 for the clan culture, .82 for the entrepreneurial culture, .90 for market culture, and .86 for the hierarchy culture. To provide initial evidence on the convergent validity of the culture measure, I estimated the correlations between the aggregated coworker perceptions of culture and the focal individual's perceptions of the same organization's culture. The correlation between the clan cultures from both perspectives is positive and significant (r= .49, p< .01). Entrepreneurial culture measurements from both perspectives were correlated at .47, which is also significant at p< .01. Furthermore, the competitive culture measures were related at .52 (p< .01). Finally, hierarchy culture from both perspectives was correlated at .47 (p< .01). Table 4 provides more detail regarding the convergent and discriminant validity of organizational culture from the focal and coworker perspectives.
66
Table 4:Correlations between Dimensions of Culture from the Coworker and Focal Perspectives
Variable M S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Clan a 2. Entrepreneurial a 3. Market-oriented a 4. Hierarchy a 5. Clan b 6. Entrepreneurial b 7. Market-oriented b 8. Hierarchy b
4 .87 4 .59 5 .10 4 .65 4 .35 4 .17 4 .87 4 .41
1 .07 1 .16 .9 6 1 .02 1 .24 1 .52 1 .38 1 .47
(.90 ) .64** .34** .0 9 . 4 9** .38** .1 1 -.24** (.85 ) .48** -.06 .33** . 4 7** .1 8 -.31** (.91 ) .1 3 .2 3* .33** . 5 2** -.20* (.89 ) .0 0 -.11 -.16 . 4 7** (.80 ) .45** .2 7* -.18 (.82 ) .51** -.29* (.90 ) -.16 (.86 )
Note. N=98. * p
Research Study on An Organizational Culture Perspective On Role Emergence And Role Enactment, The term enactment may refer to the whole or part of a piece of legislation or to the whole or part of an instrument made under a piece of legislation. In Wakefield Light Railways Company v Wakefield Corporation
RESEARCH STUDY ON AN ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE PERSPECTIVE ON ROLE EMERGENCE AND ROLE ENACTMENT
Abstract:Organizational culture has received ample attention both in the popular and scholarly press as an important factor predicting organizational effectiveness by inducing employees to behave effectively (Cooke& Rousseau, 1988; Schein, 1985, 1990). The assertion that culture leads to behavior, however, has received only limited empirical support. The purpose of this dissertation is to explicate the impact of organizational culture on employees' roles and subsequent role behaviors. I propose that four types of cultures (clan, entrepreneurial, market and hierarchy) exert different and at times competing pressures, thus, creating distinct role schemas regarding the range of expected employee behaviors, which in turn, guide distinct forms of employee role behavior (e.g. helping, innovation, achievement and compliance). In addition, I examine boundary conditions on the relationships between culture and role perceptions and role perceptions and behavior. I propose that in the process of role emergence, culture strength as an organizational level characteristic,
cognitive self-monitoring, and perceived person-organization (P-O) fit influence the degree to which individuals interpret and incorporate the organizational culture's norms as part of their roles at work. I also suggest that culture strength, behavioral self-monitoring as well as P-O fit have an impact on the extent to which employees enact the expected organizational work roles. Data from about hundred different organizations were collected to test the proposed relationships. The empirical results provide support for most of the proposed relationships between culture and employee roles, thereby validating the role of culture in establishing what is expected and valued at work. In addition, culture strength had moderating effect on the linkages between culture and employee roles for two of the culture dimensions (clan and hierarchical). Surprisingly, selfmonitoring (cognitive) had a significant moderating effect but in a direction different from the predicted. Perceived fit moderated the relationship between market culture and helping role. Innovative role exhibited a negative significant relationship with compliant behavior while market strength intensified the negative relationship between achievement role and helping behavior. Thus, the results lend some support to the overall framework. Implications for theory and practice, as well as directions for future research, are discussed.
AN ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE PERSPECTIVE ON ROLE EMERGENCE AND ROLE ENACTMENT
By
Sophia V. Marinova
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2005
Advisory Committee: Professor Paul E. Tesluk, Chair Professor Paul Hanges Professor Henry P. Sims Professor Cynthia K. Stevens Professor M. Susan Taylor
© Copyright by Sophia V. Marinova 2005
Dedication There are several people who have been an inspiration to me during the challenging times of the Ph.D. program. I'd like to dedicate this dissertation to:
Sophia Iantcheva (my grandmother), who has taught me the value of staying optimistic in the face of great challenges.
Nina Marinova (my mother), for her unswerving belief in me.
Ivan Anastassov (my husband), for his selfless encouragement and support.
Krustio Krustev, for being a great inspiration to me.
ii
Acknowledgements There are a number of people who have provided me with tremendous support throughout my Ph.D. student tenure and with respect to my dissertation. First of all, I'd like to thank all of my dissertation committee members: Paul Tesluk, Hank Sims, Paul Hanges, Cindy Stevens, and Susan Taylor. I am grateful to Paul Tesluk, my dissertation advisor, who has been a source of great support to me and has always constructively challenged me to develop my professional skills. I wish to thank Hank for his moral support and advice throughout the Ph.D. program, for being a great mentor, and for being there for me during difficult times. I also greatly appreciate the support and advice from Paul Hanges, Cindy Stevens, and Susan Taylor. A special thanks to Myeong-Gu Seo for assisting me with the data-collection process for the dissertation. I would also like to thank Henry Moon for his research mentoring. I appreciate the support of several other faculty members as well: Ian Williamson, Kay Bartol, Anil Gupta, Ken Smith, Scott Turner, and Dave Lepak. I'd also like to thank my classmates for their collegiality and for helping me laugh throughout these years. A special thanks to Riki Takeuchi, Qing Cao, Long Jiang, Wei Liu, Lisa Dragoni, Jennifer Marrone, Alice Zhang, Meredith Burnett, Nevena Koukova, Antoaneta Petkova, and Karen Wouters: I consider myself fortunate to have been your colleague and friend. Last but not least, I'd like to thank my husband Ivan Anastassov for his love, tremendous support, encouragement and his great sense of humor; my mother Nina Marinova and father Vladimir Marinov, for their love and advice; to my brothers
iii
Nikolay Marinov, Pavel Marinov, and Krasen Marinov for always being supportive with me. Thank you all!
iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ..................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements...................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents.......................................................................................................... v List of Tables ............................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ............................................................................................................. vii Chapter 1: Problem Statement ...................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Theoretical Concepts................................................................................. 14 Organizational Culture............................................................................................ 14 Roles and Role Theory............................................................................................ 23 Employee Behaviors ............................................................................................... 25 Summary............................................................................................................. 35 Individual differences and attitudes ........................................................................ 36 Chapter 3: Hypotheses Development.......................................................................... 39 Organizational Culture as Antecedent of Work Roles............................................ 39 Roles as Predictors of Behavior.............................................................................. 43 Moderators of The Relationships Between Organizational Culture, Roles, and Behaviors ................................................................................................................ 44 Summary................................................................................................................. 54 Chapter 4: Method Section ......................................................................................... 57 Research Design...................................................................................................... 57 Sample..................................................................................................................... 57 Analysis................................................................................................................... 59 Summary................................................................................................................. 62 Relationships between Culture and Roles............................................................... 81 Relationships between Roles and Behaviors .......................................................... 92 Summary of results ............................................................................................... 113 Chapter 6: Discussion ............................................................................................... 116 Relationships between Culture and Roles............................................................. 116 Relationships between Roles and Behavior.......................................................... 123 Implications........................................................................................................... 125 Limitations ............................................................................................................ 129 Directions for Future Research ............................................................................. 132 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 134 Appendices................................................................................................................ 136 Appendix A: Focal Questionnaire ........................................................................ 136 Appendix B: Coworker Questionnaire.................................................................. 145 Appendix C: Supervisor Questionnaire ................................................................ 152 Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 155
v
List of Tables
Table 1: The OCI Cultural Styles .............................................................................. 17 Table 2: Sources for Primary Analysis ....................................................................... 62 Table 3: Exploratory Factor Analysis of Organizational Culture............................... 63 Table 4:Correlations between Dimensions of Culture from the Coworker and Focal Perspectives......................................................................................................... 67 Table 5: Multi-trait Multi-method Approach to Culture............................................. 68 Table 6: Exploratory Factor Analysis of Role Perceptions of Organizational Expectations........................................................................................................ 72 Table 7: Correlation Table (Roles as Dependent Variable)........................................ 78 Table 8: Regression Analysis of the Relationship between Culture and Roles.......... 82 Table 9: Interaction Results: Culture and Culture Strength on Roles......................... 85 Table 10 (strength as agreement):Interaction Results ................................................ 86 Table 11:Interaction Results: Culture and Self-monitoring on Roles......................... 89 Table 12: Culture and Perceived Person-Organization Fit (P-O Fit) Interaction on Roles ................................................................................................................... 91 Table 13:Correlation Table: Coworker-Rated Behaviors as a Dependent Variable... 93 Table 14: Relationships between Roles and Behaviors (coworker ratings) .............. 96 Table 15: Correlations among behaviors (coworkers and supervisors as sources) .... 98 Table 16: Correlation Table: Supervisor-Rated Behaviors as a Dependent Variable 99 Table 17: Relationships between Roles and Behaviors (supervisor ratings)............ 102 Table 18: Interaction between Culture Strength and Roles on Behaviors (coworker ratings) .............................................................................................................. 104 Table 19: Interactions between Roles and Strength (agreement) on Behaviors (coworker ratings)............................................................................................. 105 Table 20: Interaction between Roles and Culture Strength on Behaviors (supervisor ratings) .............................................................................................................. 106 Table 21: Interactions between Roles and Agreement on Behaviors (supervisor ratings) .............................................................................................................. 107 Table 22: Interaction Results for Roles and Self-monitoring (behavioral) on Behaviors (coworker ratings)............................................................................ 109 Table 23: Interaction Results for Roles and P-O fit on Behaviors (coworker ratings) ........................................................................................................................... 110 Table 24: Interaction Results for Roles and Self-monitoring (behavioral) on Behaviors (supervisor ratings) .......................................................................... 111 Table 25: Interaction Results for Roles and P-O fit on Behaviors (supervisor ratings) ........................................................................................................................... 112 Table 26: Summary of Results.................................................................................. 115
vi
List of Figures Culture Types??????.??????????????????..22 Model of Role Perceptions and Role Enactment???????????.56 Interactions between Culture and Culture Strength???????.???87 Interaction between self-monitoring (cognitive) and entrepreneurial culture????????????????????????..???90 5. Interaction between P-O fit and market culture???????????...92 1. 2. 3. 4.
