Effects of Culture on How Team Characteristics and Contextual Factors Affect New

People of different ethnic backgrounds possess different attitudes, values, and norms that reflect their heritage (Cox, Lobel, & McLeod, 1991). One of the few areas of cultural differences that has been extensively studied is the contrast between individualism and collectivism.

Individualism-collectivism is an analytical dimension that captures the relative importance people accord to personal interests and to shared pursuits (Wanger, 1995; Cukur & Carlo, 2004).

Because there is no standard definition of culture and no universal set of cultural dimensions (Javidan & House, 2001), there are potentially many ways that cultures can be different. Cultural differences include many dimensions, such as individualism-collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, assertiveness, and masculinity-femininity. Previous research has primarily focused on the cultural dimension of individualism-collectivism, and its

influence on new product development teams’ quality model. In addition, the individualism-collectivism cultural syndrome appears to be the most significant cultural difference among cultures (Triandis, 1996). Greenfield (2000) calls it the “deep structure” of cultural differences. While there are a myriad of cultural differences, this one seems to be important both historically and cross-culturally. Therefore, we chose individualism-collectivism as the key dimension of culture that might affect new product development teams’ quality model.

Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier (2002) noted that, the core element of individualism is the assumption that individuals are independent of one another, whereas collectivism is the assumption that groups bind and mutually obligate individuals. As defined by Wanger and Moch (1986), individualism is the condition in which personal interests are accorded greater importance than are the needs of groups. Individualists look after themselves and tend to ignore group interests if they conflict with personal desires. In contrast, collectivism occurs when the demands and interests of groups take precedence over the desires and needs of individuals.

Collectivists look out for the well-being of the groups to which they belong, even if such actions sometimes require that personal interests be disregarded.

Cross-cultural researchers have suggested that the distinction between individualist and collectivist cultural values influence work-group composition, processes, and outcomes (Earley

& Gibson, 1998; Gibson, 1999). This is because collectivist values emphasize social community (Durkheim, 1933), collective goals and harmony (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961), and a self-concept rooted in the collective (Hofstede, 1991) parallel attributes of high-performing work groups (Mohrman, Cohen & Mohrman, 1995). For instance, in individualist societies, people are autonomous and independent from their in-groups; they give priority to their personal goals over the goals of their in-groups, they behave primarily on the basis of their attitudes rather than the norms of their in-groups, and exchange theory adequately predicts their social behavior. In

contrast, in collectivist cultures people are interdependent within their in-groups, give priority to the goals of their in-groups, shape their behavior primarily on the basis of in-group norms, and behave in a communal way. People in collectivist cultures are especially concerned with relationships (Triandis, 2001).

In conflict situations, collectivists are primarily concerned with maintaining their relationship with others, whereas individualists are primarily concerned with achieving justice (Ohbuchi, Fukushima, & Tedeschi, 1999). Thus, collectivists prefer methods of conflict resolution that do not destroy relationships, whereas individualists are willing to go to court to settle disputes (Leung, 1997). Besides, collectivists emphasize the value of cooperation (Diaz-Guerrero, 1984), and thus prefer cooperative approaches like bargaining and mediation to conflict resolution (Leung, 1988). Wanger and Moch (1986) also found that individualism-collectivism is related to job type.

To illustrate collectivists tended to perform jobs that required teamwork while individualists performed more independent tasks. Therefore, preference for teamwork is also likely to be higher for collectivists than for individualists (Sosik & Jung, 2002). Most previous investigators have examined preference for teamwork as part of a person’s cultural orientation.

Earley (1989) tested individual versus group-oriented cultural orientations among U.S. and Chinese people and found that their cultural orientation had a significant effect on their preferred mode of work and group performance. Cox et al. (1991) found that collectivistic group members, assessed by collectivist-individualist orientation scales, displayed more cooperative behavior than did highly individualist group members. By allowing people with high levels of preference for group work perform their tasks in groups, organizations can satisfy people’s social motives and needs (Erez & Somech, 1996).

Hill (1994) suggested that in individualist cultures such as the United States and the

Netherlands, people tend to use personal achievements to define themselves, view relationships as short-term, and value the individual more than the team; on the contrary, in collectivist cultures such as Taiwan and Japan, there is high commitment to, and identification with, the team, where group harmony, unity, and loyalty are valued more than individual gain. Oyserman et al.

(2002) also found that European Americans showed more individualism—valuing personal interdependence more—and less collectivism—feeling duty to in-groups less—than others, whereas Chinese—from People Republic of China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong—showed less individualism and more collectivism.

Although previous research has indicated that Taiwan is a collectivist country, some domestic researchers are still suspicious of its reliability as opposed to general cognition. This phenomenon can be explained by what some researchers refer to as multicultural minds. Hong, Morris, Chiu, and Benet-Martinez (2000) noted that bicultural individuals are typically described as people who have internalized two cultures to the extent that both cultures are alive inside of them. Many bicultural individuals report that the two internalized cultures take turns in guiding their thoughts and feelings (Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997). These situations are widely seen in the universities and high-tech companies. Because a lot of faculties and high-tech engineers are educated in the Western countries, mostly in the U.S., they are acculturated with Western social beliefs and values (Bond, 1993). When working in the universities and companies, they are easily activated by English language and American cultural icons, such as American flag, the White House and the photo of President Lincoln, and then tend to be individualistic, and vice versa. This interpretation could explain why some Taiwanese look more individualistic than the previous research has indicated.

Previous researchers (Cox et al., 1991) have also indicated that collectivists perform better working in teams, when performing interdependent tasks, and sharing responsibility.

Cross-cultural studies have also shown that northern and western Europeans and North Americans tend to be individualists (Hofstede, 1980; Inkeles, 1983) and that Chinese people (Hsu, 1981), other Asians, Latins, and most east and west Africans tend to be collectivists (Hofstede, 1980). Therefore, collectivists have more cooperative teams and respond more favorably to team goals than individualists do. Such characteristics of high-performing teams may be inconsistent with teams composed of individualists, who perform better when working alone, with individual goals and individual responsibility (Earley & Gibson, 1998). Thus,

Hypothesis 12: Team characteristics and organization contextual factors influence new product quality differently in collectivist cultures and individualist cultures.