Values in the Workplace________________________________________________

Colleen Abdoulah developed a strong set of personal values from her parents while she was growing
up. For example, her father emphasized that "no matter how much you earn, you're no better than
anyone and they are no better than you," recalls Abdoulah. She also learned the importance of having
the courage to do the right thing and of forming relationship with people so they feel a sense of
ownership. Abdoulah not only practices these personal values every day but has instilled them at
Wide Open West, the Denver based Internet, cable, and phone provider where she is CEO to 1.300
employees, (Our employees) display the courage to do the right thing. serve each other and our
customers with humility and celebrate our learnings and success with grace." says Abdoulah.
"Anyone can set values. but we have operationalized our values so that they affect everything we do
every day.”59

Colleen Abdoulah and other successful people often refer to their personal values and the critical
events that formed those values earlier in life. Values, a concept that we introduced in Chapter I, are
stable, evaluative beliefs that guide our preferences for outcomes or courses Of action in a variety of
situations.60 They are perceptions about what is good or bad. right or wrong. Values tell us what we
"ought" to do. They serve as a moral compass that directs our motivation and, potentially, our
decisions and actions.

People arrange values into a hierarchy of preferences, called a value system. Some individuals
value new challenges more than they value conformity. Others value generosity more than frugality.
Each person's unique value system is developed and reinforced through socialization from parents.
religious institutions, friends, personal experiences, and the society in which he or she lives. As such.
a person's hierarchy of values is stable and lasting. For example. one study found that value systems
of a sample of adolescents were remarkably similar 20 years later when they were adults.

Notice that our description of values has focused on individuals, whereas executives often describe
values as though they belong to the organization. In reality, values exist only within individuals—we
call them personal values. However, groups of people might hold the same or similar values, so we
tend to ascribe these shared values to the team. department, organization, profession, or entire
society. The values shared by people throughout an organization (organizational values) receive
fuller discussion in Chapter 14 because they are a core component of corporate culture- The values
shared across a society (cultural values) receive attention later in this chapter.
Values and personality traits are related to each other, but the two concepts differ in a few ways. The
most noticeable distinction is that values are evaluative—they tell us what we ought to do—whereas
personality traits describe what we naturally tend to do. A second distinction is that personality traits
have fairly low conflict with each other (e.g., you can have high agreeableness and high introversion),
whereas some values are opposed to other values, For example. someone who values excitement and
challenge would have difficulty also valuing stability and moderation. Third. although personality
and values arc partly determined by heredity. values are influenced much more by socialization.
whereas personality traits are influenced as much by heredity.

TYPES OF VALUES
Values come in many forms. and experts on this topic have devoted considerable attention to
organizing them into clusters. Several decades means ago, social psychologist Milton Rokeach
developed two lists of values. distinguishing means (instrumental values) from end goals (terminal
values). Although Rokeach's lists are still mentioned un some organizational behavior sources, they
were replaced by another model almost two decades ago. The instrumental-terminal values
distinction was neither accurate nor useful, and Rokeach’s model overlooked values that are now
included in the current dominant model.

Today, the most widely accepted model of personal values is Schwartz’s Values CircumpIex.
Developed and tested by social psychologist Shalom Schwartz and his colleagues, this model
organizes 57 values into 10 clusters in the circular model (circumplex) shown in Exhibit 2.5. Studies
around the world have consistently found that the 57 values cluster into these 10 categories. For
example, conformity includes the specific values of politeness, honoring parents. self-discipline, and
obedience. Furthermore. the 10 clusters of values are associated with one another in similar or
opposing ways. For instance, the value cluster of benevolence is similar to (positively correlated
with) universalism but is opposite to (negatively correlated with) hedonism.

The circumplex model further organizes the 10 broad values categories into four quadrants.

• Openness to change. This quadrant refers to a person's motivation to pursue innovative ways.
It includes the value categories of self-direction (creativity, independent thought),
 stimulation (excitement and challenge), and hedonism (pursuit of pleasure enjoyment,
gratification of desires).
• Conservation. This quadrant. which is opposite to openness to change. represents person's
motivation to preserve the status quo. It includes the value categories Of conformity
(adherence to social norms and expectations), security (safety and stability), and tradition
(moderation and preservation of the status quo).
• Self-enhancement. This quadrant refers to how much a person is motivated by self-interest, [t
includes the value categories of achievement (pursuit of personal success). power
(dominance over others), and hedonism (a value category shared with openness to change).
• Self-transcendence. This quadrant. which is opposite self-enhancement, represents a person's
motivation to promote the welfare of others and nature. It includes the value categories of
benevolence (concern for others in one's life) and universalism (concern for the welfare of all
people and nature).