vii
Chapter 1: Problem Statement The notion that employees are crucial for organizational effectiveness has come to be viewed as a truism in the management literature (Barnard, 1938; Coff, 1997; Deal & Kennedy, 1988; Katz, 1964; Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall, 2003). From a resourcebased theory perspective, human capital is considered as valuable, hard-to-imitate, and socially complex and therefore (Coff, 1997), can serve as a source of competitive advantage for organizations. As a result, the process through which employees contribute to organizational effectiveness has received a great deal of attention. One important area of research examining human capital is the literature exploring the work performance domain and its various forms and manifestations in the workplace (Barnard, 1938; Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Katz, 1964; Organ, 1988). It has been established that satisfying the specific job requirements on a day-today basis through on-the-job task performance is not the only important component of employee effectiveness (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Organ, 1988; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). Rooted in earlier notions that organizations need to ensure that employees engage in beneficial behaviors beyond their immediate technical job requirements (Barnard, 1938; Katz & Kahn, 1978), extensive research has been devoted to fleshing out behavioral constructs that go beyond the specific technical requirements of a job and add value to employee effectiveness and which ultimately contribute to group and organizational effectiveness (Katz, 1964; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1994; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). While task behaviors directly concern the technical core of the organization by serving to transform raw materials into products and distributing, and providing service for products, non-task behaviors "do not
1
support the technical core itself as much as they support the broader organizational, social, and psychological environment, in which the technical core must function" (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994, p.476). Terms such as organizational citizenship behavior (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983), organizational spontaneity (George & Brief, 1992), contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994) and prosocial behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986) have been used as labels for these valuable non-task employee behaviors. The proliferation of terms to describe the broad domain of employee behaviors has been accompanied by a sustained interest in identifying the antecedents and performance implications of these behaviors. Some studies have examined individual differences such as personality in relation to citizenship behaviors, but the predictive validity of personality has been found to be limited for the most part to the trait of conscientiousness (Organ & Ryan, 1995). Considerable research has been conducted on the premises of the social exchange perspective (Blau, 1964), according to which employees engage in beneficial behaviors to reciprocate favorable treatment by the organization (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000; Zellars & Tepper, 2003). Antecedents such as perceived organizational support (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), fairness (Ball, Trevino, & Sims, 1984; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000), and leader-member exchange (Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996) have been explored from a social exchange theoretical perspective. As critical as a social exchange framework might be, factors at the organizational level, notably organizational culture, may also serve as a fundamental mechanism for
2
eliciting these important non-task behaviors (Schein, 1985). At the same time, relatively little research to date has sought to directly investigate the relationships that might exist between organizational culture and employee behavior. This is perhaps surprising since the literature linking organizational culture and organizational effectiveness has stressed a behavioral explanation by arguing that cultures elicit, encourage and reinforce certain critical behaviors by employees to facilitate organizational effectiveness (Denison & Mishra, 1995; Kotter & Heskett, 1992). In other words, the implicit assumption is that organizational culture provides a blueprint for eliciting and supporting the types of employee behaviors which the organization has developed to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983; Schein, 1985). This important assumption, that culture drives employee behaviors, however, has received only limited direct empirical attention (Tesluk, Hofmann, & Quigley, 2002). Recent events in the business world nevertheless suggest that understanding organizational culture and its impact on human behavior in organizations may be of critical importance. Enron, for instance, is an exemplar of how having the wrong organizational culture precipitates business failure. Enron's high achievement oriented, entrepreneurial employees reinforced the competitive "survival-of-the-fittest" culture of the company (Byrne, 2002). Because of the unreasonably high performance expectations, competitive behavior taken to an unethical level became the norm for many Enron managers and employees. The Enron leadership sustained this aggressive culture by enriching themselves possibly unethically. By comparison, companies prominent for their innovation competencies like 3M and Apple effectively reinforce innovative employee behavior by sustaining a culture for creativity and innovation (Tesluk, Farr & Klein,
3
1997). Companies pursuing internal stability such as large government bureaucracies are likely to seek to instill respect for order and rule following as appropriate behaviors in their employees in order to facilitate functioning on complex tasks (Leavitt, 2003; Thompson & Wildavsky, 1986). Ouchi (1981) juxtaposed the traditional American and Japanese organizational culture styles and suggested that management through commitment and cohesiveness seems to be the success formula in Japan. In the US, on the other hand, tragic events such as September 11th have demonstrated that the courage, cooperation and cohesiveness of the rescuer teams of firefighters and police officers was key for the successful management of this emergency situation. These examples reinforce the idea that fostering a specific culture is likely to be crucial for eliciting a variety of employee behaviors ranging from high individual achievement to cooperation and help, and from strict rule observance to innovation. Organizational culture provides a meaning system (Cooke & Rousseau, 1988; Martin, 1992; Parker, 2001; Schein, 1985) for employees who are making sense of their environment (Weick, 1995). As such, organizational culture serves as a vehicle of the organizational influence on the individual's identity and behavior (Parker, 2000) by socializing individuals into specific norms and patterns of behavior (Louis, 1980) and by providing socially shared perceptions, which create predictability in the organizational environment (Cooke & Rousseau, 1988). Only a limited number of studies have examined the impact of organizational culture on employee behavior, and those have specifically been restricted to studying collectivistic and individualistic organizational cultural norms as predictors of cooperative employee behavior (Chatman & Barsade, 1995; Chatman, Polzer, Barsade & Neale, 1998). Consequently, there has been a relative
4
paucity of research examining the impact of a wider range of organizational culture norms on employee behaviors. Culture encompasses elements of the organization such as artifacts, values, and symbols, which permeate the organizational environment and provide blueprints for employees of what is expected in their work environment (Chatman & Barsade, 1995; Chatman et al., 1998; Hatch, 1993; Schein, 1985). Assumptions and values are a major component of organizational culture and this determines its largely preconscious nature (Ashforth, 1985). I propose that roles provide the perceptual link between culture and behaviors. As Katz & Kahn (1978) in their treatise on the formulation and enactment of roles suggested: "The concept of role is proposed as the major means for linking the individual and organizational levels of research and theory: it is at once the building block of social systems and the summation of the requirements with which such systems confront their members as individuals" (p. 219-220). A role theory perspective provides the bridging mechanism between organizational culture and behaviors. Research on national culture supports the importance of roles by demonstrating that culture influences the cognitive processes of individuals by intensifying the retrieval of perceptions consistent with the overall cultural values (Trafimow, Triandis, & Goto, 1991; Triandis, 1989). Organizational culture consists of ambient stimuli that are likely to prime role cognitions coherent with their content and direction (Katz & Kahn, 1978). In the business world, cultures such as that of Dell might initiate employees' developing achievement role perceptions, which in turn drive high individual achievement behavior, while at 3M or Apple employees might espouse an innovative role orientation consistent with the organizational culture of innovation. Thus, I propose that different
5
organizational cultures create different patterns of role perceptions and subsequent behavioral responses. One of the most prominent definitions of organizational culture comes from the work of Edgar Schein who proffered that " Organizational culture is the pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, and that have worked well enough to be considered valid, and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems" (1984: p. 3). Two basic dimensions along which cultures may be expected to differ and which emerge as important in Schein's (1985) definition are the external and internal focus of organizations. Moreover, Schein (1985) suggested that organizations are concerned with their adaptation (flexibility) and integration (stability) at the same time. Specifically, as Schein (1985) puts it: "All group and organizational theories distinguish two major sets of problems that all groups, no matter what their size, must deal with: (1) survival, growth, and adaptation in their environment and (2) internal integration that permits daily functioning and the ability to adapt" (p. 11).
It can therefore be inferred that organizational culture is concerned with adaptation in its internal environment and with respect with its external environment but at the same time seeks to establish internal integration and stability. A specific framework, which approaches cultures as reflecting how organizations cope with the competing tensions of internal and external focus and the need to sustain
6
flexibility and stability, describes organizational cultures as falling under one of four general culture types: clan, adhocracy (here I will refer to it as entrepreneurial), hierarchy and market culture types (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Denison & Mishra, 1995; Ouchi, 1979; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). These four culture types capture the stable patterns of norms that organizations develop to cope with their environment by focusing primarily on either their internal or their external environment and by choosing either to pursue stability or to develop their adaptability (Denison & Mishra, 1995; Tesluk et al., 2002). According to the Cameron and Quinn (1999) framework, based on earlier empirical work by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983), some organizations choose to focus on their external environment for achieving competitive advantage (e.g. Dell), while the effectiveness of other organizations is predicated upon sustaining their internal organizational focus through stable internal systems (e.g. bureaucratic systems). In addition, using a clustering technique, Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) showed that another continuum along which organizations differ is the stability-adaptability continuum (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967), with some organizations defining effectiveness along the lines of protecting the stability of the organizational functioning, while others emphasizing quick adaptability as the basis of their effectiveness. Furthermore, according to Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983), organizations choose different means of organizing depending on the ends they pursue. For instance, the clan culture type has an internal organizational focus and emphasizes adaptability through encouraging cohesion, morale and cooperation among employees (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Ouchi, 1979; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983); the bureaucracy type of culture also has an internal focus, but achieves this instead with an emphasis on organizational stability
7
through the use of rules and regulations (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Ouchi, 1979; Zammuto, Giffort, & Goodman, 2000). The market culture can be characterized with a strong external market orientation and concern with external competitiveness and stability through efficiency control. Finally, like a market culture, an entrepreneurial culture is externally oriented, but norms in the entrepreneurial culture emphasize individual creativity and the ability to deal with external challenges by coming up with innovative solutions (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983; Zammuto et al., 2000). I propose that these four culture types prime cognitive role perceptions, which in turn lead to employee behaviors. Research in organizations has examined role perceptions as a predictor of employee behaviors within an organizational context (Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003; Morrison, 1994; Tepper, Lockhart, & Hoobler, 2001). From a role theory perspective, organizations must communicate what roles are expected of employees, thereby enabling individuals to make sense of their environment and enact the communicated roles (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Weick, 1993). In support of the predictive validity of role perceptions, a number of studies have confirmed a positive relationship between perceiving helpful organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) to be part of one's role at work and the incidence of citizenship behaviors (Hofmann et al., 2003; Morrison, 1994; Tepper et al., 2001). Perceived roles provide a socially constructed cognitive environment that guides the thinking and acting patterns of people in the organization (Cooke & Rousseau, 1988; Weick, 1981). Organizational culture provides a salient system of meaning, which creates specific cognitive role perceptions (scripts) as to what
8
is expected in the workplace. Those cognitive role perceptions are among the proximal factors leading to behaviors (Hofmann et al., 2003; Morrison, 1994; Tepper et al., 2001). I propose that different organizational cultures create different role expectations, which are functional for the respective culture (Katz & Kahn, 1978). For instance, the clan culture would create the expectation that individuals should cooperate and collaborate on tasks; the bureaucracy culture, on the other hand, primes cognitions that strict rule observation of established procedures is anticipated in the organization; the market culture type suggests an achievement role to achieve maximum efficiency and finally, the entrepreneurial culture type creates innovative role cognitions (Zammuto et al., 2000). I also propose that these role cognitions lead to behaviors ranging from cooperation to competition and from rule observance to creativity. Even though some of these behaviors might be construed as part of or closely interrelated with the task performance of specific jobs (e.g. being innovative in a R&D unit or being strict in observing the existing rules in the military), each behavior may occur in any occupation and is not limited to a job type. Examining the link between culture and behavior through the lens of role perceptions in itself explicates the mechanism through which culture translates into observable behaviors. Furthermore, to shed light on the boundary factors, which may play a role in the process, I consider additional individual and organizational level factors. I suggest that self-monitoring (Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 2001; Snyder, 1986) and culture strength (Payne, 1996), for instance, are two factors, which may impact the strength of the proposed relationships between culture types and cognitive role perceptions. Self-monitoring is an individual difference variable that describes an
9
individual's tendency to perceive, interpret, and incorporate into their cognitive role perceptions even subtle situational cues (Snyder, 1974; 1986; Turnley & Bolino, 2001). High self-monitors tend to adapt their styles to the environment, which helps them gain higher centrality in organizational networks as well as higher performance ratings (Mehra et al., 2001). Environmental stimuli are more likely to enter the cognitive attention span of individuals high on self-monitoring (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). I propose that selfmonitoring moderates the relationships between organizational culture and work role perceptions (Fiske & Taylor, 1991) as well as between work role perceptions and behaviors, such that high self-monitors are more likely to incorporate organizational culture stimuli into their cognitive schema of role perceptions and enact them in order to suit the environmental demands (Snyder, 1974; 86; Chatman, 1991). In addition, I propose that culture strength is an organizational level factor, which reinforces the relationship between culture and cognitive perceptions, and cognitive perceptions and behaviors. Martin (1992) discussed three different perspectives on culture: integration, differentiation, and fragmentation. From an integration standpoint, organizational members maintain consensus regarding the organizational culture. The differentiation perspective on the other hand suggests the formation of different subcultures in organizations that prevents a singular view on the organization's culture. Finally, a fragmentation perspective suggests that there is ambiguity (action, symbolic and ideological) in the culture that renders the process of meaning creation equivocal and open to individual interpretation. The three different perspectives imply that culture is not always homogenous; thus, considering culture strength is warranted.
