Personality, Organizational Culture, and …...personality and culture emphasis, while when both...

Personality,Organizational Culture,and Cooperation:Evidence from aBusiness Simulation

Jennifer A. ChatmanUniversity of California,BerkeleySigal G. BarsadeYale University

© 1995 by Cornell University,0001-8392/95/4003-0423/$! .00.

We thank the Center for CreativeLeadership, the Kellogg Graduate Schoolot Management, and the University ofCalifornia's Haas School of Business andInstitute of Personality and SocialResearch for financial support; DaveCaldwell, Ben Hermalin. Chris McCusker,Barry O'Neill, Charles O'Reilly, JeffPolzer, Brent Roberts, and Tom Tyler forconnments on earlier drafts of this paper;and Rebecca Brown, Mary Cusack, KarenEtty Jehn, Kathy Mozier, Margaret Neale,Jeff Polzer, Barry Staw, and JonathanWhitney for help with data collection orcoding. We are especially grateful to BobSutton, three anonymous ASO reviewers,and Linda Pike for their editorialguidance.

Deriving predictions from congruence theory, weexplored the personal and situational sources ofcooperation by contrasting behavior under conditions ofpersonality fit and misfit with culture in an organizationalsimulation. We assessed MBA students' disposition tocooperate and randomly assigned them to simulatedorganizations that either emphasized collectivistic orindividualistic cultural values. We found that cooperativesubjects in collectivistic cultures were rated by coworkersas the most cooperative; they reported working with thegreatest number of people, and they had the strongestpreferences for evaluating work performance on thebasis of contributions to teams rather than individualachievement. Results also showed that cooperativepeople were more responsive to the individualistic orcollectivistic norms characterizing their organization'sculture: They exhibited greater differences in their levelof cooperative behavior across the two cultures than didindividualistic people. We discuss the organizationalimplications of the conditions influencing behavioralexpressions of personal cooperativeness.*

Most researchers in organizational behavior and psychologynow accept that behavior is a function of characteristics ofthe person and the environment (Lewin. 1935) and reject theextreme views that either personal characteristics, such asdispositions, or situational characteristics, such asorganizational culture, entirely predict behavior. A currentchallenge stemming from this interactional perspective is tounderstand when and why certain people's behaviorcorresponds to or deviates from their personality across timeor situations. This is particularly important to understandingcooperation at work—why some people cooperate with theircoworkers and others don't.

Workplace cooperation has been conceptualized as thewillfui contribution of employee effort to the successfulcompletion of interdependent organizational tasks (Wagner.1995: 152). Cooperative behavior is often manifested inmembers' willingness to work with others, even when it isnot formally demanded, and in preferences for beingrewarded for working alone or in groups (e.g.. Wageman.1995). Identifying the conditions under which members arelikely to display cooperative behavior is difficult, however,since cooperative behavior can be influenced both bypersonality, or one's tendency to pursue individualistic orcollective goals (e.g., McClintock and Liebrand. 1988), and byformal and informal control systems that reward individualachievement or cooperative efforts (e.g., Petersen. 1992).Further, understanding cooperative behavior not onlyrequires knowledge of an individual's propensity tocooperate and the situational inducements to cooperate, butalso how these factors combine. Our objectives in this studyare to add to research that clarifies the conditions underwhich we should and should not expect to predict behaviorfrom personality and to increase our understanding of thesources of cooperative behavior in organizations. Weexamine people's disposition to cooperate and theorganizational culture in which they act as relevant personaland situational characteristics and then suggest how these

423/Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (1995): 423-443

may interact to influence cooperative behavior inorganizations.

Cooperative and Individualistic People andOrganizational Cultures

Cooperative and individualistic orientations are shapedthrough dispositions and developmental experiences(Liebrand and McClintock, 1988), A person with a highdisposition to cooperate places priority on associating withothers for mutual benefit, gaining social approval, andworking together with others toward a common end orpurpose, while a person with a low disposition to cooperateplaces priority on maximizing his or her own welfareregardless of others' welfare (e,g,, Argyle, 1991), Personalcooperativeness, as examined here, is a single-dimensionpersonality characteristic varying from high personalcooperativeness, at one extreme, to low personalcooperativeness, or individualism, at the other extreme,

A comparable construct at the organizational level is theextent to which organizational cultures emphasizeindividualistic or collectivistic values. The individualism-collectivism dimension is usually examined at the societallevel, but because it is central to characterizing how work isconducted, it is also relevant at the organizational level (e,g,,Earley, 1993), Organizational cultures emphasizingindividualistic values place priority on pursuing andmaximizing individuals' goals, and members are rewarded forperformance based on their own achievements (e,g.,Triandis, 1989), In collectivistic organizational cultures,priority is placed on collective goals and cooperative action,and members are rewarded for joint contributions toorganizational accomplishments. An organization's emphasison individualism or collectivism typically depends on factorssuch as its task environment, history, industry, and theprimary nation in which it operates, but both ends of thespectrum are considered legitimate and effective models oforganizational fuhctioning (e,g,, Lincoln, Olson, and Hanada,1978; Chatman and Jehn, 1994), Research suggests thatpersonal cooperativeness and an organization's emphasis oncollectivistic or individualistic values may each contributeseparately to cooperative behavior. But they may alsointeract to influence members' cooperative behavior. Theresult of this interaction can depend on the match ormismatch between a person's individual disposition tocooperate and the individualism or collectivism of theorganization's culture.

Cooperative Behavior Resulting from Person-Culture Matches

The degree of similarity, fit, or match between twoconceptually distinct but comparable person-and-situationconstructs is typically referred to as person-situationcongruence (e,g,, Edwards, 1994), Congruence theoriesdraw on interactional psychology in that they consider howindividual and situational characteristics combine to influencea person's affective or behavioral response in a givensituation. Situations place different demands on people, andthose with the skills necessary to meet these demands aremore likely to behave in predictable ways (Wright and

424/ASQ, September 1995

Cooperation

Mischel, 1987; Cantor and Kihlstrom, 1989), Further, peopletend to be happier when they are in settings that nneet theirparticular needs or that are congruent with their dispositions(Diener, Larsen, and Emmons, 1984: 582), Greaterperson-situation congruence thus increases individuals'effectiveness in that situation and their tendencies to seekout such situations in the future. To predict behavioraloutconnes such as job choice and job longevity,organizational researchers have typically connparedcharacteristics of people, such as abilities, preferences, andpersonality, and characteristics of organizational contexts,such as job dennands and organizational or occupationalvalues. Greater fit between a person's values and his or herorganization's culture, for exannple, is associated withbehavioral and affective outconnes such as better jobperfornnance, longer tenure, and greater connnnitment to thefirm (e,g,, O'Reilly, Chatnnan, and Caldwell, 1991), Thecongruence between personal values and organizationalculture has also been shown to be a better predictor ofperformance, commitment, and length of stay than eithercharacteristic alone (Chatman, 1991),

This logic can be applied to matches between cooperativepeople and collectivistic cultures. Since a collectivisticorganizational culture rewards members for cooperating withothers in meeting organizational objectives, people with adisposition to cooperate are likely to demonstratewell-practiced cooperative behaviors in this context, such asworking with others rather than alone, and expressingpreferences for rewards that are based on teamaccomplishments. In contrast, since an individualisticorganization rewards individualistic members for focusing ontheir own work, individualistic people are most likely todemonstrate well-practiced individualistic behaviors in thiscontext, such as working alone rather than with others, andexpressing preferences for rewards that are based onindividual accomplishments. When personality and cultureare both oriented to cooperation, cooperative behaviorshould be higher than it is with any other combination ofpersonality and culture emphasis, while when bothpersonality and culture are oriented to individualism,cooperative behavior should be lower than it is with anyother combination of these characteristics. More formally,we predict that personal cooperativeness and organizationalculture will each influence cooperative behavior:

Hypothesis 1: People who have a high disposition to cooperateand who work in a collectivistic organizational culture will be themost cooperative, while people who have a low disposition tocooperate and who work in an individualistic culture will be theleast cooperative.