VALUES AND INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR

Personal values guide our decisions and actions to some extent, but this connection always as strong
as most people believe. Habitual behavior tends to be consistent with our values, but our everyday
conscious decisions and actions apply our values much consistently. The main reason for the
"disconnect" between personal values and individual behavior is that values are abstract concepts.
so, their relevance to specific situations obvious much of time.
Three conditions strengthen the linkage between personal values and behavior. First, we
tend to apply our values only when we can think of specific reasons for doing other words, we need
logical reasons for applying a specific value in a specific situation. Second, we tend to apply values
when the situation allows or encourages us to do so. Work environments influence our behavior, at
least in the short term, so they necessarily encourage or discourage values-consistent behavior.
Third, we are more likely to apply values when we actively think about them. This occurs naturally
when confronted with situations that obviously violate our values. For example, you become aware
that you value security when asked to perform a risky task.

People also become more mindful of their values—and consequently act consistently with
those values—when they are literally reminded of them by others. This effect was apparent in a
recent study: Students were given a math test and paid for each correct answer. One group submitted
their results to the experimenter for scoring, so they couldn't lie about their results. A second group
could lie because they scored the test themselves and told the experimenter their test score. A third
group was similar to the second (they scored their own test), but they were required to sign their
name to the following statement:” I understand that this short survey falls under (the university's)
honor system." (The university had no such honor system.) The researchers estimated that some
students cheated when they scored their own test without the "honor system" statement, whereas
no one given the "honor system" form lied about their results. Similar results occurred when, instead
of an honor statement, the third group was first asked to recall the Ten Commandments. The message
here is that people are more likely to apply their values (honesty. In this case) when explicitly
reminded of those values.
VALUES CONGRUENCE
Values tell us what is right or wrong and what we ought to do. This evaluative characteristic affects
how comfortable we are with specific organizations and individuals. The key concept here is values
congruence. which refers to how similar a person's values hierarchy the values hierarchy of the
organization, a coworker, or another source of comparison. Person-organization values congruence
occurs when a person's values are similar to the organization's dominant values. This form of values
congruence increases (to some extent) the chance that employees will make decisions and act in ways
consistent with organizational expectations. It also leads to higher job satisfaction, loyalty, and
organizational citizenship, as well as lower stress and turnover. "The most difficult but rewarding
accomplishment in any career is 'living true' to your values and finding companies where you can
contribute at the highest-level while being your authentic self,” says Cynthia Schwalm, a senior
executive at Optimer Pharmaceuticals in New York City.

Do the most successful organizations employ people whose personal values are identical to
the company's desired values? Not at all! While a comfortable degree of congruence is necessary for
the reasons with diverse just noted, values organizations offer different also perspectives. benefit
from level of incongruence. Employees with diverse values offer different perspective, which
potentially lead to better decision undermines making. Also, too much creativity, too much
congruence can create a “corporate cult” that potentially undermines creativity, organizational
flexibility, and business ethics.
A second type of values congruence involves how consistent the values apparent I our actions
(enacted values) are with what we say we believe in (espoused values). This espoused-enacted values
congruence s especially important for people in leadership positions, because any obvious gap
between espoused ad enacted values undermines their perceived integrity, a critical feature of
effective leaders. One global survey reported that 55 percent of employees believe senior
management behaves consistently with the company’s core values. 70 Some companies try to
maintain high levels of
 exposed-enacted values congruence by surveying subordinates and peers about whether the
manager’s decision and actions are consistent with the company’s expoused values.

A third category, organization-community values congruence, refers to the similarity of an

organization’s dominant values with the prevailing values of the community or society in which it
conducts business.71 An organization headquartered in one country that tries to impose its value
system on employees and other stakeholders located in another culture may experience higher
employee turnover and have more difficult relations with the communities in which company
operates. Thus, globalization calls for a delicate balancing act: Companies depend on shared values
to maintain consistent standards and behaviors, yet they need to operate within the values of
different cultures around the world.