10
The literature on social comparison and conformity (Ashforth, 1985; Festinger, 1954; Janis, 1972) also provides a theoretical perspective that explicates the mechanism through which culture strength acts as a moderator. Social conformity suggests that in the presence of social agreement individuals are less likely to deviate from the social norms. I propose that culture strength, which denotes the level of agreement (integration) among organizational members (Martin, 1992), moderates the relationship between organizational culture and role perceptions, as well as between role perceptions and behaviors such that when the culture strength is higher indicating higher consensus regarding the organizational culture, the relationships between culture and cognitive role perceptions, and between role perceptions and respective behaviors, would be stronger due to the increased pressure for social conformity. Additionally, I examine person-organization fit (Chatman, 1989; O'Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991) as a moderator of the relationships between culture and cognitive role perceptions, and between roles and exhibited behaviors. P-O fit is a concept associated with the degree to which individuals feel that their values and personality fit those of their current organization. P-O fit specifically captures the extent to which there is a match between organizational culture and the individual preferences for culture type. Consequently, it has been proposed that individuals who experience higher degree of fit with their organization are more likely to engage behaviors that are prescribed by the organizational context (Chatman, 1989). Here I propose that fit will enhance the convergence between culture and perceived roles such that individual who experience high fit will perceive roles more consonant with the context. In addition, from an enactment perspective (Abolafia &
11
Kilduff, 1988; Weick, 1981; 1995), individuals are not only passive sensemakers but are also active creators of their environment. Here, I propose that a high degree of fit will enhance the relationship between cognitive role perceptions and expected behaviors since individuals with greater fit will actively try to reinforce their existing environments. Employees experiencing low fit with their organizations may try to resist or actively change their environment by withholding expected behaviors and possibly approaching their work in alternative ways. In sum, the research questions that I present are as follows: How does organizational culture influence cognitive role perceptions and what is the role of individual and contextual factors in this process? While the virtues of self-monitoring have been traditionally extolled, it is possible that for dysfunctional organizational cultures such as the one which seemed to permeate Enron's environment, low selfmonitors would be more likely to oppose traditional ways of thinking. The strength of an organizational culture might also have important implications in determining the extent to which it culture translates into observable behaviors. Another research question I am posing concerns the relationship between culture, cognitive role perceptions and behaviors, and the role that P-O fit might have in this process. Here, it could be argued that even though individuals with high fit and organizational identification sustain existing organizational cultures, individuals who experience low levels of fit and commitment would be more adept at organizational change and in some extreme examples, those individuals might go the extra mile of reporting dysfunctional organizational activities (Watkins, 2003).
12
In conclusion, while examining organizational culture has much promise, according to Weick (1981) "People in organizations repeatedly impose that which they later claim imposes on them" (p.269). Weick's (1981) perspective emphasizes the role of the individual as an active creator of the environment by engaging in specific actions, which create knowledge and meaning. To the extent to which "people? create many of their own environments" (p. 279), at times it might be difficult to tell if culture has a predominant impact on eliciting behaviors via roles or it is the individual's behaviors, which impose the environment itself and trigger a self-fulfilling cycle of perceiving organizational roles as consistent with individual actions. From that perspective, organizational culture may be reinforced through the actions and cognitions of individuals even in periods when the organizational leadership is attempting to change the cultural environment of the organization. Here, I propose some specific factors such as culture strength and person-organization fit, which might increase the tendency of the culture phenomenon to persist in organizations. But more research is needed to explore the causality of actions and interpretations taking into account the dynamic nature of sensemaking both through perceiving the environment and through actions and behaviors, which create the environment.
13
Chapter 2: Theoretical Concepts Organizational Culture
Defining organizational culture. The term culture, as defined by the school of cognitive anthropology, consists of the psychological structures, which guide individuals' and groups' behavior. For instance, Goodenough who is representative of that school of thought, pointed out that the culture of society: "consists of whatever it is one to know or believe in order to operate in a manner acceptable to its members" (In Geertz, 1973, p.11). The term organizational culture has a similar meaning, only, it is applied to the concept of organization instead of society. For instance, Eliot Jaques provides the following description of the culture of a factory: "The culture of the factory is its customary and traditional way of thinking and of doing things, which is shared to a greater or lesser extent by all its members, and which new members must learn, and at least partially accept? Culture is part of the second nature of those who have been with the firm for a long time." (1951: 251). Culture, thus, consists of the set of assumptions, values, norms, symbols and artifacts within the organization, which convey meaning to employees regarding what is expected and shape individual and group behavior (Enz, 1988; Hatch, 1993; O'Reilly et al, 1991; Rousseau, 1990). Schein (1985) defined culture as, "A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to these problems." (p.12). Martin and Siehl (1983) viewed culture as the glue, which holds
14
the organization together via patterns of shared meaning, while Swartz and Jordon (1980) suggested that culture is the composition of expectations and beliefs about behavior shared in the organization. Therefore, organizational culture is expected to have an important bearing on behavior (Cooke & Szumal, 2000; Chatman & Barsade, 1995; Martin & Siehl, 1983; Schein, 1985). There are some natural drawbacks to attempts to empirically measure culture due to its inherent subjectivity (Geertz, 1973; Rousseau, 1990). Culture is a socially constructed phenomenon and as such may be difficult to capture and quantify (Denison, 1996). Geertz (1973), in an attempt to emphasize the subjective nature of culture cites Goodenaugh, who believed that culture was embedded in the minds and hearts of people. Therefore, it could be maintained that culture has infinite forms such as is the number of possible subjective interpretations. Such a conclusion precludes the quantifiable measurement of organizational culture. A debate making the culture literature even more complicated has revolved around the methods of culture measurement (Denison, 1996; Denison & Mishra, 1995). In the emic measurement tradition, researchers have advocated qualitative methods of measurement capturing the native point of view (Denison, 1996), while the etic perspective, which allows for quantitative measurement with instruments theoretically developed by the culture researcher has been applied more consistently to the measurement of climate rather than culture. In spite of the ongoing disagreements over the nature and measurement of culture, a number of quantitative instruments have been developed through a combination of methods that allow for the quantifiable measurement of culture.
15
Measurement of organizational culture. The person-organization fit literature represents one identifiable stream of culture research that has attempted to measure organizational culture and individual preferences for organizational culture (Chatman, 1989, 1991;Kristoff, 1996; O'Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). O'Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991), have made considerable progress in identifying key measurable dimensions of organizational culture along with individual culture preferences. They provided a comprehensive literature review in order to identify a wide-ranging list of categories that are relevant to individual culture preferences and organizational cultures. Their research was prompted by a willingness to appropriately study quantitatively organizational culture in a way that allows for meaningful comparisons between the values of individuals and organizations. To that end, O'Reilly and colleagues (1991) developed the organizational culture profile (OCP), which consists of 54 statements describing both the organization and the individual in terms of enduring values and characteristics. A central focus of the P-O fit literature has been to discover the effects of good and poor person-organization fit on these values on important proximal outcomes such as employee performance, satisfaction, commitment and turnover (Chatman, 1989, 1991; Kristof, 1996; Saks, 1997). Other organizational typologies have also been developed to assess organizational culture apart from the P-O fit stream of research. For instance, the organizational culture inventory (OCI) developed by Cooke & Lafferty (1986) has been used to test relationships between antecedents and culture as well as between culture and outcomes of interest (Klein, Masi, & Weidner, 1995). This culture inventory is based on a circumplex notion of personality that taps interpersonal and task-related styles (Cooke & Rousseau,
16
1988; Wiggins, 1991). The OCI consists of 12 specific styles that are placed on a circle. Examples of the OCI styles include humanistic-helpful, affiliative, conventional, competitive, and achievement. Although the OCI presents 12 main cultural styles or norms, the latter cluster in three more general types: constructive, passive/defensive, and aggressive/defensive (Cooke & Rousseau, 1988; Cooke & Szumal, 2000). In the constructive culture type, cooperation, enjoyment of the task and creativity are valued. The passive-defensive culture type is characterized by traditional authority, norms of conformity and compliance, and top-down authority. Finally, aggressive-defensive cultures exhibit some negative dynamics such as competition and opposition that could be detrimental for the organization in the long-term. Therefore, the OCI typology incorporates elements of the four behavioral patterns of helping, innovation, rule observance, and competition on the level of organizational culture. Table 1 provides a summary of the specific culture norms and culture types as they are defined by the OCI circumplex. Table 1: The OCI Cultural Styles 1 Cultural Norms Culture Type Cluster to Which the Style Belongs The organization is managed in a Constructive Culture person-oriented manner; members are expected to be helpful and supportive with each other. The organization places high Constructive Culture priority on interpersonal harmony. In this type of culture, setting Constructive Culture and achievement of challenging goals is central to the work Characteristics
Humanistic-Helpful Norms
Affiliative Norms
Achievement Norms
1
This table is based on the work of Cooke & Lafferty (1986), Cooke & Rousseau (1988) and Cooke & Szumal (2000).
17
Self-Actualization Norms
Approval Norms
Conventional Norms Dependent Norms
Avoidance Norms
Oppositional Norms
Power Norms
Competitive Norms
Competence/Perfectionist Norms
concept. Creativity, quality over quantity, and employee development and self-actualization are central to this type of culture. Conflict is avoided at any cost for the sake of preserving good relationships. The organizational culture is conservative. Found in hierarchical organizations, where the decision-making is centralized. Organizational culture in which success is not recognized but failure and mistakes are punished. Characterized by people shifting responsibilities to others so that they don't take the blame for mistakes. Confrontation and negativism are strong forces at work. Status and influence are the main goals of organizational members. Authority is inherent in the power position of individuals. Hierarchical pattern of decisionmaking and structuring of activities. In this type of culture, members are rewarded for outperforming each other. Winning is central to the organization and a "winlose" framework defines work relationships. This exists in organizations in which hard work and perfectionism on specific objectives are especially important aspects of performance.
Constructive Culture
Passive/Defensive Culture Passive/Defensive Culture Passive/Defensive Culture Passive/Defensive Culture
Aggressive/Defensive Culture
Aggressive/Defensive Culture
Aggressive/Defensive Culture
Aggressive/Defensive Culture
Another stream of research has examined culture traits and a model of effectiveness is the competing values framework (Denison & Mishra, 1995; Quinn &
18
Rohrbaugh, 1983; Tesluk et al., 2002). According to this approach, organizations are constantly involved in reconciling multiple forces pulling the organization in opposite directions (Denison & Mishra, 1995; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983; Tesluk et al. 2002). The two main pairs of opposites rooted in Shein's (1985) definition of culture that organizations have to reconcile are the need for internal integration and external adaptation and the need to be stable and yet, at the same time ready and able to change (Tesluk et al., 2002). Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) found support for a four-dimensional model of organizational effectiveness that represents the multiple objectives that organizations pursue. The specific outcomes were maintaining cohesion/ morale, maintaining flexibility, efficiency/productivity, and stability of the organizational statusquo (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). Denison and Mishra (1995) proposed a model of organizational culture traits, which lead to dimensions of organizational performance, situated along the same dimensions as the model of organizational effectiveness (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983), namely external adaptation versus internal integration and change versus stability. Each of the discussed research streams on culture measurement has its strong points. The P-O fit research (Chatman, 1989; O'Reilly et al., 1991), for instance, is most suitable for research, the focus of which is mostly on the precise measurement of fit between a finite number of cultures and individual preferences. The OCI profile attempts at deriving a comprehensive typology of culture norms, which are not necessarily associated with specific individual values and preferences. Finally, the competing value framework presents a paradoxical perspective on the forces that shape culture such that there are contradictory ends, which different cultures pursue (Cameron & Quinn, 1999).
