Bai Tham Khao

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 7

PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University

Nijmegen

The following full text is a publisher's version.

For additional information about this publication click this link.


http://hdl.handle.net/2066/45243

Please be advised that this information was generated on 2023-02-28 and may be subject to
change.
HOW DO YOU CLIMB THE CORPORATE LADDER?
A MULTI-REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE ETHICAL PREFERENCES
FOR INFLUENCING SUPERIORS
DAVID A. RALSTON
University of Oklahoma
307 West Brooks – 206A
Norman, OK 73019 USA
CAROLYN P. EGRI
Simon Fraser University
IRINA NAOUMOVA
University of Tennessee
FLORIAN WANGENHEIM
Universität Dortmund
PING PING FU
Chinese University of Hong Kong
MARÍA TERESA DE LA GARZA CARRANZA
Instituto Tecnológico de Celaya
LAURIE MILTON
The University of Calgary & The University of Western Ontario
TANIA CASADO
University of São Paulo
PREM RAMBURUTH
University of New South Wales
MAHFOOZ ANSARI
University Science Malaysia
LIESL RIDDLE
George Washington University
HO BENG CHIA
National University of Singapore
ILYA GIRSON
University of Westminster
MALIKA RICHARDS
Pennsylvania State University
IAN PALMER
University of Technology-Sydney
DAVID M. BROCK
Ben-Gurion University
ARIF BUTT
Lahore University of Management Sciences
NARASIMHAN SRINIVASAN
University of Connecticut
MARINA DABIC
University of Osijek
ARUNAS STARKUS
Centre for International Business and Economic Research-Vilnius

Academy of Management Best Conference Paper 2005 IM: P1


VOJKO V. POTOCAN
University of Maribor
HARALD HERRIG
ESC—Grenoble
TEVFIK DALGIC
University of Texas-Dallas
HUNG VU THANH
National Economics University
PHILLIP HALLINGER
Mahidol University
FRANCISCO CASTRO
CEMPRE, Universidade do Porto
OLIVIER FURRER
University of Nijmegen
YONG-LIN MOON
Seoul National University
CHRISTINE KUO
Yuan-Ze University
MARIO MOLTENI
Catholic University of Milan
ANDRE PEKERTI
University of Queensland
MOUREEN TANG
Lingnan University
PAULINA WAN
Lingnan University
TOMASZ LENARTOWICZ
Florida Atlantic University
ANA MARIA ROSSI
Clinica De Stress E Biofeedback
ISABELLE MAIGNAN
ING
RUTH MAY
University of Dallas
DONNA LEDGERWOOD
University of North Texas
MARK WEBER
University of Minnesota
WADE DANIS
Georgia State University
ALAN WALLACE
(retired)
INTRODUCTION
In this 35 society study of cross-cultural perspectives on the use of varying degrees of ethical
upward influence behaviors in organizations, we extend previous empirical research in two significant
ways. First, cross-cultural values research has identified socio-cultural and geographically similar clusters