Ethical Values and Behavior

When asked to identify the most important attribute of a leader, employees often mention
intelligence, decisiveness, or compassion, but these characteristics don’t top the list. Instead, across
numerous surveys, employees typically choose honesty/ethics as the most important characteristic
of effective corporate leaders.72 Ethics refers to the study of moral principles of values that
determine whether actions are right or wrong and outcomes ae good or bad (see Chapter 1). People
rely on their ethical values to determine “the right thing to do”. The importance of ethical corporate
conduct is embedded in business program and appears regularly in the news, yet there doesn’t seen
to be any noticeable decline in wrongdoing. Almost half of the American employees in a recent survey
said they had witnessed misconduct on the job, such as abuse of company resources, abusive
behavior, lying to employees, e-mail or Internet abuse, conflicts of interest, discrimination, and lying
to outside stakeholders.73 Exhibit 2.6 lists the least corrupt countries in the world.
THREE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
To better understand business ethics, we need to consider three distinct types of ethical principles:
utilitarianism, individual rights, and distribute justice. While your personal

EXHIBIT 2.6 Factors Influencing Perceived Moral Intensity

MORAL INTESITY FACTOR MORAL INTENSITY QUESTION MORAL INTENSITY IS HIGHER

WHEN:

Magnitude of consequences How much harm or benefit will The harm or benefit is larger.
occur to others as a result of this
action?
Social consensus How many others people agree Many people agree
that this action is ethically good or
bad?
Probability of effect (a) What is the chance that The probability is higher
this action will occur?
(b) What is the chance that
this action will cause good
or bad consequences?
Temporal immediacy How long after the action will the The time delay is shorter.
consequences occur?

Proximity How socially, culturally, Those affected are close rather

psychologically, and/or physically than distant.
close to me are the people affected
by this action.
Concentration of effect (a) How many people are Many people are affected.
affected by this action? Those affected are easily
(b) Are the people affected by identifiable as group.
this action easily
identifiable as a group?
*These are factors that people tend to ask themselves about when determining the moral intensity of an issue, Whether
some of these questions should be relevant is itself an ethical question.

Source: Based on information in T. J. Jones. "Ethical Decision Making by in Organizations: An Issue Contingent Model,
Academy CYA {management Review 16 (1991). pp. 366—95.

Values might away more toward one principle than the others, all three should be values might sway
you actively considered to put important ethical issues to the test.

• Utilitarianism. This principle advises us to seek the greatest good for the greatest number of
people. In other words, we should choose the option that provides the highest degree of
satisfaction to those affected. This is sometimes known as on a consequential principle,
consequences. One problem with utilitarianism is that it is almost impossible to evaluate the
benefits or costs of many decisions, particularly when many stakeholders have wide-ranging
needs and values. Another problem is that most of us are uncomfortable engaging in
behaviors that seem unethical even though they attain results that are ethical.
 • Individual rights. This principle reflects the belief that everyone has entitlements that let her
or him act in a certain way. Some of the most widely cited rights are freedom of movement,
physical security, freedom of speech, fair trial, and freedom from torture. The individual
rights principle includes more than legal rights; it also includes human rights that everyone
is granted as a moral norm of society. One problem with individual rights is that certain
individual rights may conflict with others. The shareholders' right to be informed about
corporate activities may ultimately conflict with an executive's right to privacy, for example.
• Distributive justice. This principle suggests that people who are similar to one another should
receive similar benefits and burdens; those who are dissimilar should receive different
benefits and burdens in proportion to their dissimilarity. For example, we expect that two
employees who contribute equally in their work should receive similar rewards, whereas
those who make a lesser contribution should receive less, A variation Of the distributive
justice principle says that inequalities are acceptable when they benefit the least well off in
society. Thus, employees in risky jobs should be paid more if their work benefits others who
are less well off. One problem with the distributive justice principle is that it is difficult to
agree on who is "similar' and what factors are "relevant."