19
The different measures of culture indicate that there is a growing agreement that culture can be measured. Here, I choose to maintain a four-dimensional conceptualization of culture that integrates aspects of both the circumplex perspective on culture (OCI: Cooke & Rousseau, 1988; Cooke & Szumal, 2000) and the four-dimensional conceptualization of culture and effectiveness defined by the axes of external-internal and flexibility -stability foci. The reason why I choose this model over the P-O fit conceptualization, for instance, is that it provides a parsimonious but comprehensive view on the dimensions of culture (Van Vianen, 2000). The three main factors of the OCI, for example, suggest the presence of innovativeness, cooperation, competition and rule observance (Cooke & Szumal, 2000). The constructive culture type, for instance, instills norms for cooperation and creative behavior, which are two roles that I am examining. Moreover, one characteristic of the passive/defensive culture is that it entails conservatism and centralized decision-making, which implies existing norms for ruleobservance. This type of culture corresponds to a compliant role orientation whereby employees strive to sustain order. Finally, in the aggressive/defensive culture confrontation and negativism are strong forces at work. Due to the aggressive nature of the aggressive/defensive culture, an aggressive role orientation would be the norm. The culture-effectiveness model maintains four specific outcomes of culture: cohesion/ morale, maintaining flexibility, efficiency/productivity, and stability of the organizational status quo (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). The culture traits established by Denison and Mishra (1995) are situated along the same dimensions as the effectiveness model, namely external adaptation versus internal integration and change versus stability. Cameron and Quinn (1999) have developed a specific questionnaire that taps four types
20
of culture, which can also be situated on the model defined by the stability-adaptability and internal-external axes. The four culture types are as follows: clan (cooperative), adhocracy (entrepreneurial/innovative), market (competitive), and hierarchy (conservative). Cohesion/morale as an outcome of culture (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983) can be construed as an outcome of the clan culture. This type of culture emphasizes cooperation and positive interpersonal interactions, and has, thus, been labeled "clan" culture (Cameron and Quinn, 1999). Cameron and Quinn (1999) characterize the adhocracy (innovative) culture as a place where entrepreneurship and creativity would be valued employee behavior. Cultures where optimum efficiency is the norm may create high-achievement, competitive orientations on the part of employees because of the high performance goals. Cameron and Quinn (1999) labeled this type of culture as "market culture" and pointed out that because market organizations are exclusively focused on bottom-line results (Ouchi, 1979), people are expected to become goal-oriented and competitive. The outcomes of a market culture resemble the efficiency/productivity dimension of effectiveness (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). Finally, in the "hierarchy" culture, stability is valued at all costs, and as a result, employees are encouraged maintain the stability of the organization by carefully observing and following organizational rules and procedures (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). Figure 1 presents graphically the culture types in accordance with Cameron & Quinn's (1999) initial conceptualization.
21
Figure 1: Culture Types
Culture Types E xt e rna l
M a rke t C ul t ure (Outcome: Efficiency/ Productivity) Stability
E nt re pre ne uri a l C ul t ure (Outcome: Flexibility)
Flexibility
Hierarchy Culture (Outcome: Stability)
C l a n C ul t ure (Out c om e : Cohesion/Morale)
Culture strength as an attribute of culture. According to Payne (1996), culture has three important attributes: strength, direction, and pervasiveness. Strength denotes the degree to which the culture is intense and strong. If a culture is strong, then the underlying assumptions, the upheld norms, and the existing artifacts and symbols should express a clear, singular message, thereby providing a more convincing and clear set of expectations to employees. Individuals within the organization are more likely to understand and comply with the culture norms if they are clear and strong (Payne, 1996; Schein, 1984; 1985).
22
Martin (1992) also emphasized the importance of understanding culture strength by describing three perspectives on culture: integration, differentiation, and fragmentation. In the integration perspective, culture has a strong impact on perceptions and behavior because people in the organization agree on the content and direction of culture. The fragmentation and differentiation perspectives suggest that when culture is not strong and shared cohesively, symbols and values become ambiguous and open to interpretation (fragmentation) and different subcultures may emerge (differentiation).
Roles and Role Theory Role theory is concerned with studying human behavior in context by defining the expectations and rewards associated with certain forms of behavior (Biddle, 1979). Social position is a central concept associated with roles. Social position refers to the identity that stratifies people in different social groups such as, for example, teacher, mother, and manager. From a role behavior standpoint, each position has a characteristic role associated with it. In addition, according to the predictions of role theory, roles are induced through shared expectations of behavior (Biddle, 1979). The pragmatic view on roles suggests that expectations are instilled in the individual during socialization and individuals who are assimilated into groups conform to their expected roles. Another important defining characteristic of roles, especially from a structural role theory perspective, is their functionality for the social systems in which they are embedded (Biddle, 1979; Stryker, 2002). For instance, if a player in a football team is being too competitive with his own teammates, his behavior is not likely to be functional for the overall performance of the team. In the same way, in a larger organization,
23
communicated roles should be functional for their respective context. For instance, coming up with creative ideas in a largely bureaucratic context is probably not going to be viewed favorably. By the same token, overly strict rule observation in a company that heavily depends and innovative and creativity would not qualify as a functional role. These examples illustrate how the functionality of a specific role depends on the context. From a social cognitive perspective, organizational roles are not only the product of the person but are also a function of the social environment and, as a result, are inextricably bound to the social context (Biddle, 1979; Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991; Van Dyne, Cummings, Parks, 1995). Roles are the organizing structures of knowledge and information about the appropriate role behaviors in social situations and prompt the individual to act in a relatively automatic manner (Biddle, 1979; Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Therefore, it seems warranted to understand what factors in the social environment create specific roles. Here, I focus on roles from a social cognitive perspective, proposing that the social context has an important bearing on the received role (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Work by Ilgen and Hollenbeck (1991) has elaborated on the distinction between formal job descriptions and roles in order to illustrate why and how roles in the workplace are different from jobs. Ilgen and Hollenbeck pointed out that their "interest is in the dynamic interaction between characteristics of the physical and social environments of individuals with the persons themselves and with the behavioral and attitudinal consequences of such interactions." (1991: 166). The environment in which jobs exist is subjective, interpersonal, and dynamic, which brings up the issue of emergent task elements (task elements added to the job of the incumbent through a variety of social
24
sources). The latter task elements differentiate a role from a job. A work role is more dynamic and more fluid than a job description and is more likely to contain elements communicated to the employee or negotiated by the employee by means of the social system (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Welbourne, Johnson, and Erez, 1998). According to Turner (2002), for instance, incumbents use information from the social system (such as their peers or organizational culture) to develop their roles. Graen (1976) described an interdependent role-systems model according to which role demands are generated via the organizational/situational demands, social or role-set demands, and personal/personality demands. Hence, research suggests that roles emerge from the social context and situational demands. Organizational culture may be one such potent situational factor, which defines the social context and provides information about expected roles. Employee Behaviors Increasingly, researchers and practitioners examining the employee performance domain have started to recognize the importance of a number of competencies and behaviors such as interpersonal cooperation and innovation that go beyond the confines of the formal job description requirements (Goleman, 1998; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). For instance, Goleman (1998) emphasized the importance of a range of competencies above and beyond technical expertise that contribute to employee effectiveness through the performance of behaviors such as cooperation. Relying on individual knowledge a decade ago seemed to have been sufficient for job performance; relying on the group mind for information, however, has
25
already become a norm in many jobs (Goleman, 1998). Collaboration and cooperation, thus, have become essential performance behaviors. Research on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and contextual performance has examined dimensions of performance above pure task behaviors (Organ, 1988; Kiker & Motowidlo, 1999; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). This stream of research has placed the importance on facets of performance such as helping and interpersonal facilitation (Kiker & Motowidlo, 1999), conscientiousness (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990) and innovative behavior (Morrison & Phelps, 1999) that are not direct components of task performance. The argument for the importance of these behaviors has followed a similar logic to Goleman's (1998) work on emotional intelligence: managing the technical requirements of a job alone does not lead to superior performance. Behaviors that sustain the interpersonal context and other aspects of the organizational effectiveness (Organ, 1988; Kiker & Motowidlo, 1999; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) are also crucial for individual as well as organizational success (Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). In sum, progress has been made towards fleshing out behavioral constructs that contribute to work performance beyond the formal requirements of a job (Johnson, 2001; Kiker & Motowidlo, 1999; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991; Podsakoff et al., 1990). And while the labels and number of constructs have proliferated, the question of whether the latter are distinct in any substantive ways has remained equivocal (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002). I invoke role theory and the circumplex notion of human behavior to create a theoretical framework of expected work roles that lead to employee behaviors in order to address the lack of consensus on what constitutes performance
26
dimensions. I use roles to denominate a broader domain of employee performance, which encompasses differing definitions of employee effectiveness. Peterson & Smith (2000), in an attempt to explicate the process of meaning creation in the workplace, conclude that roles are a primary source of meaning concerning expected role behaviors. It is important to note that according to these authors explicit assignment to formal roles affects the thoughts and actions of that individual but this is "not a conclusion that wholly determines actual role relationships." (Peterson & Smith, 2000: p.105). It is, thus, essential for both scholars and practitioners to be able to understand the substantive content as well as the nomological network of predictors and outcomes of roles in organizations in order to gain a better understanding of the full range of performance dimensions. Organizational initiatives such as job enrichment, total quality management, and employee involvement programs have been instituted with the purpose of enhancing organizational competitiveness through the proactive employee engagement in the work process (Lawler, 1992; Welbourne, Johnson, and Erez, 1998). This trend in management practices has been paralleled by growing interest on the part of researchers in taking a broader view of work performance and examining the notion of roles in the workplace (Parker, 1998; Parker, 2000; Welbourne et al., 1998). Parker (1998; 2000) has considered proactive role orientation and role breath self-efficacy as the ability of individuals to expand their job domains (Graen, 1976). Welbourne, Johnson, and Erez have (1998) advocated a broader view on performance as well. They have derived role-based performance scales (RBPS) for measuring roles in the workplace based on role and identity theory as theoretical frameworks.
27
Their role-based performance scale consists of five dimensions of roles relevant in the workplace. The dimensions Welbourne and colleagues (1998) have identified as important are job, career, innovator, team and organization roles. The job role has been specifically related to the task behaviors expected of an individual (e.g. "quality of work output"), the career role is descriptive of the individual's ability to make a successful career (e.g. "seeking out career opportunities"), the innovator role assesses an employee's creative potential (e.g. "coming up with new ideas"), the team role concerns the ability of an individual to cooperate with others given the increasingly group-based nature of many jobs (e.g. "working as part of a team/work group"), and organization role that reflects the willingness of an employee to engage in beneficial acts for the company (e.g. "doing good things for the company") (Welbourne et al., 1998: p.554-p.555). In order to accomplish the purpose of this dissertation to delineate a broad repertoire of role sets that employees engage in and identify the antecedents and outcomes associated with role schemas, I review the literature on roles and organize it in a theoretical framework. First, I derive a set of roles based on a comprehensive literature review in order to identify the core dimensions of role behaviors. In order to accomplish this, I draw on several research streams: organizational citizenship behavior (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990), contextual performance (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996), personal initiative (Frese, Kring, Soose & Zempel, 1996; Frese & Fay, 2001), creativity (Oldham & Cumming, 1996; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993), cooperation and competition in a negotiation context (Chen & Tjosvold, 2002; Deutsch, 2001; De Dreu, Weingart, & Kwon, 2000).