Cooperative Behavior Resulting from Personality-culture Mismatches

Hypothesis 1 specifies the effects of matches betweenpersonal cooperativeness and cultural individualism orcollectivism, but it does not specify the likelihood that thosein cultures with which they are mismatched will behave inaccordance with their personality or, instead, adapt theirbehavior to fit their organizational culture. Congruenceresearchers have tended to emphasize fit over misfit


(Schneider, Smith, and Goldstein, 1994) and treat personaland situational characteristics as additive: the better the fit,the happier and more competent the employee (Joyce,Slocum, and Von Glinow, 1982). Under this assumption,even extreme mismatches between personality and cultureshould result in equivalently "medium" levels of cooperativebehavior. The level of cooperative behavior would thus bethe same for those with a high disposition to cooperate inindividualistic cultures as for those with a low disposition tocooperate in collectivistic cultures. But this may not be themost appropriate prediction. Related research suggests thatcooperative people may adjust their behavior more thanindividualistic people to accommodate the cooperative orindividualistic norms emphasized in different social settings.In Kelley and Stahelski's (1970a) two-person prisoner'sdilemma games, subjects who had self-interested motivesbehaved individualistically, using an "always defect"strategy, regardless of whether their opponents behavedindividualistically or cooperatively. In contrast, when morecooperatively oriented players were presented with acooperative move, they responded cooperatively, and whenpresented with a self-interested move, they respondedindividualistically, using a tit-for-tat strategy. Cooperativesubjects defected, in part, because continuing to cooperatewith an individualistic opponent would result in the loss ofimportant resources. While cooperators differentiatedbetween their opponents' individualistic or cooperativebehavior and responded accordingly, those withindividualistic motives simply did not consider the possibilitythat other people could (or would) behave cooperatively and,thus, always behaved and responded individualistically. Thissuggests that people develop strategies for behaving thatare based on their expectations of what other people will do.This same pattern may be generalized beyond individuals'expectations of a single opponent's behavior to theirexpectations of coworkers' behaviors in an organization.Organizational culture, defined as a form of social controlthat clarifies which behaviors and attitudes are more or lessappropriate for members to display (O'Reilly and Chatman,1996), may help individuals anticipate other members' likelyreactions to their attitudes and behaviors.

Personality research also suggests that cooperative peopleare more likely to adjust their behavior to suit the situationsin which they find themselves. Compared with individualisticpeople, they are more concerned about fitting in and aremore willing to go along with others (John, 1990; Argyle,1991). Individualistic people may have a limited ability to playcooperative roles. Robins (1994) found that financialcustomer service representatives who had higher (versuslower) dispositions to cooperate were also better at judgingsituational requirements, such as recognizing differentcustomers' needs and preferences, and determining andenacting the most appropriate responses. Finally,national-level cross-cultural research helps explain whypeople with a disposition to cooperate would be moreresponsive to organizational cultures than wouldindividualists. Members of individualistic and collectivisticsocieties have significantly different goals and perceptions ofnorms. Members of individualistic societies are more


Cooperation

satisfied by activities requiring individual achievement andfulfillment of self-interested goals. In contrast, members ofcollectivistic countries gain satisfaction from collective actionand the fulfillment of group goals and are more willing tosubordinate their personal goals to the group's goals (e,g.,Triandis et al., 1985; Diener and Diener, 1995),

Taken together, these perspectives paint a picture of peoplewith a cooperative disposition as motivated to understandand uphold group social norms, satisfied by groupinteraction, and expecting cooperative behavior fromothers—but able to respond individualistically if othersinitiate such behavior. In contrast, individualistic people aremore concerned with their personal goals and attitudes,expect that others will behave in a similarly self-interestedmanner, and are less flexible in their responses to others'behaviors. The combination of their self-interestedorientation and their lack of cooperative behavior, even inresponse to cooperative behaviors by others, suggests thatindividualistic people will show less adaptation, orcooperative behavior, in response to the demands of acollectivistic organizational culture than will cooperativepeople. By contrast, those with a disposition to cooperatemay be more malleable, behaving cooperatively in thecollectivistic culture and behaving noncooperatively in theindividualistic culture. This suggests that if the behavioralexpression of personality dispositions is conditional onsituations, rather than manifested similarly across allsituations, changes in cooperative behavior are particularlylikely in different situations (Wright and Mischel, 1987), Moreformally, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2: People with a high disposition to cooperate willbehave more cooperatively in organizational cultures that emphasizecooperation than in organizational cultures that emphasizeindividualism, while individualists' lack of cooperative behavior willvary less across the two culture conditions.

We modified a business simulation to test the influence ofpersonal cooperativeness and organizational culture oncooperative behavior. We used an experimental design sothat we could better isolate culture and personality factors,compare them, and identify specific behavioral outcomes.

METHOD

Subjects

One hundred thirty-nine full-time first-year master's ofbusiness administration (MBA) students, enrolled in amandatory introductory organizational behavior course at amidwestern university participated in this study.Twenty-seven percent were women, 70 percent were white,and 25 percent were not U.S. citizens. The subjects' meanage was 27,28 years, and they had an average of 5.05 yearsof full-time work experience. These subjects represented asubset (54 percent) of a larger study on organizationalculture and group effectiveness. This subset consisted ofthose students who both participated in the larger study andwho completed personality questionnaires relevant to thisstudy. The subjects were unaware of any connectionbetween the questionnaire and their participation in the


business simulation. The sample that participated in thisstudy was similar to the larger sample and. more generally,to the average profile of MBA students enrolled in thisgraduate school. There were no significant differencesbetween mean scores on data common to the smaller andlarger sample, which includes all study variables except forthe personality data.

The Looking Glass Simulation Procedure

We modified "Looking Glass Inc." (Lombardo. McCall. andDeVries. 1989). a business simulation, to test thehypotheses. This simulation, like the in-basket technique(Thornton and Byham. 1982). is a flexible and engaging wayof assessing managerial behavior and potential and teameffectiveness. Looking Glass Inc. is more realistic andinvolving than typical in-baskets because it allowsparticipants to interact with one another during thesimulation.