Twenty Least Corrupt Countries in the World

RANK COUNTRY SCORE RANK COUNTRY SCORE

1 Denmark 9.3 11 Iceland 8.5
1 New Zealand 9.3 11 Luxembourg 8.5
1 Singapore 9.3 13 Hong Kong 8.4
4 Finland 9.2 14 Ireland 8.0
4 Sweden 9.2 15 Australia 7.9
6 Canada 8.9 15 Germany 7.9
7 Netherlands 8.8 17 Barbados 7.8
8 Australia 8.7 17 Japan 7.8
8 Switzerland 8.7 19 Qatar 7.7
10 Norway 8.6 20 United Kingdom 7.6

MORAL INTENSITY, ETHICAL SENSITIVITY, AND SITUATIONAL INFLUENCES

Along with ethical principles and their underlying values, four other factors influence ethical
conduct in the workplace: the moral intensity of the issue, the individual’s ethical sensitivity,
situational factors, and mindfulness. Moral intensity is the degree to which an issue demands the
application of ethical principles. Decisions with high moral intensity have greater importance, so the
decision maker needs to apply ethical principles more carefully to resolve it. Several factors influence
the moral intensity of an issue, including those listed in Exhibit 2.6. Keep in mind that this list
represents the factors people tend to think about; some of them might not be considered morally
acceptable when people are formally making ethical decisions.
 Even if an issue has high moral intensity, some employees might not recognize its ethical
importance because they have low ethical sensitivity. Ethical sensitivity is a personal characteristic
that enables people to recognize the presence of an ethical issue and determine its relative
importance. Ethically sensitive people are not necessarily more ethical. Rather, they are more likely
to sense whether an issue requires ethical consideration; that is, they can more accurately estimate
the moral intensity of the issue. Ethically sensitive people tend to have higher empathy. They also
have more information about the specific situation. For example, accountants would be more
ethically sensitive regarding the appropriateness of specific accounting procedures than would
someone who has not received training in this profession.
The third important factor explaining why good
people engage in unethical decisions and behavior is
the situation in which the conduct occurs. Employees
say they regularly experience pressure from top
management that motivates them to lie to customers,
breach regulations, or otherwise act unethically.
According to a global survey of managers and human
resource managers, the leading cause of unethical
corporate behavior is pressure from top management or corporate boards to meet unrealistic
deadlines and business objectives. Situational factors do not justify unethical conduct. Rather, we
need to be aware of these factors so that organizations can reduce their influence in the future.

A final reason people engage in unethical conduct is that they engage in mindless behavior.
In other words, they don’t consciously think about whether their actions might be unethical. As
we explained previously in this chapter, people abide by their values only when they think about
them. Research suggests that many behaviors are on automatic pilot, so employees seldom
evaluate whether their actions violate personal values or ethical principles. This mindless
behavior is particularly true when (as often happens) employees are located away from the
situation where their decision have an impact (i.e.,low moral intensity).

Mindless behavior is further supported by assumptions that key decision makers have high
moral standars. Employees quickly dismiss any ethical concerns about their work when they
believe their boss who assigned that work is inherently ethical. For instance, one of the largest
cases of accounting fraud occurred because the company’s chief financial officer was highly
respected in the industry, so employees assumed he was introducing innovative – and legal –
accounting procedures. In reality, these activities were extreme forms of accounting fraud.
SUPPORTING ETHICAL BEHAVIOR
Most large and medium-sized organizations apply one or more strategies to improve ethical conduct.
One of the most basic steps in this direction is a code of ethical conduct – a statement about desired
practices, rules of conduct, and philosophy about organization’s relationship to its stakeholders and
the environment. Almost all Fortune 500 companies in
the United Kingdom have ethics codes. These codes are
supposed to motivate and guide employee behavior,
signal the importance of ethical conduct, and build the
firm’s trushworthiness to stakeholders. However,
critics suggest that they do little to reduce unethical
conduct. A glaring illustratiat Enron
had a well-developed ethics code,
yet Enron’s senior executives
engaged in wholesale wrongdoing,
resulting in the energy company’s
bankruptcy.
Many firms supplement ethics
codes with ethics training. At Texas Instruments, employees receive a business-
card sizedpamphlet that has the following questions as their moral compass: “Is
the action legal? Does it comply with our values? If you do it, will you feel bad? How
would it look in the newspaper? If you know it’s wrong, don't do it! If you're not sure, ask. Keep asking
until you get an answer.” Molson Coors developed an award-winning online training program set up
an expedition: Employees must resolve ethics violations at each "camp" as they ascend mountain.
The first few camp present real scenarios with fairly clear ethical violations the company's ethics
code; later camps present much fuzzier dilemma dilemmas requiring more careful thought about the
company's underlying values.
Some companies also have ways to confidentially communicate wrongdoing, such as anonymous
hotline or a web link that employees can use to raise ethical issues or concerns about ethical conduct.
A few companies employ ethics ombudspersons who receive information confidentially from
employees and proactively but investigate possible wrongdoing. Ethics audits are also conducted in
some organizations but are more common for evaluations of corporate social responsibility practices.