28
Organizational citizenship behavior and contextual performance. Although OCBs have attained a life of their own as an important organizational behavior construct in the past decade through the work of many organizational scientists (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988; Smith et al., 1983; Williams & Anderson, 1991), they have developed from earlier notions of organizational efficiency (Barnard, 1938; Katz, 1964; Katz & Kahn, 1978). The interest in extra-role behaviors has been first advocated by Barnard (1938) and later on promoted by Katz (1964). It is worth noting early on that even though extrarole has been used consistently to describe behaviors above and beyond the formal duties (Organ, 1988), the approach I take is that behaviors outside of the job description are not extra-role. As the distinction drawn by Ilgen & Hollenbeck (1991) suggests, roles can be different and broader than job descriptions. As a result, a behavior, which goes beyond formal duties and task requirements, is not necessarily extra-role (Morrison, 1994; Tepper, et al., 2001). According to Barnard (1938), for example, it is crucial for executives to ensure that employees in their organizations engage in discretionary cooperative behaviors. Katz (1964) has also elaborated on what constitutes important employee behaviors beyond the formal task duties. Innovative and spontaneous behaviors, cooperation, protection, providing constructive ideas, self-developing oneself, as well as holding favorable attitudes toward the organization all represent important behavioral tenets of organizational efficiency (Katz, 1964). In addition, it is worth noting that the term OCB has not been used consistently for the description of non-prescribed behaviors. Some of the most prominent extant conceptualizations different from and yet similar to OCB include organizational
29
spontaneity (George & Brief, 1992), contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996), and prosocial organizational behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; George & Brief, 1992). Although the existing definitions diverge somewhat, theoretically they share a common focus on non-task employee behaviors that in the aggregate provide firms with competitive advantage (George & Brief, 1992; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). However, in spite of the compelling conceptual similarities between the "extrarole" behaviors that different organizational behavior scholars have identified, no consistent attempts have been made at using similar labels for similar behaviors. Therefore, a brief literature review follows that compares the different conceptualizations of non-prescribed behaviors. One of the earliest definitions of prosocial behaviors comes from Katz' s work (1964). He identifies helping, protecting the organization, making constructive suggestions, developing oneself, and spreading goodwill as important employee behaviors. Organizational spontaneity (George & Brief, 1992) is a construct, which encompasses the types of behaviors that have been put forward by Katz (1964). However, George & Brief (1992) have not examined empirically the existence of the five categories in an organizational context. The early empirical work that has focused on both theoretical specification and empirical analysis of the dimensionality of OCB has essentially started with the work of Smith et al. (1983) and Bateman & Organ (1983). Their studies have generated two important aspects of "extra-role"2 performance: compliance and altruism (Bateman, &
2
The term "extra-role" has been consistently used to describe beneficial behaviors such as OCB. In this dissertation, I take a different approach that allows for a role to be broader and incorporate behaviors such as OCB. This view is currently supported and viewed as valid by OCB scholars (Organ, 1997). In the interest of authenticity, however, I use the term extra-role if it has been used in the work I am citing.
30
Organ, 1983; Smith et al., 1983). Compliance can essentially be described as exemplary rule following and conscientiousness. Altruism stands for helping behaviors and overall cooperation. Others prompted by Organ's (1988) seminal book on OCBs have found empirical support for a five-dimensional structure of the organizational citizenship behaviors construct consisting of altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993; Podsakoff et al., 1990). Altruism and conscientiousness correspond to altruism and generalized compliance respectively as defined by Smith et al. (1983). The three added dimensions, hence, consist of sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue. Sportsmanship, for instance, represents benevolent employee behaviors such as refraining from complaining in the face of adversity. Courtesy, on the other hand, consists of interpersonal gestures that prevent potential problems. Finally, the added dimension of civic virtue according to Organ (1988) "implies a sense of involvement in what policies are adopted and which candidates are supported" (p. 13). Furthermore, Organ (1988) goes on to describe different forms of civic virtue behaviors such as attending meetings, reading the mail, personal time, and speaking up. Contextual performance scholars (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) have advocated a set of behaviors that are similar to OCBs. The two main types of behaviors that are examined in the contextual performance literature are labeled interpersonal facilitation and job dedication. The interpersonal facilitation domain combined aspects of the altruism, courtesy, and sportsmanship dimensions (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). The job dedication
31
aspect resembled Smith et al. (1983) compliance factor and Organ's (1988) conscientiousness dimension. In spite of the subtle differences (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) between contextual performance and OCB, substantially it encompasses behaviors that have already been identified by Organ (1988). Innovation, Personal initiative and Creativity. The work of Morrison & Phelps (1999) was probably one of the few empirical attempts at extending the OCB (or contextual performance) domain to include change-oriented and creative behaviors identified earlier by Katz (1964). Morrison and Phelps (1999) maintained that the OCB literature had often neglected an important change-oriented extra-role behavior—taking charge. Most of the OCB and contextual performance literature has examined beneficial behaviors such as helping and compliance but has not focused as much on the active change-oriented efforts that employee undertake on their job (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). The construct of taking charge in contrast consisted of active attempts to improve the organization through innovation endeavors and for that reason it was clearly distinct from the other forms of OCB that had been consistently explored in the OCB literature (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Innovation may be construed as a type of personal initiative at work. Personal employee initiative has become crucial for organizational effectiveness in the context of constant competition (Lawler, 1992; Milkovich & Boudreau, 1997; Van Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch, 1994; Welbourne et al., 1998). Frese & Fay (2001) draw an important distinction between OCB-compliance and personal initiative (PI). According to them, conscientiousness/ compliance is a passive form of behavior wherein the employee shows outstanding adherence to rules and norms. However, as they pointed out "the concept of
32
PI often implies ignoring or even being somewhat rebellious toward existing rules and regulations" (Frese & Fay, 2001: p.166). Therefore, PI can be viewed as a distinct from compliance (a typical OCB dimension) facet of employee discretionary behavior that is essential for organizational effectiveness. Creativity is a similar to personal initiative construct in that it is change-oriented and it stands for spontaneous employee behaviors (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Tierney & Farmer, 2002; Woodman et al., 1993). According to Ford (1996) "Researchers and laypersons seem to agree that creativity refers to something that is both novel and in some sense valuable" (p.1114). Oldham and Cummings (1996) proffered "When employees perform creatively, they suggest novel and useful products, ideas, or procedures that provide an organizational with important raw material for subsequent development and possible implementation?" (p.607). Morrison and Phelps (1999) suggested that scholars should define personal initiative or what they called innovation as an important aspect of performance that goes beyond the formal job description. The construct of innovation that they examined was constructive ideas and suggestions for improving the workflow that employees provided. In sum, personal creativity at work in its various has attracted significant attention as an important aspect of performance. Cooperative and competitive (achievement) behavior. In the OCB and contextual performance tradition, help and cooperation are oftentimes considered as the central core of non-prescribed employee behaviors and roles (Organ, 1988; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). Interest towards a construct somewhat opposite to that of cooperation, competition as an employee role behavior, however, has been somewhat lacking from the organizational behavior management literature. Competition and competitive dynamics
33
as a macro phenomenon on the firm and industry level, conversely, has been studied extensively in the strategic management literature (Gnyawali & Madhavan, 2001; Hambrick, Cho, & Chen, 1996; Haveman & Nonnemaker, 2000). Therefore, it is somewhat surprising that competitiveness, as a micro level phenomenon has not been addressed as much. The extant literature on competition has been mainly focused on individual decision-making, negotiation, and group performance in experimental settings. This literature builds upon the theory of cooperation and competition (Deutsch, 1949; Deutsch, 1973) and identifies three social motives: individualistic, competitive, and prosocial (De Dreu & Van Lange, 1995; De Dreu et al., 2000). According to De Dreu et al.'s (2000) comprehensive meta-analysis, social motives can be rooted in stable individual differences or in the situation. From an individual difference perspective, people possessing an individualistic social value have the propensity to maximize their own outcomes (De Dreu & Van Lange, 1995; McClintock & Liebrand, 1988). Competitive orientation is characterized by willingness to maximize one's own outcomes at the expense of others (De Dreu & Van Lange, 1995; McClintock & Liebrand, 1988). Finally, those who have prosocial values are similar to altruists inasmuch as they want to maximize the joint gain in negotiations (De Dreu & Van Lange, 1995). Certain aspects of the situation such as the task structure (McClintock & Liebrand, 1988) have been found to affect the relationship between social value orientation and negotiation behavior as well. The early experiments on cooperation and competition (Deutsch, 1949) suggest that incentives may influence the incidence of cooperative, individualistic, and
34
competitive behavior in groups. If important individual outcomes are tied in with competitive behavior, members exhibit more competitive behavior and vice versa; if incentives are based on cooperative behavior, individuals behave more cooperatively with each other (Deutsch, 1949). The overall results of these experiments suggest that groups with cooperative incentives have better group process and higher productivity than groups with competitive incentives (Deutsch, 1949). I examine achievement behavior as a mixture of competitive and individualistic behavior, and achievement role orientation as a type of non-task behavior and role, which has received somewhat scant attention in the organizational behavior literature. Summary A large body of literature has accumulated, which suggests that roles go beyond the formal job description. The existing empirical research has focused on several specific role behaviors as particularly important. The OCB and contextual performance research draw attention to help /cooperative behavior and compliance/conscientiousness/ rule observance. Most of the OCB and contextual performance literature has examined beneficial behaviors such as helping and compliance but has not focused as much on the active change-oriented efforts that employee undertake on their job (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). The literature on creativity and PI has addressed this shortcoming by considering innovative behavior an important component of employee performance. Finally, the theory of cooperation and competition has been concerned with identifying antecedents of cooperative, individualistic, and competitive behavior as two opposing forms of roles and behaviors. Here, I focus on four types of behaviors (and respective roles), which have a recurring role in the extant literature. Specifically, I am examining help, innovative,
35
achievement-oriented, and compliant aspects of behavior. I relied on the existing empirical research to put together a comprehensive set of behaviors and performance roles that may go beyond the job description. Individual differences and attitudes
Self-monitoring. Individual differences also play a prominent role in schema use and construction (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). For example, self-monitoring is an individual difference that might be particularly relevant in an organizational culture context. Snyder (1974) succinctly described self-monitoring as "An acute sensitivity to the cues in a situation which indicate what expression or self-presentation is appropriate and what is not is a corollary ability to self-monitoring." (p.527). High self-monitors are concerned with presenting a public self that is in line with the expectations of the situation and the people involved in a certain situation (Snyder, 1987). They are more adaptable and more likely to change their behavior to suit what is socially accepted and socially desirable. High self-monitors are prone to give higher performance evaluations and to be less accurate because they want to be socially desirable (Jawahar, 2001). Individuals with higher levels of self-monitoring have also been found to occupy more central positions in their organizational networks due to their ability to adapt to the situation (Mehra et al., 2001). High self-monitors are also more adept at using impression management tactics so that they are seen as likable when using impression-management (Turnley & Bolino, 2001) and are viewed more favorably even when they are demographically different (Flynn, Chatman, & Spataro, 2001). Low self-monitors, on the other hand, are viewed unfavorably when they use impression management (Turnley & Bolino, 2001). These
36
findings are in line with earlier research by Snyder (1974), showing that high selfmonitors are better at enacting emotions when instructed to do so. Moreover, Snyder (1974) found that the mean score of professional actors on self-monitoring is higher that the mean score of a sample of non-actors. In addition, high self-monitors obtain more favorable network positions in part due to their better interpersonal skills and higher adaptability (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000; Mehra et al., 2001). According to Lennox & Wolfe's (1984) conceptualization of self-monitoring, it consists of a cognitive and behavioral component. They refer to the cognitive component as "sensitivity to the expressive behavior of others". This component reflects the tendency of high self-monitors to be sensitive, and aware of environmental stimuli such as the emotions of others. The behavioral component, which they label "ability to modify self-presentation" is concerned with the extent to which individuals are capable of adapting to the situation.
Perceived fit. Studying the influence of organizational culture and individual values on important organizational outcomes has been an area of considerable research in the past decade in the field of organizational behavior (Chatman, 1989; Chatman, 1991; Judge & Cable, 1997; O'Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). The general assumption that drives the recurring interest in understanding the direct and interactive effects of organizational culture and individual values is that both individual values and organizational (situational) characteristics influence actual behaviors (Chatman, 1989; Ekehammar, 1974). A large body of literature on organizational culture has focused on personorganization fit (Cable & Judge, 1996; Chatman, 1989; Kristof, 1996; O'Reilly et al.,
37
1991), also informing other streams of research examining perceived fit in other important dimensions such as personal and team goals (Kristof-Brown & Stevens, 2001). The assumptions underlying research on P-O fit are that a) individuals hold specific values and beliefs and b) organizations have specific value systems (culture) (Chatman, 1989). Therefore, it is conceivable that combining individuals' value systems and organizational culture can result either in a good fit or a poorer fit, which in turn affect important outcomes such as performance, satisfaction, commitment and turnover (Chatman, 1989; Chatman, 1991; Kristof, 1996; Saks, 1997).