There are 20 managers in the Looking Glass Inc. simulatedorganization, ranging from plant managers to vice presidents.These managers are divided among three divisions:Advanced Products (seven managers). Commercial Glass (sixmanagers), and Industrial Glass (seven managers). Equivalentnumbers of subjects of the same sex. ethnic background,and citizenship were randomly assigned to a role within anorganization without regard to their score on the personalcooperativeness measure.

The experimental manipulation was a between-subjectsdesign. Subjects for whom we had collected personality datawere randomly assigned (along with students from whomwe did not collect personality data) to one of 14 simulatedorganizations. There were seven individualistic and sevencollectivistic culture conditions, and each simulatedorganization had either a collectivistic or individualistic culturethat was presented to all subjects in that condition. Thus,the subjects in each organization were interacting with othersubjects who received the same culture manipulation. The14 organizational simulations were run during two dayswithin a single week. Subjects were asked not to discusstheir activities with others who had not yet participated, anddebriefing did not occur until all the simulations werecomplete.

Subjects were given their Looking Glass Inc. packet thenight before participating in the simulation. Each packetcontained their role assignment, detailed backgroundinformation about the firm, memos (depending on the roleassignment, packets included between 25 and 30 memos onwhich subjects needed to take action or make a decision,and 5 to 10 informational memos). procedural instructionsfor the next day. and the manipulation-check questionnaire.Subjects were instructed to review the materials to becomefamiliar with their role, but they were not allowed to makeany decisions or discuss the simulation with anyone beforeparticipating.

Upon arriving, subjects were directed to their assignedorganization, were seated at a desk with their name and jobtitle on it, and were provided with various office supplies.

428/ASQ. September 1995

Cooperation

Subjects spent two and one-half hours dealing with issuesfrom their in-basket in any way that they chose (writtenmemos to others, conversations with others, on their own,etc), A messenger service was available if subjects wantedto "mail" memos to other members of their organization.Experimenters' assistants who had been trained not tointerfere with the experiment collected and delivered mailevery 15 minutes during the simulation. Following thesimulation, subjects completed an extensive surveyrequesting information about their experience during thesimulation and asking them to rate their division coworkers,as described below.

Independent Variables

We used a pilot study to develop the personalcooperativeness measure and the culture manipulations.Pilot-study participants were 59 first-year MBA studentsfrom a West-Coast university. Nearly 35 percent werewomen, 29 percent were nonwhite, 40 percent were notU,S, citizens, their average age was 27,12 years, and theyhad an average of 4,44 years of work experience. Pilot-studyparticipants were also enrolled in a mandatory organizationbehavior class and completed pilot instruments as part oftheir class requirements, AHstudents in the class wereassigned to a collectivistic or individualistic culture condition,with the exception of one student who was absent on theday of the culture manipulation pilot test.

Pilot-test participants completed an in-basket exercise, ratherthan the more elaborate Looking Glass Inc, simulation. Allparticipants played the same role, that of a newly appointedplant manager of a hypothetical large electronicsmanufacturing firm. They were told that they were replacingthe previous manager who had died suddenly, that theannouncement of their placement had not yet been made,and that they were reviewing their in-basket on a Saturdaybefore leaving for an international trip that could not becanceled. Thus, participants were not able to contact"coworkers," and each worked alone on his or her in-baskettasks.

Experimental manipulation of collectivistic andindividualistic culture. We pilot tested three culturemanipulations that were subsequently used in the LookingGlass Inc, simulation. First, the culture at Looking Glass Inc.(a different company name was used in the pilot test) wasmanipulated through the exercise instructions. In addition toproviding various administrative information (e,g,,organization chart, list of employees, calendar), we addedthe individualistic or cooperative version of the followingparagraph to the company description appearing on the firstpage of each subject's materials:

The president and founder of Looking Glass Inc, M.L, Smith, is stillthe driving force of Looking Glass Inc's corporate culture. He andthe founding senior managers are proud of LG Inc's reputation inthe industry as an individualistic [or team] organization. At LG Inc,individual effort and initiative [or cooperation and teamwork] arehighly valued and rewarded, and competition [or cooperation]among individuals and departments is considered to be the bestroad toward innovation and corporate success. Both employees and


outsiders categorize LG Inc. as having a very individualistic [orcollectivistic] culture.

The second and third manipulations were interspersedbetween the 20 other items in the in-basket pilot study andbetween the 30-40 memos in packets distributed tosubjects in the main Looking Glass Inc. study. The secondculture manipulation consisted of an invitation to an"Individuals [or Teams] are the Reason for our Success"awards celebration. Award winners were listed on theinvitation either with individual names (individualistic culturecondition) or as entire work teams (collectivistic culturecondition). Third, information about subjects' compensationand bonus was manipulated. In the individualistic culturecondition, subjects were informed that their bonus was"based on individual achievement and the individual'scontribution to Looking Glass Inc.'s performance." and in thecollectivistic condition the bonus was "based on teamworkand the team's contribution to Looking Glass Inc.'sperformance."

To assess the effectiveness of these culture manipulations,pilot-test participants were asked to complete an"Organizational Culture Diagnosis Survey" immediately afterturning in their in-basket materials. They rated 13 dimensionsof the organizational culture, four of which were relevant toindividualism-collectivism, on a 7-point Likert-type scale(from 1 = "extremely uncharacteristic" to 7 = "extremelycharacteristic"). An ANOVA showed a significant differencein the culture conditions, in the predicted directions.Pilot-test participants accurately assessed differences in howindividualistic [F(1.57) = 25.11, p < .000] and in howcompetitive [F(1,57) = 15.80. p < .000] their culture wasand in how collectivistic [F(1.57) = 23.14, p < .000] andteam-oriented the culture was [F(1.57) = 40.27, p < .000].

Personality measures of cooperation. We also used thepilot study to gather reliability and validity information on thepersonal cooperativeness measure. We used both self- andpeer ratings to develop the measure. While there areexisting measures of a closely related construct,individualism-collectivism, we chose to develop our ownmeasure of the disposition to cooperate because existingindividualism-collectivism scales do not focus on aspects ofa cooperative personality. For example. Wagner and Moch's(1986) scale assessed attitudes, values, and norms. Erez andEarley's (1987) scale measured cultural values, and Triandiset al.'s (1988) measure, augmented by Hui's (1988) scale,examined concern for others in an in-group. differentiationbetween others in an in-group, and self-reliance. Becausethe extent to which these measures are independent oroverlapping is unclear (Wagner. 1995). and because we wereinterested in focusing on personality, we preferred to usepreexisting measures that were developed and testedexplicitly for assessing personality.

Pilot-study subjects were given a take-home packet ofpaper-and-pencil personality inventories during the seventhweek of their school term. Each also completed theseinventories for three preassigned classmates with whom heor she was well acquainted (friendship ties were assessed in


Cooperation

a prior class). Pilot-study subjects were also unaware of anyconnection between these inventories and their participationin the in-basket exercise and unaware of the studyhypotheses.