These additional measures support ethical conduct to some extent, but the most powerful foundation
is a set of shared values that reinforce ethical conduct. "If you don't have a culture of ethical decision
making to begin with, all the controls and compliance regulations you care to deploy won't
necessarily prevent ethical misconduct," warns a senior executive at British communications giant
Vodafone. This culture is supported by the ethical conduct and vigilance of corporate leaders. By
acting with the highest standards of moral conduct, leaders not only gain support and trust from
followers; they role-model the ethical standards that employees are more likely to follow.
Values Across Cultures
Sean Billing had been working as director of rooms at Fairmont Hotels in Chicago when he casually
asked his boss whether the luxury hotel chain could use his skills and knowledge elsewhere. Soon
after, Fairmont transferred Billing to a management position in Kenya, assigned to bring the new
properties in the African country up to world-class standards through training and technology
without losing their distinctive Kenyan character. Billing jumped at the opportunity, but he also soon
discovered the challenge of infusing Fairmont's deep values of customer service, environmentalism,
and empowerment into another culture. "It's a little bit of hotel culture shock . . . things are quite
different here," admits Billing.

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts operates world-class hotels in several countries and is eager to help Sean
Billing and other employees develop and strengthen their cross-cultural competence. As Connections
2.1 describes, people think and act differently across cultures and these differences are due to unique
norms of behavior, as well as emphases on different values.

INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM

Of the many values studied across cultures, the five summarized in Exhibit 2.7 are by far the most
popular. This exhibit also lists countries that have high, medium, or low emphasis on these values.
Two seemingly inseparable cross-cultural values are individualism collectivism. Individualism is
the extent to which we value independence and personal uniqueness. Highly individualist people
value personal freedom, self-sufficiency, control over their own lives, and appreciation of the unique
qualities that distinguish them from others. Americans, Chileans, Canadians, and South Africans
generally exhibit high individualism, whereas Taiwan and Venezuela are countries with low
individualism. Collectivism is the extent to which we value our duty to groups to which we belong
and to group harmony. Highly collectivist people define themselves by their group memberships
emphasize their personal connection to others in their in-groups, and value the goals.
CONNECTION 2.1:
Infosys Bridges the
Cross-Cultural Divide
Infosys Technologies, a technology
outsourcing firm in India, was prepared for
cross-cultural differences when it acquired an
Australian company. Sean Fernando, Infosys
general manager of human resources in
Australia, provides a Vivid example of one of
these cultural differences. When asked to travel
on business, Infosys employees in India would
pack their bags without hesitation and be ready
to go even though they lacked details about the
trip. Australian staff, on the other hand. wanted
to know about the accommodation, allowances.
and project specifics before they felt at ease. In
other words, employees from India had
noticeably lower levels of uncertainty
avoidance.
Another difference was that staff in India
expect the boss to give them instructions on
what to do, whereas Australian employees
expect to be consulted. In other words,
Australian employees have much lower power
distance. Fernando recalls an incident where an
Australian project manager met with a project
team from India. He described the project and
then suggested that they share ideas about how
to successfully complete the project. "They
didn't know what he meant." says Fernando.
"Then one of the people just said: 'We were
wondering when you are going to tell us what
the plan was.'"
To minimize cross-cultural conflict. Infosys
Australia holds three-hour sessions in which
employees from both countries learn about their
cultures and discuss how they can manage
employees with these different values. 1Infosys is training its managers to be aware of cross-cultural
differences when working with employees from other countries.
 and well-being of people within those groups. Low collectivism countries include the United States,
Japan, and Germany, whereas Israelis and Taiwanese have relatively high collectivism.
Contrary to popular belief, individualism is not the opposite of collectivism. In fact, an analysis of
most previous studies reported that the two concepts are unrelated. For example, cultures that highly
value duty to one's group do not necessarily give a low priority to personal freedom and uniqueness.
Generally, people across all cultures define themselves by both their uniqueness and their
relationship to others. It is an inherent characteristic of everyone's self-concept, which we discuss in
the next chapter. Some cultures clearly emphasize uniqueness or group obligations more than the
other, but both have a place in a person's values and self-concept.
Also note that people in Japan have relatively low collectivism. This is contrary to many cross-cultural
books. which claim that Japan is one of the most collectivist countries on the planet. There are several
explanations for the historical misinterpretation, ranging from problems defining and measuring
collectivism to erroneous reporting of early cross-cultural research. Whatever the reasons. Studies
consistently report that people in Japan tend to have relatively low collectivism and moderate
individualism.