Academy of Management Best Conference Paper 2005 IM: P2


of societies (Inglehart, 1997; Schwartz, 1994; Ronen & Shenkar, 1985). In this study, we tested the
appropriateness of these cultural region typologies in respect to managerial perceptions of the ethicality of
influence behaviors. The overarching goal of this research is to explore the possibility of a global model of
upward influence ethics. This study’s comparison of managers and professionals in 35 societies from seven
global cultural regions should provide a significant step forward in the development of a global model of
upward influence ethics, which will be of interest to both researchers and international managers.
Cultural values encapsulate the shared and socially desired principles, beliefs, norms, and goals
that inform individual perceptions, decisions, and behaviors (Smith & Schwartz, 1997). Consistent with
previous cross-cultural research on ethical decision-making and business corruption (Davis & Ruhe, 2003;
Cherry, Lee & Chien, 2003;; Husted, 1999; Thorne & Saunders, 2002; Vitell et al., 1993; Volkema, 2004),
we used the cultural values dimensions identified by Hofstede (2001) and by Smith, Dugans and
Trompenaars (1996) to develop hypotheses regarding cross-cultural differences in influence ethics.
Although based on surveys conducted in 1968-1972, Hofstede’s (2001) cultural values model
remains one of the most cited in the cross-cultural values literature. This cultural values model is based on
five cultural values: power distance, individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance,
masculinity/femininity, and long-term orientation.
Power distance denotes societal norms regarding the distribution of power. Power distance is
positively related to the use of assertive and coercive influence strategies but negatively related to the use
of rational and soft (ingratiation, impression management) influence strategies (Egri et al., 2000; Morris &
Pavett, 1992; Ralston, et al., 1994, 1995, 2001; Schermerhorn & Bond, 1991). Power distance has been
found to be positively related to unethical decision making (Vitell, Nwachukwu & Barnes, 1993; Getz &
Volkema, 2001) and perceived corruption (Cohen, Pant & Sharp, 1996; Husted, 1999). Power distance is
expected to be negatively related to the acceptability of organizationally beneficial influence behavior, and
to be positively related to the acceptability of self-indulgent and destructive influence behavior.
Individualism/Collectivism is concerned with individual-group obligations and relationships.
Research has shown that soft, relationship-oriented upward influence strategies are more acceptable in
individualistic cultures (Ralston et al., 2001). The rated effectiveness of relationship-oriented upward
influence tactics by managers has been found to be higher in collectivistic (Fu & Yukl, 2000; Fu et al.,
2001) as well as in individualistic (Kennedy et al., 2003) cultures. Self-serving influence strategies have
been found to be more acceptable in individualistic cultures than in collectivistic cultures (Doney, Cannon,
& Mullen, 1998; Lu, Rose, & Blodgett, 1999). However, other studies have found that managers in
collectivistic cultures view hard and assertive upward influence strategies as being more acceptable and
more effective than managers in individualistic cultures (Fu et al., 2001; Ralston et al., 2001). In sum, the
acceptability of organizationally beneficial behavior should be relatively more acceptable in collectivistic
cultures, self-indulgent behavior should be relatively more acceptable in individualistic cultures, and
destructive influence behavior should be relatively more acceptable in collectivistic cultures.
High uncertainty avoidance cultures have lower tolerance of ambiguity and emphasize compliance
with codified rules and procedures and the avoidance of individual competition. Research regarding the
relationship between uncertainty avoidance and the acceptability of ethical behaviors has yielded mixed
results. On the one hand, individuals in high uncertainty avoidance cultures have attributed higher
importance to ethical problems (Armstrong, 1996), and viewed unethical and deviant behaviors more
negatively (Vitell et al., 1993; Cohen et al., 1996) than individuals in low uncertainty avoidance cultures.
In contrast, larger multi-country studies have found that perceived business corruption is positively related
to uncertainty avoidance (Davis & Ruhe, 2003; Getz & Volkema, 2001; Husted, 1999) with the
explanation that corrupt practices (such as bribery) serve to reduce uncertainty by securing more certain
results. Therefore, uncertainty avoidance is expected to be positively related to the acceptability of self-
indulgent and destructive influence behavior.
Masculinity/Femininity relates to achievement motivation versus quality of life. Masculine cultures
emphasize the need for assertiveness and competition to achieve personal and material success. In contrast,
feminine cultures emphasize the enhancement of quality of life through service, care and harmony in
personal relationships. The honesty and concern for others required for organizationally beneficial behavior

Academy of Management Best Conference Paper 2005 IM: P3


suggest that these cooperative behaviors would be more acceptable in feminine cultures. Self-serving and
coercive behaviors as well as perceived corruption are more prevalent in masculine cultures than in
feminine cultures (Blodgett et al., 2001; Davis & Ruhe, 2003; Doney et al., 1998; Husted, 1999). Thus, it is
expected that self-indulgent and destructive behavior would be more acceptable in masculine cultures.
Long-term orientation relates to a culture’s time orientation and concern with others’ perceptions
(Chinese Culture Connection, 1987). Long-term orientation is highly correlated with individualism (Yeh &
Lawrence, 1995) For this reason, long-term orientation was not included in the development of hypotheses.
Based on Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s (1998) work, Smith et al. (1996) identified two
values continua: egalitarian commitment—conservatism and loyal involvement—utilitarian involvement.
Egalitarian commitment—Conservatism relates to an achievement—ascription orientation towards
organizational status and rewards. Whereas egalitarian commitment relates to universalistic and impersonal
decision criteria, conservatism relates to particularistic criteria that favor in-groups. The procedural fairness
principle of egalitarian commitment suggests a positive association with organizationally beneficial
influence behavior. In contrast, cultural conservatism is expected to be positively related to self-indulgent
and destructive behavior.
Loyal involvement—Utilitarian involvement relates to the basis for an individual’s involvement
with a group or organization. Loyal involvement is “based on a long-lasting identification with the
organization’s goals as one’s own” whereas utilitarian involvement “is contingent on meeting one’s
individual goals” (Smith, Peterson, & Schwartz, 2002: 194). Loyal involvement and organizationally
beneficial behavior both emphasize an alignment between individual and organizational objectives.
Alternatively, the self-interested nature of utilitarian involvement is more consistent with the motivations
of self-indulgent and destructive behavior.
CULTURAL REGION HYPOTHESES
We relied on previous values research that has identified socio-cultural and geographically similar
clusters of societies (Inglehart, 1997; Schwartz, 1994; Ronen & Shenkar, 1985; Smith et al., 1996). In this
study, there were 32 societies representing seven cultural regions (Anglo, Germanic Europe, Latin Europe,
Eastern Europe, Latin America, East Asia, and South Asia) and three independent cultures (Egypt, Israel,
South Africa). To develop hypotheses for each upward influence behavior, we use the cultural values
profile presented in the previous section of this paper.
Hypothesis 1: Organizationally Beneficial Influence Behavior
Previous upward influence research suggests that organizationally beneficial
influence behavior would be relatively more acceptable in small power distance,
collectivistic, feminine, high egalitarian commitment, and high loyal involvement
cultures. The cultural regions closest to this values profile are the Anglo, Germanic
Europe, and Latin Europe regions. Next closest are the East Asia, South Asia, and
Latin America regions. Finally, the Eastern Europe region has the least in common
with this profile.
Hypothesis 2: Self-indulgent Influence Behavior
Self-indulgent influence behavior are expected to be relatively more acceptable in
large power distance, individualistic, high uncertainty avoidance, high masculinity,
low egalitarian commitment, and low loyal involvement cultures. The cultural region
that is closest to this values profile is Eastern Europe followed by the Latin America,
East Asia, South Asia, and Latin Europe regions, and lastly, the Anglo and Germanic
Europe regions.
Hypothesis 3: Destructive Influence Behavior
Destructive influence behavior are expected to be relatively more acceptable in large power
distance, collectivistic, high uncertainty avoidance, high masculinity, low egalitarian
commitment, and low loyal involvement cultures. The cultural region that closely matches this