38
Chapter 3: Hypotheses Development Organizational Culture as Antecedent of Work Roles According to the interdependent role-systems model (Graen, 1976), organizational culture is among the organizational factors that determine the set of role demands placed on a specific individual. Katz & Kahn (1978) also emphasized the importance of organizational factors in determining roles and argued that roles are the cognitive linking mechanisms between organizational stimuli and individuals because they "confront" organizational members with the system's expectations (1978: 220). Organizational culture research specifically suggests that organizational culture establishes shared norms and expectations throughout the organization (Cooke & Lafferty, 1986; Cooke & Szumal, 2000; Denison & Mishra, 1995; Schein, 1985) and the sensemaking literature suggests that people construct their perceptions of the world by making sense of a socially-constructed environment (Weick, 1995). Organizational culture permeates and defines the organizational environment, providing a means for the organization and its leadership to communicate its expectations to organizational members (Ashforth, 1985). An important assumption of the organizational culture literature examining the link between culture and effectiveness is that culture motivates and guides employee behaviors by establishing norms and expectations. To date no research has empirically examined the process through which culture may influence behaviors. Applying a role theory and sensemaking perspective on behaviors in a social context, I propose that culture provides the system of meaning, which informs the roles that individuals in the 39
organization perceive as expected and appropriate (Ashforth, 1985; Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978; Weick, 1995). Research on individualism-collectivism suggests that when primed subjects retrieve cognitive responses attuned to the specific type of priming (Trafimow et al., 1991). Research on national culture also suggests that subjects from different cultures emphasize different aspects of the self (Triandis, 1989), have different cognitions, emotions, and motivations (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), form distinct representations of conflict depending on their cultural background (Gelfand et al., 2001) as well as work differently in work groups depending on their level of individualism-collectivism (Earley, 1993). Similarly, organizational culture has an impact on individual behavior, patterns of social interaction and performance outcomes (Chatman & Barsade, 1995;Chatman et al., 1998; Schein, 1985). As Schein (1985) put it: "To function as a group, the individuals who come together must establish a system of communication and a language that permits interpretation of what is going on. The human organism cannot tolerate too much uncertainty and/or stimulus overload. Categories of meaning that organize perceptions and thought, thereby filtering out what is unimportant while focusing on what is important, become not only a major means of reducing overload and anxiety but also a necessary precondition for any coordinated action." (p. 71). In line with Schein's predictions, Chatman and colleagues proposed: "Members of collectivistic organizational cultures will view organizational membership as a more salient category than will members of individualistic organizations" (1998: 751), thereby
40
suggesting a cognitive perspective on the mechanism via which organizational culture influences processes and behavior. Gioa and Sims also emphasized the importance of cognition as an antecedent to action: "They [people in organizations] are unique in that they do not just do, they also think. More accurately, perhaps, they often take action as a result of their thinking. In a related vein, organizations themselves do not "behave" independently of the people who construct and manage them." (1986: 1). Given the importance cognition has been given in the literature, it seems surprising that the impact of culture on the cognitive roles as bridging mechanisms and process variables, which link the organization and the individual has not been explored. I use a role theory perspective to propose that organizational cultures create cognitive roles functional for the specific organizational environment, which reduce ambiguity by suggesting that specific patterns of behavior are appropriate and expected in the organization (Biddle, 1979; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Schein, 1985). Therefore, I am examining the impact of specific dimensions of organizational culture on individual role perceptions. The culture typology based on the competing values framework defines organizations as reconciling multiple demands, resulting in four different strategies for managing organizational processes- by focusing on internal stability, internal flexibility, external stability, or external flexibility. Building on the predictions of the competing values framework that organizations with different cultures pursue different ends (Cameron & Quinn, 1999) such as cohesion in the clan culture, external competitiveness in the market culture, adaptation through innovativeness in the entrepreneurial culture, and preserving the status-quo through strict observance of the existing rules in the hierarchy culture, I propose both positive and negative relationships
41
between culture and roles in accordance with the competing values framework (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Tesluk et al., 2002). Specifically, in the competing value model, entrepreneurial, and hierarchy cultures are expected to convey opposing objectives. In a similar vein, the clan and market dimensions emphasize differing aspects, namely internal flexibility via interpersonal harmony versus external efficiency through aggressiveness. While Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) acknowledge that organizations may need to pursue more than one end at the same time, they also suggest that there is an inherent contradiction between the competing objectives situated on opposite poles. Therefore, I expect that culture and role perceptions will be related in the following way:
Hypothesis 1. a) A clan type of organizational culture will be positively related to individuals' adoption of a helping role and b) negatively related to the adoption of an achievement role. Hypothesis 1. c) A market type of organizational culture will be positively related to individuals' adoption of an achievement role and d) negatively related to the adoption of a helping role. Hypothesis 1. e) An entrepreneurial type of organizational culture will be positively related to individuals' adoption of innovative role and f) negatively related to the adoption of a compliant role. Hypothesis 1. g) A hierarchy type of organizational culture will be positively related to individuals' adoption of a compliant role and h) negatively related to the adoption of an innovative role.
42
Roles as Predictors of Behavior Why is it important to understand the social cognitive nature of work role behavior? One important reason for investigating this is to gain the ability to understand what leads to positive and negative work outcomes and to be able to steer the process in the right direction. Roles are organized schemas that initiate behavior in social situations (Biddle, 1979; Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Therefore, roles are the scripts that guide behaviors. For instance, the extent to which an individual endorses OCBs as part of a work-role is likely to lead to actual OCB (Hofmann et al., 2003; Morrison, 1994; Tepper et al., 2001). I am examining a broader domain of role perceptions and based on the predictions of cognitive role theories (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Lord & Foti, 1986) I make similar predictions regarding the outcomes of roles. Role perceptions act like schemas to provide a system for organizing knowledge (Freeman, Romney, & Freeman, 1987) and lead to relatively automatic processing of information and behavior (Lord & Foti, 1986). From a role theory perspective (Biddle, 1979; Katz & Kahn, 1978), roles convey organizational expectations. Therefore, I predict that employees' work roles will be positively related to the respective expected behaviors and negatively related to the behaviors that are dysfunctional.
Hypothesis 2 a). A helping role will be positively related to helping behavior and b) negatively related to achievement behavior. Hypothesis 2 c). An achievement role will be positively related to achievement behavior and negatively related to d) helping behavior.
43
Hypothesis 2. e) An innovative role will be positively related to innovative behavior and f) negatively related to compliant behavior. Hypothesis 2. g). A compliant role will be positively related to compliant behavior and h) negatively related to innovative behavior.
Moderators of The Relationships Between Organizational Culture, Roles, and Behaviors
Culture strength as a moderator. From a role theory perspective as well consensus is an important attribute of roles and expectations. As Biddle (1979) suggested: "? role theorists should avoid the concept of shared expectation? unless the actual condition of consensus can be established" (p. 195). Consensus denotes the extent to which people in a situation hold convergent expectations of each other roles and expected behaviors, thus, facilitating the uninterrupted functioning of social systems (such as organizational systems). In the presence of consensual beliefs, social stability and behavior conformity is likely to occur (Biddle, 1979). Research on work climate has examined climate strength (Klein, Conn, Smith, & Sorra, 2001; Schneider, Salvaggio, & Subiratis, 2002). For instance, Schneider and colleagues (2002) found that high climate strength boosted the relationship between aspects of climate for service and customer satisfaction, while Gonzales-Roma, Peiro, & Tordera (2002) found that high climate strength intensifies the links between type of climate and outcome variables such as commitment and satisfaction. Mischel's (1976) perspective on the influence of situational strength on attitudes and behavior provides one theoretical avenue, which has been explored in the climate research (Schneider et al.,
44
2002). Schneider and colleagues (2002), for instance, have built on Mischel's work to suggest that strong climates induce more uniform patterns of behavior consistent with the group climate as compared to weak climates. More recently, human resource management scholars have also emphasized the importance of strength of the HRM system in inducing appropriate and uniform employee perceptions and behaviors (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). Building on the literature on culture and existing empirical research on climate strength, I also expect that strength of culture will modify the relationships between culture types and outcome variables. For instance, a strong culture also is likely to reflect the presence of strong normative beliefs regarding what is acceptable in the organization, which would in turn induce uniform expectations in line with the propositions of the situational strength research (Mischel, 1976). In addition, when the culture is stronger, individuals are more likely to perceive their roles in ways consonant with the organizational culture, due to the higher clarity of the organizational system (Martin, 1992). Therefore, I propose that culture strength acts as a moderator of the relationships presented in Hypotheses 1a-1h such that when the culture strength is higher, suggesting a higher level of consensus, culture would have a stronger impact on employees' cognitive role perceptions.
Hypothesis 3 .a) Culture strength moderates the positive relationship between a clan type of organizational culture and helping role and b) the negative relationship between a clan type and achievement role such that when culture strength is high, the
45
proposed relationships will be stronger and when culture strength is low the proposed relationships will be weaker. Hypothesis 3. c) Culture strength moderates the positive relationship between market type of organizational culture and achievement role and d) the negative relationship between market type of organizational culture and helping role s such that when culture strength is high, the proposed relationships will be stronger and when culture strength is low the proposed relationships will be weaker. Hypothesis 3. e) Culture strength moderates the positive relationship between entrepreneurial type of organizational culture and innovative role and f) the negative relationship between entrepreneurial type of organizational culture and compliant role perceptions such that when culture strength is high, the proposed relationships will be stronger, and when culture strength is low the proposed relationships will be weaker. Hypothesis 3. g) Culture strength moderates the positive relationship between hierarchy type of organizational culture and compliant role and h) the negative relationship between hierarchy type of culture and innovative role perceptions such that when culture strength is high, the proposed relationships will be stronger and when culture strength is low the proposed relationships will be weaker.
Moreover, applying a social conformity (Janis, 1972, 1982) perspective helps explicate the influence of culture strength on behavioral outcomes of interest. A persistent finding of the literature on social conformity, also labeled "groupthink," is that individuals in groups tend to publicly agree with the opinion of the majority even when they hold a divergent view. One reason for this effect is that social conformity sometimes seems to elicit personal benefits; for instance, socially conforming individuals tend to
46
become promoted in bureaucratic organizations (Coates & Pellegrin, 1957). Moreover, exhibiting social conformity is an easier way to get by without "rocking the boat" or being stereotyped as a deviant individual. Individuals in groups exhibit social conformity for a variety of reasons including normative pressure or due to distortion of perception or judgment (Asch, 1958; Hackman, 1992). High culture strength indicates cohesion and agreement; thus, a strong culture may signify the existence of pressures for social conformity. Therefore, I expect that in the presence of high culture strength, role perceptions would also elicit stronger behavioral outcomes.
Hypothesis 4. Culture strength will moderate the relationships between roles and behaviors such that a) the positive relationship between helping role and helping as behavior and b) the negative relationship between helping role and achievement behavior, will be more pronounced in the presence of higher culture strength Hypothesis 4. Culture strength will moderate the relationships between roles and behaviors such that c) the positive relationship between achievement role and achievement behavior and d) the negative relationship between achievement role and helping as behavior, will be more pronounced in the presence of higher culture strength. Hypothesis 4. Culture strength will moderate the relationships between roles and behaviors such that e) the positive relationship between an innovative role and innovative behavior and f) the negative relationship between compliant role and
47
compliant behavior, will be more pronounced in the presence of higher culture strength. Hypothesis 4. Culture strength will moderate the relationships between roles and behaviors such that g) the positive relationship between a compliant role and compliant behavior and h) the negative relationship between compliant role and innovative behavior, will be more pronounced in the presence of higher culture strength.