EXHIBIT 2.7 Five Cross-Cultural Values

VALUE SAMPLE COUNTRIES REPRESENTATIVE BELIEFS/BEHAVIORS IN

Individualism High: United States, Chile,
Canada, South Africa
Medium: Japan, Denmark
Low: Taiwan, Venezuela
Collectivism High: Israel, Taiwan
Medium: India. Denmark
Low: United States, Germany,
Japan
Power Distance High: India, Malaysia
Medium: United States, Japan
Low: Denmark, Israel
Uncertainty Avoidance High: Beligium, Greece
Medium: United States, employment, strict laws, and low conflict; dislike
Norway
Low: Denmark, Singapore
Achievement Orientation High: Australia, Japan
Medium: United States, Brazil decisions based on contribution (equity versus
Low: Sweden, Netherlands
POWER DISTANCE
“HIGH” CULTURE
Defines self more by one's uniqueness; personal
goals have priority; decisions have low
consideration of effect on others; relationships
are viewed as more instrumental and fluid.
Defines self more by one's in-group membership;
goals of self-sacrifice and harmony have priority;
behavior regulated by in-group norms; in-group
memberships are viewed as stable with a stronq
differentiation with out-groups.
Reluctant to disagree with or contradict the boss;
managers are expected and preferred decision
makers; perception of dependence (versus
interdependence) with the boss.
Prefer predictable situations; value stable
deviations from normal behavior.
Focus on outcomes (versus relationships);
equality): low empathy or showing emotions
(versus strong empathy and caring),
Power distance refers to the extent to which people accept an unequal distribution of power in a
society. Those with high power distance accept and value unequal power. They value obedience to
authority and are comfortable receiving commands from their superiors without consultation or
debate, and they prefer to resolve differences through formal procedures rather than directly. In
contrast, people with low power distance expect relatively equal power sharing. They view the
relationship with their boss as one of interdependent, not dependence; that is they believe their boss
is also dependent on them, so they expect power sharing and consultation before decisions affecting
them are made. People in India and Malaysia tend to have high power distance, whereas people in
Denmark and Israel generally have low power distance. Americans collectively have medium-low
power distance.

His boss would look at the factual information

and make as decision. Including recommendations
in those reports would have shown disrespect for
the supervisor’s higher position, which may have
resulted in dismissal. But when the engineer moved
to Canada, he was expected to propose
recommendations along with the technical data.
Excluding recommendations from an engineering report in Canada would be evidence of
incompetence. which may result in dismissal. remain employed, the engineer had to overcome a huge

UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE
Uncertainty avoidance is the degree to which people tolerate ambiguity (low uncertainty
avoidance) or feel threatened by ambiguity and uncertainty (high uncertainty avoidance). Employees
with high uncertainty avoidance favor structured situations in which rules of conduct and decision
making are clearly documented. They usually prefer direct rather than indirect or ambiguous
communications. Uncertainty avoidance tends to be high in Belgium and Greece and very high in
Japan. It is generally low in Denmark and Singapore. Americans collectively have uncertainty
avoidance.

ACHIEVEMENT-NURTURING ORIENTATION
Achievement-nurturing orientation reflects a competitive versus cooperative view of relations
with other people. People with a high achievement orientation value assertiveness. competitiveness,
and materialism. They appreciate people who are tough, and they favor the acquisition of money and
material goods. In contrast, people in nurturing-oriented cultures emphasize relationships and the
well ebeing of others. They focus on human interaction and caring rather than competition and
personal success. Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands have very low scores on achievement
orientation (i.e., they have a high nurtur ing orientation), In contrast, very high achievement
orientation scores have been reported in Japan and Austria. The United States places a little above
the middle of the range on achievement-nurturing orientation.

CAVEATS ABOUT CROSS-CULTURAL KNOWLEDGE

Cross-cultural organizational research has gained considerable attention over the past two decades,
likely due to increased globalization and cultural diversity within organizations. Our knowledge of
cross-cultural dynamics has blossomed, and many of these findings will be discussed throughout this
book. particularly regarding leadership, conflict handling, and influence tactics. However, we also
need to raise a few warning nags about crosscultural knowledge. One problem is that too many
studies have relied on small, convenient samples (such as students) to represent an entire culture-
97 The result is that many crosscultural studies draw conclusions that might not generalize to the
cultures they intended to represent.