Personal cooperation was constructed from Likert responses(using a 5-point scale from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 5 ="strongly agree") to two self-assessment measures: (1) the11-item School Cooperativeness Scale (Roberts, 1991),which assessed subjects' feelings about cooperativebehavior in their general study practices and in groupprojects (e,g., "I find more satisfaction working towards acommon group goal than working alone," and "I thinkcooperation helps everyone in the group"); and, (2) the12-item Agreeableness Scale from the NEO Five-FactorInventory (Costa and McCrae, 1985), Sample items include"I would rather cooperate with others than compete withothers," and "I believe that most people will take advantageof you if you let them" (reverse-coded). Past research oftenequates agreeableness and cooperativeness and shows thatagreeableness predicts behavioral cooperativeness in worksituations (Argyle, 1991; Barrick and Mount, 1991), Theinternal consistency, or alpha coefficient, for the 23-itempersonal collectivism scale from the pilot study was ,81,

Two indicators provide evidence for the validity of thepersonal cooperativeness scale. First, convergent validitycould be demonstrated by relating this scale to similarperson-based constructs. Therefore, four raters (two fromindustry and the authors) independently sorted theOrganizational Culture Profile (O'Reilly, Chatman, andCaldwell, 1991) according to how characteristic each of 54values would be in an organizational culture emphasizingcooperation as compared with one emphasizingindividualism. The raters sorted the values quite similarly(Spearman-Brown prophecy formula for rater agreement =,91, average interrater correlation = ,53), and the fourprofiles were combined to create a template of acooperative culture. Pilot-study subjects 0-sorted the same54 values in terms of how desirable each would be in theirideal organizational culture. As predicted, the morecooperative subjects were, the more they desired anorganizational culture emphasizing cooperation {r = ,33,p < .005),

Second, we viewed the correlation between self- and peerratings as representing, in part, the extent to which othersrecognized the cooperative disposition in a focal person. Wecomputed a mean of the three peer-assessment ratings ofthe combined 23-item personal cooperativeness scale(interrater reliability = ,68), The combined peer-assessmentcooperation scale was then correlated with the self-reportpersonal cooperation measure (r = .48, p < ,001), Thiscorrelation is higher than typical correlations found betweenself and peers, which is generally below r = ,30 (Funder andColvin, 1988: 152), providing evidence that a cooperativedisposition is recognizable and that the scales used tomeasure it are valid.

For the main study, personal cooperativeness was measuredwith the self-report version of the scale described in the pilot


study, consisting of the mean of the School CooperativenessScale (Roberts. 1991) and the Agreeableness Scale from theBig Five Factor Inventory (John. 1990). We standardized themeans of each of the subscales and computed the overallmean. The nonstandardized mean for the scale was 4.94(s.d. = .64) on a scale of 1 through 7. The interitemreliability of the self-report personal cooperativeness scalewas. again. .81. For the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)described in the results section, we dichotomized personalcooperativeness scores by splitting the sample at themedian (z-score median = .011). Thus, the pilot study usedpeer measures to determine the validity and reliability of thescale, while the main study used only the self-reportmeasure to assess personal cooperativeness, to avoidoverburdening subjects.

As described above, subjects were assigned to either acollectivistic or an individualistic culture condition withoutregard to their personal cooperativeness scores. A f-testconfirmed that there were no significant differences (t =- .02. n.s.) in the level of personal cooperativeness betweensubjects in the individualistic condition (nonstandardizedmean = 4,94, s,d. = .66) and subjects in the collectivisticcondition (nonstandardized mean = 4.94. s.d. = .62).

Dependent Variables: Assessing Cooperative Behavior

Three dependent variables, drawn from different sourcesand methods, were used to assess cooperative behavior inthe main study. First, on the follow-up survey each subjectassigned a rating from 1 (extremely low) to 7 (extremelyhigh) on a single item that asked how "affiliative,cooperative, and interested in teamwork" each of the otherfive or six members of their division, including themselves,was during the simulation. Subjects' behavioralcooperativeness during the simulation was calculated as themean performance evaluation generated by the five or sixother division members, excluding each subject's self-ratedcooperativeness score. Cronbach's alpha can provide areliability of the mean of the judges by treating raters asitems making up a scale and ratees as cases (e.g.. Cronbach.1951; Nunnally. 1978). The alpha coefficient representing theinternal consistency of the five or six ratings by otherdivision members of focal individuals' cooperative behaviorwas .46.

Second, subjects were asked to report the number of peoplethey met with to address four priority items during thesimulation. Because subjects were not instructed to meetwith others during the simulation, meeting with a greaternumber of people may represent a willingness to cooperateto resolve problems. The mean of these four scores wasaveraged into one scale and used as a self-reportedbehavioral measure of cooperativeness.

Finally, subjects completed an appraisal-weights task, whichinvolved their responding to a request from the CEO and theHuman Resources Department to provide input on how thecompany's performance appraisal form should be revised.Subjects decided how heavily to weight each of ninecharacteristics on the performance appraisal form byallocating any number of points to each (including " 0 "

432/ASa September 1995

Cooperation

points), as long as the nine combined categories added up to100 points. The performance appraisal categories were asfollows: analytic/systematic thinking, communication skills,conceptual thinking, influence, organizational astuteness,planning and organization, results orientation, teamwork, andindividual contribution. We then created a ratio of thenumber of points given to teamwork ("Works effectivelywith others to create and/or accomplish a shared goal ormission," "Works effectively in a group,") as compared withthe number of points given to individual achievement("Works effectively alone to create and/or accomplish his/hergoals and responsibilities." "Takes independent action toaddress critical issues,"), A higher score indicated a greaterorientation toward collectivism than individualism.

Control Variables

Since subjects' race, sex, and citizenship could affect theirpropensity to behave cooperatively, we created dichotomousvariables for each and included them as control variables inthe analyses. Additionally, because subjects interacted withothers, their behavior could be affected by other groupmembers' behaviors. Research has shown that demographicdifferences among group members causes in-group/out-group biases (Brewer, 1979), Those who are most differentin terms of various demographic characteristics, or who areout-group members, are also viewed as less cooperative(Tsui, Egan, and O'Reilly, 1992). Cox, Lobel, and McLeod(1991) found greater cooperative behavior among groupsfrom mixed races or collectivistic traditions than fromhomogeneous races that emphasized individualistictraditions. Therefore, in addition to measuring simpledemography variables, we calculated relational demographyscores and included these as controls in all equations, Arelational demography score is the difference between asubject and all the other subjects in his or her division onrace, sex, and citizenship. Each difference is represented bya score ranging from 0 to 1, and higher scores representgreater differences between the person and other divisionmembers on each dimension.