Academy of Management Best Conference Paper 2005 IM: P4


values profile is Eastern Europe. Next most similar are the East Asia, South Asia, and Latin
America regions, followed by the Latin Europe region. The least similar are the Germanic
Europe and Anglo cultural regions.
Three societies, Egypt, Israel, and South Africa are not included within these regions, and thus they
are not included in these hypotheses. While it is proper to view these three countries as “independents,” is
relevant to include them in an analysis due to their economic and political importance.
METHOD
Sample
A total of 8,154 managers and professionals from 35 societies were surveyed for this study. The
participants in the seven cultural regions were: Anglo region (n=928): Australia, Canada-Anglophone,
United Kingdom, United States; Germanic Europe region (n = 363): Germany, the Netherlands; Latin
Europe region (n=1,268): France, Italy, Portugal, Switzerland-French; Eastern Europe region (n=1,530):
Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia; Latin America region (n=540):
Argentina, Brazil, Mexico; East Asia region (n=1,184): China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan;
and South Asia region (n=1,849): India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore, Thailand, Turkey,
Vietnam. The study also includes data from Egypt (n=125), Israel (n=133), and South Africa (n=140).
Instrument and Procedures
The Strategies of Upward Influence [SUI] instrument was used to measure participants’ views on
the acceptability of influence behavior. To test hypotheses regarding cultural region differences in the
relative acceptability of influence behavior, a MANCOVA was conducted in which the dependent
variables were the three upward influence dimensions, the independent variable was cultural region, and
the covariates were age, gender, position level, organization size, and industry. If the cultural region
variable was significant, then post hoc group comparisons were conducted to test hypotheses.
RESULTS
As found in other upward influence studies (Egri et al., 2000; Fu & Yukl, 2000; Ralston et al.,
1994, 2001, Schmidt & Yeh, 1992), there was cross-cultural agreement in the relative acceptability of
organizationally beneficial behavior (positive) over self-indulgent (negative) behavior with destructive
behavior being the least acceptable type of upward influence. The results of the MANCOVA indicated
significant cultural region differences for all three SUI dimensions (Wilks’ Ȝ=.97, F=11.04, p<.001):
organizationally beneficial behavior (F=5.41, p<.001), self-indulgent behavior (F=13.45, p<.001), and
destructive behavior (F=7.38, p<.001). There were also significant interaction effects for cultural region
with age (Wilks’ Ȝ=.99, F=1.91, p<.01), gender (Wilks’ Ȝ=.99, F=2.30, p<.001), position (Wilks’ Ȝ=.99,
F=1.68, p<.05), company size (Wilks’ Ȝ=.99, F=1.84, p<.01), and industry (Wilks’ Ȝ=.97, F=1.73, p<.01).
Consistent with Hypothesis 1, the Anglo and Latin Europe cultural regions had significantly higher
organizationally beneficial scores than East Asia and Latin America, which in turn, scored higher than
Eastern Europe. In addition, Latin Europe region had a higher score than Germanic Europe, which in turn
had a higher score than East Asia and Eastern Europe. The results provide substantial support for
Hypothesis 1. Concerning the independent societies, that were not included in the regions hypotheses, the
analysis showed that Egypt and Israel were only significantly lower than Latin Europe, whereas South
Africa was similar to Egypt and the Eastern Europe and South Asia countries.
Consistent with Hypothesis 2, Eastern Europe scored higher than East Asia, which in turn, scored
higher than the Anglo and Germanic Europe regions. Contrary to Hypothesis 2, Latin America and Latin
Europe had low (rather than intermediate) scores that were similar to those of the Anglo and Germanic
Europe regions. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was only partially supported. Regarding the independents, Egypt and
South Africa both had high scores similar to Eastern Europe and South Asia region countries, while Israel
had the lowest score that was similar to Germanic Europe, Latin America, and East Asia.
The post hoc group comparisons revealed that Eastern Europe and Latin America had higher

