Cultural Diversity and Workplace Dynamics: Jim Freeman and Graham Winch E-mail: [email protected] A Transmanche Link retrospective

Cultural Diversity and Workplace Dynamics:

Jim Freeman and Graham Winch

E-mail: [email protected]

A Transmanche Link retrospective

April 19, 2023OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept

2012 2

Related publications Winch, G, Clifton, N. and Millar, C. (1997)

‘Culture and Organization: The Case of Transmanche-Link’, British Journal of Management, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 237–249.

Winch, G, Clifton, N. and Millar, C. (2000) ‘Organisation and Management in an Anglo-French consortium: The Case of Transmanche-Link’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 663-687.


2012 3

Cross culturalism

Cross-cultural project teams are increasingly the norm, globally.

Such projects accounted for nearly all gross capital formation - equivalent to 22% of the World GDP - in 2009 (http://www.worldbank.org/).


2012 4April 19, 2023OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept

2012 4

Structure of Presentation

Background Data collection Modelling (SEM) results Conclusions


2012 5

Cultural differences (re. Hofstede (1980))Power DistanceUncertainty AvoidanceIndividualism vs. CollectivismMasculinity vs. FemininityLong term orientation

Cultural differences (re. Trompenaars and Hamopden-Turner(1998))

Background


2012 6

Relationships with people Neutral versus emotional Universalism versus particularism Achievement versus ascription Specific versus diffuse Attitude to Time: Sequential versus Synchronic Attitude to Environment Context Convergers and Divergers


2012 7

Data for the project was collected through self-completed questionnaires distributed among the staff of the TML consortium (Winch et al., 2000).

Target respondents included first line supervisory level staff and above.

The questionnaire - based on the Van de Ven and Ferry scale (Van de Ven and Ferry, 1980) – aimed to capture measures on organisation and workplace dynamics

Data Collection


2012 8

Additionally, Hofstede’s Value Survey Module was incorporated to identify and validate cultural differences between the British and the French working at TML.

There were 153 British and 52 French responses to the survey, representing an overall return of 39%.

Item responses were collected mainly on a 5 point Likert scale; demographic measurements on categorical scales.


2012 9

Outliers Missing values Multivariate normality Sample size

Data hygiene checks


2012 10

Using AMOS 16, modelling was carried out by methodically building and testing confirmatory factor analysis (sub)models before graduating to higher order structural regression (hybrid) models (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).


2012 11

Proposed model


2012 12

Reliability

The research instrument was tested for reliability (internal consistency) using Cronbach’s to confirm the adequacy of measures for testing research hypotheses. According to a Hinton et al (2004) for

excellent reliability α ≥ 0.9high reliability 0.7 ≤ α < 0.9 moderate reliability 0.5 ≤ α < 0.7 andlow reliability α < 0.5.


2012 13

Construct validity

To assess construct validity, a factor analysis was conducted using PCA as an extraction method with Varimax and Kaiser normalisation as a rotation method.


2012 14

In general, variables loaded on each factor as anticipated and satisfied the conditions of construct validity both in terms of

discriminant validity (loadings of at least 0.4 and only one cross-loading slightly above |0.4| in the case of the Unit submodel) and

convergent validity (eigenvalues of at least 1, loadings of at least 0.4, items that load on to posited constructs).

Thus the validity of our data and findings was confirmed.


2012 15

SEM Modelling results

Following a parallel approach to Winch et al. (2000) submodels for Workplace Dynamics were first formulated and tested at:

1. Unit Level2. Task Level and3. Individual Level

Next, submodels for Ideal Job Perceptions and Culture were developed.


2012 16

Based on an exploratory factor analysis, the model was specified as in Figure 1a).

Relevant Cronbach values for the factors here were as follows:

Factor ReliabilityConflict resolution 0.550 ModerateUnit cohesion 0.639 Moderate

Workplace Dynamics:

1. Unit Level


2012 17

Figure 1 a)


2012 18

Though the latter model was found to fit the data well, as a refinement, it was decided to allow the loading of the item ‘members of unit encourage excellence’ on to the Conflict resolution latent construct.

(The argument being that unit members cooperating to achieve excellence would also be well-disposed to resolving conflicts.)


2012 19

Fit results for the revised model were as follows:

ThresholdAcceptability

CMIN/DF = 1.818 < 1-2 AcceptableCFI = 0.953 > 0.9 AcceptableRMSEA = 0.063 < 0.08Acceptable

with standardised estimates for the model summarised in Figure 1b).