Following Tsui, Egan and O'Reilly (1992), we measuredrelational demography using the equation [1/n2(x, - x-i^]'^''^,where x, = the focal individual's score on the dimension(e,g,, 0 = male, 1 = female), Xy = each other member'sscore on that dimension, and n = the number of subjects inthe division. For example, in a group of five people with twomale, white U.S, citizens and three female, white U,S,citizens, each man would have a relational score for thegender dimension of .78, and each woman would have agender relational score of ,63:Men: [1/52(0 - 0)̂ -i- (0 - 0)̂ -I- (0 - 1)̂ -h (0 - 1)̂ -f

(0 - 1)2]i'2 = (3/5) '̂2 = ,78Women: [1/52(1 - 0)^ -i- (1 - 0)^ + (1 - 1)̂ + (1 - 1)̂ +

(1 - i)2]i/2 = (2/5)i'2 = .63,

Manipulation Check

As in the pilot test, subjects in the main study completedthe Organizational Culture Diagnosis Survey, This was donethe night before the simulation, after they reviewed thematerials but before they participated in the simulation.


ANOVA results showed significant differences in theexpected directions between the culture conditions.Subjects' perceptions of their cultures differed according totheir experimental condition, as shown in the twosingle-item manipulation check measures of individualism;how individualistic the culture was [individualistic culture x -5,90, collectivistic culture x = 3,81; F(1,137) = 52,49, p <,000J and how competitive the culture was [individualisticculturex = 5,92, collectivistic culture x = 4,56; F(1,137) =29,74, p < ,000]; and collectivism; how collectivistic theculture was [individualistic culture x = 4,32, collectivisticculturex = 5,35; F(1,137) = 11,51, p < ,001] and howteam-oriented the culture was [individualistic culture x =3,93, collectivistic culturex = 5,81; F(1,137) = 41,97, p <,000],

Subjects also completed the Organizational CultureDiagnosis Survey after participating in the Looking Glass Inc,simulation. The results of this second manipulation checkwere also significant, in the same direction, for theorganizational characteristics described above. Subjectsdiffered across the two culture conditions in theirperceptions of how individualistic the culture was[individualistic culture x = 5,69, collectivistic culture x =3,77; F(1,137) = 51,27, p < ,000]; how competitive theculture was [individualistic culture x = 5,07, collectivisticculturex = 4,06; F(1,137) = 13,73, p < ,000]; howteam-oriented the culture was [individualistic culture x =4,19, collectivistic culturex = 5,67; F(1,137) = 31,00, p <,000] and how collectivistic the culture was [individualisticculturex = 4,34, collectivistic culture x = 5,40; F(1,137) =16,24, p < ,000],

RESULTS

Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics and zero-ordercorrelations among the variables. Correlations amongdependent variables reveal some evidence of convergence.For example, rated cooperative behavior was positivelycorrelated with interaction with others and theappraisal-weights task.

Hypothesis Tests

We used ANCOVA to examine the influence of personalcooperation (high or low), organizational culture(individualistic or collectivistic), and the interaction of thetwo, on the three dependent variables measuring subjects'cooperative behavior during the simulation. Control variablesentered in all of the analyses consisted of simpledemography variables (sex, age, and citizenship), as well ascomparable relational demography variables measuringsubjects' similarity to others.

Hypothesis 1 predicted two effects: (1) that cooperativesubjects in the matched cooperative condition would behavesignificantly more cooperatively than would subjects in theother three conditions, and (2) that individualistic subjects inthe matched individuaiistic condition would behavesignificantly less cooperatively than subjects in each of theother three conditions. These effects were tested using apriori contrasts comparing the two matched groups,


Cooperation

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations,

Variable

Simple demography1. Race

0 = White1 = Non-white

2. Sex0 = Male1 = Female

3. Citizenship0 = U.S.1 = Other

Relational demography4. Race5. Sex6. Citizenship

7. Disposition to cooperate0 = Lower (individualistic)1 = Higher (cooperative)

8. Culture0 = Individualism1 = Collectivism

9. Cooperative behavioras rated by coworkers

10. Interaction with others11. Appraisal-weights task

* p < .05, two-tailed test.

N

139

139

139

138138138

139

139

138

13799

and Correlations

Mean

69.8%30.2%

73.4%26.6%

74.8%25.2%

.42

.22

.34

50.4%49.6%

42.0%58.0%5.07

3.551.98

S.D.

_-

—__

--

.39

.31

.34

--

__.83

1.94 -1.78

among

1

-

.04

.52* -

.67* -

.46*

.60* -

.07

.09

.06

.10

.17

Variables

2

-

.05

.13

.19*

.23'

.05

.02

.10

.10

.08

3

_

,46*.43*.62'

.02

.06

.04

- .22*.05

4

-.53*.83*

.00

.08

- .04

- .15.12

5

-.51*

- .02

.25*

- .01

- .19*.09

6

-

.03

.03

- .07

- .19*.08

7

_

- .11

.19*

.25*

.00

8

_

.31*

.08

.49*

9 10

-

.21* -

.26* .15

respectively, with each of the three other conditions. Eachcomparison is presented in the last colunnn of Table 2.

Table 2 shows that cooperative subjects in the collectivisticculture (group 4) were significantly more cooperative thanindividualistic subjects in the individualistic culture (group 1),as indicated by their coworkers' ratings of cooperativeness(F = 17.03, p < .001), the number of people they reportedinteracting with (F = 12.60, p < .001), and their preferencefor collectivism over individualism in the appraisal-weightstask (F = 16.79, p < .001). The matched cooperativesubjects (group 4) also demonstrated significantly morecooperative behavior than did individualistic subjects in thecollectivistic culture (group 2) for rated cooperative behavior(F = 11.68, p < .001), interactions with others (F = 6.07, p< .05), and the appraisal-weights task (F = 3.98, p < .05).The matched cooperative subjects (group 4) demonstratedsignificantly higher cooperative behavior than themismatched cooperative subjects (group 3) forcooperativeness rated by coworkers (F = 20.40, p < .001)and the appraisal-weights task (F = 29.73, p < .001), butonly a marginally significant difference emerged for thenumber of people subjects interacted with (F = 1.93,p < .10).

Subjects in the matched individualistic condition (group 1)behaved less cooperatively than the subjects in the matchedcooperative condition (group 4) across the three dependentvariables, as reported above. They were also significantlyless cooperative than individualistic subjects in thecollectivistic culture (group 2) on the appraisal-weights task(F = 6.80, p < .01). Only a marginally significant differenceemerged for the number of people subjects interacted with


Table 2

Analysis of Variance ofBehavior*

Dependent Variable

1. Cooperative behavioras rated by coworkers

Personal Cooperativeness, Organizational Culture,

Overallmean

5.07(.83)

Low Personal Cooperativeness

Individualisticculture (1)

4.77(.65)

Collectivisticculture (2)

5.02(.84)

and Subjects' Cooperative

High Personal Cooperativeness

Individualisticculture (3)

4.75(.86)

Collectivisticculture (4)

5.61(.64)

N = 25 A/ = 43 A/ = 33 N = 37

2. Mean self-reportedinteractions per issue

3.55(1.94)

2.63(1.29)

3.32(1.72)

3.72(1.50)

4.35(2.56)

N = 25 = 42 N = 33 N = 37

3. Appraisal-weightstask 1.98

(1.78)1.15

(1.35)2.39(1.57)

.69(.53)

3.22(2.17)

A/ = 17 N = 35 N = 23 = 24

•p < .05; "p < .01; ***p < .001; two-tailed tests.• Adjusted meanS;are reported, controlling for race, sex and citizenship using both simple and relational demographic

measures.t Comparisons are all a priori with the exception of the comparison between groups 2 and 3, which was not used in any

hypothesis test and was tested with Scheffe's post-hoc test.* p < .05, Scheffe post-hoc test.