Self-monitoring as a moderator. The literature on self-monitoring suggests that high self-monitors are adept at deciphering situational cues, they are skilled at acting appropriately, and using impression management to enhance their images. Based on the literature on self-monitoring, Chatman (1991) proposed that self-monitoring would lead to higher P-O fit one year after entry because high self-monitors are more socializable. The statistical results did not reach significance but they were in the predicted positive direction. High self-monitors are motivated to read the situation while low self-monitors are either not motivated or not adept at sensing situation cues (Snyder, 1986). Therefore, I expect that self-monitoring will affect the degree to which organizational culture has an effect on the individual's role perceptions. High selfmonitors can be expected to incorporate situational stimuli more in their cognitive schemas. In line with Lennox & Wolfe's (1984), two-component conceptualization of self-monitoring, high self-monitors are sensitive to the expressive behavior of others on a cognitive level (cognitive self-monitoring) as well as they are more capable of adapting behaviorally to a specific situation (behavioral self-monitoring). Therefore, one argument
48
concerns the ability of high self-monitors, due to their sensitivity in observing and decoding situations more so than low self-monitors, to incorporate more of the organizational culture stimuli into their own role perceptions.
Hypothesis 5. The relationships between clan type of organizational culture and a) helping (positive) and b) achievement (negative) role will be moderated by level of self-monitoring (cognitive) such that when self-monitoring is higher, the proposed relationships will be enhanced. Hypothesis 5. The relationships between market type of organizational culture and c) achievement (positive) and d) helping (negative) role will be moderated by level of self-monitoring (cognitive) such that when self-monitoring is higher, the proposed relationships will be enhanced. Hypothesis 5. The relationships between entrepreneurial type of organizational culture and e) innovative (positive) and f) compliant (negative) role will be moderated by level of self-monitoring (cognitive) such that when self-monitoring is higher, the proposed relationships will be enhanced. Hypothesis 5. The relationships between the hierarchy type of organizational culture and g) compliant (positive) and h) innovative (negative) role will be moderated by level of self-monitoring (cognitive) such that when self-monitoring is higher, the proposed relationships will be enhanced.
In addition, the ability and willingness of high self-monitors to adapt to the situation at hand is another aspect of self-monitoring (Chatman, 1991; Lennox & Wolfe,
49
1984; Mehra et al., 1991). High self-monitors, therefore, can be expected to enact their organizational roles more so than low self-monitors. This leads to the next set of propositions outlined in hypothesis 6:
Hypothesis 6. Self-monitoring (behavioral) will moderate the relationships between roles and behaviors such that a) the positive relationship between helping role and helping as behavior and b) the negative relationship between helping role and achievement behavior, c) The positive relationship between achievement role and achievement behavior and d) the negative relationship between achievement role and helping as behavior, e) The positive relationship between an innovative role and innovative behavior and f) the negative relationship between compliant role and compliant behavior, g) The positive relationship between a compliant role and compliant behavior and h) the negative relationship between compliant role and innovative behavior, will be more pronounced when self-monitoring (behavioral) is higher.
P-O fit as a moderator. The extent to which an applicant feels he/she fits with the organization is also likely to influence the frequency of his/her extra-role behaviors (Chatman, 1989). Subjective fit has been shown to mediate the relationship between objective fit and organizational attractiveness (Judge & Cable, 1997). This suggests that perceived fit with an organization is a fairly accurate reflection of objective fit between individual values and cultural preferences. Furthermore, the way that individuals perceive their fit with an organization before working in it carries a lot of importance for their
50
organizational choice later (Judge & Cable, 1997). In addition, perceived fit with an organization has a positive relationship with work attitudes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment and a negative association with intentions to turnover (Cable & Judge, 1996). Further advocating the importance of person-organization fit, Chatman (1989) argued that high person-organization fit increases the probability that individuals will engage in specific behaviors such as cooperation if they feel that what the organization values is congruent with their own values. Socialization research suggests that newcomers are more willing to take on roles compatible with their personal values (Chatman, 1991; Fisher, 1986; Schein, 1978). The degree of person-organization fit (P-O fit), thus, is an important motivational aspect that fosters the acceptance of organizationally endorsed values (Chatman, 1989; Saks, 1997). Building on the extant literature, the congruence between individuals' preferences and organizational values can be expected to lead to stronger adoption of the organizational values. Individuals who are feel that they are fitting well with the organizational environment may also be more likely to accurately perceive and interpret the organizational expectations communicated through the culture. This leads to my next hypothesis:
Hypothesis 7 .a) P-O fit moderates the positive relationship between a clan type of organizational culture and helping role and b) the negative relationship between a clan type and achievement role such that when P-O fit is high, the proposed relationships will be stronger.
51
Hypothesis 7. c) P-O fit moderates the positive relationship between market type of organizational culture and achievement role and d) the negative relationship between market type of organizational culture and helping role s such that when P-O fit is high, the proposed relationships will be stronger. Hypothesis 7. e) P-O fit moderates the positive relationship between entrepreneurial type of organizational culture and innovative role and f) the negative relationship between entrepreneurial type of organizational culture and compliant role perceptions such that when P-O fit is high, the proposed relationships will be stronger. Hypothesis 7. g) P-O fit moderates the positive relationship between hierarchy type of organizational culture and compliant role and h) the negative relationship between hierarchy type of culture and innovative role such that when P-O fit is high, the proposed relationships will be stronger.
Moreover, using an enactment perspective, individual action is driven by personal motives and individuals are active creators of their environment and are not just passive recipients (Abolafia & Kilduff, 1988; Weick, 1981). And while task performance usually has a direct impact on performance evaluations, acting in accordance with the existing culture norms may not be as readily and easy to observe and reward or punish. Therefore, due to the expected higher discretion that roles allow, P-O fit may play an especially prominent role in the process of role enactment. Consistent with the logic of enactment, individuals with high fit are, for instance, more likely to seek to sustain the existing environment by engaging in behaviors consistent with the expectations. Individuals who experience low fit, however, might
52
engage less in these behaviors prescribed by the organizational culture context in an attempt to resist or change the existing environment. I propose that P-O fit will moderate the relationship between roles and behaviors. When the degree of perceived fit with the organization is high for the employee, then he/she is more likely to engage in a roleprescribed behavior than when it is low.
Hypothesis 8. a) The positive relationship between helping role and helping behavior and the negative relationship between helping role, and b) achievement behavior will be moderated by the degree of P-O fit so that when P-O fit is high the proposed relationships will be stronger. Hypothesis 8. c) The positive relationship between achievement role and achievement behavior and the d) negative relationships between achievement role and helping behavior will be moderated by P-O fit so that when P-O fit is high the proposed relationships will be stronger. Hypothesis 8. e) The positive relationship between innovative role and innovative behavior and f) the negative relationship between innovative role and compliant behavior will be moderated by the degree of P-O fit so that when P-O fit is high the proposed relationships will be stronger. Hypothesis 8. g) The positive relationship between compliant role and compliant behavior and h) the negative relationship between compliant role and innovative behavior will be moderated by P-O fit so that when P-O fit is high the proposed relationships will be stronger.
53
Summary Research on organizational culture suggests that culture is a potent predictor of employee behaviors because culture defines the norms of accepted behaviors. The emic and etic perspectives on culture have recommended different methods for measuring culture. Here, I adopt an etic perspective in that I adapt an existing instrument of culture and apply it to multiple organizational settings to generate results that could be generalized irrespective of the specific organization. The specific dimensions that I examine are based on existing measures and conceptualizations of culture and they correspond to four role types that I explore. In particular, I explore market, entrepreneurial, hierarchy and clan cultures in line with Denison and Mishra's (1995) and Cameron and Quinn's (1999) model of culture and effectiveness. I propose direct relationships between culture and role perceptions such that entrepreneurial type of culture is positively related to innovative role perceptions and negatively related to compliant role. I also expect a direct positive link between clan type of culture and helping role perceptions and a negative link between clan culture and achievement role perceptions. In addition, I propose a positive relationship between the hierarchy type of culture and compliant role and a negative relationship between hierarchy culture and innovative role. I also propose a positive relationship between a market type of culture and achievement role perceptions as well as a negative relationship between market culture and helping role. I also hypothesize positive and negative relationship between roles and respective behaviors (e.g. innovative role and innovative behavior).
54
I propose several moderators of the direct relationships: culture strength, selfmonitoring, and P-O fit based on the literature review. Culture strength describes the degree to which the culture is unequivocal and socially shared, thus, reducing uncertainty about expected behaviors (Schein, 1985). I propose that when the organizational culture's strength is high, the relationships between culture dimensions and respective role perceptions would be stronger. In addition, I posit that culture strength will also induce more uniform relationships between roles and behaviors building on the logic of social conformity theory. Self-monitoring is an individual difference that describes the degree to which an individual is adept at deciphering situational cues and is also likely to comply with situation cues. I propose that higher levels of self-monitoring will strengthen the relationships between organizational culture, and roles, and roles and behaviors. Finally, the level of fit with the organization will have an impact on the extent to which, individuals perceived roles consistent with the cultural norms of the organization, as well the degree to which cognitive roles lead to actual behaviors. From an enactment perspective individuals are not only passive observers of their environment but active creators. Therefore, individuals who are high on P-O fit are more likely to comply with the organizational role expectations; while employees with lower P-O fit might be less willing to engage in organizationally expected roles. Figure 2 displays the proposed relationships.
55
Figure 2: Model of Role Perceptions and Role Enactment
ROLE EMERGENCE Culture Strength P-O Fit
ROLE ENACTMENT
ORGANIZATIONAL H3 & H7 CULTURE
ROLE PERCEPTIONS H4 & H8 H2
BEHAVIORS
• • • •
H1 Clan Entrepreneurial H5 Hierarchy Market SelfMonitoring (Cognitive)
• • • •
Helping Innovative Compliant Achievement
• •
H6
Help Innovation Compliance Achievement
SelfMonitoring (Behavioral)
• •
56
Chapter 4: Method Section Research Design The data were collected in the fall semester of 2004. The research project was designed to minimize potential common method bias caused by collecting data from a single source. Specifically, responses were collected from students enrolled in four core part-time MBA classes at a large Mid-Atlantic public university as well as from their coworkers and supervisors. First, focal employees (i.e., part-time MBAs) were asked to provide their ratings of their organization's culture, role perceptions, self-monitoring, fit, and culture strength. In addition, students solicited the participation of their coworkers and supervisors to respond to surveys regarding organizational culture (coworkers) and the focal MBA students' behaviors (coworkers and supervisors). In exchange, students received a detailed developmental feedback report regarding their teamwork and leadership capabilities. The surveys were collected electronically, by sending emails directing the students and their colleagues to websites containing the respective surveys. The participants had unique user names and passwords known only by them individually and by the student investigator. This ensured the confidentiality of the survey collection process. Moreover, only aggregate scores were used for the coworker/supervisor-based portion of the student feedback in order to guarantee that their individual responses would remain anonymous and confidential. Sample
57
Initial focal MBA sample. I collected data from 206 participants, working in organizations and studying as part-time MBA students. The average age of respondents was between 26-35 years (71.8%), female participants accounted for 24.80% of all respondents, 98.50% of the participants were employed full-time during the data collection period in a variety of occupations as follows: 21% in financial services/banking companies, 16% in consulting/government relations companies, another 16% in high tech companies, 10.50% in the government in defense contractor companies, (the remainder were employed in various types of companies, each accounting for less that 10% of the sample). Respondents had average company tenure of 3.31 years (SD=2.70) and average job tenure of 2.45 years (SD=1.88), 33% reported that they worked less than 50% of their time as part of a work team. The majority of respondents categorized themselves as White/Caucasian (58.30%), followed by Indian Subcontinental/Pacific Islander (14.60%), Asian (14.10%), African American (6%), Hispanic/Latino (6.50%), and Native American (.5%). Coworker/supervisor sample. A total of 792 coworkers responded to the coworker portion of the survey regarding work behaviors of 202 of the MBA student participants (98% of the focal participants). A total of 358 supervisors responded to the supervisor part of the survey for 193 MBA participants (94% of the focal participants). I did not collect any demographic data from the supervisors and coworkers because they were only providing ratings regarding the focal MBA or the organizational culture (coworkers). There was no theoretical reason to believe that demographic data would influence these particular ratings.