2012 20

Figure 1 b)


2012 21

All loadings here were found to be statistically significant (p<0.05) and all relationships in the expected direction.


2012 22

The CFA model in Figure 2a) captures the task-related dimensions in terms of the Control and coordination achieved at work and the Autonomy provided to employees in performing their job.


Factor ReliabilityWork control 0.734 HighWork autonomy 0.819 High

2. Task Level


2012 23

Figure 2 a)


2012 24

Following encouraging results from fitting the above model to the data it was decided the error terms related to the indicators ‘authority in establishing procedures’ and ‘authority in establishing work exceptions’ could be allowed to be correlated since both items are concerned with the process flow while the rest relate to the actual task, quantum of work and work speed respectively.


2012 25

Allowing for this refinement, fit details were:

CMIN/DF = 1.660 CFI = 0.968 RMSEA = 0.057

all of which were judged to be acceptable.

Standardised estimates are as summarised in Figure 2b).


2012 26

Figure 2 b)


2012 27

All indicator estimates are statistically significant

at the 5% level with the arrow directions too along expected lines.


2012 28

3. Individual Level

The indicator variables analysed reflect individual behaviour and feelings at the workplace. The model specified is shown in Figure 3a).


Factor ReliabilityJob satisfaction -0.525 LowInstrumental motivation 0.814 HighFeedback motivation 0.815 HighJob involvement 0.602Moderate


2012 29

Figure 3 a)


2012 30

In the next step, the model was marginally modified by allowing ‘motivation from promise of promotion’ to load on Feedback motivation in addition to Instrumental motivation’ This is a realistic assumption as the specified item has the characteristics of being both related to feedback and the material aspect of promotion.


2012 31

Fit details were:

CMIN/DF = 1.603 CFI = 0.967 RMSEA = 0.054


Standardised estimates are as summarised in Figure 3b).


2012 32

Model 3b)


2012 33

Model 3b)

All regression weights for the indicators are statistically significant, high in magnitude and in the hypothesised direction.


2012 34

Ideal Job Perceptions

The model in Figure 4 – which takes the form of a second order CFA - reflects the individual preferences and perceptions of an ideal job.


Factor ReliabilityWork relations 0.477 LowJob content 0.544 ModerateExternal factors 0.607Moderate


2012 35

Figure 4a)


2012 36

Note that to aid identification of the model (Byrne, 2001), the residual terms R1, R2 and R3 were assumed to have the same variance

Fit details were as follows:

CMIN/DF = 1.818 CFI = 0.954 RMSEA = 0.052


Standardised estimates are shown in Figure 4b).


2012 37

Figure 4b)


2012 38

The latter model makes it possible to infer the strength of relationship between the first-order and second-order factor. The latent constructs – job content (0.89) and external factors (0.92) are strong measures of ideal job preferences followed by work relations (0.65) with all three being statistically significant. Additionally, all indicators load well on to the respective latent variables and in expected directions.


2012 39

This model - based on three of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions – Collectivism, Uncertainty Avoidance and Power Distance - is displayed in Figure 5a).


Factor ReliabilityCollectivism 0.305 LowUncertainty avoidance 0.624ModeratePower distance 0.459 Low

Culture


2012 40

Figure 5a)


2012 41

As with the previous model, the residual terms R1, R2 and R3 were assumed to have the same variance.

Model fit results were as follows:

CMIN/DF = 1.600 CFI = 0.876 RMSEA = 0.054

which were judged to be reasonably acceptable.

Standardised estimates for the model are shown in Figure 5b).


2012 42

Figure 5b)


2012 43

All indicators show sufficient loadings on their respective first order latent variables. The directions are also as hypothesised earlier. The latent constructs uncertainty avoidance (0.97) and collectivism (0.89) proved to be statistically significant (p<0.05) and hence, represent strong measures of culture. However, power distance (-0.16) is a borderline case in terms of its statistical significance (p<0.1).