(F = 2,10, p < .10), and no significant difference emergedfor rated cooperative behavior (F = 1.49, n.s.). Finally,subjects in the matched individualistic condition (group 1)reported interacting with significantly fewer people thancooperative subjects in the individualistic culture (group 3)(F = 4,94, p < ,05), but no significant differences emergedfor rated cooperativeness (F = ,01, n,s.) or for the appraisalweights task (F = ,83, n,s,). Of the 15 nonredundantcomparisons predicted in hypothesis 1 (counting thecomparison between the matched groups 1 and 4 onlyonce), 10 are significant in the predicted direction, two aremarginally significant in the predicted direction, and theremaining three are not significant. Hypothesis 1 is,therefore, partially supported.

Testing hypothesis 2 takes the analyses in hypothesis 1 astep further by examining the interaction of personalcooperativeness and culture. We compared the difference inlevel of cooperative behavior between those with a highdisposition to cooperate in the two culture conditions(groups 3 and 4) with the difference between those with alow disposition to cooperate in the two culture conditions(groups 1 and 2). As shown in Table 2 and Figure 1,subjects' cooperative behavior as rated by coworkers islower and does not differ significantly for individualisticsubjects, regardless of whether their organizational cultureemphasized individualism or collectivism. In contrast,


Cooperation

Table 2 {Continued)

f-test for PersonalCooperativeness

4.59*

10.85-~

.32

F-test forOrganizational Culture

15.56*~

3.92*

31.27—

f-test forInteraction

5.18*

.01

3.92*

Comparison ofMeanst

1 vs21 vs31 vs4***2vs3

1 vs21 vs3*1 vs 4***2vs32vs4*3vs4

1 vs2~1 vs3

2vs3*2vs4*

cooperative subjects in collectivistic cultures were rated assignificantly more cooperative in the collectivistic culturecondition than comparable subjects were in theindividualistic culture condition. This comparison (Xi = 4.77vs. X2 = 5.02; F = 1.49, n.s.; compared to X3 = 4.75 vs. X4= 5.61; F = 20.40. p < .000) is significant, as shown bythe significant interaction term in the ANCOVA analysis (F =5.18. p < .05).

As shown in Figure 2. a similar pattern emerged for theextent to which subjects preferred rewarding collectivistic orindividualistic behaviors when revising the company's

Figure 1. interaction of personai cooperativeness and organizationai cuiture on cooperative beiiaviorrated by coworkers.

as

o

m

ive

CD

a.go

CJ

ted

5.75.65.55.45.35.25.15.04.94.8

4.7

4.64.54.4

4.3

High Cooperativeness

4.77

5.02

Low Cooperativeness

4.75

Individualistic Collectivistic

Culture


performance appraisal form in the appraisal-weights task.Subjects with a higher disposition to cooperate emphasizedcollectivism in their appraisal-weights task significantly lessin an individualistic organizational culture than in acollectivistic culture. Subjects with a low disposition tocooperate in the two conditions also differed in their relativeemphasis on collectivism versus individualism in theappraisal-weights task but did so significantly less than thesubjects with a high disposition to cooperate (F = 3,92,p < ,05), Taken together, results for these two dependentvariables show that subjects with a high disposition tocooperate behaved more consistently with their culturecondition, cooperatively in the collectivistic culture andindividualistically in the individualistic culture. Individualisticpeople, however, showed more consistent levels ofindividualistic behavior regardless of whether their cultureemphasized individualistic or collectivistic norms. Nosignificant interaction effect emerged for the number ofpeople subjects reported interacting with (F = ,01, n,s,);thus hypothesis 2 was also partially supported.

Figure 2. Interaction of personal cooperativeness and organizationalculture on the appraisal-weights task.

3.6•5 S''.9

3.23.02.82.62.42.22.0.8.6

il•t=5 0.6OJO 0.4°- 0.2

0.0

High Cooperativeness

2.39

Low Cooperativeness

Individualistic Collectivistic

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Hypothesis 1 focused on the level of cooperative behavioremerging from person-situation matches. When subjects andthe simulated organizational culture they worked in wereboth more cooperative than individualistic, these cooperativesubjects were rated by coworkers as behaving morecooperatively, met and worked with more of theircoworkers, and emphasized collectivism over individualism inrecommendations for revising the organizations'performance appraisal rating criteria. When both the personand situation emphasized less cooperativeness, however,lower cooperative behavior emerged for some indicators, (aspredicted) but not for coworkers' ratings of cooperativebehavior. These findings are somewhat consistent withtypical congruence findings in that person and situationcharacteristics had a stronger combined effect than eitheralone, particularly when personality and organizational cultureboth emphasized cooperativeness. But the mixed findingshere also require considering the interaction betweenpersonal cooperativeness and organizational culture, asspecified in hypothesis 2,


Cooperation

Hypothesis 2 predicted that individualists would vary theircooperative behavior less than cooperative people across thetwo organizational cultures, a pattern that we found for theappraisal-weights task, and coworkers' ratings of subjects'cooperative behavior. Coworkers also rated the two groupsof individualists similarly, regardless of organizational culture,which is consistent with hypothesis 2 but is only partiallyconsistent with hypothesis 1. which predicted a differencebetween the individualists matched with and thosemismatched with culture. Hypothesis 2 was not supportedfor the variable examining the number of people subjectsinteracted with. Because no differences emerged eitherbetween cooperative people in the two cultures or betweenindividualists in the two cultures, the interaction assessingthe relative difference between these personality types wasnot significant. It appears that interacting with others is moreclosely related to one's personality (those with higherdispositions to cooperate interact more with others) than tothe demands of the situation.

The Influence of Situations on the Relationship betweenPersonality and Behavior

Why did individualists in the collectivistic culture display lesscooperative behavior, consistent with their personality? Andwhy did subjects with a high disposition to cooperate showrelatively low levels of cooperative behavior in theindividualistic culture, consistent with situational norms?Kelley and Stahelski (1970b) in research on two-personprisoner's dilemma games, argued that individualists failed tobehave more cooperatively in response to cooperativemoves by an opponent because they failed to perceive thedifferences in opponents' self-interested and cooperativebehavior; while cooperative subjects adjusted their behaviorto the individualistic culture because they were moreaccurate in discriminating among cooperative andindividualistic moves by opponents. But results from ourculture manipulation check do not support Kelley andStahelski's interpretation. The Organizational DiagnosisSurvey showed no difference in the accuracy with whichsubjects high and low on the disposition to cooperateperceived the emphasis in each of the two cultures. Thissuggests that individualistic subjects distinguish the culturecues as accurately as cooperative subjects, but they do notrespond to the collectivistic norms.

