1. Cultural Diversity and Workplace Dynamics: Jim Freeman and Graham Winch E-mail: jim.freeman@mbs.ac.uk A Transmanche Link retrospective

2. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 20122 Related publications Winch, G, Clifton, N. and Millar, C. (1997) ‘Culture and Organization: The Case of Transmanche-Link’, British Journal of Management, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 237–249. Winch, G, Clifton, N. and Millar, C. (2000) ‘Organisation and Management in an Anglo-French consortium: The Case of Transmanche-Link’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 663-687.

3. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 20123 Cross culturalism Cross-cultural project teams are increasingly the norm, globally. Such projects accounted for nearly all gross capital formation - equivalent to 22% of the World GDP - in 2009 (http://www.worldbank.org/).

4. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 2012420 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 20124 Structure of Presentation Background Data collection Modelling (SEM) results Conclusions

5. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 20125 Cultural differences (re. Hofstede (1980)) Power Distance Uncertainty Avoidance Individualism vs. Collectivism Masculinity vs. Femininity Long term orientation Cultural differences (re. Trompenaars and Hamopden-Turner(1998)) Background

6. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 20126 Relationships with people Neutral versus emotional Universalism versus particularism Achievement versus ascription Specific versus diffuse Attitude to Time: Sequential versus Synchronic Attitude to Environment Context Convergers and Divergers

7. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 20127 Data for the project was collected through self- completed questionnaires distributed among the staff of the TML consortium (Winch et al., 2000). Target respondents included first line supervisory level staff and above. The questionnaire - based on the Van de Ven and Ferry scale (Van de Ven and Ferry, 1980) – aimed to capture measures on organisation and workplace dynamics Data Collection

8. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 20128 Additionally, Hofstede’s Value Survey Module was incorporated to identify and validate cultural differences between the British and the French working at TML. There were 153 British and 52 French responses to the survey, representing an overall return of 39%. Item responses were collected mainly on a 5 point Likert scale; demographic measurements on categorical scales.

9. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 20129 Outliers Missing values Multivariate normality Sample size Data hygiene checks

10. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201210 Using AMOS 16, modelling was carried out by methodically building and testing confirmatory factor analysis (sub)models before graduating to higher order structural regression (hybrid) models (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).

11. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201211 Proposed model

12. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201212 Reliability The research instrument was tested for reliability (internal consistency) using Cronbach’s  to confirm the adequacy of measures for testing research hypotheses. According to a Hinton et al (2004) for  excellent reliability α ≥ 0.9  high reliability 0.7 ≤ α < 0.9  moderate reliability 0.5 ≤ α < 0.7 and  low reliability α < 0.5.

13. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201213 Construct validity To assess construct validity, a factor analysis was conducted using PCA as an extraction method with Varimax and Kaiser normalisation as a rotation method.

14. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201214 In general, variables loaded on each factor as anticipated and satisfied the conditions of construct validity both in terms of  discriminant validity (loadings of at least 0.4 and only one cross-loading slightly above |0.4| in the case of the Unit submodel) and  convergent validity (eigenvalues of at least 1, loadings of at least 0.4, items that load on to posited constructs). Thus the validity of our data and findings was confirmed.

15. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201215 SEM Modelling results Following a parallel approach to Winch et al. (2000) submodels for Workplace Dynamics were first formulated and tested at: 1. Unit Level 2. Task Level and 3. Individual Level  Next, submodels for Ideal Job Perceptions and Culture were developed.

16. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201216  Based on an exploratory factor analysis, the model was specified as in Figure 1a).  Relevant Cronbach  values for the factors here were as follows: Factor  Reliability Conflict resolution 0.550Moderate Unit cohesion 0.639Moderate Workplace Dynamics: 1. Unit Level

17. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201217 Figure 1 a)

18. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201218  Though the latter model was found to fit the data well, as a refinement, it was decided to allow the loading of the item ‘members of unit encourage excellence’ on to the Conflict resolution latent construct. (The argument being that unit members cooperating to achieve excellence would also be well-disposed to resolving conflicts.)

19. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201219 Fit results for the revised model were as follows: ThresholdAcceptability CMIN/DF = 1.818 < 1-2Acceptable CFI = 0.953 > 0.9Acceptable RMSEA = 0.063< 0.08Acceptable with standardised estimates for the model summarised in Figure 1b).

20. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201220 Figure 1 b)

21. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201221  All loadings here were found to be statistically significant (p<0.05) and all relationships in the expected direction.

22. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201222  The CFA model in Figure 2a) captures the task-related dimensions in terms of the Control and coordination achieved at work and the Autonomy provided to employees in performing their job.  Relevant Cronbach  values for the factors here were as follows: Factor  Reliability Work control 0.734High Work autonomy 0.819High 2. Task Level

23. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201223 Figure 2 a)

24. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201224 Following encouraging results from fitting the above model to the data it was decided the error terms related to the indicators ‘authority in establishing procedures’ and ‘authority in establishing work exceptions’ could be allowed to be correlated since both items are concerned with the process flow while the rest relate to the actual task, quantum of work and work speed respectively.

25. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201225 Allowing for this refinement, fit details were: CMIN/DF = 1.660 CFI = 0.968 RMSEA = 0.057 all of which were judged to be acceptable. Standardised estimates are as summarised in Figure 2b).

26. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201226 Figure 2 b)

27. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201227 All indicator estimates are statistically significant at the 5% level with the arrow directions too along expected lines.

28. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201228 3. Individual Level The indicator variables analysed reflect individual behaviour and feelings at the workplace. The model specified is shown in Figure 3a). Relevant Cronbach  values for the factors here were as follows: Factor  Reliability Job satisfaction -0.525Low Instrumental motivation 0.814High Feedback motivation 0.815High Job involvement 0.602Moderate

29. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201229 Figure 3 a)

30. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201230 In the next step, the model was marginally modified by allowing ‘motivation from promise of promotion’ to load on Feedback motivation in addition to Instrumental motivation’ This is a realistic assumption as the specified item has the characteristics of being both related to feedback and the material aspect of promotion.

31. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201231 Fit details were: CMIN/DF = 1.603 CFI = 0.967 RMSEA = 0.054 all of which were judged to be acceptable. Standardised estimates are as summarised in Figure 3b).

32. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201232 Model 3b)

33. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201233 Model 3b) All regression weights for the indicators are statistically significant, high in magnitude and in the hypothesised direction.

34. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201234 Ideal Job Perceptions  The model in Figure 4 – which takes the form of a second order CFA - reflects the individual preferences and perceptions of an ideal job. Relevant Cronbach  values for the factors here were as follows: Factor  Reliability Work relations0.477Low Job content0.544Moderate External factors0.607Moderate

35. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201235 Figure 4a)

36. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201236 Note that to aid identification of the model (Byrne, 2001), the residual terms R1, R2 and R3 were assumed to have the same variance Fit details were as follows: CMIN/DF = 1.818 CFI = 0.954 RMSEA = 0.052 all of which were judged to be acceptable. Standardised estimates are shown in Figure 4b).

37. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201237 Figure 4b)

38. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201238 The latter model makes it possible to infer the strength of relationship between the first-order and second-order factor. The latent constructs – job content (0.89) and external factors (0.92) are strong measures of ideal job preferences followed by work relations (0.65) with all three being statistically significant. Additionally, all indicators load well on to the respective latent variables and in expected directions.

39. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201239 This model - based on three of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions – Collectivism, Uncertainty Avoidance and Power Distance - is displayed in Figure 5a). Relevant Cronbach  values for the factors here were as follows: Factor  Reliability Collectivism 0.305Low Uncertainty avoidance 0.624Moderate Power distance 0.459Low Culture

40. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201240 Figure 5a)

41. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201241 As with the previous model, the residual terms R1, R2 and R3 were assumed to have the same variance. Model fit results were as follows: CMIN/DF = 1.600 CFI = 0.876 RMSEA = 0.054 which were judged to be reasonably acceptable. Standardised estimates for the model are shown in Figure 5b).

42. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201242 Figure 5b)

43. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201243 All indicators show sufficient loadings on their respective first order latent variables. The directions are also as hypothesised earlier. The latent constructs uncertainty avoidance (0.97) and collectivism (0.89) proved to be statistically significant (p<0.05) and hence, represent strong measures of culture. However, power distance (-0.16) is a borderline case in terms of its statistical significance (p<0.1).

44. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201244 Summarising hypothesis test relationships for the above, we have results as follows: Standardised Expected regression sign weight Conclusion ___________________________________________________________________ H1: Culture → Ideal Job Perceptions+ 0.158* Supported Unit level H2: Culture → Conflict resolution--0.103Not supported H3: Culture → Unit cohesion+ 0.071Not supported H4: Ideal Job Perceptions → Conflict resolution --0.123Not supported H5: Ideal Job Perceptions → Unit cohesion+ 0.000Not supported Relationships between Culture, Ideal Job Perceptions and Workplace Dynamics

45. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201245 Standardised Expected regression sign weight Conclusion ___________________________________________________________________ Task level H6: Culture → Work control+ 0.155*Supported H7: Culture → Work autonomy- -0.074Not supported H8: Ideal Job Perceptions → Work control + 0.174*Supported H9: Ideal Job Perceptions → Work autonomy - -0.079Not supported

46. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201246 Standardised Expected regression sign weight Conclusion ___________________________________________________________________ Individual level H10: Culture → Job satisfaction --0.162* Supported H11: Culture → Instrumental motivation + 0.205** Supported H12: Culture → Feedback motivation + 0.130 Not supported H13: Culture → Job involvement + 0.174* Not supported H14: Ideal Job Perceptions → Job satisfaction + 0.249** Supported H15: Ideal Job Perceptions → Instrumental motivation + 0.075 Not supported H16: Ideal Job Perceptions → Feedback motivation + 0.182* Supported H17: Ideal Job Perceptions → Job involvement - -0.361** Supported

47. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201247 The final stage of the analysis involved tested the preceding (sub)models for invariance between the British and French groups. This was done by simultaneously fitting and estimating the (sub)model for each of the two groups and comparing the results. A sequential, increasingly restrictive procedure of applying cross-group equality was employed. Of particular interest were: 1) factor loading paths, 2) factor variances / covariances and 3) structural regression paths. MULTIPLE GROUP ANALYSIS

48. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201248 For the testing, equal (forced) unstandardised parameter estimates were first derived for the two groups. Next, the fit of the constrained model was compared to that of the unconstrained, baseline model. Where the fit as signified by the chi-square statistic was found to be significantly worse, group variance between the British and the French was concluded.

49. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201249 Table 1: Multiple Group Invariance Analysis (Unit level)

50. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201250 As can be seen, the factor variance of conflict resolution differs significantly across the British and French groups and is the cause of overall non-invariance at the unit-level.

51. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201251 Table 2: Multiple Group Invariance Analysis (Task level)

52. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201252 Again it is clear there is non-invariance between the British and French groups. The reason for this is thought to be two-fold: Though the British and the French appear to have a similar perception over the autonomy enjoyed at work, when it comes to determining the rate of task completion - they disagree significantly. The variance in perceptions regarding work control is significantly different between the British and the French.

53. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201253 Table 3: Multiple Group Invariance Analysis (Individual level)

54. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201254 It is evident from the table that the structure for job involvement factor is not equivalent across the British and the French groups resulting in non-invariance. Specifically, item 56 (sense of accomplishment if good performance) loads in a significantly different manner between the two groups.

55. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201255 Table 4: Multiple Group Invariance Analysis (Ideal Job Perceptions)

56. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201256  The results in Table 4 confirm significant non-invariance between the British and the French.  Since the R1, R2 and R3 errors were constrained to have equal variance in the model specification, it may be concluded that the variances of the error terms associated with the indicators are the cause of the non-equivalence.

57. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201257 Table 5: Multiple Group Invariance Analysis (Culture)

58. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201258  The multiple group analysis on culture reveals no invariance between the British and the French groups. This unexpected result may be due to: Sample inadequacy Invariance in population

59. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201259 Conclusions The relationship between culture, job perception and workplace dynamics needs to be viewed holistically not on a piecemeal basis. Fortunately, SEM is well-placed for meeting this type of modelling requirement. From the TML data collected, a series of significant submodels were developed - first in respect of workplace dynamics at the unit, task (organisational) and individual levels.

60. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201260 Then in relation to ideal job perceptions and cultural differences (culture). The five submodels were next integrated into an overall schematic model. A multiple group analysis showed significant non-invariance between the British and French samples for all submodels except (ironically) the culture submodel.

61. 20 September 2015OR54 in Edinburgh 3-6 Sept 201261 It is believed sampling inadequacies, may have particularly influenced the latter result. Despite the latter and more general limitations, it is believed the study has significantly extended previous work in this area – and as a result various new insights into the understanding of workplace dynamics, ideal job perceptions and culture within an organisational context have been gained.