2012 44

Summarising hypothesis test relationships for the above, we have results as follows:

Standardised Expected regression

sign weight Conclusion___________________________________________________________________H1: Culture → Ideal Job Perceptions + 0.158* Supported

Unit levelH2: Culture → Conflict resolution - -0.103 Not

supportedH3: Culture → Unit cohesion + 0.071 Not supportedH4: Ideal Job Perceptions → Conflict resolution - -0.123 Not

supportedH5: Ideal Job Perceptions → Unit cohesion + 0.000 Not

supported

Relationships between Culture, Ideal Job Perceptions and

Workplace Dynamics


2012 45


sign weight Conclusion___________________________________________________________________Task levelH6: Culture → Work control + 0.155* SupportedH7: Culture → Work autonomy - -0.074 Not

supportedH8: Ideal Job Perceptions → Work control + 0.174*

SupportedH9: Ideal Job Perceptions → Work autonomy - -0.079 Not supported


2012 46


sign weight Conclusion___________________________________________________________________Individual levelH10: Culture → Job satisfaction - -0.162*

SupportedH11: Culture → Instrumental motivation + 0.205**

SupportedH12: Culture → Feedback motivation + 0.130 Not supportedH13: Culture → Job involvement + 0.174* Not

supportedH14: Ideal Job Perceptions → Job satisfaction + 0.249**

SupportedH15: Ideal Job Perceptions → Instrumental motivation + 0.075 Not

supported H16: Ideal Job Perceptions → Feedback motivation + 0.182* Supported

H17: Ideal Job Perceptions → Job involvement - -0.361** Supported


2012 47

The final stage of the analysis involved tested the preceding (sub)models for invariance between the British and French groups. This was done by simultaneously fitting and estimating the (sub)model for each of the two groups and comparing the results.

A sequential, increasingly restrictive procedure of applying cross-group equality was employed. Of particular interest were:

1) factor loading paths, 2) factor variances / covariances

and 3) structural regression paths.

MULTIPLE GROUP ANALYSIS


2012 48

For the testing, equal (forced) unstandardised parameter estimates were first derived for the two groups.

Next, the fit of the constrained model was compared to that of the unconstrained, baseline model.

Where the fit as signified by the chi-square statistic was found to be significantly worse, group variance between the British and the French was concluded.


2012 49

Table 1: Multiple Group Invariance Analysis (Unit level)


2012 50

As can be seen, the factor variance of conflict resolution differs significantly across theBritish and French groups and is the cause of overall non-invariance at the unit-level.


2012 51

Table 2: Multiple Group Invariance Analysis (Task level)


2012 52

Again it is clear there is non-invariance between the British and French groups. The reason for this is thought to be two-fold:

Though the British and the French appear to have a similar perception over the autonomy enjoyed at work, when it comes to determining the rate of task completion - they disagree significantly.

The variance in perceptions regarding work control is significantly different between the British and the French.


2012 53

Table 3: Multiple Group Invariance Analysis (Individual level)


2012 54

It is evident from the table that the structure for job involvement factor is not equivalent across the British and the French groups resulting in non-invariance.

Specifically, item 56 (sense of accomplishment if good performance) loads in a significantly different manner between the two groups.


2012 55

Table 4: Multiple Group Invariance Analysis (Ideal Job Perceptions)


2012 56

The results in Table 4 confirm significant non-invariance between the British and the French.

Since the R1, R2 and R3 errors were constrained to have equal variance in the model specification, it may be concluded that the variances of the error terms associated with the indicators are the cause of the non-equivalence.


2012 57

Table 5: Multiple Group Invariance Analysis (Culture)


2012 58

The multiple group analysis on culture reveals no invariance between the British and the French groups. This unexpected result may be due to:

• Sample inadequacy

• Invariance in population


2012 59

Conclusions

The relationship between culture, job perception and workplace dynamics needs to be viewed holistically not on a piecemeal basis. Fortunately, SEM is well-placed for meeting this type of modelling requirement.

From the TML data collected, a series of significant submodels were developed - first in respect of workplace dynamics at the unit, task (organisational) and individual levels.


2012 60

Then in relation to ideal job perceptions and cultural differences (culture).

The five submodels were next integrated into an overall schematic model.

A multiple group analysis showed significant non-invariance between the British and French samples for all submodels except (ironically) the culture submodel.


2012 61

It is believed sampling inadequacies, may have particularly influenced the latter result.

Despite the latter and more general limitations, it is believed the study has significantly extended previous work in this area – and as a result various new insights into the understanding of workplace dynamics, ideal job perceptions and culture within an organisational context have been gained.

Documents

Cultural Diversity and Workplace Dynamics: Jim Freeman and Graham Winch E-mail: [email protected] A Transmanche Link retrospective