This interpretation can be illustrated with a typical writtenexplanation from a subject in an individualistic culturecondition who had a disposition to cooperate. In response tothe "Employee Appreciation" issue, he explained why hechose to give his employees a gift certificate (individualistic

• choice) instead of a plant picnic for the same cost(cooperative choice): "People like cash. Individuals probablydon't like picnics together." Using the word "probably"suggests that the subject speculated about what motivatesindividualistic people, since it may not be what motivateshim. But the comment also shows a willingness to adjustand make decisions based on what his employees wouldlike, regardless of whether it coincides with his ownpreferences. This contrasts with typical comments fromindividualistic subjects in the collectivistic culture. For


example, in explaining why she chose the "Decision Makingand Personal Growth Training Program" (individualisticchoice) over the "Management Interaction-Team TrainingProgram" (cooperative choice), one subject said: "Teamorientation is already there, they need to know somethingabout themselves," Her comment may reflect a willingnessto go against what she knows is the prevailing "team"culture in order to impose her individualistic preferences.This interpretation is consistent with research showing thateven when people understand the benefits of cooperationand the detriments of self-interest in interdependentsettings, they often choose to behave individualistically. Forexample, economists were found to be significantly lesslikely to contribute to charities and more likely to defect inprisoner's dilemma games than noneconomists, despitetheir clear understanding of the benefits of cooperation(Frank, Gilovich, and Regan, 1993), This suggests thatmanagers attempting to encourage cooperation need torealize that individualists may require greater persuasion andmay never actually adapt to collectivistic demands.

Under what conditions might individualistic people respondto collectivistic demands? Axelrod (1984) suggested threeways of promoting cooperation. First, cooperation can beenhanced by changing payoffs to make cooperating moreappealing and defection less attractive, for instance, bymaking individual rewards contingent on cooperation inteams. Thus managers should carefully construct rewardschemes (e,g,, Petersen, 1992), Second, cooperation can bereinforced by making the future more salient than thepresent and allowing members to use the threat ofretaliation to reduce defection. This is consistent withresearch showing that longer time horizons, specificallymanifested in lower employee turnover, contribute tocooperative decision making (e,g,, Mannix and Loewenstein,1994), Third, cooperative orientations can be enhanced byteaching people values, facts, and skills that will promotecooperation, such as the importance of reciprocity and howto recognize social norms.

This study adds to congruence research by showing thatwhen people have the requisite skills, knowledge, andinclination to behave in accordance with situational demands,they will do so. It also adds to psychological research on thebehavioral expression of personality by showing that peoplewho tend to behave individualistically behave moreconsistently, even in situations emphasizing cooperation.One intriguing question is whether these results would differif the same study were conducted in a country thatemphasized collectivism rather than in the United States,which emphasizes individualism. The dominant response ofthose socialized and working in individualistic nations may beself-interest, while the dominant response of thosesocialized and working in collectivistic nations may becooperation. This suggests that our second hypothesis mayactually be reversed in collectivistic nations: People with alow disposition to cooperate may behave individualistically inresponse to an individualistic organizational culture andcooperatively in response to a collectivistic organizationalculture, while people with a high disposition to cooperate


Cooperation

may be the ones to show less variance in their highlycooperative behavior across the two types of organizationsbecause they feel secure by adhering to the dominant normsof society.

Findings from this study raise a more general question aboutwhether cooperative people are more malleable than othersacross a wide array of situations or whether these resultsare specific to the cooperative dimension examined here.One consideration is that cooperation is fundamental to howpeople approach interpersonal relationships, suggesting thatour results may apply to other situations requiringinterpersonal contact. Further, cooperative people reportedinteracting with more people in the Looking Glasssimulation, regardless of their organizational culture. Greaterinteraction with others may provide more opportunities forcooperative people to be influenced by those around them.The disposition to cooperate may also be related to othercharacteristics that have been shown to relate to opennessto situational influence. For example, self-monitoring(measured with Snyder's. 1987. 18-item. Likert-typeself-monitoring inventory), which has been linked toopenness to socialization among new organizational recruits(Chatman. 1991). was significantly correlated with personalcooperativeness among our pilot-study subjects {r = .27;p < .04). Other characteristics may be similarly related tobehavioral plasticity. Research shows that people who arelow on self-esteem are much more susceptible to situationaldemands than people high on self-esteem. People with lowself-esteem are more negatively affected by chronicstressors such as role conflict, and their performance ismore dependent on the supportiveness of their work group(e.g.. Brockner. 1988). Future research might more directlyinvestigate the extent to which cooperative people'sbehavior is more malleable than individualists'. There may bea set of characteristics, such as cooperation, self-monitoring,and self-esteem that contribute to how malleable people areacross different situations. Identifying such characteristicscould improve predictions of the behavioral expression ofpersonality both across time and situations and. in particular,the extent to which the content of an organization's cultureand certain organizational processes will influence members'behaviors.

Future research might also investigate other matches andmismatches to understand how different situations influencethe relationship between dispositions and behavior. Forexample, will less creative people become more innovativein organizations that emphasize creativity and risk taking, orwill creative people become less creative whenorganizational cultures discourage new ideas and takingrisks? Similarly, examining mismatches between honestpeople and dishonest organizations may help to identify ifand when good people "turn bad." Findings from this studysuggest that investigating such questions requires examiningthe specific personal and situational characteristics to predicthow their combined effects will influence behavior.Uncreative people working in a creative organization, forexample, may increase their creativity less than creativepeople working in uncreative organizations will reduce their


creative behavior (e,g,, Amabile, 1988), And the societalstigma and potential punishment (e,g,, going to jail) may bestrong enough that honest people may resist becomingdishonest even when dishonesty is promoted in theirsurroundings, while dishonest people may become muchmore honest when strong norms for honesty exist. Studyingthese kinds of matches between personality and culturecould reveal aspects of organizational behavior and eventsthat otherwise remain a mystery.

REFERENCES

Amabile, Teresa M,1988 "A model of creativity and

innovation in organizations,"In B, M, Staw and L. L.Cummings (eds.). Research inOrganizational Behavior, 10:123-167, Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

Argyle, Michael1991 Cooperation: The Basis of

Sociability. London:Routledge.

Axelrod, Robert M,1984 The Evolution of Cooperation,

New York: Basic Books.

Barrick, Murray R,, and Michael K,Mount1991 "The big five personality

dimensions and jobperformance." PersonnelPsychology, 44: 1-26.

Brewer, Marilyn1979 "In-group bias in the minimal

intergroup situation: Acognitive-motivationalanalysis." PsychologicalBulletin, 86: 393-400.

Brockner, Joel1988 Self-esteem at Work.

Lexington, MA: LexingtonBooks.

Cantor, Nancy, and John F,Kihistrom1989 "Social intelligence and

cognitive assessments ofpersonality." In Robert S.Wyer, Jr. and Thomas K. Srull(eds.), Advances in SocialCognition: Social Intelligenceand Cognitive Assessments ofPersonality: 1-60. Hillsdale,NJ: Eribaum.

Chatman, Jennifer A,1991 "Matching people and

organizations: Selection andsocialization in publicaccounting firms."Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 36: 459^84,

Chatman, Jennifer A,, and KarenA. Jehn1994 "Assessing the relationship

between industrycharacteristics andorganizational culture: Howdifferent can you be?"Academy of ManagementJournal, 37: 522-553.