Academy of Management Best Conference Paper 2005 IM: P5


destructive behavior scores than Latin Europe, which in turn, scored higher than the Germanic Europe,
Anglo, and East Asia regions. Hypothesis 3 was supported in that the Eastern Europe region had the
highest destructive influence behavior score, Latin Europe had an intermediate score, and the Germanic
Europe and Anglo regions were similar in having the lowest scores for this influence behavior. Contrary to
Hypothesis 3, Latin America was similar to (rather than lower than) Eastern Europe. Further, East Asia was
found to be similar to (rather than higher than) the Germanic and Anglo regions in attributing the lowest
acceptability to this influence behavior rather than the hypothesized intermediate acceptability. In total,
these results provide moderate support for Hypothesis 3. In respect to the independent societies, we found
that Egypt and South Africa had high scores similar to Eastern Europe and South Asia, whereas Israel had
the lowest score and was similar to Anglo region countries.
Overall, the strongest support for the predicted relationships among the region is found for the
organizationally beneficial behavior, with the weakest support for the Destructive behavior. However, with
the exception of East Asia in the Destructive behavior hypothesis, all regions reasonably followed the
predicted relationships.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
For organizationally beneficial behavior, the egalitarian commitment/conservatism values
dimension appears to be the only consistent predictor of cultural region differences in influence behavior.
Unlike previous cross-cultural research, power distance, individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance,
and masculinity-femininity values were ineffective predictors of the acceptability of these types of
influence behavior (Adler et al., 1987; Egri et al., 2000; Fu et al., 2001). Low egalitarian commitment and
low loyal involvement values appear to be associated with a higher acceptability of self-indulgent behavior.
Hofstede’s values were not predictive of cultural region differences for these behaviors. The lack of
consistency of findings across these regions suggests that Hofstede’s cultural dimensions have questionable
utility for predicting the ethicality of behavior. In respect to the acceptability of destructive influence
behavior, a number of cultural values—high power distance, collectivistic, high uncertainty avoidance, and
low egalitarian commitment—appear to have predictive potential.
To reiterate, the overarching goal of this study was to explore the potential of a global model of
upward influence ethics. This study has facilitated the development of such a comprehensive, global model
of upward influence ethics in organizations. Our findings show that across regions, managers and
professionals exhibited differing degrees of preference for organizationally beneficial, self-indulgent and
destructive influence behavior. However, even though there was not universal agreement on the relative
importance of each behavior, we found that participants in all 35 societies were consistent in viewing
organizationally beneficial influence behavior more positively than self-indulgent behavior with
destructive behavior being viewed as the least acceptable influence behavior. These results suggest a
relatively high degree of global convergence on the acceptability of the different types of influence
behaviors (Egri et al., 2000; Fu et al., 2001; Kennedy et al., 2003; Ralston et al., 1994, 2001). Thus, while
we see that there is a commonly agreed upon ethics hierarchy, we also found varying degrees of regional
differentiation indicating global similarity with embedded local differences. Additionally, we found that
the Smith et al. (1996) egalitarian commitment—conservatism and loyal involvement—utilitarian
involvement values dimensions have predictive value in this model.
In conclusion, this study has provided substantial evidence that there is cross-cultural ethical
pluralism (Gonzalez, 2003) in regards to the acceptability of various upward influence behavior. At the
same time, our findings suggest that the acceptability of various upward influence behaviors cluster into
cultural regions and that these behaviors may even be slowly converging or crossverging (Priem, Love &
Shaffer, 2000). However, the most interesting finding may be the indication that there are consistent
influence behavior relationships across societies. Thus, there is support for the notion that these
relationships might be integrated to form a global model of influence ethics.
REFERENCES AVAILABLE FROM THE AUTHORS

Academy of Management Best Conference Paper 2005 IM: P6

You might also like