A second problem is that cross-cultural studies often assume that each country has one
culture. In reality, many countries (including the United States) have become culturally diverse. As
more countries embrace globalization and multiculturalism, it becomes even less appropriate to
assume that an entire country has one unified culture,

A third concern is that cross-cultural research and writing continue to rely on a major study
conducted almost four decades ago of 116,000 IBM employees across dozens of countries. That study
helped ignite subsequent cross-cultural research, but its findings are becoming out of date as values
in some cultures have shifted over the years. For example, value systems seem to be converging
across Asia as people in these countries interact more frequently with one another and adopt
standardized business practices.99 Several recent reviews have recommended that future studies
khould no longer rely on the IBM study to benchmark values of a particular culture.

CULTURAL DIVERSITY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES

You might think from reading some cross-cultural studies that the United States is a homogenous
country where people hold identical or very similar values and beliefs. Of course, anyone who lives
or visit here long enough knows otherwise. But even Americans at much cultural diversity exists
within this country, even when excluding the incredible variety of new citizens who grew up
elsewhere in the world.
In Chapter 1, we described the high degree of workplace diversity in the United States. Surface-level
diversity characteristics are continuously evolving, such as the increasing percentage of non-white
Americans, and particularly of the Hispanic population as the country's largest non-white ethnic
group. But most workplace diversity experts now recognize that deep-diversity has greater
importance and impact in the workplace.These differences in beliefs, values, and expectations are
often clustered around demographic factors such as age, gender and ethnicity.

Previously in this chapter, we cited research evidence that the United States has high-
individualism and low collectivism. That broad-brush statement masks significant variations within
the country. A meta-analysis of past studies finds that, on average, African Americans has have
significantly higher individualism than European and Hispanic Americans whereas Asian Americans
have have somewhat the lower individualism degrees of collectivism compared with Asian and
Hispanic Americans.

Regional Diversity Across the United States The United States also has a rich
history of cultural variations across regions. One recent study revealed that typical personality
profiles vary across regions. Neuroticism scores are highest in the Northeast and Southeast United
States and lowest in the Midwest and West. The New England, Middle Atlantic, and Pacific regions
have high openness to experience, whereas people living in the Great Plains, Midwest, and
Southeastern states have the lowest scores. Regional differences are less distinctive for the other Big
Five personality dimensions. Other studies have found regional clusters of Schwartz's values and
similar belief systems. Furthermore, a few studies report that Americans hold distinct stereotypes of
people across regions, and these stereotypes are similar to actual personality profiles in these
regions. Collectivism also seems to vary across America. Using social indicators (percentage living
alone, self-employed, households inhabited with grandch ildren, etc.) rather than surveys, one study
found that collectivism is highest across the Southern states, California, and Hawaii; it is lowest
among residents in the Mountain, Northwest, and Great Plains states.

There are a few possible reasons regional variations occur. One explanation is that local
rather than national institutions—such as local governments, educational systems, and dominant
religious groups—influence socialization practices, which reinforce personal values. A related
argument is that the natural environment shapes culture to sonü extent. People might emphasize
different values depending on the physical environment (flat versus mountainous), climatic
conditions (temperate versus tropical), and socioeconomic conditions (low income versus relatively
wealthy). A third explanation is that people migrate to places that they believe are more consistent
with their values and self-views. Someone raised places in the Midwest for example, might be more
motivated to move to California if his or her values emphasize discovery and change rather than
traditiöß and dedication.
This brief overview of culture within the United States highlights two important points First, we need
to remember that the United States—as well as many other nations diverse forms of surface-level
and deep-level diversity. Describing Americans as though—has they have a homogeneous culture
distorts reality. Second, cultural diversity extends beyond demographic differences. As we noted, the
United States has a rich history Of diversity across regions, and these clusters are less visible than
are demographic differences. In Chapter l, we also noted that some differences in values exist across
generatior cohorts. Overall, organizational leaders and employees need to be aware of these forms
of diversity and be sensitive to how they produce variations in self-concepts' soc: perceptions. and
attitudes. These three topics are examined more closely over the next two chapters.