Costa, Paul T,, Jr,, and Robert R,McCrae1985 The NEO Personality

Inventory, Odessa, FL:Psychological AssessmentResources, Inc.

Cox, Taylor, Sharon Lobel, andPoppy McLeod1991 "Effects of ethnic group

cultural differences oncooperative and competitivebehavior on a group task."Academy of ManagementJoumal, 34: 827-847.

Cronbach, L, J,1951 "Coefficient alpha and the

internal structure of tests."Psychometrika, 16: 297-334.

Diener, Ed, and Marissa Diener1995 "Cross-cultural correlates of

life satisfaction andself-esteem." Journal ofPersonality and SocialPsychology, 68: 653-663.

Diener, Ed, Randy Larsen, andRobert Emmons1984 "Person X situation

interactions: Choice ofsituations and congruenceresponse models." Joumal ofPersonality and SocialPsychology, 47: 580-592.

Earley, P, Christopher1993 "East meets West meets

Mideast: Further explorationsof collectivistic andindividualistic work groups."Academy of ManagementJournal, 36: 319-348.

Edwards, Jeffrey R,1994 "The study of congruence in

organizational behaviorresearch: Critique and aproposed alternative."Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes,58: 51-100.

Erez, Miriam, and P, ChristopherEarley1987 "Comparative analysis of goal

setting strategies acrosscultures." Journal of AppliedPsychology, 72: 658-665.

Frank, Robert, Thomas Gilovich,and Dennis Regan1993 "Does studying economics

inhibit cooperation?" Journalof Economic Perspectives, 7:159-172.

Funder, David C, and C. RandallColvin1988 "Friends and strangers:

Acquaintanceship, agreement,and the accuracy ofpersonality judgement."Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 55:149-158.

Hui, C, Harry1988 "Measurement of

individualism-collectivism."Journal of Research inPersonality, 22: 17-36.

John, Oliver P,1990 "The 'Big Five' factor

taxonomy: Dimensions ofpersonality in the naturallanguage and inquestionnaires." In L. A.Pervin (ed.). Handbook ofPersonality Psychology:66-100. New York: Guilford.

Joyce, William, John W, Slocum,Jr,, and Mary Ann Von Glinow1982 "Person-situation interaction:

Competing models of fit."Journal of OccupationalBehavior, 3: 265-280.


Cooperation

Kelley, Harold H., and Anthony J.Stahelski1970a "Social interaction basis of

cooperators' andcompetitors' beliefs aboutothers," Journal ofPersonality and SocialPsychology. 16: 66-91.

1970b "Errors in perception ofintentions in a mixed-motivegame." Journal ofExperimental SocialPsychology, 6: 379-400.

Lewin, Kurt1935 A Dynamic Theory of

Personality. New York;McGraw-Hill,

Liebrand, Wim B, G., and CharlesG. McClintock1988 "The ring measure of social

values: A computerizedprocedure for assessingindividual differences ininformation processing andsocial value orientation,"European Journal ofPersonality. 2: 217-230.

Lincoln, James R,, Jon Olson, andMitsuyo Hanada1978 "Cultural effects on

organizational structure: Thecase of Japanese firms in theUnited States," AmericanSociological Review. 43:829-847,

Lombardo, Michael M,, MorganW, McCall, Jr., and David LDeVries1989 University Edition Looking

Glass Inc, Instructors Manual,Greensboro, NC: Center forCreative Leadership,

Mannix, Elizabeth, and George F.Loewenstein1994 "The effects of inter-firm

mobility and individual versusgroup decision making onmanagerial time horizons."Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes.57: 371-390,

McClintock, Charles G,, and WimB, G. Liebrand1988 "Role of interdependence

structure, individual valueorientation, and another'sstrategy in social decisionmaking: A transformationalanalysis," Journal ofPersonality and SocialPsychology. 55: 396-409,

Nunnally, Jum C.1978 Psychometric Theory. New

York: McGraw-Hill,

O'Reilly, Charles A,, III, andJennifer A, Chatman1996 "Culture as social control:

Corporations, cults, andcommitment," In L, L,Cummings and B, M, Staw(eds,). Research inOrganizational Behavior, vol.18 (forthcoming),

O'Reilly, Charles A., Ill, Jennifer A.Chatman, and David F, Caldwell1991 "People and organizational

culture: A profile comparisonapproach to assessingperson-organization fit,"Academy of ManagementJournal, 14: 487-516,

Petersen, Trond1992 "Individual, collective, and

systems rationality in workgroups: Dilemmas andmarket-type solutioris,"American Journal ofSociology. 98: 469-510,

Roberts, Brent1991 "The school cooperativeness

scale," Working paper.University of California.Berkeley,

Robins, Kristina Whitney1994 "Effects of personality and

situational judgement on jobperformance," UnpublishedPh.D, dissertation. Universityof California. Berkeley,

Schneider, Benjamin, ThomasSmith, and Hal Goldstein1994 "The dark side of good fit,"

Working paper. Department ofPsychology. University ofMaryland,

Snyder, Mark1987 Public Appearances/Private

Realities: The Psychology ofSelf-Monitoring, New York:W, H. Freeman,

Thornton, Gordon, and WilliamByham1982 Assessment Centers and

Managerial Performance. NewYork: Academic Press,

Triandis, Harold C,1989 "Cross-cultural studies of

, individualism-collectivism," InJ, Berman (ed,). NebraskaSymposium on Motivation.37: 44-133, Lincoln:University of Nebraska Press,

Triandis, Harold C, R, Bontempo,M, J, Villareal, M, Asai, and N.Lucca1988 "Individualism and

collectivism: Cross-culturalperspectives on self-ingrouprelationships," Journal ofPersonality and SocialPsychology. 54: 323-338,

Triandis, Harold C, K, Leung, M,Villareal, and F. L Clack1985 "Allocentric vs, idiocentric

tendencies: Convergent anddiscriminant validation."Journal of Research inPersonality. 19: 395-415,

Tsui, Anne S., Terri D, Egan, andCharles A, O'Reilly III1992 "Being different: Relational

demography andorganizational attachment,"Administrative ScienceOuarterly. 37: 549-579,

Wageman, Ruth1995 "Interdependence and group

effectiveness," AdministrativeScience Ouarterly. 40:145-180,

Wagner, John A,, III1995 "Studies of individualism-

collectivism: Effects oncooperation in groups,"Academy of ManagementJournal, 38: 152-172,

Wagner, John A., Ill, and MichaelK, Moch1986 "Individualism-collectivism:

Concept and measure," Groupand Organization Studies. 11:280-303.

Wright, Jack C, and WalterMischel1987 "A conditional approach to

dispositional constructs: Thelocal predictability of socialbehavior," Journal ofPersonality and SocialPsychology. 53: 1159-1177,

443/ASa, September 1995

Personality, Organizational Culture, and …...personality and culture emphasis, while when both...

Documents

Transcript of Personality, Organizational Culture, and …...personality and culture emphasis, while when both...