58
Analysis For the actual analysis of the proposed relationships, sub-sets of the initial samples of respondents were used such that they were selected based on theoretical reasons to allow analyzing the proposed relationships between constructs of interests. For purposes of clarity, this section is organized in two parts: the first section describes the sample utilized for the analysis of relationships between culture and roles. And the second section provides details about the sample used in the analysis of the relationships between roles and behaviors. Section one: relationship between culture and role perceptions. For the analysis of the first part of the model examining the relationships between culture and role perceptions of organizational expectations, a theoretically derived subset of the initial sample of coworkers was used. I focused on coworkers for capturing culture because I wanted to capture the shared perceptions of culture rather than an individual's single perception (Rentsch, 1990). This approach is consistent with the climate literature, wherein a distinction is drawn between organizational, and psychological climate. Specifically, the former refers to the shared, aggregated perceptions of multiple individuals, while the latter is reserved for an individual's unique perception of the climate (Gavin & Howe, 1975; Glick, 1985; Jones & James, 1979; Parker et al., 2003). In addition, some more considerations were made in selecting the specific set of coworkers for reporting organizational culture. First, only the responses of individuals currently working in the same organization as the focal were used since they were expected to report the relevant organizational culture of the respective participant (which reduced the initial sample to N=160 focal employees). In addition, the research questions
59
focus on organizational culture. Therefore, the survey included some screening items regarding the level at which the respondents were reporting. In particular, respondents were prompted to report what level they referred to as they were completing the questionnaire (e.g. organization, group, department). Only the respondents who reported organizational level were retained to maintain the focus on the organization as the relevant entity of interest. This procedure was employed to exclude individuals reporting on different levels because their perceptions were likely to be the result of an organizational subculture rather than the overall culture that organizational leaders maintain (Martin, 1992). The resulting sample had 98 focal individual observations and 257 coworker responses (Average N=2.62 per focal). In the resulting sample, the predominant percentage of focal respondents were between 26-35 years (73.5%), female participants accounted for 26.50% of focal respondents, 99% of the participants were employed full-time during the data collection period in a variety of occupations as follows: 18.2% in financial services/banking companies, 14.3% in consulting/government relations companies, another 16.9% in high tech companies, 10.40% in government, 10.4% in manufacturing (the remainder were employed in various types of companies, each accounting for less that 10% of the sample). Respondents had average company tenure of 3.71 years (SD=3.40) and average job tenure of 2.30 years (SD=1.73), 37% reported that they worked less than 50% of their time as part of a work team. The majority of respondents categorized themselves as White/Caucasian (61.7%), followed by Asian (11.70%), Indian Subcontinental/Pacific Islander (10.60%), African American (10.6%), Hispanic/Latino (5.30%). The
60
characteristics of this sample were, thus, very similar to the characteristics of the larger sample of focal working individuals. Moreover, I compared the means of the selected sample with the excluded sample on the four culture dimensions to check If there were systematic differences between the initial set of respondents, and the selected respondents. The differences between three of the four culture dimensions were not significant. Only the means for market culture differed significantly for both samples such that individuals used in the analysis reported slightly higher values on market culture (F= .63, p< .05). This difference may suggest that on average respondents in organizations higher on market culture perceive the organizational level as more salient, thus, reporting culture on the organizational level. The means of the other measures did not differ in the two samples. Section two: relationships between roles and behaviors. For the second set of analyses, the focus was on roles and behaviors. There were two sources used to measure focal employee behaviors: coworkers and supervisors. Here a different procedure was employed to select the most theoretically viable sample. For instance, for the coworker sample, the focus was on retaining those coworkers who are familiar with the focal individual behaviors such that their report would be most informed. The sample resulted in 107 focal observations and 325 coworkers (average N=3 respondents per focal). In this sample, the focal characteristics were very similar to the ones described in the previous samples. The sample for supervisors was selected using a similar method by focusing only on those supervisors who have reported knowing the person's work well or very well. This resulted in a sample of 143 supervisors responding for 89 focal individuals (average N=1.66 per focal).
61
Summary To summarize, I used coworker ratings for the evaluation of culture. My use of coworkers as a source of rating culture was based on the premise that there is an objective, shared reality underlying the culture phenomenon (Gavin & Howe, 1975; Glick, 1985;Parker et al., 2003). In addition, using coworker rating for culture allowed me to triangulate the rating sources of roles and culture. On the other hand, I used the focal employee's rating of roles, perceived fit, self-monitoring, and culture strength. Given the nature of the scales (e.g. how an individual perceives their fit with the organization), the use of self-report seemed warranted. The ultimate outcome of interest was employee behaviors, which were captured both from the coworkers' and supervisors' perspectives. I expected that coworkers would provide more informed ratings than supervisors. Moreover, I did not use self-report for behaviors due to the potential for social desirability as well as common method bias. Table 2 shows the relationship between sources and measurement scales.
Table 2: Sources for Primary Analysis Scale/Source Organizational culture Culture Strength Self-monitoring P-O fit Role Perceptions Behaviors Focal X X X X X X Coworker(s) X Supervisor(s)
Measures Organizational culture. I adapted an existing measure originally developed by Cameron & Quinn (1999) to measure organizational culture. The measure captures four
62
dimensions of organizational culture- clan (cooperative), adhocracy (entpreneurial/innovative), hierarchy (compliant), and market (competitive) types. Here, I refer to clan culture as clan or cooperative culture; adhocracy culture as entrepreneurial or innovative; hierarchy culture as hierarchy or hierarchical, and market culture as market or market-oriented culture culture. The initial questionnaire contained 20 questions (5 per culture type) divided in four sections describing different aspects of the organizational culture (e.g. sample item from clan reads: "This organization is a very personal place. It is like an extended family. People seem to feel comfortable sharing their personal situations with colleagues."). Respondents were instructed to rate the degree to which each statement is characteristic of the culture that they experience it. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with principal axis factoring was conducted on the coworker responses, specifying four factors. The factor structure revealed that two of the items from the entrepreneurial culture had high cross-loadings, thus, were dropped from further analysis. The results of the EFA are presented in table 3. Table 3: Exploratory Factor Analysis of Organizational Culture Items 1. This organization is a very personal place. It is like an extended family. People seem to feel comfortable sharing their personal situations with colleagues. 2. The management style in this organization is characterized by teamwork, consensus, and participation. 3. The glue that holds this organization together is loyalty and mutual trust. Commitment to this organization runs high. 4. This organization emphasizes personal and
3
Scale3 1 C .50
Factor 2 .05 .06 3 4 .12
C
.79
.01
-.04
.08
C
.87
.03
-.18
-.09
C
.87
.02
.01
-.08
C refers to clan culture; E- entrepreneurial culture; M- market culture; H- hierarchy culture.
63
professional development. There is a strong focus on developing skills and providing interesting work opportunities. 5. This organization defines success on the basis of the development of human resources, teamwork, employee commitment and concern for people. 6. This organization is a very controlled & structured place. Formal procedures generally govern what people do. 7. The management style of this organization is characterized by security of employment, conformity, predictability, and stability 8. The glue that holds this organization together is formal rules and policies. Maintaining a smooth-running organization is important. 9. This organization emphasizes permanence and stability. Efficiency, control, and smooth operations are important. 10. This organization defines success of the basis of efficiency. Dependable delivery, smooth scheduling, and low-cost production are critical. 11. This organization is very results oriented. A major concern is with getting the job done. People are very competitive and achievement oriented. 12. The management style in this organization is characterized by hard-driving competitiveness, high demands, and achievement. 13. The glue that holds this organization together is the emphasis on achievement and goal accomplishment. Aggressiveness and winning are common themes. 14.This organization emphasizes competitive actions and achievement. Hitting stretch targets and winning in the marketplace are dominant. 15. This organization defines success on the basis of winning in the marketplace and outpacing the competition. Competitive market leadership is key. 16. This organization is a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place. People are willing to
C
.82
.09
-.03
.06
E
-.07
.82
-.17
-.16
E
.15
.77
.04
.01
E
.02
.90
.15
-.04
E
.13
.87
.07
.01
E
-.10
.61
-.14
.11
M
-.03
.06
-.78
.08
M
.15
-.06
-.89
-.19
M
.12
-.04
-.81
-.05
M
.04
.07
-.84
.04
M
-.16
.07
-.66
.25
H
.52
-.18
-.25
.33
64
stick their necks out and take risks. 17. The management style of this organization is characterized by individual risk-taking, innovation, freedom and uniqueness. 18. The glue that holds this organization together is commitment to innovation and development. There is an emphasis on being on the cutting edge. 19. This organization emphasizes acquiring new resources and creating new challenges. Trying new things and prospecting for opportunities are valued. 20. This organization defines success on the basis of having the most unique or newest products. It is a product/service leader and innovator. Eigenvalues
H
.43
-.17
-.04
.47
H
.26
.02
.06
.77
H
.33
-.12
-.09
.58
H
.03
.01
-.28
.57
5.83
3.42
4.70
4.72
Note. N=98 (aggregate of 257 coworkers). This table is based on the results of a prinicipal axis factoring analysis with oblique rotation (four factors). A key phrase from each item is used to represent each item.
A confirmatory factor analysis using the focal responses to the culture items was performed as an additional test providing evidence for the generalizability of the fourfactor structure across different samples of respondents (Bentler, 1990; Bentler & Bonnett, 1980). The CFA results suggest that the 18 items provide good fit for a fourfactor model (CFI= .96; RMSEA= .06; SRMR= .08), that all of the items load significantly on their intended factors, and that the factors have sufficient discriminant validity (the highest inter-correlation is at .59, between entrepreneurial and clan culture). To limit the potential influence of common method bias in examining the relationship between organizational culture and role perceptions, I use the average of coworkers' ratings of the organizational culture in examining the relationship between
65
culture and roles. The reliability of the clan culture measure is .90. The reliability of the entrepreneurial culture measure equals .85. The market-oriented culture measure also exhibited a high degree of reliability of .91. Finally, the hierarchy culture measure has a reliability of .89. Therefore, all of the culture dimensions measures exhibited acceptable reliabilities. In addition, I measured organizational culture perceptions from the focal participant's perspective. The standardized reliability estimates in the focal sample are as follows: .80 for the clan culture, .82 for the entrepreneurial culture, .90 for market culture, and .86 for the hierarchy culture. To provide initial evidence on the convergent validity of the culture measure, I estimated the correlations between the aggregated coworker perceptions of culture and the focal individual's perceptions of the same organization's culture. The correlation between the clan cultures from both perspectives is positive and significant (r= .49, p< .01). Entrepreneurial culture measurements from both perspectives were correlated at .47, which is also significant at p< .01. Furthermore, the competitive culture measures were related at .52 (p< .01). Finally, hierarchy culture from both perspectives was correlated at .47 (p< .01). Table 4 provides more detail regarding the convergent and discriminant validity of organizational culture from the focal and coworker perspectives.
66
Table 4:Correlations between Dimensions of Culture from the Coworker and Focal Perspectives
Variable M S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Clan a 2. Entrepreneurial a 3. Market-oriented a 4. Hierarchy a 5. Clan b 6. Entrepreneurial b 7. Market-oriented b 8. Hierarchy b
4 .87 4 .59 5 .10 4 .65 4 .35 4 .17 4 .87 4 .41
1 .07 1 .16 .9 6 1 .02 1 .24 1 .52 1 .38 1 .47
(.90 ) .64** .34** .0 9 . 4 9** .38** .1 1 -.24** (.85 ) .48** -.06 .33** . 4 7** .1 8 -.31** (.91 ) .1 3 .2 3* .33** . 5 2** -.20* (.89 ) .0 0 -.11 -.16 . 4 7** (.80 ) .45** .2 7* -.18 (.82 ) .51** -.29* (.90 ) -.16 (.86 )
Note. N=98. * p